HomeMy Public PortalAboutCC MINS 1973
December 18, 1972
(School Discussion)
:layor Taylor pointed out that the discussions between the School
District and City representatives \vith regard to fees the City might
pay, will resume the first week in January.
(Traffic Lights - Charlotte
\'1ay)
Mayor Taylor asked what t~e time scale might be for the traffic lights
to be located at Charlotte Way, adding that this is a very critical
area.
lir. Lee reported that it is not on the list for this year and is not
sure where it is on the priority list. It was hoped that traffic
lights to be installed at the intersection of Vasco Road and East
Avenue might relieve the traffic problem at the intersection of
Charlotte \vay and :t::ast Avenue.
Mayor Taylor asked that the County he contacted to see what the
problems might be with proceeding immediately, in view of the fact
that the area is critical in nature.
""'\DJOURN' lENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Z'.TrrEST
l)cwJ19J. ~
T1ayor Pro Tempore
eL
i";.PPROVE
Cleri:
California
Special Meeting __o(_JarlU~ry ~! 1973
At the call of the Mayor, a Special Meeting of the City Council
was held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 4, 1973, in the Muni-
cipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
This meeting was called for the purpose of Council consideration
of the following matters:
1. Adoption of a resolution authorizing and directing
condemnation of property at the intersection of
Portola and North Livermore Avenues, together with
certain temporary rights-of-way accessory thereto.
2. Adjourn to executive session to consider pending
litigation including SAVE.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch,Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: None
CM-26-l0l
January 4, 1972
RESOLUTION RE CONDEMNATION OF
PROPERTY-Portola and No. Livermore Ave.
This matter concerns the widening and improvement of North Liver-
more Avenue from Portola Avenue to the newly constructed inter-
change at U.S. 580. The Council has recently authorized the
project jointly with the County. It is recommended that the
resolution authorizing the condemnation of property be adopted
by a 4/5 vote.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and by unanimous approval, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 1-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE ESTATE FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AT THE
INTERSECTION OF PORTOLA AND NORTH LIVERMORE AVENUES IN
THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH CER-
TAIN TEMPORARY RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACCESSORY THERETO.
ADJOURNMENT TO
EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous approval, the Council adjourned to an executive
session to consider pending litigation, including SAVE.
***
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Council,
then adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
~ ~'(~
the meeting
APPROVE
ATTEST
4~~
CITY CLERK
~IVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
*** At the City Council's direction the following action is detailed
from the executive session:
Following discussion with Maurice Engel re the SAVE litigation a motion
was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, to appeal
the ruling handed down and to announce this decision immediately
following the meeting.
After some discussion of this motion, a motion was made by
Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to table the
matter until the meeting of Monday (January 8, 1973) and
this motion received the following vote and failed to pass:
Ayes: Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor;' .Noes: Councilmen
Beebe, Futch and Miller.
CM-26-l02 The main motion then received the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor; Noes: Council-
man Beebe; Abstain: Councilman Pri tchard. ~.
Regular Meeting of January 8, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 8, 1973
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 with Mayor Pro Tempore Miller
presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch and Miller
ABSENT: Mayor Taylor (due to illness)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller led the Council members, as well as those
present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES APPROVAL
The minutes for the meeting of December 11, 1972 were approved on
motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by the
unanimous vote of the Council.
The minutes for the meeting of December 18, 1972, were approved on
motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by the following vote: Ayes, Councilmen Pritchard, Futch and Miller;
Abstain, Councilman Beebe (absent during that meeting).
OPEN FORUM
(School Connection Fee)
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, suggested that the City Council
once again go before the legislature and embark on school connection
fee legislation. Two foes of the suggested legislation - The
Associated Horne Builders andftBoard of Education - might now be more
interested in supporting some~me~u~e. The loca.l builders also seem
to have accepted the fee idea. ~ _ ~. ~~
The City Attorney explained that the former measure was a school-land
dedication issue rather than a fee bill. Mr. Lewis also suggested
that if groups who support schools and school issues do not have
an interest and will not support legilsation, there is slight
likelihood that any measure would pass.
The Council discussed the matter generally and at the close of the
discussion a motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Futch and which passed by the unanimous vote of approval
by the Council - to direct the staff to contact the Superintendent
of Public Instruction and Director of Education, Wilson Riles, our
senators, assemblyman and all interested parties, for their comments
on some type of legislation in this area of interest.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Bids - Street Patching Truck
Bids have been received for a patching truck with equipment and a
staff passanger car. The results of the bids are as follows:
CH-26-l03
January 8, 1973
(Bids - Street Patching Truck)
Bidder Bid
Codiroli Ford $lO,373.58
Dailey Chevrolet lO,676.88
Fremont Dodge 10,655.50
Goe Auto 11,048.70
Int'l Harvester ll,5l7.39
Bacon Equipment l2,579.00
It was recommended that the bids be awarded to Codiroli Ford for
the patching truck and equipment; and to Heil Equipment Company
for the pavement breaker. Heil Equipment Co. of Fremont sub-
mitted the only bid on the pavement breaker in the amount of $1,000.
Bids for Staff Passenger Car:
Bidder
2-Door
4-Door
G. E. Dailey
$4,439.16 $4,382.31
Groth Brothers
4,426.92 4,380.63
4,169.36 4.266.42
Codiroli Ford
The City Manager recommends purchase of the 4-door sedan from the
lowest bidder, Codiroli Ford.
Report re Revenue Sharing
The City Manager transmitted several reports - written by the City
Finance Director, Senator Tunney and the California Taxpayers'
Association, for informational purposes with regard to revenue
sharing.
Report re Assessment of
Undeveloped Property
The City Manager reported that a subject has been brought to his
attention concerning action of the County Valuation Appeals Board
on granting valuation reductions due to the building moratorium.
The City Staff investigated he matter and the Assessor's Office
confirmed the fact that valuation reductions had been allowed on
undeveloped bulk land ownerships which reportedly include 2,301
parcels; a reduction of full cash value of $574,000. Of course,
the assessed value reduction amounts to only 25% of this amount.
Report re Mini-park
The Beautification Committee reported that with regard to the
proposed mini-park, in connection with the re-alingment of First
Street, they would request that the Council adopt the alternate
CM-26-l04
January 8, 1973
(Report re Mini-Park)
plan which has only one pool and would cost approximately $l3,600.
They felt that this plan would be more easily viewed by passing
motorists due to the fact that the pool is at ground level and
that the additional green area provided for in this plan is more
desirable.
The City Manager reported that in accordance with Council directive
the State Division of Highways will inform us as to the appraised
value of this surplus property that may be acquired when the neces-
sary corner area is purchased for the road realignment. This
information has not yet been received and will be needed for a
Council determination on the acquisition of the property to accom-
modate the park.
Report re Undergrounding
Conversion Financing
with regard to the 1973 allocation for conversion of overhead elec-
tric lines to underground in the City of Livermore, PG&E reports
that the amount has been increased to $57,100. Funds available
are as follows:
Balance of allocated funds on 12/31/72
Allocation for 1973
Total of funds available
$ 53,233
57,lOO
llO,333
The report was given to the Council for informational purposes
only.
Resignation of Nelson Rose
from Beautification Committee
Nelson Rose, member of the Beautification Committee, informed the
Council that he is resigning from the committee due to the fact
that he is moving from Livermore.
Housing Authority Minutes
Minutes for the meeting held on November 28, 1972, for the Housing
Authority were noted for filing.
Payroll and Claims
There were 152 claims in the amount of $175,637.06 and 260 payroll
warrants, dated January 5, 1973, in the amount of $62,233.73 for
a total of $237,870.79.
Approval of Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar was approved on motion of Councilman Pritchard,
seconded by Councilman Futch and by the unanimous vote of approval
by the Council, with the following exception: Councilman Beebe
abstained from discussion on PG&E undergrounding conversion, as well
as from Warrant Number 4810, for his usual reasons.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.
CM-26-l05
January '8 , 1973
REPORT RE POLICE
ADMIN. BUILDING
The City Manager briefly outlined the status of the proposed Police
Administration Building, indicating that design studies have pro-
gressed to a point where final floor plan layout and proposed ex-
terior design treatment have been concluded and a construction
contract estimate composed. Before proceeding with the working
drawings, the architect has been requested to present these matters
to the City Council.
Mr. Burns Cadwalader presented some drawings of the project, indi-
cating its placement on the Civic Center site and listed some
construction cost estimates. The total cost, including basic
construction, services and expenses, furnishings and equipment
and site development amounted to $7l2,500. Several items listed
within this estimate may be eliminated entirely or reduced upon
further discussion such as the inspection costs, some items of
furnishings and equipment and parking improvements.
The Council discussed, generally, these matters and it was their
decision on motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous approval, to table the final decision until the
meeting of January 15.
Mr. Musso pointed out that he had discussed with Mr. Cadwalader's
office the possible requirement of an environmental impact state-
ment and the Planning Department staff is proceeding with this
statement, and asked if the Council agreed with this course of
action. The Council concurred in that it was required and would
otherwise be more expensive if they had to hire someone to do
the work.
APPEAL RE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
(5250 Iris Way - Gary Nielsen)
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that the permit was for use of
the home for office purposes in conjunction with the rental of
recreational vehicles, and the appeal had been signed by sixteen
residents of the area based on violation of restrictions covering
the tract.
Mr. Musso explained that this was a home occupation which the staff
found did fall within the home occupation policy. This policy lists
a series of different types of home occupations that can be approved
by the staff, those that require no approval, those that require
either advising the neighboring property owners and those they feel
require a public hearing. This application they felt could be
approved by the staff after fully investigating all possibilities.
They were a little concerned about the premises being used as a
place where a camper might be picked up and dropped off, but they
were assured that another site would be used for storage of
vehicles and it would be strictly an office operation. It was
approved with the normal conditions for a home occupation with the
additional condition that no trailers are to be stored on the premises.
There is to be no conduct of business with employees or customers
on the premises except by telephone and the permit would be re-
vocable for violation of any of these conditions.
Councilman Futch felt that perhaps the main difference is that this
is an area of town in which there are deed restrictions; however,
Mr. Musso assured him that most deeds of this type have a restriction
on commercial activity.
CM-26-l06
January 8, 1973
(Appeal re Home Occupation)
William Older, representing himself and other residents of the
Springtown area spoke with regard to the home occupation at 5250
Iris Way stating that he felt it was not in conformance with tract
restrictions regarding business ventures in a residential area.
Mr. Gary Nielsen, 5250 Iris Way, applicant for the home occupation
permit stated that he would be willing to answer any questions the
Council might have regarding the home occupation.
In answer to questions put forth by the Council he explained that
he is engaged in a limited partnership in recreation vehicles of
which he is the general partner and will consist of no more than
ten partners. He stated that each partner will put an amount of
money into a recreation vehicle and will receive a certain amount
of use for a specified number of years. During such time the vehicle
is not in use by an owner, it will be rented out to help reduce
the initial investments through a contract. The vehicle will be
stored elsewhere and will not be a neighborhood eyesore. Excess
traffic is not anticipated due to the fact that the vehicle will
be scheduled through the year and the person using the vehicle
need only to pick up the keys.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the storage site will be either on Tesla
Road or Vasco Road. He added that this business would be no
different than the one he is presently engaged in, which is the
rental of homes. He simply wishes to allow rental of the vehicle
to help with the investments as well as tax advantages.
Paul Stroud, 5218 Iris Way, indicated that Mr. Nielsen has violated
all tract restrictions, including fencing, building, and landscaping;
in his opinion Mr. Nielsen would have no respect for any promise or
restrictions.
Mr. Nielsen countered the comment by Mr. Stroud pointing out that
he had gone through various procedures for getting approval of
architectural design and has met all conditions imposed on him.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, speaking on behalf of the Springtown
Association, stated that he has heard comments many times with
regard to the fact that the City does not support the Springtown
deed restrictions. He felt the City should support these restric-
tions and that for this reason the conduct of business such as
proposed by Mr. Nielsen should be denied.
Mr. Clyde Highet, l3l7 Hibiscus, a resident and member of the
Springtown Association also requested that Mr. Nielsen not be
allowed the permit.
Mr. Older stated that the issue at hand is that a home occupation
in Springtown is either right or wrong and that either the residents
of Springtown receive City support or they will be forced to hire
an attorney to support their view.
Mayor pro tempore Miller commented that it is his understanding
there are deed restrictions in Springtown prohibiting business
of any nature. The City, however, allows certain home occupation
permits of which this occupation may be permitted under City
regulations. Springtown residents have requested that the City
support their deed restrictions even though they may be more
strict than those of the City. The legal question is whether the
City can refuse to allow a home occupation permit if it is allowed
by City ordinance but not permitted by deed restrictions.
CM-26-l07
January 8, 1973
<Appeal re Home Occupation)
The City Attorney explained that although the Council has the right
to grant a home occupation permit which complies with the ordinance,
irregardless of the deed restriction, it also has the discretion to
deny a permit on the grounds that it would breach reasonable deed
restrictions.
Councilman Beebe remarked that he would not like to see a blanket
restriction covering every resident in the Springtown area due to
deed restrictions. In his opinion he would like to uphold the deed
restrictions but felt there could be exceptions. He stated that if
all home occupations are eliminated the golf pro in the area would
have to be denied his home occupation permit also. In this case he
would be willing to approve the home occupation permit.
Councilman Futch stated that he would be very reluctant to grant a
home occupation permit in violation of the deed restrictions.
Mr. Musso pointed out that almost every modern subdivision in town
has this type of deed restriction. It is a standard condition
in almost every subdivision and as far as he knows there is not
an exception to this condition in town.
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that in a sense, Springtown is a sub-
community in which the residents generally are concerned with the
home occupation permit. For this reason he would have to agree
with the position of Councilman Futch in not wishing to allow the
home occupation permit.
Councilman Futch moved to deny the home occupation permit, with
reference to this permit only, seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mr. Nielsen agreed that if permits are to be denied that this
should apply to the whole area, not individual requests alone.
Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, wondered if the Council is apprised
of possible business of a like nature in the Springtown area. He
stated that he does not wish to take sides in the matter but would
caution the Council against setting a precedent.
Mr. Older commented that the Association intends to take steps to
eradicate violations of the deed restrictions.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.
The Council at this time voted on the motion as follows: Ayes,
Councilmen Futch and Miller; No, Councilman Beebe (on the basis he
feels the position should be uniform for the whole area); Abstain,
Councilman Pritchard (absent during the discussions).
RECESS
Mayor pro tempore Miller called for a five minute recess after
which the meeting resumed with all members present as during
roll call at the opening of the meeting.
REPORT RE TRACT MAP APPROVAL -
Tract 3354 (Elliott) - Tract 3407 (Sunset)
The staff has reported that with regard to final tract map approval
for Tract 3354 (H. C. Elliott) and Tract 3407 (Sunset Development)
that technical requirements and final design are in conformance
CM-26-l08
January 8, 1973
(Re Tract Map Approval - Elliott)
with the approved tentative. In accordance with Ordinance No. 762
a certificate will have to be received from the Livermore School
District indicating that adequate school housing will be available
to service the subject residential inhabitants.
The Planning Director explained that the tract is located somewhat
in the central portion of the original Tract 3333, and the issues
are the freeway reservation on the one side; there was a school
site reservation, however, it was not a requirement that they
hold the school site for any length of time, but the only thing
they did do was attempt to assure that the subdivision when it
was approved and maybe the school district at a later date went
in and acquired a site, they did not disrupt the design. The
School District has now advised they will not require the two
sites indicated in the tract. The park dedication is being taken
care of with the dedication of the Hagemann home site. Otherwise,
the tract conforms to the tentative map.
Mr. H. C. Elliott stated they have an existing agreement to
provide schools for Tr. 3333 and have provided for those class-
rooms and administration building, and he felt that as of last
week they were right on target with their requirements. The
School District two months ago authorized them to go ahead with the
classrooms which were to consist of the first unit of six class-
rooms and administration buildings. They signed contracts with
their supplier and they were to be delivered about January l5,
and installed for occupancy in February or the 1st of March. Then
last week the School Board advised they had reconsidered the site
and were not interested in the Olivina site. This left them in
a bit of a quandry because the schools are in production at the
factory now and they may wind up with no place to put them.
He explained that the School Board has considered the cost of
a new facility in the middle of the year and have concluded that
they may not want these classrooms for this current year. He
had discussed this with Mr. Rundstrom and Mr. Jamieson and they
are in the process of finding a new location on the Las positas
High School site. Mr. Elliott further stated that he had a
verbal agreement now to provide four more class rooms
for the Granada High School site and continue with his plans for
ten classrooms and the administration building for the elementary
school complex which will apparently be located at the Las positas
site. He had originally agreed to provide fourteen classrooms
on the tract site, and he has only Mr. Rundstrom's word that he
will recommend for approval to the Board that the four classrooms
will be placed on the high school site. Mr. Elliott pointed out
that there is one difference with regard to these four classrooms -
he has agreed to not seek any reimbursement - these classrooms will
be an outright gift.
Councilman Futch asked Mr. Elliott if he would agree to a one
week continuance of the matter pending receipt of the letter
from the School Board, however, Mr. Elliott stated that he did
not believe the letter would be forthcoming that soon, but if it
could be done that soon, he would not mind waiting. He pointed
out that he feels there is an urgency inasmuch as his tentative
map would expire January 19, and he now has before the Planning
Commission a request for a one year extension as there are still
nineteen acres of proposed freeway and he is negotiating with the
state and needs this time to complete the negotiations.
Councilman Futch moved to approve the final map of Tract 3354,
subject to all requirements of the Planning Commission and En-
gineering Department; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
CM-26-l09
January 8, 1973
(Tract Map Approval - Elliott)
Raymond Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated he had attended many
School Board meetings and one of the items is not that Mr. Elliott
has not worked with them, but that the agreement up to now, prior
to his meeting with Mr. Rundstrom this past week, put an undue
burden upon the School District inasmuch as in the past his offer
for schools was basically stripped models - that is, basic build-
ings with no equipment, and this equipment would run as much as
$40,000 or $50,000 and would be an undue hardship on the taxpayers.
He requested that since the Council did not have the letter from the
School District that complies with Ordinance No. 762 that the
matter be continued until such time that the School Board could
act upon it and comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Elliott again pointed out that his offer at this time is that
the portables are to be a gift whereas the others were not; also
they are not portables in the sense that they are trailers as they
are very permanent, are made of steel, they are on foundations
and are air conditioned and are heated with gas vs. the portables
that are heated with electricity.
Councilman Futch mentioned that compliance with Ordinance No. 762
would not be applicable inasmuch as the tract had been tentatively
approved prior to its adoption.
David Madis, attorney for the applicant, stated this was his point
and remarked that Mr. Elliott had entered into an agreement with
the School District pursuant to the desires of the Council and
negotiations had taken place over a long period of time in drawing
up the agreement and now the School District's requirements are
changed, and Mr. Elliott is trying to modify his plans at great
cost and expense to meet these requirements and proceeding on
that basis, and so they are asking for Council approval of the
final map.
Mayor pro tern Miller commented that he appreciates Mr. Elliott's
willingness to provide schools particularly on an earlier tract
on which he was not compelled to do so, and his offer now is
better than his previous offer. However, in general, he wanted
it known that he has been concerned about the environmental quality
for the past six years and he, along with others, had raised the
question of air quality in this Valley. He is concerned about smog
and air quality as connected to population growth in the Valley
and each subdivision provides further growth, causing further smog
emissions. Mayor pro tern Miller pointed out that there exists
AB 1301 which has been enacted into law and an Environmental
Quality Act which speaks to the environment and AB l30l has been
mentioned in the past and is a means by which the Council can
control things through its use. He referred to portions of
this bill and also pertinent portions of the Environmental
Quality Act which he read at this time. He remarked that the
Livermore Valley's smog is the worst in northern California,
and clean air is a matter before them and public decisions that
can protect clean air have to do with construction and develop-
ment, particularly of residential where most smog is generated in
this Valley. Based on all of these things, in his mind he cannot
find it possible to approve a tentative or a final for any sub-
division in the City of Livermore, until our air quality reaches
the federal standards that have been set on health grounds and
equally set by the California State Air Resources Board on health
grounds.
Councilman Beebe stated he was not sure that this Valley is the
worst in northern California and was not convinced that Councilma
Miller's statements were completely true as he has seen graphs re-
cently which indicate that there has been a vast improvement over
the past two years.
CM-26-ll0
January 8, 1973
(Tract Map Approval - Elliott)
Mayor pro tern Miller stated if that is the case and the air
quality continues to improve then he will be able to vote for
subdivisions.
Councilman Futch agreed with comments made by Councilman Miller
regarding his concern for the Valley, but questioned whether at
this point in time, after all the engineering has been completed
and they have a final map, is the time to back down on their agree-
ments as at the time they approved the tentative map, there were
certain agreements.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve the final map at this
time and passed 3-l with Councilman Miller dissenting (Mayor Taylor
absent) .
RESOLUTION NO. 2-73
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3354
RESOLUTION NO. 3-73
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3354
TRACT 3407 - Sunset Dev. Co.
The Planning Director indicated on the map the location of the
subdivision of Tract 3407, which contains 24 acres, of which 18
acres are dedicated to the subdivision which conforms to the
tentative and to the zoning regulations and dedication is in excess
of what is required of a subdivision, however there were some
questions raised on this point as it had to do with transfer of
density.
Councilman Futch questioned the location of the bicycle path and
Mr. Lee explained that there is sufficient right-of-way included'
within the street right-of-way, but the path is designed to go
back into the park and is in accordance with the design which he
had previously prepared and which was approved by the Council.
Mayor pro tern Miller explained that there is still the matter of
the letter from the School District, and commented about the offer
made by Mr. Mehran which he felt to be very generous. He did
acknowledge several pieces of communications from the School District
in this regard and invited Mr. Mehran to speak at this time.
Mr. Lewis explained that he had checked with the School District
and they deem the letters referred to fully satisfy the require-
ments of the ordinance.
Councilman Futch moved that the final map of Tract 3407 be approved
subject to all restrictions and commented that he felt this would
be one of the finest residential areas in Livermore with lots of
open space and appreciated the offer with regard to schools. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved 3-1 with
Councilman Miller dissenting (Mayor Taylor absent).
Mayor pro tern Miller stated he would not repeat his previous remarks
but his situation was the same. However, on behalf of all members
of the Council he would reaffirm Councilman Futch's statement.
CM-26-lll
January 8, 1972
(Tract 3407 - Sunset Dev. Co.)
RESOLUTION NO. 4-73
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3407
RESOLUTION NO. 5-73
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3407
REPORT RE JR. COLLEGE
UTILITY SERVICES
The extension of of utility lines to serve the campus of the pro-
posed Livermore campus was discussed by the Council at the meeting
of November 27th. The matter was continued to allow Councilman
Futch to discuss engineering considerations with the staff and
representative of the District Board.
It was suggested that the matter be put over for another week
at which time a full Council is anticipated to be present.
Councilman Beebe mentioned the fact that there has been some talk
of recreational and commercial development in the area and those
interested in this type of development plan to speak with the
Chabot College Business Office people to discuss this possibility.
He felt it might be better to postpone the matter for two weeks
to allow the discussion .
Dr. Buffington, Chabot College Superintendent, stated that they
are most anxious for the Council to come to some type of decision
with regard to utility line extension and that the representatives
present have appeared to answer any questions the Council might
have. They hope that the City will choose to form an assessment
district for financing of the lines and they will attend each
meeting until a decision has been made.
Councilman Futch commented that it has been his understanding that
any recreational or commercial development is part of a long range
plan, to which the City Manager agreed.
Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be set for discussion next
week and if necessary, due to new developments, the matter continued
another week. The motion received a second by Councilman Futch and
the motion passed by the unanimous approval of the Council.
REPORT RE WELLS FARGO BANK
(Tentative Parcel Map l047)
Mr. Musso reported that the Planning Commission considered Tentative
Parcel Map 1047 by Wells Fargo Bank for property located southerly
of First Street westerly of Trevarno Road (private road) and that
by unanimous vote did recommend approval of the map, subject to the
following conditions: 1) Conformance to approved map entitled
Exhibit liB"; 2) Conformance to recommendations by the Engineering,
Police and Fire Departments; 3) Future lot splits subject to City
Staff approval in accordance with the Parcel Map procedure.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that someone must provide water
for the subdivision and he would like the City Water Department
to serve them rather than Cal Water, on the basis the City should
CM-26-ll2
January 8, 1973
(Report re Wells Fargo Bank -
Tentative Parcel Map 1047)
extend, as much as possible, the service areas of the City's water
company. The water users in the area should also be happy because
the City water rates are less than those of Cal Water Company.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council approve Parcel Map
1047 with the condition that the City water company service the
area if it is in our service area. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Futch and the motion passed by the unanimous vote of
approval by the Council.
REPORT RE RELOCATION OF
HIGH SCHOOL SITE
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that with regard to the referral
from the Livermore School District regarding relocation of the high
school, the 7-8 school site and K-6 school, reserved in Tract 3333
is before the Planning Commission and he felt that the Council
should wait to make any resolution until the Planning Commission has
come to a decision.
Mr. Musso explained that the matter was not actually referred to the
Council - it was referred to the Planning Commission and it was
intended that the Council only be informed as to what is happening.
In light of Mr. Musso's comment, Mayor pro tempore Miller stated
that if it meets with Council approval the matter will be filed until
such time Council action is required.
P. C. MINUTES FOR DEC. 5,
AND DEC. 19, 1972
The minutes of the Planning Commission for meetings held on December
5 and 19, 1972, were noted for filing.
REZONING APPLICATION
(Murrieta & Holmes St.)
The Planning Commission has considered the application of John
Walker for rezoning from RG-16 (Suburban Multiple) to CP (Profes-
sional Office) for property located on the southwest corner of
Murrieta Blvd. and Holmes Street. By a majority vote the Planning
Commission recommends rezoning to CPo Prior to this change it is
necessary that a public hearing be held to hear public testimony.
Councilman Pritchard moved that a public hearing be held on Feb. 5,
1973, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and which passed by the unanimous
vote of approval by the Council.
REPORT RE PARK DEV. FEE
RE ROOM ADDITIONS
The City Attorney explained that the question as to whether or not
the existing Ordinance No. 804 which levys a license fee, applies
CM-26-ll3
January 8, 1973
(Park Development Fee)
to construction where a unit is being expanded or altered, has
been brought up by the building official.
The City Attorney commented that if it is the Council's intention
that the tax be applied to additions, it should be more clearly
expressed in the ordinance and appropriate wording devised for
the purpose.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare wording for the ordinance appropriate for the square
footage formula. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mr. Parness suggested that the Council include a prov1s1on
which would automatically be adjustable annually to take care
of increases and cost variations.
Councilman Futch moved to amend the motion to include the modi-
fication suggestion by Mr. Parness, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard. The amendment passed by the unanimous approval of
the Council.
At this time the Council voted on the main motion which passed
by the unanimous approval of the Council.
REPORT RE ASSESSED
VALUATION STUDY
The Council has asked that a staff study be conducted regarding
the most current information possible of random properties in the
downtown area that would compare recent sale prices to the current
assessor's market value evaluation. Such a tabulation has been
submitted to the Council.
Mr. Parness stated that he has nothing to add to the report, which
was followed by general discussion on the subject by the Council.
This item had been removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
by the Council and the Staff was directed to obtain further infor-
mation regarding valuations at the time of sale of certain properties
listed in the report.
RE PG&E STREET
LIGHT MAINTENANCE COSTS
The City Manager has reported that PG&E has indicated that due to
the new style street light standard and fixtures to be erected
along Second Street, they decline to accept abnormal maintenance
expense and relocation costs above their standard expense. There
is no way of knowing how much this might be, due to a lack of any
records on this type of facilities.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that there seems to be two options
with regard to installation: 1) Let PG&E pay for the installation
and fixtures and the City will pay for the power, over the cost
of this; or 2) The City may purchase the fixtures, install them
and pay the lower price for the power.
The Council then discussed the economical aspects with regard to
purchasing the fixtures vs. letting PG&E install them.
CM-26-ll4
January 8, 1973
(Report re PG&E Maintenance)
Mayor pro tempore Miller suggested that Mr. Lee report the economics
of this matter to the Council at some time during which there is
not a full agenda. He should be able to tell the Council what
savings might be involved over a long range plan, if any.
Councilman Futch commented that if there are to be significant
savings, he would like to be advised, but otherwise he sees no need
for a full report on the matter.
Mr. Lee commented that in the case of the First Street lighting it
was clearly more economical for the City to own the fixtures; however,
PG&E has had a contract with the City to purchase and install the
fixtures, which have already been ordered. In view of this, he would
suggest that the Council proceed with the original arrangement of
installation by PG&E.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, the
execution of the lighting agreement was authorized by the following
vote: Ayes, Councilmen Pritchard, Futch, and Miller; Abstain,
Councilman Beebe (for his usual reasons).
MATTERS INITIATED BY
THE COUNCIL
(School Situation)
Councilman Pritchard commented that he had wanted to discuss the
school issue, but in view of the fact Mayor Taylor is absent he
would prefer to delay the discussion until all Councilmen are
present. His intent was for the Council to direct the City
Attorney regarding Council position on the matter.
Councilman Futch suggested that Councilman Pritchard outline the
things he wanted to discuss and that perhaps from this, the City
Attorney could start working on ordinance wording.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he has some definite ideas
and remarked that there is some discussion as to whether or not
Ordinance 762 is absolutely workable under the subdivision map
act, and he would like the Council to consider having a school
ordinance that would deal specifically with building permits in
a given area rather than the tract map and have it read similar
to the ordinance we now have on schools with some specifics
in it such as:
1. They should do something the judge had said was not in the
SAVE ordinance and that is, define school standards. Apparently,
there is a condition in the state school act that allows the
School District to make these standards themselves which can be
applied locally.
2. They must be sure to state who the administrative officer
is going to be, i.e. the Councilor the building inspector.
3. They should make certain the ordinance is only pertinent to
new residential buildings.
4. If an individual builder is able to provide schools in his
tract, he should be able to have his permits.
Councilman Futch felt the City Attorney knew what the Council
wished, but they should include more than schools - they should
also include water and sewage.
CM-26-ll5
January 8, 1973
(School Situation)
Mayor pro tern Miller stated he would also like the City Attorney to
consider the options of ordinances which would include the wording
of the present SAVE ordinance so there is the possibility for the
Council to discuss the totalj;~af188~i5R because either way there
may be problems, but he felt there should be alterna~jvep.
:J<,~~&&~
Councilman Pritchard stated one of the legal probiems is whether
or not citizens can initiate this type of measure by referendum and
in the meanwhile it will be a Council enacted ordinance. He
commented that there seems to be a certain amount of good will
among the builders and he hoped that it would continue, but the
fact remains there are still those few who do not want to do what
the others are doing, and only by having an equitable ordinance
can the Council actually accomplish what they want to.
Mayor pro tern Miller felt that Councilman Pritchard had pretty much
stated the wishes of the Council and done it rather well, and felt
that the City Attorney could be directed to prepare an ordinance
by what had been said.
BAAPCD STUDY (Marin County)
Councilman Futch stated that a study had been made by BAAPCD under
contract with the Marin County Fire Department which was undertaken
to determine the impact of growth on air quality, specifically in
the San Rafael and adjacent basin. In view of the fact that the
Council will be discussing the holding capacity of the Valley,
growth rate, etc., he thought it would be appropriate to negotiate
an agreement with BAAPCD to do a similar study for the City of
Livermore.
Mr. Musso stated that at the request of the Council a few years ago
they had agreed to make such a study and had submitted a long list
of information they needed in order to do the study, but the staff
has not been able to furnish it as yet. He went on to advise the
Council exactly what information was needed which included statistics
and projections in many areas to the year 2000, and much of which
he was unable to obtain.
The Council felt that the information should be obtained so that the
study might be made, and the Planning Director was directed to check
with Marin County to determine what type of information they were
required to furnish for the study and explore the matter further and
report back to the Council in a week or two.
BROWN ACT
Councilman Futch asked the City Attorney if he would furnish the
Council with a copy of the general discussion regarding the Brown
Act that was put out by the Attorney General's office.
P.A.R.C.
Mayor pro tern Miller stated that the people on the P.A.R.C. committee
had asked him if a member of the City Council might serve on the
committee, and asked if this could be discussed at their next executive
session together with their other appointments to be made.
CM-26-ll6
January 8, 1973
(P.A.R.C.)
Mayor pro tern Miller inquired if the City had obtained the title
to the Sally property, and was advised that we had. He commented
that we were to have received a verified title.
Mr. Lee remarked that the description on the title might not be
perfect, but it does not mean that we do not have the property.
They have deeded the property as described in their deed to the
City and there is no question in his mind that we have legal title
to the property. The area is being surveyed and we will be fur-
nished with a parcel map, which should clear up the matter.
ARTICLE RE URBAN GROWTH
Mayor pro tern Miller stated he had been given an article from the
American Public Works Association Reporter regarding control of
urban growth and wished to have the article reproduced for the
benefit of the staff and the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
APPROVE
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of January l5, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 15, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe,Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
None
ABSENT:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller and
by tne unanimous vote of approval by the Council, the minutes for
the meetings of January 4, 1973 and January 8, 1973 were approved,
as corrected.
CM-26-ll7
January 15, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Open Space P.H.)
Mrs. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, commented that the County
plans to hold a public hearing tomorrow night with regard to the
open space concept and wondered if the Council intends to take a
position on the matter.
Mr. Musso stated that the only area in which the County differs
in opinion relates to the arroyos.
Councilman Futch commented that if it is important that the
County know the position of the Council prior to the meeting,
the Council could endorse the concept, in general.
Mrs. Tracy stated that she would encourage the Council's endorse-
ment, in general, and would like them to pass a resolution
to this effect.
The Council concluded that the matter would be put over to the
end of the meeting for further discussion.
Mrs. Tracy also mentioned that the County Planning Commission intends
to have a study of their general plan with regard to the ridge lands,
west of Foothill Road. It has been requested that residential develop-
ment be deleted from the ridge lands and asked if the Council could
support their view.
Mayor Taylor explained that the meeting is to take place on March 26
which would allow the Council time in which to come to an opinion
and that it would not be necessary to do so at this meeting. Mrs.
Tracy agreed that the Council has time in which to form a position.
(Financing the
Student Union)
Joanie Jacobson, student representative, asked if the Council is
doing anything financially to help support the student union of
Livermore High School.
Mayor Taylor explained that the Council is prohibited, by law, from
spending money on projects except those specifically spelled out and
this project does not qualify.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Re Assessments Northern
Sanitary Sewer Dist.
Mr. Parness reported that with regard to the report from our special
bond counsel regarding segregation of assessments for the Northern
Sanitary Sewer Assessment District, some technical errors were made
in the action formerly taken on the matter and therefore it must be
rescinded and the corrective process adopted. He further explained
that this is an annual necessary thing which must be done.
RESOLUTION NO. 6-73
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 150-72
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN CONNECTION WITH
ASSESSMENT NO.3, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-l, CITY OF
LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CM-26-ll8
January 15, 1973
(Northern Sanitary Sewer Dist.)
RESOLUTION NO. 7-73
RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
TO PREPARE AND FILE AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT,
NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1962-l, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
Report re LARPD
Revenue Sharing
A report was received from LARPD regarding revenue sharing dis-
bursement and the staff has recommended that the Council
instruct them to respond that the amount of federal revenue
sharing receipts have been committed to City capital improvement
needs. The first of these projects is the police administration
building which will consume 65-70% of the total five year estimated
accrual.
The Council directed the staff to respond to LARPD as per the
recommendation.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar
was approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Sculpture Sign US 580)
Mr. Parness reported that a local citizen has proposed the erection
of a sculptured structure at US 580, on the golf course. The matter
has been postponed for further consideration and information with
regard to utility costs and what might be salvaged from the present
sign. He explained that if the Council wishes to locate the
sculpture at another site other than that of the existing sign,
a cost for installation of a pad and other expenses will have
to be determined and a report given to the Council in another week.
Councilman Beebe felt that the sign could be more than just a
sign in that it could be a work of art and something different
for the City of Livermore.
Mr. Parness indicated that an estimate of sign replacement is
approximately $4,000, for a similar directional sign. If a
different sign is desired, the Council will have to inform the
staff what they want, specifically, in order that more accurate
estimates may be obtained.
The Council estimated that the cost for a sculptured type sign
with illumination of the letters and other aspects, would be
around $lO,OOO as opposed to the $4,000 estimate for a conventional
type of sign.
Councilman Miller agreed with the comment made by Councilman Beebe,
in that the sign could be a work of art for the City and would
be better than a directional sign.
Councilman Futch stated that he agrees with the concept of having
something a little different and unique for the City.
CM-26-ll9
January l5, 1973
(Sculpture Sign)
Councilman Pritchard felt there is much to be said for initiative
and that the Council should determine whether or not they like
this particular piece of art submitted to them, if they would
like it to replace the sign on the golf course and decide on
it, alone. He indicated that there was a great deal of work
that had gone into the design and that it would not be fair
to open the gate to all other artists, for comparisons.
Councilman Miller suggested that a motion be made replacing the
present sign with a work of art and a discussion to follow; how-
ever, Mayor Taylor stated that he would be reluctant to agree to
replacing the sign with a work of art prior to knowing costs
involved.
Councilman Miller moved that the Council accept, in
replacement of the present sign with a work of art.
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and the motion
the unanimous vote of the Council.
principle,
The motion
passed by
Mayor Taylor suggested that money ordinarily spent for freeway
signs could go toward the sign and that the balance could be
raised possibly by appealing to citizens. In his opinion, the
matter should be open for competition to allow the best choice
and that there should be some type of committee formed to make
a selection and advise the Council.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that there are other areas which
will need works of art, such as the Civic Center site and that
if this particular issue is not open to other artists they will
have a chance to submit designs for other areas.
Mayor Taylor moved that the matter be open to competition for
design and evaluation; however, the motion died for lack of a
second.
Councilman Futch moved that the matter be referred back to the
staff for a more complete cost analysis and that a decision be
postponed for two weeks until this information is available to
the Council. Councilman Beebe seconded the motion.
Mr. George Parry, sculptor, commented that the obligation of the
City for his sculpture would be for site preparation, foundation
and illumination. He stated that he should clarify that the
sculpture would be erected away from the site and then mounted
on the site and that he would be willing to work with the City
engineers in working out details for erecting the sculpture.
At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion which
passed by a 4-l vote by the Council - Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Police Adm. Bldg.
The City Manager explained that the matter pertaining to the
new police administration building was postponed from the meet-
ing of January 8 as some concern was voiced with regard to the
estimated costs and the surety for the continuation of revenue
sharing for the five year duration. He has submitted a written
report to the Council regarding estimated costs and revenue
sharing and would hope that the Council would adopt a motion to
authorize preparation of architectural construction, drawings
and specifications.
CM-26-l20
Xi
January 15, 1973
(Police Administration Bldg.)
Councilman Pritchard stated that in view of the fact there are
no alternatives other than to do nothing and due to the fact
that each delay is costly, he would move that the Council approve
proceeding with the design and solicitation of the bids;
the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch questioned whether or not it was necessary to
commit themselves to furnishing and all the paving at this time
as he would like to see a lesser amount.
Mr. Parness explained that the Council need not commit themselves
to any figure at this time as this is only done upon receipt of
construction bidding and acceptance of bid if one is acceptable.
If the Council wishes to review the furnishing and site plan im-
provements at a later date that would be appropriate. He felt
certain that construction bidding would be considerably less
than the dollar amounts listed.
Councilman Futch remarked that if those comments are appropriate
as an amendment, he felt he could support the motion under those
conditions.
Councilman Miller commented that he had been asked why it was
so essential to have a jail and if we could not use the facilities
at Santa Rita. He could not answer this question and since the
jail facility raises the price of the building sUbstantially, he
now questioned why we could not do with a smaller jail, or no jail.
Chief Ronald Lindgren was asked to respond to this question, and
stated that design was kept to absolute minimum as it was their
idea that Santa Rita is 20 minutes away, depending on traffic.
Expediency dictates that we have facilities to detain people
whether for further interrogation or investigation while still in
their custody; in the case of juveniles, while awaiting their
parents to pick them up, etc. He explained that the design in-
cludes four I-man cells and a detoxification unit which is required
by several superior court rulings as the City does release drunks
when they are sober, but if taken to the County Jail, they are
no longer able to do that. If they must transport a prisoner
and only one officer is required it would take him off the beat
in Livermore, so the cost figure is hard to reflect when figuring
cost of a new building. He felt the jail facilities here to be
absolutely essential.
Councilman Miller commented further that he had thought that was
part of the answer, and he felt they all recognize the need for
such a building, however he has reviewed the report with regard
to revenue sharing and the schedule of payments and even with
full revenue sharing, there are times when there is a cash flow
problem as there are many demands on the borrowing of money
from special funds. Despite what has been said about revenue
sharing, he is still concerned about the fact that the President
can hold up this money, and he referred to several incidents of
this being done. He is not against the building, but he wanted
everyone to take into account the many possibilities that may
occur.
Mayor Taylor stated that he, too, was concerned, however the
facility is very much needed especially since the old jail has
been condemned by the grand jury. He felt they would be escalat-
ing costs if this jail had to be phased out and they were to
operate with interim facilities. Even without the revenue sharing
funds they may be forced to raise funds for the facility.
A vote was taken on the motion which passed unanimously.
CM-26-l2l
January 15, 1973
REPORT RE JR. COLLEGE CAMPUS
UTILITY LINE SERVICES
The City Manager explained that this matter had been continued at
the request of Councilman Futch who wanted to check into the cost
of utility line sizes and their extensions. As a result of this
the Public Works Director had recomputed some cost estimates parti-
cularly with reference to sewer line and water line sizes and their
associated costs and was prepared to present this information to the
Council.
Mayor Taylor stated that he was not present when this item was con-
tinued, but as he recalled, the Council was very interested in ex-
ploring any possible way to extend the utilities to serve the Jr.
College alone and ways in which this minimum service could be ex-
tended and some method whereby the City could help finance the
additional cost above what the College District had planned as their
contribution to the assessment district. He felt that this was
really what the Council wanted to know, and asked if Mr. Lee could
address that question.
Mr. Lee stated that he could not answer that question but did have
the figures referred to in the agenda. He had calculated three
figures based on definite conditions. The cost estimate which
involves the extension of sanitary sewer just to the lower line of
the college site and based on the original calculation was $290,000
for the sanitary sewers. If this line were reduced in size to the
very minimum, or an 8" line which would be adequate to accommodate
just the college, the cost is estimated to be $142,000. However,
since this matter came up the staff has initiated a new study of
the whole matter and rechecked everything and it became apparent
since their last design efforts that there has been a change in the
general plan in that area reducing the ultimate densities. There-
fore they could reduce the amount of flow from the area which would
also reduce the line sizes which would be a pretty substantial change
in the flow as well as the cost which is estimated at $195,000,
so what is minimum for the college is $142,000 vs. $195,000. The
water cost in addition to this for the size line to adequately serve
the college and provide fire protection would be $95,000.
Councilman Futch commented that previously it had been stated the
cost would be $86,000 for the 12" line, however Mr. Lee pointed out
that figure was for a minimum size but is not the size he would
recommend and $95,000 is for the 14" line which he would recommend.
Councilman Futch continued that the Chabot College has a 6" line
going into a 4" water meter and there are 11,000 or more students
attending the college, and since our attendance will not be that
high, especially at first, asked why we needed such a large size
line.
Mr. Lee explained there is no correlation between the size of the
water line needed and the sewer line that would carry water away
because the controlling factor for providing water for the college
site is fire protection and the demands of fire needs are far in
excess of what is needed for consumption. Also we will be servicing
that area without any storage, and we would have to operate from the
pressure of Zone 7 transmission line which would provide a minimum
pressure at the college site.
Councilman Futch stated that they had discussed the possibility of
providing pressure with our reservoir tank, however Mr. Lee stated
that use of the reservoir would be far in excess of what is being
estimated for a water line and he gave some rough estimate. Coun-
cilman Futch questioned Mr. Lee further, pointing out that he was
only trying to figure some way of reducing the cost.
Councilman Miller commented that the thing that is being proposed is
the formation of an assessment district which he felt the majority
of the Council is not willing to do because of the implication of
development of properties surrounding the college. The point is that
CM-26-l22
January 15, 1973
(Jr. College Utility Services)
there are only a limited number of places where we can borrow
and there is a limit to borrowing. It has been mentioned in the
past that the Collier Canyon site is only one of the alternatives
for providing college facilities and he listed other alternatives
as follows: 1) lease land on Research Drive, using the building
plus relocatables; 2) the School District's Las positas site,
using relocatables. These other two alternatives would be
less in capital outlay than the Collier Canyon site plan. He felt
that use of the Las Positas site would be most advantageous to the
College, as well as to the City, in that utilities have already
been installed in the area and that it would be the best use of
their money, also it would eliminate leapfrog development around
the junior college.
Mayor Taylor commented that the college site was selected when
it was anticipated that it would develop concurrently with property
around it. However, the City is faced with extending utilities to
another area, similar to Springtown and Greenville North. This
happens to be a very severe adverse affect on the City, in that
we are not assured that there will ever be a complete permanent
college built on the site, even after formation of an assessment
district. He felt that he might be able to look at the situation
differently, had the public voted for a bond issue, and would be
opposed to the formation of an assessment district, as proposed,
adding that in his opinion the disadvantages far outweigh the
advantages.
Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to see the staff directed
to provide the Council with a plan for financing the difference
in costs between what the junior college would pay and what the
City must pay.
Councilman Futch explained that he would be opposed to an
assessment district formation because of new residential develop-
ment which would occur in a remote area. There would be no way
of providing the necessary schools, fire department, etc., as
has been the experience with the Springtown area, and he would
not want to duplicate these problems.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would second the chair's
thoughts with regard to alternate financing at the present site.
Councilman Beebe felt that it would not be reasonable to build
on a temporary site and later be required to move everything
over to the original permanent site. He would therefore agree
to alternate methods of financing for the permanent junior college.
Mayor Taylor mentioned that money spent on a temporary site is
not really wasted, since any money left over can be used for
the purpose of building roads, classrooms, etc.
Dr. Reed Buffington, Superintendent of the District, stated that
taking into consideration financial and educational problems, the
best alternative for them would be to locate facilities on their
own site. They feel that there are many unforseen difficulties
with being a tenant on 40 acres. The size of the site, despite
the advantages mentioned, has its disadvantages. He asked that
the Council consider not only immediate costs but ultimate costs.
They have estimated that the cost of relocating to a permanent
site would be $200,000 more than the amount they could recover
from the buildings and equipment from the temporary site. He
added that they would appreciate the Council doing anything they
can in the way of getting lines to their permanent site.
CM-26-l23
January 15, 1973
COUNTY REFERRAL RE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP.
Mr. Musso reported that the County had referred the matter of
rural residential development policy to the Planning Commission.
The County changed agricultural zoning from five acres to a 100
acre minimum lot size which created problems for the pre-existing
five acre lots, such as on Buena vista, Almond Avenue, Mines Road,
Edwards Lane and several other areas in the Valley. The County has
asked that the Planning Commission study a program for taking
care of the problems created by the zoning change.
The Planning Commission generally felt that the use of rural resi-
dential zoning should be limited to those areas now proposed to
be urban and either those areas now rural residential or desired
to become rural residentail, because of their particular character-
istics. They have reported that they concur with the policy, but
not entirely with the map.
Councilman Miller moved that the Council concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to agree with the County policy, but
to urge delay in adoption; seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the County is having public
hearings which will affect Mines Road and Tesla Road. These
people do not want their property rezoned as it will place a
limit on the number of horses they may own and other restrictions.
Mr. Musso explained that the County policy will not affect the
specific zoning of the property. In the application of policy,
it is not necessary to go to one acre or any specific amount -
it may be that 50 acres is proper for Mines Road.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Councilman Miller.
COUNCIL REFERRAL RE
CALLAGHAN SIGN
Mr. Musso reported that by a 4-1 vote of approval by the Planning
Commission, reaffirmed their original position regarding the free-
standing sign located at Callaghan Mortuary. The position is that
the freestanding sign not be allowed; however, if a freestanding
sign is approved by the Council they have requested that the
following guidelines be considered: 1) the sign be 12 sq. ft. in
area; 2) be 6 ft. in height; 3) external illumination; 4) sign to
be parallel to the street; 5) to be located in a landscaped area;
6) to be set back l5-30 feet; and 7) freestanding sign to be used
in lieu of other signs on the premises. He then explained the
way in which the Planning Commission arrived at their guideline
recommendations.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council approve a freestanding sign
subject to the recommendations by the Planning Commission; seconded
by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller emphasized that the recommendation of the Planning
Commission was to deny a freestanding sign.
Councilman Futch felt that this allowance was much more feasible
that what should be allowed.
Mayor Taylor questioned as to whether or not l2 sq. ft. would be
acceptable, in that their present sign is 16 sq. ft.
CM-26-l24
January 15, 1973
(Callaghan Sign)
Mayor Taylor then mentioned that he felt design review should be
a condition, also.
The Council then discussed the conditions and agreed that the
present sign should come down prior to erection of the freestanding
sign. It was noted that the present sign is illegal and must come
down anyway; however, it was considered best that this be a part
of the conditions; a condition for 60 days was added.
.~t this time the Council voted on the motion which passed by the
following vote: Ayes, Councilmen Futch, Beebe and Mayor Taylor;
Noes, Councilman ~1iller~ Abstain, Councilman Pritchard (due to
conflict of interest).
The Council then proceeded to discuss the allowable setback and
what they felt to be desirable.
Councilman Miller moved that the sign be set back 20 ft. from the
street because the competing business as well as the adjacent
apartment has a 20 ft. setback. The motion died for lack of a
second.
Councilman Beebe moved that the setback be 15 ft. and the motion
died for lack of a second.
Councilman Futch moved that the setback be 20 ft. which was seconded
by Councilman Miller. The motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes, Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor; Abstain,
C'''m- -~ , man Pritchard.
REPnR~ RF. BACKIN~ LOT
TREATME>>~ POLICY
Mr. Musso reported that with regard to comments made by the Planning
Commission concerning the policy on major street backing lot treat-
ment, they generally agree with the Council's action, i.e. maintaining
the present backing lot treatment with an open end cul-de-sac as
a possible alternative.
No action necessary by the Council.
P. C. SUMMARY OF ACTION,
MEETING OF JANUARY 9.
With regard to the summary of action taken at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 9, Councilman Pritchard questioned whether the
CUP for Mobil Oil Corporation to use a freestanding sign at First
Street was subject to design review.
It was explained by Mr. Musso that all CUP's are subject to design
review.
Councilman Miller wished to appeal the extension of pun #14
(Reeder Development Corporation) for two reasons: l) the time
period is very long; 2) he was concerned about the details re-
garding the extension of Springtown Blvd.
Mayor Taylor agreed and asked if when this PUD was extended there
was anything inserted regarding schools such as the requirement
they now have of a letter from the School District. Mr. Musso
replied that the requirement would be imposed when they applied
for a tentative.
CM-26-l25
January 15, 1973
(P.C. summary)
The motion to appeal was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated that he would like to be furnished with a
copy of the permit as approved by the Planning Commission and their
minutes.
Mr. Musso stated that the PUD should be extended to cover this period,
and Councilman Miller made a motion that the permit be extended for
a period of three weeks, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved
unanimously, and the item will be placed on the Council Agenda for
the meeting of February 5.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
DOGWOOD PARK SITE
The City Manager reported that upon instruction of the Council the
staff has proceeded with acquisition of property fronting on Olivina
Avenue and Dogwood Drive for park purposes. There are six property
ownerships and the City has acquired all except that owned by the
church. They are not opposed to selling their land, but refuse to
accept the appraisal and had their own done which was considerably
higher; one he believes to be excessive, and would not recommend
that the Council accept. In discussing this matter with Rev. Hill
and his attorney, they are not opposed to selling the property but
are desirous of locating their church, and if the staff can give them
some assistance in finding a site they could afford, they would talk
about the sale of this property, as they have searched and have not
been able to find a parcel within their means located in a central-
ized spot. Taking all these factors into account and the difficulty
of trying to negotiate the purchase of it, Mr. Parness suggested
perhaps there might be another alternative. They could retract their
intention to purchase the property, allow the church to be construc-
ted and just develop the balance as he felt the two uses could be
compatible. For example, the portion that is proposed for a parking
lot could also be used for construction of basketball courts which
would be used by the children in the neighborhood when the parking
lot is not in use. Tn exchange he would suggest that the extension
of the mutual boundary line be waived from the installation of the
chain link fence.
Mayor Taylor felt that the suggestion was quite reasonable and
the presence of the park would enhance the church property if the
church is built there.
A motion suggested by Mr. Parness was necessary which approved this
type of mutual arrangement with the mention of the chain link fence
being waived in the event the church concedes to the use of the
paved area for a hard surface type game activity when not used for
parking and that the City be allowed ingress and egress over their
driveway, and this was made by Councilman Futch, seconded by Mayor
Taylor.
Jan Schuyler, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant
would be very pleased to use the property in conjunction with the
City as their primary desire is to build the church as they feel
this site is most suited to their needs, and he feels they will agree
the property will be enhanced by the park next door and by having
the use of the paved area in conjunction with the City as a basket-
ball court. The only qualification would be as to the small area in
the upper right hand portion of the park but he did not feel there
would be any objection to the City taking over maintenance of that
area.
A vote was taken on the motion which passed 3-2 with Councilmen
Beebe and Pritchard dissenting.
CM-26-l26
January 15, 1973
TRAILER STORAGE
In accordance with Council instructions the City Attorney had
prepared the text for a ballot measure as to whether or not our
trailer regulations should be amended. Mr. Lewis explained that
it would be necessary to request permission of the School Board
to consolidate this measure with their election.
The Council discussed the context of the measure which they felt
to be rather confusing and several suggested proposals were offered
including the following wording by Mayor Taylor: "Shall the
storage of trailers, boats and camper tops be prohibited in any
required front or side yard area in a residential district?"and the
answer to be "yes" or "no", and this was put in the form of a
motion to insert this wording on the ballot and request permission
from the County and School Board to consolidate this measure with
their election on April l7. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller which passed 3-2 with Councilman Beebe and Pritchard dis-
senting, as neither felt this should be placed on the ballot.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council take the position of
favoring a "yes" vote on the proposed proposition, however the
motion failed for lack of a second.
The City Clerk reminded the Council that we would have to assume
a portion of the cost of the election since it will be necessary
for them to change their precincts if they do allow the City to
consolidate this measure with their election.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE
ID/IM ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Futch, to introduce the ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
by amendment of Sections 14.00 re ID-Industrial Development and
Administration District, and 15.00 re IM-Industrial Manufacturing
District, and that it be read by title only.
Mayor Taylor reminded the Council that this incorporates their
temporary industrial policy as there is a permanent ordinance
under preparation, and Mr. Musso agreed, stating that it should
be ready soon.
Councilman Miller felt that the standards had been dropped to an
unexpectedly low level, and he would have to vote against the
ordinance.
Mr. Lewis explained that the parking requirements are not completed
as the staff is working on redrafting the provisions of Section
21.00 of the ordinance but he assured the Council that the present
regulations will continue in effect because they are in other
sections of the zoning ordinance.
A vote was taken on the motion to introduce the ordinance which
passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE
SPECIAL LICENSES -
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Councilman Miller moved that the ordinance amending Sec. 12.32
re Licenses, special imposition of tax, rate, due date computation,
delinquency, and 12.35 re tax liability and enforcement of Art. II
of Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code be introduced and read by
title only; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
CM-26-l27
January 15, 1973
(Ord. re Licenses - Res. Const.)
Mr. Lewis explained that he would like to change the wording on page
2 of the proposed ordinance to read on line 3 as follows: "The
rates and limits established herein shall be adjusted by the City
Council. . ." and he explained his reason for making this correc-
tion~ Also in paragraph (3) on the same page, correct the first
sentence to read: "Enlargement of existing mobile home park $300.00
for each added mobile home and Fourteen. . ."
The motion to introduce the ordinance as amended by the City Attorney
passed unanimously, and was read by title only.
COMMUNICATION RE AIR POLLUTION
ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS
A communication from the Associated Horne Builders of the Greater
Eastbay, Inc. regarding air pollution control had been removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time. This was
essentially a statement made before the State Water Quality Control
Board on January 4, 1973 concerning Amendments to Sec. 2144 of Clean
Water Grant Program Regulations, which indicated that air pollution
is going down dramatically in the Valley.
Councilman Miller commented that the statement was interesting and
revealing as they had pointed out they are concerned because 90%
of all private construction takes place in a critical air basin,
which is exactly why they are critical, however they did not say
this. They made a big case about how the increase in population
and smog levels are declining and they conclude that oxident levels
are not related to utilization of sewer capacity by population growth
which he feels everyone kno~is false. The smog levels are averaged
over years and it is clear that in as ins like this, as the cities
grow, their is smog level increase with population. He felt from
the data presented, the conclusion was unwarranted. Councilman
Miller also spoke to their comments objecting to solutions of pro-
blems of growth and air pollution by increasing growth in some
areas and inhibiting growth in critical air basins. He felt it was
very interesting that they should suggest gas rationing to limit
our movement so that they can continue to build houses.
Mayor Taylor agreed with the comments made and added that the state-
ment made about new cities is more than just growth paying its own
way. In spite of all talk about new towns there are none and the
main reason is there are no jobs for the people.
This point regarding industry was discussed and Councilman Miller re-
marked that he has heard the federal government is going to provide
financing~ for security reasons, to build new industries as it is
unwise to have all industrial capabilities located in such concen-
trated areas.
COUNTY
OPEN SPACE PLANNING
The Planning Director at this time referred to a question posed
earlier in the meeting with regard to the County Planning Commission's
public hearing on open space, and read a statement made by the Liver-
more Planning Commission dated October 22, 1970 which stated the City's
position relative to the open space element. He remarked that the
report from the County included these comments.
The Council concurred that their position should be reaffirmed by a
letter to the County Planning Commission and the staff was directed
to prepare such a letter.
CM-26-l28
January 15, 1973
GROWTH ISSUE - MILPITAS
RAMAPO AND PETALUMA
Mayor Taylor explained that Janet Read had suggested the possibility
of regulating growth as has been done in Ramapo, Milpitas, and
Petaluma. At the Council's instruction the staff was to accumulate
materials from the above listed jurisdictions concerning residential
construction regulation. The material giving this information has
been given to the Council; however, in the meantime Janet Read has
moved from Livermore and will not be able to report her findings to
the Council.
Mayor Taylor added that the report was very impressive in that
it was very complete and imformative. Due to the fact that this
is a very important matter it would be doubtfull if the Council
would intend to take any type of action at this meeting.
Tony Thompson, 5138 Lillian Court, explained that he and Bill
Raymond have fallen heir to Janet Read's idea with regard to some
type of controlled growth for Livermore. He and Mr. Raymond visited
Petaluma to speak with city officials, which was arranged through
Councilman Miller. He felt that the meeting was very fruitful and
commented that they had a two hour meeting in which they were able
to obtain much information. In his opinion, two advantages of the
regulated growth ordinance are: 1) controlled growth rate which
results in control over the rate for which services must be provided;
2) controlled quality of growth. One aspect of the ordinance is
that it does not control building permits, nor final maps. It only
controls tentative maps, which he felt would be appealing to builders.
Once a tentative map has been approved they need not worry about not
being able to obtain the necessary building permits.
Mr. Thompson stated that they plan to have more data available
for reporting to the Council by February 5th and would like to have
the opportunity to present it to the Council.
Mayor Taylor explained that it is not Council policy to ask some
group to come in with an ordinance, but the Council would be happy
to consider their suggestions. He then asked the City Attorney if
suits have been filed to obtain and injunction against any of these
cities, to which the City Attorney commented that as far as he
knows, none have been filed.
The Council generally discussed the possibility of adopting this
type of regulation and Mayor Taylor expressed concern for lifting
all restraints which may leave the potential for becoming swamped.
Councilman Miller suggested setting up some type of priority list
in which the older lots in Livermore could be developed and areas
existing between subdivisions. He pointed out that one of the
things characteristic of Petaluma and Ramapo is the encouragement
for low income houses, which he felt has a lot of merit.
Councilman Beebe commented that he has heard that the Ramapo plan
is actually better than the Petaluma plan.
Councilman Miller stated that he contacted Petaluma after their
appeal hearing to see if they would send some of their material
to him. Prior to the appeals, eight developers had approvals and
after the appeals there were nine with approvals; very little
difference. He then explained to the Council the method by which
the Board selects and gives approval. The Petaluma Planning Director
indicated that competitive aspects of the subdivision plan are very
great and that the developer does not get to change from his original
plans.
CM-26-l29
January l5, 1973
(Discussion re Ramapo,
Milpitas and Petalurna)
Mayor Taylor suggested that the council direct the staff to corne
back to the Council with some type of interim ordinance and
perhaps the Planning Commission will want to think about some
system for regulating issuance of permits.
with regard to regulating the number of permits, the City
Attorney stated that the council must know where the existing
finals are, what school problems are involved; where the
tentatives are and how many units are involved.
The City Attorney commented that it would be difficult to
obtain all the information necessary on such short notice,
adding that just last week the staff was directed to work
on an ordinance along the lines of the SAVE Ordinance. He
wasn't aware that it was to pertain to schools, only, as
indicated by Councilman Miller and Councilman Futch. He
explained that it would make more sense to integrate the
school problems with the other problems, rather than setting
priority on the school issue.
It was concluded by the Council that the ordinance requested
of the City Attorney last week had priority over a growth
controlled ordinance and that this should be taken care of
first. He indicated that he would try to have something
worked out with regard to controlled growth by the meeting
of January l3th; however, it would have to be in very rough
form.
General Blan
- -
(Citizens committee)
The Council discussed Mayor Taylor's proposal for a citizens
committee, its makeup, how chosen, questions which should be
addressed to the committee as finally selected, in addition to
the length of time for the General Plan review by said committee.
Councilman,: Miller suggested that every citizen in the City
be notified of the fact that there will be a General Plan
Review Committee and that they may submit their name for
membership if they would be interested in serving on the
committee.
The Council discussed delegates from committees vs. citizen
membership and Councilman Beebe stated that, generally speak-
ing, people who are workers and interested in the community
are already serving on a committee and it might be better to
select one of these people as a delegate rather than depend
on individuals not currently active in any organization.
Councilman Miller did not agree with the comment made by
Councilman Beebe adding that he would not like to see
selection of delegates which could be misconstrued to mean
that there is something special about organizations. He felt
that there may be a number of people in the community who
might like to do something and who are not in some organiza-
tion.
The Council did not corne to a conclusion as to how a committee
would be formed at this time.
CM-26-l30
January 15, 1973
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
miller, and by unanimous vote, the Mayor adjourned the
meeting at l2:02 a.m. to an executive session to con-
sider appointments.
APPROVE
-L..
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of January 22, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 22, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe (Seated During Discussion of Minutes)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller
and by the unanimous vote of approval by the Council, the minutes
for the meeting of January 15, 1973 were approved as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
John Shirley, 4218 Drake Way, stated his objection to replacment of
the sign now located at the golf course. He felt that it is an
attractive sign, does the job and does not need to be removed
for the sake of an expensive piece of sculpture.
Mayor Taylor commented that further discussions regarding the
sign will be held on February 5th and thanked Dr. Shirley for
his comments.
(Re Death of President
Johnson)
David Madis, l054 Canton Avenue, commented that if the Council
does not intend to adjourn their meeting due to the death of former
President Johnson today, there should at least be a moment of silent
meditation.
Councilman Beebe moved that all present stand for one minute of
meditation in dedication to the former President; seconded by
Councilman Miller, and the motion was approved unanimously.
CM-26-l3l
~~'--------_.__._--_._.__.
January 22, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING RE Z.O. AMENDMENTS
(Deletion of CH Dist. Est. CS Dist.
Signs and Off-Street Parking)
Mr. Musso explained the history of portola and First Street with
regard to zoning ordinance problems and the necessity for amend-
ing the zoning ordinance. He commented that the CS Ordinance is
the latest ordinance and was to allow for extensive use of land,
primarily commercial in nature and not so much retail.
At this time there is no zoning to accommodate things which are
not industrial and retail - such as highway oriented activities
recreation activities, building supply uses; those neither suited
downtown or in industrial areas. A motel and restaurant will be
allowed in the area and other groups will require a CUP, such as
an auto oriented area, building materials, farm equipment, hard-
ware sales, and entertainment.
He stated that the Planning Commission has a few recommendations
with regard to CG Districts concerning front yard, side yard, and
fencing, which he explained, as well as mention of building cover-
age, off-street parking, general parking, sign ordinance regarding
coverage and uses permitted.
He noted that the proposed amended ordinance had been submitted
to the Chamber Industrial as well as the City Industrial Committee
and had received a response from the Chamber Industrial Committee,
which the Council has received a copy of.
Councilman Futch brought up the problem of no height restriction to
which Mr. Musso explained that the setback and off-street parking
limit height somewhat; they are not allowed to go over 25 feet in
height without permission and there are other restrictions for
height in residential areas.
Milo Nordyke, City Industrial Advisory Committee representative,
indicated that the committee had no objections to the CS District
but had some reservations with regard to areas in which it will
be used - ID-H Zone, primarily, which will result in part of the
area becoming ID and the rest CS.
He stated that they may have more to say when it is used in
other specific areas.
Mayor Taylor stated that two letters have been received regarding
the proposed amendment; one from Mr. Hutka and one from the Presi-
dent of the Chamber of Commerce.
There being no further testimony, Councilman Beebe moved that the
public hearing be closed. The motion received a second from
Councilman Futch and passed by unanimous vote of the Council.
Mayor Taylor suggested the Council discuss, in order, the proposed
amendments, starting with Chapter 9.00 - deletion of this section
regarding CH District.
Councilman Miller expressed concern for there being no requirement
for street frontage.
Mr. Musso explained that the only requirement is a driveway for
parking, which would allow for a land-locked parcel to have a
building.
Councilman Miller felt the Council should impose certain set-backs
and landscaping required to make the entrance streets of the City
more attractive. In his opinion the l5 ft. strip for landscaping
would not be adequate in these areas. However, the Council did
not support his viewpoint.
CM-26-l32
January 22, 1973
(Public Hearing re
CH and CS District, Signs
and Off-Street Parking)
Councilman Miller made a motion to refer 9.51 of the proposed
ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further consideration
of larger yards, however the motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Beebe moved that the whole matter be referred back to
the Planning Commission for further consideration as there are
the sign allowance was different than in other areas. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mayor Taylor felt that the Council should go through the whole
ordinance as proposed and advise the Planning Commission which
sections they approved of.
Mr. Musso agreed that it would be of no value without the suggestions.
Councilman Miller agreed that they should discuss the proposed
ordinance before referring it back to the Planning Commission and
he withdrew his second to the motion at this time, and the motion
died for lack of a second.
Councilman Miller suggested that the allowable signs should be
uniform for all commercial districts. The Planning Commission
had suggested 24 sq. ft in the IrA", "I" and "CS" District and
Mr. Musso explained that they were referring mainly to real estate
signs on large sites on which the signs would normally be located.
Councilman Miller moved that 2l.75-H-l be deleted and that all
commercial signs be uniform 12 sq. ft., however this motion died
for lack of a second.
Councilman Beebe questioned the Planning Director with regard to
the calculation used and Mr. Musso explained how he had arrived
at the figures shown, stating that frontage referred only to the
frontage facing the street or parking lot, and all other areas
were based on lineal feet.
Councilman Miller felt that the calculation by lineal feet was
reasonable and should be used for all calculations regarding the
signs. He added that a two story building is favored and would
be allowed more sign area in the CS Zone than a two story building
in the downtown area, which he felt to be unfair.
However, Mr. Musso felt that by figuring the sign area on a per-
centage basis, it was more restrictive than the downtown area.
In no case shall the sign area exceed 100 ft. whereas downtown it
can be as much as 200 ft.
Councilman Miller made a motion that wall signs be figured on the
basis of lineal feet rather than percent of coverage; motion was
seconded by Mayor Taylor, and he added that he would like to have
a chart showing the comparison. Motion was approved unanimously.
The permitted sign area in the case of open land use was discussed
and the Council concurred that 24 sq. ft. as suggested was rea-
sonable.
Under Sec. 21.43 (k) Councilman Miller questioned the 50% site
coverage with regard to parking requirements where there is a
a building several stories high because he did not feel the park-
ing requirements could be satisfied. He felt that the ordinance
should specify that the parking requirement should be the controlling
factor.
Councilman Futch moved that the proposed ordinance be referred
back to the Planning Commission specifically noting the questions
CM-26-l33
January 22, 1973
(CH and CS Dist. Signs
and Off-Street Parking)
in regard to the calculation of wall signs; motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe and passed unanimously.
WELCOME TO WEBELOS
Mayor Taylor extended a welcome to a group of Webelos who were in
the audience and thanked them for corning.
REPORT RE UTILITY SERVICES -
JR. COLLEGE CAMPUS
A report had been prepared by the Public Works Director giving
alternatives for extending utility services to the Jr. College
Campus and recommendations by the staff in this regard.
Mayor Taylor remarked that he had discussed this report with
members of the Jr. College District and felt there is a misunderstand-
ing on exactly how the figures were arrived at and suggested that
if it is acceptable to the Jr. College District that the matter be
considered at a later date when the staff has had time to go over
the figures in some detail.
Councilman Futch stated that he would like to review the technical
calculations as to the flow capacity for both sewage and water ex-
tensions.
Mayor Taylor also felt it would be better to continue the matter
so they could go over the calculations for the different alternatives,
and how the proportionate share for the Jr. College was determined.
The report had indicated that the Jr. College District's proper share
would be $l47,550 and the City's capital outlay would be $l42,450.
Mr. Lee explained that this amount would be equal to what they would
have paid under an assessment district. The total was based on the
size of the assessment district above the freeway. A subsequent cal-
culation was made, including some property south of the district
which changes the figures and rather than $l47,550, it would be
$137,720 or a difference of approximately $10,000, and the City's
share would be $152,450. He did point out that the figure is an
estimated one and is on the high side and will, hopefully, be a
lesser amount.
Mr. Lee commented that he could also give some technical data at
this time, however Councilman Futch stated that he would prefer
to review the technical data, and did not feel that this was the
time or the place.
Councilman Pritchard remarked that this matter had been continued
several times and since they were not forming an assessment dis-
trict, it was not a commitment on the part of the Council for
development although there may be development there some day, and
he felt it was good planning to install the maximum size as the
difference in cost at this point in time is the least it will ever
be. He was prepared to act on the City Manager's recommendation
this evening.
Mayor Taylor stated that before they discuss the City's output, he
would like to hear from the Jr. College District as to whether
their share is reasonable or acceptable, and asked for comments
from a representative of the College District.
Dr. Buffington stated they had received these figures late Friday
afternooon, and would like some time to review them as they are
higher than what they had calculated from the data they have on
the assessment district they had agreed to in 1970. They would
like an opportunity to discuss these figures with the City staff.
CM-26-l34
January 22, 1973
(Utility Services to
Jr. College Campus)
In light of the remark made by Dr. Buffington, Councilman Pritchard
moved to table the matter; seconded by Councilman Beebe and which
passed by a unanimous vote of approval.
REPORT RE ANTI-LOITERING
LAW (Proposed Curfew Change)
Mr. Parness explained that a group of students from Dublin High
School have requested permission to address the Council on the
matter of the proposed curfew change. These students have
appeared to speak at this time. In addition to comments from
them the Livermore Chief of Police has submitted a written memo-
randum regarding his evaluation of the proposal, in which he
has explained that the ordinance does not prohibit young people
from being in public places after 10:00 p.m. - it would merely re-
strict loitering. Therefore, he would recommend no change.
Miss Goodman, a Pleasanton resident, explained that a Civics Class
she attends conducted a survey, presented the results to the County
Board of Supervisors who agreed to make a change in the curfew time,
provided the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore would change their
curfew time to correspond. For this reason she is urging Council
consideration for a change. She reported that the survey made in
Livermore indicated that 47% favored the change, 18% were against
a change and 35% were neither for or against a change, adding that
most of these people were unaware of any curfew time.
She had reported various percentages of persons desiring various
curfew times, after which Councilman Miller observed that the
figures proved to be inconsistent.
James Parrish, Dublin High School teacher, explained that in his
opinion the young people of Dublin feel that they should be allowed
to assemble after games to socialize and visit, as adults do, with
no particular function or supervision at hand. In the past they
have been asked to go on home if they are just standing around
visiting.
Councilman Pritchard commented that, perhaps, the County Sheriff's
Department is interpreting the ordinance regarding curfew time
differently than the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, being
over-restrictive in its application.
Mayor Taylor felt the matter was rather important and should
receive special consideration and would suggest that no action
be taken by the Council at this time.
Robert Freis, 1322 Balboa, felt the legality of the ordinance
could be questioned when it evidently is not being enforced. He
felt that inconsistent enforcement goes against our Bill of Rights
and basic constitutional principals.
Councilman Miller felt there is some merit in what the students
of Dublin are trying to do and is willing to at least consider
some type of change. He pointed out that they have submitted
a list of a number of establishments used by the young people
which are open until midnight or 2:00 a.m. such as pizza parlors
and McDonalds Hamburgers. He stated that he would also have to
agree with the comment made by Mr. Freis in that loitering laws
are borderline with regard to constitutionality. He then suggested
that the group from Dublin contact students from Livermore and
Granada High in an effort to obtain support from them. The City
of Livermore is more apt to be responsive to requests from its
students. He would agree that this is not the time to make a
decision with regard to the matter.
C~26-l35
January 22, 1973
(Proposed Curfew Change)
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be continued to the
meeting of February 20, seconded by Councilman Futch and which
passed by the unanimous vote of approval by the Council.
Councilman Futch requested that the matter be scheduled first
on the agenda.
Another Dublin student remarked that he and a lot of his friends
have received substantial harrassment from the police when they
are in establishments which do not close until midnight. He felt
the 10:00 p.m. curfew is the reason they are being harrassed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental
Reports
Departmental reports were submitted to the Council, as follows:
Airport - Activity - December
Financial - Quarter October/December
Building Inspection - December
Emergency Services - Quarter October/December
Fire Department - December
Finance Department - Quarter October/December
Golf Course - Quarter October/December
Library - Quarter October/December
Municipal Court - November and December
police and Pound - December
Water Reserves & Rationing Status - December
Water Reclamation Plant - December
Resolutions re
Appointments
RESOLUTION NO. 8-73
APPOINTMENT OF CINDY ENGLISH, FLOYD A. HIBBITTS,
HARRY L. SILCOCKS, AYN WIESKAMP AND DONALD WILCOX
TO BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-73
APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT L. WENDT, GLORIA TAYLOR,
ANITA THORSEN AND RANDALL SCHLIENTZ TO DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. lO-73
APPOINTMENT OF JOHN SHIRLEY TO THE AIRPORT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. ll-73
APPOINTMENT OF WILLIAM JENKINS TO THE MOSQUITO
ABATEMENT DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 12-73
APPOINTMENT OF FRANK J. MALONEY TO THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY
CM-26-l36
January 22, 1973
Resolution re Spec. Muni
& School Board Election
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller and by
a 3-2 vote (Councilman Pritchard and Beebe dissenting) the resolution
regarding a special municipal election requesting consolidation of
said election with the School District Board members election of
April 17 was passed.
RESOLUTION NO. l3-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE REQUESTING THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS AND THE LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUN-
TIES TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE ELECTION OF SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE
CITY TO BE HELD ON APRIL 17, 1973.
Report re Police
Explorer Post
Chief Lindgren has reported that the Police Department is sponsoring
a Police Explorer Post for men between the ages of l5 and 19. The
post is run by police officers during off duty hours to try
to familiarize these men with the department and law enforcement in
general. This is felt to be a very important program and initial
funding for the program was through a $250 donation from the Police
Officers Association.
Report re Collection
Agency Agreement
The Council has received copies of the proposed agreement with
the Collection Service of Livermore Valley, from the Finance
Director, for Council approval. Accounts generally less than $100
can be referred to the agency after three reminders. Those accounts
to be referred are as follows: 1) Unpaid water bills; 2) Bad checks;
3) Uncollectible accounts from Allen's Ambulance; and 4) Damage
charges for destruction of City property.
Report re Car Rental
Agreement
The City Manager reported that a car rental agreement has been
negotiated with National Car Rental System, Inc. to provide this
service at the Livermore Airport. Adequate coverage is provided
for insurance, vehicle maintenance and the City would receive lO%
of the rental charges as its share of this franchise operation.
It is his recommendation that the Council adopt a motion authorizing
execution of the agreement.
Minutes of the Housing
Authority Meeting Dec. 19
and P.C. Meeting of Jan. 9
Minutes of the Housing Authority for the meeting of December 19 and
minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of January 9, 1973
were noted for filing.
CM-26-l37
January 22, 1973
Payroll & Claims
There were l4l Claims in the amount of $121, 533.2l and 249
payroll warrants dated January 19, 1973, in the amount of
$62,465.59 for a total of $183,998.80.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar
was approved, except Res. l3-73 which was voted on separately.
REPORT RE RAILROAD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Mr. Parness explained that the staff has prepared a proposed
financing method to raise local funds for the purpose of track
relocation and grade separation structure construction in the
central business district. The method to be used is an assess-
ment district under the statutes of the state. Assessment
district petitions have been circulated in an attempt to obtain
the signatures of the owners representing in excess of 60% of the
area of the proposed district. He explained that the City
has filed for a state grant; 78 other citites have filed, and
we are number 43 on the list. It is felt that we will receive
a grant and if so, it will amount to approximately $500,000
or 45% of the cost. Also, the railroads involved are required
by statute to contribute 10% of the cost. The rest will be
accomplished through assessment means. Mr. Parness explained
the 82 acres involved in the assessment district indicating
that not all areas will benefit equally and it is suggested
that these be divided into five different zones of benefit,
and assessed accordingly. He added that not only will this
project improve a means of pedestrian and vehicular safety but
will add substantial retail floor space for the City.
Councilman Miller asked what amount the City will have to con-
tribute and Mr. Parness stated that he has told the property
owners involved that he would recommend to the Council that
the City participate to the extent of $250,000. In addition,
the City will have to assume the amount to finance the interim
bypass line which will cost $lOO,OOO, and is not assessable
because it is not considered beneficial to anyone.
Mr. Parness commented that all land owners will be notified that
there will be a public hearing well in advance, informed as much
as possible regarding all aspects, including financial obligations,
and hopefully, there will not be a need for numerous public hear-
ings. The public hearing is to take place approximately mid June.
Hr. Parness added that the staff would like to urge the Council to
allow, as a priority program, the improvement of Railroad Avenue and
its extension to "s" Street. It is called for in the Master Plan
and should finish the downtown "loop" system.
When asked by Councilman Miller how completion of Railroad Avenue
will be financed, Mr. Parness stated that this would have to come
from the gas tax revenue, as would the $350,000 the City is obliga-
ted to finance for the track relocation.
The following schedule is proposed to be adopted by the Bond
Counsel, which the Council discussed briefly:
CM-26-l38
January 22, 1973
(Report re Railroad
Assessment District)
1. File petitions and boundary map.
2. File Certificate of Engineer of Work re percentage of signatures.
3. Adopt resolution approving boundary map.
4. Adopt resolution of Preliminary Determination.
5. Resolution appointing Special Bond Counsel and authorize
execution of agreement.
6. Adopt Resolution of Intention.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council adopt the above
schedule as outlined, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and which
passed by a unanimous vote of approval by the Council.
At this time the City Attorney asked for a roll call vote on each
of the following resolutions which passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 14-73
RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 15-73
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
TO UNDERTAKE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND
ACQUISITIONS IN RAILROAD ASSESSMENT DIS-
TRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. l6-73
RESOLUTION APPOINTING SPECIAL BOND
COUNSEL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 17-73
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVE-
MENTS AND ACQUISITIONS IN RAILROAD ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
PRINTED MATERIAL
DISTRIBUTION REGULATIONS
With regard to the regulation of distribution of printed material
the City Attorney had advised the Council that the Supreme Court
has indicated in the case of Van Nuys Publishing Company vs. City
of Thousand Oaks, that a municipality may not restrict a publisher
from distributing printed matter to persons within a municipal
boundary because such would merely constitute littering or that
the matter was unwanted by some persons. However, a city ordinance
may regulate the distribution of printed matter where there has
been a specific request by a proospective distributee not to receive
the specific matter.
On the basis of The Thousand Oaks case, the Council has the right
to legislate in a restrictive area with a properly framed ordi-
nance.
CM-26-l39
January 22, 1973
(Printed Material)
Mr. Lewis advised that the Valley newspapers were noted by letter
on December 20, that a hearing would be held regarding complaints
received from citizens concerning this item.
Councilman Miller stated this issue was raised at his request be-
cause he had received many complaints from people who, no matter
how many calls were made to the newspaper office, could not get the
paper stopped. He felt this was cause for adoption of an ordinance
such as mentioned by the City Attorney.
Dean S. Lesher, Publisher of the Valley Times, stated that he had
graduated from Harvard Law and practiced law for some years, and
commented that he had passed around pertinent parts of the City of
Thousand Oaks Ordinances to show what complaints were made and what
was attempted by that ordinance. He had served on the Board of
the California Newspaper Publishers Association and as Chairman of
its legal committee and induced that Board to participate on behalf
of the Van Nuys Newspaper in the matter before the Supreme Court,
and his name is on the brief. He continued that the League of Cal-
ifornia Cities filed anamicus curiae brief on behalf of the City so
they had a high level debate between the newspapers and the city and
the newspapers won. He stated that he can appreciate the problem
the Council is faced with and that a person can stop the paper. Their
circulation department has a record of every requested stop of which
there have been 925 out of 11,000 deliveries, however there are also
a number of people who pay for the paper. They will work with the
City but will uphold their own rights, whatever they may be, with a
great deal of determination.
Mayor Taylor thanked Mr. Lesher for his presentation, and stated he
would like to have the staff's comments on enforcement of an ordi-
nance which would restrict the distribution upon request and what the
penalty might be.
Mr. Lewis remarked that it would be easier to draft the ordinance
than to enforce it as there is the practical problem of what you
do if the newspaper is taking reasonable steps to prevent a paper
from being delivered to a person who has declared his desire not
to have that paper delivered to him. You could perhaps make it a
misdemeanor and enforce it against the corporation, or enforce it
against the newspaper boy who has been delinquent in delivering the
paper, but he did not know what to advise the Council to do in this
regard.
Zane Thomas, Circulation Manager for Herald News, stated he was
knowledgable about the system they have to get a newspaper stopped
where it is unwanted (The Pioneer). Every time a boy is placed on
a route he is given a list and map where not to deliver. Their re-
cords are open and if the Council wishes, they will be happy to show
the program they have to deliver the paper where it is wanted and
where it is accepted and stopped graciously where it is not wanted.
Mayor Taylor stated his only concern at this time was in regard to
an ordinance because he felt it would cost the public a great deal
of money to enforce it, and maybe just having an ordinance on the
books might cause the circulation managers take note. But there is
no point in passing an ordinance unless it is intended to be enforced.
Bob Smith, Circulation Manager of the Valley Times, stated he felt
an ordinance at this time was unnecessary as he felt a commitment
from the publisher that he will honor the stops that are received
by the newspaper would be stronger than any ordinance, especially
as far as their paper is concerned.
Mr. Lesher added that if an ordinance is adopted, the stop request
should be in writing; he also urged that if a misdemeanor is con-
sidered that it not be against the paper boy, but against the publisher.
CM-26-l40
January 22, 1973
(Printed Material)
Susan Scott, Manager of KYTE Radio, stated that as a non-competing
member of the press, she would suggest that the Council look at
it from the other side, that is since there are more newspapers
in town the attitude of the press is that their competition is much
keener and the people are getting a much better news coverage and
it is more accurate even though there are a few complaints from
people who do not wish to have the paper delivered.
Councilman Miller stated that he has been thinking in terms of
an ordinance as he has received letters from people enclosing
the sequence of correspondence they have had with one of the local
newspapers in which they have tried as many as five times to get a
paper stopped with no success. If anyone is willing to cooperate,
an ordinance will not do any harm, but it will give the public some
recourse. He did have in mind, as Mr. Lesher suggested, that the
publisher should be responsible, and he felt his idea that the
stop request should be in writing was also a good idea. Councilman
Miller urged that the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance and he can consult with the newspaper office and their
legal staffs and report back an ordinance draft. This was made in
the form of a motion, however the motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the collecting of the newspapers
and disposing of them is a very small price to pay for a very
precious heritage we have of being a fully informed people.
Mayor Taylor stated that he, too, has received some of the same
complaints that Councilman Miller has referred to, and he is con-
cerned that if an ordinance is adopted, the person will not contact
the newspaper office, but will simply contact City Hall.
Robert Several, Editor of the Independent, stated their policy is
to stop delivery to anyone requesting that it be stopped. When
asked what his view was with regard to an ordinance, he stated that
he could not speak on behalf of the newspaper, but personally, he
could understand legislation in this regard, and felt it could be
substantiated.
Councilman Futch commented that it might be reasonable whenever
someone calls in that they be asked to submit complaints in writing
and a file could be kept on these letters for later reference.
Mayor Taylor agreed, stating he would like to give the voluntary
system an opportunity as he felt competition being as keen as it
is would give bad publicity to a paper that did not respond to
a request for stopping distribution.
Councilman Miller stated he has been quoted in one paper consistently
to prohibit all free newspapers in the Valley, which paper refused to
print a retraction and misquoted in another for saying the same
thing, which is not what he had asked for.
RECESS
After a short recess the meeting resumed with all Council members
present.
REPORT RE EXTENSION OF
TENTATIVE MAP - TR. 3333
(H. C. Elliott, Inc.)
The Planning Director explained that H. C. Elliott, Inc. had sub-
mitted a request for renewal of Tentative Map 3333 for property
located southerly of Las positas Blvd., northerly of Arroyo Mocho.
The map was filed originally and two final maps were filed - one
of which is almost complete, and the other was just approved the
week before by the Council. Mr. Musso stated that the tentative
CM-26-l41
January 22, 1973
(Re Tentative Map
Tract 3333 - Elliott)
~
map is for that area located within the future freeway right-of-way,
which the state has not acquired, but are in the process of dis-
cussing acquisition. The City Attorney has advised that they are
entitled to approval of the tentative map. Denial can be made on
the basis of design, because it is in the right-of-way of some future
street or because we want the property for some other use. The re-
newal of the map was with the presumption that Isabel Avenue would
not be acquired and a lot of attention was given to extension of
Isabel Avenue to connect with Kittyhawk. The map was approved with
the requirement that a house was to be relocated for a possible
future street, also one stub street was to be relocated to avoid a
closed intersection. The other requirement, which was the most con-
troversial one, is that Isabel Avenue would extend from the south
boundary of the property to the north boundary of the property to
connect to Kittyhawk and provide access out of the subdivision onto
major streets. The trailway is to be relocated onto Isabel right-
of-way.
Mayor Taylor asked in case Isabel Avenue is not acquired by the state,
and the property owner proceeds with the tentative map if the Planning
Commission felt there should be some provision for Isabel Avenue being
extended.
Mr. Musso stated the street extension would be similar to that of
Concannon Blvd. - about 600 feet.
Mr. Parness stated that he had talked to the state Highway people
today and Division IV has recommended to the Highway Commission that
they purchase this property and it is now in their hands.
Councilman Miller stated for reasons he had presented before, he would
like to move to deny the extension of this map, his reasons being
that the Council is not legally required to extend it; if the de-
veloper wants to reapply he must provide an environmental impact
statement and approval of it would inevitably lead to worsening of
air quality. The motion did not receive a second.
Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney if the Council was legally
entitled to deny the extension of the map, and Mr. Lewis replied
that there was nothing in the law which required them to give
grounds for denial, but rather it was permissive with the Council
to either extend or deny the extension.
Mayor Taylor asked if the extension could arbitrarily be set for
any length of time, and was told that it could be. He then men-
tioned the fact that if it were extended that they should be
furnished with a letter from the school district.
Mr. Elliott assured the Council there was no problem as far as the
schools are concerned. He explained their position with regard to
proposed freeway, stating they had contacted the Highway Department
in November of 1971 and were told that approval of the parcel for
acquisition by the Department would be given within six or eight
weeks and it has now been more than one year. There was legal ac-
tion passed in June that if any parcel was submitted in any highway
scheduled further than eight to ten years away for protection pur-
poses, an entire route analysis would have to be done to determine
if the route was actually needed. There had been a route analysis
done and recommendation was made that the highway was feasible.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the tentative map be extended for
one year as recommended by the Planning Commission; motion was
seconded by Councilman Futch and passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller
dissenting.
Mayor Taylor commented that no one expects the houses to be built,
but rather that the State will acquire the land to build the
freeway.
CM-26-l42
January 22, 1973
The City Manager reported that for some two years the Valley Planning
Committee has had under active study, a proposal for changing the
structure of this body and causing it to be a more formalized and
authoritative agency. The mechanics by which this might be done
are through the execution of a joint powers agreement. Such
a document has been drafted by the respective staffs of the agencies
involved, has been reviewed by a joint committee of the Valley
Planning Committee and at their meeting of January 11 was formally
approved by the Committee and referred to the respective member
agencies for their review and approval.
REPORT RE VALLEY PLANNING
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The Council has received a copy of the joint powers agreement and
a paper in support of this agency formation.
Councilman Futch commented that it was felt that three representatives
from agencies other than the County would not be sufficient; they
have agreed to add one more, equalling four persons to be appointed.
It is presumed that two of these will be selected from the VCSD.
He felt this to be reasonable and moved to concur. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Futch explained that this committee will concern itself
with matters of overall significance to the valley and will not
interfere with local matters, and will be advisory in nature.
Gib Marguth, ll52 Farmington Way, Vice Chairman of the Committee
for Rational Valley Planning, commented that they have met with
the Planning Commission for the County on numerous occassions and
the Commission has indicated that they would be very receptive
to the idea of forming some type of ad hoc committee for the master
development plan for the valley. He stated that he wanted to inform
the Council of this in case discussions become bogged down. At
that time they were not ready to accept a joint powers agreement.
Councilman Miller stated that the hangup is that the County resists
any proposal for anyone in the valley to take the responsibility
for countywide general planning for the region.
Mr. Marguth indicated that his reasons for appearing before the
Council was to make it clear that this is not what had been
conveyed to them. They expressed a very sincere interest in
what is going on out here.
The motion passed at this time by a 4-1 vote with Councilman
Beebe dissenting.
REPORT RE COMMUNITY
COUNSELING CENTERS
The City Manager reported that our City has available a community
counseling center, one of eleven within the County. Their purpose
is to serve as a "drop-in" location particularly for those troubled
with narcotic problems. Currently, funding is through the Califor-
nia Council on Criminal Justice which finances the County Drug Abuse
Program of which these centers are an adjunct.
Rev. Michael Petrillo further explained that the Valley Youth
Services is a program of the inter-church counseling center and
had been funded by the Department of Hygience as well as the
California Council on Criminal Justice in the amount of about
$30,000. per year. They are now only partially funded. Another
grant has been given to the City to the persons who will be in-
volved in the criminal justice department. Valley Youth Services
CM-26-l43
January 22, 1973
(Community Counseling Centers)
has emphasized primarily crisis counseling and has been the only
drug abuse program in the Valley. When they were fully funded they
had four staff members of which Bill Charlton was the director, now
they have one full time counselor, Jim Ellis, and Rev. Petrillo works part
time most of which is spent campaigning for funds. He stated that
Mr. Ellis works on campuses, primarily, although several of the
churches are used as dropin centers. Presently Mr. Ellis is seeing
about seventy or eighty young people a week, all of whom are using
drugs to some extent. Rev. Petrillo stated his main purpose is
to develop planning and training of crisis intervention teams,
and there are five intervention teams available any night of the
week. As the City gets into their program, they will be working
closely with them.
Councilman Miller moved that the City Council adopt a resolution
as recommended by the City Manager, encouraging the County to con-
tinue financial support as long as possible since this program has
proved to be of significant local worth. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Futch and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. l8-73
RESOLUTION URGING SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES CENTER
Councilman Futch questioned the relationship with the commission
that will be formed to the other organizations and Mr. Parness
stated that Rev. Petrillo's organization will probably be assimi-
lated into the one the City has in mind since it is just beginning.
Rev. Petrillo agreed and added that the City has an altogether
different approach adding that he felt the City and his counseling
group will be working very closely together.
REPORT RE YOUTH
SERVICES CENTER
The City Manager reported that in accordance with the directives of
the California Council for Criminal Justice a Youth Services Council
is necessary to satisfy youth delinquency problems. Such a council
will serve the City of Livermore as well as Pleasanton. He recommended
that the Council consider selection of a youth services advisory
commission as soon as possible that will assist in this program.
He added that it is hoped that the program will be of assistance to
the whole valley since it is a valley-wide problem.
Councilman pritchard moved that the Council resolve to ask the City of
pleasanton to join the City of Livermore in this endeavor and that the
Council agrees with the concept of a Youth Services Advisory Commission.
Councilman Beebe seconded the motion which passed by the unanimous vote
of approval by the Council.
REPORT RE ANIMAL
CONTROL CONTRACT
The city Manager reported that a contract which would provide for
shelter services for animals at the County's Santa Rita facility has
been extended to our City from the County Field Services Office. The
cost to the City will be for care of the animals at the shelter and the
share of amortization of the capital cost of the facility. Based on
past experience regarding the number of animals sheltered, it is
estimated that animal care will amount to $5,400 and the amortization
charge will be approximately $2,300. Our contractual commitment, there-
fore will be approximately $7,700. The City will loose approximately
$3,750 in animal sales and impound charges; hence, our new expense
obligation will be about $lO,500.
It is felt that there is no acceptable alternate and it is recommended
that the Council authorize execution of this agreement.
CM-26-l44
January 22, 1973
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council authorize execution of
the agreement and the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
(Animal Control Contract)
Councilman Miller questioned where the additional $lO,500 is to come
from to pay for the use of the facility and Mr. Parness explained
that it will have to be subsidized. He felt that it might be paid
for, in part, by a raise in license fees; however 90% will have to
be supported.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the advantage of use of the
facility is in better animal care and being able to contact the
pound master. He has received complaints from people who state
that they cannot contact him and he can be at the shelter for
only one hour a day to care for the animals.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. Parness noted that use of the facility is to begin on February l,
1973.
REPORT RE AIRWAY
BOULEVARD BRIDGE
Mr. Lee explained the proposed construction of the Airway Boulevard
Bridge to include some additional curb and paving around the Airway
Boulevard intersection and extension of a domestic water line across
the bridge which will cost approximately $12,000 _ $14,000. The
curbs and paving mentioned will be approximately $25,000 and work
for the total project is estimated to be in excess of the original
estimate of $198,000.
He would suggest that the City call for bids and analyze costs
after seeing the bids. He felt they would be in the $198,000
estimate range.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the City accept the recommendation
for solitation of bids, seconded by Councilman Futch and which
passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
An ordinance has been drafted which establishes new fees now used by
Alameda County and provides that these fees may be changed by reso-
lution. If the City is to participate in the County animal shelter
program it is necessary that our impound fees and other charges be
uniform with all other agencies.
ORDINANCE RE ANIMAL
IMPOUND FEES
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and by a unanimous vote of approval by the Council, the ordinance
establishing new fees was introduced and read by title only.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by unanimous vote of approval by the Council, the Municipal
Code amendment regarding special licenses for residential building
construction was adopted.
MUNI CODE AMEND. RE SPEC.
LICENSES - RES. BLDG.
C,-26-l45
January 22, 1973
(Re Licenses - Res. Bldg.)
ORDINANCE NO. 805
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12.32, RELATING
TO LICENSES: SPECIAL - IMPOSITION OF TAX -
RATE - DUE DATE COMPUTATION - DELINQUENCY, AND
12.35, RELATING TO LICENSES: SPECIAL - TAX
LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE II, RELAT-
ING TO SPECIAL LICENSES, OF CHAPTER 12, RELATING
TO LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
ZO. ORD. AMEND. RE
ID/IM ZOo DIST. REG.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by the following roll called vote, the ordinance amending
ID/IM zoning District regulations was adopted and read by title
only.
AYES: Councilman Beebe, pritchard, Futch and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ORDINANCE NO. 806
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442 OF THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZON-
ING, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 14.00, RELATING
TO ID-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
DISTRICT, AND 15.00, RELATING TO IM-INDUSTRIAL
MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Re Annexation Law)
The City Attorney stated that the District Court has thrown out
the inhabitated annexation law which is being appealed at this
time. The State Supreme Court has been asked to take the case
and resolve the issue. He felt the City should participate in
sharing the cost of filing an amicus brief along with about
20 other cities. This cost amounts to $55 and he wanted the
Council's concurrence in the matter. He explained that at this
time it is not clear as to whether there is a law covering
annexation or not and the Supreme Court is being asked to clear
the matter.
Mayor Taylor stated that if there were no comments he would
direct the staff to proceed and authorize the $55 fee.
(Re Golf Course
Lease)
Mr. Parness reported that the papers are in from the Bond Counsel
which were used for the golf course and need numerous signatures
to amend the phrase in the contract which states that the City
is not legally allowed to own another competing golf facility..
The bond attorneys have prepared a resolution to execute the first
amendment to the facility lease, for the Council's adoption.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council sign this resolution, the
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and the Council voted
unanimously to approve the motion.
RESOLUTION 19-73
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FACILITY LEASE
CM-26-l46
January 22, 1973
(Re Water Quality
Management Plan)
The City Manager noted that the Regional Water Quality Control Board
intends to meet tomorrow to adopt a resolution accepting Brown
and Caldwell's Water Quality Management report. At this time the
Council has not determined which type of management plan they would
prefer. Pleasanton, VCSD and Zone 7 have stated their preference.
The Regional Board is requesting a decision with regard to who
will be the management agency, specific deadlines for implementation,
financing, and method of construction by the early part of next year.
He stated that this afternoon the Public Works Director received a
telephone call informing the City that the Regional Board staff
intends to recommend that there be an addition to the resolution
stating that federal and state grants be withheld from Livermore
until its preferences are stated and receive the approval of ABAG.
Mayor Taylor stated that we have probably done more than any other
similarly situated region in the entire state as far as planning
for the future, appropriating money for that planning, and taken
steps to upgrade plants in the valley. Most of the grants we are
asking for are to upgrade plants. If his understanding is correct,
the Board intends to delay the upgrading of the facilities in the
valley to force a management decision. He felt this to be unfor-
tunate and short-sighted on their part.
The Mayor added that the agency selected should have the powers
to plan and carry out the building of the facilities and the
management plan. However, under no circumstances would he want
the City to give up the authority to extend collection facilities,
in any way. If it is left up to Zone 7, or the agency chosen, to
determine extension of facilities to new subdivisions they are no
longer a water management body but a planning agency. He stated
that this has been his only concern; however, he would be willing,
should the Council be pressed for a decision immediately, to choose
Zone 7 as the agency to do the planning only, and no authority
over extension of collection.
Mr. Parness suggested that the Council allow a representative
to urge the Board not to impose any type of punitive measure
and give the City 6-8 months to formally work out the details
of a water management system.
The Council concluded that the matter would be scheduled on the
agenda for discussion next week.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Cedar Street
Intersections)
Councilman Beebe asked what the status is regarding the stop
signs to be used at intersections along Cedar Avenue.
Mr. Lee reported that there has been a traffic count but he is
not ready to report the findings at this time; he will do so as
soon as he completes the findings.
(Re Dog License System)
Councilman Pritchard stated that it has been brought to his attention
that if Livermore dog owners take advantage of the County rabies
clinic which gives rabies shots in June, then apply for a license
CM-26-l47
January 22, 1973
(Dog Licenses System)
in January, on the second year the rabies shot is due again in six
months, even though the person has paid for two years. It has
been suggested that the rabies clinic be held in January or move the
licensing to a fiscal year basis or require the shot to be good for
only a portion of the year.
The matter was referred to the staff for report.
(Re Historical
Photography)
Councilman Futch commented that Bill OWens, a local photographer has
expressed a desire to take photographs and document historical build-
ings along with various other aspects of Livermore at its present
time to be preserved in the library. Councilman Futch felt there
might be some merit in recording the present Livermore.
Councilman Pritchard asked if this would include awards given by the
Beautification Committee, to which Councilman Futch felt it would.
There were no other comments regarding the request.
(Re Bicycle
Licensing)
Councilman Miller mentioned the fact that the Council has spoken of
bicycle licensing for some time and that there had been talk of the
state pre-empting the matter. However, that point has been re-
solved and he wondered when the licensing is to begin.
Mr. Parness stated that licensing has begun; it was started on an
experimental basis at one school at which time it was recognized
that the forms for the licensing were improper along with a few
other problems. The City intends to proceed from school to school
and then open to the public.
(Pesticides in
Restaurants)
Councilman Miller stated that the article he read recently in a
newspaper regarding the use of pesticides in restaurants was very
alarming. There has been some talk of the City regulating the use
of pesticides for killing flies during the winter months in which
there should be no need for spraying pesticides. He urged that the
staff look into the matter and perhaps consult with the County
Health Department. He felt there should be some type of ordinance
to regulate this type of thing.
Councilman Pritchard thought the article had stated that the County
was opposed to regulating but Councilman Miller explained that they
were not opposed to regulations but could not do anything due to
the fact there is no ordinance of this nature.
The staff was asked to check into the matter and report back to the
Council.
(American Pub.
Works Article)
Councilman Miller mentioned that there was an article in the American
Public Works Association which he felt was very important and had
asked that it be circulated to all Councilmen. The article is en-
titled "Control of Urban Growth~ and he would hope that the Council
reads the article so that it can be discussed at a time the agenda
is not too full.
CM-26-l48
January 22, 1973
(National Day of
Mourning)
Councilman Pritchard stated that in anticipation of a National
Day of Mourning being declared for President Johnson, the Council
might decide at this time as to whether or not the City offices
should be closed or remain open.
Mayor Taylor stated that federal offices are responsive to the
direction of the President but City offices are separate and
do not need to respond to his direction.
Councilman Pritchard moved that City offices be closed in ob-
servance of a National Day of Mourning, on the day so declared
by the President. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller and Pritchard
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Mayor Taylor
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council,
Mayor Taylor adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
C~L )' ~:l
iv mo~~,C~:~~fornia
Regular Meeting of February 5, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 5, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None (Councilman Pritchard excused early)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
The minutes for the meeting of January 22, 1973, were approved
as submitted, on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe and by the unanimous vote of the Council.
CM-26-149
February 5, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Murrieta & portola
Intersections)
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, pointed out that the intersection
of portola Avenue and Murrieta Boulevard is hazardous and might
be worth checking into.
Mayor Taylor asked that the staff report on the matter at a later
time.
PUBLIC HEARING - JOHN WALKER
MURRIETA & HOLMES REZONING
John Walker has requested an application for rezoning of the south-
west corner of Murrieta Boulevard and Holmes Street from RG-16 to
CP District.
The public hearing was opened at this time to hear any public
testimony regarding the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Musso described the area and proposed plans involved.
Councilman Miller commented that it is his understanding that if
the area is used for CP it will require a variance, and Mr. Musso
explained that the plan submitted, for example, would have required
a variance. However, the area can be developed without the use
of variances.
Councilman Futch stated that it had been mentioned that the shape
of the lot was not suitable for apartment uses and asked that Mr.
Musso explain. Mr. Musso commented that this feeling was due to
the fact tat the lot is shallow and would result in the units being
very close to the street. He then explained setbacks of the pro-
posals and various exposure problems involved.
There was no public testimony regarding the proposed rezoning and
Councilman Pritchard moved that the public hearing be closed,
seconded by Councilman Futch and the Council voted unanimously
to approve the motion.
Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation to rezone the area to CP, which was based on their
findings as reported to the Council. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe and passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller
dissenting.
Councilman ~1iller had expressed concern for extending commercial
on down Holmes street.
Mayor Taylor felt that commercial offices would be much better
than residential building on a rather difficult corner and would
be a credit to the City.
REPORT RE EXTENSION
OF PUD NO. 14
Mayor Taylor stated that before discussing the Consent Calendar
he wanted to explain that, for the benefit of those interested
in the extension of PUD No. 14 (Reeder), it has been requested
that the matter be continued because the attorney representing
them cannot be present.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the Council has discussed
last minute requests for deferring agenda items when people
who are not aware of this come to the meeting to speak and that
the Council should proceed with the matter in cases like this.
CM-26-l50
February 5, 1973
(PUD No. l4 Continuance)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would move for the requested
continuance but felt some type of policy should be set regarding
future continuances at the last minute. Councilman Miller seconded
the motion, which included a continuance of Reeder's PUD No. 14
to the meeting of February 13th. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote of the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Re Traffic Count at
Intersection on Cedar St.
In response to a complaint regarding the hazardous condition at
the intersection of Cedar and Murrieta Boulevard, a traffic count
was taken. The study, as reported by the Public Works Department,
indicated that there are not sufficient warrants to justify a
signalized intersection.
Resolution re Relocation
of So. Pacific Tracks
The Council adopted a motion authorizing and directing the City
Manager to execute an application to the PUC for relocation of
the Southern Pacific tracks and construction of the P Street
and South Livermore Avenue underpasses.
RESOLUTION NO. 20-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION TO THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SEPARATED GRADE CROSSINGS AT NORTH P STREET AND
NORTH LIVERMORE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
Re Communication Sent
to Reg. Water Quality
Control Board
The Director of Public Works has notified the Council that they
have sent an informational communication to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board regarding compliance with requirements.
A copy of the communication was given to the Council.
Report re Airport
Hangar Bids
Bids were received for two l4-unit hangar buildings and site
work as listed below. It is recommended that the bid be awarded
the low bidder, Richard R. Yackley, Inc.
Richard R. Yackley, Inc.
Edward R. Griffin & Son, Inc.
Rugen Construction Co.
C.S.B. Construction, Inc.
Tullock Construction, Inc.
Athens Construction Co.
$177,440.41
183,248.50
185,256.27
187,452.51
188,428.82
189,543.14
Engineer's Estimate
184,000.00
Resolution re Airport
Hangar Const. Financing
RESOLUTION NO. 21-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREE-
MENT (Valley Bank)
CM-26-l5l
February 5, 1973
(Hangar Financing)
Prior to solicitation of bids for the hangar construction arrange-
ments had been completed for financing of the project by means of a
loan to be paid from revenues generated by hangar rentals.
Resolution re
Youth Services
The Council passed the following resolution which is a technical
requirement to comply with the provisions of the California Coun-
cil on Criminal Justice procedures.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-73
A RESOLUTION RE SECOND YEAR GRANT RE DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION YOUTH SERVICE CENTER
Resolution App.
Design Review Member
RESOLUTION NO. 23-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE (William Owen)
Minutes for Beauti-
fication Meeting
The minutes for the Beautification Committee meeting of December 6,
1972, were noted for filing.
Payroll and Claims
Dated February 2
There were l20 claims in the amount of $114,339.64 and 262 payroll
warrants dated February 2, 1973, in the amount of $64,9l5.82 for
a total of $179,255.46
Councilman Beebe abstained from warrants 5084 and 5085 for his
usual reasons.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and by the unanimous vote of approval by the Council, the Consent
Calendar was approved, noting Councilman Beebe's abstention.
Communication re
Trailer Regulation
A letter of protest was received from Carolyn R. Diehl, l188 Marigold
Road, in which she stated her position with regard to placing the
question of the trailer ordinance to a vote of the public. She fur-
ther stated that an ordinance regulating storage of trailers on
private property is unconstitutional and rebuked the Council for
being indifferent to their responsibilities.
communications re
Pesticides in Restaurants
Letters regarding the pesticide problem with regard to spraying of
pesticides in restaurants were received from Vivien Burnett, 2130 Buena
vista and Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Steinberg.
This matter has been referred to the Alameda County Health Department,
however a reply has not yet been received.
CM-26-l52
February 5, 1973
A letter was received from R. W. Taylor, 585 South L Street expres-
sing concern for traffic problems on that street. He indicated
that trees are being knocked down, and suggested that traffic
be slowed down along L Street and perhaps stop signs at the
intersections of College and Second Street.
Communication re
South L Street Traffic
Councilman Miller commented that there is a traffic problem
on South L Street and it is his understanding that after the letter
had been written to the Council by Mr. Taylor, his son was hit by
an automobile while riding his bicycle on South L Street. He felt
some action should be taken to make the street safer and make sure
the trees are preserved. He felt the staff should look into the
matter and perhaps place stop signs at the intersections mentioned,
or another alternate method for slowing traffic.
Gloria Taylor, 585 South L Street, felt that a stop sign at the
intersection of College and South L might encourage people to
use College Avenue, on out Murrieta Blvd. and Portola to get to
US 580 rather than by going north on L Street to~US 580.
A member of the audience asked if the Council has ever considered
using one way traffic in difficult areas rather than two way
traffic. He felt this might help the situation.
Mayor Taylor noted that in the long range planning there may be
one way streets, should the amount of traffic warrant this type
of change.
Communication from Ad Hoc
Comm. re Sidewalk Repair
A letter from the Ad Hoc Committee for Sidewalk Repair was given
to the Council informing them of a recent decision of the Los
Angeles City Council with regard to policy of fees for damaged
sidewalks due to tree roots.
Councilman Futch asked that the Public Works Director report to
the Council regarding the cost to the City, should they follow
the example set by the City of Los Angeles in picking up the tab
on sidewalk repairs.
REPORT RE YMCA APPEAL
FOR CUP PERMIT
An appeal has been submitted by the Twin Valley YMCA for a CUP to
allow use of an existing church located at 2346 Walnut Street
for quasi=-public recreational facilities.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Council can do one of three things:
1) support the action of the Planning Commission,
2) reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve appeal,
3) refer the matter for public hearing before the Council
He suggested if the Council is to consider doing anything other than
approving the action of the Planning Commission, it should be
scheduled for public hearing.
Councilman Pritchard felt that sufficient public testimony had
been given at the Planning Commission's public hearing and felt
another hearing would be unnecessary. He moved to uphold the
Planning Commission's recommendation which was seconded by Councilman
Miller. The motion failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Futch,
Beebe, and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
CM-26-l53
February 5, 1973
(Appeal re YMCA)
Councilman Beebe moved to hold a public hearing on February 20,
seconded by Councilman Miller and which passed 4-1 with Council-
man Pritchard dissenting.
REPORT RE WATER
SERVICE - TRACT 3333
The City Manager summarized the problem regarding Tract 3333 with
regard to their request for permits to build 105 homes. Cal Water
has estimated that only 46 homes can be provided with water from
the existing well, while the applicant has had calculations pre-
pared which indicates that the well capacity is in excess of the
needs for the 105 lots.
Mayor Taylor explained the history surrounding the drilling of the
well for these homes and indicated that he would like it to be made
clear that discussion regarding water is not related to water availa-
bility in the valley but pertains to this particular tract only.
Mr. Lee commented that the Cal Water calculations are determined
by the amount of water to be consumed during times of peak
demands. He felt their calculations are very legitimate. However,
the other estimate is accurate if the system takes advantage of
storage capacity.
Councilman Miller felt that if storage was provided for in the tract,
Cal Water would not have corne up with the calculations they listed.
Also, there are other demands on the system in other parts of the
City and he felt figures provided by Cal Water were rather straight
forward. He moved that the Council accept the recommendation for
46 lots until other provisions are made; seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Beebe felt this could not be considered without thinking
of the total water supply. He stated that Zone 7 has indicated there
will be no water shortage during 1973, 1974 and 1975 by which time
there should be provisions for new plants.
Councilman Futch commented that there has been testimony indicating
that there will be a water shortage and to his knowledge there have
been no addition of facilities to change this evaluation.
Councilman Miller stated that he would have to agree with the comment
made by Councilman Futch in that there has not been any change in the
facilities since discussions were held a year ago; therefore, the
picture with regard to water shortage has not changed.
Mr. Earl Mason of Associated Professions, stated that Mr. Elliott
has worked very hard to provide the facilities required by the City
to build Tract 3333. He referred to the ordinance regarding the is-
suance of 1500 building permits, stating it indicates that if a supple-
mentary water supply is provided for the peak period, additional hous-
ing would be considered. He referred to a report from Mr. Thad Binkley
in which consideration was given to demands during peak days and
stated that Cal Water's calculations are based on the possibility of
no backup system.
The City Attorney explained the ordinance regarding peak day
demands. with regard to water storage, he stated that originally
it was intended to apply to one or more houses that provided their
own water storage and not dependant upon the public water supply.
At the time the tract was approved, Mr. Elliott developed a well
which he turned over to Cal Water to operate; this was interpreted
to be in compliance with this section of the ordinance. However,
the ordinance speaks in terms of providing "adequate" water, which
is estimated to be between ll50 to 1200 gallons per day per house
to take care of peak period demands.
CM-26-l54
February 5, 1973
(Water Service-Tract 3333)
Councilman Miller pointed out that the ordinance requires a well
plus storage, which this tract does not have.
Mayor Taylor stated that he is not prepared to come to a decision
without first having heard from Mr. Wade of California Water explain-
ing how he arrived at his figures. He felt that with the testimony
just received the Council couldn't approve more than 46 units.
Mr. Elliott felt that in view of the work and effort put into
producing a good well which is operating full time, it would
be morally wrong to deny the permits they request. He felt
Cal Water took a figure which would be in excess of actual
demands required during peak days. He stated that he would
like Mr. Wade to speak to the Council, if necessary, and ask
that he provide figures to show that two gallons a minute are
needed rather than one gallon a minute. He asked that the
matter be continued until Mr. Wade can be present.
Councilman Pritchard moved to table the matter until February 13,
seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed with a unanimous
vote by the Council.
Councilman Miller felt that it is a matter of importance
that the President has taken away all the open space grants
which means that there will be no federal support for the
Woeffel property and there is a necessity for reserving land
in this area for a school site. This comment was made because
of the fact that the school site which had been reserved was not
needed by the school district at this time and was to be sub-
divided and the permits requested were for this parcel.
The staff was asked to check the possible changes in federal
open space funding with regard to school site property, and
report to the Council at a later date.
REPORT RE SO. COUNTY
JR. COLLEGE UTILITIES
Mayor Taylor explained that the matter concerning the South County
Junior College campus utility services had been postponed from an
earlier meeting to allow the District Staff and the City Engineer
~o meet and discuss details of costs for a utility line to
the campus.
Dr. Buffington stated that he could summarize the analysis of
the assessment district as compared with the analysis presented
to the Council, in a few words. The size of the utilities is
the same, the distance has been reduced several thousand feet and
the area to be served by the line has been increased by 443 acres.
The total initial cost has been reduced from $152,000 to $95,000.
There will be less service because the assessment district would
have serviced an additional 2,000 feet. The size of the sewer
line and the distance has been reduced, the area serviced has been
increased and the total initial cost has been decreased; the cost to
the Jr. College District remains the same, except additional costs
incurred because it will not run along the northwestern boundary.
Under the assessment district the Jr. College would pay 26.6% of
the total initial costs but under the Public Works proposal the
Jr. College District would pay approximately 47.5% of the total
initial costs with reduced length of lines increasing the on-site
costs to the Jr. College. In sum, the service is less and the
cost to the Jr. College District is more.
CM-26-l55
February 5, 1973
(Jr. College utilities)
Councilman Miller stated that the service to the Jr. College is es-
sentially the same - only difference in the assessment district is
that it would provide more service to other properties.
Dr. Buffington stated their service would be less because they would
have to put lines in on their property, which would be very long lines,
rather than the short lines.
Mayor Taylor asked if the reason for the changes was not the fact that
there had been changes in density since the district was first pro-
posed.
Mr. Lee explained that the changes Dr. Buffington referred to were in
the Jr. College's percent of participation and the reason is that the
Council had requested a different method of calculation of the cost.
The Council had asked that an assessment district not be formed and
that the cost estimate be made on the basis of the City and college
bearing the cost, and the district's share being the same as though
an assessment district had been formed.
Councilman Futch asked if the size of the line was being questioned,
and Dr. Buffington stated that it was not as they did accept the City
Engineer's figures, however, the size of the line was the same as
proposed for the assessment district.
Mr. Lee stated that the reason for this is fire protection as it
would be the same for the college as for the entire area.
Mayor Taylor asked Dr. Buffington if he was making a plea to have the
Jr. College's share reduced. He stated that the Council majority
did not favor an assessment district and had asked for alternate
methods of financing as they do want to provide utilities to the
Jr. College site, and want to be sure that the calculations are
fair between the Jr. College District and the surrounding properties
which, under the terms of a benefit district, would be divided and
the City would recover the money at some later date.
Dr. Buffington stated his understanding, but he was compelled to
press for an assessment district as instructed by the Board of
Trustees. He pointed out that the area to be served eventually
could accommodate 1103 acres; the college has 147 acres and yet
they are being asked to pay 47.5% of the cost without any hope of
recovery.
Councilman Miller remarked that it is clear that the development
is so far in the future that the formation of an assessment dis-
trict is an unlikely process, and to provide services to a leap-
frog development such as the Jr. College is something that cannot
be tolerated.
Mayor Taylor asked what additional area the utilities would serve,
and Mr. Lee replied it would serve all the area that would nor-
mally be served and would serve the densities as provided for in
the general plan.
Mr. Parness further explained that the map that incorporates this
report indicates there are about 1100 acres tributary to these lines
which are serviceable acreage to the sewer and water line, and on
the composition of an assessment district it is possible to extend
the prospective boundaries almost to infinite. As a matter of
practicality there is an arbitrary decision made as to a reasonable
demarkation of an assessment district boundary which was done ini-
tially and it was concluded that a little over 600 acres was a rea-
sonable amount of acres to be composed within an assessment district.
However in this report something over 1100 acres will be tributary
in the drainage area and that is the difference.
CM-26-l56
February 5, 1973
(Jr. College Utilities)
Mayor Taylor commented that the cost was at no time proposed to
be spread over llOO acres and is reasonably not done. The assess-
ment district is smaller than the total area, and for that reason
the Jr. College District could not expect to have their share
of the total district calculated on the basis of the total area.
Councilman Beebe stated that a decision has been delayed so long
that people are wondering if the Council wants the college or not.
He felt they should come to a decision and made a motion that the
City finance the whole project in the amount of $290,000 which
money can be borrowed from the water and sewer connection funds,
and that the College District pay back their share over a IS-year
period, which amount would be $137,720, plus interest; motion was
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mayor Taylor questioned if it was feasible to borrow from the
reserve funds in this amount, and Mr. Parness replied that if it
was felt there was the possibility, that would have been the initial
recommendation as he, too, was anxious to have the college go for-
ward, however the possibility of financing the entire amount at
this time would be very difficult.
Councilman Miller stated that there is a wider perspective than
just the present discussion of the Collier Canyon site. One of the
first things is that whatever people are saying about the Council,
it is obvious that all want the Jr. College; the argument is only
where, how and where money is coming from. Second, it is clear
that the majority will not have an assessment district and as
soon as there is an appropriate time, there should be a motion to
clarify that point. Third, there is a motion on the floor that
refers to the Collier Canyon site, and he went on to say that is
not the only option. There have been two other sites investigated,
and from an economic and timing standpoint one of these sites would
be very good to get the college started on a temporary basis
until a bond issue is passed or the money comes from the state.
Councilman ~1iller went on to give the reasons for his thinking.
He felt the use of the Collier Canyon site was an implication of
future growth, and an assessment district would encourage this
development.
Councilman Pritchard felt that there would necessarily be some
development regardless of where the college is ultimately located.
Councilman Beebe spoke with regard to alternate sites, stating
that if the college does not locate on the Collier Canyon site, it
may decide to locate in San Leandro.
At this time Councilman Futch stated he would offer a substitute
motion that they consider forming a benefit district which would
still give the City some control over the growth, instead of an
assessment district; that the benefit district be limited to serve
625 acres and that utility sizes be limited to that amount;
that it be formed at such time as the Jr. College assures the
City they will begin construction, at least of portables. The
benefit district would then, based on the calculations furnished
by the City Engineer, reduce the figures by whatever amount the
service would be to the 625 acres rather than the 1100. This
motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor.
Councilman Beebe stated that this plan would be of no benefit to
the Jr. College District as there are only two alternatives - either
drop the matter or finance the whole amount at this time and form
an assessment district.
Mayor Taylor stated at this point in time they are not sure if the
Jr. College District will walk away from the Valley because they
CM-26-157
February 5, 1973
(Jr. College utilities)
they do not want to finance their share at this time, but he did
not feel they would do this. They have said that there is no
time schedule for providing classrooms and, in fact, they have not
guaranteed that they would build a college out here. If utilities
are extended to the site and no bond issue passed, they may even
sell the property.
Councilman Beebe stated that if we form an assessment district, our
growth will be controlled by water and school limitations. We
could make an agreement with the property owners that they cannot
expect permits of any kind and after that time perhaps the City
could limit construction to light industrial.
Mr. Lee commented that the assessment district would reduce the
college district contribution as well as the City's, but the
matter of reducing the capacity of the sanitary sewer line to
accommodate only the 625 acres would be a drastic action as the
savings would be only a minimal amount. Calculations are based on
a very low density now and much of the area is shown as not having
any density in the hilly areas, and he would be very much opposed
to reducing the size of the lines.
Councilman Miller reiterated his fears that an assessment district
would encourage a leapfrog development. Speaking to the motion,
Councilman Miller stated that what is being asked of the City is to
put up varying amounts of money for which there is no replacement
except by a tax increase. The burden should not fall only on the
City as the provision of the college is not only for the students
of Livermore, but is to relieve the crowding at Chabot in Hayward,
and every area in the district benefits. He felt that since every
area benefits, they should also help to provide the cost for the
utilities, particularly from Pleasanton and Dublin, and possibly
even from Hayward and San Leandro. Councilman Miller asked the
City Attorney if taking of money from sewer and water funds was
a gift of public money, and if not, what the difference was between
raising money for the Livermore School District.
Mr. Lewis replied that he did not think it was because it was a
public utility; we own the facility, it goes to the property and
does not go into the property. They have the obligation of connect-
ing at the property line. The City puts in mains and adjuncts to
that in the streets. We are a quasi-public utility as far as water
is concerned as we run a water company not regulated by the PUC.
We have a service area and within that service area we extend lines,
depending on the policy and dictate of the City Council and the need.
We extend a line which is then available for property owners ad-
jacent to it on such terms as may be pertinent to the extension
of that line.
Councilman Beebe proposed an amendment to the amendment that the
City obligate themselves only to the sanitary sewer line and the
college district be allowed to put in their own waterline; this
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mayor Taylor commented that he did not feel it made sense to put in
a smaller line for only a small savings, but he felt the main issue
was for the City to control development. He also stated it was not
true that we are making a leapfrog development on the other side of
the highway. We want to control when development there will occur.
He stated that development may not occur for 20 years and that when
it does, money can be collected from the surrounding property owners
to recover a portion of the cost of the lines put in there. An
assessment district just would not cause any type of leapfrog develop-
ment.
CM-26-l58
February 5, 1973
(Jr. College Utilities)
Councilman Miller stated that he is not concerned with the present
Council allowing leapfrog development; however, massive public
works improvements may be an inducement in future years for develop-
ment. He felt there would be a pressure to use the public works
after they have been installed and if money is spent in this way
there is a certain obligation to use them.
At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the amendment to the
amendment which was for the Council to agree to put up $190,000
of the total. The motion failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen
Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Mr. Lee explained that the suggestion made by Councilman Futch
would be a savings at this time but would be paid for dearly
in the future.
Councilman Miller pointed out that capital costs may be taken
care of but the problem of operating costs would still exist.
Mayor Taylor stated that if smaller lines are used, the remaining
area to be developed will cost approximately $500 per acre to the
owner for utilities extended to service the area. He felt this
was not a very good way to insure that development which is un-
wanted does not occur.
Councilman Futch moved to question, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Before taking a vote, Councilman Miller concluded by suggesting
that costs be shared with all the other jurisdictions which would
make the junior college people much happier. This would leave
them more money for classrooms.
The Council voted on the motion to accept the Public Works Direc-
tor's proposal with the amendment to reduce the size of the utility
lines to service half the area, which failed by the following roll
called vote:
AYES: Councilman Futch
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller moved to table the main motion until there can
be an inquiry of the other jurisdictions. However, the motion
died for lack of a second.
Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the main motion to have the City
finance the $290,000 project as proposed which failed by a 2-3
vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Futch moved that a benefit district be formed with
the City paying $152,000 for the project and that full size
lines be used. The motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor.
Councilman Miller asked the City Manager where the funds would
come from. The City Manager explained that the sewer line
would come from the sewer connection fee and the water line would
come from the water fund.
Next, Councilman Miller asked what project will be forfeited in
the capital improvements schedule as a result of not having enough
money and the City Manager stated that we will probably not be able
to build the reservoir at this time.
CM-26-159
February 5, 1973
(Jr. College utilities)
A vote was taken on the motion which failed 3-2 with Councilmen
Miller, Pritchard and Beebe dissenting.
Councilman Miller again suggested that they approach the other
jurisdictions for financial help, however it was concluded that
this was not possible.
Mayor Taylor felt that they should first get a response from the
college district as to whether or not they intend to go ahead with
the college.
Councilman Beebe posed the question directly to a Board member
as follows: "Do you have $147,550 for your share of the benefit
district and would you go ahead with the college?"
Jim Martin, who resides in Castro Valley and practices law in San
Leandro, and is this year's chairman of the Board of Trustees, re-
plied that he would like to defer the answer to this question by a
few comments. He stated that the problem as members of the Board
is that they deal with all segments of the district, and as the
Council was aware, the last two efforts to get the money to build
the campus were defeated by the "other side of the hill". His
constituents in the other areas will not analyze the problem to the
Council's liking, their reaction would be that they do not want the
campus out here. The City of Livermore is a part of the District
but in order for the District to raise the money to place something
out here, unless they get a bonanza from the state, they will have
to get funds from the "other side of the hill" and since they do not have
the Council's interest in line sizes, etc., they may deeide that
the site in Castro Valley would be a better site choice.Another
consideration the Board has is relieving the congestion at the
campus in Hayward, in addition to their concern about the youngsters
getting on the highway to commute to Hayward. He can only suggest
that what the Council is doing may have a bad public relations
effect. In answer to the question posed by Councilman Beebe,
he felt the answer was yes, they have the funds. As far as
going ahead with the college, this would depend upon the funds
they are able to raise as they need to raise funds throughout
the district, but they would hope to be able to go ahead. He
emphasized that the people in the other parts of the district are
concerned only about their own pocketbooks, and the effect on these
people is going to be harmful 1 unless the Council takes some forcefull
action to demonstrate that as representatives of Livermore they
will do all they can.
Councilman Futch stated that he realized the District's problems
and he hoped they would realize those of the City, and that the
money the City would be putting up would be looked at as a positive
step, as that was the greater share of the cost.
Mr. Martin stated he did not feel the rest of the district would be
that finite in their consideration with regard to percentages.
Councilman Futch restated his motion that they form a benefit dis-
trict with the City's share $152,280, and the Jr. College share
$l37,720 and that the district be formed at the time the college
is ready to put at least portables up. Councilman Miller seconded
the motion with some reluctance, because he felt that the district
should consider other alternatives which he had presented.
The motion was clarified to mean that this would provide adequately
sized lines to service the 1100 acres included in the drainage area.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated there is another possibility
that exists that could be investigated, and that is use of the Del
Valle Sanitarium inasmuch as the proposed Isabel Freeway would allow
CM-26-l60
February 5, 1973
(Jr. College Utilities)
access from all parts of the County. He felt that Mr. Martin was
concerned with poor public relations which were unfounded.
Mayor Taylor did not feel that Mr. ~1artin was expressing his per-
sonal opinion, but his opinion of how the people might react. As
far as the sanitarium is concerned, they are not connected to an
adequate sewer facility as this property has been looked into many
times for this use and other uses, however that alternative is not
before the Council at this time.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and passed 4-1 with
Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Dr. Buffington thanked the Council for their time and effort spent
on this matter and stated he would transmit the Council's proposal
to the Board of Trustees.
Letters were received from the Chamber of Commerce urging assistance
to the District in bringing the project to reality; from a student,
Michelle Pendley and a citizen, Mrs. Albert Pane, both urging
favorable action on the college location.
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE r{EETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN
PRESENT.
PROPOSED SCULPTURE
STRUCTURE-US 580 SITE
Mayor Taylor stated that the staff had been asked to report to
the Council on the estimated cost for a sculpture to be located
adjacent to US 580. An estimate had been given previously but
the Council felt it was a very rough estimate and wanted a more
precise estimate.
The staff reported that the total cost would be approximately
$11,900, covering artist's fees, materials, mounding, foundation,
illumination and a sign stating "City of Livermore".
Councilman Miller remarked that the sign with the City's name on
it estimated to cost $1,000 was a little too high.
Mr. Parry, the sculptor, indicated that his cost estimates and
those made by the Public Works Director were quite different, for
example, his cost estimate of the Livermore sign was $175. He
stated that he would like to submit his estimates to the Council
as well.
Councilman Miller commented that it was his understanding that
the Council intended to spend the amount required for replacing
the Livermore sign and the rest would have to be made up by other
means.
Councilman Futch stated that he would be reluctant to spend
$11,900 of the City's money.
Councilman Beebe indicated that he was in favor of the concept
of replacing the current sign with something unique, which was
followed by a discussion of where the mound would be placed.
Mayor Taylor felt alternate designs should be reviewed and
for this reason would object to going ahead with this particular
design.
Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be pursued one step further
to determine as to whether or not the sculpture would be visible
from the freeway; seconded by Councilman Miller.
CM-26-l6l
-_...,-.._.,."'..._--"-~-."'~--_.._----~---_.^._"'-,--"'-'~'.-"'--"--'''''''''--'-''''--''-'''''-'~'-------,--"---~_...,---,~._~<,.'".~-,-~._-_._---"._.~,-_._..-~~.."""""-~'-^"--- --~_._---_..". ".'" -_..-.'---"----_.~-~~--~
February 5, 1973
(Sculpture Structure)
Mr. Parry stated that the sculpture was so designed as to allow
passing motorists to see it, adding that he would urge the Council
to make a decision at this time as he cannot afford to keep coming
to Council meetings awaiting a decision.
In light of the comment made by Mr. Parry, Councilman Beebe stated
that he would like to withdraw his motion.
Councilman Pritchard moved to proceed with the sculpture with the
City financing the cost, seconded by Councilman Futch for dis-
cussion purposes.
Councilman Miller made an amendment to the motion for the City
to contribute $4,000 towards the total cost, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, which passed by a 3-2 vote with Mayor Taylor and
Councilman Futch dissenting.
Councilman Miller stated that he would add to his motion that
the City proceed with the sculpture after which time the re~
mainder of the funds have been raised for the sculpture and sign.
Mayor Taylor again expressed his desire for a competition indicat-
ing that he would not be in favor of a motion to proceed, regard-
less of the cost involved.
Ed English, 1421 Arlington Drive, Pleasanton, President of the
Livermore Jaycees, reiterated what was written to the Council
on the matter. They feel there are enough signs telling where
Livermore is, and with regard to an artistic atmosphere, the
golf course, club house and restaurant fulfill the intent.
Robert Freis, 1322 Balboa, indicated that he has no objection to
the artistic merit of the sculpture and that in his opinion it
is not necessary to consider alternate designs. He felt if there
were objections to the design they should be openly stated, but
he would have to say that he likes it.
Mayor Taylor stated that there has been no input from the public
with regard to the artistic merits but he has received feedback
personally.
Councilman Futch commented that he has received objections from
people from an economical standpoint as well as toward the
artistic merits.
Ron Gillette, 844 Cherokee Drive, asked where the initial $4,000
is to come from and Councilman Miller explained that this amount
has been set aside in the budget due to the fact that the present
sign is not in conformance with the sign ordinance and it is felt
that if all the businessmen have had to conform at their expense,
the City should also remove their sign.
Mayor Taylor asked for a roll called vote to the motion which
passed 3-2 as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: Councilmen Futch and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor explained that this means that the City will contri-
bute $4,000 towards the sculpture and when the rest of the money
has been raised erection will commence.
Mr. Parry stated that he cannot wait another two years or whatever
length of time it may take to raise the remainder of the funds. He
stated that he cannot proceed until he receives financing; he cannot
start or finish. He cannot accept this type of proposal and felt that
he would have to withdraw his offer.
CM-26-162
February 5, 1973
REPORT RE CROSSWINDS
RESTAURANT SIGN STRUCTURE
Councilman Miller commented that a redesign of the proposed Cross-
winds Restaurant to be located adjacent to US 580 was to have been
presented to the Beautification Committee, the Design Review
Committee and presented to the Council in their agenda packets prior
to the meeting. He moved that the matter be put over until these
conditions have been satisfied, which was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to hear what the staff
has to say before tabling the matter.
Councilman Miller moved to question, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The motion to table the matter was passed by a 3-2 vote with
Councilman Beebe and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
REPORT RE VALLEY WATER
MANAGEMENT STUDY PROPOSAL
The City Manager reported that the consultant study which has been
in the hands of the City for many months is an extremely compre-
hensive document, the contents of which could not be discussed at
a meeting such as this; referring to the Brown and Caldwell
Water Management Study. However, there is one part of it which
requires the Council's attention and decision and it is anticipated
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that a decision will
be made tonight or as soon as possible. This has to do with the
management plan alternatives outlined in the report. These were
listed and explained in detail and has nothing to do with the
agency which will be responsible for the system. Three of the
four agencies involved have stated their preference and this City
must make a choice. He mentioned that representatives from Brown
and Caldwell are present to answer any questions the Council may
have.
Councilman Futch stated that he would like to see a graph which
will indicate when the costs involved will be necessary, as well
as to ask what the plan states with regard to protection of the
ground water. The water mentioned seems to be the Niles Cone,
and the water shed above Niles. He felt we should be very con-
cerned about the water in the Valley, as well, which should be
included in their report.
Councilman Miller felt the matter should be discussed one more
time before making a decision and Mayor Taylor suggested that
they hold a study session rather than placing the item on the
agenda.
A representative from Brown and Caldwell assured the Council
that there will be no degradation of ground water quality in
using any of the alternate proposals.
Councilman Miller felt there should be some type of regulation
with regard to the proposed Kaiser fill project included in
the plan.
The Council agreed to meet at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 6,
to discuss the matter and reach a decision as to which plan
to endorse. and the matter was continued to that time.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE MEETING AT
THIS TIME.
CM-26-l63
February 5, 1973
REPORT RE FIRST ST.-
so. LIVERMORE RECONST.
Mr. Parness reported that with regard to the reconstruction to
be done at the intersection of First Street and South Livermore
Avenue it has been suggested that the City acquire the north-
west corner and develop the surplus property as a small beautifi-
cation area. An appraisal has been given with regard to
this property and it is estimated that the purchase price
will amount to $46,500, or $5.60 a square foot. This price is
high and the City Manager would therefore recommend that the propos-
al be denied.
Councilman Miller stated that the $5.60 a sq. foot is not in
line with what has been heard with regard to the cost of down-
town property value. He felt it would be of value to have the
property reappraised.
The Council discussed the pros and cons of trying to purchase
that particular piece of land for beautification purposes.
Councilman Miller moved that the staff be directed to obtain an
appraisal of the properties not being taken by the state, which
was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mr. Hibbitts, a Real Estate Appraiser, from the audience addressed
the Council to give his personal opinion on the matter. He stated
that on the land value alone the $5.60 sounds like a very high
appraisal and he would assume that the $5.60 is to include leveling
of the building on the site, severance costs, plus their total
acquisition package. He commented that the appraisal for corner
property located at Fourth and L Streets and which is also zoned
commercial is roughly $4.30 per square foot.
Rick Irby, 741 Avalon, Chairman of the Beautification Committee
asked if Mr. Lee if he has a copy of the plans for the proposed
park and if so, would he put them on the bulletin board. He
stated that the Beautification Committee feels the area would be
a very good spot to beautify and would be an enhancement to the
City.
Mr. Lee then explained the proposed plans for beautifying the
area of discussion.
Roberta Hadley, 4355 Emory Way, read comments written by Ribera
and Sue with regard to downtown Livermore needs, indicating that
there is no place for the shopper to sit and rest, there are no
shade trees which encourage the shopper to hurry with his shop-
ping rather than strolling along window shopping and spending
money in the local commercial business places. She urged that
the Council consider the acquisition and beautification of the
property.
The matter was put over until such time as another appraisal can
be obtained.
COUNTY REFERRAL RE
REZONING FROM A to M-l
SO. OF 580 E. OF EL CHARRO RD
The County has referred an application of R. M. Post for rezoning
of property located south of US 580, six miles east of El Charro
Road, from A District to M-l District. It has been recommended
by the Planning Commission that the Council deny the application.
Mayor Taylor commented that the intended use is for a drive-in
theater.
CM-26-l64
February 5, 1973
(County Referral-Rezoning
So. of 580, East of El
Charro Road)
Councilman Miller moved that the Council accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation for denial of the application,
seconded ,by Councilman Beebe and which passed by the unanimous
vote of the Council, and is to be forwarded to the County Planning
Commission.
REPORT RE UTILITY FEE
AND ADJUSTHENTS
Councilman Miller asked if an urgency ordinance could be adopted
and be effective immediately, with regard to sewer connection
fees, and it was explained by the City Manager that as determined
by the City Attorney, there is not a need for an urgency ordinance.
Councilman Beebe questioned the necessity for doubling the
connection fee to which Mr. Lee remarked that the fee formula
was revised and is a prerequisite to obtaining federal and state
grants for our treatment plant expansion.
Mr. Lee commented that if we do not receive a federal grant we
will have an emergency and would be justification for adopting
an urgency ordinance.
The City Attorney felt there was no need for adopting an urgency
ordinance reminding the Council that an ordinance becomes effective
45 days after its introduction if done in the ordinary manner. On
the face of it, he could see no real reason to adopt an urgency
ordinance and stated that it would require a 4/5 vote of the Council.
Mr. Lee stated that the fees have been increased over the last
6-7 years, in accordance with the cost construction index and
without the federal grants, the last two expansions would have
been impossible.
Councilman Miller indicated that there would be approximately
$20,000 - $25,000 revenue to the City which would be lost, should
an urgency ordinance not be adopted.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council introduce the ordinance
at this time, to be adopted in the usual manner, seconded by
Councilman Miller and which passed with a 3-1 vote of the Council
with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by unanimous approval, the following resolutions were adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 24-73
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF
STORM DRAINAGE FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
RESOLUTION NO. 25-73
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF
PARK FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
REPORT RE GENERAL PLAN
STUDY COMMITTEE
Mayor Taylor gave a report on the proposed time scale for commis-
sioning our Citizens Committee for the study of Livermore prior to
a formal General Plan review, proposed that the Council adopt the
proposed charter by February 13th.
CM-26-l65
February 5, 1973
(General Plan Study Committee)
Mayor Taylor then moved to hold a special meeting to charter
the committee and let them start their work, organizing into
subcommittees, seconded by Councilman Miller. The motion
passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE GROWTH
RATE CONTROL
Mayor Taylor explained that the matter concerning growth rate
control had been removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion but he would suggest that the report be discussed in
three weeks when the staff gives its comments.
Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be discussed on March 5,
seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Council hear from the
group who would like to speak on the subject prior to the vote.
Tony Thompson commented on the report made by his group and stat-
ed they were mainly interested in getting the report to the
Counci~ for ~heir review.
Michael Schrader asked if the problem of permits for tentative
and final maps will be resolved prior to implementation of the
General Plan review, to which it was explained that, hopefully,
it will.
MUNI CODE AMENDMENT RE
ANIMAL IMPOUND, ETC.
On motion of Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
the unanimous vote of the Council, the municipal code amendment
to reflect changes in impounding of animals, their disposition
if unredeemed, fines, etc., was introduced, and the title was
read by the City Attorney.
ORD. RE FEES
FOR CUP
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance regarding
fees for Conditional Use Permits was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 807
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442 OF THE CITY
OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY THE
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 22.76, RELATING TO FILING FEES
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, OF SECTION 22.00, RELAT-
ING TO RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCEDURE.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(SAVE Suit)
The City Attorney reported that the City has received a requested
stipulation in the SAVE suit to the effect - does the Council wish
to be served with a restraining order so in the event it is breached,
contempt procedings can be commenced, or would the Council stipulate
that service on the City Attorney of the restraining order is
effective to bind the City, and such was agreed upon.
CM-26-l66
February 5, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Resolution Commending
Judge Joseph Schenone)
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council adopt a resolution commend-
ing the 20 years of faithful service Judge Joseph Schenone has
performed for the City, seconded by Councilman Miller and which
passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 26-73
A RESOLUTION CO~~ENDING THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSEPH A. SCHENONE,
AN OUTSTANDING CITIZEN OF OUR COMMUNITY, UPON HIS RETIREMENT.
(Re. Phase-Out of
SACEOA)
Councilman Futch stated that in view of the fact the President
intends to phase out the Office of Economic Opportunity, any
attempt to provide a joint powers agreement among the
cities to take over their function will be useless. He would
move that the Council adopt a resolution sending a request
to the Governor that SACEOA recieve funds until such time as
OEO is phased out. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller
and passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 27-73
RESOLUTION REGARDING PHASE-OUT OF SACEOA
(Re Change of Wording
on Trlr. Storage Ballot)
Councilman Miller asked the City Attorney to find out when the
last date will be for making any change to the wording of the
ballot regarding trailer storage.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before
::::::Eadjou::~~ee~~~m.
Mayor
j". /j ~/
/' N /-)
/' ~-
the Council, Mayor
ATTEST
Clerk
ore, California
CM-26-l67
February 13, 1973
A Regular Meeting of February 13, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 13,
1973, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
Councilman Pritchard (seated later)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
(Thanks from Judge Schenone)
Judge Joseph Schenone stated that he is soon to retire and would
like to thank those who attended his retirement celebration last
Friday. He stated that he will continue to be a resident of Liver-
more and would be happy to help the community when called upon.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re
Historical Monument
The Beautification Committee has written to the Council with regard
to relocation of an historical monument on portola Avenue. They
have asked that it be relocated to the portola Park site.
It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing the
staff to proceed with the transfer.
Report re State Joint Use Agreement
re Sanitary Sewer Line
The Director of Public Works reported that with regard to relocation
of a City sanitary sewer line in conjunction with construction of
U.S. 580 at portola Avenue, the staff recommends that the Council
adopt a resolution approving a Joint Use Agreement quitclaiming the
unused portion of the sewer easement within state right-of-way and
accepting the new sewer easement.
RESOLUTION NO. 28-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT WITH STATE
Report re
Budget Transfer
The City Manager reported that a budget transfer of $5,000 from the
Airport Operations Fund to the Special Aviation Fund, as specified
in our current budget, is necessary to satisfy the requirements for
receiving monies matched by the state for our airport. It is re-
quested that the Council adopt a motion authorizing this inter fund
transfer.
CM-26-l68
February 13, 1973
Report re Dog
Licensing Procedure
In response to Council concern over the City issuing dog licenses
on a calendar year basis while Alameda County's rabies clinics
are held each June, the Director of Finance has recommended that
licenses be issued annually both in July and in January, effective
July 1, 1973. An ordinance will be introduced later.
Report re Assessed
Valuation Reductions
The City Manager reported that a report has been transmitted to the
Council concerning recent assessed valuation reductions granted
by Alameda County to certain local undeveloped properties. Appar-
ently these properties are not within our bounds and the City
Manager has prepared a full report on the matter which has been
submitted to the Council.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved.
Communication re Monument
in Carnegie Park
A letter has been received from the Valley Times noting that the
monument in Carnegie Park honoring our war dead since 1900 needs
to be updated. It has been suggested that some group such as the
National Guard conduct the ceremony in connection with the dedica-
tion of a plaque which may be located on the monument, and that the
Council appropriate the funds for the plaque.
Mayor Taylor explained that before taking action on this matter
he had been contacted today by the Veterans of Foreign Wars group
who have indicated that they can probably take care of the matter.
They have requested that the Council take no action until they
can submit a report.
The matter was postponed pending a report from this group.
Communication from W. A.
Jenkins re Reappointme~t
A letter expressing appreciation for reappointment to the Alameda
County Mosquito Abatement District, as the City's representative,
was received from W. A. Jenkins.
Communication re Preser-
vation of the Arroyo Mocho
The League of Women Voters has written to the Council expressing
commendation of the Council for preserving the Arroyo Mocho west
of Murrieta Boulevard.
Communication re
Education in Livermore
Lloyd Teel sent a letter to the Council urging that they take
positive steps and action to pave the way for a community college
campus in our area.
CM-26-169
February 13, 1973
(Education in Livermore)
Mayor Taylor asked that the staff notify Mr. Teel of the action
taken by the Council with regard to the Junior College area.
REPORT RE USE
OF PESTICIDES
Mrs. Francis Wiesner, 883 Adams Avenue, has presented a summary of a
report regarding home pesticide use of chemicals. She spoke to
the Council on the matter and gave some background as to how the
report originated, stating that the matter was brought up at the
board meeting of the Valley Ecology Center, also noting that the
Council has received a condensed version of the report and that the
full report is on file in the City Clerk's office. Mrs. Wiesner
commended the Council on their action with regard to devices with
continuous emissions used in restaurants, and urged the Council to
pass an ordinance prohibiting such devices in Livermore.
The City Manager remarked that he received a call from Mrs. Bowers,
restaurant owner, who wished to speak to the Council but was not
present at this time. She has done a great deal of research on the
subject and would like to present this evidence to the Council.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the matter be discussed again at a later
time and that the report be given to the County Health Department.
Councilman Miller indicated that it appears the Council is being
asked to consider two things: 1) an ordinance providing for inspec-
tion and banning of the emission devices, and 2) formation of a
Pest Control Committee.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the City Attorney report back to the
Council regarding legal enforcement in banning the devices; possibly
there is no need for an ordinance covering the matter.
APPEAL RE PUD NO. 14
REEDER DEVELOPMENT
The appeal regarding the extension of PUD No. l4 (Reeder Development)
was postponed from the meeting of February 5 because an interested
attorney could not be present.
David Madis, 999 Stanley Blvd., attorney representing Reeder Develop-
ment Company stated that he cannot understand how the Council can
legally appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission without
giving any notice to anyone.
The City Clerk explained that notice of the hearing had been given
to those felt to be involved, and it was assumed that Reeder Develop-
would contact their attorney.
Mr. Musso explained the action taken by the Planning Commission and
attachments supporting their action, which had been appealed by the
Council.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.
The Council and Mr. Madis engaged in discussion regarding the length
of time which has been involved as well as extension of Springtown
Boulevard.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the application was for a three year
period.
CM-26-l70
February 13, 1973
(Re PUD #14 - Reeder)
Councilman Miller stated that it is his understanding that the
underlying zoning for the area is PD and when the PUD permit expires
none of the tentative tract maps are valid because they no longer
satisfy the zoning requirements and they revert back to the original
zoning of agricultural.
The City Attorney commented that there has not been a decision made
and it would be a guess as to what the courts would uphold in this
matter. The closest case was in Scranton where zoning conditions
were not met and the court said it could revert but would have to
be rezoned - it did not affect the tentative but it must be properly
zoned.
Mayor Taylor wondered if the park dedication requirement should be
made a condition of the tentative map which was also discussed.
Mr. Madis stated that if the City wants the extension of Springtown
Boulevard, the PUD permit should be extended.
Councilman Miller pointed out that this will be enforceable among
all the home owners in the PUD, and it is not the intention of this
Council to burden the existing homeowners.
Councilman Pritchard indicated that as he recalls, Reeder was not
concerned with the liabilities to be incurred and that they felt
there would be no problem in assuming them.
~ayor Taylor stated that it must be decided whether or not the
PUD will be extended, amended in extending it, or to let it expire.
However, he felt the park and school matters should receive considera-
tion.
Councilman Miller stated that the people of Springtown were assured
that Bluebell Drive would be used for only one year as a through street
for the tract, which was six years ago. If bonding does not occur
this will continue for two years and at the last discussion there
had been a suggestion for either construction or cash bonding to
cover construction. He felt this should be a condition of the valid
maps.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that bonding will not occur until final
map approval has been given.
It was noted that this was required of Reeder Development knowing
that no development would occur in that area until Springtown
Boulevard was put in.
Councilman Miller suggested that there be four conditions:
1) Cash bonding
2) Park Dedication
3) 2 Year reservation for the school site
4) Park dedication fees
Mr. Madis stated that if cash bonding is required for the extension
of Springtown Boulevard, it will never occur, adding that the owners
of the undeveloped property have considered the formation of an
assessment district to get the job done. It is difficult to convince
anyone, such as Reeder, to spend one million dollars on a project when
it is the policy of the Council to prohibit further development of
homes in Livermore. He felt that all who will benefit from the
extension should help pay for the costs.
Councilman Beebe suggested that there be a condition for a cash bond
to an appropriate assessment district to assure development of Spring-
town Boulevard.
CM-26-l7l
February 13, 1973
(Re PUD #14 - Reeder)
Councilman Miller felt the cend~tion in the PUD allowing no construction
of residences until Springtown Boulevard is complete, is sufficient,
which means that the first person to come in must be prepared.
The City Attorney remarked that unless it is an extremely wealthy
developer, they would be reluctant to expend this amount of money,
as a cash bond. He pointed out, as was mentioned by Mr. Madis, that
if the City runs into problems the court will restrain the City if it
tries to forfeit the bond, a hearing will occur, and the City may have
to be prepared to pay this amount back at some future date if it is
determined the City has made a mistake.
Councilman Miller suggested that if this is the case, bonding should
not be considered and that there be a requirement that construction of
Springtown Boulevard is complete before there is any residential con-
struction allowed.
Mayor Taylor stated that there have been cases in the City where it has
been considered not to be in the best interest of the public to require
completion of a street due to the possibility that a subdivision may not
be built.
Councilman Miller countered that this is not a very good argument because
this is not exactly a street that is designed to go nowhere, and the
residents of Springtown were promised extension of this street years
ago.
Mayor Taylor emphasized that in his opinion the Council would be forcing
premature development to occur, should the street be extended.
There was discussion regarding the surety bond vs. a cash bond and as to
whether or not either of these should be required.
Mr. Madis remarked that if the person who has put up a cash bond goes
bankrupt, the City is merely one claimant on this money; the laborers,
the trustee, and the homeowners would also put their claims on the
money, leaving a mess for the City. The City Attorney agreed that the
point made by Mr. Madis should be considered valid and if it is on deposit
as an escrow claims could be made on the funds on deposit as a bond.
Councilman Miller stated that he has become convinced that the only
alternative is to require that the street be developed, which was
the consensus of the Council.
Councilman Pritchard observed that the people of Springtown are never
going to receive their amenities until Springtown Boulevard is complete;
how the assessment district is to be worked out should be the concern
of those involved.
The City Attorney pointed out the possibility that the developer could
put in a road, dedicate the easement and maintenance to the City, and
start development on both sides of the road. He felt this is not
their intention but there is that possibility.
Mayor Taylor stated that it seems to be the Council's intent that no
construction of residential units shall be allowed until Springtown
Boulevard is constructed, to be a condition of all maps for the area.
This was taken as a motion which received a second by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. William Older, l524 Hollyhock, stated that the residents of Springtown
would like to know what month, day, or year Springtown Boulevard will
be complete, as they feel Bluebell Drive is a hazardous road due to the
amount of traffic generated there. He stated that he cannot sympathize
with Mr. Reeder, as he has realized another 100 dwelling units built
right on Springtown Boulevard, adding to the problmeem of traffic.
CM-26-l72
February l3, 1973
(Re PUD #14 - Reeder)
Mr. Older also pointed out that the residents have bought and paid
for the extension of Springtown Boulevard in the sales price of their
homes and are entitled to completion of it. He then brought the Coun-
cil up-to-date on the matter with regard to discussions involved dur-
ing the past six years, and events surrounding the issue. He suggested
that the City meet with the developer, form an assessment district
and complete Springtown Boulevard in conformance with the promises
made to the people of Springtown. He pointed out they have been
waiting since March of 1967 and can see no reason for further delay.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Mayor Taylor.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the condition be written into
the permit, applicable to any map, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
The City Attorney suggested that the conditions be prepared and
submitted to the Council at the next meeting to be approved in the
Consent Calendar, which was agreed upon by the Council, and included
as a part of the motion made by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller noted that he would like the Council to impose
the conditions in the PUD to correspond with the ordinance too.
Mayor Taylor suggested that this be done at the time of final
approval of the map with which Councilman Miller agreed.
The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion made by Council-
man Pritchard.
RECESS
Mayor Taylor called for a short recess, after which the meeting
resumed with all members of the Council present.
REPORT RE TRACT 3333
REQUEST FOR PERMITS
Mayor Taylor explained that inadvertently the item regarding
request for permits in Tract 3333 was omitted from the agenda,
and he asked that it be discussed at this time. He further ex-
plained the discussion that had taken place at the previous meet-
ing at which time it was continued for further information from
Cal Water regarding their calculations for water in the tract,
inasmuch as a report from their Chief Engineer, Mr. Wade, indi-
cated that the well in this tract would provide a supply of
water for 46 lots on the basis of 2 gallons per minute per dwelling.
These figures were questioned because a report submitted by Thad
C. Binkley Associates to the developer indicated that a supply
capacity of one gallon per minute per dwelling should be adequate
to meet any peak daily demand in the tract.
Mr. Parness stated that he had been in contact with Mr. Wade,
and he indicated that the two gallons per minute per day at peak
demand was a figure he must stand by and would not modify it
based on the fact that the average consumption is l,200 gallons
per day per residence. He advised that Mr. Wade also stated that
this was a contract figure that they negotiated with Mr. Elliott
at the time the well was struck and was the figure both parties
concurred in.
Mr. Harry Elliott of Walnut Creek, stated he has also been in
contact with Mr. Wade who made the calculations and he had given
him many reasons why. Mr. Elliott explained that he had drilled
the well and should it stand alone, it would produce 2800 gpd
per family, and thought he had thought the required amount of water,
CM-26-l73
February 13, 1973
(Tract No. 3333-permits)
2 gpm per family was available, but apparently in testing the well
on their formula, Cal Water has advised this is not the case, however
Mr. Elliott stated that the requirement of the ordinance at peak
hours for the well is not 2 gpm, but rather less than 1 gpm per
house. Mr. Elliott stated further that Mr. Thad Binkley, water
consultant for the City of Pleasanton, was present and he verifies
that is an accurate assumption, and they very strongly contest
Cal Water's assertion that 2 gpm are required. He stated this
meant a lot to him and pointed out his previous contributions to
the City indicating that in spite of the agreement with Cal Water
he felt the formula was wrong and felt there was adequate water
and he was living up to his part of the agreement and producing
twice the maximum requirement of water for the subdivision.
David Madis attorney representing Mr. Elliott asked who makes the
determination and what figure is relevant in determining the water
supply continuing to say that the requirement for a well in this tract
was set by the Council and specified in the ordinance limiting the
number of houses allowed in the City with respect to use of water dur-
ing peak periods. He stated that the ordinance states the average use
during this time is approximately 1200 gallons per unit. Using Cal
Water's determination of 2 gallons per minute for each unit would
equal 936,000 per day from the one well, provided there is an adequate
reservoir system. Mr. Binkley has indicated that the actual need
on peak days is only 960 gallons per day and using the requirements
set forth in the ordinance the well would still produce over twice
the required amount. He pointed out that the intent of the ordinance
was that enough water be supplied to service the homes and this require-
ment is being fulfilled. Not only can the well service the entire
tract, but it could service 800 homess an additional 415. He felt
in light of this there is no justification whatsoever for not issuing
the permits requested by Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Lee explained the various ways of computing the water needs and
his opinion as to how Cal Water arrived at their calculations.
Mayor Taylor questioned the fact that using the present storage capa-
city, would the City be better off without the tract and its well or
with the tract and well.
Mr. Lee explained that the City does not really have excess storage
and taking into consideration the fact that the well on that tract
produces excess water needed, he would feel that the City is better
off having the tract and the well than we were before their development.
He stated that it has improved the City's water situation, as indicated
in a report written last fall.
Mayor Taylor commented that the intent of the Council was that the tract
would not burden the rest of the City in taxing their water supply, and
it appears that the well is servicing these homes and is also an advan-
tage to the City.
The Council then discussed the problems of reservoir capacity during
peak days at which time Councilman Miller explained that the water is
drawn down in the reservoirs during peak days and the well does not
produce enough water to match the water and pressure taken service
the l05 homes.
Mr. Mason pointed out that there are 13-14 million gallons of water
available per day and if the total use in a day is the same, there
is adequate production in the wells. If, however, an excess use dur-
ing the peak day amounts to one million gallons, there is still 12
million gallons available in the reservoir. This means that almost
all of the whole system would have to be used before there would be
effects to the City. If it happens that the City is using an excess
of one million gallons per day and cannot recover during the night,
the City can recover almost one-half a million gallons excess from
Mr. Elliott's well at night, beyond what those houses demand.
CM-26-174
February 13, 1973
(Tract No. 3333-permits)
Mr. Lee concurred with the comments made by Mr. Mason.
Councilman Futch noted that there is not adequate storage for the
tract and wondered if this would be considered a violation of the
ordinance.
The City Attorney felt that the drilling of the well to service the
homes in the tract and then turning the operations of the well over
to a water system, in this case Cal Water, the ordinance is being
satisfied. Cal Water is using their storage for this well, so it
does have storage.
Councilman Futch moved that Mr. Elliott be given the permits for
the additional homes on the grounds that he has met the terms of
the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The motion passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting.
REPORT RE OFF-SITE
STORM DRAIN (Leahy Square)
The staff has recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing
$4,709 to be derived from the storm drain fund in the participation
of an off-site storm drain construction for Leahy Square.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept the recommendation,
seconded by Councilman Beebe which passed by the unanimous vote
of the Council.
REPORT RE REFUSE
COLLECTION SERVICES
The City Manager reported that an application has been received from
the present refuse collection agency to have the City execute
its option for the extension of the current contract which will
expire on December 3l, 1973. This firm would like to have the assur-
ance that they will be in business in the City for a reasonable
length of time due to the capital outlay they plan for corporation
yard purposes. He felt this was a reasonable appeal and would
suggest that the Council refer the matter to him for the neces-
sary negotiations, including possible rate changes. He added that
this is not a commitment on the part of the Council and that
they will have the opportunity to review the terms and conditions.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept the City ~lanager's
recommendation, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Miller felt that this was a commitment to renew the option,
and was opposed to the motion.
Councilman Pritchard explained that his motion is to indicate the
Council's willingness to consider a contract extension, subject
to further review of the terms and conditions.
Mayor Taylor commented that there is no intention of ruling out
competitive bidding.
Councilman Miller felt it should be open to negotiate with anyone
else interested in receiving a contract.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the Council has checked this
matter in the past and found that there is nobody else in the
business, except for very small businesses that cannot afford to
buy the necessary equipment.
CM-26-175
February 13, 1973
(Refuse Collection Services)
The City Manager suggested that negotiations be made with the
Livermore Disposal people and in the event the Council is not
satisfied with the negotiations, accept bids.
The Council voted 4-1 in favor of the motion, with Councilman
Miller dissenting.
REPORT FROM INDUS.
ADVIS. BD. RE SIDEWALKS
Councilman Pritchard moved that due to the lateness of the hour,
the matter of the report from the Industrial Advisory Board with
regard to industrial area sidewalks, be postponed at this time.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and which passed by
a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Futch and Miller dissenting.
REPORT RE "K"
STREET IMPROVEMENT
The Beautification Committee prepared a report regarding "K"
Street improvement which was submitted to the Council for review,
and it was recommended that the Council refer the matter to the
staff for consideration of financing available to be in conjunc-
tion with the budgeted "J" Street improvement or separately.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept this recom-
mendation, seconded by Councilman Beebe and which passed with
the unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE APPRAISAL,
LAND ACQ. SERVICES
The City Manager reported that a contract has been negotiated
with a consultant firm for appraisal, property acquisition and
housing relocation services (just initiated by State law); the
later phase will consume six man months; and applies to the pro-
posed track relocation assessment district.
The total contractual obligation which applies to our proposed
assessment district is $38,825 and it is recommended that the
Council adopt a motion authorizing execution of this agreement.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council authorize execution of
the agreement,seconded by Councilman Hiller and which passed
by the unanimous vote of the Council.
A member of the audience asked where the money for the track re-
location will come from, should the assessment district fail to
pay the cost.
The City Manager replied that if the district fails to pay, the
obligation will be incumbent upon the City.
Councilman Beebe noted that the money will not be collected from
the taxpayers but will be derived from the gas tax money.
REPORT RE PROPOSED LEGIS-
LATION - LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
The City Manager reported that state legislation may place the
municipal library administration under the authority of the City
Council, as are other municipal departments and a communication
has been received from the City of Carmel asking that we support
this amendatory legislation.
CM-26-l76
February 13, 1973
(Library Administration)
The City Manager recommended that the Council adopt a motion to
indicate our support of this legislatinon.
Councilman Beebe moved to support the legislation, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller felt there was no need for this legislation and
that there is nothing wrong with the present system.
Mayor Taylor suggested that perhaps the Council should wait to hear
from the Library Board before making a decision, and the City Manager
explained that the Library Board has no objection; however,
if it passes they feel the Board should continue in operation,
even though it would be advisory. The City Manager stated that
he would agree with this opinion.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Council postpone the matter
until the Library Board has submitted a formal statement.
Council~n Pritchard moved to table the matter and ask for a
report from the Library Board, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and which passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
The Planning Director attended a Noise Control and Enforcement
Workshop on January 24th, which was sponsored by the League of
California Cities. His report has been submitted to the Council.
REPORT RE NOISE CONTROL
ENFORCEMENT WORKSHOP
Councilman Beebe stated that with regard to the "model ordinance"
certain cities have adopted an ordinance using decibels measured
on bands which are so sensitive that for instance, typewriters
could not be used in City Hall. He stated that this is not
practical and reasonable standards would have to be enforced.
It was suggested that any regulations to be considered should
be reviewed by the Industrial Committee which should be similar
to the Smog Committee and be comprised of technical people.
Councilman Miller moved that there be a formation of a committee
to act in a technical advisory capacity; seconded by Councilman
Beebe and which passed by the unanimous vote of approval by the
Council.
REPORT RE PROPOSED ZOo ORD.
AMENDMENT RE SETBACKS
A report has been received from the Planning Commission regarding
possible amendment of Sections 5.00, 6.00 and 20.50 of the Zoning
Ordinance to consider updating and correction including proposal
by the City Council to modify setback to accessory structures in
proximity to certain rights-of-way.
Councilman Pritchard moved that a hearing be set for March 5, 1973;
motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE P.C.
MEETING OF Jan. 23, 1973
The minutes of the meeting of January 23, 1973, of the Planning
Commission were noted for filing.
REPORT RE SPHERES OF
INFLUENCE
The Planning Commission recommended approval of tentative guidelines
for establishment of "spheres of influence" within the Valley to be
submitted to LAFCO, No action was taken by the Council.
CM-26-l77
February 13, 1973
MUNI CODE AMEND.
RE SEWER FEES
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Taylor and by
a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting, the
ordinance amendment to provide sanitary sewer fee changes was
adopted, and read by title only.
ORDINANCE NO. 808
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.2, RELATING TO
CONNECTION CHARGES GENERALLY, OF ARTICLE I, RE-
LATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF CHAPTER 18, RE-
LATING TO SEWERS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
ZOo ORD. AMEND. RE
REZONING HOLMES ST. (John Walker)
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by a 4-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Miller dissenting,
the ordinance amendment to rezone the Walker property on the
corner of Holmes street and Murrieta Boulevard from RG-l6 (Subur-
ban Multiple) to CP (professional Office)District was,int~duced a
and the City Attorney read the title only.
MUNI CODE AMEND. TO
RENUMBER SECTIONS -Ch. 12- Licenses
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance amending
the Municipal Code to renumber certain sections in Chapter 12,
Article II was introduced and read by title only.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF (Trap Rock property)
The planning Director stated that the owner of 545 acres of
property along Arroyo and Wetmore Roads, Trap Rock Corporation,
has requested that the City notify the County of Alameda as to
their stand with regard to a quarry permit.
,
The Council discussed the matter of the quarry permit.
David Ingram, Menlo Park, representing the owners of the Trap:-
Rock property .spo~e to the Council with regard to taxes and
assessments Ql the property, and indicated that they wish to re-
quest an adjustment in assessment based upon the City's stated
policy to oppose any renewal of the expired quarry permit and
general designation of this area as open space use.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council authorize a statement
expressing the City's position, seconded by Councilman Futch,
and the motion passed unanimously.
(Re Resignation of
City Attorney)
The City Attorney stated that he will be presenting his resigna-
tion to the City Council at the next meeting, to be effective in
March, the exact date not known as yet.
CM-26-l78
February 13, 1973
(Re LARPD Meeting)
The City Manager stated that LARPD has requested that the whole
Council meet with them on the 15th or 22nd of March in a joint
study session.
The Council agreed to meet with LARPD, probably on March 22nd.
MATTERS INITIATED BY
THE COUNCILMEN
(Re Lease of City
Golf Course)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he has received comments from
interested persons with regard to leasing the City golf course and
would like the staff to be directed to determine some figure as
the basis for a lease.
Councilman Pritchard stated that interested parties need to know
what the requirements of a lease will be, as well as cost involved.
The City Manager stated that he does feel that it is in the public's
best interest to keep the property in the public domain; however,
given the proper set of circumstances and the right contractual
commitment, this may be best. He added that he did not know it
was to his discretion as to what should be done regarding the
golf course, and it has not been his intent to give the impression
leasing would not be considered.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the Council did not instruct the
City Manager to put the property up for lease.
Councilman Beebe stated that it was on the market up until the
time the City Manager indicated that the City could live with it;
at that time it was withdra~m.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to see the set
of minutes in which the Council rescinded the action taken with
regard to leasing.
It was suggested that the matter of leasing be brought up annually
at the budget session.
Mr. Parness was directed by the Council to report back to the
Council with recommendations as to conditions which should be
set forth in a lease agreement, and discussion will continue
at that time.
(Re Concannon Blvd. and
Holmes Street Intersection)
Councilman Futch commented that the state had indicated about
six months ago that there would be some modifications of the inter-
section at Concannon and Holmes, and he wondered when this would be
accomplished.
Mr. Lee explained there had been some problems and he did not know
the time schedule but would check into the matter and report back.
(Assessments in
Commercial Areas)
Councilman Miller stated that the staff had been asked to obtain
some data on comparative assessments in the commercial areas, and
CM-26-l79
February 13, 1973
(Assessments in
Commercial Areas)
there is an urgency for this information inasmuch as the cutoff date
is March 1, and any recommendation would have to be made prior to
that date.
Mr. Parness assured Councilman Miller that this report would be com-
plete for the next meeting.
(Del Valle Lake)
Councilman Miller commented that a consultant to the East Bay Region
indicated that Del Valle Lake should become a speed boat type of lake,
however he felt that it would be in order to urge East Bay Regional
Park District to maintain the quiet lake aspect and made a motion to
this effect, and that the staff prepare an appropriate letter to this
effect; motion was seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mayor Taylor stated he would add that before they consider any change
in operating philosophy that they form a citizens advisory committee
from the Valley, and it was concluded that this should be incorporated
in the letter, and the motion passed unanimously.
(Trailer storage-
Ballot Issue)
Councilman Miller stated that many people have gone to a lot of effort
to store their trailers in their side yards and they are willing to
abide by a front yard prohibition, but not the side yard. He
suggested that they reconsider the wording of the ballot measure
to refer to front yard setback only. The Council concurred that
this should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
(Citizens Committee re
General Plan Review)
Councilman Miller stated the Council is about to form a Citizens
Committee, and suggested that they state formally that the Council
intends to a major review of the General Plan and made a motion
that this be done seconded by Councilman Futch, and the motion
passed unanimously.
~~%
(Portola Avenue
Assessment District)
Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council direct the staff to proceed
with the formation of the portola Avenue Assessment District, and
Mr. Parness stated he would report on this matter at the next meet-
ing.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
to an executive session to discuss the procedure for the appoint-
ment of a new City Attorney.
I)~,~
I '/ Mayor Pro Tempore
ATTEST ~~ r>-(}..~ - ---0p.-k-
Cl.ty Clerk
Livermore, California
APPROVE
CM-26-l80
Regular Meeting of February 20, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 20,
1973, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilen Beebe, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Boy Scouts led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
BOY SCOUT INTRODUCTION
Mayor Taylor explained that this is Boy Scout Week and that the boys
are at the meeting acting as representatives of the various offices
of the City. They were introduced, as follows:
Mayor Taylor - John D. Pfeifer
Councilman Miller - Eric Heinitz
Councilman Pritchard - Thomas P. Bruguier
Councilman Beebe - Mark Foote
Councilman Futch - David Ruzicka
City Manager Parness - John Field
City Attorney Lewis - Bill Condray
Director of Public Works Lee - Steven Gamage
Fire Chief Baird - David Simons
Police Chief Lindgren - Mark Schmidt
Director of Planning Musso - James Emig
Chief Building Inspector Street - Marty Vandermolen
General Manager Payne (LARPD) - Richard Bockover
Assistant to City Manager Bradley - Mike Galloway
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting of
February 5, 1973 were approved, as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Dangerous Intersection)
Mr. Andrew Jorgensen, 509 Rincon Avenue, stated that the intersection
of P Street, Chestnut and Olivina is a dangerous intersection and has
notified the City staff. Some remedial action has been taken but he
feels the action taken is not stringent enough or adequate. He then
suggested that there be a barricade erected along P Street where the
double line exists, block parking along the west entrance of the
parking lot of McDonalds, and that there is an intensive
patrol to look for bicycle riders, jaywalkers, and people
making the illegal left hand turns into the establishment.
He felt these should be immediate emergency, temporary measures
and that a thorough study of the situation be undertaken.
CM-26-l81
February 20, 1973
(Intersection Olivina
and P street)
Mayor Taylor stated that he would agree that that particular corner
has significant problems and felt the council should ask the staff
for a report and recommendation as to what to do, considering the
suggestions of Mr. Jorgensen.
Mr. Lee stated that the staff had decided to extend the double yellow
line, as well as adding red curbing for no parking and had entertained
the idea of adding some type of barrier to eliminate crossing of the
double line.
The staff was directed to report back to the council regarding the
matter.
PUBLIC HEARING RE YMCA
CUP FOR REC. FACILITY
Mr. Husso explained that the Planning Commission denied the request
for a CUP application by the YMCA for use of an existing building
located at 2346 Walnut Street for a quasi-public recreational
facility.
Under the ordinance, anyone may appeal the application; under this
appeal the Council has the option of reversing the Planning Commission,
or setting a hearing - the Council chose t9 hold a hearing.
Prior to this hearing, letters of protest were received from the
following residents of the area; also a petition containing twelve
names was filed by Mrs. Richardson during the meeting.
Bettie Canales, 579 North I
Leo & Lillian Richardson, 2323 Walnut
Frank Holyoake, Owner of homes on North I and Walnut
Elizabeth S. Mulrooney, 492 North Livermore
Thomas E. & Betty J. Miller, 2286 Walnut
Roland Jansen, 5102 Junction Avenue
Kenneth Bray, 541 North I
Kattie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue
Harold Hadcock, 467 Junction Avenue
Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Johnson, 555 North I
Otha Cooper, 577 North I
Robert Hansen, 510 Junction Ave.
Barbara Hartley, 513 Briarwood Court
Mrs. and Mrs. patrick Brooks, 441 Junction
Jewel Hadcock, 467 Junction
Wayne Wahaski, 467 Junction
Eddie and Ardis McCallister,
948 Carnelia Drive
Tommie and Antionette Bryant,
234l Walnut St.
Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence
Osgood,
Wm. J. and Laurette M.
Smith, 2377 Walnut St.
A letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Bartel L. Spinelli in favor
of the use.
Mr. Musso explained the history surrounding the matter and why
the Planning Commission denied the application. He also illus-
trated the site for the proposed recreation facility on a map.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Council has a copy of the testimony
taken at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, as
well as letters from residents, and at this time opened the public
hearing.
John Shirley, President of the Board of Managers of the YMCA, stated
that after the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, they
could sympathize with the concerns of the residents of the area -
however it is felt that these people do not fully understand the
intentions of the YMCA and how activities will be limited. He
noted that there have been some site changes with regard to parking,
which they feel may change the situation of parking problems.
Rick Sewell, Executive Director of the Twin Valley YMCA, explained
that there are three primary types of meetings such as 1) Board
CM-26-182
February 20, 1973
(P.H. re YMCA CUP)
meetings, 2) Classes such as judo, and 3) a drop in center for
school age children, as well as teens. He felt that the number of
persons involved in any of these programs at one time would not
constitute a problem to those in the neighborhood. He stated that
with regard to concern for drag racing and a number of automobiles
in the area, most of the chidren and young people who are involved
in their activities do not own a car or drive a car. Most of them
come with their parents, ride a bicycle, or walk. They have centers
located in Pleasanton as well as on Fourth Street, and to his knowledge
have never received a complaint from any of the neighbors. Their
facility intends to limit activities to close a 9:30 on weekdays and
at 10:00 p.m. on weekends. They have proposed this to comply with
neighbors requests, and so as not to disturb anyone's sleep.
John Shirley stated that the center will be used as a crises center
and counseling services as well as getting the new guidance program
in the same building. He felt that this was a very important part
for the plans to be advantageous to the youth of the community.
There can be room for three agencies under one roof.
Ella Gubert, duplex owner across the street, stated that the objections
of the neighbors is not towards the ideas and values of the YMCA but
for the noise and traffic which may be generated due to the facility.
Kattie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, stated that if the Council had
listened to a tape of the public hearing held by the Planning Commis-
sion, they would be aware of the fact that the proposed YMCA plans and
neighborhood would in no way be compatible. She felt that the programs
offered by the nearby schools was sufficient and that the residents
should not be subjected to the problems created by another public
facility. She stated that most of the residents are against the
facility and would urge that the Council deny the request for the CUP.
Tommy Bryant, 2341 Walnut Street, stated that the residents represent a
minority of the population but a majority of the adjacent neighborhood
and reject the total proposed change of usage. He stated that these
people are accustomed to problems of public facilities. In a one block
radius of the site there are three churches, two schools and one lodge.
He feels that the neighbors should not have to tolerate the building
being turned into a quasi-public recreational facility which will be
used more heavily on a daily basis. They are appealing to the Council
as home owners and defending the places in which a considerable portion
of their lives are spent.
Lorett Smith, 2377 Walnut Street, speaking on behalf of her family
would like to request that the Council uphold the decision made
by the Planning Commission on January 23rd. She felt that even
with the best intent, meaningful control of the building cannot
be maintained, and the neighbors cannot live with the noise when
the building is used to its maximum capacity in the future.
She felt if the applicant had been someone other than the YMCA
the neighbors protesting would have been called the concerned
majority.
Leo Richardson, 2323 Walnut Street, wondered if the 9:30 curfew would
apply to the people using the building or the neighbors.
Lawrence Osgood, 2357 Walnut, asked that the Council deny the CUP
application for a quasi-public recreational facility on the basis
that he and his family feel as though they are being surrounded by
organized groups and there is no need for others of this type.
Joan oyler, 433 Junction Avenue, stated that she is a minority which
feels the facility should be approved and given a chance. She feels
that the children of the neighborhood will be able to use the facility
and that it would be a very good place for them to go.
Jewell Hadcock, 467 Junction Avenue, stated that this is primarily
a bedroom area and for this reason would protest the proposed use.
She feels that many of the residents will be forced to move if the
use is approved.
C~1-2 6 -18 3
_e__,,____'_~.,____-_____~~_^_._..._.,._
- _._._.,..._".,~"'_....._'--_._--.~".-.~.-.._._.._~_.._--_~~'__.""_"N_"',~,_____,,_,.,~ _ .....,.....-._._.._
February 20, 1973
(P.H. re YMCA CUp)
Harold Kamp, 1980 Locust, stated that he has been affiliated with
the Y.M.C.A. for a number of years and has a good deal of experience
with the discipline and characteristic of people who are in the
Y.M.C.A. He felt that the community must be considered as a whole
and not just those residents who have raised protests. In his opin-
ion the proposed plans will be an advantage to the community as well
as the children who live in the duplexes and houses near the center.
Bartel Spinelli, 953 Florence Road, stated that with regard to protests
made and comments indicating that there are schools nearby which
provide activities for children, he pointed out that these activities
are not supervised, at least to his knowledge. He felt that unsuper-
vised activities is probably the largest problem with the youth today.
This is an organization willing to give needed supervision through
men who are willing to give of their time and effort for the betterment
of the community. He stated that the council does not represent one
area or one street, but the entire community and the value must be
weighed as to how it will affect the whole community. The youth is
blamed for a lot of problems and this seems to be a way in which
supervised activities may be offered to our youth to keep them out
of trouble. One must consider where the real values are, and if
they are possible reduction of property values to a few homes or
for a commitment to the youth of the community.
Leland Dibley, 5189 Irene Way, stated that he and his son are active
in one of the Y programs which encourages a father-son relationship.
There are approximately 100 boys and fathers in the program and no
boy may be involved in the program unless his father is present. He
mentioned a few of the activities in the program and pointed out that
the 6-7-8-9-l0 and II year old boys are incapable of drag racing in
that area, which was one of the concerns expressed. He also felt
that foul language would also be minimal with this group. He felt
Livermore needs a strong Y Program, and asked that the Council base
their decision on fact rather than testimony containing conjecture.
Ray Neal, Pastor of Bethany Baptist Church, stated that the church
people have had a very good relationship with the neighbors and that
some of them have responded to the invitation to attend church
services. He felt that he can appreciate both sides of the issue,
the Y.M.C.A. people and the homeowners in the area. He stated that
he would like to emphasize that he does not want to offend the
neighbors in any way, but he feels there is something to be said
for the right to buy property or sell without being pressured. He
noted that the property is being sold below market price and would
suggest that since there are 70 some people who have signed a petition
of protest, they form a Homeowners' Association, purchase the property
and determine to what use it will be put. He felt that this would
be an expensive but equitable solution.
Everett Gilson, member of the Bethany Baptist Church, felt that it
is time the adults of the community give up something for the youth
of the City.
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, stated that he views the area as a
residential area and felt that it should remain as such.
Marty Vandermolen, 2542 Fourth Street, felt that other church
groups and schools have similar activities and the neighbors do
not seem to be bothered by this activity. He felt that there
should be no ill effects of allowing this group and activity on
the suggested site.
Steve Gamage, 1013 Lakehurst Way, stated that he belongs to a church
which sponsors various activities and to his knowledge there have
never been any complaints from the neighbors with regard to the teen-
agers who attend these activities and drive to them. He felt that the
type of youth the Y.~1.C.A. attracts, does not drag race or use foul
language.
CM-26-l84
February 20, 1973
(P.H. re YMCA CUP)
Mrs. Mulrooney, 492 No. Livermore Avenue, block parent for Portola
School, stated that she is Opposed to the Y.H.C.A. coming into the
area due to anticipated traffic and noise problems.
Richard Bocher, 2963 Kelly Street, felt the area would become too
congested if the proposed use is permitted.
Kattie Richardson, 520 Junction Avenue, emphasized that it is not
necessary that such a public facility be located so near the door
step of those who have protested - if the Y.M.C.A. wishes to re-
locate they should not buy property in residential areas. It is
true that the value of the homeowners property in the area will be
affected, as has been told her by two realtors.
Nick Sharp, 3625 Pestana Way, stated that he bought a home close
to the high school in order for his children to have a place to go,
even though there is quite a bit of noise from the school on Friday
nights. He felt it strange that everyone is in favor of the Y.M.C.A.
but feels it should be placed elsewhere.
Joan Oyler, speaking again, stated that she feels there should be
little problem to those who sleep during the day because most of
the time the children using the facility will be in school during
the day adding that sometimes some sacrifice should be made for the
concern of others.
Another member of the audience stated that in his opinion if the
Council grants the CUP, they will be setting a precedent for other
organizations who wish to locate in residential areas.
Councilman Miller moved to close the public hearing at this time,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
All council members voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
Councilman Futch stated that he can understand the concerns of the
neighbors and that they are genuine concerns. However, he also
understands the need for the Y to serve the youth of the community
and from their vie~~oint this particular site is ideal. He felt that
in view of the fact there is such a need for this facility, there must
be some way of providing the services as well as protect the property
rights of the neighbors. He stated that he would like to make a
motion in order to get some discussion going and that may protect
the rights of the property owners.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council approve the CUP, subject
to the following conditions, and conditions in the staff report.
1. There will be no outside activities on the site
2. No teen dances or loud music
3. Grant approval for a period of two years
4. That the Council will review the CUP at the end of the two years.
5. Large gogroup activities be over by 9:30 Sunday thru Thursday, and
by lO:OO p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would second the motion for discussion
purposes but that he would want to see many more restrictions added to
it. He has concern for those people directly across from the front
entrance to the building and felt that this door should be used only
during an emergency, which he added to the conditions, along with
Councilman Futch's, as follows:
6. No use of the Walnut St. door, except during emergencies.
7. No use of the parking lot as a play yard.
8. No dancing or bands of any kind allowed.
9. No outside games allowed.
CH-26-l85
February 20, 1973
(P.H. re YMCA CUP)
He would suggest that a notice be placed inside the building listing
the restrictions, which may be enforced by law.
Councilman pritchard questioned the parking ratio to the amount of
floor area, which was explained by Mr. Musso.
Mr. Musso stated that for this particular use there is a require-
ment of one space for every four seats or 50 sq. ft. in the main
meeting room and there are 30 spaces or less required for this use.
This is on site parking and does not include credit for street park-
ing.
In answer to a question posed by Councilman pritchard with regard
to violations of the conditions, Mr. Musso explained that violations
could be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission who
would be able to initiate revocation proceedings, if they chose.
This would result in a public hearing and determination as to whether
or not the permit should be revoked.
Councilman Pritchard asked what may happen in the event the permit is revoked
and they continue to operate and the City Attorney stated that this could
possibly 'tall into the category of a misdemeanor of the zoning
ordinance and the most probable course of action would be proceedings
by the City against the group to make them terminate the use,
Obtaining a court order which if it were not followed would result
in contempt and be punishable by law.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he sees two needs- one, to sell
the property; and secondly, a need for the Y.M.C.A. He would
have to a gree with Mr. Spinelli who stated that the Council represents
all of the City; however, they are also responsible to the neighbor-
hood members who are directly effected by any use allowed and
particularly when an area is not zoned for a particular use.
Permits of this nature must be so conditioned as to be satisfactory
to the neighbors as well. In his opinion, he would have to give
first preference to the home owners who are protesting the application.
He added that this cannot really be considered a church use and
that he would have to oppose the application for these reasons.
Councilman Miller raised the question of ample parking and whether
a variance would have to be granted, to which Mr. Musso stated
this would have to be determined after determining exactly how
much parking is available.
Councilman Miller stated that with regard to the statement made
that adults should be willing to give up something, he pointed
out that all of the adults of the community are not being asked
to give up something. He felt this makes some difference and that the
resiaents were there first. The applicant is not asking to continue
a present use, but asking for a change which will have an effect
on the present properties, including value of property, noise,
and lack of parking facilities. He felt that this is not an easy
decision but would have to agree with Councilman Pritchard in
that the residents deserve consideration and protection. He would
have to oppose the motion for these reasons.
r1ayor Taylor asked if the property were sold to another church,
would there be any restrictions on church activities, such as
dancing, drop-in counseling, or whatever.
Mr. Musso explained that a separate permit is not required of any
church organized activity, including those mentioned.
CM-26-l86
February 20, 1973
(P.H. re YMCA CUP)
Mayor Taylor stated that the concerns of the neighbors must be a
consideration, but it must be decided as to whether the fears ex-
pressed by these people are founded. He felt it might be better to
allow the Y.M.C.A. their application, with imposed restrictions,
rather than another church to use the facility and operate unristrictec
If another church bought the property they would not be required to
have additional parking and in his judgement other unrestricted uses
would be more detrimental than the proposed use. He would support
the motion before the Council.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the motion be amended to read a one
year CUP, seconded by Councilman Miller, as he felt the matter would
then be before this same Council in one year and it '''ould be their
responsiblity to determine whether or not the use is detrimental
to the area.
There was discussion regarding time of occupancy, should the use be
approved, and Mr. Neal stated that this should occur around the 1st
of September.
~1ayor Taylor asked the Y.M.C.A. representative if the organization
would make the changes to the entry and follow the conditions, should
the permit be granted,
Dr. Shirley replied that in view of the trouble and effort they
would not be able to vacate the building in two or even five years
and would have tQ operate in good faith.
coun~~~~~~6~~ated that in his opinion, it should be up to
~/Council to determine whether the conditions are being met to the
satisfaction of the Council and the neighborhood.
Councilman Futch felt that two years was a reasonable length of time
and that the Y has every intention of complying with the requirements.
For this reason he stated that he would be Opposed to the amendment
offered by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Beebe wondered if their permit may be revoked at any time
during this year, should it be determined to be a nuisance, or must
it go for a specified length of time such as one or two years.
The City Attorney advised that it could be revoked under the condi-
tions of the CUP.
Councilman Miller stated that there have been a number of violations
which have received no action and for this reason he feels it is
important for the matter to come before the present Council.
At this time the Council voted on the amendment for a one year permit
which passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Futch and Beebe dissenting.
Mr. Musso asked that the Council change the condition regarding
parking to conform to the ordinance and for clarification on the
outside activity conditions.
Paul Tull stated that the Y.M.C.A.members will be coming from three
different towns, which has not been mentioned in the testimony.
Kattie Richardson, stated that she feels it is ridiculous that the
Council is not giving their protests more consideration and added
that in her opinion these people are being used as "doormats". She
feels there are other places in which the orqanization can locate
and that the residents"are very upset with the possibility of the
Y being granted the application, stating that these people have
lost sleep over the problem; they are sincere in their protests and
this seems to be their last chance to pursuade the Council to allow
their neighborhood to remain as it has been in the past. She urged
the Council to give them more consideration in their decision.
CM-26-l87
February 20, 1973
(P.H. re YMCA CUp)
Mayor Taylor stated it is very clear to him that the Y.M.C.A. intends
to abide by the conditions set forth by the Council, and also that
the Council intends to revoke their permit, should the conditions
not be adhered too.
At this time the Council voted on the motion to approve the applica-
tion with the specified conditions, which passed by a 3-2 vote with
Councilman Miller and Pritchard dissenting.
RECESS
Mayor Taylor called for a five minute recess after which time the
meeting resumed with all members present.
SPECIAL ITEM (Anti-
~oitering Ordinance)
Mayor Taylor stated that several weeks ago a group of students from
Dublin High School requested an amendment of our current anti-
loitering ordinance from lO:OO p.m. to 12:00 midnight. Action
on the matter was postponed to allow further consideration and ex-
pression of local views. The police Chief has submitted a report
to the Council on the matter and it has been recommended by the
staff that the Council adopt a motion denying the request for
modification.
Councilman Pritchard moved to decline any modification in the
ordinance, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller stated that last year there were only 10 arrests
out of 83 which occurred before midnight and it seems that most
of the arrests occur after midnight.
Mayor Taylor felt that the anti-loitering ordinance was fairly
uniform throughout the county, and he would support the motion.
John Blair, member of the committee in support of the change,
thanked the City Council for the consideration of their plea,
and also Chief Lindgren for his presentation at the Dublin High
School.
Paul Tull remarked about loitering in the vicinity of Junction
Avenue School, and preferred a curfew enforced rather than the
anti-loitering ordinance.
A vote was taken on the motion and passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller
dissenting.
Mayor Taylor stated there would be no change in the present ordinance
as a result of this,action. He also thanked the police Chief for
his time and going to Dublin High School and talking to the students
there even though it was not part of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental Reports
Departmental Reports were received as follows:
Airport activity - January
Building Inspection - January
Mosquito Abatement District - December
planning/Zoning Activity - December
police Department - January
Water Reserves and Rationing Status - January
Water Reclamation Plant - January
CM-26-l88
February 20, 1973
PUD No. 14 - Reeder
Development Company
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion later
in the meeting.
One hundred fifty-five claims in the amount of $101,389.94, and
two hundred fifty payroll warrants in the amount of $62,716.80
dated February 9, 1973 were ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager on February 16.
Payroll and Claims
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were
approved with the exception of Item 2.2.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
A letter of resignation was received from Anita Thorsen recently
appointed to the Design Review Committee due to her husband's
acceptance of a position out of the state.
RESIGNATION FROM DESIGN
REVIEW CO~n1. (A. Thorsen)
Councilman Pritchard asked that there be a short executive session
to discuss a replacement appointment.
A communication was received from the Livermore Bikeways Associa-
tion recommending that certain improvements be included in the
current budget planning process.
LIVERMORE BIKEWAYS ASSN.
RE PROPOSED BUDGET
Councilman Futch inquired about the plans for the funds which have
already been appropriated, and Mr. Lee replied that the staff is
firming up the program with the Bikeways Association now and there
should be something to discuss in the very near future.
Bill Condray, Boy Scout, commented that the honking of a car horn
is very disconcerting to a cyclist, causing him to swerve, and felt
that bikeways would be a good thing.
Candy Simonen, 692 Jefferson Avenue, asked if something specific
could be mandated for the staff at this time, and stated that there
were three projects which the Bikeways Association considered should
have priority.
Mr. Lee stated that it is intended to concentrate efforts on the
route which goes through the old Jensen area into the center of town,
paralleling the central business district area, and he felt
this would meet with the approval of the Bikeways Association.
Mayor Taylor remarked that the three projects suggested by the Assoc-
iation do not include the route being planned by the staff, and the
staff was directed to prepare a report of the plans for the money
already appropriated for the next meeting.
Mr. Lee commented that the Council has already reviewed what has
been proposed for this year, based on the Bikeways Association
recommendation previously received, and suggested this be reviewed
and he would have a report prepared for the next Council meeting.
CM-26-l89
February 20, 1973
COMMUNICATION RE HOUSING
ELEMENT - ASSOC. HOME BLDRS.
A letter was received from the Associated Home Builders of the
Greater Eastbay, Inc. regarding evaluation of the present housing
element in the general plan.
Mayor Taylor commented that this communication should be forwarded
to the Planning Commission for consideration.
COKMUNICATION RE
AUTOMATIC PESTICIDE DEVICES
In reply to a letter sent to the Alameda County Health Agency,
the agency advises that vaporizers or foggers in any room where
food is being processed, prepared, served or exposed have not been
permitted for many years.
Laura Bowers, restaurant o~mer, stated her concern over the publicity
received regarding automatic pesticide devices, and felt that the
newspaper article was slanted, and in her opinion, erroneous and
based on such information, letters were sent to restaurant owners
in Livermore and a letter sent to the Alameda County Health Agency.
T1rs. Bowers referred to the letter in which the agency indicated
that the devices had been banned, however she has never been told
by the Health Department that the devices were not acceptable, and
they have made annual inspections of her restaurant. Mrs. Bowers
advised that she had done much research and spent much time in an
effort to substantiate one or the other of the findings in this re-
gard. She stated further that the author of the letter received
by the council is uninformed, inasmuch as there was a difference
in the pyrethrum referred to and pyrethrin which is being used;
however she was unable to get any reasons for the findings made.
Mrs. Bowers had furnished the Council with an excerpt of a report
published by W. Calark Cooper, Professor of Occupational Health,
and Irving R. Tabershaw, Professor of Occupational Medicine, which
she referred to at this time, and felt that this information should
be projected to the public and asked them to table the matter until
she could obtain documentation to substantiate her statements that
the state of California approved the use of auto pyrethrin dispensers
in restaurants.
Mayor Taylor stated that he did not feel it was the intent of the
Council to debate the scientific evidence one way or another in
this issue and have taken no stand. They have merely received a
complaint from the public and passed it on to the Health Department
and asked them for an opinion which they gave. He suggested that
Mrs. Bowers present the evidence she has collected to the appropriate
state agency, and the County Health Agency ,and thanked her for all
her time and effort spent in research.
Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, felt there was a roll the City
Council could play in trying to bring light on the situation and
that is to write to the County Health Department, asking on what
basis they have made their decision, which would assist Mrs. Bowers
in getting facts to the public.
Councilman Pritchard felt that this suggestion was reasonable and
moved that a letter be written to the County Health Department,
asking them to explain the reason for their position. Councilman
~1iller also suggested that there might be some value to write to
EPA to ask them about pyrethrin in food. The motion was approved
unanimously.
CM-26-l90
February 20, 1973
REPORT RE SIDEWALKS
IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS
A report from the City Manager regarding sidewalks in industrial areas
had been postponed from the meeting of February l3. The industrial
Advisory Board had opposed the requirement for the installation of
sidewalks in industrial zones at present which had been recommended
by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council uphold the recommenda-
tion of the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Miller.
Milo Nordyke, member of the Industrial Advisory Board, stated his
sympathy with most of the arguments and with the position that the
Planning Commission has taken on this matter. Their primary motiva-
tion grew out of aesthetic considerations as they realize there could
be a public service aspect involved at some future time and did not
feel there was a need at the present time because of the transporta-
tion system at present and the way the industrial area has developed.
He felt that the requirement would be pr~mature; if the Council feel
they would like to require sidewalks the Industrial Advisory Board
would urge that the Council consider sidewalks only on collector
streets.
Councilman Beebe stated he could understand the need for full improve-
ments in front of small industrial sites, but did not think there
was a need for sidewalks around a large 100-200 acre complex.
Mayor Taylor agreed and felt that a large site such as Sears would
clearly be an exception that could be handled by a variance, but
even though there is not need at present, the streets are being
improved for future use and sidewalks should be provided.
Councilman Futch commented that he had checked the cost of land-
scaping versus the cost of sidewalks and they are the same, so
there is no economic reason for not requiring sidewalks.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and passed unanimously.
REPORT RE RESTAURANT SIGN
A proposed restaurant advertising sign has been submitted for approval
both as to the site location and design.
The City Manager displayed a rendering of the proposed sign, however
Councilman Pritchard stated since he had not seen this before and woulc
move to table the matter until the Council is supplied the informa-
tion in their agenda folder so they can study it; motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller.
Mayor Taylor suggested that since a motion to table is not debatable
that the motion be amended to continue the matter.
Councilman Pritchard amended the motion to continue the matter, se-
conded by Councilman Beebe.
A motion was made to call for the question, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Mayor Taylor stated that he would like a few questions answered re-
garding the height, size and a few facts.
A vote was taken on the motion which failed with Councilman Futch,
Beebe and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Mr. Musso explained it was a 64 sg. ft. face, double faced, on a
wood-like surface, 25 feet high.
Mayor Taylor stated he would like to be furnished with a drawing
of the sign, and Councilman Miller added he would like to know the
location, site plan and some indication of the proposed landscaping.
01-26-191
February 20, 1973
Restaurant Sign
It was determined that the Council would decide the height at the
time there is further discussion of the matter.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that at the time of the lease it was
stated that the City would allow some type of sign, and the City
is really committed to do so. It was mentioned that this was not
made a part of the lease but this Council, with the exception of
Councilman Futch, had approved a sign.
Councilman Miller suggested the Council review the minutes in which
statements regarding a sign were made. He added that he would like
to consider the recommendations made by the Beautification Committee,
who have suggested that there be no sign located on US 580.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to continue the matter.
REPORT RE INTERIM ZONING -
SPEC. PLANNING PROGRAM
The City Attorney explained that the memo written with regard to
growth regulation in Livermore was an outline of the procedures the
staff felt would allow the City to achieve the Council's policy in
controlling growth. He stated that there will be two steps,
1) adoption of an interim ordinance - which will stabilize land uses
until such time the City reviews its General Plan and adopts precise
plans, zoning, and amendments to subdivision ordinance in compliance
with AB-1301, 2) Procedures to implement AB-130l.
Mayor Taylor questioned the reasons for this particular method for
taking advantage of the provisions of AB-130l and the City Attorney
explained that this method was the most desirable from a legal stand-
point, and in his opinion there is no factual basis for establishing
precise numbers at this time. He then mentioned the situation in
Ramapo, using it as an example.
~1ayor Taylor explained that the Council does not intend to take
action at this time and that the matter has been scheduled for
March 5th. At this time there may be comments from the public
prior to the Council's vote on the matter.
REPORT RE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DIST.
(Livermore-Portola Ave.)
The Public Works Director explained the plan the staff has prepared
with regard to a proposed assessment district for public works
improvements on Livermore and portola Avenue (Hofmann Development
Company - Tract 3321). In the plan presented to the Council, half
the cost will be borne by the tract and the other half by the adjacent
property owners. The staff has proceeded with the formation of an
assessment for the street, the petition was signed by over 50% of
the property owners, the resolution of intention was passed by the
Council, the design was completed. The SAVE Ordinance came about
which affected further progress. In the meantime, the property
owners feel the tract should bear a larger portion of the cost of
the public works, and they also have some objections and questions
to some of the plans. It may be necessary to again initiate proceedings
for an assessment district again rather than proceed. The matter
has to be decided by the bonding attorney.
He remarked that in the subdivsion agreement, the subdivider agreed
to pay $62,000 towards public works improvements, should an assess-
ment district not be formed for one reason or another.
Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to get a general opinion
of the Council confirming that they are sympathetic with the spreading
of the assessment, equally.
CM-26-l92
February 20, 1973
(Livermore-Portola Ave.
Assessment District)
Councilman Miller felt the assessment should be spread more equally,
and Councilman Futch stated the proposed 50-50 spread was not
equal or fair to the property owners.
The matter was continued to the next meeting.
REPORT RE SO. L STREET
TRAFFIC COMPLAINT
The Director of Public Works submitted a written report to the Council
with regard to a traffic survey of South ilL" Street in which the follow"':
ing recommendations were made:
1. Install 4-way stop signs at the intersections of "L" and College,
Chestnut and "L".
2. Install traffic signals at ilL" and Second Street.
3. Paint 20 ft. of red curbings at the curb return at each intersec-
tion to increase visibility.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council direct the Director of
Public Works to proceed with his recommendations, seconded
by Councilman Hiller. The motion passed by the unanimous vote
of the Council.
REPORT RE INTERSECTION
OF CONCANNON & HOLMES
The Director of Public Works reported that with regard to safety
improvements at the intersection of Concannon and Holmes Street,
that the Division of Highways has indicated that the weather has
been the main reason for delay. It is intended that there will
be modifications which involve pavement striping and it is hoped
that work will be complete in about two weeks, weather permitting.
Councilman Futch commented that there was another accident at that
intersection at 8:30 a.m. today.
The report was informational only and required no action on the
part of the Council.
REPORT RE INTERSECTION
OF MURRIETA & OLIVINA
In response to complaints received regarding the hazardous intersection
of Murrieta and Olivina Avenue, the Public Works Director has recom-
mended that the intersection be improved by widening south of the -
intersection. The cost is estimated to be $2,400 and would be taken
from the gas tax revenue. In view of the fact the figure is rela-
tively small, it is recommended that the project be approved at
this time rather than waiting until the review of next year's
Capital Project budget.
Councilman Beebe moved to accept the recommendation to widen the
street at this time, seconded by Councilman Miller and the motion
passed with the unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE CUP
(Diamond International)
With regard to the CUP application by Diamond International, Councilman
Beebe moved that the Council accept the Planning Commission's recom-
mendations, as follows:
Cf'l-- 26 -19 3
February 20, 1973
(Diamond National CUP)
1. Recommend conditional approval of request for wholesale/retail
lumber, building materials, and hardware store based on findings
and subject to conditions attached.
2. Table the request for freestanding sign, pending Planning Commis-
sion review of site plan and elevations of proposed development.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman ~liller expressed concern for this particular use at this
particular location, stating that approval would mean extension of
commerial use beyond that limit set by Council policy, and he felt
they should study the situation rather than simply approve the appli-
cation. The implication for strip commercial is very high and is a
step-by-step repeat of what happened on portola Avenue.
Councilman Futch agreed that there should be more discussion before
a decision is made, with which Councilman Pritchard concurred.
Councilman Beebe amended his motion to include a continuance to
next week.
Councilman Miller stated that he would also like to know if there are
other possible sites for this use.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Councilman Beebe.
COUNTY REFERRAL RE CUP
BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH
With regard to the CUP application submitted by Harry Rehder of the
Berean Baptist Church to allow a church at 2140 Bess Avenue, the
Planning Commission considered the referral of the matter by the
County and recommended that the application be approved and advising
that the City would grant a sewer connection provided development
would conform to conditions noted within the staff report and that
it would be subject to design review.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation, seconded by Councilman Miller and
which passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
,
The City Manager prepared a written report giving a sample of
commercial property assessments which was forewarded to the Council.
,Councilman Miller stated that the report was a result of his requests
and the report begins to make the point that most commercial property
has been, essentially, untouched by the assessor for periods of up to
three years unlike residential property. Most of these properties
have sold for 194% over their assessed market value listing. This
means that every home owner is paying higher taxes due to the fact
that a fair share is not being paid by these kinds of properties. He
noted that not just half of those listed were out of line, but every
single property listed was low. This means there is a systematic
underassessment by the assessor on commercial property, and he felt
this should be called to the Assessor's attention.
CM-26-l94
February 20, 1973
(Commercial Property
Assessments)
Mayor Taylor stated this could be an indication that market values
have sky-rocketed very rapidly.
Councilman Miller moved that the Council send a letter to the
Assessor pointing out the unfair nature of assessments, including
the data as supporting evidence, and secondly request that properties
of this nature be properly assessed in the next fiscal year.
He would also add that there are a large number of homes unoccupied,
but completed, which amount to several hundred which should be
assessed at their full market value.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Beebe suggested that before taking any strong action,
they might invite the assessor to explain the methods for assessments
of commercial buildings.
Councilman Miller emphasized that every home owner realizes an
increase in taxes due to assessments and if the assessor is not
encouraged to do something now, there will be one more year in
which the individual home owners are going to pay higher taxes
which are based on sales prices.
Councilman Hiller moved that a copy of the report be sent to the
assessor noting l) the large discrepancy between sales prices
and assessed valuation, 2) the fact there have been no changes
in many commercial properties over a substantial length of time.
r1ayor Taylor suggested that it be noted, also, that these are
samples which were picked at random for survey, aAnd not an implica-
tion that specific property should be reevaluated.
Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion.
The City Attorney stated that the Council may find there is not
a problem and that there may be inflated sales prices due to the
terms.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
Councilman Miller made a second motion that there are a large
number of uncompleted houses which should be considered in his
assessments of Harch 1. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and the motion passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
Councilman Miller thanked the City Hanager for preparing such
a complete report on the matter.
REPORT RE
LIABILITY INSURANCE
The City Manager explained the policies in effect with regard to
airport liability insurance coverage which expires on March 1, 1973
and the general liability policy expiring on March 25, 1973. It
has been the experience of the City that competitive bidding for
liability coverage has been extremely poor. It is recommended that
the Council authorize our current agent, E. E. Morgan, to
negotiate airport insurance coverage and public liability in the
policy amounts as stated and that the premium sums of such ne-
gotiated coverage be subject to the review of the City Manager.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept this recommendation
to authorize our agent to negotiate airport insurance coverage,
seconded by Councilman Beebe and which passed by the unanimous
approval of the Council.
Cl\1-26-195
February 20, 1973
ORDINANCE RE REZONING
SW CORNER MURRIETA BLVD.
& HOLMES ST. (Walker)
ORDINANCE NO. 809
AN ORDINANCE N1ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
M1ENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived and the above ordi-
nance was adopted by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CH. l2
RE LICENSES - RENUMBERING
ORDINANCE NO. 810
AN ORDINANCE N1ENDING CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO
LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, by
INCLUDING IN ARTICLE I THEREOF, RELATING TO
LICENSES: GENERAL, SECTIONS l2.28 THROUGH l2.33
CONTAINED IN SAID CHAPTER l2 AS IT EXISTED ON
THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 1973, AND BY RENUMBER-
ING THE SECTIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE II, RE-
LATING TO LICENSES: SPECIAL.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous vote, the above ordinance re Municipal Code amendment
to renumber Chapter l2 re licenses was adopted.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CH. 4
RE ANI~~LS & POUND
ORDINANCE NO. 8ll
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, RELATING TO ANIMALS AND
POUND, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY AMENDING SEC-
TIONS 4.28 ENTITLED DISPOSIT~ON OF UNREDEEr1ED ANIMALS AND
DOGS, AND 4.29, RELATING TO FINES AND CHARGES UPON IMPOUND-
ED ANIMALS, BOTH OF ARTICLE III, RELATING TO IMPOUNDING,
AND 4.36, RELATING TO RABIES TREATMENT, OF ARTICLE IV, RE-
LATING TO DOGS GENERALLY.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous approval, the second reading was waived, and the
above ordinance adopted.
APPEAL RE PUD No. 14
(Reeder Development Co.)
This item had been removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
at this time. Mayor Taylor explained that the City Council had set
the conditions for extension of PUD No. 14 and the staff had been
instructed to submit a listing, rephrasing the conditions.
Councilman Miller referred to A-7, stating the date should not be
extended for more than one year and the date should be July ll, 1974,
and moved this change, seconded by Councilman Pritchard; motion
passed unanimously.
In E-l Councilman Miller moved that the school site be reserved
for a period of two years, in order to give the School District a
better opportunity to obtain the site; motion was seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated he also had an amendment to C-2 of the
permit having to do with density, and referred to a state law
CM-26-l96
February 20, 1973
(Appeal Re PUD No. 14)
~lhich states that the density shall conform to the General Plan, and
the General Plan in the area is 3 du/acre.
~1ayor Taylor stated that this would constitute a major change in the
PUD, however Councilman Miller stated it would only be a drop of 100
dwelling units.
Hr. Husso stated the reason for the 3.6 du/acre density is that the
developer was caught right in the middle of the change from 4 du/acre
to 3 du/acre, and the density agreed upon was a compromise.
Councilman Pritchard stated it might be to the best interest, but he
would hesitate to make any change without the property owner being
present, and Mayor Taylor added he did not feel it was proper to change
the density in the tentative before the Council, and reminded the Coun-
cil the matter had been continued merely so that the wording could be
correctly stated, and this change now proposed is a bigger change,
and he did not feel it was proper at this time.
The Planning Director was asked what acreage remained to be developed,
and Hr. Musso stated there was one tentative subdivision Map on roughl~
130 lots which expires in April.
Mayor Taylor stated that a change in density would be essentially the
same as a rezoning, and they would be compelled to refer the matter
back to the Planning Commission and go through a step-by-step rezon-
ing procedure.
Councilman Miller stated it is his understanding that since this is a
rezoning we are compelled by law that the zoning must be compatible
to the General Plan.
Councilman Pritchard moved that this item be discussed on ~1arch 12, anc
the property owner be informed by letter that it is the intent of the
Council to discuss this facet of the extension of the PUD, and if he
has some input or wishes to be present, he can do so; if he does not
appear, they will take it for granted that he approves of the contem-
plated change, hovJever the motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Futch inquired if it would be possible to change the zoning
at the time the tentative will expire.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be continued for one week
in order that the staff might give the Council the recommended pro-
cedure to follow; motion was seconded by Councilman Futch and approved
unanimously.
Councilman ~1iller moved that the permit be extended until such time
as the matter is referred to the Council in a week or two; motion was
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously.
william Older asked about Springtown Blvd. at this time, and Mayor
Taylor assured him that no building permit would be issued until the
road is completed and accepted by the City.
Mr. Musso pointed out that there are two provisions with regard to the
matter: 1) that the final map include the provision for the street; an4
2) no building permit shall be issued until the street is completed.
CH-26-197
February 20, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED BY
THE COUNCIL
(Ballot Measure Re Trailers)
Council Miller stated the ballot measure as proposed previously
by Resolution No. 13-73 included "or side yard", and he wished to have
"or side" deleted, and made this in the form of a motion, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, and the following resolution was approved
4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting inasmuch as he was opposed to
the ballot measure due to the cost involved.
RESOLUTION NO. 29-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LIVERMORE AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. l3-73.
Council Initiated Matters
Councilman Pritchard moved that matters initiated by Council be
scheduled early on the agenda rather than at the end of the meeting,
as he felt some of these matters are of importance, however the
motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Taylor stated that if it was felt that a matter was of sig-
nificant importance it should be scheduled on the agenda.
Transportation Study
Councilman Miller stated there had been a transportation study
made and the Council had been given a preliminary report, but no
final.
Mr. Parness advised that the report was a final report, but it has
since been filed and not resurrected and should be brought back
and updated.
Councilman ~iller asked that the report be resurrected, and Mayor
Taylor added that perhaps the report should be formally referred
to the Committee.
Mr. Parness suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda as
a study session item, and the staff was directed to set a date for
this item to be placed on a study session agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m. to a short executive
session
APPROVE
ATTEST
CM-26-l98
A Regular Meeting of February 26, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 26,
1973, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:l0 p.m. with Mayor Pro Tempore
Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Futch and Miller
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe, (ill,) and Mayor Taylor, (excused)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller led the Council members as well as those
present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting of
February l3, 1973, were approved as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Historical
Railroad Station)
Mr. Chet Frankhauser, 609 South "P" Street, spoke with regard to the
historical Livermore Railroad Station which had been scheduled for
demolition and through efforts of various groups, it will now be
saved. He requested the Council's cooperation and would like
to have suggestions as to what uses of the station, such as
a museum, and asked that the Council give their support in attempts to
make use. of the building. He felt the heritage and history of
the building was very interesting and named a number of important
people who have visited the station during the years it was
in use.
When asked by Mayor Pro Tempore Miller if there is something specific
he would like the Council to do, Mr. Frankhauser stated that they
would like the Council's assistance as well as that of Mr. Parness
in arranging a meeting with Mr. Hanesworth of Southern Pacific.
He stated that LARPD prefers that the others meet and then
report the results of the meeting to them afterwards.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller stated that the Council would be willing to
help in any way to see that some use comes of the building and that
it is not demolished.
(Re YMCA CUP Appeal)
John Shirley, President of Y. M.C.A., spoke to the Council
with regard to the limitations imposed upon them if they are to
operate in the Bethany Baptist Church site. He asked if the 9:30
limitation means that all activities must stop by 9:30 during the
week and it was explained that this is true.
Councilman Futch stated that as he recalls, this pertained to large
groups.
Dr. Shirley wondered if they could hold board meetings which generally
last longer than 9:30.
Mr. Musso read a rough draft of the minutes in which the limitations
were listed.
CM-26-l99
February 26, 1973
(YMCA CUP Appeal)
Dr. Shirley also asked about the possibility of adults dancing in
the building, or allowing tap dancing.
It was suggested by Mayor Pro Tempor Miller that Dr. Shirley come
before the Council at the time a full Council is present if he
would like a clearer interpretation of the limitations, and the
matter was set for the meeting of March 5th.
(Re Purchase of Spring-
town Golf Course)
Chris Trudeau, 1432 Heather Lane asked the Council what the inten-
tions of the City might be with regard to the Springtown Golf Course,
should it be purchased by the City.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that the City intends to maintain
the golf course for this use, or in open space only.
Mr. Trudeau explained that he is concerned due to the fact that
his home borders the golf course and it is his understanding that
the manager of the golf course will be leaving and wondered what
will become of the maintenance of the course during the time it is
being sold.
Mr. Parness explained that this particular matter was to be brought
up and discussed at the end of the agenda, as he has just received
information on the matter today. He wondered if the Council would
like to hear the report at this time.
Mr. Parness stated that very regrettably, one of the bond lenders
denied permission for waiver of our indenture prohibition, which
means that the City does not have the legal right to purchase it for
a golf course Other things can be done and he has discussed the
matter with the Recreation District staff and they have indicated
there is an interest on the part of the District and their Board,
individually, in their obtaining occupancy of the course and main-
taining it as such but it has never been posed to them officially.
Mr. Parness stated that perhaps the City could find a means for
providing the capital necessary in exchange for something of equal
worth. The other alternative would be to purchase the property for
open space use which the City could legally do.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that it had been the hopes of
the City that the bond holders of Las positas Golf Course, would
allow the City to maintain another golf course but one of the bond
holders denied this request. Therefore, the City cannot operate
another golf course but can purchase the property for open land
use.
Mr. Trudeau stated that he knows of a group of people who would
like to purchase the golf course, if the City or LARPD does not
take the land for this purpose. He stated that these people intend
to develop the land for homes, streets, etc. and was very concerned
that this might result.
Mr. Trudeau was assured by the Council that this would never be
allowed.
Mr. Bill Older, Springtown resident, felt the bondholders could be
advised that little competition would result from the City's obtain-
ing a small 9-hole golf course on the other end of town.
Mr. Parness asked that the Council give him some direction, as
the present owner is desirous of receiving some type of answer
this week: hopefully prior to tax deadline. The property is in
need of capital improvements but it is felt that it would be a
worthwhile recreational facility.
CM-26-200
February 26, 1973
(Springtown Golf Course)
The City Attorney explained that the documents that set up the
City's purchase of the main golf course were worded by the counsel
(Harrington's Office of San Francisco) at the specific request of
the purchasers of the bonds to prohibit the City from directly or
indirectly operating another golf course. There was some question
at the beginning as to whether or not the Springtown Golf Course
was the kind of golf course that they were talking about. It does
not prevent the City from purchasing it, but the word lIindirect"
would lead him to believe it would be difficult to pursuade some-
one that LARPD could operate it somehow under the auspices of the
City. However, none of it makes sense because the Springtown Golf
Course was operating prior to the time the City put in a golf course,
and perhaps this would be a good point to make. Be stated that the
Council might bring action for declaratory.relief against the bond
holders or proceed with acquisition and let the bond holders take
action. He stated he would not advise the latter, but it is an
alternative.
Mr. Parness stated that he would like some direction, though it may
not be official. He would like to know if the Council intends the
City to purchase the property as a golf course, or to be purchased
and maintained in the City inventory.
Councilman Pritchard felt the Council's intent is to purchase the
property and its use may be determined at a later time. He moved
to instruct the City Manager to proceed with the purchase of the
property.
Councilman Futch felt the motion had been made in the past and would
suggest that the three Councilmen present state that they agree with
the motion.
The City Attorney advised that the Council should authorize a trip
to Chicago by the City Manager to speak with the bond holders.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller agreed that this might be a wise move, but it
would not be necessary to authorize a trip at this time. This can be
taken care of after the property has been purchased.
The Council directed the City Manager to proceed with acquisition of
the land.
Roger Elliott, 5346 Lilac, also questioned what is to happen to the
greens, etc. after February 28th when the flags and cups are to be
removed and there is no longer anyone to care for the property during
the interim period of time there are negotiations for the purchase of
the property. Could there be any possible plans for maintaining the
golf course, as it is?
Mr. Parness explained that in view of the fact the City hopes to
acquire the property, plans have been made to care for it during
this interim period until something has been decided.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Res. Appointing Member
to Design Review Comm.)
RESOLUTION NO. 30-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
(Barbara L. Baird)
CM-26-20l
.._-_._.__._.._---~-~~-.__._._----_.~,.,"._----_.__._.---'-"-'-~~"'.'. ~ _...__..'"-~._~,,_._---_.-.------_.-..._-,,-
February 26, 1973
(Res. Auth. Exec. of
Agreement - State Dept.)
RESOLUTION 3l-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Department of Finance - State of California)
The above resolution authorizes the State Department of Finance to
compute our estimated population which has a direct bearing on the
apportionment of several State and County grants.
(Report re Fire Depart. -
Manpower utilization Study)
The City Manager reported that last summer we applied to the State
Advisory Commission on Personnel Administration, which is the agency
having the responsibility for processing federal grants under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, to conduct a Fire Department man-
power utilization consultant study. Word has been received that
this application has been approved and that a $20,000 grant will
be allowed for this project.
It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion approving conduct
of this study.
(Report on Intergovern-
mental Relations - General
Plan Development)
The City Manager submitted a report which was received from Carlos
Bee on Intergovernmental Relations dealing with the development of
general plans. The report sets forth newly adopted State planning
code sections which have to do with mandatory adoption of plan
elements and zoning law changes as well.
The report is informational only and requires no action on the part
of the Council.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was
approved.
COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CUP - DIAMOND INTER-
NATIONAL CORPORATION
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller stated that Diamond International has
applied for a CUP for a lumber yard north of Tarin Brothers on
First Street. There is some question as to whether or not the
Council policy will allow commercial enterprises to extend past
Tarin Brothers. He felt there may be some merit in putting the
matter over for another week or two until there is a full Council
to discuss the matter.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he has come to a decision and is
willing to allow the use. He spoke with Councilman Beebe earlier
in the day who asked that Councilman Pritchard convey to the Council
his wishes to approve the use also.
CM-26-202
February 26, 1973
(CUp - Diamond Int'l)
Councilman Futch felt the Council should discuss where they intend
to draw the line with regard to commercial uses on First Street but
on this particular item he would approve the use as they need a site
which has access to the railroads. ~ the street there is al-
ready a motel and he sees no reason n t to allow the application.
~'-7<-ot,/~,~~ .
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller stated that in his opinion, to allow the use
and then discuss where the line should be drawn is a little like lock-
ing the barn door after the horses have gone. He felt alarmed that
this situation is taking on the same characteristics of the problems
which have risen on portola Avenue. A line is continuously extended
and in time there is commercial all along the street. With regard
to the argument that this is the only place Diamond International
can go, he feels this is not true and possibly they can build in a
location that is already suited to commercial development.
Mr. Musso explained the area with regard to the history of zoning of
the area and what was to be allowed, and discussions which took place
at the Planning Commission meeting. It was decided in February of
1968 that there would not be retail development allowed beyond Tarin
Brothers. He pointed out that F.H.A. frowned on commercial develop-
ment north of the residential area on First Street.
After some discussion among the Council members it was concluded
that it would be best to discuss the matter during the time a full
Council is present.
Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter to March l2th,
seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed by the unanimous
approval of the Council.
APPEAL RE EXT. OF PUD #14
(Reeder Development Co.)
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller stated that the matter of the appeal by
Reeder Development for extension of PUD No. 14 was continued from
the meeting of February 20 to consider the density requirements with
regard to being in compliance with our General Plan. He stated that
the City Attorney had advised that if there are to be any changes
in density, the matter should be referred back to the Planning
Commission for a hearing.
The City Attorney commented that the matter should be continued
until the Council is ready to make this decision and that it should
go the the Planning Commission if they intend to change the density.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Planning Commission be directed
to conduct hearings into the possibility of changing density and
that the matter be continued until the first meeting in April. Also
that the extension of the permit is subject to the conditions adopted
by the Council last week. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Futch and the motion passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
The extension of the permit will be until April, and at this
meeting they will decide whether or not to extend it beyond
that time.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that the PUD, as drafted, is
approved until April 2, 1973, and the condition regarding density
is being referred back to the Planning Commission.
CM-26-203
February 26, 1973
REPORT RE AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL LEASE
The City Manager reported that an appeal has been made by the airport
industrial lea see that construction financing cannot be obtained due
to a technical lease limitation which is that the property cannot be
subordinated to the lender. A lending institution is willing to commit
as long as the construction loan pertains only to a subdivided one
acre plot. This requires the subdivision of the three acre plot
into three separate one acre leases. The same leasees are involved
and are not relieved from the payment of the ground lease rate
applicable to each of the three acre parcels, uniformly.
It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion to terminate
the existing lease and authorize execution of three new leases.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council approve the recommenda-
tion to terminate the lease and authorize execution of the new
leases, seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed by the
unanimous approval of the Council.
REPORT RE LIVER-
MORE/PORTOLA ASSESS.
The Director of Public Works submitted a written report to the Council
regarding the assessment district status of Livermore/Portola Avenue.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller suggested that the staff discuss the various
alternatives with all the property owners involved and that the Council
table the matter until everything has been resolved with the property
owners, including the money as well as with Hoffmann.
Councilman Pritchard moved to table the matter, subject to the Mayor
coming back to the Council with a recommendation after speaking with'
the property owners, seconded by Councilman Futch which passed
by a unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE BIKEWAYS
PROJECTS STATUS
The Director of Public Works reported that the staff met with the
Bikeways Association regarding bikeways projects and recommend that
the projects be implemented this fiscal year. The estimated cost
to be $3,720 of the $10,000 the Council has budgeted for the pro-
jects. These include bikeways along the following streets:
1) Murrieta Blvd. - From Olivina to portola
2) Third Street - From Church Street to "QII Street
3) Fifth Street
4) East Avenue
5) Olivina Avenue
6) Chestnut Street
The report included a location map showing the bike route locations
and an explanation as to details on each street.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council accept the recommendations
to proceed with the projects and also in view of the fact the
cost is only $3,720 for the staff to consider spending the remainder
to extenathe.bike path. on Stanley. Blvd.. along Shadowcliff Park from
the City limits,' which is .the point the bike path done by the County
will end.
CM-26-204
February 26, 1973
Bikeways Projects
Councilman Pritchard questioned a possible discrepancy between what
was shown on the map as an alternate (Fifth Street) and what was
listed to be included, in the report.
Mr. Lee explained that originally, the staff felt the Third Street
route might be more functional, which the Public Works Department
went along with.
Councilman Futch mentioned the possibility of restricting parking
along Olivina and Chestnut in front of the commercial areas: they
have their own parking lots and parking on the street would not
be necessary.
Mr. Lee stated that the traffic along that area requires that the
double lanes are necessary and with regard to removal of parking
spaces on the street, he felt the property owners with the commer-
cial developments would strenuously object to a move of this type.
Speaking with regard to projections of the bike trail system, there
was discussion regarding the possibility of using the railroad
right-of-way by extension of it for use of bicycles, which the
City Manager explained would be very costly, approximately $2.00 to
$2.50/sq. ft.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, representative of the Livermore Bikeways
Association stated that they concur with the recommendations made
by Councilman Futch in the way of a motion and mentioned other long-
range possibilities for bikeways.He also stated their views with
regard to plans for Olivina and Chestnut and pointed out that those
who shop by bicycle do so in Livermore, not other cities, and asked
that the Council keep this in mind when planning bikeways. He also
urged the Council to consider hazards, should diagonal parking be
considered for Third Street, adding that the street is substandard
in width, and that bicyclists also like to use this street. He
asked that the Council consider providing a throuth street for
bicycle riders from Rincon to Junction, and if possible all the
way out to Murrieta Boulevard.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that the motion is to adopt
I, II, and III of the report, which covers the streets mentioned,
using the remainder of the appropriations for a bike lane on
Stanley Blvd. at the point where the County stops.
Councilman Futch stated that he would like to add something to his
motion concerning Chestnut and Olivina. In his opinion, the parking
on the street in front of Value Giant is not often used and he would
favor a restriction of no parking along that area, which would allow
for bicycle paths, on one side of the street only.
Mr. Lee asked the Council to keep in their consideration the cost of
the reflectors located in the street which would then have to be
moved over for each lane as a bicycle path would cause them to be
off-set. He stated that these reflectors are approximately $1.00
each and the whole alteration would be very expensive. He explained
that they are fastened with an epoxy which causes the asphault to
stick to them or causes them to break up when they are removed so
others would have to be purchased to replace them. In his opinion
there have been no facts substantiating the theory that such an
expense is warranted due to bicycle traffic, or that the parking
is not used often enough.
CM-26-205
February 26, 1973
(Bikeway Projects)
Mr. Wendt stated that if the staff seems reluctant to make changes
for a bike lane along Chestnut and Olivina, they would suggest utiliz-
ing the right-of-way along the railroad. All they are interested in
at this time is a provision or means of getting to the downtown shop-
ping areas.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the Council voted
unanimously to approve the motion.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller thanked Mr. Wendt and members of the Livermore
Bikeways Association stating that this is just one of the ways in which
citizen groups can help improve the City and that this group
represents a very good example of citizen support for our City
government.
MATTERS INITIATED BY THE STAFF
(Status Report re Arroyo Parkway)
Mr .Lee explained that the City has an agreement with the developer
of the multiple development on Murrieta, in which he is to dedicate
the arroyo parkway land to the City, have the land surveyed and then
graded. At present he has proceeded with the surveying and a first
draft of this survey has been presented to Public Works. Also the
landscape architect is working on a master plan for the area at this
time.
The work is behind schedule, but it is hoped that work will commence
in the near future. The developer has been notified that occupancy
of his units will depend upon the progress of his obligations to the
City.
(Re Trailer State-
ment for Ballot)
The City Clerk reminded the Council that if they intend to prepare
a statement regarding trailers for the April ballot, the deadline
is on March 1.
Councilman Futch felt that perhaps the Council should provide a
statement for both sides, in case someone prepares one for just
one side: however the City Clerk explained that the City preempts
both sides.
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller read the rules concerning the matter in
explanation.
~. Co C~~d:~ F?e:Zd Co ~i1 c~~~m:~:..r~y
unanl. s ~~9?the oun . .~~7~l.cn ycu
'(\
Councilman Futch moved that the Council request Councilman Miller
to write an argument for the ordinance, and for the sake of expediting
business, Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion. The motion
passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
(Re First Street
Intersection)
The Council had instructed the staff to get another appraisal for
the First Street intersection, possibly to be developed for a
beautification spot. The appraisal has been done and the City
CM-26-206
February 26, 1973
(Re First St. Appraisal)
Manager reported that the second evaluation of the property indicates
that the worth is approximately $36,000 rather than the previously
estimated $46,000. The state would like to know if the City intends
to purchase the property and he would like to receive some direction
from the Council.
It was concluded that the City would proceed with negotiations for
purchase of the area to be used, primarily, as a beautification
spot, and that the staff would also work with the state in acquir-
ing the parcel adjacent, which will be used in the proposed street
realignment. This decision was reached on motion of Councilman
Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and passed by unanimous vote.
(Re SACEOA Joint
Powers Agreement)
Mr. Parness noted that several months ago the seven cities involved
in SACEOA authorized a program and a joint powers agreement to be
under the auspices of SACEOA but a self-administered entity whereby
the seven cities would oversee it and manage it.
A $l40,000 grant was allocated for the purpose: however, it appears
that the SACEOA staff has spent this money and apparently with the
knowledge of the board. All of the chief administrators of each
of the cities have been proceeding with the belief that the money
was available and trying to initiate the program. They have even
gone to the effort of recruiting staff members (five) to get the
program under way and just last week talked to three people who
are qualified to become the director. Notice came that same day
indicating that there was no money. He stated that this was a
very sorry state of affairs and each of the seven City Managers
decided to ask their Council, individually, if they would sub-
sidize this personnel effort for at least 10 days during the
transition period in which they are asking Sacramento for reimburse-
ment of these fees. It is their belief that Sacramento will concur
and release this money to the joint powers agency. However, they
do not want SACEOA to participate any longer, in any respect. He
asked what the Council's feeling might be with regard to paying our
share of the 10 day personnel obligation which would be approximately
$450.
The City Attorney expressed some concern for the Council having the
authority to do this.
Councilman Pritchard moved that, assuming it can be legally done,
the Council authorize Livermore to participate in the amount not
to exceed $450, seconded by Councilman Futch.
There was some discussion among the Council members with regard to
the fate of the "Meals on Wheels" program as well as the proposed
Health Care Center, due to discrepancy of information with regard
to fund availability.
Councilman Futch felt it to be slightly illogical to keep an agency
hanging by a thread when it is not known whether or not it is going
to be phased out. He felt if this is the intent of the Governor,
it should have been phased out: in the meantime, it should continue
to receive funds until its destiny is known.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Councilman Pritchard.
MATTERS INITIATED BY
THE COUNCIL
Photography of Awards
Councilman Pritchard stated that it has been suggested that the City
have a professional photographer take pictures of buildings and sites
which have received various awards to be preserved for posterity. He
asked that the matter be scheduled on the agenda.
CM-26-207
February 26, 1973
It was concluded that the best date for the matter to appear on the
agenda would be March 12th.
Letter of Thanks re
Bike Trails Consideration
Councilman Futch suggested that the Council write to the County Board
of Super~isors thanking them for their consideration of bike trails
and noting that we intend to extend the bike trail along Stanley
Boulevard.
The Staff was directed to prepare the letter of thanks.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller adjourned the meeting at IO:20 p.m. to a brief
executive session, as requested by the City Manager, for the purpose
::p:::USSing p~~ttI ~ ~ _
~ ~;,Y;=-
ATTEST ~~
L' ermore, California
Regular Meeting of March 5, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 5, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor
Taylor
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CM-26-208
March 5, 1973
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting
of February 20, 1973, were approved as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Appointment to
Planning Commission)
Charlene Kehret, 924 Florence Road, speaking as a representative
of the League of Women Voters, asked that solicitations for
applications to fill the Planning Commission vacancy be made
through the press and that ample time be given prior to filling
the vacancy so that applicants may be able to give the matter
a great deal of consideration and would urge the Council to give
notice and hold public interviews.
(Re Golf Course - Bond-
holders Approval re
Release Restrictions)
Bill Older, speaking as a representative of the Springtown resi-
dents stated that during the last meeting it was explained that
under the agreement with the bondholders of Las positas Golf
Course, it is stated that the City cannot operate another golf
course in the City. Within 72 hours after the meeting, Mr. Parness
telephoned Mr. Older to explain that he had spoken with the bond-
holders and that they have removed their objection. He stated
that he would like to thank Mr. Parness for his prompt action
and sincerity as well as an outcome which will be beneficial
not only to the City but to the residents of Springtown.
Mr. Older stated that during meetings the Springtown Association
has had with Mr. Parness they have found him to be discreet and
very courteous and thanked him for exhibiting this attitude.
(Re Citizens Against
a Garbage Environment)
Valerie Raymond, 2368 Buena Vista, representative of CAGE (Citizens
Against a Garbage Environment) asked that the Council join their
group in the appeal to the State Water Resourses Board regarding
the recent decision to allow the Kaiser land fill application.
She mentioned that the Council has a copy of a letter written by
CAGE and that they intend to contact Pleasanton, VCSD and Zone 7
asking for their support as well.
Councilman Miller moved that the staff be directed to prepare a
letter or whatever might be necessary to appeal the decision, as
the Council has taken the position on numerous grounds in opposition
to the project. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion, which
passed by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
MODIFICATION OF SETBACKS
Mr. Musso explained that the intent of the Council with regard to
setbacks, is to eliminate a setback requirement for an accessory
structure where the property abu~s the freeway. The matter was
referred to the Planning Commisssion for consideration. He then
explained portions of the report submitted by the Planning Commis-
sion as to the meaning and ways in which they arrived at a decision.
CM-26-209
March 5, 1973
He pointed out some of the deletions made by the Planning Commission,
explaining the reasons, as well as some of the other minor changes.
Mr. Musso stated that the main change, and the reason for the review,
was to eliminate the requirement for setback of accessory structures
adjacent to a freeway, major street or any other right-of-way.
Councilman Miller made reference to the deletion of the portion which
states that there may be only 30% coverage, which Mr. Musso explained
as a required side or rear (added) and 25% coverage.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission staff has become
involved in the past couple of weeks with the erection of a tower
in the Yorkshire area. The Planning Commission came up with a possible
solution to the problem which was created at the Yorkshire address
and indicated that after reading the report the Council may wish to
refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
There had been some question about allowing a l5 foot structure with
the roof being used as a tower.
Mayor Taylor stated that it was his understanding that the backing
lot treatment with regard to freeways was to be amended to which
Mr. Musso indicated he was not aware of this.
Mayor Taylor suggested the matter be sent back to the Planning
Commission with an explanation as to the reasons the amendment is
desired.
Councilman Beebe moved that the public hearing be closed, which
was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed with the unanimous
vote of the Council.
Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be referred back to the
Planning Commission to incorporate the desires expressed, seconded
by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Miller felt that placing a portion of the house as close
as lO feet to the property line in back was very close and worse
than what was allowed in some of the previous zoning ordinances.
He pointed out that one of the major issues in the past has been
the consideration for increasing the size of back yards so they
could be used by people. He felt the minimum back yard should be
35-40 feet from the property line to the building.
Councilman Miller stated that there is an additional 50 ft. setback
which originally started the discussion and designed not entirely
to protect the public from garages but also designed to protect
the home buyer from noise, lights and traffic from major streets,
freeways and railroads. It is conceivable that this additional
35 feet may not be enough as he read that there is a lot of carbon
monoxide associated with freeways and busy streets and it may not
be healthy to have residential properties too close to these streets.
He would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider these things
with relation to what setbacks should be.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion made
by Councilman Beebe.
The Council also agreed that the Planning Commission should take into
consideration the comments expressed by Councilman Miller.
CM-26-210
March 5, 1973
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Re Weed Abatement)
It has been estimated that there are approximately 750 parcels of
land which have been listed as possible areas of concern with
regard to complying with our weed abatement program. A resolution
of intention is the first step in the program which will be followed
by notices mailed and all properties posted.
RESOLUTION NO. 32-73
RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THERE EXISTS WEEDS GROWING ON OR
RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND/OR STREETS
ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THIS
RESOLUTION AND DECLARING THE SAME TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND
ORDERING SAID CONDITIONS ABATED.
(Report re Restaurant
Lease Assignment -
Crosswinds Restaurant)
The City Manager reported that an application has been received for
transferring our restaurant lease to the Crosswinds Restaurant
Corporation. Most of the same persons are involved, with a few
additions and the president will remain the same. It is recom-
mended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing assignment
of the lease.
RESOLUTION NO. 33-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
(Housing Authority
Minutes)
Minutes of the Housing Authority for their meeting of January 16,
1973, were submitted and noted for filing.
(Payroll and Claims)
There were 13l claims in the amount of $236,329.53 and 260 payroll
warrants dated March 2, 1973, in the amount of $65,643.87 for a
total of $30l,973.40.
Councilman Beebe noted that he would abstain from Warrant No. 5368
for his usual reasons.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by the unanimous approval of the Council, the Consent Calendar
was approved.
COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
RESIGNATION FROM P.C.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council accept the resignation
of William F. Millard from the Planning Commission and that a
letter thanking him for his many years of service be sent to him.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed by a unanimous
vote of the Council.
CM-26-2ll
March 5, 1973
The council then discussed the possibility of holding interviews
which would be open to the public, to fill the vacancy left by
the resignation.
councilman Futch moved that the Council use the usual procedure
of interviewing all interested applicants, which was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard and passed by a unanimous vote of the
Council.
RESIGNATION OF DRUMMOND
FROM BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
Mayor Taylor stated that Garrett B. Drummond has submitted a
resignation from the Beautification Committee and would assume
that the vacancy can be filled from the large list of applica-
tions received in the past.
It was noted that Mr. Drummond should also be sent a letter thank-
ing him for his contributions to the Committee.
COMMUNICATION RE
PHASE-OUT (SACEOA)
The City of pleasanton has written to the Council regarding a
resolution they have adopted with respect to the phase out of
SACEOA.
It was noted that the present Livermore Council had taken the same
type of action.
DISCUSSION RE YMCA
CUP - CHURCH ON WALNUT
The Council had been asked to schedule the matter of the YMCA CUP
on the agenda for the purpose of clarification of the conditions
and Mr. Musso explained, in detail, the conditions of the permit.
Parking space requirements, noise limitations, and other matters
were explained in detail.
Dr. John Shirley, YMCA Representative, stated that he appeared before
the Council at the last meeting and that there were two members
absent and those present were not sure what the motion regarding time
limit and large groups meant, exactly. He commented that originally,
it was their understanding that lO parking spaces would be required
and after speaking with Mr. Musso it appears that 22-23 spaces will
be required. He stated that he is sorry the application has caused
so much grief and can fully understand the concerns of the residents.
After some thought, they now wonder if they will at times be a nuisance
to the neighbors.
The YMCA can understand why so many restrictions were put upon the
conditions of the permit: however, in view of the conditions, the
parking requirement and the one year permit they feel it is simply
not worth their effort to provide the facilities at this location.
He thanked the Council for their consideration and the neighbors for
being friendly while standing firm in their convictions, stating that
they would continue to look elsewhere for a more suitable location.
REPORT RE INTERMARK
GOLF COURSE SALE &
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
Intermark, Inc. has imposed, as one of the conditions of sale of the
springtown golf course, a reservation of approximately 41.32 acres
of the course for future density calculations which they have
CM-26-212
March 5, 1973
explained in a letter as well as an attachment of a map to illu-
strate the portions of land they intend to retain.
Mr. Musso explained that Intermark proposes that the area which
is golf course and not part of the original Planned Unit Develop-
ment permit be included as additional density, or that they are
allowed additional density for that area. The main issue is
whether or not they have already been given density for the golf
course area.
Mr. Musso stated that it started out with the rezoning of the
westerly property which was left pending, due to other actions,
one being the application for the mobile home park and another
initiated by the Planning Commission and the Council to consider
the entire area and Intermark's holdings. The reason was to
adjust and transfer densities. It appears that the way the density
was transferred and adjusted was somewhat incorrect and that they
should be allowed 30 more units.
The position of Intermark is that the City did not give them credit
for the golf course property and that the additional density which
went to Las Flores Mobile Park came from other properties. If the
old densities of the General Plan were applied, the statement would
be correct: however, the City was not working with the old General
Plan density. The new densities were allowed, and they were given
credit for the golf course property which, he added, was discussed
in detail and recorded in the minutes of the Planning Commission.
In answer to a question posed by Councilman Pritchard with regard
to Mr. MUsso's position, he stated that he would have to agree
that Intermark should be allowed 30 more units.
Mr. CountrYman, representative of Intermark asked that the Council
recognize that there is a certain amount of acreage of the golf
course which has not been used and Intermark would like to show
what has been used over the period of time, and in what manner it
has been used. He stated that presently, the density is 3.0 and
is subject to change in the future. They are not asking for a
specific number of units but prior to deeding the course to the
City it is recognized that a certain amount of acreage is available
at such future time, depending on the zoning at that time. Their
point is to make the Council aware that there are a certain number
of acres available.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission does not agree with
the statement explaining that in 1969, at the time of the rezoning,
there must have been an assumption that the density transfer was
accomplished on the basis of 4.2 dwelling units per acre and this
is where the City disagrees. The City made the density transfer
based on the golf course and has already been transferred, with
the exception of 7.25 acres of land.
The City Attorney commented that he can see no reason for getting
involved in the density dispute at this time; perhaps Intermark
wishes to get it straightened out in his opinion it doesn't need
to be at this time. He explained his reasons for this opinion _
Intermark approached the City with an offer to sell the land for
$100,000. This was done under a provision in the annexation agree-
ment which gave the City the right of first refusal. It seems that
some group asked Intermark to sell the golf course to them and they
would pay $100,000 for the property - the same deal offered to the
City. He stated that there is no question of density transfer
problems if the other group buys the property: therefore, it should
not enter into the picture if the City buys the property. At this
time the only consideration should be whether or not Intermark
should be allowed to reserve from the sale rights to density.
CM-26-2l3
March 5, 1973
Councilman Pritchard moved to table the matter until the Council
has specific plans for construction.
Mr. Countryman stated that the density consideration is a condition
of the sale to the city. There were three conditions to the sale
offered to the City under the annexation agreement for first right
of refusal and these conditions were as follows:
1) $lOO,OOO cash escrow to close in 90 days from acceptance.
2) It would remain in operation as a golf course for a minimum of
a one year period.
3) That Intermark retain the rights to the acreage for future use.
In order that the City might be able to purchase the property they
waived the first condition for an additional 60 days to get the
approval of the bond holder, waived the second condition because the
City intends to operate it, and the third condition is the reason
Intermark is being represented at this meeting, to resolve the matter.
The City Attorney suggested that the matter be put over for one week
during which time the City can contact the Title Company in an effort
to resolve the matter.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to add to his motion
that during the time the matter is tabled, the City Attorney check
with the Title Company.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed by a 4-l vote
of the Council with Councilman Futch dissenting.
The City Attorney stated that it is obvious Intermark wants to settle
the matter of density before the close of escrow: however, he emphasized
that this is not necessary and they seem to be using this as leverage
in the sale.
Councilman Miller stated that it would be up to the City Attorney to
find out what the nature of the contract is, and if Intermark would be
obligated to sign the deed of sale, or if they could back out of the
deal should the matter remain unresolved.
RECESS
Mayor Taylor called for a 3 minute recess, after which the meeting
resumed with all members of the Council present.
REQUEST FROM OGO ASSOC.
RE LOW COST HOUSING PROJ.
With regard to the request by OGO Associates to develop a low cost housing
project, Mayor Taylor stated that essentially, they are asking that the
particular piece of property proposed for construction of these units receive
a special exemption from existing or future ordinances to regulate the
issuance of building permits.
The City Manager explained that he has been in contact with OGO
representatives for a number of months and that they have been
striving to gain local approval for proceeding with development
of low cost housing, under a federal program. He stated this
is a high density, low income housing. They have been informed
of local building limitations, water problems and other related
matters. In view of the recent passage of the water bond issue,
they have decided to present their proposal to the Council, by
CM-26-2l4
March 5, 1973
(Re OGO Low Cost
Housing Project)
letter in order to obtain Council reaction. They are fully aware
of the requirements with regard to water and schools as well as
the SAVE issue and have elected to apply directly to the Council.
Mr. Robert Klein explained the plans to the Council for the develop-
ment which will be located across the street from Control Data
Corporation, and that it is not housing for low income people, but
moderate income between $7,500 and $9,600. With regard to the
assumption that it is a low cost project, he stated that each
unit will be approximately $25,000 and runs above the medium income
of apartment buildings in Livermore. The only way medium income
apartments can be furnished to moderate income families is with
government assistance. With regard to the need for this type of
housing in Livermore, he pointed out that their survey has indicated
that there are a large number of municipal and civic employees in
this area with incomes in that range who cannot qualify for new
single family housing of the type and price these are to be built.
Their study has shown that the single family housing being built
in this community is between $26,000 and $32,000, and on a 9% loan
a young family, after putting down a payment of $2,600 must pay
approximately $240 per month, which means that they must have an
income of $ll,200 a year to meet the qualifications for buying one
of these homes. This indicates that there is a need in this
community to house some of the young dependable working families
with a moderate income, as they have not had an income which
keeps pace with the building industry. They cannot afford good
quality houses for their family without assistance.
In order for housing to be provided for these families, he stated
that FHA, under the assistance program, has made a commitment to
OGO but has recently notified OGO that they will cancel this
assistance unless OGO can prove to them that they will be able to
obtain the necessary permits.
They have made an agreement with the School District to pay $800
per unit for 96 units. He read a letter from Bruce Jamieson
indicating that their offer apparently meets the requirements of
the Board of Education and the offer will probably be accepted.
Mr. Klein stated he believed they could meet the requirements of
the City and the School Board and there is a need for 96 units _
58 of which would be 2-bedroom, 30, 3-bedroom and 8, 4-bedroom.
He also remarked that the density would be 9.8 d.u./acre. They
feel they have taken special environmental consideration and have
gone over that with the members of the East Bay Chapter of the
Sierra Club. Of the l59 trees on the site, they will be able to
save 155 and they plan to plant about 200 more, in accordance with
their specifications with HUD. He felt they have proposed a develop-
ment that meets a special need which will not be met by the l500
permits for single family dwellings. Livermore has a responsibility
to its citizens to provide good housing for all.
Barney Adams, realtor on the project, stated they felt the
best approach would be to present their proposal to the Council
for consideration. There is a need for low cost housing with the
return of veterans and young families and handicapped people
as there are many who do not make enough money necessary to purchase
a private home. The reason they can not is that the price of
private homes seems to be advancing faster than the salaries.
The only way to combat the problem is by a program such as the
one they have to offer and OGO has been building in the state
of California for about twenty years, has the expertise nec-
essary to deal with government authorities and government programs
and in northern California they have between thirty and forty con-
CM-26-215
March 5, 1973
tracts for locations such as this one. He explained more fully the
reasons the programs such as these were workable, however all such
programs have been cancelled but since the HUD commitment has been
outstanding for over a year the development can be extended if they
can obtain a building permit.
Mayor Taylor stated there is an ordinance in effect regulating the
issuance of building permits because of the water shortage and he
asked the applicant if he was concerned about a future moratorium.
Mr. Klein stated it is his understanding there would be no problem
with water in 1973, however the units will not be ready for occu-
pancy until the summer of 1974. Their main concern is that HUD
has told them if they cannot immediately obtain a building permit,
having provided $800 per unit for the schools, and the require-
ments of the city, they will cancel the assistance. In answer to
a question posed by Mayor Taylor with regard to the time they have,
Mr. Klein stated their last extension from HUD will expire in about
three weeks, but if they obtain a statement from the council that
they will be allowed to obtain building permits, they could receive
a 60 or 90 day extension.
Councilman Beebe asked if a date had been set for review of the
water ordinance, and Mr. Lewis stated that a specific date has not
been set however he has urged that the action be taken before the
first of April - to have the hearing and get testimony from Zone 7.
The council would impair its legal position unless they review
the ordinance and come to some conclusion based on the available
facts. Mr. Lewis further stated that an amending ordinance would
not become effective for a period of time unless there may be an
urgency ordinance.
Mr. Adams stated that there will be no more federal programs under
HUD, and the real issue at stake is whether or not the Council will
issue building permits for this type of thing and they had hoped
this decision could be made.
Councilman Beebe moved that March 19 be set as the time of review
of the water ordinance if Zone 7 can provide their testimony at
that time, seconded by Councilman Futch, and approved unanimously.
Mr. Klein asked the-Council if-it would be possible to make a
judgment tonight contingent on the findings of sufficient water.
Councilman Miller pointed out that they had reserved building per-
mits for the City's low income housing, and since this was not
a public agency, he did not feel they should set aside building
permits for 100 units without knowing what the water situation is.
Mayor Taylor commented that they were not requesting additional
permits and Mr. Lewis added that there is no clear relationship
to how the permits are apportioned to this property owner merely
because it is low income housing except that it might be possible
to make an argument that this fulfills an element of the housing
plan. He would hesitate to say it would be a fair way recognized
by the court.
councilman Miller reminded the Council they had asked if they
could reserve water for industry or commerce and the answer was
negative: that they did not have the right to reserve in advance
for one use or another.
Mr. Lewis stated that was the answer he had given and on a partay
with that, the problem is the same, and the only device he could
think of to reserve water would be to take a position that by
paying some type of standby fee for water use within the area of
the water department, perhaps a property could get rights. In
CM-26-2l; 6
March 5, 1973
(Re OGO Low Cost
Housing Project)
other words by paying the standby fee the City would agree to
serve that property water when it developed.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that if they find the water shortage is
not a critical problem and guarantee building permits, it may give
HUD the rational to allow an extension: also the density is con-
siderably less than what was allowed K & B. They have known for
many years that non-assisted, privately financed housing will
provide housing in the proposed income bracket. He added that
this is the first complex apartment in the City which has reached
an agreement with the School District to pay $800 per unit, they
intend to pay all City fees and that they possibly cannot proceed
unless they receive these allocations. If the Council states that
they will be issued building permits if the water situation is
satisfactory, it would mean that if any subsequent growth rate
control is established, this unit will be exempt. At this time
the only problem seems to be the water problem. In his opinion,
there is no reason the Council cannot give permission to go ahead,
it is simply up to the Council as to whether or not they want the
development.
Councilman Beebe commented that as he recalls, the Vila Gulf
Housing Development was exempt from the Water Ordinance, to
protect them. He stated that he is in favor of such a plan, as
there is no housing for this salary range - Vila Gulf houses those
with incomes up to $5,000 and this would be the next range. The
point that would intrest him with this type of project is that it
pays taxes, where projects such as Vila Gulf do not, and subsidy
comes from the government to make up for the deficiency in the rent.
Councilman Futch stated that the main problem seems to be with the
Water Ordinance and subject to the condition that there is sufficient
water available to handle a significant number of building permits,
he would be in favor of giving them the assurance that approval would
be granted subject to water availability: made as a motion and ~_
which was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller stated that the report indicates that initially,
20% of the people in the project can be greater than basic rent
payers and wondered if ultimately there may be lOOt non-basic rent
payers, to which Mr. Klein indicated that there can be only 20%
out of the income range if there are not adequate people in the
income range. A very long waiting list is expected, approximately
150-200 families, as predicted by HUD who has access to the schedules
of salaries for City employees and the School District. If there
is a renter who eventually gets a raise which exceeds the standards,
he will be allowed to stay. The object is to give the young family
a boost as they start out.
Councilman Miller stated that the income range listed is related
to local people and wondered where these people are living at this
time.
Mr. Klein explained that at this time these people are living
in other areas and in 2-bedroom apartments when they should
be living in an apartment with three bedrooms _ their living
conditions are crowded, as this is all they can afford. He
Cl)1-26-217
March 5, 1973
(Re OGO Low Cost
Housing project)
stated that there are three basic problems to be considered:
1) these people are living 30-40 miles from their job: 2) they
a~e,living in units which are too small: and 3) they are paying
more than 25% of their income for rent which is overextending
themselves.
Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, asked who is taking the position
of not granting funds at HUD, and the Mayor explained that
an allotment has been promised from the HUD administered fund
and that future allotments have been cancelled by the administra-
tion. They have the allotment now and can build now if they
can get permits: however they have not been able to receive
these permits due to the water problem. HUD has stated that
there are a number of other people who want this money and
unless permits can be obtained, or proof that they can, they
will give the money to someone else.
Mr. Day felt the City should check with HUD to make sure that
these funds really are available.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he is not questioning
the integrety of anyone here but found it difficult to believe
that housing can be reserved for City employees, School District,
and local industry of those which fall into the salary range.
Mayor Taylor explained that this was not implication; it was
merely stated that there is a need for this type of housing
in Livermore, and there would be no way of excluding people doing
ther jobs in other areas from living there.
Mr. Klein indicated that they follow rent guidelines which
give preference to individuals living and working locally.
Councilman Miller felt it would be useful to see these guidelines
before the Council comes to a decision, which has been implied
by the City Attorney as not being legal.
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, expressed concern for where
the additional water will come from to provide for these units
and also asked if the permits will be subtracted from the
635 to be issued this year.
It was noted that there are no more permits to be issued this year as
was indicated by Mr. Tull.
Councilman Miller stated that if water is to be reserved, it should
be reserved for Intel, Sears, and other prospective construction
which is desired. He felt the issue was essentially the same.
Mayor Taylor explained that the motion does not provide for the
reservation of water but that building permits will be granted
subject to water availability.
Councilman Miller felt this was setting a preference and felt
it to be unjustifiable.
Gib Marguth, ll52 Farmington Way, indicated that he would have to
concur with the attitude of Councilman Miller in that the proposal
should be thoroughly reviewed before any commitments are made, in-
cluding review of the tract map and precise plans.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the rents listed for the units
are not cheap and that there are other units in the City which
rent for less. He would assume that duplexes rent for less and
with the utilities, may be equivalent.
CM-26-218
March 5, 1973
(Re OGO Low Cost
Housing Project)
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the motion does not mean that the
Council will not have the opportunity to review maps, plans, etc.
but that this is just a way of keeping the opportunity for such
development open and to insure that these people do not lose the
federal assistance.
At this time Mayor Taylor called for a roll called vote to the
motion which passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
REPORT RE GROWTH
CONTROL PROCESS
A report from the City Attorney, the Planning Director and an
ad hoc committee has been prepared and distributed to the Council
with regard to a growth control process.
Councilman Pritchard commented that in order to get the discussion
started he feels that the Council, in general, accepts the recom-
mendations of the staff with regard to proposals for growth
regulation in Livermore and would move that the Council accept
the recommended procedure for defining boundaries for a growth
controlled zone, pursuant to Section 65858 of the Government
Code. This motion received a second from Councilman Futch.
At this time Mayor Taylor called for a roll called vote to
the motion which passed as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor explained that the motion which passed was merely
an acceptance for the recommended proposal for regulating
growth and not an action towards implementation.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council put into a study area,
all those portions within the City limits of Livermore, except
those tract maps which were accepted in their final state as of
May 2, 1972 and include in the study areas all the RG and RM Zones.
Mr. Musso suggested allowing a certain number of units which would
take care of small downtown RM and RG lots, which Councilman
Pritchard stated he would agree with.
There was some difficulty for the Council to interpret the motion
made by Councilman Pritchard and he offered to restate the motion
for possible clarification.
The Council will put into a study zone all areas of the City of
Livermore where tract maps have been approved or accepted after
May 2, 1972 and study all RG and RM Zones for possible rezoning.
There was some question regarding the use of the date May 2, and
Councilman Pritchard explained that if the date is used the Council
will essentially exempt, from study areas, all of the old town area
where the lots and public works improvements are already in, as
well as individual lots which have been standing for some length
of time.
Councilman Miller seconded the motion.
Mayor Taylor stated that he would rather take the whole north
side of town from US 580, north, PU #l2 which includes all the
undeveloped area that a General Plan review will affect. Where
CM-26-2l9
March 5, 1973
(Growth Control process)
lots are already recorded, streets and public works improvements
are in, these will be exempt. This will stop development on
the north side in which area there have been no commitments to
help solve the problems of school facility shortages. He would
suggest that the staff come in with some type of boundary.
with regard to his motion, Councilman pritchard explained that he
has a list of the approved and accepted tract maps, the date he
specified will assure the areas in which public works improvements
are in, mostly in the old areas, and will be excluded from study
areas. He then illustrated the areas involved in explaining his
point referring to a specific date.
Councilman Miller pointed out that there are a number of old City
vacant lots with public works improvements in and yet there was
a moratorium on these properties: particularly with respect to
duplexes. These are equivalent to final maps, have been in business
for many years and yet there have been interim freezes on them.
Mayor Taylor felt a final map for a subdivision is not equivalent
to an individual lot.
Councilman Miller stated that there were tract maps close to 100
years ago and that there are quite a few individual lots left from
this and he is trying to establish that lots on a final which have
just been approved are, in principal, no different than lots on a
final which were approved in l876: especially when there have been
no public works improvements.
Councilman Miller noted that there are areas in the City in which
the Council may want to make changes, and the reason the zoning
was changed on the east side was due to commercial - the commercial
is no longer there and on some of these properties the council may
wish to reconsider and go back to the General Plan density on these
properties. This is not known at this time - they may wish to leave
it as it is, but they should have the option to change. He felt the
air quality problems may make different density and holding capacities.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Bevilacqua Tract is of great concern to
him and the proposal would exempt that. He felt it should also be
included in the moratorium because the area all around it is being
considered.
Councilman Miller stated that he would have to agree with Mayor Taylor
and would also request an interim freeze for areas he considers to
be higher density.
Mayor Taylor felt that in a General plan Review over a two year
period, every piece of property in town will not be examined for
a possible change in density.
Councilman Miller suggested that for a period of four months
all of the properties be considered. He felt that there should
be no review of new maps but some which be considered for rezoning,
and the major properties, and there are some in the purview of
the Council's power which exist and should be reviewed. Not to
include these properties in an interim freeze is preempting the
activities of the Citizens Committe and the General Plan Review.
Councilman Miller stated that he would be happy to offer an amend-
ment to include the area north of Highway 580 if that is an area
of concern, and include it as a portion of the motion.
CM-26-2.20
March 5, 1973
(Growth Control Process)
Mr. Musso stated that it is a logical point to draw a line where
lots of record are built on and improvements have been accepted
by the City and that includes all the old parts of town and any
subdivision that was approved before that date and excludes any-
thing where the final map has never been acted upon.
Councilman Miller moved to amend the motion to also include
in the study area all those properties north of US 580, which he
felt would resolve the concerns that the Mayor had.
Mayor Taylor stated this did not resolve anything as he did not
know where the boundaries were, and he felt the whole thing should
be on the basis of boundaries. He felt there were many lots north
of the the highway which fell in the same category as the lots in
the older part of town.
Councilman Pritchard seconded the amendment to the motion although
he felt it was redundant, whereupon Councilman Miller withdrew his
motion.
Councilman Futch felt it would be clearer to consider the review
by area, and asked Councilman Pritchard if he had withdrawn the
portion of his motion having to do with multiples, and Councilman
Pritchard commented if the motion would be more acceptable to the
chair and the Council, he would withdraw RM and RG consideration
for the time being.
Councilman Beebe remarked that he would like to have the map
drawn out showing exactly what is to be included and excluded.
He was not agreeable to a haphazard motion on the spur of the moment
without considerable thought, and called for the question.
Mayor Taylor stated he wished to speak against the motion because
this was the first time the staff has had any indication of a
decision to accept this method. He asked the Council if they wanted
a moratorium on properties with a final recorded map because it
was felt that the general plan review would change the zoning on
the map.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he did not mean a moratorium,
but was just saying these areas are in the holding areas to be
studied. In order to make his motion more clear he stated that
on May I, 1972 they accepted the final map and improvements
of Tract 3293, and since that time they have not accepted any other
tract.
Mayor Taylor stated he did not feel the general plan will change
the zoning on a recorded final map, whether the public works
have been accepted or not.
The Council discussed whether the general plan review should be
done by area or timing, and in answer to a remark made by
Earl Mason that he did not understand the motion, Mayor Taylor
explained they were discussing the adoption of an 8-step recom-
mendation from the staff on a way to control the rate of growth
in the City. Mr. Mason then asked if it was the Council's in-
tention to place a freeze on building while they studied the
general plan, and Councilman Miller read the text of the Govern-
ment Code, Sec. 65858, which gave them their authority to pass an
interim ordinance to prevent development while they studied the
general plan.
A vote was then taken on the motion which failed by a 2-3 vote
with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council direct the staff to
draw a line including all the area north of the highway and
CM-26-22l
March 5, 1973
(Growth control process)
Planning Unit l2 and also not allow any temporary, final or parcel
maps within the remainder of the city.
councilman Beebe stated he would prefer that the staff be directed
to submit a proposal in accordance with the draft worded by the
City Attorney.
Councilman Futch felt that they had given them some direction by in-
cluding all the area north of the highway, Planning Unit l2, in
general, and there may be some special deviations from that which
he would leave up to the staff: in the remainder of the City he did
not want to see any temporary or final map on residential only.
Mayor Taylor added that they do not want any substantial subdivision
in the City that would be affected by a general plan review until
the review is finished.
The City Attorney stated there has been a good deal of talk about
final and tentative maps and there are a number of attorneys who
feel there is something vested in a tentative or final map so
this is an area of considerable question. The courts have looked
at rezonings and freezes in relationship to the necessity to hold
an area and some could argue that a more recent approval of a sub-
division map is more fixed in relation to the fact it exists at this
time. The courts are looking for a change of facts to justify
things in the usual rezoning situations. In regard to the freeze
he felt that the staff would come up with those areas most likely
to be considered for rezoning. He felt with the direction the
Council has given, and this statement, perhaps they could come
back in a week or two with some type of map showing those areas
and the Planning Director might give testimony to support them.
Councilman Futch restated his motion to direct the staff to draw a
line separating those areas that the Council wants to put in the
study- the areas to include all the land north of the highway and
planning unit No. 12. The second part is they want to exclude any
new maps of residential - tentatives, finals and parcel maps which
are maps of record. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller suggested that the motion be divided into parts
as there seems to be a difference of opinion at the Council level
about the areas to be included.
Mayor Taylor stated there was a general instruction to include the
north side, essentially, but no specific boundary.
Councilman Miller moved to amend the motion by deleting the portion
having to do with any specific area: the amendment was seconded by
Councilman Pritchard.
After some discussion regarding the intent of the motion and amend-
ment, a vote was taken on the amendment which failed with Council-
ment Beebe, Futch and Mayor Taylor opposed.
Councilman Miller felt they should hear some testimony as there are
two issues involved - one the report of the ad hoc committee and the
other the draft prepared by the City Attorney and Planning Director,
and the Mayor invited anyone in the audience to speak before the vote,
however there were no comments made.
councilman Pritchard asked for a clarification from the City Attorney
regarding the motion as to whether it would invoke Sec. 65858 which
would require a 4/5 vote.
Mr. Lewis stated that the motion was simply direction to the staff,
and he explained to the audience the reason for the question is that
for the first four months if the Council adopts one of the alternatives
provided for by the Section an interim ordinance can be adopted with-
out notice and hearing: after that there must be a notice and hearing
CM-26-222
March 5, 1973
(Growth Control Process)
conducted before the interim ordinance can be extended, and
the extension would be for eight months; then again after
notice and hearing and 4/5 vote (which each step required) it
can be extended another year, or a total of two years, but
no more.
A vote was taken on the main motion at this time which passed
3-2 with Councilmen Pritchard and Miller dissenting.
Councilman Miller moved that the City adopt the following:
pursuant to Art. 65858 of the Government Code, adopt for four
months an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting any tentative
or final subdivision map, parcel maps, records of surveyor
residential rezoning applications on any property in the City of
Livermore because of conflicts with zoning proposals based
on the general plan revision and amendments which are under
study or will be studied, and he offered this as a formal
motion for an interim ordinance to be adopted: the motion
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The Council discussed this motion after which time the motion
was withdrawn by Councilman Miller until next week, and moved
to direct the staff to draw lines around the property for
consideration for a possible interim ordinance to correspond
to the map drawn by Councilman Pritchard to include in the
study area all those maps not accepted before May 2, 1972.
The motion was restated that the staff was instructed to
isolate the areas placing in boundaries those areas described
by Councilman Pritchard. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and passed unanimously.
RECESS--
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT.
ORDINANCE RE SEWER
CONNECTION FEE
State statute requires that an ordinance amending the sewer
connection fee must receive a 4/5 vote of the Council, and
therefore the ordinance must be reintroduced. Councilman
Miller moved that the ordinance amendming the sewer connection
fee be introduced, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Pritchard stated there is a possibility that the
EPA is going to cut off funds because of the air quality, and
if the air quality is bad, the sewer plant should not be ex-
panded, and he asked why the fee is collected.
Mr. Lee explained the fee is based on the expenditures anticipated
created by any new connections - a cost to provide service for
connections, which includes treatment plant expansion and improve-
ments anticipated under the Valley Management plan. In accord-
ance with the regulations that the state has adopted there may be
no federal participation in which event this fee would be even
more important due to the upgrading now in process.
Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter for one week,
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
After some discussion in which the importance of the fee was
stressed, Councilman Pritchard withdrew his motion for continuance,
and the vote was taken on the motion to introduce the ordinance
which passed 4-l with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
CM-26-223
March 5, 1973
REPORT RE GROWTH RATE CONTROL
BY CITIZENS COMMITTEE
Anthony Thompson, 5138 Lillian Court, a member of the Citizens
Group which had compiled the report on Growth Rate Control spoke
on this subject, stressing a few of the points made in the report.
The charts in the report showed the growth in Livermore since
1960 and projected minimum growth for 1973 and 1974. Mr. Thompson
urged the Council to take this report into consideration in the
general plan review.
Mayor Taylor stated it was very clear that when the study com-
mittee is formed, one of the first things in the general outline
that they will address is the growth rate. They had just adopted
a policy presented to them by the City Attorney for a two year
control scheme, but as yet there is no long term plan, and even
the petaluma ordinance is based on this statutory authority. He
felt the report as presented by the Citizens Group was very perti-
nent and affected their thinking in the action taken previously.
Mayor Taylor stated that it had been suggested that the Council
simply set a number, controlling growth per year and asked the City
Attorney if there was any statutory authority in this regard.
Mr. Lewis replied that he felt there was no authority and it
would be knocked down summarily by the courts, and while they were
involved in litigation, they would be involved in other action for
inverse condemnation and the people would realize they had suffered
a delay and monetary loss as well. Mr. Lewis further explained what
problems might be encountered by using numbers to limit building
permits, and urged that if they decide on a numbers ordinance,
that they make sure it is supported by the evidence they can cite
specifically. It was his feeling that the courts are going to be
placing the burden on communities that adopt this type of ordinance.
He felt that the recommended staff proposals for growth regulation
would have the best chance for success if properly implemented.
He thought it would be very hazardous from a legal standpoint and
long range standpoint to adopt something that would not have much
chance of being upheld.
A member of the audience asked if in their program for controlling
the growth rate it was suggested they have a legal right to limit
development which they are about to initiate in the general plan
review since the law referred to the word "use".
Mr. Lewis explained that this was a technical term which referred
to zoning use - general categories of land use. He further explain-
ed that the section refers to contemplated rezoning and if you in-
clude that ordinance to cover areas where there is no reasonable
probability of rezoning, there would be problems.
Mr. Thompson asked why could it not include a carefully planned,
two year study on growth rate. He felt that if permits were
allowed during the interim, it would fix a certain growth rate,
which in their report indicates is considerably higher than the
average for the last couple of years.
Mr. Lewis remarked that the section does not speak about growth
rate, but rather changes in land use. The section does not
authorize an interim ordinance if only a study of the growth rate
is contemplated, but rather it is talking about a change of zon-
ing of the lands within the jurisdictional area and you are hold-
ing any incompatible uses with what that land use will be.
REPORT RE TRAFFIC STUDY
MURRIETA BLVD. AND PORTOLA AVE.
A report on the study of traffic re Murrieta Blvd. and portola Ave.
submitted by the Public Works Director was continued until the next
meeting.
CM-26-224
March 5, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED BY STAPF
(potomat Bldg.
Non-Conformance)
Herbert Street, Chief Building Inspector, stated that the Fotomat
Corporation had appealed the Design Review Committee's recommenda-
tion several months ago and subsequently they obtained a building
permit and constructed their building with the building design
they had submitted originally, which does not conform to the one
specified by the Council. They had been advised by their attorney
to proceed with their original design, and the attorney has been
in contact with the City Attorney with regard to the matter.
At this point a work stop order has been issued and their attorney
has asked if he should appeal the work stop order, to which the
City Attorney advised that there is little liklihood the Council
will change their views. Mr. Lewis explained that the company
had full intentions of proceeding with the alternate design
allowed, but somewhere along the way something went wrong and they
were not aware of the problem until this point. Their attorney
has stated that they feel this is a very regrettable situation;
however, since the building is in, they are going to attempt to
find legal justification for its being allowed to remain and hope
the Council will not feel that this has been an intentional error
on the part of management. He then asked the Council for direction
in further advice as to what course of action must be taken.
The Council advised that it is a matter of principle and would
not be willing to allow the present building to remain.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Taylor adjourned the meeting at l2:l5 a.m. to a brief
executive session to discuss appointments to the General Plan
Review Committee.
APPROVE
;~ylc
./
ATTEST
CM-26-225
A Regular Meeting of March 12, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 12, 1973
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a 3-2 vote of the Council with Councilman Beebe and Mayor
Taylor abstaining (due to absence at that meeting) the minutes
for the meeting of February 26, 1973 were approved as corrected.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Beautification Awards)
Richard Irby, Chairman of the Beautification Committee presented
awards to various citizens of the community for beautification
of their homes, as follows:
1383 Vancouver" Way, Louis Whittington, front yard
2167 Hampton, Robert John, front yard landscaping
1630 Alvarado, Eva Deleski, landscaping - oldest 2-story home
813 Sunset, Emile Lallement, Jr., corner lot treatment
735 Sunset, Robert Louie, corner lot treatment
1826 Railroad, Mrs. Perry Robinson, initiative to beautify
surrounding area and homes
265 Elvira, Mrs. Ray Post, organizing residents of Carlton Square
into a do-it-yourself park project on Murdell
l48 EI Caminito, Reginald Wood, landscaping
962 Via Seville, Robert Rose, corner lot treatment
l619 EI Dorado, Arthur McAlice, landscaping
405 Laguna Court, Gerald priebat, landscaping
888 Laguna Street, Carlton Corson, landscaping
Award certificates for past chairman of the Beautification Committee
were also given to Gary Drummond, Jr., Dale Turner and Roberta Hadley.
Present officers of the Beautification Committee were introduced
by Mr. Richard Irby.
SPECIAL ITEM
(City Employee Certificates)
Mayor Taylor stated that he has the pleasure of awarding certificates
to City Employees who have completed a course on operation of waste-
water treatment plants.
Dallas Smith and Jim Bischof were presented with these certificates.
(Introduction of Scout Troop)
After the presentation of awards, Mayor Taylor introduced the visiting
Scout Troop #92 and their leader, who are interested in viewing govern-
ment in action.
CM-26-226
March 12, 1973
REPORT RE CONSOLIDATION
OF LABOR RELATIONS
The City Manager has reported that a proposal has been drafted for
consolidated labor relations among certain public employer groups
in the Valley. The employee organization which would be subject
to the joint effort would be the Fire Departments in the cities
of Pleasanton, Livermore and VCSD. It has been recommended that
the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a joint
powers agreement applicable to the Fire Department.
Mayor Taylor explained that there are a number of persons present
who are interested in this matter and that it has been requested,
by telephone this evening, that the matter be tabled so that the
Fireman's Association may review the issue.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller and
by unanimous vote of the Council, the matter was tabled, as
requested.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
AMENDED ASSESS. TO
NO. SANITARY SEWER DIST.
A public hearing was held regarding the proposed amended assessment
to assign the proper assessment amount to each new parcel of
the Northern Sanitary Sewer Assessment District is a routine
matter and at the close of the hearing the Council intends
to adopt a resolution confirming the amended assessment.
Since no protests either oral or written were submitted, on
motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller
and by unanimous vote of the Council, the public hearing was
closed.
The City Attorney explained the new assessment procedure, and
on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by the following vote, a resolution was passed confirming
the amended assessment.
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
RESOLUTION NO. 34-73
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENT AMENDING
ASSESSMENT NO.3, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1962t;'l, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Report from City Mgr.
re Centennial Inventory
Material)
The City Manager has listed the material stored at the Corporation
Yard which the City was not able to sell during the Centennial
celebration and it is recommended that the Council adopt a motion
authorizing the sale of the material at the listed prices.
CM-26-227
March 12, 1973
(Res. re Water
Management Plan)
In accordance with a recent study session meeting regarding the
topic of the water management plan, a resolution has been drafted
indicating that the Council would favor consultant alternate C-I
with the reservation that other alternatives may become more viable
prior to the date on which implementation must take place.
Councilman Miller commented that during the time the matter was
discussed, Mr. Faltings was not able to make a presentation to
the Council and suggested that Mr. Faltings be allowed to comment
at this time, should he have anything further to add.
Mr. Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that his only comment would
be that the Board review the two letters he has sent to the Council.
He would ask that Brown and Caldwell consider the possibility of
other areas rather than just Doolan Canyon for the C-I or C-2 implemen-
tation.
RESOLUTION NO. 35-73
A RESOLUTION RE VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was
approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
REPORT RE SPRINGTOWN
GOLF COURSE DENSITY
TRANSFER
The City Attorney gave a brief report regarding the golf course
density transfer which had been postponed from the meeting of
March 5 in order that he might discuss the conditions of the sale
with the title company officers.
The City Attorney stated that the staff met with representatives of
Intermark this afternoon in an attempt to resolve the density prob-
lem. He explained that they were unable to come to agreement on
certain basic facts but will make a recommendation after explaining
what the difference of opinion is.
The RS-2 District was the basis for transferring density to the
trailer park which is RG-lO and occured in 1969 and there was a
rezoning at that time. There was a difference of opinion between
Intermark and the Planning Department as to which area the density
had been transferred from and the number of units Intermark should
receive credit for.
The City Attorney felt that it is regretable that the minutes of the
Council did not show any density transfer and nothing in the Plann-
ing Commission minutes indicating which parcel the density had been
taken from. He wopl4 therefore recommend that the Council accept
the Planning Director's calculations that the two parcels on the
north would allow an additional 30 units to be transferred to the
remaining Intermark .'land and:that an additional 10 units be given
to them in the essence of a compromise. In his opinion, their position
is not as strong as the City's but there may be some merit
to their claim. If the City is involved in litigation, it
may be some time before the matter can be resolved and may
prove to be very costly to the City, as well as some possibility
that Intermark is right.
CM-26-228
March 12, 1973
(Density Transfer -
Springtown Golf Course)
Councilman Futch stated that at that time he was a member of the PIa
ning Commission and that they spent at least three meetings coming
to a conclusion as to the density transfer and the zoning to be
applied to each of Intermark's pieces of property. He felt the
reason the density transfer with regard to where it was coming
from was not specifically mentioned in the minutes was because
each of the parcels was specifically zoned. The recommendation
of the Planning Commission was that approval for higher density
of the trailer park would not be given until such time as
the rezoning of all their other areas had taken place. He
indicated that he finds it a little unbelievable that after
the many nights which were spent discussing the matter, this
Council is faced with problems over the matter some three years
later. The motion made by the Planning Commission was to rezone
the 16.6 acres to RGIO based on density transfer, though not
specifically stated, from the golf course, and the rezoning
which took place at that time was consistent with that. He
felt it was a mistake to set a precedent where a density transfer
was allowed and then a number of years later let the developer
come in and request a change and would not vote for an increase
in density. He explained that it was his understanding that
all the densities were taken care of at that time and that they
are not entitled to additional density.
Councilman Miller pointed out that this rirst letter offering
sale to the City had nothing about density in it and should
not be an issue with regard to sale to the City.
Mr. Lewis explained that it would be his advice to avoid litigation,
but if the Council wishes, they may go ahead with litigation - it
is entirely up to the Council as to which course of action they
prefer.
Ron Countryman, representing Intermark, indicated that at the time
the ISO acres was rezoned and density transfers were made, it did
not include any of the golf course property. They would prefer
not to get involved in litigation and they are anxious to close
escrow: therefore, they would suggest that at such time as some-
one has specific plans the matter be brought up at that time.
They would propose that they be guaranteed 40 units with reserva-
tion to make a final settlement at a later date.
Mr. Musso explained the action which had taken place at the time
of the rezoning and that there seems to be 30 units which they
are entitled to have.
Councilman Beebe moved that the City proceed with the purchase of
the golf course and that the City abide by former commitments as
verified by the minutes and documents that 30 units be allowed at
a future date for transfer of density. If this is not agreeable
he would add to the motion that the City withdraw the offer to
purchase the property.
Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion and stated that he would
be interested to know if Intermark would be willing to accept the
30 units.
Mr. Bill Older, 1524 Hollyhock, stated that problems over the golf
course property with Intermark has caused the loss of a sale of
a home to a potential buyer, and that the person selling this home
desperately needed the sale to go through. He felt that in this
case, humanity could go with the strict interpretation of the law,
that he can appreciate the fact that principles are involved
but would feel that in this instance a compromise would be the
only fair agreement for all involved.
CM-26-229
March 12, 1973
(Density Transfer -
Springtown Golf Course)
Mayor Taylor explained that there is no possibility that the golf
course land can ever be used for housing or any other such use, and
it is presumed that this is known by anyone intending to buy the land.
It is zoned as a golf course and he can not see that any Council would
ever change it.
The motion confirms recognition of the calculations presented by the
Planning Director and not the compromise as suggested by the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney stated that, getting back to the annexation agree-
ment, Intermark is of the understanding that this is a moral commitment
on the part of the City and that it has been the policy to honor commit-
ments made by former Councils.
Councilman Miller felt that if there had been any type of commitment
for a density transfer, in addition to the areas rezoned, there would
have been a demand for a contract for it at the time and as pointed
out by Councilman Futch all parties were in agreement at the time and
there was nothing saying that there would be any type of future density
transfer, nor was there anything in the minutes saying anything about a
contract for future density transfers.
RECESS
Mayor Taylor called for a two minute recess, after which the meeting
resumed with all members of the Council present.
(Continuation of
Density Transfer)
Mr. Countryman explained that part of the consideration of the $100,000
price for the golf course was a deed restriction between private parties,
that would guarantee them the right to this acreage use (density) at
some future time. Other conditions were a 90 day period for escrow close
and that the golf course'would be operated and maintained for at least
12 months as a golf course after passing of title. These were not
completely spelled out in their letter, nor attached, however, only
because of information that it would not be considered in any way
way and they were trying now to expedite this matter - it was not
added at a later date.
Mayor Taylor stated that it is Intermark's contention that a great deal
more than 30 units are due them and as a compromise the City Attorney
has suggested that 30 plus 10 more be granted. However, the motion
is to allow them the 30 units, which in his opinion, is reasonable
and since the City has the opportunity to buy the property at a bargain
price they should be allowed the 30 units.
A vote was taken on the motion which passed 3-2 with Councilmen Miller
and Futch dissenting.
Mr. Parness felt it was appropriate to ask the Intermark people to
let the City know at the earliest possible time their response to
the Council's action, so the City can proceed. He added that next
week he would have prepared a financial forecast of what ownership
and operation of the golf course might mean and to enlist other
options that may be available to the City in the event the Council
still wished to proceed.
This matter was concluded later in the meeting (refer to p. 243)
CUP APPLICATION -
DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL
This Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Diamond Inter-
national Corporation for the area on the south side of First Street
CM-26-230
March 12, 1973
(CUP - Diamond
International Corp.)
was postponed from a previous meeting for action at this time.
The Planning Director explained that the zone was ID-H and the
permitted uses are industrial or a hotel-restaurant would be
allowed. The area is adjacent to residential on the west side.
The principal issue is whether or not the City desires a lumber
yard at this location. with regard to the site plan approval
aspect, all items have been agreed to with the exception of one
item, which has to do with the storage of materials near the fence.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission concluded that the
use should be permitted although an ordinance is under considera-
tion that would allow a CS zone where lumber yards would be more
specifically permitted, but there is not such an area established,
although this had been discussed, and he listed a few sites which
had been considered, which would have railroad access.
Mayor Taylor asked why the Planning Commission approved the use
if they considered the fact that strict application of the zoning
would not allow this use.
Mr. Musso replied that their feeling was that there was a need
for a place for this type of use, and although the CS Zoning is
in the mill, it has not been applied to any specific parcels, and
the parcels which he had listed are the ones being considered for
CS Zoning.
Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Miller commented that this issued had been raised at
his request because the approval being considered is in violation
of City policy that commercial uses stop at Tarin Bros. and was
the basis for the staff's recommendation for denial. The thing
that distinguishes this from a building materials yard is that it
is in large part a retail use. The wishes of the company have been
discussed for the most part, and when you are planning an area, the
wishes of the company should not prevail. He felt the most im-
portant issue was strip commercial on portola and First Street
which had not been mentioned and was the reason the Council had
set a policy several years ago that there would be no more com-
mercial beyond Tarin Bros. He felt the effect of this commercial
on the residential properties to the north and the implications
for further strip commercial should be discussed before there is an
approval which would set a precedent. If they want to protect the
area for good light industrial uses, they should stand by their
policy and this use should not be approved as there are other
parcels available. His argument is that they do not approve this
use at this location.
Councilman Beebe remarked that he would not want this use in any
of the locations which the Planning Director had mentioned because
it is a large volume type business, most of which is wholesale, and
he did not feel it should be in the core area of the City.
Mayor Taylor expressed his views in this regard by stating that
the owners of the present lumber yards in town have been told they
will be required to move because their land is much more valuable
for retail use involving heavy traffic. This type of open land use
is generally opposed by people who plan retail uses because it is
an open use and does not attract pedestrian traffic.. He added
that the frontage on First Street would be rather small and there
is a large landscaped strip, and compared to the permitted uses in
the area, he felt it would be much more credit to the City than
the restaurant which is a permitted use and was constructed without
Council approval.
Mr. Hutka commented that open space storage is the type of use which
is presently in the area and noted that other businesses using the
land do not use the fences with the wooden slats which Diamond
CM-26-23l
March 12, 1973
(CUP - Diamond
International)
intends to use and which would be more attractive than the open
space method.
Councilman Pritchard moved to amend the motion by striking Condi-
tion 14, which failed due to lack of a second.
Mr. Dirk, representative of Diamond International, stated that there
are certain things to consider - one being that Diamond International
has been asked to relocate and that they have no choice but to do so.
They have explored other areas such as Dublin and Pleasanton and this
particular property seems to meet their requirements better than any
other property they have seen. He commented that he is not familiar
with the other properties mentioned, which are in the area, but they
have certain criteria which are imposed upon them and realize that
they do not fit into any particular category such as industrial or
commercial because their business is a little of each. One of their
major concerns is locating near a railroad and any property without
rail service would be out of the question, as it would not fill their
needs. He stated that three facilities were built by Diamond Inter-
national last year in California and that the minimum requirements
consisted of lO acres for those facilities and that the bare minimum
they could consider would be 5 acres. It is their hope that the
Council might temper some of the conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission - one being the height limitation of the fences. In the
other areas they are allowed to stack material up to l4 feet high
and within 4 feet of the fence line. They feel that this is neces-
sary due to the nature of their business and the volume of inventory
of materials necessary to conduct business. In view of the fact the
land is only 5 acres, they need to go higher for storage because of
the landscaping requirements in front. He felt that it would be
next to impossible to operate with the height limitation of 6 feet.
He presented an artist's rendering of the site which they feel satis-
fies the requirements of the Planning Commission. He pointed out that
the trees would screen the visibility of the lumber from the public
right-of-way. They have relocated the store so as to blot out the
back storage area. .
Mayor Taylor mentioned the restriction of storage and questioned
as to where most of the storage would be and expressed concern for
their storing 14 ft. high bundles to the front of the property.
Mr. Dirk commented that there would be no problem with limitations
of storage to the rear portion of the property, which Mr. Musso
noted is 205 ft. back from the street, which would be the location
behind one of their buildings.
Councilman Pritchard moved that Condition 14 apply only to the portion
of property 205 ft. from the front property line. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller stated that his concern is for future property
owners on either side who may wish that the Council had concurred
with the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
The Council voted 4-l in favor of amending the motion, with Council-
man Miller dissenting.
Mayor Taylor asked what the conditions might be with regard to a
sing and Mr. Musso explained that there are no conditions other than
that they conform with the ordinance.
Mr. Musso stated that he would like to comment, for the record, that
there are often problems with signs to advertise when a firm has
received a CUP for retail use in an Industrial Zone. These firms
generally request more signs than what is allowed, to advertise.
CM-26-232
March 12, 1973
(CUP - Diamond
International Corp.)
At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the main motion which
passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
REPORT RE FOTOMAT
STRUCTURAL VIOLATION
Mayor Taylor explained that Fotomat Corporation had been given
approval for their structure with conditions specifically established
with regard to the height of the roof of the structure. The building
was constructed and the conditions were completely disregarded as to
what had been approved. Upon discovery of this situation, the Build-
ing Inspector took action to stop the job.
An appeal has been made by the company to allow the structure of
the roof and have sent a representative to speak on their behalf.
Jim Strala, 7590 Faye Street, LaJolla, stated that the Corporation
would like to convey their most sincere apology for not notifying
the Council as to what occurred. He explained that there were two
cases pending with regard to changes in design of the Fotomat struc-
ture - one in Arizona and one in Livermore. After having met with
Livermore representatives, a memo was sent out indicating that change
would be made in Arizona and Livermore; unfortunately the one which
should have been sent to Livermore was accidentally filed in their
files. He stated that the cost to them for modification amounts to
only $20-$40 and they regret that Livermore was not notified of the
changes to be made, and would like to come to some type of compromise
in completing the roof design.
At this time they would request a meeting with an architectural
committee to see if the structure would meet with their approval;
if not, they plan either to remove the structure or file suit, in'
order to substantiate what has already been approved by the Court
as their trademark.
Councilman Miller stated that he would be willing to accept the
Corporation's apology for the mixup but felt that the Council
should deny the appeal, and so moved. In his opinion, there
are other designs franchisers may use when the community objects
to their regular design. All of the franchises which have come
to Livermore have been willing to cooperate and he felt that
Fotomat could do the same. Councilman Futch seconded the motion.
Mr. Strala agreed that cities should have the right to ask that
companies blend in with any ordinances they have adopted and
explained that their structure has received a variation the
Corporation hopes will be acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Taylor indicated that it appears that Fotomat has stated
that if the Council and architectural committee agree upon any-
thing other than what the Corporation has proposed they will
file suit or possibly remove the structure entirely.
Mr. Strala stated that there are 1500 kiosks across the country
on which the roof design is the same and that any differences
have been resolved in meeting with all the architectural boards
they have encountered and what he is saying is that he feels the
architectural committee will approve this design.
Mr. Strala stated that he would agree to meet with the Design Review
Committee and that the Corporation would waive suit. He would hope
that the Committee and the Council would agree to their design and
if not, they will undoubtedly, remove the building - they will not
file suit, though in his opinion the Court would rule in their favor,
CM-26-233
March l2, 1973
(Re Fotomat
Violation)
Mr. Strala stated that the design is an attention getter, to which
Mayor Taylor explained is exactly the concern of the Council. It
is their policy to stay clear of buildings which are in essence,
attention getting devices.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be referred to the Design
Review Committee, seconded by Councilman Futch, and which passed by
a unanimous vote of the Council.
Councilman Miller had stated prior to the motion made by Councilman
Pritchard, that he would like to withdraw his motion and no vote was
taken.
DISCUSSION RE
INTERIM ZOo ORD.
As an alternate means of administering a zoning stoppage, the Planning
Director has prepared a narrative method that might be considered
rather than maps showing property within exclusionary bounds and maps
are being prepared according to the City Council's directive.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council adopt an interim ordinance
including all areas north of the highway and including Planned
Unit #l2, excluding the area which has been developed plus the one
planned unit which has an approved map in Planning Unit #12. In
addition he would add to the motion that the Council not accept any
additional temporary or final maps throughout the City until the
General Plan Review is complete.
To clarify, he stated that he would like to exclude the Hofmann map
(Tract 3321) from the study area. They have agreed to support schools
to the extent the other major developers in the area have, the map has
been approved, and the City really has a type of contract with them.
He feels it would not be fair to include them in the interim ordinance.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch commented that his motion refers only to residential,
and nothing more.
Councilman Miller asked if Councilman Futch could split the motion
into two parts to enable him to receive a unanimous vote on one part
of the motion.
Councilman Futch indicated that an amendment to the motion might be
in order to accomplish the suggestion.
Councilman Miller explained that there are parts which do not have
tentative or final maps representing a specific part of the City,
while others do, and it would seem to him that these are two separate
parts to be considered: if there is no problem in doing this he would
amend the motion.
The City Attorney suggested that the Council would be better off
to take care of the matter in one ordinance rather than to do it in
two, as an opinion and not from a legal standpoint.
Councilman Miller stated that he would like to make it clear that
he would be in favor of the portion of the motion which would pro-
hibit new tentative and final maps but does not agree with the other
part of the motion. He further stated that it has been pointed out
by a Citizens Committee that there are 1271 units about which the
Council can do nothing. Since then, 100 more building permits have
been issued to Mr. Elliott which equal about 1400 units which have been
CM-26-234
March l2, 1973
(Interim Zoo Ord.)
approved about which the Council can do nothing. These units are
a drain on the City's water supply. The sewer plant, which is
reportedly on the "ragged edge", has not counted these 1400 units not
yet connected, and it is felt they will use the remaining half of
the capacity. In his opinion there should be no further connections
due to the possible problems which could arise with the sewer plant.
Councilman Miller expressed concern for the reserve capacity for
Intel, Sears, and other industrial enterprises the City hopes to
obtain.
The City Attorney has created a mechanism for the Council to follow
which should provide a school connection fee in due course and seems
to be the major motivating question behind the exclusion of Hofmann
and Sunset. Councilman Miller added that he feels it is not reason-
able, on the basis of the sewer and water conditions and on the basis
of smog, to continue issuing building permits in batches of IOO on
and on indicating that something will be done later. He stated that
this is a critical air basin in which the EPA has stated that growth
should be controlled. In his opinion the Council should stop
evading the air quality issue and do something about it and
now is the time.
Councilman Miller felt that the motion made by Councilman Pritchard
at the last meeting contained the most equities of the community
the motion was that the Council put into a study area all those
portions within the City limits of Livermore, except those tract
maps which were accepted in their final state, as of May 2, 1972,
and include in the study areas all of the RG and ~~ Zones. He
would urge that the rest of the Council who voted against the
motion reconsider.
Councilman Pritchard moved to amend the main motion to substitute,
after speaking to the matter of all unfiled tentatives and final
tract maps, by referring to the minority map as provided and that
all those areas in the shaded section be shown as areas to be
placed in an interim zoning study area. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Futch stated that one of the major problems in this
community has been the lack of schools and at the present time
the City has proceeded in gaining voluntary agreements from all
of the major builders in the area. If the City does not allow
development on maps which have received final approval, he feels
there is a good possibility that these developers could withdraw
their support. He stated that he is surprised that any of the
Council would be willing to take such a gamble. The other major
problem is that, in his opinion, the City would have a weak legal
position. For these two reasons he would not be able to agree
with the amendment to the motion.
Councilman Pritchard felt that there could be no question of his
intention to support any method for obtaining school property and
facilitie, and as far as legal position is concerned he felt all
property owners are treated fairly with the laws they must work with.
Councilman Miller added there was a third point, and he mentioned
that the sewer plant was almost in trouble and more than half of the
remaining capacity is already committed by houses that have not yet
been occupied, which leave nothing for industry. He felt this was
adequate reason for not issuing building permits.
Mayor Taylor remarked that there was one fallacy in the arguments
presented by Councilman Miller and that is to assume they do not
have to operate according to state laws. They have a temporary
CM-26-235
March l2, 1973
(Interim Zoo Ord.)
hold on the properties for a period of four months, to be extended
as previously outlined on the basis that there is reasonable belief
that they may be rezoned, and the use might change. He felt it was
doubtful that the Council could legally keep an approved final map
in this study zone, and furthermore it is not certain that there
might be a change in the zoning at the end of two years. There is
all kinds of doubt as to whether they could permanently stop con-
struction on any properties under final map. If the motion passes,
he sees it quite likely that at the end of two years, or sooner,
building may proceed with the zoning slightly reduced, and maybe
not, but with no guarantee there will be voluntary contribution
toward the schools. There is only a remote possibility that AB l301
can be used to extract a school connection fee and he felt they
would be gambling on a certain loss of about $l million in school
fees against the hope of a slight reduction in density. As far as
smog, he felt there would be a holding limit to the City but this
would have nothing to do with density. He did not feel it was a
gamble worth taking.
Councilman Miller suggested that they have a prohibition on uses along
the lines proposed by Councilman Pritchard and himself for four months,
at the end of which time the question of water availability, and
an analysis of Zone 7 technical capabilities should be available also,
then they may have some better estimates of the sewer plant, and
discuss the the question of smog because it is a major issue. If
at the end of four months no one agrees to continue along the way
he is suggesting, then it would be easy to go along with the sugges-
tion of Mayor Taylor.
The Council discussed the sewer plant capacity, and Mayor Taylor
asked the City Attorney if they have the statutory authority to place
land in a holding zone for possible change of uses.
Mr. Lewis felt that if there is the capacity, the courts will say
to allow permissible uses.
Councilman Beebe felt they were taking a big step as they were con-
sidering a general plan review of the entire unannexed property
surrounding the City, which to him was the important area. He stated
there has been much discussion regarding the units in the old part
of the City on which there has been no pressure for development.
They are actually talking only about approved maps and these de-
velopers have honored their agreement with the City and School Dis-
trict and are providing classrooms. If these people should be ex-
cluded no one would have trust or honor in the City Council of
Livermore in the future.
A vote was taken on the motion to amend, which failed 2-3 with Coun-
cilmen Futch, Beebe and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Miller moved to amend the motion to include the. RM and RG
properties within the City, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. .
Councilman Miller remarked that in the opinion of some, those were
subject to possible density adjustment and did not have the final
map problem that Mayor Taylor was concerned about, as none of those
properties will pay a school fee at this point in time. He felt
this would reduce the number of lots available for building which
could be a drain on our water and sewer plant, etc. This could in-
clude anything larger than a fourplex.
Mayor Taylor reminded the Council that they had voted last week to
exclude property before them for a federally subsidized, moderate income
housing project, subject to the availability of water.
CM-26-236
March 12, 1973
(Interim Zoo Ord.)
A vote was taken on the amendment which failed 2-3 with Councilmen
Futch, Beebe and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Miller moved the same motion except that they exclude
the aGO Property (Nelson), and this motion was seconded by Council-
man Pritchard.
Mayor Taylor summarized the motion as not to allow multiples
larger than a fourplex, excluding the OGO property, which is a tem-
porary holding zone in case rezoning should occur in the meantime.
He did not feel that the general plan review would address itself
to the details of lot by lot zoning in the old portion of town.
Mayor Taylor stated that he feels the Council's concern is not with
the small developments but with the large complexes such as K&B out
on East Avenue - they do not want a large development to occur where
a General Plan change is really going to change things.
Councilman Miller pointed out that in the past there has been a
proposal to decrease the density of multiples which he feels is
a matter to be considered and another consideration is that all
the little parcels add up to a lot of units, as pointed out by
the ad hoc committee.
At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to amend the motion
which passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Councilman Miller mentioned that the proposed interim ordinance
was a growth control ordinance and that the report explaining the
ordinance contained certain findings. He stated that he would
like to include the findings about smog conditions, which he
read to the Council. After Councilman Miller read the smog con-
ditions the Council discussed the possibility of including them
as a part of the findings.
Councilman Miller moved that the conditions be included in the
findings, seconded by Councilman Futch.
After the motion was made there was discussion about what changes
should be made with regard to the language of the conditions to
be included. Councilman Miller stated a portion of the language
should read, "because air pollution exceeds the upper limit of
federal standa:i::'dsll.
The City Attorney pointed out that an interim ordinance will be
adopted immediately - that there will not be a second reading,
and it is necessary to get the matter settled at this time.
Councilman Miller stated that he would like to add the conditions
~e had previously listed to what the City Attorney already has,
~and in particular, because our air pollution exceeds the upper
limit of federal standards set on health grounds many days a
year (28 in 1972) because the local contribution is a substantial
one in proportion to the population and becuase the air quality
considerations may cause large scale changes in holding capacity,
growth rate and population distribution which factors will be determi
ed by the General Plan now under review and which will be implemented
by future residential zoning and rezoning considerations in these
various areas./))l '. ,I
\./~t-.
Iv'
CM-26-237
'.
,
March l2, 1973
(Interim Zoo Ord)
Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the main motion which passed by the
unanimous vote of the Council.
The City Attorney stated that he would like the Council to see a copy
of the final draft of the interim ordinance before it is adopted.
COMMUNICATION RE
BOY SCOUT GOV. WEEK
A letter was received from Glen Tirsell regarding Boy Scout Government
Week and thanking the Council for spending time with the boys during
the week and at the Council meeting. He also asked that the Council
convey their thanks to the rest of the City officials who partici-
pated.
COMMUNICATION RE
QUIET LAKE ASPECT - DEL VALLE
A letter was received from the General Manager of the East Bay Regional
Park District with regard to the Council's concern for a quiet lake
aspect at Del Valle Reservoir. The District has indicated that the
existing quiet lake policy is a valid lake use plan for the Reservoir
and will continue with their present policy.
COMMUNICATION RE
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
A letter was received from Fortney H. Stark, Jr., Congressman, which
pertained to general revenue sharing written by the office of the
Secretary of the Treasury, in response to questions by the Council.
COMMUNICATION RE
VALLEY GROvlTH
Steven K. Ham, 502 Adelle Street has written to the Council with
comments regarding valley growth.
COMMUNICATION RE TRACK
RELOCATION & EXT. OF BART
The American Taxpayers Union, Local No. lIS, has written to the
Council indicating that relocation of the Southern Pacific tracks
beside the Western Pacific railroad is premature due to the future
plans for the extension of BART.
REPORT RE CROSSWINDS
RESTAURANT SIGN
The City Manager explained that the matter of the Crosswinds sign
application had been postponed from a previous meeting due to the
lack of a structural plan showing the dimensions for the proposed
highway sign, whcih the Council now has in their possession.
Councilman Miller stated that there are three issues to be discussed:
I) Whether or not there should be a sign - the Beautification Com-
mittee has suggested that it be done away with.
2) Where the sign should be located.
3) What conditions should be imposed.
Councilman Miller stated that he would prefer no sign, but would
have toa9ree that some type of freestanding, sign ~hould be allowed.
~ ~ ~n C!-iJ--CL-Y~ 'f~f -&.t{!aL.--,a24<<U2/-<- /+7ttL,
t-k~'~/()~~
it- r .
CM-26-238
March 12, 1973
(Re Crosswinds Sign)
Councilman Miller stated that his objection to the sign is that it
is to be placed in front of the Livermore sign and that he feels
an advertising sign should not be the first sign one sees when enter-
ing a city. He indicated that he would be in favor of a change in
location for the Livermore sign, and so moved.
Councilman Beebe mentioned the possibility of placing the restaurant
sign between the present Livermore sign and the freeway which would
eliminate moving the Livermore sign, which Councilman Miller stated
he would agree with.
Mr. Lee explained that the typography of the land dictates where
a sign should go and determines visibility of a sign.
There was no second to Councilman Miller's motion to relocate the
Livermore sign so he moved that the Council approve the sign at the
location suggested by the staff, but 12 ft. high and no white stripes
on the support. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion.
Councilman Miller had explained that the motion for a l2 ft. height
was a compromise of the IS ft. and lO ft. heights proposed by the
staff.
The City Manager indicated that a height lower than their proposed
22 ft. would be a mistake due to the proportions of the sign and that
the reduction, even to 18 ft. high would detract from the design.
Tim Cody, 1224 Rincon Avenue, Vice Chairman of the Beautification
Committee, explained that the Committee was asked to review the
design without any dimensions and came to the conclusion that they
stand against any commercial sign on US 580 and would urge the Counci
to consider the recommendation of the Beautification Committee that
a sign, in addition to the green sign provided by the state indicatin
food, is unnecessary.
Mayor Taylor explained that the Council made a decision to allow a
sign quite some time ago and that the Beautification Committee had
been asked to review the design of the sign.
Rick Hubbell, 659 Tina Way, representing the Crosswinds Restaurant,
felt that a 12 ft. high sign would not be an adequate height for
giving highway traffic enough information or information soon enough
for them to make a decision to exit the freeway.
Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion which passed 4-1 with
Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Mayor Taylor suggested that if the 12 ft. height creates a sign
which is out of proportion, another design should be submitted to
the Design Review Committee.
REPORT RE "I" STREET
PARKING LOT TIME ZONE
The Public Works Director has reported that a petition has been
received from 21 merchants and customers in the vicinity of the "I"
Street Parking lot, to change the current parking limit from 1 hour
to 2 hours. After a survey, the staff recommends no change.
Councilman Beebe moved that the parking restrictions remain the same,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard and which passed 4-1 with Council-
man Miller dissenting.
CM-26-239
March l2, 1973
REPORT RE INTERSECTION
OF MURRIETA & PORTOLA
The Public Works Director reported that in response to a request by
Ray Faltings to consider a three-way stop at Murrieta Boulevard and
Portola Avenue, the staff conducted a traffic survey on the intersection.
Based on the traffic counts and no reported accidents in 1972, the
staff has recommended that there should not be any change in traffic
signing at this time.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept the staff's
recommendation for no change at the intersection, seconded by
Councilman Miller and by a unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE VALLEY
YOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL
The City Manager reported that the City has received the first
allocation for our youth services center and that operations are
scheduled to begin on April l. The first grant (one year) approxi-
mates $45,000 and includes all costs associated with the program.
Mr. Parness stated that an agreement has been negotiated with the
City of Pleasanton, who will be co-operators of the new center.
The City has received a number of applications for the Director,
screening was done and panel interviews were conducted, reference
checks were made, and the City of Pleasanton was also a part of
this process. A conclusion has been reached by the staff and a
recommendation was made to the Council to confirm selection of
Mike Petrillo for the post of Executive Director.
If the Council wishes, the action to be taken is to adopt a resolu-
tion authorizing execution of the joint powers agreement and a motion
confirming the appointment of Mr. Petrillo.
Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the City Manager's recommendation,
seconded by Councilman Futch, and which passed by the unanimous vote
of the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 36-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Joint Powers Agreement - Valley Youth Services Council)
REPORT RE NORTHFRONT ROAD
ANNEXATION AND ASSESSMENT DIST.
The City Manager reported that an inquiry was made by a property
owner located in the vicinity of Northfront Road, east of Vasco
Road, as to possible formation of an assessment district for
sewer and domestic water line extensions. However, all of the
property is unincoporated and the City was without jurisdiction.
It wasroggested that the annexation of the applican't property to
the City be done and then the Board of Supervisors be petitioned
to grant jurisdiction to the City for an assessment district
formation.
The staff has recommended that the Council adopt a motion accept-
ing the application for annexation, dated February 24, 1973, from
Wm. Busick, et ux, and instruct that it be transmitted to the
Planning Commission and Local Agency Formation Commission for
report.
Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the City Manager's recom-
mendation, subject to the annexation agreement, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and which passed by the unanimous vote of
the Council.
CM-26-240
.i:'1arch 12, 1973
REPORT RE LOCAL LIBRARY
MANAGE~mNT SYSTEMS
The Library Board has reported that with regard to the proposal for
legislation to amend the State Education Code pertaining to the
organization of municipal libraries, they find that they cannot
comment until they have been informed as to the specifics, and
would like to get a more detailed study of the proposal.
Councilman Pritchard stated that in light of the confusion and
not understanding the full implications of the proposal, he would
move that the Council table the matter, seconded by Councilman
Futch, and which passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
P. C. REPORT RE
RECLASS. FROM M-I
(Nissen)
The Planning Commission reported on the County referral of C. G.
and A. Nissen application for reclassification from M-l District
for three parcels located on the west side of Vasco Road, between
the railroad tracks and adjacent to the City limits.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the staff report
recommending that subject parcel be rezoned to a heavy industrial
zoning classification be transmitted to the County Planning
Commission.
On,'~motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Planning Commission's
recommendation was approved.
MUNI CODE AMENDMENT
RE DOG LICENSING
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance amending
the municipal code pertaining to dog licensing, was introduced
and read by title only.
MUNI CODE ~mNDMENT
RE SEWER CONNECTION FEE
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Municipal Code amendment
to provide a change in sewer connection charges was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. BIO
AN ORDINANCE &~ENDING CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO
LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY
INCLUDING IN ARTICLE I THEREOF, RELATING TO
LICENSES: GENERAL, SECTIONS 12.28 THROUGH 12.33
CONTAINED IN SAID CHAPTER 12 AS IT EXISTED ON
THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 1973, AND BY RENUMBER-
ING THE SECTIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE II, RE-
LATING TO LICENSES: SPECIAL
DISCUSSION RE CIVIC
CENTER EXCAVATION
(Piombo)
The report regarding the excavation of the Civic Center site had
been removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by the Counci:
CM-26-241
March 12, 1973
(Civic Center Site)
Councilman Futch stated that he has received a telephone call from
someone who is concerned with the recycling center, now located
at the excavation site, and who wonders where it will be located.
Mayor Taylor explained that the recycling center has nothing to
do with the report that the Council has been asked to accept the
grading which has been done there and the only thing involved at
this time.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and by unanimous vote of the Council, the grading done by Piombo
Construction at the site as per contract was accepted.
Notice of
Executive Session
i ~."
Mayor Taylor mentioned that the Council would need to attend a
brief executive session after the meeting to discuss appoint-
ments to be made to the General Plan Review Committee, the
Beautification Committee and Library Committee.
. I,
Report re Golf Course Sale
(Intermark)
The City Manager stated that Mr. Countryman, representing Inter-
mark, Inc. has requested that the Council come to a decision at
this time with regard to the administrative and financial feasi-
bility of proceeding with the consummation of purchase of the
Springtown Golf Course. The City Manager has prepared a report
which has been finished just this afternoon, concerning the
matter, and would like to have had time for he and the staff to
analyze the report. He indicated that the report has been
tallied, has reviewed it briefly, and made copies for the Council
in the event it would be brought up at the meeting. He stated
that the financial tabulations were conservative and also men-
tioned that if the land were used as open space rather than a
golf course, the cost to the City would be considerably more -
approximately $55,000 a year.
Councilman Miller questioned the terms of the contract which
states that the City has until the 3lst of March, but Mr. Parness
indicated that Intermark wanted to have the sale completed by
March I, 1973, and they are waiting for completion of the deadline.
Councilman Miller felt the report should require a reasonable
amount of consideration.
The City Attorney explained that the' staff is of the assumption
that the Council intends to purchase the property as a golf
course and if there are second thougl1:s'they should be expressed
at this time, as Mr. CountrYman has indicated that they are
waiting for a decision and want the matter resolved.
The Council discussed a golf course versus park land and costs
to the City.
Councilman Miller moved to continue the matter for one week,
which died for lack of a second.
Mr. Countryman stated that he feels they are not concerned with
the fact that the City is now stating that they must consider the
operations before close of escrow. He has been directed to get a
decision from the Council tonight and proceed with the close of
escrow.
CM-26-242
Barch 12, 1973
(Golf Course-Springtown)
Councilman Pritchard moved to proceed with the closing of the
escrow, seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed by the
unanimous vote of the Council.
11ATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(City Attorney's
Last Meeting)
The City Attorney stated that this will be his last meeting with
_the Council as he will become the new Judge for Livermore and
that it has been a pleasure to work with the Council and to
serve the City.
"
~iATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Re City Hiring Policy)
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like
give priority, in their hiring process, to
employees of Lawrence Radiation Laboratory
who have been laid off of work.
to see that the City
the highly recommended
and Sandia Laboratory
Mr. Parness indicated that the City makes every effort to do this.
(Re Gillice Property)
Councilman Miller stated that he would like to know something about
the state of the Gillice property and Mr. Lewis explained that he
checked with the title company involved and it appears that examina-
tion of the file reveals that it is in good order and will give
further information to the City tomorrow. The title company has
indicated that they have taken care of everything and the City
Attorney stated that he would not presume this is erroneous informa-
tion until more is known.
(Re Pinball Machines)
Councilman Pritchard asked that the staff be directed to check with
other entities as to their ordinances. regarding pinball machines
and it has been brought to his attention that there is a problem
lately with students cutting school to play pinball machines. It
seems to be a juvenile problem the City should help curb.
ADJOURNMENT
At this time Mayor Taylor adjourned the meeting to a brief execu-
::::o::SSi~ss~~~ntioned' at 12:15 a.m.
ATTEscJ~i{:;L
1ve more, Cal1forn1a
CM-26-243
Regular Meeting of March 19, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 19, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the
meeting of March 5, 1973 were approved as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Purchase of
Springtown Golf Course)
Mr. Bill Older, 1524 Hollyhock, stated that he has been requested
by the residents of Springtown to express his and their attitude
to the City of Livermore and the Council for the fair, dispassionate
and equitable attitude they have displayed in the acquisition of
the golf course property and that they will cooperate in any way
they can to see that the City is happy with the choice they have
made.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Res. Appointing Mem-
ber to Library Board)
RESOLUTION NO. 37-73
APPOINTMENT OF MARY ELLEN LUDEMANN TO
THE LIBRARY BOARD
(Res. Denying Claim)
RESOLUTION NO. 38-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF RONALD HOFFMAN
AND CATHERINE HOFFMAN FOR INJURIES
(Departmental
Reports)
Departmental reports were received as follows:
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District - January
Airport Activity - February
CM-26_244
March 19, 1973
(Departmental Reports)
Building Inspection Department - February
Municipal Court - Januarv
Police Department - February
Water Reserves and Rationing Status - February
Water Reclamation Plant - February
(Minutes of Various
Boards and Commissions)
Minutes were received from the Beautification Committee for their
meeting of February 7, 1973.
Minutes were submitted by the Planning Commission for their meeting
of March 6, 1973.
(Payroll and Claims)
There were 177 claims in the amount of $246,030.07 and 250 payroll
warrants dated March 16, 1973, in the amount of $63,084.63, for a
total of $309,114.70.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would abstain from Warrant No.
5550 for his usual reasons.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was
approved.
COMHUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Communication re
Restaurant Devices)
A letter was received from the Alameda County Health Care Services
in response to an inquiry with regard to vaporizers or foggers
used in restaurants.
They have indicated that they do not object to pyrethrum being
used to spray corners or baseboards but are concerned with the
automatic vaporizer or fogger which continually emits this
material into the air. The Federal Food and Drug Administration
has banned the use of pyrethrum compounds near food preparation
as of December 9, 1970.
(Communication from
Livermore Rodeo Assn.)
In the past, the Council has matched the amount of money given
by the Livermore Rodeo Association towards the Rodeo Parade.
This year the Association is contributing $1,250 and they
have written to the Council asking that they also contribute
$1,250 for the 1973 Rodeo Parade.
The City Manager stated that for the past two or three years the
City has usually contributed the same amount as the Jaycees
up to $1,500.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council approve matching funds
of up to $1,250 for the Rodeo Parade, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and which passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
CM-26-245
March 19'/1973
(Report re Consoli-
dated Labor Relations)
A proposal has been drafted for consolidated labor relations negotia-
tions among certain public employer groups in the Valley, which
include Livermore, Pleasanton and VCSD. The employee organization
that would be subject to the joint effort would be the Fire Departments
in each of the jurisdictions.
The matter was postponed from the last meeting to allow the Fire
Department Employee Organization an opportunity to review the pro-
posal and respond.
The City Manager explained the reasons for drafting the proposal
which includes the purpose of discussing wages, hours and condi-
tions of employment. The staff has recommended that the Council
adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a joint powers agree-
ment between our City, the City of Pleasanton and VCSD which would
establish an official and legally constituted agency for the dele-
gated responsibility of conducting labor relations negotiations
with the Firemen's Organizations on a joint or consolidated basis.
It is felt that both management and the employee groups will serve
to gain over the long run.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the recommendation be approved,
seconded by Councilman Futch.
Joe Georgis, 251 Clarke Avenue, President of the Fireman's Associa-
tion, stated that he would like to read, for the record, his letter
of opposition by the Association and the reasons for taking the
position. The letter indicated that they are concerned for the
implementation of bargaining without adequate consultation of
the employee organizations involved. The adoption of the joint
powers agreement in no way compells the employee organizations to
bargain on a collective basis, as they are not a party to the agree-
ment. They have requested that the Council delay the implementation
of any multi-employer bargaining until some future date after which
there has been a full exchange of views and opinions between repre-
sentatives of the various fire fighters organizations and the public
agencies involved in the proposed joint powers agreement.
Gerald Stevenson, representing the California State Fireman's Associa-
tion, read a letter from the General Manager of the Association
which he indicated would be left with the staff for their review.
The City Manager stated that he would welcome comments from the
Legislative Counsel as to legal content of the agreement and in
the event it is declared to be illegally constituted, it will have
to be re-evaluated by his office and the Council. However, he has
been assured that it is properly drafted and falls within the legal
purview of Municipal Management. He indicated that this will not be
instituted immediately, but is a managerial mechanism to be used over
the next several months in discussing labor relations and sees no
reason for continuing it for another week to allow the Fireman's Associa-
tion a better understanding of it. There has not been a request from
the employee groups for a meeting or interpretation of any of
the provisions during the past week and the staff cannot see the
need for continuing formal adoption of the mechanism.
Mayor Taylor explained that the matter is not involved with rules
and regulations but that the Council will be delegating authority
to the City Manager to negotiate with other cities. He mentioned
that, if the Council wishes, they could hire an outside firm to
work out negotiations. He felt there was no need for consternation
on the part of the employee groups and can see no problem with the
proposal.
CM-26-246
Harch 19, 1973
(Re Consolidated
Labor Relations)
Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to add to the motion that it
is contingent on it being legal in every respect.
The City Manager stated that if it is found to be illegal, the
Council would merely take action to dissolve the Agreement.
Mr. Georgis explained that Pleasanton has stated that they will
refuse to meet with Dublin and Livermore and that it is felt the
agreement should not be adopted for this year's negotiations -
next year may be an entirely different picture.
Councilman !1iller commented that he can see no urgency in adopting
the agreement if a one or two week delay is requested - however, if
they are asking for a year delay, that's a different matter.
The City Manager stated that even though it has been stated the
agreement will not be instituted for possibly a month, it does
not mean that activities under its coverage will not begin im-
mediately. If the Council and the other two agencies will adopt
this method, preparation of negotiating data materials may commence.
Ted Slade, Local No. 188S, Dublin, felt that the fire stations
involved do not have enough manpower to allow several men to leave
the station to attend negotiation meetings held outside their
jurisdictions.
Mr. Georgis stated that they will bargain with any agency the
Council choses, but cannot speak for Pleasanton or Dublin and to
try to organize all three into one package is premature for this
year.
Mayor Taylor felt the intent is not to lump all three entities
into one insurance plan, etc. and that this should be no different
than negotiating with any other agency.
Mayor Taylor asked for a roll called vote to the motion which
passed as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
RESOLUTION NO. 40-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Joint Powers Agreement - Labor Relations Consolidated Bargaining)
REPORT RE TRAFFIC AT
MURRIETA AND OLIVINA
The Public Works Director reported that a survey of traffic warrants
at the intersection of Murrieta and Olivina indicated that a traffic
signal was not warranted; however, that particular intersection is
high on the priority list and should be installed possibly this
coming fiscal year or possibly the one after.
Councilman Futch commented that it was his understanding that a
citizen of the community had requested that the matter be put on
the agenda for discussion, as she works and is not able to be at
the meeting at the time of the Open Forum.
The Council requested that the matter be discussed later in the
meeting to allow her to speak to the Council about the matter.
C!v1-26-247
March 19, 1973
REPORT RE DOMESTIC
WATER SUPPLY
Mayor Taylor explained that a City Ordinance has been enacted as
of November of 1971 to set a limit of 1500 building permits due
to a forecasted water shortage. The City has been faced with a
law suit attacking the reasonableness of the Ordinance and has been
advised by our attorney that the Council should review, periodically,
the water supply situation. At this time the City is reviewing the
water situation and it is felt better projections can be made. The
supply is the only matter being considered, and not as to whether
more permits will be issued.
The Council also has requested that a report be solicited from Zone 7
as to the current status of the domestic water supply and its forecasted
availability and representatives of Zone 7 have planned to speak
to the Council.
The matter has additional significance, in view of the fact that
there are three pending applications for residential building
permits, and are as follows:
I. OGO Associates - 97 RG-IO dwelling units
2. Hofmann Company - l76 RS-3 dwelling units (Tract 3321)
3. Sunset Development Company - 210 dwelling units (Tract 3407)
~ir. Lee stated that Zone 7 has indicated that they will be able
to meet our water delivery schedules (projected over a five year
period of what the water demand will be). The projection is made
every year and updated and extended one additional year. The last
one was done last fall and from this it has been indicated that
Zone 7 can meet the schedules. The projection also includes the
peak day demands as well as demands for the month. Based on the
report from Zone 7, Mr. Lee has reported that the City can continue
with a reasonable number of building permits being issued and stay
within the water supply curve. The most critical time will be the
summer of 1974: thereafter, the new facilities will be constructed
and there will no longer be a problem. The question seems to be how
Zone 7 intends to meet the increased flows.
Mr. Lee stated that it was his estimate that there was an outstanding
460 active permits that would be connected in due time which would
increase the total to 13,337 permits and would require a peak demand
of approximately 15.2 million gallons, per day. It is assumed that
this would come about towards the end of 1973 when all the 13,337
permits are in operation. At the time this was estimated, based on
the water supply curve, Zone 7 indicated that there would be 16.2
million gallons per day by the end of 1973. During the summer of
1973 there will be l6.1 million gallons available and during the
summer of 1974 there will be 17.2 million gallons.
Mr. Mun Mar, representative of Zone 7, explained that the original
plant was designed for a nominal capacity of 6 million gallons per
day with a peaking capacity of 7-1/2. There have been many modifica-
tions to the system such as improvement of the filter system and use
of equipment in the process of the treatment to settle out the settleable
solids at a much faster rate. The improvements have been going on
since 1969 and it is felt that the last improvement should take care
of the hydraulic constraints in the system, which is water being dis-
charged from a flash mix to a reaction well that agitates all the
chemicals and in the past, air has been getting into the line causing
a constraint in the system. An air vent has been installed to take
care of this problem. Also, the sedementation tank will be back in
operation within a week.
CM-26-248
I"1arch 19, 1973
(Zone 7 Report)
In about two weeks they should know how effective the remedial
work has been. They feel this is the last item that can be done
to maximize the capacity of the plant without real major improve-
ments. On the basis of their calculations, they feel on a
maximum day basis they can put out IO million gallons in a 24-hour
period. The estimated maximum day based on the delivery schedules
requested by the City, California Water and Veteran's Hospital
adds up to 10.6 million gallons from the Zone 7 system this summer.
They feel they can meet the additional .6 out of storage because
they have a 2 million gallon reservoir at the end of their treat-
ment plant system. He added that the schedules also project the
1974 estimates and the total peak day,which normally occurs in
one day during the maximum month, adds up to ll.7. This is the
critical year the Zone is faced with because by the end of 1974
the Del Valle treatment plant should be installed and also the
connecting pipelines. They have made an analysis of this problem
and feel that if growth were to materialize in the Livermore area
and the peak day demand does exist, then at the end of this summer
they could assess the whole situation and possibly renovate some
wells to get the peaking capacity necessary for the one day. One
thing to bear in mind is that there is reservoir capacity that
might be utilized during the maximum day, and following that the
storage can be made up out of available production capacity.
Mayor Taylor asked if the IO million gallons per day plant output
limit and 10.6 demand for the summer of 1973 included any reference
to well production, and Mr. Mar stated that anything in excess of
this amount would be met by Cal Water's well.
Councilman !1iller questioned if the present output wasn't 9 million
gallons per day, and Mr. Har replied they have not had the opportunity
to go beyond that prior to this time but feel they may come to this
figure this summer, but he added one thing to bear in mind is that
estimates on peak day demand and what actually occurs are two dif-
ferent things. For example, they ran some data on 5-day peak
periods for the last five years to get an indication of what the
actual is compared to the estimate and in 1972 if they add up their
peak day demands in the Livermore area requested on the delivery
schedule, it came to about 9.6 and they actually put out 8.6 million
gallons, which was the actual demand, The demand is influenced
by all kinds of variables such as temperature, etc.
Councilman Pritchard what would happen if there were four days of
peak need, and it was necessary to draw .6 million gallons per day
from the storage tank as there would only be 3 l/3 days capacity
in the storage tank, and Mr. Mar stated he could not answer that
as they have never had that experience in the past. He referred
to a chart which he gave to the Council that showed the Cal Water
production amount and Zone 7 water treatment plant amount and total
of the combines systems, together with the maximum temperature
during the hottest period which occurred from July II to 17 in 1972.
He pointed out that on July 14, the maximum demand was l5.1 from
both systems from which Zone 7 produced 8.6l and Cal Water 6.49
million gallons; the following day there was a drop in demand of
1/2 million and the next day another I million gallons. In their
experience record in 1971 on August 9 the total use was 13.16, on
August 10, it was 13.14 but the following day was 10.6, so in the
last five year period there has never been more than a two day
period of peak demand, and then a drop on the third day.
Councilman Futch asked what assurance there is that they can meet
the construction schedule and if it would be in operation by next
summer, and Hr. :lar replied that it would not be in operation by
next summer. They plan to assess what happens this summer in
terms of actual growth and demands during the summer months and
evaluate effectiveness of the last part of the improvements they
can make at their own plant and evaluate Cal Water's system
CH-26-249
March 19, 1973
(Zone 7 Report)
because they have produced in prior years well above their 5 million
gallons per day capacity from their wells, and they do want to eval-
uate the effectiveness of the booster pump station that was recently
installed into the City's system. In prior years the City was peaking
off the Zone 7 system, and this year with the booster pump station,
he thought the City would be able to utilize the reservoir storage
much more effectively. For example, last year the peak day demand
by the City from their system amounted to over 2 mgd. Now with the
booster pump, and utilization of the reservoir more effectively, the
City's peak day demand will probably be cut back to 1.6 mgd.
Mayor Taylor asked what the basis was for the demand study for the
summer of 1974, and Mr. Mar stated that based on the City's estimated
consumption of 250 million gallons, plus Cal Water's of l,615 million
gallons demanded from the Zone, the projection would be roughly 10%.
Mayor Taylor stated the question that they must determine is how
many more building permits, if any, they can grant without having
rationing of water in the City this summer and then again next summer.
He summed up that the calculations quoted by Mr. Mar were based on
what is known about their plant capability and the demand figures
come from customers.
Mr. Mar remarked that they plan accordingly with respect to their
ability to produce and deliver water as the customers request. Several
years ago they indicated at the time they approved delivery schedules
that they anticipated problems in the near future in terms of their
ability to meet the projections. If growth were to materialize as
projected on the delivery schedules, the Zone would have to act
accordingly with respect to what they might do. The alternative for
1974 is renovation of some existing wells, which they had preliminar-
ily looked into, and is feasible, and a secondary alternative would
be to build a new well near their pipeline to meet the additional
I mgd capacity.
Councilman Miller stated it was his understanding this was the propos-
al, provided they did not get Project 2, and Mr. Mar stated it would
depend on the cost and what benefits could be achieved if they had
the additional well production capability.
Councilman Beebe remarked that Zone 7, under Project 2, had proposed
some capital improvements of the present filtering plant and asked
what is being done.
Mr. Mar stated they had considered proceeding with the construction
of a settling well, and if Project 2 did not obtain voter approval
they would proceed with additional improvements at the existing plant
which could comprise renovation of some wells or construction of
a new well and subsequently it would be followed by the construction
of a sedimentation basin which would give them a little more output.
Councilman Miller commented that apparently there was a difference
of opinion because he had heard the Zone expected l/2 million gallons
per day more rather than one million.
Mr. Mar stated he was presenting the staff's position and the same
data had been reported to their Board at their last meeting in terms
of the approach that the Zone might adopt with regard to the critical
period in 1974.
CM-26-250
r.1.arch 19, 1973
(Zone 7 Report)
Councilman Miller remarked that there is substantial discrepancy
in the number of services projected and the number of permits that
have been issued, and he felt that the discrepancy was so great
that if these are multiplie by the 1200 gpd, which is the criterion
of the ordinance, there would not be enough water this summer, and
certainly not by 1974. This implies that they should take a second
look at the number of units and what the demand will really be based
on their present commitments. He would urge that the staff be
directed to make some calculations and he would be happy to supply
the numbers he has for this.
Councilman Beebe agreed that this would be very prudent as they
had initiated the water rationing ordinance, and they are now
taking testimony to verify if the condition is the same or if
there has been a radical change. The rationing ordinance was
done on the basis of figures provided by the Public Works Director,
and he felt they should ask him to give an actual figure on his
projections.
Mr. Lee stated that the report he had submitted on February 2
was based on the numbers of meters in service at that time, both
in the City's and Cal Water's system, and their projection of 460
meters yet to be installed was based on staff work on the number
of houses that did not have meters. An actual count was not made,
but the department had made an analysis and felt that 460 was a rea-
sonable number of those still not connected. This gave a total
number of 13,300 approximate units they expected to be in service
sometime in 1973 which projection is actually beyond this summer.
The difference between that figure and the available water will
allow a buffer of some 670 units.
Mayor Taylor felt they had the supply curve as far as Zone 7
is concerned, however they do not have Cal Water's capability,
which is also part of the supply picture.
J.~r. Lee commented that Cal Water's supply schedule indicated they
would be able to provide the City with 10.2 million gallons, plus
5.9 or 16.1 which he had presented in his report.
Councilman Futch moved that the matter be continued until such
time as the staff submits a report and they have information
based on the increased capacity - until April 9; motion was se-
conded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
REPORT RE MOBAT TIRE
BENEFIT DISTRICT
The City Manager explained that this matter was requested to be
placed on the agenda and concerns the improvement to a given
piece of property in the industrial sector dating back to 1966
wherein this small industrial plant location was established and
by virtue of a sewer connection agreement a waterline installation
was authorized to be paid for by the applicant which was done -
a 12-inch line was installed and paid for by Mr. Christman. Sub-
sequently, a request was received by the City to add to that
front location and in the interim period studies were conducted
and a conclusion was reached about supplementary type of public
works installations, road improvements and storm drainage needs.
He further explained that a supplement agreement was drafted in
1969 providing for storm drainage installation and the financial
commitment of the Mobat property developer was for financial contri-
bution to this system in the amount of $7,500 however it was agreed
that the payment of this sum was not necessary at the time since
the balance of the system was not forthcoming. It was stated that
CM-26-251
March 19, 1973
(Mobat Tire Benefit District)
in the event any type of benefit district payments from whatever
source receivable by the City would be an obligation against the
pledged $7,500, as part of the agreement. He commented that this
did happen when there was a connection to the water line and the
connector paid almost $2,500 for connection privileges. This is
the point of dispute - the agreement technically states that any
money received from such sources be retained by the City as a
credit against the pledged $7,500 which is the financial obligation
of the original developer. The developer argues that he was ready
and willing to put in the storm drainage system but was not allowed
to do so by the City, as the intervening section was not available.
The developer feels that since he was able to pay the $7,500, ini-
tially, this amount is due him and that it is inequitable for the City to
retain the $2,500. Mr. Chrisman met with the City Manager and
the City feels that the only requirement at this time is the assur-
ance that Mr. Christman will pay the $7,500 when the entire system
is to be installed, and Mr. Christman has agreed that the requisite
is equitable, and plans to provide this type of surety. If this
agreement is satisfactory, the $2,500 should be paid to Mr. Christman.
It was suggested that the matter be put over until legal counsel is
available to the City.
Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be continued for one week,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and which passed by the unanimous
vote of the Council.
REPORT RE OLIVINA -
MURRIETA INTERSECTION
The Council returned to the item concerning the Olivina, Murrieta
intersection which had been mentioned earlier in the meeting, dur-
ing which time a citizen of the community had wished to speak and
was not present.
Jean ~1arch, l26 Albatross Avenue, expressed concern for the children
crossing at the intersection stating that cars trying to cross the
intersection are using the children as shields and that it is a very
dangerous intersection. If the intersection does not warrant a light
at this time, she would suggest the City install a 4-way stop. She
stated that there have been a number of fender benders at that spot
in addition to one child being struck by one or two cars and severely
injured.
Mr. Lee felt that a 4-way stop would be inconvenient for those travel-
ing along Murrieta and that it might not help the traffic problem to
any great extent. Also, he commented that it is his understanding
that the child who was hit was not hit during the time the crossing
guard was there and that he ran across the street, during which time
he was hit.
The Council discussed the matter with regard to extension of the
hours of the crossing guard or possibly reducing the speed limit.
Mrs. March stated that, in her opinion, there should be an indica-
tion that motorists are approaching a school crossing and that
there are no signs giving any type of warning, to which Mr. Lee
explained that the state requires the crossing to be within a
certain distance from the school before the crossing is posted.
The staff was directed to check into the matter and report to the
Council at a later date.
CM-26-252
March 19, 1973
REPORT RE PROPOSED
HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHY
The City Manager reported that a photographer has made a proposal to
record, photographically, 50 significant site locations in the
City for the purpose of preserving a historical record and has
recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing the project
be conducted.
It was noted by Mayor Taylor that the letter received from Mr.
Owens, the photographer, indicated that he will furnish lOa prints
of the 50 locations, which would be 5,000 prints for $750, and
wondered if this was an error.
The City Manager commented that there was possibly a typographical
error and that perhaps they should check with Mr. Owens as to the
number of prints to be furnished.
Councilman Futch noted that there is to be a copy made for the
Library and one for the Chamber of Commerce, and in view of the
fact that one should be filed in some type of archive, one should
be available to the public, there should be three copies available.
The Council concluded that the matter will be discussed again at
the next meeting.
REPORT RE CITIZEN'S
PLANNING COMMITTEE
~1ayor Taylor stated that the Citizen's Planning Committee plans
to meet on March 29th and that a statement of the goals and
charges should be ready and presented at the Council meeting of
March 26th.
z. o. RE GRO~VTH -
INTERIM ORDINANCE
Prior to a motion to introduce the interim ordinance regulating
growth, Mr. Musso pointed out a discrepancy in the ordinance and
the map with regard to which properties will be included or be
affected, as well as a change to the preamble.
The Council discussed the discrepancy and it was noted that the
map would be changed to correspond.
Mr. Musso stated that he would also like to make sure there is
no misunderstanding with reference to Section 2, and 3, in which
subdivision of land by subdivision is defined, which Councilman
M.iller explained should state "Areas A and B".
One other consideration should be as to whether the Council
wants subdivisions of less than five lots, or not, which the
Council discussed.
Councilman Futch stated that the motion was there would be
no new subdivision maps even if they're final or parcel maps.
Councilman Miller pointed out that he would like to make a change
in the ordinance before its adoption. In the first paragraph at
the end of line 5, it should read "....zoning proposal, that the
legislative....", and on Page 5, Section 5, line 4 should read
". . . (and parenthetically described in Section I hereof)...!'.
CM-26-253
March 19, 1973
(Interim Ordinance re Growth)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the Interim Zoning
Ordinance regulating growth was introduced and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 813
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE RE-
ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A FROM RESI-
DENTIAL LAND USE TO AGRICULTURAL.
MUNI CODE AMENDMENT
RE DOG LICENSING
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance regarding
changes in licensing of dogs was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 814
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.35, RELATING TO
PROCUREMENT OF LICENSE TAGS AND CERTIFICATES;
4.38, RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF ANNUAL LICENSE
FEE; 4.39, RELATING TO PAYMENT OF ANNUAL LICENSE
FEE; 4.41, RELATING TO RENEWAL OF LICENSE AND
DELINQUENCY PENALTY; AND 4.46, RELATING TO REMOVAL
OF REGISTRATION TAGS, ALL OF ARTICLE IV, RELATING
TO DOGS GENERALLY, OF CHAPTER 4, RELATING TO ANI-
MALS AND FOWL, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
COUNCILMAN
BEEBE EXCUSED
Mayor Taylor explained that there is illness in Councilman Beebe's
family and excused him from the meeting at this time.
HATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Interim Ord.Hearing Date)
Mr. Musso asked that the Council decide upon a date on which a
public hearing may be heard to discuss the Interim Ordinance
on the regulation of growth, which was just adopted.
Councilman Miller suggested that the hearing be held three months
from this meeting which would give time for notices, a hearing and
adoption of the ordinance prior to the deadline.
The date for the hearing will be discussed later.
(Transit Study)
Mr. Parness felt the staff and Council should discuss the matter of
the transit study at the earliest possible time., The matter is very
detailed and lengthy and he has been approached by several citizens
who are urging that the City take some type of action. He has
promised them that he would raise the issue and asked if the Council
would consider setting aside a study session evening for the discussion.
The Council indicated that their preference would be to meet on a
Monday night, and Mayor Taylor suggested devoting the entire meeting
of April 16 to the discussion of the one subject, which met with
Council approval.
CM-26-254
March 19, 1973
(Res. Commending Former
City Attorney John Lewis)
The City Manager stated that he has a resolution he would suggest
the Council adopt, commending the services of John A. Lewis the
former City Attorney.
On motion of Councilman Hiller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by unanimous approval, the following resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 39-73
RESOLUTION CO~ll1ENDING JOHN A. LEWIS
(Re Spheres of
Influence Document)
The City Manager commented that the Spheres of Influence criteria
is a document which has been under study for several months, has
been processed through our Planning Commission and has been given
to the Council. The document has been discussed by the City Managers
and there have been modifications made, and the County is going
to review it on the 22nd. He added that we received the services
of a graduate university student for about six weeks who had been
assigned the work of looking into the spheres of influence input
in local areas and had just received a copy of the report which
he would make available to the Council if they so wished.
(Parking in Downtown Area)
Councilman Futch stated that when they had considered the bikeway
along Third Street, they had discussed the change of parking
from diagonal to parallel, and the Hanager of Penny's had asked
if M Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets would be blocked off.
The staff was asked to bring the Council up to date on the long
range development of the downtown area and will submit a report.
(Re Real Estate
Transfer Tax)
Councilman Miller commented that it is his understanding the City
is not using the real estate transfer tax and it should be; however,
Mr. Parness explained that the City has been receiving the fees
for two to three years.
ADJOURNMENT
APP.ROVE
no further business to come before the Council,
was adjourned at 7m.
/~ ~ /C~ 'L-
t1ayor
There being
the meeting
ATTEST
,.
. ty Clerk
ermore, California
CM-26-255
A Regular Meeting of March 26, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 26, 1973
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor
Taylor
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting
of March 12, 1973 were approved, as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Re So. Pacific
rrrain Depot)
Chet Fankhauser, 609 South "P" Street, on behalf of the Heritage
Committee, thanked the Council and Mr. Parness for arranging a
meeting with the Southern Pacific people which resulted in their
agreement not to destroy the train depot for at least another five
years or so.
He explained that the Heritage Committee is comprised of representatives
from approximately 14 service organizations throughout the community
and it is their hope that they can take action in matters such as
this which represent historical significance.
He also requested that the Council consider giving any spare set
of prints of the proposed historical photography to be taken, as
they feel they could offer a very good display in the library.
(Complaint re Hedge Removal in
Industrial Park)
George Michael, 273 Trevarno, complained about the situation of
Mr. Hutka removing a hedge which screens his property from the
industrial park being developed by Mr. Hutka, and which has
surrounded the swimming pool used by the residents along Trevarno
Road. He stated that this has left the swimming pool, as well as
half of his property, exposed to the highway, and he asked that the
Council do something to restore some of the protection the hedge
afforded his family and that the Council check the activities of
the developer, as he feels there have been deviations from the
approved plans and possibly without the necessary permits.
Mr. Lee explained that as soon as the Public Works Department
was notified that the hedge was being removed, they stopped
further removal of it. In addition, it is true that Mr. Hutka
did not have a permit to install the utilities along First Street.
The hedge is on private property and it was the hope of the Pub-
lic Works Department that it would be saved. The developer has
agreed to install a fence around the swimming pool, and the
necessary permits from the state are pending.
CM-26-256
March 26, 1973
(Hedge Removal)
Mr. Lee explained that it happens that the hedge is where the
utility lines are planned and that it seems nothing can be done
other than to remove the hedge.
Councilman Pritchard auestioned '1r. Lee with regard to the fact
that he wondered if Mr. Hutka was aware that he was proceeding
without a permit and Hr. Lee stated that Mr. Hutka had been
told by Ensign-Bickford to go ahead with whatever was necessary.
Mr. Hutka did know that he was doing work without a permit and
had stated that no trees were removed during the process _ only
the hedge.
Councilman f1iller pointed out that an exnosed swimming pool
constitutes a misdemeanor which has already lasted three days
and in his opinion the Council should do something about this
violation.
Councilman Beebe asked if future widening of the road calls
for removal of the hedge, and Mr. Lee stated that it has been
the intent of the City that nothing would ever be done to disturb
the hedge.
Mayor Taylor suggested that Ensign-Bickford be contacted by the City
and asked if they intend to retain the hedge, that it certainly
enhances their property as well as being vital to the residents
of the property and the City.
Mayor Taylor suggested that Ensign-Bickford (owners of the property)
and Mr. Hutka be requested to replace the hedge and that they reroute
the utility lines in order that they do not have to be directly under
the hedge.
Councilman Futch expressed concern for the interim period during
which the hedge is not receiving water and may well die because
it is not being cared for.
Councilman ~1iller again mentioned that there are three misdemeanors
pending and urged that the Council turn the matter over to the
District Attorney for action, and Mayor Taylor questioned who
might be the one responsible for the unfenced swimming pool.
Lee Estes, Chairman of the Trevarno Recreation Club, stated
that he is responsible for the swimming pool and that he has contacted
Mr.Hutka with regard to the problem. Mr. Hutka promised him
that he would nlace an 8-foot chain link fence around the pool
tomorrow morning.
Councilman Miller moved that the Council cite Mr. Hutka with removing
the fence and illegally exposing the swimming pool without a proper
fence for a period of three days, which was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Councilman Futch commented that he would rather ask Mr. Hutka to
replace the hedge and if he is not willing to comply, then turn
the matter over to the District Attorney.
Councilman Miller agreed to restate the motion to the affect that
if the shrubbery is not replaced, the matter will be turned over
to the District Attorney; seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
which passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Report re Fire Man-
power Utilization Study)
The City Manager informed the Council that the state requires that
the Council adopt a resolution accepting the grant for the Fire
Manpower Utilization Study, and recommends that the Council adopt
such resolution.
01-26-257
March 26, 1973
(Fire ~1anpower Study)
RESOLUTION NO. 41-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
Grant Agreement - State of California
(Communication
from Las Damas Club)
A letter was received from the board members of the Las Damas Club
requesting that the Southern Pacific Depot not be demolished and
that it be turned over to the Livermore Amador Historical Society.
(Report re
Historical Record)
The City Manager reported that with regard to the discrepancy in
the letter submitted by Mr. Owen with regard to photographing
historical areas of the valley, he will take 50 photographs and
will let the Beautification Committee select 25 sites and he
will select the other 25. He will then furnish two sets of prints
in order that one may be on hand in the library for the public to
view and the other will be placed in the permanent archives of the
library. The charge will be $750 and if the Council wishes to ob-
tain an additional set, the charge will be an additional $100.
The Chamber of Commerce has been notified and will respond as to
whether or not they wish to purchase the third set.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the Heritage Committee had ex-
pressed an interest in receiving one set and that he would be willing
to pay $50 toward purchasing a set for them if they could raise
the other $50, and so moved. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller and the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councioman Pritchard and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved.
REPORT RE CITIZENS
COK~ITTEE - STATEMENT
Mayor Taylor reported that a draft statement of the Citizens Committee
on General Plan Goals has been prepared and distributed to the Council.
He stated that a few changes have been noted and will be ready for
distribution at the first meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 29th.
Mayor Taylor then read the objective of the Committee as well as
reviewing the other categories with the Council, making corrections
and additions as well as suggestions by the other members of the
Council, which will be presented in final draft form when completed.
Mayor Taylor mentioned that the results of the report will be used by
a consultant firm to formulate a General Plan and methods for control-
ling the growth rate.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the wording of the Citizens
Committee General Plan of Goals was approved, as amended.
C~1-26-258
Harch 26, 1973
(Citizens Committee
Statement)
Prior to the vote Councilman Miller had commented that the Committee
is going to talk about the goals and felt an addition should be made
to include ways of accomplishing these things, which prompted discus-
sion regarding this aspect of the statement.
After the discussion it was concluded that the changes would be made
to concur with suggestions made by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Miller next raised the possibility of conducting a City-widE
surveyor a vote, after the pros and cons have been given.
that the portion concerning zoning be deleted,
Pritchard who stated that he feels the best
it~.The motion failed 2-3 with Councilmen
Taylor dissenti~g. /
WtCJ/M, tZl!f ~ .
Councilman IHller felt the matter of how committee members are to
be chosen, how many there will be, and the number of subcommittees
to be formed, etc. was also not clear.
Councilman Miller moved
seconded by Councilman
compromise is to leave
Futch, Beebe and Mayor
Councilman Pritchard stated that as he recalls, most of these things
should be left to the steering committee and it was his understanding
that any individual interested could choose the committee which they
are most interested in serving on.
The Council then discussed the structure of the Committee during
which time Councilman ~liller suggested that the Committee be divided
into subcommittees with selection of an interim chairman for each
subcommittee.. The subcommittees may have the option to reorganize
after a period of time, possibly two months. He felt this to
be a more democratic arrangement for the way in which the Committee
is structured, and he so moved.
Councilman Futch expressed concern for taking away all responsibility
from the steering committee and the chairman. He felt they were
appointed to give administrative guidance to the other committees.
Councilman Pritchard felt there is some merit in letting the
subcommittees have a certain amount of say in how they are to be
operated, and seconded the motion.
The Council engaged in debate over what the purpose of the steering
committee is, with Mayor Taylor commenting that he would object to
the motion in that he feels a "free for all" organization would re-
sult in wasted time.
Councilman Hiller pointed out that the purpose of his motion is to
allow the Committee some role as to the direction they will go.
The motion failed bv a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Beebe, Futch, and
Mayor Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Miller also moved to delete the paragraph stating that
positions formulated by the respective subcommittees may only be
formally announced or reported by means of referral to the Steering
Committee and in turn to the Council, however the motion died for
lack of a second.
Councilman Miller expressed concern for the Committee Chairman chang-
ing or passing on something other than what the Committee has voted
upon, and Councilman Pritchard indicated that this was a valid con-
cern.
Councilman Futch stated that he would also agree that he could under-
stand the concern; however, in his opinion the steering committee has
been carefully selected as to eliminate any such problem from arising.
C'1-26-259
March 26, 1973
(Citizens Committee Statement)
Councilman Miller moved that in the last paragraph of the statement
there be an addition to read as follows: "The Steering Committee
shall compose rules governing the internal procedures, mode of con-
duct, duties and responsibilities of the Committee and each of its
subcommittees, subject to approval by the Committee as a ,.,hole. II
However, the motion died for lack of a second.
~1ayor Taylor announced that the meeting will be held on Thursday
evening at Almond Avenue School at 8:00 p.m. and asked that a
revised copy of the statement be available at the meeting.
Mayor Taylor also mentioned that membership will be closed as of
Wednesday, March 28th at 5:00 p.m.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
NOISE COMMITTEE
The Planning Director reported to the Council with regard to the
proposed Noise Committee and what its primary functions would be:
however, the Council felt they would like to have more detailed
information such as the number of people needed to serve on the
committee, how they will be chosen and various other aspects.
It was therefore moved by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Council-
man Beebe and passed by the unanimous vote of the Council that the
matter be continued until more information is available.
REPORT FROM P.C.
RE "CS" DISTRICTS
The Planning Commission reported that at their February 27th meeting
they considered the Council's referral back to the Planning Commis-
sion with regard to the proposed CS Zoning District regulations and
that they had included some of the changes proposed by the Council
with regard to wording of the proposed ordinance.
A copy of the proposed ordinance and the changes made were sent to
the Council for review.
Councilman Pritchard moved to introduce the ordinance and asked that
the first reading be waived, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller moved to amend the motion by amending Section
21.76-I-12 relating to signs, so that they will remain a lOa sq. ft.
maximum as agreed upon by the Council, and continue with the frontage
method for calculating sign sizes; the motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe.
The Council then discussed the amendment and agreed with the proposed
change.
The motion to introduce the ordinance then passed by a 4-1 vote with
Councilman Futch dissenting.
RE HEARING FOR
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
The Planning Commission has proposed an amendment to the Open
Space District of the Zoning Ordinance and has sent their recommen-
dations to the City Council.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by unanimous vote of the Council,a hearing was set for
April 23rd on the proposed amendment.
Ct-1-26-260
Barch 26, 1973
RE PROPOSED Z.O. AMEND
p~ OFF-STREET PARKING
FOR BICYCLES
The Planning Director has requested that the matter of the
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding off-street parking
for bicycles be discussed at some length prior to scheduling the
required public hearing.
Mr. Musso stated that the reason for the request is that even though
it was discussed in detail at the Planning Commission meeting, it
was a technically complicated issue, and there were two meetings in
which the Commission met with the Bicycle Trails Committee. He
suggested that if the Council does not want to discuss the matter
he would ask that the Council meet with the bike group one day
to go over the matter, or that one or two of the Council members
.meet with them, as the matter of designing parking lots may be
difficult to understand.
Councilman Miller stated that he would be happy to meet with the
group, along with Councilman Futch.
Councilman Pritchard moved that a hearing on the proposed amendment
be set for April 23rd, seconded by Councilman Miller and which
passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
MATTERS INITIATED BY
THE STAFF
(Suit re Water - HOfmann)
It was mentioned that the Council was to discuss the suit filed
by Hofmann Co. with regard to water at the April 9th meeting. How-
ever,it appears that the matter is going to trial on that date
making it necessary for an earlier discussion.
The Council concluded that they would discuss it one week earlier,
on April 2nd.
The Council discussed Ordinance 767 to some degree and Councilman
Pritchard commented that the ordinance is automatically amended when
certain conditions are met. He wondered if there is a requirement
to amend, in that case, or if they are going to dispose of it.
Councilman Miller noted that there are a few things which must be
taken care of with regard to the matter:
1) Obtain the data from Zone 7 on the Patterson Plant
2) Providing the Council has all the data, it is not clear that
all the calculations will have been done by the 2nd, and
3) There seems to be some question as to whether or not Mr. Engle
has actually been retained to handle the case - if not, this
should quickly be resolved.
Councilman r1iller felt that if :lr. Engle is to handle the case he
would probably ask for a continuance until all the data just
recently available has been examined.
Mr. Parness pointed out that the plaintiff has indicated that he
would be vTilling to allow a postponement if he could be assured
that it would be taken care'of l~administrative procedures; however,
the City has not given sufficient evidence that this is the reason
for any delay, and the case must go to trial on April 9th.
Councilman Miller stated that the Council will issue permits if it
is determined that there is sufficient water; however, if the data
supporting this evidence is not in, he feels no judge would be so
unreasonable as to make any decision.
CN-26-26l
March 26, 1973
(Suit re Water - Hofmann)
Councilman Beebe felt that the ordinance should be reviewed on the
same testimony it was passed on, or using the same basis for their
decision,to pass the ordinance.
(Re BART Board
Vacancy)
Mr. Parness reported that there is a vacancy which must be filled
for the BART Board of Directors and that Supervisor Murphy plans
to recommend that someone from the Valley be appointed to fill
the vacancy.
(Re Treatment Plant)
Mr. Parness reported that a grant for a water treatment plant is
pending which amounts to $8.7 million and involves a considerable
amount of capital expenditure which would allow the City to achieve
some very high standards of treatment. The state officers who met
with the staff a couple of weeks ago disclosed that due to a Presi-
dential cutbacks, along with a new standard their agency has adopted
concerning air pollution areas, of which we are one, necessitated
some very stringent reductions in the amount which can be allocated
by them from federal and state sources. This means that the amount
we applied for will be pared to about 30% leaving an allowance of
bare essentials in physical improvements to meet Regional Water
Quality Control standards on the treatment process.
It appears that there is no recourse from the type of standard
imposed by the BAAPCD which will allow this Valley only .6% per
year increase in population.
The City is required to submit an amended report to the State Water
Resources Board by May I, 1973 which gives little time to gather
appeal data to argue for the reinstitution of some of the capital
improvements which have been applied for.
Our design engineers have argued that the incineration and lime
treatment process (a sludge disposal method) has been proven to be
an efficient and economical installation which requires a large
capital investment at this time but over an extended period of time
it will be a valuable additive. However, if it is not allowed now
the only recourse will be to go to added digestive methods or sludge
lagoons, which would be irrevocable once it is done.
Little sympathy was expressed by the state people, but an officer of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board was present and has agreed
to meet with the staff and design engineers to see what recourse may
be taken in a short time.
At this time the outcome cannot be determined but the Council will
be kept informed of the status, and he explained that at this time
no Council action is necessary.
Councilman Pritchard suggested presenting the situation to our
Senator and Congressman for support, and Mr. Parness commented that
a nation-wide appeal is being made to obtain release of more money
for this type of project, and perhaps this might be of value.
Mayor Taylor stated that in view of the fact the whole Council was
in favor of the high lime process, this news is a real blow to the
plans and would urge the staff to appeal the matter.
CM-26-262
March 26, 1973
(Treatment Plant)
The City Manager stated that at this time the type of recourse to
be taken is not known and that the staff will report back to the
Council after the staff has met with the Regional Water people and
design engineers.
Councilman ~1iller auestioned whether or not the rest of the Bay Area
is subject to the same critical air basin rules that this Valley is,
and ~lr. Parness commented that it is his understanding that he
is not sure what restrictions apply to the entire Bay Area but
that this Valley is being placed in a most restrictive zone.
Councilman f1iller suggested that the City ask for the grant for the
high lime plant but agree not to use the extra capacity until the
critical air basin conditions no longer exist.
Mr. Parness stated that their sole justification for the reduction
of the incineration methods were financial in nature.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the present system will work if
no more building permits are issued.
tL\TTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Appointment to P.C.)
Councilman Beebe commented that there is a vacancy to be filled on
the Planning Commission and suggested that this be taken care of at
the next meeting, which was followed by discussion as to whether or
not to interview former applicants.
Councilman Miller suggested that anyone interested should be inter-
viewed, which was agreed upon by the Council.
The Council agreed to meet at 7:00 p.m. on April 9th for the purpose
of holding open interviews, and Mayor Taylor announced that the
Council would meet briefly in an executive session after this meeting
to discuss the matter.
(Re Stubbing in
of Utilities)
Councilman Pritchard stated that it was suggested at the meeting
with the Park District that the Park Dedication Ordinance be
amended to require the stubbing in of public utilities.
It was concluded that the matter should be brought to the attention
of the new City Attorney, after he has been chosen by the City.
Councilman Miller had mentioned that if building permits are to
be issued it might be worth".rhile to amend the ordinance to get
this included; if this will aoply to pending maps, it should be
done without delay.
There was discussion as to whether this would have to be a part of
the subdivision agreement.
(Abandoned
School Sites)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like the staff to be
asked to check into the matter of giving the City the first right
of refusal for property abandoned by the School District.
The staff is to report back to the Council with regard to the
matter at a later date.
cr't-26-263
~larch 26, 1973
(Swimming
Pools - Enos Way)
Councilman Pritchard commented that there is an apartment house on
the corner of Enos Way and Junction Avenue which has a partially
constructed swimming pool which has some water in it. He expressed
concern for the safety of children going to Portola Avenue School
who pass by it. They play around the area and since there is a
steep embankment beside it, it is a hazardous situation. He has
received a telephone call from a parent who is also concerned.
The staff is going to see what action may be taken with regard to
safety measures.
(Resolution Commending
Cultural Arts Council)
Councilman Pritchard stated that since he is the liaison to the
Cultural Arts Council, he would like to sponsor a resolution
commending the Council, which he read to the Council.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the following resolution
was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 42-73
A RESOLUTION COMli.1ENDING THE LIVERHORE CULTURAL ARTS
COUNCIL AND ITS "SUNDAY AT THE BARN" PROGRAM.
Councilman Miller pointed out that all members of the Cultural Arts
Council are being asked to contribute something to "Sunday at the
Barn" and since the City of Livermore is a member, it would be nice
if the Council and staff.:could plan some program for several months
from now.
(First Aid Training -
policemen)
Councilman Miller stated that he has been told that members of the
Livermore Police Department have not received First Aid training;
if this is true, it would be a good idea that they receive the
training.
(Intermark Dispute
re Density)
Councilman Miller noted that the letter written by Intermark indicated
that the C~ty has agreed to give them at least 30 more units. He would
like it to be understood that they are getting 30 and there should be
no implication that the City may allow more.
Councilman Beebe stated that he had originally made the motion
concerning Intermark and if it would make it clear he would restate
his motion which was that exactly 30 units would be allowed to
transfer if it was questioned at a future date.
CM-26-264
~.1arch 26, 1973
(re Callaghan Sign
on East Avenue)
Councilman Miller stated that there is a time limit for variances
and CUP's and that there is a sign out on East Avenue for which the
time limit has expired (Callaghan's sign).
The staff was asked to report back to the Council regarding the
matter.
(Passover Commencing
Aoril 16th)
Councilman Miller stated that Passover begins on April 16th and he
will not be able to attend the April 16th meeting. He asked that
any controversial matters be postponed at that time.
The Council decided to meet April 30th in lieu of April 16th, and
the transportation study would be oostponed until this time.
ADJOURN!1ENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor
Taylor adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to a brief executive
session to discuss appointments.
.~~
\ ~ Q /
APPROVE {; c~ ./J, . 1, . .
J ''TleL
" 7 .
/ -" . ~ '
ATTES~hH .
City Clerk
Livermore, California
C~1- 2 6-2 6 5
-............'~=~..,~-,.__.~ "~-~_"'_-._,",~~-,,, ,.....,-_._--_._._"_...~_...,,...~" ." .__._-_...._----_.~-_._.,-~.."...>,..._-~~--."---"--~-,,-.------ ""
A Regular Meeting of April 2, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on April 2, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting
of March 19, 1973, were approved as submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Letter re Obser-
vance of Earth Week)
A letter was submitted by the Beautification Committee explaining
that they are planning a city-wide cleanup campaign as part of the
local observance of Earth Week and have asked that the Council
authorize a proclamation to announce Earth Day/Week.
(Report re
AB-l23)
The Director of Finance has distributed a copy of AB-l23 (Deddeh)
which would provide for an estimate by the county of a city's
assessed valuation by May IS, if requested by February 20. He
has stated that support of this legislation would eliminate the annual
guess as to what valuation the county will place on the assessed roll.
The staff has recommended that the Council adopt a motion authoriz-
ing support of the measure.
(Report re Ambu-
lance Contract)
The City Manager explained that the joint powers agreement and con-
tractural arrangement for ambulance services has been transferred
to Fremont Ambulance. Essentially, the agreement is the same, with
a few financial modifications. A careful investigation has indica-
ted that this is a highly reputable firm and recommends that the
Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement
for transfer of the contract.
RESOLUTION NO. 43-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Parker & Riggs dba Fremont Ambulance)
CM-26-266
April 2, 1973
(Report re Storm
Drain Benefit District)
The City Manager reported that in a previous benefit district agree-
ment with Mr. Christman involving the installation of a water line
and storm drain line, a provision requires that any subsequent connec-
tor to the waterline would have the connection amount apply as a
credit against the storm drain line cost obligation of the principal
party. A connection fee has been collected ($2,400) which has been
impounded. The appellant argues that this is an unwarranted impound-
ment since the storm drain system is not installed and no claim has
been made by the City for his participating share of $7,500.
After a great deal of consideration an amended agreement has been
prepared which obligates Mr. Christman to pay the $7,500 to the
City upon demand. In the event he fails to comply, foreclosure
proceedings may be taken. If the property is sold, the obligated
sum is required to be placed in trust for future claim by the City.
The document has been reviewed by our City Attorney pro tern and is
acceptable. It is therefore recommended that the Council adopt
a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 44-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Harold E. Christman and Landra A. Christman)
(Minutes of Housing
Authority - Feb. 20)
Minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of February 20,
1973 were noted for filing.
(Payroll and Claims)
There were l48 claims in the amount of $l41,,450.20 and 265 payroll
warrants dated March 30, 1973, in the amount of $64,528.06 for a
total of $205,978.26.
Councilman Miller questioned Warrant No. 5,625 in the amount of
$2,705.23 paid to Associated PrOfessions, Inc., and the City
Manager explained that this amount was for the design work for
the Airport Boulevard bridge.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to abstain from Warrant
No. 5,694 for his usual reasons.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was
approved.
COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Report re Police
Department Activities)
A report was submitted by the Chief of Police with regard to various
Police Department activities including the J. R. Michelis Scholarship
Fund and the Livermore Police Reserves.
CM-26-267
April 2, 1973
(Report Re Mental
Health programs)
A report has been received from the Mental Health Association of
Alameda County informing the council that the state budget for
health services does not provide for new programs and that it is
expected that half of the use for state hospitals will be cut.
They feel that this is an intolerable situation and have asked
that the Council support legislation to obtain the necessary
needed funds.
Councilman Miller felt the Council should support this cause
and suggested that a letter be sent to the Governor as well as
the legislative committee supporting this action, and so moved
the motion was seconded by Councilman Futch.
The motion passed 4-l with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
(Communication re
Trlr. Ordinance)
A letter was received from Mrs. Roy A. Diehl protesting the trailer
ordinance. She stated that she previously wrote to the Council giv-
ing her opinion based on court decisions and showing the trailer
ordinance to be invalid.
Councilman Miller stated that the cases cited by Mrs. Diehl are
old and that the decisions of the three more recent cases indicates
that there is justification and legal support for the trailer ordinance
with respect to the aesthetic values of the community. Councilman
Miller cited the cases and asked that the information be sent to
Mrs. Diehl.
Mayor Taylor commented that the Council has been advised by their
legal counsel that the trailer ordinance is, in fact, perfectly
legal.
(Communication re
Land purchase - LARPD)
The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District has requested that
the City of Livermore purchase approximately 32-40 acres of undeveloped
property east of Robertson Park, for open space purposes.
Mayor Taylor stated that before considering the request the Council
should have some report from the staff as to the total cost involved
and other details regarding such purchase.
The staff indicated that they were not prepared to give a report at
this time and would report back to the Council.
Mr. Musso did point out the area proposed for purchase as requested
by LARPD.
(Report re Domestic
Water Service Supply)
Mayor Taylor explained that approximately l~ years ago the Council
enacted an ordinance limiting the number of building permits to
be issued, based on the water supply. This number was l,500 and
that there have been no permits issued for almost one year. The
City is being sued by a developer and the case is to come to trial
very soon. Prior to the trial it is advised that the Council re-
view the water supply situation in the community.
Mr. Lee gave the Council a detailed report of the status of the
water situation, in addition to a written report dated March 29,
1973.
CM-26-268
April 2, 1973
(Report re Water Supply)
Mr. Lee pointed out that after 1974 there will be no problem of
water supply versus demand, as the new Del Valle plant will be in
operation and the new transmission line and supply will be sub-
stantially above what the anticipated demand will be. At present
there have been 601 permits issued in the Cal Water service area
and 179 in the City service area which have not been connected
to water service. It was explained that if these were connected
the supply would be very close to equal to the demand.
Councilman Miller stated that the calculations he arrived at and
those presented by Mr. Lee were different, in that there was a
variation of the way apartments were calculated. In his opinion,
the report is incomplete, misleading, and draws the wrong conclusion.
The reason he feels it is incomplete is because it does not include
the V. A. Hospital's .4 of a million gallons per day, the possibility
of any waiting tract which may connect, or the other possible permits
which are allowed in the City during our moratorium, which is to
allow single family on existing lots - possibly lOO to be developed
next year, or sometime after. The calculations do not indicate the
true demands from committed services nor the deficit which comes
from taking the supply from actual demand.
Councilman Miller felt it was misleading in that it assumes
Zone 7 will supply water without any technical justification
for where the extra water will come from. It is misleading because
it does not discuss the deficits and in his opinion the conclusions
are wrong because there is a larger demand than the supply, possibly
this summer and surely by 1974. He stated that further, there
was no consideration given to the requirements of our ordinance
which says that 1,200 gallons per day is the estimate of water
we use and that 1,200 corresponds with what we have used on the
peak days last summer. He felt that this l,200 gallons per day
should have been in the report as it is a part of the ordinance.
In taking a look at the table he stated that the results of the
calculations is that the supply is 15.9 MGD according to what Zone
7 says and the well provides, not 16.l. He felt the demand has
not been adequately calculated as there are 14,146 permits times
1154 (from Mr Lee's report) equals 16.3 plus the .4 of a million
gallons per day from the V.A. Hospital leaves 16.7 and the supply
is only 15.9 - this would mean that the City is .8 of a million
gallons per day short. He would argue that the l,lS4 does not
provide any safety factor for calculations of this kind. The number
should be l,200 and would provide a safety factor. He felt if the
new units are connected it will result in being 2 MGD short. One
of the things they can argue is that you can run awhile with the
plant at 10 mgd: its rated capacity is 8~ mgd and maximum peak
capacity is 10 mgd. In the evidence heard sometime ago, it was
argued that they could run one day at peak capacity, then they
would fall back to the rate of capacity. Mr. Mar has said that
they can run three or four days, but if there is a breakdown we
are in trouble. He indicated that all calculations done by him
were figured on lO MGD every day. He referred to the tables which
indicates the peak use per service fluctuates a lot - ll80 gallons
in 1968 and 1200 last year. It is not clear how many services were
in effect, during this time and it would vary depending upon whether
they were counted during the month of December or six months later.
With regard to the table indicating supply, the letter from Mun Mar
indicated 10 MGD and not 10.2 MGD: 5.9 is what comes from the well,
according to Mr. Lee's report and the total supply is 15.9 MGD.
With regard to the statement made by Zone 7 that if necessary they will
provide wells, he pointed out that there are a group of environmental-
ists who intend to proceed with an environmental law suit against
Zone 7 if they drill wells which provide poor quality water, which
will subsequently lower the quality of the drinking water in addition
to increase the salt content of the sewer plant.
CM-26-269
---_..~_..~~.... . "~"""""-'-'~'-'-"""-"~"'-'-"" ...... -...----.,--...-.
April 2, 1973
.
(Report re Water Supply)
Councilman Miller continued to observe that if you take the services
in Table 3 as the services in demand, the 483 waiting to be serviced
(Sunset, Hofmann and OGO) and possibly another 100 permits and the
V.A. Hospital, the actual demand based on the number of services first
calculated at l,l54 MGD per service, indicate that they will exceed
the supply left in Table 4. Table 4 indicates that at l,200 MGD we
are down approximately l~ MGD on peak days. If you take what we have,
plus the V. A. Hospital and the tracts waiting to be connected, we are
down 2 MGD and if you add the other possible 100 permits we would be
down 2.2 MGD. He felt the figures are not hard to come by and should
have been included in the report by Mr. Lee and that they should have
indicated there is a deficit rather than excess water. If we open
up the community to more building permits at this point in time, we
have essentially committed our water for the next few years for
residences and there will be no reserve for any industrial user desir-
ing to build during that time period.
Mr. Lee explained that the V. A. Hospital's demand was taken into
consideration during all the calculations and based on the delivery
schedule Zone 7 proposes to meet. He pointed out that on the first
page of his report this schedule is listed indicating that the
maximum day demand for California Water Service is 8.6 MGD, the City
service is 1.6 MGD and Veteran's Hospital at .4 MGD. Zone 7 has
not included the V.A. Hospital but says they can meet our delivery
schedule of lO.6 MGD and in addition, the V. A. Hospital.
Councilman Futch questioned where the water is going to come
from and Mr. Lee explained that this will come from the reservoir,
the wells and Zone 7 plant.
Mr. Lee stated that he feels his figures represent what the actual
usage and experience has been and if the Council would like a safety
figure added in, the l,200 may be accurate. He stated that he was
including the demand without touching the storage. He feels
a l7.2 MGD need can be met but to be conservative he did not add
the storage capacities.
Councilman Futch felt it might be worthwhile to compute the amount
actually used, what the capacity will be for this summer, and not
a projected need for the future.
Councilman Miller emphasized that the actual production rate of
supply is still l5.9 MGD total and the storage rate should not
apply.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the Council does not consist of
hydraulic engineers and water specialists and for that reason they
accepted the report of the Public Works Director and Zone 7 when
the Water Control Ordinance was initiated. He felt they should
continue to take the recommendation of the specialists - the Council
accepted the first calculations and the calculations just recently
done were done on the basis of the first figures used.
Councilman Miller stated that there can be no argument that there
will not be deficits, and even with the calculations made by Mr.
Lee, there are indications of deficits. He feels the safety
factors are of some importance in protection against water
shortage. There is a need for reserves, particularly for indus-
trial use, and if more permits are allowed there will be a
shortage of water. This would undoubtedly squelch any
hope of obtaining industrial development until after 1974. We
would not be able to justify a large water user such as Sears,
if there are deficits that use the storage. A conservative view
would indicate that the Council should not go beyond what can be
seen as a possible deficit.
CM-26-270
April 2, 1973
(Report re Water Supply)
Councilman Miller stated that he cannot understand the haste to
allow more building permits when there are deficits and drains
on the storage. In his opinion, the point of view of some of the
Council is to go ahead with allowing more permits which will drain
our storage and would like to know why this position is being taken.
He again raised the point that the V. A. Hospital is not included in
the figures presented by Mr. Lee.
Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Lee to tell the Council whether or not this
is true, that the V. A. Hospital has not been counted and Mr. Lee
explained that the demand Zone 7 says they can meet includes the
V. A. Hospital.
Councilman Miller countered that Zone 7 cannot meet the demand
forever - not even for six days in a row, and the point is that
their supply is 10 MGD.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the point of discussion is centered
on I or 2 peak days in the summer of 1974 and not the long range water
supply of the City and if you take the worst three consecutive days
over the past five years, the demand is still considerably below the
maximum supply. Therefore, with the assurance of Zone 7 and the
conservative calculations, it is clear that there will not be a
shortage in the summer of 1973 and provided Zone 7 is correct in
their statements, there will be sufficient water available. On
the basis of the water supply, alone, there is no justification for
withholding permits. He asked the Council to keep in mind that they
are speaking of I peak day, and in considering the table presented
two weeks ago, if a three day period is averaged, the average comes
considerably short of the supply and that is where the safety factor
is. He felt it to be just as important to use the 1,154 figure as
a figure merely rounded off to 1,200.
Councilman Futch felt there are grounds for concern if building
permits were opened up to a large number but would like to allow
development for which final maps have been approved.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would prefer the Council not state
allowance for a specific amount and that possibly the restriction
could be temporarily lifted. He pointed out that he feels the
Ordinance would restrict building for a period of two years, at
which time Zone 7 will have installed the new facilities.
Councilman Pritchard stated that at the last discussion concerning
limitation of permits and instigation of the ordinance, he asked
that the Council allow permits for all lots of record, which the
Council did not go along with. As a result, all of the big builders
came in and took all the permits squeezing out the small builder and
the individual. He stated that he has no intention of sitting idle
and allow this type of thing to reoccur.
Councilman Miller moved, that in view of the uncertainty over the
number and deficits possible this summer and next the Council leave
the water ordinance unchanged. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and failed 2-3 with Councilmen Futch, Beebe and Mayor
Taylor dissenting.
The Council then discussed the possibility of setting a certain number
of permits to be allowed, as was done in the past.
Mayor Taylor stated that he can understand that Councilmen Futch
and Pritchard are concerned with setting a limit and would suggest
that the ordinance be amended to, essentially, remove the ban on
building permits.
CM-26-271
April 2, 1973
(Report re Water Supply)
Mr. Lee reported the situation of the sewer capacity for Livermore
with regard ~ to whether or not more permits would create a prob-
lem and he was of the opinion that additional permits would not
be a problem in that there are ways of expanding the capacity if
necessary: however, this would result in additional expense also.
Councilman Miller stated that it is his understanding that there
are 2,500 residences which the plant may be able to take care of.
A Citizens Committee has conducted a survey which indicated that
there were close to 1400, including the 100 permits Mr. Elliott
was just allowed, which results in l,lOO available, after connection.
Mr. Lee had indicated that there were 456 to be connected, which
included everything.
Councilman Miller noted that this count had been taken in January
and it is conceivable that 1,000 of the units have been occupied
since that time. He stated that there is somewhere between l,lOO
and 1,400 left in the system (the Council is considering the 600
in the holding zone) which will leave nothing for the industrial.
He added that it has been pointed out during the Brown and Caldwell
discussions that it is very hard to operate the plant at the present
4.2 MGD and it becomes increasingly more difficult as the rate of
capacity is reached. He expressed concern for disposal of the sol-
ids and that in time the method may be ineffective in controlling odor.
Mr. Lee explained that if necessary, the City can resort to filtra-
tion of the solids which would take care of odor problems.
Councilman Miller stated that the improvements mentioned by Mr. Lee
may be installed, but all of this will result in additional expense
and to his knowledge, the only thing which will be allowed by the
state is filters at the other end of the plant. Until all of the
present problems with the sewer plant are resolved and until people
want to add to the sewer service charge to make it possible to issue
more building permits, he feels it is unreasonable to issue more
permits, as we approach the capacity of the sewer plant.
Mayor Taylor stated that Mr. Lee has calculated that there is an
equivalent additional capacity and after all the unclaimed permits
are built, there will be an additional 800 available. The
equivalent of 800 residences is what we have for industrial and
commercial expansion over and above the residential expansion the
Council is discussing at this time (the 600 in the holding zone
ordinance). He stated that he is hopeful there will be some relief
from the state ruling: however, if this is not a possibility, the
building the Council is discussing tonight (the 600) upon its
completion, will probably leave no other considerations.
Councilman Miller stated that he would not have raised the question
if we had not heard about getting increasingly more problems with
the plant as it approaches its greatest capacity. He feels the
matter should recetve special consideration or there will be a num-
ber of angry people on the west side of town who will complain
about the odor coming from the plant.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the City Attorney had commented that
there is no way in which the City can legally reserve sewer capacity.
Mayor Taylor moved that considering recent action the City has taken
which limits the amount of building which can occur during the next
two years and considering the testimony before the ,Council tonight,
that the water capacity can take care of peak days, is more than
adequate to handle the number of building permits expected during
the next two years under the ordinances passed relating to building,
the I,SOO number may be eliminated and to direct the staff to prepare
a new ordinance stating the conditions for the next two years. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
CM-26-272
April 2, 1973
(Report re Water Supply)
Bill Zagotta, 5155 Lillian Court, commented that he had spoken to
the Council during the time of the discussion regarding the proposal
for the General Plan Review and at that time he had recommended that
the Council not issue any more permits until a there is a General
Plan upon which the City can plan future growth. Now it appears
that the Council has allowed enough permits to put the water plant
in trouble and in his opinion, the figures presented by Mr. Lee are
not conservative, as 1972's peak day used more than l,l48 gallons
per service per day. Last summer was not the hottest summer in the
last IS years though it may have had the hottest peak day in the last
five years but it was not the hottest summer. With regard to Mr.
Lee's comment that there will be a small deficit if no permits are
allowed indicates that if any are issued that safety factor will be
eliminated. He felt the issue the Council should be discussing is
whether or not growth pays for itself and in his opinion it never
will until there is a balance between industrial and residential
base. He expressed objection to the Council's move which will
endanger his water, sewer, schools, and raise his taxes because
growth does not pay for itself. He urged that the Council take time
to discuss the motion considering the problems in the proper context.
Ray Faltings, lOl8 Via Granada, stated that in November the people
voted for a measure which was intended to improve the water quality
as well as quantity, by Zone 7, in the valley. Part of the proposal
is that Zone 7 intends to use wells which would not be a quality
improvement of the water currently being used in the valley. Well
water put to use in the system will have an adverse affect upon the
water reclamation plant which will develop an increased treatment
cost for the water coming from Zone 7. He felt that Zone 7 should
be advised through the Councilor the press that the people of the
valley voted for an improvement for treated water in the valley
and not for a continuation of low or lower quality of water until
they can complete their plant.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that when Zone 7 uses well water during
the peak days, they then use less of the well water during the
average days.
Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion.
Councilman Miller asked if his understanding of the motion is
correct in that Mayor Taylor's proposal is equivalent to allowing
480 building permits plus whatever else can develop.
Mayor Taylor stated that this would include those only within the
bounds of permits allowed on the basis of water availability and
those permitted by previous Council action, agreed upon unanimously
two weeks ago .JI/\/,/, d. I)~' '/J / '-V '
~u I!L ~ /~'Y73
Councilman Miller stated that in that' case he fee s the estimate
of approximately lOO building permits that leaves something like
580 building permits 'in the Hofmann Tract which is
being sold. He commented that 83% of the permits are going to go
to mass builders and it is his understanding that Mr. Mehran is
buying out the Hofmann Tract: if this is true, 2/3 of the permits
will go to Mr. Mehran. He stated that the point of this statement
is that one of the mass builders has 2/3 of the permits and that
5/6 are going to the mass builders, which will be the result of
the motion.
Mayor Taylor stated that, legally, the Council cannot make any
distiction between any individuals the City is doing business
with.
CM-26-273
-'""._..,......._~-_._--'._.,._..,.,._-_.._-,-,. .' --~,._....~-- ...""--~.~-_.,-,..~____~.".".M"~"~.^.____ __..,__o~___~._~_~__."'_,_.,___._____~~,._.,_"_..____,_'_._._'__.,_~._....___.,_____.__._~_________ .
April 2, 1973
(Report re Water Supply)
At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion which passed
by the following roll called vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Futch, and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
RECESS
Mayor Taylor called for a five minute recess, after which the
meeting resumed with all members of the Council present.
REPORT RE P. C. APPEAL
RE H. C. ELLIOTT VARIANCE
The Planning Director explained that Mr. Elliott is appealing the
Planning Commission's action and denial of a variance to allow
continued use of his model homes off the tract to which they are
appurtenant. Some months ago the Planning Commission granted a
variance allowing the model homes until May, which the Council appeal-
ed reducing the time from May to March I. The model homes are located
on Delaware off of Murrieta Boulevard and the tract is at the end
of Olivina, approximately halfamile away from the models.
The planning Commission denied the request for the variance, as it
was felt that the model home complex should be on the tract to which
it is appurtenant.
Councilman Miller moved that the Council deny the appeal, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard.
Harry Elliott, subdivider, stated that though the models have been
on Delaware for a number'of years, they have tried to arrange them
so as to cause no inconvenience to the neighborhood. They felt
that it was a better arrangement to have two model home complexes
in developing the subdivision in the old airport area, than to try
to serve the people from one model complex. At this time they would
like an extension of approximately six months to allow them to phase
out the models in the subdivision they have sold in. They have
constructed two new models at the Delaware site, and would like the
Council to take this into consideration.
Mayor Taylor questioned Mr. Elliott as to what he would do, should
the Council deny the variance, and Mr. Elliott stated he is not
certain but the salesmen would have to be there to finish the business
he has started. He felt that two months to take care of current
business and after which they will open the street and engage in
slower activity for approximately four months allowing them to
sellout enough to close the model home complex entirely.
Councilman Pritchard asked how many models they are using and Mr.
Elliott stated that originally there were 16, 8 of which have been
closed.
Mr. Elliott indicated that during the next two months they plan to
have the 8 remaining model homes occupied.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would be more in favor of grant-
ing approval of the application if the models were all on the same
side of the street: however with the street opening up he felt it
might be a dangerous situation.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the reason for the original
extension from last November to March 1 was for the purpose of
allowing him to phase out. Furthermore, he has been operating
CM-26-274
April 2, 1973
(Appeal re Variance -
Model Homes - Elliott)
for an additional month (the month of April) in violation of an
expired permit. During the time he was supposed to be phasing out,
two new models were built which indicates there was no intention of
moving out. He felt that under these circumstances, plus the
fact that the tract has been 90% complete for some time, there is
no way the Council can justify approval of this type of appeal.
Councilman Miller felt that what Mr. Elliott is doing, in essence,
is whatever he wishes then trying to gain approval after the fact.
He felt this to be entirely unacceptable.
Councilman Futch asked Mr. Elliott if he could be out of his present
location within 60 days to which Mr. Elliott explained that he could
open the street during this time but it would take considerably
longer to develop a new complex elsewhere.
Councilman Futch stated that what he is asking is whether or not
Mr. Elliott is able to give the Council a commitment that he will
vacate the sales office in 60 days, and Mr. Elliott stated that this
would necessitate building new models and they could not be built in
this time. They would need at least 90 days to accomplish this.
David Madis, attorney representing Mr. Elliott stated that he nor
Mr. Elliott were ever advised that the Council had appealed the
Planning Commission's approval for allowance of the variance until
the month of May.
Councilman Miller stated that, undoubtedly, copies of the variance
were sent both to Mr. Elliott and Mr. Madis in which the change of
date should have been noted.
Mayor Taylor explained that originally, Mr. Elliott appealed for
a variance for one year, which the Planning Commission reduced
to eight months. The Council appealed this decision and it seems
that there was no representative present during the meeting in which
the Council reduced the lenth of time allowed and that Mr. Elliott
was not notified, nor was his attorney.
Mr. Musso explained that Harry Elliott, Jr. had been notified that
the length of time had been shortened, approximately 2-3 days after
the decision had been made.
Mr. Elliott contended that he was not aware of any such decision
until March 1 when he was notified that the variance permit had,
in fact, expired.
Mayor Taylor asked that the Council vote on the motion which
passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Mayor Taylor asked if there might be any Council support for allowing
Mr. Elliott additional time, other than 24-hours, to close.
Mr. Elliott stated that he is very sorry to see that the Council
feels this way and has made a decision based on technicality.
Councilman Pritchard explained that since Harry Elliott, Jr. had
been notified of the decision and there was no complaint from the
attorney, following the decision, it was naturally assumed that
their organization just decided to do nothing about the appeal.
Evidently this was not the case: however, someone in the organiza-
tion did not know about it and there was a lack of communication.
Mr. Elliott expressed his regret but agreed to dismantle their
model homes as soon as possible.
CM-26-275
~----~'__'~"_'_"'---'._~-"..",-"~"---_.__...._.....",.,,.,- . .""------.._'__._~._~___m__._~______
April 2, 1973
REPORT RE TRACT 3321
BOND SUBSTITUTION
Mr. Lee reported that a request has been received from Mr. Mehran
indicating that he is a prospective purchaser of Tract 3321 (Hofmann)
and has requested a bond substitution and extension of the final
completion date for the public works improvements. The request
is to transfer all of the responsibilities to Mr. Mehran and the
bonds have been filed with the Public Works office, adding that
none of the subdivision agreement conditions have been changed:
the original conditions of the agreement are in effect. This
should mean that there will be no change in the ultimate comple-
tion of the tract.
Councilman Miller stated that the next item on the agenda pertains
to the portola Avenue Assessment District with regard to Tract
3321 although the conditions of the bonds are not changed, there
are obviously going to be some changes with regard to the assess-
ment district. He, therefore, suggested that the changes may as
well be incorporated in the conditions of the bond agreement.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council approve the request
with the condition that whatever is necessary to insure the
improvements are taken care of, be done. He stated that the
Council could consider the items separately, or discuss the matter
all at one time.
Councilman Futch stated that the other property owners in the area
were concerned with the assessment and assumes that this would not
be a commitment but merely an agreement with the proposed developer.
Mayor Taylor explained that, essentially, the only thing necessary
is to change the date from 1973 to 1974 and transfer the title. He
felt there was no need to discuss the assessment portion at this time.
Councilman Miller pointed out that if the performance standards con-
tain something specific with regard to an assessment district, he
felt it would be advisable to discuss the whole issue and resolve
the matter as a whole.
The Council agreed to proceed with the discussions of the Portola
Avenue Assessment District and then come back to the matter of
transferring the title.
DISCUSSION RE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PORTOLA/LIVERMORE AVENUE
Mayor Taylor stated that the Council decided that the off tract
improvements should be the responsibility of the builder, during
the time the development was proposed, and the staff was asked to
form an assessment district to pay for street improvements on
portola and North Livermore. The developer, somewhat reluctantly,
also agreed to these conditions, and had stated in the subdivision
agreem~nt that in case the district is not formed his liability
would be limited to $62,000. This figure was calculated by Mr. Lee
as representing 50% of the portion to be paid between the developer
and the other property owners. The City felt this spread was unfair
in that if the other property owners had no access to the street
or no use of the approved street they should not be assessed for
50% of the improvements. It was then suggested that the staff try
to work out some method for a more equitable spread of the cost, and
a proposal has been made to form a benefit district to save the ad-
ministrative cost and engineering cost of an assessment district,
and the property owners would then put up the share of the assess-
ment that would ordinarily be theirs.
Councilman Miller felt the formation of a benefit district was an
excellent way of accomplishing a solution to the problem: his only
concern is for the length of time benefit districts are usually
allowed. He stated that in this case, the City is being asked to put
up some $17,000 which will be paid back to the City as the property
develops, and he would like to make sure that the time period is suffi-
cient to allow the City to recover the money it has pledged.
CM-26-276
April 2, 1973
(Assessment Dist.- Tr. 3321)
Councilman Beebe asked how the staff had arrived at the formula
proposed, and Mr. Lee stated that in the subdivision agreement,
as the Mayor pointed out, the developer's responsibility was
established at $62,000 in the event the assessment district was
not formed, and under this formula the developer has agreed to
assume a responsibility about twice that amount. He felt it
would be too much to ask the developer to advance the amount that
would ultimately be assessed to the other isolated contract areas.
The benefits to the City would be substantial and we would be getting
the major street improvements, plus accomplish what the Council had
wanted - to commit the development of that property to front toward
the north rather than toward the major street to improve traffic.
Councilman Beebe asked if the small property owners could be re-
quired immediately to put up the back fence or would it be done
through the benefit district, and what their cost would be. Mr.Lee
explained that the benefit district would construct the backing
lot fence along the entire frontage of portola and Livermore Avenues
with the exception of the driveway openings of several of the resi-
dences, and he further explained the proposal in detail. There
would be no cost at this time to the property owners in the non-tract
area, and there would be no expense until such time as they develop.
Councilman Miller moved to approve the staff's recommendation to
form a benefit district and that the benefit district be a condi-
tion of the extension of the bonds, and the benefit district be
for l5 years. Councilman Beebe seconded the motion.
A member of the audience asked what had been discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting in this regard, and Mr. Musso stated this
was discussed at a public hearing in relation to PU ,12. The Com-
mission felt that a benefit district would be the proper procedure,
and they also discussed the backing lot treatment.
Mayor Taylor stated that the benefit district includes the cost
of the wall, but he did not know if the wall would have to be built
immediately, but Mr. Lee explained that the plan is to build the
wall immediately, and unfortunately the Public Works Department
had not provided the Planning Department with any input relative to
safety and traffic problems.
The member of the audience then stated he was referring to the dis-
cussion about the possibility of no fence with the funds in escrow
of $62,000 going toward the street improvements, and no fence at
all until such time as the properties develop and then the cost of
the fence being mandatory. He asked if his interpretation was
correct and was advised that it was.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
Councilman Miller noted that Mr. Mehran has agreed to assume a
larger share of the benefit district which he feels is very commend-
able, and is a major factor in the success of the benefit district.
BIDS RE AIRWAY BLVD. AND CHANNEL REALIGNMENT
The following bids have been received and it is recommended that
the low bid of Teichert Constr. Company for Alternate A be accepted:
Contractor
Al t . " A"
Al t . "B "
Teichert Construction Co.
Oliver de Silva
R. M. Harris
Gallagher & Burk
Redgew~ck Construction
AADCO Engineering
L, P. Jones
stanfield & Moody
Gravelle & Gravelle
Les McDonald Construction
Eugene E. Alves
$222,502.50
234,140.20
245,165.00
249,287.69
250,215.50
254,l05.84
255,560.20
258,525.75
261,lll.00
270,273.00
280,770.10
$215,502.50
229,l40.20
236,765.00
249,907.69
248,2l5.50
251,985.84
257,007.20
255,l65.75
266,273.00
CM-26-277
April 2, 1973
(Bids Continued)
McGuire .. Hester
O. C. Jones
East Ba~ Excavation
California Eng. Contr.
28l,273.00
283,937.05
283,952.40
293,138.00
286,273.00
298,5l2.05
280,852.40
298,073.00
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller and by
a unanimous vote of the Council, the award of the bid went to Teichert
Construction Company.
RESOLUTION NO. 45-73
RESOLUTION AWARDING BID
(Airport Boulevard Bridge)
REPORT RE TRACT
3333 - H. C. ELLIOTT
The City Manager reported that all of the public works improvements
for Tract 3333 (Elliott) have been completed with the exception of
some of the details of the easements and right-of-way, which needs
the conclusion of value based on an appraisal - this required litiga-
tion and both parties agreed to accept the appraisal worth. Following
that time, the easements would be transferred. He stated that this
is in process now and the interim City Attorney has advised the City
Manager that he has spoken with both parties and is satisfied that
the easements will be placed in the hands of the City.
The City Manager added that he has received a letter from Mr. Elliott
stating that the City will be under no obligation for the cost of this
process. He felt that he is satisfied, as is the interim Attorney,
that everything is being taken care of and that there is no point in
delaying the final approval of the tract map.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the improvements for the tract
were approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 47-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF TRACT 3333 (H. C. ELLIOTT)
REPORT RE REZONING
APP. - SUNSET DEVELOP.
It has been recommended that the matter of the rezoning application
by Sunset Development for property located on the northeast corner
of Concannon Boulevard and Holmes Street from RS-4 District to E,
CN and CO Districts be scheduled for a public hearing.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
the unanimous vote of the Council, the matter was scheduled for a
hearing on May 7, 1973.
REPORT RE AMEND-
MENT TO PUD NO. l4
The Planning Commission has asked that a public hearing be held
regarding possible amendment to PUD No. 14.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the matter was scheduled for
hearing on May 7, 1973.
CM-26-278
April 2, 1973
P. C. MINUTES FOR
MARCH 20, 1973
Minutes of the Planning Commission for their meeting of March 20,
1973, were noted for filing.
REPORT RE PROPOSED RES.
RE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The Planning Director gave a brief report regarding the proposed
resolution establishing objectives, criteria, etc., for the implemen-
tation of the Environmental Quality Act.
The City Manager felt the resolution is a significant statement
to be introduced into the procedures and should be reviewed with
more care, even though the Council must report to the state. He
felt the City could, perhaps, be a week or ten days late in sub-
mitting their opinion.
The Mayor pointed out that the City has no action pending which this
must be applied to.
Councilman Beebe had suggested that, possibly, an interim ordinance
be adopted and reviewed at a later time, and Mr. Musso felt this
might be one way of taking care of the action necessary at this time.
Councilman Miller moved that the resolution be introduced and
adopted, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and which passed by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilman Miller, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Futch
Councilman Futch stated that he would have to agree with the comment
made by the City Manager in that the matter should be more thoroughly
reviewed before deciding.
RESOLUTION NO. 46-73
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA
AND PROCEDURES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EN-
VIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970. (PREPARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS)
The staff was asked to place this matter on the agenda again in
about 30 days and the staff indicated that the matter would be
scheduled for May 2lst.
ORDINANCE RE Z.O.
AMENDMENT RE CS DISTRICT
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the second reading of
the Zoning Ordinance amending Section 9.00 to provide for CS
District was waived and read by title only, and adopted by the
Council.
CM-26-279
April 2, 1973
(Ordinance re CS District)
ORDINANCE NO. 815
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE CITY
OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY THE
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9.00, RELATING TO CH - HIGHWAY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO PROVIDE FOR CS - COMMERCIAL
SERVICE DISTRICT ZONING, AND BY THE AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 2l.43, RELATING TO MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARK-
ING REQUIREMENTS, AND SECTION 2l.75, RELATING TO
MEASUREMENT OF SIGN AREA AND ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA.
Councilman Pritchard stated that since the Council has adopted the
ordinance and it is before the Council, he would like to request
that the Council ask the Planning Commission to look at both sides
of First Street, from the railroad tracks on out to the highway -
to look at the zoning to see if some of it should be rezoned to CS,
in light of the new ordinance.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Re Div. of Hwys.
Meeting with P.C.)
The Planning Director commented that the Planning Commission is meet-
ing with the Division of Highway people on April 24th to discuss land
use along highways, and land use distribution, at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting.
MATTERS INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL
(Re Converting Plant
to High Lime Treatment)
Councilman Beebe asked if the Council had made a formal vote to appeal
the decision of the State with regard to converting the sewage plant
to the high lime treatment, and Mr. Parness explained that the staff
is looking into the prospects.
(Re Paperwork Pro-
cedure for Appeals)
Councilman Pritchard stated that, normally, an appeal to the Council
on a Planning Commission decision does not come before the Council
other than in the form of a report, and he wondered if Mr. Musso
issues documents or papers before or after it has come before the Council.
Mr. Musso explained that the permits are not normally issued prior to
the end of the appeal period.
Councilman Pritchard indicated that he would like the applicants to be
informed that their case is not settled, that there is an appeal
period, and that they not accept anyone's word as IIfinal" until they
have received this permit.
(Re Signs in
~ight-of-way)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he cannot understand the rational
for allowing businessmen to place their signs in the City right-of-way.
CM-26-280
April 2, 1973
(Signs in Right-of-Way)
Mayor Taylor stated that the matter of the signs in the right-of-way
took place many years ago, and that the rational, as he recalls, was
that there was so much pressure regarding signs that it would help
people find their way around town to find the tracts being advertised
by the signs. This was better than allowing the larger signs.
Councilman Miller felt that by this time the town has matured enough
that the directional signs are not needed any longer and could
be eliminated.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council refer the matter to the
Planning Commission for action, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
(Re County permission
for Drive-in Theater)
Councilman Futch commented that he is concerned with the proposed
drive-in theater being located in close proximity to the airport
and the airplanes.
Councilman Futch moved that the comments be referred to the Airport
Advisory Board, seconded by Councilman Miller, and which passed by
the unanimous vote of the Council.
(Re Fee for Change of
Address - Business Lic.)
Councilman Miller wondered why there was a $5 fee for changing an
address on a business license, adding that he had heard from some-
one very disturbed over the matter. He felt the fee was unnecessary
and asked that the staff report back on the matter.
(Re Resolution Com-
mending Gil Oftedal)
Councilman Miller stated that a member of the soccer group has asked
that the Council prepare some type of resolution in honor of Gil
Oftedal, who is leaving the area, to be presented at a dinner in his
honor on April 13th.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, a resolution honoring Gil
Oftedal was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 48-73
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING EGIL OFTEDAL
AND HIS DEDICATION TO THE SPORT OF YOUTH SOCCER
IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
(Re Sign at Chest-
nut and L Street)
Councilman Miller commented that he has received a complaint from
a citizen who opposes the stop sign at Chestnut and "L" Street.
Councilman Miller wondered if some type of light could be installed
warning people who are not used to the stop sign, that they are
approaching it.
Mr. Lee indicated that the sign has been there for some time and
there has not been a development of a serious problem there.
CM-26-28l
___'___"___'.'_",,".__.~..._~,,~.~M'_"'_'_______._.___.____.~_.u._,_,_..~~^_.,._.~_..'_m._u.__.._..~.._,"~ '" ...,_____._._,,_~_,_~_._.___'._.,,____.~._.__ _ _..._""".__'__..._..____..~..,.__~_u_.__~_._.._.__.".___...___.
April 2, 1973
1Re Motor Bikes)
Councilman Futch asked what the status of the report is as to the
arroyo problem with regard to noisy bikes.
Mr. Parness stated that he has discussed the matter with the interim
attorney and the Chief of Police. Chief Lindgren has reported just
last week that non-street allowable vehicles may be regulated as to
noise and can be licensed. Also, the City is getting new signs to
be posted on public property, which will be obvious. At present, it
is being investigated as to whether or not posting can be done on
private property.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned by Mayor Taylor at 11:25 p.m.
APPROVE
0Jc~ ~. U~
Mayor
ATTEST
,t+.c~~eL
// ,~ City Clerk
Livermore, California
A Regular Meeting of April 9, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on April 9, 1973
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:20 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting
of March 26, 1973, were approved, as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Appeal to
State Water Qual. Bd)
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, explained that he will not be able to
stay at the meeting, as he has another appointment, and would like
to briefly comment on an item listed on the agenda regarding valley
CM-26-282
April 9, 1973
(Water Quality Appeal)
water management, if the City's intention is to present an appeal
to the State Water Quality Control Board as to the ration of sewer
funds. He stated that he has reservations as to whether or not the
City should be involved in an appeal at this point. He strongly
supports the principle that federal and state funds should be used
for upgrading quality only and not expansion of the plant. He feels
that others should not be asked to subsidize our growth. If, however,
the City submits an appeal, he would urge that the City support the
philosophy of how the monies should be used and that if we obtain the
6 million gallons per day as a result of the appeal, this City would
not apply for money of that kind in the future. He added that the
appeal mayor may not be successful and would advise consideration
for opening sewer capacity for industry in the hopes of maintaining
balance in the community. He also wanted to point out that in the
process of expansion, if there is to be an additional sewer service
charge, an increase should be announced to the citizens as early as
possible to allow feedback.
Mayor Taylor explained that the item is to be discussed later in the
meeting by the Council and that they would not comment at this time.
(Complaint re Bike
Riders - Wrong Side
of Street)
Cliff Hazen, 1121 North "P" Street, stated that he has seen a number
of bicycle riders both over and under the age of 21, riding their
bicycles on the wrong side of the street. He pointed out this fact
to a policeman who seemed to be unconcerned over the matter. He
felt that he would bring the matter to the Council's attention in
hopes of obtaining results and would urge that something be done
to encourage the proper use of bicycles and to see that the Police
Department enforces the rules. He also mentioned that he would
like to see provisions made for leaving bicycles outside of stores
downtown, to eliminate bicycles cluttering the sidewalks.
He stated that he would like to see something done before someone
is killed and as an interested parent would help to see that his
children obey the rules and would cooperate if he is made aware of
the fact that his son has received a ticket.
Mayor Taylor stated that he can understand the huge problem, as
this happens to be an era of widespread bicycle riding. There is
nearly one bicycle for every residence in the City and the state
laws are trying to provide for the financing of provisions for
bicycles such as trails. Until this time it might be in the best
interest of everyone if the Chief of Police is informed of the prob-
lem and the knowledge that there is approximately one bicycle for
every two cars.
Councilman Beebe felt that the issue of whether or not one is allowed
to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk is not clear cut, in that it is his
understanding there is a restriction for riding a bike on the sidewalk
in commercial areas, but this does not apply in residential areas. On
the other hand, a three year old just leaning to ride a bicycle has no
business in the street, and adults and teenagers should not be riding
on the sidewalks.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, President of the Livermore Bikeways
Association, stated that he understands and agrees with most of the
points made by Mr. Hazen. At present, the Bikeways Association is
working on an ordinance to be presented to the involved agencies with-
in the next two weeks which covers a number of the items mentioned
by Mr. Hazen. He felt education and enforcement of bicycle riding
is necessary and in his opinion bicycle riders should receive the
same treatment as a motorist who breaks the law.
CM-26-283
April 9, 1973
(Re Bikes & Autos
Along Murrieta Blvd)
Mr. Wendt stated that his reason for attending the Council meeting
was to inform the Council of the hazardous condition which exists
for bicycle riders and pedestrians along Murrieta between Olivina
and Stanley Boulevard, along a recently installed path. If the
path is intended to serve both pedestrian and bicyclist, it should
be pointed out that the path is too narrow to accomodate both - it
is only four feet wide which is inadequate for even one-way traffic.
There is an abrupt drop at the edge of 6-8 inches and would recom-
mend that the situation be rectified immediately.
Mayor Taylor wondered if the Bikeways Association has any suggestion
as to how the problem can be solved, to which Mr. Wendt commented that
the Bikeways Association has presented, in the past, a proposal which
will take the bike trail along the arroyo and under the bridge, which
is a long range plan they would like the Council to keep in mind but
at present they would like the existing facilities to be improved
with no specific recommendation.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that permanent development of the strip is
awaiting development of the adjoining property. The City has author-
ized construction of a path to accomodate the large number of school
children who use that street, and would ask that the staff check to
see what needs to be done to see that it is a safe area for the chil-
dren.
Mr. Lee explained that the path is under construction at present,
the asphalt strip has been put in and there are places in which
there are 6-inch drops: however, more grading needs to be done to
allow for more of a shoulder. It is somewhat narrow, but the distance
is approximately l500 feet and is temporary in nature. Prior to installa-
tion of the strip there was nothing there and the children had to walk
along the shoulder of the street. Eventually, there will be better
facilities in addition to a strip on the west side of the street.
Mayor Taylor commented that the strip is not intended as a permanent
solution and that possibly the staff should look into the possibility
of installing a strip on the west side in view of the fact that a
temporary strip will last for several years. He asked that the matter
be placed on the agenda for discussion again in about two weeks.
COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Communication re
Pesticide Devices
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has written in
response to a letter from the Council regarding the use of auto-
matic pesticide dispensers in which they have indicated that the
subject is currently under study by the Office of Pesticides Pro-
grams in Washington D. C. and that the Council's letter has been
forwarded to them for further reply.
Communication re
Arts Festival '73
The Livermore Cultural Arts Council has written to the Livermore
Council requesting that they support the festival to cover the
banner competition awards.
Councilman Pritchard moved that in addition to the $300 in purchase
awards, the Council allow another $llO to make awards for the banner
competition, seconded by Councilman Miller and which passed by the
unanimous vote of the Council.
CM-26-284
April 9, 1973
Minutes of Design Review
Committee - March 22
Minutes of the Design Review Committee meeting of March 22nd were
reviewed by the Council and Councilman Pritchard commented that
with regard to the Fotomat appeal Mr. Strala, their attorney had
stated it was his understanding that only the roof was to be dis-
cussed by the Design Review Committee and Councilman Pritchard
could not recall the Council's having said anything like that.
He wondered if a letter could be sent to Mr.Strala indicating
that the entire issue had been turned over to the Design Review
Committee and that the Fotomat Corporation should be happy that
the whole building does not have to be removed.
Councilman Pritchard also noted that the Chairman of the Design
Review Committee had stated that there is no reason their meetings
cannot be finished by 10:00 p.m. and would like the Council to take
the same attitude.
Summary of Action at
the P. C. Meeting 4-3-73
(Re Hutka Variance Appeal)
The summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 1973 was noted for filing.
Councilman Miller commented that he would like to appeal the action
of the Planning Commission in which an application of Ed lIutka for
a variance to Section 14.30-c to permit reduction of minimum street
frontage yard from IS feet to 5 feet and reduction of required fron-
tage landscape from IS feet average to 6 foot average at 2010 Research
Drive was approved, and so moved. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, and approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller suggested that the matter be put on the calendar
for their next meeting.
REPORT RE VALLEY WATER
MANAGEMENT STUDY COMM.
The City Manager has submitted a detailed report of the Valley Water
Management Study Committee in which he stated that the State Water
Resources Control Board concluded that the incineration and high-
lime treatment method was unnecessary for our plant enlargement.
Regrettably, if this method is not used other costly and less effi-
cient methods will have to be employed. If the Council agrees with
the conclusions of the report it is requested that an appeal be made
to the State Water Resources Board by our Valley Water Management
Study Committee describing the basis for an appeal. It is recom-
mended that the Council adopt a motion approving the recommendation
to appeal the matter.
The City Manager pointed out that in the discussion which took place
yesterday with the State Water Resources Board officials, they
stated that their agency adopted Regulation 2144 (Clean Water Grants
Regulations) on February 20th of this year which was for a period
of two months. During that term they asked to have appeals trans-
mitted to them as to its consequences. Following the expiration of
that period they will conduct an official appeal hearing or will
have the regulation formally adopted - which is now in effect. The
expiration of that period is Thursday, April 19th. He indicated that
the primary concern is for the mixing of the State Water Quality
Control Boar Staff's financial limitations with the new air impact
zone regulation, severly restricting the capital additions applied
CM-26-285
April 9, 1973
(Water Mgmt. Study)
for to update our plant. Most of this matter has to do with the
treatment process of the plant - the sludge treatment and disposal
and if the current decision of the State Water Board Engineers
prevails, the recommended sludge disposal methods recommended by
our design engineers will not be allowed. This will force the
City to revert to the typical method which would be a step back-
wards. It appears that the State Board has agreed to reconsider
our project report and the City is reapplying for a grant applica-
tion. It is felt to be of critical importance and that the City
should go directly to the Board to express the limitations and
capacities we will receive. He urged that the Council allow the
City to join the other agencies in going to the State to appeal
the matter.
Mayor Taylor asked if the City Manager or another member of the
staff intends to represent the City, which Mr. Parness stated
is the intention.
Mayor Taylor stated that it was his understanding that the rule
would not prohibit our own expansion which has been in process
for a number of years, and perhaps, this was our misunderstanding.
He added that in his opinion, it would be a terrible blow not to
be allowed to update our plant with this modern treatment, as he
feels we will be ordered, in the future, to update the plan~ and
the citizens of the City will have no choice but to pay for this
with possibly no aid through a grant of any type.
Mayor Taylor continued to say that now we have the opportunity
to add a little more capacity and control over residential develop-
ment for the next few years and it would be a disappointment if
we were limited due to arbitrary rules imposed by some outside agency.
In his opinion, this would very clearly be against the best interest
of the public and would suggest that the City of Livermore's position
be presented separately. He urged that the Council direct the staff
to express the City's opinion, separately, from Pleasanton and VCSD.
Councilman Pritchard felt the matter was being discussed as it was,
because it was felt that there is some strength in numbers: however
he did not think that Pleasanton and VCSD would object in Livermore
presenting its own case. He suggested that if the Water Quality Con-
trol Board would allow the valley to continue with the plans for up-
grading and expansion we could allow them to set a limit as to the
amount of water we could use.
Mayor Taylor agreed that if this is the only way we could upgrade
the facilities that allowing them to set a limit on the capacity
would be better than forfeiting the whole plan. However, he felt
the City should not lead with a proposal such as this, and voluntar-
ily restricting ourselves, knowing that we will be able to balance
ourselves in the future and we need the million gallons capacity for
possible industrial and commercial expansion.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the Council had just discussed
the fact that water could not be reserved for these things to which
Mayor Taylor remarked that the City can, however, control the amount
of residential development and balance the amount of residential and
industrial development.
Councilman Miller felt that it has not been proved that there is a
mechanism to control growth, as has been pointed out in the discussion
of the available sewer capacity. Councilman Miller added that the EPA
CM-26-286
April 9, 1973
(Water Mgmt. Study)
has stated that their money is to be used for the upgrading of water
facility plants and not for expansion and all the water pollution
money used for sewer plants is supposed to be for upgrading to meet
higher water quality standards. He felt the suggestion made by
Councilman Pritchard to agree to upgrade the plant and accepting
the present 5 MGD capacity is very reasonable and represents good
faith. He feels that we will not get the money if we ask for an
additional million gallons capacity which represents a 20% increase
and three times the lO year limit the EPA would allow. He felt it
would be more realistic to offer the argument of air quality and
water quality.
Mayor Taylor expressed concern for not having any reserve for
commercial or industrial development, to which Councilman Miller
again emphasized that the City has not been able to reserve sewer
capacity for industrial and that there is no guarantee any additional
water will not also be used up by residential development if it is
available. Perhaps the City can obtain another reading with regard
to reserving capacity for industrial~ however, there is no such method
for reservation at this time.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council appeal to the State Water
Resources Board to provide the City with funds for the expansion
and the high lime treatment facility, and also that the Council
reaffirm its previous philosophy that air pollution should be con-
sidered in funding future sewage grants. Also, that the Council
would consider setting aside a certain fraction to provide for a
balanced community to provide for commercial and industrial develop-
ment.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that he also add to the motion that
the Council would be willing to take a capacity limitation, which
was not made a part of the motion.
Councilman Beebe seconded the motion made by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Council consider an amendment
to the motion and indicated that Councilman Futch has a very good
idea about finding a way of reserving a million gallons a day. If
the state would not allow the City to use this for residential ex-
pansion but would allow it to be used for commercial and industrial
expansion, the state order would allow a reserve. He suggested that
the motion read that the Council would be willing to accept a limita-
tion of 5 MGD for residential with I MGD reserved for possible com-
mercial, through a state order.
Councilman Futch indicated that he would lirather not add figures to
his motion, and restated the motion.
Councilman Miller stated that he could not agree that the philosophy
should apply to somebody else's sewer plant sometime in the future
and that the situation is serious enough with respect to air quality
that the Council should be willing to be treated exactly as everyone
else in the Bay Area.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed 4-l with
Councilman Miller dissenting.
REPORT RE EXCESS PARK
DEDICATION (Tract 3321)
The City Manager reported that the City has obtained l.91 acres in
Tract 3321 on the northeast corner of portola and North Livermore
CM-26-287
-----~~~-_.._"..,_..._----_.~"-----,_._~._--,-,,~-~---"'-._~~---~_._"---_._---~.,--------"~
April 9, 1973
(Park Dedication
Tract 3321)
Avenue which was in excess of the amount needed for a park in
the area. The owner has agreed to accept $5,000 per acre for
the additional land, which the staff feels to be very acceptable.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize $9,550 in pay-
ment for this land.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council approve the recommendation,
seconded by Councilman Beebe which passed with the unanimous vote of
the Council, after a brief description of the area by Mr. Musso.
SPECIAL ITEM - ANNUAL
REORGANIZATION OF COUNCIL
Mayor Taylor expalained that every year, at this time, a selection is
made from the Council members to fill the offices of Mayor and Vice
Mayor.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council move on to Matters Initia-
ted by the Council and adjourn the meeting to a brief executive session
to discuss the appointment to the Planning Commission, before the Spec-
ial Item is discussed.
Mayor Taylor commented that he felt the motion would be out of order,
and wondered why Councilman Pritchard would prefer that a selection
to the Planning Commission is made prior to the reorganization of the
Council.
Councilman Pritchard stated that a Planning Commission appointment
would fall under the category of "Old Business" and felt it should
be taken care of first.
There was no second to Councilman pritchard's motion, and Mayor
Taylor asked for a nomination for the office of Mayor.
Councilman Futch moved to nominate Councilman Don Miller for the
office, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, which passed by the
unanimous vote of the Council.
Mayor Miller thanked the Council for their nomination adding that
he hopes the Council will be able to continue smoothly and properly
in the forthcoming year and that all will be to the advantage of
the citizens of Livermore. He anticipates that there will be differ-
ences of opinion but feels that this is what the City thrives on and
that the City can go forward.
At the suggestion of the Council, Mayor Miller then introduced his
wife, Miriam, from the members of the audience.
Councilman Pritchard moved to nominate Councilman Futch for the office
of Vice Mayor, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch felt that he would have to decline, as he is the
junior member of the Council, but thanked him for his confidence.
Councilman Beebe moved to nominate Councilman Pritchard for the office
of Vice Mayor, which was seconded by Councilman Taylor and which passed
with the unanimous vote of the Council.
The Council discussed seating reorganization at which time Mayor Miller
brought up the point of Roll Call votes and that normally the Mayor
has the last vote. It has been suggested by the City Clerk that if
the Council wishes there may be an arbitrary method of voting in this
manner which will not make any difference as to where a member of the
Council is seated.
CM-26-288
April 9, 1973
(Council Reorganization)
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the voting procedure
suggested by the City Clerk, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
which passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
Mayor Miller explained that the procedure just adopted will be for
the City Clerk to draw a name out of a hat and proceed in alphabeti-
cal order to establish the vote during Roll Called voting.
Councilman Taylor stated that he has enjoyed serving the City as
Mayor in the past as a representative of City on regional business
and also the relationship with the staff that has come from holding
the office of Mayor.
Mayor Miller expressed the Council's appreciation for Mayor Taylor's
service and efforts as Mayor.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Re Chabot Extension)
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like the staff to get in
touch with the Chabot College people to find what the status is
of locating a branch college in Livermore. It appears that money
is the main problem and if utilities financing is a large portion
of the problem, he felt the City should review its position to give
them every bit of help possible to get established here~
The City Manager explained that the college has inquired of the
staff regarding certain points that need to be answered and the
staff is preparing the necessary material at this time and will
be answering them very soon, after which time a report will be
given to the Council. He did indicate that they have asked for
interpretation of the last Council's decision with regard to financ-
ing, timing, and how the benefit district rates will be applied.
(re Election of a
Mayor System)
Councilman Beebe felt it is time to let the people vote as to whether
they feel they should elect a person for the office of Mayor or whether
the Council will continue to choose a person for this office, as is
the current procedure.
The matter was asked to be placed on the agenda for discussion, as
the mechanics for placing an item on the ballot take time and if
this is going to be done the Council felt they should commence with
the necessary steps to be taken.
It was suggested that the discussion be set for sometime in August
or September.
(Re Sewage Treatment
Capacity)
Councilman Futch commented that he has done some work with regard
to the estimated rate of sewer treatment capacity the City is using
at this time. He has plotted out the average day for a month since
last June and the values he has found are 4.2 in one month, 4.6 another
month and three months at 4.5. He felt this was inconsistent with the
reported 4.2 average reported by Mr. Lee and wondered if there is some
type of explanation for the difference.
Mr. Lee explained that the treatment plant capacity is rated during
dry weather flow. Its design capacity is 5 MGD dry weather flow which
means that it can handle capacities far in excess of 5 MGD during wet
weather and during the wet months there are times it exceeds the 4.2.
CM-26-289
'---'---'-"'---'-''''-~'--'"''--'--''----''~---~-''-_._'-"-_."_"'_'.~--"_'_,"...~._..__._.~._...-.,.-.,....,.--_....~ . .-.--_.".,,_._."-_....__.~--,-". ._--_.._._---~._-~,._"_.._-,_.._-,-_.._--~~--,_._-_.,...
April 9, 1973
(Sewage Treatment Capacity)
It is felt that the dry weather flow at this particular time is
4.2. He stated if the previous month is noted there was infiltra-
tion into the system and the average will be higher than 4.2.
Councilman Futch indicated that the three consecutive months he
reported on were during the months of August, September and October.
Mr. Lee stated that he would look into the matter if the Council
would like: however, it is the feeling of his people that the
capacity is 4.2 at this point.
Mayor Miller stated that there is a major issue at hand concerning
the matter, as during the discussion last week there was concern
about how much sewage capacity there is left in view of the large
number of unconnected residences and plus the possible number which may
arise when the water ordinance is no longer being enforced. If
the sewer plant level is at 4.5 or 4.6, we would essentially have
no sewer capacity left when all these others are connected. He
felt a written report is desirable and should be presented at the
next meeting which is in two weeks.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Re Naylor Avenue
Improvements)
Mr. Lee reported that II years ago the Armco Development Company
bonded to put in public works improvements on Naylor Avenue and
the Vasco Road frontage at some future date after a lO year period.
They are now in the process of making the installations and will
have 2/3 of Naylor Avenue constructed to the end of the Armco
Development. Part of the street width is in the County area and
contractor has applied for an encroachment permit with the County
who is questioning the way in which the storm water is being han-
dled. The City proposes to drain the water out the west end of
the property and along a ditch for the interim time. The County
will not issue an encroachment permit unless the City accepts the
responsibility for maintenance and liabilities which may result
from the storm waters.
Mr. Lee suggested that in order to get the improvements put in,
the Council adopt a resolution accepting the responsibility and
liabilities which may result.
Mayor Miller asked if the County would deed the property to the
City rather than just the maintenance, which Mr. Lee explained
could be done by annexing the property to the North boundry. How-
ever, this would be time consuming.
Mayor Miller stated that the County could quit claim the street
deed to the City.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the staff recommendation accept-
ing maintenance of the street was accepted and the resolution adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 49-73
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
NAYLOR AVENUE LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
CM-26-290
April 9, 1973
(Re Car Wash Sewer
Connection Fee)
Mr. Parness reported that the local car
$1,500 for their sewer connection fee.
money but has offered the City free car
He asked that the Council give him some
wash owes the City nearly
The owner cannot pay the
washing services.
direction in the matter.
The Mayor asked who washes the cars for the City at present and
Mr. Parness replied that at present, the Boy Scout Explorers wash
the Police Department cars. These boys have done a very good job
and if the cars are washed at the local car wash it would put the
boys out of this business.
Mr. Parness felt there was no alternative but to proceed with legal
action to recover the money.
Councilman Taylor moved to authorize the City Manager to take the
legal action necessary to clear up the debt.
Councilman Pritchard suggested the possibility of allowing the owner
to make incremental payments to cover the debt, which Mr. Parness felt
was one possibility.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch, and passed by the
unanimous vote of the Council.
(Letter re BART)
The City Manager read a letter sent to the City by the City Manager of
Walnut Creek, regarding extension of BART to service the Pleasanton
Livermore area, and an alternate suggestion to connect Walnut Creek anc
Livermore via the San Ramon Valley. The Walnut Creek Council would li~
to meet with the Livermore City Council to discuss the matter and have
asked that the Council respond.
Mr. Parness reminded the Council that a meeting has been scheduled
for April 30th to discuss the transit study and the Pleasanton City
Council has agreed to sit in on the discussion. He suggested that
if the Council would like, the Walnut Creek City Council could be
invited also to join the discussions.
Mayor Miller felt the discussion of the valley transit situation may
be very lengthy and that an additional discussion regarding BART might
also be very time consuming.
It was noted that this may be an effort on the part of the Walnut
Creek Council to lobby for the San Ramon corridor: if this is true,
any discussions would be a waste of time, and felt that the City
should meet with Walnut Creek to see what their views might be.
The City Manager was directed to contact Walnut Creek, tell them that
the April 30th meeting will be held mainly to discuss the transit stud~
but that they can make a few comments if they would like.
(Re Mini Bike Regulations:
Mr. Parness reported to the Council regarding the regulation of mini
bikes, at Councilman Futch's request, stating that new statutory regu-
lations require that they be registered by the state and there are
also noise control regulations which can be enforced - these are quite
stringent. With regard to preventing the use of private property for
these bikes, the interim City Attorney feels that private property may
be posted to prevent this type of trespass. If the Council wishes,
the staff will proceed with the drafting for such a law.
CM-26-291
April 9, 1973
(Mini Bikes)
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the staff was directed
to prepare an ordinance to post private property against the use
of mini bikes.
(Re Livermore Fire
Station)
The City Manager reported that Alameda County is interested in
divesting themselves of the Livermore Fire Station and are in
the process of negotiating with the Division of Forestry to ob-
tain it, contracturally.
Chief Baird has done a detailed investigation of the matter and
he and the staff has concurred that it would not be in the best
interest of the City to apply for the granting of the station
and its facilities. It would not be economically feasible for
the City to operate it.
The City Manager explained that the County wants a contractural
pledge that the City will devote one engine company and two full
time men to respond to all unincorporated alarms and in return
they would pay the City for six men and would also subsidize the
other six men who would be gradually absorbed into the City Depart-
ment over three years. They would pay lOOt of the extra six for
the first year, 2/3 for the second year and l/3 for the third
year plasi the station and equipment. It was felt that the first
condition would be just too much for the City to bear.
Mr. Parness explained that the State Division of Forestry will
take care of all the unincorporated areas of the City from the
Livermore Station, if the City does not take the station.
(Letter from
Rincon Student)
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to read a letter which
was addressed to the Mayor from a student of the Rincon School in
which the student expressed the concern of the Rincon students for
the air pollution and corruption allover the world, and especially
Livermore. He suggested that the citizens of Livermore pitch in and
do something to help, with the suggestion to use anti pollution signs
and tree planting groups. He expressed concern for water pollution,
and also mentioned that he felt there should be grounds provided for
wild animals to roam free.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the students be sent a reply to the
letter encouraging their efforts and moved that the staff be directed
to send the letter on behalf of the Council, and to pass the letter
on to the Beautification Committee.
(Re Execution of Water Reclamation
Grant Application)
The City Manager asked that before the Council adjourn the meeting,
they authorize the staff to execute a grant application for the
water reclamation plant.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the staff was directed to
reapply for the water reclamation grant.
CM-26-292
April 9, 1973
(Grant Application
Water Reclamation Plant)
RESOLUTION NO. 50-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL GRANT FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS AND
PROVIDING CERTAIN ASSURANCES
(Re Appointment to
Planning Commission)
Mayor Taylor indicated that there is still one more applicant to
interview for the vacancy of Planning Commission who was not able
to attend the meeting tonight.
The City Clerk explained that he understood that his resume would
have to take the place of an interview, as he could not be present.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Miller adjourned the
meeting at 10:20 p.m. to a brief executive session.
APPROVE f-\C\~\!.)-::)', \t~Uu
Mayor
ATTEST C){hui~~fornia
A Regular Meeting of April 23, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council_ was held on April 23, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch, Pritchard, and
Mayor Miller
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES - APRIL 2 & 9
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting of
April 2 were approved as corrected and the minutes for the meeting
of April 9, 1973 were approved as submitted.
CM-26-293
April 23, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING RE
WEED ABATEMENT
Approximately 400 Livermore home owners have been sent notices of the
Council's intent to proceed with the abatement of weeds if they
have not been taken care of by the owner, and a public hearing has
been scheduled at this time to allow any public testimony.
As there was no public testimony regarding the notices, the hearing was
closed on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor and by the unanimous vote of the Council. (See Consent Calendar
for Resolution directing Street Superintendent to proceed with the
program) .
PUBLIC HEARING RE
SUB. O. S. DIST. FOR "A" DIST.
Mr. Musso reported that at the Planning Commission meeting of February
27, 1973, following a study which commenced in April of 1972, the
Planning Commission considered a possible amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance substituting "OS" (Open Space) District for the "A" (Agricul-
ture) District, and other amendments related to Open Space Districts.
The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of certain proposed
amendments as submitted in written form to the Council. It proposes
that three zones be established, OSA (Agricultural), OSR (Rural
Preservation) and OS-F (Flood) Districts.
The Mayor opened the hearing: however no written communications
were received and no oral comments voiced. The Council then discussed
the various proposed Districts and the uses allowed, and where drive-
in movies would be best located.
Councilman Pritchard suggested putting drive-in movies under condi-
tional use - Section 28.22 which will allow the Council and Planning
Commission to impose certain conditions on proposed land use which
is intended to regulate any proposed use so as to preserve control
over development and provide procedure for review of certain proposed
uses. He listed the uses allowed under this section and felt that
drive-in movies would fit in with the other categories.
Councilman Taylor indicated that people may get the feeling that the
Council will be acquiring more power over the agricultural land, by
atta~k~n~ this ordinance, which is not exactly true.
~l Md:~d' h 't' 'th' h fth C't t
~Mayor MirIer 1sagree 1n t at 1 l.S W1 1n t e power 0 e 1 y 0
zone Agricultural and there is some merit in maintaining agricultural
land in the State of California.
Councilman Taylor explained that cities have been advised that they
should not preserve open space in that way without assuming the risk
of having to buy the land. He stated that his point is that the City
should not zone a piece of land Agricultural in order to keep it as
open space, as the City may have to purchase the land.
Mr. Musso explained that as urban development encroaches in the Agricul-
tural area, the property owner may develop, and this has been upheld
in court cases of the past.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council approve the Open Space District
and included Councilman Pritchard's suggestion that drive-in movies be
allowed on a conditional use basis and not specified as to where they
will be allowed: the rest of the Open Space District approved as sub-
mitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller pointed out that there was an incomplete sentence in the
ordinance, just above .13, which Mr. Musso explained should be deleted.
CM-26-294
April 23, 1973
(Public Hearing re Open Space)
Mayor Miller commented that under .21 (c) with reference to roadside
stands, he felt this should also be under conditional use permit
procedures.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission decreased the allow-
able size of the roadside stand, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet.
The Council also discussed uses in the flood plain areas, as well as
the fact that there is no regulation for width or depth of lots, as
pointed out by Mayor Miller. He felt there should be some mechanism
for regulating width versus length.
Councilman Taylor felt that in view of the fact they are discussing
five acre lots, there should be no problem with regard to width or
depth
Mayor Miller moved that that particular section be amended and sent
back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. He felt
that long narrow lots are a problem and should at least be reviewed
by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Futch felt there was no problem in that there is a require-
ment for 100 feet of street frontage.
The motion made by Mayor Miller died for lack of a second.
The motion made by Councilman Futch to approve the OS District,
with the exception of requiring drive-in movies to obtain a
conditional use permit, passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
This suggestion will be referred to the Planning Commission for
report prior to adoption of the ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING RE OFF-
STREET PARKING (Including
Bicycle Parking)
Mayor Miller stated that a public hearing is to be held at this
time to discuss the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance
related to off-street parking and bicycle parking.
Mr. Musso explained the ordinance as recommended unanimously by the
Planning Commission for adoption.
The ordinance will allow a commercial developer, primarily, to sub-
stitute vehicular parking with bicycle parking - which
will go towards his parking requirements and receive credit
for them. He is required to have four bicycle stalls or any
number equal to 20% of the required off-street parking stalls
for vehicles. For each 10 bicycle stalls, he may reduce his
vehicle stalls by one space, with the necessary barriers for
protection such as planters, fences, etc. He stated that the
Planning Commission has also added the provision for improved
pedestrian and bicycle paths within the development, whichc'shall
be paved. The pedestrian walkways shall be five feet wide,
bike paths shall be eight feet wide and a combination pedestrian
and bike path must be ten feet wide. Any development required
to provide ten bicycle stalls must install both a pedestrian
and bike path.
Councilman Beebe asked how many bicycle slots would be required
where 12 vehicle stalls are provided, and Mr. Musso indicated
that 4 bike stalls would have to be provided, in addition to
a path to the stalls.
Mayor Miller wondered why it was felt that private parking
lots, industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing uses, should
not be required to provide such parking for bicycles.
CH-26-295
April 23, 1973
(Public Hearing re Off-Street
Parking Including Bicycle Parking)
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing and asked that any public
testimony be presented at this time.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, President of the Livermore Bikeways
Association commented briefly that the Planning Commission and
the staff have been doing an outstanding job in preparing the
proposed ordinance which he feels is a great step forward in
providing safer pedestrian and bicycle access as well as reducing
the hazards of bicycles being parked in front of stores on sidewalks,
and would encourage the Council to adopt the ordinance, as proposed.
As there were no further comments of testimony in the hearing, the
public hearing was closed on motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by
Councilman Beebe and by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the Bicycle Parking
Ordinance, as submitted, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Taylor commented that it is his understanding that Mr. Musso
has some reservations in adopting the ordinance and would like to hear
any major items of concern to the Planning Director.
Mr. Musso explained that he would like to have met with members
of the Council to discuss the ordinance prior to the public hearing
but the opportunity to do so did not come about. His main concern
is that it not be designed is such a way as to make difficult
the design and operation of parking lots: however, it may prove
to be satisfactory as it stands. He had expressed concern to
the Planning Commission with regard to posts, curbs, elevations,
etc. which may be a safety feature for bicycles, but a hazard
to automobiles, particularly when lighting is not required in
these lots.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that if bike paths are installed,
motorists may assume that a bicycle will not be behind him and
not look for them, possibly creating another type of hazard to
the bicycle rider.
Mr. Musso stated that he was trying to keep some flexibility in the
ordinance which the Planning Commission removed and made mandatory:
however, this may prove to be the best method.
Mayor Miller felt that there
and suggested the following:
parking lots.......except in
be unnecessary...".
should be some wording changes in (l2)
1I...except in the case of private
those cases where the City deems it to
A~ vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimously to introduce
the ordinance and waive first reading.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Weed Abatement)
RESOLUTION NO. 51-73
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND DIRECTING THE SUPERTINTENDENT OF
STREETS TO CAUSE SAID PUBLIC NUISANCE TO BE ABATED.
As a result of the public hearing, the above resolution was adopted.
(Minutes - Various)
Minutes were received from the Beautification Committee for the
meeting of March 7 and the Housing Authority for the meeting of
March 20, 1973.
CM-26-296
April 23, 1973
(Departmental Reports)
The following departmental reports were received:
Airport activity - March
Airport financial - quarter ending March 31, 1973
Building Inspection Department - March
Emergency Services - quarterly report
Finance Department - revenues and expenditures
9 months ending March 31, 1973
Golf Course - quarter ending March 31, 1973
Library - quarterly report
Municipal Court - February
Police and Pound Departments - March
Water Reclamation Plant - March
(Payroll and Claims)
There were two hundred six claims in the amount of $137,278.27
dated April 20, and two hundred sixty payroll warrants in the
amount of $63,340.61 dated April 6, 1973 ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager.
(Office Lease - Valley
Youth Services Center)
The City Manager explained that due to our temporary inability to
find permanent quarters for the Valley Youth Services Center staff,
a temporary location has been found at the First American Baptist
Church located at So. L Street and College Avenue. The lease is
for a two month period only at a rate of $50 per month exclusive
of nominal utility charges. It is recommended that a resolution
be adopted authorizing execution of the lease.
RESOLUTION NO. 52-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
First American Baptist Church
(Labor Relations)
Under the terms of State statute the City Council is authorized
to delegate authority for municipal labor relations purposes. It
is recommended that the City Manager be delegatedas representative.
RESOLUTION NO. 53-73
RESOLUTION DELEGATING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS RESPONSIBILITIES
(Survey re Community
Recycling Center)
A survey was conducted by our recycling center as to the attitude
of some 350 users regarding solid waste and this was presented to
the Council as information.
(Approval of Consent
Calendar)
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous vote, he items on the consent calendar were
approved.
CM-26-297
April 23, 1973
COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Re Assessment of
Downtown Properties)
Mayor Miller indicated that the report submitted to the Council
from the County Assessor's Office is essentially unacceptable and
there is no reason given as to why residences realize an increase
in valuations and taxes and that businesses are not touched for 3-4
years. This means that the residential properties pay an extra
burden because their assessments rise regularly. He feels there
is no way to force the assessor to treat properties equally unless
there is pressure from public officials such as the Council.
Councilman Beebe felt that it might not be quite fair to say that
commercial properties are not updated yearly, as the building in
which he works has an increase in taxes due to tax reassessments
each year. There may be other businesses who do not have an increase,
but in the instance he knows of, there is one every year.
Mayor Miller pointed out that the City Manager had given a list of
13 properties which had not been assessed for a period of three years,
and were grossly out of line with other property taxes.
Councilman Taylor felt that since the assessor has stated that all
property will be evaluated next year the City should ask for a promise
that this will be done every year following.
Mayor Miller suggested that the staff be directed to write a letter to
the assessor requesting that the same process be used each year,
using the same kind of factor.
Councilman Taylor moved that the staff be directed to reply to the
assessor, Mr. Nichols, indicating that they would like the assessments
to be kept up to date in the future as well as in 1973-74, and that
the same re-evaluation technique be applied. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Futch and passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
(Communication re Air Pollution Trends)
A letter was received from the Associated Home Builders of the
Greater Eastbay, Incorporated, in which their chart indicates that
the projected air pollution oxidant levels would decline in the
Livermore Valley in 1972 to a level of .09 parts per million.
The chart was published in January of 1972, and this month the
Bay Area Pollution Control District published an article stated
that the oxident levals had declined to .09 ppm as predicted.
Mayor Miller felt he could not let the matter pass without saying that
the article is a "typical distortion" of the air quality problem.
(Report re Architectural
Plans - Police Adm. Bldg.)
The City Manager reported that the formally completed construction
plans for the Police Administration Building and cost estimations
are ready and hopefully, the Council will concur with the design,
and accept the cost estimations which are slightly higher than the
original amount anticipated. He felt the architect, Mr. Burns
Cadwalader could explain the reasons for the increase and introduced
him to the Council.
Mr. Cadwalader showed an illustration of the building, explaining the
proposed plans and adding that the building is increasing in cost
from $5,000 - $6,000 per month for each month of delay, which
CM-26-298
April 23, 1973
(Police Administration
Building)
commenced in November. The drawings are completed and the project
is ready for bid and they hope to get started as soon as possible
to help cut inflationary costs. If the Council approves the plans
they plan to open the bids to the public tomorrow, receive bids by
May 15 and start construction approximately May 22 or 23rd with a
9 month construction period. If there are no strikes or stoppage
of work, the building should be ready for occupancy by February
or March of 1974. He stated that their original estimate,-.which
included 10% to cover unknowns, was $577,000. Due to inflation,
the new cost estimate is now $615,000 which is roughly $37,000
over the original schematic estimate. He listed a number of other
important features to be included which account for about $35,000
worth of construction. The original goal of $700,000 which
included building construction costs, services and expenses,
etc. (total cost of project) is now estimated to be $720,000.
They are not including any type of landscaping and advise that
this be planned for in some type of master plan including the
Police Building and the Library, and they have also not provided
for a flag pole.
The City Manager stated that there are a few suggested improvement
features the staff would like to place on optional bidding such
as the berm device in front of the structure. This is estimated
by the architectural firm to be about- $4,500 and would like this
to go to competitive bidding to see if the Council wants it to be
included.
The Council discussed the plans for the building after which time
Councilman pritchard moved to adopt a resolution authorizing receipt
of the construction bids, seconded by Councilman Taylor and which
passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 54-73
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
(Ed Hutka Appeal re
Min. Street Frontage)
The Council has appealed a variance application submitted by Ed
Hutka to permit reduction of minimum street frontage yard and
required frontage landscape to which the Planning Commission has
responded by way of a written report.
Mr. Musso reported that a conditional use permit is required because
the south side of the property adjacent is the swim club, and
there will be an encroachment on a portion of that property line.
The public hearing revealed that the majority of the members did
not want a building on the property line but would accept a 10 foot
setback with heavy landscaping.
The Planning Commission felt the application was surrounded by
unusual circumstances and granted the permit to reduce the amount
of minimum street frontage yard required from 15 feet to 5 feet and
reduction of landscape from 15 feet to 6 feet average.
Mr. Lee explained that in conjunction with the widening of East
Avenue, the City will be setting back the improvements and property
lines 16 feet which will affect the property in question, and will
require a redesign of the building.
Mayor Miller explained that the matter had been appealed at his
request because he did not understand what was happening and because
he was concerned about the variance, itself, and still feels concern
over it. Front setbacks are established based on public interest and
CM-26- 299
April 23, 1973
(Hutka Variance)
when a variance is given, something is taken away from the public
interest. The question is whether or not the developers can build
a building within the ordinance and it appears that they can, though
it would not be as large as they would like. For this reasoh he
feels a variance is not in order and wondered how Mr. Wolfe, partner
to Ed Hutka, feels about the matter.
Mr. Wolfe explained the reasons they would like to have a larger
building and pointed out that subsequent to the plans they prepared,
they found that they could not build up to the lot line and that
East Avenue's widening will affect their plans. They ask that
the variance be allowed or that there be more equity in the widening
of the street, taking more from the other side of the street.
Councilman Taylor wondered if the project will not go ahead if
they are denied the variance, and Mr. Wolfe indicated that it
is most likely it will not develop, which they feel is a very
unfortunate situation. He stated that he does own the property and
that, eventually, there may be a use for it; however, this particular
project will require the variance, as they cannot cut the building,
further.
Mr. Wolfe felt that the Council may not be able to distinguish 15
feet from a 25 foot setback if it is landscaped property and pointed
out that in observing commercial development in the San Jose area
there is not a specific setback - some are very close to the street
and it is a pleasing effect.
Mr. Wolfe explained the layout of the building and the reasons the
plan requires the amount of building space it does.
The Council discussed the matter and Councilman Futch felt that he
would approve the recommendation made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Musso suggested that if the Council has no specific recommenda-
tions or opinion they might table their action.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a 4-1 vote (Mayor Miller dissenting) the appeal was tabled.
(Report re Ord. 767 -
Bldg. Permit Limitation)
Councilman Futch requested that prior to discussing the ordinance
which is related to water availability, the Council discuss the
next item on the agenda which is the water reclamation plant .flow
and come back to this subject. There being no objections to the
suggestion, the Council moved to the next item on the agenda.
(Report re Water Recla-
mation Plant Flow)
At the City Council's request, the Public Works Director prepared a
chart indicating flow volumes at the treatment plant which indicated
that the average daily volume of flow for the year of 1972 was 4.1
MGD, inclusive of infiltration and 4.2 MGD during dry weather flow.
Councilman Futch reported that his findings would indicate that the
average daily flow from June 1971 to March 1973, would be more like
4.4 MGD or 4.5 MGD. He added that Mr. Lee's estimate of 3.5 during
the month of October of 1972 was really out of line with all the
other months.
CM-26-300
~
'd;~
April 23, 1973
(Reclamation Plant Flow)
Mr. Lee felt that the months indicating the average daily flow to be
4.5 (August and September 1972) were the months out of line and that
there is a possibility the equipment measuring the flow was out of
adjustment.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to list what he feels the
four main issues are:
1. The possibility of a "smelly" sewer plant.
2. How rapidly we are approaching our capacity.
3. What are the increased costs for an increasingly unstable sewer
plant?
4. What will be left if we continue along the same path - namely,
issuing more building permits; what will be left of the sewer
capacity, if anything?
Councilman Beebe felt that these questions cannot be answered and
that the only thing Mr. Lee can do is report what the actual capacity
of the plant is, or how much unused capacity remains.
Mayor Miller felt the trends are that it is going up sharply in the
past year and a half and if the trends are extrapolated to where we
are now, there is a substantial burden on the~ant beyond 4.2
MGD. He added that he appreciates the moving~c~::~~:ions made by
Mr. Lee which were done at his request, but he has redone the moving
average calculations on the 12 months preceeding so that the cal-
culations would be run up to where Dan Lee started his calculations.
The point is, there are wet seasons and dry s~~2P~y~nd done on a
12 month basis the moving averages smooth out1anav:r~y~nd at the
last point you had, you are averaging the higher flows because there
are more connections, against the lower flows you had during the
earlier part of the ~ month period.~Mayor Miller then explained
the calculations illustrated on charts which were given to the Council.
He felt that he would have to agree with the calculations made by
Councilman Futch in that the average daily flow is 4.3 MGD, and he
would feel that when all the commitments are taken care of, we are
very close to the upper limits of our operating capacity. As we
approach these upper limits the plant is more difficult to control
and the problems of smell and sludge lagoons become greater and
greater and that the Council should consider what is going to be
done about committing more sewage capacity versus having a very
angry citizenry on the west side and that the City does not want to
see a repetition of what has happened in Pleasanton. In his opinion,
serious consideration should be given to whether or not building per-
mits should be committed at this time until it is clear what the actual
demands on the plant are. If the permits are added which are ~~~
in a tract and not covered by the General Plan moratorium, we exceed
the capacity of our sewer plant. There are another 500 lots not covered
by the General Plan moratorium either, and if these are given permits
we substantially exceed the capacity. We should be careful as to what
is committed at this time.
Mr. Lee explained that he reported the average for 1972 was 4.1 MGD
which includes all infiltration and not the dry weather flow - the
actual dry weather flow has to be something less than that because
the 4.1 MGD includes all the rain waters which get into the system.
Councilman Taylor asked Mr. Lee if he is saying that the rate of
capacity is 5 MGD average dry weather flow, but if you calculate
figures which would correspond to the figures calculated by him
and quote the plant capacity on numbers which correspond to the
averages calculated by Mayor Miller, instead of being 5 MGD it would
actually be something higher, which Mr. Lee stated is true.
*~~,~'-<f-~~ ~U~~.~
~zi~r~t~~L/~ ~ ~r~
~~ I tY-!:.'4l.Jie4. CM-26-30l
April 23, 1973
(Reclamation Plant)
Councilman Futch stated that the problem is that there is no way
of knowing what the wet flow is and that the report indicates that
there is less flow during wet months, which must mean that there is
not a significant contribution from the rain water, as stated earler.
After discussing the report made by Mr. Lee, Mayor Miller stated that
there is no consistent pattern for wet months and dry months and on
the basis of meter readings, etc. over the past five years, it cannot
be shown that there is a correlation with wet weather infiltration.
He felt that safety factors and caution should not be ignored when
you are discussing upper limits of sewer capacity when there is an
opportunity to choose whether or not more building permits should be
issued.
Mr. Lee felt the Mayor was placing too much emphasis on the steepest
portion of the curve but the Mayor countered that in his opinion most
people with technical training would not agree when it is a matter of
trying to be prudent when you are possibly going to exceed your sewer
capacity. The trend is that the sewer demand is increasing very rapid-
ly, which may be just a statistical fluctuation, but the point he is
trying to make is the extrapolation of the lines plus what has already
been committed, takes us very close to the capacity of the sewer plant,
and as pointed out by Mr. Lee in the past, the plant is going to become
more difficult to control and more smelly, as we approach capacity.
Therefore, he felt it would be folly to issue more permits at this point
when it is not certain what is going to happen to our sewer plant. He
would suggest that we wait to see if the trend continues and whether
the lines are correct.
Mr. Lee pointed out that we could have an upset or problems tomorrow,
but the plant is designed for 5 MGD dry weather flow and as we approach
that point it will have to be monitored more carefully. However, we
should not have a "stinking" plant such as Pleasanton has had and feels
that we have no serious problem. He stated that we are light on the
solids disposal and that special care will have to be taken at that
end and cannot guarantee that there will not be problems - there may
be odors but there should be no serious problems up to 5 MGD.
Councilman Futch indicated that his purpose was to point out the un-
certainties in the measurements and he would feel that the average
flow per day is 4.4 or 4.5 MGD. He felt that we are getting sufficiently
close and that the Council wanted to be appraised of the situation and
then draw their own conclusions.
Councilman Futch suggested that the Council go on to discuss Ordinance
Number 767 which pertains to building limitations on the basis of the
water issue.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to offer one of two motions:
I) not to issue any more building permits until we have six months more
experience with our sewer plant at the present rate, or 2) leave our
water ordinance in effect without changing it by resolution until the
sewer problem is resolved. He then moved that in view of the uncertain-
ties in the total commitment to the sewer plant the staff's previous
comments about the difficulty in increasing frequency of problems with
the sewer plant as we approach the rate of capacity, that we postpone
any issuance of residential building permits until six months from today.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Taylor commented that when the City built the plant they
intended that it be operated at capacity and in his opinion the
intent is to make one last stand to derail the water supply ordinance
and use the sewer argument to do it. He feels that we must be
concerned about the sewer plant capacity but the staff has indicated
that there is no reason to anticipate problems with the plant and
that the 5 MGD does not correspond with the figures calculated
by Councilman Futch and the Mayor and he then asked Mr. Lee if
the City is going to be in trouble when the 580 permits have been
issued; which is the number allowed under the ordinance.
CM-26-302
April 23, 1973
(Reclamation Plant)
Mr. Lee indicated that according to his figures, the plant would
not be in trouble. He added that using the graph he previously
presented to the Council, using the 4.2 MGD it was projected that
there were 780 outstanding water services to become sewer services
and would contribute approximately .24 MG. It was estimated that
half of the November 1971 permits issued are still inactive - con-
sidered to be a conservative estimate, and there are to be another
307 to be connected which will contribute 1/10 MGD and Intel con-
tributes .02 bringing the total up to 4.56 MGD sometime in 1974,
after all the commitments have been met. This will leave enough
capacity for an additional 1400 residences.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council's only concern is that the
commitment to the sewer plant does not exceed the rate of capacity
and offered an amendment to the motion that it be stated in the
ordinance that commitments shall not be added, in the way of building
permits, that will load the plant beyond its present capacity, and
delete reference to numbers. The amendment to the motion was seconded
by Councilman Beebe,~."'.A"""n .4 1 '\i+-l=l H"y", Mi~~_PI'I i."'J .~:
. .-J1 ~ ^ '.....J--... -,fI.I/~
~ t' t--U.(/ ~~ .. .~,L ~,~
Mayor Miller asked for a vote to the or~nal mot~~:-~"-postPone '
issuance of building permits for six months, which failed by a
2-3 vote with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt a policy
of not allowing connections to the system which will exceed
the rate of capacity of the present plant, and instruct
the staff to let the Council know in sufficient time to allow
the Council to take action preventing this from happening. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller felt that this is clearly a "motherhood" motion and that
nobody wants to exceed the capacity of the sewer plant; however, there
are discrepancies in the calculations made and that in cases in which
there are discrepancies one should reserve more caution and asked why
Councilman Taylor choose to ignore the calculations done by him in
favor of those done by Mr. Lee. He stated that he would like to be
shown where he has supplied incorrect information and will be happy
to make any changes proven to be incorrect.
Councilman Taylor stated that his reasons for accepting the staff
report is due to the fact that they have been dealing with the sewer
capacity problems for many years and in his opinion the Mayor tends
to present things in such a light that it emphasizes the point Mayor
Miller is trying to make at the moment and that he would tend to be
suspicious of the motivations behind the Mayor's figures, even though
they may be correct. Only time will tell, however, and presumably
the staff can also interpret the figures accurately and apparently the
same input went into the calculations. There is adequate time to go
over the figures and determine which is correct and to examine the
f....i9U res as well as com.pare the calculations~ " LL'
"-~~'Y-- ~ k_ (!._o_-<_'__'_A!_~.L~ ~~-A:" -r- /
'. d ~ r ./J;;z;Ld~ X v
(f~ /~~~~-~~ ~/t. - ~~.;; .Z11L~ (~eport re Ord. No. 767 -
~ld9. Permit Limitation)
The Council then proceeded to discuss the proposed resolution establish-
ing regulations pertaining to the limitation of issuance of building
permits and Councilman Futch suggested adding the following "....an
additional amount of "domestic water volume from, etc. and ..." up
to a maximum of 550 dwelling units" that are qualifiable for exemp-
tion under the terms of Ordinance Number 813. Section 1 will now
read, "Notwithstanding the prohibition contained in said Ordinance
Number 767, the Building Official may issue building permits for the
CM-26-303
April 23, 1973
(Reclamation Plant Flow)
construction of new residential dwellings to the extent permitted
by the exemptions contained within said Ordinance Number 813, "but
not to exceed 550 dwelling units".
Councilman Futch moved that the resolution with the amended wording
be adopted and the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Taylor expressed concern that setting a definite number
may generate a rush for permits and he would suggest that such not
be done.
Mayor Miller moved to table the motion for a period of one week to
allow those with technical training to review the situation and
determine what is rational on a technical basis from the use of the
City Staff's data. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Futch moved the question, seconded by Councilman Taylor
and the motion failed 2-3 with Councilman Beebe, Taylor and Futch
dissenting.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that if the case goes to court stating
that permits were prohibited on the basis of sewer capacity when the
ordinance states that permits are to be prohibited on the basis of
insufficient water, there is a disrecpancy right there and the whole
thing could be thrown out of court. If the Council wishes to deny
permits on the basis of insufficient sewage capacity, an ordinance
should bebe so drafted. With regard to needing a degree in engineer-
ing to add up figures with the polygraph or extrapolations, he
felt anyone could do this and that it is not fair to assume that
a person with a technical training has tre correct figures over
the calculations done by another individual.
Mayor Miller stated that the reason he made a motion to table was
to allow examination of his calculations but if the water ordinance
is passed at this time, it will be too late.
Councilman Taylor stated that the sewage issue has absolutely nothing
to do with water and if after examining the figures it is determined
there is a sewage capacity problem, there should be an ordinance
directed to that effect.
Mayor Miller stated that there is a motion on the floor to adopt a
resolution which, in summary, is that the City finds that there is
additional domestic water which will allow up to a maximum of 550
residenttial dwelling units and asked for a vote at this time.
The motion passed 4-1 with Mayor Miller dissenting.
RESOLUTION NO. 55-73
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
THE LIMITATION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS BE-
CAUSE OF LIMITATIONS IN TREATED DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
(Report re Dolan
Property Purchase)
The City Manager reported that LARPD has asked that the City consider
purchase of property located at the easterly extreme of Robertson Park.
The area is nearly 35 acres of land offered for sale at $5,500 per acre.
The property has been appraised by the City and a maximum net worth of
$2,900 per acre has been recommended indicating that the calculated
aggregate purchase price should be set at $100,000. The staff recom-
mends that the property be purchased at $100,000 and if the LARPD
Board concurs, the Council may consider extending the offer to the
owner.
CM-26-304
April 23, 1973
])0 aM
(DORa! Property Purchase)
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council accept the staff recommenda-
tion and direct the City Manager to try to negotiate a purchase based
on the appraisal that's been done. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Futch.
Councilman Beebe noted that he missed the meeting in which this was
discussed and asked if this was high on the priority list of LARPD,
which Mayor Miller explained is a piece of property they would very
much like to acquire to round out the Robertson Park area, and asked
the Planning Director where it is on the purchase list of the City.
Mr. Musso stated that it is scheduled for purchase in 1974 or 1975
and that 16 acres of the land are proposed for purchase.
Mayor Miller thought it was interesting to note that the land is
for sale at 7~ times the amount of the assessors appraisal of the
land which illustrates the point that there are gross inequities
in the assessments made by the assessor. The City appraised the
land at 4 times that of what the assessor felt the value of the pro-
perty was worth.
It was noted that the matter would first be referred to the Recreation
District and then to the Planning Commission for comment.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed with their
unanimous vote of approval.
(Report from LARPD re
Storm Drain Fees - May
Nissen Park)
Lois Ellsaesser, Chairman of the Board of Directors for LARPD has
requested that the Council waive the $3,031.23 storm drain fee in-
curred during construction of May Nissen Park Facilities in 1962.
She indicated that the Council had agreed to defer payment of the
fee for a period of ten years which became due in January 15, 1972.
Councilman Taylor felt it would not be reasonable to waive fees that
are debts incurred because of development and that this has never
been done for anyone else. He would suggest that they be deferred
for one more year to allow them to include them in the next year's
budget. He could not understand why it wasn't included in their
budget for this year, knowing that the payment is due.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council decline to waive the fee
and defer the payment for one more year, which was seconded by Council-
man Beebe.
Councilman Pritchard felt that since this is money from the taxpayer,
it should just be waived.
Mayor Miller explained that one of the Board members spoke with him
about the matter and that LARPD would like to use the money to pay
the Zone 7 fee for the home well in Carlton Park. As Councilman
pritchard pointed out it is money from the Taxpayers and he would
consider waiving the fee.
Councilman Taylor felt that this would be setting a precedent in that
if LAPRD receives special consideration, the School District could alsc
ask that their fees be waived.
At this time the motion passed 3-2 with Councilman Pritchard and
Mayor Miller dissenting.
CM-26-305
April 23, 1973
REPORT RE SEWER CONN.
FEES - TREVARNO SWIM CLUB
Mr. Lee reported that the Trevarno Swim Club finds that it is neces-
sary for them to connect to the City sewer system due to the disrup-
tion of their line by Intel. They have requested that in view of the
fact this cost would be excessive, the fee be deferred and that pay-
ment be made if they purchase the pool they are now leasing. If they
do not purchase the pool is it to be destroyed and in this case
they will pay for sewer service charges only for the time they were
connected to the sewer line. It is recommended by the staff that
the deferred payment be authorized allowing sewer connection as
requested.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the Council agreed to deffer
the payment as recommended by the Public Works Director.
REPORT RE SUNRISE
MOBILEHOME PARK ACCEPT.
The Public Works Director reported that the City is in a position
to accept the improvements in conjunction with the Sunrise Mobilehome
Park; however, a right-of-way- for a portion-of the fronting street
has not been obtained. This is under condemnation proceedings and
their attorney has indicated that the easement will be obtained.
The staff has recommended that the Council accept the improvements.
Mr. Lee added that it appears the condemnation proceedings are tak-
ing longer than ususal and that there is no real problem in obtaining
the right-of-way.
Mr. Parness explained that the money necessary has been posted in
the court proceedings to satisfy the cost of the acquisition and
that the City if fully protected.
Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the improvements, seconded by
Councilman Beebe and which received the unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE TRLR.
STORAGE BALLOT ISSUE
As a result of the measure on the last ballot concerning trailer
storage, there were 3,546 votes to enforce an ordinance prohibiting
parking in front yards and 3,288 votes opposing the measure. The
staff has asked that the Council give instructions as to proceeding
further with the matter.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council instruct the staff to
draw up an ordinance along the lines mentioned by the Council when
the measure was placed on the ballot. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Miller.
Councilman Taylor stated that our present ordinance allows parking
of trailers in front yards under very limited conditions and only
in cases in which they cannot get to the rear yard and would feel
that the present ordinance is reasonable. However, in his opinion,
most of the people felt they were voting for an ordinance and that
the Council has no choice but to enforce an ordinance prohibiting
parking in front yards.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.
Mr. Bern Qualheim, 1424 Pine Street questioned the legality of the
Council passing an ordinance restricting parking of recreational
vehicles and was informed that such could be done.
CM-26-306
April 23, 1973
(Trlr. Storage Issue)
A Mr. Dawson indicated his feeling that trailer parking should not
be allowed in front yards.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way also indicated that he felt no storage
should be allowed in front yards.
Tony Thompson, 5138 Lillian Court stated that campers and boat trailer:
do not add to the attractiveness of a neighborhood.
At the close of the discussion the Council voted as follows, on the
motion:
AYES: Councilmen Futch, Taylor and Mayor Miller
NOES: Councilman Beebe
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
REPORT RE SPRINGTOWN
BLVD. SUIT
The City Manager reported that a suit has been filed by the City
against the responsible parties associated with Tract 2725 and
the bond company for the non-performance of the Springtown Boulevard
improvement requirements.
An appeal has been received from one of the parties, the former
president of SE Corporation - Elmer Sproul, for a delay in these
proceedings so as to permit him to settle the ownership status
of several small parcels in the area. At that time he has assured
that the Springtown Boulevard improvements will be installed.
The staff has recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing
a 60 day extension.
Mr. Critchfield, attorney representing SE Corporation, explained
that the bonds are posted and are in our favor and it is just
a matter of whether the Council wishes to extend the time requested,
or not.
Councilman Futch moved to allow a 90 day extension, seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller felt that he would like to argue that there have
been extensions given of 90 days, 3 years, and 6 months, since 1966
and sees no reason the Council should continue. If something goes
wrong it causes further delay in getting Springtown Boulevard put
in. The people of Springtown have been asking for this street for
many years and the Council should continue with the law suit.
Councilman Taylor felt it would be far better to have the issue settle
without having to go through due process of the law to force the
issue. If the improvements will be voluntarily be started in 90
days he feels this would be faster than procedures against the bonds.
The motion passed 3-1 with Mayor Miller dissenting.
P. C. REPORT RE
INTERIM ZONING & REVIEW
The Council discussed the report made by the Planning Director with
regard to the Interim Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Review, which
indicates that Phase I, which is a review of the General Plan so as tc
ascertain the wording necessary to implement Code Section 11526.l
(AB130l) will take place during April and May; Phase 2 to prepare
and amend the General plan will take place in May and June, and the
last phase, Phase 3 consisting of major , minor, and special studies
will take place during the next two years to sometime in 1975.
CM-26-307
April 23, 1973
(Re Interim Zoning)
Mayor Miller pointed out that the only problem he can see in trying
to do major planning studies, is that it may be difficult to do any
of the real details in any of he areas until the final density in
our forthcoming General Plan is resolved. If, for example, the
densities are cut in half, this will make substantial changes in the
layout of these various planning districts.
Councilman Taylor stated that nothing important is going to be held
out of a General Plan review and felt that when it occurs it will
take care of most of the property and therefore not likely to be
in conflict. In the meantime, properties which develop have already
been decided as to what the use should be.
Mayor Miller commented that if there are no objections from the
Council, the Planning Commission may proceed with their program as
outlined.
COMMUNICATION RE
SPRINGTOWN GOLF COURSE
The Communication from the Planning Commission with regard to the
purchase of the Springtown Golf Course was noted for filing.
P. C. REPORT RE COUNTY
REFERRAL (RODEO LANE)
The Planning Commission reported that they have considered the
referral from Alameda County for the application of Donald and
Gerri Matthews for dividing 5 acres of land located on Rodeo
Lane, into two parcels. They have recommended that the applica-
tion be denied; however, if it is approved that it be subject to
certain conditions which were specified in their report.
Councilman Taylor moved to accept the Planning Commission and
staff recommendation, seconded by Councilman Futch and which
passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
P. C. MINUTES FOR
APRIL 3 & 17 MEETINGS
The minutes of the Planning Commission for their meetings of
April 3 and 17 were noted for filing.
ORDINANCE RE LABOR
RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATED)
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance implement-
ing the City's agreement for Labor Relations Consolidated Bargain-
ing was introduced and read by title only.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Council Committees)
The City Clerk asked that the Council consider the Council Committees,
and the Mayor indicated that they would keep these in mind and dis-
cuss them at the next Executive session.
CM-26-308
April 23, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF (Continued)
(Re Purchase of Land
for Widening at First
& So. Livermore Avenue)
Mr. Parness reported that in accordance with Council direction, he
has spoken with the owner of the larger piece of property, which is
now vacant, at the corner of First Street and South Livermore Avenue
for possible purchase by the City. The appraised value was $31,000
which was rejected by the Chakires family (the owners). They are
asking that the City consider the market value of the property as
established by the County assessor at $36,100. The property has
been checked once again and the appraiser gave consideration to
the Livermore Avenue frontage and conceeded that a slightly higher
value could be attached to it. He therefore recommended that the
City's price be set at a limit of $33,875 which is 9% above the first
offer made to them for $31,000. The Chakires family has agreed to
accept $33,875 and the staff recommends that the Council authorize
the purchase at that rate. Mr. Parness added that the state will
give the City a repurchase amount on a small portion needed for First
Street.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote of the Council, the recommendation to purchase the
property for $33,875 was approved.
(Re Various Dinners
& Meetings)
Mr. Parness commented that the Mayors Conference is the annual
labor seminar scheduled for May 2 and all of the Councilmen are
invited. The meeting is to be held in Union City which will start
at 5:00 p.m. and will last until 6:30 p.m. followed by the Mayors
Conference meeting, a brief business session and then the dinner.
Next, Mr. Parness reminded the Council of the BART dinner next
Monday, April 30th at 5:30 p.m. to be held at the Pleasanton Hotel.
(Youth Services Council
Appointments)
Mr. Parness asked the Council to consider names of those to serve
on the Youth Services Council by the 7th of May so that selections
may be made at that time.
Mayor Miller noted that of the three selections to be made, one of
the members must be under the age of 19.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Council adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
to an executive session to discuss personnel matters and thereafter
to Wednesday April 25th at noon at the Crosswinds Restaurant to dis-
cuss various ?ending litigation, with Mr. Maurice Engle~ and to
April 30 to d~scuss the Transportation Study.
APPROVE .{)~ JJ. .~
v Mayor
ATTEST Q;i~~1
CM-26-309
Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 30, 1973
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on
April 30, 1973,in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Liver-
more Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. with
Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Futch, Taylor and Beebe and
Mayor Miller
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION RE LIVERMORE-AMADOR
TRANSPORTION NEEDS SUTDY
Discussion was held with the City Council, City of Pleasanton,
representatives from VCSD Board and De Leuw, Cather and Company
Consulting Engineers who prepared the Transportation Study. No
formal action was taken and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ATTEST
Cl.ty Clerk
Livermore, California
APPROVE
A Regular Meeting of May 7, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 7, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:06 p.m. with Mayor Miller presid-
ing.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch, and Mayor Miller
ABSENT:
Councilman Pritchard (Seated Immediately After
Roll Call)
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES - April 23
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the
meeting of April 23, 1973, were approved, as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Dead Eucalyptus Trees)
Jack Phillips, 551 North lip" Street, commented that he would like
to make a suggestion with regard to dead eucalyptus trees in the
City. He stated that the Oakland Park District is cutting their
trees down and then letting people gather the wood from these
trees for fire wood and can only cut up the trees which have been
C~tt dtOwn bv theJ.r crew. This maybe one way of handling the Same
Sl. ua l.on 3:n L"l. vermore . -
CM-26-3l0
May 7, 1973
(Complaint re Child
Abuse by Students)
Jack Phillips next explained to the Council that his 10 year old
daughter had burning matches thrown at her back which burned her
clothing and singed her hair. The Police Department was contacted
and indicated that not much could be done regarding the matter and he
has heard nothing further from the Police Department. He stated
that if the Police Department cannot or will not do anything about
these types of situations he will be forced to do something and
someone may get hurt if citizens resort to handling these matters.
Councilman Beebe asked if his daughter was able to identify the
person who threw the matches and Mr. Phillips stated that she can-
not identify him but another child who was with her at the time
has said that she can identify him.
The Council agreed that something should have been done as a
follow-up to the complaint and assured Mr. Phillips that someone
would look into the matter.
(Presentation of
Booklet to Council)
Mary Ellen Ludeman, 341 Martin Avenue, representing the Valley
Ecology Center, remarked that as there had been a strong recom-
mendation by several members of the Committee the Board Members
voted to present a copy of the California Land Use Primer to
each of the Council members. She stated that the sub-title of
the handbook is "A Legal Handbook for Environmentalists" and
hopes that the Council will find it useful.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING APPLICATION
(Sunset Development Co.)
Mayor Miller explained that Sunset Development Company has sub-
mitted a rezoning application for rezoning from RS-4 to E, CN,
and CO Districts plus a park, on the northeast corner of Holmes
and Concannon Boulevard, and the Mayor remarked that it is his
understanding that there may be some change in this request.
Masud I1ehran, owner and applicant of the subject request thanked
the Council for allowing him to address them and to inform the
participants of the meeting that he would like to amend the request
for the rezoning. He stated that he would delete the request for
commercial retail and in place of this ask that the property be
rezoned only for park and commercial offices. He felt the park
and commercial complex he has to offer will be beneficial to the
neighborhood and to the City. He explained that he is concerned
with the improvement of Holmes Street and that this property has
stood vacant for many years and asked that the Council give a
strong endorsement at this time so that his company may proceed
with plans for the improvement of Holmes Street and the develop-
ment of the office and park complex. He asked that they obtain
a firm commitment from the City in order to organize their efforts
towards installation of the public improvements at the earliest
possible date.
Mayor Miller commented that before Mr. Mehran continues, he
would like to officially open the public hearing so that these
comments may be an official part of the record. He then declared
the public hearing open, and asked that there be a 15 minute limita-
tion on the part of the applicant, 15 minutes of testimony in support
of the proposal and 15 minutes opposing it.
CM-26-3ll
May 7, 1973
(Sunset Development
p.h. continued)
Mr. Mehran continued to state that one of the benefits to the City
is "the' pave1'llelltl1!'.of Holmes Street and the installation of the pedes-
trian sidewalk, immediately upon the grant of zoning, which will
immediately bring safety to our citizens and most importantly to
the children. Also, the immediate development of the park will be
a place in which people can enjoy and relax and that this park will
take place at no cost to the tax payers, nor will they be required
to share in the burden of the maintenance of this park. The grant
of this rezoning will also bring additional revenue to the City,
the School District, LARPD, and Zone 7, and the revenues received
will far exceed any costs the City may incur. It is estimated that
the City will realize $l~ million in revenue over a 10 year period.
The proposal will reduce the density of the area, the City will have
no improvement or maintenance costs regarding the complex, includ-
ing public works facilities. The proposal will satisfy the need
for suburban office space, adding that there is insufficient exist-
ing modern office complex within the City at present. He feels
creation of a modern office complex can attract business and industry
to the City and that this proposal will not increase the load to
the School District but will help by increasing the revenue as well
as reducing the load. Also, the total land coverage for the office
complex would be less than 25%.
Mr. Mehran stated that the staff has asked what his company plans
to do for the improvement of Holmes Street and he explained that
the grant for CO and park zoning shall immediately bring improve-
ments to Holmes Street and apparently, the Planning Director has
no objections to CO and park zoning on the subject property.
He indicated that he is confident he can build a successful and
economically feasible office and park complex which could be an
asset to the community and to the City which will meet all the re-
quirements of the City for such a complex. He added that he has owned
and paid taxes for this property for nearly 10 years and that his
previous proposals have always been rejected and feels that he
is entitled to develop his land and in his judgement, single dwelling
residential development on this land would be senseless. Leaving
the land idle for many years to come is useless. Therefore, it
would appear that to develop the land with adequate control so
that the City and the public will receive benefit from it is the
wisest choice.
Mrs. Byfield, 1469 Naples Way, commented that she lives in the
area and felt strongly enough about the proposal to start cir-
culating a petition in favor of it. In one weekend the area
east of Holmes Street was canvased and received over 300 signa-
tures of others who want a park, commercial development, signals
and the revenue from the development. She then presented the
petition to Mayor Miller who read the petition to the audience.
Terry Rossow, 786 Catalina Drive, stated that the Planning Com-
mission had indicated that they were opposed to the rezoning
as they felt it would generate more traffic in the area, and
that he would like to make the point that multiple stop trips
would not be reduced by spreading the points of destinations
further apart. He felt that people are trying to make more
and more use of their bicycles and by making shopping centers
and offices further apart it lessens the liklihood that they
will be able to use non-automotive means of transportation.
with regard to the proposed entrance being offset from Catalina,
he felt there are a number of streets allover the City with
the same situation and are known for the problems they create
and would suggest that there be a neat intersection design a-
cross from Catalina to make traffic flow better.
CM-26-312
May 7, 1973
(p. h. continued)
George Wilson, 1823 El Padro, stated that he would strongly support
this proposal, as the intersection of Concannon and Holmes is very
dangerous, as is the unpaved sidewalk area along Holmes Street.
The existing vacant lot is an eyesore and in his opinion, anything
done by Mehran in this town has been first-class and high quality
and it would appear that this proposal fits in and he would very
much be in favor of it.
Jack Taylor of Sutter Hill Ltd. of Palo Alto, asked if this testi-
mony is on the amended proposal, or the original proposal, to which
Mayor Miller explained that testimony may also be given on the amen-
ded proposal even though it will be going back to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that his firm had been assured that
there would be no commercial retail development on the lot across
from the Granada Shopping Center which they own and lease and that
they had assured those leasing in the center as well as those who
own property there, that there would be no competition across the
street from them. His firm feels that the City has been wise in
restricting an abundance of commercial zoning in a particular area.
Lucky Markets is the key tenant in the center and they were assured
that commercial development would not take place across the street.
They wrote a letter to the Council in which they included a copy of
a letter written to them by Mr. Musso in 1963 which indicated that
Granada Shopping Center would be the only shopping center allowed
within this intersection. He stated that he would like to commend
the Council for having the foresight in their very early stages
of planning and would hate to see them abandon their policy. He
stated that he speaks on behalf of Lucky Stores, Sutter Hill, and
the owners of property in the Granada Shopping Center.
There being no further testimony from the public, the public hearing
was closed on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to address a question
to Mr. Taylor stating that obviously, Mr. Taylor was speaking
against commercial retail development and that the change in the
application took him by surprise and wondered if the group he
represents has any objections to office use for the area. Mr.
Taylor indicated that there would be no Objection~~
Mayor Miller then explained to the audience that the^proposal is ~i(&
for commercial office and park and not commercial office, commercial
retail and park; there will be no retail business in the complex
proposed, and that the Council may do one of three things:
1) deny the application, 2) send it back to the Planning Commission
without comment, or 3) discuss the matter and offer direction to
the Planning Commission.
Councilman Futch moved that the matter be referred back to the
Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Taylor felt that it would be only fair to discuss the
matter and give some direction to the public and applicant as to
whether or not the Council is favorably disposed toward this type
of thing, even though he felt it would be impossible to make a
firm commitment.
Councilman Beebe felt there would be nothing wrong with making an
informal endorsement or rejection, which ever the Council prefers,
for the proposed commercial office and park complex.
Councilman Pritchard felt that the amended proposal seems to answer
most of the problems with the property; Mr. Mehran has been before
the Council many times, and in his opinion the amendment relieves
CM-26-3l3
May 7, 1973
(Sunset p.h. cont.)
him of the Planning considerations he was going on - that it was the
previous Council's policy to limit further commercial retail in the
area. He stated that he has no objection to commercial office zoning
as is proposed and would presume that the proposal still contains
all of the offers made with the other zoning which is for the buff-
ered park, the traffic lights, and generally the same layout, and
would at this point be favorably disposed to commercial zoning.
He added that he likes the idea of not increasing the density.
Councilman Taylor stated that he is very impressed with the proposal
and that it shows a degree of willingness to cooperate and provide
what the City wants. He would like to hear comments from the Plan-
ning Commission but has the impression that their objection was to
commercial retail. If the development is as he imagines it will
be in the final presentation to the Council, he would also be in
favor of approving the application.
Mayor Miller agreed that the proposal for offices rather thanre-
tail certainly improves the situation but felt as a matter of policy,
it is unwise for a Council to precommit itself until the Planning
Commission and staff have had a chance to study the issue in view
of the General Plan and other circumstances. He commented that
he is not willing to commit himself at this time.
Mayor Miller then suggested that since the matter is going to go
back to the Planning Commission, there is no sense in starting
allover, and that it would be better to reopen the public hearing,
and continue it until a report is received back from the Planning
Commission, if this would be a proper procedure. The matter could
just be referred back to the Planning Commission for comment and
then the matter can come back to the Council to continue the public
hearing in which the public can speak again on the amended applica-
tion.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to amend Councilman
Futch's motion to reopen the public hearing and continue the hearing,
seconded by Mayor Miller.
Mr. Musso commented that the public would have to be notified
and wondered if it should be advertised again, or if the Council
would like to set a specific date. He felt if the Council is
going to continue without setting a date, it will have to be adver-
tised again and if the Council selects a date for the hearing they
are not obligated to readvertise.
The Council discussed dates available for holding the continued
hearing and concluded that it could be held on July 2, which was
agreeable to the applicant and included in the amendment to the
motion.
The amendment passed at this time by a unanimous vote of the
Council.
The main motion was then voted on which also passed by a unanimous
vote of the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
PUD #14 - REEDER
(Springtown Area)
The Mayor explained that the public hearing which now appears on
the agenda pertains to the proposed amendment to PUD #14, and
particularly, the possibility of revising the residential density
CM-26-3l4
May 7, 1973
(P.H. - PUD #14)
set forth in Condition C-2 as it affects the undeveloped portion of
said permit. He then asked Mr. Musso if he would like to report
anything to the Council.
Mr. Musso explained that the matter has been before the Planning
Commission for over a year and first initiated because the PUD per-
mit was close to expiration. A public hearing was held by the
Planning Commission to determine whether or not the permit should
be allowed to expire and zoning the property in such a way that
density would be established and there would be no necessity for
a PUD permit. The Planning Commission decided to extend the permit
and not zone the area, which prompted the Council to file an appeal
on this action. The density for the area is 3.6 du/acre based on
a compromise over the original 4.2 du acre of the General Plan and
the revised General Plan which allowed only 3 dufacre. The matter
was then referred back to the Planning Commission who concluded
that the property should conform to the General Plan, which is
now required under the state law. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommends that the dwelling units allowed should be no more than 3
per acre.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open at this time.
Albert Strang, Secretary of Palomar Financial, 2022 Camino Del
Rio North, San Diego, commente~that this property has gone through
a number of changes; first from ,.2 du/acre to 3.6 du/acre, and nm.,
proposed for 3 du/acre. This transition would result in a loss of
86 units. They are not involved with this property by choice, but
are involved as a result of foreclosure on Wiesel. They own approxi-
mately 400 acres in the Springtown area and for this reason they are
concerned over what happens there. Hr. Musso has indicated that the
staff and the Planning Commission, the first time around, was willing
to allow the 3.6/du acre. They have fallen heir to certain obliga-
tions along with obtaining the property, such as completion of
Springtown Boulevard, and the fact that no development may take place
until it has been completed. As the densitv continues to be decreasec
it is also increasingly difficult to build Springtown in the future.
They are being faced with a potential economic problem and he asked
that the Council not judge them on the actions of their predecessors.
He feels that when Palomar says they will do something they carry
through and when they said they would build the Holiday Inn, they didj
as they also did with the Palomar Market. He stated that, originall~
Springtown Boulevard was designed on the basis of the 4.2/du acre
density and based on the assumption that 3,955 dwelling units would
be built. He asked that the Council take into consideration the
problems created by lowering the density and particularly, the finan-
cial problems which would result.
David Madis, attorney for Continental Promotions-Reeder Development
Corporation, stated that the story of sadness and woe is too long
to repeat, as to what has happened to Springtown, but that he would
like to reiterate that Springtown will not grow and develop with
low density and particularly in an area that has special problems
such as poor soil which requires special workup. Due to the costs
of Springtown Boulevard and the bridges to be constructed as a part
of that development, it makes it particularly difficult to develop
the land. If the density is made 3 du/acre, the Council can be
assured that there will be no development, growth, or facilities
such as shopping and other things the people of Springtown continue
to complain to the City about not having. If the costs of the lots
are too high, due to the cost of the improvements for public works
which are spread over the development, the City will not be able
to find a developer who can afford to develop in the area.
CM-26-315
May 7, 1973
(P.H. - PUD #14)
Ken Simpson with Reeder Development Corporation stated that he
would like to clear up a few points which he asked of the Council
and was answered by Mayor Miller:
1) Will a decision be made tonight with regard to density
allowed? Answer: Presumably so.
2) If the density is reduced, will there be a reduction in
the park and school requirements? Answer: If the density
is reduced the park requirement would be reduced, as it is
based on the number of dwelling units, but the school site
would still be reserved.
3) In view of the fact that the general development has not
gone as anticipated and that the density of the area has
been reduced, will the Council still insist that springtown
Boulevard be put in, as in the original plans? Answer: The
requirement for the street to be put in is a firm one.
4) What is the position with regard to the PUD - has the design
been approved and what must be done to get started in build-
ing? Answer: Mr. Musso explained that there has been an
approved design and that a tentative map expired last April.
There is a proposal to realign Springtown Boulevard but this
has never been resolved.
The Mayor explained that the specific layout of the PUD permit is
not firm if the tract map has expired. The layout of the street
is subject to negotiation among the property owners and what will
be fixed at this time is the density and possibly the street pat-
tern, which Mr. Musso interjected is firm. The map approved will
continue beyond expiration date of the tentative map.
Mr. Simpson then continued with the following questions and
receiving answers from the Mayor:
5) will it be possible to change the lots within the street
patterns, and if so, what type of procedure would be fol-
lowed to change it? Answer: To change the pattern they
could retain the street pattern and redraw the lots and
submit this as a new tentative map.
6) If a new tentative map is submitted, would this go through the
general procedure and take several months? Answer: The
original tentative map has expired so a new one must be
resubmitted anyway. The time may be considerably less due
to the fact that the general street pattern has already been
considered. Mr. Musso added that generally it takes 40 days
but now an Environmental Impact Statement is required with a
tentative map.
7) If there is to be a General Plan review of this area, will
this mean there is a possibility that the density of 3/du acre
will be altered again? Answer: It is not known at this time,
but this is conceivable. The density could go up, or down.
There are a number of problems to consider - those raised by
the developer and from environmental aspects.
8) If things may be changed later, the Council's decision at
this time does not really mean anything does it? Answer:
It continues the PUD - whether the PUD expires or not, the
obligation to build Springtown Boulevard is going to be imposed.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to clarify that the
reason this came up was because the new state law requires that
any tentative map must be in compliance with the General Plan -
in this case it is not, and there is no tentative map. There
is a PUD and it would be misleading to allow the PUD to exist
with a 3.6/du acre in it allowing someone to assume that he can
file a tentative based on that 3.6 du/acre, only to discover that
he is in violation of the General Plan for the area, and therefore
have his map be invalid. This is an attempt to make things consistent.
CM-26-316
Hay 7, 1973
(P . H. - PUD # 14 )
Mayor Miller explained that the zoning is actually the conditions
of the PUD permit, and if it says 3 du/acre, that's the effective
zoning.
Mr. Simpson stated that the PUD says it is 3.6/du acre, which the
~1ayor explained is expiring and as the permit expires tonight the
PD Zoning continues with no conditions and is essentially the same
as agricultural zoning.
Mr. Simpson asked if the Council intends to zone the land,
and the Mayor explained that the Council would like to put conditions
on the PUD permit which correspond with the zoning.
The Hayor then explained the process of zoning to rvlr. Simpson, as
well as what the PUD permit means.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the City intended to zone the area
but Reeder objected to this very strenuously.
Mr. Simpson felt that it would be better to zone the area with the
density the Council wishes and do away with the PUD permit for the
area and since everything expires tonight he would presume that it
cannot automatically be extended and that an application for exten-
sion of a PUD permit will have to be made.
Mayor Miller felt it is necessary to remember that any future ten-
tative maps in this area will also be conditioned about the improve-
ment of Springtown Boulevard and there is no escaping that. However,
it is the choice of Reeder as to whether or not they wish to obtain
the PUD permit. If they wish to apply for zoning, this can be
arranged instead.
Hr. Simpson remarked that they came to the meeting by invitation;
they had not applied for anything.
Hr. Musso countered that Reeder Development requested extension
of the PUD, and when Mr. Simpson stated that he thought it had
already expired, he was advised that it would expire tonight.
~1r. Simpson added that for all practical purposes it had expired,
and he was simply trying to determine exactly where they stood
at the present time.
Mayor Miller explained that if it does expire, they have PD Zoning
and there is no development possible on the property until there
is either a new PUD or there is a request for zoning, or the City
initiates rezoning. These are all possibilities.
Mr. Simpson asked what the Council intended to do this evening,
and Mayor r1iller remarked that would depend on the other property
owners as they may wish to remain in the PUD permit.
Councilman Taylor commented that if the PUD expires, the area
would essentially be considered the same as "raw" land, and
the Council would have to decide what it wants to do with it,
and go through the zoning process. There are two things that
the Council can do - either extend the permit or allow it to
expire, and if it is extended, it has been suggested that the
density be changed from 3.6 to 3.0 d.u./acre and set a future
expiration date.
Mayor Miller suggested that perhaps Mr. Strang would like to
speak on behalf of Palomar and what they would prefer, and Mr.
Strang replied they would like to have whatever is best under
the PUD or zoning, but felt it was up to the City Council.
CM-26-3l7
May 7, 1973
(P.H. - PUD #14)
Councilman Taylor felt there was an advantage to the City in hav-
ing an agreement which sets out the conditions of the development
which does not occur with zoning; however, Mayor Miller stated
that when all the contract provisions are worked out, as far as
the planned units developed in the past, the City does not come
out ahead.
Mr. Musso agreed and added that the only ones that work out would
have worked out with normal zoning.
Mr. Simpson stated that as far as Reeder is concerned, they would
prefer that the PUD expire and the area be rezoned according to
the pleasure of the Council.
Mr. Musso stated that Reeder could withdraw their portion and
leave the property in one owner's name, and Mayor Miller stated
that would be up to Mr. Strang.
Mr. Strang stated they would be agreeable to straight zoning, but
would like some density and not agricultural.
Mayor Miller stated it was his understanding that the two property
owners would prefer to allow the PUD permit to expire.
Frank Debis, 4354 Arabian Road, asked if the 3.6 du/acre included
the swim club in the density calculation, and was advised that
private swim clubs are excluded. He then inquired how many units
are remaining to be developed and Mr. Musso stated 354 at 3 du/acre,
425 at 3.6, and there are 189 units existing at 3.6 du/acres. Mr.
Debis remarked that the reason they had moved there was because of
the large lots, and they were willing to make a greater investment
for this reason. He commended the Planning Commission and the City
for trying to do the right thing by requiring larger lots.
There being no further testimony at this time, a motion was made by
Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor to close the public
hearing and which passed unanimously.
Councilman Taylor moved that they refer the question of land use
in this area to the Planning Commission with a note that they realize
the PUD expires tonight, the two land owners are fully aware of that
point and it is with their permission that the Council initiates
this request. Councilman Futch seconded the motion, and asked
the Planning Director if there was any reason the Planning Commission
desired the PUD other than the property owners desired it.
Mr. Musso stated they had discussed at great length the two require-
ments in the permit that are significant - I) Sprintown Boulevard,
which can be imposed under the subdivision procedure; the other thing
was 2) the school site reservation. In discussing this with the
City Attorney, he had been advised it was critical it could be a
made a condition of the zoning. Mr. Musso added that the school
site is not critical as there is just as good a site across the
street so it is not a real issue.
Councilman Taylor commented that when the PUD expires they have
nothing whatsoever that refers to the extension of Sprintown Blvd.
except Council policy, which the Council mayor may not impose
on a tentative map, depending on the makeup of the Council at the
time. This Council does intend to insist that Springtown Blvd. be
extended as a condition of the map. With regard to the school site
and the extension of Springtown Blvd., Councilman Taylor suggested
that they not rezone the property until they amend the General
Plan locally to take care of it which will assure that the school
site and Springtown Blvd. extension are firm, and offered this
as an amendment, seconded by Councilman Futch.
CM-26-318
Hay 7, 1973
(P.H. - PUD #14)
Mayor Miller restated the motion that the Council wished to
transmit the fact that the PUD permit expired, have the Planning
Commission consider rezoning of the property, but not until the
specific plan is laid out showing the extension of Springtown Blvd.
and the reservation of the school site.
Councilman Beebe remarked that he planned to vote against the
motion because the PUD had more protection to get Springtown
Blvd. extended.
~'1r. Husso stated there was a provision in the zoning ordinance
that required that the streets be put in also.
The motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Parking Limit
N Street Between 2nd
and 3rd Streets
The Public Works Director reported that a request had been re-
ceived from First Church of Christ Scientist to investigate the
possibility of placing 2-hour limit parking on "N" Street between
Second and Third Street. A survey was made and it is recommended
that the subject area be placed in the 2-hour limit parking and
change the existing diagonal parking to parallel parking.
RESOLUTION NO. 56-73
A RESOLUTION AHENDING RESOLUTION NO. 141-72
ESTABLISHING A COHPILATION OF LE1ITED PARKING
ZONES IN THE DO~JTO\~J BUSINESS DISTRICT BY
EXPANDING SAHE TO INCLUDE ALL LHUTED PARKING
ZONES IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
Claim for Injury
A claim for personal injuries in the amount of $11,742.50
was filed by Betty Timewell. Our insurance carrier instructs
that the claim be denied with the usual warning.
RESOLUTION NO. 57-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIH OF BETTY THmVJELL
Report re No. Livermore
~ve. Constr. Project
The City Manager reported that in order to satisfy a technical
requirement of the Streets and Highways Code for the contribution
of County funds for construction purposes it is necessary to
declare the subject street to be a County highway. This pertains
to No. Livermore and portola Avenues for the lineal dimensions
only of the proposed reconstruction project. It is recommended
that a resolution declaring County highway status be adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 58-73
A RESOLUTION DECLARING PORTIONS OF NORTH LIVE~10RE
AND PORTOLA AVENUES IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE TO BE
DESIGNATED COUNTY HIGHWAYS.
C!-1-26-319
May 7, 1973
Report re Tr. 2794 -
H. C. Elliott
The city Manager reported that an agreement had been reached
between the City and H. C. Elliott concerning the expiration of
time for his sales office and recommended that the Council adopt
a motion accepting the stipulation.
permission re Rodeo
Parade Route
A routine request must be made each y€ar to the Division of
Highways for permission to use a portion of State Highway 84 as
the route for the rodeo parade.
RESOLUTION NO. 59-73
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FOR
PERMISSION TO USE A PORTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 84
AS THE ROUTE FOR THE LIVERMORE RODEO PARADE
BETWEEN 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 NOON ON JUNE 9, 1973.
Payroll and Claims
There were one hundred sixty-one claims dated May 4, in the
amount of $449,170.66, , two hundred fifty payroll warrants dated
April 20, in the amount of $64,968.19 and two hundred sixty-three
payroll warrants dated May 4 in the amount of $62,218.17 ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager.
Councilman Beebe abstained from warrant No. 6064 for his usual
reason.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the items on the Consent Calendar were approved with the exception
of Item 2.2 which was removed for later discussion.
co~rnUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
REQUEST FOR FUNDS
VETERANS DAY PARADE
A request was received from the County of Alameda Veterans Day
Commission for funds in the amount of $50.00 for the Veterans
Day Parade to be staged in Oakland. Mr. Parness added that at
the Mayors' Conference it had been recommended that this amount
be allocated.
After some discussion a motion was made by Councilman Taylor to
table the request, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved
4-1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN
PRESENT.
Cr.1-26-320
May 7, 1973
ANNUAL REPORT - SISTER
CITY COHHITTEE
Alfred Goldberg, Chairman of the Livermore Sister City Organiza--
tion stated that again this year, as in the past, the Organization
would like the City to support a delegation to go to Quezaltenango
this summer. They would like financial support for one representa-
tive from the Sister City Organization, and preferably one member
of the Council, to represent the City. He added that he has sub-
mitted a report of the Organization's activities which included
delegation visitations to and from Quezaltenango, as well as the
student exchange program. They hope to start a teachers exchange
with a visit to Quezaltenango from a Granada High School teacher
and, hopefully, a teacher from Quezaltenango will visit here next
November. They have been holding monthly meetings during which
time a guest speaker is usually present and they have participated
in various other community projects including the entering of
a float in the Livermore Rodeo Parade. He stated that on May
12th there is going to be a fund raising dinner and that the
proceeds from this dinner will go toward the student exchange
for next year. In closing, he explained that the air fare to
Quezaltenango is $364 and it would be a total cost of $728 for two
delegates, if the Council would be willing to pay for the air fare
again this year. It is expected that a number of other people will
join them on their visit, but this will be at their own expense.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the requested $728 was
approved.
Prior to the vote, Councilman Futch commented that after reading
the report submitted by the Committee he realizes just how much
effort they have been putting into their projects and felt that
the City sincerely appreciates this effort.
REPORT RE BENEFIT
TO FORHER EMPLOYEE
(Sergeant Kiehle)
The City Hanager reported that with regard to the matter of the
former employee's application with regard to sick leave benefits
it is requested that the matter be continued for one week, as
the City would like to meet with its attorney during this time.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the matter was continued
for one ,..reek.
REPORT RE APPEAL TO
ALLOW FOOD SALES -
PECK SUNLAND COMPANY
Mr. Musso reported that Peck Sunland has appealed his denial of
an application to allow food sales in conjunction with automobile
service station and explained that he had denied the application
because it would constitute a mixed use and a mixed use is allowed
only when there is separation, such as auto trailer rental and
service station. Also, the Fire Department reported that they
vigorously oppose the use of service stations for any thing
other than servicing of vehicles due to increasing the potential
hazard that already exists. They feel that people who are shopping
for food are oblivious to the hazards of flammable liquids and that
it would be virtually impossible to control foot traffic and vehicle
traffic availing themselves of the retail food being sold at the
service station.
CM-26-32l
May 7, 1973
(Re Food Sales Appeal -
Peck Sunland Station)
The Council discussed the matter and Mr. Husso explained that
the main reason two uses are not allowed is due to the fire
hazard, as pointed out in the Fire Marshall's report.
Fire Marshall Clelland commented that people comming into a
service station for a purpose other than gasoline are not think-
ing about flammables and that they are concerned with a precedent
being set if the mixed use is allowed.
Councilman Taylor commented that he would have to agree that a
service station is really not designed to accomodate foot traf-
fic and children going through the area.
Jan Schuyler, 999 East Stanley Blvd., attorney for the applicant
commented that if Mr. Peck had come to him before applying for
this permit he would have told him that it was not necessary to
apply, as when the station was built in 1959 the CUP for the
station was granted and says nothing about the uses which may
be carried on there. There is no limit, other than it was to
be constructed as a gasoline station. Retail sales, in his
opinion, would be a permitted use within the gas station and is
a use carried on, universally, at all the other gas stations in
town. He felt that foot traffic exists at all other uses for
gas stations in town and the objection on this basis is unreason-
able. Coke, candy, cigaretts, and other such machines which dis-
pense products are as much retail uses and sales as is the sale
of dairy products. It is his understanding that the area is
zoned CB-2 which is retail sales so even though a CUP has been
obtained for the gas station, the retail use is what the area is
zoned for. Mr. Peck has expended $3,500 in constructing and in-
stalling the equipment for the sale of dairy products and is
willing to work with whatever the City requires so that it may be
possible to solve the problem. If necessary, he will refuse to
serve any walk-on customers and will require that they purchase
the products from their automobile, if this is the prime concern.
Mr. Schuyler felt the foot traffic and hazards could be controlled,
to the extent of the control of those purchasing gasoline. He
felt that if a person came in asking for a CUP for a service sta-
tion and retail products sale, this would be different. In this
situation they are working with an existing CUP.
Mayor Miller stated that he would read the CUP as a permit for
errecting a service station and that this would not include other
uses, to which Mr. Schuyler commented that the permit was for a
"modern service station" the combined uses of a modern station
is open to question.
When asked about the expiration date of the permit, Mr. Musso
explained that it was one of the older permits on which there is
no date of expiration.
Councilman Futch felt there might be a legal question involved
and wondered what an attorney for the City might have to say as
to the interpretation.
Mr. Schuyler noted that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to
submit to an additional condition to limit the areas in which
the products would be dispensed.
Councilman Taylor felt it is necessary to obtain a legal opinion
before approving this application, as other stations with the
same type of permit may feel that they can also go ahead and do
the same thing. A legal point has been raised and he feels it
CM-26-322
Hay 7, 1973
(Sunland Appeal Cont.)
would be a waste of time for the Council to try to come to a decision
before they have obtained a legal opinion on the CUP interpretation.
Mr. Skyler indicated that the use is in operation at this time as a
result of his advise to his client.
Councilman Taylor felt that if it is determined a non-conforming use
has been in operation, the City should proceed against it and would
move to ask for a legal opinion from the City's attorney, and ask if
the City has any power to abate the use that exists.
Mr.Schuyler said that the use was applied for prior to the applicant's
consultation with him and would suggest that the matter be left open
to determine whether or not the Council wishes to approve the present
application, limited as described.
Councilman Taylor felt perhaps the application could be tabled and
scheduled at a date after such time as an opinion from the City's
attorney has been obtained; added as a part of the motion.
Hr. Musso reminded the Council that they would have to act on his
application in 30 days without his permission.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would second Councilman Taylor's
motion with the conditions that the City check with our attorney
as to the legality and if the applicant is correct, then proceed
with ways of making it legal for him to have retail sales there.
f1ayor Miller stated that the matter of zoning is not the only tool
to control this use if there is a hazard, and that he feels it is
probably within the powers of the Council in the interest of the
public health, welfare, and safety, to prohibit things if there is
a fire hazard.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to table the matter
for one week.
The Planning Director reported that at the request of the applicant,
the application for an industrial park by Southern Pacific Railroad
on property located northerly of the Southern Pacific right-of-way
easterly of Vasco Road, was tabled for over a year, at the applicant's
request. They now wish to have the matter brought from the table and
considered by the Council but have pointed out that there is a require-
ment for an environmental impact statement and that perhaps it should
go back through the Planning Commission to be resolved and then come
to the Council for final approval.
REPORT RE SO. PACIFIC
INDUS. PARK - HAP 3379
Mr. Musso illustrated the area involved, and recommended that the
Council, with staff approval, adopt a motion referring the matter
back to the Planning Commission and staff for consideration.
Councilman Pritchard moved to refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission, seconded by Councilman Futch.
The City Manager stated that this will be a very welcome addition
to our industrial complex and that Southern Pacific has informed
him that they have received a nU~)er of inquiries about its pros-
pects from small users.
The motion passed at this time by a unanimous vote of the Council.
CN-26-323
May 7, 1973
REPORT RE OS DIST.
RE DRIVE-IN MOVIES
The Planning Director reported that the Planning Commission con-
sidered the Council's referral regarding the proposed OS regula-
tions along with the Council's proposal to delete the reference
to drive-in movies and after discussion concluded that it would
be advisable to leave it in. He stated that their reason for
asking that it be left in is due to the fact that it would prob-
ably be located in an agricultural area, industrial area, or
OS District, and should be left in the ordinance.
Councilman Futch stated that the Council was not restricting the
use from any of the zones but that they wanted to allow it to be
considered in any of the zones and the suggestion made by the
council was really more lenient.
Mr. Musso stated that it is already allowed in industiral or
commercial zones with a CUP; it is not mentioned, but it can
be asked for.
Mayor Miller commented that the Council agreed that drive-in
movies could be considered in anything but a residential zone,
as a conditional use, and it is named specifically in the ag-
ricultural zone.
The Council then discussed the reasons the use should be allowed
in various areas.
Councilman pritchard commented that he would restate his motion
that the Council delete the drive-in movie use from the OS Dis-
trict Ordinance, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and which passed
by a unanimous vote of the Council.
There was some discussion about the rural preservations being
considered to be effectively residential zones and whether there
should be some mention of these areas, but it was decided that
this could be taken care of later.
REPORT RE REZONING
OF PUD NO. 12 & 20
The Planning Director reported that the staff has experienced
difficulties in administering the Zoning Ordinance with regard
to the planned Unit Development procedure and that the state
law requires that our zoning conform to the General Plan. It is
therefore recommended that the Council adopt an ordinance re-
zoning PUD No. 12 and 20. He explained that prior to the time
the City Attorney left the City, he had stated that if it is made
clear that there will be no change in the rights of the property
owners, it can be rezoned without going through the procedure
of a public hearing and the reasons certain comments are stated
in the ordinance to clarify the action.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the staff recommendation was
adopted.
P. C. MINUTES - MAY 1
Minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of May 1, 1973, were
submitted to the Council and noted for filing.
ORD. RE OFF-STREET
PARKING - BIKE PARKING
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance related to
off-street parking and bicycles was adopted.
CM-26-324
Hay 7, 1973
(Off-Street Park-
ing Ordinance)
ORDINANCE NO. 816
AN ORDINANCE N1ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE CITY OF
LIVERHORE, AS AMEN'DED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY THE AI'lEND-
NENT OF SECTIONS 21.41, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS: 21.45,
RELATING TO PARKING LOT STANDARDS: AND 21.46, RELATING
TO DEVELOP~lliNT N~D MAINTENfu~CE OF PARKING LOTS, ALL OF
CHAPTER 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
INTRODUCTION OF
OS ORDINANCE
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance regarding
the OS District (Open Space) was introduced, and the title was
read.
INTRODUCTION OF Z.O.
AHENDING PUD 12 & 20
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance amending
the zoning for PUD No. 12 and 20 was introduced, and read by title
only.
RE BIKE PATH ALONG
~mRRIETA BLVD.
The report regarding the walkway along riurrieta Boulevard had been
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by the Council and
Mayor Miller felt the path should be widened, as he is concerned
about the safety.
It had been reported that the additional cost for the widening
would be $2,400 for the material, plus the labor and asked the
Public Works Director if this was correct.
[-ir. Lee advised that it \"ould cost about $2,500 to double the
width.
Councilman Taylor questioned when the other pathway would be built
on the other side, and Mr. Lee replied that we do not have the
additional right-of-way and it is not planned for the immediate
future, but would be a very valuable extension and the ideal loca-
tion would be to run it toward the railroad and Stanley Blvd. bridges
and then go underneath and to the high school.
There followed a discussion on the possible route, and Councilman
Taylor asked if the possibility of obtaining an easement could be
investigated, but felt that some compensation would be necessary.
Councilman Futch stated that before money is spent for the opposite
side, he would like to review the proposal of the Bicycle Associa-
tion and perhaps we could buy the easement as he felt this was a
necessary improvement for the safety of the high school students.
He would favor tabling expansion of present paths until they con-
sider the other possibilities. This motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor and approved unanimously.
CM-26-325
May 7, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF
(Data re population)
Mr. r1usso advised the Council that the population estimate is now
47,650, with a 3.68 vacancy factor and a drop in family size from
.~ 44 to X. 42 .
33.
(re North Livermore and portola Ave.)
Mr. Lee stated that relative to the Consent Calendar item for the
reconstruction of North Livermore and portola Avenue, it is a co-
operative undertaking between the City and Alameda County and in
the next few days this matter is going before the Highway Commission
for approval of FAS (Federal Secondary System) money to help re-
construct this intersection. However, if we do not get the funds,
it will be delayed for another year when it will be ~econsidered.
He felt this was vital, as it is a main entrance to the City and
he suggested that the Council direct a letter to the Highway Com-
mission urging them to put it on the eligible list.
The City Manager was directed to prepare a letter in this regard.
ORDINANCE RE LABOR
RELATIONS NEGOTIATIONS
ORDINANCE NO. 817
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING DELEGATION BY CITY OF LIVERMORE
OF AUTHORITY TO JOINT GOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATION AGENCY.
It was moved by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to waive the second reading and to adopt the above ordinance, and
was approved unanimously.
(Invitation From
Greek Community)
Mr. Parness stated that the Greek Community had extended an invita-
tion for a member of the Council to attend a dinner the following
Monday.
Councilman Taylor moved that Councilman Beebe represent the Council
and excuse him from the necessary attendance at the meeting, motion
was seconded by Councilman pritchard and approved unanimously.
Councilman Taylor suggested that any controversial items be set
for later in the evening.
~~TTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
(J and K Street Mall)
Councilman Beebe inquired when the City would proceed with the mall
treatment of J and K streets, and Mr. Lee replied that there was
still a question of whether it would be on the list for this year
because of the money pledged to the railroad assessment district.
However, Mr. Parness explained this project is in this year's budget.
Councilman Beebe stated that since it is still in the planning stage
he would move that to include M Street between Second and Third
Streets to tie the shopping mall together; Councilman Taylor amend-
ed the motion to direct the staff to prepare the plans and seconded
the motion which was approved unanimously.
CM-26-326
Hay 7, 1973
(J & K Street Mall)
Mr. Parness stated that plans for J Street would be presented to
the Council, and Mayor Miller suggested that they also be sent to
the Beautification Committee for their review.
(Painting of
Bicycle Paths)
Councilman Futch asked when the paint would be put down on the
bicycle paths, and Mr. Lee advised that the signs had been ordered
for Third Street but had not arrived as yet. When they do arrive
the painting will be done at the same time; he added that a bicycle
ramp had been completed on Murrieta Blvd and would go ahead with
the ramp on Stanley Blvd. explaining that he felt this treatment
was better than the berms previously used.
(Support of Legislative
Measures)
Councilman Futch suggested that the Council support some of the
legislative measures - one local control of condominium conversion,
SB 430; the other was to require every beverage container to have
a deposit, AB 594.
After some discussion on these measures Councilman Futch moved
that the Council support them, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and approved unanimouSly.
Mayor Miller asked if they would also include the support of the
Subdivision Map Act, SB 977, however Councilman Futch stated he
did not include this measure because there was more information
forthcoming, and this was deferred until later.
(Police at McDonalds)
Councilman Pritchard inquired about the police at MCDonalds, and
Mr. Parness explained that this is a private enterprise that wants
police protection and they have an opportunity to use this service.
There are two police reserve officers on duty on weekends and their
salary is paid for by the firm. There is a set fee and the reserve
officers are at many community affairs and private parties.
(Closure of Streets
Re Proposed Assess. Dist)
Councilman Pritchard askp.d if the streets that do not have under-
crossings will be closed, and Mr. Parness stated that I and K Streets
would be closed but the main ones would remain open crossing at
grade however all crossings will be gated.
In this regard Mayor Miller asked about the access to the shopping
center on P Street during the construction period, and v1r. Parness
stated he had pledged to the merchants there that every considera-
tion would be given to them to have the least inconvenience possible
on means of access.
CM-26-327
May 7, 1973
(Pesticide Report)
Mayor Miller stated that the council had been given a report about
pesticides in general and they were asked to establish a pest con-
trol committee to be composed of members of the City, LARPD, School
District and other interested parties to have public jurisdictions
use appropriate pesticides. He felt this was a good idea and
suggested that the staff get a group together to work with the
ecology center.
(Re Illegal Signs)
Mayor Miller commented that there are still two illegal signs
in Livermore which are flashing signs - one by Granucci's and at
the Straw Hat pizza and he also wondered if the Callaghan sign has
been turned yet. Mr. Musso replied that they have not as yet, but
have applied for a permit.
(Gillice Condominiums)
Mayor Miller stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Gillice is
selling his third unit as a condominium and that he does not have
occupancy permits because he has not done the channel improvements.
If this is true he is in violation of our ordinances and possibly of
state law and that the matter should be looked into by the City. He
also brought up the point of the money for the channel and would like
to know when Mr. Gillice is going to pay for this. He felt this should
be looked into also and as to the relationship Mr. Gillice has with
the bonding company and whether or not he really has the security.
There should be concern over his meeting his obligations and there
should be an investigation. Also, the Beautification Committee has
reported that trees have been cut down in this apartment area in
violation of the permit which should also be looked into.
Mr. Musso explained that some of the trees in the parking lot were
cut down and were to be replaced and that he would look into the
matter.
(Estimates re Water
Reclamation Plant)
Mayor Miller stated that at the meeting last week there was a ques-
tion raised about the figures proposed by him with regard to the
estimates of the sewer plant and wondered if the report had been
found to be accurate.
Councilman Taylor commented that the whole implication was that the
plant capacity was 5 MGD as related to the Mayor's figures and that
the plant capacity has nothing to do with figures calculated in that
way, and would presume that the Mayor made a mistake there. He ex-
plained that the mistake was assuming that the plant capacity was
5 MGD total flow, because all the figures were based on this. Plant
capacity is actually dry weather flow and in his opinion the compari-
son was misleading more than a mistake.
The Mayor stated that if he had left out wet weather flow then there
should be some correlation with season and there is no such correla-
tion.
Mayor Hiller explained that you cannot tell whether there is a
dry weather flow or not because there is no obvious infiltration.
There is no way of distinguishing by any of the data given that
there is a difference between dry weather flow and wet weather
CM-26-328
Hay 7, 1973
(Discussion re
Reclamation Plant)
flow, which is the point, and consequently, if there ~vere a way
of distinguishing it one ~vould obviously subtract that out but
it is clear that the fluctuation from summer to winter, ~vet months
to dry months do not exhibit anything that would allow you to.
calculate wet weather flow. The point he was trying to make is
that the trend is sufficient to give substantial alarm about
whether we would exceed the capacity of the sewer plant and the
proposal was not to stop issuing building permits but to wait
long enough to see what the situation was. He stated that if he
is wrong there is no problem with the sewer plant, but if he is
right it is too late to do anything about it. If Councilman Taylor
is wrong we have issued 399 building permits already and at the
upper limits of our sewer plant.
Councilman Taylor continued to emphasize that the report was based
on the fact that the plant capacity is 5 MGD wet weather flow and
was pointed out by the City engineers and brought out in Mr. Lee's
testimony. He explained that his comment was based largely on the
fact that the Mayor calculated wet weather figures and compared
them to dry weather capacity and felt that this is misleading.
He explained that he does not mean to say that this was done inten-
tionally, but was nevertheless misleading.
Mayor Miller stated that if there is no evidence of a statistical
variation during wet weather it is essentially a zero effect within
the noise of the measurement. Also, the points he had plotted were
averages over a year and include both wet and dry weather months.
11r. Lee felt one of the differences between his calculations and
the figures used by the Mayor was that the Mayor used the upswing
at the very end of the curve and that he had used the more average
slope of the curve which made a difference. He felt that his cal-
culations were not very far off.
Mayor Miller felt the Council should use caution when there is a
question of a severe public problem and even if the calculations
are different it would be wise to be prudent and not continue to
issue more building permits.
(Executive Session)
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council adjourn the meeting
to a brief executive session, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
which passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
ADJOURNI1ENT
Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. to a brief execu-
tive session for the purpose of discussing appointments.
"
ATTES~C '
APPROVE-f)awJJ 9-:J -'1~,
ivlayor
C~_
. -- - City Clerk
VLivermore, California
~
CM-26-329
A Regular Meeting of May 14, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 14, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Futch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe (Excused)
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES - May 7
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by the unanimous approval of the Council,the minutes for the meeting
of May 7, 1973 were approved, as corrected.
PRESENTATION OF
CERTIFICATE
At this time there was to have been a presentation of a certificate
to a water treatment plant employee (Tom Chenkovich) for completion
of an operator training program~ however, Mr. Chenkovich was not
present and the Mayor stated that it would be given to him at a later
date.
OPEN FORUM
Barry Schrader, 811 Mohawk Drive, stated that he is speaking on behalf
of the Livermore Heritage Committee and would like to explain something
to the council which they feel to be a matter of urgency. First, they
would like to the Council to know that they have decided to work with
Southern Pacific Railroad in attempts to preserve the railroad station
at its present location. Their main concern this evening is with the
Robert Livermore Monument on portola Avenue which is being moved. The
old stone monument had important history surrounding it and the stones
in it were collected from allover California. The plaques are the
only portion being salvaged by the City to be moved to the new site
and they feel concern for the rock monument which is being demolished.
They requested that if a commitment has already been made by the City
for a new design, that the rock monument be constructed later and preser-
ved and possibly be placed by the Livermore train depot, if the train
depot is restored. Also, it is understood that a time capsule was
placed in the monument when it was dedicated.
Janet Newton, representing the Livermore Heritage Committee, gave some
history surrounding the monument and suggested that the new location
be made into a Robert Livermore hospitality center.
Mayor Miller indicated that it had been his understanding that when
the monument was to be moved, the whole thing was to be moved, not
just the plaques.
Mr. Lee explained that this had not been the intent and not really
even suggested. With regard to the fact that the monument contains
a time capsule, as reported by Mr. Schrader, the City was not aware
of this.
CM-26-330
May 14, 1973
(Discussion re Robt.
Livermore Monument)
Mr. Lee 'commented that the matter had been first brought up by the
Rotary Club and that they felt it was in a bad location where very
few people could observe it. They may have suggested the present
site at that time but urged that the City work out a means for
moving it. There was correspondence with the Rotrary Club over
the issue as well as the Native Sons of the Golden West. The
area the monument is in, at present, is very small and it had been
felt that the old rock monument was out of scale with the park it
was to be put in. There was no indication that the rock of the
monument had any particular significance. The intent was to locate
the monument someplace close to the Robert Livermore home, and the
park served this purpose. The plaque says something about the Liver-
more home site to the north of the site in which it is located.
Councilman Taylor stated that he is sure those involved in the
relocation of the monument had nothing but the best intentions
for the good of the City and the monument. However, in light of
the facts that have just been presented surrounding the history
of the rocks, etc., he would like to know what the plans are for
that area, if for example the road must be widened at that spot.
Mr. Lee stated that he is not sure if it would be made into a
park or if other development would surround the monument and that
he thinks the property is owned by the Native Sons of the Golden West.
Mr. Parness noted that it was the Native Sons of the Golden West
who originally suggested the relocation of the monument and felt
there could be some reconstruction of the old monument and preserva-
tion of the historical rocks.
Roberta Hadley, 4355 Emory Way, member of the Beautification Committee
commented that the matter of relocating the monument had been referred
to the Beautification Committee who had been told that the monument
could be moved, in total, to another site. They assumed the whole
time, that all of the monument would be moved. She urged that all
of the rocks be used and reconstructed. As far as the point made
that it would be out of scale, she suggested that trees or something
be planted near to help with this problem. She felt there was some
importance in restoring it as it was originally constructed.
Mayor Miller suggested that the Heritage Committee work with the
Beautification Committee and the City in determining the best use
of the existing monument and plaque as well as Portola Park.
Chet Fankhauser, 609 South P Street, also a member of the Heritage
Committee, asked if it would be possible during the interim time,
for the City to collect all the debris and rocks, as people are
confiscating these things daily and may be collecting something
from the time capsule.
The staff was directed to collect the rocks and debris from the
monument and store it in the corporation yard until the matter
has been resolved.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Airport
Lighting Agreement
The City Manager reported that the FAA requires that any publicly
owned airport with a control tower execute a hold harmless agreement
CM-26-331
--'-~--'~-_'_"'_~M"."'~'_'"""_"",~~~,,,,,_,,,,,~_,_.._.._.__.~."____~_"__.__
May 14, 1973
(Consent Calendar)
with the federal government for any liability arising out of the
operation of the runway lights during which time the control tower
is closed and non-operational. It is therefore recommended that
the council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of this agree-
ment.
RESOLUTION NO. 60-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(United States of America - FAA)
Report re Fire Manpower
utilization study
The City Manager reported that the Fire Manpower utilization Study
has been underway on behalf of the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton,
and VCSD. The consultant firm has requested that a form contract
be executed by our City for their files, which has been reviewed by
our City Attorney pro-tem and approved. The cost of $20,000 is
entirely funded by the federal government and it is recommended
that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the
agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 61-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Booz-Allen Administration
Services, Inc.)
Res. Commending County
re Garnet Austin Center
The Council passed a resolution commending the Alameda County Associa-
tion of Mentally Retarded, upon the opening of the Garnet Austin Cen-
ter.
RESOLUTION NO. 62-73
A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING GARNET AUSTIN CENTER DAY
Communication from
Beautification Committee
re Cleanup Campaign
A letter was received from the Beautification Committee regarding
their recent cleanup campaign. As to the efforts organized on that
day and the work that was done, as well as areas which were cleared,
a full report was given to the Council.
Beautification
Committee Minutes
The Beautification Committee submitted a copy of their minutes for
the meeting of April 4, 1973.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved.
CM-26-332
May 14, 1973
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The City Manager explained the plans for relocating the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks adding that the total cost is anticipated
to be approximately $3.3 million. It is hoped that the state will
participate in the cost to the extent of covering 45% of the amount,
10% to come from the Railroad Company and the balance from the com-
munity. To help with this cost it has been proposed that an assessment
district be formed which incorporates about 80 acres of the downtown
area and has something like 65 property ownerships in it. Petitions
have been circulated in the areas involved and about 67% of this area
is listed on the petition form. As an opening step in these pro-
ceedings it is recommended that the Council adopt the fOllowing steps
either by motion or resolution:
Report re Bond Consel
& Railroad Assess. Dist.
1. Resolution rescinding certain resolutions and action taken on
January 22.
2. Filing of petitions and boundary map; also certificate of Public
Works Director re percentage of signatures to petition.
3. Resolution approving boundary map
4. Resolution of preliminary determination.
5. Resolution appointing special bond counsel and authorize execution
of agreement.
6. Resolution of intention.
7. File engineer's estimate of cost and engineer's report, plans and
specifications.
8. Resolution and order preliminarily adopting engineer's report,
setting public hearing thereon for July 2 and calling for bids to
be received on June 14.
9. Resolution adopting scale of prevailing wage rates.
10. Notice of Improvement and Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, both to
be filed.
The City Manager continued to state that it is necessary for the City
to complete negotiations with the Railroad companies and State Division
of Highways concerning their commitments to the program and that this
must be done prior to August 15th; that construction is anticipated
to begin the late part of this year and will take approximately one
year to complete the program. The City Manager added that there is
also one requirement which was not listed and is the filing of an
Environmental Impact Report.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council adopt all ten items and
resolutions, including the filing of an Environmental Impact Report,
which was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion for filing the
various documents and resolutions, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 63-73
RESOLUTION RESCINDING CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAILROAD ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 64-73
RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP
CM-26-333
May 14, 1973
(Re Railroad Assess-
ment procedures)
RESOLUTION NO. 65-73
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITIONS IN RAILROAD ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 66-73
RESOLUTION APPOINTING SPECIAL BOND COUNSEL
AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 67-73
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
AND ACQUISITIONS IN RAILROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 68-73
RESOLUTION AND ORDER PRELIMINARY ADOPTING ENGINEER'S
REPORT, SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND CALLING FOR BIDS,
RAILROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALA-
MEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 69-73
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SCALE OF PREVAILING WAGE RATES
RECESS
prior to discussing the matter of the former employee recieving
sick leave benefits, the Mayor called for a short recess so that
the Council could have time to read a letter from the City Attor-
ney pro-tem, regarding this matter. After the recess the Council
meeting resumed with the Council members present, as during roll
call at the beginning of the meeting.
Report re Sick Leave
Benefits - Vernon Kihle
The matter of the former employee, Vernon Kihle, who was with the
police Department, was injured and forced to retire early and is
requesting that he receive sick leave benefits accrued during his
service with the City, was postponed from May 7th in order that
the Council might seek further information from our City Attorney
pro-tem.
The City Attorney pro-tem has advised that the Council deny the
compensation for sick leave as the City's code does not allow
the payment of sick leave after an employee's resignation or
voluntary retirement and such a settlement may constitute an
illegal gift of public funds.
Burke Critchfield, representing Mr. Kihle and the police Officer's
Association indicated that the City has asked that Mr. Kihle wait
until the state decides what his disability should be; however,
this would mean that Mr. Kihle would be without any income until
that time - probably in August or september. The attorney stated
that Mr. Kihle accrued 125 days sick leave and he is entitled to take
CM-26-334
May 14, 1973
(Re Former Employee
Sick Leave Benefits)
it and in his op1n1on the law is clear. He added that he called the
state PERS and talked with a Mr. Mauer who indicated that there was
no problem - it will be 3-4 months before a decision can be made and
during this time he can recieve sick leave pay from the City. The
confusion is not in the state law, but in the City Ordinance. The
state law says that sick leave is something earned and cannot be taken
away. Livermore does not have a specific ordinance covering sick leave
and Mr. Kihle is entitled to take his sick leave. Mr. Critchfield
added that it was not at Mr. Kihle's request that he retire, but on
the advice of his department head and the City Manager. He further
commented that the memorandums from the City Attorney pro-tem are
cloudy and that the matter can be taken two ways. Mr. Critchfield
feels that when the City has had an employee that has worked many
years and as conscientiously as Mr. Kihle, the City must rule in his
favor and felt the public would share this sentiment. He asked that
Mr. Kihle be allowed to stay on the payroll until such time as a deter-
mination is made by the state.
Councilman Taylor wondered if the state might declare Mr. Kihle re-
tired, retroactively as of June, and Mr. Critchfield stated that
it is his understanding the retirement will be effective as of the
date of the hearing by the state.
Mr. Parness indicated that this is not what the City has been told
and that the state will honor the date recommended by the employing
agency, which is June 6th, in this case, and will be retroactively
paid.
Mr. Critchfield stated that he is saying that an employer cannot
force an employee to retire prior to the date of the hearing and
this matter is a question of whether or not he will be allowed to
use his sick leave until this time. If he is turned down by the
City they intend to file a law suit against the City.
Mr. Parness stated that there may be a way in which the matter could
be held pending until the state makes a determination on the firm
date for retirement and disability to be paid and that the City might
advance him payment which could be credited against the retroactive
decision of the State Retirement Board, and wondered if he and his
client would be willing to work out something in this regard.
Mr. Critchfield stated that he could not give a definite answer at
this time but felt something of this nature could be arranged between
now and the next Council meeting, and if the matter is not satisfied,
they will come back asking for a determination by the Council, one
way or another.
Councilman Taylor moved that the matter be postponed for one week
to allow the City and the attorney representing Mr. Kihle to work
something out, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Letter from Supervisor
Cooper re Solid Waste Site
In a letter written by Supervisor Fred Cooper, he has stated that it
is clear that the Board is faced with a choice of three alternatives
related to the Kaiser Land Fill proposal:
1) Continuing to use sanitary land fills adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
2) Approving the Kaiser proposal.
3) Using the site near Livermore.
He has asked which alternate the City would prefer and it was recom-
mended that the Council refer the matter back to the staff for a
report and recommendation.
CM-26-335
May 14, 1973
(Re Land Fill)
Councilman Pritchard felt that the council does not have enough
information to comment and stated that he would like to know the
estimate of how much garbage would accumulate over a certain number
of years at a certain rate.
Mayor Miller stated that there was also the consideration for how
many trucks and smog would result. He added that in his opinion
there are other alternatives and that we should not be required
to take the East Bay garbage because there are cheaper and closer
sites.
Lois Hill, 874 Adams Avenue, recommended that the City delay immediate
approval of the Vasco Road landfill site and listed the reasons she
objected to the use in this area. She also reported on a survey done
by the state several years ago which indicate that Alameda's tonnage
per day is 225 tons per day and our present tonnage from Livermore
to Dublin is approximately 90 tons per day which would give the
council an idea of the increase in volume.
Councilman Taylor suggested the state report be passed on to the City
Manager for incorporation into any studies on the matter and that he
would also like a copy of the report.
Mayor Miller suggested that a letter be sent to Mr. Cooper indicating
that there are other alternatives, listing some of them for him, and
the staff was so directed.
Letter from Dawn Rutter re
Transportation Needs
A letter was received from Dawn Rutter with regard to the transporta-
tion needs for the valley and that there is really no need for BART
in the valley.
Mayor Miller stated that there is not much to be done with respect
to the letter from Mrs. Rutter, but that the two city staffs were
going to examine the economics of BART in the valley, which Mr. Par-
ness replied is under way.
Councilman pritchard commented that there is a critical need for
transportation for the older citizens of the community, immediately,
and Mr. Parness stated that Congressman Stark has been advised of
the problem and the City is seeking sources of revenue to finance
these facilities.
REPORT RE "J" ST.
BEAUTIFICATION
The Public Works Director reported that the plans and specifications
are being readied for the installation of certain beautification
fixtures and parking conversions on "J" street, between First and
Second street, which he displayed and explained to the Council.
It was reported that the street work will be approximately $14,000,
and that the street will be ripped up and repaved.
Councilman Taylor stated that if this is for aesthetic purposes the
money should come from the beautification fund rather than gas tax
money, but Mr. Lee stated that the street and public works improve-
ments are in need of replacement and that the aesthetic value will
be improved but this is not the primary reason for redoing the
street.
CM-26-336
May 14, 1973
Mr. Lee reported that the estimated costs are as follows:
$14,000 for the street work, $4,000 for storm drains, $9,400 for
the park work and landscaping and $8,800 for replacement of the
old sidewalk, for a total cost of $37,000.
("J" St. Beautification)
Councilmen Taylor and Pritchard expressed their concern for spending
this amount of money, which comes from the taxpayers, and suggested
the matter be tabled for a couple of weeks to determine what public
response would be received, and not ask for bids at this time.
Mayor Miller suggested soliciting separate bids for each item to
be included, and during this time there will be sufficient time to
receive public response. Also, there may be a way of eliminating
some of the work, if necessary.
The Council discussed the possibility of eliminating the cost of
the storm drain and not extending it at this time, to cut the costs
of the project, and Mr. Lee concurred that installation of a pipe
could be done rather than the open drainage for the storm drain.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the City solicit bids in the manner
the Public Works Director feels would receive the best type of bids,
seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Bill RaYmond, 2360 Buena Vista, commented that this appears to be
a good opportunity to include parking for bicycles and that there
has been no mention of such a plan which he feels could be included
at very little additional cost.
Mayor Miller wondered if the plan includes anything such as a drinking
fountain, and Mr. Lee commented that he does not know if this is in-
cluded in the plans at this time but could certainly be added. The
Mayor noted that it gets pretty warm during the summer in Livermore
and felt the pUblic would appreciate something like this.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed by a
unanimous vote.
The Public Works Director commented that the Council has authorized,
as part of the current year's bike development project, the extension
of the Shadow Cliff bike path the County is putting in West of Isabel
Avenue, to extend on in to Livermore and that two alternatives have
been discussed. One would be to locate the bike path in the street,
separated from the traffic by an asphalt berm and the other would
be to putting ramps on the sidewalks at the intersections and placing
the bicycle traffic on the sidewalk. The sidewalk is 10 feet wide,
but there are interruptions due to pOles, etc., which narrow the
sidewalk in various areas. In his opinion, the recommendation would
be to use the sidewalk, as he felt there would be a traffic problem
at the intersections if the bikes are in the street. In answer to
a question posed by Councilman Futch, he explained that the length
the Council is discussing amounts to a little over ~ a mile.
REPORT RE BIKE PATH
ON E. STANLEY BLVD.
Councilman Futch wondered if the County could be asked to extend
the bike path for this extra length, and Mr. Lee said that this
could possibly be done but there is no guarantee that they would
do it for the same price as theirs - if they would, this would be
about $3,000.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, President of the Livermore Bikeways Assn.,
stated that he would like to point out potential problems with using
the sidewalk, as proposed by Mr. Lee, and that a berm will be used
from Pleasanton to Isabel Avenue and there should be no problem with
continuing the same plan on into town.
CM-26-337
May 14, 1973
(re bike path)
Mr. Wendt commented that the effective width in some points of
the sidewalk is 6 feet and in others 2 feet. Overall, the
Bikeways Association feels the use of the street with the aid
of a berm is the more desirable choice. He felt the County is
building an adequate facility and would like to see the City do
so, rather than build something considered to be inadequate.
He also mentioned that $10,000 has been allocated for the purpose
of bike facilities and that all of the planned improvements, in-
cluding the cost of this proposal will leave an excess of $1,500
in the budget. He asked that the council consider their recommenda-
tion to put the bikes in the street and not use the sidewalks.
Mr. Lee commented that Murrieta Blvd. which has no emergency park-
ing lane, is inadequate and always will be due to the fact that
the standards were not high enough at the time it was planned.
Many people have complained that East Avenue is inadequate, but
where the bike path is placed on the south side of East Avenue,
it is 7 feet wide and there are not many intersections as com-
pared to stanley Blvd. Another point is maintenance since it
narrowS down to 6 feet, and the City will have to maintain behind
that and it will have to be done by hand. However he felt the
main factor is safety, and to say that the walls are hazardous
due to backing lot treatment is not true because people entering
the street at those intersections come up and stop and they can
see both ways as there is adequate visibility except if you have
bike traffic going in the wrong direction and crossing that inter-
section further out than beyond the crosswalk it would be creating
a hazard. The vehicular traffic in that area is in the neighbor-
hood of 15,000 cars a day and there will be a lot less children
on bicycles, but regardless of how many there are they should be
as safe as possible and it would be better for them to cross at
the crosswalk rather than out in the street. Mr. Lee made a
sketch and further explained the plans.
Roger Everett, 572 Hazel Street,stated that with regard to the
berm/the Bicycle Association had suggested a wider crossing area.
Also if the sidewalk is used at all consideration should be
given to ramps and not just curb cuts.
Mr. Lee explained that the ramps are still in the development
stage and they have been improved as they have progressed,
and he agreed that they could be wider, but he felt in the walk-
way area they should leave room for someone to step off the
curb so they would not have to walk down the ramp.
Councilman Futch stated that the County has carefully considered
the placement of pathways going in both directions on the same
side of the street, and perhaps it should be done on both stanley
Blvd. and East Avenue. We should continue with the same treat-
ment as the width of stanley Blvd. as it comes into the City is
wider than it is in the Count~ so he felt it was reasonable to
use the berm.
Mr. Lee commented stated the difference is that there are hardly
any intersections on the County's part of the road, and they have
purchased additional right of way so that the paths are completely
off the street, so he did not feel it was a fair comparison.
Councilman Futch felt that we must provide better and safer
facilities for the bicyclists as they are at a disadvantage and
by doing it at the same time as the County, it could be done at
minimum cost, following the same basic plan. Also, it would be
less confusing for the motorist who is accustomed to one type
of bikeway. Councilman Futch moved that we accept the plan
prepared by the City Engineer showing the bikeway within the
street, separated by the berm (Alt. II); seconded by Councilman
Taylor.
CM-26-338
May 14, 1973
(Bike Paths)
Mr. Wendt suggested that the sidewalks also be utilized perhaps
by stenciling the word "bike" on the ramp which would indicate
to the bicyclist that the sidewalk can be used.
Mr. Lee stated that the plans had been prepared by the City to
determine what would be involved, but they are by no means re-
commended; in fact the staff recommends against the plans. Mr.
Lee also questioned the last suggestion made by Mr. Wendt and
wondered if he meant to give the cyclist the choice of using the
sidewalk. Councilman Futch explained he felt the idea was that
the traffic going one direction should use the sidewalk and the
traffic going in the other direction would be on the street and
perhaps this could be indicated by arrows in the bike path.
Mr. Wendt's suggestion was discussed, and Mr. Lee remarked that
in spite of ordinances here and in other cities in the area,
none of the cities have enforced the ordinances to keep the
bicycles off of sidewalks.
Councilman Pritchard stated that perhaps they should not make a
decision in this regard until a determination is made as to
liability.
Mr. Wendt stated that the Bikeways Association sent a letter and
a proposed draft of the bicycle ordinance to the City Manager and
Police Chief for their comments and it included the wording that
the Davis, California, ordinance has which says that when bicycles
are operating on a combined bicycle-pedestrian way, or sidewalk,
that the bicyclist must yield to the pedestrian and must give an
audible signal when passing, and he felt this would clarify the
question of liability when that ordinance is adopted.
A vote was taken on the motion for Alternate II at this time and
passed unanimously.
REPORT RE POLICE ADMIN.
BLDG. PUBLIC WORKS
REQUIREMENTS
The City Manager stated that a report had been prepared showing
the public works projects which are required in conjunction with
the construction of the Police Administration Building on the
Civic Center site. These improvements were not included in the
construction plans, and the City must solicit bids and award the
work so it coincides with the building construction. Mr. Parness
stated that there was an error in the figures of $1,300 for the
on-site fire hydrant service, making the total cost for the im-
provements $44,885.
It was recommended that the Council approve the work as outlined
and authorize the call for bids, and on motion of Councilman
Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval,
the recommendation was accepted.
The City Manager reported that the Springtown Golf Course at the
present time is being SUpplied with water by way of a leased diesel
powered pump located at a lagoon north of the Golf Course and ad-
jacent to the Arrroyo Las Positas. It is proposed to replace the
pump with a City-owned electrically powered pump to increase the
water volume, improve water pressure and decrease cost of irrigat-
ing the course. The annual operational savings would be approxi-
mately $2.840. It is recommended that the installation of the
REPORT RE SPRINGTOWN GOLF
COURSE PUMPING SYSTEM
CM-26-339
'-_._'-.,--_.~._~;...-._.__._-,-._----
May 14, 1973
(pumping System at Golf Course)
electric powered pump be authorized by the Council.
Councilman pritchard moved to accept the City Manager's recommenda-
tion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and approved unanimously.
REPORT RE SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT
The City Manager reported that it is necessary to assign the sub-
division agreement for Tract 3321 from the Hofmann Company to
Granada Sales, Inc. The subdivision bonds and other requirements
have all been satisfied. A supplementary agreement will be presented
concerning some modifications to the public works requirements
that have already been agreed upon by the new owner.
Councilman Futch moved that the assignment of the subdivision
agreement be approved; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard
to expedite Council business, however he stated he would normally
vote against the motion because he felt the area should be included
in the general plan review, and he knew that Councilman Beebe would
vote in the affirmative on the motion. The motion passed by unani-
mous vote.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
ANTI-NOISE ORDINANCE
The Planning Director reported that he had previously proposed that
a technical committee be formed to study and recommend to the City
Council a "Quiet City" or "Anti-Noise" ordinance. The Council had
requested that the staff inquire as to the possibility of participa-
tion by the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Musso stated that pleasanton
does not want to participate as they are already in the process of
preparing a noise element in conjunction with their General Plan
review and they feel a valleywide noise effort would delay comple-
tion of this review.
Mr. Musso stated that the important thing is the technical work
in establishing the anti-noise level. There is indication of help
they could get from the Division of Highways and PG&E in conjunction
with the airport studies.
It was felt that this should be a valleywide endeavor, and Councilman
Taylor suggested that perhaps they should give the staff a little
more time to work out something in common with pleasanton and the
Valley planning Committee. It was suggested also that perhaps they
could begin this study by the appointment of a committee and if
there were people interested they could submit their names.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE
POOL ROOMS AND BILLIARD PARLORS
A report from the police Chief to the City Attorney's office early
this year concerns present regulations of pool rooms or billiard
parlors. There is a need for modification to allow minors to play
this game at a location where alcoholic beverages are not served.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch, the
ordinance as recommended was introduced by unanimous approval, and
read by title only.
CM-26-340
May 14, 1973
ORD. RE PUD #12 & 20
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by unanimous vote of the Council, the second reading of the zoning
ordinance rezoning PUD #12 and 20 was waived and read by title only.
and the following ordinance was adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 818
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442
AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY
AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING
TO ZONING
ORD. TO ESTABLISH
OS (Open Space) DIST.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance establishing
an Open Space District was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 819
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZON-
ING, BY THE REPEAL OF SECTION 4.00, RELATING TO
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, AND THE ENACTION OF CHAP-
TER 4.00, ESTABLISHING THE "OS" (OPEN SPACE)
DISTRICT; BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2.00, RE-
LATING TO ESTABLISHMENT AND DESIGNATION OF ZONING
DISTRICTS; THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 19.00(A)
AND 19.00(C), RELATING TO USES PERMITTED AND
SITE REQUIREMENTS IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DIS-
TRICTS; AND BY AMENDING MAPS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 3.00, RELATING TO ZONING DISTRICT
MAPS, TO CHANGE ALL THOSE AREAS NOW DESIGNATED
"A" DISTRICT TO "OS-A" DISTRICT.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Apostolic Church
Use Permit Expiration
and Extension)
The City Manager commented that the Apostolic Church use permit
expires tomorrow, they have not submitted an application for extensioI
of the permit but have submitted the building plans and would like
to have an extension just to qualify the building plans.
Councilman Taylor moved that the permit be extended for another
week at which time the Council can hear more about it, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard and by unanimous vote the motion was passed.
(Re Zoning of Properties
on First Street)
Councilman Pritchard wondered if the Planning Commission has
scheduled consideration of rezoning of properties on First
Street, under our new zoning, and Mr. Musso indicated
that this is being taken care of.
CM-26-34l
May 14, 1973
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned by the Mayor at 10:20 p.m. to an executive
session to discuss the City Attorney candidates.
APPROVE ~ :n. ~.
Mayor
ATTEST~
- City Clerk
. .- Livermore, California
A Regular Meeting of May 21, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 21, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:15 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch, Pritchard, and Mayor
Miller
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES - May 14, 1973
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a 4-1 vote with Councilman Beebe abstaining, (due to absence at that
meeting) the minutes for the meeting of May 14, 1973 were approved
as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(re Anti Growth Suit)
Tony Thompson, 5138 Lillian Court, commented that he has read that
Pleasanton plans to join the City of Petaluma in defending the
suit against Petaluma's controlled growth plan. He feels that
the plan is interesting and innovating, even if Livermore does not
intend to adopt it, and would urge that the Council consider join-
ing P1easanton's support.
Councilman Pritchard thought that it was interesting to note that
Pleasanton was not interested in J01n1ng Livermore with regard to
the SAVE suit and yet intends to support another area.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is his understanding that the
reason Pleasanton is interested in the petaluma case is due to the
fact that both cities have a similar ordinance stating a limit in
numbers, while Livermore's situation is different. Also, at pre-
sent, we are without a City Attorney to advise the City.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that when Livermore adopted an ordi-
nance regUlating growth it was pointed out by our Attorney that
it might not be legal to use the petaluma method and Councilman
Beebe felt the City should not join an effort felt possibly to
be illegal.
CM-26- 342
May 21, 1973
(re growth suit)
Mayor Miller stated that it is his understanding the suit is based on
the grounds of the ordinance being unconstitutional and not on the
contents of the ordinance; which would affect Livermore, if this is
true.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council defer the matter until such
time as the City has a City Attorney, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
which passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Departmental Reports)
Departmental reports were submitted from the following departments:
Airport activity - April
Fire Department - Quarterly (First)
Municipal Court - March and April
Police and Pound - April
Water Reclamation Plant - April
Report re Con-
servation Funds
The City Manager reported that an application is being tranmitted
to the state for a grant to acquire approximately 100 acres of open
space land, in the amount of $500,000. The site would be a part
of our Arroyo-Trailway System and it is recommended that the Council
adopt a resolution approving the application.
RESOLUTION NO. 70-73
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS
(Arroyo-Trailway Project)
Report re Joint Agree-
ment - Stanley Blvd.
The City Manager reported that a 5 year contract was executed between
the City and County in September of 1968 providing for public
works projects along Stanley Blvd. All of these have been accomp-
lished with the exeeption of the widening of East Stanley Blvd,
easterly from Isabel Avenue on the south side and a request has
been made that the County be allowed to extend the contract for
one year. It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution
authorizing execution of an agreement for the extension of time.
RESOLUTION NO. 71-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(County of Alameda)
Payroll & Claims
Dated May 18th
There were 127 claims in the amount of $2ll,064.75, and 261 payroll
warrants dated May 18, 1973, in the amount of $63,734.14, for a
total of $$274,798.89.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved.
CM-26-343
May 21, 1973
COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Report re CUP -
Sunland Station
Mayor Miller stated that before the Council discusses the matter
of the appeal by Sunland oil Company with regard to the sales of
food, the Council has just received the text of the City Attorney
pro-tem's recommendation and would like to call a short recess
to allow the Council to read the contents.
RECESS
The Council had a brief recess, after which time the meeting
resumed with all members of the Council present.
The matter of the appeal by the Peck Sunland Station for the sale
of foods had been continued from the meeting of May 7th at which
time the City Attorney pro-tem had indicated that he was not clear
about the matter. He has now stated that whether or not the use shall
be allowed is the prerogative of the Council. The staff has recommended
that the use be denied.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council accept the recommendation
of the City Attorney pro - tem which is, that a permit should be
required for the use to be allowed.
Mayor Miller commented that there seems to be two issues present:
I) whether or not a CUP is required, and 2) if the CUP is applied
for, whether or not it would be approved, and the motion is only
to accept the recommendation that a CUP is required.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch, and passed 4-1 with
Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council must now decide whether to
grant the appeal - which is equivalent to granting the use, or
not to grant the appeal.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council deny the appeal, seconded
by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Beebe stated that it was his understanding that during
the previous discussion of the matter the staff and applicant would
try to work out some method for allowing the permit and also to the
satisfaction of the City on the points at issue.
Jan Schuyler, 999 E. Stanley Blvd., attorney representing the appli-
cant stated that there was no direction for the applicant to meet
with the staff but that it was to be referred to the City Attorney
pro-tern for advice as to city standards. He added that he would
like to point out that in his opinion the City was not correctly
advised and he is of the opinion that the original CUP allows his
client to continue to operate as he has been, based on the original
agreement. He pointed out that his client has been most willing
to cooperate and that he has offered to control the crowds by sell-
ing only from cars and only in the area designated for the sale of
food.
Councilman Taylor commented that the Council should really decide
whether or not they want sales other than gasoline to take place
at service stations, because if this is to be allowed it may be
setting a precedent.
Mayor Miller stated that there are several places in the zoning
ordinance which restricts uses at gas stations and added that it
would not seem reasonable to create something new in violation of
the ordinance.
CM-26- 344
May 21, 1973
(re Sunland Station)
Councilman Beebe felt that the applicant should be allowed the use,
as the area is large enough to accomodate both the sale of gasoline
as well as food sales and make it conform to the General Plan; how-
ever, if the applicant does not want to go to the expense there may
be no way of granting the use.
Mayor Miller felt the letter from the Fire Marshall pretty well
summed up the situation in which it was mentioned that the Fire
Department opposes mixed uses due to the potential fire hazards
in an area with flammable liquids, and the Mayor felt this recom-
mendation was in the best interest of the public health, welfare
and safety.
At this time the Mayor called for a vote to the motion to deny the
use which passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Report re Sick Leave
Benefits - Sgt. Kihle
Mayor Miller stated that the matter of the application by Sgt. Kihle
for sick leave benefits had been postponed from the meeting of May 14
and that the City Manager will report on the joint meetings which
took place between the legal counsels.
The City Manager explained that the City Attorney pro-tem and the
attorney representing the applicant have met to discuss the issue
and there has been a modification of an agreement to advance funds
prepared, which Mr. CritChfield will address himself to.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to point out that
it appears from comments made by the press, that the Council has
already made a decision, which is not the case at all. The only
action the Council has taken has been to postpone the matter until
this time, and there has been very little discussion on it. He
felt that, perhaps, members of the audience have received an erroneous
impression due to reports by the press.
Mr. CritChfield, attorney representing Mr. Kihle, gave a report as
to the history of Sgt. Kihle's accident adding that a letter from
Dr. Berson states that he feels the accident was an injury sustained
in the line of duty, which dates back several years ago. There is
a provision in the state code which allows a policeman or fireman
certain Workman Compensation benefits - Sgt. Kihle received compensa-
tion which expired as of April 26, 1973, and at that time it was
recommended that he be retired as of June 6, 1973. He stated that
he and his client would like the sick leave to start now and at
the end of the sick leave he receive cash benefits for vacation
and comp time. He stated that after meeting with the City Attorney
pro-tem it was agreed that the matter of sick leave would not be
resolved but that the City would pay Sgt. Kihle as if he were en-
titled to receive sick leave until the matter is resolved. The
state gives the policeman injured in the line of duty, an extra
benefit which has allowed him to take one year off without using
sick leave, and then he goes back on duty. In other words, he is
not retired and will not be retired, officially, until the hearing
is held at the state level which is supposed to take place sometime
in August. If the Council agrees that he is entitled to take his
sick leave at this time, he will be paid until approximately October 6.
Sgt. Kihle proposes a compromise which would be to give up 30 days of
his sick leave and retire on September I, as it is felt that the state
will determine that he is retired in October and he should start receiv-
ing benefits from the state in September. It is the City Attorney pro-
tern's contention that if the Council grants payment of the sick leave
until this time, it will be a "gift of the public funds"; however, the
City does not have a clear cut policy on the matter and Mr. Critchfield
feels Mr. Kihle should not be penalized because the policy is not clear.
CM-26-345
May 21, 1973
(re Sgt. Kihle's
Sick Leave Benefits)
Mr. Critchfield commented that he would like time to consult with
the attorney for the PERS Board in Sacramento to make sure that
Sgt. Kihle's rights are not jeopardized by the agreement and it is
requested that the matter be postponed for two weeks, as there is
no meeting next week because of Memorial Day.
Mr. Parness interjected that the Council is faced with a determina-
tion as to what the applicant's rights are in this matter; however
he feels the City must accept the recommendation of the City Attorney
pro-tem.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council has no intention of letting
Sgt. Kihle go without compensation for any length of time because
his retirement benefits have not started and the sick leave has been
denied.
Mayor Miller felt that usually the recommendation by the City Attor-
ney is followed and feels it should be followed again - if the PERS
says something different, the City would abide by it.
Councilman Pritchard questioned the City policy, commenting that it
is his understanding a person may not receive compensation if he
voluntarily retires and wondered if Sgt. Kihle actually did volunteer
to retire.
The City Manager explained that the matter is very confusing, as
Sgt. Kihle is not medically competent and able to continue with the
"City, even though he has stated that he did not voluntarily retire,
and the statutes surrounding the whole issue are very hazy. He
feels that the only way the matter can be resolved is through litiga-
tion and that in the meantime the City can assist Sgt. Kihle in a
financial matter as best it can.
Mayor Miller stated that the point being glossed over in this dis-
cussion is that in most businesses and companies if you are retired,
quit or are fired, you do not get sick leave benefits.
Mr. critchfield countered that Mr. Kihle has not been fired, and has
not quit and is not yet retired.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council authorize execution of the
agreement by the City Manager or the Mayor, subject to minor changes
in wording, if the intent is not changed. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Beebe, and passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Mr. Critchfield asked if the Council has made a determination as to
whether Mr. Kihle is entitled to his sick leave, and Mayor Miller
indicated that as of now, the determination is June 6th.
Councilman Pritchard commented that personally, he feels the motion
had nothing to do with determining whether or not he should receive
sick leave and considers this a very hazy area and would be inclined
to give the person the benefit of the doubt. If that was a part of
the motion, he voted erroneously.
Councilman Taylor stated that it was not a part of the motion.
Dick Boyd, 5391 Charlotte Way, commented that he has a petition
with 315 signatures in which it states that they oppose the denial
of Sgt. Kihle's sick leave and that this is not to the advantage
of the police Department or the public for this to be allowed,
which was presented to the Council.
John Field, 618 Escondido Circle, felt it is very unnecessary for
this issue to reach litigation or legal examination of the policy.
CM-26- 346
May 21, 1973
(re Sgt. Kihle's Benefits)
He knows of cases in which this has happened and that it is obvious
that if a man is sick, he receives sick leave. He does not take
vacation time in lieu of sick time when he should be taking sick
time. Further it is not a legal obligation to require a person to
retire - this is something a person must apply for. He stated that
he has never in his life heard of an employer placing a man on retire-
ment.
Clayton Foss, 3824 Santa Clara Way, stated that he was injured on the
job, received 100 hours of sick leave, after which time he was told
that he could no longer work on his job and has been receiving regular
pay since November and has enough to last until August 9th, at which
time he can go on disability or retire before the end of the fiscal
year with a 6% inducement. The point is, this is his option and
would hope that this illustrates an example of the proper way of handl-
ing such situations.
Ray Weingartner, 3943 Dartmouth, representing the Livermore Fireman's
Association, reminded the City staff that an employee such as this
should use his sick leave prior to the use of vacation and comp time,
and it appears that this has not been the procedure in this case. If
a person leaves the City with sick leave left over, it goes into a
sick leave bank. An injured employee may use up his sick leave, comp
time and vacation time, and then draw from this sick leave bank that
he can draw from almost indefinately. He questioned as to why this
has not been the procedure followed in this case.
CMr. Parness explained that the sick leave in question at this time
will be reverted to the sick leave bank and the reason Sgt. Kihle
was put on vacation was due to the anticipation of what the policy
is and what the state statutes allow. Through interpretation, as
of the end of his Labor Code entitlement, the only thing left to
draw from was his vacation and overtime.
Mr. Weingartner stated that he cstill cannot understand why any
sick leave is left at all, as he is still a City employee and
still earning I day per month sick leave, which should have been
used first, and that this question has not been answered.
Mayor Miller explained that it was the interpretation and advice
of the City Attorney that as of the expiration of the state disa-
bility, his employ ceased. The Council is now struggling with the
question of handling this situation subject to law, without being
arbitrary and causing a hardship to Mr. Kihle. The point is that
the Council has received legal counsel and it is difficult to go
against such advice, which has been that Mr. Kihle is not entitled
to receive the sick leave pay.
Mr. Weingartner stated that his sick time should have been used and
then upon leaving the City, he would be paid for his vacation and
comp time.
Mayor Miller stated that the matter has been partially resolved at
this time but will be brought up again on June 4.
Charles Johnson, 711 Los Altos , stated that he has seen Sgt. Kihle
work on the same day he was discharged from the hospital and at
times when he has been run down and with a swollen leg. In his
opinion Sgt. Kihle is one of the most dedicated workers of the City
and did not use his sick leave because he wanted to save it for when
it was really needed. He has earned this time, as it has come out of
his pay, and if one cannot use sick leave when necessary there is no
use to have it - the City may as well pay you for it.
CM-26-347
May 21, 1973
RECESS
Mayor Miller called for a short recess, after which time the meeting
resumed with all members of the Council present.
Communication re Land
for Baseball Diamonds
A letter has been received from the Livermore Babe Ruth League in
which they have asked if there is property owned by the City on
which a ball diamond may be constructed. They have stated they
would appreciate the use of the land until such time as the City
needs it for another use and that they are not asking for financial
assistance and are fully covered with accident and liability insur-
ance. They also listed a number of sites they would be interested
in using, if possible.
The City Manager reported that at present the City does not own any
property which would be suitable for the purpose. The Civic Center
site is planned for some planting and an irrigation system as a
preliminary step in developing the site and in subsequent years,
some turf planting may be done and it would be suitable for the
requested use. The only possible alternate appears to be in the
Robertson Park area but which is under the jurisdiction of LARPD.
Robert Bangs, 844 Arbor Court, president of the Babe Ruth League,
stated that additional facilities are needed and he is really asking
for some direction from the Council as to whom to contact. He
stated that the School District has indicated they cannot help and
he realizes that LARPD has no funds. They do not need financial
assistance but do need the use of some land. He indicated that he
has written to LARPD but has received no response, as yet.
Mr. Parness commented that one prospective piece of property may be
the Dolan property which the City may purchase and that the LARPD
Board feels the property is needed for field-type activities such
as this.
~.
Mr. Bangs stated that he would try to work something out with the
Recreation District, as this appears to be the organization for
solving the problem.
Re Admission Day
Donation Request
The Alameda County Admission Day Celebration Committee has written
to the Council requesting a donation of $100 to assist the committee
with the cost of a float in the Concord parade and other celebration
plans.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the request was denied.
REPORT RE POLICE
ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
The City Manager reported that there were only two bids submitted
for the construction of the police Administration building at the
Civic Center site. The low bidder was C. A. Gossett & Son of
Castro Valley with a bid of $629,695 and the other bid was received
from Edw. Griffin & Son of Livermore for $633,140. It is recommended
that the Council adopt a motion authorizing the award of the con-
struction bid to the low bidder.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the construction bid was
awarded to C. A. Gossett & Son, the low bidder.
CM-26-348
May 21, 1973
REPORT RE CUP - APO-
STOLIC FAITH CHURCH
& PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
During the May 14th meeting of the Council, the expiration date
(May 15th) for the CUP for the Apostolic Faith Temple, located on
Dogwood Drive was discussed and the Council extended the permit for
one more week. Since then, they have submitted an application for
a building permit. .
Mr. Parness reported that during conversations with Reverend Hill over
the matter it was indicated that the church is having difficulty
financially and they may not be able to proceed with building the
church. Reverend Hill is therefore asking that the Council reconsider
the offer made to the church by the City for purchase of the property.
Mr. Parness reminded the Council that this was the strip of property
abutting the small park area which the City had been interested in
obtaining for park land.
Mr. Schuyler, attorney representing the church owners, stated that
he was not aware of the plans to let the property go to the City and
would like to ask for a one week continuance to allow him to speak
with the church people.
Councilman Taylor suggested the Council give some indication as to
whether they would still be interested in obtaining the property
and it was concluded that the City would still be interested in ob-
taining the property at the same price quoted in the past.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be continued until June 4th
and that the permit be continued until the 5th of June,which was
seconded by Councilman Beebe. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Councilman Taylor moved that the City Manager be instructed to nego-
tiate the purchase of the property, and to reaffirm the last offer.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Beebe and Pritchard stated that they feel the area is a
poor choice for a park site and would have to vote negatively.
The motion passed with a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
dissenting.
REPORT RE TRACT
3321 AGREEMENT
Due to the transfer of subdivision Tract 3321 to a new owner, with
several modifications as well as a proposed benefit district, and
it has become necessary to amend the original agreement. It is
recommended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution
of the amended agreement.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a 4-1 vote with Councilman pritchard dissenting, the resolution was
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72-73
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3321
REPORT RE CALLAGHAN
MORTUARY SIGN PERMIT
It was pointed out during a recent Council meeting that the Callaghan
Mortuary sign was still standing which does not comply with the ordi-
nance, and the staff was asked to check into the matter.
CM-26-349
May 21, 1973
(re Callaghan Sign)
Mr. Musso explained that Mr. Callaghan had received a CUP for the
sign which was to expire in March but the typist misread the hand-
written date and made the expiration date in May and this error was
not caught. This has given Mr. Callaghan an additional 60 days for
his sign to remain and the reason it was not removed. However, the
permit has expired, Mr. Callaghan has not taken out a permit for a
freestanding sign but has taken out a permit to construct a wall sign.
Normally, the sign which is in violation is allowed to stand until
another sign has been completed to replace it.
Mayor Miller felt that Mr. Callaghan has had ample opportunity to get
rid of his sign and was present at the meeting in which the Council
told him it would have to be abated in 60 days and he actually has
received 120 days. He suggested that the Council ask for an abate-
ment immediately and if it is not done within a day or two it should
be turned over to the District Attorney.
The Planning Director was directed to proceed with the usual method
for having the sign abated and if it is not done it will be turned over
to the District Attorney.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - May 15th
Minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting of May 15th were noted
for filing.
REPORT RE CITY
INSURANCE COVERAGE
The City Manager reported that the Council authorized negotiations
for renewal of City insurance coverage by our local agent, which
he stated has resulted in a very good insurance program and that
the premium cost was almost exactly the same as in the past. He
felt that the local agent, Gene Morgan, did an outstanding job and
the City is most grateful.
REPORT RE EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS PLAN
The City Manager reported that the state requires updating, periodi-
cally, of the Emergency Operations Plan (Civil Defense Plan) and
that such has been done. Primarily, it is a reiteration of what has
been used in the past with the addition of inserts of late order.
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution approving
and adopting the plan, as is required.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the resolution accepting the
plan was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 73-73
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
PLAN
REPORT RE VALLEY WATER
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Over the past several months meetings have been conducted by the
staffs and elected representatives of the Valley Water Management
Committee, and after due consideration it was concluded that the
CM-26-350
May 21, 1973
(re Water Management)
legal means to be employed should be a joint powers agreement. Such
a document draft has been reviewed and tentatively accepted by this
Committee and in turn referred to each governmental organization for
its consideration. The staff has recommended that the Council adopt
a motion declaring that the City is in favor of the proposed joint
powers agreement for the program.
Councilman Beebe briefly commented that the agreement spells out
the operation agreement among the three agencies and has nothing
to do with deciding what the agency is going to be - it sets up the
mechanics to establish the program for water management. He explained
that this will not be a creation of any agency with taxing authority
and this will not be a commitment for any sum of money on the part of
the City.
Councilman Pritchard, who also attended the meetings with Councilman
Beebe stated that this is definately a joint powers arrangement. If
the agreement is adopted it will be on record that a joint powers
agreement is being used in this case. The portion that is left open
is the method and the joint powers will then decide as to whether
a commercial firm or another public agency or their personal staff
will be selected to carry out the operations, which will be decided
at a later time.
Councilman Futch commented that he cannot understand how an agency
intends to operate without funds and that thus far the means for
how the funds will be derived has not been spelled out and he felt
that this may be a problem.
Mr. Parness explained that under Section 14 are provisions for funds
and expenditures and it is anticipated that monies for the operations
shall be apportioned to the signatory jurisdiction based upon some
method which has yet to be derived. The technical staf~of the respec-
tive agencies are now in the process of discussing that and he stated
that there are various alternatives, and will be the method of estab-
lishing what the apportionment amount will be to the respective juris-
dictions. The forecast expenditures will then be set up by the joint
powers agreement and relegating the apportioned cost to each jurisdic-
tion.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council approve a joint powers agree-
ment, such as is proposed, and the wording may be discussed at a later
date. The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Futch pointed out a few areas in which he felt the wording
should be clarified, and Mr. Parness remarked that he would make a
note of these things which have been pointed out.
Mayor Miller commented that he has reservations about getting into
any type of commitment for a 5 year period and felt that this was
a very long time for the City to be committed. He indicated that
the City should have the ability to get out of the agency before the
bonds are sold so that the City is not responsible and this would be
the advantage of a one year type of thing. He stated that we should
not be obligated to commit ourselves 5 years in advance to pay for
something that VCSD and Pleasanton wants. Also, he raised the point
that joint powers agencies have the power to sell bonds without going
to a vote of the people, if his understanding of the law is correct.
This would make him leery of a joint powers agency and in the final
draft of the agreement there should be some clause indicating that
the public must vote on any proposed bond issue, and he would go
so far as to suggest that there must be a 2/3 vote of approval from
the public in each of the jurisdictions represented by the joint
powers agency.
Mr. Parness explained that this agency could not issue bonds without
a vote of the people and the only financing vehicle available to them
is the tax exempt bond which necessitates some revenue accrual method
of amortizing a debt.
CM-26-351
May 21, 1973
(re Jt. Powers Agrmt.)
The Council concluded that there should be some type of wording
inserted to insure the public of being allowed to vote for any
type of bond proposal and that the agency cannot sell bonds if
this is not done.
Mayor Miller usuggested that in view of the fact there is going
to be no funding for sewer plant expansion in critical air basins,
it might be best for the Valley Water Management group to arrange
to meet with the State Water Quality Board and the Regional Board
to determine whether or not it is really timely to go through with
this now, or to wait until these rules are lifted.
Councilman Pritchard and Beebe commented that part of the problem
is that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has stated that
a mechanism must be adopted by a certain day.
Mayor Miller indicated that the Regional Board can be asked if
the matter may be delayed, in view of the EPA holding up funding.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the concept
of the proposed joint powers agreement.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
STATE LEGISLATION (AB 921)
A copy of AB 921 was received from Assemblyman Carlos Bee with
regard to authorizing cities and counties to use the powef or
eminent domain to acquire open-space lands and would be a means
to implement a city's open-space element.
Councilman Taylor moved to endorse the measure, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard and passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
COpy OF SB 1051
Mayor Miller commented that the Council has received a copy of
SB 1051 at his request, with regard to changes in the Environ-
mental Quality Act. In his opinion, the changes are unfortunate
and a bill the Council should oppose.
Councilman Futch moved to oppose the bill, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Mayor Miller stated that one of the important parts being changed
is that in the Environmental Quality Act it states that the long
term protection of the environment shall be "the" guiding criterion
in public decisions, and the bill will change the wording to "aJ!
guiding criterion in public decisions. He feels the original word-
ing is the desirable wording.
Councilman Futch commented that he has seen no arguments supporting
reasons the Environmental Quality Act should be changed and for
this reason he would oppose amendment as suggested in AB 1051.
Councilman Beebe stated that he has not been convinced that a
modification would be bad and would therefore have to oppose
the motion.
The Council voted 3-2 to approve the motion, Councilman Beebe dissent-
ing and Councilman Pritchard abstaining.
MUNICIPAL CODE AMEND.
RE POOLROOMS & BILLIARD ROOMS
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance regarding poolrooms
and billiard rooms was adopted.
CM-26-352
May 21, 1973
(Muni Code Amendment)
ORDINANCE NO. 820
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.00 OF THE LIVER~ORE
CITY CODE, 1959, RELATING TO POOLROOMS AND BILLIARD
ROOMS, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 17.4, RELATING TO
PROHIBITION OF MINORS FROM PLAYING, AND 17.5, RELATING
TO MINORS MISREPRESENTING THEIR AGE.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Re Trailer Ordinance)
Councilman Futch asked if the trailer ordinance is being enforced,
and Mr. Musso commented that only in cases in which there have
been complaints.
Councilman Futch stated that the interim ordinance was adopted with
the intention that it be upheld.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council determined, very strongly,
that enforcement on complaint only was not the way to go and the
whole underlying reason for bringing up the matter and adopting the
interim ordinance. In his opinion, this should not be allowed to
continue and would suggest that the ordinance be enforced.
The staff was asked to report back to the Council in about 30 days
as to the problems involved
(Re Application for
portola & First St.)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he understands there is an applica-
tion coming in for portola and First Street, and Mr. Musso stated
that there is a rezoning application before the Planning Commission
on Hwy. 580 and First which is CS Zoning, and the matter was con-
tinued.
Councilman Pritchard felt there should be some type of plan for the
entire length of First Street and that it should not be done piece-
meal or we are going to have a type of unwanted construction.
Mr. Musso explained that first an area is zoned and then plans are
made from this and that the street is not looked at as a whole.
Mayor Miller agreed that Councilman Pritchard has a good point and
felt that it should not be planned in stages or in units but as
a whole plan for the length to be constructed. He suggested that
perhaps there should be a moratorium for commercial development
along First Street until the plan is finished.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the Planning Commission be asked
to consider the entire area as a unit and formulate a policy to
cover the whole strip.
Mr. Musso felt this would be unrealistic and pointed out that there
are about four plans under way at this time.
The Council asked Mr. Musso if he could report further on the matter
on June 4th.
(Interviews for P.C.)
Mayor Miller stated that anyone interested in submitting applications
for the Planning Commission vacancy may do so and the City Clerk was
instructed to arrange interviews for said applicants on Tuesday,
CM-26-3S3
'----_.-._._.-.~._---~...~,--_..._...,-,-.._._~_..,,_...._.~~"'._.---".._~--_._-"~-_.,._-".._-_._.,..._.,,,.",,._~-
May 21, 1973
(Re P. C. Appt.)
May 29th which will be held in the Council Chambers. The Council
will then conduct an executive session to discuss a Planning
Commission appointment and other pending appointments.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
Mayor adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
APPROVE
IC 6\Vo'v"'~ ~7----) /1 ~ ,,~.Ll\ ,\
Mayor
\ __ /^~-eL '
ATTEST
Cl.ty Clerk
Livermore, California
A Regular Meeting of June 4, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 4, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (Seated Later)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the meeting of
May 21, 1973 were approved as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
(Re Valley
Transportation)
A Mr. Buckley spoke on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission with regard to transportation within the 9 bay area
counties and particularly the need for transportation between Dublin
and Hayward. He named polls which were taken in the tri-valley area
and that it indicated transportation would be used and that people
would like BART to be constructed down the median of the US 580 cor-
ridor. They also indicated that they feel the Council has the power
to control growth and need not hold up widening of the highway for
reasons of growth impact. He then listed the number of casualties
sustained as a result of accidents along 580 as well as fatalities
during the past 17 months. He also mentioned the affect rapid tran-
sit would have on the air quality standards for the valley and asked
the Council to contact Congressman Stark to seek his help in lobbying
for rapid transit in the valley.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD SEATED DURING THE ABOVE STATEMENT.
CM-26-354
June 4, 1973
(Re Valley Transportation)
Councilman Futch stated that he has found the comments written by
the EPA and those mentioned by Mr. Buckley to be in conflict and
read the letter received from the EPA with regard to their review
and comments on the draft for the proposed joint transportation
corridor between San Leandro and Livermore-Amador Valley on US 580.
The EPA stated in the letter that the impact of the project will be
severe on the environment and the current and forecast pollution
levels demand a more complete analysis and highway projects must
consider the national ambient air quality standards that will become
law in 1975. They feel the project is unsatisfactory because of the
potential harm on the environment and the safeguards which might be
utilized may not adequately protect the environment from the hazards
arising from the action and recommend that alternates be analyzed
further, including the possibility of no action at all. They also
recommended a redraft of the statement in which appropriate considera-
tions have been made for the protection of the air quality in the
Livermore-Amador Valley. Councilman Futch also mentioned comments
made by the County with regard to the impact on the Dublin Canyon
(Crow Canyon) and their objection to the plan, and concluded by say-
ing that he has page after page on the matter but would not like to
get into a full scale discussion of the matter until after the Council
has seen the complete environmental impact report.
Councilman Beebe stated that he has also seen the report Councilman
Futch speaks of; however, he feels that it is senseless to allow
eight lanes of traffic to flow through the valley from Tracy to Dublin
only to become stifled at this point and sit there stalled and pollut-
ing the air rather than being allowed to move on into the Bay Area
cities. During the prime traffic hours the traffic is stopped from
Dublin to Castro Valley as he has observed from personal experience.
He felt this situation is intolerable and the citizens should not have
to put up with this type of thing.
Mr. Musso commented that he feels there are two issues; one is the
route selection which has been held in abeyance because of the concerns
of a new environmental impact report, and the other thing is the
public hearing to be held on June 14th, with regard to the BART
Master Plan, which is a separate issue.
Councilman Futch explained that he in no way intended to imply that
he would disagree with a route through the Dublin Canyon, for BART.
Councilman Taylor asked when the Council can get a copy of the
latest environmental impact report and the City Manager explained
that there are modifications being made and that the Council may
have a copy of the suplements which are ready for distribution.
Councilman Taylor stated that it was at the urging of all the
government bodies in the valley that a median was provided which
could accomodate construction of BART and moved that the matter
be continued until after the new environmental impact statement
has been reviewed, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller commented that with regard to the feeling that the
Council has the power to control growth, there is nothing at this
time which guarantees controlled growth, and he mentioned that SAVE
is currently being litigated. Also, in his opinion, the widening
and improvements of highways only encourages automobiles until the
traffic is choked up again, as has been illustrated in the Los
Angeles areas. He also feels that highway improvement will result
in an increase of transient traffic to Tracy. He feels that a
4-way lane and a BART line would be better than an 8-lane freeway
and a BART line.
Councilman Futch stated that he would like to amend the motion to
state that if the environmental impact report is not received prior
to the MTC hearing, they withhold any action until such time as the
public agencies affected will have a chance to review the report.
The City Manager pointed out that their report must be filed by
June 30th with the state.
The Council voted unanimously to continue the matter until next week.
CM-26-355
June 4, 1973
(Request Change in
Street Name)
James Watson, 743 Wimbleton Lane, read a petition signed by the
majority of the homeowners on Wimbleton Lane, to change the name
of the street to the English namesake of Wimbletdon Lane.
Councilman Beebe moved to direct the staff and the Planning Com-
mission to report back as to changing the name of the street, as
requested, seconded by Councilman Taylor with the additional request
that it be made clear to all the residents that there will be a
change, as this may prove to be an inconvenience to some. The
motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Councilman Beebe felt that since the Council was discussing change
in names for streets, South Livermore should be changed to Lizzie
Street, as it was originally called, and that North Livermore, north
of Portola was called Beck Road. He felt these names had historical
meaning behind them and should be referred to the Historical Society.
The staff was directed to bring this to the attention of the Planning
Commission, also.
(Complaint re
Leahy Square)
Kay Parra, 819 Brennan, stated that she has visited some of the people
in the Leahy Square complex and that the so-called "modern" complex
is very poorly constructed and that the draft coming through the
space between the wall and the air conditioner is sufficient to
cause a number of sick children this winter.
Mayor Miller stated that the complex is under the authority of the
Housing Authority and they're in the middle of a hassle with the
contractor in trying to get him to live up to his contract. There
has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the contractor and the Board
is working to rectify the problems of Leahy Square.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Re Bank of America
as paying Agent
The City Manager reported that the Bank of America has been serving
the City as paying agent for bond holders of outstanding debts and
that they must increase their rates. The increase for the bond fund
will amount to $290 - $617 for the golf course, the latter includes
a $500 fee for the bank that serves as the trustee for this corpora-
tion. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing
execution of the agreement.
Report re Data
Processing Agreement
The City Manager reported that a recommendation has been made that
the City's current agreement with a data processing service
bureau - Optimum Systems Inc. - be extended for a two year period.
This service has been used for the past two years for payroll and
utility billing preparations.
RESOLUTION NO. 74-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Optimum Systems, Inc.)
CM-26-356
June 4, 1973
Report re Assis-
tance Team Program
The City Manager reported that Livermore is one of the 7 cities
participating in Southern Alameda County, in a social service pro-
gram to be under development over the next 18 months. It is
administered by a joint powers agreement with representatives from
each of the 7 City Managers. A $140,000 grant from OEO, through
SACEOA, finances this effort.
Report re Well
Standards Admn.
by Alameda COUftty
The Public Works Director reported that in February, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board adopted a resolution which provides for
the establishment of well standards in Alameda County to provide
necessary regulations and control. To assure greater uniformity
and to avoid duplication of effort, it is recommended that the
Council adopt the draft of the well standards and designate Alameda
County to act as the City's representative.
RESOLUTION NO. 76-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA TO
REPRESENT THE CITY OF LIVERMORE IN THE REGULATION
OF WELLS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
Report re Dolan
Property Condemnation
The City Manager reported that as a proposed step in the Dolan land
acquisition matter it is necessary to initiate eminent domain pro-
ceedings for the property. It is recommended that the Council
adopt a resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings.
RESOLUTION NO. 75-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE ESTATE FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES OF 34.6+ ACRES
SITUATE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TESLA ROAD AND WENTE
STREET IN THE CITY OF LIVER~ORE AND THE COUNTY OF ALA~EDA.
Report re Capital
Projects Bids
In accordance with the current fiscal budget, plans and specifica-
tions have been prepared for the receipt of construction bids for
1972-73 Capital Improvements Projects (Phase II) and were presented
to the Council in a written report by the Public Works Director, and
requested Council authorization to call for bids.
Res. re Employee's
Retirement Contract
A minimum change is proposed as an optional one with our PERS
agreement pertaining to public safety members only and would reduce
the minimum age from 55 to 50 at a proportionate retirement discount
amount. This modification is at no cost to the City and it is
recommended that the Council adopt a resolution of intention to
amend the contract.
RESOLUTION NO. 77-73
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF AD~1INISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
CM-26-357
June 4, 1973
Res. Denying Claim
of Irene Semo
RESOLUTION NO. 78-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF IRENE SEMO
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Report re Sgt. Kihle's
Sick Leave Benefits
The matter of the sick leave accrual for Sgt. Vernon Kihle had
been postponed from the meeting of May 21 so as to allow the appli-
cant time to consider a proposition for advanced payment chargeable
against sick leave accrual for the time interval between the last
qualifying date (June 6) and the date when the Retirement Board
fixes disability retirement commencement. The City Attorney pro-tem
will be in attendance to discuss the legal aspects of the matter.
WID. Hirst, City Attorney pro-tem stated that he has indicated in
the past that he has certain reservations with regard to the City's
obligation to pay Mr. Kihle sick leave accrued during his service
with the City. He stated that in his opinion, the Council has
three alternatives:
1) Deny the request until the retirement date is known;
2) Reach a compromise which would preserve, enhance and protect
the moral of the other safety employees;
3) Pay to Mr. Kihle, as requested, the accumulated sick leave.
In his opinion, however, the latter two alternatives are less pre-
ferable than the first but would like the Council to understand
that the latter two are available to the Council, at its discretion.
This could also be done without exposure to taxpayer litigation, etc.
He also advised that the staff be directed to review the personnel rules
to eliminate future misunderstanding of the City's position,
whatever position it takes.
In answer to a question about the second alternative, he explained
that the City could compromise by amending the date requested by
the City for disability retirement. Currently, the effective date
is asked to be set for June 6. He added that any payment of all
of the claim should be made with the express understanding that this
is not to set a precedent.
Councilman Taylor stated that one of the main reasons this has come
up is because of a lack of specific rules and some concern as to
whether it would be a legal action. In his opinion, if the Council
were to sit down and discuss the case of someone injured in the line
of duty to determine what is right, without any legal question before
them, he feels they would, in this case, request disability to begin
at the end of the use of the accumulated sick leave. He added that
he feels Mr. Kihle should not be penalized just because a case of
this type has not occured with a City employee. Therefore, he moved
that the Council allow the use of his sick leave with the condition
that if there is a question regarding legality which results in a
suit at a later date, the funds may have to be returned to the City.
Also to direct the staff to obtain a clarification of the rules,
to agree with the intent, which was seconded by Councilman Futch.
CM-2.6-358
June 4, 1973
(re Sgt. Kihle's
Benefits)
In answer to a question regarding possible overlapping of retirement
benefit and sick leave pay, Mr. Parness explained that there will be
no overlapping of payments.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
RECESS
After a brief recess, the Council meeting resumed will all members
of the Council present.
Communication re
Resignation from
Beautification Committee
A letter of resignation from the Beautification Committee was received
from Donald N. Wilcox, and the staff was directed to prepare a letter
thanking him for serving on the Committee.
Communications re
AB 594 Legislation
A letter was received from Carlos Bee with regard to AB 594 which
requires a deposit on beverage containers and agrees that the
pop-top can has created many problems for our environment, and
stated that he intends to vote for it.
A letter received from Senator Bradley on the same subject which
the Council felt to be either evasive or perhaps the intent of
the bill was misunderstood by him.
Communication re
Bike Paths
A letter was received from Denise York, 409 Andrews Street, with
regard to a desire for more bicycle paths meant especially for
bike riding.
The staff was directed to respond to the letter explaining what
the Council is doing with regard to bike paths and invite the
people who have written to individual Councilmen to respond in
writing or appear before the Council if they are dissatisfied.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the Planning Director and
the Bikeways Association meet to draw up an information sheet
on bike paths in Livermore and to inform people interested that
there is a bike committee and a master plan.
Councilman Futch suggested that perhaps a press release could be
given on the bike paths in Livermore, and just what is being
done in the City. The staff was directed to papare such press
release.
REPORT RE ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT
- ZONE 7
A report from Zone 7 regarding the Environmental Impact Report
pertains to the proposed Zone 7 Project 2 improvements and the
district is anxious to receive responses within the next couple
of weeks.
CM-26-359
June 4, 1973
(Re Zone 7 EIR)
Mr. Mun Mar from Zone 7 explained that the draft of the Environmen-
tal Impact Report has been submitted to the various agencies which
will be involved for referral purposes, primarily for comments
which may be incorporated in the final EIR, at which time if there
are any questions raised they can address themselves to these issues.
The Zone 7 Board will be presented with the report plus comments
submitted and responses. This is to take place on June 13th.
Mayor Miller asked if the meeting on the 13th is essentially a
public hearing and Mr. Mar explained that if there are comments
to be made the public can provide input which the Board can
accept and then make their decision based on that. A public
hearing is not necessarily required - it depends on the impact
as determined, based on the draft report and at the present time
major problems are not anticipated.
Councilman Taylor stated that he had just received a copy of the
EIR, indirectly, and that all the Council members had not been
furnished with a copy of the report and would suggest that the
matter be continued to next week, and so moved.
Councilman Futch felt the air pollution problem in the valley
has been treated rather lightly in the report and that the
table is based on the Bay Area and not the Livermore-Amador
Valley. It is pretty difficult to draw conclusions on the
local situation when the average is considered over the Bay Area.
For example, San Francisco has essentially no air pollution pro-
blems due to the wind.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to comment just briefly
that the questions of air quality are extremely incomplete and
it should be made clear that Livermore Valley is different than
the rest of the Bay Area with respect to air pollution. Also,
Zone 7 promised that there would be no water rate increases but
only if there were 1,000 building permits per year. There are
sewer bans, there may be an Air Pollution Control District ban in
several years which may reduce residential building. If residential
building is reduced, water rates will have to be raised, contrary
to the promise.
The motion to continue the matter until next week was seconded
by Councilman Futch and passed unanimously.
APPEAL RE VARIANCE (MURRIETA HOLMES)
SW CORNER HOLMES AND MURRIETA
The Planning Director explained that the property in question
had been recently rezoned from multiple residential to "CP"
(Commercial Office) District and is commonly referred to as the
site of the "old barn", and the applicant is now attempting to ob-
tain variance for site plan approval. He has asked for variance
to reduce the setback to allow a larger development than the
10,000 sq. ft.allowed by ordinance, allow second floor develop-
ment. With regard to the setback, although they denied the entire
variance, the Planning Commission was sympathetic to the variance
to allow the setbacks on the Holmes Street frontage to be the
same as the existing duplex subdivision and allow the setback on
the Murrieta frontage to be the same as for the apartment houses
under construction. The main issue centered around the two-story
building which was opposed by the Planning Commission. The
property can be developed without a variance with a fair amount of
square footage and provide off-street parking which may be somewhat
restricted. Mr. Musso further explained that at the time the pro-
perty was rezoned there was a plot plan for a one-story building
CM-26-360
June 4, 1973
(Variance - Murrieta
and Holmes Street)
with twenty parking spaces and a case was made by the applicant
that the plan was less than would be allowed if the property were
developed in multiple use. This was the main reason the Planning
Commission consented to the rezoning. The variances now requested
would allow a more intense use and it was felt that it violated the
intent of the Commission. On that basis and the fact that there
were no unusual circumstances, the planning Commission denied the
variance. The intent of the restrictions in the CP zone is to make
it compatible to single family residential.
The Council discussed the height of the various buildings in the
area, and Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council adopt the
staff recommendation and permit the appeal; motion was seconded
by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman pritchard stated his feeling to be that the reasoning
regarding the setbacks is valid, and although he could understand
the restrictions in the CP, he felt these offices would be com-
patible to many of the other buildings in the area.
Councilman Taylor remarked the only reason this property was zoned
CP is because that is the zone that existed on the other side of
the street and is the most restrictive zone to allow that kind of
building. He generally agreed with the comments made by the Plan-
ing Director, but was disturbed in that the Commission rezoned the
property on the basis of one plan, which is not the plan of the
present owners, and they might have made a different decision had
they had a different plan, however he felt that the present plans
looked fine.
Councilman Futch commented that on this particular site the two-~
~ory building would not be obj ectionable; however, t-~y-- arc 1001. ."-
thn ~-~t that on future applications this might be true and from
~~ that standpoint he felt this would tend to undermine the ordinance
Dr~ and would set a precedent, and for this reason he would not favor
the variance. .
Mark Eaton, one of the owner applicants, stated this was actually
an appeal from denial of a request for a two-story building as the
request for the other variances were not met by the Commission as
they felt a denial of the variance on the two-story building negated
any decision as far as the other variances were concerned. He
stated one of the reasons for the request was that they needed as
much parking space as possible. He explained that the previous
plan was presented by the previous owner inasmuch as they purchased
the property after it had been rezoned. The architect for their
plans felt that a one-story building would be dwarfed by the four-
story apartment building. The building as planned would be almost
the same height as the existing barn and only about one foot higher
than Dr. Sweedler's building. Mr. Eaton further stated that he had
instructed the architect to plan as nice a building as possible
within their economics, adding that they have elaborate plans for
the landscaping. Regarding the setback on Holmes from 30 to 19 feet,
Mr. Eaton pointed out that the 19 feet is from a 10 ft. sidewalk
whereas the adjacent duplexes have a 15 ft. setback from a 5 ft.
sidewalk which would certainly be compatible. He also explained
the parking pattern which would be used, and they would be willing
to put in a 10foot landscaped setback. Mr. Eaton reiterated
that they had not requested the former owner to present any plans
which may have been misleading to the Planning Commission, and had
hoped that the building would be judged on its merit rather than
being something different than had been shown to them before, but
vs. the one story building shown by Mr. Walker which covered 26%
this building covers only l7~% of the lot and landscaping covers
more than 24% of the lot.
CM-26-36l
June 4, 1973
(Appeal re Variance
Murriete and Holmes)
Mayor Miller agreed that the landscaping and design are very good
and the idea of having more than adequate parking is commendable.
He felt it was quite reasonable for the Planning Commission to
act on the basis of the 2-story because the ordinance allows only
I-story. What is being asked for is an intensive use. While it is
the intent of the owners to build a well designed building, he
would have to agree with Councilman Futch that it is not justified.
Councilman Taylor asked if the concern for setting a precedent
would be warranted on the basis of the special conditions exist-
ing, there are no single family homes abutting the use and the
setbacks are compatible with adjacent property, therefore com-
plying with the intent of the CP zoning.
Mr. Musso stated at the time of the rezoning hearing he pointed
out that he did not think the property could be properly developed
as commercial - variances would be required. There is a precedent
in the commercial use, and you will find that the property owners
come in after the commercial is there. Once you have granted the
zoning, he felt the situation is set up so a variance is justified
as it is a narrow lot and granting the variance for a 2-story build-
ing would probably result in a better development. Circumstances
do exist where it would not be considered a precedent.
Councilman Beebe stated that to allow more development of land-
scaping would be obvious if they granted the variance to allow
the 2-story building.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and passed 3-2 with
Councilman Futch and Mayor Miller dissenting.
APPEAL RE CUP AND VARIANCE
MOCHO AND HOLMES STREETS
(Howard E. Johnson)
An application had been made for a CUP to permit construction of
a residential townhouse development in RS-5 (Residential) and RG-16
(Suburban Multiple Residential) Districts and for a variance to
permit transfer of density from an RG-16 Zone to an RS-5 Zone on
a site located westerly of Holmes Street between Arroyo Mocho and
Mocho Street. The Planning Director explained that Planning Com-
mission approved the Variance and it was appealed by a citizen,
namely, Thomas Schaffer of 1173 Mocho Street. Mr. Musso further
stated that the application is a renewal of one approved in 1970
or 1971 to allow a clustering of what would otherwise be allowed
on the property at the corner of Mocho and Holmes Street. There
is an apartment on the corner and single family house adjacent to
it to create the area zoned multiple residential and to the rear is
the frontage on Mocho zoned RS-5. Primarily, at the urging of the
Council, staff and Planning Commission, the applicant came in with
a cluster type development where all of the allowed units were
placed in a cluster rather than the normal subdivision procedure.
There was no increase in the number of units allowed that would
not be allowed by the present zoning. There is no real increase
in the traffic that might be generated on Mocho Street with a
single family residential. The Planning Commission discussed the
question of height limit and granted there will be some 2-story
units, however if it were developed as single family, there might
also be 2-story units. The Planning Commission added the condition
that within 100 feet of the street that there would be no 2-story
unit. The Planning Commission pointed out there would be more open
space and the Commission continued the matter to allow the applicants
to meet with the property owners; however at the end of the discussion
the property owners were still opposed to the application. However
the Planning Commission granted the CUP and a variance which is now
being appealed.
CM-26-362
June 4, 1973
(Howard Johnson Appeal)
Councilman Taylor commented that his understanding is that the main
objection is for multiples in that area and that the original request
was for RG which would be much higher than the RS-5, for which it
is presently zoned. He stated that there is no request for increase
in density and the reason the land was zoned RS was for the cluster-
ing of housing and more open space, rather than the standard type of
subdivision use.
Tom Schaffer read a petition signed by the residents of the area
objecting to the application which stated that the 29 unit 2-
story complex would generate more traffic on Mocho and onto Holmes
Street, would create parking problems on Mocho, be incompatible with
the existing dwellings in the area, obstruct the view of the single
family units and that they would possibly realize devaluation of
their property. He questioned as to whether there was really a
need for a condominium type of complex in Livermore, pointing out
that those in existance stand vacant, and almost all of the apart-
ments in town have vacancies also. He stated that he would like to
suggest an alternative such as a park or single family dwellings
comparable to those already in the area.
Councilman Futch stated that he cannot understand Mr. Schaffer's
concern for more traffic being generated if the variance is allowed,
as the density will remain the same.
Mr. Schaffer felt that there is not enough frontage to accomodate
15 houses and that a cul-de-sac would have to be added if the
present zoning remains and not allowing the variance, but if the
variance is allowed the additional frontage of a cul-de-sac would
not be provided.
Mr. Musso explained that all parking would be off-street for the
development with two driveways, but if single family dwellings are
developed, there will be 4-5 facing Mocho Street with 4-5 driveways.
In answer to a question posed by Councilman Futch he stated that
there would be a driveway from the development onto Holmes Street
and that he believes they would be able to turn right, only.
Councilman Futch stated that if this is the case, a large amount
of the traffic will go out to Holmes Street and will not be a
generation of more traffic on Mocho Street.
Mayor Miller commented that if the Council chooses to do so, they
could require that the complex be placed 300 ft. from the street,
if this would better the situation.
Councilman Taylor stated that he feels that the density allowed
would possibly result in small low cost housing as compared to
the proposed townhouse development.
Councilman Beebe noted that all of the houses could be 2-story
and 20 ft. back from the sidewalk - the Council has no authority
over the type of house built, and permits cannot be denied on the
basis of design if it meets all the conditions.
Jack Robson, 1059 Mocho Street, stated that Mr. Turner had commented
during a Planning Commission meeting that he has to look at the
2-story apartments recently built on East Avenue every morning and
apparently gets tired of this view, Mr. Robson felt that he and his
neighbors do not want to look at a 2-story townhouse complex either
and felt that the 2-story complex would not be compatible with the
present surroundings. With regard to the open space mentioned,
the residents are not able to view any of this open space, as it is
all on the inside of the development - they would view backing lots
or walls, or backs of buildings.
CM-26-363
June 4, 1973
(Howard Johnson
Variance - Continued)
Mr. Robson continued to state that it is his understanding that
traffic can only enter from Holmes Street and that they will not
be able to exit to Holmes Street which will put all of the exit
traffic onto Mocho Street.
In response to this comment, Mr. Lee explained that it would be
preferable if cars would not exit onto Holmes Street, as this
portion is very narrow, it is close to the bridge where the street
turns, and also close to the intersection of Mocho and Holmes. It
would be better if all the traffic would make an exit onto Mocho
Street, where provisions will be made for merging lanes and left
turn lanes. He would go so far as to say that it would even be
better if cars were not allowed to go into the complex turning
right off of Holmes Street, as well.
Mrs. Schaffer, 1173 Mocho Street, stated that she is very upset
to think that she may be viewing the back side of a 2-story
complex where people may hang rags and mops. She stated that
she stood on her front porch and saw 15 cars going to Holmes
Street in the middle of the afternoon from 2:15 to 2:20 which
did not include the number of cars coming onto Mocho Street from
Holmes Street, pointing out that the traffic situation on that
street is already very bad.
Keith Fraser, Attorney for the applicant, stated that they are
willing to go along with the recommendation made by Mr. Musso,
that 29 units be allowed with a 100 ft. setback. He explained
that originally, back in 1969-71 they had tried to get a density
of 50 units and agreed to come down to 29 units. Many of the
residents did not own the homes at that time and admitted that
they did not check on the zoning at the time they purchased their
homes which would have indicated that 29 units would be allowed.
Mayor Miller summarized the situation in that the applicant wishes
to develop the 29 units and the question remains as to the layout
of the units. The residents are concerned with the traffic which
may be generated, 2-story units being built very close to them, and
possibly looking at parking lots.
Mr. Musso commented that the main problem with the apartments
built on East Avenue that Commissioner Turner spoke of, was the
rear yard treatment and that the design was poor.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that this particular area is com-
pletely devoid of parks and suggested that if the land is for
sale it be purchased for this purpose. He felt that if they
are paying 199 on their tax rate every year for parks, they are
entitled to receive one.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council meet with the property
owner to inquire as to whether or not it is for sale, and if
so, to be purchased for park purposes. However, the motion died
for lack of a second.
Councilman Taylor mentioned that the City has a fixed amount of
money for park land and the City can purchase land for a park in
this area or someplace else. This would not mean that more park
land will be available for the public, but perhaps it is worth
exploring and the Recreation Department might be asked if they
would consider that area as a park.
Mr. Fraser commented that he feels they have appeared on the matter
enough and would not agree to an extension, but the Council can
put it off if they decide to. They would urge that the Council
reach a decision at this time.
Councilman Futch felt the most reasonable thing to do would be to
make a decision at this time and then negotiate with the owner for
park land later.
CM-26-364
June 4, 1973
(Howard Johnson Var.)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like the residents who
are opposed to the variance to understand that if the matter is
continued to grant what is presently allowed, they would not
necessarily be any better off than if the variance is allowed. If
the property owner is forced to put in single family lots, they could
possibly be of 2-story design anyway and in his opinion there is no
way in which the Council may be of help to them. It may not even be
in their best interest to act in their favor, in this case.
Councilman Pritchard then moved to uphold the recommendation of the
staff and Planning Commission to deny the appeal.
Mayor Miller stated that there is no way of getting around 29 units
and would move to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations
subject to a few amendments, as follows:
1. It be single story, 200 ft. back from Mocho Street.
2. Parking lot be set back from Mocho Street.
3. There be a school connection fee imposed as a condition of the
CUP.
4. That park dedication be imposed as a condition of the CUP.
The Council then discussed the above listed conditions, such as
the setback of the parking lot to possibly 100 ft.
Councilman Taylor felt that to set a figure for setback off the
top of their heads without any input from the Planning Commission,
or investigation is arbitrary and unjust, and that there should be
some way of determining how far a 2-story unit should be set back
to protect the rights of the residents on Mocho Street.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Futch and Councilman Taylor felt it would be reasonable
from the standpoint of the residents to ask that 35 ft. in the front
be landscaped and that the 2-story structures not be allowed in the
first 100 ft. of the property.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation that the 2-story units must be 100 ft. back and that
the Council further require 35 ft. of landscaping in the front.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Mayor Miller moved to amend the motion to add design review as a
condition of the CUP, to add park dedication and school connnection
fees, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Beebe explained that he will vote against the amendment
as well as the main motion due to the fact that he would like to
see the park suggestion explored first.
The amendment to the motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissent-
ing.
At this time the Council voted on the main motion which failed by
a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, and Mayor Miller dissent-
ing.
Councilman Pritchard restated his motion to accept the staff and
P.C. recommendation, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Futch moved to amend the motion to accept the former
recommendation to require 35 ft. of landSCaping. in front and 100 ~A~
ft. setback for any 2story structure,~~~,~
The amendment passed by a ~l vote wi~l~a~ di~senting.
CM-26-365
June 4, 1973
(Howard Johnson Var.)
The main motion passed 3-2 with' Councilman Beebe and Mayor Miller
dissenting.
Mr. Fraser commented that he and his client would be willing to
discuss sale of the property to the City for park purposes if
the City would be interested in obtaining the property, as men-
tioned during the discussion earlier.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - May 15 & 22
The Planning Commission minutes for the meetings of May 15th and
22nd were noted for filing.
HEARING DATE FOR
Z.O. AMENDMENTS
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the hearing regarding
Zoning Ordinance amendments (various sections pertaining to
signs) was scheduled for June 25th.
REPORT RE NORTHFRONT
ROAD ANNEXATION
The City Manager reported that LAFCO is not favorably inclined
to the proposed annexation since too great an area remains un-
incorporated, but served by sewer and water utilities. Therefore
it may be necessary to resubmit an annexation proposal which will
expand the area to all properties except those inhabited.
Before doing this the principal applicant would like to know
whether or not the Council will authorize these property connec-
tions to the sanitary sewer thereby detracting from existing
sewage treatment capacity. It is recommended that the Council
authorize a redesign of the subject annexation.
Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the recommendation of the
City Manager, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mr. William Busick stated he did not understand the boundary
lines of the proposed annexation as he felt the idea was to
exclude the property owners along Northfront Road. He pointed
out that the line should come behind the small houses on Pleasant
Way.
Mr. Parness stated that if LAFCO would agree to the general con-
figuration, the line can be extended.
Councilman Pritchard stated he would change his motion to include
the property to the rear property line of the houses on Pleasant
Way, and Mr. Parness reminded him as long as it did not violate the
inhabited annexation to which he agreed, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and the motion passed unanimously.
REPORT RE UNIFORM RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The City Manager reported that in conjunction with our proposed
railroad relocation project, state statute directs the staff to
CM-26-366
June 4, 1973
(Uniform Relocation
Assistance Program)
implement the relocation assistance program in accordance with
the statutes, all of which will be technically processed for us by
our appraisal-relocation consultant firm.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-73
RESOLUTION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 533
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
REPORT RE CITY/COUNTY
ARROYO ROAD ENG. STUDY
The City Manager reported that a contract has been proposed as a
joint venture between the City and Alameda County for a compre-
hensive engineering alignment and design study for Arroyo Road,
extending from College Avenue to the Del Valle Dam. This project
is estimated to cost in excess of $64,000 and two-thirds will be
borne by the County. It is recommended that a resolution be adopt-
ed authorizing execution of this agreement.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch,
and by unanimous vote, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 80-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(County of Alameda)
REPORT RE INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 813
The City Manager reported that the present ordinance, adopted by
a provision in state statute, held all property in the City,
with a few exceptions, to existing zoning categories. The dura-
tion of the law was for four months and an extension is allowable
up to one year, however this extension requires the conduct of a
public hearing. The four months duration will expire on July 17,
therefore the requisite public hearing must be held prior to that
date and it is recommended a motion be adopted setting the date.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous approval, the public hearing was set for June 25.
MEDEIROS PARKWAY
CONSTRUCTION DESIGN
The Public Works Director explained that the engineer and landscape
architect have completed the conceptual drawings for the parkway
design between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street. The developer has
done this in accordance with his agreement with the City relative
to the new Murrieta Blvd. apartment development. Mr. Lee presented
two drawings, one which depicted the features of the storm drain-
age facilities and also showed some of the land that will be deeded
away in accordance with the subdivision agreement. It also shows
additional lands which are to be acquired to round out the Arroyo
Parkway design and he explained more in detail which lands these
were, pointing out one was to give adequ?te width of the channel
in that area and to accommodate the bike path. The other design
was an architectural type rendering, showing the storm flow
channel during heavy flows and the local channel. One of the
CM-26-367
-'-----.".-~-----,~-~--.,---",,--~,-.~-.--_.____.._"_..".,.,...__.._ .". " __..__m___,______.~._".____."...,."',,__..,_._._,,_.
June 4, 1973
(Medeiros Parkway)
features are the mounds to break up the straight lines of the
railroad grade. There is a minimum amount of earthwork in the
area; much is being left as is with no interference to the trees.
They follow the concepts of the arroyo parkway study that was
adopted by the Council. The features which are incorporated are
the bikeways which will be on the north side of the channel and
would follow the generated typography; also there is the equestrian
and'hiki.ng trail'oni:he-south side of the channel. Mr. Lee fur-
ther stated that this plan has been presented to LARPD, who have
met with the City staff as well as the Zone 7 staff. LARPD has
approved the concept, recommended to the Council that approxi-
mately two and a quarter acres be acquired. Zone 7 is in the
process of reviewing the channel design. One of the requirements
of the agreement with th~ developer is that he prepare a record
of survey on the area which is a difficult task because none of
the deeds in that area conform with one another. He has worked
on this for some time and it has been submitted to the County
and is in the process of review which should be completed shortly.
It is his understanding that the developer intends to call for
bids on this work in the near future. The recommendation is that
the Council approve the concept.
Mayor Miller stated it would be of some merit to send it to the
Planning Commission for their review and then have it come back
to the Council for final decision.
Councilman Taylor asked what the developer's obligation is to the
City, and Mr. Parness replied that he felt this point should be
made clear, stating that the agreement with the developer speci-
fies that the particular engineering and architectural landscape
work was to have been done some six months after execution of
the agreement and the actual work accomplished nine months after
and the agreement was executed in April 1972, so the development
is in arrears. Mr. Parness asked the Council what course they
wished the staff to follow with regard to the developer's allow-
ance for the continuance of his land development which is almost
finished and ready for marketing. The developer is very anxious
to do this and he has been told that the staff would not recom-
mend that this be allowed until his contractual obligations are
satisfied.
Councilman Taylor stated they should be sure they have an accept-
able plan, the contract let and construction assured.
Mr. Parness asked if the Council wished to have approval of the
acceptance of the units, and occupancy permits withheld until the
full contracutal commitments are satisfied.
Mayor Miller stated as far as he was concerned he would insist
on that and particularly that the record of survey be available
and that all the contractual obligations be fulfilled, and Mr.
Parness agreed that this was appropriate.
The Public Works Director was asked what time scale might be in-
volved, and Mr. Lee stated that there are a lot of little details
involved, which will take some time; he must make an agreement
with Zone 7 for some reimbursement on the channel work he is doing.
He felt actual construction could be completed within a month
after the bid is awarded.
Don Bissell, civil engineer, stated the plans are in order and are
being reviewed by the Flood Control District, but they anticipate
some delays because of entering into agreements with Zone 7, and
ultimately the Board of Supervisors, for final agreement for re-
imbursement of the construction. In addition, there will need to
be an agreement with Zone 7 and the City of Livermore for the main-
tenance of the area. In order to complete these agreements they
anticipate it will be 45 - 60 days before construction can commence.
He pointed out the developer is bonded for completing the work,
and respectfully requested consideration by the Council for
CM-26-368
June 4, 1973
(Medeiros Parkway)
occupancy of a portion of the units - suggesting 50-65%, and retain
the remainder until the work is bonded by a contractor for the
completion of the actual construction.
Councilman Pritchard moved withholding of the occupancy permits
until the work is all completed, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Councilman Futch stated he might have agreed to some reasonable
fraction being occupied at a later time after he thought about it
but not tonight.
Councilman Taylor stated he felt much the same, and the staff has
recommended essentially the same as the motion states.
The motion was voted on and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe
dissenting.
Councilman Taylor moved that the staff acquire the area necessary
to round off the plan, seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed
unanimously.
Councilman Futch moved that the design be referred to the Planning
Commission and request that it be returned to the Council at the
earliest possible time. Motion was seconded by Mayor Miller and
approved unanimously.
George Perkins, 1543 College Avenue, he could not understand why
the Council would require anyone to secure a bond and then also
put another stipulation upon him.
Mayor Miller replied that they have found performance bonds to be
meaningless as it takes two years in court to get them paid off
at which point the price of everything is increased.
Mr. Perkins suggested that they just forego the bond requirement,
and Mayor Miller commented he had suggested that cash bonds be
required.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RE FORTUNE
TELLING, ETC.
A motion was made by Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to introduce the ordinance amendment relating to fortune
telling and related practices, and to wave the first reading (title
read only), and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE-
LATINGTO'LICENSES
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
unanimous vote, the ordinance relating to licenses was introduced
and read by title only.
REPORT RE J STREET
PARKING BETWEEN
2nd & 3rd STREETS
The item on the Consent Calendar regarding parking between Second
and Third Streets was removed for discussion but due to the length
of this meeting the Council asked that it be placed on the agenda
for discussion at the next meeting.
CM-26-369
June 4, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Re Condemnation
Proceedings)
At the request of the City Manager, the Council adopted a resolution
authorizing condemnation proceedings for street improvements along
portola Avenue (Sunset Tract 3321), on motion of Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Futch and by a unanimous vote of the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE
ESTATE FOR PUBLIC STREET AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS AND RELATED PURPOSES
OF A STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT TO PORTOLA AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
Mayor adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. to a brief executive
session for discussion of a Planning Commission appointment.
APPROVE
Dc~ ~ .11~~Q~~
Mayor
ATTES
City Clerk
Livermore, California
A Regular Meeting of June 11, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 11, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Futch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
Councilmen Beebe and Taylor (Seated later)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
an by a unanimous vote, the minutes for the Meeting of June 4,
1973, were approved, as corrected.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE SEATED DURING CORRECTION OF MINUTES
CH-26-370
June 11, 1973
CONSENT CALENDAR
Beautification Committee
Minutes for May 2, 1973
The minutes for the Beautification Committee's meeting of f1ay 2, 1973,
were noted for filing.
Res. Appointing Member
to Planning Commission
The Council adopted a resolution appointing Candace Simonen to the
Planning Commission which had been vacated by Commissioner Millard's
resignation.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(Candace Simonen)
Payroll & Claims
There were 168 claims in the amount of $717,542.02 and 260 payroll
warrants dated June 8, 1973, in the amount of $65,698.86 for a total
of $783,240.88.
Councilman Beebe stated that prior to a vote on the Consent Calendar
he would like to abstain from Warrant Number 6353 for his usual
reasons.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote of approval, the Consent Calendar was approved.
The matter of "J" Street parking had been continued from the meeting
of June 4th in order to obtain a report from the Public Works Director.
He reported that the Emporer's Garden Restaurant and other commercial
development in the area has increased traffic on that street and the
need for beter utilization of the street and recommends that the City
change from diagonal parking to parallel, as cars leaving diagonal
stalls must back across the centerline which impedes traffic in both
directions.
Report re "J" St. Parking
A petition signed by 19 occupants of the area representing the
business located in the vicinity object to the plan to change from
diagonal to parallel parking, which will eliminate 9 parking stalls,
was read by Mr. Neil Moore, one of the owners.
Mr. Lee presented the Council with four exhibits of alternate plans
for providing parking spaces and the reason parallel parking is
recommended from a safety standpoint.
CM-26-37l
June II, 1973
("J" street Parking)
Neil Moore, owner of Northland Stores, 2222 Second Street, stated
that he circulated the petition, as parking is vital to the mer-
chants of the area and would hate to loose even one parking space.
If parallel parking is allowed it would result in a loss of 9 park-
ing spaces within walking distance of a number of shops and they
feel they need as many parking spaces as possible to maintain an
adequate volume of business. They feel the safety must be con-
sidered, but unless there are statistics indicating that parallel
parking is necessary from a safety standpoint, they protest the
recommendation for any change which would reduce the amount of
parking spaces.
Councilman Beebe felt Exhibit "C" which would allow 26 parking
spaces appears to be reasonable and would like to see sufficient
parkingg provided.
Mayor Miller also agreed that parking is rather scarce in the area
and would like to keep the diagonal parking.
Mr. Lee indicated that there was a mix-up on the letters of the
exhibits and what the Council has stated they prefer is actually
Exhibit C with 26 parking spaces whic does not correspond with
the memorandum, and asked that they ignore the memo and look at
the exhibits.
Councilman Beebe moved to approve Exhibit B, with 21 parking
spaces, diagonally, seconded by Councilman Futch, and passed by
a unanimous vote.
Communication from
Jaycees re Air Show
Mayor Miller acknowledged a letter of appreciation received from
the Livermore Jaycees, expressing their appreciation for the
City's cooperation in the recent air show presented by them.
Communication re
AB 123 re Assessments
A letter has been received from the City of Oakland asking that
the City endorse Assembly Bill 123 which would require the County
Assessor to furnish an estimate not later than May 15th of the
assessed valuation of property within such local taxing jurisdic-
tion for the succeeding fiscal year, if so requested on or before
February 20th of a given year.
Councilman Beebe moved to support AB 123 , seconded by Councilman
pritchard and passed by a unanimous vote.
communication re
CR 43 - sister
City Programs
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly sent a copy of CR 43, relative to
the Sister City Program, for the City's information and stated
that he would encourage California cities to support and partici-
pate in the program which has been adopted by the California
Legislature.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council adopt a resolution support-
ing CR 43 and send the resolution on to the Chief Clerk of the
Assembly.
CM-26-372
June 11, 1973
(Resolution re CR 43)
RESOLUTION NO. 83-73
A RESOLUTION IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE CONCURRING IN THE STATE
ASSEMBLY'S ENDORSEMENT OF THE SISTER CITY PROGRAM
RE SISTER CITY VISIT
Councilman Pritchard stated that while the Council is on the subject
of the Sister City Program, he would like to nominate Councilman Futch
to represent the City during the Sister City visitation, and so moved.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
There was no vote taken on the motion, as Councilman Futch stated that
he would have to check his schedule prior to making any commitments.
REPORT RE JR. COLLEGE
SEWER CONNECTION FEE
The City Manager reported that a clarification is needed as to the
intent of the Council to waive sewer connection fees for the improve-
ments at the Junior College campus site. Our records indicate that
this has been heretofore stated and recommended that the Council adopt
a motion approving waiver of fees for this installation.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
a unanimous vote of the Council, the recommendation to waive fees
was adopted.
Prior to the vote, Mayor Miller questioned whether or not it is in
the power of the Council to waive the fees, and Mr. Parness stated
that traditionally this fee is waived and they are charged a token
fee.
RESOLUTION RE BUSI-
NESS LICENSE FEE
The staff reported that an annual fee is assessed against commercial
establishments along First Street between South L and South Livermore
for the expense in leasing off-street parking lot off of First Street.
Due to the accumulation of some funds and contributions from the County
for this facility it is possible to adjust the surcharge for a slight
reduction and it is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution
reflecting this change.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-73
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EFFECT REDUCTION IN
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX SURCHARGE FOR PARKING
AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
REPORT RE ZONE 7 ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT -
PROJECT 2
Discussion on this matter was postponed until the arrival of Coun-
cilman Taylor since it had been continued from the previous week,
to allow everyone to examine the Environmental Impact Report, and
Mayor Miller asked for comments at this time.
CM-26-373
June 11, 1973
(Zone 7 EIR Discussion)
Councilman Futch stated he had made some comments last week and
the major points discussed had to do with the effects of the
project on growth and consequently the effects on air pollution
in the VAlley. An EIR is supposed to evaluate the effect of that
growth in the Valley and he felt this point had been treated
rather lightly and should be done with more thoroughness. The
data referred to the entire Bay Area whereas we are concerned with
air pollution in the Valley as a result of this project. He added
that when planning for facilities, all facilities should be
planned at the same scale, i.e. sewer and water capacity should
grow at the same rate over a period of years. They all agree that
the goal of the Council is to require fees be such as to pay for
these new facilities as they come along, and even the federal
government is requiring that sewer connection fees be adjusted
for future growth. He felt a motion would be in order that the
size of Project 2 should be adjusted such that new development
fees are sufficient to cover the project without requiring additional
increase of cost of water to the present residents. He felt this
growth should be consistent with whatever is dictated as to limitations,
whether this is determined by the Regional Water Control Board,
EPA, or whoever. All the facilities should be planned at the same
rate as the growth and fees adjusted to pay for these facilities,
and so moved.
This motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, as he stated
that he basically agrees with this concept.
Councilman Beebe felt the Council should support Project 2,
provided that there is reasonable assurance there will be a
payoff.
Councilman Taylor stated that unless there is an assurance of
~~~~n~ wMibuy it.
Mr. Mar spoke to the coJ~ concerning the concept of project 2
as it relates to growth and the connection fees which will help
finance the project. He stated that if growth were to stop, the
rates for water might have to be raised approximately $3 a month
to finance completion of the project; however, this is not antici-
pated.
Mayor Miller pointed out that the chairman of Zone 7 had stated
that the facility would not be overbuilt - there would not be an
increase in the water rates to pay for any construction costs and
that if growth stops and it is evident the necessary connection
fees will not be realized they would not sell the bonds.
Councilman Futch commented that he would like to restate his
motion more concisely; that Project 2 should be adjusted in size
if necessary, so that it can be financed entirely by new develop-
ment fees consistent with growth rates dictated by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and EPA, and was seconded by Council-
man Pritchard.
Mayor Miller wondered how the Council would feel if there is a
ban on development in other cities, should the project be built
for 200,000 people.
Councilman Pritchard felt that this would not be inconsistent, as
cities will permit growth as long as problems are solved.
CM-26-374
June 11, 1973
(Zone 7 Discussion)
Mayor Miller stated that he would urge that the Council consider
the possibility that local jurisdictions may someday take the
responsibility for doing something about air quality.
Councilman Beebe stated that the people voted for Project 2 because
of the statement made that they would realize a better quality of
water and he wondered if portions of the project could be completed
and accomplish this without selling all of the bonds.
Mr. Mar explained that in addition to wanting a better quality of
water, the people also want the additional source of water to allow
a more reliable system. If there is more water than the immediate
need, this is a safety factor and reflected in terms of growth.
He felt this is not just a growth issue and would like to be guided
by what the City is going to be planning in the way of growth within
the areas under its jurisdiction. With regard to the air quality,
the data provided in their EIR is the best data they could obtain from
the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District and the Air Resourses
Board and it has been noted recently that the new administrator of
EPA has indicated that the nitrogen dioxide from the outside may not
be as harmful as previously indicated and there may be a change in
standards which may be recommended to Congress this coming September.
He felt it is hard to be more specific or detailed, particularly when
people involved in the business of air pollution keep changing their
minds as to what might or might not be critical. It appears that the
oxident level in the valley has been going down at the same time more
people are coming in.
Mayor Miller felt Zone 7's reading of the air quality with regard to
what the Air Pollution Control District has said, is very shallow, in
that the reason the air quality has improved is due to the fact that
the weather conditions have been favorable in this respect and is a
factor which cannot be guaranteed.
Councilman Taylor suggested the Council vote on the motion before
getting into discussions over the air pollution situation, and
Mayor Miller stated that the air pollution has a bearing on what
the Council intends to make as a recommendation. However, Council-
man Futch felt the motion could be voted upon and another motion
made with regard to air pollution, if need be, even though it is
in some respect related to the motion.
Mayor Miller stated that the financing being paid out of fees
has been raised in different ways. 1) the way this is paid for is
growth rate at a minimum of 1,000 permits per year and the whole
outlook of the EIR is based on old projections. These projections
have changed as a result of sewer bans being imposed, which allows
only something like 300 building permits per year, and this amount
will not pay for Project 2. The EIR does not take this into account
and it is conceivable that no project should be considered more
seriously, in view of the limited number of permits which will be
allowed, and the motion does not speak to this. 2) He felt a stronger
statement should be made about the economics as the voters were promised
that they would get better water and not have a rate increase. Noth-
ing has been said about this at all in the EIR, and he feels there
should be something said in the motion to remind them of this. Also,
there has been nothing laid out stating that they actually intend
to cap all of the hard water wells and not use them again; an option
was pointed out that the wells could be capped, and when more people
move in, these wells could be used for their water supply. These
people will be paying the water connection fees and receive poor
water. He felt promises of good water and water rate increases are
not compatible and suggested something should also be mentioned in
the motion about this.
CM-26-375
June 11, 1973
(Zone 7 Discussion)
Mayor Miller suggested that there be another line in the motion which
would say that whatever Zone 7 does, must be compatible with their
promises for not using poor quality water and that there will not
be an increase in water rates, which he offered as an amendment to
the motion, but what Councilman Futch decided to add to his motion.
)Councilman Futch suggested a simple statement indicating that based
on comments made by the Chairman of Zone 7, the Council endorsed
Project 2 assuming that the development would be financed by new
development fees, and not by an increase in water rates, which he
added to his motion.
Councilman Pritchard felt something should also be said about not
using poor quality water, which they could interpret as not being
able to use old wells; however, Councilman Futch felt the motion
was getting complicated and prefered that this not be included
in the motion.
The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, stated that he has read the report and
is not clear on the matter but feels that Zone 7 can raise the
rates of the water users without the consent of the users. He
suggested that the Council look into this possibility, as the
people did not vote for a rate increase for the facilities.
Mayor Miller explained that Zone 7 does not have the right to in-
crease until 1975, but they can be raised in 1975 and in his opinion
there is very little that can be done about it.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would agree that the treatment of
the air quality does not show the whole story and would suggest
that there be a word of caution in the report with regard to
meterological changes changing the air quality position from year
to year. Also, there should be some mention of the control strategy,
and so moved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Futch suggested that the Council push for more data
from the BAAPCD with regard to air pollution such as the study
which was done in Marin County.
Mayor Miller stated that he would agree with the motion made by
Councilman Taylor but that ~it should be taken into account, when
considering the alternatives, that the picture for this valley
as projected, is not as rosy as the rest of the Bay Area.
Mayor Miller stated that there are some reports done by the City's
Smog Committee in which there is discussion with regard to the
differences in the Bay Area and the Livermore Valley which he felt
might be of aid in helping Zone 7 understand what the BAAPCD says
and with regard to their strategy. He asked that Mr. Mar be sent
a copy of the original report as well as the updates to the report.
Anthony Thompson, 5318 Lillian Court, would like the Council to
suggest that Zone 7 does not know what the air quality will be and
that a lot of cautionary statements will have to be inserted.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
CM-26-376
June II, 1973
CO}ll1UNICATION FROM
STEERING COMMITTEE RE
GENERAL PLAN GOALS
A report was submitted to the Council by the Steering Committee with
regard to General Plan Goals, in which they have requested $16,000
for a survey to be done by a professional firm to be conducted in
conjunction with the study of General Plan goals. They feel this would
be the most effective means available and it is suggested that the
process be considered part of the expense of a new General Plan.
Helen Tirsell, Chairman of the Committee, 727 Catalina Drive, stated
that she would like to answer any questions the Council might have
with regard to the report on the survey.
Councilman Futch questioned if the committee had seen any examples
of such a survey as he was concerned about what would be bought for
this amount of money, and Mrs. Tirsell explained that each survey
is individually constructed and part of the fee is for their time
spent in deciding exactly what is to be accomplished by the survey
and to get reliable statistical results. The Committee has been told
that this was a unique process which was being used, and so it could
not be compared with any other report.
Councilman Taylor stated he was quite shocked at the cost of such a
survey, but if this is what is needed to make the difference between
a good and bad report, we will have to pay the cost. The reason for
proposing a professional survey is that it was a specific charge
that the Council gave the Committee. He felt the committee has done
a good job of looking into what must be done to make a survey. Coun-
cilman Taylor stated perhaps they were presumptuous in saying speci-
fically that a survey was needed and maybe they should simply appro-
priate a sum of money sufficient to conduct the surveyor whatever
else the Committeee might think is reasonable and suggested a lesser
sum such as $10,000 to cover costs of committee work and let them
decide how much of that should be used for such a survey. He would
like an expression of community opinion that was reliable, whether
professional or something else. Councilman Taylor moved that they
appropriate $10,000 to cover a survey and other expenses of the com-
mittee, for a budget and any substantial expenditures like a consul-
tant fee before it is committed be checked out through the staff.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Floyd Hibbitts, 5460 Evelyn Way, stated it had been mentioned that
what they are doing is unique, as most general plan studies have
been done by criteria set up by planners without consideration of
the people the plans are for. The committee is dealing with goals
in accordance with the charge~ven to them by the Council which
charges were to develop the goals of the people of Livermore, and by
doing so they are trying to permit the public to become involved in
the decision making process. This is one reason they have consulted
various firms in trying to figure the best method without putting
their own biases into the survey, and so they felt the cost to be
justified.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and passed unanimously.
Mayor Hiller, speaking for the Council stated they had confidence
that the Steering Committee as well as the other committees would
do exactly the right thing on reflection over all the alternatives.
REPORT RE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
There are public hearings scheduled by the Metropolitan Transportation
Committee on June 14 to consider testimony on the proposed plan.
The City Manager explained that there two parts of the plan that
CM-26-377
June II, 1973
(MTC Hearing)
would have direct effect on the Valley community - one the 1-580
freeway proposal which would be the extension from Castro Valley
to Dublin. This part of the MTC plan is rated in one of the higher
categories, and means they are recommending that it be funded for
construction. The project is for full freeway construction with
reservation of an interior 80 foot wide median to accommodate rail
rapid transit lines. The other is Route 84 which is not shown on
the MTC plan. Mr. Parness stated he would like to obtain the Coun-
cil's direction on these two matters so they can be reflected at
the public hearing.
In Councilman Futch's op1n1on, he could see no way the council could
recommend a major facility such as this without seeing the EIR and
the information necessary to judge. He stated that he agrees with
the suggestion for the Dublin-Canyon route for BART. He feels that
in time, much less emphasis will be placed on the use of the auto-
mobile and there will be a need for BART through the area, and that
it is necessary to see the EIR before making a deciion. Both EPA
and the County have indicated that additional information is needed.
Mr. Musso explained that there are two issues at hand: I) the MTC
study and 2) the preparation of an EIR, and that the MTC study is
recommending what the state is already doing.
Councilman Futch felt this could not be recommended until the EIR
has been reviewed and it is his understanding that the Council
is being asked to approve the plan which shows the corridors on a
map.
Councilman Pritchard stated that in the absence of an EIR, he would
move that the Council not recommend any improvements on the Dublin-
Canyon route except those improvements which would provide for mass
rapid transit, perhaps including lanes designated specifically for
buses or other vehicles that would carry large numbers of commuters.
Councilman Futch seconded the motion.
Councilman Pritchard stated that his motion is that in the absence
of an EIR the Council does not go on record of supporting anything
other than provisions for mass transit which would include rail or
bus traffic and could perhaps include a lane in each direction
specifically designated for buses.
Councilman Beebe indicated that this does not address itself to the
horrible situation the public will be subjected to in getting back
and forth through the conjested corridor, as it is now. If the other
members of the Council have never experienced the traffic situation
at 8:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m. they obviously are not aware of the deplor-
able situation that exists.
Councilman Taylor felt that the reason Councilman Pritchard opposes
expansion of the freeway is that Councilman Pritchard must suspect
that widening of the freeway will be the faucet for controlling growth
in Livermore, which is certainly a valid concern; however, in his
opinion, there is no clear line of reasoning that indicates this is
likely to be so. In his opinion, if the freeway is not widened, the
traffic situation will just become worse and worse, certainly not any
better. It is clear that traffic will be increased on 580 regardless
of what happens in the valley, and that traffic allover the country
is increasing continually. If we get rapid transit and a lot of
commuters use it, this will be fine; however, it will probably be
some time before the system is utilized by many commuters in the
valley and will not come anywhere near the number of commuters using
the freeway. He suggested that perhaps the Council would like to
CM-26-378
June 11, 1973
(MTC Study)
discourage use and rather than not to allow expansion at this time,
maybe one lane could be closed. He felt that growth in the valley
cannot be stopped by not expanding the freeway, and that the only
thing this does is cause a bottleneck.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he is really more concerned about
the air quality impact and was not addressing himself to the growth
impact. He felt the freeway is probably the most continual smog
producing element in our valley.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that surveys have indicated in traffic
congested areas, that the heaviest smog concentration along the freeway
is during times cars are backed up in heavy traffic, and automobile
engines are running at far less than maximum efficiency. The state
guidelines for air quality are set up to regulate a car running at
normal speed and not for cars which are stopped and idling, which
greatly exceeds the standards.
Councilman Futch stated that the new regulations will cause the air
pollution control equipment to stop working when the automobile exceeds
50 mph, and Councilman Taylor quipped that he would be very happy to
get through the traffic jam at 50 mph.
Councilman Futch felt that there has been a great deal of poor planning
in the country nearly entirely based on the exclusive use of the auto-
mobile and that there may be better ways of transporting people. He
felt that the problems in the Los Angeles area has resulted because of
the exclusive dependence on the automobile and that it is unfair to
state that this is strictly a growth issue.
Mayor Miller stated that he would have to agree with Councilman Futch
in that people are more likely to use BART or some type of rapid transit
if freeways are choked with traffic and the only way rapid transit will
be utilized and of value. He feels it is unwise to encourage the use
of automobiles by widening the freeways, and pointed out that this
has been done pver and over in the Los Angeles area Je.a..eL~ ~-<--><:-CL
~~ ~-:d.e- ~'!fZ:~~ -?L-~~~~~~
Councilman Taylor felt a more positive approach and consi~t~~
the way things are done in this country is to make a more attractive '
alternative. BART has provided a rapid transit system and their goal
was to make it so attractive that it become a drawing card. They
could have built an inexpensive system and then plan to meet with the
state to cancel freeway construction in the Bay Area. He feels it
would be more appropriate to raise the gas tax to provide for rapid
transit; however, this will not occur for some time and that it is
not right to make things tough for the motorist, but rather, offer
an attractive choice.
Councilman Futch stated that there is a problem built in with the
funds going directly to the Highway Department and no way of changing
the priority to BART, and the gas tax cannot finance the BART extension.
He then questioned what the cost of eight lanes of freeway would be
versus the BART extension, and the Mayor felt it would be at least
$10 million per mile and there are 10 miles over which it would have
to be extended.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is very obvious that BART will never
be extended to the valley without being subsidized, and until there
is sufficient growth to pay for the extension. We will get buses,
and possibly this is better than growth. Nobody has ever said that
BART will be extended to the valley. He added that the highway funds
come from people allover the state and they cannot be expected to
finance an improvement just for this valley; however, he would agree
that he would rather see funds spent for the extension of BART than
to widen the freeway.
CH-26-379
June II, 1973
(MTC Discussion)
Mayor Miller pointed out that BART is the better choice, and the state
has not yet widened the freeway and if it is allowed to be widened the
City is commiting itself, in advance, to a choice not prefered.
Councilman Taylor commented that the state has recognized a need for
BART and has agreed to put in a corridor for it when the freeway is
widened. Therefore, extension of BART will be delayed considerably if
the cost of the extension has to include acquiring and extending right-
of-way. He felt that opposing this project it will mean a delay in
getting BART to the valley; if the corridor is not provided for
as they have now proposed, acquisition of land will have to be made
at considerable delay and disruption.
Bob Olson, 369 Harding Avenue, urged the council to approve MTC's
Category I-580 for freeway construction, as he felt this is very
important to the people now in the valley. He feels that BART is
at least 10 years away which is a'long'time away and with the economy
of gasoline today, it is going to be more difficult for people to
commute and may cause people to leave the valley which will in turn
cause more economic problems. He pointed out that if the Council
is really interested in cleaning up the air, everything he has
read with regard to environmental studies of that corridor suggests
that there will be a 25-40% improvement if the cars get moving at
50 mph rather than the current 35 mph. BART is going to provide
buses for us, and at this time there is no room for a bus to move
and even if their bus service eliminates 600 cars, it will still
not be sufficient removal of traffic from the freeway to speed
up the traffic. The freeway is going to have to be widened to get
the buses moving at a reasonable speed. He felt it is necessary
to get the project going, as it will take 2-3 years of construction
to complete, and a delay will be of benefit to no one in the valley.
It will make it safer for people to travel, will alleviate the
congestion in the morning and evening and will be an impetus to
get BART to Livermore as well as not detracting in any way.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he agrees with the
comments made by Mr. Olson, since he often must travel back and
forth to the airport and the situation is worsening each day. If
the Council does not wish to back the eight lanes that they stripe
out the extra 4 lanes that exist between the City and the Altamont
pass, so the traffic can be penalized prior to the time it anticipates
its entrance and egress from the valley, would be his suggestion.
Anthony Thompson, 5138 Lillian Court, summarized his reasons for
supporting Councilman Pritchard's motion, in which he stated that
he grew up in the Los Angeles area and has seen the result of
what happens when freeways are widened. He stated that at first,
everyone is very happy, and then within a few years the freeway
is again congested. If it is made for people to use their cars
and travel, they will. He felt this might be a drawing card for
growth in Tracy, which will bring commuters through our valley and
adding to the pollution problems. He feels that a community made
up of people who work in it is more favorable than a commuter
stimulus community and would like to prevent Livermore from be-
coming such a community. Commuters have a divided allegiance to
the community, where people who live and work in a community are
more concerned with what happens in it. He also felt that the
cuts and adjustments to be made in widening for an eight lane
freeway through the Dublin Canyon area will be astronomical and
will destroy any scenic beauty that now exists, and widening of
the freeway would be a mistake.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed 3-2
with Councilmen Taylor and Beebe dissenting.
The City Manager reported that the MTC Plan completely disregards
the planned relocation of State Route 84 to its official designated
routing along Isabel Avenue. This freeway segment has been in the
City's plan for many years and repeated efforts have been made to
CM-26-380
June 11, 1973
(MTC Discussion)
the state to upgrade its construction status; however, it has not
qualified as a part of the federal interstate system. It is con-
sidered to be of significant importance to our City, not only as
a regional transit carrier, but also as an important intra-valley
route.
The Council discussed this route and its importance, and on motion
of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch the Council voted
unanimously to request the State Highway Commission to protect Route
84, (Isabel Freeway) as an adopted route.
REPORT RE VARIOUS
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
The City Manager generally outlined several measures which the Council
may wish to act upon, as follows:
SB 1320 - This measure would increase the motor vehicle in lieu
tax payments to cities.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the
Council voted unanimously to support the measure.
AB 1923 - Certain payments are made from the Aeronautics Account;
however, the City must match all monies. This bill would
remove the matching requirement for all cities owning an
airport.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
a unanimous vote, the Council agreed to support this measure.
AB 1367 - Would establish dollar maximum on land values for dedication
and in lieu fee payments for park and recreational purposes
under the Subdivision Map Act.
SB 981 - This measure would affect general law cities ability to
impose the new construction type tax.
SB 1243 - Regarding collective bargaining, binding arbitration. It
is recommended that the City oppose the bill at this time.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch, the
Council voted unanimously to oppose the above three measures.
REPORT FROM P.C. RE
OFF-TRACT DIRECTIONAL
SIGNS
Mayor Miller suggested that the matter of the off-tract signs and
the report from the Planning Commission's recommendation that there
be no change in the present policy allowing the directional signs to
be installed within the public right-of-way, provided they are main-
tained at their present size and limited in number to key intersec-
tions, be put over for discussion during the hearing scheduled in
two weeks.
There being no objection, the matter was postponed.
CM-26-38l
June II, 1973
REPORT FROM P.C.
RE EAST AVENUE TRAFFIC
The Planning Commission has indicated that they have received
numerous complaints with regard to the traffic problems and
speed along East Avenue which was discussed at their meeting
of June 15th. The Planning Director noted that the Council and
the Public Works Department are aware of the problems.
However, the Planning Commission felt the Council should
be made aware of their concern for the people to whom they
have spoken about the matter.
Mr. Parness explained that he has asked the police Department
to check into the matter and report back as soon as possible.
The matter was continued pending a report from the police
Department.
MUNI CODE AJiEND-
MENT RE LICENSES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the municipal code amendment related to
license tax was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 821
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12.17, RELATING TO LICENSE NON-
TRANSFERABLE: CHANGED LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP: 12.18, RELATING
TO DUPLICATE LICENSE: 12.25, RELATING TO LICENSE TAX - FLAT FEE:
12.25.1, RELATING TO LICENSE TAX, VENDING MACHINES: AND 12.27,
RELATING TO RULES AND REGULATIONS, ALL OF ARTICLE I, RELATING
TO LICENSES: GENERAL, OF CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO LICENSES, OF
THE LIVEID10RE CITY CODE, 1959.
MUNI CODE AMENDMENT
RE FORTUNE TELLING
AND RELATED PRACTICES
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor
and by a 4-1 vote (Councilman Beebe dissenting) the ordinance
regarding fortune telling and related practices was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 822
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14, RELATING TO OFFENSES -
MISCELLANEOUS, OF THE LIVEID10RE CITY CODE, 1959, BY THE
ADDITION THERETO OF SECTIONS 14.6.l, RELATING TO FORTUNE
TELLING AND RELATED PRACTICES: DEFINITIONS, AND 14.6.2,
PROHIBITING FORTUNE TELLING AND RELATED PRACTICES.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Assessment of
Open Space)
Mr. Musso stated that the County Assessor has been invited to the
Planning Commission meeting to discuss assessment practices as
they affect open space, particularly with regard to the William-
son Act, and is scheduled for June 26th, at 7:00 p.m.
CM-26-382
June 11, 1973
(Re Wiring at Airport)
Hr. Parness reported that there has been a great deal of electrical
maintenance with some wiring at the Airport due to the size and
conduit being used. After inspection by some electrical contractors,
it has been strongly advised that a,.replacement be installed. 'rhis
is being budgeted for, next year; however, he has been told by the
staff that it is in such poor condition that they would urge him
to request that the Council allow it to be taken care of at this
time. The cost would be approximately $3,000 and since it is assoc-
iated with disposal it could be charged to the treatment plant.
Councilman Beebe moved that the special request be authorized, which
was seconded by Councilman Futch and approved by a unanimous vote.
(Re Local Office for
Congressman Stark)
The City Manager reported that Mayor ~1iller was instrumental in
convincing our Congressman that his local office should be located
in our City and we have arranged with him to accept a lease for a portion
of the Airport Administration Building. Terms have been agreed to
and a six month lease has been signed by him which will give him time
to obtain a permanent location.
The City Manager recommended that the Council authorize an execution
of the lease.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Mayor Hiller and by a
unanimous vote, the lease was authorized, and the City Manager directed
to finalize the transactions.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(re Tribute to
Sign Ordinance)
Mayor Miller commented that County Commissioners Holland and Zeno gave
tribute to our local sign ordinance and the Mayor felt it would be of
value for the staff to send a letter thanking them for their comments
about the sign ordinance and offering the City's help in cleaning up
the County's sign ordinance.
Councilman Taylor suggested that prior to doing this the staff might
find out exactly what had been said in case their is any possibility
that the newspaper's statement on the matter may have been incorrect.
~r. Musso was asked to check into the matter and if the statement
is true, as reported, to send a commendatory letter to the County
Commissioners.
(Open Street on
Enos & Portola Avenue)
Mayor Miller stated that he continues to get complaints on the open
street on Enos and Portola and wondered when the City intends to do
something about it, such as call the bonds.
Hr. Lee explained that the Public "I'lorks Department has been in
contact with the owner and that there have been various reasons for
delay; however, if they have not started the work by the 15th of
June, the City is going to start the street work.
ADJOURN!1ENT
Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to an executive session
to discuss appointments and announced an adjournment to the Dublin Ranch
for an executive session on Wednesday evening, June 13th at 7:00 p.m. to
discuss the labor relations.
CM-26-383
June 11, 1973
APPROVE
rt...i ~ CA) ~.. [ n ,.
Vu ~- ~~-~
"
~-'1ayor
~~~
City Clerk
Livermore, California
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of June 25, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 25, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:03 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Taylor and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (Excused due to illness)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the members of the Council as well as those present
in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
HINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of June 11, 1973,
were approved as amended.
OPEN FORUH
(Widening of U.S. 580)
Hilo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, asked the Council to reconsider
a decision made at the last meeting of the Council relating to
the widening of U.S. 580. He felt this was a decision, which really
effects every person in the Valley in a very direct way, was taken
with little publicity given to the matter, and without adequate
airing of the public's feelings. U.S. 580 is inadequate for the
traffic it is carrying which is represented by four or five deaths
each year. It was his feeling that the Council was balancing a
very real hazard against a hypothetical example that mayor may
not occur, based upon air pollution standards that have been pub-
lished. He pointed out that these standards are without any
scientific basis and have no evidence to support any public health
effect from the levels of pollutions in terms of air standards.
He remarked that the question of growth and controlling growth,
which he favors, is a subject that should be a positive step for
the Council and not a negative one. He again asked that the Coun-
cil reconsider their action and suggested that a public hearing
be held or place the matter on the ballot to find out what the
real feelings of the people in the Valley really are.
Councilman Futch commented that the Council discussed this matter
one week and continued it to give staff time to furnish environ-
mental impact reports, and final action was taken to meet a dead-
line for the MTC to act.
cm-26-384
June 25, 1973
Councilman Taylor, on the otber hand, agreed that the Council did
act hastily, and the action was to insure that the widening project
was not set back in priority. What was under consideration by the
MTC was their general master plan. People have been aware for many
years that the widening was being considered, and the Council had
implored the state to include in the widening project lanes for
some kind of transportation corridor which they did consider.
Councilman Taylor did feel that the highway was almost like a
two vlay road due to the heavy truck traffic and it has been pointed
out that pollution is due cars not being able to move along on the
highways, but felt that the Council's position was taken out of weak-
ness because they wanted the people to use public transportation,
but they should provide an attractive alternative.
(u. S. 580 Widening)
Councilman Beebe favored recommending to l\1TC that widening of
U.S. 580 be started, and felt it was shortsighted of the Council
to take the action they did since half of the population are
commuters who use this highway.
r1ayor Miller commented that the Altamont is still very dangerous
and if a tally were taken it would indicate that there are more
accidents now than there were ten years ago when it was only four
lanes. The question of air quality has been a concern to many more
of them than those concerned with the widening of U. S. 580.
He did not feel the traffic was severe on 530 except during the
morning and evening rush hours, on Friday afternoon going east
and Sunday afternoon going west. During other times no one has
trouble keeping a steady pace at any speed; the problem is merely
the commuter traffic, which has been pointed out to be 30%, and
only 20% is through traffic. The corridor should be widened
for a BART line or temporary bus lane but not for automobiles.
The emphasis on automobiles must stop for blO reasons _ one it
is bad in general for planning, and secondly, the energy crisis
and the Use of enormous amounts of fuel for commuting is counter
productive, and someone must take the step to point out these prob-
lems, and the emphasis on public transportation is what the City
Council did last week.
Councilman Taylor stated ~"e can create an ari tificial choice, but
the state cannot use gas tax monies to provide an exclusive lane
for buses, and by not widening the freeway will only delay the
day when BART can come to the Valley. It has been implied that
those who voted against the widening were more concerned with
smog in the Valleytr..an those \'1110 did not which is not true. lIe
felt tllat growth can be controlled by land use planning.
. , ~~~~- 8-If~~~. .
Councl.lman PutCtl stated th~~~ctl.on .T""k:~ll by the Councl.l was
contrary to his original intent as he originally moved to delay
the action until such time as the environmental reDort was avail-
able, however, they were persuaded that they had to act. He
reiterated that there are alternate ways and it would be foolish
not take some positive steps to solve the transportation needs
by some other way. He too felt that the main problem ...;ri th
U.S. 580 is commuter use \vhich could be helped vlith mass transit,
and unless they take a position strongly in favor of that,
nothing \vill ever be accomplished.
;'1ilo aordyke spoke to the statement by ~1ayor !'1iller that he thought
air pollution was a joke, by stating that he was the one respon-
sible for the first air pollution standard statement in this Valley
ten years ago and was the one who selected and recruited the people
for the air pollution control study committee, but he did think it
should be treated rationally. He stated further that U.S. 580 is
not a freeway but rather an expressway, and to say you do not want
C~\1-26 -3 8 5
June 25, 1973
Open Forum Continued
(U.S. 580 Widening)
the freeway widened because you do not want more people producing
air pollution, but you want it widened for a BART line is wrong,
because you need more people than we have in order to have a BART
line installed.
Mayor Hiller stated that the issue was raised that the cost of
widening a freeway is sufficient to pay for a BART line and while
the money is not yet detachable from the highway fund, it will
come, hopefully, in time to help us. The Mayor spoke to Council-
man Taylor's statement that growth can be controlled and asked
him to furnish the sta~tory authority by which we have to control
growth on air qualityAon any ground that does not make them subject
Presently to an inverse condemn~t~?n suit.
~~~.
Councilman Taylor stated that since growth seems to be the main
issue, the Council does have the authority under the land use plan-
ning to control annexation to the City and is a very real power
to control growth to the city. This point was further discussed
between Councilman Taylor and Mayor Miller.
Southern Pacific Depot
Roger Brown, 11450 Tesla Road, stated he was concerned with the
saving of the SP Depot in Livermore, and as a representative of
the Livermore Heritage Guild, he explained that this group was in-
terested in the preservation and restoration of any Livermore area
artifacts that may still exist. Their first order of business
is the SP Depot and requested that the Council take the necessary
steps to preserve this historical building. They feel that it
is, in its present location, a unique situation which allows the city
to establish an historical site, thus preserving some of the ori-
ginal character of Livermore in the center of town. It is suggested
that the council negotiate with So. Pacific Railroad Company to
acquire the present depot building and surrounding property and to
preserve it as an historical site. If it is acquired, the Guild
proposes to raise funds and use volunteer labor to restore the
building so it can be used and appreciated by the citizens of
Livermore. Some suggested uses are a museum, art gallery or meeting
hall. It has been inspected and it is felt that the basic struc-
ture is not badly damaged and restoration is economically feasible,
and he explained what steps could be taken to complete the restor-
ation of the building, and presented the council with a copy of
their proposal.
Councilman Futch suggested that the staff investigate the possi-
bilities and report back to the Council.
Mayor Hiller suggested that perhaps it might be possible for the
staff and a member of the Guild to speak to So. Pacific Co. to
explore the possibilities, and the other members of the Council
were in agreement to pursue the matter further.
Janet Newton, 2131 Chateau Place, commented that the City of Plea-
santon was given the century house on the Santa Rita Road and
there was a relatively small amount of money spent in preserving
it, such as putting a fence around it initially would have saved
an enormous amount later. Some time later the Jaycees were given
$10,000 to restore the place and it will be a very attractive
building. Vandalism can cost enormous amounts of money and we
should take steps to preserve what we have. She stated she would
like to have an expression of support from the staff as well.
CM 26-386
,June 25, 1973
Traffic Hazard -
El Caminito & Sonoma Ave.
Stanley F. Sullivan, 355 El Caminito, called the Council's atten-
tion to the condition and lack of any effective warning devices
and the heavy traffic on El Caminito, and specifically to the
intersection of El Caminito and Sonoma Ave. All accidents have been
involved with traffic crashing into parked vehicles and tearing
up the yards in the area, and he has personally suffered losses in
three such accidents \vhich have cost him several hundred dollars
in unreimbursed exnenses as \'1811 as loss of time and other incon.-
veniences, Fe may-even find it impossible to obtain insurance
on his personal property should he have additional losses. He
felt some constructive action was necessary to improve the safety
of this street or there may also be loss of life. There has been
a petition circulated anong all residents of El Caminito re~uesting
that the Council take some action and he urged the Council to give
serious consideration to this problem and reach some solution to
lessen their anxiety and concern for the safety of their families
and property.
'layor '1iller asl:ed the staff to checJ: into the matter by consul tino
with the people concerned,and the police department, and report
back to the Council at an early date. He suggested that ~'r. Sulli-
van be notified so that he can be present to hear any discussion.
;'Irs. 'layers, a neighbor of TIr. Sullivan's, stated the petition
suggests blocking the street off at NaIl Street and putting in
a par::way so that the traffic is forced to go around. She stated
that she has lost four automobiles.
The Public Works Director stated there is a traffic study being
made at the present time as a result of a state law requiring
that such a study be made where radar controls are enforced.
This study is almost complete and should shed some light on the
situation.
PUBLIC HEARING RE PROPOSED
EXTENSION-INTERP1 REZONING
ORDINANCE
In order to extend the ordinance regulating residential development
within the City of Livermore it is necessary to hold a public hear-
ing which would provide extension of the ordinance for an addi-
tional eight months.
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordi-
nance at this time.
Randy Schlientz, architect with Associated Professions, representing
a group of owners for a parcel of land which is a vacated tract
located on Hayes, containing approximately one acre, stated they
had written to the Council asking that this parcel be excluded
from the freeze. In addition, he commented that one of the owners
had financial connections with the original owners (Lincoln Proper-
ties) and obtained the parcel primarily through default. The tract
was vacated in August of 1969 and they assumed ownership in October.
If they had ownership prior to that time, they would not have per-
mitted the tract to be vacated. He felt there were unusual circum-
stances existing, and since it is zoned RS-5 and did have a map
filed for five lots at one time, the owners are requesting that
a five lot development be permitted on the site.
In answer to a question by Councilman Beebe if this parcel was
in an area being studied by the Planning Commission, the Planning
Director stated not this particular parcel, but the area of Planning
Unit 3 is under study. When asked why the owners shouldn't be
allmved to proceed, ~'r .,'Tusso cOTILmented he saw no reason why
the zoning should be changed, and under the RS-zoning, they could
cr'l-26-387
June 25, 1973
(P.H. re Extension of
Interim Rezoning Ordinance)
file a subdivision or build a townhouse type of development or a
cluster type of five units, and unless some other land use is being
proposed, he could see no reason for changing the zoning. Mr. Husso
stated that he had thought of proposing that certain properties
and certain planning units be released from the moratorium, and
this parcel was one of them. Mr. ~1usso continued that on any lot
that is zoned single family, you can build a single family dwelling.
On any lot that is multiple family, you can build up to four multi-
ple dwellings except in an area north of portola Ave. and the Spring-
town area, and he further explained the areas involved in the inter-
im ordinance restrictions. Mr. Musso stated that possibly they
could release the various areas as they finish their study.
Mayor Miller stated the major thing not being studied at this point
is the possibility of reduction in density because of the holding
capacity of the City in terms of air quality, and until the Gener-
al Plan Committee finishes and the consultants they hire are finished,
he did not feel it was reasonable to open up anything because the
densities presently on the properties may be cut in half.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission is considering the
densities and have been on the border in one area of suggesting
that the general plan be amended. If they feel an area has too
high a density, they can initiate action to change the density
notwithstanding what the General Plan Committee is studying.
Mayor Miller stated that since they are having a general plan re-
view which is expected to be thorough, to take out pieces of it
for action along the way is essentially preempting the final choice
of how everything will go together, and he did not think it would
be a wise thing to do.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council has the right at any time
to amend the general plan according to the present state law. They
want to make sure they can utilize the new state law AB 1301 to
control development. They should not stop all considerations of
the Planning Commission, and questioned if it was the Mayor's
intent that they not adopt any amendment the Planning Commission
is working on for two years.
Mayor Miller remarked they should not adopt any amendments and
that the work the Planning Commission is doing should be a portion
of the total general plan study.
Councilman Taylor asked if the Planning Commission interpreted it
this way, and Mr. Musso stated they have been discussing the Gen-
eral Plan amendments to implement AB 1301 and they have considered
areas in which a general plan amendment would not be significant
and discussed certain areas. After the General Plan Committee is
finished and they have a General Plan change, they may have to go
back and change these areas.
Councilman Taylor did not feel the committee would consider every
little specific piece of property for the land use, and stated his
main concern was with the properties north of the highway. If the
Planning Commission has a reasonable plan, he did not see anything
wrong with adopting the best term they can in the specific areas
in close even though they may want to change them later. If they
do not adopt a specific plan that contains provisions that enforce
AB 1301, the time will run out and they will have no control over
that land.
CM-26-388
June 25, 1973
(P.H. re extension of
Interim Rezoning Ord.)
Mayor Miller stated his understanding that they could adopt the
Planning Commission's considerations to make 1301 operative, but
they do not have to actually adopt the amendments themselves, then
when the densities are set, whatever revisions are required are
all in the density portion and not in the 1301. This could then
be done rapidly and the whole general plan go into effect at the
same time. He agreed the Planning CO!'Fl~n should continue
their work and consider the specificf\Dut-'1:he final adoptl;m /
should not be Ulytil the density is rAsolved. ~, ~~.
Councilman Beebe stated if ~ayor ~1iller's interpretation is correct
then he voted for the general plan review under false pretenses
because it was his understanding that as a general plan review
was finished on a specific piece of property, they would then be
released and "ould come under the allo'vable :)ermi ts until there
is more ~JVater and sewage supply.
Councilman Tavlor stated he could see nothing wrong with adopting
a general nlan for a specific part of the city where they know what
use they want there and changing it if and when they change their
philosophy on c1ensi ty. T:1ey should not mal:e a decision to leave
a ?articular piece of property out tonight.
~ayor ~iller stated it is not a question of whether or not to re-
lease certain parcels, but rather the extension of the Interim
Zoning Ordinance for eight months which he felt to be clearly in
order, at the end of which time it can again be extended. At that
time they can adopt some of the considerations which are completed.
Councilman Taylor stated that all developers who have filed maps
in recent months and vlhich have been accepted, have agreed to
contribute to the schools and asked 'Ire Schlientz if he knew how
his client felt about this.
Mr. Schlientz stated he had spoken to one of the owners present
and he agreed he would be willing to go along with the donation of
$800 per house for the five d\vellings. He did emphasize that this
was a vacated tract.
I'.lilt Codiroli, President of the Chamber of Commerce, 3737 First St.,
stated the Chamber had a number of discussions on this subject
and the general consensus of the board was that they could see a
possibility that an extension of the moratorium may be necessary
and they understand there are a number of problems the Council is
facing. There is a lot of work to be done and if he was to ex-
press their opinion, it is in agreement with Councilman Taylor's
remarks. They feel tentative maps should be continued to be reviewed
and not necessarily acted upon. The feeling of the Board is that
they are looking for a better Livermore and better ideas on develop-
ment and would like to encourage any person with better ideas
to come forward and present his proposal to the Planning Commission
so they can '\vork on it and approve the plan if it is a good
one. He feels that the moratorium will either corne off or
go on for more than another eight months. He feels there has
been a lot of experimenting, some of which has proved to be
very good. If someone comes up with an exceptional plan, it
would appear it could be presented and approved sometime before
a year and eight months. f1r. Codiroli explained he \'las trying
to express the feelings of the Chamber Board and hoped that
he had done so.
Mr. ~1usso commented that on the question of releasing a Planning
Unit after it is adopted, if one is adopted, that does not auto-
matically release all the properties for development, because
CN-26-389
June 25, 1973
(P.H. re Extension of
Interim Rezoning Ordinance)
there are priorities of development; there are also criteria for
development which the City Attorney had suggested they use instead
of the quota system, so he felt the safeguard was still there as
there is the school requirement. At some future date if someone
has a particular circumstance, the variance provisions of the zon-
ing ordinance would apply.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by unanimous approval, the public hearing \Vas closed.
Councilman Taylor remarked that considering the reasons for the
general plan land use study, they have adopted no change in plans
during the last four months, he favored an extension of the inter-
im ordinance for another eight months, however he wanted to give
some consideration to the 5-lot case and wanted to wait until next
week as he did not feel they intended that the moratorium cover
oarcels of that size. He offered a motion to continue the matter
until next meeting, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch agreed with the comments just made by Councilman
Taylor as he felt it was the intent of the Council at the time the
ordinance was adopted to allow the General Plan Committee to make
their recommendations without being faced with a lot of develop-
ment that might be contrary to what they recommended, and favored
a continuance until there were five members present, as he wanted
to think about the idea of making exceptions and the ramifications
that might be involved.
Mayor ~1iller stated he agreed with Councilman Futch, and Councilman
Beebe commented he could agree with them if they abided by the
original philosophy that was given to them by the City Attorney. He
felt they were vacillating far afield from this advice which was to
place the whole area in the four month general plan study and when
the Planning Commission came up with a specific study, those parcels
would automatically be released. He deemed their intent to be com-
plete freeze which he did not favor.
A vote was taken on the motion to continue the matter until next
week and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING RE Z.O. N1ENDMENT
Sec. 21.00 re Siqns
- ~
The Planning Director explained that this amendment was initiated
by the Planning Commission to consider subdivision signs as there
had been a question of interpretation. Under subsection 2l.71 they
expanded somewhat the definition of building frontage particularly
as it referred to an open land use and established a formula for
computing the square footage for sign purposes. They also came up
with sign requirements when there is a driveway of less than 30 ft.
One example for this is the mall at Vine Center which now allows
three signs; another is the G & H Garage which originally had a
projecting sign, now allowed to put in an archway type of sign.
Another important change is to allow as a freestanding sign an
address or building identification sign within an "R" District if
someone wants to put up a nameplate. Another amendment was to
restrict tract signs only to the model home complex area and this
also eliminates pennants, however they did agree that the directional
signs allowed by the Director of Public Works should be allowed.
Another amendment was signs for non-conforming uses to allow the
Planning Commission to determine allowable signs based on the most
restrictive zoning district in which the use would be allowed. An
Environmental Impact Report was also submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
01-26-390
June 25, 1973
(P.E. Re z.o. Amendments
Concerning Signs)
The r1ayor opened the public hearing at this time and invited anyone
to testify on the amendments to the sign ordinance, however there
v'ere no comments made, and on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman 'faylor, and by unanimous approval, the public hearing
",.Jas closed.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to adop-t the Planning Commission's suggested amendments.
'~ayor tliller stated he would oppose the motion as it stands as he
felt there were some wording changes that might be suitable as well
as changes in concept, however he wished to make the changes on
Daper and continue t}12 mat'ter until next ~^leek. One of the changes
he ~~nted to consider was with regard to off-street parking as an
open land use; another thing was the size of the sign for open
land use other than off-street parking which he thought could be
a freestanding sign, but the size should be defined. Another
?oint to be reconsidered was tem?orary signs in windows which
was one that the Planning COJl1mission did not indicate a change,
and he explained why he felt this should be changed. He also
felt that time and temperature signs should be declared signs,
and have them subject to design review to regulate the size and
location. Mayor r~iller also felt that the amendment concerning
subdivision signs, specifically with regard to condominiums should
be reworded.
i"layor 'raylor suggested that '''layor'liller dra"7 up the changes he
~:Iished to be considered for comparison wi tl1 the Planning COITU'11ission' s
draft of the proposed amendments, and moved to table the matter
for one week, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Dolan Property
Purchase
The City Manager reported that negotiations have been concluded
for the purchase of the Dolan property in accordance with the
actual appraisal value. The size is 32.4 acres at approximately
$2,900 per acre. It is recommended that a motion be adopted
approving the purchase.
Civic Appreciation Policy
Over the past several years, the City Council annually has con-
ducted a social event as an expression of appreciation for those
individuals who serve as members of local advisory groups, com-
mittees and commissions. This affair is well regarded and is in-
tended to serve as a very nominal expression of gratitude for
the inestimable amount of volunteer time and effort that is expended
on behalf of civic betterment.
The City 'lanager felt it advisable to consider the adoption of a
policy that would assist in governing this operation. A suggested
policy statement had been presented to the Council together with a
listing of the current advisory commissions or committees now
active in the city service, which included the General Plan Review
Committee.
~'1ayor f1iller com..rnented that ~lhile the General Plan Revie,,, Committee
is a citizen's committee, the portion that has been established by
the Council is the Steering Committee. Another group he felt
should be considered is one jointly established by the CityCouncil
and LARPD is the Cultural Arts Council.
CH-26-391
June 25, 1973
(Civic Appreciation Policy)
Councilman Taylor stated that the Cultural Arts Council had not
been appointed by the Council so he did not feel they should be
included.
The Council agreed that the Steering Committee should be included
on the list.
Report re Acceptance
1972-73 Capital Improvements-Phase I
Tehe following projects have been completed as Phase I of the
1972-73 Capital Improvements program:
72-8
72-5l
71-29
71-28
72-2
Rincon Storm Drain
South "I" St. Storm Drain
South !lH:' St. Storm Drain
"J" Street Storm Drain
Street Resurfacing
It is recommended by the Public Works Director that the City Council
accept the project and authorize filing of the Notice of Completion.
Transfer of Funds
As an annual procedure, funds are to be transferred in accordance
with the approved fiscal budget.
It is recommended that a resolution be adopted transferring these
funds.
RESOLu'rION NO. 85-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TRANSFER OF FUNDS
?ayroll and Claims
There were one hundred twenty-one claims in the amount of $147,852,32
dated June 22, 1973 and two hundred sixty-five payroll warrants dated
June 15 in the amount of $98,981.39 ordered paid as approved by the
City Hanager.
Departmental Reports
The following Departmental Reports were presented to the Council:
Airport Activity - May
City Attorney - 1972-73
Building Department - April and May
Mosquito Abatement District - April
Municipal Court - May
Police and Pound Departments - May
Water Reclamation Plant - May
Army Reserve Center
f:1emorialization Program
A reserve center is under construction at Camp Parks and in accord-
ance with tradition a deceased military person may be memorialized
at such location. Letters have been sent, on two occasions, to all
local military and veterans organizations and no suggestions have
been submitted. It is recommended that instructions be given to the
staff that a declination statement be sent to the US Army Reserve
office.
Clvl-26 -3 92
June 25, 1973
Approval of Consent Calendar
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote (Councilman Pritchard absent) the items on the
Consent Calendar were approved.
Mayor ~iller announced the appointment
new City Attorney, who will be joining
approximately four weeks.
crry ATTORNEY APPOINT'-1ENT
5~f,". ~
of H. David Wharto~s the
the staff officially in
REPORT RE EAST AVENUE TRAFFIC
The Police Chief has recommended that the County be asked to
reduce the speed limit on East Avenue for that portion in the
county from 45 mph to 35 mph.
Councilman Taylor moved that we urge the County to reduce the
speed limit as suggested; motion ,\'as seconded by Councilman Beebe
and approved unanimously.
CO'1J'1UNICATION RE "SAFETY
TOWN!l -Jr. Ivomen' s Club
A communication has been received from :1rs. Nancy Parkison,
Safety Chairman of the Junior Women's Club, which club is proposing
to build, with the cooperation of local businesses, school district
and Police department a Safety Town for the children of Livermore
in the primary grades. This would be a scaled do~m tmvn dupli-
cating a city block to resemble some of the buildings in the
City. It would be set up at each of the elementary schools every
year, and the children would learn safety rules from policemen
and firemen. The club asks that the City Council support their
project and if the city would be financially able to donate minia-
ture metal traffic signs. It is recommended that the Council
adopt a motion endorsing this proposal and pledging \vhatever staff
assistance that may be afforded.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council endorse the proposal and
make available the signs as requested; motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
Councilman T'aylor also cOmr:1(~nded the '"Jomen 1.'3 Club for this project
as he felt it uas a very \lOrthwhile effort.
COl>rTUNICATION RE T]\.XES l\ND
BUDGETS - Clarence Hoen~L
;; communication \'las received from Clarence Hoenig giving some
suggestions regarding assessment methods and budgets.
~ motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Futch, to continue this item until the next meeting, and the motion
was approved unanimously.
co''UmlHCATION RE SE 1051
Calif. Chamber of Commerce
]"I. communication "vas rec(~ived from the California Chamber of Com-.
:nerce uit!1 regard to the intent of SB 1051 vlhicl1 is the ability of
pU;Jlic agencies to ma::e decisions T.vJ1ile giving full con:sideration
to environmental standards.
Ci--26-393
June 25, 1973
(SBI051)
Councilman Taylor moved that the communication be filed and that
the Council not change their position; motion was seconded by
Councilman Futch, and passed 3-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting
(Councilman Pritchard absent).
C0r1HUNICATION RE CENTENNIAL
CELEBRATION - Odd Fellows Lodge No. 219
A communication was received from the Livermore Odd Fellows Lodge
No. 219, extending to the Council and City Staff an invitation to
be present at their centennial celebration on July 1, 1973. A
proclamation had previously been issued by the !1ayor in honor of
the occasion.
REPORT RE INDUSTRIAL TRACT NO. 3379
The Planning Director explained the tentative map for the Southern
Pacific Industrial Park, Tract No. 3379, which had been considered
by the Planning Commission some time ago and since that time there
is now the requirement for the Environmental Impact Statement which
has been completed. He stated that the considerations are pretty
much the same as they were, and as far as the EIR is concerned there
is little question that any type of development has an impact on
the land and actually substitutes one environment for another as
it is changing from an agricultural land use to an industrial land
use. This is the intent of the City and they have a choice of not
allowing development and maintaining the area in agricultural use or
they can approve the development in such a manner to allow it to
develop in such a way that the environmental impact will be minimized.
~1r. Musso stated that in going over these EIR's they have found that
the major impact other than the development itself, is that of the
vehicle, and in fact, in most areas the vehicle is the principal
problem with air pollution, congestion, glare, light, etc. Indus-
try is pretty much regulated by the Air Pollution Control District
and enforced by ordinances.
Councilman Futch pointed out that the Planning Director stressed the
negative aspects of air pollution associated with industry, but there
is also a positive aspect which is that it provides opportunity for
employment in the community, thereby eliminating the necessity of
commuting, so it is really not clear that it is a negative impact from
the air pollution point of view.
Councilman Taylor asked what was actually before the Council at this
time, and Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission prepares
the draft Environmental Impact Statement, hold a public hearing and
it is referred to the Council at which time it can be approved or
amended, and then the report filed with ehe County Clerk.
Mr. Musso had remarked about the radius of a particular curve which
had been changed from 45 to 90 degrees, and Councilman Taylor asked
for comments from the Public Works Director in this regard.
:.lr. Lee stated he had recommended that it be a greater radius as he
felt it would be a bottleneck with a lot of truck traffic and
commuters on this access street.
llayor Hiller mentioned that he understood Palm Avenue would be re-
named; also he did not see anything regarding a provision for bicycle
paths which he felt should be included. He also questioned the width
of the street which ~,1r. r-1usso stated was 60 feet wide, and which
CT1-26-394
June 25, 1973
(So.Pac. Industrial Park)
\Vould allmv approximately 40 feet of clear travel as there Hould be
no on-street park.ing. Hayor J"Hller asked about the requirements for
off-street parking since there is no on-street parking, and ~r.
i1usso stated it was one space for everyone and one-half employees.
Councilman Taylor mentioned that there \Vould be a sidewalk on each
side, which in essence would be a bicycle path, and continued that
the argument has been raised whether there should be sidewalks in
industrial tracts, and they have insisted that there be sidewalks.
This is a development that the City has worked on for many years, and
we must make sure the development meets standards which are designed
to protect neighboring property owners. Councilman Taylor did not
feel they should require too much unless it is needed, thereby
killing the development.
r'~ilo Nordyke stressed that this is the development that the City
has waited so many years for - an industrial park in the true sense
of the word. He felt that a street Hithout parking should be able
to handle bicycle traffic, and urged that they live up to past dis-
cussions for approval of this tract and not suddenly begin to change
all of the requirements that have existed over the years. Mr.
Nordyke stated their committee is unanimous in supporting the con-
cept of no parking in the street and enforcing this regulation as
it is not the responsibility of the City but rather that of the
property owner and operator of the industry. He felt this would be
the finest industrial area in IJivermore. He also commented that
the parking requirement of one space per each one and one-half
employees was adequate and was recommended by the Industrial
Committee.
Earl Hason, Civil Engineer for Associated Professions, representing
the applicant, stated the applicant desired no parking on the street,
but the bicycle path was something new, and he felt the suggestion
made by Councilman Beebe to take five feet on each side of the street
and paint a \vhite line should serve the purpose. The need for the
40 ft. curb to curb is to make the turns with the long trucks. The
applicant had originally requested no sidewalks as he feels there is
no parking on the street, so there should be no need for a sidewalk
and he would rather landscape. Originally, one thing that had been
worked out between the two industrial committees was that there would
be no sidewalks in an industrial area.
councilman Taylor stated there may be a bus some day which would
let people off at the corner and there \'lOuld be no place for people
to walk. He felt that there should be a sidewalk at least on one
side of the street, and 'lr .'lason agreed this might be a solution,
however he referred to the engineering considerations which did
not mention sidewalks, but he would pass this information on to the
developer. "Ir. ~lason stated that Palm fl:.Venue is not intended to
be develo:)ed nm'!, and is a private undeveloped lane. He also men-
tioned the radius of the particular curve which had been changed
to 90 degrees as i,t ~..TaS felt this ~,10uld slo"7 up traffic. '1r.
'lason furtlv}r explainc(l ti,C lavout of the tract, and also referred
to the storm drainage channel and stated the route for the channel
is currently being discussed by the city, county and state as to
a rossible alternate route.
'tr. Lee explained that the channel did go in the engineering
consicJ2rations to provide for a storm line, but there is an
acceptable alternate which is being considered also. ~r. Lee
suggested that to solve this question that the Council approve
the engineering considerations with the provision that if an
acceptable alternate nlan is devised, it would be allowed, and
it is being revie'ded by Zone 7, the State Eighv-ray Department
and the City.
C-'1- 2 6 - 395
June 25, 1973
(So. Pac. Industrial Park)
Ilr. Mason stated that the engineering considerations also indicate
that the developer shall be obligated to pay storm drainage fees
however it had been agreed that the storm drain fees would be
waived if the developer would take care of all of his own in-tract
drainage. rlr. Parness indicated that this was true, but the
change had not been made.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council accept the tentative map
subject to successful agreement on the points discussed, the
motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Mayor Miller enumerated the points that should be discussed as
follows: the radius change, sidewalks, provision for acceptable
alternate for the storm drain, rename Palm Avenue if it is de-
veloped, and he added the provision for bicycle paths, satisfactory
to the City Staff.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, representing Livermore Bikeways Associa-
tion, stated he had not seen the plan, but it appeared the street
width was adequate and it appeared that the major truck transporta-
tion would be other than commuter time arrival, and if the street
right of way is adequately delineated and of adequate width for
bicycles, such as five or six feet, clearly marked, and appropriately
signed in areas of high hazard, that would be acceptable. He also
thought that at least one sidewalk would be in order, but there
should be separate facilities for bikes and pedestrians.
The Council discussed the radius of the curve, and it was decided
that this should be brought up again at a later time. They all
favored the acceptable alternate for the storm drain plan. ~1ayor
r1iller stated he favored sidewalks, and Councilman Taylor stated if
they were going to decide on a standard for sidewalks in industrial
areas, they should not make a ruling for this particular area.
I1r. Nordyke stated that this issue had been discussed several months
ago at which time it was resolved.
Hayor Miller stated it was the consensus of the Council that the
staff should take these points into consideration and discuss them
with Mr. Mason and report back with the appropriate changes for
discussion.
Councilman Taylor remarked that the motion was approval on the
condition that these points be resolved, which was approved.
Ed Hutka, 1019 Angelica Way, stated if it is decided that in indus-
trial parks there is to be no parking, he hoped it would tie in
to the width of the streets inasmuch as some individuals are re-
quired to put in very wide streets and also parking lanes. If a
parking lane is required it should remain as a parking lane, and
the Council should not make the standard that if the street is
very wide that the parking lane be taken away.
STATE GUIDELINES FOR
ENVIRONI'iENTAL DIPACT REPORTS
The Director of Planning has brought to the attention of the Council
that a provision should be made that an Environmental Impact Report
CH-26-396
,June 25, 1973
(State Guidelines - EIR)
final Notices of Determination and ?legative Declarations be filed
with the County Clerk or City Clerk as may be appropriate. There
was no provision for filing with the City Clerk, and he felt that
the State had erred as it is not familiar \.vith the workings of
local government, and reco~~ends that the Council urge the T~esources
Agency to make this designation.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the suggestion of
the Planning Director, seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved
unanimously.
EIR re P~~ILROAD TRACK
CONSOLIDATION PROJECT
A report had been submitted by the Planning Director regarding the
draft Environmental Impact Report for the Railroad Track Consolida-
tion proj ect. "lr. :Iusso explained the only significant cornment the
Commission had to make was that the consultants be required to sub-
mit the following additional information: (1) Quantitative data
on the increased noise levels to be experienced in the vicinity of
El Rancho and Ventura Avenue and in the Junction Avenue and Chest-
nut Street areaS7 (2) Means by which the City might reduce noise
levels to the level presently experienced; and (3) that maps in-
cluded within the report be replaced so as to clearly show the
proposed realignment of the tracks because they were a bit obsolete.
ilayor Taylor asked if this \Vas additional information and Nr. r1usso
explained that there is data relative to the sound level already
and they are suggesting that additional input be relative to the
change created by shifting the tracks.
T'1r. Parness commented that ~1r. Barton understands the intent of the
Planning Commission and is gathering the material for a slight modi-
fication of the report which could be given to the Council when it
is ready.
Councilman Taylor suggested that they just add that all available
information on noise level, particularly in the areas where the people
have been bothered by it, be included in the statement.
After some discussion on the matter, Councilman Taylor moved that
the Council approve the Environmental Impact Report to include the
Planning Commission's recommendations 7 motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe.
Roger Everett, 572 Hazel Street, representing the Bikeway's Assoc.
stated it seemed if some im?rovements are not made by closing off
some streets there would only be three places to cross the tracks
\vhich would have some environmental impact. He felt some modifica-
tions could be considered later in the agenda for channelization of
both pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
~ayor Miller thought this to be a good point and wanted to know if
the maker of the motion wanted to include consideration of channeli-
zation to be part of the EIR.
Councilman Taylor stated that the effect has been studied by the
staff a~1d is important, but he did not feel they should vlri te the
design consideration in detail which, in this case, Has uritten for
them.
A vote VIas tal:en on the Motion ,;.,rhich passed unanimously.
Cc'-2G-397
June 25, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
POLICE ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
A draft Environmental Impact Report for the Livermore Police Ad-
ministration Building for property located on the southeasterly
corner of South Livermore and Pacific Avenues was submitted by
the Planning Commission, indicating that in accordance with Reso-
lution No. 46-73, the City Council shall act in approving or not
approving the Final EIR and a Notice of Determination shall be
filed with the Clerk of the County of Alameda.
Councilman Taylor moved that the EIR for the Police Administration
Building be approved, seconded by Councilman Futch, and motion
passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION VICINITY OF
FIRST ST.-US 580 - Wm. Judson
A rezoning application has been submitted for rezoning from A-20
(Agricultural) to ID-H (Light Industrial-Highway Commercial) by
William Judson for the area generally in the vicinity of First
Street and 1-580, and an expanded area was added by the Planning
Commission.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the
public hearing was set for July 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of June 5 and 12 were
presented to the Council, and on motion of Councilman Beebe, se-
conded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval the minutes
were accepted for filing.
REPORT RE PACIFIC AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
The City Manager reported that the developer of the apartment units
at Pacific Avenue and Dolores Street agreed to install improvements
along Pacific Avenue within five years after developing these units.
This term expired some time ago and repeated efforts have been made
seeking compliance. Reportedly, he is willing to install the work
if the City is willing to extend the street improvements along
Pacific Avenue 270 feet easterly to the boundary of his property
ownership. The City would sustain the improvements on the south side
of the street abutting our Civic Center Site. It is recommended that
a motion be adopted authorizing this improvement and the City's fin-
ancial participation. A condition for this participation, in accord-
ance with the contract, would be that the applicant be required to
sustain the cost of the street improvements for two-thirds of the
width specified under the original contract and 50% for this added
length.
Mayor Miller questioned the recommendation inasmuch as the developer
was required to install the improvements by his agreement, and Mr.
Parness replied that it was always the intent that the portion on
the south side be assumed by the owners who would develop on that
site, and the successor's to that interest are the City and we would
be required to put in the one-third width on the side, but the con-
tract has just not been implemented, and now the developer says
he is willing to fulfill his obligation and in addition extend the
street farther east if the extension be equally divided.
Mr. Lee explained more in detail the plans for the extension of the
street, after which time Councilman Taylor moved to accept the
City Manager's recommendation, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
the motion was approved unanimously.
CM-26-398
June 25, 1973
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ANNEX
Easterly North Mines Road
The City Manager reported that a letter of inquiry has been re-
ceived from Ed Hutka as to a proposed industrial annexation of
25 acres easterly of North Mines Road. It is recommended that a
motion be adopted approving this proposal and authorizing offi-
cial notice of annexation, when received, to LAFCO and the Plan-
ning Commission. Mr. Parness remarked this was an addition to the
property currently under development and is all for industrial pur-
poses.
Councilman Taylor stated that this is zoned for industrial use
and moved to approve the proposal and authorize the annexation,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
REPORT RE TRACK
RELOCATION BIDS
In accordance with our track relocation project construction bids
were received on June 14. The results of these bids are as follows:
Hensel-Phelps Constr. Co.
Gordon Ball Inc.
O. C. Jones & Sons
Piombo Construction Co.
$1,943,248
2,025,ll9
2,070,970
2,347,68l
Mr. Parness stated that very regrettably the low bid was in excess
of the engineer's estimate by about l6% and there were many reasons
for this which were explained to the Council. The real concern
is for the effects of the bid on our proceedings. Following
extensive study the staff has been assured that the current fund-
ing that has earlier been reported is still satisfactory and the
important parts of that funding are the amount the City Council
would contribute to the program and the amounts that would be
assessable to the property owners. The latter figure would remain
intact and it would not be neccesary to increase it because of the
excessive bids and the amounts that the City Council would have to
contribute to the program is slightly under that which was originally
intended. He added that it is conceivable that during the course
of construction it may be necessary to have additional sums con-
tributed in the way of supplementary contingencies, but it is hoped
not. It is recommended that the very substantial contingency
allowance originally intended be reduced; secondly, there is every
possibility that the Western Pacific Railroad Company passing track
will be relocated. As it is now it is part of the program, and
he understands it has been approved by their company management
that the facility be relocated by them, thereby saving the project
the sum of something like $38,000. Also, it is believed there will
be a substantial additional amount of money receivable from
State Div. of Highways through their regular contributory sums to
the program which would allow an increase in the grant sum which
aggregate amount more than makes up the difference in the excessive
bidding. Mr. Robert Barton has assured him that we can proceed
within the bounds of our budget figures, but a lot is contingent
upon a contract between the two railroad companies, the City
and acceptable to the State Div. of Highways, however there
are some real obstacles facing us, which must be done before
August l5, in addition to the successful passage of the assessment
district hearing scheduled for July 2. It is recommended that
the acceptance of the bids be held un abeyance until that time.
Mr. Barton was present to answer any questions.
Councilman Tay1ro asked about the plans for the bicycle paths,
and Mr. Barton explained that a comprehensive schematic plan was
given to them for bike paths at each of the sites and it included
an east-west path along the railroad and also a north-south path
along Livermore Avenue and P Street and the estimate of $50,000
covered both of these paths. At the Planning Commission meeting
CM-26-399
June 25, 1973
(Track Relocation Bids)
there was not a great deal of support in favor of the east-west path
as the statement was made there are many east-west streets in
the City, but there was a strong feeling for the north-south paths.
He had advised the Commission that the provision for the north-south
facility in addition to the walkway could be achieved and would be a
matter of a design change but would be less than the $50,000.
Councilman Beebe inquired if the state allowed monies for bicycle
paths now, and Mr. Barton stated he was not familiar with availa-
bility of funds of that nature but had heard the City of Ontario
managed to obtain money for a bike path from some federal fund.
Mr. Barton indicated that these paths can be implemented without
substantial cost. If there is some space constraint they would re-
commend a path on one side at least from the standpoint of design.
Councilman Taylor commented at least there is an adequate pedestrian
walkway where a bicycle could get across.
The Public Works Director indicated that the Planning Commission's
conclusion was that the bike path on one side would be sufficient,
and it is his feeling that is the most practical way of doing it,
perhaps by widening one of the walks to eight or nine feet so it
would suffice as a bikeway.
Mayor Mayor stated the suggestion for an east-west bike path was to
take bicycles off the street so they would be protected against
vehicles, and Mr. Lee explained there was some consideration of a
bike path that would follow the railroad track but it would be
very expensive simply because they would have to span the under-
passes with a separate bridge, and they would have to arrange for
rights of way, plus a surface path.
Roger Everett, 572 Hazel Street, presented the Council members with
some sketches which had been submitted to the consulting engineer,
and he explained their proposal in some detail. They had revised
their original plan so that the bicycle path would not be on the
same level with the automobiles and would be a pedestrian-bicycle
path. Mr. Everett remarked that the trailway plan which was adopted
calls for an east-west bicycle route following the general a11ign-
ment of the railroad, and if that plan is to be followed, now is
the time to make some provisions for it in the overcrossing.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to ask the staff to incorporate the north-south bikeways, but to
forget consideration of the east-west bikeway due to the extreme
cost.
Mr. Wendt stated that when the bike trail system proposed for this
fiscal year was discussed in February, a proposal was made to con-
vert 01ivina and Chestnut streets to utilize a portion of these
streets for bike lanes and it was felt by the City Engineer that
there was not adequate right of way to provide separate facilities
for them. He has also observed the plans for Railroad Avenue and
there are no provisions on this street for bicycle lanes, so there
are two major, heavily congested streets which have no provision
for bike paths. He requested that they investigate with the City
staff the feasibility of obtaining easements along the railroad to
see what advantage there might be of developing a paved maintenance
road to see if there might be railroad participation in such a
project, and that the Bikeway Association, the City Engineer and
staff work out the least costly possible means of spanning the
bridges.
CM-26-400
June 25, 1973
(Track Relocation)
Councilman Futch stated that there may be ways of getting the cost
down, such as reducing the width of the pathways, and felt the
matter should be given more thought because after the grade separ-
ations are built there is not much they could do, and would like
to have the matter referred back for further consideration between
the bikeways group and the City Engineer and Southern Pacific.
Councilman Futch moved to amend the motion that the staff work
with the bikeway committee and railroads to consider the possibility
of an east-west bikeway, seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Mr. Barton stated that the bids they are now holding relate to a
certain set of plans, the assessment hearing is set for next week
and the contractor will not be given notice to proceed until this
fall at which time it may be possible to issue a change order
to the contractor for whatever changes are deemed to be appropriate.
There is no particular need for this to be settled now and con-
curred with the suggestion that this would give them time for
additional study and they could get price estimates on the north-
south paths as well as explore the east-west paths. He would take
it upon himself to meet with the Western Pacific Company whose right
of way would be involved. Mr. Barton also mentioned at this time
that the WPRR passing track would be located out of town.
A vote was taken on the amendment and passed unanimously, and a
vote was taken on the main motion to direct the staff to proceed
with the suggestion that the cross section be diseussed, and
the motion passed unaniously.
REPORT RE PORTOLA AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Certain street improvements on porto1a Avenue and Enos Way have
remained in an unfinished state since December 14, 1972. Repeated
attempts to contact the developer have failed. The amount of the
improvement is $l2,597. Mr. Lee explained that they have not been
able to get the owners of the properties to make the improvements
and, subject to the approval of the interim City Attorney so
that the City would be repaid, the staff would like to proceed
with the improvements.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council authorize the project to
continue, subject to the review of the City Attorney, seconded
by Councilman Taylor and passed unanimously.
Don Montan, 2976 Kennedy Street, concurred with the Council's
action on the matter, but stated he wanted to point out as a matter
of record that there is a swimming pool on the south side of that
building which is unoccupied and there are kindergarten children
going to and from school who play around, and he felt it might be
advantageous to secure it in such a way as to avoid small children
from falling into it.
The staff was instructed to investigate the matter.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR
SAFETY MEMBERS
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous approval (Councilman Pritchard absent), the reading
of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the ordinance
amending the City's contract with the retirement system (retirement
at age 50, discounted, for safety members) was introduced.
CM-26-401
June 25, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF
(Mayor's Formula Money)
The City Manager explained that there are projects they will re-
commend to be submitted to the County for use of the Mayor's Formula
money under county gas tax reapportionment. These projects are in
accordance with the capital improvements listing that will be dis-
cussed shortly by the Council and would be involved and would in-
clude the North Livermore Avenue reconstruction, Second and L Street
traffic signal, and First St. and Livermore Avenue traffic signal,
in the total sum of about $l80,000, and it is recommended that
the Council approve this budgetary transmission.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Mayor Miller, and by
unanimous approval, the staff recommendation was accepted.
(youth Services Center - Housing)
Mr. Parness explained that the Youth Services Center is having diffi-
culty housing the facility. It is believed a place that might
well serve the needs for this Center is the property just acquired
by the City for park purposes, referred to as the Redemptorist
property and there are some structures on this property. As
part of the budget with the state for CCCJ monies, there is an
enlistment for payment of rent for quarters, but since we are not
able to do that he has made a request to the state that the
budgetary allotment be transferred to refurbishing monies which
the state has agreed to do, but he wanted the Council's approval
before any work is begun. Mr. Parness stated the main quarters
would require a new roof, painting inside and out, some electrical
repair, window repair, etc., and the total cost would be $3,800
which is all state money and recommended a motion be adopted to
authorize the staff to proceed.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council approve the proposal
to _Be the site and refurbish it, but that this be done with the
approval of the Heritage Guild. The motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Futch and approved unanimously.
(Budget Hearing)
Mr. Parness asked the Council to decide on a date for the Budget
Hearing and the Council set the date for July 5.
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Parness advised that the contracts which were in effect with
four employee organizations have expired after three years, and
the staff has been busy with negotiation, and in addition they
have taken upon themselves a pioneering effort in joint labor re-
lations with two other jurisdictions of the Valley with respect
to the fire services. This was initiated in early March wherein
contacts were made with representatives of each of the employee
organizations with an appeal that they undertake the composition of
their respective positions on salaries and other terms and condi-
tions so that negotiations could commence at the earliest possible
time all of which would ease the budgeting process. June 1 was
used as a goal, but it has not been possible to achieve, and now
we have stated we must have acceptance of the memoranda of agree-
ment for the Council's review by the end of the fiscal year so
that implementation of any changes could be made concurrent with
the beginning of th new fiscal year. Mr. Parness stated he had
only one agreement of the four for the Council's approval and
it is with Local 3 of the operating engineers which covers the
public works field forces, and recommended that the Council adjourn
from this session to an executive session so that the terms and
CM-26-402
June 25, 1973
(Labor Negotiations)
conditions of the agreement can be explained and some action
be taken. As far as the other associations, those being the
Police Association, Fire Association and General Employees
Relations Organization, unfortunately he was unable to report
success in the negotiations thus far. He would recommend that
the City Council consider adoption of a resolution which in
effect would be the Council's policy statement that retroactivity
of payor amendments to fringe benefits would not be recognized
by the Council past July l. Eventually if a conclusion is
reached with each of the other three organizations subsequent
to July I, those decisions would be effective as of the date
received and approved by the City Council.
Ray Winegarner, 3943 Dartmouth Way, president of the Livermore
Firemen's Association, stated that regardless of what the City
staff indicates about their intentions to negotiate in a proper
manner, their legal advisor Gordon Bunch, states this has not
been done. Mr. Bunch could not be present this evening, but
wanted him to convey to the Council that he would be in touch
on the legal matter involved. While it is true they were con-
tacted in March, after the initial contact they were advised
that the joint agency was being formed, at which time they hired
a lawyer because they did not know about a joint agency, and have
spent a lot of time and money trying to resolve the matter but have
not been successful. They have made every effort in a firm
stand and the contention that the agency was not part of their
obligation. They asked the City staff, through their attorney,
to bring this to the attention of the City Council and to act
upon it in that manner. For that reason they have been unable
to meet and go through normal practice of negotiations. Their
attorney is prepared to take legal action because they feel
they have been faithful in their duty to negotiate.
Councilman Taylor stated they had assigned their power to
negotiate to a particular group and apparently there have been
no negotiations.
Mr. Parness stated they had repeatedly asked the Firemens'
Association and Mr. Bunch to meet with the staff and they
contend that joint powers agency is illegal and they refused
to meet and confer with any representatives other than exclusive
representatives of the City. Mr. Bunch has informed him in
writing that his clients do want to proceed with litigation.
Louis Trotter, 5241 Norma Way, president of the Li~ermore
Employees Relations Board, representing the clerical, pro-
fessional, technical people of the City,stated they have also
been negotiating since March and have worked real hard toward
the July 1 deadline, and could not come to an agreement,
The only way to satisfy the relations board that management
was negotiating in good faith was that they appeal to the Council
for review of their request which was postponed until this
evening. They feel that they have worked very hard to make
an agreement and that they should be due the courtesy of any
retroactive wages.
Mr. Parness stated that should the Council adopt the Council
Policy Statement, if they are able to reach an agreement with
any or all of the remaining groups prior to July 1, he asked
if the Council would be willing to meet in a special session
between now and Saturday to consider those agreements, and
the Council members agreed that they would.
A vote was then taken on the resolution which was adopted un-
animously.
CM-26-403
June 25, 1973
(Labor Negotiations)
RESOLUTION NO. 86-73
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY ON RETROACTIVITY
ON PAYMENT OF WAGE LEVELS AND FRINGE BENEFITS.
MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
(Mall Between 2nd & 3rd Sts. on M St.)
Councilman Beebe asked if any plans had been made for the mall
treatment on M Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets, and was ad-
vised that nothing had been completed as yet.
(Bicycle Path-Stanley Blvd.)
Councilman Taylor stated there had been a number of complaints
regarding the bicycle path on Stanley Blvd. caused by the fact
there is no white stripe, and wondered if the County intended to
stripe the berm and suggested they request that this be done and
Mr. Lee was instructed to check into the matter.
(Complaints re Truck Parking)
Mayor Miller stated there had been many complaints about big
trucks parked on major streets. This has been previously dis-
cussed and the Police Department was to work on this and an
ordinance was to have been prepared to enforce this no parking
and asked that this be done.
(Sister City Liaison)
Mayor Mtller stated he had been asked by the president of the Sister
City Committee if someone would like to serve as a liaison from
the City Council to the Sister City Committee, and asked if any
member of the Council would like to serve.
Councilman Taylor stated that since Councilman Futch \'Wou1d be
going to Queza1tenango he might be the one, however this will be
discussed later.
(AB 2090)
Mayor Miller stated there is a bill in the legislature - AB 2090
in which it would be permissive for low income housing to be pro-
vided as a part of any subdivision, and felt that such a bill would
be worthy of support. The City Manager was instructed to get copies
of this bill for discussion next week.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at l2:20 a.m. to an executive session for
explanation of the negotiations with the various employee agencies
and final negotiation with the Public Works field forces.
Executive Session
Mr. Parness explained the conditions of the Memo of Understanding
between the City and Operating Engineers, Local No. 3 for a three
year term, commencing July 1, 1973, pertaining to salaries, benefits
CM-26-404
Ji:1ne 25, 1973
(Executive Session)
and conditions of work. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the Memo of
Understanding was accepted.
The Executive Session then adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
APPROVE
ATTEST i..
Special Meeting of June 29, 1973
A special meeting of the City Council was called by Mayor
Miller on Friday, June 29, 1973, at 5:00 p.m. in the City
Hall, 2250 First Street.
The purpose of the meeting was consideration of the following:
I. Labor relations memoranda of agreement.
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 P.M., with Councilmen
Beebe, Futch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller present; Councilman
Taylor absent.
The City Manager reported on the agreement reached with the
Employees Relations Board, and it was discussed with the
Council. At the close of discussion on motion of Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, the Council voted unani-
mously to approve the agreement.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
APPROVE IJ~:J-J\ ~~
v /I ~ 1 M.ayor
/'\ i '
ATTESL . "
CM-26-405
A Regular Meeting of July 2, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on July 2, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:12 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilmen Futch (seated during Pledge of Allegiance) and
Councilman Pritchard (seated during Open Forum)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the members of the Council as well as those present
in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of June 25, 1973,
were approved as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Notice of Construction)
Milt Codiro1i, President of the Livermore Chamber of Commerce,
3737 First Street, stated a notice had been sent to the Livermore
business men regarding construction of streets indicating that due
to the nature of these projects no through vehicle traffic would
be allowed unless an obvious hardship can be determined and approved
as granted by the City Engineer. He pointed out that in all cases
there are traffic oriented businesses and there is no question there
will be a real hardship for these merchants. He asked the Council
to do whatever they could to keep the traffic flowing in these areas.
The Public Works Director explained that the total length of time
for the construction of the project is three months, but for each
individual project the time will be considerably less and they will
supervise traffic that it will be compatible with the construction.
It will be necessary to close a block at a time during certain
phases of the work, but as they finish they will allow traffic to
get through and across.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council would like the interruption
to business men held to an absolute minimum and asked that a mem-
ber of the staff keep an eye on the contractor so that there are
no unnecessary delays.
Councilman Taylor suggested that a more precise schedule of the
construction be sent to the business men and the staff was directed
to do this.
PUBLIC HEARING RE RAILROAD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND ENGINEER'S
REPORT RE SAID DISTRICT (Verbatim Transcription)
MAYOR MILLER: Item 1.1 is the public hearing on the resolution of
intention for the Railroad Assessment District, and on the Engin-
eer's Report regarding this District. This is the time and place to
hear the protests that have been filed with respect to this district,
and legally the only qualified protestors are the ones who own
CM-26-406
July 2, 1973
property contained within the bounds of the district, and the'
law reads that in the absence of a majority protest, that is from
the property owners of 50% of the area, the district can be, al-
though it does not necessarily have to be, formed. I'm going to
open the public hearing in a minute, and I am going to ask the
people to describe the nature of the assessment district _ Mr.
Barton, Mr. Lee and Mr. Ness; then I am going to ask Miss Hock
to read the names of the written protestors and then I am going
to ask those of you who are protesting the district who wish to
speak before us to please step up to the pOdium, give your name
and address, what your parcel is that you are protesting on and
then you can proceed to discuss the question or issue that you
have in mind. I would ask everybody to please try to keep your
remarks as brief as possible and please to try not to repeat that
which is said before in detail, but if you agree with what a pre-
vious speaker has said, then say, "I agree" and that will be as
effective as if, or perhaps even more effective, than if you just
repeated the arguments verbatim. And everybody is encouraged to
present their views to the Council in this public hearing. I am
now going to declare the public hearing open and I would, first,
ask Mr. Barton to discuss the details of the project.
Public Hearing re
Railroad Assessment District
MR. BARTON: My name is Robert M. Barton. I am the Chief Civil
Engineer with De Leuw Cather and Company, l256 Market Street,
San Francisco. The project that we are discussing tonight is,
essentially, the same project that was described in a report that
was transmitted by our firm to the Council of the City of Liver-
more, August 1967. The project for which the bids have been re-
ceived is on the wall to the Council's left. It's a long blue
print; it's about l5 feet long, and, generally, what it consists
of is relocation of the Southern Pacific track, beginning out at
the Arroyo Mocho, immediately at the east end of the Arroyo Mocho
bridge and then traversing across the old brickyard property until
it becomes parallel to the Western Pacific and thence on primarily
on Western Pacific property all the way through town until it re-
joins, - until Southern Pacific rejoins its existing alignment
out at a point somewhat east of the Standard Oil bulk plant. The
project then calls for the removal of all of the existing Southern
Pacific tracks through town, generally as shown as XX's on the
drawing, and specifically that temporary detour of the Southern
Pacific track that is now under construction in the area extending
from "P" Street to "L" Street. It includes two underpasses _ one
at "P" Street. The two underpasses are shown in rather small dia-
grams on the drawing on the wall and then on much larger drawings
on the wall behind Councilman Taylor and Councilman Beebe. Each
of the two underpasses begins at Chestnut on the north, goes under-
neath the two railroads as relocated and then comes back to grade
at Railroad Avenue on the south. The "P" Street underpass is
pretty much on the existing alignment of the street. You are
familiar with the area - the Value Giant is in the upper right
hand corner of the underpass; the Mc Donald's in the upper left
hand corner; the Livermore Valley Shopping Center in the lower
left hand corner; the bowling alley in the lower right hand corner.
The Livermore Avenue underpass, I would like to point out, has
SUbstantially different design from that that was discussed three
years ago, namely, it is offset to the east side of the street so
that there is practically no taking of private property on the
west side, and we have indicated in brown on that drawing, essen-
tially a frontage road that will be available within the existing
area of Livermore Avenue to provide access to the various properties
fronting on the west side of the street, and the traffic circula-
tion pattern in those two blocks on the west side of Livermore
Avenue is shown generally on the blackboard - the lower right hand
corner of the blackboard. Now, looking towards the future all of
CM-26-407
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re
Railroad Assessment Dist.
the excavation to be removed from these two underpasses will be
hauled out to the east end of town, and will be placed in embank-
ments for a potential future overpass that is part of the City's
ultimate plan. However, the acquisition of property for that dis-
posal area out there and for those embankments is not a part of
the assessment district. The only cost involved is just the cost
of disposing of the earth, so the project itself consists of track
relocation, the two underpasses, the associated pumping plant, the
associated utility relocation. The property that has to be acquired
for this project is shown on a series of exhibits underneath the
long drawing and previously referred to. Each of the parcels is
identified on those series of drawings and, generally, the property
comes under about three different categories: First, the property
fronting on the east side of "p" Street, property fronting on the
east side of Livermore Avenue, a long strip taken primarily from
the Western Pacific all the way through town, and then there are
some other, a few private parcels. There is a parcel owned by the
City of Livermore; there's a parcel owned by the County of Alameda
generally out towards the east end of the project, about where Mr.
Lee has his thumb - his pointer. The plans and specifications were
completed several months ago; bids were advertised on May l4th;
bids were opened on June l4th and the results of the bids were re-
ported to the council, I think, at the last meeting. After the re-
ceipt of the bids we went through an entirely new financial analysis,
which is summarized on the large chart that is on the wall to the
right of the Council and, generally, what it consists of is the
low bid from the contractor which was $1,943,000 odd dollars. Since
the bids were received Southern Pac - I'm sorry, Western Pacific has
announced its intention in association with this project to remove
its Livermore passing track to a point west of town, and so that
means that one of the bridges at the lip" Street underpass for the
passing track will not have to be built so we are anticipating a
saving there straight-away of $73,000 odd dollars. That leaves the
net contract cost of $l,870,000. There will be a subsequent con-
tract to be advertised when the weather and construction activities
are further progressed, and that will call for the complete land-
scaping and irrigation of the slopes at each of these underpass
sites, generally, the areas that are shown in green on these two
drawings behind Councilman Taylor. Then the Western Pacific itself
has a number of track changes - changes to signals and changes to
automatic protection The railroad as estimated that at about
$180,000. The cost of the relocation of the passing track, as pre-
viously referred to, results in a great saving at "P" Street in the
amount of $35,000. There has been considerable complaint in town
about the noise of Western Pacific trains and so in the area where
that problem is most acute, we have recommended the removal of exist-
ing Western Pacific jointed rail that goes "c1ickety-c1ack, c1ickety-
clack" and the replacement of continuous welded rail which operates
much quieter, and so there is $l2,000 to cover that item. Southern
Pacific itself has to remove and relocate the passing track that is
shown in the extreme right hand end of this drawing by Mr. Lee. They
have to remove and relocate their automatic protection at grade
crossings; they have to make the track connections at either end.
Their estimate for that work is approximately $l84,000, so that
brings a construction cost as shown on the drawing of $2,437,575.
Now, the next major item of expense are the right-of-way costs,
and the gross right-of-way costs for all of the properties and
improvements for these particular parcels involved, and I am ex-
cluding now the parcel out at Standard oil that's associated with
the future east First Street overhead, the gross cost is $937,495.
In order to simplify the accounting, and in order to meet certain
CM-26-408
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
requirements of the law and certain legal opinions that have been
expressed by some of the attorneys of the Division of Highways,
they have strongly recommended that the right-of-way acquisitions
for the new track through town - the new parallel right-of-way,
be something like a separate transaction and not a part of the
project towards which the State participates, and so Southern
Pacific has agreed to reimburse the City for the cost of that
longitudinal strip through town, or essentially the cost of it,
in the amount of $340,200. That's a contribution from the Southern
Pacific as we say, quote "off the top" end quote. It's anticipated
that when the project is completed there will be certain parcels
remaining that are excess or will be in the possession of the City
that will be available for resale. The appraiser has estimated
that those might have a value somewhere in the order of $67,700
so that's shown as a credit. We have shown $lOO,OOO as contin-
gencies. I might say that Mr. Lidster, the City's appraiser, is
in the audience today, and if there are any questions further
on or about the appraisals, Mr. Lidster will be available to
address himself to those.
The Environmental Impact report was completed by our firm and
delivered to the City Planning Commission, I think it was about
three weeks ago, or four weeks ago, or something like that. The
Planning Commission held hearings. The Environmental Impact Re-
port was reviewed by the Council at the last meeting, and I think
it is now on file. They have asked us to make certain changes in
it before it becomes a final Impact Report.
That, Mr. Mayor, is the summary of the project. If the Council has
any questions or any details that need to be clarified, I would
be happy to do so. If not, why Mr. Lee is prepared to discuss
how the assessments are spread.
MAYOR MILLER: Gentlemen, do you have any questions of Mr. Barton?
If not, Dan, will you continue with the assessment district.
MR. LEE: The amount of $1,425,000 to be assessed to the Assess-
ment District is shown on the bottom of the chart, is assessed
over the area of the Assessment District as shown on the map
behind me at the top. The boundaries of the Assessment District
are shown here on this map, and running from Murrieta Boulevard
to the west to, possibly, Maple Street on the east. The south
line of the Western Pacific railroad tracks is the north boundary
of the Assessment District, and the south boundary, generally runs
along the south line of the SP tracks, along the north line of
First Street to "M" Street and then along the south line of the
SP right-of-way to the east end of the Assessment District. The
Assessment District has been broken up into five zones; each zone
has a different benefit factor. In Zone l, the benefit factor
is l, l.O. For each square foot of area it's assessed 1 sq. ft.
In Zone 2, the factor is ~ or .5; in Zone 3, in green, the factor
is .25 or one-quarter of that of Zone l. In Zone 4, is shown
here in tan and tan up here (pointing to the map), the factors
are l.5 or l5% of the assessment in Zone 1. Zone 5, which is
the small area in blue has the factor of l/lOth or lO% of the
assessment in Zone l. The cost for assessable square foot is
arrived at by dividing the $l,425,000 by the total number of
assessable square feet in the District. The assessable square
feet, for example, in Zone 2 is one-half of the actual area, and
Zone 3 is one-fourth, Zone 4 is l5% and lO% in Zone 5. This es-
tablishes the assessment per square foot at approximately 60c
for Zone l, and it's shown on this table before you. It's
.6069 etc., about 60C a square foot. In Zone 2, in the red,
the assessment per actual square foot is one-half of that, the
factor being one-half, or 30-1/3C. In Zone 3, the factor being
CM-26-409
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re
Railroad Assessment District
.25 or one-quarter, the amount per actual square foot is 15C and
a fraction over. In Zone 4, the assessment per actual foot is
9C and in Zone 5, the assessment is 6C and a fraction over per
square foot of actual area. Now, all the area benefits to some
extent by the provision of the underpasses. They provide an
access to the area from the emergency vehicles, fire and police,
where now they're subject to being stopped because of railroad
traffic. Zone l, we felt, had the highest benefit - should have
the highest benefit factor and, thus, it was established as 1
because it now either has the railroad on all the property in
Zone 1 or the railroad isolated some of the area. For example,
the yellow area in this end of the District is in Zone I and it
is isolated by the railroad tracks; it is not available or attrac-
tive for improvements. The rest of the area does actually have
the railroad tracks on it and, therefore, by removing - relocating
these tracks to the WP right-of-way, they would benefit more than
other properties. Therefore, Zone 1 has the factor of I. Zone 2
has a reduced factor because it isn't relieved of the railroad
track, however, it benefits because it fronts, or it either backs
or fronts, - backs in the case of this end of Zone 2 and fronts
in the case of this end of Zone 2. Two properties that do have
the railroad tracks and they suffer the inconveniences and adverse
of effects of the railroad in front of them, and also, mainly the
detriment to the full utilization, or the utilization of integral
uses for that property. Zone 3 is somewhat more removed from the
tracks that are being relocated. In the case along here it's the
back one-half of the property; in the case at the east end of the
Assessment District,it's separated by Zone 2, and it has a reduced,
or 25% assessment, because of its distance away from the other
tracks being removed, however, the general climate, or potential
for that property will be enhanced because of the fact that the
railroad tracks are being moved. At the present time they are
now, you might say isolated, between two railroad tracks and
because of this, it has a negative effect on the potential of that
property. Whereas by removing the south tracks and putting it on
the north side, it now puts all the railroad operation behind
Zone 3 and it will benefit - again at the rate of one-quarter of
Zone I. Zone 4 has the benefit ratio of 15%, and it too is fur-
ther removed from the area of actually where the railroad tracks
are being removed. In the case of 4, at this end of the project,
there is Zone 3 and Zone 2 between it and the railroad track.
However, again this will open this area up for better use -
better utilization of the beneficial uses in this entire area.
Zone 4 at this end of the project has - presently has frontage
on First Street, but it will benefit substantially because the
whole area is going to be opened up for development. As a matter
of fact it is already in the mill, and we feel this fully justifies
being at least 15% factor zone. Zone No. 5 s also fronting on
First Street and is farther removed from property in the process
of development, is also farther removed from the streets that go
through - the through streets through the industrial area. It
will benefit because there will be improved traffic around these
parcels; there will also then be backing on property that's fully
developable. The property behind it will have access on Railroad
Avenue; it will also have access through these streets - "N" and "0"
Streets. I might anticipate a question why then isn't this pro-
perty just east of Zone 5 included in Zone 5. It, we feel, has
access now to a principal street - "L" Street. Traffic circula-
tion on this block is good at the present time and the result was
a breaking point - that's where it should end. Just for informa-
tion purposes, I might say that of the $1,425,000, $1,144,000 is
assessed to using the quantative formulas outlined to you.
$1,144,000 is assessed to Zone 1; the remainder - the difference
CM-26-410
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
between $l,l44,000 and $1,425,000 is assessed to the other zones.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: While you're talking about the zones, Dan,
about how much a square foot do each zone amount to?
MR. LEE: This - the next to the last column on this table is
60c in Zone 1, 30, 15, 9 and 6.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: You have too many decimals behind them.
MR. LEE: Yeah, it's a little confusing. I should have made one
reduced, however, this isn't as convenient to read. I think, Mr.
Mayor, that finishes my presentation. If there are any questions,
I would be happy to answer them.
MAYOR MILLER: Are there any other questions by the Council on
the nature of the assessment district? Mr. Barton?
MR. BARTON: Mr. Mayor, I am sorry when I was going through the
table, I got a certain point and then my glasses weren't very good
when I went through the rest of it. I carried it as far as through
the right-of-way costs for the right-of-way flood construction
came out at $3,067,000 and to that must be added the appraisal
cost, the legal costs, the engineering costs, bond printing costs,
other incidental fees, so you notice then a sub-total of
$3,415,000, now actually, the total cost is that figure plus the
railroad contribution, I previously mentioned, which came off the
top so, essentially, what we are considering tonight is something
in the order of $3,850,000 project, essentially. Now, in addition
to the contribution Southern Pacific is making, or in other words,
the reimbursement to the City for the right-of-way, the railroads
together are required to contribute, under Section 1202.5 of the
Public Utilities Code, at least lO% of the cost of the project.
Now, you will notice that that is 339,000. The question may occur
why is it not lO% of of 3,4l5,000. The reason for that is there
are certain costs, like some of the bond costs and some of the
legal costs that are not considered a grade separation project.
There is also a program in eliminating railroad grade crossings,
and this program, as you know, has been in progress for about
fifteen years or so and many cities throughout the state, and
many counties have taken advantage of it, and the philosophy is
that the State matches the City's contributions dollar for dollar.
And so we have calculated that part of the project toward which
the State contribution is eligible, and then taken 50% of it, and
so that is where the $1,528,000 is, and incidentally, that is the
money you have been paying during the years as your gas tax. So
then, we are anticipating in a contribution participation by the
City's own gas tax funds in the approximate amount of $l93,000,
if I can see that right, leaving a net project cost subject to
being borne by the Assessment District of $l,353,000 - that's
roughly just one-third of the total cost of this program. But
one has to consider the bond discount problem and because of
that, the amount to be assessed has now been established at the
$l,425,000. So that goes through the table and gives the explana-
tion.
MAYOR MILLER: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions
by the Council on this matter? Next, then, we would like to hear
from Mr. Ness to discuss the bond sale.
MR. NESS: I am Edwin Ness, with Sturgis, Den Dulk, Douglass and
Anderson, bond counsel to the City on this. I haven't much to say
CM-26-4ll
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re
Railroad Assessmen:t 'District
about it at this point, Mayor, other than the fact that if the pro-
ject moves forward, there will be a point here where the property
owners receive a notice of the exact amount of their assessment.
They will have an opportunity to pay all or any portion of that
assessment within thirty days after they receive the notice, and
whatever they don't pay goes to bond. The bond term is slated for
twenty-five years which is the maximum under the law on which we
get a long period of payoff. We haven't exactly decided on the
maturity schedule if we got to that point. The bond maturities
could be so scheduled that they would be light in the early years
and building up to a point and then, perhaps, evening out for the
latter portions, so that during the early years while there's
development of the area and opportunity to get the thing on its
feet commercially, perhaps the payments could be a little lighter
than just taking 1/25th of the principal each year and adding the
interest to it. The City is contemplating the issue and the pro-
ceedings called the issue 1959 bonds. This is another way in which
the City gets behind the project in addition to making a cash con-
tribution because that bond issue has the contingent liability on
the part of the City to advance delinquent assessment payments,
if property owners don't pay their assessment promptly, and then
can proceed against the property owners to recover those costs.
I don't see much more at this point. If people have questions as
this thing goes along, why we can add to it.
MAYOR MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Ness. Are there any questions of
Mr. Ness? If there are no questions of the previous speakers, then
I would invite all members of the audience who wish to protest the
formation of the district, to please come to the podium, give your
name and address, give us the record of the property that you own
or represent, and discuss with us the questions or problems you see.
Again, I would urge everybody to -- we urge all of those who ---
all of you to be brief and not repeat that which has preceded before.
Before I invite people to actually to step to the podium, I would
like Miss Hock to read the names of those who have submitted written
protests as of today.
MISS HOCK: Mr. Mayor, these also,for the information of those sub-
mitting protests, all protests have been copied, and copies given
to you
MAYOR MILLER: Dorothy, we can't hear you. I can't hear you and
I'm sure the audience can't either.
MISS HOCK: I'm sorry. Copies of all of the protests that were sub-
mitted were also given to the Council. The following have submitted
protests: Elba L. Leonard, Guido and Alberta Roggi, Velma Baker
(2 parcels), Cyriel Delaere, Charles and Margaret Fracisco, Edith
Pfautsch, R. A. and C. Famariss, Irma, Felino and Denise Minoggio
(there are two parcels there), Ada Acciaioli Rutter, Allan and Inez
Holmes and Robert Raskob (2 parcels).
MAYOR MILLER: Okay, at this point I would like to invite people
who wish to protest to step forward.
UNKNOWN PERSON IN AUDIENCE: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Mr. Lee to report
the area represented by that protest.
MAYOR MILLER: Certainly. Would you let us know now what - the
written protests now represent what fraction of the area in the
Assessment District?
CM-26-4l2
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MR. LEE: Of those protests, they have been calculated of approxi-
mately 3.4 million square feet in the area, l38,000 approximately
square feet objected to it. This amounts to 3.995% of the total
area - almost 4%.
MAYOR MILLER: Okay, so far then we have written protests of 4%
of the total area. It requires 50% to strike down this kind of
a project. At long last, I would like to now invite for real the
people who wish to approach the microphone and speak to us.
PERSON IN AUDIENCE: No point in coming up ther, but I would like
to know what happened to about three sheets of the protest papers.
~mYOR MILLER: Well, if you would step up there - we need to have
your name and address for the record.
PERSON IN AUDIENCE: You have Velma Baker's name on there but
that's the only one.
MISS HOCK: That is all that was submitted to me.
MAYOR MILLER: Mam, will you please give us your name and address.
Are you Mrs. Baker?
PERSON IN AUDIENCE: No, I happen to represent her. Gloria Maniz,
llO North Livermore Avenue.
MAYOR MILLER: And how many parcels does Mrs. Baker have?
MRS. MANIZ: Two.
MISS HOCK: That's what I said - two.
MAYOR MILLER: There are two parcels.
MRS. MANIZ: Yes, but there were three pages of written protests
on this that were turned in.
MISS HOCK: To whom?
MRS. MANIZ: Pardon?
MAYOR MILLER: To whom were the protests submitted?
MRS. MANIZ: (Reply could not be heard, apparently Mrs. Maniz
felt that an attorney was submitting a protest)
MAYOR MILLER: Well, since an attorney hasn't presented them
either to City Hall, or so far to us. Are these protestors
property owners?
MRS. MANIZ: Yes.
MAYOR MILLER: Well, hopefully, that attorney will arrive before
the hearing is closed.
MRS. MANIZ: All up and down North Livermore.
AL PAZ: Mr. Miller, my name is Al Paz. I am here to speak on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. De Souza. Their attorney could not be
present tonight; unfortunately Mrs. De Souza did not inform her
attorney that there was a meeting tonight. She is, or both of
them are, signees to the protest that the lady just mentioned to
which there were three or four pages. Aside from the fact they
would like to protest at this time although they don't want to
CM-26-4l3
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
stand in the way of progress, they want it to be known to you that
the people present tonight - they protest the way and the manner
in which you are obviously attempting to bypass their property;
they wanted to make an issue of it; they will make an issue of it
and they have some property - let's refer to property located at
183 and 167 North Livermore. I am not an attorney, don't take me
as such, please. Their attorney did ask me to come up and definitely
make a protest. Mr. and Mrs. De Souza are present. I'm not a
property owner in Livermore - they are. I certainly hope I'm not
doing or saying anything that will hurt them in any way. Their
attorney is handling a case of mine and this is the reason I'm here
tonight. But--
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Are you saying those properties were bypassed
in the assessment?
MR. PAZ: Yes, that's an obvious attempt that you are trying to
bypass the property, and he wants you to know this, and he wants
to put it in an issue.
MAYOR MILLER: His property is not in the distirct? Or is in the
district?
MR. PAZ: 0, yes, it is in the district.
MAYOR MILLER: It is in the district.
MR. PAZ: It's the second picture by the first arrow. It's address
is l83 and l67 North Livermore Street.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Will someone point out to us where that is on the
map.
MR. PAZ: (Speaking to the property owner) Will you please get up
there and show them where it is. (With the property owner pointing
out the property on the map) On the left hand side - just before
you get to the arrow.
MR. DAN LEE: (Pointing to the map) It's right here - it's south of
that- in that area right there.
MR: PAZ: Beautiful.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Okay, and the objection is the underpass - you
think it's going to cut you off.
MR. PAZ: No, no. It's an obvious - you are obviously bypassing
it; there's no question about it by the diagram, and that's obvious-
ly what I want to make sure that you hear.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR:
I understand you.
you.
Yeah. By bypassing I just want to make sure
The objection is that the street does not include
MR. PAZ: That is as plain to you as your first picture - that is
correct.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: The idea was to bypass it so that this property
wouldn't be disturbed.
MR. PAZ: Mmmhmm. That is correct. You are disturbing it though
because we're talking about retail outlets.
MAYOR MILLER: Do Mr. and Mrs. DeSouza want to formally protest?
MR. PAZ: Yes.
CM-26-414
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MRS. DeSOUZA: (Speaking from the audience) Protest the reason to
bypass us?
MR. PAZ: No, just - they want to formally protest. Do you want
to formally protest? (Speaking to Mrs. DeSouza)
MRS. DeSOUZA: Yes, we sure do, yes.
MAYOR MILLER: So, Dan, we need to add their parcel numbers to the
official protest.
MRS. DeSOUZA: Two parcels.
MR. PAZ: Thank you Mr. Miller. I'm sorry, but--
MAYOR MILLER: Well, we appreciate your comments. Anyone else wish
to protest orally?
JOHN PAPINI: My name is John Papini. I'm a property manager for
the Livermore Valley Square shopping center, and I'm here tonight
representing the owner, and he authorized my being here with a
letter to the City Manager sometime back.
MAYOR MILLER: I believe we have a copy of it in our stack of letters.
JOHN PAPINI: Okay. I did not file, or we did not file a formal
protest by letter. We're not sure that we are, in fact, protesting.
We are raising some issues that we think are very important to our
tenants - the merchants of Livermore Valley Square shopping center.
After all, these people earn a living by being in the center. We
merely are there as landlords. We would ask according to their man-
date, so far we have not received even a mandamus mandate to protest,
however, we have received some strong feelings from a good number of
the tenants that we would like to pass on to you and that's why I'm
taking this opportunity right now, if I may?
MAYOR MILLER: Please continue.
JOHN PAPINI: We feel there are three important issues here. The
first, of course, involves logistics and timing for this project.
It hasn't been mentioned yet by anybody here, and that is when and
how will this project be carried out. It's very important to our
center to maintain access at all times. We can't possibly disrupt
the commerce of that center for a twelve month period and have most
of the small local tenants survive. I'm sure Alpha Beta and Thrifty
can survive and TG&Y but not the local tenants. So we're interested:
l) in maintaining access to our center during the entire construc-
tion period. Furthermore we feel that the two key months out of
the calendar year - November and December - are so important that
we do not want to see any construction during that period. Now, a
number of the merchants were assured that construction wouldn't
begin until after the Christmas holidays. I have been told since
that time that if this railroad assessment district is passed, con-
struction would begin in early fall and it would be expedited.
I'm in complete sympathy with these tenants in the - with Liver-
more Valley Square shopping center. We have to maintain access
from both Railroad Avenue and "P" Street during the construction
period. Furthermore, I would hope that you could see your way
clear to postponing any heavy construction until after the Christ-
mas holidays this year, and complete most of the construction
during the first several months of 1974. So, we're concerned
about the timing; we're concerned also about the end results, this
is the second issue. The end results being: what happens when
we have an underpass at "P" Street? Well, two things are obvious
l) we will not have two entrances into the shopping center that we
have today because there will be a retaining wall because of the
CH-26-4l5
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
cut going under the railroad; 2) we will not have convenient
ingress-egress for the delivery trucks that are now using the rear
end portion of the property - that is the property closest to
the railroad right-of-way. I can't really see how a large truck
can make the turn according to the proposed diagram here unless
they wipe out a corner of Straw Hat pizza. I don't think that has
been adequately covered in the plan. I'm hopeful that we can get
some cooperation if this is passed, and it apparently will be
passed; I'm hopeful that we get some cooperation to allow for such
things. I'm also hopeful that the City will take into account the
fact that you are closing off permanently two access points to the
center. I'm hopeful for some consideration on some of these other
matters, namely, the logistics during construction and maintaining
access through this period. Also, another point in regards to
access; if you're going to close off the eastern side of our
shopping center, I would hope that adequate traffic control through
Railroad Avenue will be provided so that we can have good access
through Railroad Avenue, hopefully, a Railroad Avenue that's a
major thoroughfare through the City. This is kind of a give and
take situation. You're taking away access, and I hope we get im-
proved access through Railroad Avenue, and it's on that expecta-
tion that we are not registering a formal protest at this time.
Now, there's a third concern that we have, and I know this isn't
part of the program right now, but I do want to go on record as
mentioning it at this time. If you go as far as completing the
entire project and widen Railroad Avenue and cut it all the way
through; this potentially can be a good thing commercially for
the City of Livermore. We recognize that. It's also a good thing
for Southern Pacific as well. I had to laugh, the $340,000 con-
tributed by the railroad is in recognition of safety. Well, that's
fine; it's also in recognition of the tremendous increase in pro-
perty value that will accrue to the SP properties. So I have a
feeling that that had something to do with the contribution as well.
(Laughter) (Applause). Now, the third point is this: If we can
go to the expense of widening Railroad Avenue and cutting it all
the way through, I would hope that the result isn't to put the
"back side" - the back side of a proposed shopping center facing
north on the south side of Railroad Avenue. In other words, point-
ing the rear end, the truck loading portion of a shopping
center towards the best shopping center in town right now, and I
hesitate to elaborate on what would do to Livermore Valley Square.
I know that isn't a part of this, and you can't assure anybody
at this point in time what's going to happen to that proposed
shopping center, or I'd like to register our concern at this point,
right now before you go through with this project and cut Rail-
road Avenue all the way through, I would like to have one mutation
for that proposed shopping center both ways - First Street and
Railroad Avenue, so that we're not looking at somebodys back door.
I'll just summarize and then that's it, Mr. Mayor, the destructive
effect of construction is our first concern. We don't want to
lose access during the period of construction. Two, we want
adequate traffic control along Railroad Avenue, and access through
Railroad Avenue once it is completed, and item three, we don't
want to look at the back door of Spes new shopping center. If we
can be assured that we'll get cooperation from the City on those
three things, I think we can live with this project. And it was
my understanding from members of the staff, various staff in
city government that we would get this cooperation; therefore,
we did not file a formal protest, but if we're not satisfied later
on, there's nothing that says we cannot take legal action to stop
this project at a later date, even if the assessment has been made.
And, we will do that if we feel that our tenants - the merchants
of Livermore Valley Square shopping center are not able to cope
with the project. Thank you very much.
CM-26-416
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MAYOR MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Papini. The points raised by Mr.
Papini are probably worth some discussion. Bill, do you want
to comment?
MR. PARNESS: Yes, ~1r. Mayor, I can comment to a couple of these
points. I have discussed them with Mr. Papini and with the mer-
chants that reside in that center in times past and with the
former owner. First of all, it's certainly true that there will
be a loss of exposure to the P Street frontage, however, I might
say that that loss certainly will be compensated for by this
district. And in exchange for that, partial exchange for it,
and I think by far will exceed that loss, will be the extension
of Railroad Avenue and it's intersection with "S" Street which
is a parallel companion project, which I think the City Council
has already committed itself to have proceed. This should be a
great asset to that center when it is extended and fully improved
for ample means of access for western traffic. As to the traffic
concerns during the course of construction, they are real, and
we'll recognize that. Now, when I met with the merchants in that
area, it was at a time when it was possible that this project
would not be able to be undertaken until very late fall- something
around December. I fully respect the point that these people are
in business and one of the largest seasons they have is the
Christmas season, and nothing could be more destructive than
having streets torn up, and maybe unpassable, by this kind of con-
struction, and so, in recognition of that, I told them that if
construction was to be undertaken, say, during mid-December,
or in that era, that we would do everything possible to see to
it that it was postponed til past the holiday season. However,
I'm told now that it's likely that this project, if it proceeds,
can be undertaken much earlier than that, perhaps something
around October, but maybe Mr. Barton can speak more authorita-
tively on that point. But during the course of construction,
every effort will be made by us, every assistance will be made
by us, that the least inconvenience as possible will be suffered
by those people who do business there and, of course, the custo-
mers that do want access. Now on the orientation of the center
that is planned for installation south of Railroad Avenue. We've
had a great deal said about this, and I completely subscribe to
the concerns as announced by Mr. Papini and his tenants. They
don't want to look at the rears of stores and have it look like
an alley treatment, and we certainly don't either. We have
announced our fervent view on this point many times to the
Southern Pacific Development Company and to their architects.
As a matter of fact, we have recently rejected some study plans
that they submitted to us on this site because, although it
didn't relegate the stores to a front-rear type of orientation,
it didn't do as we contended should be done about answering
this very point. Now, two of the large tenants in that new
center insist upon having their front towards First Street or
more of an orientation that way, and if that be the case, and
the leases have already been executed to that extent, then we
insist that some type of architectural styling be instituted
for the buildings, so as to at least give a semblance of fronts
that will be along Railroad Avenue. Loading docks will be
screened, there will not be depositories for trash and service
entrances that are readily available. Hopefully, customer park-
ing will be on that side, too, with pedestrian means through the
stores aligned, etc. so every effort will be made by us in re-
cognition of that point about not having rear store type of
treatment onto Railroad Avenue. So all the things that Mr.
Papini has raised are very real ones. We recognize that and
we are certainly taking them all into account.
MAYOR MILLER: One of the things that does bother me is this pro-
tection of the Christmas season. It seems to me that if one can
CM-26-4l7
July 2, 1973
pueblic Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
start early, there are other portions of the project for which
the construction can take place at various times that wouldn't
result in the blocking off or tearing up the streets around
places like this one which need access. Why is it essential to
chop it? If you start in October, you're not going to finish by
November.
Mr. PARNESS: Oh, no.
MAYOR MILLER: No way, so you've got two months where things are
in bad shape.
MR. PARNESS: Maybe Mr. Barton can speak to that point.
MR. BARTON: Mr. Mayor, the contract documents under which the
bids are now being held tell the contractor that he will get a
notice to commence as late as the first week of January, 1974.
Now, it would be--if it were the pleasure of the Council, the
City has every right to defer issuing a notice to commence until
after the Christmas season. I would hope that the notice to com-
mence could be given earlier, but with the full understanding and
instruction to the contractor that he defers work in this parti-
cular area. I think, I'm competetent it can be worked out so
that we don't have this problem this Christmas season. Of course,
you would have to get word to him immediately so that the work
were completed by the following Christmas season, and in this
area we have not as yet had a chance to work out a new schedule
because, as I mentioned earlier, that we were originally planning
to build a 3-track underpass here, now it turns out it's needless,
it will be a 2-track, but I think the matter can be taken care of.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Mr. Barton, if the work is started, say January
1, or whenever it's started, they have three accesses off of
"P" Street now. How would they get in while work is underway -
on Railroad Avenue only?
MR. BARTON: Yes. The only access will be on - well, let me
correct that. The underpass that you see on the wall behind you
is essentially two components. The first component is the bridge
structure right at the railroad tracks, and while that work is
underway, why, that part of the street right around the railroad
has to be closed down - closed off and you won't be able to cross
the track. The stub end of the street quite well---say, at the
other two entrances, the south could remain in service until such
time as the contractor decided he had to then undertake his earth-
moving operation. The earthmoving operations usually proceed
very quickly. We had one down in Ontario where, I think, the
earthmoving was done in something like a month, or two months.
It's the bridge work that requires time, so I think there's a
good opportunity of keeping the piece of "p" Street from Railroad
Avenue up to the first driveway or so open for an appreciable
period of time.
MAYOR MILLER: So that on the assumption, well -- if this project
is to be adopted, then it's possible by a combination of the
terms in our contract to work out something with the contractor
to try to protect merchants, not only here, but other parts of
the assessment district so that they don't have their worst time
of year chopped up.
MR. BARTON: Absolutely
MR. PARNESS: That's right
CM-26-41S
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Can other work proceed in the meantime before
January l, such as the railroad relocation and those parts?
MAYOR MILLER: Well, apparently, according to the terms of the bid
if this project were to proceed this would end our choice to have
it start after the lst of January, but there's opportunity for
negotiation with the developer and discussions with the effected
merchants. Are there any questions at this point? Is there anybody
else who wishes to protest the assessment district?
DAN LEMPRES: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council, my name is
Dan Lempres; I'm an attorney; I'm here tonight at the request of
all the corporation called Zepol. They're the owners of approximately
five plus acres on "P" Street and Railroad Avenue. I think the
Council would agree we're directly affected by the action there
this evening. We have had several discussions with members of the
City Manager's office, with the Engineer and what have you. They
have been very accommodating to us and explained the assessment
district. We have not, as of yet, filed a protest against the
assessment district. We do have some very real concerns. I would
like to evidence those concerns and bring them up this evening.
Mr. Papini very thoughtfully expressed some of the very same con-
cern that the Mayor asked me not to re?eat them. I will not repeat
them, but please be aware they are very much in our minds. Very,
very much so. Additionally, we are quite concerned with the fact
that on a portion of our property we have a tenant - a bowling alley.
We've discussed the matter with the bowling alley; they advise us
they feel the assessment district is not to their benefit. We
are concerned because the assessment in the various zones that were
formed, very properly so undoubtedly, are no -- nothing was taken
into account as to the possibility of the value of the property
being affected by existing leases which mayor may not enable a
cost to be passed on. After all, the property is subject to a long
term lease at a fixed rental; whether there's an assessment dis-
trict or not, doesn't physically benefit the landowner all that
much. In fact, it probably reduces the value of that property
as to him in the event of a sale of that property. I would urge
that the members of the City Council and of the staff take that
into account to ascertain that the benefit is not a hypothetical
benefit, but in fact a real benefit to the property owner, and
not in the nature of a penalty. Now, also we are a little bit
concerned, in fact we are extremely concerned, with the actions
of Southern Pacific to date. We have not Opposed the assessment
district. In fact, we have stated that we would go along with the
assessment district in complete good faith with the City of Liver-
more and of which I am sure are acting in good faith with us. But
in good faith that the property will, in fact, be enhanced in value.
We're concerned about the apparent attempt of the Southern Pacific
Company with such things as moving the track already that has
started. That's not helping us any; that's hurting us right now.
Yet the tracks are moved with the blessing of the Council and the
staff. Additionally, it's been noted that the land is taken _ the
land that is being taken is all property that is owned by us _
none of the Railroad Company's land. From what I can see in the
picture - in the diagram - no railroad property land at all is
being taken. The taking is on our land. Why should the rail-
roads develop their land. Now, couple this with the loss of access,
I think a crushing blow would be if we did look at the backs of
buildings. I could understand the concern of the developers,
the tenants and what have you, but I believe it would be an over-
riding concern to the City of Livermore to protect the property
owners along Railroad and "P" Street who have not opposed the
assessment district because they do have faith in the intention
of the City to protect us, the property owners on the other side
of Railroad Avenue so that we don't look at just supply depots,
CM-26-4l9
__w__~_~__~ -"'.~-'~'.'-"_'"_~_~__"__.e~..._
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
garbage cans. No matter what type of shrubbery or screening are
for loading docks, loading docks are loading docks, nothing
to help the area. We want fronts, we want fronts of buildings
on Railroad Avenue, not loading docks that are carefully screened,
and we are concerned because one of my associates made the comment
that he hoped the Southern Pacific Railroad Company is not in the
twentieth century with a little bit higher degree of sophistication
than they exercised in the nineteenth century, still coming into
town to take over the property. We ask the City of Livermore to
not let them do this, but to watch out for all of the property
owners. (Applause)
MAYOR MILLER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
address the Council?
DOLORES OLNESS: Mr. Mayor, I'm Dolores Olness, 4345 Guilford.
I do not own any property but as a citizen of Livermore, I would
like to be heard. Is it possible?
MAYOR MILLER: Legally, this is for people who own property in the
district, but if you're very brief with your comments, you may proceed.
DOLORES OLNESS: I'm speaking against the proposed assessment
district. I'm the wife of a lab employee, and so I don't stand
to lose in any direct monetary fashion if this assessment district
is passed. However, as a citizen of Livermore I feel that it is
my duty in that I care for my fellow man to speak out against what
I fear is a gross injustice to numerous small merchants, and to
the property owners in this one section of town. In the first
place if the one set of tracks which are going to be removed from
the center of town and new businesses established, most of us
citizens would presumably benefit, why are only a relatively few
people being asked to support this venture? This seems especially
unfair for if anyone stands to lose through the increased compe-
tition it is these various people, presently small businessmen,
who will be assessed to pay for the plan. Secondly, it's been
stated that the assessment district will be formed unless pro-
tests are received from holders of 50% of the land. This in
itself is something of a farce as Southern Pacific owns more than
half of the property in question. In consideration of the present
judicial views on such matters, it might be interesting to let the
courts decide whether such a ruling bears any relationship to the
concept of one man - one vote. I'll just mention several other
items which seem rather peculiar. Since Southern Pacific is
currently grading for the laying of new tracks, it appears we
may be stuck with at least a siding, and the trains can still
block traffic for a long period. Can we expect adequate warning
devices on these things? Finally, there has been little informa-
tion available in the press concerning the assessment district
and whatever there has been is terribly misleading. Two news-
papers quote Mr. Parness as saying, "no protests have been received".
The whole thrust is to make it appear that there is something
wrong with anyone who dares to appear tonight to speak out against
the high-handed treatment of these long time residents and tax-
payers. Mr. Parness is further quoted as saying that only property
owners are qualified protestors. It certainly troubles me that
the city staff and five elected officials are free to treat a
segment of the City any way they please and refuse to recognize
the citizen's right to protest. Gentlemen, I care about all of
us. I hope you do. (Applause)
MAYOR MILLER: Is there anyone else who wishes to protest?
CAROL JEAN FAMARISS: Carol Jean Famariss, 2121 Railroad Avenue.
I wish to agree with everything she said, vehemently. (Applause)
CM-26-420
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
~~YOR MILLER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
MRS. GUIDO ROGGI: I'm Mrs. Guid Roggi, and I would like to protest
again. (Applause)
MAYOR MILLER: I think the applause only keeps people from getting
their chance to speak.
KATTIE RICHARDSON: Good evening, Mayor Miller and members of the
City Council, I'm Kattie Richardson; I live at 510 Junction, and
I'm here tonight to represent one of my friends, Mr. Elba Leonard,
who is located in the proposed assessment district, and is physi-
cally unable to attend. Mr. and Mrs. Leonard are elderly and have
been living at their home at 24 South "s" Street for the past 38
years. He says he would like to live there the rest of his life.
This long established home means more to Mr. and Mrs. Leonard
than any other place they could ever move to. It's very hard for
older people to adjust to a new place after making their home at
the same place for so many years. If he is forced to move out of
this home due to this assessment project, it will bring extreme
hardship upon him. This unfair assessment district has caused many
problems in Livermore. As you remember three years ago this was
highly demonstrated in March of 1970 when it was known as the LDC,
when about a thousand people, or more, gathered at the Livermore
High School auditorium, and many of them spoke out publicly in oppo-
sition of this drastic, unnecessary move to make our City an assess-
ment district which would have brought much undue hardship upon the
whole City. At that time there were approximately ll,970 property
owners involved. After our City Council realized that people were
so strongly opposed to their action that thousands were working to-
gether to stop this unfair LDC, they voted at their next meeting
of March 24, to drop it. Now at this time this plan has come up
again except on a smaller scale. This time, I understand, it only
involves sixty-five property owners, who own land near the rail-
road track. It is just as important tonight that this be defeated
for the sake of these sixty-five property owners as it was in 1970
for the whole City of Livermore. This seems to be sneaky plot
for the camel to get its head in the door of our City. Sooner or
later, it may be extended throughout our whole City. This is
riduculous, to treat people this way. Everyone of you know that
if had been announced that all of Livermore was going to be affected
with this assessment district, it would not have had the slightest
chance of winning for the majority of the people did not want it
in 1970, and I do not think they want it now. Where is our free-
dom? If our City Council should vote such a hardship on these
families that live in our City, who have the right to keep their
home as much as anyone else, to force any family from their home
would be most absurd. Tonight will each of you please give serious
thought and consideration to these people whose freedom to live
in their own home is at stake all because of dictatorial pressure
that is being applied and should be bravely ignored and voted down
by our City Council. To those who are pushing for this project
as they do not seem to have any concern for these people, Mr.
Leonard will greatly appreciate all of you voting against this
assessment district. Thank you.
MAYOR MILLER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
MR. BROWN: Mr. Mayor, my name is Brown, I represent my mother who
owns and occupies a residence at 258 North Livermore Avenue. I
just wanted to clarify a couple of points, or get clarified. Bill,
I think you explained in that May l7 meeting that the railroad did
in fact control 53%. Is that correct? Of the assessment district?
MR. PARNESS: Something like that.
CM-26-42l
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MR. BROWN: Well, is it more than 50%
MR. PARNESS: Twenty-eight acres out of a total of about eighty.
MR. BROWN: So if they concur with the plan, then all the pro-
tests would be in vain. Is that correct?
MR. PARNESS: They don't own 50%, but they own a substantial
part.
MAYOR MILLER: The main point is they don't own 50%.
MR. BROWN: They don't?
MAYOR MILLER: They don't own 50%.
MR. BROWN: Alright, so then in fact we could put enough votes
together to cancel this, is that correct?
MAYOR MILLER: Yeah. If there is enough property. SP does not
completely dominate the district is what Mr. Parness has said.
MR. BROWN: When is the final date to file these protests? Would
that be tonight or is there a later date? Up to August 5th? Is
that August 5th date still good?
MR. PARNESS: Tonight.
MAYOR MILLER: Tonight is the time.
MR. BROWN: Alright, so everybody in the room should--
MAYOR MILLER: Everybody in the room who wishes to protest, and
wants to come to the podium, give the description of their pro-
perty so that it can be written down and accepted legally.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Unless they have already given us an official
list.
MAYOR MILLER: Unless it's already been given. If you have al-
ready given the property, it's not necessary to stand again.
MR. BROWN: I just wanted to clarify that.
MAYOR MILLER: Are you protesting?
MR. BROWN: I'm protesting.
MAYOR MILLER: Dan, do you have that parcel?
Mr. LEE: No, I don't think it's in the district.
MISS HOCK: It's not in the district.
MAYOR MILLER: Is your mother in the district?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, I am. They have the parcel down.
MR. BROWN; Zone 4 - 258 North Livermore
(In attempting to establish whether or not it was in the district,
several people are speaking at once) .
MR. PARNESS: Oh, this side will be purchased entirely.
CM-26-422
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroa(
Assessment District
MR. LEE: It's not in the assessment district. The way it would
be affecting her property is that it has to be purchased for the
underpass. She's not in the district; she's not being assessed.
MAYOR MILLER: Okay, but her property is to be purchased or con-
demned.
MR. LEE: Yes, so that area cannot be used as a protest.
MAYOR MILLER: Okay.
MR. BROWN: It means you can't protest?
MAYOR MILLER: Well, it means the essence of your protest about
the taking - or the purchase or condemnation of properties that
you may not want to have purchased or condemned. We recognize
that. (Recognizing another speaker) Yes, Mam?
GLORIA MANIZ: I'm Gloria Maniz, 110 North Livermore, representing
Velma Baker. I'm on the right hand side of the street, and I
want my assessment bit, so I vote strictly against it.
MISS HOCK: Mrs. Baker has already made her protest.
GLORIA MANIZ: No one knows it, though, because she called me and
asked me. She don't know; she's not kept informed on this.
MAYOR MILLER: She's already submitted - Mrs. Baker has already
submitted a protest.
GLORIA MANIZ: I know she wrote one letter to you. You read her
note because I told you to.
MR. PARNESS: Well, that's the protest.
MAYOR MILLER: Okay, she's protested already That's in the
record. Is there anybody else who wishes to protest? Those of
you who wish to, and have not submitted a written protest, must
make that protest now, so I urge you all to come forward and
give the name of your property if you do wish to protest. Is
there anyone else who wishes to speak or protest? Yes, sir.
HAROLD RAMP: Harold Kamp, I own the property at l42 North Liver-
more Avenue. It's probably ridiculous for me to protest because
in the event of the project, my entire property would be taken
by the assessment district, as I understand it. There are some
inequities in your program, but it sort of puts me on the position
that if the project goes through, why I wouldn't be assessed any-
thing, but looking at it from another angle, in my behalf, I
still haven't got a full understanding, strictly from my point
of information. This particular piece of property affects both
of my operations which it doesn't in any other case, which might
be well that the people in the Council to be awares of. Really,
my headquarters is actually at l42 North Livermore Avenue. Ware-
house facilities, part of my operation, service shop and every-
thing is there. So in considering those things, if anyone, I
should protest, but since this project undoubtedly is going to
go over, and all the property I have would be taken by the City
one way or the other. It's just a point of information.
MAYOR MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Kamp. Is there anyone else? If
there are no other protestors, then a motion would be in order
to close the public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to
protest?
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Mr. Mayor, I move the public hearing be closed.
MAYOR MILLER: Is there a second?
CM-26-423
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Second.
MAYOR MILLER: It has been moved by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? All in favor of the motion say "aye". (All ayes)
Unanimous. Gentlemen, is there any discussion?
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: I presume that not much over 5% --
MR. PARNESS: Slightly over 4%.
MR. LEE: It would be about 4.25 or 4~%.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Have what? Protested? Here tonight? With
everything that's in their folder?
MR. LEE: All protests that have been received prior to tonight
and the protests that you heard to night.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Not over 5%?
MR. LEE: No, 4~%.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MAYQR MILLER: The fact that there is insufficient property to
have a legal protest means that we can go ahead and, if we do
there is a procedure to do so that's laid out in the agenda. We
are not required, however, if there's a protest, if there's not
sufficient protest to go ahead with the project, then I think
there needs to be some modicum of discussion.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Can I ask a question?
MAYOR MILLER: Yes.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: What would be the procedures to - supposing
the Council was favorably inclined to direct that these reports
be filed and so forth, tonight; there will be another hearing,
I presume?
MR. PARNESS: No.
MAYOR TAYLOR: Okay, this is the hearing at which the project is
to be authorized.
MR. PARNESS: This is the hearing at which time the Council has the
option of proceeding or not, in the official formation of the
assessment district. It certainly should be kept in mind that
there's a great deal ahead to be consummated from this point on
between our City and the railroad companies involved, and parti-
cularly, the State Division of Highways, and conceivably there
will be some very real problems associated with their procedures.
We hope that we will be able to correct that. Please correct me now
if I'm wrong in this process. The district will not be officially
formed until such time as we have confirmation from the State on
the award of the construction grant. Bob, is this not right? The
award of the construction grant and the approval of the State Di-
vision of Highways to proceed, and therefore, a debt will not be
levied on these properties until that's all consummated.
MR. BARTON: Well, I think you're mixing two things, Bill. The
district would be officially formed because I think the State
CM-26-424
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroa<
Assessment District
wants to know for a certainty that the local funds are available,
however the lien would not be recorded, and there would be no lien
against the properties until such time as all the other problems
are overcome.
MR. PARNESS: That's what I mean.
MR. BARTON: But you would take the action of actually completing
the district when you feel that you want to do that, whether it's
tonight or what have you.
MR. PARNESS: This is the only public hearing, and it can be con-
tinued in the event that there is a need for it.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: When it comes time to award bid, do we have to
have another hearing?
MR. PARNESS: No.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MAYOR MILLER: Is there any discussion about the project itself?
We are now going to have to make the decision whether we chose to
proceed with the project, or whether we don't. We have only 5%,
less than 5% protest.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: I think that this Council, at least those of us
who were here originally when the first project was attempted,
understand very well, I think, the potential benefits to the down-
town area. These assessments, although admittedly there may be
hardship cases, range up to 60c per square foot on the Zone l,
all the way down to like 6e. Commercial property in the City has
gone as high as $10.00 a square foot for a recent sale on First
Street. The property that the City just acquired for straighten-
ing the street was assessed at $5.00 or $6.00 per square foot.
The value of commercial land far, far exceeds this assessment.
Now the district is only required to raise like a third of the
total cost; the rest being raised principally by the contributions
by the State, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. I think the
railroad's contribution is, I don't know if you've calculated it,
but I think it's of the order of well over a million dollars.
MR. PARNESS: Counting the amount that they'll contribute for
right-of-way costs, yes. The total assessable amount in the yellow
zone, Zone No. I, I figure is 80% of the total cost, and most of
all of that is Southern Pacific land.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: I think that I would rather see us at the same
time complete the underpass work at First Street, and the under-
pass work at Murrieta, which surely will be required some day.
However, it's not--it's just not possible at this time, or fin-
ancially reasonable. I think that the fears of the shopping
center and bowling alley owners, the property on which the bowling
alley exists, are real, and I sympathize with them. I really
don't sympathize, though, with the merchant who want to keep
competition out of the area because he's doing such a good business.
And that feeling does persist somewhat. But First Street -
Railroad Avenue will bypass, giving far greater access to that
property than exists now. We have many, many citizens protest
now wondering why that area is so congested. People have, in
reality only one much used access and that's on Railroad Avenue
with the light. The other ingress and egress points are really
not too useful. Anyway, all in all I think this project is worthy
of proceeding unless something comes up that I haven't seen so
far. I would move that if we can take these actions in one
CM-26-425
_.__._"-...".~~..._~_.~._._~._-_._--_..."."--._-----_.~---._....,~--~--,.-".,,-~_.._._.,..._-~-----_."~._.,,"~-
. --_._----~~_._~---_._-,-,-_.._~_..,...,."._..._-.......-_.~-"_.__._-
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
resolution that the City Council adopt a resolution overruling
the protests since they only constitute less than 5% of the total,
a resolution amending the Resolution of Intention, directing the
Engineer of Work to file an amended estimate of cost, and an amend-
ed Engineer's Report - to file the amended estimate of cost, to
file the amended report of the Engineer, and to adopt the
resolution in order approving the amended Engineer's Report,
ordering the improvements and acquisitions and confirming assess-
ments, and a resolution involving changes in work to be made by
the Public Works Director. I so move.
MAYOR MILLER: Before I ask for a second, I would like to ask
our legal counsel whether that can be done in one motion or
whether it requires individual --
MR. NESS: It can be done in one motion.
MAYOR MILLER: In one motion. Is there a second?
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Second. I would like to ask Dan a question.
MAYOR MILLER: Well, wait a minute. It has been moved by Coun-
cilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, that we adopt
the series of resolutions, and file the appropriate amended esti-
mate and report to proceed with the project.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Dan, there was a question brought up about
Mr. Leonard's property. Are you familiar with the piece of pro-
perty?
MR. LEE: Will that house be taken for any purpose?
COUNCILMAN BEEBE:
It's that corner way over here?
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: 97-84-5.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: liS" Street?
MR. LEE: Just a minute, I have a map.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: That becomes part of Railroad Avenue.
MR. LEE: I have a map that shows that.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Is the cross section here the proposed
realignment of Railroad?
MR. PARNESS: Yeah.
MR. LEE: Councilman Pritchard, this shows the alignment of Rail-
road Avenue when it is ultimately extended to be continuous with
East Stanley Boulevard, and I believe that -- yes, this is Mr.
Leonard's lot right here, and it would take just the corner of it -
the northwest corner of it.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: It shows three residences there and his
is the nearest one to the realignment.
MR. LEE: Yes.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: The house, then, will not have to be dis-
turbed, is that correct?
MR. PARNESS: Yes.
CM-26-426
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MR. LEE: I don't think so. The way it looks here there's about
ten feet off of the corner of the property that would have to be
taken for the -- and as I recall, that doesn't encroach on the house
at all.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Now, on page 2 of your proposed assessment
spread in Zone 4, you have the gross area as 366,000 square feet
and then the assessable area as 54,999 or 55,000, what was the
difference?
MR. LEE: Well, the actual area is the actual area of the property,
and the assessable square feet is the reduced amount, multiplying
the actual value times the factor of .l5 - l5%, that's the assess-
able square footage.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: So, if there's 9 and l/lOC per square foot,
what are we basing it on the 366 or the 55?
MR. LEE: The 366 - the actual amount, yes.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Now are you familiar with the approximate
size of Mr. Leonard's property?
MR. LEE: Yes, I have that.
CUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Would you give that to me, please?
MR. LEE: That is parcel 72, and it, as you pointed out, is in
Zone 4, 7,762 square feet, at l5% is $706.72.
CUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: $706.72?
MR. LEE: Yes.
MAYOR MILLER: And he's going to be compensated for any portion that
the City takes from the north part of his property.
MR. LEE: That will be a separate project. It's not a part of this
assessment district. That would come later, and he would be re-
imbursed.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: He would be reimbursed for what portion?
That lO ft. that might be taken off the corner?
MR. LEE: Yes.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: And then in addition what is remaining then
could be bonded over a twenty-five year plan on the property?
MR. LEE: Yes, the term of the assessment district. Right.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Does the bond counsel have an idea about
what that would cost yearly?
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Divide by 25, plus interest.
MR. NESS: Divide that out to about $28 or $30 a year principal,
and your average interest would probably about $22 or $23 - about
$50 or $55 at the very most. A very rough guess.
~~YOR MILLER: About $50 a year.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: The total yearly assessment then would be
less than $60.
MR. NESS: Beg pardon?
CM-26-427
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: The yearly assessment then would be less
than $60, which would mean a monthly assessment then of less than $5.
MR. NESS: Well, you can't pay it monthly, but that's--
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: But that would figure out to a monthly sum
of--
MR. NESS: It amounts to about $5.00 a month.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Thank you.
MAYOR MILLER: (to person in the audience who wanted to speak)
Just a moment. When the Council finishes discussing, I will call
on you for your comments. Any other discussion?
COUNCILMAN FUTCH: Well, I'd like to say that although we have
received something a little over 4% in the form of protests and
that is a relatively small number, I think it could represent a
real burden to a few people, and that's of a concern to the Council.
I certainly wouldn't like to inconvenience anyone, or put a burden
that is unnecessary, would certainly try not to, but the impor-
tance of the project to the great majority of the people in town
is so overwhelming to the advantage that I'm certainly in favor
of it.
MAYOR MILLER: Cy, you have a comment?
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Can I ask for just a moment, Cy? Earlier
we were discussing Mrs. Brown's property, and she's outside the
assessment district, and this property will in all likelihood
be condemned on the easterly side of the underpass. There is a
requirement by the City to aid in relocation of businesses and
residences. Does this also include people whose property we have
to take by condemnation if it's outside the district?
MR. PARNESS: Oh, yes. Any property that has to be acquired has
certain rights now by State Law that involves aid to those who
live there or who have tenants who live there, or businesses that
are located there, and these matters have been discussed with
each of these respective parties, and they will be discussed at
great length from this point on. This is called the Housing Re-
location Assistance Program, and we have retained a firm to do
just that for the project.
MAYOR MILLER: Cy, you wanted to comment.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Yes, I'm a little bit concerned about the
area on both sides of "L" Street from Railroad up to the Western
Pacific railroad tracks. There are a lot of little family-type
businesses in there and a few homes in there over to the eastern
part of the project that have already built and established, and
with the two railroads being in back of them, I don't see how they're
going to get as much benefit as indicated there by Zone 3. I
really honestly feel that those areas should be in the lower
assessment areas of Zone 4. I don't know. What do you fellows
think?
MAYOR MILLER: Drawing lines is always difficult.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Correct. If you want to -- I think it might
help if the staff again went over the easements including that
property in this particular zone.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: I guess the only question is why is that
area where all the developed little homes and businesses, why
is it in Zone 3 and that part in Zone 4?
CM-26-428
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MR. LEE: Well Zone 3, we feel definitely will benefit from this
because at the present time they're located between two railroad
tracks. That has always been a detriment so far as the value and
the potential of that property. I don't think there is any ques-
tion but what they are going to benefit. We assessed the rate quite
low - 25% of the maximum amount, or l5c per square foot. I think
it can be adequately shown that they're going to benefit to that
amount. The railroad tracks will be behind all of those properties;
there will be now a potential and, I guess, you can expect that
there will be development at least the increase in value, substan-
tial increase in value all through this area (pointing to the
drawings) and development back toward the railroad tracks.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: More so than Zone 4?
MR. LEE: Well, Zone 4, we felt should be Zone 4, rather than 3
because it's separated that much further from, you know Zone 2
is between it, Zone 3 and Zone 4, and the reason why is that
Zone 2 is a separate ownership. You see you can't put together
as large a development here; there's not as much room for a large
development. And this area is quite wide; it starts narrowing
down here; this affects its potential for use - its ultimate
utilization will be somewhat diminished in comparison to this.
For that reason we use Zone 2 here, and then it's logical that
Zone 3 should be here and it just seems proper to include Zone 4
here.
MR. PARNESS: That can all be broadened a little bit. You see
the property between "L" Street and Livermore Avenue that is
owned by SP is under competent intention to develop commercially,
and as a matter of fact, physically it's possible to do something
viable in that area. It's wide enough and it's got proper street
access means on both sides and, therefore, the decision was made
that Zone 3 should closely abut it, and Zone 2 as a matter of fact,
to a small extent. But as you proceed eastwardly from Livermore
Avenue, the Southern Pacific property constricts and they have
no existing intention to do much in there, unless, as Dan says,
that Zone 2 property maybe amalgamates with it, so that there is
a joint project. Therefore, the logic was that the properties
behind Zone 2 are not as attractive from Livermore Avenue east
as the properties between "L" Street and Livermore.
MAYOR MILLER: Well, I can see the argument.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Well, I presume that the reason that you have
a Zone 4 on the edge, which was Cy's original question, I guess,
is that the property already has adequate access to the existing
streets whereas in Zone 3 one street's going to be closed, or
something. That's the point you haven't covered yet. Why is Zone
4 up there in the corner?
HR. LEE: Well, it's true that "I" Street will be closed as part
of this project, but still, I think, the main reason as the City
11anager brought out, that this area is in dual ownership, it's
narrower in width, it's potential for improvement and consequently
it's effect on the properties to the north will be diminished.
COUNCIL~~N TAYLOR: Okay.
HR. LEE: And at this point we thought was the defensible spot that
we could change the street at this point.
COUNCILr~~N TAYLOR: It's because the whole project narrows down
at that end, really, and that because of the proximity of the
best likelihood of development to the south, it will just be
worth less.
CM-26-429
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MR. LEE: Yes.
MR. PARNESS: That's right.
CUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MAYOR MILLER: Cy?
COUNCI~Ulli BEEBE: But if some of those people are paying for what
they get benefitted is what I'm concerned about. I know a lot of
them don't want it period, and I don't want to see them having to
pay more than what they can ultimately get if they did put it up
for sale.
MAYOR MILLER: I guess everybody has had a Bob, do you have any
further comment? You seconded, but didn't have any comment about
the project as a whole.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Dan, could you point out Murrieta Blvd. on
the blue map?
MR. LEE: On the blue map, Murrieta Boulevard is here (pointing to
the map) .
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Did we ever discuss why it wasn't quite
feasible to extend the district to Murrieta?
MR. LEE: Well, extending the district, I assume you mean including
an underpass at Murrieta?
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: Yeah, and the track - the joint trackage at
Murrieta?
MR. LEE: Well, one of the main problems that we encountered there
is that it would require a new bridge across the Arroyo Mocho. We
would have to start up here (pointing to the map), and start para-
lleling the railroad track and the Western Pacific railroad track,
and require a new bridge, and it just increased - escalated the
cost of the project to too great an extent. However, this sets
it up so sometime in the future this can be done, and should be
done. That is, of course, the advantage of the entire project
too, is that by getting the tracks together it does set the stage
for ultimately phasing out passes on all the crossings when we
think they are justified.
MAYOR MILLER: Do you have any other comments you wish to make,
Bob? I guess it's my turn. Well, I see this project somewhat
similarly as I viewed the one three years ago as having major
assessed valuation and tax revenue advantages for the City of
Livermore as a whole. The availability of shopping relatively
accessable, and again the taxes and tax revenue we get from this,
can't help but improve both the shopping situation and the City's
financial situation. I think it's worth pointing out that in this
assessment district, SP pays BO% of it. The problem with decisions
of this kind is that it does make it hard on some individuals like
Mr. Leonard, and the difficulty is balancing these kind of equities.
I think,- no, I've come to the conclusion on thinking about this
for a long time and what I've heard tonight, and that the project
is in the best interests of the City as a whole. There are, and
I'm going to vote in favor of it, however, there are some things
that I feel have to be done. One, is that the concept of lower
amounts on any bond redemption in the earlier years is because the
returns from the development haven't come in, is something that I
think is very important, especially to people who have property
and cannot foresee development in the next three, four or five years.
CM-26-430
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
I think that those who have residences, for example, in this district
should have the option of having, if they wish to pay it in annual
payments, have the option, for example, like Mr. Leonard who should
pay something like $50 a year, you could arrange the bond interest
payment so he would pay $25.00 a year in the first years, and maybe
$75.00 in later years when their chance for the, or whoever is there,
have the chance to get the real value of the property in development.
I think that's something that's important for people with smaller
parcels. Second thing is that I am very concerned about the times
on which access is going to be prevented for the merchants at the
Alpha Beta shopping center and the other places in the heart of
this construction, and it seems to me that, and my approval is
essentially contingent on being able to work out someway to resolve
these access times and not cut the heart of out of the best season
for the existing merchants downtown. I also agree that we should
have some control over this through site plan approval and design
review. It seems to me that we need to make loading docks on sides
of buildings rather than loading docks facing on Railroad Avenue.
Anyway, there needs to be something solid about __
MR. PARNESS: I don't think so, Mr. Mayor, I think the intentions
of the staff and of the designers for SP are completely consistent
with what you've said, and we have told SP that we intend to see
to it that site plan is amenable to the very questions that were
raised by the property owners across street. And, as to the access
means for the shopping center merchants, every effort will be made
to try to inconvenience them the least that is possible, and we do
not want to disrupt their Christmas season. We've had that happen,
unfortunately, one time before where construction did interfere with
some hOliday. We certainly don't want to go through that again. So
every effort will be made to try to accommodate the merchants, you
can be sure of that.
MAYOR MILLER: Is there any further Council discussion?
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: I don't know, maybe that ought to be embedded
in the motion. Do you think it's necessary?
MR. PARNESS: No.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Because that's the intent of the Council - that
Christmas shopping not be disrupted.
MR. NESS: No I advise against that. By motion you should give your
direction to the staff to do what you want them to do. Don't put
that into your motion.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Separately? And Railroad Avenue should maintain
its beauty as well as First Street, as far as the front of build-
ings.
MAYOR MILLER: Our counsel recommends a separate motion for that.
If there's no further Council discussion, there was a lady in the
audience who wished to speak earlier. Do you still want to address
us?
MRS. LARSEN: Thank you, yes I do. My name is Mrs. Larsen, and I
was born on North Livermore Avenue. I think of the five of you,
Cy Beebe is the only one who was born in Livermore, right?
COUNCIL~~N BEEBE: I was seven when I carne here.
MRS. LARSEN: Yeah, okay, then I picked you wrong. I think Bob's
point is well taken about Mr. Leonard. Everybody is saying some-
thing about how we can make it easier for Mr. Leonard so that he
can pay the assessment, but you also made the point that his
CM-26-43l
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
property is going to increase in value, and that means that his
taxes are going to go up. Now, who's going to take care of his
taxes? See? And Mr. Futch, in your argument is very good too,
it's for the whole benefit of the City of Livermore. If the
whole City of Livermore is going to benefit, why isn't the whole
City of Livermore assessed? If the whole City is going to benefit,
I think that another assessment program should be worked out, and
I think that he's right, too, you've all made some good suggestions,
but you're not putting them all in one. You're going ahead with
the SP, so nobody is really helping the people; you're going to
help the merchants, and you're going to try to help those people
in the bowling alley - this young man that just spoke. But I
agree with that young woman. She said you have to think of every-
one, not just a few, and if everyone in this town was being assessed
we would have an entirely different story. Now, the thing that
no one has discussed tonight is what Margaret Brown and her son
were trying to tell you about. Mr. Parness, I think, you spoke
about the relocation assistance program for homeowners and tenants.
This is the booklet that these people received. I have seen nothing
in the newspapers about this book; I haven't seen it publicized;
I haven't seen it reproduced anywhere, and in this book, it's true
you said that these people have been approached individually. But
a lot of these people don't speak English very well; a lot of
these people are elderly; a lot of these people don't know what's
going on. Now, I'm referring to one person in particular who has
lived in this same house for sixty years, and all this talk has
really endangered her health, and she may be relocated, and she's
willing to be relocated, but can you give her exactly what she's
had? What her children had? What her grandchildren had and what
her great-grandchildren have now? Now, I think that Cy is right.
I think you should think about it, and have another public hear-
ing, or you should talk about it some more. I don't think you
should jump into it so quickly because in this relocation program
there are lots of nice things, and it says you may qualify for
this if you can qualify for that. If - you may qualify if. The
burden is on the homeowners. You have to go down to City Hall;
you have to get the form; you have to fill it out and you have to
do it by a certain day, if you are going to get a house like the
house you have, or property like the property you have. The burden
is on the person. The firm that put out this book is not going
to do it for you. You have to do it yourself. Okay, I don't want
to take up too much of your time. There's one question I would
like to address to the lawyer, is he here? The Livermore lawyer?
MAYOR MILLER: Not the Livermore lawyer. He doesn't start for
a couple of weeks yet.
MRS. LARSEN: Alright, there is one point, if you don't mind,
Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR MILLER: Certainly.
MRS. LARSEN: On page 29 of this book, there's a section on appeals,
and I'll just read a little bit. It says, "If you have been denied
payment, etc. etc. etc. you should contact the City of Livermore
and, regarding the appeal procedure". If you don't mind, I would
like to know to whom can appeals be made at the County or the State
level? If anyone of these people are dissatisfied with the
treatment he or she gets, that was not included in the booklet.
Would you do that, Mr. Parness?
MR. PARNESS: Maybe I can quickly respond, Mr. Mayor, to Mrs.
Larsen's point. Now the two gentlemen are here in the audience
tonight who are going to handle this program for us. And the
booklet was distributed, Mrs. Larsen, to only those parties who
either reside or own homes or businesses that must be disrupted
CM-26- 432
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
by the improvement program. Now when you say that the initiative
is entirely on the part of those people, that's not quite true.
It isn't true, I'm sorry --
MRS. LARSEN: In order to be recompensed.
MR. PARNESS: No, the whole burden of responsibility falls on the
City, and the gentlemen here in the audience, who I think can
certify to that point. You're very correct when you say that
there are some elderly persons, and some that perhaps don't under-
stand too well, and we recognize that. And one of these gentlemen
if they are to proceed, when they do approach these people once again
we're going to have some Spanish speaking people with them so that we
can very carefully take the time to explain the rates and benefits
and go back, and go back and back again, if need be, so that there
is complete understanding of all of their rights and entitlements.
The appeal, I understand, and Mr. Lidster you correct me if I'm
wrong, any appeal that might be due anyone here is either to the
City Councilor to the courts in the event that there is dissatis-
faction. Is that right, Burt?
MRS. LARSEN: There is no agency other than the courts?
HAYOR MILLER: Well, there's the City Council.
MRS. LARSEN: No, I mean like at the City Council level for this
sort of thing?
MAYOR MILLER: The City Council itself.
MR. PARNESS: The City Council.
MRS. LARSEN: For example, like the assessment district? If 50%
don't agree, well that's kind of a silly thing. Like that young
woman says, it's a simple thing. It's just a little gimmick;
that's all it is.
MR. PARNESS: Well, you see in this process what we're talking about
is acqu1r1ng property to accommodate the improvements. Now, if
you're a property owner, and these gentlemen approach you on our
behalf, the City's behalf, and you're dissatisfied with the price
that they've established for the property, you don't like it, you
think it's wrong, then you certainly have the right to refuse it.
And that's when you appeal to the City Councilor go to the courts,
to see to it that they then decide on what the true value is. But
that's the usual process, Mrs. Larsen, in any kind of an instance
like this.
MRS. LARSEN: I think they should have put that in the book, and
another thing on these costs that they were talking about, how
much? The whole cost of this thing is going to cost almost $4
million; does that include the cost of relocating all the owners
and all the tenants?
MR. PARNESS: Yes.
MRS. LARSEN: When you relocate a tenant and you pay the tenant a
relocation fee, will you also pay the owner a fee?
COUNCILt~N BEEBE: For cleaning of the house, huh, cleaning it out?
MR. PARNESS: You mean for the vacancy? Well, of course, the pro-
perty will be acquired for the improvement.
CM-26-433
July 2, 1973
Public Hearing re Railroad
Assessment District
MRS. LARSEN: Do you know how many feet are going to be taken from
that front yard on Livermore Avenue?
MR. PARNESS: Yes, it's all been calculated.
MRS. LARSEN: How many feet?
MR. PARNESS: Well, it varies. We have the map here that shows
the bounds of the taking.
COUNCILMAN BEEBE: Any special parcel?
MR. PARNESS: If you have a parcel, we can tell you how many
square feet would be taken.
MAYOR MILLER: Well, that's not really the issue right now.
MRS. LARSEN: No, that's not the issue right now. I don't want
to take up any more of your time. I do want to make those points
because I don't think the book was very clear, and I don't think
you emphasized it enough. It's not just the people who have the
stores, and it's not just the people who have paid for it and some
of the people that are being assessed, and it's not Mr. Leonard -
it's the people who are being dislocated and relocated, also. And
I suspect there are a lot more other things that are going to be
affected. Thank you very much.
MAYOR MILLER: Thank you, Mrs. Larsen.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD: I would like to speak to one point that Mrs.
Larsen brought up, and it's a very good point. She's talking about
the City as a whole participating. Of the total project cost of
$3,4l5,670, $1,528,300 and then another $193,995 coming to a total
of $1,722,295 is coming from the taxpayers, and it amounts to over
half of the total cost of the project, and it's not being borne just
by the people in the assessment district. So, if you look at it
in that manner, the rest of the people in the City through their
gas taxes and through their City taxes are participating.
MAYOR MILLER: If there is no further discussion? There is.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Just one question regarding the comments of
Mrs. Larsen. As I understand it, the new state law that mandates
that governments give help to people whose property is taken or
dislocated, doesn't just apply to this district, it applies to any
public improvement project whatsoever in the entire state.
MR. PARNESS: That's right.
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: So that policy will be in and enacted any time
from now on if the City has to acquire property or right of way
or whatever.
MAYOR MILLER: It's been moved by Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, to adopt the appropriate resolutions and
file the amended report in order to proceed with this assessment
district. All in favor of the motion say Aye. (All Ayes) Opposed?
It's unanimous.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-73
RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS
CM-26-434
July 2, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING RE RAILROAD
Assessment District
RESOLUTION NO. 88-73
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 67-73
RAILROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
AL&~DA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 89-73
RESOLUTION DIRECTING FILING OF AN AMENDED ENGINEER'S
REPORT AND AMENDED ESTI~mTE OF COST IN RAILROAD ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
The Amended Engineer's Estimate of Cost was filed.
The Amended Engineer's Report and Assessment was filed.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-73
RESOLUTION AND ORDER APPROVING AMENDED ENGINEER'S
REPORT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITIONS
TO BE MADE AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT, RAILROAD ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 9l-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN THE WORK TO
-BE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE, RAILROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, AL&~EDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE I1EETING RESU~ED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT.
CONTINUED P.H. RE REZONING
APPLICATION (Sunset Dev. Co)
Mayor Miller explained that at the last hearing which took place on
May 7th the application for rezoning the northeast corner of Holmes
Street and Concannon was amended to professional office rather than
neighborhood commercial, and sent back to the Planning Commission
for consideration. They have returned a report to the Council in whic
they recommend by a 4-1 vote that the application be denied, based
on the fact that it is not in conformance with the General Plan and
that it will be deleterious to continuing commercial viability of
downtovln .
Mr. Musso explained the area involved which was originally pro-
posed for development of a shopping center, commercial office, and
park development, and then amended to delete the commercial retail
portion.
Councilman Beebe questioned as to whether the application still
includes a substantial amount of landscaping, improvement of Holmes
Street and signals at the corner of Holmes and Concannon, and Mr.
Musso indicated that he believes this is still a part of the plan.
CM-26-435
July 2, 1973
(P.H. re Rezoning
Corner Holmes & Concannon)
Councilman Pritchard wondered how the City can be assured that these
improvements will be made, as proposed, and Mr. Musso explained that
this could probably be taken care of through an ordinance, such as
was done with the Portola-Enos apartment development.
Letters endorsing the proposal were sent to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting from the following Sunset residents:
Gail Dold, l745 Darwin Avenue
Joseph Picardi, l650 London Way
Elmer Rosenberg, l35l Calais
Michael Doubrausky, l371 Belfast Court
At this time the Mayor asked for testimony from the proponents
of the rezoning.
David Madis, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the area
has been zoned low density residential and has stood vacant for eight
years, during which time various plans for development of the land have
been turned down by the Planning Commission. After giving some history
of the land and proposals made, he pointed out the various businesses
which have located in the Financial Center on Barcelona Street, which
is made up of commercial offices built by the applicant, and that there
were a significant number of businesses which were not in Livermore
prior to development of the center. He stated that at one time he
looked for office space and that there was none available except the
building which was at the corner of First and "P" Street and has since
been demolished. At this time there is no office space available and
the applicant would like to have the opportunity to provide the
services which will bring this type of business to the City. As for
the argument against the proposal that it will detract from the down-
town commercial plan, they feel that if the plan is conceptionally
sound the Council should not worry about a 14 acre commercial
office center on Holmes Street when the City plans to spend some
$3 million to complete the downtown area. However, if this plan
is so "shakey" the City should reconsider whether or not they should
spend $3 million dollars on it. At this time, the only commercial
office zoning in the City is on Fourth Street and Fenton and Murrieta
Blvd which has been nearly filled with medical-dental uses. He
summarized by stating that he and the applicant feel that there
is noting detrimental to the City of Livermore in this proposal,
and would insure the City that the street improvements are completed
and to abide by the conditions imposed in the CO Zone.
Councilman Futch wondered if the applicant would be willing to deed
the building rights to the City, for the propwerty Zoned E District
and not build on this land which is to be used for park land, and
Mr. Madis stated that on behalf of the applicant he would agree
to this.
Greg Sherry, 1570 College Avenue, stated that he would oppose the
application due to the fact that the planned use would be creating
a 100% increase in the number of offices presently in the area which
would be approximately 150 separate units and feels that this would
have an effect on the downtown area because in his opinion the demand
for office space would result in development of office space in the
downtown area. He also felt that this same proposal could take place
in any part of the City and it would be better to take place in the
central core.
Councilman Beebe stated that he fails to see how professional offices
would detract from a commercial retail development, such as that
planned for the downtown area.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, asked that the Council be consistent
in their values, pointing out that extensive commercial is being
allowed on First Street near US 580 and it would be creating double
standards to argue that development by Mr. Mehran would detract
from the downtown area when First Street is being allowed to develop.
CM-26-436
July 2, 1973
(P.H. re Rezoning Corner
Holmes & Concannon-Sunset)
Mr. Madis pointed out that Mr. Mehran is willing to defer any build-
ing on the l4 acres for a period of three years - until July 4, 1976.
Peggy Volponi, 2148 Chateau Place, asked what will happen to Concannol
Boulevard, and the Mayor explained that as part of the project, Mr.
Mehran proposes to put in the street improvements along Concannon,
a traffic light, and portions abutting residential property will be
developed for park space. Also, the Mayor pointed out that as proper1
develops on each side of Concannon, the street will have to be im-
proved and widened.
With regard to the comment made about development out on First Street,
Mr. ~1usso indicated that if this use were proposed in that area it
would be allowed because it happens to be zoned for the use.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by a
unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Beebe stated that he does not share the view that the
proposal will detract from the downtown proposed shopping area and
that often commercial professional offices clutter up commercial re-
tail centers because they have nothing to do with retail business.
Mayor ~1iller commented that it is not true that all of the businesses
located in the Finance Center are new to Livermore, as was indicated
by Mr. Madis, and secondly, when the property in question was pur-
chased it was zoned for single family residential and if this is not
suitable it would seem to have been a bad business judgement to buy
the land. The fact that it has not developed in eight years should
not be an indication that the land will never be developed under the
present zoning, and is not adequate justification for rezoning.
He stated that in his opinion it does not make sense to continue to
scatter commercial property, regardless of whether it is commercial
office or commercial retail.
Mayor Miller continued to say that it is felt that Mr. f1ehran would
construct an attractive development if allowed the commercial zon-
ing, but in his opinion that is not the issue. The issue is whether
the particular location is proper for creating more CO District land
when, reportedly, a number of the offices in the existing commercial
location on Barcelona are vacant. Also, the zoning would take place
in violation of our General Plan and in a couple of months, to zone
differently than as specified by the General Plan will be illegal.
Mayor Miller then moved to uphold the Planning Commission recommenda-
tion to deny the request for rezoning; however, the motion died for
lack of a second.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is serious business to zone
property of this size to be inconsistent with the General Plan and
in the past there have been other requests contrary to the General
Plan which had clear deleterious effects on the City. However, in
this particular case he felt there are some misconceptions - one
being that people in the Granada area might not know where the down-
town area is if more commercial is allowed elsewhere and it should
be made clear that the request is for more office use and not to be
mistaken as commercial retail or any type of shopping center. The
first application which was for a shopping center and offices was
withdrawn by the applicant. He pointed out that a number of busi-
nesses have located in the center on Barcelona because the space
was available and that the businesses being developed out on First
Street are of a different type and need the larger space.
CM-26-437
July 2, 1973
(P.H. re Rezoning
Holmes & Concannon)
Councilman Taylor stated that he does not agree that the issue is
whether or not the Council would like the offices to be in this
location, or elsewhere. He noted that if the property is not
rezoned there could be something like another 60 homes built on
the land with no provision for a park site, and the Council should
give careful consideration to rezoning for a use that will pay
taxes rather than consume them. He felt the history of the pro-
perty was irrelevant and that the Council should judge the property
and proposal as it stands and simply decide whether or not the
application would be in the best interest of the community.
To deny the application on the basis that it does not conform to
the General Plan, in his opinion, would be denying the citizens
of Livermore a substantial improvement and relief in taxes and
for this reason he would be in favor of approving said application.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council approve this type of use
in the area and that the staff be directed to work out the neces-
sary safeguards in the way of a contract or other means to guarantee
that a park is built and that the City obtains the building rights
to the park portion. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch stated that he views the proposed development as
an overall benefit to the community; however, he expressed reser-
vation with regard to the legality of rezoning property to be incon-
sistent with the General Plan. He would, therefore, suggest that the
Planning Commission be asked to initiate a change in the General
Plan for this area so that it would be consistent prior to taking
a vote.
The Council questioned as to whether it would be illegal to rezone
the property and Mr. Musso stated that it is up to the Council to
make the findings and if it is challenged, the Council would have
to defend it.
The Mayor stated that the state intends to make it illegal to develop
anything which is not zoned for the purpose according to the General
Plan and it appears that the Council would like to get a change in
before this goes into effect, which he feels would violate the spirit
of the zoning acts. A rezoning would not be in conformance with the
General Plan and to do so would be pre-empting the major revision
in process at this time. If Mr. Mehran is willing to wait three
years to start construction, there is no reason he cannot wait for
a decision on the matter after the General Plan review is finished.
Councilman Pritchard felt Councilman Futch's point is well taken but
if the Council intends to rezone the property anyway, it seems imma-
terial whether it is done before or after a General Plan change has
taken place.
Councilman Taylor stated that the General Plan Review Committee has
been specifically asked not to look at detailed pieces of property
involved in rezoning and that they are making plans for general areas.
He felt that the reason the review was initiated was to allow for
public facilities at the time more residential development is built.
He felt that the Planning Commission had no choice but to vote the
way they did because it does not conform to the General Plan, but
the Council has the option to decide that this will be of benefit
to the community and make the change, which will make a change in
the General Plan and he felt there is no reason to postpone the vote.
Mayor Miller stated that it appears that the Council majority wishes
to rezone the property and if this is so he feels that it is essential
to amend the General Plan first and to order the Planning Commission
to prepare such amendment.
CM-26-438
July 2, 1973
(P.H. re Rezoning - Sunset)
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to add to his motion that
concurrently with the rezoning the Council would like to initiate a
change in the General Plan in this particular area.
Councilman Pritchard moved to amend the motion to read that the Counc.
instruct the Planning Commission to initiate a General Plan revision
for that piece of property, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mr. Madis asked if his client would be able to go ahead with the
engineering or must this go back to the Planning Commission for
approval, rather than reapproved by the Council.
Councilman Taylor stated that his only concern is that the site plan
and public works improvements should be spelled out in detail and
added that this is not an ordinary rezoning. He would also like to
see that the widening of Holmes Street and the traffic lights are
installed as soon as possible to alleviate the bad traffic situation
which exists in that area. If this is not taken care of before three
years there may be fatal accidents in the area.
At this time the Council voted 4-l (Mayor Miller dissenting) to
approve the amendment to the motion.
Mayor Miller restated the main motion at this time to direct the staff
to prepare the necessary safeguards to reflect the decision by the
majority of the Council such as development rights, development of
Concannon Blvd., and the traffic lights at the intersection and to
direct the Planning Commission to initiate a General Plan amendment
for the parcel.
At this time the Council voted 4-l to approve the main motion, with
Mayor Miller dissenting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Payroll & Claims
Dated June 29 & July 2
There were l86 claims in the amount of $223,723.83 and 30l payroll
warrants dated June 29, 1973, in the amount of $67,070.55 for a total
of $290,794.38, ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
There were II claims in the amount of $20,068.3l dated July 2, 1973.
APPROVAL OF CON-
SENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved.
COMMENTS FROM LIVERMORE
HERITAGE GUILD RE HIS-
TORICAL PRESERVATION
Roger Brown, ll450 Tesla Road, representing the Livermore Heritage
Guild stated that he has met with Mr. Parness to determine what can
be done to preserve the Southern Pacific depot and he asked if Mr.
Parness would give a report as to what the staff and the Guild is
trying to achieve.
Mr. Parness commented that a meeting was held this afternoon between
representatives of Southern Pacific, the Guild and the staff, and
it was clear that there had been communication problems and that they
were all concerned about attempts to demolish the building. The City
has been assured that further attempts will not be made until the
CM-26-439
July 2, 1973
(Historical Preservation)
matter is resolved. During the meeting there was a lot of discussion
over what Southern Pacific's policy is and if the Council would like
comments related to policy there are members of the audience who
represent Southern Pacific Development who might be willing to make
comments. The Heritage Guild has made it clear that they intend to
do all they can to see that the building is preserved and southern
Pacific has stated that they will do nothing for a period of two
months, during which time it is anticipated a proposal will be pre-
sented to the Council for adoption and in turn submitted to the
Southern Pacific Development Company for acceptance.
Mr. Brown stated that the Guild is also interested in the Buckley
estate and it has been rumored that everything except the Buckley
home is to be destroyed and they are concerned about the buildings
to be destroyed. He stated that Mr. Parness has indicated that
there will be no destruction of the buildings but they feel that
they would like an additional assurance that the buildings will be
protected. Mr. Brown added that the Guild has not really had the
opportunity to determine whether these buildings are still in
good condition or if they have been ruined due to termite damage
but they want to be assured that they will have time to come to
a decision before they are destroyed. He commented that speaking
as an individual and not on behalf of the Guild, he would like to
see the Council consider something in the way of a historical preser-
vation ordinance.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council go on record as attempting
to preserve the property at the depot and the Buckley property by
postingfsigns to indicate that there will be no trespassing without
permission from the Council; however the motion died for lack of a
second.
Chet Fankhauser, 609 South liP" Street, stated that he has contacted
a number of other cities regarding ordinances for preservation of
historical sites and they have indicated that they have adopted
ordinances because historical buildings had been destroyed and
they wanted to be assured that this would not continue to happen.
Mayor Miller stated that the staff could be directed to take the
ordinance, proposed for adoption by the Committee, and work with
the Planning Commission to prepare an ordinance and in the meantime
an interim ordinance could be adopted at the next meeting to be
used while they are working out an ordinance to become permanent.
The Council agreed that this would be a favorable move and the
staff was then directed to prepare an interim heritage ordinance
to be adopted at the next meeting, and secondly, to work with the
Heritage Guild and the Planning Commission to obtain a final ordi-
nance.
COMMUNICATION RE
PROPERTY TAXES
A letter was received from Clarence Hoenig with regard to property
taxes which indicated that he would like to suggest that the Council
consider the formation of a citizens committee to study assessment
methods used by the County Assessor and to appoint a committee to
review the current and preceding year budgets so that these commit-
tees may prepare reports to be presented to the community for a
better understanding of the subject.
Mr. Hoenig spoke to the Council regarding the matter, at this time,
and urged that they consider his suggestions, so that the public
may have a better understanding of how their tax dollars are being
used.
CM-26-440
July 2, 1973
(Property Tax Assessments)
Councilman Taylor stated that he would be reluctant to set up a commit-
tee to investigate how taxes are levied and that if Mr. Hoenig or anyone
else would like to form a group, voluntarily, they are free to do so.
However, if the Council were to make appointments there would undoubtedly
be comments made to the effect that the Council made political appoint-
ments. He added that he felt the Committee would become a sounding
board for hearing complaints .
Mr. Hoenig suggested that if there is concern that the Committee would
become a sounding board for complaints it should possibly be made clear
that the committee could drop the item which states that the Committee
will determine that all properties are assessed regularly, accurately
and in an equitable manner relative to each other. With regard to the
fact that the Council may be hesitant to appoint such a committee, he
feels that the Council should use their office to help inform and gener-
ate a mode of understanding about assessment methods in Livermore, and
added that people of this City do not have a chance to understand the
City budget. He felt a public hearing just does not accomplish a
general understanding of the budget. He suggested that some type of
brochure be provided to show, in plain language, where the dollars are
going. If the Council does not use their office to gain better rapport
between the City and the County Assessor's office, it will not occur.
In his opinion, the response to questions asked the Assessor about a
specific piece of property fell far short of what the Assessor's Office
owes the taxpayer.
Councilman Futch felt the concept of presenting information to the
public in a manner which can be easily understood, such as a brochure,
would be very desirable.
Councilman Taylor felt that if the Council sends out brocures to the
public, the Council should be responsible for it, as well as the staff,
and certainly not something to be delegated to a volunteer group.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the ordinary citizen is not aware of
the fact that every dollar taken in through property taxes is spent
only by the Police Department.
Mayor Miller stated that he feels both ideas expressed by Mr. Hoeing
are excellent and also that it is true that it is very hard to get
information from the Assessor without the influence of the City, and
that a representative group from the City should look at the equita-
bility of assessments, as it was clear from a report given by the City
Manager recently that there have been systematic under assessments in
the downtown area and there should be sufficient public attention given
to the fact that property should be properly assessed. He added that
he agrees that the ideas for tax equity and a budget report are excellent
ideas and also agreed with Councilman Taylor in that the report would
have to be approved by the Council. Although Councilman Taylor stated
that it should not be made up by a volunteer group, Mayor Miller felt
that to have a citizens group prepare one was not at all unreasonable
Councilman Pritchard stated that the matter is too important to come
to a decision at this time, but with reference to the letter received
from the Assessor with regard to questions asked about specific property,
he felt Mr. Hoenig's comments were too kind. He pointed out that it
appears that the letter is nothing more than a form letter which is
probably sent to hundreds of people inquiring about property and he
stated that he would like to do something to rid the citizens of the
bureaucratic way of handling tax problems.
Mr. Hoenig stated that even if the Assessor would explain the method
by which property is assessed, it would be helpful, not to mention
the inequities which exist in assessments, but it is doubtful that
this could be explained during limited time, such as would be the case
if he appeared at a Council meeting.
CM-26-44l
July 2, 1973
(Property Tax Assessments)
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the matter was continued to the meeting of
July 16, 1973.
COMMUNICATION RE
EXCESSIVE SPEED
(Lawrence L. Marino)
A letter was received from Lawrence L. Marino of 1324 Madison Avenue,
in which he states that there is excessive automobile speeding in his
neighborhood.
The staff reports that they are investigating the matter and Mayor
Miller suggested that as soon as the staff is ready to report, that
Mr. Marino should be invited to attend the meeting and bring neighbors
who might wish to comment on the matter.
RE EXTENSION OF
INTERIM Z.O. ORD.
The staff reported that the matter of the extension of the Interim
zoning Ordinance was postponed from June 25th for further considera-
tion and recommends that the Council instruct the staff to prepare an
interim zoning ordinance extending the holding period for eight months.
The ordinance can be posed for adoption on July 16th since the ordi-
nance will not expire until after that meeting.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a 4-1 vote of the Council (Beebe dissenting) the staff recommenda-
tion was adopted.
The Council commented that the intent of the ordinance was not to
prevent an individual from building on an individual lot on the north
side and that this could probably be taken care of by way of a vari-
ance procedure.
Mr. Pavia, property owner in springtown, stated that he feels it is
unfair that he cannot build on his lots, and stated that he owns two
lots that he pays $600 a year in taxes for.
RE AMENDMENTS TO
Z.O. - SIGNS
The matter of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to signs
was postponed from the meeting of June 25th, and Councilman Pritchard
moved that the matter be postponed until July 16th, due to the late
hour of this meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe
and was passed by a unanimous vote.
RE BUSINESS LICENSE
TAXES - BROKERS
A letter was received from R. L. Williford with regard to business
licenses and real estate brokers in which it is suggested thhat the
City adopt an ordinance to enforce the payment for business licenses.
Due to the late hour of the meeting, Councilman Pritchard moved
that the matter be continued, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by a
unanimous vote of the Council the motion was passed.
CM-26-442
The Public Utilities Commission has notified the Council of a hearing
to be held to hear grievences filed by the American Taxpayers' Union,
Local ll5, with regard to construction of crossings at grades be-
tween the Southern Pacific and Western Pacific railroads. It will
be held on Monday, July 23, 1973, at lO:OO a.m. in the Livermore
Public Library meeting room.
The staff has indicated that they will be in attendance, as well as
the consultant for the project.
July 2, 1973
NOTICE OF HEARING
BEFORE PUC RE GRADE CROSS.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the matter was noted.
A letter of resignation from the Beautification Committee was received
from Roberta Hadley, and on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded
by Councilman Beebe and by a unanimous vote, the staff was directed
to send her a letter thanking her for her service on the committee.
COMMUNICATION RE RESIGNA-
TION FROM BEAUTIFICATION
COr~1ITTEE - R. Hadley
A letter was received from Assemblyman Carlos Bee in which he has
indicated that he intends to take the fOllowing stand on the following
pending legislation:
COMMUNICATION RE
LEGISLATIVE BILLS
Support of: AB l23 and SB l320
Oppose: SB 98l, AB l243 and AB l367
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the staff was directed to send Mr. Bee a letter
commending his action on these bills.
The Council briefly discussed the Medeiros Parkway development plan
after Mr. Madis, attorney for i1r. Gillice, (party dedicating the land)
asked that the Council allow occupancy of 50% of the units built by
Mr. Gillice.
REPORT RE MEDEIROS
PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. Madis stated that the agreement does not state that occupancy
permits can be denied but the Council felt that the Council had
requested that everything must be resolved before occupancy permits
would be issued.
Councilman Futch commented that the work was to be done prior to
allowing occupancy and that if Mr. Gillice is willing to put up a
cash bond in lieu of the work, the details can be determined later.,~/~
d' d h b d ff" b -~!M!.e~d'..)~l '/~AI>d"
Mr. Ma ~s proteste t at a on was su ~c~ent, utltue ~fuyor exp airled"
that the Council had stated they feel the bond istadequate and that
the delay is fully the responsibility of Mr. Gillice, and asked if the
survey work has been completed and Mr. Lee commented that it has not.
Mr. Lee explained that Mr. Gillice has completed the field work and
submitted it to Alameda County for cheCking, it has been checked and
is in the stage of nearing completion.
CM-26-443
July 2, 1973
(Medeiros parkway)
Mr. Madis stated that he cannot understand the council's hesitancy
over the matter of the bond, as the bonding agency is the one to
insure the developer.
Mr. Lee commented that the design work was to have been completed
by October 1 and construction work by January 1, but the occupancy
permits are not tied to these dates.
The Mayor pointed out that the contract has been defaulted upon L ~ ~ ~ --
and that the terms of the contract have not been satis fied . -I ~ / .,/
(~~):!.3/~/;:3
councilman Taylor stated that he feels anyone would agree that --,
unnecessary delay is of benefit to no one but we want to be
assured that the plan for the parkway is right. However, he
felt that to expose the city to a lot of damages without the bene-
fit of legal counsel is also very unwise and places the council in
a dilemma.
Mr. Lee reported that he feels Mr. Gillice is honestly taking care
of the grading as fast as possible and that the plans have been
approved at the Planning Commission meeting. He felt that for
the council to allow a reasonable amount of occupancy permits
would be a satisfactory compromise.
Mr. Madis stated that if the council would allow 50% of the units
to become occupied it would still give them a chance to review the
plans as well as have input from the citizens.
A Mr. Raymond stated that a number of citizens came to the meeting
to discusS this matter but since the meeting lasted so long before
getting to this item they have gone home and would request that it
be postponed, as the matter of grading is of importance to the citizens.
Councilman pritchard moved that the matter be postponed until
July l6th and that 25% of the units be released for occupancy,
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller suggested that no occupancy permits be allowed, sub-
ject to the agreement of the city Attorney pro-tern, tomorrow
morning.
At this time the council voted on the motion which passed 3-2 with
Mayor Miller and Councilman Futch dissenting.
prior to the vote, Mr. Harold Moore, 1567 College Avenue, commented
that his property is adjacent to the park area and if the park is
not going to be developed he would like to see it remain in its
present state, and let the developer pay the grading fees to the
City to be used for other things until such time as it is finally
developed.
Mayor Miller stated that there have been reports of advertisements
stating that the units in the apartment are being sold as condominiums
and if they are this is in violation of the condominium ordinance
and he asked that the staff check into the matter so that it can
be turned over to the District Attorney if illegalities are involved.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE MEETING AT THIS TIME.
sur~RY OF ACTION
(planning commission)
Summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of June
26 was noted for filing.
CM-26-444
July 2, 1973
Several items on the agenda were continued until the next meeting.
ITEMS CONTINUED
ORDINANCE RE PARKING LOT
FEES - SURCHARGE CHANGE
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote (Councilman Pritchard absent), the ordinance
effecting the change in surcharge for the parking lot fees was
introduced and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 824
AN ORDINANCE fu~ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 623, THE ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING A PARKING AND BUSINESS H1PROVEHENT AREA,
TO A}ffiND SECTION 4 THEREOF, RELATING TO THE ADDITIONAL
RATE OF TAX IN ZONES I AND II.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY'S
RETIREMENT CONTRACT
(Safety Members)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous vote (Councilman Pritchard absent), the ordinance
amending the City's retirement contract for safety members was
adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 823
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at l2:45 a.m. to an executive session
to discuss appointments, and then to July 5, at 9:00 a.m. for
a Budget Session at Fire Station No.2, 95l Rincon Avenue.
APPROVE r11rvJl}::j r 1:J1 '-4
/ /_ Mayor
(\ I (\/,
ATTEST "', \_y-~~ !~--'
.~ City Clerk
L*)lermore, California
CM-26-445
Special Meeting of July 13, 1973
A special meeting of the City Council was called by Mayor ~1iller
on Friday, July 13, 1973, at noon in the City Hall, 2250 First
Street.
The purpose of the meeting was consideration of the following:
l. Labor relations memoranda of agreement.
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 noon with Councilmen Beebe,
Futch, Pritchard, Taylor and Mayor Miller present.
The City Manager explained the negotiations conducted by the nego-
tiating team and outlined the proposal made to the Livemore Police
Association.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
the Council voted unanimously to approve and authorize the Mayor
to execute the agreement.
r
!
ATTEST Lli# ,~ tJ
APPROVE
A Regular Meeting of July 16, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on July l6, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Miller pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Pritchard, Taylor and Mayor
Miller
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the members of the Council and those present in
the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of July 2, 1973
were approved as corrected.
CM-27-1
July 16, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Check to School District
by Mr. Masud Mehran)
Mr. Masud Mehran explained to the Council the events in connection
with a check given to the Livermore School District in accordance
with his agreement with the District, which had been the topic
of a great deal of publicity recently, stating that he had never in
his life handed anyone a check which was not cashable. Mr. Masud
further explained that the June 29 meeting of the School Board,
those present from the staff were not knowledgable regarding the
situation although they tried to explain matters to the Board. It
was the Board's decision at the meeting of June 3 to have a site
inspection and determine whether it was appropriate or not, and
the inspection was to take place at the subsequent meeting of July
l7, and a decision made at that time regarding purchase of the land.
(Letter re Railroad Project)
Paul Tull, 2242 Linden Street, read a letter to the Council written
by he and his wife with regard to the passage of the Railroad Project
which they opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING RE BUDGET
FOR 1973-74 FISCAL YEAR
The Mayor explained that this public hearing was an opportunity for
any public questions or discussion on the proposed budget for the
1973-74 Fiscal Year. A report was prepared showing the various
changes made by the City Council during the preliminary budget
hearings. The Mayor opened the public hearing at this time, and
invited anyone in the audience to comment.
R. Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated he had not had an opportunity
to attend the preliminary budget hearing, but felt the criteria
had been set in the past of having a public budget hearing at one
meeting, having the Councilmen digest the input from the citizenry
at that time, and then vote on the budget at the next meeting of
the Council, and asked why that particular part of it had been
deleted.
Mayor Miller explained that the reason for it this year is that
we are beyond the beginning of the fiscal year, hearings had not been
held earlier because it was not possible for all five of the Council-
man to meet other than at a regular meeting night.
Mr. Faltings continued that since he had not had the opportunity
to review the budget, asked what the deficit of the golf course
is this year in relationship to the deficit last year, bearing in
mind that there is an added incentive to break even on the revenues
received from the Crosswinds Restaurant, and Mayor Miller explained
it is expected to be about the same for the next fiscal year as it
was for the last year - about $65,000. Mr. Faltings asked if this
included the Springtown Golf Course and was informed that there is
another $35,000 deficit expected from the Springtown Golf Course.
Mr. Parness added that that figure covers about $l5,OOO for the pre-
sent fiscal year, so there is about $20,000 forecast for next year.
Mr. Faltings mentioned that Sandia has moved out to the Sunol Golf
Course and suggested that an effort should be made to attract the
residents to the local course, and Mayor Miller replied that this
is recognized and some attempt is being made to resolve the com-
plaints that they have voiced.
CM-27-2
July l6, 1973
(Budget for 1973-74
Fiscal Year)
Kattie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, stated she had attended the
budget meeting and could not understand why more people aren't in-
terested. She commented that the City Manager had urged swift
approval of the budget following the public hearing, as reported
in a local newspaper, without mentioning the concern of citizens
who might want some amendments made. Mrs. Richardson felt that
the Police and Fire Departments should be given top priority and
should have been given the number of men they asked for as they are
vitally needed and even though she is always griping about taxes,
she has never begrudged anything given to these two departments,
but she did resent the golf course deficit.
Paul Tull questioned if the policemen and firemen have any compensa-
tion other than from the State Industrial Accident Commission for on
the job injury, and Mr. Parness explained they are not only protected
by Workman's Compensation, but by additional privileges granted under
the Labor Code and additional sick leave benefits that the City grants,
together with health insurance coverage. Mr. Tull remarked that he
had a book prepared in 1962 with reference to the returns that would
be forthcoming from the airport and golf course, but from that time
to this the City has done nothing but pay through the nose for both
of these facilities, and stated he would appreciate parks for the
elderly and incapacitated rather than the golf course.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and
by unanimous approval the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Pritchard asked the City Manager if he was still propos-
ing a 2c net decrease in the tax rate even with the changes proposed
in the budget and the proposed wage increase, and Hr. Parness stated
the 2C net decrease was correct as the salary adjustment will have
to come from reserve funds, and he added that all salary adjustments
are listed except those of the Fire Department, and any future adjust-
ments will have to come from the same source. Mr. Parness added that
the 2etax reduction is only possible, and only recommended, because
it comes from the bond funds through the amortization of bonds.
Councilman Taylor stated, for the public's benefit, they had added
four police personnel, and the Police Chief made it very clear that
his top priority would be for clerks and not for two additional pa-
trolmen because the clerks make it possible to keep other sworn
personnel on duty. At this point Hrs. Richardson commented that they
never get what they need, only what is given to them, and felt they
should be given more consideration.
Councilman Futch remarked that it \vas not quite clear to him \vhy
a 29 tax decrease has been proposed when it is necessary now to
dip into the reserves.
~lr. Parness explained that it is the 2c that is applicable to a
special purpose fund, that being a bond fund, and it is not in rela-
tion to the general fund where the money could be used to assist in
the payment of operational costs, and is for bond amortization ex-
clusively, and since we don't need the money in that fund, a re-
duction is automatic.
Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to make an amendment
which had been discussed at their study session, and referred to
an item regarding the water reclamation plant design revision.
He stated that the report indicates that the dry weather flow in
millions of gallons per day is 4.68 which is quite a bit higher
than what they had thought it to be and wondered since we are
CM-27-3
July l6, 1973
(Budget for 1973-74 Fiscal Year)
reaching capacity if an extra man and extra truck that was voted
for the water reclamation plant is really a necessary item on the
budget.
Councilman Futch remarked that since we are that close to capacity,
it would make it even more necessary, but perhaps he didn't follow
the logic.
Councilman Pritchard stated the logic is that they were not going
to be able to expand the plant, and this would be an attempt to
expand it. He had previously been under the impression that the
plant was considerably lower than the maximum.
councilman Futch stated he had brought up the fact that they seemed
to be nearing capacity faster than what previous testimony had in-
dicated, so he agree~with that statement, but at the same time
since there is ~~' uage<flow and regardless of whether they like
it or not, it must be disposed of to eliminate a Possible~~~.~~~~
and felt they had no choice but to add the personnel~" ~
!1ayor Miller remarked that hauling away the sludge would not solve
the odor problem, and the real issue is that according to our con-
sulting engineers we are closer to the capacity of the plant than
they had been told they were, and he agreed in part with Council-
man Pritchard that they should not hire the man nor the truck until
they determine the exact status of the sewer plant. They might
want to insert in the budget that the Council should not approve
any hiring of a man or purchase of a truck until the question of
the capacity of the sewer plant is finally resolved. They should
do two things: (l) wait until the question is resolved and (2)
not allow any more building permits to be issued to force them into
the position of having to hire extra personnel and thereby increase
the cost of the sewer plant. He added that the building permits
that have been permitted on the basis of the water ordinance should
now be halted until they fully resolve the question. If the
consultants say we have 4.79 gpd and the City staff says 4.4, there
is a major discrepancy and the Council has an obligation to not
continue to allow construction in this community to force the
present residents to pay higher costs for their sewer plant in order
to provide more residential building permits.
Councilman Taylor stated it would be a good idea to ask the staff
to explain two things: (l) Is it, in fact, to ask for the man
and the truck an attempt to expand the capacity of the plant; (2)
and what the consequences would be if we refused to hire the men,
let the plant smell?
The Public Works Director stated that it was not an attempt to
expand the capacity, and we would just be ignoring the sludge pro-
blem that we are having which is inherent in the plant. He stated
he could not explain the figure, but felt it would be unjust to
jump to conclusions regarding the figure that the consultants have
used and surmise that it is accurate. It is conceivable that there
could be an error, but it has been checked out in great detail
because the Council has questioned the staff on numerous occasions.
He believed that the figures he has given the Council are correct;
the figure that the consultants have used was developed for criteria
to be presented to the state and he did not know how they arrived
at that figure. Rather than having this matter continually coming
up, Mr. Lee suggested that the Council authorize Brown and Caldwell
to go the the plant and double check the staff's figures as it is
a simple matter. To avoid a conflict the location of the meters
has been changed to be near the flumes and away from a turbulent
area to avoid any problems in their reading. He felt it was un-
fortunate that this matter keeps coming up as a major issue, and
it should be resolved.
CM-27-4
July l6, 1973
(l973-74 Budget)
Councilman Taylor stated that since this is a very important figure,
and the Council has directed the staff to keep the Council informed
of just when the plant is going to approach capacity, moved to
direct the staff to retain Brown and Caldwell to go over the figures
and check them; motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor ~1iller asked if the motion was intended to include not issu-
ing any more building permits until the study is finished.
Councilman Taylor stated the motion is to determine whether the number
is accurate, and the matter of building permits should be taken up
later.
Hayor 1'1iller commented that if they continue to issue building permits
and it turns out that the consultant's present number is accurate,
then it may turn out that they they have exceeded the capacity of the
plant. This was the argument that he and Councilman Pritchard had
made a couple of months previously that they should examine the situa-
tion at the plant, however the majority of the Council did not feel
it was essential at that time.
Councilman Futch remarked that he was the one who brought up the
question of the sewage capacity flow, and he had drawn the graphs,
and he wanted that recognized.
l1ayor I'1iller stated that the point is that in order to issue 550
building permits, of which a large fraction went to a single developer,
this Council was pursuaded by staff testimony that we had plenty of
capacity which, in fact, we do not; at least that is the evidence of
our consulting engineers and reasonable extrapolations in the case,
that vle did not and do not. In the circumstances, it seemed to him
that an investigation of the current flow through the plant indeed
deserves to be made, and we should not issue any more permits until
that question is resolved.
~1r. Lee remarked that our consultants have no figures to work with
other than the figures that the staff has given to them, and the
staff has informed them what the present flow in the plant is. In
answer to a question posed by Councilman Taylor regarding the length
of time it would take to make this determination, r.1r. Lee replied
that they should be able to give a preliminary report within a week
or two. They could come out several times, check the meters, observe
the reportings that are being made, and make a final report \vithin
a month.
Councilman Taylor stated that the 550 building permits which the
Mayor has mentioned many times, was a figure arrived at \vith regard
to a water ordinance, and he felt that if the City has an ordinance
restricting the issuance of building permits due to water, and they
discuss publicly that they are going to use sewage capacity instead
as the reason, yet the ordinance refers only to water, that is clearly
subterfuge. If they have to pass an ordinance because of the sewer
plant reaching capacity, they should state it clearly and do so. As
he recalls, the only action taken by the Council in response to sewer
capacity was to direct the staff to not allow the plant capacity to
get to the point where building permits are going to be a problem
and to tell the Council in time to take further action. He felt
that Brown and Caldwell is in a good position to look at the situa-
tion and interpret the data provided by the staff.
Councilman Futch commented that before voting on the motion he would
like to state that the statement made by the Mayor indicating that
permits were issued, essentially, all to one developer is misleading.
The Council agreed that al+ d~~~~g} maps would be allowed
permits and at that time~o^ha?/D~en!!l~ed ~he City. One had been
filed by Hofmann and the other by Hr. Mehran, and subsequent to this
decision, Mr. f1ehran bought the Hofmann land on which a final map had
been filed, and this is the reason Mr. Me~ran ended up with so many
building permits. r\J.lr,lc) QD)..k
~~1149
G~t a
CH-27-5
July l6, 1973
(l973-74 Budget)
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Lee if he is still of the opinion that
l500 units can be hooked up to the sewer system, as previously re-
ported, and Mr. Lee replied that the sewer can accommodate the
1500 additional units, as reported.
Councilman Beebe also commented that the hauling away of sludge has
been done for a number of years and it is normal procedure to hire
someone to do this.
Mayor Miller moved that the motion be amended to include that no
further building permits will be issued until Brown and Caldwell
verify some number for the flow through the plant; however, the motion
died for lack of a second.
Mayor Miller stated that he feels the Council is trying to mix the
issues of water and sewer capacity and feels that they should be kept
separate; however, Councioman Taylor stated that he feels they are
being separated.
At this time Councilman Taylor called for the question, and the Council
voted unanimously to pass the motion.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council adopt the budget, as submitted,
and to pass the resolution, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and which
passes by a unanimous vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-73
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1973-74 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
PUBLIC HEARING RE SEWER SERVICE
CHARGE COLLECTION METHOD
The Council intends to ask
property tax statement and
comments on this process.
amount of the charges.
At this time the Mayor opened the public hearing for comments.
the County to place sewer charges on the
such action requires a public hearing for
The hearing has no relationship to the
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden, questioned how long the charge on the property
tax statement will be shown as a separate charge before it ends 'up
being another "hidden" charge in the statement, if this process is
adopted.
Mayor ~1iller explained that it is easier and less expensive to include
the sewer service charge with the tax statement and that it is
clearly shown as a separate item, plus the fact that it requires an
annual hearing to use this method of collection.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
unanimous approval, the public hearing was closed.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the
Finance Director's resolution regarding the sewer service charge was
adopted by a unanimous vote of the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-73
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REPORT OF CITY FINANCE
DIRECTOR RE SEWER SERVICE AND USE CHARGE
CM-27-6
July 16, 1973
P.H. RE REZONING APP.
US 580 & 1st St.
(William lTudson)
At this time the public hearing regarding the application of
William Judson for rezoning of property at the intersection of
US 580 and First Street was opened, and Mr. ~1usso exolained to
the Council the area involved and the reasons the Planning
Commission recommends rezoning the Southeast, West, and Northerly
area of First Street to CS. The application requested a change
from A-20 to ID-H (light industrial) zoning, and included an ex-
panded area initiated by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission had been asked by the Council to look at
all of the property from the downtown Livermore area all the way
out to the highway, and based on conformance to the General Plan
they felt that CS would be the proper zoning for the property with
the two gasoline stations remaining commercial as well as the property
located between the two stations. The remainder of the property
should remain as it was zoned in the past.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he believes the City has some type
of agreement with the County for not allowing commercial develop-
ment at the interchange, and ~1r. ~1usso explained that the agree-
ment pertained to the Airway Boulevard interchange.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the Planning Commission was asked
to look at the entire area along First Street and it appears that
it is being reviewed in a piecemeal fashion.
the north side of First Street, through a public hearing, and the
remainder of the area is being discussed continually as site plans
for the area are being developed.
Councilman Pritchard asked if all of the north side of First Street
means north of portola and I1r. r'lusso replied that this is correct,'
adding that when the Planning Commission considers the other areas
it would not be done all at one time anyway, as it covers too much
area.
Councilman Pritchard stated that if the Council agrees he would like
to see the entire area to the Western Pacific tracks looked at at one
time to get away from the piecemeal zoning.
Mayor Miller stated that as he recalls, the Council had decided that
although some co~~ercial had been allowed at that intersection that
the Council would not allow it to become worse and would deny further
commercial develooment. He felt that the area in between the exist-
ing commerical development could perhaps be cluster development of some
type.
At this time the Mayor opened the public hearing.
Clyde Highet, l317 Hibiscus, stated that the north side of the highway
is already zoned commercial and felt concern for the fact that it
may never develop if they allow commercial development on the south
side of the freeway.
Robert Zachney, speaking on behalf of the owner Dr. Judson, stated
that he is the developer of the property and that they do not intend
to create a monster but that they hope to create something which
would be of value to the City. Their plan is to develop a restaurant
on a piece of land which is otherwise land-locked except for the front-
age road access.
CM-27-7
July l6, 1973
[Rezoning US 580 & lst Street
Judson)
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the one entrance seemed to be a
bone of contention with the Planning Commission and he asked if
this problem has been resolved.
Mr. Zackney stated that at present, one entrance exists because
they have no control over the ownership of the property on which
the Union Oil Service Station is located, which adjoins their
property. He stated that they intend to build up the pad for
the restaurant, as well as the easement up to the Union site
and the parking area would not be seen from the freeway, or
First Street. They feel that having the parking area depressed
is an advantage and that they intend to have attractive landscap-
ing to meet all the requirements of the City.
Bill Owen, 8623 Los Alamos, pointed out that part of the trail-
way system is in that area and asked that the trailway plan be
considered and preserved and that the channel be preserved in
its natural state.
It was pointed out that the channel would not affect the zoning
request in any way but that it had been a good point.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard seconded by Councilman Futch
and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Futch stated that he feels the Council's policy is
not to allow commercial development in the area and it appears
that this may be the beginning of a strip of commercial develop-
ment. Also, it appears that the one entrance may be a problem.
For these reservations he would hesitate to start a trend or
continuing one in the vicinity.
It was pointed out that the only suitable type of development for
this particular small piece of property would be commercial or
residential and Councilman Taylor stated that residential would
be particularly undesirable that close to the freeway and that
their policy is to not allow commercial, making a decision for
the property very difficult.
The Council also discussed the access to the property.
f1r. Zackney stated that they feel the access to the property is
not going to be congested or a problem, and that there are a
number of other restaurants in California with the same problem
and through correspondence with these people it has been pointed
out that access does not cause problems.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the application (Judson) for re-
zoning be denied, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mayor Miller stated that he shares the concern of Councilman Futch
over Council policy for not allowing commercial development near
interchanges and also for commercial strips along First Street.
Councilman Taylor also agreed that he shares the concern of the
Xayor and Councilman Futch over Council policy.
At this time the motion passed 4-l with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Councilman Taylor moved that the zoning of ID-H at the two existing
stations be changed to CS, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would add to his motion, the area
zoned ID, and the Council voted on the motion which passed 4-l with
Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
CM-27-B
July l6, 1973
RECESS
The Mayor then called for a short recess after which the meeting
resumed with all members of the Council present.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution Adopting
Employee Salary Schedule
The Council adopted a resolution which has been prepared to account
for the wage adjustments allowed for the various employee classifica-
tions for the new fiscal year as listed in the budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERHORE ESTABLISHING A
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE CLASSI1<'IED AND UNCLASSIFIED
Er.1PLOYEES OF THE CITY OF LIVERHORE AND ESTABLISHING
RULES FOR ITS USE, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 152-72.
Equal Opportunity
Employment
In order to comply with the provisions of non-discrimination in
employment by Federal and State regulations, including the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, a policy statement is to be adopted which
merely confirms the current practice of our City.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-73
A POLICY STATE~ENT REGARDING EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY E~PLOY~ENT
Report re Acquisition
and Disposal-School Sites
The City Council had requested that the Livermore Unified School
District adopt a policy regarding acquisition and disposal of
school sites, and this has been done. It will allow the City the
first right of refusal for repurchase of property, and LARPD the
second right if the District decides to vacate an intended school
site.
Report re Pesticides
and Herbicides
The City ~anager reported that upon the City Council's instruction
our staff representative made an effort to congregate interested
local citizens and staff representatives from involved jurisdictions
on the subject of pesticide and herbicide controls. It was learned
that the University of California Extension Service has many free
publications that are geared toward the home gardener in the proper
use of pesticides and herbicides.
prohibition of Parking
on Holmes Street
The Public Works Director reported that numerous complaints have
been received recently from home owners who live adjacent to Holmes
Street regarding trucks pary.ed along this street. The State Divi-
sion of Highways has informed us that they are in favor of "no parking"
CM-27-9
July l6, 1973
(Holmes Street Parking)
restrictions along this area; therefore, it is recommended that
the City Council adopt a resolution to establish "No Parking"
zones on both sides of Holmes Street between Concannon Blvd. and
Lexington Way.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the !'no parking" restriction be
extended to Anza Way, and the Council concurred with this sugges-
tion.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-73
A RESOLUTION AI'.1ENDING RESOLUTION NO. l4l-72 RELATING
TO LHlITED PARKING AREAS TO INCLUDE IN "NO PARKING"
ZONE BOTH SIDES OF HOLi\1ES STREET BETNEEN ANZA WAY
AND LEXINGTON WAY.
Report re Departmental Training
A report was received from the Chief of Police regarding the Annual
Training of police personnel.
Communication re Bike Paths
A copy of the Livermore Bikeways Association's letter to the Alameda
County Public Works Department, thanking that department for the
bike paths recently installed along East Avenue and Stanley Boulevard,
was acknowledged by the Council.
Payroll and Claims
One hundred twenty claims dated July 13 in the amount of $155,521.49
and two hundred eighty-six payroll warrants in the amount of $69,746.66
dated July 13, 1973 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 6707 for his
usual reasons.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and
by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE ORDINANCE
EXTENSION REGULATING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Discussion of the ordinance regulating residential development within
the City of Livermore was continued to this meeting, and Mayor
Miller advised the Council that this ordinance must be adopted at
this meeting.
Councilman pritchard stated he could see no reason for further
discussion on this matter, and moved that the ordinance be intro-
duced and adopted and waive the reading, and the title only was
read by the City Clerk.
Mayor Miller asked if there was any discussion, and Councilman
Taylor stated that the last time this matter was discussed, there
was a contractor before them who had a lot on Bluebell Drive that
had been denied a building permit. The question was asked, whether
the moratorium should apply in such an instance inasmuch as this
had been a lot of record for about ten years. In cases like this
if the law is administered fairly in line with the Council's intent
CM-27-l0
July 16, 1973
(Ord. Regulating Growth)
it can weaken it as far as the major intent is concerned, and he
felt that this should be discussed.
Mr. Musso explained that there are actually fourteen lots in the
Planned Unit Development of which ~r. Pavia owns two, and he is
the person who approached the Council at the last meeting.
Councilman Pritchard stated the question is how the Council intends
to handle this matter and felt if each of the lots has its own
characteristics, perhaps each applicant who feels they should have
a variance to the ordinance should probably apply for such a variance.
Councilman Futch wondered if perhaps this matter should be referred
to the new City Attorney as he did not wish to set a precedent, and
he agreed that it was not the intent to exclude lots of this type.
Mayor r1iller remarked that he was concerned that if an exemption
is granted for this lot,it would imply an exemption for fourteen
more, and so on, and he felt it would be unwise to blanket exempt
anything at this point. He felt, as Councilman pritchard pointed
out, that they could consider these lots on the basis of variance,
depending upon the advice of the City Attorney.
Councilman Beebe commented that he was previously against this
ordinance, and would like to join the other members in favor of
it; however he felt that our previous City Attorney had based
this ordinance on state law and had advised it was the only way
they could hold the legality of the oridnance, and if they did not
release pronerties that the Planning Commission reconsidered and
released, then they would be violating state law. Councilman Beebe
further stated that this would not affect the total because they had
approved 550, but this was the only way they could legally sub-
stantiate their action.
Mayor Miller agreed that if they resolve that portion of the plan
they should release the properties, but he did not think they vmuld
be able to resolve the ultimate density until the whole general plan
review is completed in all of these undeveloped portions of the City.
Councilman Beebe stated if that is so, then the Planning Commission
should not approve any plans, but if the Planning Commission does
approve the release of certain properties, then they are bound to
include that in the developable land according to the former City
Attorney.
Hayor Miller stated it is not the Planning Commission but the Council
that makes the final decision on the amendments to the general plan,
so he felt they should accept the Planning Commission's findings,
but wait until the density is resolved and whatever it takes to
satisfy AB 1301.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time to adopt the ordinance,
and the motion passed 4-l with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
ORDINANCE NO. 825
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVEID10RE EXTENDING
FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS ORDINANCE NO. 813
PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES
IN THE CITY OF LIVER~ORE, AS SHO~~ ON EXHIBIT A,
FRm1 RESIDENTIl'\L LAND USE TO AGRICULTURAL.
CH-27-1l
July l6, 1973
PROPOSED Z.O. AMENDMENT
RE SIGNS - CONTINUED
A public hearing had been held on June 25 regarding certain amend-
ments to the sign ordinance at which time Mayor Miller wished
to make certain changes and offered to present these in writing
and the matter was continued to this time to allow the Council
time to review the proposed changes.
Mayor Miller explained the ordinance draft which had been re-
ferred to the Council regarding the amendments and also the changes
which he was proposing. Mayor Miller's first change had to do
with Sec. 2l.7l S 2 (b) which presently allows a sign perpendicular
to the street if that lot is 30 or more feet wide for anyone who has
a parking lot next to his building, whether or not it belongs to
him. inasmuch as he felt this was unfair to other businesses. He
proposed that if the lot is owned by the person who has the business
and it is paved and an entrance from the lot to the building, then
he should be allowed a sign over the entrance indicating the
type of business.
After some discussion on this proposed change, Councilman Taylor
moved to amend the ordinance to accommodate the ~1ayor's suggestion,
with the exception that if the person owns the lot, and it is paved
and used for public parking, then and only then can he have a sign
on the side of the building if the parking is related to the use.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch, and the amendment was
approved unanimously.
Mr. Musso asked about the area of the sign which had not been dis-
cussed, and it was agreed that the use would not be allowed any more
sign area, and if a portion was used for the side, this would be
taken from the sign allowed on the front.
Mayor Miller continued that Sec. 2l.7l S4 had to do with a parcel
that has no building on it, and explained what might happen in this
instance, and felt there should be a limitation on the allowable
sign for completely open land use.
Mr. Musso explained the formula used for signing of open land use
stating the sign is calculated based on the amount of the use
abutting the street, not the width of the property.
Councilman Taylor suggested that this amendment be referred back
to the Planning Cowmission, and the Council agreed.
Hayor Miller went on to the next proposed change regarding Sec.
2l.72 E4 with regard to temporary signs over the face of windows
which are permitted without any square footage limitation, and
stated there are many cities which have a 25% limitation on the
area of window that can be covered by temporary signs which had
been previously recommended by the Planning Commission but never
adopted. One of the arguments that was raised was about Burtons
who have a sale and fill their whole window for a week or two,
and the compromise offered was to allow a two week time period to
allow for a customary sale.
Councilman Futch stated he has heard these arguments and feels it
becomes too complicated to enforce, and did not favor a change for
21.72 E4 and so moved. Councilman_~aylor seconded the motion on
the basis that he felt they coul~egulate window displays. What
they do not want is a whole window continuously plastered over so
it detracts from the surrounding buildings. He felt you could only
go so far in regulating what ~ .~~~~ts in its window, and asked
if this was a problem. ~~
CM-27-l2
#
July l6, 1973
(Proposed Sign .~end.)
Mayor Miller stated that the grocery stores use this a lot,
the automobile supply companies do also. After some discussion
regarding the regulation of this section, Mayor ~1iller stated he
sensed the majority did not wish to adopt this requirement so he felt
a motion was not necessary and the motion was withdrawn.
!iayor Miller stated that Sec. 21.72 L regulating clock and ther-
mometer signs was covered by design review, so he did not feel it
was necessary to include this. The last revision was Sec. 21.72 N2
which covered the limitation on the subdivision signs and felt this
should be reduced.
Mr. Musso explained that this had been discussed by the Planning
Commission at great length and the way the ordinance was originally
written was to allow 15 sq. ft. per model, however this was in addi-
tion to the lOO sq. ft. billboard sign allowed in the model home
area, so when they took away the large sign, they increased the
amount allowed within the model home complex, and so they recommended
50 sq. ft. per model.
The majority of the Council felt that a considerable reduction
had already been made in the allowable sign area and hesitated to
make any change and after some discussion, a motion was made by
Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous
approval, to refer the suggested amendments made by the Council
back to the Planning Commission for a report.
GRADING AND DEVELOp~mNT
ARROYO MaCHO TRAILWAY
The discussion of the Planning Commission's report for the grading
and development of the Arroyo ~'10cho Traihlay had been continued
from a previous meeting to this time. Letters in opposition of
the grading were received from ~1r. and Mrs. Hichael Gregory, Mr.
and Hrs. Robert L. vvendt, vJilliam O. Raymond, E. K. Teberg and
the League of Women Voters.
Councilman Pritchard stated that in view of the long agenda and
in view of the fact that the City is being sued hy 11r. Gillice
and it looks like "'Ie might be involved in some litigation for a
period of time, plus the fact he did not feel there was any hurry
for doing the grading, or even that He should do it, moved that they
do not do any grading at this time, and table this matter until such
time as the Gillice suit is settled.
Councilman Futch stated he did not know how this action might affect
the suit as Mr. Gillice might say we have failed to tell him what
he is required to do.
Councilman Taylor stated they did not want to have to make a hurried
decision on this issue which will affect the city for many years
just because of their requirement of the developer to get his money
while he has a bond posted. All the developer cares about is that
the Council approve a plan and felt what they really have to do is
get an agreement that the City, at its own option, delays approving
the plan. The developer has done the engineering and presented them
with a drawing, and he did not know if they want him to do any more
design in the Arroyo, but rather it should be done by the City. He
did not want this action to be mixed up in the law suit.
!1ayor Miller stated that at this point the motion died for lack of
a second, at which time Councilman Taylor did, in fact, second the
motion.
C~1-27_l3
July 16, 1973
(re Arroyo Grading)
Councilman Taylor stated that he agreed with the motion in that it
is for a postponement of plan approval and was his reason for
seconding the motion.
Councilman Futch wondered if postponement might be detrimental to
the City's law suit, and the City Attorney, Hr. Wharton, explained
that it is his understanding that the City has a two week extension
on the law suit, which is two weeks from today, to respond, and he
felt that by the next meeting he could advise the Council as to what
course of action should be taken in dealing with the matter with
respect to the law suit.
In view of the comments made by the City Attorney, Councilman Pritchard
stated that he would like to withdraw his motion and restate a new
motion, which was to continue the matter for one week which will
give our attorney time to review the matter and give an opinion,
and not proceed with any grading.
Mayor Miller felt that it might be worthwhile to let the public
have some idea of their feelings on the matter, however, and give
a few brief comments from each Council member.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he cannot see why we ever need
to grade the arroyo.
Councilman Futch stated that he knows of no reason why the wide
sections of the arroyo must be graded, but that the portion under
the bridges should be graded, unless grading is to be done for a
reason other than flood control.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to hear testimony from
Zone 7 as to the adequacy of the channel and would certainly not
want to see anything done unless it is necessary. He suggested
that all members of the Council inspect the area and spend con-
siderable time studying the matter before making a decision.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would want to see a minimum of grad-
ing done in the arroyo and just enough to meet the requirements of
Zone 7 and for clearance under the bridge.
Mayor Miller felt that grading is necessary in the bridge area but
otherwise not much grading should be necessary.
Mr. Lee commented that most of the channel is hydraulically adequate
and a study has indicated that there is not a hang-up in the bridge
areas and that the channel is adequate for a 100 year storm all the
way through. He added that the plan concept does much more for the
area then, perhaps, is generally realized, and was discovered by
the Planning Commission upon visiting the area. The minimum grad-
ing provided for presents a much more pleasant arroyo with more
perspective to the site and also confines the area of flooding to
the central portion of the site which allows these areas to be used
and not flooded out each year. Certainly, some planting and shrubs
will be removed in the grading but this loss must be weighed against
the ultimate overall gain. He explained that there is a bond posted
in the amount of $78,000 but that this minimum grading should be far
less than the amount of the bond.
David Madis, representing the plaintiff and petitioner against the
City of Livermore, stated that they have no desire to unnecessarily
interfere with the action of the City with regard to this aspect of
the arroyo and the Council's decision to approve or disapprove of the
plans will not be to the detriment of either the City's or his client's
rights in that regard and if the Council wishes this can be written
out at this time and filed in the law suit, or taken as an oral stipu-
CM-27-l4
.July 16, 1973
(re Arroyo Grading)
Bert Graf, l332 Anza Way, vlho lives just south of the arroyo, felt that
the existing arroyo offers all the recreation needed and does not need
development. He then illustrated this point by showing the Council a
map based on the existing area versus a developed area. He also stated
that in the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the Public ~vorks
Department makes the statement that "there will be no significant alter.
ation of the existing character of the area", and if this statement is
correct he would feel that it \vould be ridiculous to undertake such a
project.
~'lrs. Don Tobin, 975 South "L '! Street asked that the Council keep in
mind that the natural wildlife in the area will be disrupted if the
channel is graded and feels that it is impossible to try to improve
on nature's plan.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, speaking as an individual and not as a repre-
sentative of the Livermore Bikeway's Association, felt that there are
advantages as well as disadvantages to the plan but was distressed
about the fact that a large portion of the site will be affected and
that the City has no commitment to finish the project.
Larry Barnes, 1756 Peary Way, also agreed that it should not be neces-
sary to grade the arroyo and that there are ample equestrian trails
existing in the arroyo which his children use daily, as well as using
the arroyo as a olaV area and he asked that it not be changed.
Jane Staehle, 4083 Compton Court, speaking on behalf of the League
of lvomen Voters indicated that they question the extent of the disrup-
tion in the arroyo and that the plans for grading will disturb the
arroyo character.
Demetra Wilson, 737 South "M" Street, stated that her family lives
one block from the arroyo and that the whole family has played there
and in her opinion it is evident that nothing needs to be done at this
time; it is perfectly alright as it is. She feels that the steep banks
of the arroyo offer a little "safe excitement" that is healthy for
adventurous young minds. Also, where grading has been done in the
past it is very ugly and she urged that it be left in its present state.
CI'1-.2 7 -l5
July l6, 1973
(re Arroyo Grading)
Don Bissell, of Bissell & Karn, Civil Engineers, pointed out that the
work done up to this point has been in accordance with the direction
of the Council and the agreement entered into by the Council which
provides that the developer would be in a position to enter into a
reimbursement agreement with Zone 7 and without work there can be no
reimbursement agreement. The developer has entered into a substan-
tial amount of effort and the reimbursement for the work accomplished
to date cannot be done without there being a project. This is one of
the problems of which the Council should be made aware.
The Mayor stated that it had been the Council's understanding that
Zone 7 would require channel work and was the reason for directing a
grading plan proposal and it now appears that Zone 7 is saying that
it is not essential to grade the channels, which causes a change in
circumstances from the first discussion of the matter.
Councilman Taylor stated that there is a bond to cover the cost of
grading if the cost of development is significantly less he would
like to know if this would discharge the developer's obligation.
~1r. Lee explained that if the Council does not want any more grading
done, he would suggest that the developer could come to the Council
stating that a certain amount of engineering and landscape architectural
work has been requested and ask how he is going to be paid for what
has been done. He felt that an answer could not be given.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the reimbursement agreement between
the developer and Zone 7 is a different issue and that it should not
affect the decision of the Council.
Mr. Lee explained that as he sees it and after speaking with the people
from Zone 7, the work in the channel will someday be done and that
they won't bother to put in the mounds and other things provided in
the plans presented at this time. What has been stated in public
testimony this evening is very true, but the intention of the Council
has been to enhance the arroyo in addition to taking care of the storm
flow.
The r1ayor commented that the consensus of the Council seems to be that
no grading should take place in the arroyo except at the bridges, and
possibly not even there, and that the agreement with the developer
was to provide an engineering plan to take care of conditions supposedly
existing at the time, and reimbursement is not the City's problem.
Mr. Lee stated that Zone 7 agrees with the plan but that they are not
requiring it and they are leaving the decision to the City.
Mayor Miller stated that if the Council agrees that the only
needed to be done is at the bridges, then it must be decided
much work must be done and how much money will be required.
asked if a survey has been done and was told that the survey
the mill.
work
how
He
is in
Councilman Taylor stated that if channel work is not required, even
at the bridges, and it is to be graded solely for recreation uses,
the Council cannot take the money posted for channel work and use
it for recreational improvements.
Councilman Pritchard moved to leave the arroyo untouched, seconded
by Councilman Futch.
Irvine Lindoff, l376 Anza Way, stated that the area in the Robertson
Park was graded and that vegetation has not returned, as ~1r. Nichols
stated would be the case within three years if grading is done.
At this time the motion was voted on and passed by a unanimous vote
of the Council.
CM-27-l6
July l6, 1973
REPORT RE MOCHO PROPERTY
PURCHASE FOR PARK SITE
The City Manager reported that at a recent hearing concerning a CUP
for multiple units on Hocho Street which was opposed by several
property owners in the area, the City inquired about the possibility
of its being sold to the City to be used for park purposes. It is
recommended that if the Council wishes to proceed vli th acquisition
of the property that authorization be given to obtain a qualified
appraisal of the property.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the City r1anager was given the authority to
obtain an appraisal.
RE PENDING LEGISLATION
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the following bills were expressed
as fo1lm'ls:
Oppose: SB 954 - Railroad grade separation costs, which would reduce
railroad contributions for grade separation costs
from 5% to 10%.
AB 996 - Municipal election consolidation, to change the
time of municipal elections from April to June in
each even numbered year and consolidate with direct
primary.
Support: AB 847 - Re military leave, to revise provisions permitting
public employee on military leave to receive salary
or compensation, etc.
AB 2090 - Construction of low and moderate income housing,
regarding grants to governing body of city or
county.
AGENDA ITE!1S TO BE
CONTINUED TO JULY 23, 1973
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and by unanimous approval, the following agenda items were continued
until the meeting of July 23, 1973~
l. Co~munication from R. L. Williford re business licenses.
2. Report from the City ~anager re disposal site exoansion capacity.
3. Communication from Clarence Hoenig re study of assessment methods.
The above motion also included the acknowledgement of communications
from the Steering Committee to the Cornnercial Sub-Committee for
filing.
APPEAL RE DENIAL ZONING
USE PEmUT-Regina Schaefer
An appeal had been filed from the denial of the zoning use permit
for a home occupation at 559 Lorren Way by Regina Schaefer to allow
electrolysis services.
Ray Guido, 318 Lloyd Drive, representing the applicant asked that
the Council discuss this appeal as he may not be able to attend
the meeting next week, and the Council agreed to hear the appeal
inasmuch as the applicant had waited so long, but the :1ayor asked
that his comments be brief.
C!1-27-17
July 16, 1973
(re Use Permit
Denial - Schaefer)
Mr. Guido stated he could provide information that would support
the applicant's appeal in that this service does qualify for a
valid home occupation. At the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs.
Schaefer provided them with basic information about her licensing,
potential plans for the practice in her home, and her desire to
operate this facility as a home occupation, that her clients are
mostly women referred from medical doctors and she sees them one
at a time. She has been reviewed by the Livermore Fire Department
and the Alameda County Health Department and has their approval
for operation which is not clear or fully mentioned in the minutes
of the Planning Commission. The major conern of the Planning Com-
mission seemed to be the requirements for the facility modification,
which Mrs. Schaefer felt were necessary under state regulations
at that time. Two things have come to light since that hearing;
one,by further examination and inquires from the Board of Cosmetology
it isn't necessary to have this extensive remodeling to conform
with state regulations. The only thing that is necessary for her
to operate is that she operates this practice in a separate room in
her home that has a door that closes. A part of the recommendation
of the Fire Department was that the facility have a door that closes
with a pneumatic operator and that it be separated from the rest of
the house with an equivalent of a l-inch fire wall, which means
changing from the conventional wallboard structure that is
in the internal room to one of quite a bit thicker and slightly
different composition of wallboard, neither of which is considered
a major modification. It is felt that a spare bedroom would suffice
not a large modification as rebuilding the garage. The Planning
Commission was also concerned about the intensity of the practice,
and he pointed out it was a very specialized profession and not
one that would be a full time occupation. He further mentioned
that Hrs. Schaefer is a widow \,Tith three children and has a mother
living with her and she could not afford a better way to provide a
place for her family and some limited income for herself.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the reasons for the appeal were
well based and is quite different than what was presented to the
Planning Commission and moved that the Council grant the appeal and
instruct the staff to make sure that the necessary conditions are
met. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch questioned the Planning Director on the reasons for
denial, and ~r. r1usso explained that the principal reason was there
was some concern that the remodeling indicated a greater intensity of
use; another concern was the amount of investment that would be re-
quired on a permit that would only be granted for one year initially.
Councilman Taylor suggested that they could review this again in one
year and have approval conditioned on no extensive remodeling, and
Hr. Guido agreed that when the permit comes up for renewal in one
year if there is any detrimental neighborhood activities, they can
certainly be brought forth at that time.
The Council voted unanimously on the motion to grant the appeal and
it was approved for a period of one year.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
to adjourn at this ti ,and the motion passed 4-1 with Mayor Miller
dissenting, and t m ting was adjo d at l2:l5 a.m.
ATTEST
~~
Hayor
'~0(2L
/ -ity Clerk
(.....Livermore, California
APPROVE
CH-27-l8
A Regular Meeting of July 23, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on July 23, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting
was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor pro tem Pritchard presid-
ing.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmen Taylor, Futch and Pritchard
Absent: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Miller (both on vacation)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor pro tem Pritchard led the Council members as well as those
present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
a unanimous vote of the Council, the minutes for the special meeting
of July 13, 1973 were approved as submitted, and the minutes for the
meeting of July 16, 1973 were approved as corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(re Joint Powers
Agreement - Fire Dept.)
John Chamberlain, 624 Enos Way, stated that he had a question regard-
ing the joint powers agreement between the Fire Departments of the
Tri-Valley, and Mayor pro tern Pritchard explained that the item is
on the agenda and will be discussed a little later.
(Letter from Citizen
re PUC Hearing)
Paul Tu11, 22 Linden Street, stated that he has a letter from an
individual by the name of Mr. Leonard, who was not able to attend
the PUC hearing which was held in the City Library with regard to
grade construction of the railroad, and that he would like to read
the letter to the public.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard stated that the public hearing has already
been held and that if the letter is to be made public, it should be
given to the press for printing. He also explained that the Council
has no control over how the PUC conducts a hearing which was in
response to a complaint made by Mr. Tull.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ASSESS. FOR WEED ABATEMENT
The work for the annual weed abatement program has been completed
and assessments for the work done should be confirmed and forwarded
to the County for collection if they have not been paid. A public
hearing is being held for the purpose of hearing complaints with
regard to the assessments for clearing of weeds.
Capt. Charles Clelland, Fire Marshall, reported that one citizen had
telephoned to complain because he felt that he had cleared his
property of weeds and that it had not been done by the City. Capt.
Clelland stated that there was no doubt that the work had been done
by the City.
At this time the Mayor opened the public hearing.
CM-27-19
July 23, 1973
(Public Hearing re Weed Abatement)
There being no public testimony in protest to the assessments,
Councilman Taylor moved to close the hearing which was seconded
by Councilman Futch and passed by a unanimous vote.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council adopt a resolution to
confirm the assessments, seconded by Councilman Taylor and passed
by a unanimous vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-73
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS - WEED
ABATEMENT
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Utility
Easement - Airport
The Public Works Director reported that PG&E has requested the grant of
a 10 foot easement for utilities to be installed in connection with
the Airport Control Tower and the Federal Aviation Agency, ~ith whom
we have a lease agreement, has indicated that the easement will not
pose a problem and it is therefore recommended that the Council pass
a resolution granting the easement.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EASEMENT TO PG&E
Resolution Denying
Claim of Margaret
L. Winder, etc.
A claim has been filed against the City by Margaret L. Winder,
Stephanie Concetta Winder and Celia Ellen Winder for the death of
Howard winder whose car was struck by a Western Pacific train,
traveling east, on North Livermore Avenue. Claims against the
City are routinely denied and forwarded to the City's insurance
carrier for disposition.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF MARGARET L. WINDER,
STEPHANIE CONCETTA WINDER AND CELIA ELLEN WINDER
Departmental Reports
Departmental reports were received, as follows:
Airport activity - June, 1973
Building Department - June
Emergency Services - quarterly - April/June
Library - June and Annual
Municipal Court - June
Police Department - June
Mosquito Abatement District - May
Housing Authority
Minutes - April l7 & April 24
Minutes were submitted by the Housing Authority for their meetings
of April l7 and April 24, 1973.
CM-27-20
July 23, 1973
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS
REPORT RE CUP - SERVICE
STATION (Roy C. Thompson)
Mr. Musso explained that the applicant (Roy C. Thompson) has asked
that an existing Mobil Station be removed and a new automobile
service and related sales station be allowed in a CB-2 Zoning District,
located at l485 First Street. The Planning Commission made find-
ings in the affirmative and has recommended approval subject to
conditions specified in the Staff Report.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the CUP was approved as recommended by the
Planning Commission (including specified conditions).
EIR First Street &
Livermore Ave. Traffic
Signal Project
The Planning 'Obmmission has instructed that an Environmental Impact
Report (Negative Declaration) be filed with the City Council as a
report favorable to the proposed First Street and Livermore Avenue
traffic signal project.
EIR - Acquisition of
So. Livermore & Wente
Street (Park Purposes)
An Environmental Impact Report - Negative Declaration was submitted
to the Council for the proposed acquisition for park purposes of
property located at the southwest corner of South Livermore Avenue
and Wente Street.
With regard to the above items, Mr. Musso explained that the policy
regarding Environmental Impact Reports is that if there is a major
effect on the environment, a full EIR must be prepared and in
accordance with City policy, a public hearing must be held by the
Planning Commission, and in the event an author feels it does not
have a negative effect on the environment, a Negative Impact State-
ment is filed, and the state requests that it not exceed one page
in length.
ORD. AMENDING Z.O. RE
HOLMES & CONCANNON SITE
(Mr. Mehran)
An ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance with regard to property
located at the corner of Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard was
scheduled for introduction, however, the following comments were
made by the Council:
Mayor pro tem Pritchard stated that it was his understanding that
the General Plan was to be amended to conform with the proposed
zoning change prior to adopting an ordinance.
Councilman Futch expressed concern that rezoning would not be in
conformance with the General Plan and that it must go through Gen-
eral Plan review procedures first.
CM-27-2l
July 23, 1973
(z.o. Amendment re
Holmes St. & Concannon Blvd.)
Mr. Musso commented that he has not taken the matter to the Plan-
ning Commission, as this had not been his understanding.
Mr. Madis, attorney representing Mr. Mehran, stated that this was
not the understanding of the applicant - it was his understanding
that there was no need for a review of the matter and that it was,
in effect, instruction to the Planning Commission.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard explained that he did not mean that the
Council wanted the Planning Commission to review the matter but
that the Council, as he understood it, asked the Planning Commis-
sion to amend the General Plan.
Mr. Madis stated that his client is prepared to install the improve-
ments on Holmes Street at this time, and at the request of the Council
would deposit the $40,000 almost immediately to get the signalization
in. His client cannot very well be expected to put up approximately
$90,000 in improvements if the property is not rezoned, but they
would like to install these things before the beginning of the
school year, as the major concern is the hazard at the intersection
of Holmes Street and Concannon Blvd.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the procedures involved in changing the
General Plan to conform to the proposed rezoning would take at least
two months and would also involve public hearings.
Councilman Taylor commented that he would feel badly to delay the
rezoning and a continued hazard at the intersection due to a mere
formality and would hope that the General Plan amendment would not
be delayed for as long as two months.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard stated that while they are on the subject,
it was his understanding at the time of the revised Co Zoning
request that Mr. Mehran was not only putting money in a fund for
the signalization, but would proceed with installation of signaliza-
tion and also would maintain the park area.
Mr. Madis explained that with regard to park maintenance, Mr. Mehran
will enter into whatever type of agreement the City wishes because
it is difficult to ascertain what the City would like in the way of
maintenance. As far as the signalization, Mr. Mehran is willing to
deposit the money but the State Division of Highways must approve
the installation, because it will be installed on their right-of-way.
Councilman Futch stated that, with all due respect, the City has
been trying to get permission from the State Division of Highways
for the past 15 months for signalization at that intersection and
has not been very successful.
Mr. Madis felt that if the $40,000 is available it will not be
nearly as difficult to get permission, in all probability, and he
felt it had been a matter of not having priority in the budget.
Councilman Taylor agreed that the City has never offered to pay
for installation of a signal and the City has always requested
that the State share the cost.
Mr. Lee stated that he has spoken with the State Traffic Engineer
and in his judgement the City would receive approval if the project
is to be fully financed, locally. In the past the City has asked
that the state pay 50% of the cost and in order for them to justify
an expenditure of this amount they require a certain number of
warrants before they will participate.
CM-27-22
July 23, 1973
(z.o. Amendment re Holmes
and Concannon)
Councilman Futch felt that if it is not possible to get the General
Plan amendment taken care of prior to the commencement of school,
the Council could lend the cash, temporarily, until the zoning is
granted. In his opinion, $20,000 should not be standing in the way
of the City's getting a traffic light at that intersection, regardless
of the status of the rezoning application.
Mr. Madis asked that discussion of the matter be deferred until the
minutes reflecting the motion can be reviewed.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard asked that the Council move on to another
item on the agenda, during which time someone can obtain a copy of
the minutes
REPORT RE MEDEIROS
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The Mayor stated that the new City Attorney, Mr. Dave Wharton, has
prepared an oral report as to the contractual commitment regarding
the Medeiros Parkway improvements.
Mr. Wharton reported that he has reviewed the agreement between the
City and Mr. Gillice concerning the dedication of park lands and, in
his opinion, the decision would be one of good business judgement
rather than of legal compulsion, and for this reason felt it should
be decided by the Council and not by him. He continued by stating
e that the City required a $78,000 performance bond from the
developer, anticipating necessary improvements in the area which
was to be dedicated for park use. Last week the Council concurred
that the area to be dedicated for park use should be left undisturbed
and in its natural state and if this was the intention of the Council
and not simply a delay or something other than a final decision,
then the performance bond will be unnecessary. The signed contract
allows the Council 21 months in which to consider the matter and
also delay it for this length of time. He also explained that
the pending litigation has nothing to do with this particular point
and the Council has the option to leave the bond as it is, or eliminate
it, and perhaps a compromise would be to reduce the amount of the
bond, which would be his suggestion.
Mr. Lee stated that the record of survey was done, as a part of the
agreement and covered by the bond, and should not be in excess of
$10,000. Other than that, if there is to be no further construction,
he could see no reason for not waiving the surplus $68,000.
Councilman Taylor wondered if there would be any possibility that
work might be done at the bridges and if so, the Council should
consider reserving a portion to cover the cost of the work there
also. He felt that a reduction of the bond to $20,000 would prob-
ably be sufficient to cover additional costs and moved that the
amount of the bond be reduced to this amount, seconded by Councilman
Futch.
Councilman Taylor stated that his motion is pending the receipt of
other obligations and a final look at where land improvements may
be needed in the vicinity of the bridge to take care of the water
flow.
Mr. Madis, representing Mr. Gillice, interjected that the Council
cannot require Mr. Gi11ice to make the improvements at the bridge,
as this is owned by the State of California. He pointed out that
the contract is for channel improvements and that the Council has
decided that none shall be made; therefore, the bond should be
released. He mentioned that there were approximately 20 people
present at the last meeting who were against any type of development
CM-27-23
July 23, 1973
(Medeiros Parkway Improvements)
in the channel and would hope that the Council will not change their
intentions now that the people are not present.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard commented that it is feasible that the State
might give permission to do something at the bridge area.
Councilman Taylor stated that to imply that the Council has
changed its mind, if the bond is not released, is erroneous but
felt that it would be understandable for Mr. Madis to try to urge
the Council to release the bond. However, it is clear that the
City has no intention of incurring obligations to the public by
accepting the property while granting a density transfer. If it
should happen that the dirt could be washed away by flooding, in
the future, he feels that something should be done to eliminate
the possibility.
Councilman Futch stated that he is sure the public is aware of the
fact that the Council is concerned with preserving the arroyo and
that they will not misconstrue the intent of the Council.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Councilman Taylor.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED
RE REZONING OF HOLMES
AND CONCANNON BLVD.
At this time Mr. Musso read portions of the minutes reflecting
action taken by the Council with regard to rezoning the corner of
Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard stated that his amendment to the motion
which was for the Planning Commission to initiate a General Plan
revision for that piece of property, was with the intent that the
Council has initiated General Plan amendment for that piece of
property and that it was to go back to the Planning Commission
for revision at their earliest possible convenience.
Mr. Madis read the Mayor's restatement of the motion and stated
that his interpretation would be that there would be no waiting
for the General Plan amendment and that the property would be
rezoned immediately.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard stated that under the circumstances he would
have to give Mr. Madis' interpretation the benefit of the doubt and
asked that there be a motion made.
Councilman Taylor commented that it had been his understanding that
there was to be a General Plan amendment, concurrently, with the
rezoning.
Councilman Futch noted his position which was reflected in the
minutes of July 2nd, that he feels there should be a General Plan
amendment prior to any rezoning of the property. He pointed out
that in a few months the law will require that rezoning must be
consistent with the General Plan and that the Council should stick
with this intent even though it is not bound by the law at this
time, as this is a rather major change in a new area of town.
Councilman Taylor felt the Council is not trying a delaying tactic
but that the Council intends to grant the proposed
use for the area and to amend the General Plan and moved that the
staff be directed to proceed with a General Plan amendment with all
possible haste, seconded by Councilman Futch.
CM-27-24
July 23, 1973
(Rezoning of Holmes
and Concannon)
Mr. Madis stated that the Council's action has really left him
"dumbfounded" and that he and his client have gone to the Planning
Commission, the City Council, back to the Planning Commission, again
spoke before the Council and had to appear before the Council again
this evening and now they are requested to appear again before the
Planning Commission and the Council for additional public hearings.
It has long been recognized that the intersection of Holmes St. and
Concannon Blvd. is very dangerous; over 300 signatures were obtained on
a petition requesting the rezoning, people have appeared before the
Planning Commission and the Council asking for a rezoning, the Council
has stated that they intend to rezone the property so he could not
understand any reason for asking for more public testimony. He felt
this action is very unfair for the applicant as well as those who
have already testified.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard commented that the Council is merely attempt-
ing to follow the correct procedure for rezoning the property.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
REPORT RE ROCKETEERS
APP. FOR SITE USE
An application has been received from the Livermore Rocketeers
organization for permission to use some City property for their
activity and it is recommended that the Council adopt a motion
authorizing use of City property for this purpose, subject to
the conditions specified by the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief.
Mr. Earl Odell stated that his son is the president of the organiza-
tion and that he is speaking on its behalf. He explained that
there are 50 youngsters in the organization, which is sponsored by
the Livermore Recreation District and that they follow all of the
rules set up by the State of California for model rockets. At
this time they would be interested in using an area that is free
and clear, such as the Civic Center site which offers ample area,
and would request that they be given a letter of permission which
will be used, subject to revocation at any time the City wishes,
and will be used in accordance with the rules and regulations set
forth in the report submitted by the Fire Marshall.
Councilman Taylor asked the Fire Marshall what chances there might
be of one of the rockets landing in someone's yard or on a passing
car, and what the result would be should this occur.
The Fire Marshall explained that this should cause no real problem.
With reference to time of day the rockets will be used, Mr. Odell
stated that they normally fire the rockets only on Saturday and/or
Sunday mornings, because the afternoon winds might cause a fire to
start.
Councilman Taylor moved that permission be granted for six months
and that the staff review the application at the end of that time,
seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed by a unanimous vote.
REPORT RE TOWNHOUSE
PROJECT STATUS (HUD)
With regard to the townhouse project, applied for by OGO Associates
to be located on a site abutting East Avenue, the City Manager recom-
mended that no building permits be issued until the staff is satisfied
that the project is certified as a bona-fide low income project.
Councilman Taylor moved that the recommendation be adopted, and
Councilman Futch stated that he would second the motion provided
the staff would assure that it remain low income housing, and which
passed by a unanimous vote.
CM-27-25
July 23, 1973
COMMUNICATION RE
STUDY OF ASSESS.
METHODS COMMITTEE
A letter was received from Clarence Hoenig with regard to suggestions
for a citizens committee to study assessment methods and to review
budgets and since the item was of particular concern to Mayor Miller
it was asked that the matter be postponed until the Mayor returns.
REPORT RE SANITARY
LAND FILL DISPOSAL
SITE EXPANSION CAPACITY (Kaiser)
The City Manager submitted a report to the Council on sanitary land
fill disposal site expansion capacity and Councilman Taylor suggested
that a copy of the report be sent to Supervisor Cooper as the position
of the Council, which is that the County should not take any action on
the matter until the regional solutions are explored.
An inquiry had been made by Fred Cooper of the Alameda County Board
of Supervisors as to whether or not the Board should consider using
the Livermore sanitary land fill disposal site rather than the Kaiser
site. The state has asked that a study be conducted to form a County-
wide solid waste disposal plan and the Kaiser land fill proposal is
only one of many being studied, and for this reason the City Manager
concluded that to issue a permit for a disposal site would be premature.
Councilman Taylor moved that the report be communicated to Supervisor
Cooper as a reply from the Council, as well as to the Board members;
seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed by a unanimous vote.
COMMUNICATION FROM LIVER-
MORE FIREMAN'S ASSOCIATION
Mayor pro tern Pritchard stated that the Livermore Fireman's Associa-
tion requested that they be scheduled on the agenda in order to speak
to the Council with regard to the Labor Relations.
Thornton C. Bunch, Jr., attorney representing the Livermore Fireman's
Association stated that on last Thursday the Fireman's Association
had a press conference and the results were printed in the three
local newspapers which brought out the fact that a serious state of
affairs exists between the Fireman's Association and the City rep-
resentatives with regard to the labor relations. To give some brief
history on the matter he noted that in March of 1973 the Council direc-
ted the City Manager to adopt a joint powers agency agreement which
covered Livermore, P1easanton, and VCSD Firemen. At that time the
Livermore Fireman's Association determined not to proceed under the
joint powers agreement and that process because they were not given
advance notice and the City Manager did not seek input from the local
Fireman's Association prior to the drafting of the resolution.
The Fireman's Association was presented with it, had no opportun-
ity to give consideration to it and did not agree to bringing
in the other two cities. He explained that the Pleasanton City Council
and VCSD's Board of Directors can pass on to Livermore, the taxing and
budget process and at this time they would like to inquire as to whether
or not Livermore should try to negotiate with the joint powers agency
before obtaining a contract. He stated that the Council should be
interested in representing its constituents in this City and that
the Livermore Firemen should be able to determine, through the Council,
what the working conditions will be. Some of this responsibility has
been delegated to a City Council in P1easanton over which the citizens
of this community have no control. This is also true with respect to
the Board of Directors of the VCSD. He stated that the local Fireman's
Association was not contacted in the beginning and they do not agree to
participate in this type of process. They have gone on record as being
CM-27-26
July 23, 1973
(Livermore Fireman's
Association)
opposed to it and such opposition has been communicated to the
City Manager. They have requested that representatives of this
City meet and confer with the the other representatives, and to
date no meetings have been held with the Livermore representatives.
He commented that in May on a Friday afternoon Mr. Bradley explained
that the joint powers agency was present and would participate in a
deliberation and advised that a joint powers agency would be meeting
with the Livermore Fireman's Association that afternoon. He stated
that they tried to get the City of Livermore's representatives to
meet with the local Fireman's Association without success. During
this time and the time of the next meeting which was to take place on
June 1Bth, it was expressed to Mr. Bradley and other representatives of
the City of Livermore, that the Council again consider whether or not
it is appropriate and feasible to bargain on a joint powers agency
basis and the Fireman's Association was informed that the City Council
would not change its mind and that the City intended to bargain on a
joint powers basis. After hearing this, the meeting of June lBth was
cancelled. He felt that the City , Administration, out of retaliation
against the Fireman's Association's recalcitrance to meet with the joint
powers agency, introduced to the Council a resolution which was
adopted on June 25th which would forbid retroactive pay to any
association or union which represents employees in Livermore with
regard to agreements reached after July 1. He reported that
the Pleasanton firefighters have made an agreement with the joint
powers agency which has brought the City of Pleasanton a law suit,
challenging certain portions of that activity and the VCSD has not
yet reached an agreement and the Livermore Fireman's Association has
not yet begun the process. In his opinion, the joint powers agency
relationship has failed in the purpose for which the City Manager sought
to implement it in this Valley and that it is time the Council consider
reconsider the appropriateness of this type of arrangement in which
there is no consent or agreement from the employee organizations
involved. He added that the Fireman's Association was the only organi-
zation subjected to this type of bargaining process. This is felt
to be unfair for the City to implement this and unfair that a proposal
for the resolution delegating such authority was made without having
sought the agreement of the Fireman's Association which it might
have obtained if they had been contacted at an early stage. Also, it
was unfair that a retroactive resolution was passed by the Council
without any consultation with the firemen, whatsoever. He mentioned
that the president of the Association, in their opinion, was improperly
and unlawfully passed over on a promotional opportunity and they are
determined to challenge the ethics and legality of the joint powers
agency in court, but this process is time consuming and will cost
a great deal of money on both sides. He pointed out that they also
intend to take the matter of the president not receiving the promotion
they feel he was entitled to, into court. He stated that a "strike
vot~" was taken among the fireIl)en and the outcome of this vote was
34-0, which indicates that they feel an obligation to the citizens
they serve and do not intend to take this option unless the City contin~
aes to refuse to sit down to meet and confer without having the other
two cities represented. He stated that such a joint powers agreement
will not work and cannot work without the agreement of all parties
involved, which could easily be obtained under appropriate circumstances
The only thing they have asked since March is to sit down with the
City representatives and no others, to discuss terms and conditions
of employment for the Livermore Fireman's Association. At this time
they respectfully request that the Council reconsider its earlier
decision and modify or repeal the joint powers agency agreement in
such a way that negotiations can be made with whomever the Council
so chooses from the City of Livermore to come to an agreement. Also,
a request that the City eliminate the obstacle to an agreement - which
is the anti-retroactivity resolution which was passed on June 25th.
They stand ready and are willing to sit down, meet and confer under
appropriate and proper circumstances and ask that the Council give
consideration in allowing them to do such. He stated that they are
also willing to answer any questions with regard to the comments just
made.
CM-27-27
.
-~-----'"."_.__._"_._.~~-_.~._-_.._-----_..-
July 23, 1973
(Livermore Fireman's Assn.)
In answer to a question posed by Mayor pro tem Pritchard, Mr. Bunch
replied that he represents a number of Fireman's Associations and
unions but does not represent either Pleasanton or VCSD in this
regard.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard asked if any of the other cities which he
represents have used such a joint powers agreement in the past and
Mr. Bunch replied that they have not - this happens to be the first
he knows of within the State of California in which an agency was
created specifically to deal with public employees. It is done on
a nearly daily basis in the private sector under the Taft Hartley Act,
and with consent of all parties involved.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard asked if, in Mr. Bunch's op1n10n, the issue
is sufficiently cloudy as to require legal resolution and Mr. Bunch
stated that there is no question as to the legality of the agreement
but litigation will take at least a year before the matter can be
resolved and they feel they cannot wait this long.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard stated that since such comments have been
brought to the Council's attention he would ask for statements from
the City Attorney, Mr. Wharton, as well as the City Manager, as he
felt boths sides of the issue should be stated. He stated that he
would view some of the words used by Mr. Bunch as unnecessarily abra-
sive but perhaps in Mr. Bunch's opinion they were warranted. He
stated that some of the comments made were that the agreement was
"sprung" on the Association, that the City was using "vindictiveness"
and that "retaliation" was being used, and he felt an explanation by
the City Manager would be in order. Also he would like to hear com-
ments regarding the passing over of Mr. Winegarner on a promotion,
in addition to the possibility of a strike.
Prior to a comment from the City Manager, Councilman Taylor noted
that the Council has always considered it their prerogative to
name whomever they choose to negotiate for them - they could hire
an attorney from San Francisco or another place and the Council
to chose to form an agency comprised of a group of people who
would be named by the P1easanton Council and the VCSD Board of
Directors, and the Livermore Council, jointly. This group was
delegated the authority to negotiate for Livermore, just as the
firemen delegate authority to Mr. Bunch. Professionals could have
been appointed but it was felt that persons familiar with the Valley
would be more beneficial to the firemen as well as Livermore. It
was felt that the jobs done by firemen of Livermore, P1easanton and
VCSD were similar and it would be businesslike to delegate negotiating
responsibility to people who would be familiar with the situations
of the Valley. The agreement states that it does not have to be
verified by the Councils and VCSD Board and that the decisions of
the negotiating representatives will be accepted.
Mr. Bunch stated that he, respectfully, differs on that point, as it
is not a question of who the Council selects as its representative
because the joint powers agreement does bring in the governing body
of the City of Pleasanton and the governing body of the VCSD into the
deliberations and vests in them some power over the ultimate question
of what type of agreement is to be negotiated in the City of Livermore.
He explained that he represents other employee organizations and his
duty does not require that he obtain approval or disapproval from any
other city with regard to agreements the Livermore Fireman's Association
may reach. It is not a question of who the bargaining representative is
but if the joint powers agency agreement had nothing in it relating to
the decision making process of the Pleasanton City Council and the VCSD
Board of Directors, there would be no quarrel. Their complaint is that
CM-27-28
July 23, 1973
(Livermore Firemans Assn.)
the City Council of Pleasanton and the VCSD Board of Directors do
have a say about the kind of agreement which is negotiated in the
City of Livermore which is multiple employer bargaining and the
Fireman's Association feel they are not required to submit to this.
This is different than whether or not the Council may choose to
designate whomever it chooses to represent Livermore. He feels
that having people present who represent governing bodies in Pleas an-
ton and the VCSD is unlawful in the absence of agreement by the employ-
ee organization, but is unfair to the taxpayers of Livermore who do not
have the power to re-elect or remove from office Council members of
P1easanton or the Board of the VCSD and is a distinction which should
not be confusing to the Council and seems to be the argument brought
to the Fireman's Association by the City Administration and nothing
more than a subterfuge for joint, multi-employer bargaining.
Bill Barry, President of the Pleasanton Firefighters Local #1974,
felt that the first issue at hand in this matter was very arbitrary
and a capricious decision of the City administration and the City
Council to "ramrod" the joint powers agency through; the firefighters
were not considered and is the reason they are now before the Council.
If the joint powers agreement is working if is working at a minimum,
as P1easanton is not negotiating with the VCSD or Livermore fire-
fighters and it is not going to be effective under these conditions.
He stated that he doubts very much if the Council ever asked the
opinion of any of the firefighters involved under the agreement but
that the Council probably spoke with the City Manager and his staff
on numerous occasions regarding the issue. He added that Local #1974
supports the position of the Livermore Fireman's Association lOOt
and would hope that the Council will strongly consider their problems.
Mr.- Parness explained that to his knowledge it has never been articu-
lated to him or his staff that the adamants of the Fireman's Associa-
tion against the joint powers agency are solely applicable to the
fact that a contractural commitment must receive the approval of all
the signatories to the agreement. It was his understanding that
the Fireman's Association was simply opposed to the idea of a joint
powers agency and even confirming representatives from anyone other
than those from the City of Livermore. He felt that if Mr. Bunch
believes what he has said and will abide by it then the air can be
cleared very quickly. The foundation behind the joint powers agency
and the multi-employer bargaining system was to have representatives
from each of the Fire Departments in the Valley,and the reason the
Fire Department was chosen was due to the' fact that this is the only
agency which is common to each of the three jurisdictions, to meet
with the representatives from each of the governing agencies in
the Valley, jointly, and in a long bargaining session which may
extend over several meetings to the extent that in the end a singu-
lar contract might be resolved which, of course, would have to be
referred to the signatories to the contract for concurrence. It
was not possible to implement this system this year for a variety
of reasons but it would be his hope that it will be implemented
some day, and be used not only in this Valley but widely accepted
in the field of labor relations throughout the state. Since it
was not possible to reach one of the Fire Department representatives,
to meet with the joint powers agency, at least two of these departments
met singularly, and with one of them a separate contract was negotiated
and accepted by that city council. It was the City's expectation
that the contract which was to have been resolved between the joint
powers agency would receive the review and concurrence of only that
individual city councilor board, and if this point is the only
remaining obstacle then perhaps a meet and confer status can be
established. He pointed out that several strong statements have
been made by Mr. Bunch as well as printed by the press and in light
CM-27-29
July 23, 1973
(Fireman's Assn.)
of this he has prepared a statement which is, in fact, a report to
the City Council and with its permission he would like to read the
report.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard asked that Mr. Parness proceed and the report
was read which stated that there was a meeting held with the Livermore
Fireman's Association and their legal counsel to issue a public state-
ment regarding interviews and the status of labor relations with the
City management which can be viewed as an ill-advised, destructive and
damaging maneuver which appears to be a futile effort in amassing public
support for their contentions which, in turn, might be used to pressure
City Council into action favored by them. He commented that he would
like the public to be advised of the City's position in the matter and
gave some history as to the formation of the multi-employer consolidated
bargaining organization which was an attempt to bring a semblance of order
to the labor relations chaos and that the disparity in salary and benefits
could be bridged for employees performing exactly the same job in the
three neighboring communities. With regard to the charge that the con-
solidated bargaining procedure was adopted without the afore knowledge
of the affected employer organizations he pointed out that the process
was being discussed by the members of the staff for many, many months
prior to its formal adoption and that these discussions were not kept
secret and after considerable debate between the staff and legislative
bodies the joint powers agreement was proposed for formal consideration
and was preceded by a letter of transmittal from Mr. Parness to the
Livermore Fireman's Association in which they were informed that it
would be under consideration by the City Council and that the group
contact his office if there were any foreseen questions or problems.
No contact was made with his office on the subject but it was requested
of the City Council that the matter be postponed so as to allow the Fire-
man's Association to further consider the proposal. No attempt was made
to meet with the City staff to discuss the subject and, consequently, the
Council adopted the agreement, as did the Council of Pleasanton and the
VCSD Board. As to the legality of such an agreement, it was the opinion
of our City Attorney and legal counsel for both of the other jurisdictions
that the procedure is a legislative prerogative and legally supportable.
In response to the claim made that at one of the first meetings attended
by the representative with the bargaining agency an attempt was made to
tape record the proceedings which he stated is an outright lie - a tape
recording has never been used by the joint bargaining agency and if such
were to be done it would be done with the complete foreknowledge and con-
currence of all participants. A claim has also been made by the president
of the Fireman's Association with regard to his being denied a promotional
advancement solely because of his bargaining assignment and in the City
Manager's opinion such an accusation should not be dignified by a response;
however, since it was made public it is felt that a response is necessary.
A written and oral examination was conducted for the qualified Fire Depart-
ment personnel for the position of Lieutenant and the final results of
the examination disclosed that the two candidates to be considered had
aggregate scores separating them by less than l% and in anticipation
that a claim might be made that bias was used in a selection due to
labor relations activities, very careful consideration was given to the
matter and the promotion was given to the most qualified candidate based
entirely upon departmental needs. It might be noted that the selection
had the unanimous concurrence and support of most every principal officer
in the Fire Department. It is felt that the Fire Department is composed
of ex~remely dedicated and technically competent people, one of the City
services which is a continuing source of pride and praise by all of the
citizens and it is the unanimous intent of the Council that these employ-
ees be treated with consideration and equity as to their wage levels
and working conditions. He suggested that the representatives of the
Livermore Firemanws Association meet with the City representatives so
as to resolve this dispute and that the City is willing to meet at any
time or place towards reaching th.is'end.
CM-27-30
July 23, 1973
(Fireman's Association)
Mr. Bunch stated that if the resolution had excised those references
to approval by adjacent public agencies, or rejection by adjacent
public agencies, there would be no problem with meeting with the
employer representative. He stated that he agrees with the concept
of the multi-employer organization as stated by Mr. Parness but that
this has nothing to do with the problem which exists in the City of
Livermore.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard wondered if, under the joint powers, there
can be an agreement without taking it to the other jurisdictions
and commented that it should be understood that the Council is not
inflexible and that they have amended ordinances on many occasions.
Mr. Bunch stated that if the Council indicates a willingness to do
this type of thing he would be happy to meet with the City represen-
tatives as soon as possible.
Mr. Parness stated that he would like to speak with the City Attorney
and to the other two signatories prior to meeting with Mr. Bunch
and that this will be taken care of and a meeting arranged as soon
as possible.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard stated that on behalf of all the Council
members he would like to say that the last thing the Council wants
to see is for the breech to be continued to be widened between the
City and the firemen and would have to reiterate what was said by
the City Manager in that there is probably no other department in
the City for which more pride is taken by the City and citizens
than the Fire Department, and the City's interest is that it not
be treated any differently than any other fireman who is doing like
work in the Valley. He would hope that Mr. Bunch will meet with
the City representatives, come to some type of agreement and without
any hard feelings. He added that prior to the next meeting there
should be a resolution of the matter or the Council will know why
it cannot be resolved.
RECESS
After a brief recess the meeting resumed with the Council members
present, as during roll call.
COMMUNICATION FROM S.P.
RE OLD DEPOT BUILDING
Mr. Hanesworth, 1 Market Street, San Francisco, representing the
Southern Pacific Development Company, apologized to the Livermore
Heritage Guild for nearly demolishing the Southern Pacific Historical
Depot Building which has been the second time the building was nearly
destroyed. He stated that, hopefully, this will not happen again
and he feels that there are enough people who are aware of the
plan to preserve the building that this is not likely to occur again.
He stated that during the meeting which took place a couple of weeks
ago with Southern Pacific and the Heritage Guild it was pointed out
that Southern Pacific would either destroy the building or would
request that it be moved to another site and that they would cooper-
ate in getting the building moved to another site. Southern
Pacific's management is not willing to consider, at this time, the
possibility of restoring the building at its present location. The
City staff has asked that there be~no action taken for up to 60 days
to allow the City an opportunity to make plans for the building and
Mr. Hanesworth stated that they would concur with this request.
CM-27-3l
July 23, 1973
(Re Preservation of
Livermore Train Depot)
The City Manager had recommended that the Council adopt a motion
requesting that the Southern Pacific Company withhold any action
for a term of 60 days pending receipt of a City proposal and sub-
sequent City Council review, and Councilman Taylor moved that the
Council adopt this recommendation, seconded by Councilman Futch.
When asked, by Councilman Futch, what plans Southern Pacific has for
that particular piece of property, Mr. Hanesworth commented that there
are no specific plans for the property at this time.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
COMMUNICATION RE
BAAPCD LEGISLATION
The communication from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
regarding bills which are presently before the Legislature (SB 546,
and AB 2467) affecting the District, was noted for filing.
COMMUNICATION FROM
MR. POLl RE BLDG.
AT SO. K AND 3RD ST.
A letter was received from Mr. Joseph A. Po1i with regard to his
plans for restoring a historical building on the corner of Third
and South "K" Street but which, among other reasons, he was told
that the building is considered to be a fire hazard. For the
reasons given he has decided to have the house demolished and in-
tends to construct an office building at the site.
The letter was noted for filing.
COMMUNICATION RE BIKE
PATHS ALONG RAILROADS
AND RAILROAD AVENUE
A letter was received from the president of the Livermore Bikeways
Association in which he reminded the Council that the staff has
been asked to investigate the feasibility of providing an east/west
route bike path a10nq the Western Pacific Railroad, along with the
Bikeways Association, but the Association feels it would be in the
best interest of the City not to press the matter as the reaction
by the railroad people was not favorable, and they further suggest
that the City proceed with north/south facilities.
The Council agreed that this particular item should be discussed by
the Council, but as no action is necessary at this time they would
prefer to wait until a full Council is present, and concluded that
the matter should be postponed until September 3rd.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM
MODESTO RE MEETINGS
RE GROWTH PROBLEMS
Two letters were received from the City of Modesto in which they
thanked the Council and staff for meeting with them to discuss
municipal growth problems.
The letters were noted for filing.
CM-27-32
July 23, 1973
REPORT RE SPEED CONTROL
ON VARIOUS STREETS
The Public Works Director reported that petitions have been received
asking that something be done about the speed on Hillcrest Avenue,
Madison Avenue, Findlay Way, and Guilford Avenue and has recommended
that stop signs be placed at the intersection at each end of Findlay
Way and Guilford Avenue and that 25 mph speed limit signs be placed
in the middle of the block. Mr. Marino, the individual who circulated
the petition has been contacted and he, as well as the people who
have signed the petition, feels that this would be a suitable solution.
Councilman Taylor moved that the above recommendation be adopted,
seconded by Councilman Futch, and which passed by a unanimous vote.
The other area of concern by local citizens, is El Caminito, on which
there have been numerous accidents, and it is recommended by the Pub-
lic Works Director that additional centerline reflectors be placed
along the curvature just south of Sonoma Avenue, that reflectors
be placed on the lane lines on each side of the street which will
show the oncoming traffic, at night, that there is a curve and should
improve the visibility of that corner. In addition, it is recommended
that arrows be painted on the street on the approaches to the curve
indicating that there is a curve ahead, and signs posted which would
indicate a curve as well as a 25 mph speed limit. Also recommended
is that dots be placed on the approach to the intersection to alert
the drivers of conditions which might develop ahead and a street
light be located at the curve which should illuminate the curve
at night, plus "no parking" established in front of 326 and 340
El Caminito on the inside of the curve which should add to the safety
of the corner. It is felt that the recommended changes are substan-
tial and should alleviate the problems, even though it has been
suggested that the City completely block off the street to through
traffic and divert traffic around the area. It is felt that this
is not necessary and that the recommended changes should be sufficient.
Councilman Futch moved that the recommendation by the Public Works
Director be adopted, seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Clarence Motter, 335 EI Caminito, stated that he lives right on the
curve and he felt that a better overall picture of the problems
which exist on El Caminito should be presented to the Council and
not just the problems of the curve. In his opinion, if the speed
of a motorist is not in excess it is really a safe curve as it now
stands and if conditions are improved it will encourage irresponsible
driving and increase speed on the curve. Children are using the
crosswalks during the summer to use the school facilities and he
is concerned for their welfare. He feels that the Public Works
Department should be able to work with the Police Department and
it is "passing the buck" to say that the problem of speed is the
responsibility of the Police Department. There is a great deal of
traffic going to and from Sunset East and the developments toward
Pleasanton and not merely commute traffic. He pointed out that
approximately 4,500 cars use the street on a daily basis and he
would guess that out of this number there would be at least 100
drivers who would be considered irresponsible and a danger to his
family and property. He urged that the Council postpone a decision
at this time and allow Mr. Lee the opportunity to re-evaluate the
situation.
Mr. Lee felt that a re-evaluation would not be needed and commented
that speed on streets by irresponsible drivers is not peculiar to
this particular area and that it is a problem allover Livermore and
it is his understanding that the Police Department is concentrating
on this street and giving tickets to many violators.
CM-27-33
July 23, 1973
(Speed on E1 Caminito)
Councilman Taylor stated that EI Caminito has always been designated
as a collector street and to route traffic to smaller streets not
designed to accommodate this amount of traffic is extremely dangerous,
which is what is suggested by the residents of EI Caminito. He added
that it would be just as difficult to try to block East Avenue or any
other large collector street to cut down on the amount of traffic.
with regard to the suggestion for posting more 25 mph signs, Mr. Lee
stated that if there are too many signs allover town people just be-
come immune to them.
Mr. Mayers, 351 El Caminito suggested that stop signs be placed at
intersections along the street to get the traffic slowed down, and
pointed out that in the three years he has lived there, which is right
on the curve, that three accidents have occured with smashed cars on
the curb and one in his driveway, and on two occasions he has had an
automobile "totaled out". He commented that on one occasion the Police
Department estimated that a driver had been traveling at a speed of 100
mph.
Mr. Dunster, 340 El Caminito, stated that he also lost two automobiles
which were parked in front of his home but if a "no parking" zone is
established in front of his home and he is forced to park across the
street he will be adding to congested parking on that side of the street
or have to decide where he or people visiting him will park. Paint-
ing the curb red in front of his home will not keep vehicles from landing
in the yards across the street.
Councilman Futch stated that the number of accidents on El Caminito are
above the normal amount expected along a collector street and would
suggest that a stop sign at Sonoma be installed. He then moved to
add to his motion 120 eliminate the red line "no parking" zone and to
install a stop sign at the intersection of Sonoma Avenue and E1 Caminito.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard asked that the Public Works Eirector check the
traffic count in the next two or three weeks and then in six months get
another count and report back to the Council.
Mr. Motter stated that the petition was signed by everyone along E1
Caminito and they were told the entire street would be represented and
wondered if there wasn't something the Council could do to solve problems
at the other end of the street. The Mayor explained that they would
like to start with the most hazardous section to see what problems
might be encountered before making any further changes.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote.
REPORT RE HAGEMANN
FENCE ERECTION
The Public Works Director reported that a grievance has been filed by
representatives of the owner of the property located on the south side
of Olivina in the vicinity of Tract 3333 stating that several large
portions of the fence at the North end of the property have been removed
and not replaced which allows trespassing and vandalism to the Hagemann
property. They have been forced to employ the services of a private
security company which they have been using since last October at which
time the fence was removed. PG&E has completed their engineering, which
was the reason the fence was removed, and are to begin work on August 13th
which should be completed by August 31st and after the work has been
completed by PG&E the developer can erect another fence along the
Hagemann property.
CM-27-34
July 23, 1973
(re Hagemann property)
Burke Critchfield, attorney representing the Hagemann's, asked that
the City send a letter to the Hagemann's apologizing for the incon-
venience they have been put to and that the City appreciates this
inconvenience.
Councilman Futch moved that a letter of apology be sent to Mrs.
Hagemann and her son as well as PG&E with regard to the length of
delay in finishing their project, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
which passed by a unanimous vote.
REPORT RE CUP APP.
TRI-VALLEY BROKERS
The minutes of the Planning Commission with regard to an application
by Tri-Va11ey Brokers for a CUP to permit temporary use of an existing
building to be used as a Real Estate Office at 1519 Portola, in
which they recommended denial of the subject application, was submitted
to the Council for review.
Councilman Taylor stated that the comments and findings by the Planning
Commission were very clear and moved that the Council adopt their rec-
commendation for denial, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard asked what the main objection of the Planning
Commission had been and Mr. Musso explained that the zoning for the
area is CP which allows only certain restricted uses.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed unanimously.
REPORT RE BIDS FOR
1973-73 PHASE II PROJECT
(CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS)
The Public Works Director reported that only two bids were received
for the 1972-73 Capital Improvements Project - Phase II, as follows:
Teichert Construction
Redgwick Construction
$355,272.30
$397,568.77
Mr. Lee reported that the low bid, regrettably, was 15-l6% higher
than estimated by the Public Works Department; however, the bid is
broken down into components to include the "J" Street parking lot
improvements and recommended that the Council award the bid to the
low bidder.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
unanimous approval, the contract was awarded to Teichert Construction.
REPORT RE DRAFT OF
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT -
REG. WATER QUAL. MGMT.
The City Manager reported that following the last draft of the joint
powers agreement, representatives from each of the agencies have met
to discuss the contents of the draft and all of the provisions seem to
be acceptable with the exception of two items which were described, as
follows, by the City Attorney of Pleasanton:
I. Subparagraph XIV (d) - It seems unnecessarily cumbersome, and
possibly it could be obstructing, to grant veto power to each governing
body signatory to the agreement over the annual budget of the agency.
It is recommended that this provision allow each governing body the
right of agency budgetary review, but not "approval".
CM-27-35
--"'~--~-"'~.""_._"'~---'---'-'"<'---~--'--''-'-'''''-,-.,.."." "'_"_"'"~----'_"~""'-~'~---_'_-------._.__..~-,-.._,..~-_..~~_.__._-"~--------~_.,---_.__.
July 23, 1973
(Water Quality Mgmt.
Joint Powers Agreement)
2. Paragraph XIX - A representative of VCSD has insisted that an
arbitration procedure be adopted to be used in the event of an impasse
between one or more of the parties involved in the administration of
the agency's business. Theoretically, this is to preclude the need
of court action to achieve settlement.
/,-- ---
It is recommended that the City Council disapprove such inclusion
since the administration of the proposed agency should be governed by
the same majority vote principle as any parliamentary body. As remote
as it might be, conceivably one representative on this proposed agency
could envoke the arbitration process whenever in a minor position. In
summary, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion favoring
the formalization of this joint powers agreement, subject to the above
modifications.
Councilman Taylor asked if it is recommended that, "subject to budgetary
approval by its own local board",--- in Subparagraph XIV(d) be deleted,
Mr. Parness replied that it should be deleted to the extent that budge-
tary review be a process but not necessarily approval.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard stated that Mayor Miller disagreed with this
feeling and feels that the City should be able to exercise a veto over
the budget.
Mr. Parness pointed out that state restrictions do not apply to funds
to support this type of effort.
Councilman Taylor felt that an agency should be created with enough
authority to do the job or the State will take over.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard commented that it should be pointed out that
this is still a draft and that the Committee is anxious to get feedback.
Councilman Futch felt that if it is just "operating budget" that is
being discussed, the matter is straightforward and would move approval
with specifications that the Council is approving the "operating budget".
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the City Manager's
recommendation with the condition that the budget be specified as "operat-
ing budget", seconded by Councilman Futch.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed unanimously.
REPORT RE PACIFIC
AVE. IMPROVEMENTS
The City Manager reported that, by contract, John Pestana was required
to install street improvements on Pacific Avenue abutting his apartment
complex to the extent of 2/3 of the street width unless development
occurred in the civic center site within 5 years. If the site should
develop he would be responsible for half of the street work. At a
June 25th Council meeting the contractee proposed that the street
improvements be extended easterly for an additional 270 feet and that
he and the City would share half of the cost. The City agreed provided
that the requirement for 2/3 of the street work be observed. The con-
tractee has rejected this proposal claiming that the City should pay
for half of the cost for the full distance. The City Manager states
that this offer would relieve him of his contractual commitment al-
though the cost difference is nominal and would recommend that the
Council instruct the staff to proceed with a call against the bond for
the street work required by the contract only.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote, the City Manager's recommendation was adopted.
CM-27-36
July 23, 1973
REPORT RE RECLAMATION
PLANT CONST. REDESIGN
Due to changes in the proposed reclamation plant construction expansion
design it is necessary for an engineering redesign and various reports
were presented to the Council concerning the matter.
Mr. Lee reported that the Division of Water Quality Control has given
their app~oval for upgrading the plant without expansion of the plant
capacity and recommends that the Council authorize Brown and Caldwell
to proceed with modifications of the plans and specifications to in-
clude only the facilities specifically approved. An infiltration/in-
flow study is required to complete the collector system and such
analysis will be eligible for state and federal grants, and it is
recommended that the Council authorize negotiation of an agreement
with Brown and Caldwell to conduct the study.
Mr. Parness reported that population allocations have been received
as issued by the State Water Resources Board and the figures give the
sewage treatment capacity allowances and are therefore extremely criti-
cal for our plant size and grant potential. Our population allocation
factor is 1.9% per year while a reported 9% allocation has been
given the west sector of the Valley. It is recommended that the
Council adopt a motion authorizing the proposal recommending the
planned redesign and also to adopt a motion instructing the staff
to appeal to the State Water Resources Board staff and ABAG concern-
ing the population allocation factor as applied to the Livermore
service area.
Mr. Parness added that he has spoken with the people from ABAG in
trying to get an answer to the question of population allowances
and feels that the entire issue is very cloudy and it appears that
the basic problem the City is faced with is that so called "basic
hydraulic" areas are assigned by the State Water Resources Board
and according to the map ABAG uses, the line goes right down the
middle of the Valley.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the recommendations
of the staff, as presented, and Councilman Futch stated that he would
second the motion adding that letters should be sent to the agencies
involved in setting the population allocation.
The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion.
REPORT RE WASTE WATER
RESERVOIR SITE LOCATION
Mr. Lee reported that in accordance with communications from the
Division of Water Quality Control, construction of a storage reservoir
north of Highway 580 and the Golf Course has been approved as part of
a water reclamation plant expansion and, tentatively, the state has
approved the planned location. It is conditional upon receiving
approval of the State Division of Highways for use of the treated
effluent on the freeway medians, and it appears that they are in
favor of the proposal and that the agreement will take three or four
months to complete. In order to proceed, soils tests must be conducte(
at an estimated cost of $1,600 and it is recommended that the Council
authorize a soils investigation so that the facility can be planned in
conjunction with the engineering redesign for the treatment plant.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the recommendation to approve the cost of the
soils test was passed.
REPORT RE BUSINESS
LICENSES FOR OUT OF
TOWN BROKERS
In response to a letter sent to the Council by Mr. R. L. Williford
of Covered Wagon Realty with regard to his having a real estate
CM-27-37
July 23, 1973
(Business Licenses)
business license in the City of Fremont, the Director of Finance
submitted a written report and survey to the Council. His report
stated that it is difficult for the City staff to discern activities
of outside business and any real estate broker reported to be doing
business in the City of Livermore will be sent a business license
application, and the name of the person reporting such activity will
be withheld. Legal opinion holds that isolated acts incidental to a
business licensed elsewhere do not constitute "doing business" and
are therefore not subject to municipal license tax.
Comments of the Council with regard to the report were favorable and
it was indicated that the report was very well done and on motion of
Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by a unanimous
vote, the staff report was accepted.
ORDINANCE RE PRESERVA-
TION OF HERITAGE SITES
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote, the ordinance to preserve heritage sites was
introduced and read by title only.
Z.O. AMEND. RE CS DIST.
AT I-580 AND FIRST ST.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
a unanimous vote, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reflect action
taken by the Council with respect to the area generally located at
1-580 and First Street for rezoning to a CS District was introduced
and the title was read.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Re Release of
Gillice Housing Units)
Mr. Parness asked what the Council direction is with regard to the
Medeiros Parkway situation and the release of the Gillice housing units
since it can be assumed that the Council has come to a final position -
substitution of a bond and the work of the survey.
The Council commented that they have agreed to release 25% of the units
and that the rest of the units will be released upon completion of all
obligations.
Mr. Wharton commented that the matter is set for July 30th to be held
in Superior Court and that Mr. Madis has indicated there is less urgency
to the matter and that the suit may be delayed to the convenience of
Mr. Wharton. Mr. Wharton felt that he could ask for a delay until after
the next Council meeting and would receive no objection to the request.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Sister City Gift)
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by a
unanimous vote, the Council approved an expenditure in the amount of
$75 for the cost of a wood carving to be sent to our Sister City, as
is a customary procedure.
CM-27-38
July 23, 1973
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council,
pro tern pritCh~ard ::'~d the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
APPROVE ---.7~-p ~ / /}
VIMa~
~~/~
Cl.ty Clerk
Livermore, California
Mayor
ATTEST
Special Meeting of July 3l, 1973
A special meeting of the City Council was called by Mayor pro tem
Pritchard on Tuesday, July 31, 1973, at l2:00 noon in the City Hall,
2250 First Street.
The purpose of the meeting, held in executive session, was considera-
tion of labor relations problems.
The meeting was called to order at l2:05 p.m. with Councilmen Beebe,
Pritchard and Taylor present; Councilman Futch and Mayor Miller were
absent.
The City Manager reported on the negotiations between the City and
the Livermore Firemen's Association which took place on Friday,
July 25, stating that the attorney for the Livermore Firemen's
Association had insisted on a formal resolution being adopted to
finalize the Council's action and Mr. Bunch and Mr. Wharton had
negotiated certain wording to be used. Mr. Parness read this reso-
lution to the Council, and after some discussion, on motion of
Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous
approval (Councilman Futch and Mayor Miller absent), the resolution
was adopted with the possibility of minor word changes in Section 5
so as not to abrogate the original resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. lOO-73
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY ON UTILIZATION
OF THE JOINT GOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATION AGENCY
The meeting
Wl~~~~
_ ayor prZ
~.~ .
I Deputy Cl. ty C erk
Livermore, California
APPROVE
ATTEST
CM-27-39
A Regular Meeting of August 6, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 6, 1973, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting
was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor pro tern Pritchard presid-
ing.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Pritchard
ABSENT: Councilman Futch and Mayor Miller (Excused - Vacation)
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor pro tern Pritchard led the Council members as well as those
present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of July 23, 1973,
were approved, as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
(re Sewer Capacity)
Dick Pipenberg, 556 Emerald, spokesman for the Livermore Chamber of
Commerce, stated that they were very surprised to read in the news-
paper that the sewer capacity is used up and that there is no room
for industry and would like to know if this report is true. The
Chamber has been working on trying to get industry into Livermore
and if the report is true their efforts are in vain. Also it is
their understanding that allocations for sewage expansion have been
made available to VCSD and Pleasanton and no allocations were made
for Livermore, which is part of the tri-cities area, and if this
is true they would like to know why Livermore was not included or
what is being done.
Mr. Parness explained that Brown and Caldwell has submitted a report
which denotes that the former report prepared by Mr. Lee appears to
be well reasoned and acceptable. However, in accordance with the
request of the Council an investigation is being undertaken and the
findings as to the present capacity will be reported as soon as pos-
sible.
Councilman Taylor explained that Brown and Caldwell had used figures
predicting what the capacity would be after all construction is com-
plete and it appears that there is capacity to take care of all the
permits which have been granted, and the City should be able to
finance a reasonable amount of industrial expansion. He noted that
the newspaper misconstrued the report.
Mr. Parness commented that the City has applied for a federal grant
for plant expansion with would also upgrade the treatment process
but the City was informed that there were approximately 200% more
applications filed than money available, resulting in a large cut-
back. Since our application would not be used to take care of
the treatment standards but rather would be used for future treat-
ment work it was concluded that our plant modification should be
reduced from 8.7 million dollars to 3.4 million dollars. However,
there is some question as to their findings and the City is still
looking into the matter. If the City receives only the 3.4 million,
this will not allow for additional capacity - only better quality.
CM-27_40
August 6, 1973
(Sewer Capacity)
Councilman Beebe stated that according to the figures suggested by
Brown and Caldwell, after all the residential building permits and
the existing industrial and commercial are connected, there will
be an additional 320,000 gallons per day.
Mr. Pipenberg stated that according to the newspapers, after all
the connections are made there will be no additional capacity.
(Re Low Flying
Aircraft over Park)
David Leibdorf, 436 Hummingbird Lane, stated that he is a crash fire-
man at the Alameda Naval Air Station, and that on numerous occasions
he has seen low flying aircraft over May Nissen park making a turn
to the Livermore Airport. As a crash fireman he has become quite
aware of the altitude of aircraft and feels that he can state with
all honesty that there are flagrant violations of the 1,000 minimum
ceiling level and that a 1,400 minimum ceiling level applies to
areas which are residential or populated. He noted that he has
spoken with a fire captain who lives in San Ramon who also reports
that the situation is prevelant there. There have been numerous
airplane accidents in the Valley and these people are not adhering
to the FAA standards and rules. He complained that he knows,
from experience, that pilots who call the Livermore tower are rudely
handled, insulted, and have been "hung up" on. He has spoken to
the chief controller of the tower about the situation, the newspapers,
and the FAA, from whom he is beginning to receive a little response.
He now brings the matter before the Council on behalf of the lives
and safety of the residents of the Valley and of Livermore.
Mr. Parness stated that complaints have been received from people
living in close proximity to the airport and not as far away as the
May Nissen park but since the installation of the tower, no com-
plaints have been received. He added that he will look into the
matter of violations as well as public relations gestures with
regard to calls.
Mr. Beebe felt that something must be done before there is a
catrastrophy such as the plane crash in Alameda or the plane which
landed on a freeway just recently, and that the Council should use
its authority to get some results.
(Re Sale of Homes
Located on Trevarno Road)
Lee Estes, 140 Trevarno Road, stated that in the past he has been
told that he would be able to purchase the home he lives in, if he
wishes, by Ensign-Bickford (owners) and David Madis (attorney). He
has recently received a letter from Allied Brokers, however, which
indicates that it will not be possible for him to purchase the home
and that the City of Livermore wants the homes to be sold in one
package. He stated that he knows that the City is not involved and
cannot understand why he was told this.
Mayor pro tem pritchard stated that he would like it to be made
clear that the City cannot get involved in the real estate trans-
actions of property owners and it does not intend to. However, it
is very upsetting to read in the letter that the City will not allow
the houses to be sold separately, as to his knowledge the City has
never taken such action or told the owners that they could not be
sold in this way.
David Madis, 999 E. Stanley Boulevard, stated that Ensign-Bickford
advised the residents of Trevarno Road that in the event the homes
CM-27-4l
August 6, 1973
(Trevarno Homes)
were ever sold, the residents would have the right of first refusal
on the homes. He stated that he knows that a number of the people
have gone to great lengths to improve and fix the homes. He ex-
plained that he advised Ensign-Bickford that in order to sell the
homes a tentative map would have to be filed with the City, as it
involves the sale of more than four units. In addition, as well
as a report from the State Department of Real Estate advising the
prospective purchasers as to the terms, covenants, and conditions
of the sale. A tentative map was filed, and the staff reported
that certain improvements would be required prior to approval, and
Mr. Madis stated that the improvements were estimated to be in ex-
cess of $200,000 which means that Ensign-Bickford would be forced
to sell each home at a fee which would be so high that it would
prohibit such use. At this time, Ensign-Bickford has not offered
to sell the homes but still offer the right of first refusal to the
people living in the homes. At this time it is illegal to sell the
homes separately and the entire parcel must be sold as one unit. It
is his understanding that Allied Brokers have people who are inter-
ested in the property if the property could be divided.
Councilman Taylor commented that the improvements and maintenance
is really the responsibility of the owner and that the City could
not be expected to take over the maintenance, and with regard to
the widening of the highway, if the property were subdivided, the
entire cost of the widening would fall upon the two lots adjacent
to the highway, and be prohibitive. If these two things could be
taken care of, perhaps, the staff might consider subdividing.
Mr. Madis stated that the covenants and restrictions were specially
tailored to the property and provided that there would be an Associa-
tion of the Homeowners who would be responsible for the maintenance
of Trevarno Road and would become the Association's property. It
would be a private street and maintained by an assessment against
the individual home owners, and this would include the widening of
the highway as well as the new sewer lines which would be required
prior to approval of the tentative. The roadway is also used under
a reciprocal easement with Hexcel who bought out Coast Manufacturing,
and also have a duty of maintenance. He felt that most of the prob-
lems have been anticipated and taken care of in the Association which
has been drafted.
Mr. Musso stated that a tentative map has been filed and that the
staff has met with the developer at which time the problems of the
public works improvements were discussed in addition to the possibility
of forming an assessment district to help cover these costs. All
types of developments were discussed and he stated that the discussion
ended at this point. He felt that it is unfair that the City is re-
ceiving the blame, as it imposed no conditions and it is going to be
heard by the Planning Commission on August l4th.
Councilman Taylor felt that there has been a misunderstanding over
the issue and that the Council would be willing to discuss the possi-
bility of accepting a subdivision with a private street, and feels
that the people living on Trevarno realize that an Association is
necessary and that the City cannot accept any street improvement
obligations, etc.
Sherry Kerr, 118 Trevarno Road, stated that in addition to being a
renter on Trevarno Road he owns KWS Company, also located on Trevarno
Road, and that he received a phone call from Mr. Witt, the corporate
attorney for Hexcel.who was told that a proposal had been made to
lease, with an option to buy, the houses on Trevarno. The statement
had been made to Mr. Witt that the houses would be occupied by drug
rehabilitation people and criminals. When Mr. Kerr spoke with some-
one from Allied Brokers he was told that such a statement was not
true. Mr. Kerr then spoke with Mr. Hutka, the developer, who told
Mr. Kerr that the property was to be sold to the Christian Endeavor
Movement through an agreement made by Mr. Stubblebein of Ensign-Bickford.
CM-27-42
August 6, 1973
(Trevarno Homes)
Mr. Kerr stated that it is his understanding that the Christian
Endeavor Movement is a group which plans to use the homes to
house girls who are pregnant and unwed. He read in the newspaper
that the homes, if purchased, are to be used to rehabilitate drug
abusers and criminals, and wondered what the real truth over this
issue really is. He pointed out that his only real concern is that
he owns KWS located on Trevarno and that they already have a prob-
lem of vandalism and even though he agrees that there are a number
of people who need rehabilitation he would rather not have them
located adjacent to his business.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard stated that it must be made clear that
the issue is a civil matter and that the Council is taking no
position and cannot get involved in the sale in any way.
Mr. Kerr mentioned that 2~ years ago it was suggested that the
renters annex to the City and would be offered the fire and police
protection. It was his understanding that the whole area would be
annexed, and not just the houses and fire plugs and police patrol.
Mr. Musso explained that if the use remains residential or converts
to industrial (it is zoned ID-H) the City is not involved but if
it goes to a new use the City is involved as far as zoning.
Mayor pro tern Pritchard commented that after having spoken with
Reverend Parker (prospective buyer) the type of use proposed is
not a rehabilitation center, as such, and does not require a
license. It will be individual families who will be willing to
take people into their families to offer care and protection for
various lengths of time. This will not involve zoning unless it
becomes a use such as an institution.
Reverend Parker commented that when they entered into negotiations
with Ensign-Bickford for the property they were not aware that a
conflict of interests existed and he would be very happy if the
City would allow a subdivision and sale of the homes to the renters
presently occupying them. If, however, this is not possible, the
Christian Endeavor Movement is interested in purchasing the property
and to use the homes because the homes are large enough to house
large families. He stated that there are a number of Christian
families allover Livermore who have been taking people into their
homes and to live in a Christian atmosphere which has been very
successful. He pointed out that many have been drug users and
have made complete changes in their lives. There have never been
any objections on the part of the neighbors of these families and
also they have never experienced problems in trying to help others
in this manner.
(Re Sister City
Visit Delegation)
Bob Seldon, l066 Madison, commented that the Sister City Delegation
plans to leave for Quezaltenango on August l7th and visit until
August 26th and will be guests of the people of Quezaltenango.
The delegation this year will consist of the following people:
John and Carol Pitts
Dave and Linda Woods
Pat and Archer Futch
Mr. and Mrs. Seldon
Mr. Seldon commented that the City has arranged to send with the
delegation, a wood carving which has been made by Don Homan to
be presented to the Sister City.
Don Homan showed the wood carving which illustrates a cluster
of grapes on a plaque.
CM-27-43
August 6, 1973
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re No. Sani-
tary Dists. 1962-1
and 1962-2
The City Manager reported that with regard to property segregation
for the Northern Sanitary Sewer Assessment Districts 1962-l and
Northern Water Assessment District 1962-2 there are certain routine
procedures which must be followed whenever parcels are sold and
subdivided from the original ownerships that constituted the assessment
district. The cost of the segregation is borne by the property owner,
and it is recommended that the following procedures be adopted for
each district:
l) Resolution directing Director of Public Works to make and file
an amended assessment.
2) File a notice of order to file amended assessment.
3) File certificate of mailing notice of order to file amended
assessment.
RESOLUTION NO. 10l-73
RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
PREPARE AND FILE AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT NORTHERN
SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-l,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 102-73
RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
PREPARE AND FILE AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT, NORTHERN
WATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-2, CITY OF
LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Resolutions re
Assess. Dist.
Collection Methods
The following resolutions formally request the County Auditor to
place on the appropriate tax statements, collections regarding
the following assessment districts for the 1973-74 fiscal year,
and were adopted by the Council:
RESOLUTION NO. 103-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED
BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Northern Sanitary Sewer
Assessment District No. 1962-1)
RESOLUTION NO. 104-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED
BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Northern Water Assessment
District No. 1962-2)
RESOLUTION NO. 105-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED
BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Wagoner Farms Assessment
District No. 1962-3)
RESOLUTION NO. 106-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED
BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Lincoln Shopping Center
Assessment District No. 1963-1)
CM-27-44
August 6, 1973
RESOLUTION NO. l07-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED
BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Portola Avenue Assessment
District No. 1966-2).
RESOLUTION NO. lOB-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED
BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Murrieta Boulevard Assess-
ment District No. 1967-l).
Report re Accept. of
Proj. 7l-45 - Airport
Hangars - Phase II
The Director of Public Works
has been completed and it is
the project for maintenance.
submitted to the Council for
reported that work on Project No. 7l-45
recommended that the City Council accept
A copy of the notice of completion was
information.
Housing Authority
Minutes for May, June
and July and Resolution
The Housing Authority submitted minutes for the meetings of May l5,
June 19th, July 10, as well as a resolution which was adopted at
their meeting of April l7th, 1973. The minutes and resolution were
noted for filing.
Payroll and Claims
Dated August 3, 1973
There were 221 claims in the amount of $l93,699.46 and 298 payroll
warrants in the amount of $70,856.6l, dated August 3, 1973, for
a total of $264,556.07.
APPROVAL OF CON-
SENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved, with
Councilman Beebe abstaining from Warrant No. 6934 for his usual
reasons.
COMI'1UNICATION RE
SUNSET DEVELOP~lliNT
PROPERTY - HOLMES ST.
A letter was submitted to the Council by Mr. Mehran asking that
the Council introduce an ordinance to rezone property located on
the corner of Holmes Street and Concannon, in order that Sunset
Development Company may proceed with the installation of traffic
signals at that intersection prior to commencement of school.
David Madis, attorney representing Sunset Development commented
that on the way to the Council meeting he had the unfortunate
experience of witnessing the aftermath of an accident in which,
apparently, a small child had been hit by a pickup truck while
on a tricycle. He stated that the corner of Holmes and Concannon
is a matter of concern with regard to safety for the citizens
CM-27-45
August 6, 1973
(Holmes & Con-
cannon Rezoning)
of Livermore and asked that there be a first reading of the ordi-
nance so the necessary public improvements can be taken care of
which may eliminate the possibility of another such accident.
Councilman Beebe stated that he was one of the four who voted to
rezone the property and moved that the ordinance be introduced,
seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Taylor explained that the Council had voted 4-l to
rezone the property but the Council had felt that it should be
in conformance with the General Plan and that a General Plan change
should take place prior to the rezoning. However, he stated that
in his opinion the Council has heard from over 100 property owners
stating that they would like the area to be rezoned and he felt that
the same people would approve a General Plan amendment during a
General Plan Amendment public hearing. To delay the rezoning merely
for a procedural matter when the Council has already indicated that
the proposed use would be the best use for the area, would really be
bad for the public and can see no need for the useless delay. He
pointed out that the developer, however, must realize that there is
a certain amount of risk involved in that the General Plan amendment
could be delayed or found that another use would be more suitable.
He commented that he feels it is very important that the improvements
proceed as proposed.
The Council was concerned that the $40,000 might not be adequate for
signalization and Mr. Parness suggested that the ordinance might read,
"full cost of the signalization that will be installed in accordance
with State specifications be borne by the zone with the right of re-
imbursement, if any".
Mayor pro tern Pritchard stated that it has been moved and seconded
that there be a first reading of the rezoning ordinance, with the
conditions specified by the Council and with the stipulation that
between now and the second reading the contract will be reviewed by
the staff to see that all the specifications are included. The
motion passed by a unanimous vote and the title was read by the
City Attorney.
COMMUNICATION FROM
WALTER LEONARDO
RE SPRINGTOWN PROPERTY
Mr. Leonardo has written to the Council concerning five lots owned
jointly by him and Mr. Vito Pavia. He explained that upon req~est-
ing building permits they were told by the Building Department that
no permits would be issued for that side of town.
Mr. Parness explained that it is his impression that Mr. Pavia and
Mr. Leonardo intend to appeal the staff rejection for the building
permits, based upon the specifications of the Holding Ordinance, and
would like to know if the Council would consider allowing a variance
to the holding ordinance for such an aggrieved property owner.
Councilman Taylor felt it was not the intent of the Council to hold
up building on individual lots, but there is a freeze on all unde-
veloped property and all property on the north side of the freeway.
It must be determined by the Council if such lots might realize a
change in use. He felt that the main concern is a matter of setting
a precedent and showing favoritism.
The City Attorney commented that he would like to review the matter
and give the Council some firm advice at the next meeting. He felt
that what the Council is looking for is appropriate means for recog--
nizing special situations, if there are any.
CM-27-46
August 6, 1973
(re Springtown Area
Development)
Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be continued until the
next regular meeting, seconded by Councilman Taylor and which
passed by a unanimous vote.
COMMUNICATION FROM
CARLOS BEE RE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION
A letter was received from Assemblyman Carlos Bee in which he re-
ported taking position on legislative bills, as follows, which the
Council noted for filing:
Support of: AB 2090,
AB 954, and AB 996
Opposition to: AB 847
COMPLAINT RE POLICE
DEPT. & DOG PICK UP
Lawrence P. Adelman, 445 Dover Way, Livermore, wrote to the Council
informing them of the disrespect received from the Police Department
as well as their negligence upon refusing to pick up a stray dog after
making such a request by telephone. He stated that he telephoned the
Police Department on Saturday, July 28th, and was told that the dog
could not be picked up until Monday and that the officer had been
very rude and arrogant. He also telephoned the Santa Rita Animal
Control Shelter and was told that there was nothing they could do, as
Livermore has its own unit and is responsible for the pick up.
Mr. Parness explained that he has just received a copy of a police
report which gives their view of the situation and Mr. Parness told
~r. Adelman, who was present, that if, after reading the report he
was still unsatisfied over the situation that he would be glad
to speak with him. Mr. Parness added that there are only two
men who are responsible for animal pick up and that at that time
one was in the hospital leaving the Department shorthanded.
Normally, there is no one on duty during the weekend, but if
it is considered to be an emergency something can be done.
COMMUNICATION FROM
REED BUFFINGTON
RE AB 770
Reed Buffington, Superintendent and President of the South County
Joint Junior College District sent a copy of a letter the Board of
Trustees has addressed to the state senators regarding AB 770,
which would effectively remove considerable community control over
its colleges. It is requested that the City assist in opposing
such legislation.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard felt the Council should support their
request and send a copy of its position to Senator Clark Bradley
as well as Assemblyman Carlos Bee, with which the Council concurred.
COHPLAINT RE CONSTRUC-
TION OF A BAR IN THE
LOUIS SHOPPING CENTER
A letter of complaint was sent to the Council in opposition to a
bar being constructed at 4094 East Avenue in the Louis Shopping
Center. It is the understanding of Hr. and Mrs. West that a bar
is illegal unless it included with a restaurant when located in
a neighborhood shopping center.
cr1-27 -4 7
_"'""___"'_"_'_',"H'''_'_''___'''''__>__'''_,~___,_,_.emM_ ._.._._._.____.__..~__~,_.____,__"__...~_.___.__________.__._.__...____._.___
August 9, 1973
(Complaint re Bar)
Mr. Musso stated that the applicant was advised that if a bar was
put in, in conjunction with a restaurant, they share a common interest
and would be allowed.
The City Attorney commented that he has spoken with Mr. West and it
would appear, from what is known, that such an application is in
the area of a subterfuge, even though possibly not intentionally.
There are two liquor licenses involved and the authority to set
up establishments such as this implies that they will be under the
same roof, and the double door approach really does not meet the
spirit of the authority the way the City Attorney feels the Council
would want it to. Since there is this area of doubt the City Manager
has suggested that the City meet with the people who are interested
in this as a business matter to inform them of the City's views so
as to eliminate further proceedings for operating under mistaken
assumptions about the permissibility of this arrangement.
The Council directed the staff to pursue the matter and work it
out to the satisfaction of the City.
REPORT RE FIRST ST.
AND LIVERMORE AVE.
n~PROVEMENT
Mr. Parness reported that the former Standard Oil Station site at
the corner of Livermore Avenue and First Street has been cleared
and the City has applied for a street easement along Livermore
Avenue frontage for added street width which would greatly re-
lieve traffic congestion at the corner. It was suggesed that
the City sustain the cost of the public works improvements along
the frontage which was estimated at $14,293.20 and recommended
that the Council adopt a motion authorizing acceptance of the
easement and expenditure necessary for the public works improve-
ments.
Mr. Parness stated at this time that the public works improvements
have recently been estimated at nearly twice the amount of the origi-
nal $l4,293.20 estimate which is due, primarily, to the recently
received unit cost on the Capital Improvement programing associated
with the relocation of the signal. Therefore he would like to ask
that the matter be either cancelled or continued for the time being
in order that he might contact the Standard Oil people with regard
to acquisition of the property in some other manner.
A letter was received from the Beautification Committee as well,
requesting that the City consider purchasing the rest of the Standard
Oil property and the City Manager was asked to look into the matter
to see what the purchase price would be and perhaps the land could
be used to construct a plaza.
REPORT RE ZONE 7
CROSS-VALLEY PIPE-
LINE EASEMENT ACQ.
The City Manager reported that an easement must be obtained from
our City by Zone 7 for the installation of the proposed cross-
valley waterline and the County has appraised the value of the
easement at $l5,266, which is along the frontage road by the
golf course. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion
accepting the value and to grant the easement for such purpose.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the Council adopted the recommendation to
accept the value and authorize execution of the easement.
CM-27-48
August 6, 1973
REPORT RE AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN AND
LAND USE STUDY
The City Manager reported that with regard to the Airport Master
Plan and Land Use Study, the F.A.A. has advised that revisions be
made to our Airport Master Plan which was adopted several years
ago. A Land Use Study must also be made pertaining to the property
which is around the Airport within the boundaries previously approved.
The staff agrees that the subject is in need of completion and
federal funds are available for 2/3 of the cost of the planning
oroject, and the City's share is estimated to be not more than
$lO,OOO but it is hoped that this amount can be reduced.
It is recommended that the Council instruct the staff to prepare
an appropriate scope of work and to solicit cost proposals from
land use planning firms, and the results will be referred to the
Council for review.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the recommendation was adopted.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
DRAINAGE CHANNEL
BIKEWAY
A proposal for a bikeway corridor has been transmitted by the
Livermore Bikeways Association which would be the use of the
installed Granada channel abutment but the president of the
Bikeways Association has requested that the matter be postponed.
REPORT RE RAILROAD
AVENUE TRACK
RELOCATION PROJECT
The City Manager reported that all documentation available to the
City for the Railroad Avenue Relocation Project is being gathered
for transmittal to the State Department of Transportation prior to
August l5th, to allow the state staff to begin processing of some
of the many complex exhibits.
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution which will
certify that sufficient local funds are available for the City's
participation and that valid construction bids have been received
and are in City possession.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the recommendation was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. l09-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE VERIFYING THAT SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE
AVAILABLE AND THAT ALL OTHER MATTERS PREREQUISITE
TO AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR GRADE SEPARATIONS OF
NORTH "P" STREET AND NORTH LIVElli,lORE AVENUE AT THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AND WESTERN
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY TRACKS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN.
CM-27-49
~---"'--"--""""_.-- ~'-'-"_._--"._-_.^,,_.._,..- ---.......---....-.'.....--..-.------.-.---.-----..----_._,-,--..._---
August 6, 1973
REPORT RE NORTH FRONT
ROAD ANNEX NO. 1
The City Manager reported that one of the principal property
owners in the North Front Road area has taken a poll of all
the ownerships so as to seek an opinion with regard to City
annexation. The poll indicated that there was an overwhelming
response in favor of City annexation and since the requested
assessment district to serve the property with water and sewer
facilities can be formed only under City jurisdiction, all of
the property should be annexed.
In order to process the entire matter due to various reasons,
a new annexation map and description must be readied, in
addition to new engineering costs and it is recommended that
the City share half of this cost. The cost will be $500 to
the City and $500 to Mr. Busick, and if the Council concurs
it is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing this
financial participation.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote, the Council authorized expending
$500 for the new engineering cost.
Mr. Parness asked if the Council would consider adopting a
motion transmitting the necessary annexation map to LAFCO
and to our City Planning Commission, as it has now been drawn
and Mr. Busick has done a great deal of contact work with the
other property owners and has stated that approximately 91%
of these people have agreed to annexation so it appears to be
secured.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote, the staff was directed to transmit
the annexation map to LAFCO and the Planning Commission.
REPORT RE PRESERVA-
TIoN OF HISTORICAL
STRUCTURE - TOWN HALL
Mr. Parness reported that he has spoken with Mr. Po1i, who is
the owner of a historical structure located on the corner of
Third and K Streets which was the original town hall. Mr. poli
is asking that he be allowed to construct an office building
on the spot where the building now stands and will move the
building back a short distance on the same lot as he is interes-
ted in the preservation of the historical building. This will
result in the expenditure of personal funds and in return Mr.
Po1i is asking that the City grant him a waiver of the off-street
parking requirement for the offices.
The Livermore Heritage Guild has written in response to the pro-
posal and they have indicated that the building is worthy of being
preserved and restored and if offices are built they should not
hide the beauty of the building. It is their belief that Mr.
Poli has a sincere interest in restoring the building and would
recommend that the Council accept his proposal which would be of
benefit to the community and would prevent the loss of a public
asset which is a reminder of the town's history.
Councilman Taylor felt that due to the request for the waiver of
the off-street parking requirements a public hearing would have
to be held, as customers of the office buildings would be forced
to park in front of neighbors' homes, and they should have the
right to speak. He also expressed concern for the lot being
large enough to accommodate office buildings as well as the
present historical structure.
CM-27-50
August 6, 1973
(re Historical Structure)
Councilman Beebe suggested that there might be a possibility of the
staff meeting with Mr. poli and requesting that the historical build-
ing be moved elsewhere, such as the Carnegie Park site.
Mayor pro tem Pritchard brought up the point that the building might
not be structurally sound and would not withstand movement to another
location but Janet Newton of the Livermore Heritage Guild explained
that upon inspection it had been found to be structurally sound.
At this time there was no further discussion by the Council and no
conclusion of the matter was reached.
REPORT RE SPRINGTOWN
PROPERTY - DUCKS
The Park and Tree Director reported that several residents of the
Springtown Golf Course area have complained about the ducks at the
lake at the Golf Course and have signed a petition asking that they
be removed.
It is recommended that the Council authorize the staff to remove
the majority of the ducks and possibly locate them at the Las
Positas Golf Course with only a few remaining at Springtown.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the recommendation was adopted.
It was noted that there are a number of citizens who have expressed
a desire to take some of the ducks to their homes and the Council
and staff stated that they would be happy to give the ducks to people
who are interested in obtaining them.
REPORT FROM P.C. RE
REZONING OF GRAVEL CO.
FROM A TO M-I DIST.
The Planning Commission reported that with regard to the application
of the Pleasanton Gravel Company for rezoning a site located on El
Charro Road from A to M-I District, which was a referral from the
Alameda County Planning Commission, by unanimous vote recommends that
the application be denied based on the fact that such rezoning would
be premature, even though it is in conformance with the General Plan.
They felt that this would result in an early termination of agricul-
tural activity in the area.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote, the recommendation for denial of rezoning was
adopted.
P.C. MINUTES OF 7/24
The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1973
were noted for filing.
REPORT RE STREET
LIGHT CONVERSION
The Public Works Director reported that nine street lights are
being installed on Airway Boulevard in conjunction with the bridge
work and since the Council has expressed an interest in converting
First Street to the type of lights used on Second Street and if the
Council wishes, they could adopt the policy of transferring the First
Street lights to the Airport and industrial area as needed. If the
CM-27-5l
August 6, 1973
(Street Light Conversion)
fixtures are to be transferred to the Airport, the poles would
remain which are only 24~ ft. high and it is not recommended
by the Public Works Department, as such a height would constitute
a glare and light distribution problem.
The Council discussed moving the pole and fixture in its entirety
but it was stated that the cost would be prohibitive as they are
affixed in concrete.
Councilman Beebe suggested that the nine fixtures be moved to the
Airport and if the Council doesn't like the new fixtures on the
present poles, perhaps the poles could then be removed.
Councilman Taylor moved that the fixtures be transferred to the
Airport and that the Council allow the conversion of the street
lights on First Street on a trial basis and the staff consider
what their policy will be with regard to the remainder of First
Street, seconded by Councilman Beebe and which passed by a unanimous
vote.
ORDINANCE RE
HERITAGE SITES
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance relating to the
preservation of heritage sites was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 826
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVER~ORE CITY CODE, 1959,
BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER llA,
RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF HERITAGE SITES.
Z.O. ORD. AMEND. RE
AREA LOCATED AT I-580
AND FIRST STREET TO CS
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance amending zoning
of the area located at I-580 and First wStreet to CS District was
adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 827
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMEN-
DED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION
3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Moving Mr. poli's
Historical Bldg. )
The Building Inspector asked if the Council was aware of the re-
port made by the Fire Chief with regard to moving the historical
building discussed earlier and the Council stated that they had
read no such report and asked that they be given a copy of it.
(Re Hiring City
Attorney Assist.)
The City Attorney commented that there is a citizen of the commu-
nity who has completed law school, taken the bar examination, and
is available to serve the City and that he would like to hire her
on a temporary basis to assist him. He stated that he would like
to propose non- payment of his salary for the first two weeks
CM-27-52
August 6, 1973
(City Attorney Assist.)
of this fiscal year, to take care of the basic source of revenue
for her employment.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, Martha Tihittaker was hired for the temporary
position and the City Attorney's suggestion accepted.
(Re Pacific Avenue
Improvements - Pestana)
Mr. Parness stated that it is necessary that he bring up the matter
of the Pacific Avenue improvements which Mr. Pestana and the
City are involved in and gave some brief history on the matter.
The contract with Mr. Pestana says that he is responsible for
putting in 2/3 of the width of Pacific Avenue for a specified
lineal distance, over a given term of years. However, if any
development occurs across the street (City property) within seven
years the City would be responsible for putting in half and Mr.
Pestana would be required to put in half of the improvements.
It is the opinion of the City that no development did occur within
the seven years but Mr. Pestana contends that development did
take place. The City Attorney checked into the matter and found
out that some development did happen, but the develop ment was
in the way of a sewer line to serve the BARN. The City Attorney
has concluded that this would constitute development in the true
meaning of the word and feels that the City is therefore obliga-
ted to pay for half of the widening. Mr. Parness stated that
the cost would be approximately a difference of $3,000.
The City Attorney recommended that the Council pay for half of the
street widening in addition to making a contemporanious understand-
ing with Mr. Pestana, in writing.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the City Attorney's recommendation was adopted.
~~TTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Smog Problem)
Councilman Beebe stated that we have had 2~ weeks of severe smog
and would suggest that the City bring suit against the BAAPCD for
allowing development of sewer plants in other areas which pollute
the valley. He stated that he wishes to complain about the fact
that the BAAPCD has just granted a large appropriation for San
Leandro to expand their sewer plant, while our application has been
denied. This allows them to pollute our air when we are not allowed
to add to our sewer plant which in turn, limits the amount of building
which the City can allow.
Councilman Taylor felt that there are a number of things which must
be investigated prior to entering into such a suit and the Council
concluded that it would be best to ask the City Attorney to look
into the matter and report back to the staff, in addition to asking
for a report from the City Manager.
(re Palomar Store)
Councilman Taylor stated that he noted in the Planning Commission
minutes that the Palomar Store is going to be dedicated to the City
to be used as a library and he stated that he destinctly recalls
that they had said it could be used for any public purpose and
would like this to be on record, as he isn't sure the City is inter-
ested in offering library services across the highway.
CM-27-53
August 6, 1973
(re Commissioner
Pitts' Expiration
of Term)
Mayor pro tem Pritchard noted that a letter has been sent to the
Council notifying them that Commissioner Pitts' term expires on
October 1 and desires that the Council select another Commissioner
to fill the vacancy.
The Council concluded that they would discuss the method for which
another Commissioner will be selected during the time there is a
full Council present, and until this has been decided there is no
reason for the press to make an announcement.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor pro
tern Pritchard adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
APPROVE IJ ~'Y~ }"\ '. ~.~:~~lz-\..,
ATTEST l~'" (d-iC'W
Regular Meeting of August 20, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 20, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. with Mayor ~1iller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilmen Taylor (Excused - Vacation) and Futch (Excused
Vacation and Visit to Quezaltenango Representing City).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
There being no corrections to the minutes of August 6, 1973, on
motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote (Mayor Miller abstaining) the minutes were
approved, as submitted.
CM-27-54
August 20, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Re Drainage problen
Due to Neighbor's Pool)
Dave Kirk, 1327 Columbus Avenue, explained that he has lived in
his home nearly 10 years and that he now has a surface water prob-
lem which has been created with the installation of a swimming pool
behind his home, in his neighbor's yard. He has retained the services
of an attorney, Mr. Critchfield, and asked the Council if it would
be in order for him to read a memo from Mr. Critchfield's office,
which explains his position, in detail. He then read the letter
which explained that the neighbor behind him has constructed a
retaining wall and a swimming pool which does not allow water to
drain off of ~1r. Kirk's property, which is higher, and is a disrup-
tion of the natural water flow from his property, which is unlawful.
Mayor Miller stated that if it meets with Mr. Kirk's approval he
would like to submit the information to the City Attorney so that
he may examine the relevance of the Court decisions as well as all
the other information and then ask that the City Attorney report back
to the Council with regard to the City's role.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to request that the
City Attorney look at Section 7004 of the Building Code, in particular,
to see how it relates to this particular problem and how it can be
used.
Mr. Kirk was advised that he will be notified the next time the
matter is scheduled on the agenda.
(Re Decision from
the Legislative Council
re Joint Powers Negotia-
tions - Fire Department)
Ray Winegarner, 736 Adams Avenue, representing the Livermore Firemans
Association stated that he would like to present the Council and
staff with a document which reflects the decision of the Legislative
, buncil which was obtained from a representative of the California
State Firemans Association, to be used in conjunction with future
joint powers negotiations.
(Re Traffic Hazard
at Hwy. 84 & No.
Mines Road)
Clyde Highet, l3l7 Hibiscus, stated that a very dangerous situation
exists at the intersection of Highway 84 and North Mines Road,
and suggested that an island be constructed to provide a safety
zone and turning lane for access to the property presently being
developed by Mr. Hutka.
Councilman Beebe agreed that the traffic situation in that area
is very bad, and that during the weekend the traffic was very
heavy and there were some near accidents due to people going in
and out of the area. He suggested that the Public Works Department
conduct a survey to see how the intersection can be improved.
CM-27-55
---,._----_._".^.-"~~._.._._-,---,.__._._- . . .-.' -_..,._~--,-"_....- .. .._".._-----"~--_.~....__...,-~---_._--"~-_._-----'"._--..-"-_'__.~
August 20, 1973
(Dangerous Intersection)
Bob Yee, Assist,ant City Engineer, stated that since First Street
is under the jurisdiction of the state Division of Highways he
will contact them to see what action can be taken and to expedite
the matter he will give them a call tomorrow morning and there
will be a report to the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental
Reports
Departmental reports were submitted to the Council, as follows:
Airport Activity - July
Building Inspection Department - July
Mosquito Abatement District - June
planning/Zoning - January-June and July
Police and Pound Departments - July
Water Reclamation Plant - June
Fire Department, April-June
Beautification Committee
Minutes of June 6, 1973
Minutes of the Beautification Committee for the meeting of June 6,
1973, were noted for filing.
Payroll & Claims
There were l59 claims in the amount of $2l9,698.8l and 298 payroll
warrants in the amount of $$72,522.37, dated August l7, 1973, for
a total of $292,22l.l8.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved.
REPORT RE REQUEST
TO BUILD ON 5 LOTS
LOCATED ON BLUEBELL DR.
Mr. Walter C. Leonardo and Mr. vito Pavia are owners of 5 lots
located on Bluebell Drive and at the last meeting requested that
they be allowed to develop on these lots. The matter was postponed
to allow the City Attorney time to research the zoning procedures
and report back to the Council.
The City Attorney reported that he has tried to confine the matter to
a general problem and not a specific example and suggested that the
variance procedure would not be the appropriate means for making
any adjustments the Council might feel to be proper, but rather
by requiring a Conditional Use Permit, to be issued with discretion.
Mr. Musso suggested that there be wording provided in the Interim
Ordinance providing for a CUP procedure and possibly including some
certain findings.
The City Attorney commented that the Interim Ordinance could be
amended or the Council can deal with individual cases as they arise.
CM-27-56
August 20, 1973
(re Request for
Development on North
Side of Freeway)
Mayor Miller stated that the Council could consider the amendment
of the Interim Ordinance to provide for a CUP procedure; however,
in his opinion, there should be no changes.
Councilman Beebe noted that the reason he had voted against extend-
ing the Interim Ordinance for another six months was due to the
fact that he feels it is very unfair to the individual property
owners who are caught in a trap. The Ordinance provides that the
north area shall be under study by the Planning Commission and if it
is released to the Council, the Council can accept it as an approved
portion of the City, and it appears that this is not being followed.
Mayor Miller stated that this particular property is not in the
category which is going to be released soon, and also, he feels
concern for the ultimate density revisions which are to be recom-
mended by the General Plan Review Committee and the Planning Commis-
sion after completion of the General Plan Review. He feels there
should be no decision on density and total development questions
until everything has been concluded and there is a unified view of
the whole north side, and this is the reason the Interim Ordinance
was adopted. There was to be nothing done on the north side until
the General Pllan Review is complete and density has been decided.
He stated that it is obvious that the development of the property
owned by Mr. Leonardo and Mr. Pavia cannot be decided at this
time but the Council should consider whether or not they wish
to amend the Interim Ordinance by adding a CUP procedure.
Councilman Pritchard felt that it is obvious that the lots will
be nothing but single family residences on the lots and that it
would be a good idea to provide for a CUP procedure and to amend
the Interim Ordinance.
Mayor Miller suggested that the City Attorney and Planning Director
provide the Council with a report as to what limitations should
be imposed, a possible mechanism for accomplishing this, and any
pros and cons they feel are important. This was concluded to
be the consensus of the Council and the City Attorney and Planning
Director were so directed.
COMMUNICATION RE
SPEED ON EAST AVENUE
A letter was received from the County Director of Public Works,
in which it was stated that after study by the County and discus-
sion with the California Highway Patrol it is felt that there
is no justification in recommending that the speed of 45 mph be
reduced on East Avenue in the area of concern.
Mr. Parness explained that they recommend no reduction of speed
unless the number of warrants indicate that a change is needed.
He reminded the Council that a tremendous amount of traffic is
generated on East Avenue during peak hours and from that standpoint
the engineers want to process it as quickly as possible and the
County has not been convinced that there is a safety problem there.
Mayor Miller suggested that the Council regularly remind the
County of the conditions on East Avenue and maybe in time some-
thing will be done.
The Council then commented that it shouldn't be long before signals
are installed at Charlotte Way and Vasco Road, and Mr. Parness stated
that the City asked that the North Livermore-First Street project
take priority over the Vasco intersection and it may be as long as
four years before Vasco Road gets signals.
CM-27-57
August 20, 1973
REPORT RE JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT - WTR. MGMT.
Mr. Parness explained that the copy of the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement the Council has received is a draft which has
been reviewed and approved by the legislative committee of the
Valley Water Management Committee at which time Councilmen Beebe
and Pritchard were present during many of the discussions. The a-
greement deletes any reference to arbitration procedure and provides
that the budget prepared by the Joint Exercise of Powers Agency is
subject to review by each local governing board. Mr. Parness stated
that as far as he knows, most of the questions and objections
posed by the City Council have been responded to in the draft,
as was the case with the other two agencies, and have been more
than satisfied.
Mayor Miller stated that he would not vote in favor of the Joint
Powers of Agreement becucause it was explained by the City Manager
that no debt will be incurred for Capital Improvements without a
prior vote of approval of the electorate, which is contained in the
Exhibit attachment (which was not included with the draft for the
Council to review) and in the Mayor's opinion should be contained
in the Joint Powers of Agreement. He added that he must have all
the documents relevant to the agreement prior to a vote of approval
because he feels there may be a trap to the Citizens of Livermore
which may be very large.
Councilman Beebe had pointed out that by all appearances, in Section
XI (General Powers) there is no provision that there must be a vote
of approval for expenditures.
Mayor Miller stated that the agreement states that the Agency shall
have no power to bind any of the parties of the agreement to any
debt, etc; however, it says nothing about how the City can veto
a debt, liability or obligation. A mechanism should be specifically
laid out within the Joint Powers of Agreement to accomplish such.
Mr. Parness explained that the agreement does seem to be a bit con-
tradictory but it was pointed out by the attorney who drafted the
agreement that the agreement is consistent and non-contradictory.
Mayor Miller pointed out that another thing the Council was con-
cerned about was budgetary approval, and the draft provides for
budgetary review - not budgetary approval.
Mr. Parness explained that "budgetary review" pertains only to
the operating budget, but the Mayor pointed out that the draft
does not say that the review pertains only to the operating
budget.
Mayor Miller commented that if the agreement states that there
will be budgetary review of the general budget this is fine;
however, he wants it so stated that there must be budgetary
"approval" of the project budget and that there needs to be
precision in the language which is not evident. He stated that
the last thing he would like to mention is the time the City is
bound to the agreement. He felt that five years was a long time
to be bound to an agreement after notice has been given to withdraw.
This could mean that the City could be subject to having to payout
money for a program it does not agree with for five years after it
has given notice. He would suggest that the time period be for one
year, or that the withdrawing parties are not obligated for any ex-
penses the Agency incurrs subsequent to the effective notice date,
not the date of withdrawal.
Mr. Parness stated that this is a debatable point and it is an
arbitrary judgement point as to what length of time might be appro-
priate but it was felt that a slow withdrawal process would be best.
After reviewing the withdrawal time of other agencies it was deter-
mined that the five years was appropriate.
CM-27-58
August 20, 1973
(re Joint Powers Draft)
Mayor Miller commented that he would like to cite an example of what
the City could get into with the five year time length. The govern-
ing agencies may decide to build an enormous sewer plant with the
taxpayers money by issuing a bond to provide growth for the Pleasanton
and Dublin area. This would be no advantage to the City of Livermore,
as we are down-wind from the smog which will be generated by the growth
and it would be, in fact, a disadvantage to be a part of such a plan
but yet we would be committed for five years and thereafter to go
along with it. He felt such a commitment would be unreasonable.
Mr. Parness asked if the Council would go along with the suggestion
that the City would agree to remain for five years but only to par-
ticipate in the operating budget obligations and that capital projects
obligations of the City will cease immediately upon notice or
at the end of the fiscal year for capital investments, with which con-
cept the Council concurred.
Mayor Miller felt that the suggestion made by Mr. Parness was not
unreasonable but cautioned that in some instances capital projects
are made to look like operating expenses and paid for out of the
operating budget; however the concept of the City Manager's sugges-
tion would be agreeable.
REPORT RE FIRST ST. -
SO. LIVERMORE WIDENING
(Standard Oil Property)
With regard to the street widening project on First Street and
North Livermore Avenue, Mr. Parness reported that at the last
meeting he had asked that the Council decline the easement along
the frontage abutting Livermore Avenue which would allow for a
turning lane, due to the estimated cost involved. However, he
stated that he had not been completely informed about the situation
regarding acceptance of the easement and it appears that the improve-
ment costs have already been obligated by the City in connection
with the South Livermore Avenue improvements and it would therefore
be an attractive offer to the City to accept the free grant of
the easement from the Standard Oil Company. The additional cost
for the acquisition will be approximately $4,315, and the City
Manager would recommend that the Council allow this small additional
cost and acceptance of the deed.
Councilman Beebe moved to approve the cost of the additional widen-
ing and acceptance of the deed, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and which passed by a unanimous vote.
REPORT RE BUS TRANSIT
SERVICE PROPOSAL (Feeder
Service)
The City Manager submitted a report to the Council regarding the
proposed BART bus transit feeder system and explained that the
proposal appears to be very attractive and that essentially, it
is going to be recommended by the BART Staff that two types of
bus systems be available for the Valley community. One would
be the basic service during daytime hours, which route he illustrated
to the Council. Concurrently, there will be what is called a
"peak service" and will be an express service using a route which
he also illustrated. He pointed out that this is really a status
report which the City will keep pressing and will also keep the
Council informed about the progress.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would move that the City Council
give their unanimous support of this proposal and would urge a
speedy implementation of the plan, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and which passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
The City Manager was directed to write a letter in accordance with
the above motion.
CM-27-59
.._--_._-_...,."-_._----,~"-".~_.._,-_.,.'-,.._.._._------_.._,.__..~----~._- ._--~'---'-~-"-'-'--"---''''-.''''''-'-'----''---
August 20, 1973
(re Bus Feeder)
Councilman Pritchard had suggested that a letter also be written
to Assemblyman Meade explaining the feelings of the City with re-
gard to BART with regard to the amount of funds already paid by
our citizens.
REPORT RE TRAILER
ORD. ENFORCEMENT
The Council had instructed the staff to prepare a status report
with regard to the trailer-boat storage enforcement experience,
and Mr. Musso reported that the enforcement is being conducted
on a district-wide basis, notifying owners of violations and to
date there have been approximately 100 letters of notice sent out.
Mr. Musso reported that the Planning Commission has reviewed the
Trailer Storage Ordinance and suggests that the staff attempt to
design an ordinance that regulates the off-street parking of all
vehicles or trailers on the basis of size, which will require the
assistance of the City Attorney.
RES. RE ABANDONED
VEHICLE PROGRAM
The Planning Director reported that in order to qualify for state
funds for the State Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program it is
necessary that the Council adopt a resolution calling for a con-
tract with the California Department of Highway Patrol.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the resolution was
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 110-73
RESOLUTION RE AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT COSTS
REPORT RE AB ll44
RE LAND DEDICATION
AND/OR CONST. OF
SCHOOL FACILITIES
The School District has submitted a report to the Council in which
the District has unanimously passed a motion endorsing the concept
of AB-1144 which provides for the dedication of land and/or con-
struction of school facilities, or payment of fees in lieu thereof.
Mr. Musso reported on his attendance at the hearing in Sacramento
and a presentation sponsored by Assemblyman MacDonald. He stated
that it was decided that the Bill should be revised and that there
will be another hearing at which time there can be suggested changes.
He noted that the 10 year escape clause has been omitted from the
Bill and added that he has discussed the matter with the representa-
tives from Thousand Oakes and suggested that it be eliminated from
the subdivision ordinance and to be all inclusive for any development.
The Council asked if there will be a formal request that the repre-
sentatives from Livermore be given a chance to speak at the next
public hearing and Mayor Miller felt this was very important and
stated that he would be willing to attend the hearing.
CM-27-60
August 20, 1973
RES. RE ASSESS. DIST. -
NO. SANITARY SE~~R
(Reapportionment F-l)
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote the following resolution was adopted
regarding the amendment of an existing assessment district -
Northern Sanitary Sewer, as well as certain procedures, as follows:
1) Resolution directing Director of Public Works to make and
file an amended assessment.
2) File a notice of order to file amended assessment.
3) File certificate of mailing notice of order to file amended
assessment.
RESOLUTION NO. 111-73
RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS TO PREPARE AND FILE AN M1ENDED
ASSESSMENT, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER DIS-
TRICT NO. 1962-1, CITY OF LIVER~ORE, ALA-
}mDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, (F-l).
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(re Sidewalk Requirement)
Mr. Musso explained that the restaurant located on North Mines
Road which intersects with First Street and discussed earlier as
a traffic problem area, should be notified that in the event the
sidewalk is ever widened to 10 feet, the landscaped strip will have
to be moved to their property and improved.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Counilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote, the above recommendation was adopted.
(Re Louis Shopping
Center Bar Violation)
The City Attorney commented that the staff had been directed to
meet with the developers of a pizza parlor and lounge to be located
in the Louis Shopping Center, as it appeared that there might be a
violation of the zoning ordinance in the offing. After discussing
the matter with the developer the City was advised that the developer
will modify his building design and internal doorway passage so that
the two businesses would be integrated in terms of services to the
public. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that the developer
is prepared to cooperate and by making the necessary modifications
would not be violating the spirit of the ordinance.
(Re Res. Required to
Annex City Property
and Street)
The City Manager explained that two resolutions are required by
the statutes to request the County to allow the annexation of
property now owned by the City, to the City, and on motion of
Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by a unani-
mous vote, the following resolutions were adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. ll2-73
RESOLUTION RE PROPOSED "ARROYO ANNEX NO.3"
TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
CM-27-6l
August 20, 1973
RESOLUTION NO. 113-72
RESOLUTION RE PROPOSED "MURRIETA BOULEVARD
ANNEX" TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
(Old City
Sewer Lines)
The City Manager reported that several months ago the staff in-
vestigated the condition of certain public works improvements in
the City and a Capital Improvements budget was prepared. One of the
sections had to do with sanitary sewers and one of the concerns is
the sewer lines in the older downtown area. Line installations were
proposed for L Street and South Livermore Avenue in the budget. How-
ever, subsequent to this, some TV inspection work has been done on
L Street and it was found that some of the line was in good shape,
although due to obstructions, some of the line could not be inspected.
In the street improvement project contract some portions of the line
were to be replaced but since the surface of the street is being redone
and inspections have been made it is evident that the lines are in
bad shape and that the TV inspections are not an accurate way of
determining the condition of lines. It is felt that it would be
ill-adivsed to resurface the street with the very heavy overlay cover-
ing the lines and that the lines should be replaced at this time
since they are now exposed. The total cost, which has already been
budgeted, will come to approximately $35,000, for about 2,500 lineal
foot of line. It is therefore requested that the Council change
the priority listing to allow for the installation of the new lines.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote of the Council, the sewer lines are to
be replaced, as recommended.
(re Status of RR
Relocation Project)
The City Manager briefly reported on the status of the railroad
relocation program stating that all but three exhibits have been
submitted to the State Board of Transportation. Mr. Parness has
contacted the Chairman of the PUC, has made a personal appeal to
him, and Carlos Bee has also joined in a personal appeal to
President Sturgeon of the PUC who has responded by saying that he
would do all he could to help the City but these matters take time.
The three documents which were not submitted were the two contracts
with the railroad, and the Order from the PUC which is forthcoming
and should also be a determination of the lO% statutory contribution
of the railroads. He pointed out that the S.P. contract has been
authorized, but there may be a problem in obtaining the contract
with w.P., as the City has not yet come to terms as to what the value
of their right-of-way, which the City must acquire for S.P. Mr.
Parness stated that once the Order from the PUC is delivered the
City may have grounds for asking that the August 15th deadline be
waived but if this cannot be done the last alternative would be
to once again apply to the PUC for a 1974 priority listing, as our
construction bid is still good through the first part of next Janu-
ary. We have been told that we would be even higher on the priority
list next year, since we have so much into the project.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(re Installation
of New Sewer Lines)
Councilman Beebe asked if the installation of the new sewer lines
could be expedited to the utmost, as the street improvement project
is a great inconvenience to a number of people.
CM-27-62
August 20, 1973
(re Recycling of Paper
Revenue to City)
~
Councilman Beebe noted that he read in the bulletin from the Garden
State Paper Company that a City can make a profit from recycling
paper waste and reducing the fill in the disposal plant by 40-50%
and wondered if there would be any way the City could do something
like this.
The Council agreed that the matter is an interesting possibility.
(Flight Pattern Change)
Councilman Pritchard commented that he has heard there is to be a
flight pattern change at the local airport, and Councilman Beebe
commented that the change is in effect.
Mr. Parness explained that by virtue of the complaint reported to
the Council about aircraft and a letter to Mr. Hingle at the tower,
there have been some slight modifications which will allow a plane
to enter the pattern more quickly. He added that Mr. Hingle has
assured him that he knows of the person who made the complaint
to the Council and that the staff at the tower had handled all
calls with courtesy and in a very proper manner. Also, as far
as the tower is concerned there has never been a violation of
the altitude limits since they have been in operation and they
feel the complaint about altitude was unfounded.
Councilman Beebe stated that he also has spoken with Mr. Hingle and
feels that an educational program is being worked out with all flight
people to get them to comply with the new regulations.
(Request for Tabulation
re Sewer Plant Sludge)
Mayor Miller stated that if the Council would agree, he would like
to ask the Public Works Department to provide a tabulation of the
average flow in the sewer plant with the average raw sludge in
pounds per day and the average digested sludge in pounds per day
since 1968.
(Beautification Project
on "J" Street)
Mayor Miller asked the status of the beautification project for
lIJlI Street, and it was reported that the project has been contracted.
Mayor Miller commented that the Council requested that they see the
alternate bids, and Councilman Pritchard stated that the Council did
have the opportunity to see them, as he can remember them.
(Re Illegal Flags
and Signs)
Mayor Miller stated that Ozzie Davis has flags on cars which is in
violation of the Sign Ordinance, and it is also his understanding
the Mr. Mehran has put up another set of illegal signs. He asked
that the staff check into these matters and follow through.
(Re AB l367 Bill re
Park Dedication)
Mayor Miller stated that AB 1367 essentially is a "gutting" of the
Park Dedication Act and Supreme Court decision and would urge the
Council to strongly oppose that bill.
CH-27-63
----__.._.____...______.._"__~m.'.___.._.._...~_~._."__..._.'"__..___.._".____.__.____._~__..._.._._._'.___,____,.,_.____..~,...___.__.__.._.__.__..
August 20, 1973
(re AB 2610 re Pay-
ment to Property
O\~ers - Rezoning)
Mayor Miller stated that there is a bill in the legislature
(AB 2610) which says that public jurisdictions must compensate
owners of real property for the amount of decrease in fair market
value as a result in a change of zoning. However, the bill
says nothing about the owner paying the City if the property is
"upzoned". He felt that the bill either go both ways, or the Council
should oppose this type of legislation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a brief executive session
to discuss personnel and labor relations.
Firemans Association Agreement
The Assistant to the City Manager explained the points of agreement
finally accepted in the negotiations with the Firemans Association
as to salary increase, benefits and working conditions, which were
briefly discussed by the Council. At the close of the discussion,
on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the Council voted unanimously to approve the conditions as presented
and to add the stipulation that the Livermore Firemans Association
waive the right to further retroactive salary claims from July 1,
1973, and that in the 1974-75 salary negotiations no salary payments
will be made retroactively from July l, 1974.
ATTEST
bawJl JJ -lt~
.JL~~~~ ~
City Clerk
- Livermore, California
Mayor
APPROVE
Regular Meeting of August 27, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 27, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:l0 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (Excused - Will be Late)
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNCIL~1AN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AFTER THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CM-27-64
August 27, 1973
~INUTES OF AUG. 20th
There being no corrections to the minutes of August 20, 1973, on
motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a 3-2 vote (Councilmen Futch and Taylor abstaining due to ab-
sence at that meeting) the minutes were approved, as submitted.
OPEN FORUH
(Request for Stop Signs
on Murdell Lane)
Tom ~.lurphy, 1157 Burdell Lane, speaking on behalf of local residents
in the r1urdell area requested that the Council place stop signs at
the intersection of Murdell Lane and Encino Drive, in an effort to
get the traffic slowed down. Murdell is a wide street which is l.3
miles long with no stop signs in that distance, and the residents
feel that the traffic situation is very similar to that on El Caminito.
El Caminito now has a stop sign as well as being heavily patrolled by
the Police Department.
Councilman Beebe asked if there is any indication that the cars are
in a school zone and Mr. Lee stated that there are no such signs at
the present time, but if the street is within 600 feet of the school
it could be done.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the staff conduct a traffic count
for the area and report back to the Council so that a decision of
the matter can be reached at the next meeting.
Mayor Miller stated that if it meets with the approval of the Council
the staff would be directed to do as suggested by Councilman Taylor
and that Mr. Murphy be notified as to when the matter will be before
the Council again.
(re Zone 7 Water
Rate Increase)
Paul Brown, 73l Wimbledon Lane, stated that he is the Chairman for
the Citizens Against Water Rate Increase, and that he has attended
Zone 7 meetings in which there were discussions about Project 2 at
which time they never once made mention of the fact that the
Livermore Council had written to them requesting that there not
be a raise in water rates to pay for Project 2, and the letter
was also not mentioned at the time they resolved to raise the
rates. He stated that Zone 7 commented about support from Pleasanton
and VCSD and either they did not receive the letter from the Livermore
Council, or they chose to ignore it. He quoted portions of the
Livermore Council meetings of september ll, and October 10, 1972, in
which Mr. Becker assured the Council that there would be no raise in w
water rates and that financing of Project 2 would have to be taken
care of by way of water connection fees and the sale of revenue bonds.
With such assurance that the fees would not be raised, the Council
endorsed Project 2 by a 4-1 margin and questioned whether or not
the Council would have endorsed Project 2 if they had been aware
that they were receiving a deliberate misstatement of the facts.
He requested that Project 2 be reevaluated and that the proposed
water rate increase be submitted as a referendum for the voters
to decide.
Councilman Taylor stated that rather than to assume that Zone 7 has
blatently ignored the letter from the Council, he would suggest that
it be resubmitted to them on the Council's position, and so moved.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed by a
unanimous vote of the Council.
CM-27-65
August 27, 1973
(Water Rate Increase)
The Council discussed the position they had taken earlier with regard
to project 2 and that the letter had stated that the Council requests
that water rates not be increased and if necessary, the size of the
project would have to be scaled down.
Mayor ~1iller stated that it is his understanding that in Zone 7's EIR
they have rejected the concept of the smaller project but which does
not mean that it is a permanent rejection.
The Council then discussed comments made by Mr. Becker and the bonds,
and Mayor Miller stated that it is his understanding that revenue
bonds cannot be supported by taxes, but if there are not sufficient
connection fees or other sources of revenue, if the bonds are sold
the bond holders can force Zone 7 to raise the rates. Therefore, the
bonds can be sold without consideration to water connection fees and
we can be forced to pay higher fees if his understanding of the law
is correct.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution re
Salary Adjust-
ments Fire Dept.
The City Manager explained that the City has reached an agreement with
the Firemans Association with regard to salary rates and other minor
adjustments; however, the City has just received an amended form prepared
by their attorney which is different than the one the Council had author-
ized and the staff is not prepared to recommend its adoption. The staff
has agreed to meet with them again to try to clarify some of the wording,
which is not to imply that there is a significant difference.
The Council agreed to postpone the matter for another week.
Resolution re
1973-74 Fiscal
Year Tax Rate
In accordance with the fiscal budget it is recommended that the proposed
total tax rate be reduced by 2~, applicable to the bond fund and a new
tax rate adopted, as follows:
1973-74 Recom-
mended Rate
General Fund
Retirement Fund
Library Fund
Park-Recreation
1955 Bond Fund
1958 Bond Fund
1965 Bond Fund
Total
.735
.l9
.22
.l9
.02
.075
.03
$l.46
RESOLUTION NO. 114-73
RESOLUTION FIXING TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1973-74
CM-27-66
August 27, 1973
Resolution re
No. Sanitary Sewer
Assessment District
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution ordering the
Director of Public Works to make and file an amended assessment
which is necessary when properties within the district are sold and
the levies must be adjusted, and also to take care of the following
required procedures:
1) Resolution directing Director of Public W'orks to make and
file an amended assessment.
2) File a notice of order to file manded assessment.
3) File certificate of mailing notice of order to file amended
assessment.
RESOLUTION NO. 115-73
RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
TO PREPARE AND FILE AN A~1ENDED ASSESSMENT,
NORTHERN SANITARY SE~mR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1962-l, CITY OF LIVER~OP~, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved with the
deletion of the resolution pertaining to the firemen.
COMMUNICATION RE
REQUEST FOR CROSSWALK
ON PORTOLA AVENUE
Barbara Hartley, 513 Briarwood, has written to the Council requesting
that a crosswalk be made available on Portola Avenue to accomodate
the children in the Los Altos Heights area, as well as the adjacent
new development on the north side of Portola Avenue. She has cir-
culated a petition supporting the request which was signed by 57
residents. In addition to requesting a crosswalk, they would like
a paid adult crossing guard to assist at the crosswalk.
Mr. Lee stated that in order to justify hiring an adult crossing
guard, in accordance with the California Traffic Control Devices
Committee, four warrants must be met and satisfied, as follows:
Warrant #l - (re number of children using the crosswalk)
Warrant #2 - (no controlled intersection within 600 feet)
Warrant #3 - (re vehicular traffic volume)
Warrant #4 - (re rural conditions)
Mr. Lee explained that Warrant #l is being questioned, #2 and #3
are not met, and #4 does not apply. Therefore, if the recommendations
of the Committee are followed, the crosswalk would not be warranted.
The Council discussed the problems of crossing with some thought
to the number of children who may have to cross from the new develop-
ment.
Mayor Miller stated that the area is situated so that there are a
number of motorists who speed along there and from that point of
view a temporary guard might be a reasonable suggestion.
Councilman Taylor felt that from a safety standpoint, it would be
better to train the children to use the intersection at the stop
signs, as there are only two hours a day in which the guard would
be able to assist the children and any other time of day the children
would be crossing in the middle of a street on which there is consider-
able speeding.
CM--27 -67
August 27, 1973
(re portola Crosswalk)
It was concluded that Warrant #1 is probably met, and if the crosswalk
is moved just west of Enos Way, ~~arrant #2 could also be met. However,
in reply to a question posed by Councilman Pritchard, Mr. Lee explained
that all three warrants must be met, and the r1ayor pointed out that in
the past, all three warrants have not been met.
Mrs. Hartley stated that a house-to-house survey has shown that there
are 103 children under the age of 18 living in the Los Altos Heights
area and that 50 of these attend Portola Avenue School, which would
meet Warrant #1. Mr. Yee has reported that a traffic count indicates
l600 cars pass the crosswalk (at Royal Road) during a 24 hour period
and 190 cars passing during the peak hours. It is felt that when the
cooler weather is here more people will be driving and parents will
be transporting their children to and from school adding to the amount
of traffic generated along portola Avenue. She then submitted twelve
pictures taken one morning within 15 minutes in which her children
attempted to cross Portola and had a difficult time in getting across.
She felt that a crosswalk directly across from the school entrance
would be best, as the children would not have to cross two driveway
entrances to the school, and the principal has stated that in his
opinion this would be the best spot for a crosswalk, as they can see
the children crossing at that area and the school is responsible for
a child until the child reaches home.
Councilman Beebe moved that the crosswalk be allowed for a year or
until the traffic signals are installed and then review it again at
that time, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Taylor felt that it would be creating a very hazardous con-
dition to place a crossing guard close to the North Livermore intersec-
tion, as motorists may be watching the sign or lights ahead and will go
right through the crosswalk and that it would be far better to train
the children to use the North Livermore and portola Avenue intersection.
He stated that a guard cannot be there all the time and there will be
a lot of children crossing during odd hours. He would therefore suggest
that if there is to be a guard, the guard be located at the North Liver-
more intersection.
Councilman Pritchard stated that this is not the first case in which a
guard would be placed directly across from the school and in the middle
of the block, using East Avenue School as an example.
Mayor Miller stated that there is merit in what Councilman Taylor has
said about there being a hazardous condition with a guard close to the
intersection, but would feel that it would be better to place a guard
at the intersection of Enos Way and Portola Avenue, as motorists realize
that there is a cross street there and would tend to be more alert when
driving past. The public works are soon to be completed on the south
side and the children would not have to walk in an area where the pub-
lic works have not been put in, as would be the case if they must walk
along Mr. Mehran's development on the north side of portola Avenue.
Mrs. Hartley suggested that a guard be placed in the present crosswalk
located at Royal Road and portola Avenue if the Council does not want
one directly across from the school, as this is where the traffic count
was taken and where she took pictures of children trying to cross. In
addition she suggested that the speed limit of 35 mph be changed to 25
mph which is close to the crosswalk, and might help the situation,
also.
Councilman Beebe added that the motion state that the guard be at the
Royal Road crosswalk, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
CM-27-68
August 27, 1973
CO~~UNICATION RE
SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST
TO WAIVE FEES
The School District has requested that in view of the fact that
the buildings being used by the District have been donated by
Hr. Elliott and are considered temporary that the Council vlai ve
the fees since similar fees will be imposed at the time a permanent
structure is built. They feel that the net result would be a dupli-
cation of fee charges for the same purpose. The fees which they have
asked to be waived are as follows:
Zone 7 - Water
Zone 7 - Storm
Storm Drain - City
Sewer Connection
$2,250.00
693.00
l,776.00
953.00
Total
$5,672.00
The Policy of the Council has always been to assess all applicable
fees against the School District except sewer connection fees in
which the base charge is levied.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the City Hanager's recommendation
be followed and it should be made clear to the School District
that fees paid for a temporary use are not reassessed later
on and that the former policy with regard to assessments be
observed, seconded by Councilman Futch, and which passed by a
unanimous vote.
REPORT RE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC TRAIN DEPOT
The City Manager reported that upon direction by the Council he has
met with the Livermore Heritage Guild to discuss the future of the
Southern Pacific train depot. The staff has prepared a hypothetical
site plan design to use in discussing the subject with the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company. The important point to be made to the
Southern Pacific people is that in its reconditioned status the depot
might be a pleasing attraction in addition to being an asset to the
commercial development of the property, while being publicly used.
He explained that the site plan is only an example of what can
be done which he illustrated to the Council. It is estimated that
restoration could be done for approximately $5,000 which would
cover the cost of the materials and done by volunteer work which
has been promised. If the building were to be moved to another
site the cost would be about $15,000. The Livermore Heritage Guild
feels that the building can be restored and art asset to the property
and it is therefore recommended that the Council support the efforts
of the Guild in the project as well as to urge Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Company to permit the structure to remain at its present
site. It is also suggested that if this meets with the approval
of the Council that the off-street parking and landscape requirements
be \vai ved.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is his understanding that Southern
Pacific Transportation Company owns the building which would mean
that either someone will have to purchase it from them or it would
have to be donated to the City, and Mr. Parness stated that this is
true, but feels something could be worked out in the way of a property
easement with donation of the structure to the Citv.
Mr. Parness stated that he feels sure Southern Pacific is not interes-
ted in retaining ownership rights to the structure and it could be
assumed by the City, working out easement arrangements.
01-27-69
August 27, 1973
(re Train Depot)
Mr. Parness explained that the equivalent amount of parking and land-
scaping could be a credit to the Southern Pacific Transportation Company.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to see the depot stay at
its present site and negotiations made with Southern Pacific with re-
gard to the parking and landscape requirements so as not to be a
liability to Southern Pacific, and that the City agree to match
the funds of the Guild (up to $2,500) in getting the depot restored,
and so moved. Councilman Futch seconded the motion.
Roger Brown, l154 Tesla, representing the Heritage Guild, stated that
at present there have been approximately 214 hours donated in the way
of labor, in addition to building materials such as lumber, bricks
and paint which have been pledged and even though there can be no
guarantee on the number of volunteer hours he feels that the Guild
will receive a great deal of support from the community and that
people will come to contribute to the restoration.
Mr. Hanesworth, representing Southern Pacific Development Company
stated that as long as the track is used by Southern Pacific, they
will not allow any use in the depot structure. There are, however,
plans to have the tracks relocated or removed. At the earliest,
if the grant for the grade separation is approved, the tracks will
not be moved for l~ years which means that Southern Pacific's manage-
ment cannot consider a use for the property for at least another
l~ years. He stated that to his knowledge a use such as is suggested
has never been allowed near Southern Pacific's main line track
as the hazards are too great a risk. He stated that they would
also have to receive economic justification and would freely donate
the building but not the property and while the trade with respect
to landscaping and parking appears to be attractive they would
have to be pursuaded, economically, to enter into such an arrangement.
Councilman Futch stated that he is a little confused as to their posi-
tion on the economic portion, as Mr. Hanesworth stated that it looks
attractive but indicated that it may not be sufficient.
Mr. Hanesworth stated that there is a complicated situation within the
corporate structure because the property is under the control of the
railroad per se and not the development entity.
Councilman Pritchard wondered what Southern Pacific would do if the
property is in the middle of a required landscaped area, and Mr.
Hanesworth stated that they would landscape it, and Councilman
Pritchard wondered if the property could be landscaped with an old
building.
Mayor r1iller stated that it appears that the main concern is whether
or not there is an economic trade which would be satisfactory to
Southern Pacific, which is certainly subject to discussion, but it
should be recognized that the City has site plan and design review
authority over commercial construction.
Councilman Taylor commented that it is not the intent of the City to
blackmail Southern Pacific but it is clear that a decision is still
a few years away. He added that this would just give the Guild
more time to raise funds and restore the building and would support
the motion.
Mayor Miller stated that his concern is that if the economic trade
is made with the land company and the building belongs to the rail-
road company, they may decide to bulldoze the building down before
an agreement is reached with the land company. How can the City
keep from having the structure bulldozed down during the interim?
CM-27-70
August 27, 1973
(re Train Depot)
Mr. Hanesworth stated that sometimes something like this happens;
however, they have no intention of doing such behind the City's
back.
Chet Fankhouser, 609 South P Street, Secretary of the Livermore
Heritage Guild felt that the reason they had asked that a heritage
ordinance be adopted was to help with the questions being raised;
however, often during the notification period of all involved inevit-
ably something goes wrong and this is what they would like to avoid.
He stated that the Guild is very confident due to the pledges and
community interest shown that the project will be successful and they
hope to use the building as a museum or for civic organization meetings.
They do not wish to upset Southern Pacific in any way, and on the other
hand they do not want to have their plans upset either.
The Council voted unanimously in favor of Councilman Beebe's motion.
REPORT RE AIRWAY BLVD.
PROPERTY DEVELOP~1ENT
Upon a former inquiry the Council indicated that it would consider
proposed land uses for the 13 acres of land abutting Airway Boulevard
and I-580 and during the past year negotiations have been under way
with an interested development firm. The City t1anager reported that
a site plan and structural renderings have been prepared and that
the interested developer will describe the improvements. It is rec-
ommended that the Council adopt a motion approving the proposed land
use concept and instruct the staff to prepare the required lease terms.
Mayor Miller stated that before discussing the matter he would like
the Council to take the position that no final decision will be made
at this meeting, as they have not had the opportunity to review the
drawings in advance and the Council policy usually is to come to no
decision unless drawings have been reviewed prior to the meeting, with
which the Council concurred.
Mr. Parness explained the drawings which illustrated an office building,
a motel, restaurant and a small gasoline station in addition to a
roadside rest area, which the Council then discussed.
Gerald Eschen, the developer, explained that if the office spaces are
to be filled the people will need a place to eat and that the whole
complex was felt to be integrated and asked if this is the type of
land use the Council would be interested in.
Mayor Miller stated that there are a number of things to be taken
into consideration - should there be any freeway oriented uses, should
there be another gas station at an interchange, what will be the effect
of highway commercial approval with respect to the County and what they
will do with all the other interchanges.
Mr. Eschen stated that the purpose of bringing up the matter and
presenting the drawings is to obtain the Council's opinion and would
be happy to leave the drawings with the Council for their review.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be continued for one week,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, with the amendment that it would be
continued until the next meeting (the next week being a holiday).
Mayor Miller stated that the Council is being presented with a single
alternative at the moment and perhaps the economic consequences, etc.,
of some other alternative should be made available.
~.
In answer to a question about how the Planning Commission mgight feel
about the proposal, Mr. Musso stated that the area is zoned industrial
and other uses would require approval of a CUP.
CH-27-7l
August 27, 1973
(re Airway Blvd.)
~ayor Miller felt there might be some merit in having the Planning
Commission review the alternate uses for the property prior to the
Council's making a final decision.
It was noted that the industrial and office use would be permitted
without obtaining a CUP.
Councilman Taylor commented that he would like to amend the motion
to state that the matter would be referred to the Planning Commission
and that it would be continued until the Council has a report back
from the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Futch, and which
passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE LAFCO
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
The Planning Director reported that LAFCO (The Local Agency Formation
Commission) staff has prepared a proposed Spheres of Influence area
for our City. A report has been prepared and a public hearing has
been scheduled by LAFCO for September 6th to receive local comment.
The boundary map prepared by LAFCO shows that the Spheres of In-
fluence limits are more constricted than the General Plan bounds
and the westerly line conflicts with the one agreed upon several years
ago with the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Musso explained that the City
has certain commitments and has made numerous plans and feels that
for LAFCO to say that "this is your planning area and beyond that is
none of your business" is an unreasonable attitude. The Planning
Commission feels, however, that if the boundary represents a short
range evaluation for annexation and does not replace the City's plan-
ning area of influence it would be a reasonable position or attitude.
The staff and Planning Commission recommended that the Council recom-
mend to LAFCO that the Sphere of Influence boundaries to be adopted by
LAFCO be coterminus with those of the Livermore Planning area.
Councilman Futch moved that the Council adopt the position of the staff
which would be to go back to our old Pleasanton boundary line and old
Sphere of Influence.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to second the motion
but to amend it to state that perhaps a staff member and a member of
the Council should be present at the hearing.
Mayor Miller felt that the issue was a very important one and would
be willing to attend the public hearing. There are developers who
have options or control of property north of the highway who would
like to bypass the City and regulations by developing in the County
and forming another city which would have high density and low stan-
dards, adding that he has seen such proposals. This could be accom-
plished by detaching the area from the General Plan area and the
Sphere of Influence and through LAFCO, remove Livermore from any
possible control of the area which has been in our General Plan area
for some 15 years and for which the City has made commitments. Such
a plan would result in a severe economic effect on our school system,
raise the environmental problems through uncontrolled growth and
development in the Valley including smog generated by more traffic
from the growth. The City should question why the County staff is
exhibiting pressure to detach the northside area and some of the
quarry area, from the General Plan area of Livermore and the quarry
areas of Pleasanton. He stated that t1r. Gelderman has stated that
LAFCO and the County are going to approve a new city north of the
highway and this should be a matter of intense public interest to
find out why Mr. Gelderman's desires are reflected in a recommendation
to the LAFCO staff by the County, and it appears there is a major
land development issue at hand which could have a severe impact on
our school system and should be brought to public attention. He
CM-27-72
l\ugust 27, 1973
(Sphere of Influence)
felt that representation about asking for respect for our present
General Plan areas should be very strongly made before LAFCO.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would certainly agree that the City
should retain its planning areas; however, it may be that the County
would like to protect this land from the City and in some cases it
may be necessary for a large agency to step in and preserve open space.
He would agree with the staff's position in any case.
Councilman Futch moved the question and the Council voted unanimously
in favor of the motion.
REPORT RE CHANGE FROM
T'JI'1BLETON TO HITI1BLEDON LANE
The Planning Commission reported that at its August 14th meeting they
considered the referral from the Council with regard to a request by
residents of Wimbleton Lane to change the spelling of the street to
Wimbledon Lane. It was concluded that since over 70% of the resi-
dents were in favor of such change that the request should be granted.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, a resolution was adopted to reflect
the recommendation of the Planning Commission for a change in the spel-
ling of the street.
RESOLUTION NO. l16-73
RESOLUTION CHANGING STREET N~1E
(From Wimbleton Lane to
Wimbledon Lane)
Prior to the vote Hr. Musso stated that he would like to comment,
for the record, that there was one letter opposing the change.
REPORT RE NEED FOR NEW
POLICE RADIO EQUIPMENT
The City Manager reported that the new police administration building
needs to have a new radio communications center as the present one
is a maintenance burden and unsuitable from the standpoint of lack of
back-up capability as well as coverage and our radio maintenance agent
urges that a new system be installed. Mr. Parness stated that he has
to agree that a new system is needed and after consulting with the
Alameda County Sheriff's Department, who have been doing the mainten-
ance, they have recommended a system considered to be minimal to our
needs. However, the cost for the major installation would be about
$65,000 and rather than to pay the capital expense for the equipment
it is suggested that it be acauired by lease-purchase over a 3-5 year
lease term. The Bank of America has offered the most attractive lease
rate at 4-3/4% interest per year. He added that Motorola has agreed
to provide the radio equipment as well as the TV scanners (4 in number
which have been planned for - approximately $10,000) and can arrange
for direct leasing, or the City can purchase the equipment outright;
however it is felt that the Bank of America has the best rate.
The City Manager invited representatives from 1I1otorola as well as
the Sheriff's Department to answer any questions the Council might
have with regard to installation of the equipment, but Councilman
Taylor stated that he is more concerned as to whether the equipment
,is absolutely necessary than the technical details, and asked what
the change would be to which ~1r. Parness replied that the major
change would be in reliability.
C]\1-27-73
August 27, 1973
(New Radio Equipment)
A representative of Motorola briefly spoke to the Council about
the equipment to be installed and Police Chief Lindgren explained
that the new jail standards recently adopted by the State Board of
Corrections mandates that there be constant supervision of all
prisoners in custody, either in person, by camera or audio facili-
ties and is a situation over which there is not much choice. Follow-
ing comments made by the representative and the Police Chief, there
was some general discussion on the equipment recommended.
Councilman Taylor stated that there are a number of new features to
be realized by the installation of the new equipment as well as
being a more reliable system.
Mr. Parness stated that it is his understanding that with this type
of system the area of coverage could be greatly expanded and the
representative from Motorola stated that this is correct and it will
be attributed to the new antenna and transmitter which will be used.
Mr. Rose from the Alameda County Sheriff's Department explained that
the Police Department is in a bad situation, in that if something
happens to their radio at 3:00 a.m. their only alternative is to
try to reach someone from the County to repair the equipment which
is very inadequate and added that the coverage in Livermore is very
limited.
It was noted that new equipment was approved in the budget but the
equipment being discussed is a Motorola package deal and the Police
Chief could not recall off-hand how much had been approved in the
budget, or how much difference there is in cost.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the City Manager's recommendation
to install the equipment on a lease-purchase arrangement with the
Bank of America at 4-3/4% interest per year for 3-5 years.
Z.O. AMEND RE CORNER OF
HOLMES & CONCANNON BLVD.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council adopt the zoning ordinance
amendment for the area located on the corner of Concannon and Holmes
Street from RS-4 to CO and E Districts (Mr. Mehran's property) which
was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Pritchard commented that the ordinance states ..."shall
dedicate to the City of Livermore...... land Zoned E...", and he felt
that the City had requested the land to be maintained by ~1r. Mehran
which was not included in the ordinance.
Mr. Musso stated that the developer has agreed to maintain the portion
dedicated to the City but does not desire to provide any long term
maintenance agreement, such as an assessment.
Mr. Mehran stated that no matter who owns the property, the landscaped
area must be maintained and the portion dedicated to the City would be
taken care of in the same manner at the same time. He added that the
land is being zoned from RS-4 to CO and E and that the Council must
approve the site plan approval which has not been completed and the
Sunset Development Company cannot agree to take care of something
when they do not know what it is.
Mr. Musso stated that the requirements involved cannot be taken care
of by way of site plan approval, such as perpetual maintenance of the
open space or the parkway.
CM-27-74
August 27, 1973
(Rezoning Concannon &
Holmes Street - Sunset)
Mr. Mehran stated that originally his company came up with the idea
of open space and improving the land as well as the maintenance in
perpetuity and is still willing to do such and would like to state
publicly that they ,""ould agree to whatever ~1r. '1usso comes up with
as an addendum to the ordinance.
Councilman Taylor felt the wishes of the Council are very clear and
that the City Attorney would have no trouble in drafting an airtight
clause to be added to the ordinance, and suggested that this be added
as an amendment to the motion, ~"hich Councilman Beebe added to his
motion.
The City Attorney reminded the Council that if there is to be a
change in the ordinance it would reauire that it go back to the
first reading and could not be adopted at this time.
Councilman Taylor stated that while they are speaking of making
changes he would like to see the requirement for a chain link fence
deleted in place of a "City approved fence".
Mr. Musso explained that chain link fences are required when the
park or school abutts a residential area.
~1ayor ~1iller stated that in Section 2, Conditions "A" through "D"
should be "A" through "F", and with regard to shrubbery and trees
there should be some mention of the size of plants to be put in.
He suggested that the landscaping should be subject to site plan
approval because the property may be sold to another individual
who might not agree to the conditions agreed upon by ~.1r. ~1ehran.
Councilman Futch explained that he would be voting against the
adoption of the ordinance, not because he does not agree with the
rezoning but because he feels the Council should have followed the
proper planning procedure, after the General Plan review.
Mr. Jll!ehran stated that he would like to know where he stands and
what the Council's wishes as well as whether Sunset Development Company
can proceed with what they are committed to do, as they have agreed to
contribute $40,000 towards the signals at the intersection of Holmes
and Concannon Boulevard, which, according to experts, would cost from
$65,000-$70,000 and there has been no mention of this anywhere. He
stated that he would like to receive the tlgo ahead" from the Council
and that their control in the way of how big a tree or shrub should be
is rather ill-timed. He feels that Sunset Development Company is put-
ting the cart before the horse in getting the signals installed;
however, he felt that this should be done prior to commencement
of school and the reason they have gone ahead on the project. He
felt that if the second reading had taken place at this meeting and
in a month or two it was found that something should have been added
to it, there would simply have been an addendum to it, it would not
have gone back to the first reading and urged that the Council adopt
the ordinance at this time and make any changes the Council might
,,,,ish.
Councilman Pritchard stated that since he voted for the first reading
of the ordinance he has no intention of changing his vote on the
second reading, even though it is going back to the first reading
due to some changes which he felt should have been included originally.
r'layor Miller stated that he "JOuld have to agree with the position
being taken by Councilman Futch in that the Council should have followed
the proper planning procedures in adopting the ordinance and that
this method is unorthodox in that in four months it would be illegal.
If the legislature had not given two extensions, an amendment of
the zoning ordinance without the amendment of the General Plan was
supposed to have been illegal as of January l, 1973.
cr'1-27 -7 5
August 27, 1973
(Rezoning Holmes & Concannon)
Mayor Miller stated that he cannot understand the haste with which
the ordinance is being adopted by the Council since the project is
supposedly not being built for two years. He restated that he feels
there should be a completion of the General Plan review and a public
hearing prior to adoption of an ordinance which will be fragmenting
commercial by locating commercial offices away from our downtown pre-
sently zoned areas. He felt that this may have some effect on the
airport property to be discussed next week with regard to commercial,
for example, and possibly it may affect the City's investments if we
intend to turn that property into commercial. In his opinion, it
would have an affect on the area east of ilL" Street which is to be
developed into offices, and there must be some consideration about
the need for office space in this area, as it has been pointed out
that the present office space developed by Mr. Mehran is not full.
One of the things which makes ~1:r. Hehran' s offer attractive is the
money he intends to spend in putting in signals and street improve-
ments; however, if there is a decaying of the downtown area east of
"LI! Street, the tax loss in property tax and loss of commercial in
that area could exceed the $70,000 (estimated cost of Mr. Mehran's
signal and street improvement project) a year. There has been no
real deep discussion of the downtown Livermore redevelopment plan
and when the Planning Commission took this into consideration, they
voted 4-1 against the rezoning. He felt that Councilman Futch's
suggestion to wait until after the General Plan amendment has taken
place is not an unreasonable suggestion and, in fact, is what the
Council voted to do but during a meeting in which Councilman Futch
and Mayor Miller were absent the Council changed position and intro-
duced the ordinance which he felt to be unusual. He urged that the
Council wait for the General Plan amendment and live up to the spirit
of the law which will be in effect as of January 1974.
Councilman Beebe stated that he does not want to see this type of
commercial office weaken the downtown core and that the downtown
area should be composed of major retail commercial businesses and
the professional offices should be out in the fringe of the com-
munity. He would agree that the airport land should be or could
contain commercial office space, but the downtown area should be
mainly a large retail shopping center and not diluted with commercial
and professional offices.
Mayor Miller stated that it may be more advantageous to the City, in
the long run, to pay for the signals and street improvements as there
is uncertainty as to how this may affect the downtown area and what
the consequences may be in fragmenting the commercial development.
He felt that if the matter is studied and then decided that there
would be no adverse effects, he would agree that the property should
be rezoned, however this has not been studied.
At this time the motion passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilman Futch
and Mayor Miller dissenting.
INTRODUCTION OF
BICYCLE ORDINANCE
with regard to the bicycle ordinance, Councilman Taylor stated that
under Section 5A.28 (Parking) he felt that it was unreasonable to
state that "No person shall park a bicycle in a public place in an
upright position...." and it was noted that there had been an error
because bicycles are supposed to park in an upright position and not
lying on the sidewalks.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote, the bicycle ordinance was introduced and the title
was read by the City Attorney.
Cl'.1-27-76
August 27, 1973
~ffiTTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(re ~ewspaper Plant
Location - Airway Blvd.)
The City ~lanager reported that Mr. Floyd Sparks, editor and publisher
of the Herald and News is interested in a site location for a publish-
ing plant for his newspaper and is impressed with the location on Air-
way Boulevard which is adjoining our industrial structure. Hr. Sparks
would like to develop there but is not interested in leasing the pro-
perty and has asked if he could purchase the property. Mr. Parness
has informed fir. Sparks that it is his understanding that the Council
policy is to retain the property in public o~~ership which can then
be leased. Mr. Sparks has requested that the Council be informed
of the matter so that their views may be expressed.
Mayor Miller stated that he would prefer to retain the property
which Councilman Taylor felt he agreed with, in general, as it is a
long range policy unless there is a particular reason for severing
that particular piece of property.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that there are no taxes on the property
but if it is sold, it will go back on the tax roll.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to have a chance to
go out and look at the property, and the City Manager explained that
Hr. Sparks must receive an answer this week and that he is only request-
ing the purchase of two acres.
Mayor f1iller suggested that a long term lease arrangement be made, and
the City Manager stated that he had already suggested that and Mr.
Sparks was not interested, adding that he had susggested a 55 year
lease which rlr. Sparks declined.
It was the general consensus of the Council that the land should be
retained and leased to interested parties.
(re Firemans Association
Joint Powers Contract)
The City Manager reported that VCSD has requested that the City
Council adopt formal action declaring that the Council does not
intend to exercise the procedure contained within the joint powers
agreement pertaining to review and approval of agreements that might
be negotiated with representatives of VCSD Fire Department employees.
The City of Pleasanton has also been asked to waive this right to
which they have agreed.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote of the Council the right to review the contract
was waived, for this fiscal year.
(League Conference -
Voting Delegates)
The League \vould lik,e the City Council to officially declare a delegate
and an alternate to the State conference for voting purposes.
On motion of Councilman 'l'aylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote, the '1ayor was selected as the delegate and the Vice
Mayor as the alternate delegate.
CM-27-77
"
August 27, 1973
rm,TTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(re Sale of Hilk
at Sunland Station)
~layor ~1iller stated that in spite of the Council's decision of several
months ago, the Sunland Station is selling milk and wondered what the
City intends to do about it.
Mr. Musso stated that the matter is pending before the District Attor-
ney along with a number of other items.
(Illegal Flags)
Mayor Miller stated that Ozzie Davis and Codiroli Ford are still using
the flags which are in violation of the sign ordinance and perhaps the
District Attorney should be spoken to with regard to getting them re-
moved. He suggested that if action is not taken soon enough through
the District Attorney that our own City Attorney should prosecute.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:05 to a brief executive session to discuss appoint-
ments to the Youth Services Council.
APPROVE
~~y)'~L
~Yor
~ /:7 /
/ . . /
I . /'
"'.... ~/)J
~ Y C1ty Clerk
Livermore, California
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of September lO, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 10, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch and Mayor Miller
Councilman Pritchard (Seated Later in the Meeting)
ABSENT:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF AUG. 27
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote, the minutes of August 27, 1973, were approved as
submitted.
CH-27-78
September lO, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Re Selection of New
Planning Commissioner)
Jane Staehle, 4083 Compton Court, representing the League of Women
Voters stated that they hope more effort will be given to letting the
public know of the vacancy on the Planning Commission and how applica-
tions can be made as well as that each interested applicant will be
interviewed.
Mayor Miller stated that this particular subject was one of the items
he intended to bring up at the end of the meeting and the Council would
discuss the matter further at that time, as Councilman Pritchard would
be present then.
(Re Anticipated Traffic
Congestion Along Holmes
Street When Gillice Units
Become Occupied)
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that in the past he has men-
tioned the possibility of Holmes Street being very congested at the
exit from the Gillice units which were built on Murrieta and would
suggest that the City enforce a "right turn only" policy for those
going onto Holmes Street from the development.
The Public Works Director commented that one of the conditions of
the development was that the exit would be restricted to right turns
only, but not necessarily to be enforced immediately.
The Public Works Director was asked to check into the matter and
report back to the Council with a recommendation as to whether the
restriction should be instituted immediately or at a later time.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Communication from
Anthony W. Thompson re
Resignation from the
Gen. Plan Review Steering
Committee
A letter of resignation as a member of the General Plan Review Steering
Committee was received from Anthony W. Thompson, in which he stated
that he has accepted a position in Thousand Oaks.
It was asked that Mr. Thompson be sent a letter thanking him for his
service on the committee.
Report re Acceptance of
Public Works Improvements
on First Street and Mines
Road (Hutka's Development)
The Public Works Director reported that the public works improvements
on First Street and North Mines Road have been completed in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications and it is recommended that
the Council accept the public works improvements for maintenance.
CM-27-79
September lO, 1973
Payroll and Claims
Dated August 3l, 1973
There were l40 claims in the amount of $208,424.36 and 302 payroll
warrants in the amount of $72,933.97, dated August 31, 1973, for a
total of $28l,358.33.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote, the Council approved the Consent Calendar with
the addition of the request that Anthony Thompson be sent a letter
of thanks.
REPORT RE PROPERTY
DRAINAGE PROBLEM RE
DAVID KIRK & MR.
BERNSTEIN
The matter of the drainage problem on the property of David Kirk on
Columbus Avenue which was brought to the attention of the Council
was investigated by the City Attorney and placed on the agenda for
discussion. Mr. Kirk has requested that the matter be continued for
a couple of weeks, to September 24.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the matter was continued until September 24th,
as requested by Mr. Kirk.
REPORT RE TRAFFIC SPEED COMPLAINT
- MURDELL LANE
The Public Works Director reported that a petition has been presented
to the City requesting that stop signs be installed at the intersection
of Encino and Murdell Lane to slow traffic on Murdell Lane but after
investigation of the complaint of speed on that street the Public Works
Director feels the request is not warranted and would recommend that the
stop signs not be installed as the street has been designed as a collector
street to serve the area and felt that the stop signs would have little
effect on the problem. It is recommended that there be enforcement of
the speed limit and that residents report speeders. A survey indicated
that cars monitored traveled between 25 and 35 mph with 82% traveling
less than 32 mph, and the average speed on the street is 29 mph. Also
recommended is that there be a school crossing placed at the intersection
with the school crossing signs.
Mr. Lee had mentioned that a copy of his report and recommendations had
been sent to Mr. Murphy, spokesman for the residents, but Mr. Murphy
stated that he had not received the report and the Mayor suggested that
Mr. Murphy be given a copy of the report for him to review and then the
Council would come back to the matter for discussion.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
JOINT POLICE TEAM
EFFORT FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT (Liver-
more & Pleasanton)
The City Manager reported that the proposed joint police team effort
for law enforcement composed of the Livermore and Pleasanton Police
Departments has tentatively received a grant approval from the Alameda
County Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board for $8l,000. If allowed,
CM-27-80
September 10, 1973
(Joint Police Team Grant)
and with the Council's concurrence, the program would be for a three
year period and would require a nominal amount of local financial
contribution which would be approximately $2,200 from each city. The
program is designed to combat the rise and incidence of crime and
burglaries in the Livermore-Amador Valley and specialists could be
devoted to the field. Also, it is anticipated that the grant could
be obtained for at least two additional years. It is felt that the
program will be quite beneficial and to qualify for the grant the
following years, it is required that each city contribute l/2 of a
man in addition to the $2,200.
Police Chief Lindgren explained that they intend to be initially
guided by the experience of other jurisdictions who have had
successful experience with similar programs; however, it is felt
that the local law enforcement people know best what the local prob-
lems are and intend to use its expertise to determine which areas
need to be concentrated on. He added that outside experts will
not be hired and the team will be staffed from local officers of
both cities and there will not be a State director involved.
Mr. Parness stated that it is felt that a three year term is necessary
to adequately test the program and if any degree of success is realized
two succeeding grants should be received. After the three years, if
the program is found to be successful it is assumed that the local
agencies will bear the financial obligation.
It was explained that the bulk of the grant will go to employ three
new people and the following year 1/2 a man will be donated from
each city which will allow for the salary of another man on the team.
Mayor Miller stated that if these men vacate their posts to work on
the team it does mean that three will have to be hired to take their
places.
Councilman Taylor stated that the employees to be hired would have
to be told that if the program does not work out they may have to
be dismissed, and Mr. Parness explained that they are working out
the details of the arrangements.
Mr. Parness stated that some type of Joint Powers Agreement will have
to be worked out with Pleasanton and the employees will be entirely
responsible to us. He stated that this is essentially the same as
our Youth Services sharing grant.
Mayor Miller stated that the new people should be warned that their
employment may not last beyond three years, or the length of the
grant, which ever is shorter.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the people moving out of the Police
Department into the program would be classified as uniformed personnel
for the City and Mr. Parness explained that they would. They will be
the same as if under local jurisdiction but through joint powers it
will be determined to whom they will be subservient.
Councilman Taylor felt the proposal was a reasonable one and moved
that the Council accept the City Manager's recommendation to approve
the program concept, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Futch mentioned that he feels there is some concern among
the citizens for money going to the federal government and then back
to the City.
Harvey Brown, 975 Murrieta Boulevard, stated that he has no doubt the
program may be beneficial; however, he objects to the program not being
financed on a local level rather than through a federal grant.
CM-27-8l
September 10, 1973
(Joint Police Team Grant)
Mr. Brown continued to say that we do not receive any type of federal
funds without the funds being accompanied by guidelines set up by the
government for the spending of them. He stated that the Supreme Court
has just passed a ruling that states what the government sets up it may
control and in view of this he feels that acceptance of any type of
funds for the Police Department would be a grave mistake. Our Country
is one of the few nations left which does not have the police force
controlled by the central government, and should be one of the considera-
tions. He pointed out that it was first stated that there would be no
additional hiring of personnel needed for the project and then it was
found that this is not true and he felt there should be a more thorough
evaluation as to what the real cost might be. He would suggest that if
the program is as worthwhile as it appears, it be financed locally and
disregard applications for federal grants.
Glenn Strahl, 768 Adams Avenue, stated that he agrees with some of the
remarks made by Mr. Brown in that this is our money, and when it goes
to Washington and then comes back to us it is much diluted. Also he
felt the Council must realize that in using federal funds we will be
losing much control. It appears that the guidelines to be used will
be the federal guidelines which come along with the funding and if we
do not conform to the policies set forth by the federal government,
there will be no funds the next year and to feel that no strings are
attached is a delusion. He urged that the Council carefully consider
what they may be giving up for the sake of receiving money that appears
to be a gift.
Kattie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, stated that the Police Department
is comprised of fine, loyal and outstanding citizens of the community
which she highly respects and feels that it would be to their disadvan-
tage to be under the juristiction of the federal government. She felt
that there is far too much federal control in all areas already.
Councilman Taylor stated that he feels some federally financed projects
are bad and some are good and that in this particular instance he feels
that this appears to be a reasonable program. He added that there are
similar programs sponsored by the Office of Criminal Justice which have
been successful. Comments just made should be taken seriously~ however,
he felt that federal funding should not be put under "one blanket" and
would be in favor of approving the project.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the Housing Authority, the Youth Center
and the Police Administration Building are all being federally funded and
does not recall that anyone spoke against the government getting involved
in any of these things and it appears that the citizens are concerned that
the police will be controlled. He felt that they may have some basis for
their reasoning but can't be sure of it.
Councilman Futch felt that he would have to agree with the comments made
by Councilman Taylor but appreciates the fact that there are citizens
who are concerned enough to see that the Council does not go too far
in accepting funds which have "strings attached". In this case he
feels that there are no strings attached in the funding and would also
be in favor of the proposal.
At this time the Council voted 4-l to approve the program with Councilman
Beebe dissenting.
CONTINUATION OF MURDELL
LANE STOP SIGN DISCUSSION
Tom Murphy, 1157 Murdell Lane, thanked the Council for their concern
and efforts in determining whether or not stop signs on Murdell Lane
CM-27-82
September lO, 1973
(Stop Signs-Traffic
Murdell Lane)
would help relieve the traffic problems on the street. He stated that
Captain Essex of the Police Department had been contacted and had been
very helpful and gave very prompt service to their requests in patrol-
ling the area. He briefly restated what had been said at the August
27th meeting at which time he reported that they realize that Murdell
Lane is a collector street serving the area but the fact remains that
there are a large number of people living on the street and that there
are 62 pre-school and elementary children in the area and that they
have requested stop signs along Murdell Lane and one at the intersec-
tion of Murdell Lane and Encino. He stated that they had given El
Caminito as a parallel example of the problems they are seeing and
that the two streets are quite synonymous and they would appreciate
seeing the same treatment given to their street. He added that a
petition has been circulated asking that the Council install stop
signs on Murdell Lane and that the petition which was signed by some
53 residents was circulated only along Murdell Lane and a few streets
off of Murdell Lane and that out of these families there were 80 child-
ren. He then read the petition to the Council and presented it to the
Council. He reported that a count was taken of the children crossing
Murdell Lane to attend various schools and it revealed that 390 are
going to Emma Smith, 225 to Mendenhall and 25-50 to Sonoma Avenue.
He also stated that the California Drivers Handbook states that when
traveling at a speed of 25 mph (under ideal conditions) it takes 61.4
feet to stop after braking and at 35 mph it is l05 feet. At 45 mph
it takes 159 feet and he pointed out that rainy weather is approaching
which will make conditions worse. In conclusion he stated that he is
aware that they live on a collector street but this does not mean that
they should ignore the fact that people are driving recklessly and
would appreciate assistance from the Council with their problem. He
asked the Council what must be done before they can get the stop signs
they request and wondered if there must be a fatality on the street
before sufficient attention is given to the problem. He stated that
he and all the people who have signed the petition drive on the street
and certainly do not mind if they have to stop at a stop sign. He
felt this was a small price to pay for the safety it would create.
OWen Brovant, 1218 Murdell Lane, stated that using the statistics
given by the Public Works Director, there are 2500 cars using the
street and 85% of them travel between 25-32 mph which leaves 335
drivers who speed and that there can be a speeder every 2.4 minutes,
which he feels is a hazard and he would like the help of the Council
in making Murdell Lane a safer street.
Ernie Long, 1007 Murdell Lane, commented that the residents have been
told that before they can put radar units on the street they must
have received three complaints about speeders and he felt this is
unreasonable and that they should come after one complaint. He noted
that during the time the radar unit was there they cited a motorist
for traveling at 45 mph, and in one day four motorists were cited.
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Lee how El Caminito differs from Murdell
Lane because both are collector streets and appear to have similar
complaints.
Mr. Lee reported that the speed records on El Caminito were higher
than those on Murdell Lane but the real difference between the two
is not significant. He stated that the wider street is a safer
street, in spite of the fact that in some instances it may encourage
faster driving, and to assume that a stop sign will increase the
safety is a falacy.
Councilman Taylor stated that complaints and requests of this nature
are received from citizens allover the City and to be fair the City
should consider what their policy is to be with regard to major streets,
and take the request into consideration accordingly. Stop signs were
CM-27-83
September 10, 1973
(Stop Signs-Traffic
Murdell Lane)
installed at College and South "L" Street to relieve the traffic prob-
lems reported by residents and which has a great deal of daily traffic
and there have been many complaints from people living some distance
from the stop signs with regard to people stopping at the stop signs
and then "digging out" and creating a lot of noise at the intersection
at all hours of the day and night. It seems to have created problems
as well as solving other problems and in this particular case (Murdell
Lane) he would have to agree with the recommendation of the Public
Works Director against the installation of stop signs.
Councilman Pritchard stated that even though the residents have not
asked for a crossing guard and the need for one does not seem to be
of primary concern, he feels that each major street should have one
to avoid a tragedy which might occur.
Mayor Miller stated that the streets which have the highest number of
accidents per year are the streets which have stop signs installed
and pointed out that there can be an accident on any street or at
any intersection in the City which does not necessarily mean that
stop signs need to be installed. His main concern over the street
would be the speeding.
Councilman Beebe agreed that the City does not want to block the
collector streets, but on the other hand he feels that since the
stop signs were installed on El Caminito it has helped eliminate
the tendency to speed. However, if the City wants to refrain from
installing stop signs on collector streets perhaps it should consider
having only backing lot treatment along the streets and not allow
houses to face these busy streets. He felt that the installation of
stop signs is the only way to stop traffic speed on these collector
streets, adding that originally he did not feel this way. He stated
that he, personally, would like to see more stop signs rather than
fewer in the City.
Councilman Futch stated that the stop signs had been installed on
El Caminito after a history of repeated accidents in the vicinity
of the location where they were placed and there was also a ques-
tion of visibility on the curve where they were installed. In his
opinion there is no difference in Murdell Lane than any of the other
typical collector streets, and unless there is some difference that
warrants them on Murdell and not on the others he would be against
installing them.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to make a few suggestions
that might be a compromise between the residents and those who
disagree with their request. It is agreed that there should be
more speed limit signs and perhaps there could be a couple more
installed. Secondly, the school signs should be installed, and
similar collector streets should be examined; and finally, while
this is being done (possibly a period of three months) the Police
Department could be requested to pay particular attention to Murdell
Lane traffic problems and speeders and after the three months if it is
felt by the residents that the speeding has not been sufficiently
abated that they come back to the Council and ask for the stop signs.
The compromise is to see if the problem can be taken care of through
heavy pOlice enforcement and additional signs without the use of
stop signs.
Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the Mayor's proposal for traffic
control for a three month period, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mr. Murphy stated that he feels the compromise offered is extremely
fair and thanked the Council for their cooperation, adding that they
will report back to the Council if added measures are needed after
the three month trial period.
CM-27-84
September lO, 1973
(Traffic - Murdell Lane)
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
made by Councilman Pritchard.
REPORT RE INVENTORY
AND APPRAISAL OF CITY
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
The City Manager reported that the Council has appropriated $5,400
in the 1973-74 budget for the appraisal of all physical assets owned
by the City, with their description, and their appraised value which
the Tait Appraisal Company would like to accomplish during the first
part of 1974. The program is needed to update present City records
and will give us better control over assets and accurate current valua-
tions for insurance purposes and it is recommended that the Council
adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the appraisal proposal.
Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the City Manager's recommendation,
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller asked the City Manager if this would include a real estate
appraisal and the City Manager replied that it would not.
Mayor Miller stated that as he recalls a real estate appraisal was
discussed during the budget session and would be beneficial not only
in keeping track of what the City has but with regard to the reevalua-
tion of our annexation fees, and asked that the City Manager check
into a real estate appraisal as well.
Councilman Taylor questioned how a piece of land such as a park can
be appraised when there is no possibility it can be sold for commer-
cial development and this situation is a little different than trying
to appraise a truck for insurance purposes. It would be nice to have
a list of the property owned by the City but he stated that he is not
sure what an appraisal for a piece of property never to be sold would
mean to the City.
Mr. Parness was directed to investigate the matter and report back to
the Council.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion
and adopted a resolution authorizing execution of the appraisal
proposal.
RESOLUTION NO. 117-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Tait Appraisal Company)
REPORT FROM P. C. RE
CUP APP. BY ED HUTKA
FOR CONST. OF BUILDING TO
BE USED FOR SKATING RINK,
WHOLESALE & RETAIL SALES,
WHICH WAS DENIED BY P.C.
Mr. Musso explained that Ed Hutka has applied for a CUP to construct
a building to be used as a roller skating rink, a wholesale and retail
furniture store to be located at 3983 First Street and the reasons the
Planning Commission had denied the application. The main reason for
denial was that the intended use is in conflict with the General Plan
which proposes industrial and continual diversion to commercial would
be detrimental to the area as well as having adverse effects to the
neighboring properties and potential residential development to the
north. It was felt that the skating rink could be located downtown, as
CM-27-85
September lO, 1973
(CUP Application -
Furniture Store and
Skating Rink)
could the furniture store. He added that prior to making a decision
on the application the Planning Commission visited other industrial
park areas in San Leandro and San Jose and it was found that most of
these areas are void of retail development. He explained that the
Smorgabob Restaurant went in under a routine permitted use in the ID-H
Zone, as did Intel and the uses in the Avon Building include a real
estate office which is also permitted and the floor covering business
is for contractors use. The residential uses are nonconforming and the
motel preexisted any zoning. Therefore, the Planning Commission recom-
mended denial of both the roller skating rink and the furniture store.
Councilman Beebe commented that the downtown area is expensive land
to buy for these purposes and wondered if there is any other place
they could be located other than the downtown core.
Mr. Musso stated that the furniture store could be located on Railroad
Avenue or First Street and that the roller skating rink could be de-
veloped on North Front Road as it is to be developed into highway
commercial.
Councilman Pritchard commented that a permit has been granted for
the furniture warehouse and wondered if this is going to create a
problem and Mr. Musso felt that it would not.
Councilman Futch stated that one aspect of the problem the Council
should consider is what they want the entrance to the City to look
like and the other is that residential is on the other side of First
Street and as he recalls FHA has expressed opposition to general
commercial on one side of the street if residential is to be on the
other side. It has been his understanding that for these two reasons
the Council has tried to have a policy of not allowing a commercial
strip along that area. If the Council does not stop commercial develop-
ment at some point there will be strip commercial all along the way.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he realizes the roller skating rink
would be making money but doesn't view it as retail commercial as
he would a variety store or something of this nature.
Ed Hutka, lOl9 Angelica Way, stated that he presented the roller
skating rink along with the wholesale and retail store to eliminate
confusion but stated that he would like to withdraw the roller skat-
ing rink proposal because he feels that possibly it might not be a
good thing for the City and if it is not we don't want it. He stated
that he would like the matter to be studied in a study session and
determined whether it would be advantageous to the City and its youth.
He requested that the Council consider only the furniture store at this
time.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by a
4-l vote (Councilman Pritchard dissenting) the skating rink was de-
leted from the application.
Mr. Hutka presented a sketch of the furniture building explaining
the frontage and stated that 60% of the building will be used as a
warehouse.
Tom Holbrook, 3650 Wassa Terrace, Fremont, who would operate the fur-
niture store, stated that he owned a store in Fremont until Febru-
ary of this year at which time it was destroyed by a fire and he
stated that he feels there is a need in Livermore for the type of
furniture store he plans to bring to the community. He named numer-
ous furniture stores in other cities which are located in industrial
areas and felt the reason they need to be in these areas is due to
the amount of warehouse space required to conduct their business.
CM 27-86
September lO, 1973
(Cup Application - Hutka)
Mr. Holbrook pointed out that he needs to locate in an area where
there is a natural traffic flow and easily accessible which First
Street offers, and he feels confident that Mr. Hutka can provide
a building that would be attractive, which he desires.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he has felt for some time that a
furniture-warehouse use is compatible in an industrial area and
also considers it a warehousing use rather than retail use. He
stated that the rent, per square foot, keeps stores like this
from being able to locate in the downtown areas. For these
reasons he would be in favor of allowing the use.
Councilman Taylor stated that this is a difficult decision as he
sees no objection to an operation such as this in an industrial
area but has some concern due to the fact that the industrial
area is just beginning to develop and it may become predominately
commercial and felt that he would have to reluctantly agree with
the Planning Commission decision to deny the application. He
stated that he would have to disagree with the comment made by
Councilman Futch with regard to aesthetics at the entrance of the
City as this could be equally attractive as an industrial building.
He felt aesthetics cannot be controlled by zoning in an area and
fails to see how an industrial area across the street from a resi-
dential area will have any effect on it. He stated that in his
opinion it is simply a matter of timing and that he would agree
to the use if the industrial area were established with industrial
uses.
Mayor Miller stated that he agrees, primarily, with Councilman Futch
and to some extent with Councilman Taylor about prejudicing an indus-
trial area; however, he feels that any business which has 40% retail
is considered retail but one possible solution to Mr. Holbrook's prob-
lem could be to separate the retail and wholesale operation.
Councilman Futch moved to uphold the recommendation of the Planning
Commission for denial of the application, seconded by Councilman
Taylor and which passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe and
Pritchard dissenting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - Aug. 14 and 28
The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings for August l4th and
August 28th, 1973, were noted for filing.
REPORT RE DESIGN OF
PROPOSED "M" STREET
MALL BETWEEN 2nd & 3rd
The Council briefly discussed the proposal to convert "M" Street,
between Second and Third, into a parking mall and were presented
with alternatives for parking spaces in the area which were pre-
pared by the Planning Department.
Mayor Miller stated that before anything is decided he feels it
would be in order to contact the merchants in the area and get their
opinions before anything is done which may create an unnecessary up-
roar.
Councilman Taylor asked if there will be an opportunity for input
from the Beautification Committee and the Design Review Committee
during the design stage, and Mr. Musso stated that there would be
ample opportunity, as it is at least a year away.
CM-27-87
September lO, 1973
1(Design of Proposed
M Street Mall)
Councilman Beebe asked what plans have been made for the beautification
of the project and Mr. Musso stated that they will be essentially the
same as those proposed for the "J" Street parking mall.
Councilman Beebe suggested that the matter be turned over to the Beau-
tification Committee and let them meet and discuss the matter with the
merchants, as was done in designing the "J" Street mall, and so moved,
seconded by Councilman Futch which passed by a unanimous vote.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
OF ZONING ORD. TO REZONE
PROPERTY AT CORNER OF
HOLMES ST. & CONCANNON
(Sunset Development Co.)
Prior to adoption of the ordinance to rezone property located at the
corner of Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard (Sunset Development
Company property) Councilman Futch commented that he would be voting
against the ordinance because he disagrees with the principle involved
in that it should have gone through the General Plan review process
prior to any change in zoning.
Mayor Miller stated that hisqpposition is both to the zoning and the
procedure.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he has had reservations but these
have been found to have been groundless. He stated that the pro-
cedural process mentioned by Councilman Futch is true but the
obvious facts are that it is the Council's intention that the land
should be rezoned anyway and will vote for the adoption of the ordi-
nance rezoning the property.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a 3-2 vote with Councilman Futch and Mayor Miller dissenting the
ordinance rezoning the property previously discussed was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 828
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.00, RELATING TO ZONING, AND SECTIONS
20.7l, RELATING TO FUTURE WIDTH LINES, AND 20.72,
RELATING TO SPECIAL BUILDING LINES, OF CHAPTER
20.00 CONTAINING GENERAL PROVISIONS.
ADOPTION OF THE
BICYCLE ORDINANCE
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote of the Council, the ordinance amending the Muni-
cipal Code relating to bicycles, riding, operation generally, equip-
ment, paths and lanes was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 829
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING CHAPTER
SA, RELATING TO BICYCLES, BY RENUMBERING SECTIONS 5A.l
THROUGH 5A.7, RELATING TO LICENSING TO ARTICLE II, RE-
LATING TO LICENSING, AS SECTIONS 5A.lO THROUGH 5A.l6,
AND REPEALING EXISTING SECTIONS 5A.8 AND 5A.9, RELATING
TO RIDING BICYCLES; FURTHER AMENDING SAID CHAPTER SA BY
ADDING NEW ARTICLES I, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS,
III, RELATING TO OPERATION GENERALLY, IV, RELATING TO
EQUIPMENT, AND V, RELATING TO BICYCLE LANES AND PATHS.
CM-27-88
September lO, 1973
(Ordinance re Bicycles)
Prior to adoption of the ordinance Charles Hartwig, 4319 Findlay Way
stated that the County has adopted a bicycle ordinance just recently
and perhaps the City could coordinate the two ordinances in some way,
and particularly with regard to the bicycle traffic problem on East
Avenue. Also he would like to report that there have been two acci-
dents on the bike paths which have been intended for two-way traffic
use - one on East Stanley Boulevard and the other on East Avenue at
Madison Avenue. He recommended that the required two-way arrows be
painted on these paths as soon as possible to minimize the confusion.
Councilman Futch asked if Mr. Hartwig would explain the nature of
the accidents and Mr. Hartwig reported the details of the accidents
to the Council.
The Public Works Director was directed to see that the arrows are
painted, as requested, which he replied will be taken care of and
reported that there have been other problem areas and other accidents,
at El Caminito and Wall Street and feels that the arrows may clear up
some of the legal problems but probably will not solve the underlying
causes for accidents or near accidents on the bicycle paths.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(re Legal Process for
Abatement of Signs)
The Planning Director explained that the legal process regarding the
abatement of signs is a long range process and he will keep them
informed on the status.
(re Adult Crossing
Guards Not Necessary
Due to Change of Con-
ditions - East Avenue)
The Public Works Director reported that due to a change in conditions,
the adult crossing guard which has been stationed across from the
East Avenue School is no longer necessary, as there are traffic lights
closer than 600 feet from the crosswalk at the intersection of Hill-
crest and East Avenue and the warrants are no longer being met. Also,
at the time one was assigned at that area the school served all grade
levels and at this time is is being used only for seventh and eighth
graders. The Chief of Police and the Public Works Director are
recommending that the guard be discontinued.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the elimination of the guard be done
gradually and that perhaps someone should be there to tell the child-
ren to go down to the signaled intersection, as they have been crossing
in the middle of the block for as long as 7-8 years in some instances
which could be a dangerous situation.
Councilman Taylor then moved that the crossing guards be maintained
for a one month periOd to direct the children to use the signaled
intersection at Hillcrest and East Avenue, seconded by Councilman
Beebe.
The City Manager suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda,
as there may be a number of parents who would like to speak on the
matter and as the Council concurred with this suggestion the motion
and second were withdrawn and the matter was continued.
Mr. Lee reported that the other crossing guard to be eliminated would
be at the intersection of El Caminito and Sonoma Avenue where the stop
signs have been installed.
CM-27-89
September lO, 1973
(Re ABAG Rep. to Speak
on Population Projections)
The City Manager asked the Council if they would be interested in
having a representative of the Planning Staff of ABAG to speak to
the Council regarding the work they have been doing on the popula-
tion projections and the Council expressed interest in hearing from
a representative.
The Council then directed the City Manager to arrange to have a
representative come and speak to the Council on the matter.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Re Suit Against
BAAPCD & State
Air Pollution
Control Board)
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to see the City bring
suit against the BAAPCD as well as the State Air Pollution Control
Board for allowing additional contaminants to come into this Valley
due to hap-hazard developments in other communities. He stated that
one case which may apply may be the new city which is proposed to be
developed on the north side of the freeway, and moved that the Council
initiate a law suit against the two agencies, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Councilman Taylor felt that it might be best to speak with our legal
counsel prior to initiating a legal suit and asked that the City
Attorney report back to the Council on the matter.
Councilman Beebe felt we are past the talking point and feels it
unfair that restrictions have been imposed on this City while others
are continuing to develop which is a continual degrading of our air
quality and felt that it is time for the City to stand up and protest
with which Mayor Miller concurred.
Mayor Miller stated that since this is not a customary law suit he
feels that the comment made by Councilman Taylor has some merit in that
the Council would want to feel that the City has a plausible chance of
winning the suit and would want to be fully prepared before entering
into such legal action and suggested that the City Attorney be asked
to make this a priority matter.
Councilman Taylor stated that the proposed new city would be a real
threat to the City of Livermore but before LAFCO could approve such
a plan they would probably have to justify their position on the basis
that Livermore is an arbitrary and unreasonable city and would suggest
that if the City were to sue the BAAPCD or State Board before discussing
it with the City Attorney, this may appear to be a publicity gesture and
might tend to lessen the City's credibility in the near future with
regard to decisions made which will affect the Valley. However, it
would emphasize the idea that the City means business but perhaps there
is no real basis for the law suit which may be detrimental to the City
in the long run. He then moved to amend the m~on co say that a
report be obtained from the City Attorney on th ies available
to the City;' ...",.. nar ~ I1 ....111.. 1 11.. TXl11:Pr~ 0 alleviate the smog
conditions in the Valley.
Mayor Miller stated that he would second the motion if Councilman Taylor
would add that it should have priority but Councilman Taylor felt that
the main concern and priority at this time is to get the land gr~~~.
on the north side stopped, as this is a real threat to the City.O~~~
Councilman Futch seconded the amended motion. ~
CM-27-90
September 10, 1973
(re Suit Against BAAPCD)
Councilman Futch stated that he agrees with Councilman Beebe but
feels that the City should be somewhat cautious before entering
into such a law suit.
Councilman Beebe stated that he sees little difference in this
suggested legal action than in suits which have been threatened
against the City of Livermore by the Water Pollution Control Board
with regard to our sewer plants and feels that the matter should
be pursued immediately.
Councilman Taylor expressed concern for entering into any type of
legal action against the rest of the County which possibly may not
have any legal basis, and moved to amend the motion to request a
report from the City Attorney within 30 days, by October 10th, and
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to withdraw his original
motion if there would be a motion made word for word, which the Mayor
stated as follows:
The Council directs the City Attorney to consider legal avenues
open to us, including law suits, on the question of smog and
contamination by other areas which report will be due on October
10th, which passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Prior to the vote Councilman Beebe stated that the motion is acceptable
but he does not want to see a lot of letters and paper work and wants
some positive action taken.
(re Appointment of
Member to Planning
Commission)
Councilman Taylor noted that Mrs. Staehle was still present and had
spoken to the Council about the selection of a new Planning Commis-
sioner and he stated that the Council intends to cooperate in any
way possible to see that anyone interested in the appointment obtains
an application and is interviewed.
Mrs. Staehle stated that the League's concern is that someone who
is interested in applying and is not known by the Council can, in
some way, make himself known to them and they are not interested in
how this is achieved. They are concerned that individuals may feel
that they must be invited by the Council and not make application.
The League would like it to be made public, the methods by which
anyone interested may apply.
The Council discussed application forms to be obtained from the
City Clerk and Councilman Pritchard stated that he would object
to receiving any more applications as he felt there was quite a
sufficient number of people who had applied last time and that a
selection could be made from the list already available and which
contains a number of highly qualified people.
Mayor Miller stated that a number of people who applied for the
vacancy last time may not be interested this time and in one in-
stance he knows of someone who applied and has since moved. He
would suggest, therefore, that the public again be allowed to apply.
The Council then discussed the methods by which a selection should
be made to fill vacancies on the Planning Commission and whether
or not new people should be interviewed.
Councilman Taylor moved that the staff prepare an application form
which will include a request to be interviewed by the Council, secon-
ded by Mayor Miller and which passed 4-l (Pritchard dissenting).
CM-27-9l
September lO, 1973
(re Filling P.C. Vacancy)
Mayor Miller suggested that there be a deadline for filing an
application and would suggest one weeks notice.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that Commissioner Pitts had asked
that his vacancy be filled by October lst or as soon as possible
thereafter and since this is an important matter he would suggest
that people be given a chance to decide on the matter and be given
until October 8th which will allow three weeks.
The Council concluded that the matter should be given notice in
the local newspaper and that they would allow two weeks for
applications in order that Commissioner pitts will be able to
step down on October lst, and that it should be made known that
applications will be received until 5:00 p.m. on September 24th and
applications received after that time will not be considered.
(re Ambulance Service
Office on Portola Ave.)
Councilman Pritchard stated that as he recalls a real estate firm had
applied to locate in an office building on portola Avenue and were
turned down because it did not comply with the zoning. An ambu-
lance office is now in the building and he wondered why this is
being allowed.
Mr. Musso explained that, essentially, it is supposed to be serving
as an answering service rather than an office and that he would
check into the matter.
Councilman Pritchard then asked about the status of the joint powers
agreement for the ambulance subsidies and the City Manager explained
that the joint powers agreement is continuous and the accounting is
annual.
(re Complaints Over
Bicycle Registration
- Time Inconvenience)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he is continuing to receive complaints
from people who cannot register their bicycles between 9:00 a.m. and
l2:00 noon and that it is too inconvenient to have to go to Springtown
during the week to get them registered.
Mr. Parness explained that special arrangements are made for those
who cannot get their bicycles registered during the scheduled times
and suggested that people be informed that they should telephone and
make special arrangements.
(re Office Uses in
Industrial Areas)
Councilman Futch stated that with regard to offices located in an
industrial zone, he can think of none which cannot be associated
with a retail use and felt that when an office is going into such
a zone they automatically be told that there cannot be retail sales
from the office to prevent general commercial from getting into those
areas.
Mr. Musso explained that the Industrial Committee considers such
areas and has concluded that businesses with limited retail sales
would be allowed, and that it is sometimes difficult to determine
what type of use should go into an industrial zone.
Mayor Miller felt the Council shares some concern over the matter
and asked that the Planning Director pass these concerns on to the
Industrial Committee as well as the Planning Commission.
CM-27-92
September 10, 1973
(Re Opposition to AB-422
re Allowing Oversized
Vehicles on City Streets)
Councilman Futch stated that he feels the Council should oppose
AB-422 which would allow oversized vehicles on city streets.
At present, to have such a vehicle on the street they must obtain
a special permit in addition to being accompanied by a vehicle
warning that an extra wide vehicle is ahead. Such a bill would
eliminate these requirements. Councilman Futch added that the
legislative material does not state the League's opinion and
the bill states that it will create a new permit procedure.
The Council felt that they would like to have more information
on the matter and asked that the City Manager provide them with
the bill at the next meeting.
(Re Support of League's
Position re AB-996)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by a
unanimous vote, the Council agreed to support the League's position
with regard to AB-996.
(Re A-Frame and
Temporary Signs)
Mayor Miller stated that there continues to be A-frame and temporary
signs in the right-of-way areas and are to be picked up by the Police
Department and requested that the City Manager notify the Police
Department of the problem.
(Re LAFCO Hearing re
City's Spheres of
Influence Boundaries)
Mayor Miller stated that LAFCO intends to hold another public:.hearing
regarding the City's Sphere of Influence which will be held on October
4th. It was suggested by the City Manager that they hold the hearing
here but it appears that this will not be done; however, they have
talked about coming to Livermore and looking at the area and he felt
that the Council needs to consider the points the City wishes to make
at the October 4th hearing.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the people from LAFCO who would be
willing to come look at the area be invited to tour the area with
the staff and Council, and so moved; seconded by Mayor Miller and
which passed by a unanimous vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting at ll:05 p.m. to a brief executive
session for the purpose of discussing legal and personnel matters.
APPROVE t0cl\~!h .1v~~,
ATTESTaLc~itiI:J~~~
1ty Clerk
. 'vermore, California
CM-27-93
Regular Meeting of September l7, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 17, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller.
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF SEPT. 10th
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of September lOth, 1973,
were approved, as amended.
OPEN FORUM
(re Joint Powers Agree-
ment - Fire Department)
Jim Georgis, 25l Clark Avenue, representing the Livermore Firemens'
Association, stated that there has been some difficulty in getting
their contract signed but it appears that their problem is soon to
be solved. They intend to contact their legal counsel this week
and will try to get the matter resolved by the end of the week.
SPECIAL ITEM - REPORT
FROM ABAG PLANNING
STAFF RE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Mr. Rudy Platzek, Planning Director of ABAG commented that ABAG is
not responsible for the current City population estimate and that
this is done by the State Department of Finance and if the City is
having problems with current population estimates that would be the
department to contact, adding that a certain formula was used for
every city in a particular county. He stated that he is speaking to
the Council with regard to ABAG's work in doing growth estimates for
the future of the San Francisco Bay region which will indirectly impact
the City of Livermore in terms of funds it will receive from the State
Department of Resourses for our sewer construction and which estimate
will increasingly be used by other state and regional agencies for
funding in this area, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
The estimate is being used by the planners of the BART corridor transit
study going on at this time, as well. He reported that the State Water
Resources Control Board asked ABAG to do population projections for
sub-areas within the San Francisco Bay area so that they could prepare
a San Francisco Regional Water Quality Management Plan and requested
that ABAG use some state figures for the entire nine county Bay region
and break these down into community growth components from 1970-2000.
They wanted to see how the growth would be divided in the future from
these estimates, to prepare subregional Water Quality Management Plans.
He explained the way the projections were made, noting that they were
not done like projections done in the past using graph paper showing
growth in the past and projections into the future by a straight or
curved line. The growth projections have been done on a scientific
methodology available to them called "urban growth simulation" done
through computer models which he also explained to the Council.
CM-27-94
September l7, 1973
(Special Item - ABAG re
Population Projections)
Mr. Platzek commented that to begin their projections they started
with regional population growth assumptions and another set of
assumptions provided by the state on regional emploYment growth.
He then explained the means by which the computer models use these
assumptions. He commented that a copy of the summary of the work
that ABAG delivered to the State Water Resourses Control Board was
also given to the Council and consisted of technical work - not ABAG
policy, and was a projection of growth in the various sub-area counties.
The state looked at the projection and adjusted it downwardly in the five
southern counties in the Bay Area, including Alameda County,
because the Environmental Protection Agency established the five-county
area as a critical air basin and asked that constraints be put
on grant fund administration so that the facilities built by the grants
will not contribute excessively to air quality problems. The figures
are used by the State Water Resources Control Board at this time to
develop the basin Water Quality Plan and this set of populations pro-
jections are also being used for grant funding for sewer treatment
facilities and interceptor lines. The state does plan to update the
future population on an annual basis and, if, in one year it seems
they are out of line they will take this into consideration and make
the necessary adjustments in the following year.
Councilman Taylor stated that it appears to him that the boundary
on the map is purely political and has nothing to do with hydrology
and asked Mr. Platzek to explain why the line is drawn down the middle
of the Valley when in terms of an air and water basin it is considered
one unit.
Mr. Platzek explained that the boundaries were given them by the state
and are supposed to be service areas. In response to the remark by
Councilman Taylor that "hydrographic" is a misnomer, Mr. Platzek stated
that in some cases hydrographic boundaries are reflected and in other
cases it appears to be a political boundary.
Councilman Taylor stated that if the computer follows emploYment
perhaps this is the reason the other end of the valley will be
developed at 3~-4 times the density of this end and asked that
this differential be explained.
Mr. Platzek stated that land availability and accessibility were
taken into consideration and at the time the projections were made
the data was not available to reflect the traffic congestion factor
in the Livermore area and assumed that there would be no traffic
congestion in Livermore to the year 2000.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that there must be some explanation
as to what the computer gives out and there must be some reason why
there is a difference of 3~-4 times as much development on one end
of the valley when traffic situations are similar and BART will serve
the area in a similar way. There is such a large difference here that
there must be a way it can be explained in a comparative way. He
would assume that something is wrong with the computer model and if so
would like to ask if Livermore is stuck with the computer output until
the state decides to change it, or is there some way corrections can
be made to errors?
Mr. Platzek stated that the growth rate is not that much different
up to the year 1980 when comparing Livermore and Pleasanton and they
seem to have a greater difference after this time, and explained
that the City's local General Plan constrains the population to less
than 80,000 to the year 2000.
Mayor Miller stated that the present General Plan allows for something
like 200,000 people for 1990.
CM-27-95
September l7, 1973
(Special Item - ABAG re
Population Projections)
Councilman Taylor stated that it is simply not true that Livermore
is constrained by the General Plan or land availability, which is
not to say that the City feels this is the way to go but he is
referring to the difference between this end of the Valley and the
other end. This has impacted us so that the water treatment facil-
ities and population can grow at a rate many times over what we
are allowed at the other end of the Valley and this difference
means whether or not our plant can be improved and whether or not
the other end of the Valley builds toward their density. If this
is all based on the General Plan, it is in error.
Mr. Platzek commented that the hydrographic subunit of Livermore
will grow to 76,000 and the Pleasanton hydrographic subunit will
grow to 78,000 by the year 2000, according to the state downward
adjustments.
Mayor Miller asked if it is anticipated that the employment is not
expected to come to the Valley but is expected to stay in the Bay
Area, and consequently, the population associated with employment
will stay across the hill, and Mr. Platzek stated that this is not
the case, as the state does not use employment factors as does ABAG.
The state uses demographic and migration assumptions - they do not
include employment or land use considerations. He commented that
the state has reduced the population projections because of the
EPA restrictions.
Councilman Taylor stated that this still does not explain why the
computer output projected 3~ times the density on the other end of
the Valley and on the basis of common sense one should be able to
go back and look at the input to see why the computer allows such
a difference in the density.
Mr. Platzek stated that he feels the computer model is fairly
accurate to the year 1980 and after this time the deviation is
obvious (deviation from what Council feels is rational). He
explained that the computers project the population growth for
9 counties and 93 communities and it is a little hard to make
every community happy; however, the output is reviewed, judgement
is applied and they will continually come to the City asking how
this fits with the local growth desire.
Councilman Taylor stated that he understands this; however, based
on the contents of this table the state has made a hard decision
which affects allocations at a considerable amount this year and
ABAG's growth projections upon which these allocations are based
are wrong.
Mr. Platzek explained that this is not the case - the state's decis-
ion in the case of Livermore was arbitrary. The projections done by
ABAG for the Livermore hydrographic subunit were greater than Liver-
more's Series E growth rate which would be applied and the state is
funding only for sewer capacity up to Series EO. The reason he has
stated that it was an arbitrary decision is due to the fact that this
should have been applied to the Pleasanton hydrographic subunit and
it was not.
Mr. Parness explained that the state did not say they used the pro-
jections provided by AGAG in making their decision as to the limitation
of the grant but it was part of the rationale used by them. A great
amount of the decision was the shortage of funds available to allocate.
It is not known to what extent the ABAG projections influenced the
state's decision and perhaps it was based on the state's EO rating;
however, this should have applied equally to Pleasanton. He has
asked for an explanation from the state which he has not yet received.
CM-27-96
September l7, 1973
(Special Item - ABAG re
Population Projections)
In response to a question posed by Councilman Taylor with regard to
the magnitude of the survey in man years and dollars, Mr. Platzek
explained that it was a combined effort of the Metropolitan Transpor-
tation Commission, the Division of Highways and ABAG with a team of
approximately l4 people working for about one year, and this is a
continuing process. He noted that the Council has a copy of the flow
charts they have provided and that the first set went to the state,
the second set are figures which are technical and have not been tested
on the political or local scene and the third group will reflect what
the, local communities want and need in the way of population growth.
Mayor Miller asked if the EO projections are being applied to the
whole critical air basins and is this taken into consideration in
ABAG's calculations and the state's calculations, or is our area alone
considered in the EO area?
Mr. Platzek explained that the state is using their grant administration
regulations which say that they will use Series EO growth rates in all
sub-areas in the five southern counties~and will use a higher growth
rate for the four northern counties.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the City will not allow many more
people to live in Livermore than what we now have, up to 1980, and
yet we have 9,000-lO,OOO children from 1970-l980 graduating from
colleges who may wish and have a right to live in Livermore and
the projections do not take into consideration Livermore's children
who may wish to stay here.
Mr. Platzek stated that he feels considerations such as this should
be made on a local level and the reason they intend to come to each
community to find out what their population growth desire is.
Mayor Miller stated that one of the concerns for a high population
allowance in the west end of the Valley is because Livermore is
downwind and the smog generated by dense population over there has
a big impact on us in Livermore.
Councilman Futch commented that this Council has gone on record as
basically favoring the philosophy that the funding of a sewer plant
should take into consideraion the air quality and the thing that
concerns us is that in one air basin the results of the initial
computer model seems to result in a large inequity between the growth
rate applied to the east end of the Valley compared to the west end.
We are concerned because this has had a significant impact on the
expansion of our sewer plant which prevents us possibly from obtaining
desired industry that this community needs; therefore, it appears to
be a matter of inequity for which the Council can see no physical
reason. Perhaps at this point, since we still do not understand the
factors which gave rise to this discrepancy, after Mr. Platzek
speaks with his staff, a letter could be submitted to the Council
explaining the factors responsible for the difference in the projec-
tions between the east and west end of the valley.
Mr. Platzek stated that he would be happy to do this; however, he
would like to point out that the second calculations have corrected
the so-called inbalance and secondly, the state did not use the
original factor in funding Livermore or Pleasanton, to his knowledge.
Mayor Miller pointed out that the state has said they took the
calculations into consideration.
Councilman Futch stated that the Council would be interested in having
a copy of the latest projections and they might be helpful to the City
if they can be supplied to the Council.
CM-27-97
September l7, 1973
(Special Item - ABAG re
Population Projections)
Councilman Taylor stated that he feels it is good that ABAG is
conducting these studies and it is much more proper that they
do the job rather than agencies such as BASA or MTC and also that
ABAG is a voluntary association of which we are a member, it is
not a branch of the state and feels better about this type of
study than if the state were to impose computer figures upon us.
It would appear, from all this, that we had better adopt a growth
policy and discuss it in the community or something other than
what we desire will be imposed on us by the state.
With regard to political input, Mayor Miller stated that if every
community had the growth that some segments of its population de-
sired, we would be like Los Angeles, and consequently the growth
projections imposed by the state on air quality grounds are going
to save the present residents of the Bay Area from a much worse
air quality than one could expect if things were unrestricted as
they have been in the last 20 years. He felt that though there
are a number of children in Livermore who will be graduating and
may wish to reside here, there will be a sufficient number who will
move out of Livermore and also those who will die so that the net
increase should not be the total number of children but the total
population. He added that he hopes the comments made by the Council
will be taken in a constructive manner and that it will make for a
better understanding of the City's concerns and what is felt to be
the inequities in the same air basin compared to what is arbitrarily
divided up as a hydrographic unit.
Mr. Platzek stated that it would be helpful if the individual cities
within a county could come to some type of agreement as to what
their future growth should be. He added that he feels this is not
his last visit in speaking to the Council and that he hopes that
next time he will have regional factors on the impact of population
growth in this area to present with regard to air quality and water
quality and transportation.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council appreciates having heard from
Mr. Platzek and perhaps it would be of value to plan a special
session for some appropriate time during which more than one hour
could be devoted to discussion of the matter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution Adopting
Mechanical Method for
Signing Checks
The City Manager explained that a plate has been purchased for use
in our new automatic check and warrant signing machine which imprints
the facsimile signature of the three required municipal officers; the
Mayor, the City Clerk and the Treasurer. A resolution adopting such
a method is requested by the banks.
RESOLUTION NO. 1l9~73
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MECHANICAL METHOD FOR SIGNING
CHECKS, SELECTING A DEPOSITARY AND PROVIDING FOR
THE NAMES OF THE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS
AND THE METHOD OF SIGNING THEREOF.
(Aircraft Hangar Facilities Fund Loan Account)
CM-27-98
September l7, 1973
(Mechanical Method for
Signing Checks)
RESOLUTION NO. 120-73
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MECHANICAL METHOD FOR SIGNING
CHECKS, SELECTING A DEPOSITARY AND PROVIDING FOR THE
NAMES OF THE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS AND
THE METHOD OF SIGNING CHECKS.
(Bank of America)
Beautification Minutes
for August 1, 1973
Minutes were received from the Beautification Committee for their
meeting of August 1, 1973, and were noted for filing.
Payroll and Claims
Dated September l4, 1973
There were l7l claims in the amount of $81,895.74 and 295 payroll
warrants in the amount of $70,987.36 dated September 14, 1973, for
a total of $l52,883.l0.
Departmental Reports
Departmental reports were received from the following:
Airport Activity - August
Building Inspection - August
Mosquito Abatement District - July
Municipal Court - July
Planning/Zoning Activity - August
Police and Pound Departments - August
Water Reclamation Plant - July
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
RESIGNATION FROM
GEN. PLAN GOALS COMMITTEE
(Bruce Sizelove)
A letter of resignation from the General Plan Goals Steering Committee
was received from Bruce A. Sizelove, in which he stated that he is
seeking employment elsewhere and will be out of town frequently.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council accept his resignation and
send Mr. Sizelove a letter thanking him for the work he has done
on the Committee, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed by a
unanimous vote.
COMMUNICATION FROM
JAMES TURNER RE STRAY
ANIMAL PROBLEM
A letter was received from James H. Turner of our City in which he states
ehat~there is a stray animal problem and he would recommend that the
City limit each family to two animals per household (the City allows 6)
which he feels would curb animal population and also that cats be li-
censed. He pointed out that the people in the animal control field are
forced to put countless numbers of animals to sleep because there
CM-27-99
September l7, 1973
(Re Stray Animal Problems)
are no homes for them and that formerly owned pets roam in packs and
kill sheep and cattle in the Livermore Valley. He urged that the
City also enforce the leash law which he felt would be of benefit to
everyone adding that there is a definite rabies problem in this county
partially due to the fact that a large number of skunks carry rabies
and bite and infect other animals.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be referred to the local
Police Department and staff for their comments, particularly regarding
spay clinics and the limitation of the number of pets allowed in a
household, as well as the licensing of cats, and suggested that the
City consider a fee break for those who have spayed or neutered animals.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and the Council voted un-
animously to adopt the motion.
REPORT RE REEVALUATION
OF CROSSING GUARDS AT
EAST AVENUE & EL CAMINITO
AT SONOMA AVENUE
The Public Works Director reported that adult crossing guards pre-
viously assigned at the East Avenue School and on El Caminito at
Sonoma Avenue are under consideration for discontinuance due to
the traffic lights located at Hillcrest Avenue and East Avenue
which will allow elimination of the East Avenue crossing guard,
and the four-way stop signs at El Caminito and Sonoma Avenue which
would also allow elimination of the guard at that intersection.
Mr. Lee stated that under the California warrant system these two
areas will not meet the number of warrants required to justify an
adult crossing guard at the above mentioned areas.
Mayor Miller commented that at the last meeting this matter had
been mentioned and it was felt that it would be advisable to leave
an adult crossing guard at the East Avenue area to instruct the chil-
dren to go down to the signals for a month or so to get the students
acclimated to using the new crossing He added that a parent whose
child crosses at Sonoma Avenue asked that the same system be allowed
at that point until the children get used to crossing without the aid
of an adult.
Mr. Lee felt this was a very good suggestion in that the adults can
give advice and observe how the children are doing during the trans-
ition, and suggested that the length of time the adult should remain
should be determined by the Police Chief who will also be observing
the situation.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would agree with the suggestion to
allow an adult to remain for awhile which would also allow that
person to seek another source of employment or perhaps used as a
crossing guard in another area.
Councilman Taylor felt that people need time to get used to the idea
that they must stop at El Caminito and Sonoma Avenue and also that
on East Avenue people may tend to focus their attention on the
traffic lights and these may prove to be a hazard to the children
and he would therefore agree that it is necessary to retain a guard
for some length of time.
Kattie Earnshaw, 443 Robert Way, speaking on behalf of the Sonoma PTA
stated that they are concerned over the crosswalk since the stop signs
have been installed quite recently and would urge that the adult guard
be allowed to stay until motorists are used to stopping there.
CM-27-l00
September l7, 1973
(Crossing Guards at
East Avenue and El Caminito
at Sonoma Avenue)
Another interested citizen pointed out that there are no signs in
the area which state "school crossing" and felt that there should
be signs as well as lights indicating that there is a school cross-
walk ahead.
Mr. Lee stated that he would be happy to look into the matter and
see if improvements can be made in the way of alerting motorists
that they are approaching an intersection used for school crossing.
Another citizen noted that the school sign which was painted on the
street has been "blacked out" and it is her understanding that it is
to be repainted; however, at this time it is still black. Also, the
speed limit sign which is at the beginning of El Caminito at Stanley
Blvd. has a commercial vehicle sign in front of it which obscures the
speed limit sign.
The Council directed the staff to realign the signs so that it is clear
as to what the signs are saying and also that the school sign be painted
on the street again.
Councilman Taylor moved to direct the staff to examine the intersections
and transfer the crossing guards to places where they are more needed or
to eliminate them, as the need dictates, and in particular to have a
transition period of three months, perhaps, at Sonoma Avenue to make
sure the public and children are educated to the changes, and that the
East Avenue guard dismissal time be determined by the Police Department.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed by unanimous
vote.
Mrs. Hennessey, 212 Elvira Street, urged that the Council leave the
adult crossing guard at the Sonoma Avenue crossing at least until
after the rainy weather has passed, as the crossing is a very dangerous
situation.
REPORT RE CAMPUS IMPROVE-
MENTS FOR THE PROPOSED
JUNIOR COLLEGE
Mr. Parness reported that plans for educational structure design and
site planning for the Livermore College campus are proceeding and the
City has received a letter from the South County Joint Junior College
District requesting that the City grant a waiver from its policy which
would require the extension of utilities and roadway from the southwest
corner of the District's property along its northern boundary (frontage)
due to the fact that the District has a shortage of funds. The staff
has recommended that in recognition of the financial status of the
District the requirements be temporarily waived subject to the following:
1) That at least the necessary street public works improvements
will be installed to satisfy ease of ingress and egress to the
campus area to be developed, and to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director.
2) That the Board formally declares recognition of its obligation
to install subject improvements, in accordance with City policy,
when financially able or when campus expansion demands installation
of added street frontage and public works improvements.
Councilman Futch pointed out that it will be many years before the
campus will be complete and in all liklihood the present Board members
will have been replaced. He cannot understand how the present Board can
commit a future Board and would feel that such an agreement would not
have a legal basis.
The City Manager stated that he has taken this into consideration and
CM-27-l01
September l7, 1973
(Improvements for Jr. College Campus)
even though they may not be bound legally he feels that they would
honor a moral commitment.
Mayor Miller stated that temporary waivers given by the City are usually
put into the form of some type of contract so that it would be binding
ultimately on the City and the party receiving the waiver.
Councilman Beebe suggested that the Council make the waiver contin-
gent upon proceeding with their permanent college and to include the
cost of this improvement in with their bond issues or whatever means
will be used to finance development of the college. He felt that
this would offer adequate protection to the City.
Dr. Reed Buffington, Superintendent-President, of the South County
Joint Junior College District stated that progress is being made and
reported that he met with the state and the architects this afternoon
and that the buildings are going to be permanent but will be less formal
than originally planned because they will be moving in smaller increments
and overall they feel very optimistic about the plans. He stated
that the concern he expressed to the City Manager is that the District
is operating on faith and dollars and they happen to have a little
more faith than dollars at present, and anything which would cost
money, beyond that which is currently planned, they cannot afford.
They would not expect automobiles to enter the site on anything which
is not considered safe and in a reasonable condition. They have plans
to pave a 40-foot road but this is not one of their highest priorities.
He stated that he is a little concerned with the second condition
but if it could be worded so that he could present it to the Board
and feel that they might vote in favor of it this would be helpful
to all concerned. He stated that he would not expect the Board to
enter into any type of moral or legal commitment they felt they would
not want to keep and would suggest that perhaps there might be a compro-
mise between their hopes that no conditions would be imposed and the
City Manager's stringent modifications to be included in the waiver.
He stated that he would like to assure the Council that they are moving
ahead and is sure it will be a development the City will be proud
of and that the Board is unanimous in its intention to move ahead.
Mayor Miller explained that the City has had the bitter experience
of not requiring that public works improvements are installed and
then later the City is obligated to pay for the improvements.
Dr. Buffington felt that the suggestion made by Councilman Beebe for
providing for the utilities in one of the bond issues is excellent;
however, he felt that they will never be financed in this way and
would be foolish to imply that it could be taken care of in this manner.
Councilman Taylor suggested new wording for the second condition, as
follows: It is understood that when the need develops in the future
the South County Joint Junior College District will participate in
their share of the public works improvements in the usual manner.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that unless there is a contract, the
statement that the Board formally recognizes its obligation, is no
better than his suggested wording and may be less "stiff". The only
concern is that the District will recognize the obligation as the
College develops, and wondered if this wording would be more acceptable
to the Board.
Dr. Buffington felt the suggested wording would receive the approval
of the present Board.
Mayor Miller asked if the objection is that the Board does not want
the District to be obligated to put in the public works improvements,
because if they do want to put them in, the wording which would be
acceptable should be easy to find, and Dr. Buffington stated that
he really cannot answer the question.
CM-27-l02
September l7, 1973
(Campus Improvements for
Jr. College i
Dr. Buffington stated that after many, many hours of discussion about
the road the Board spent the money for the engineering for
the road with the "greatest reluctance" and whether this reflects
a future concern for the extension of the road he cannot say.
He felt that it is not a matter he can take to the Board with a
great deal of confidence.
Mayor Miller stated that he feels it is the consensus of the Council
that they are willing to help the District get started with the
development and would be perfectly willing to waive all of these
things in the beginning but that ultimately the public works improve-
ments will be installed. If the Board will agree to this he feels
sure there is some way the matter can be worked out to be financially
easy on the District.
Dr. Buffington stated that if there could be wording to reflect
this point of view he feels certain the Board would agree.
The City Attorney suggested that if the Council's intention is
to allow a delay that it would be best to state "delay" rather than
to use the word waiver, and would suggest that the City and the
Board should state their views which he feels could be harmonious,
and without this he feels there may not really be an understanding.
Mayor Miller suggested that the staff be directed to meet with the
Board and work out what would be an acceptable representation of
the Council's wish and which would also be acceptable to the Board
for the Council to consider after their meeting:
Dr. Buffington felt this arrangement would be quite agreeable; however,
he asked if the Council could give some indication as to whether a
delay will be acceptable with this type of arrangement because without
the delay they will have to come to a halt. He stated that he would
appreciate the Council's adopting something, even if it will require
further action, which will give some type of reasonable indication
which he can present to the Board.
Councilman Taylor moved that the City adopt the policy as set forth
by the City Manager with respect to item 1, and the wording revised
if necessary and with regard to item 2 he would like an understanding
that the District recognizes the City policy with regard to public
works improvements and understands that the delay is temporary only
and that the District will participate in the future, according to
City policy.
The City Manager suggested that the proper legal document be prepared
by the City Attorney and then there can be discussion with the Board
as to the wording which would be acceptable and when these procedures
are complete the staff can bring it back to the Council.
Mayor Miller stated that Dr. Buffington has asked for a declaration of
intent and moved that the Council declare its intent to approve the
delay and work out some type of mutual wording for the ultimate
public works improvements, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
€ouncilman Pritchard stated that he is against the second condition,
as he sees no reason for requiring sidewalks, streets, curbs and
gutters as long as just the school is located there unless the school
wants these improvements.
At this time Councilman Beebe moved the question and the Council
voted unanimously to approve the motion.
Dr. Buffington stated that he hopes the campus will open as soon
as possible after the campus has water available to them and it
is anticipated that this will be ready next fall.
CM-27-l03
September l7, 1973
(Improvements for Jr. College Campus)
Councilman Futch expressed concern that the site is in the proposed
sphere of influence of the new city adding that he would have reserva-
tions about voting for oversized facility extensions which could
possibly used to continue into the new city.
The Council discussed the boundaries regarding the spheres of
influence and it was not determined whether or not the college site
is actually included in this area.
Councilman Futch stated that before bids go out he would like the
Council to discuss the size of the utilities to be extended to the
college site which has nothing to do with the college itself but
which may have an affect on future development on the north side
of the freeway in the future.
The Council asked that the matter of the utility lines to be in-
stalled to serve the campus site be placed on the agenda for their
discussion.
REPORT RE INTERSECTION
OF MURRIETA & OLIVINA AVE.
Mr. Lee reported that the intersection of Murrieta and Olivina Avenue
is one of the highest accident locations in the City and records in-
dicate that the accidents there during the first six months of 1973
were equal to the total number of accidents in the City in 1972.
The State Division of Highways has set up warrants for four-way
stop signs and since this intersection has met all of the warrants
it is recommended that four-way stop signs be installed until such
time traffic signals are installed, which has been scheduled for
next fiscal year.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote, the recommendation for a four-way stop at that
intersection was approved.
REPORT RE AIRWAY BLVD.
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL - INDUS. ZONE
The City Manager reported that an interested development firm has
provided a proposed property design for development of l3 acres of
land located on Airway Boulevard adjoining I-580 which is owned by
the City. The Council referred the matter to the Planning Commis-
sion and requested that the staff prepare an analysis as to the
approximate revenue generating potential or expenses for various
types of property uses. The Planning Commission concluded that
the principal land uses should remain as an airport, golf course,
industrial park, recreational open space, and that the proposed
motel, restaurant and gas station would be complimentary to these
principal uses.
A report regarding the financial return to the City from various
land uses was prepared by the Director of Finance and submitted
to the Council for their review.
The Planning Director reported that the Planning staff could see no
reason why a development such as proposed by the applicant could
not be complimentary and supportive to the industrial and airport/
golf course facilities.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the Planning Commis-
sion's unanimous recommendation to approve the proposal, seconded
by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is very interesting to note that
the staff estimates that the net revenue to the City would be
$100,000 per year and Mr. Parness stated that this is true and
it is anticipated that this is a conservative figure.
CM-27-l04
September 17, 1973
(Airway Blvd. Development)
Mayor Miller stated that the motion is to adopt the Planning Commission
recommendation for Proposal *3 which includes a gasoline station, a
restaurant-motel, commercial offices and professional offices.
Councilman Pritchard wondered if the developer would develop the
land without the gasoline station and Mr. Parness felt that in all
practicality the gasoline station is really essential and the developer
has indicated that it is considered necessary for the land users but
is not particularly interested in its being highway oriented.
Mayor Miller stated that in his opinion a motel can hardly be anything
other than freeway oriented and would not agree that it is necessary to
have gas stations, motels, and other freeway oriented businesses on
this property, because of the County policy agreed to by the City. He
stated that commercial development has already been approved for the
corner of Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard and that there is
another such development on Fenton and felt that this particular area
would not develop into professional office buildings but that once
this portion is approved there will be increasing pressure to make
it a freeway oriented commercial area. He would suggest that from the
standpoint of policy and precedent the area be left for industrial and
try to make it an industrial zone as was the original intention and
stay away from the freeway oriented businesses. He felt that in the
long run it would be far better to encourage industrial uses in the
area even though it appears that the City would realize $lOO,OOO a
year from the proposed development, because he felt that money should
not be the only consideration. Therefore, he would not be in favor of
the Planning Commission recommendation or the motion.
Councilman Beebe agreed that one use compliments the other and by
being located where they are they will not really be freeway oriented.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the developer is proposing to
spend a great deal of money to develop the land with the uses pro-
posed and it would have to be assumed that he knows what he is doing
and also knows of the other commercial development going on in the
City. Councilman Taylor would also agree that it is not really a
freeway oriented use but will serve the people going to the industrial
area, the golf course and the airport.
Mayor Miller stated that if the only people who are going to use the
the facilities are the golf course, airport and restaurant people,
this is not enough people to justify building a major restaurant
and motel, particularly when there is a restaurant close by. He
felt that even though the City says now that they will not grant
larger signs when the pressure is on in 3-4 years he feels that
a tremendous pressure will be placed on the City as has been the
case with the Holiday Inn sign controversy.
Councilman Taylor stated that he might feel differently if there
were any obvious detrimental effects from this type of development;
however, the City has been interested in getting this land developed
for some length of time and since there is no alternate proposal he
would suggest that the Council accept the offer which has been pre-
sented to the Council and which appears to be attractive to the City.
Mayor Miller stated that the second floor of the golf course building
was not built in haste, that the City took time and was criticized
for doing so but the wait resulted in a good development and he felt
the Council should wait for a good development proposal for the land
by the golf course. He felt that another issue at hand is the aesthetic
appearance of the development and Mr. Parness stated that it would have
to be approved by the Design Review Committee.
Councilman Futch stated that he would feel a little better about leas-
ing the land if the landscaped portion were to remain under City control,
as this portion is adjacent to the freeway and the City could control
signs going in the area.
CM-27-l05
September l7, 1973
(Airway Blvd. Development)
The City Manager stated that in discussing the lease arrangements
it had been suggested that the landscape improvements would be
borne by the developer but the City would assume the maintenance
responsibility and the City would probably retain all rights to
the property.
The Council then discussed the 2~ acres of land to be developed
into a rest area or to be landscaped and came to no conclusion
regarding that portion.
Councilman Pritchard offered an amendment to the motion to add
that the gasoline station not be allowed and that the developer
be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the park, seconded
by Mayor Miller.
Councilman Taylor questioned whether this would be a justifiable
option for the developer and Mr. Parness felt that it was not as
the service station is an integral and important part of the designed
complex. He pointed out that this is always one of the prime items
mentioned by any designer or developer he has spoken with in the past.
Councilman Futch asked if the City Manager felt it would be a viable
development with the office building reserved and restricted to in-
dustrial development and the City Manager felt it would be.
At this time the amendment to the motion was defeated by a 2-3 vote
with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Futch offered an amendment to approve the development as
submitted by the Planning Commission, reserving the office site to
an industrial use (the northerly structure), seconded by Councilman
Beebe.
Councilman Futch explained that he would like to amend the motion as
was stated above because he feels the City would like to encourage
industrial applications in that area rather than additional offices
which would compete with the already approved office locations in
other parts of the City adding that a very large amount of office
space has just been approved at the corner of Holmes Street and
Concannon Boulevard, and there might be a danger in approving too many.
Mr. Parness stated that the developer is interested in developing
office buildings which would service regional enterprises, as contrasted
to the type the Council has allowed which are localized in nature, and
this is partially due to the fact that property is readily accessible
to freeway traffic and the airport and centrally located in the Valley.
Councilman Futch stated that this can be considered at the time by
the Council but would prefer that his motion remain as stated; however,
if it meets the requirements for a need for space related to regional
or industrial uses they could come in.
At this time the amendment to the motion passed 4-l with Councilman
Pritchard dissenting.
The Council then voted on the main motion to approve Proposal #3 which
is equal to the Planning Commission's recommendation, with the northerly
office building to be industrial, as described by Councilman Futch, and
which passed 3-2 with Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Miller dissenting.
CM-27-l06
September l7, 1973
REPORT RE BUILDING
PERMITS FOR INDIVI-
DUAL LOTS OF RECORD
The matter of building permit issuance for individual lots of record
was postponed from the August 20th meeting in order that the staff
could report on the procedures and the City Attorney reported that
he has been working with the Director of Planning and it is their
joint determination that the best approach to dealing with the
problems, which would be acceptable legally and otherwise, would be
to add a Conditional Use Permit amendment to the Interim Ordinance.
The staff is drafting such an amendment and it should be ready for
the Council at the next meeting.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT RE SEWER
EXTENSION TO THE LOMITAS
AVENUE AREA
The Planning Director reported that during the past few months there
has been increased activity in the way of development in the Lomitas
Avenue area and the number of septic tanks anticipated is of great
concern to the Alameda County Health Department. They have asked
if the Council would respond to the possibility of the City's ex-
tension of sewer lines to service this area.
Mr. Leon Horst, representing the Planning Department asked the
Council for comments on the report, adding that approximately 800
dwelling units could develop, according to the General Plan.
Councilman Taylor felt that it is the Council's policy to extend
sewer service to homes if they agree to the sewer connection agreement
and there is no reason septic tank development should be allowed by
the County in that area. It is true that some people balk at having
the City service them because this means that in time they will have
to agree to annex and to put in the required public works improvements.
Mayor Miller pointed out that one problem is that there is very little
sewer capacity left and to extend service to the County area takes
away from sewer connections which could be made in the City area
and feels that the County Health Department will not allow sub-
divisions to develop by using septic tanks.
Councilman Beebe moved~~~~C~~llOW extension of City sewer
service to the county~~til there is additional capacity in the sewer
plant, which is not in the immediate future, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Prior to the vote Councilman Taylor pointed out that he is not in
favor of a development which is in the County but would be sending
children to the City and would be ultimately provided with many
City services while paying no taxes. Possibly, at some future date
the City might be faced with a great public expense in having to
extend public facilities into the area and would not want to hook
up a significant number of houses that would cause a decrease in
our sewer plant flow until the plant modification is worked out,
and offered an amend~ryt_~~o~otion to state that the City will .
extend sewer servic~A~cn t1me there is sufficient plant flow~~
which was seconded by Councilman pri.tchard,~~~---e. t;,~. ' ., 7 1
0-<4~<~-f-Jl/n--t1<L- i&-e p-J..(:.. , (J ~ . ~ck, ~Cl!l~~~
Shirley Vierra, owner of 2~ acres of land located on Lomitas Aven~,
stated that they have had a potential buyer for their land but they
are in a dilemma if the County will not allow septic tanks and the
City will not service the area with sewer lines. She stated that
this will mean the land cannot be developed in any way and yet the
tax rate increases. She can understand that the City may not be
able to service them due to a lack of facilities but asked what
recourse is available to them.
CM-27-l07
September 17, 1973
(re Sewer Line Extension
to Lomitas Avenue Area)
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the Council is stating that the City
cannot provide service at this time but will do so in the future if
able and perhaps if the request is made to the County it might
possibly allow the Vierra's a temporary septic tank if they would
agree to hook up to the City line when possible.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote.
REPORT RE SUMMARY OF
ACTION TAKEN AT P.C.
MEETING OF SEPT. II
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to appeal the Planning Commis-
sion's action to approve a variance to Ordinance No. 825 (moratorium
ordinance) and Mr. Horst explained that the statement is in error as
the Planning Commission did not approve a variance to the ordinance
but granted a variance to the amount of frontage approved on a lot,
which he explained to the Council.
Mayor Miller stated that the effect of not requiring the usual
standards for development is equivalent to allowing the property
to become a subdivision, contrary to the Council's original intent.
This was the parcel off of Hayes Street which was to be reverted
to acreage, but was not, and if it had been reverted properly it
would have required a new subdivision map, which would be in conflict
with Ordinance No. 825. If they are granted a variance so they don't
have to satisfy the conditions of our Zoning Ordinance then their
lots of record, which should not have been there, could become possible
for development and the tract map which should have been presented
would have had to wait until the moratorium ends.
The Council discussed the matter briefly and concluded that they
would review the reports of their action on the matter and then
continue with further discussion at the next meeting.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
PARK PROPERTY APPRAISAL
LOCATED ON MOCHO STREET -
WEST OF HOLMES STREET
The City Manager explained that in accordance with the Council's
instructions the staff has prepared an appraisal on the property
located on the north side of Mocho Street, west of Holmes Street,
consisting of approximately 3.592 acres, and it has been valued
at $42,000. Mr. Parness also stated that a map had been prepared
to indicate other publicly owned properties devoted to park pur-
poses in that area which might assist the Council in their deci-
sion to proceed with the acquisition.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that the whole area had been developed
prior to the adoption of the park ordinance and there was no park in
that immediate vicinity.
Councilman Taylor stated that it was not listed on the Park District's
list of priorities and other areas badly in need of a park are listed.
He indicated that a lot of park land could be purchased in other
areas for that price. He felt that the appraised value was much too
high; however, Councilman Beebe indicated that the developer was
asking $75,000 for the property.
Mayor Miller pointed out that the assessor's market value of the
property for this year is $10,475 which clearly indicates that
the Council should send a letter to the assessor. Mayor Miller
suggested that the staff show the appraisal to the property
owner and submit the question to the Recreation District, and not
make a decision at this time.
CM-27-l08
September 17, 1973
(re Mocho Street Park)
Councilman Taylor stated they should make it clear to the Recreation
District that the Council has made no determination, and Councilman
Futch stated they are merely asking them to comment on the feasibility
of a park in that area.
It was moved by Mayor Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to present
the appraisal to the property owner and ask the Recreation District to
consider this property as a possible park site, and the motion passed
unanimously.
RE GRANT APPLICATION -
STRATEGIC TEAM EN-
FORCEMENT PROGRAM
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor to submit a grant application
for the strategic team enforcement program as recommended by the
City Manager; the motion was seconded by Councilman Futch.
This matter had been removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
at this time and Mr. Drown was invited to step forward and address
the Council.
Arvey Drown, 975 Murrieta Blvd., stated he was co-chairman of the
"Support your Local Police" Committee and their slogan was to support
the local police and keep them independent. They believe that the
first and most solemn responsibility of all public officials is to
protect the lives and property of the citizens of the community and
they feel harassment, outright attacks against the police and in
many instances are organized and controlled by subversives and crimi-
nals. Court decisions have placed unreasonable restrictions on the
forces of law and order while freeing many criminals from prison
and lessening sentences on others. For these reasons they have organ-
ized their committee and urge all responsible citizens to work with
them. Their principles are: support local police in performance
of their duties; reject any civilian review boards or outside supervi-
sion of our police; prohibit the creation of any national police
force or any other centralized authority which would replace or control
our local police; accept our responsibility to our local police to
defend them against unjust attacks and make them proud and secure
in their vital profession and offer them our support in word and
deed wherever possible; oppose any and all efforts to subsidize,
regionalize or federalize our local police since any loss of their
independence from outside controls will inevitably lead to a loss
of our protection and safety as well. Mr. Drown referred to a news~
paper article concerning this type of program and also a court case
in which the Supreme Court made it very clear that what the federal
government shall subsidize, it will control. As a citizen, he felt
this was right that the government should be careful how they spend
their money, and to be interested in how that money is used, and
to set up guidelines for its use before giving money away. It had
been stated previously that there were no restrictions in this regard,
but experience in dealing with the federal government at every level
has proven exactly the opposite. Their committee has formed a peti-
tion which they circulated in precinct 30170 which they felt to be
representative of the community, and he read the contents of the peti-
tion at this time, stating that they were prepared to form a formal
petition and cover every house in the city if necessary. He pointed
out that on the petition circulated, covering 250 homes, better than
90% of the people eagerly signed the petition, and hoped that this
consensus of opinion would cause the Council to reconsider the situa-
tion.
CM-27-l09
September l7, 1973
(re Grant for Strategic
Team Enforcement Program)
Councilman Pritchard inquired how many years the committee had been
in operation, and Mr. Drown replied approximately twelve years. He
added that they had made one big mistake which was that in the past
various federal programs have come along and nobody raised their
voice against them.
Councilman prichard asked Mr. Drown what constituted the membership
of their committee, and Mr. Drown replied it is made up of the
John Birch Society.
Mayor Miller stated if he believed the comments in the petition he
would have signed it also, but he did not believe this to be true
as it relates to the contents of the resolution he voted for.
Mr. Drown reiterated that it is necessary that everybody should
understand one thing, and that is, the more we fool with the federal
government, on our local level, the more controls we get. We have never
never received federal funds,in any way without strings attached, and it
it is a lie to think we don't. By accepting funds for the local police
department, we are giving the control of the police department away
from the City Council to the federal government because they do set
guidelines and purposes for that money. He had no objection to the
Livermore Police cooperating with any program with any other police
department if necessary, but there is no reason to form a regional
police force.
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr.Drown if he opposed the construction
of the new police building, and Mr. Drown stated he did not, only
opposed where the money is coming from. He was opposed to the
idea of taking federal funds which cost $4.00 for every dollar we
get back for the purpose of building anything.
Councilman pritchard asked Mr. Drown if he was only opposed to the
federal government having guidelines, or did he feel there was some-
thing behind the federal government wishing to do that, or if he
felt there was a great conspiracy behind this.
Mr. Drown stated if he was ~king about his opinion of the conspira-
torial aspect of our government and what has happened to it, he
certainly did believe that or he would not be a member of the
John Birch Society. The important thing is the guidelines which
are there, which means that the local police instead of looking to
us for the responsibility will eventually look to the federal govern-
ment.
Mayor Milled asked that the discussion be restricted only to the
resolution.
Vern Strahl, 768 Adams Avenue, pointed out to the Council that there
had been a lot of discussion, including marking of streets according
to school crossings, population projection, all with regard to our
ability to accept funds and operate with them. When we cannot even
put markings on the streets without regard to state guidelines, how
can the Council believe we can accept $81,000 per year from the
federal government without having to comply with guidelines from
that federal government. He did not feel Mr. Drown was suggesting this
was one big step to a dictatorship as it is not done that way. They
are concerned about the encroachment of other governmental agencies on
our local government and there is reason for that concern by the ex-
amples seen tonight which stress to him that there are guidelines
when you accept money. He indicated he was also a member of the
committee and voiced his opposition to this kind of subsidy for the
police force.
CM-27-ll0
September 17, 1973
(re Grant for Strategic
Team Enforcement Program)
Ray Galvin, l759 Chestnut, stated he felt the same way - that they
should keep the police department independent, basically because he
believed these guidelines would restrict our police department. He
did feel that the City Council passed the resolution in good faith,
but he did believe that the Council with the many resolutions they
have before them are aware that there are restrictions. He felt that
if we accept a federal subsidy it will infringe on the rights of the
local community and the community should be given the right to vote
on this issue.
Charles Everett, 2137 Neptune Road, emphasized that the people who
signed this petition understood that federal money means federal con-
trol.
Councilman Taylor stated he could agree with a lot of the sentiments,
especially with regard to a national police force, but he viewed the
dependence, for example, of our using the federal government to dis-
tribute money to us in the area of schools. We have received federal
money for many years to support the local schools which otherwise
would have had to be made up by taxpayers. Councilman Taylor further
stated that this program will be continued for three years to test
the idea of cooperation among the valley to decrease the amount of
burglary - the federal government does not intend to continue this,
and if it is worth while it will be picked up by the City.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and passed 4-l with
Councilman Beebe dissenting.
Mr. Drown stated that since the Mayor had been appraised of the opin-
ions of the people of the City of Livermore, they had no alternative
but to form a formal petition which will include all members of the
Council and this was a guarantee.
Councilman Pritchard stated it would be appreciated if the society
would identify themselves when they circulate the petition they
are sponsoring, and Mr. Drown indicated they were not afraid to
do that.
MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF
(Fund Raising Drive -
Lights - Robertson Park)
Mr. Lee stated he had received a request for a vertical bar graph
to be placed on the flag pole as the Rotary Club is conducting a fund
raising drive to provide lights in the stadium in Robertson Park.
He stated it would not be up for very long and could be allowed under
an encroachment permit.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council grant this right as long
as the City is covered by liability; the motion was seconded by
Councilman Taylor and passed 4-1 with Councilman Pritchard abstain-
ing since he is a member of the Rotary Club.
(Cooperative Agreement
re Improvements at So.
Livermore & First
Street Intersection)
Mr. Lee explained that the formal agreement has been prepared for
the intersection of So. Livermore Avenue and First Street, wherein
the State would participate in 50% of the right-of-way costs up to a
maximum of $50,000, and 50% of the construction costs up to a total of
$47,000. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing
the execution of the contract.
CM-27-lll
September l7, 1973
(So. Livermore & First
Street Intersection)
Councilman Beebe moved adoption of the resolution, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, which was approved 4-l with Councilman Pritchard
dissenting.
RESOLUTION NO. l2l-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (CALI-
FORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS)
MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
(World Premiere-Vine Theater)
Councilman Taylor stated there was to be a world premiere of a movie
made in Livermore which will benefit the Howard Vierra music fund
to buy instruments for the high school bands and it is sponsored
by the Cultural Arts Council. The showing will be September 37th
and it will be held at the Vine Theater.
(Bicycle Accident Report)
Councilman Futch questioned construction methods for bicycle paths
in the area of Arroyo Road and brought up the fact that due to a drop
in the paths where it meets the road surface you cannot get a lO-
speed bicycle over it, and he felt this should be checked out. Also
the Council should be furnished a report on bicycle accidents, and
the staff was instructed to furnish a report and give any recommendations
for ways to improve the accident statistics.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at ll:20 p.m. to a short executive session
to discuss personnel matters.
APPROVE r!J t~ J--1.~~'l.A
ATTEST ~
; ~ CITY
LIVERMORE,
MAYOR
CLERK
CALIFORNIA
CM-27-ll2
Regular Meeting of September 24, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 24, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. . The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:13 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Taylor, Futch, and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of Se?tember l7, 1973,
were approved, as corrected.
SPECIAL ITEM - AWARDS
PRESENTED TO CITIZENS
OF THE COMMUNITY BY THE
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
Mayor Miller stated that the Beautification Committee awards are given
to citizens of the community in public recognition to these people
who have made a real effort to make their properties attractive and
a credit to the City.
Mayor Miller and Rick Irby, Chairman of the Beautification Committee
then presented awards to the following citizens for their various
contributions in making the City more attractive:
West Valley Bank, 2287 Second Street
Paul Chipchase, 795 Olivina
Holm Well Neighborhood Park
Lou B. Mauchle, 560 and 564 South "M" Duplex
Hillcrest East Associates, Hillcrest East Apartments
Joseph Wolfe, 423 Coleen Street
Robert F. Norling, 5482 Betty Circle
John Carlson, 442 North "I" Street
Walter Mack, 489 Cedar Avenue
Louis Skipper, 725 North "a" Street
Charles H. Seamans, 782 North "0" Street
William F. Scanlin, Jr., 627 Escondido Circle
James T. Carrell, 414 Armida Court
Or. Elwood Greist, Jr., 575 Escondido Circle
Hilton Ryder, 409 Armida Court
Donald McDonald, 969 Florence Road
William L. Pickles, 1817 DeVaca
PUBLIC HEARING RE
PROTESTS RE NORTHERN
WATER AND NORTHERN
SANITARY SEWER ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICTS
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing to receive any protests from
any person interested in the original assessment or the lands affected,
thereby, or in the bond secured in amending the Northern Water and
Northern Sanitary Sewer Assessment Districts.
CM-27-ll3
September 24, 1973
(P.H. re Amended Assess.)
As there were no comments from the public regarding the amend-
ment to the Districts, on motion of Councilman Futch, seconded
by Councilman Taylor and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing
was closed.
Councilman Taylor moved that the necessary resolutions confirming
the amended assessments for each District be adopted, seconded by
Councilman Futch and passed by a unanimous vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 122-73
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENT AMENDING ASSESSMENT
NO. 235, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-l
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 123-73
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENT AMENDING ASSESSMENT
NO. 235, NORTHERN SANITARY WATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-2,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Traffic
Problem on First Street
at North Mines Road
Mr. Lee reported that at the Council meeting of August 20th a citizen
pointed out the hazardous condition that exists at the intersection
of First Street and North Mines Road due to the development of the
Smorgabob Restaurant which has generated a great deal of traffic,
particularly on the weekend. The staff has met with the Division
of Highways personnel and they have agreed to initiate a project to
widen the ro~d to provide a turning lane which they hope to complete
in the near future.
Resolution Authorizing
Execution of Agreement
for Signal Modification
at Holmes St. & Murrieta
It was reported by the Director of Public Works that for the past
two years the City and state have been planning a cooperative pro-
ject to install left turn signals on Holmes Street and Murrieta
Boulevard intersection which has been approved in the 1973-74
fiscal budget. The most recent estimate of the City's share of
the cost is 50% or $20,200 and it is recommended that the Council
approve the agreement and adopt a resolution authorizing its exe-
cution.
RESOLUTION NO. 124-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(State of California)
Joint Powers Agreement
with the Fire Department
A Joint Powers Agreement has been agreed upon by the Livermore,
Pleasanton and VCSD Fire Departments, which the Mayor stated was
signed this afternoon, and includes a salary schedule as well as
a clothing allowance.
CM-27-ll4
September 24, 1973
(re Joint Powers
Agreement Resolutions)
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution establishing
the salary schedule agreed upon by the Fire Departments and also
a resolution regarding clothing allowance for the Police Department
and Fire Department personnel.
RESOLUTION NO. 125-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ESTABLISHING A SALARY
SCHEDULE FOR THE CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES OF
THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND ESTABLISHING RULES FOR ITS USE
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-73.
RESOLUTION NO. 126-73
RESOLUTION RE CLOTHING ALLOWANCE POLICE
AND FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
COMMUNICATION FROM
CITY OF PETALUMA RE
GROWTH ORDINANCE
A letter was received from the City of Petaluma in which they state
that their council has adopted an unusual and unique plan for the
orderly, non-chaotic growth of their city which presently is under
legal attack and they have requested financial support from other
cities who might be interested in the outcome of the litigation
and would like to help with the cost of these fees. They have
asked that $250 from each city would accomplish their objective
with regard to financial support needed.
) ~uncilman Taylor moved to contribute the designated $250, as
requested by the City of Petaluma, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Futch stated that Petaluma is facing many of the same
growth problems the City of Livermore is faced with and anything
which would clarify the legal position in this regard should be
contributed towards by our City.
Mayor Miller stated that the City of Petaluma has a very interesting
plan which the City may wish to adopt after completion of the General
Plan review, and it would certainly be an advantage to our City to
assist them in their defense.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote to contribute
the $250.
COMMUNICATION FROM
FESTIVAL '73 RE FESTIVAL
TO BE HELD OCT. l3 & l4
A communication was received from Festival '73 regarding the annual
festival to be held on October 13th and 14th and a request for street
closures and police assistance in directing traffic.
Councilman Taylor noted that there was an amended copy of the street
closure plan which had been presented to the Council members prior
to the meeting and Mayor Miller stated that this is true and the
amended copy has the support of the Police Department as well as
the Cultural Arts Council, and has to do with hours the Police Depart-
ment will assist. Mrs. Schmedding, the Director of Arts Festival
'73, stated that this has to be worked out further with the Police
Department, but they will cut the number of hours down as much as
possible.
CM-27-ll5
September 24, 1973
(re Arts Festival)
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the street closure and plans were approved
as presented by the committee.
RE BANNER AWARDS
Polly Schmedding explained the banners which were exhibited in
the Council chambers commenting that there had been a number of
very good banners presented but that in the judging the only one
which had received an award was the one in the college group.
She pointed out that $75 was remaining out of the award money
to be given and asked if the Council would like the remaining
$75 to go towards sponsoring the childrens banner project. She
stated that the Council had donated the award money and the $75
is left over from this donation.
Mrs. Schmedding explained that the childrens banners were spon-
sored by the Festival and each class was given $10 for materials
because the school could not cover this amount and the other
groups received money for materials by sponsors.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the $75 was allowed to be used for banners.
COMMUNICATION FROM PARC
(Preserve Area Ridgelands
Committee) RE PROGRESS
A progress report was submitted by the PARC with regard to the
Dublin, Pleasanton and Sunol ridges, and Councilman Taylor stated
that the Council has already taken a position in favor of the activity
and would like to commend the Committee for its efforts.
Mr. Barkley, 817 Olivina Avenue, urged that the Council exert what-
ever pressure it might have in getting the County Planning County
to zone the ridge property, properly, at their October 15th meeting.
Councilman Taylor stated that he believes a meeting will be held
by the Valley Planning Committee a week before the hearing of
October 15th and feels that a more proper procedure would be for
the Council to make their position known to the VPC. He added
that, perhaps, the minutes reflecting their position should be
reviewed and forwarded to them, and ask VPC to put the matter
on their agenda for discussion.
REPORT RE DRAINAGE
PROBLEM - David Kirk
During one of the past Council meetings a private citizen complaint
had been brought to the attention of the Council in hopes that the
City could remedy the problem in which Mr. Kirk on Columbus Avenue
stated that a neighbor to the rear of his property by the name of
Mr. Bernstein had built a retaining wall which caused water to
remain standing on his property and which interfered with the natural
flow and drainage of water. The Council had asked that the City
Attorney check into the matter and advise the Council as to any
position they might take, noting that they were sure they could not
enter into a private dispute.
The City Attorney reported that, in his op1n1on, even though there
is a definite problem which might be relieved legally, the solution
to the problem is not a matter of City responsibility even though
the City would like the parties involved to be good neighbors. It
appears that this will require a private agreement or law suit which
will not involve the City; however, Mr. Kirk would like to address
the Council and is the reason the matter is on the agenda.
CM-27-ll6
September 24, 1973
(re Property Owners
Private Dispute)
Dave Kirk, 1327 Columbus, stated that first of all he does not
agree with the comment made in the memo to the City Council from
the City Attorney in which he states that Mr. Kirk's lot in its
natural state did not drain onto the lot behind, but does so now
as a result of the grading done when Mr. Kirk's lot was developed.
Mr. Kirk stated that he has a letter from Sunset Development Company
which substantiates his claim that the lot behind him has always been
lower and is where the natural flow of water from his property should
drain. He stated that he also has a copy of the geological maps of
that area indicating the natural flow of water which is in a south
westerly direction, and the Type B drainage approved by the City
allows rear drainage. Mr. Kirk then gave some history and facts
concerning the property and read requirements which indicate that
the Public Works Department and Building Department must inspect
his property, is responsible, and must take action.
Councilman Taylor asked the City Attorney if he would like to reevalu-
ate the situation in view of the facts presented by Mr. Kirk and the
City Attorney stated that he is aware of the facts, having talked with
Mr. Kirk previously, and feels that Mr. Kirk has a legal right but a
decision will have to be made in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr. Kirk may wish to meet with Mr. Lee, however, to see if there is
a way the matter can be resolved without having to go to court.
Councilman Taylor stated that there have been times in the past
when the Mayor or someone appointed, acts as arbitrator in issues
and perhaps such could be used in this case.
Mr. Kirk stated that, originally, he had pointed out to Mr. Bernstein
that approximately $20 worth of pipe would take care of the probelem
but Mr. Bernstein has refused to cooperate even after letters have been
sent to him from the City, himself, and even after Sunset Development
has spoken with him. He stated that this is a problem he is unable
to handle by himself and would like the City to assist him in any way
possible without having to go to court.
Councilman Taylor stated that if the Mayor would agree he would like
to have him act as arbitrator or appoint someone who would be willing
to work out some type of suggestion. He felt that the City could not
enter into the case, directly, due to the recommendations made by the
City Attorney.
Councilman Futch commented that he would agree with the statements
made by Councilman Taylor but would like to see that such an in-
stance does not occur in the future and would suggest that the
building inspector look at any lots which may have a similar
problem and be responsible for getting the problem corrected. He
stated that most of the lots drain towards the street and it would
be necessary to submit a proposal to alter the drainage at the
time a building permit is applied for and should be checked out
at this time.
Mayor Miller wondered how it can be determined that there is a
channel or a flow over an area, and it appears that Mr. Kirk is
asking that the Building Department direct Mr. Bernstein to remove
the blockage of a drainage channel, which is within the City's
authority if it is a channel. It must be determined what the defi-
nition of a channel is; how wide must a channel be and what pattern
does a channel follow?
The City Attorney stated that this is the reason he feels Mr. Lee
should evaluate the situation, as these are engineering considerations
which cannot be answered by him, and possibly there is a practical
solution to the problem.
CM-27-ll7
September 24, 1973
(Report re Drainage Problem -
David Kirk)
Mayor Miller stated that he feels it is the consensus of the Council
to direct the staff to see what engineering or other solutions there
are to this problem and would be willing to serve as a negotiator or
to appoint someone to do so if Mr. Bernstein is willing to negotiate;
however, it appears that Mr. Bernstein is not willing to cooperate.
The City Attorney advised the Council that if the City assumes the
role of negotiator and is unsuccessful, the remedy would revert to
a private law suit and would suggest that the Council allow the En-
gineering Department to try to reach a practical solution.
The staff was directed to seek alternate solutions to the problem
and asked that Mr. Kirk contact Mr. Lee and the City Attorney to
see what can be done.
REPORT RE WATER RECLA-
~~TION PLANT FLOW STUDY
In accordance with the City Council's direction a water reclama-
tion plant flow study has been conducted by Brown and Caldwell
which indicates that the average daily dry weather flow through
the plant at present is 3.8 MGD and Mr. Lee pointed out that he
had given the Council a figure of 4.l. Mr. Lee added that the
estimated number of residential units to be connected, including
single family and multiples, will use .25 MGD and this amount
added to the current amount equals 4.05 MGD.
Councilman Futch stated that he is a little confused because in
the last report submitted to the Council there were approximately
2-3 months which were 4.7 or 4.5 MGD used daily in consecutive
months and the current report states that these meters have been
reading under the actual capacity by approximately l5% and these
were read during dry weather months.
Mr. Lee stated that some of the reported flows in the past had
been bounced around and that there have been problems with the
meters and recording equipment but the essence of the matter is
that the report presented to the Council by Brown and Caldwell
indicates that the flows are essentially the same as those reported
by Mr. Lee a few months ago. He also explained to Councilman Futch
the reason the calculations were off by about l5%.
Mayor Miller stated that it is not understandable why the meters
read 4.5, and 4.6 last year and should be so much lower this year
and Mr. Lee stated that they were having trouble with the equip-
ment at the time and he tried to give an honest evaluation of the
plant flow and be conservative in estimating the flow and it
appears that those estimates were accurate.
Mayor Miller stated that he shares the concern of Councilman Futch
in that the discrepancies are very large and do not explain the
peculiar variations of flow through the plant over the last five
years - the monthly flows are very scattered but even if they are
averaged taking out the seasonal variations they go up some years
and down other.s. He felt that there was something very wrong with
the way records have been kept out at the plant because these
averages should be proportional to population. Even if a meter
is in a wrong place, but there all the time, the flows observed
through the plant should follow the amount of water going through
the plant and it is assumed that this amount would be proportional
to the population. He felt the curves show "funny" behavior, and it is
CM-27-ll8
September 24, 1973
(Report re Water Recla-
mation Plant Flow Study)
very strange that the l2 month averaged flows went up and down during
the five year period while the l2 month raw liquid sludge went up
constantly. He felt that the Brown and Caldwell report does not
make sense nor do the sludge reports. He stated, for example, that
the raw liquid sludge correlates very well with the population but the
dry values do not correlate at all, which means that something is wrong
with the analysis or the record keeping and that this would deserve
further investigation. He also questioned why a figure of 98 gallons
a day per person had been used previously and the figure currently
being used is 75 gallons a day per person. He pointed out that he
has done some inquiring and finds that 75-l00 gallons a day per person
is a typical range with upper income areas using closer to 100 gallons
and lower income areas using closer to 75 and felt that the 75 does
not really fit in our case. It would appear that the matter has not
been resolved by the study and he has been told by someone who is an
authority on sewer plant functions that flows are not the real test -
the plant's operating ability is the real test. He commented that
people are complaining about the odor from the sewer plant and the
people at the plant have stated that it is increasingly difficult to
control the plant. Why are we hiring another man and a truck if it
is not because we are having trouble at the sewer plant? He felt
that in addition to a continued check on the flow through the sewer
plant there should be some type of a technical reconsideration as to
what is going on at the sewer plant, and would suggest that the Council
appoint a technical committee to work with the Public Works Department
and Brown and Caldwell to resolve all the descrepancies that bother
Councilman Futch and the Mayor.
Mr. Lee then explained to the Council the graphs and calculations
done with regard to the amount of sludge at the plant, with reference
to the population correlations. He felt that the fact we will be
transporting sludge away from the lagoon is not an unusual occurrence
and if there is an odor problem it is due to the fact that there is
a smaller blanket of water over the digested sludge in the lagoon.
In response to the remark made about a man and truck being hired to
haul sludge away because the plant is not operating properly, Council-
man Taylor stated that it is his understanding that the lagoons are
simply filled up and now it is necessary to haul it away, which has
nothing to do with the operation of the plant. Mr. Lee stated that
this is correct.
Councilman Taylor stated that the important point is that we know
where we are now and asked the representative from Brown and Caldwell
if the report accurately tells us where we are with respect to the
real capacity of the plant - Brown and Caldwell designed the plant
and they should know better than anyone else where we are with respect
to the capacity.
Joe Cotteral, representative from Brown and Caldwell stated that in
accordance with the charge and request to look into the situation
as it now exists, this is basically what the average dry weather
flows are at this time. He felt that this is a short time period
to determine an average dry weather flow and using one month as a
basis; however, it is the latest month and feels quite certain that
they have determined, as accurately as possible, that the average
dry weather flow is 3.8 MGD. He then explained some of the irregu-
larities which were found at the plant and also explained some
of the problems with the various types of equipment used in deter-
mining the flow, and that Brown and Caldwell are papa red to see
that when the next improvements are made to the plant, the meters
will read accurately, as would be expected.
CM-27-ll9
September 24, 1973
(re Water Reclamation
Plant Study)
Mr. Cotteral explained the type of plant which was designed and
stated that the operators have managed to get the units to work
without additional capacity, which they should have had in order
to adequately manage the sludge problem and as far as the process
units (wet process units) the 5 MGD capacity is felt to be a rea-
sonable amount for the units currently existing. He stated that
one of the bottlenecks is that the sludge handling units are over
and beyond the wet process units which is the reason the state
has been convinced that part of the next improvements to the plant
should be some capability for improving and extending the sludge
handling capacity of the plant. Hopefully, the next improvements
can take place the first of next year and Brown and Caldwell will
be able to provide additional sludge handling capability to alle-
viate the problem. He stated that Brown and Caldwell will be happy
to meet with the staff in an executive session if this will help
shed more light on the matter but they feel confident that the
current 3.8 MGD figure is accurate.
Councilman Futch wondered if the state'~ decision is recent and
what would the improvements amount to in terms of the amount of
sludge the plant would handle.
Mr. Cotteral explained that there are several benefits which would
accrue and the existing digestor capacity will be increased con-
siderably, whereby the sludge itself will be able to be digested
for a longer period of time and with adequate digestion the odor
problem will be reduced, considerably, if not eliminated completely.
He estimated that the capacity of the digesters would be increased
by 50%, and one of the problems with odor is the fact that the
digester's period of retention is too short. What they would be
buying is not more capacity but more retention time for the sludge
that is there. They feel that the kind of improvements possible
under this phase of construction would enable them to handle the
sludge generated by the 5 MGD designed plant for an interim period
of time prior to completion of the extended plant.
Councilman Futch asked what fluctuation might be expected, and
Mr. Cotteral explained that during May, June, July and August when
the rainfall is not going to appreciably effect the flow coming
into the plant, the flow should remain fairly constant as has been
shown by the kind of flow records they have been keeping. Even
though they have been wrong in magnitude, the gradual increase is
one that can be expected, and so you would expect a normal increase
of some amount during the summer months. As you get into the win-
ter months, the rainfall and infiltration will develop larger
amounts.
Councilman Futch explained that what he would like to know is
that assuming we still have dry weather months, what is the stan-
dard deviation for measuring the accuracy of the fluctuations one
might expect and Mr. Cotteral explained that if the reading this
month is 3.8 they would not be surprised if they received a 4.0
reading next month or even a 3.6 and such a variation would not
cause concern.
The Mayor stated that, in other words, if there happens to be a
5-l0% variation either way this would be considered to be a normal
deviation. which Mr. Cotteral replied is correct.
Mr. Cotteral explained that this variation would certainly depend
upon the community and variations in industries and groups of
people and as you get into larger and larger populations the
variations become less pronounced.
CM-27-l20
September 24, 1973
(re Water Reclamation
Plant Study)
Mayor Miller stated that the point made by Mr. Cotteral about expecting
an increase in the flows of the plant is one of the unusual things
that attracted our attention to the matter, as this has not occurred
in the course of the past five years, even on a statistical basis.
This is the reason there has been concern as to the accuracy of the
measurements taken at the plant.
Mr. Cotteral indicated that he is somewhat perplexed by the results
derived at - they are confident of the results but not sure of the
reasons that the flow is at this point. They would suspect that
there are variations in both infiltration and exfiltration in the
sewage system which will affect this and how it affects it depends
upon the ground water tables and various other conditions. They can
only say that they are confident as to what the average flow was during
the month of August and can only speculate as to why this differs from
previous patterns.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that one of the meters continues to
give us problems and is a source of maintenance and wondered if
this would be a major expense to change it or is there something
that can be done to fix it, or is it a faulty manufacturer problem?
Mr. Cotteral explained that it would be best if the City could wait
to do something with the meter at the time the construction contract
has been awarded so that these things can be coordinated with one
manufacturer and one responsibility.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to reemphasize a point he
had made previously which is that there is another bottleneck in
the plant other than the flow through the plant and we are, essentially,
at the capacity of the plant due to the bottleneck at the digesters
and we are in trouble until something is done with these digesters.
He added that Councilman pritchard has asked that the matter be dis-
cussed again next week when he will be present. He felt that the
discrepancies at the plant should have a deeper review and that there
would be some value in the Council appointing a technical committee
to determine what has gone wrong in the past so that we will be better
able to keep track of what is going on at the sewer plant.
Councilman Taylor felt that to appoint someone who is not really
familiar with the sewer plant practice and what is going on out there
and trying to evaluate things on the basis of applying statistics leaves
something to be desired and would suggest that it would be better to
hire someone who is really competent and understands the process. He
felt it would be misleading to let the public assume that because
people have technical training they are competent to evaluate the
sewer plant. He felt that to use volunteer effort would be a poor
decision as there is too much at stake and if the Council wants a
study to be undertaken they should hire an expert to do a professional
job. He pointed out that the formation of a Valley Smog Committee is
not the same because in this case there is no expert to turn to, and
at no amount of money could we have hired anyone to give us the infor-
mation needed with regard to smog situations.
Mayor Miller stated that the fact of the matter is that there were
smog experts at the BAAPCD that suggested what the City's limitations
should be and the Council did not believe this so they appointed their
own committee to do a study.
It was concluded that the matter of appointing a committee would be
put over for discussion at the next meeting.
Councilman Futch commented that apparently Brown and Caldwell has
modifications in mind and he would like to know more about what is
expected in terms of ability to handle the sludge handling capability
and Mr. Cotteral stated that this could certainly be documented for
the Council.
CM-27-l2l
September 24, 1973
(re Sewer Plant)
On motion of Mayor Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch and by a
unanimous vote, the matter was continued until next week.
REPORT AND P.H. RE CURB
AND GUTTER REPAIR COSTS
(683 North "L" Street)
Mr. Lee reported that certain work has been done in the sidewalk
repair program and the Council must adopt a resolution confirming
the charges of $280.00 per lineal feet of curb and gutter at 683
North "Lit Street prior to placement on the tax roll. Mr. Lee
explained that the individual who owns the property at 683 North
ilL" Street does not wish to pay a lump sum for the work and this
will be included in his taxes.
No protests were received or voiced at the meeting and on motion
of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by a unani-
mous vote a resolution placing the charges on the tax roll was
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 127-73
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND CONFIRMING
ASSESSMENTS FOR SIDEWALK REPAIRS
REPORT RE APPEAL TO
P.C. DECISION RE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW
DEVELOP LOTS WITHOUT
FRONTAGE - OFF HAYES STREET
Mayor Miller stated that at his request the matter of the Planning
Commission's decision to allow development of lots located off
Hayes Street for development without frontage on a public street
was appealed, and added that these lots should have been returned
to acreage and were not. If they had been returned to acreage they
would have been required to apply for a subdivision map which is
not allowed at this time due to Ordinance 813. The Planning Com-
mission has allowed development, without the proper street frontage,
by way of a variance which effectively allows the issuance of build-
ing permits to a project which, otherwise, would not have been allowed.
Mr. Musso explained that the basis of the variance was to recognize
the preexistance of these lots which were lots of record on which
they could get permits if it were not for the moratorium. The
variance was given to allow them to redesign and resubmit the project
as a townhouse development and not the intent of the Planning Commis-
sion to recognize the previous subdivision.
Councilman Taylor stated that the reason the building permits were
stopped was because there might be significant redesigns and the
Council was thinking of large areas and large subdivisions at the
time and he doubts that a smallS-lot subdivision will be affected
by any General Plan review, and moved that the Council deny the
appeal, seconded by Councilman Futch.
The motion passed 2-1 with Mayor Miller dissenting.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
ANNEXATIONS - MURRIETA
BLVD. ANNEX & ARROYO
ANNEX NO. 3
The report from the Planning Commission regarding proposed annexations
for Murrieta Boulevard and Arroyo Annex No. 3 were noted for filing
and action with regard to processing the annexations will be taken
later, pending reports from LAFCO.
CM-27-l22
September 24, 1973
PROPOSED ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AMENDMENTS RE
SIGNS
A proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment was submitted to the Council
which pertained to signs and which Mr. Musso explained, briefly,
to the Council and was followed by discussion concerning signs
located in windows and possible problems with enforcement and
inequities involved.
The staff was directed to prepare an ordinance in which the amend-
ment including the window signs will be left in, in some kind of
text form, and when a full Council is present it can be determined
whether or not it will be approved.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote the staff was directed to prepare an ordinance
draft with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations and
to be underlined or pointed out in some way the Council would
recognize.
P.C. MINUTES - 9-ll-73
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September ll, 1973
were noted for filing.
REPORT RE LAFCO SPHERES
OF INFLUENCE HEARING
Mayor Hiller stated that he has a copy of what was stated at the
LAFCO hearing which took place on September 6th and a narrative
form of the outline he presented at the hearing.
Mr. Musso reported that at the August l4th meeting the Planning
Commission considered the referral from LAFCO and its staff report
on the Spheres of Influence for the City which left little time for
consideration prior to their September 6th meeting. Their map indicates
a sphere of influence with a boundary that roughly encompasses the City
limit lines and it would appear that approximately half is unincorpora-
ted and half incorporated. The Planning Director and the City ~1anager
have met with the LAFCO staff and tried to point out various commit-
ments the City has made with regard to facilities to serve most
of the Livermore Valley watershed Area and budgeting funds for the
acquisition of Open Space but it was evident that no change in the
LAFCO staff position would be considered.
The City Manager has written to the Executive Officer of LAFCO in
which he stated that no local input will be allowed to be made
prior to the LAFCO hearing and that their sphere of influence lines
would have to' be recognized as being coterminus with our existing
General Plan boundary limits and that our city will undoubtedly wish
to appeal several of the boundary decisions which have thus far been
plotted by the LAFCO staff.
It was noted that another hearing is to take place on October 4th
and Mayor Miller suggested that another presentation be prepared
for the October 4th hearing as there are a number of other points
to be raised at that meeting. He stated that his presentation at
the September 6th meeting is a draft and if the Council would like
to make any changes in the wording or would like to make suggestions
they should make them known.
Councilman Futch suggested a change on Page 4 of the draft to
emphasize that there are a number of new tracts just starting to
be developed and that the only limitation is for future planning
until the Citizens Committee has made a recommendation.
CM-27-l23
September 24, 1973
(re Spheres of Influence
Boundaries - LAFCO)
The Council then briefly discussed the spheres of influence boun-
daries and the open space area north of I-580 and Councilman Taylor
stated that if there is any rationale in LAFCO's allowing this it
would be based on the assumption that Livermore is an unreasonable
and arbitrary City, and we should make every effort to correct
this image. The intention stated with regard to open space and
the holding capacity as well as the number of approved undeveloped
lots should carefully be considered. Councilman Taylor also stated
that the LAFCO staff, at the Valley Planning meeting, presented
their rationale for this shrunken sphere of influence line based
on the policy of preserving open space and protecting county land
from premature organization.
Mayor Miller summarized for the benefit of the audience that there
are two proposals to LAFCO: l) to limit city boundaries in order
to protect open space in the county and 2) the proposal of Gelder-
man to create a city outside our boundaries, inside the school dis-
trict and without the City's planning control. The City Council
has agreed on the position that LAFCO's sphere of influence area
should be our general plan area and should conform to agreed upon
houndarv lines between Livermore and Pleasanton; however, it seems
that the gravel pits between here and Pleasanton have been ex-
cluded from the sphere of influence line. The Council opposes the
Las positas Valley created by Mr. Gelderman because it is contrary
to LAFCO policy to create a new service district and new cities,
and circumvents our local planning program and compounds our envi-
ronmental problems. There are not really public services or public
facilities available that Mr. Gelderman proposes, and it is unrea-
sonable to limit our sphere of influence - essentially our city
boundaries. It was his hope that all of the Council members would
attend the meeting on October 4.
RAVENSWOOD SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM
The Public Works Director explained that the Ravenswood buildings
have been served by a septic tank which has been disrupted due
to construction in the area and there has been a lateral left in
the subdivision to allow connection to the sewer line. They have
received an estimate of $2,000 for this connection, and it is re-
commended that this work be authorized.
Councilman Taylor moved that the connection to the sewer system
be authorized; motion was seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mayor Miller questioned whether the person who disrupted the sys-
tem could be responsible for the replacement.
Mr. Wharton stated that would depend on what the word means as
we may have disrupted it ourselves by overtaxing the system and
they may have done some physical damage to it, but felt someone
should check into it. It would appear that the work would have
to be done judging from the lack of alternative. We will have
to put out the money, and the question is whether or not we can re-
cover all or part of the expenditure from someone else who may
bear some of the responsibility for the problem.
A vote was taken on the motion which passed unanimously, and the
staff was asked to check into the matter and attempt to recover
at least a portion of the cost, if possible.
CM-27-l24
September 24, 1973
PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE
ALARM SYSTEMS
A proposed Municipal Code amendment regarding alarm systems was pre-
sented together with a report from the Police Chief in this regard,
indicating the number of false alarms and the cost in terms of man
hours and equipment because of this.
Councilman Taylor questioned the fees specified in the proposed ordi-
nance, and Mr. Wharton explained that the fees set forth were only
penalties for false alarm, and further the ordinance merely dealt with
the regulation of the use of alarms. Mr. Wharton stated the question
was whether the City would handle the system or would it contract with
somebody and this would have to be done by a separate agreement which
the Council would have to approve, and they would be paid out of the
fees generated.
Councilman Taylor stated he was appalled at the number of false alarms,
and it may be that a faulty system could give a lot of false alarms,
and a fine for a false alarm would be an incentive for the store owner
to have the system upgraded.
Councilman Futch asked if this would give one company the exclusive
right to this business as he felt it should be a competitive type of
thing.
Hr. Nharton explained that the ordinance does not deal with that at
all, but if the ordinance is adopted then the business arrangements
to carry out the ordinance would have to be separately handled in the
same way as other services are procurred and that would come back to
the Council as a separate item.
Councilman Taylor moved introduction and first reading of the proposed
ordinance, seconded by Councilman Futch, regarding municipal code
amendment regarding alarm systems.
Bruce Westphal, 325 Seventh St., Oakland, representing Bay Alarm Co.,
explained his company services alarm systems in about 30 cities in
northern California and they currently operate under about eight
different ordinances and none of these have a false alarm charge.
He stated a false alarm is more expensive to the alarm company than to
the police department as they are required to make a trip to each of
the premises after a false alarm has been reported to them by the
police department to determine the cause. He referred to the statement
made that a false alarm charge would be an incentive to the alarm
subscriber which may be true, in part, but on the other hand if
there is a charge made it would reduce the number of systems in
service in the City. One of the functions of the police department
is to respond to alarm systems and essentially to provide a safe
and secure place for people to work and live in. If there were
no alarm systems installed in the City of Livermore, then the cost
of police protection services would increase. Since no actual patrol
is required on a building with an alarm system, the building is
protected and no police service is required until an alarm is sounded.
Mr. Westphal stated that the ordinance conforms to the other ordinances
with which he is familiar except for the false alarm section, and
it was his feeling that this would reduce the number of alarm systems
installed in this city. He stated there are many factors which
might cause a false alarm such as various storms, or a major power
failur , equipment failure and customer errors. It was his understand-
ing that the purpose of the ordinance would be to restrict "fly
by nightll alarm companies.
Mr. Wharton explained that the section referred to was that the Chief
of Police would have the authority to establish a schedule, but he might
or might not establish such a schedule.
CM-27-l25
September 24, 1973
(re Alarm Systems)
L. C. Skipper, owner of Associated Electronics, stated they have
approximately twenty-five alarm systems in Livermore, and he felt
the primary reason the Police Department wanted this ordinance
was to give them some controls over who installs the alarm sys-
tems to insure that they are reputable concerns, and he agreed
this was a good reason for the ordinance; however, he did feel that
the false alarm charge would cause a lot of problems. Mr. Skipper
referred to a section on page 6 which would give the Chief of
Police authority to control the entire situation whereby if there
is an alarm system that consistently actuates excessive false alarms
the Police Chief would have authority under this section. He
agreed with statements made by Mr. Westphal that there are many
factors which might cause a false alarm and it behooves the alarm
company to get the equipment repaired as soon as possible. He
stated if it was the intent of the Council to retain the paragraph
pertaining to fees, they should add exceptions to malfunctioning
caused by intermittent equipment, otherwise it would not be fair.
He explained various instances which caused a false alarm, and
felt that the fines should not be levied because the Chief of
Police has the authority to terminate o~of the businesses.
Robert J. Schneider, owner of Bob's Coin Corner, 1870 First St.,
cited an incident of false alarm which had just occurred at his
place of business whereby he accidently turned the system on as
someone before him had turned it off already. He appreciated
the quick response of the police department, but he felt if there
was a fee set for false alarms the perimeter alarm on his build-
ing would be turned off and he would be required to go into another
alarm system.
Lee McDonald, proprietor of Mac's Jewelry,stated when he opened
his new store he was told one of the problems with the police de-
partment was having either sound alarms or not having any and so
he had an ultrasonic system installed and he does have alarm pro-
blems at times which in most instances can be traced to the tele-
phone company, and he now has a line monitor. He had been told
that this would save the police department money, but if they in-
tend to charge him at this rate, he will make other plans. Mr.
McDonald stated that as a public utility, the City is engaging in
business, and if we are going to operate to make money, then
everyone who makes a call to the police department should be
charged on the same basis as a plumber. If the department is to
be tax supported, then it should be kept as a public utility.
Mayor Miller stated that there is an appeal provision in the
ordinance which can be used.
Councilman Taylor stated that the idea of a fee is that it is a
big expense to the public to respond to false alarms, but he felt
if there was an equally effective provision whereby if there are
excessive false alarms without good reason, the permit is sus-
pended, that would be fair enough. In any case it is up to the
judgment of the Chief of Police as to whether or not the ordinance
will be enforced in a reasonable way. He would be willing to amend
the motion to eliminate the section with regard to fees and, under
grounds for suspension, specify what excessive false alarms mean.
He would make this amendment if the second to the motion would
agree.
Councilman Futch stated he would agree to the amendment but for
a different reason. He felt that it was unusual that the Police
Chief would make the decision with regard to this ordinance.
CM-27-l26
September 24, 1973
(re Alarm Systems)
Mr. Wharton explained that this would be eauivalent to any of the
other staff members making a judgment on behalf of the Council from
~ime ~o ~ime. There is provision in the ordinance for appeal to the
Council on any judgment the Chief makes with respect to suspension or
revocation. There is the same situation when any department head
makes the assessment, and there is the means of having a broader and
more complete review by bringing it to the Council.
Mayor Miller disagreed, as he felt there were enough escape hatches
in the ordinance for it to be tried. If it turns out to be unreasonable
then the ordinance can be amended later. He felt the excessive num-
ber of false alarms is very expensive to the rest of the community,
and when the police department answers these false alarms others are
without protection.
Lt. Joe Nichols from the olice Department stated he had worked closely
with Chief Lindgren on this ordinance, and speaking to the number of
false alarms, the majority of them have not been caused by line trouble
or line failure, but by employees who have neglected to either turn
the alarm off or on or remember that the system is in operation.
Dick Piepenburg, from Pacific Telephone, stated that there might be
a question as to whose word would be accepted if the alarm people
say their equipment is not at fault and PT&T says their line is not
causing a problem - whose word would be accepted in this case? He
felt that a lot of time might be spent in needless argument over who
would pay the fine.
The amended motion passed 2-1 with Mayor Miller dissenting.
INTRODUCTION OF ORD.
RE CONDo USE PEID1IT
PROVISIONS FOR LOTS
OF RECORD
Mayor Miller commented that the proposed ordinance regarding condi-
tional use permits for lots of record is not, as he recalls, what
the Council suggested because it allows, by conditional use permit,
approving tentative and final subdivision maps. He stated that it
was his understanding that building would be allowed only in those
areas for which final maps already existed but were covered by the
moratorium as no building permits at all.
The City Attorney replied that introduction of the ordinance requires
a 4/5 vote of the Council and possibly the Council might want to put
the matter over another week on this basis.
The Council concluded that the matter would be put over for another
week for introduction and possible revision.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(re Encroachment Permit
Request by County for
Stanley Blvd. Bikeway)
Mr. Lee reported that the County has requested an encroachment permit
to be installed on East Stanley Boulevard, just inside the City limits,
which says "Bikeways Provided by the County" with the Supervisors names
on it, and wanted to know how the Council felt about the sign.
CM-27-l27
September 24, 1973
(re Encroachment Permit)
Councilman Taylor stated that the County put in the bikeway at the
City's request, it was very well done, and if a sign would satisfy
them, he sees no reason for not allowing them the permit.
Mr. Lee stated that the sign requested is 4 feet by 3 feet and he
is not sure but thinks they would like for it to be perpendicular
rather than parallel to the street.
The Council stated that the City does not allow signs, other than
directional, to be placed perpendicular, besides which, if it is
located in the public right-of-way it will be in the way.
Mr. Lee stated that he will speak with the County to inform them
that such a sign will be allowed, parallel to the street.
MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
(Letter Opposing
Kaiser Dump)
Councilman Futch commented that CAGE has asked the Council to send
a letter to the State Water Resourses Board stating its objections
to the Kaiser dump and the Staff was directed to work out an appro-
priate variation of the letter originally sent opposing the dump.
(Status Report
Request re
Hillside Ordinance)
Councilman Futch stated that he is not too familiar with the
grading standards and asked that the Council be given a copy of
the ordinance and that there be discussion on the matter.
Mr. Lee explained that the grading standards are in the Uniform
Building Code in Chapter 70 and if the Council would like this
could be copied and put on the agenda for discussion.
Councilman Taylor stated that he really would like to avoid dis-
cussing something unless it pertains to a particular point.
Mayor Miller stated that there is some question in the minds of
some of his neighbors with regard to the grading control at the
portola Avenue subdivision and perhaps there should be some dis-
cussion on the matter.
Councilman Taylor felt it would be best to refer the matter to
the Planning Commission staff and ask for any recommended changes
they feel are necessary, which Councilman Futch agreed to, and so
moved. He added that he would like them to review it, particularly,
with regard to hillsides.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor and passed by a unanimous
vote of the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to a brief executive session
to discuss appointments.
APPROVE -D(~ 9:J, ~
')
ATTEST ~
Cl.ty Clerk
Livermore, California
CM-27-l28
Regular Meeting of October 1, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 1, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Pritchard, Taylor and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF 9-24-73
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a 3-2 vote (Beebe and Pritchard abstaining due to absence at that
meeting) the minutes for the meeting of September 24, 1973 were
approved as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
(re Opposition of League
of Women Voters to Propo-
sition 1 - Tax Reform)
Jane Staehle, 4083 Compton Court, President of the League of Women
Voters stated that they are opposed to Proposition 1 for tax reform
and stated their reasons for oposition.
Councilman Taylor stated that if it would be considered appropriate
he would like the City Manager to examine the Proposition, and give
a staff analysis as to how it will affect the City and set the matter
for discussion next week.
Mrs. Staehle mentioned that the League of California Cities also
opposes the measure and Councilman Taylor felt that if this is true
it might be best to report back to the Council after the League of
California Cities conference has taken place and moved that the matter
be discussed again in three weeks
Hayor ~1iller stated that if the League has already taken a position
their reasoning will be available to the City and the staff can take
its interpretation in addition to their own opinions and report to
the Council earlier, as it is only four weeks until voting time and
he felt a discussion in three weeks is a little late.
Councilman Taylor amended the motion to discuss the matter on the
15th, seconded by Councilman Beebe and which passed by a unanimous
vote.
(re Cat Licensing)
James H. Turner, 3712 Madeira Way, of Animal Control for Alameda
County spoke to the Council concerning a proposal to license cats
at which time he stated that it is a very simple procedure for ob-
taining such a license. A rabies shot is required which is $7.00
and if the City would charge $3.00 for a license it could be made
to expire upon expiration of the rabies shot. He stated that there
CM-27-l29
October 1, 1973
(re Cat Licensing)
are too many animals in the City and would advise that only two
pets be allowed per household, rather than the current six allowed
by law. He reported that l7-million dogs and cats are killed each
year and is costing the tax payers $500 million. He urged that the
City adopt a cat licensing procedure to help alleviate the problem.
Councilman Pritchard commented that after the Council received the
letter from Mr. Turner regarding the animal problems pointed out
by him, the staff was directed to look into the matter of licensing
cats, spay clinics and limiting the number of pets per household
which they are working on at present.
Mr. Musso explained that, actually, only four pets are allowed un-
less you have a kennel~ however, he realizes that a number of people
violate this requirement and the law has not been strongly enforced.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Re Disposing of
Unnecessary Munici-
pal Records Which
Have Accumulated
The City Manager reported that due to excessive accumulation of
municipal records our storage space has been depleted, adding that
most of this is routine office correspondence and copies of letters.
The state law permits record destruction after retaining them for
a period of five years but it very clearly states which things must
not be destroyed. The City Clerk is authorized, with the concurrence
of the City Manager and City Attorney, to dispose of any records con-
sidered to be unnecessary material and it is recommended that the
Council adopt a resolution authorizing such-disposal.
The Council briefly discussed various items to be retained as well
as discussing the matter, in general.
The City Attorney explained that a general outline of the things
to be destroyed could be provided for the Council and the City
Clerk commented that there is nothing to be destroyed which would
be of historical significance.
RESOLUTION NO. 128-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING DESTRUCTION
OF CITY RECORDS NOT REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO BE RETAINED.
Payroll and Claims
Dated lO-l-73
There were l25 claims in the amount of $290,393.38 and 280 payroll
warrants dated October 1, 1973, in the amount of $72,417.06 for a
total of $362,8l0.44.
APPROVAL OF CON-
SENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
REPORT RE WATER TREAT-
MENT PLANT FLOW STUDY
Mr. Cotteral stated that the Council has Brown and Caldwell's report
before them which gives the status of the water treatment plant flow
CM-27-l30
October 1, 1973
(Water Treatment Plant
Flow Study)
and which discussion was continued from last week for further evalu-
ation. He stated that he would like to briefly summarize the concern
raised by Councilman ~utch last week in which he asked what the read-
ing capacity for the sludge handling facilities are now and would be
under the kinds of improvements suggested by Brown and Caldwell for
the immediate future. He noted that this is a little hard to diagnose
because it is dealing with biological systems which are complex and
with variables that cannot adequately be predicted at all times.
Therefore, one must use the best judgement and data available to arrive
at correct figures, and based on this would have to say that the sludge
handling facilities are overloaded at present because they were design-
ed years ago for a plant of 2.5 MGD design capacity. Due to the care-
ful handling of the facilities and processes the digesters are still
working at a 3.8 ~GD dry weather flow. There are a number of problems
beginning to show up such as the lagoons being full which is temporar-
ily being removed and hauled away to adequately handle the amount of
sludge being produced. With the suggested improvements to be provided
during the early part of next year it is anticipated that the detention
time will increase from the present l2-l6 days to 24-27 days. If this
is related to the sludge production figures presently used at the plant
it will fall in the range of 3.9-5.0 MGD of average dry weather flow
which would correspond to the broad loading figures for the sludge
handling facilities.
Councilman Futch asked what the cost for installation of a centri-
fuge and additional sludge lagoons would be and Mr. Cotteral explained
that a rough estimate would be $80,000 for an oversized centrifuge
which they recommend as it would fit into the ultimate scheme and
would be included in grant funding. The sludge lagoons would be
approximately $70,000, which would include the land cost.
Mr. Lee explained that the lagoons have never been cleaned prior to
this year and the treated sludge was put in the drying beds rather
than in the lagoons which would be a way of increasing the capacity.
Mr. Cotteral explained that all of the improvements which have been
a~proved and for which the state has allocated approximately $3.6
million are located where they were indicated on the master plant
plan and a part of the total project so these are considered to
be facilities provided for in a staged program leading to the
facilities designed by Brown and Caldwell.
Councilman Pritchard asked if Mr. Cotteral is saying that the City
has never had a 5 ~GD sludge handling capacity and Hr. Cotteral
stated that he feels this is true, the City has not, because as he
has indicated the blO digesters were designed and built to handle
a 2.5 MGD plant. Not only has the flow increased, but also the fact
that the City has changed to a plant with a greater removal of
solids ability and increased the load on the digesters. Both
process and capacity has caused the digesters to be working with
reserves for a number of years.
In answer to another question posed by Councilman Pritchard, ~r.
Cotteral explained that in relatiop to the sludge handling, our
capacity is that the plant is handling what it is getting, and in
terms of flow this could be between 3.8 to 4.1 ~GD. He indicated
that they CUll' " ',l" "hr" y 1".'" hll"~lrrnw.-or could continue to work
at 20% more load for a number of years
Councilman Beebe
tomorrow and f\1r. Cotteral commente
to see a fair degree of safety f
operation. 1.?---
kr.d~~k~:&~~_
~ (I-',~ ",~" ~ {t-u .i~,U::," .~:__tL<--<'--<:-'-- ,::eL."-./~-?4-L
'~ -.. rt .~ 7-. ~(7~/.I)~- . (II, \ . cr'"1-27-l3l
--?? /~.c--- --<:- I 'l ~ /" "'lit! / l/.i~ck; ,;
"_/ . ~ ) ,:tV
([dCJ. .
if they went "belly up"
that this is why he would like
tor associated with the digester
October 1, 1973
(Re Water Treatment
Plant Flow Study)
~ayor ~1iller stated that he would like to reinterpret the remark
made by Mr. Cotteral to say that if the plant goes "belly up" there
is going to be a very large number of very angry people who do not
like a "stinking" plant.
Mr. Cotteral further explained that such would not result in a health
hazard because this could be corrected before that would occur; how-
ever it would mean an expense in terms of hiring a company in the
business of industrial treatment to take care of the matter. It is
possible that some additional capacity could be handled but it is
their recommendation that this not be overdone because a problem
does exist.
Councilman Taylor commented that the term "belly up" is not very
precise and Mr. Cotteral explained that "belly up" is describing a
system which is rather unprecise and not amenable to precise analy-
zation or control. If one of the digesters fail it might take as
long as a month to get it working properly again.
Councilman Taylor stated that two things have been discussed - the
plant flow and the sludge handling process and wondered who determines
the ability of the plant to meet the standards.
Mr. Cotteral explained that it is usual and common for the capacity
of a plant to be described in several different ways and that the
wet process is certainly the most well known and most generally
the one used by the Regional Water Quality Control Board because
this is the process with which they are most generally concerned.
Councilman Taylor commented that it is his understanding that
the flow per capita had nothing to do with the determination of
flows at the plant, and Mr. Cotteral replied that this is correct.
They were asked to determine what the actual flow through the plant
is at present in terms of average dry weather flow and the analysis
had to be limited and defined to the month of August and was not
related in any way to the flow per capita figure.
The Council then discussed the estimate for the number of gallons
per day, and per person, which Mr. Lee explained in addition to com-
menting further on a "sick digester" and stated that after the
plant is expanded and there is adequate solids handling capability
the digesters can still go sour.
Councilman Pritchard stated that it is very evident that there is
a problem which exists and the ponding and excavation is going on
to help alleviate the problem and further expansion is proposed
to handle the additional flow and he asked who is paying for this.
It appears to be the people of the community and he feels that he
and his constituents are not willing to subsidize an expansion such
as this.
Mayor Hiller stated there are two issues under discussion in this
report: (1) hydraulic flow through the plant and (2) capacity of
the digesters, and Mr. Cotteral has admitted that there are in-
consistencies in the hydraulic flow through the plant, and flows
through the plant should have been higher than reported, but it
comes out lower than previously reported. He felt that there was
obviously something wrong in the reporting either now or in the
past because there are inconsistencies. There are other kinds of
data recorded at the plant that do not jibe with respect to the
population increase. Mr. Cotteral has said there are problems
which are very perplexing, and it is now admitted that this plant
is over capacity by a factor of two. It has also been pointed out
that trucking is not a natural way to handle the sludge, but is
in fact, an effort to keep the plant which is over capacity from
getting worse than it is now. He felt that each new connection
CM-27-l32
October l, 1973
(Re Water Treatment
Plant Flow Study)
costs the whole city more, and it is being subsidized by present
residents of the city. Many times during the past year he has
had complaints of the sewer plant smelling. At the budget session
the Council was advised that the plant was not over capacity
and all was well, however he stressed it was very clear now by
Mr. Cotteral's report that the plant is over capacity and it
is obvious it has been for a very long time - over a year. There are
two or three things that can be done: one would be to form a techni-
cal committee, which he suggested last week, to find those things that
are perplexing about the hydraulic flows, the inconsistency of the
calibrations of the meters vs. what was actually measured, all of which
should be examined. He moved that a technical committee be formed
to examine the inconsistencies and anomalies in hydraulic flow through
the sewer plant; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Beebe stated he was absent at the last meeting and asked
the Mayor if he meant a technical person who has knowledge of sewer
plant operations to be appointed to the committee.
Mayor Miller stated he meant people with a technical background who
can understand the technical aspects of operating a plant to work in
conjunction with the Public Works Department and Brown and Caldwell.
Councilman Beebe mentioned that it had been said that each of the
Council members might appoint a representative, and he wondered if
this would get into a political background.
Mayor Miller stated he did not see it in that light, however Council-
man Taylor had thought it would be heavily political.
Councilman Taylor stated that since a lot had been said about his
position on the matter, it is a common assumption made that
people with a scientific background can solve most everything. In
the history of the discussion about figures and the flow at the plant
it has shown him that to some people there is only one answer and
you make up your mind ahead of time what it is. If the figures do
not come out right, you try another method. He wondered if the com-
mittee would decide by consensus what the flow is or should they take
a measured value. His point was last week that there is still some
question about the flow in the plant and is the main concern at the
moment. He felt they should hire someone who is competent if they
do not feel that Brown and Caldwell are capable, because it would
be grossly misleading the public to say they have a bunch of technical
experts, none of whom have ever seen a flow meter. He did not know
anyone that he felt was competent to evaluate the plant better than
a professional.
Mayor Miller stated he sensed that Councilman Taylor objected to
such a committee because he did not want an examination of what is
going on at the plant or a resolution of the perplexing things as he
has not offered an alternative.
Councilman Taylor responded that on the contrary, they have hired
someone to measure the flow at the plant, and the answer did not come
out according to the figures that the Mayor felt were correct so he
wanted to appoint a committee to check the figures.
Mayor Miller countered that his reason for wanting a technical com-
mittee to investigate was the fact that the meters were calibrated
and found to be 15% low in their reading, and he felt for this reason
the flow through the plant should be higher, which indicated there
was something wrong and this should be investigated. If there is a
plausible explanation and it turns out that there is nothing wrong
with the meters and the figures as reported are correct, it would
be fine.
CM-27-l33
October 1, 1973
(Re Water Treatment
Plant Flow Study)
Councilman Taylor stated that Mr. Cotteral explained that he was
employed to make a measurement and he was not asked to check
into and give his opinion on why there were discrepancies in the
past records. He has given an opinion based on his experience
with sewer plants and has pointed out that part of it is probably
the meter because it has been pointed out that there is a history
of malfunctioning with one of the meters. Councilman Taylor did
not feel it would take a committee to investigate the meter as
there is a service record of problems with the meter. Of greater
importance to him is what is to be done in the future, and if a
better analysis is wanted of what went on in the past, he would
suggest that they charter the same firm which is familiar with it
to recheck the figures. He felt this could only be done by pro-
fessional help, however, after having heard the discussion, he did
not know if the firm would be willing to go back.
Mr. Cotteral answered that they would be more than willing to con-
duct any further studies that the Council might wish in terms of
looking into any phase of the plant. Personally, with the effort
being put into the improvements that are now under design and
almost ready to go to bid, he wondered how much could be accom-
plished, from their point of view, in terms of operation of the
plant. He could not speak to the other issues being discussed.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the staff
for metering equipment at the plant, an
had not. Councilman Pritchard asked if
meter had been malfunctioning.
had turned down any request
Mr. Lee replied that they
it had been known that the
Mr. Lee explained that there really has not been a problem.. In
spite of the fact there has been trouble with the meter reading
equipment as it is getting old, when the Council asked what the
flow was, they did not merely go back and massage the records,
they made measurements independently and as it turned out, the
second time it was done, the figures were accurate. The fact is
that the Council has been given accurate answers.
Mayor Miller stated that it did not explain the discrepancy over
a period of several years in which meters were found by calibration
to be 15% low and all numbers should have been higher.
Mr. Lee stated each time this was brought to the Council's atten-
tion in talking about plant expansion, the staff provided con-
sistant reports as to what the flow was through the plant.
Mayor Miller stated he was dissatisfied with the reporting from
the Public Works Department and for this reason he was asking
for a technical committee. There are better explanations for
what is going on than an occasional fluctuating meter and when
there is a discrepancy of 30%, he felt there is some merit in
having an investigation because even if 3.8 mgd is correct, they
will reach the capacity sooner or later and they should be better
informed, closer than 30%, what the flow through the plant is.
Mr. Lee stated the fact is that the figures reported were not off
by 30% on the flow, but did match very closely what was done by
Brown and Caldwell. Also, as far as the sludge handling capa-
bility of the plant, the staff has always told the Council that
portion of the plant was operating under some stress. In a plant
such as this there are always problems as there is a lot of equip-
ment and there is always a motor to be fixed or something to be
repaired, but it does not mean that the plant is at a crisis point.
Mayor Miller stated that when a plant smells, it is not operating
properly; that is not his definition, but that of someone who
works for the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
CM-27-l34
October 1, 1973
(Re Water Treatment
Plant Flow Study)
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Cotteral if there was a firm available
they could hire to come in with equipment and measure the flow for
this month.
Mr. Cotteral replied that there were any number of civil consulting
engineers who could do this, and in fact they did bring in their own
equipment and took precise measurements of all flow elements and
took their own recording equipment and had it calibrated at the
factory immediately prior to use and verified the City's equipment
against their calibrated equipment.
Councilman Beebe commented he could not understand how any technical
committee could do any better than that.
Councilman Pritchard stated he did not want to see happen here
what happened in the other end of the valley, and if our metering
equipment is off, we might end up with one million gallons more than
we anticipated. That is his concern.
Councilman Taylor stated that with regard to faulty meters, he had
asked last week why a new meter couldn't be installed, and it was
pointed out it was part of the plan to completely replace the un-
reliable parts during the expansion of the plant, and it was implied
that from an economic point of view it would be unreasonable to do
it immediately.
Mr. Cotteral agreed since the City would be required to go out for
competitive bidding it would take about as much time as it would
to get the facilJty they were discussing, plus they would not be
able to utilize grant funds for those items.
Councilman Fu~ch stated they should be happy they have 3.8 instead
of 4.7 mgd, and felt they were getting the information from the con-
sultant that they desired. This was the first time he understood
the limitation on the plant due to the solid handling capacity and
he appreciated this information. He was disappointed he had not
gained this information from the staff at an earlier date. He felt
the information they now had satisfied their needs, and he did not
think a citizen's committee could accomplish any more.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and failed 3-2 with
Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Taylor dissenting.
Mayor ~liller stated he would like to consider further the question
of being over capacity on the digesters as there ~vere two things
that bothered him - the fact they have been over capacity for some
time and the argument raised by Councilman Taylor about some of
the discussion being political.
Councilman Taylor stated he did not raise the point about the
discussion being political, but rather the idea of appointing a
citizens' committee would be more political than technical.
~1ayor ~1iller stated he would like to talk about the political
aspects of an over capacity sewer plant, and he would raise the issue.
Since the plant has been over capacity for some time and since the
issue has been brought up before when there has been an argument
over the issuance of building permits and since the majority of
the Council has been very anxious in recent times to issue building
permits to the three mass builders of the City, none of this
question would have corne up that there was a problem with the
sewer plant. Everybody denied there ~vas anything wrong with
the plant and everything was operating perfectly, but it
C~1-27-l35
October l, 1973
(Re Water Treatment
Plant Flow Study)
turns out now that everybody admits, after authorization of some
550 building permits has been issued, we are over capacity and
have been over for some time. That is political. What the
Council needs to do is that in order to balance the community
which is heavily residential, they need more industrial and
commercial and they must find a way to reserve what capacity
there is in the plant, and hopefully that which they will gain
by the project outlined, and he felt a motion would be in order
to direct the City Attorney to look for a mechanism by which
the added capacity of the sewer plant could be reserved for
commerce and industry.
Councilman Beebe stated he would make a motion that a portion of it
be reserved, but what portion, since Mayor Miller has stated there
is no reserve at present. If it is meant that a portion be re-
served in the future, they should wait until they see what the
capacity will be.
Mayor Miller clarified his statement by saying they should not be
issuing any building permits until the new sewer plant expansion is
finished and they find out what the operating characteristics are.
Then they should reserve that which remains for industrial and com-
mercial.
Councilman Beebe commented that if it was his intention to locate
an industrial plant in this area and knew there could not be one
single house built for any employee he would hire, he would locate
elsewhere.
Councilman Taylor agreed that Councilman Beebe's concern was well
founded as there has been thought of reserving capacity and the pre-
vious City Attorney had been requested to check into this, but was
unable to come up with anything definite under the theory that you
cannot discriminate between various taxpayers in the City, but per-
haps the new City Attorney might come up with something, and he
would favor this being explored. Councilman Taylor pointed out
that future expansion has been essentially stopped by the moratorium,
and a limit has been set due to water, but there was never placed
before the Council even a motion to limit the building due to sewage.
The Council had instructed the staff to inform them of the number
of a limitation based on sewage in sufficient time to be able to do
something about it. If they simply say they will stop connections
to the sewer plant because they are worried about subsidizing growth
at this point, the only real effect will be to cut off industrial
developers such as Sears and Southern Pacific who are ready to
connect to the plant. It will not affect residential construction
in any way whatsoever because that has already been stopped because
of water and the general plan ordinance. It would do the City no
good to call a moratorium to connections to the sewer plant.
Councilman Futch moved to table the discussion since it was on a
report and there was no action to be taken, but the motion did
not receive a second and was, in fact, withdrawn after
Mayor Miller pointed out that there was already a motion on the
floor made by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Beebe moved that the City Attorney be directed to inves-
tigate alternatives for reserving some sewer capacity for commercial
and industrial uses. The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor
and passed unanimously.
COW~UNICATION FROM PITTSBURG-
ANTIOCH BART EXTENSION COMM.
A communication was received from the Pittsburg-Antioch BART exten-
sion Citizens Advisory Committee concerning a letter sent to Senator
CM-27-l36
October 1, 1973
(Communication re
BART Extension)
Alan Cranston regarding his bill to provide $2.3 billion for mass
transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council reaffirm the efforts of the
people in the Pittsburgh area to get an extension of BART at the
earliest date into their area. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Futch and Councilman Pritchard suggested that they send a copy of
the letter to Senator Nejedly and Senator Cranston, which passed un-
animously.
COMMUNICATION FROM
SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
RE BUILDING ACTIVITY
A communication was received from Sunset Development Company in
which Mr. Masud Mehran stated he would like to continue his building
activity in Livermore and requested that the Council allow him to pro-
ceed with a tentative tract map.
Mayor Miller asked if there were any comments to be made, and Coun-
cilman Taylor remarked that it was understandable for a builder to
make such a request in order to make his future plans to stay in
business, however he could see no way that the Council could satisfy
his concern at the moment especially since there is a moratorium that
is and will be in effect for at least fifteen months yet, and only at
that time could they remove it from the moratorium area. He could see
no basis for granting such a request as it would be a special privilege
to one particular developer, however if there was a parcel large
enough that the Council would consider for residential development
anyone could purchase it.
Councilman Beebe commented that this referred back to what he had
spoken of previously, but had no support from the Council, the previous
City Attorney had advised the Council that after the Planning Commis-
sion made a study of a general plan area, the area must be released
into the citizens' !;buildable pool" and the "buildable pool!; con-
sits of only 550 permits of which approximately 400 have already been
issued. He asked if the Council intended to use this as a legal tool
and open up other areas for future development to be controlled by the
number of permits available.
Councilman Taylor stated there may be some areas getting a complete
general plan review, and the Council might want to consider them for
release, and '1ayor Hiller commented that until they do the subject of
the letter was irrelevant.
The Planning Director stated there are two areas which will be pre-
sented to the Council in a couole of weeks, and there are two more
planning units under way, and two others that the Planning Commission
may decide not to do a specific plan for because there would be no
purpose.
r1ayor Miller stated one thing remalnlng is the condition that must be
imposed at the end of the general plan review period is the holding
capacity for all the planning units which they expect to change.
Councilman Futch stated he could understand the developers concern
and need to plan ahead, but on the other hand the developer is aware
of the general plan review and should take this into account. He
remarked that the developer had done a lot for the community which
he appreciated and hoped he could remain in Livermore, however he saw
no way the Council could make a decision as requested at this time.
Councilman Pritchard commented that he felt the best thing for the
Sunset Company to do is to keep a finger on the pulse of the different
CH-27-l37
October 1, 1973
(re Sunset Development
Building Activity)
individuals working on the general plan review about certain areas
and keep avenue of discussion open as to what areas could possibly
be used for development.
Councilman Taylor remarked that this advice may be misleading as
the citizens working the the general plan could not come up with
this type of information.
Mayor Miller felt it was the consensus of the Council that they
are not in a position to do anything specific about the request
in view of the ordinances.
Masud Mehran stated he believed in frank talk and this was the
reason he wrote the letter and appreciated being able to discuss
the matter with the entire Council present. Since his business
demands advance planning if they are to build in the future and
since they have been building for the past 22 years in Livermore,
he felt he owed it to the Council to state the facts 'as they are.
As a result of his company's operation in the City, he felt there
is a stable community, many satisfied home owners, some million
shrubs and trees, several schools, parks, apartments, office build-
ings - something they are proud of, and the Council has expressed
their appreciation. The real issue is whether the City desires
to have Sunset Homes continue to build in Livermore, and if so,
they should be given some indication to go ahead by finalizing
various areas and negotiating with property owners of certain parcels
of land that the Council might wish to see developed. The General
Plan study is to see that the land within the boundaries is planned
appropriately to give the city balance. If an area is 95% built
and 5% unbuilt on which only single family detached houses are
allowed, he did not feel it would take two years to study this,
and this was the type of parcel he had reference to. Not only
would he be willing to have the Council designate what they would
like for him to develop at his risk, but after a tract map is filed,
if for some reason this Councilor a future Council would not wish
the tract developed, his company would agree to that. It was not
his intention to seek building permits but only purchase the land
and plan for development at such time as the City would allow it,
but he cannot have a vacuum for eighteen months, leave the city
and come back, and would like to have some direction from the Council.
Mr. ~1ehran stated if there are some ways and means that the Council
and his company can work together, he will be open for discussion.
~1ayor ~1iller commented that the Council understands Mr. Mehran's
intention however the issue is not whether or not they want Sun-
set Development, but whether the law can be applied equally to
all.
Councilman Taylor remarked to Mr. Mehran that there is nothing
that stands in his way or that of any other builder from buying
a piece of property, drawing the map and presenting it to the City,
but the Council may not be able to process it until a number of
things occur.
Mr. !-1ehran replied that his company does not speculate, but only
buys land in order to develop it.
Mayor Miller advised Mr. Mehran that his position is the same as
all other builders in the city who have no more permits, however,
Mr. Mehran countered that this was not a true statement because
there were no others who have been building in Livermore for 22
consecutive years; no other developer has honored all of their
commitments; no other has stated that they would build on a par-
cel picked by the Council.
CM-27-l38
October 1, 1973
LAS POSITAS GOLF COURSE
AND CLUBHOUSE H1PROVEMENTS
The City Hanager reported that an easement had been sold to Zone 7
for the proposed cross valley waterline. The easement is on golf
course property and the sum of $l5,266 has been received therefrom.
Many physical improvements are desirable to the course and the
clubhouse from the standpoint of increasing golf play and improving
merchandising conditions. Mr. Parness stated the staff has been
reluctant to ask for any funding for improvements except those that
are absolutely critical. Because of the money received from Zone 7
he would recommend that it be approved for use to improve the gounds
at the course, including some paved cart paths, grading, drainage
and expanded sprinkler system, and the expansion of the Pro Shop area
which will make possible an improved snack bar operation.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that rather than approving this expen-
diture that the money be placed in time deposits to reduce the tax
rate by one cent next year.
Councilman Taylor stated that since the $15,000 is expected to pro-
duce revenue, one must justify the expenditure, and since they do
not wish to increase the losses, if additional money is received it
should be used to pay back the city for the subsidy.
Mr. Parness stated he could not give the Council a cost benefit
analysis. There are guides as to what retail floor space might
afford, and he could give an accurate report on the present retail
return on the present quarters, and he added they are very deficient
in all respects, and he felt 'vith more space the retail sales would
increase significantly, and we get a percent of the gross return.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the money be denosited in a time
deposit and reduce the tax rate next year by one cent, however the
motion died for lack of a second.
f1ayor ~i11er commented that he agreed with the principle Councilman
Pritchard had in mind, and his first reaction would be to apply the
$15,000 to the deficit they expect. However, he would like to hear
some argument about the economic analysis if the money is invested
as recommended.
Leo Hoffman, 1563 Kingsport Avenue, stated that he is a golfer and
he kne'v that none of the Councilmen were, but there are a lot of
needed improvements and the Pro Shop and snack bar are deficient
and costing revenue from people who come from other areas. If the
Council is interested in the course onerating in the black, he felt
the Council should approve the recommendation of the City o1anager.
Councilman Beebe moved that the discussion on this item be continued
until next week for an economic analysis. ~1otion was seconded by
Councilman Futch and anproved 4-1 v!ith Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
GENERAL PLAN REVISION -
AREA AT CONCANNON BLVD.
& HOLMBS ST.
A report was suhmitted from the Planning Commission regarding a
general plan revision for the area at Concannon Blvd. and Holmes
Street which matter must be set for public hearing before the Council.
A motion was made by Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and approved unanimously to set this matter for public hearing on
November l2.
cr'l-27-l39
October 1, 1973
SU~1ARY OF ACTION
PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of
September 25 was noted for filing.
MUNICIPAL CODE
MmNDMENT RE ALARMS
A ~1unicipal CodeAmendment regarding alarms had been introduced at
the last meeting at which time it was decided that the fees for
false alarms should be deleted.
Mayor Miller stated he had a few questions that had been asked of
him, one being if a permit is required for alarms for residences,
and Chief Ronald Lindgren stated they would not be required to pay
a fee, however, if an alarm is installed, a person is required to
obtain a permit from the Police Department. Mayor Miller then asked
if the false alarm requirement would apply for a residence, and the
Chief stated it would not because they are not connected to the Po-
lice Department building.
Councilman Taylor moved the second reading and adoption of the
ordinance regarding alarms, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Dick ~~enburg, Pacific Telephone Co., asked if he could request a
minor wording change, if it is possible, stating it was his under-
standing that this ordinance was not aimed at regulating the telephone
company and asked that this be stated in the ordinance as this could
stop any future conflict. If there is a conflict between a City law
and a PUC ruling their company would have to abide by the PUC ruling.
He felt that the ordinance might be interpreted by a future Council
as intending to regulate the telephone company or call it an alarm
company since they do connect the alarm company with the police de-
partment. He pointed out that the change he would request was in
paragraph 3B.2 (b) and that the wording be, "Exemptions: the pro-
visions of this chapter are not applicable to (1) audible alarms
affixed to motor vehicles, (2) public utilities in the business
of providing communication services and facilities which are regulated
by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California".
He stated that similar wording has been adopted in ordinances of
this sort in several other cities in the Bay Area.
r1r. Wharton explained that the gentleman from the telephone company
had already contacted him in this regard; however the ordinance had
already been redrafted to meet the Council's specifications, and if
there are other changes, he felt the Council should instruct him to
incorporate them rather than having him make a correction and bring-
ing it to the Council. He has checked the wording, and if the Council
so desires the wording to be included it is acceptable. The ordinance
would have to go back to first reading as a result of the additional
language.
Councilman Taylor stated if this clause is included in the ordinance
he wondered if the City would have any business even investigating
or questioning whether a false alarm was the fault of the telephone
company. He did not feel it was necessary because if the ordinance
states the City intends to regulate the phone company, it should be
of no concern to the phone company, because state law automatically
prevails, and he thought it might put the City at a bit of a disad-
vantage.
After some discussion on this point, Councilman Pritchard stated
he would move rather than adopting the ordinance that the second
CM-27-l40
October 1, 1973
(re Alarm Systems)
reading be tabled and have the City Attorney check with PUC to de-
termine if this is usually included and if it would interfere with
their relationship with the tele~hone company, and the motion was
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller remarked that there were two motions on the floor and
Mr. Wharton was asked for his opinion at this time, and he stated
that if what Mr. Piepenburg said was correct and if it is included
in the ordinance and is in conflict with anv provision of the PUC,
obviously the Commission's rules would prevail. If the ordinance is
adopted it will be effective unless there is something supervening
at the state level. He was certain the PUC would advise them the
same opinion.
Lee ~1cDonald questioned the installation of the alarms and how it
would affect the local businesses. Chief Lindgren stated the ordi-
nance would be effective upon occupancy of the new Police building,
and a contractor who would be regulated by the ordinance would be the
City's representative in the alarm business. Part of the ordinance
provides a fee structure similar to the fees being paid now by per-
sons having alarm systems to the police building. The advantage will
be a uniform type of receiving unit in the police building and a uni-
form set of fees. He explained that a $5.00 monthly fee would be
charged for maintenance of the alarms and the $30 initial fee will
be paid for transfer to the new station.
Mrs. Ruth Schrawver, 680 Meadowlark, stated that the ordinance
indicates 'that there is a permit reauired from anyone who has an
alarm system and also a fee which is to be established by resolution.
The Police Chief assured her that there was a permit required for a
residence, but no fee and it was the intention of the Police Depart-
ment in referring to the fee schedule that it would reflect a zero
fee for a homeowner. There is no set fee schedule indicated in the
ordinance as it was felt this should be passed at a later time.
Dave Wharton, City Attorney, exnlained that the question is whether
the Council wishes to establish as a policy that there shall be no
fee. What the Chief proposes to do administratively is to see that
when the fees are promulgated there is a zero fee which means that
five years from now he might decide to charge a dollar and the ordi-
nance would not have to be amended in order to do that. On the other
hand if the Council enacts a provision \vhich specifically states that
there will be no fees for home alarms, then the ordinance would have
to be amended later on.
At this time the Council voted on the motion to adopt the ordinance
which passed unanimously.
0RDINANCr. ~O. 830
AN ORDINANCE N1ENDING THE LIVERHORE CITY
CODE 1959, BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF A
NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 3B, RELATING TO ALAR"1l
SYSTEJ"~S .
Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt a policy which will state that
there ~~ill be no fee for residential alarm systems, seconded by Council-
man Beebe and which passed by a unanimous vote.
A resolution will be prepared later stating the fee schedule, as pro-
posed by the Police Chief, with a zero fee for residences.
CM-27-l4l
October l, 1973
Z.O. ORD. AMEND.
RE LOTS OF RECORD
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the ordinance amendment regarding lots of
record was continued to next week.
INTRODUCTION OF Z.O.
AHEND~1ENT RE SIGNS
The Council discussed the draft of the ordinance amending sections
of the sign ordinance and Mayor Miller moved that the Council adopt
the Planning Commission's recommended version of the sign ordi-
nance with the exception of changes recommended by him in Section
2l.7l S 2. and 2l.7l. S 4. to not exceed 32 sq. feet for open land
uses. The motion died for lack of a second.
The Council then discussed signs in windows and the length of time
they should be allowed for promotional or advertising purposes, and
Councilman Taylor pointed out that in his opinion a 30 day limit
would be too hard to enforce and moved that the ordinance be intro-
duced, as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the exception
of omitting the 30 day limit as specified in Section 2l.72 E. 4., and
with the wording changes suggested by Mayor Miller, seconded by Council-
man Beebe.
Mayor Miller moved to amend the motion to change Section 21.71 S 4.
to 32 square feet rather than 64 square feet and the motion died
for lack of a second.
The main motion passed by a unanimous vote.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Report re David
Kirk Property Dispute)
Mr. Lee reported that according to the Council's suggestion the
City has met with Mr. Kirk and his neighbor in an effort to resolve
the water drainage dispute and that they have come to an agreeable
solution.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(re Isabel Freeway)
Mr. Parness reported that the State Highway Commission has come to
the conclusion that the Isabel Freeway proposal for the intended
freeway connecting Sunol and I-580 will be discontinued and the
formal action they have taken is to refer the matter back to its
staff for restudy as to all the ramifications in so doing. He
stated that the matter is very important and a position should
be expressed by the Council as soon as possible.
Councilman Taylor stated that he feels it is very important that
the Vallecitos Road be connected to I-5aO to bypass this City and
would hope that this would be designated as a state highway. An
extension all the way from Sunol is another matter and he could
see why the state might possibly be discouraged with the cost.
Councilman Taylor then moved that the Council make a very strong
plea that the route from Vallecitos to I-580 be designated as a
state highway to get the traffic out of the center of our City,
seconded by Councilman Beebe and which passed unanimously.
C!'1-27-l42
October l, 1973
(re Changes Proposed
for the Williamson Act)
/--
Councilman Beebe commented that the Alameda Planning Commission has
proposed some changes for the Williamson Act known as the Greenbelt
Act so that anything under 20 acres may not be put in the greenbelt,
except in special cases, which he felt is reasonable; however there
has been some mention of excluding anything under lOO acres from the
greenbelt area which he felt would be particularly harmful to our
area and we should be protected so as to eliminate pressure for more
development.
Mayor ~iller agreed that anything between 20 and 100 acres should be
allowed in the greenbelt area, as did the other Councilmen and Council-
man Beebe stated that he plans to attend a hearing on the subject
tomorrow.
(re SACEOA Meeting)
Councilman Futch stated that the SACEOA Board had an emergency meeting
to try to work out something with the state at which time SACEOA de-
cided to hold a hearing so that the federal OEO could make some
decision. The federal OEO concluded that SACBOA would be given 90 days
additional funding and no decision has been made, as yet.
(re Sponsoring the
'73 Arts Festival)
Councilman Pritchard stated that the Council has been asked to sponsor
the '73 Arts Festival, to the amount of $10 and that he has said
the Council would act as sponsor.
ADJOURNMENT TO AN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
There being no further business to corne before the Council, Mayor
~1iller adjourned the meeting at ll:20 p.m. to a brief executive
session for the purpose of discussing appointments.
APPROVE
fJ~ 3-.). ~
~"layor
,
(~j .. . / " ;:
ATTEST',-.--(,_t>ttLL//L-c/ \ ~ it
1 "--.. r.i tv Clerk
(J Livermor~, California
CM-27-l43
Regular Meeting of October 9, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 9, 1973
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilman Beebe, Taylor, Futch, and Mayor Miller
ABSENT:
Councilman Pritchard (Seated Later in Meeting)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF 10-l-73
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of October l,
1973, were approved, as amended.
OPEN FORUM
(re Preservation
of Historical
Train Depot)
Roger Brown, representing the Livermore Heritage Guild, stated
that the Guild and the staff have been working on trying to preserve
the train depot and in appreciation of the Council's support with
regard to the preservation and restoration of the building the
Guild presented the Council with the first gold spike.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolutions to Fill
Vacancies on Beauti-
fication & Gen. Plan
Steering Committees
The following resolutions were adopted by the Council to appoint
Norman Hong and Betty Carrell to the Livermore Beautification Com-
mittee and William E. Zagotta and Sue Scott to the Steering Committee
of the Citizens Committee on General Plan Goals.
RESOLUTION NO. l29-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. l30-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF
THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PLAN GOALS
CM-27-l44
October 9, 1973
Resolution Declaring
Intent to Annex North-
front Road Area
RESOLUTION NO. l3l-73
~
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE TO ANNEX UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNA-
TED AS "NORTHFRONT ANNEX NO.1" AND DIRECTING THE
FILING OF APPLICATION WITH THE LOCAL AGENCY FOR-
MATION COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote the Consent Calendar was approved with the deletion
of the bicycle matter, to be discussed at the end of the meeting.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE
GOOD SAMARITAN HOME RE
PROPERTY USE INQUIRY
An inquiry has been received from the Good Samaritan Home organization
in which they seek the assistance of the City in allowing a residential
structure located at l639 portola Avenue, to be used for a centralized
office accommodation for their services and other welfare agencies.
Mr. Musso reported that such a use would not be permitted within the
RL-6 Zone but subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit the
use could be allowed. He would caution, however, that approval
for non-residential uses is another step toward what appears to be
the ultimate strip commercialization of the portola Avenue entrance
to the City.
Mr. Parness explained that Mrs. Joan Sparks, Director, has contacted
him to discuss the matter and has stated that it is the desire of
the organization to locate facilities that would accommodate her
group as well as one or two other agencies in the same field, adding
that it is not an easy task to find a suitable location and at the
City Manager's recommendation has sent an informal letter of inquiry
to the Council regarding the possibility of the portola site.
Mrs. Sparks, Director of Good Samaritan Home, 948 Foothill Boulevard,
Oakland, stated that a few years ago she moved from this area and
was aware of the void in the provision of certain services to people
who are in need, and has looked and looked for a place to house such
services, adding that there has never been a complaint from a neighbor
with regard to their offices.
Councilman Taylor stated that if the use could be considered quasi-
public and allowed under a Conditional Use Permit he would rather
do this than rezone the property, with which Councilman Beebe also
concurred.
Councilman Futch stated that a CUP would be the preferable procedure,
in his opinion and would recommend that the matter be referred to the
staff for referral to the Planning Commission as to whether this
would be appropriate with the proper definition as to the use.
Mayor Miller stated that he is sympathetic with the use but expressed
concern about commercialization of portola Avenue and has strong
reservations about allowing any use which is non-residential.
CM-27-l45
October 9, 1973
(re Good Samaritan Request)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
a 3-l vote (Mayor Miller dissenting) the staff was directed to ex-
plore the CUP procedure for quasi-public use of the property and
process through the Planning Commission.
COMMUNICATION RE.
PHASE-OUT OF
CROSSING GUARDS
NEAR EAST AVE. SCHOOL
In response to the plan to phase out the crossing guards at Sonoma
Avenue and East Avenue, Leo Croce, Superintendent of the Livermore
School District has written to the Council stating his concern for
the elimination of the East Avenue crossing guard and that he feels
the temptation to use the shortcut will be overwhelming and difficult
to monitor and would appreciate reestablishment of this crossing
guard.
Mr. Parness reported that the crossing is being observed and, to
date, there have been no incidents but the area will continue to
be observed.
Councilman Beebe stated that he has passed the area when school was
over and at the time the children were leaving the school and saw
no student attempting to cross at the crosswalk area - they were
all going down to the signals.
It was concluded that the present observation is sufficient and
no action will be taken at this time and the letter from Mr. Croce
would be filed.
REPORT RE GARBAGE-
RUBBISH CONTRACT
EXTENSION WITH
LIVERMORE DISPOSAL SERVICE
A request has been received from the Livermore Disposal Service
asking the City to exercise its option to extend the current
contract, which expires December 3l, 1973, for an additional 5
year term, and it has been referred to the staff for analysis.
Mr. Parness reported that about a year ago the City participated
in a joint accounting consultant study (with about 9 other juris-
dictions) to devise a proper and understandable accounting format
to be used by Oakland Scavenger Company (Livermore Disposal) to
disclose revenue and expenditure entries for each jurisdiction,
and to permit review and conclusion of an equitable rate adjust-
ment for any of the jurisdictions. The study received careful
review by the staffs and form~lization through a joint powers
agreement to which this City is a signatory. Our City is the
first jurisdiction that has received an appeal for a contract
modification from Oakland Scavenger Company which would involve
a rate adjustment (not yet ready). The matter has been referred
to the joint technical committee established for the purpose of
implementing the new rate adjustment system, and the committee
has urged that the City postpone any action on rate adjustment
until the new system can be utilized which should be ready prior
to June 30, 1974. The Oakland Scavenger Company has agreed to
the postponement and it is recommended that the Council adopt a
motion authorizing execution of an agreemend modification with
Oakland Scavenger, containing the following conditions:
a) Term of the existing contract is extended to June 30, 1974.
CM-27-l46
October 9, 1973
(re Garbage Contract)
b) Option of the City, contained within the existing contract to
extend its coverage an additional 5 year period from and after
January l, 1974, is reduced to 4~ years from and after July 1,
1974.
c) All of the terms and conditions specified in the existing contract
will remain in effect.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt the recommendation,
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Keith Fraser, attorney representing Oakland Scavenger, stated that
they would hope that in six months something can be resolved, noting
that the last time a rate increase was increased the process was
rather cumbersome and perhaps the new system will eliminate some
of these problems.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE GOLF COURSE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
Mayor Miller commented that Councilman Pritchard had requested that
the matter of the golf course capital improvements project be
discussed when he is present and the Council moved to the next item
on the agenda.
REPORT RE JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT - VALLEY WATER
~NAGEMENT SYSTEM
Approximately two months ago the last draft of the joint powers agree-
ment for the Valley Water Management System was presented to the
Council and there were questions raised as well as concern for language
clarification is some areas. These things have been the subject
of redraft by our staff and reviewed by the legislative committee
of the public agencies and approved for modification. One item
that needs to be resolved pertains to Section XVII and the Council's
objection to the possibility of a capital indebtedness obligation
being incurred by a signatory agency during the five year withdrawal
periOd, after it has filed its intent to withdraw. The opposing
view is that without such an implied obligation a signatory agency
could, perhaps on a capricious whim, announce its intent to withdraw
because it disagrees with an intended capital indebtedness plan.
Mr. Parness explained that both sides of the discussion have some
valid points associated with it, and if something is not done it is
possible it will be done for us and we will have very little, if any,
input as to the terms and conditions of what such a program or plan
might be. He mentioned that he had composed what he felt was a fair
compromise on this point to try to reassure the critics who say a
withdrawal might be instituted by one of the signatories upon a whim,
and that is to state that all of the signatories to the arrangement
would be obligated to assume capital indebtedness within the first two
year periOd of the notification of intention to withdraw, but not
thereafter.
Councilman Futch asked if by intent he meant that the City would
only be obligated for two years if there was a large capital im-
provement that might be financed over thirty years.
Mr. Parness stated the City would only be obligated to assume a part
of that debt, two years after the City declared its intention to
withdraw and if incurred within two years, we would be obligated
for the full thirty years.
CM-27-l47
October 9, 1973
(Valley Water Mgmt.)
Councilman Taylor felt that any real large capital improvement would
have to be financed by a bond issue and probably be voted on by the
people in the Valley as he could not imagine the Board, simply by
vote, obligating a very large capital improvement.
Mr. Parness agreed with this assumption, but stated it was very
possible that the indebtedness might be voted for referral to the
electorate - a combined electorate of the entire Valley. This might
be done over the objection of the City of Livermore and the com-
bined electorate might impose it as an obligation against the entire
Valley.
Councilman Taylor remarked that it is very clear from reading the
enabling legislation for BASSA that they have complete power to
impose on this Valley an agency of their own and they have taxing
power to support it. He felt they would be pressured to do that
by the argument that the City has been unable to corne to agreement
by itself. He hoped the City does not necessarily stand in the
way of reaching an agreement in the Valley on this particular issue.
If there is to be an agency such as is proposed, the City will
have to give it some authority; the BASSA board may be controlled
in an entirely different way.
Mr. Parness stated that the major capital improvement he could fore-
see that will be entertained by this organization will be a big
major investment and will involve multi-million dollars worth of
capitalization. He would like to think it would only be referrable
to the electorate upon the consent of each of the participating
agencies through lengthy debate, discussion and conciliation, and
following their concurrence there is a possibility of subsequent
capital improvements which they will have to define.
Mayor Miller stated he saw as a major flaw in the argument raised
so far that the joint powers revenue bond can be issued without
going to the electorate as the agency has, in the present statute,
power to issue bonds without going to the electorate.
Mr. Parness stated that is not contained in the agreement, but ra-
ther the agreement says that any capital indebtedness including
the joint powers of the tax exempt bond method requires the vote
of the electorate, which was at the insistence of this City Council.
Mayor Miller further stated that the major project under considera-
tion is one that this Council is not so sure is a responsible thing -
Doolan Canyon Reservoir - and they have discussed other alternatives
when they talked about water management. He feared that the other
side of the Valley could build a sewer plant for their own purposes
and force us to pay for it, and without some kind of authority to
withdraw or veto a project not in the best interest of our con-
stituents the City could be in a bad position. He could not see
much sympathy among the Valley jurisdictions in view of what VCSD
said about spheres of influence, and mutual support seems to be
lacking in the other end of the Valley. He would like to offer
an alternative to make it harder for someone to withdraw such as
a four-fifths vote of the agencies rather than a simple majority.
He felt somebody will have to get something out of every project
proposed or there can be a withdrawal and they should make sure the
agencies really cooperate instead of two against the third. It
bothered him that each of the agencies had two representatives,
and Livermore has the largest population, and for that reason we
were not represented proportionate to our population.
With regard to the population Councilman Beebe commented that VCSD
and Pleasanton combined have a larger population than Livermore.
CM-27-l48
October 9, 1973
(Valley Water Management)
Mayor Taylor stated there is no way a major capital obligation can be
imposed without the vote of the people, and so it is not possible
for the Board to obligate the people in the Valley without a chance
to vote on it. This matter has been discussed by the other agencies
and they will not agree to a clause that, in their opinion, emasculates
the agreement, and they should keep this in mind.
Mayor Miller stated he would again suggest that a four-fifths vote is
a stringent requirement and might serve as a reasonable alternative.
Mr. Parness questioned whether he meant heads or agencies as there
would be three signatories if he meant agencies.
Mayor Miller stated he meant a four-fifths vote of the Livermore City
Council.
Mr. Parness indicated that he concurred with the Mayor's views, how-
ever he did not feel that the other agencies would accept that alter-
native, and did not know whether they would accept what he was proposing
They have to be concerned about the reaction of the review of some
parent agencies in this whole matter, and it is entirely conceivable
that it may be taken out of our hands. They are down to the wire and
are obligated to get something settled no later than the end of this
year.
Councilman Futch was asked to comment and stated he could see no
point in the suggested compromise, or the difference between two and
five years, as we would still be obligated for thirty years.
Mr. Parness explained that it would in this way - if after the first
year of the institution of this new agency there were to be contrived
a major multi-million dollar capital improvement program and the
agency decided in accordance with the joing powers agreement to refer
to the electorate and assuming that the majority of the electorate's
voice was on the west end of the Valley and they voted favorably then
that indebtedness would be imposed upon Livermore as well as the other
agencies, notwithstanding the fact that the City of Livermore has de-
clared its intention to withdraw during that two year period. If
that program were to be instituted in the third year, it would not be
applicable to Livermore.
Councilman Beebe remarked that he was not sure they would accept a
compromise, and Councilman Taylor added that the City of Livermore
has been ordered to form this Valley Water Management plan and to
form an agency that is capable of executing it, and what they are
talking about is, they want a "destruct button" on that agency so
they can push the button at any time to get out of it, and he did not
think this would accomplish the purpose the Regional Water Quality
Control Board had in mind when they ordered an agency to be formed.
Mayor Miller commented that the argument has some merit, but it also
applies to the other agencies and that fact would tend to keep them
from proposing inequitable projects. It is quite possible to have a
revenue bond issue which is paid for by sewer service charge and needs
only a majority to pass. He felt there is a lot of risk and there
should be an escape hatch.
Dave Wharton stated he had attended the same meetings that Mr.
Parness had and he had the same feeling with respect to the area of
compromise. He suggested that the Council is talking about two
different things; one, the in and out of the organization, and the
other is the determination about the projects to be undertaken. One
of the modifications that he and the other attorney will draft if it
CM-27-l49
October 9, 1973
(Valley Water Management)
is the wish of the various signatory powers, concerns what will
have to go to a vote of the electorate and the definition they
tentatively discussed was that any capital event in exess of $l
million would go to the electorate so that although there may not
be an institutional way to withdraw, anything that goes to the
electorate in effect is returned to the people who created the
institutions and valley-wide campaigns will produce an outcome that
everyone would have to live with, and everyone is entitled to one
vote and the majority, or larger fraction depending on the nature
of the plebiscite prevails, so it would seem they would have to
surrender in an organization like this a little power in order to
get a much greater influence over the problem at hand. The power
of the Board may provide the desired protection if the Council is
willing to gamble on what the electorate would do.
Mayor Miller remarked that he would like both - go to the electorate
and be within the power of the Board and the individual agencies to
veto, and that way there would be double protection.
Councilman Futch stated that to have both options - to refer it to
the electorate and have the option to withdraw is essentially saying
they do not trust the electorate. He liked the suggestion of the
City Attorney that capital improvements over a certain amount would
be required to go to the electorate, however he was not sure whether
they should require a two-third vote or a majority for passage, but
he would like all facilities to require the same fraction of voter
approval.
After some discussion in this regard the City Attorney stated that
the fraction of voter approval may be preempted by state law depend-
ing on the purpose. Mr. Wharton stated if they intend to seek uniform-
ity they should seek it at a level of effective forward motion which
would suggest not rising to the fraction of failure which is the record
of bond issues at the 2/3 level but setting an example of 50% or lower
level in order to achieve a fraction of success and maybe the legisla-
ture where it was mandated a higher fraction will take note of that example
and follow some day.
Councilman Beebe moved to accept the staff recommendation to seek the
lowering of the withdrawal period from five years to two years, and
the motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Futch proposed an amendment that they wait until Council-
man Pritchard arrives, and the move to table was seconded by Council-
man Taylor and approved unanimously.
ANNEXATION E.I.R. REPORTS -
NORTHFRONT RD. ANNEX #l &
FIRST STREET ANNEX #2
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote, the Planning Staff's analysis and Environmental
Impact Reports for the Northfront Road Annex No. 1 (No. of I-SaD be-
tween Vasco Road and Laughlin Road) and First Street Annex No. 2 (south-
easterly of the intersection of First Street and North Mines Road) was
accepted and filed.
REPORT ON MATTERS
PENDING BEFORE THE
COUNCIL - EIR GUIDE-
LINES & TRAILER STORAGE
The Planning Department and City Attorney have prepared a resolution
regarding policy with regard to local guidelines for the preparation
CM-27-l50
October 9, 1973
(EIR Guidelines &
Trailer Storage Matter)
of Environmental Impact Reports; however, the State Director of
Resourses is holding hearings ~o amend ~he guidelines and i~ has
been suggested that the City no~ amend its guidelines until after
these hearings.
The Planning Department is in the process of preparing an ordinance
to regulate vehicle storage based on its size rather than the type
of vehicle which should be completed for consideration in a couple
of weeks and will be presented to the Council for review.
The reports regarding the above items were filed, with no discussion
at this time.
P.C. MINUTES FOR
SEPTEMBER 25, 1973
Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1973
were noted for filing.
REPORT RE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES
ACTION PLAN
The City Manager reported that at the forthcoming League of California
Cities conference a great deal of attention will be given to the formal
enactment of the action plan for the League and submitted drafts of
these plans. to the Council. He explained that the League Action
Program is devoted to formulating a policy position on four critical
major fields in local government administration and are described in
the drafts. It is recommended that if the Council could resolve
a position on the respective plans the Mayor should be in a position
to officially record the view of the City, even though it is a very
large package to review.
With regard to Element I - Environmental Control and Land Use Authority
recommendation, Councilman Taylor moved that the Council endorse it
as it essentially recommends that cities should be given vastly in-
creased power over things affecting their environment, seconded by
Councilman Beebe and which passed unanimously.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
The Council briefly discussed Element II - Social Responsibilities
of Cities, and Councilman Beebe moved that this portion be adopted,
seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Futch stated that he would like to add that there is talk
about additional revenue sharing, specifically for this type of acti-
vity and we may be more involved physically in the future.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to adopt Element II.
In discussing Element III - Public Service Employee Relations, the
City Manager felt that, generally, it is a good approach to employee
relations and the kind of thing that is needed.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Taylor and by
a unanimous vote, Element III was adopted.
On Element IV - An Adequate and Equitable Revenue Base, the City Mana-
ger stated that he was involved in some of this and is on the League
Committee on Revenue and Taxation and that most of the provisions are
a conglomerate of the position, and program the League has assumed
having to do with mandatory state legislation on the matter. Mr.
Parness feels that the benefit is that in three or four pages is
is accumulated and properly stated and would certainly recommend
that it be adopted.
CM-27-l5l
October 9, 1973
(League Action Plan)
Councilman Beebe stated that this is also a strong vote against
the initiative coming up next month and so far has heard a lot
of opposition to the plan and would like to hear some of the good
points about the plan and, personally, would probably vote for the
plan. Element IV asks that the League and cities of California
oppose the proposed Constitutional Amendment
Mayor Miller stated that the only thing which bothers him is the
extension of the sales tax but it is pointed out that this is part
of a package.
At this time the motion to adopt Element IV passed 4-1 with Council-
man Beebe dissenting.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council has, essentially adopted
resolutions which favor the League's action plan and there are
a number of other resolutions which will be submitted to the
various departments for action at the League Conference and a copy
of all these resolutions have been sent to him by the League and
he will have to take a position as a representative of the Council.
Mr. Parness stated that he has a copy the Council can look at and
the Council is to review them and if there is any objection it
should be brought up at the next Council meeting.
REPORT RE GOLF
COURSE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
At this time the Council discussed the capital improvements pro-
posed for the Las positas Golf Course and Councilman Taylor
questioned the amount of distraction due to the water line to
be installed. Mr. Lee explained its pattern and the City Manager
stated it will be only a temporary distraction, and some of the
cost will be in the $10,000 budgeted amount, but not all of it.
Mayor Miller stated that appears that this is being paid for out
of the regular operating expense and the $10,000 will provide
additional things, which Mr. Parness replied is true and it is
not their intent to mislead anyone. They are stating that there
are a vast number of capital improvements to be made at the golf
course and a sum of money has been granted for this purpose which
was not budgeted and they would like to use it for these various
capital needs.
Councilman Pritchard asked what the reimbursement amount is and
the City Manager replied that the total is $15,000 and that $7,000
to $8.000 will be put into repairs for damage done by the pipe
installation.
Mayor Miller stated that it is his understanding that the damage
to the golf course will be paid out of the operations money and
the $10,000 is to be used for other things beyond what has been
approved in the budget, and Mr. Parness explained that a lot of
the $10,000 will go towards the work explained by Mr. Lee.
Councilman Taylor moved that the improvements to the pro shop and
snack bar be approved because he felt this is a good business
investment for the City, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
CM-27-152
October 9, 1973
(Capital Improvements
to Golf Course)
Mayor stated that he feels it is not necessarily a good investment,
because it is too speculative for the pro.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the $10,000 be put in a bank until
it is known what is to be done with it, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Mr. Parness stated that they would like to broaden Tee 6 and make
it like it should be adding that if the repair costs are taken from
the current budget it will mean that other parts of the course which
are deserving of other money will end up lacking. He stated that
the trees were moved in anticipation of the line going through be-
cause the equipment was available at the time which could be used
for this purpose.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like, and feels that Councilman
Pritchard would also agree, to have specific items to be repaired
set before the Council with their costs, and it may be necessary to
amend the budget.
At this time Councilman Taylor amended his motion to allow the staff
to take the money that has been given to repair the damage and use
it for such and any amount left over in the way of new capital improve-
ments should be presented to the Council for approval with the itemized
costs involved. The amendment was seconded by Councilman Futch.
At this time the amendment passed 3-2 with Councilman Pritchard and
Mayor Miller dissenting.
The main motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting, which
is to bank the remains after what has been considered for repairs.
CONTINUATION OF THE
VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM JOINT POWERS
Mayor Miller summarized some of the discussion regarding the Valley
Water Management System Joint Powers Agreement stating that the
City Manager would like the Council to approve a two year period
in which the City would be obligated to pay any capital improvements
and that the other cities involved in the joint powers agreement are
adamant that they will not budge from the five years offered as a
compromise.
Councilmen Taylor and Beebe agree with the opposition, as they feel
that if an agreement and compromise are not made with the others
involved, BASSA will take over.
Councilman Futch has not taken a position but has suggested that
possibily anything that has to with growth could go with a 2/3 vote.
Mayor Miller stated that he has taken the position of opposing the
five year period unless the City has veto power because we could be
committed, by the agency, to a massive bond issue that has no ad-
vantage to our City.
Councilman Pritchard commented that in light of recent developments
he is not sure but what we will be getting into more than we want
to, without the veto power referred to, and would be in favor of a
five year contract, only if we have veto power.
CM-27-l53
October 9, 1973
(Valley Water Management)
Mayor Miller stated that there is a motion on the floor which is
to adopt the staff recommendation which is that any capital debt
would be shared, inclusive of the term following two years after
the date of notification of intent to withdraw by any of the sig-
natories and if the Council approves this a draft will be prepared
for formal review by each of the participating agencies.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to point out the issue
he feels very strongly about to Councilman Pritchard who was absent
during the discussion, which is that legislation clearly gives BAS SA
the authority to superimpose, on any region in the area, an agency
to handle the sewage problems on a regional basis and it would be
very possible for BASSA to impose an agency similar to Zone 7 with
taxing power to supply sewage service for the entire valley. This
would mean that all the land in the Valley (County and City) would
be part of the agency and taxed. They could provide a line to the
bay and charge the tax payers of the Valley and would open up the
entire Valley to development. BASSA can take over, only if regional
agencies cannot come to an agreement and we have been ordered to
make a Valley Water Management plan and to form an agency for imple-
mentationWe have set up a plan but we really do not intend to 'have
it carried out and we will be accused of that if they set up an
agency and allow everyone to back out. He did not feel the Council
was in a position to dictate exactly how the plan should be set up.
He felt it was very important that they form the agency and get
Valley cooperation.
Councilman Pritchard stated his point is well taken about BASSA but
there is a possibility they would be no more repressive than their
own agency might be. Pleasanton's position has not been too clear
and VCSD could care less if the whole valley is houses and if
either Pleasanton or Livermore took this same attitude the other
agency could do nothing about it, and he felt the balance of the
voting power would lie in the west end of the valley, and even if
put to the vote of the people, it would not reflect the interest of
Livermore, but rather Pleasanton and VCSD. He did agree with Mr.
Parness' analysis that the other two entities would not like what
is being proposed.
Councilman Futch expressed his concern that they might be forced
to have growth in order to payoff revenue type bonds if this method
is decided upon to finance capital improvements and he cited the
example of what had happened with regard to Zone 7. He thought
perhaps these improvements should be financed by a general obliga-
tion bond.
Councilman Taylor disagreed in that he did not believe an expansion
of utilities in any way should be a general Obligation on all tax-
payers, but rather should be financed as far as possible with revenues.
Forcing expansion to be the general obligation of everybody is ex-
actly contrary to what the Council's position has been on how to
finance expansion of utilities.
Councilman Futch stated if you tell people it is not going to cost
them because it will be financed by revenue from future growth, and
then future growth does not occur for various reasons, it would be
wrong.
Mayor Miller explained to Councilman Pritchard the option which he
had suggested which would require a four-fifth vote of the Council
for a withdrawal.
Councilman Beebe explained that there was a motion on the floor
to accept the staff recommendation that the five year period be
lowered to two years for withdrawal.
CM-27-l54
October 9, 1973
(Valley Water Management)
Mr. Parness explained that the recommendation is that there still
remain a five year withdrawal period but that the cost obligation be
assumed by any of the withdrawing parties only during the first two
years of that five year period.
Councilman Futch thought that perhaps anything over a certain magni-
tude, such as $5 million, should require more than a 50% vote, and he
would like the staff to check into this possibility because he would
not like to see the valley committed for many years for an enormous
amount of money, and he still felt it should be done by a general
obligation bond. He simply wanted to be cautious and conservative.
Mr. Parness remarked that the Council should keep in mind a broader
philosophical picture and that is that they are forced into a sub-
regionalizing type of program whether they like it or not and are being
forced to participate. It is not a participation they can take or not
take at their own whim, and if they elect not to, that role will be
assumed by a superior authority. He would like to think that this
thing is going to be composed decently and with proper input from all
the participants to the extent it is going to prove workable. To say
this City can envision all kinds of problems arising and inequities
is an improper position to assume at this juncture.
Mayor Miller stated that what the City Manager and Councilman Taylor
are saying is the other entities can be adamant, and this City cannot.
They have the same problem and they must reach an agreement among all
of them.
Mr. Parness explained that they have looked at other contracts of
this nature in other parts of the state and some of them have a much
longer withdrawal period, which was pointed out to him, that they
started at with a ten year withdrawal term and finally modified it
to five years, and there was discussion among the committee that if
the Council has concerns about this indebtedness obligation they would
think about a two year limit which is another modification. The other
point is that both of the other jurisdictions' governing bodies have
authorized the execution of this agreement prior to the City of Liver-
more raising all of these changes and modifications that have been
discussed.
Mayor Miller stated there are three ideas which have been suggested:
two year time period, 4/5th vote for withdrawal and a possibility of
all bonds being general obligation bonds, and he felt these ideas
should be taken back with the concerns expressed by the Council.
Mayor Miller called for a vote on the motion at this time to accept
the staff recommendation which failed 2-3 with Councilmen Futch,
Pritchard and Miller dissenting.
Councilman Beebe moved that the two negotiators that were appointed
from the Council be replaced by Councilman Futch and Mayor Miller.
Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion and offered an amendment
that the Councilmen just suggested take the three points about bonds,
4/5 vote and the two year period and present these and see what
transpires, and the amendment was accepted by Councilman Beebe. The
motion passed by unanimous approval.
Mr. Parness pointed out that the agencies did not favor meeting again
unless absolutely necessary as the last three meetings were held only
at the insistence of the City of Livermore as the other agencies are
already agreed, however Mayor Miller and Councilman Futch felt it was
necessary that they meet again and agreed to attend.
CM-27-l55
October 9, 1973
PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE INTERIM
ZONING TO PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF CUP
An ordinance had been drafted which would amend Ord. 8l3, as amended
by Ord. No. 825, relating to the interim zoning of certain properties
to allow by Conditional Use Permit the approval of permitted uses for
lots of record and establishing standards therefor.
Mayor Miller questioned Item 7 (b) "The City has found that no
plan will be adopted for the planning unit in which the lot is
located, or".- He stated if there is no plan for a planning unit,
there should be no development.
Dave Wharton, City Attorney, stated the Council could introduce the
ordinance this evening, and instruct the staff to delete this para-
graph if it is redundant.
Motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe to introduce the ordinance, and the motion passed unani-
mously with instruction to the staff to check into the significance
of the paragraph indicated above.
ORDINANCE RE Z.O.
AMENDMENT RE SIGNS
Councilman Pritchard moved second reading and adoption of the follow-
ing ordinance, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mayor Miller pointed out that an error had been made in the text of
the ordinance which he clarified at this time, and the vote was
taken on the motion which passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 831
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO ZONING, BY THE
AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 21.71 S, RELATING TO DEFINITION
OF BUILDING FRONTAGE: 21.72, RELATING TO PERMITTED
SIGNS: 21.76 A, RELATING TO OTHER REGULATIONS: EXCEP-
TION OF CITY SIGNS: 21.78, RELATING TO CONFORMANCE:
AND THE REPEAL OF 2l.77,RELATING TO SUBDIVISION SIGNS,
ALL OF CHAPTER 21.00, RELATING TO SIGNS.
MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF
(Law Suit re Trees)
The City Attorney announced to the Council that the City had won
the law suit regarding trees that had been brought against the City
by a number of homeowners. He understands there will be an appeal
and he will keep the Council posted on the outcome.
(Hearing by State Senate
Local Gov. Committee)
Mr. Dave Wharton advised the Council that a hearing is being held
by the California Senate Local Government Committee on October 15
concerning land use planning, growth control, etc. It was his in-
tention to attend however he wondered if the Council wanted further
involvement rather than mere attendance.
CM-27-l56
October 9, 1973
(re State Hearing)
Councilman Taylor stated if it was the Council's intention to
offer any testimony that it should be discussed at this time, and
Mayor Miller indicated his intention to attend this meeting also,
and he has talked to the staff people for the committee and they
are interested in hearing testimony from the City of Livermore about
the SAVE Initiative and other things that have transpired in this
City.
Councilman Taylor stated that if it is Mayor Miller's intention to
testify on behalf of the City that he put it in writing; however,
Mayor Miller remarked if he testified on behalf of the City he would
be happy to do that but he may testify as an individual.
Both Councilman Taylor and Councilman Futch stated their feeling
that since he is the Mayor of Livermore, it would be almost impossible
to speak only as an individual; however they felt that the City
should be represented and Mayor Miller agreed to put in writing what
he planned to say concerning the SAVE issue and the water ordinance
and circulate his testimony prior to the hearing.
Dave Wharton stated that he felt the major purpose is to describe the
City's experience without necessarily editorializing about it, and
the constructive thrust of the testimony might be if members of the
Council feel there is some role that the state could or should play
in these problems, this is the time to propose it as he felt they
were looking for this kind of suggestion in this hearing.
Mayor Miller stated he would appreciate if each of the Councilmen
would give him some idea of what to include in his presentation and
he would put this altogether and then circulate it for them to read.
(Pollution Report)
Mr. Wharton advised the Council that the report regarding pollution
which they had requested will be completed and presented to them
for the next meeting on October 15.
(Heritage Site re Depot)
Mr. Wharton stated he had been asked if the depot had been declared
a heritage site under the ordinance and, of course, it was not; for
that matter nothing has been. The Heritage Guild was under the im-
pression the adoption of the ordinance had automatically made the
depot a heritage site. The ordinance is simply an available tool
which is useful under certain circumstances, and he wanted to make
sure that the Council understood the terms of the ordinance.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Traffic Problem at
Murrieta and Olivina)
Councilman Taylor stated there is a very serious traffic problem at
the corner of Murrieta Blvd. and Olivina Avenue where stop signs
have just recently been installed and the cars are being backed up
on Murrieta Blvd. and he asked the Public Works Director if there
was something that could be done about this.
Mr. Lee explained that he had referred the matter to the Police
Chief, and he had an officer observe the traffic during the rush hours
and he reported back that the traffic did not back up to the rail-
road track and cleared quite rapidly. The Chief will continue to
observe it and if it seemed to cause an excessive delay he would
let him know. Mr. Lee mentioned that he plans to report to the
Council regarding a signal at this intersection.
CM-27-l57
October 9, 1973
(re General Plan Review
and Filing Tentative Maps)
Councilman Futch stated that there are a number of areas which will
not undergo major changes by the General Plan review and suggested
that the Planning Commission be directed to consider these areas,
make recommendations to the Council and then the Council will be
able to modify the ordinance so that tentative maps can be filed.
He felt that it is bad, politically, that no tentative maps are
being allowed and that there are areas of the City which are known
to be residential with no significant change in density from that
presently planned and should be so designated and an ordinance modifi-
cation made to allow tentatives for these areas.
Councilman Taylor stated that prior to making any such change he
would like to look at the Planning Commission's priority list.
Councilman Futch explained that he is not suggesting that every
planning area be released, but there should be some areas within
the City which the Council could consider opening up again.
Mayor Miller stated that every time a tentative is approved there
is a perpetual obligation and expressed concern for deciding whether
or not there is to be a density change and felt they should wait
until the General Plan review has been completed.
Mayor Miller stated that it is the consensus of the Council, with
the exception of him, that the Planning Commission should be directed
to review the areas a significant density change is not expected
and consider allowing tentative maps to be filed for these areas,
and asked that the staff relay this direction to them.
(re Not Allowing Dogs
on the Quezaltenango
Parkway)
Councilman Pritchard stated that there are signs at the entrance to
the Quezaltenango Parkway stating that no dogs are allowed and wondered
if the ordinance can restrict dogs on leashes. He stated that he
agrees that there is a problem but wonders if it is legal to prohibit
them if they are on a leash, and apparently the sign is doing no
good at all.
The staff will look into the matter and report back to the Council
at a later time.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor
Miller adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. to a brief executive
session for the purpose of discussing legal matters and appointments
to the Beautification Committee and Planning Commission.
APPROVE
()~3j.~,
Mayor
/ /
ATTEST C(fl; fFrj(j
;1
I;
I'
f,/"j . I
- _ (~> C l! -f:~/l~_.
City Clerk
/ Livermore, California
CM-27-l58
Regular Meeting of October 15, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 15,
1973, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Miller
presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (Seated Later)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF OCT. 9
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of October 9, 1973,
were approved, as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
(Vicious Dog Complaint)
Gene Engles, 1911 Helsinki Way, stated that there has been a problem
of a vicious dog on his street and that when the police were con-
tacted he was informed that there is nothing that can be done. He
stated that the dog attacks children riding back and forth in front
of the owner's house and that his son has been bitten, rather severely,
on the back. He wondered if something can be done as there is a
sign posted on the house which states that the dog is a "watch dog"
but small children cannot read a sign. The Police Department
apparently tried to take the dog but since the dog has had the
required rabies shots it appears that nothing can be done and the dog
runs loose. He added that the people with this vicious dog have been
in the home only one month and during this time two children have been
bitten on the back and urged that the matter be looked into and some-
thing done.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council understands the concern of
Mr. Engles and directed the staff to check into the matter and report
back to the Council at the next meeting.
Councilman Taylor commented that regardless of what our ordinance
says, the public should definitely be protected from this type of
situation.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
NO. SANITARY SEWER
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing regarding the Northern Sani-
tary Sewer Assessment District amendment for the purpose of hearing
any objection, which is routine whenever a larger parcel is sold or
divided in any way.
CM-27-l59
October 15, 1973
(P.H. re No. Sanitary
Sewer Assessment District)
There being no written or oral comments voiced, on motion of Coun-
cilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by a unanimous
vote, the public hearing was closed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution Con-
firming Amended
Assess. District
The Council adopted the following resolution confirming the amended
assessment amending Assessment No. F-1, Northern Sanitary Sewer
Assessment District No. 1962-1.
RESOLUTION NO. l32-73
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENT AMEND-
ING ASSESSMENT NO. F-l, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-1, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Resolution Appoint-
ing Member to P.C.
A resolution was adopted reappointing Planning Commissioner Candace
Simonen to Planning Commission term commencing October 1, 1973.
RESOLUTION NO. 133-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Letter of Thanks
from Festival '73
Committee
A letter was received from the Livermore Cultural Arts Council and
the Festival '73 Committee thanking the Council for its contribution
of $300 for purchase awards and $110 for banner awards.
Beautification
Committee Minutes
Minutes were submitted for the Beautification Committee's meeting
of September 5, 1973, and were noted for filing.
Departmental
Reports
Departmental Reports were received as follows:
Airport - Activity - September
Quarter Ending September 30, 1973 and
Comparative Quarter in 1972
Yearly Report - 1972-73
Building Inspection - September
Emergency Services - Quarterly, June-September
Finance Department - Financial Reports for Quarter Ending
September 30; Revenues and Expenditures
for the 1972-73 Fiscal Year
Los positas Golf Course - Comparative Reports for Quarter
Ending September 30 and 1972-73
Fiscal Year - Revenues and Expenditures
C~-27-l60
October l5, 1973
(Departmental Reports)
Mosquito Abatement District - August
Municipal Court - August
Police and Pound Departments - September
Water Reclamation Plant - August
Payroll & Claims
There were 133 claims in the amount of $121,420.50 and 268 payroll
warrants in the amount of $75,151.06, dated October 12, 1973, for
a total of $196,571.56.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved, with
Councilman Beebe abstaining from Warrant Number 7660 on the
Payroll and Claims report.
REPORT RE PROPOSITION 1
ANALYSIS - TAX MEASURE
A report with regard to the analysis of Proposition 1, a tax measure
which ~Ji11 appear on the November ballot in the State of California,
was submitted to the Council and was prepared by the Director of
Finance and the City Manager.
The City Manager stated that it would be very difficult to summarize
the analysis as it is a very lengthy and complex measure. The League
of California Cities has prepared a lengthy report which sets forth
their concerns and states opposition to the passage of the measure.
Basically, the measure is an expenditure and tax limitation matter
and state expenditures would be limited to a percentage of personal
income of the aggregate state amount over a term of years. A
gradually declining base will be practiced by the state government
in order to achieve this enc. The primary concern of the City at this
time is the consequence it might have on local government as a sig-
nificant portion of the state budget is associated with reimbursements,
and subventions to local government. In the event the proposed solu-
tions of the measure do not come into being, it is conceivable that
some of the optional types of revenue abilities the state government has
such as cigarette tax money and other means which amount to several
hundreds of millions of dollars every year, could be impounded by the
state - this is their option, and would have a critical affect to
our financing capabilities. The proponents say that this will not
happen, but the legislative analysts indicate that there is no way
the state expenditure levels are going to be maintained through
average revenue accruals in the event of the passage of this measure.
He reported that he witnessed a debate among the proponents of the
measure and those opposed to it and that each stand firm in their
opinion of the measure. However, almost without exception, in
talking to government people the same apprehension is expressed in
the passage of the measure, and that the possible consequences to
cities and counties are very dire in the event the measure is adopted.
Also, it can only be modified by amending the Constitutional
provision for state financing methods, and in his opinion the measure
should be opposed.
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED DURING THE ABOVE REPORT.
Councilman Beebe felt that the people are really looking forward to
the opportunity to put a stop on the increasing taxes they are having
levied on their property and feels that if more thought were given
CM-27-l6l
October l5, 1973
(Proposition 1 Analysis)
to methods of financing the huge number of bills passed through
the legislature every year there would be sounder laws passed.
He stated that he regrets that this measure applies heavily to
the local cities who are more concerned than the state government,
and added that continually voting against similar measures is putting
officials in a bad light as far as the public is concerned because
something must be done.
The City Manager stated that he agrees but feels that the City
should compose its own measure and feels that it is time this
be done; however, if this measure is enacted into law and locked
into the Constitution we will be very sorry.
Mayor Miller commented that the Council did support SB-90 which
has property tax relief in it, even though the Council had some
reservations with regard to it because of some of the possible
problems. He stated that the League of California Cities also
supported the Bill and that it is somewhat unfair to say that
the League and City of Livermore have not supported tax relief
measures at all.
Councilman Beebe felt that SB-90 gave such minor relief that it
really couldn't be counted as a tax relief measure.
Mayor Miller stated that what this tax measure means is that
the people in the lower bracket will have to pick up what is
not paid by those in the higher brackets, and feels that this
allows loop-holes by which people in high brackets can avoid pay-
ing taxes.
Councilman Taylor moved that the City Council go on record as
opposing Proposition 1 and for the main reason he would like to
site the reasons stated by the City Manager - namely, that there
is a threat that the legislature may be forced to turn to impounding
our state subventions in order to make up deficits that are bound
to occur in the future because of the bill. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Futch who added that his understanding of the measure
is that it is directed primarily at the state income tax reduction
and as pointed out it will very likely have a result of increasing
the property taxes because the government is going to have to find
funds from somewhere, and feels that the property owner may find his
property taxes going up much faster.
At this time the motion passed 3-2 with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
dissenting.
REPORT RE BIKE
PATH IMPROVEMENTS
With regard to the bicycle path improvements, Mr. Lee reported that
letters have been sent from members of the Livermore Bikeways Assoc-
iation which list recommendations with regard to improvements to the
bikeway system. He then illustrated to the Council a map with the
various recommendations mentioned.
Mr. Lee suggested that before too many of the bike paths are installed
he would recommend that the City take a look at the current paths
to see if people are using these as their route of travel and
feels that Wall Street would be a good collector street for the
bike paths if another street is to be prepared for bike riders.
Councilman Pritchard wondered if the regular procedure is being
bypassed and that possibly the Planning Commission should make
a recommendation prior to a decision of the Council.
CM-27-l62
October 15, 1973
(Bike Path Improvements)
Councilman Taylor felt there must be a master plan for the bikeway
system and perhaps also a plan for staging the construction of the
paths and would like to hear from the Planning Commission regarding
the matter.
Mr. Musso felt that the improvements suggested were in the budget
for capital improvements and that the Planning Commission is not
opposed to the plans.
Councilman Beebe stated it would be difficult at this time them
to determine the use of the bikeways because, in his opinion, it is
necessary to add other areas of the City to the bike paths before
there is a major use of them, and moved that the Council adopt
the proposed improvements, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The proposed improvements are for Pine-Junction, Railroad-Maple,
Murde11-Encino and E1 Caminito-Vancouver (connecting E. Stanley
to Arroyo Road) and Councilman Pritchard felt that Wall Street
should be included and was added to the motion, and it was noted
that Railroad Avenue would be discussed further and would not be
included in the motion.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira, President of the Livermore Bikeways
Association stated that the proposals suggested by Mr. Lee would
be approved by them, as would the Wall Street proposal and would
like to point out that the old General Plan, as well as the new one,
shows the bicycle routes which have not changed and it appears that
there has been a general consensus of opinion for some time that
these are necessary and valid.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
The Council then discussed the Sunken Gardens proposal for connecting
Pacific Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue, and felt the need for a bike
route in this area is valid, if the improvements could be financially
justified, and that many of those traveling along East Avenue to get
to the Library area would use another route, if available to them.
The Sunken Gardens route was one suggested by Gordon Hamilton of the
Livermore Bikeways Association.
Mr. Parness stated that in response to the above request, the Police
Chief's comments with regard to the Sunken Gardens bikeway, as
expressed are real and based on experience. The objection was that
in the event this route is allowed, it would prevent adequate patrol-
ing by the Police Department.
Councilman Futch stated that he can appreciate the concerns of the
Police Chief but the Council must also weigh the safety factors
involved versus the types of problems which can occur in an area
which is not patrolled, and in his opinion there are other areas
which are more secluded than this would be, and felt that an adult
or child being hit by an automobile is a more serious problem.
Mr. Parness suggested that the Council consider temporary accommoda-
tions on the south side of East Avenue to cross to Delores Street.
Mayor Miller stated that for the time being he would have to agree
with the comments made by Councilman Futch.
Mr. Lee had suggested that a surface made of a hard material be
installed and wide enough to accommodate a car for the purpose of
police patrolling if necessary, and for emergency vehicles.
The City Manager emphasized that to put a bike path through the
Sunken Gardens area would encourage use by women and children and
there could be problems created because of it, adding that the area
is not lighted at night and a path would encourage use.
CM-27-l63
October 15, 1973
(Bike Path Improvements)
Councilman Beebe expressed concern for putting a bike path in
the Sunken Gardens area until it is more fully developed because
of the comments made by the Police Chief.
Councilman Taylor felt that the area is being used and that heavy
usage would actually make it a safer area because people would be
passing at more frequent intervals, and moved to adopt the pro-
posal set forth by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. Hamilton explained that the area is being used and felt it
would be better to make it more accessible and stated that the
Livermore Bikeways Association has no objection with the Council's
adding any type of improvements they would like.
The motion passed unanimously at this time.
Mr. Lee stated that William Raymond with the Livermore Bikeways
Association has asked that some provision for bicycles be made
on Railroad Avenue from Stanley Boulevard to First Street and
that he has prepared a memorandum for the Council showing the
outline for costs of widening and planted areas which Mr. Raymond
has stated was not what he had in mind. Mr. Raymond has submitted
plans which would eliminate the medians in Railroad Avenue planned
for left turn and merging lanes. Mr. Lee stated that he would have
, to oppose this suggestion due to the amount of traffic generated
along Railroad Avenue and the need for the left turn lanes and
merging lanes in the future. with regard to the other two pro-
posals Mr. Lee stated that he feels the other two are equally
unacceptable proposals.
Mr. Wendt, speaking on behalf of Mr. Raymond, stated that he has
worked with Mr. Raymond on the proposals and it is felt that the
City should consider the bikeway along Railroad Avenue while
negotiations are going on with Southern Pacific over the right-
of-way and other matters related to the development of this area
into the proposed shopping center, and asked that the Council give
consideration to providing reasonable access through the downtown
area and if the Council feels the most appropriate means is to acquire
additional right-Of-way they would urge that this be done. However,
it appears that the easiest solution would be to work within the 88-ft.
right-of-way and accept a less than ideal situation for all mode of
transportation (motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian).
Councilman Pritchard felt the matter deserves more study than can
be done at this time and this is getting into areas where long range
planning is called for so he would suggest that the matter be referred
to the Planning Commission for some kind of recommendation that will
satisfy all the problems and moved that this be done, seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
Mr. Wendt asked if a stipulation could be added to state that no fur-
ther commitments or development will be permitted on Railroad Avenue
until the question of the bicycle paths is resolved and Mr. Lee
reported that commitments have already been made and explained the
status of the matter.
Councilman Pritchard added that no further commitments will be made
and that the Planning Commission should report back to the Council
as soon as possible, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller stated that it has been the policy of the Council to
encourage bike paths and it seems that it would be useful if the
Public Works Department would try to make a design to accommodate
the traffic since there is no other east-west route.
CM-27-l64
October 15, 1973
(re Bike Paths)
Mayor Miller continued to say that with the obvious shortage
of our energy resources, it appears that the day of the automobile
as we know it at present is going to come to an end and ultimately
people are not going to be driving cars in the same sense as they
are at this time and there will need to be an alternate means of
transportation and would suspect that bicycles would be one of the
major alternatives. To continue to build the City to accommodate
automobiles as we presently see them may be a 20 year mistake.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed unanimously.
REPORT RE CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR AIR QUALITY
The City Attorney reported that the Council has requested that he
respond to the feasibility of bringing suit against the BAAPCD,
cities west of the valley and state agencies dealing with pollution
for allowing contributions to our air pollution and that such a law
suit could, depending on the identity of the defendants, request an
injunction prohibiting activities which add to air pollution, request
damages, or ask for a writ of mandate directing the performance of
official duties connected with air pollution abatement. He felt that
consideration should be given to the City's ability to support claims
that foreign sources contribute to our pollution by using statistics
and stated that a study of the sources of pollution has not been
conducted for a period of five years. He reported that the type
of action most dependent on strong statistical support is a tort
action for damages and the three tort theories on which a defendant's
liability could be based are: nuisance, negligence, and trespass,
which he explained in the report as well as explaining the legal
alternatives available. In conclusion he stated that guaranteed
success in a law suit is not a prerequisite to suit but there must
be some evidence supporting any claims made by the City and that
such evidence even in a suit with little chance of success might
have a beneficial effect on the conduct of any possible defendants.
Mr. Wharton commented that the federal government had the responsibility
to deal with the problem on a much broader basis and has made promises
that it has not been able to keep which demonstrates some of the
problems the City faces. He cautioned that unless we have proof
of our claims we should carefully consider the option of going to
court, and a great deal of non-legal research may have to be done
before the City would be in a position to take legal action.
Councilman Beebe agreed that there must be some evidence upon which
to base our action and feels that we could corne up with the proof
needed. He pointed out that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is
putting pressure on us because of the pollution in the Niles cone and
we should be able to do the same with regard to our air quality.
The measurements for the valley is public information and it has
been definately shown that this year there has been an astounding
increase in air pollution over the past two years.
Mr. Wharton agreed that we do not need to prove that we have bad
air but the major problem is who is sending it or did we produce
it ourselves, and this is really a difficult task to undertake.
Councilman Taylor wondered if the City Attorney is saying that
it appears there is nothing solid on which to base a case, and
the City Attorney replied that he feels a case must be made before
the City files a suit and tried to determine from what was available
in our City records and a few outside contacts where we were today
and where we are today is not where we would need to be were we to
take a significant, well founded law suit.
CM-27-l65
October l5, 1973
(Law Suit Proposal
re Our Air Quality)
Councilman Taylor stated that when this matter was suggested by
Councilman Beebe, originally, he agreed that some legal action
should be taken but it appears that we do not have enough data
to present a good case and that he still feels something should
be done but does not know what can be done at this time.
Councilman Beebe felt the BAAPCD will never listen to arguments from
the City of Livermore on a political approach and they know the
cities west of the valley are polluting our air because they are
allowing development elsewhere which puts additional smog in the
valley. He agrees that the problem should be pinpointed and feels
that it can be done and moved that the Council pursue the matter
further and obtain the evidence that will give us the basis for a .
suit and to file suit when the evidence has been obtained and
whether or not a writ of mandate should be requested can be decided
upon later. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mayor Miller agreed that the City should go ahead but that we do
not have sufficient evidence and recommended that the Smog Commit-
tee be reactivated and give them the task of collecting the data
to provide the evidentiary material. He pointed out that the Smog
Committee collected data and that there are air flow patterns and
tests of where smog comes from and that he has seen drawings of
the flow pattern.
The City Attorney commented that this would be sufficient material
for evidence.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to amend the motion
to reactivate the Smog Committee and work with the City Attorney
in getting the necessary figures.
Councilman Taylor commented that the Smog Committee was not made
up only of Livermore people but also Pleasanton for a valley
Smog Committee and since this is a valley problem he would suggest
that Pleasanton and Dublin be contacted and asked to join with us
in taking action, and moved to amend the motion to reflect this.
The amendment was seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Beebe felt this would not be a good idea because Dublin
and Pleasanton have not been "shut down" and since they have higher
growth standards they would not likely have their heart in the
matter.
Mayor Miller pointed out that the Smog Committee was not sponsored
by Pleasanton or Dublin but that these cities had been invited to
send a representative if they so desired. It was a Livermore Com-
mittee and was so titled, even though John Long participated as
a representative of Pleasanton. If they would like to join Liver-
more this would be fine, but so far they have not responded to any
type of thing like this in the way of supporting Livermore's action.
Councilman Beebe felt that to include Pleasanton and Dublin in form-
ing a committee could stall the action and indicated that they should
be invited to be present but the committee should be only Livermore's.
Mayor Miller felt that Pleasanton and Dublin would not be interested
in sharing the burden of the law suit and for this reason felt that
it should be Livermore's committee.
At this time the amendment to the motion failed ~3with Councilmen
Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Miller dissenting.
At this time the main motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Futch suggested that perhaps the EPA could be asked when
their regulations will reflect the court mandate.
CM-27-l66
October l5, 1973
(Law Suit Proposal)
Mayor Miller thought it might be a good idea to inform them that
the City is considering legal action, but Councilman Beebe felt
this might be a stalling point and they might want to come talk
to the Council.
Councilman Futch felt that letters such as this might be effective
in making them uneasy because they have not responded to the court's
mandate.
The City Attorney responded by saying that he would be very happy
to work with a committee and can see that this is a concern and
priority of the Council and after meeting with the committee he
will be able to make some recommendation after obtaining the facts
and some idea of who the City intends to sue. He added that he
would like to make a suggestion that if we are going to look to
litigation the greater the cooperation with other valley governments,
the stronger our case.
Councilman Futch moved to write a letter to the EPA regarding the
concern for the delay in implementation of standards required as
a result of the court decision, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
which passed unanimously.
The City Attorney was directed to report back to the Council on
November l2th with regard to other alternate ways pressure could
be put on public agencies.
REPORT RE DEPARTMENTAL
ACTIVITIES & BUDGET
ADJUSTMENTS
The City Attorney requested a budgetary adjustment for assistance
in the ongoing legal responsibilities of his office as well as to
assist in preparation of any litigation that may develop.
The City Manager suggested that there not be action taken with regard
to a budgetary amendment and the only necessary action would be to
allow continuance of the present employee in Mr. Wharton's service,
and if necessary an adjustment can be made later.
Councilman Pritchard moved to retain the employee for the remainder
of this fiscal year for the purpose of assisting in the City Attorney's
office, seconded by Councilman Futch and passed unanimously.
REPORT RE LAND
ACQUISITION APPRAISALS
Land appraisals are needed for three parcels of land to be acquired
for the following three projects: l) Irrigation Reservoir Tank Site;
2) West Airport Clear Zone; and 3) Southerly Expansion of the Water
Reclamation Plant. It is recommended by the City manager that the
Council adopt a motion authorizing conduct of appraisals on these
properties.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by a unanimous vote, the City Manager's recommendation was
adopted.
REPORT RE PART-TIME
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN
It has been requested by the City Manager that the Council allow
Dave Budde, this years summer intern, to assist the City Manager on
a part-time basis of 20 hours a week for the purpose of doing a
survey on job performance and salary to be completed by July l, 1974.
CM-27-l67
October l5, 1973
(re Adm. Intern)
It was recommended that Dave Budde be employed through the month
of December at a cost of $700 and on motion of Councilman Futch,
seconded by Councilman Beebe and by a unanimous vote the City Manager's
recommendation was adopted.
REPORT RE IMPROVE-
MENT DEFICIT - TRACT 2619
The Public Works Director reported that a condition of the first
unit of the Bevilacqua Development, a bridge was required to be
constructed over the Arroyo Los positas on Heather Lane to assure
access through the Springtown area. Temporary culverts were
allowed and construction of the bridge was delayed by the provision
of a bond in the amount of $60,000. The second unit (Tract 2619)
is ready for acceptance by the City but the Developer has requested
that further delay of the bridge be allowed (for a period of one
year) because we are now in the wet weather period. It is recommended
that delay should not be allowed unless there is sufficient assurance
that the bridge construction will be completed during the extended
length of time and with two conditions listed in the memorandum pre-
pared by the Public Works Director with regard to the bond.
Mr. Lee stated that the developer has requested that the matter
be postponed and on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe and by a unanimous vote the matter was continued
to the meeting of November 12th.
REPORT RE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY BOARD CHECKING
PROGRAM REPORT
The Public Works Director reported that he has responded to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board's Checking Program Report
and asked that the Council approve and authorize its transmittal
to the Regional Board.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor
and by a unanimous vote, the letter prepared by Mr. Lee was
authorized by the Council for transmittal to the Regional Water
Quality Board.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
RE INTERIM ZONING RE APPRO-
VAL OF PERMITTED USES FOR
LOTS OF RECORD
The Council discussed the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow by
CUP the approval of permitted uses for lots of record and establish-
ing standards and which was explained by Mr. Musso.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by a 4-1 vote (Mayor Miller dissenting) the second reading of the
ordinance was waived and the ordinance was adopted (title only read).
ORDINANCE NO. 832
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 813, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 825, RELATING TO THE INTERIM ZONING OF
CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, TO ALLOW
FOR LOTS OF RECORD, AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS THEREFOR.
CM-27-l68
October l5, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Curb Cuts for Bikes)
Councilman Futch commented on the curb cuts for bicycles and felt
that the standards need to be reviewed, possibly by the Planning
Commission and then come back to the Council.
Mr. Lee felt that perhaps this would not really be necessary, as
the bike standards do not call for 2-inch bumps at the edge of
the ramps and if there are such ramps they have been constructed
illegally and will have to be corrected.
(SB-261 re Inspection
of Mobi1ehomes)
Councilman Pritchard stated that Senator Nedjedly has introduced a
bill (SB-261) which is a permissive type of bill and has to do with
the inspection of mobilehomes to be connected and if the local
entity does not do it, another authority can. He would therefore
suggest that Mr. Street review the bill and suggest a possible
amendment to our ordinance which would permit the City to make the
inspections. He mentioned that there is also a fee structure built
into it to take care of the cost of inspections.
Mr. Street explained that the City does enforce the Mobi1ehome
Park Act and that passage of the bill would automatically allow
the City to inspect the mobilehomes and the only reason they have
not been inspected in the past is because the state would not allow
it. The state pre-empts this field and the City can only enforce
the state's laws, and no amendment of our ordinance is necessary.
(Apology to VCSD re
the New Town)
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to take the opportunity
to publicly apologize to members of the VCSD who felt that his com-
ments were unnecessarily abrasive with regard to their help concerning
the new town. vcsd has not been asked to take a position and he would
suggest that the City Council request that the Board take a position
on the new town to see where they do stand as far as new residents
coming into the valley.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council follow Councilman Pritchard's
recommendation, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and which passed by
a unanimous vote.
(re Ambulance Operation
on portola Avenue)
Councilman Pritchard asked about the ambulance service located on
portola Avenue and Mr. Musso explained that the building is being
used for storing vehicles and equipment and not as a commercial
office. Councilman Pritchard commented that he had noticed that
the yellow pages indicate that there is a showroom located on
Portola Avenue.
CM-27-l69
October l5, 1973
(Destruction
of Crum House)
Mayor Miller asked why the Crum house was torn down on Holmes
Street in the Sunset tract; it was removed without much notice
and in an area which is dedicated to the City and the Recreation
District felt they would like to have had the opportunity to see
it and possibly they could have used it.
Mr. Parness explained that the building was not much more than
half a shell and was completely gutted, the walls were tumbled,
and it was extremely hazardous in this condition and children
were running through the property which had a lot of broken
boards with nails in them as well as broken glass. In his
opinion there was nothing to be salvaged from it and it really
was necessary that it be cleared. There was one tin-metal
storage barn which was removed through bids and the tin plating
was salvaged.
(Hearing on Growth -
State Senate Committee)
Mayor Miller commented on the hearing which was attended by
he and the City Attorney with regard to the growth matter.
The City Attorney felt that it had been concluded that this
is an area in which state regulations should be considered very
cautiously and that the desirable regulatory level should be
lower than the state, greater than the municipality, which
leaves regional government and in this area is a little more
than advisory in nature as far as powers are concerned. After
having spoken with Senator Gregorio, it was the City Attorney's
impression that the Senator would find the idea of growth regu-
lation to be best calculated on a regional basis. He felt the
views expressed by the cities of San Jose and Livermore were
similar and problems being faced were stressed by each.
Mayor Miller stated that he responded to the comment made by
Bill Leonard which was that the City of Livermore refuses to
pass bond issues in order to limit growth, by saying that the
leaders in the SAVE group have also been strong supporters and
leaders in the bond issues which have occurred in the past and
that the comment made by Mr. Leonard was not a reasonable thing
to say about either the SAVE group or the people of Livermore.
The City Attorney mentioned that in light of some of our recent
problems he would like to comment on the citation by the Mayor
of San Jose that the Santa Clara County LAFCO had been very
helpful in setting ultimate boundaries so that municipalities
in Santa Clara County could make reasonable plans as to muni-
cipal growth and similar comments had been made by a representative
of the League of Women Voters of San Mateo County.
(League Resolutions)
Mayor Miller stated that he has the resolutions from the League
of California Cities and would like the Council to state its
position on these items in order that he can represent the
City's view at the annual conference.
CM-27-l70
October l5, 1973
(League Resolutions)
Mayor Miller stated that with regard to the League's resolutions
he has followed the League's recommendations all the way down the
line with a few exceptions.
The Council then discussed Resolutions 10, 24, 46, 5l and 54,
indicating the position they would be taking.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor
Miller adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to a brief executive
session for the purpose of discussing appointments.
APPROVE
(t'\ ~ ,., '~I
~.) l!V~,__{k '7Jj. \/',j,,/JIJ.. /~
Mayor
ATTEST (
._'......
Regular Meeting of October 29, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 29,
1973, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. with Mayor Miller
presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
. ABSENT: Councilman Futch (Excused - Business Trip)
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present
in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF lO-l5-73
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of October l5,
1973, were approved, as submitted.
SPECIAL ITEM -
FESTIVAL '73 PRESENTATION
polly Schmedding, 2234 Chateau Way, representative of the Cultural
Arts Council, thanked the Council for their support regarding the
annual art festival and presented the Council with the two purchase
CM-27-17l
October 29, 1973
(re Festival '73)
awards which she identified as follows: "Rain Storm" painted by Allen
Robinson of San Francisco and the "Apple People" (a card game)
were figures done by Marguarite Hewitt which she commented is rather
fragile and would suggest that it be placed under some type of
cover and placed in the public library.
Mayor Miller suggested at this time that the Council adopt a resolu-
tion commending the Livermore Cultural Arts Council for "Festival
'73" which proposed resolution he then read to the Council.
On motion of Mayor Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by
a unanimous vote, the resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION 134-73
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE LIVERMORE
CULTURAL ARTS COUNCIL FOR FESTIVAL '73
CONSENT CALENDAR
Appt. to P.C.
Robert C. Lindgren, Jr. was appointed to the Planning Commission for
a term ending~ October 1, 1977.
RESOLUTION 135-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Robert C. Lindgren, Jr.)
Res. re Median
Const. (Sambos)
One of the conditions for approval of the location for the new Sambo's
restaurant is a median to be placed on Stanley Boulevard with
reimbursement of $2,500 to be paid by the applicant over a 5 year
period. This work has been completed and it is recommended that a
resolution authorizing execution of an agreement to provide reimburse-
ment be adopted.
RESOLUTION 136-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Sambo's - Public Works Improvement)
Payroll & Claims
There were 127 claims in the amount of $212,735.43 and 283 pay-
roll warrants in the amount of $72,397.l0, dated October 26, 1973,
for a total of $285,l32.53.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a unanimous vote the Consent Calendar was approved.
CM-27-172
October 29, 1973
COMMUNICATION FROM
FOREMAN OF GRAND JURY
RE 9ll NAT. EMER. NO.
A communication was received from the Foreman of the Grand Jury
with an enclosure of the resolution regarding the 9ll national
emergency number and the City's participation in using it.
The City Manager indicated that he is a member of the study committee
and that our City will be participating.
COMMUNICATION FROM
COUNTY RE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
A letter was received from the Alameda County Planning Commission
regarding referral of current solid waste applications to the Ala-
meda County Solid Waste Management Plan Advisory Committee in
order that they may comment on all current applications.
Councilman Taylor felt such a policy should be adopted by the
Council and so moved, seconded by Councilman Pritchard which
passed unanimously.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
RE REFERENDUM PETITION
RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
A written report was submitted to the Council regarding the refer-
endum petition recently submitted concerning the law enforcement
financial assistance program. The petition with 2650 signatures
has been filed with the City Clerk requesting a referendum election
with respect to Resolution No. ll8-73 (submittal of grant application
for the Strategic Law Enforcement Program) which, in his opinion,
was nothing more than a routine administrative step required to allow
the City and its citizens the opportunity to benefit from programs
legislated and funded at the federal and state level. He added that
the Council may, therefore, choose to do one of the following: 1)
reconsider its action; 2) take no further action; or 3) put the question
before the voters, presumably at the next municipal election.
Mayor Miller explained that a petition has been received asking
for a resolution to be reversed which directed the City to apply
for a grant to provide a joint burglary detail between the cities
of Livermore and P1easanton, and as he sees it there are four
alternatives the Council can take: 1) to voluntarily revoke the
resolution; 2) refuse to consider the petition; 3) set a special
election; or 4) set an advisory measure to be placed on the muni-
cipal election ballot next March.
Councilman Pritchard stated that even though it has been pointed out
by the City Attorney that the Council is not bound, legally, to set
the matter for election, he feels that when lO% of the electorate
sign a petition they are entitled to some kind of consideration and
would have no objections, in this case, to putting the matter to a
vote, and moved that this be included in the next municipal election
to be held in March, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Taylor felt that for good and sufficient reasons the
State Constitution states which matters are to be put to a vote
of the people and which are administrative in nature. This might
set a precedent he did not wish to set.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he does not mean to imply that all
petitions with lO% of the electorate's signatures should be voted
upon and would not agree with holding a special election but sees
no objection to including the matter in the municipal election.
CM-27-173
October 29, 1973
(re Law Enforcement
Program - Petition)
Councilman Taylor stated that in his op1n1on the petition is mis-
leading in the wording used and possibly people did not realize
exactly what they were signing. It would be misleading to put
it on the ballot and an indication that the Council cannot assess
the right and wrong of the situation, and disagrees with the John
Birch Society's view that this would be a "conspiracy".
Councilman Beebe suggested that between now and March the committee
who circulated the petition should meet with the City, read the
contents of the contract to see if it is completely binding with
the federal government and determine whether or not they can live
with it.
Councilman Pritchard stated that this will never happen because they
have already seen copies of the agreement, the resolution, and the
guidelines set forth and will never change their attitudes about it.
Mayor Miller stated that he would suggest going ahead with the
grant application and place wording on the ballot asking if the
grant should be accepted. He added that he feels the community
will support its Police Department who want the grant and will
reject the Birch Society's objection to it.
Councilman Pritchard stated that perhaps he should have clarified
that he did not mean to hold the grant in abeyance and likewise
was not suggesting that the wording of the referendum should be
placed on the ballot.
George W. Kell, 1825 Lafayette Avenue, Modesto, practicing attorney
in Modesto and former Deputy Attorney General of the State of Califor-
nia stated that he is responsible for the problem this evening, in
that it was his article which appeared in a 1968 magazine which
brought the matter to the attention of the John Birch Society and
other conservatives and distributed copies of the article to the
Council. He pointed out that he is not a member of the John Birch
Society and at the time his article was written he was not even
aware of the Society's existance. He then quoted a statement in
the case of Wickard vs. Filburn 317 us lll, "it is hardly lack of
due process for the federal government to regulate that which it
subsidizes", which was a statement made by the Supreme Court, and
which says that what the government subsidizes in the form of police
subsidies it has a right to control. He stated that this is im-
plicit and explicit in the legislation before the Council, and
that this should be recognized. In his opinion, when the Committee
pointed out that this would result in alterations in the Police
Department to satisfy federal regulations and controls they were
correct and this is explicit in the legislation. He pointed out
that there is no segment of our society more fully regulated by
the federal government than the agricultural field which he used
as an example of what can happen. He felt that if the people have
a chance to see what is on the police control bill they would
completely reject it. This is not local pOlice but federal police
legislation.
Councilman Taylor asked if Mr. Kell had been retained by the John
Birch Society and Mr. Kell stated that he has agreed to represent
them free of charge.
Prior to the vote Mayor Miller restated the motion for clarification:
a) continue with the grant application mechanism, and
b) place on the municipal ballot, an advisory question, "shall this
grant for the Strategic Team Enforcement Program (STEP) be accepted
by the City of Livermore
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the former City Attorney had
advised that if an advisory vote is taken the Council had better
consider it binding.
CM-27-l74
October 29, 1973
(re Law Enforcement
Program - petition)
Councilman Taylor then asked the City Attorney if, in fact, it
would not be deluding the people in not making its vote binding
after the Council has asked what the public thinks. If the matter
is voted upon by the public as an advisory matter and the public's
vote is not considered binding it would be deluding the public.
The City Attorney stated that he cannot answer directly as to what
one would call such a situation but the Council may be binding its
successors in office to a policy that they may choose not to follow.
If something is called "advisory" he is not sure if it can be made
"advisory". He added that this may be open to some type of legal
challenge at the expense of tax dollars when the Council may not
intend to follow the expression of opinion solicited from the public
when they are not required to seek its opinion in the first place.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the Council find out whether
or not it would be binding to an advisory vote of the people
before they put the matter to a vote.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to state that he would be
willing to be bound by the vote of the people, as that is what
referendums are all about.
Councilman Pritchard stated that at this point the word "advisory"
is immaterial and if the public votes one way or the other he in-
tends to go the way that will reflect their wishes.
It was concluded that the word "advisory" would be omitted from the
motion so that it would state "shall this grant be accepted" and if
the public feels that it should not, the grant will be terminated at
that point.
Mayor Miller wondered if there would be some merit in adding to the
motion that the staff should be directed to prepare an appropriate
ballot statement with the general intent of the motion and then talk
about the exact statement on the ballot.
Councilman Beebe stated that he intends to abstain from the motion,
as he feels there is room for compromise.
Mr. Glen Strahl, member of the "Support Your Local police" committee
stated that he feels Mr. Kell has stated their concern for control
of our local police and the issue is not the contents of any grant
application or grant award contract. The strings attached will not
be found in them - they are found in federal legislation which has
set this up in the first place. He stated that they have received
wide support of their stand and if given time is sure that over 50%
of the voters would oppose the grant and urged that the issue be
voted on and stated exactly as stated in the resolution which was
passed on September 17th. He indicated that the main issue is being
sidestepped and that the issue is whether we should accept federal
money along with federal control over the program for our Police
Department.
Mayor Miller stated the motion as it now stands - to direct the
staff to draw up a ballot statement which has the intent that
the grant application mechanism will proceed and that a ballot
measure will state something such as "shall this grant be accepted".
CM-27-l75
October 29, 1973
(re Law Enforcement
Program - Petition)
Councilman Taylor raised the point that the state, knowing that
the matter is to be voted on by the people, may not wish to issue
funds if it is felt that the program might be cancelled after it
begins and they might take the next person on the list who is
waiting for the grant.
Mr. Parness stated that there are many many applicants and that
we were one of the fortunate ones who were appraised as being
justified in receiving the grant, and would agree that if the
Board hears that this is to be voted upon they would probably
deny proceedings in our behalf.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Miller
NOES: Councilman Taylor
ABSTAIN: Councilman Beebe
Councilman Beebe stated that it is his hope that the representa-
tives of the "Support Your Local Police" committee will meet with
the City Attorney and City Manager in an effort to reach some type
of compromise in this matter.
The City Attorney suggested that if such a conference does take place
the Chief of Police should be invited to attend since he probably
knows more about the impact of the matter than anyone else.
RECESS
At the request of Councilman Pritchar~Mayor Miller called for a
short recess, after which the meeting resumed with all members
of the Council present with the exception of Councilman Futch (as
indicated during roll call).
REPORT RE EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE SERVICES
FINANCIAL REPORT
The City Manager reported that after lengthy debate and negotiation
with the three public jurisdictions involved, in the valley, with
regard to the emergency ambulance services which included Livermore,
P1easanton and Alameda County a contract was finally executed between
Allen's Ambulance and the governmental entities seeking the provision
of emergency ambulance services. It was agreed that $700 per month
would be paid by each agency and following one year of experience
with monitoring and accounting certification done by Valley Memorial
Hospital, on our behalf, the financial support amount would be recal-
culated. The net amount of profit allowed for the company owners
was 10% of their gross income and monthly governmental support would
be adjusted upward or downward so that this percent would not be
exceeded. A report submitted by Valley Memorial Hospital indicates
that the adjusted net income was substantially below 10% allowable
and the adjusted difference requires an additional $312.50 per
agency, per month which equals $1,Ol2.50 per month. It is antici-
pated that the proposed rate adjustment by the ambulance service
for an additional $5 pick up fee plus $l per mile should cancel
the governmental support for the next year. It is recommended
that the Council adopt a motion approving the proposed rate adjust-
ment for ambulance service as well as an amendment to the current
agreement providing for the monthly financial support, effective
July 1, 1973.
CM-27-l76
October 29, 1973
(Ambulance Contract)
Councilman Pritchard asked if the original contract called for
the accounting to be done by a Certified Public Accountant and
Mr. Parness replied that he believes it did not.
Lois Gurney, Controller for Valley Memorial Hospital, stated
that there is a reference early in the contract that indicates it
is going to ask for a certified report but does not, actually.
The statements are not certified but she stated that she knows
that an independent public accountant was used to bring the figures
together and prepare the statement. She added that he does, however,
do the bookkeeping for the ambulance company.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he feels the original joint powers
agreement is not clear and before making a decision on this matter
he would like to see that the accounts and bookkeeping are audited
by a CPA, for this past year. He pointed out that he does not mean
to imply that there was anything dishonest with the bookkeeping that
was done but he was under the impression that when the joint powers
agreement was signed that this was to be done by a CPA and would
hesitate to rely on figures reported by the accountant that does
the bookkeeping for the ambulance company, and would not really
consider him to be independent.
Mrs. Gurney explained that the cost for a CPA to audit the
records would be several thousand dollars, and indicated that
she felt nothing would be gained by having a CPA referring
entries as opposed to what has been received. She stated
that in public accounting one does not "go out on a limb" and
that she asked the public accountant to confirm a number of things
including the loan and bank balance and that some of the questioned
areas were confirmed by documented sources.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he feels the comments made by
Mrs. Gurney are reliable and is satisfied but would suggest that
a CPA do the calculations next year.
Councilman Beebe moved that the staff recommendation be adopted,
and that next year the audit be done by a CPA, seconded by Council-
man Taylor and which passed unanimously.
Councilman Pritchard did state that he feels the increases will
be eaten up by operating costs and the governmental agencies in-
volved will probably not realize a reduction in subsidy.
REPORT RE WATER
RECLAMATION PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS INSPECTION
A report of the water reclamation plant improvements - engineering
inspection services was submitted to the Council and a recommenda-
tion made by the staff that the Council adopt a motion authorizing
the City to provide the subject inspection services and to initiate
employment of the classification as listed at approximately the
$66,500 quoted.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote, the recommendation to allow in-house
inspection services was approved.
CM-27-l77
October 29, 1973
REPORT RE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY AT FIRST ST.
& NORTH LIVERMORE AVENUE
(Standard Oil Property)
Mr. Parness reported that at last a response has been received
from the Standard Oil Company with regard to the expression of
interest by the City to purchase property located at the corner
of First Street and South Livermore Avenue which was in the way
of a complete rejection of the offer made to them by the City.
Mr. Parness explained that Standard Oil's appraisal is much higher
than estimated by the City and Mr. Parness would judge that their
estimate is approximately $4.50/foot and that the lot is composed
of about 8,700 sq. feet, valued at about $40,000, and recommended
that the Council decline any further proceedings for acquisition
of the property.
The Council discussed the property, in general, and proposals
which had been suggested for the property such as a park and
parking for neighboring offices and City employees.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the City Manager continue to
negotiate with Standard Oil for acquisition of the property
which was seconded by Mayor Miller along with the statement
that this area is rather important with respect to the beautifica-
tion planned across the street, diagonally, and that he would like
to see that this intersection is an asset for the community.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to add to the
motion that the City Manager negotiate with Standard Oil, not
to exceed $30,000, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Councilman Beebe stated that this amount of money could pay
for the park which is needed on Mocho Street.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which failed by
a split vote - Mayor Miller and Councilman Pritchard in favor
with Councilmen Beebe and Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Taylor stated that he opposes the idea of purchasing
this property at the expense of acquiring a number of acres
for park purposes in other areas and pointed out that it has
been stated time and again that there is not enough money to
purchase park land on the priority list.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be continued until
a full Council is present, seconded by Mayor Miller.
June Hamilton, 948 Florence, member of the Beautification Com-
mittee, stated that she has always considered that corner an eyesore
and feels that this is an opportunity to contribute to the enhance~
ment of the City, and pointed out that the report submitted by
Ribera and Sue indicated that this corner is probably the most
important vista in the City. She added that park land in other
areas can probably be realized in the future but this may be the
only opportunity the City has for purchasing this particular piece
of property.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to continue the matter
until a full Council is present.
CM-27-l78
October 29, 1973
REPORT RE BEAUTIFICA-
TION PLAN FOR FIRST
STREET & SO. LIVERMORE AVE.
Mayor Miller stated that the report from the Planning Commission with
regard to the beautification plan for First Street and South Livermore
Avenue is related to the item just discussed and which was put over
until there is a full Council and that this matter will be discussed
at that time also.
RE PLANNING UNIT NO. l2
(PORTOLA HILLS DIST.) &
PLANNING UNITS NO. 8 & 9
(OLIVINA-TOWN) PUB. HEARING
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by unanimous vote, the joint Council/Planning Commission meeting
was scheduled for November 27th and the public hearing regarding
Planning Units 12 (Portola Hills Dist.) and Planning Units 8 & 9
(Olivina-Town) was scheduled for December 3, 1973.
P.C. SUMMARY OF ACTION
FOR OCT. 16th MEETING
The Planning Commission's summary of action for their meeting of
October l6th was noted for filing.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Re Sale of Gillice Units)
Mr. Parness reported that in speaking with the attorney who represents
Mr. Gillice it appears that Mr. Gillice intends to start selling the
units located on Murrieta Boulevard and reminded the Council that
as a result of grading requirements and survey of the channel not
being satisfied the Council had stated that only 25% of the units
could be occupied, inasmuch as the Council concluded that the
channel improvements need not be undertaken. A request has now been
made for relaxation of this occupancy allowance.
Mayor Miller stated that there is something which remains and has
not been satisfied and would like to know what it is after Mr. Lee
assured him that the survey requirements have been met.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the staff check to see if all the
requirements have been satisfied, as the Council does not wish to be
arbitrary with regard to occupancy of the units.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to have the City Manager, the
Public Works Director and the City Attorney check the agreement very
carefully to see that the City is protected and that all the condi-
tions are satisfied.
The City Attorney pointed out that the units do not qualify for
occupancy, regardless of whether they are to be used as condominiums
or apartments, due to technical points which have not been satisfied
and these will probably not be met prior to the next Council meeting;
however, it isn't pressing but for the record it should be clarified
that the occupancy question was, in no way, dealt with by the Superior
Court judge-his only determination was whether or not the Condominium
Ordinance could be applied to the units. There are certain require-
ments which apply to any structure being built and this is what has
not, as yet, been satisfied.
CM-27-l79
October 29, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(re Traffic Problem
at Murrieta & Olivina
and East Ave.-Vasco Road)
Councilman Taylor stated that the traffic problem at Murrieta
and Olivina had been discussed, briefly, by the Council recently
and wondered what the situation is at present.
Mr. Lee stated that he has prepared a memorandum for the next
Council meeting recommending that the priority for signals at
that intersection be moved up to this fiscal year.
Councilman Taylor then asked the status of the East Avenue-Vasco
intersection pointing that this is a very critical and hazardous
intersection which was to be financed jointly by the County and
City.
Mr. Lee stated that approximately 2-3 months ago he and the City
Manager met with the County Public Works Director who indicated
that a cooperative agreemnt for the improvement of the intersec-
tion and East Avenue, in stages, was to be completed and sent
to the City but after a few inquiries by the City after this
meeting it has been reported that the agreement has not yet been
completed. The staff will again check into the matter and report
back to the Council.
(re Appointments
of City Staff)
Mayor Miller stated that two members of the City Staff have
been appointed to very important roles in their respective
organization - Mr. Parness has been appointed as the Second
Vice President of the City Managers Department which means
that the next two years he will become the First Vice President
and President, respectively. Mayor Miller stated that he feels
this is an extremely creditable recognition of our City Manager's
ability and talent and would hope that the newspapers make known
the fact that our City officials are well known throughout the
state for their ability.
The Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Street, has been appointed
Chairman of the Code Changes Committee of the International
Conference of Building Officials. Mr. Street has been working
on important committees involved with the Uniform Building Code
for some time and this, again, is a distinct honor for one of
our officials and would hope that the newspapers also take note
of this fact.
(re Resolutions
re C. Fracisco &
Chief Justice Warren)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by a unanimous vote, a resolution commending Charles Fracisco
was adopted, and read by the Mayor.
RESOLUTION NO. l37-73
A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION - CHARLES J. FRACISCO
On motion of Mayor Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote, the Council adopted a resolution saluting
Chief Justice Earl Warren, which will be extended to him on World
Law Day, November 6, which has been proclaimed in his honor.
CM-27-180
October 29, 1973
(Res. Commending
Justice Earl Warren)
RESOLUTION NO. l38-73
A RESOLUTION SALUTING CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN
(Letter of Thanks
from City of Petaluma)
Mayor Miller commented that a letter of thanks has been received
from the City of petaluma for Livermore's financial support of
their law suit and that pleadings of the suit are available to the
City which the Mayor felt might be beneficial to have as these will
have a peripheral bearing on the things this City will do and may
be attacked about later.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to corne before the Council, the
Mayor adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
APPROVE
City Clerk
'vermore, California
Regular Meeting of November 5, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 5, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:l0 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Putch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Taylor (Excused - Business Trip)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of October 29, 1973,
were approved, as submitted. Councilman Futch abstained from the vote,
as he was not present at the October 29th meeting.
CM-27-18l
November 5, 1973
P.H. RE AMENDED. ASSESSMENT
FOR NO. SANITARY SEWER ASSESS DIST.
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing for the purpose of hearing
public testimony regarding the amended assessment for the Northern
Sanitary Sewer Assessment District No. 1962-l - Segregation of Assess-
ment No. EE-l.
~
There being no public testimony and no written comments, on motion
of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by a unanimous
vote, the public hearing was closed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Res. Confirming
Amended Assessment
A resolution was adopted confirming the amended assessment for the
Northern Sanitary Sewer Assessment District - Segregation of Assess-
ment No. EE-l.
RESOLUTION NO. 139-73
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENT AMEND-
ING ASSESSMENT NO. EE-l, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-1, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Res. re Acceptance of
Tract 3354 Improvements
for Maintenance -H.C. Elliott, Inc.
A resolution was adopted by the Council accepting, for maintenance
by the City, the improvements in Tract No. 3354 - Olivina Avenue and
Hagemann Drive.
RESOLUTION NO. 140-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3354
(H. C. Elliott, Inc.)
Res. Accepting Public
Works Improvements -
Vasco Rd. & Naylor Ave.
The Council adopted a resolution accepting the public works improve-
ments for permanent maintenance for Vasco Road and Naylor Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. l4l-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC
WORKS IMPROVEMENTS (Vasco Road and Naylor Avenue)
Resolutions Denying
Claims Against City
The following two resolutions wrere adopted denying claims filed
against the City.
RESOLUTION NO. l42-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF MIRIAM S. OLKEN
CM-27-182
November 5, 1973
(Denial of Claims
Against the City)
RESOLUTION NO. l43-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAI~ OF JOHN HENRY ROBINSON
Res. Auth. Exec.
of Agreement with
So. Pacific Trans. Co.
Southern Pacific Railroad plans to install an automatic gate at the
Vasco Road Railroad crossing and it is recommended that the Council
adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. l44-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company)
Report re Traffic
Signal at Murrieta
& Olivina Avenue
The Public Works Director recommended that the traffic signal instal-
lation at the intersection of Murrieta Boulevard and Olivina Avenue
be completed during the present fiscal year rather than during the
1974-75 fiscal year as presently provided for in the Capital Projects
budget because of the amount of traffic at that intersection and the
number of accidents which have already occurred.
The Council indicated that they would like this to proceed immediately,
and authorized the necessary budget change.
Res. Auth. Exec.
of Agreement re
Improvement of
No. Livermore Ave.
The agreement allowing the grant of federal funds for the improvement
of North Livermore Avenue between portola Avenue and 1-580 with
the State Department of Transportation complies with the previous
negotiations held with the County and provides for a sizeable federal
contribution to the project allowing a reduction in the City-County
obligation. It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution
authorizing execution of the agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. l45-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Department of Transportation)
Housing Authority
Minutes - Aug. 2l
& Oct. 2l
Minutes for the Housing Authority meetings of August 21, and October
2l, 1973, were noted for filing.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
CM-27-l83
November 5, 1973
COMMUNICATION FROM
ABAG RE GROWTH
PROJECTIONS
Mayor Miller commented that there had been discussion and some amount
of irritation displayed with regard to ABAG's growth projections
and that a second report has been sent to the Council which shows
the incremental growth distribution for the valley to be more
realistic_than the previous report, even though it will be restricted.
The Mayor stated that what this will mean, ultimately, is that there
will be an increase in sewer capacity at our expense.
The City Manager noted that he will be attending a State Water
Resources Control Board meeting and the Mayor suggested that a letter
be sent to them after this meeting, depending upon what they say at
the meeting, pointing out what the population projections are.
Councilman Futch felt it would be a good idea to restate our case
for the 20% expansion of sewer capacity facilities but that it would
be best to receive feedback from the Thursday meeting prior to doing
so.
COMMUNICATION FROM
JOHN MORTON RE AMLING-
DeVOR NURSERY LANE
A letter of complaint was received from John Morton, 4384 East Avenue,
in which he states that the lane behind his house which leads to the
Amling-DeVor Nursery is a private road but it is being used ex-
cessively by the public and noted that the motorbike traffic is
particularly obnoxious and asked the City for assistance.
The Police Chief responded to the letter by reporting that numerous
complaints support Mr. Morton's contention of heavy usage of the lane
by the public but in view of the fact that a number of property owners
adjacent to the lane use it as access for parking recreational vehicles
in their back yards, that trucks use the lane for making deliveries to
the nursery, that there is some question with regard to right-of-way
denial, and that closure would not eliminate the motorcycle problem
he could not make a recommendation to close the lane.
Mr. Parness reported that he has spoken with the nursery o\~ers and
with the consent of the Council they have agreed to the posibility
of paving the East Avenue entrance to the nursery or posting the
lane stating that it is a private road and that the public is tres-
passing if they use it, which was followed by general discussion of
the problem and the possibility of placing a berm at the entrance to
discourage use of the lane.
Councilman Futch felt a sign would not be unreasonable, and the Mayor
commented that he though there was a sign already posted but the
City Manager stated that it is a private sign and perhaps the City
could post a sign.
The staff was directed to check into the matter and see if there
is a reasonable solution to the complaints.
COMMUNICATION FROM TWIN
VALLEY YMCA RE CLOSURE OF
SOUTH "Q" FOR SALE OF
CHRISTMAS TREES
The Twin Valley YMCA has requested that the City allow closure of South
"Q" Street, north of First Street, for the purpose of selling
Christmas trees and the staff recommended that the Council adopt
a motion authorizing such use provided that no obstruction is
placed prohibiting passage of public traffic to adjoining private
property.
CM-27-l84
November 5, 1973
(re Sale of Christmas Trees)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by unanimous vote, the recommendation was adopted.
REPORT RE CROSSING
PROTECTION AT
BL CAMINITO & WAGONER Dr.
The Public Works Director reported to the Council regarding
the petition for an adult crossing guard and four-way stop sign
at El Caminito and Wagoner Avenue. He stated that three warrants
have been met to satisfy the criteria for a crossing guard but
that none have been met to warrant a four-way stop and recommended
that an adult crossing guard be provided on the basis of the three
following warrants being satisfied:
Warrant #l - At least 40 school age children crossing.
Warrant #2 - No controlled intersection within 600 feet.
Warrant #3 - Vehicular volume in excess of 350 during the time child-
ren normally cross.
Councilman Pritchard moved that a crossing guard be provided for
this intersection as soon as possible, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Futch commented that cross walks had been suggested and
could see no reason for not providing these; however, the Public
Works Director replied that one across El Caminito and one crossing
Wagoner should be provided to eliminate crossing at more than one
place.
Signs stating "school crossing" was also mentioned and Councilman
Pritchard stated that he would like to add to his motion that the
signs as well as cross walks suggested by Mr. Lee be provided, and
the motion with all of these provision passed unanimously.
RE REPORT FROM CITY
ATTORNEY RE REFERENDUM
PETITION (Police Program)
The City Attorney stated that at the last meeting the Council asked
if a measure could be placed on the March 1974 ballot with regard
to the joint strategic law enforcement program available through
federal financing in the form of a question "shall this grant be
accepted" to be advisory in nature rather than binding upon the
Council which the City Attorney has investigated. He stated that
his conclusion would be that should the Council place a question of
this kind on the ballot it would be best to assume that the vote
of the electorate would be binding on the Council. He stated that
though the section of the Election Code he based his conclusion upon
may not be directly applicable when a question is "voluntarily" placed
on a ballot but it is clearly the intention of the legislature that
the wishes of the electorate should be carried out by resolution,
ordinance, or whatever appropriate method should be followed.
With regard to the comment made that there had possibly been misrep-
resentation at the time the petition was circulated, the City Attorney
stated that he has brought to the attention of the Council an applicable
provision of the Elections Code realing with willful misrepresentation in
circulation of petitions which states that "every person is punishable
by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprison-
ment in the county jail not exceeding six months,..." if false state-
ments are willfully made.
CM-27-l85
November 5, 1973
(re Police Program)
Mr. Parness reported that at the last Council meeting it had been
suggested that the "Support Your Local police" committee meet with
the staff in an effort to reach some type of compromise and that the
Committee did contact the staff and a rather lengthy meeting did take
place. Many attitudes and philosophys were aired during this meeting
even though he feels there was no change of opinion but the matter was
discussed in a very friendly manner. Mr. Parness further stated
that he has discussed the matter with the staff of the Regional
Planning Board and was told that there would be no problem with
timing and that even if the Council chooses to place the issue on
the ballot it would delay commencement of the program but there
is no problem with losing the grant.
Councilman Pritchard indicated that his main concern was losing the
grant and if there is no danger of this happening he would move
that the issue be placed on the forthcoming municipal general election
ballot and the wording suggested by the City Attorney in his memorandum
to the Council be used. He added that he has spoken with a number
of people who signed the petition and there was no indication that
there had been misrepresentation but that some of the people, after
finding out who was circulating it, had changed their minds about
having signed it.
Councilman Futch seconded the motion and commented that placing
the matter on the ballot is the only way the Council will know how
the public feels about it.
Prior to the vote on the motion Mayor Miller read, for the benefit of
the public, the measure suggested by the City Attorney for placement
on the ballot, after which he stated that he would like something
added to make it clear what the money is for, which is to set up a
joint team between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore for the
purpose of combating burglaries. He suggested that there be wording
such as, "For the purpose of combating burglary, shall the City of
Livermore Police Department.....".
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to add "federal funds"
after the word "the" and before the word "Omnibus" in the statement
for the ballot.
Mr. Wharton commented that he believes recent state legislation
allows counsel to write an argument in favor of the issue for the
Council if it intends to place something on the ballot and stated
that he will check this out. He pointed out that he had written the
language to appear on the ballot as straightforward and as factually
as possible to eliminate the possibility of intertwining a viewpoint
into the question and that perhaps the wording suggested by the
Mayor should not be added. He stated that there should be no problem
with adding "federal funds". He commented that if the Council would
like for him to look for a more descriptive phrase to describe the
purpose, that is in the legislation, he would feel more comfortable
with that.
It was noted that there is more than enough time to finalize the
wording to be used and changes can be made later.
The City Attorney stated that it is his responsibility also to pre-
pare an explanation, in the most neutral language possible, so that
there would be both a pro and con argument as well as a neutral ex-
planation.
CM-27-l86
November 5, 1973
(Police Program As
a Ballot Meausre)
~
The Council concluded that the statement suggested by the City
Attorney with the addition suggested by Councilman Pritchard
would be voted upon by the Council and if there are any changes
this can be discussed later.
At this time the Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
REPORT RE POLI
PROPERTY - ORIGINAL
TOWN HOUSE (3rd & K St.)
Mr. Parness reported that Mr. Poli, owner of a structure located
at Third and South K has written to the City with a proposal that
if the structure is allowed to be moved on a site to the northerly
line of his property he will undertake some restoration of the
building over a period of time. The building was formerly used
to house municipal offices and fire equipment. In return for a-
llowing the building to be moved Mr. poli has asked that he be allowed
to construct a commercial office building on the balance of the property.
The staff has recommended that since this building would not likely
be restored to the extent that it could again be used to house public
or community activities and little benefit is to be derived from
its move, the Council deny the request made by Mr. Polio
Councilman Pritchard moved that the staff recommendation be adopted,
seconded by Councilman Futch.
Janet Newton, representative of the Livermore Heritage Guild, stated
that the Guild hopes that the building can be restored as an exhibit
and not to be used for any public activity; however, the Guild does
not have funds to restore the building and they have not been able
to contact Mr. poli to see what his intention is with regard to restora-
tion. She commented that the building is not located in its original
location at this time and that formerly it had occupied the area where
the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot is now located.
Councilman Pritchard asked if Mrs. Newton is suggesting that the
Council postpone a decision and she stated that she would not suggest
this as they have tried for some time to contact Mr. Poli without
success and there is some question as to how long this should go on
without being settled.
Mr. Parness stated that he would have to agree with the Guild in that
it would be a shame to lose the building but the City has not been
assured that the building would be restored to any particular extent
and that the inside has been gutted and is really a shamble. The
Building and Fire departments are very concerned about the safety of
the building and after due consideration it was felt that it was not
worthwhile to attempt to preserve it.
(\,
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Department also looked at it
and did some elevations and site plans and that Mr. Poli could leave
the building at its present location and get almost as much square
footage of additional building in the rear next to the bank; however,
he did want the Third Street exposure for his commercial building
and this is the reason he wants the building moved back.
CM-27-l87
November 5, 1973
(re Po1i Building)
Roger Brown, representative of the Livermore Heritage Guild, stated
that he felt it would be easy to restore the building and that he
spoke with Mr. Poli last week who indicated that he would be willing
to pay for the resotration done by someone else, such as Guild members.
councilman Pritchard stated that under the circumstances he would
be willing to withdraw his motion if Councilman Beebe would withdraw
his second, and continue the meeting for two weeks to allow someone
to contact Mr. poli regarding restoration of the building, and so
moved. Councilman Beebe seconded this motion which passed by a
unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE AIRPORT
AVIATION FUEL SUPPLY
Mayor Miller summarized the report prepared by the Public Works
Director by stating that gasoline is hard to obtain and it is
difficult to obtain bids of any kind. We can continue on a short
term basis to purchase fuel from our present supplier, Shell Oil
Company and this is what has been recommended by the Public Works
Director.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by a unanimous vote, the staff recommendation to continue obtaining
gas on a short term basis with Shell Oil Company for the City's fuel
dispensing operations at the Airport was adopted.
REPORT RE COUNTY'S
PROPOSED SIGN ORD. AMEND.
Mr. Musso reported that the Planning Commission did not have any
particular recommendations to make with respect to the County's
proposed sign ordinance amendment except that the County avail itself
of the opportunity to reduce the amount of clutterd signs to be more
in line with what other cities are doing. He commented that this
was a general recommendation and not specific.
Mayor Miller stated that the Planning Commission's letter did not
indicate something stated in the minutes which was that there was
a recommendation for a representative to appear at the Board meeting
to ask for a continuance, which Mr. Musso explained had already been
asked for unbeknowenst to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Miller suggested that the Supervisors be invited to come out
and look at the difference between Livermore and Castro Valley, after
a continuance has been asked for, as he felt their proposal is a
disaster and much worse than their present ordinance.
It was also suggested that Mr. Musso appear at their meeting.
Mayor Miller stated that perhaps there could be different sign
ordinances for different parts of the County in order to respect
what various communities are doing and we might ask them for something
which would correspond with our sign ordinance in our general area
and maybe they could discuss this possibility if they don't come to
a decision.
Mr. Musso stated that he would be willing to go to their meeting and
ask for a continuance and to tell them that the Council would like to
meet with them. He pointed out, however, that the last time the City
went to them we lost part of the City.
The staff was directed to represent the City's views at the meeting.
CM-27-l88
November 5, 1973
MINUTES OF P.C.
The Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of October 2, 1973,
were noted for filing.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(re Status of LAFCO
Boundary & City Dispute)
The City Attorney stated that prior to the meeting he distributed
a memorandum to the Council entitled, "City of Livermore vs. LAFCO",
which reflects all he can offer at this time with respect to the
property we have lost on the north side as well as some comments
on what appears to be helpful litigation from Ventura County. He
pointed out that it has turned out that it is not particularly help-
ful at this time but if we decide to proceed with litigation against
LAFCO it may be that we will be helping Ventura County. He commented
that he intends to speak with the Attorney General's office to develop
further understanding of the Ventura County case and also to see if the
state Attorney General's office has some interest in our situation, as
they have established a division to deal with environmental problems
which he feels suitably describes our case.
(re Gi11ice Units)
Mr. Parness stated that he would like the Council to try to come to
some decision with regard to release of the Gillice units located
on ~urrieta Boulevard and that perhaps this would be a good time
to discuss the matter.
Mr. Lee reported that he has reviewed the agreement, section by
section, and is satisfied that everything has been comDleted as
required by the Council.
~1r. Parness suggested that the Council adopt a motion to remove
from the Council's direction the limitation of occupancy, dependent
upon satisfaction of all other local or state requirements.
Mayor ~1iller stated that a motion should state that occupancy permits
will be issued subject to satisfaction of all stat~, county, City,
and federal regulations associated with this property, so moved by
Councilman Beebe, with the addition including all building permit
regulations, subdivision maps and zoning requirements, seconded by
Councilman Futch.
The City Attorney asked if the Council is saying that when they are
eligible for occupancy under all applicable laws it will be for lOO%
of the units and not 25%, which the ~1ayor stated is correct.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
Mayor Miller stated that as he recalls there is a problem with the
second unit which never had a subdivision map and Mr. Musso stated
that he would report back to the Council on this aspect at the next
meeting.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Police Building)
Councilman Beebe asked about the status of the Police Building which
Mr. Parness reported is behind schedule, unfortunately, but that the
City is receiving daily reports on the progress. At this time it is
approximately 30 days behind schedule.
CM-27-l89
November 5, 1973
Letter re Water
for Junior College Site
Councilman Futch stated that a few weeks ago there was a letter sent
to the public and also to the newspaper with regard to the Council's
intention and/or ability to provide water for the Junior College site
and he would like to set the record straight by stating, in his mind,
there is no question but that it is the intent of the Council to pro-
vide water for this site, regardless of any decision made by Zone 7.
If a treatment plant is not ready by next Fall, he feels water should
be provided by extension of the present well or by another method and
would like to make sure that this is the opinion of the majority of
the Council.
The Council discussed the possibility of extension of the well which
serves the airport noting that the water line in that area is to
serve the industrial development which might occur and Councilman
Pritchard explained that there will be a reservoir there to take
care of fire protection as well as irrigation.
Mr. Lee stated that approval is expected for receipt of federal grants
for a reservoir for fire protection for the college and that the
well system serving the airport is a possibility, though not desirable,
for the college site.
Councilman Futch stated that at this time the means or method is
not necessary for discussion but that he would like to see that the
Council goes on record with the intention of providing water for the
college site by next Fall, with or without Project 2, and so moved,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Prior to the motion Mayor Miller stated that he would like it to be
recognized that there are alternatives for providing water, and
Councilman Beebe stated that he would not vote for the motion until
he knows how much money the City will be committing itself to.
Councilman Futch had pointed out that the amount of water needed
is really trivial and that if one gallon is allowed for each student,
which is more than ample, only 500 gallons would have to be supplied.
Councilman Beebe stated that his concern was not the amount needed
for drinking water, but for fire protection.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the motion is for a resolution of
intent and that the Council has passed a number of resolutions of
intention.
Councilman Beebe asked the City Attorney how binding an intention
is, and the City Attorney stated that the Council may have intentions
of doing something and then may have a legitimate reason for failing
to do so. Depending upon how the intention is formalized, the Council
may not be liable.
Mayor Miller stated that it is the Junior College Board's intention
to provide a junior college, but they may not be able to do so,
therefore, we are all operating upon intent.
At this time a vote was taken on the motion which passed unanimously.
(re Enforcement of
Trailer Ordinance)
Councilman Futch stated that the staff has been asked to give the
Council a report regarding the status of enforcing the Trailer
Ordinance and wondered when this report will be presented.
CM-27-l90
November 5, 1973
(Trailer Ordinance)
Mr. Parness stated that a re?ort will be ready for the Council
at the next Council meeting.
(re Sidewalk Subdivision
Directional Signs)
Councilman Pritchard stated that it is his understanding that the side-
walk directional subdivision signs are permitted with an encroachment
permit and pointed out that this is not an amendment to our Sign
Ordinance and if this is the case it does not have to be sent through
the Planning Commission and would move that the Council revoke the
encroachment permit of the signs located in the public right-of-way
and abate them within 30 days, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission discussed the
matter at the time there was a question of whether or not a sub-
division sign should be allowed on the major streets and the Planning
Commission concluded that there was no need for the large signs as
long as the small directional signs are used. At present, the ordi-
nance allows subdivision signs only inside the model complex.
Mr. Lee stated that at present, seven signs are allowed for each
subdivision and are allowed to be located at the intersections of
major streets.
Councilman Beebe stated that he has never heard anyone complain about
the signs, and Councilman Futch stated that he feels it is a matter
which should be discussed as an agenda item and not decided upon at
this time.
At this time the motion failed by a 2-2 split vote with Councilmen
Beebe and Futch dissenting.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the item be scheduled on the agenda
for next week, seconded by Mayor Miller, and which passed by a unani-
mous vote of the Council.
(re Percentage of
Trailers in Community)
Mayor Miller stated that the Council requested that the staff report
on the percentage of trailers in the community and a policy established
as to the percentage to be allowed and felt that the Council should
discuss this as an agend item in the near future.
(re Intra-City Bus
Transportation)
Mayor Miller stated that about six months ago the Councils of
Livermore and Pleasanton met to discuss the'possibility of intra-city
bus transportation beyond that which is coming to us from BART.
The City Managers were going to meet to discuss the matter and then
report to the Council members, and it was asked what the prospects
seem to be, which Mr. Parness explained is still being discussed
with the BART Staff.
Mayor Miller stated that he is not referring to the bus service
to BART but services within the Citv which he pointed out is a
major concern to many people, and as gasoline becomes more and
more expensive there will be much more interest in public trans-
portation.
CM-27-l9l
November 5, 1973
(re Executive Session
re Appointments)
Mayor Miller stated that it is necessary to hold a brief execu-
tive session for the purpose of making appointments to the Beauti-
fication Committee, the Housing Authority, Smog Committee, and an
appointment to the committee for the East Bay Division of the League,
as well as legal matters regarding LAFCO.
(Houses in Portola
Tract Close to Street)
Mayor Miller stated that he has observed that the houses being
built in the portola Avenue subdivision are very close to the
street and the RS Ordinance states that there is to be a 50 foot
setback between the houses and the street which he stated does
not exist. He pointed out that the RS Ordinance was designed to
protect those homeowners from the noise and irritation of a major
street and that everybody in the City is supposed to be aware of the
provisions of this ordinance and wanted to know why Mr. Mehran is
being allowed to build the houses l5-20 feet from the street.
Mr. Lee stated that he became aware of this fact only this afternoon
and is not in a position at this time to give a detailed answer to
the question raised by the Mayor. He suggested that the staff be
allowed to compile a report on the matter for presentation to the
Council.
Councilman Futch felt that this might be a very serious violation as
approval of plans is generally given with the statement that they must
be in conformance with all other requirements and the codes of the City
of Livermore and Mr. Lee explained that there are a number of lots
along there and it appears that some of them are in compliance and
some are not and would like to check into the matter before making
further statements.
Councilman Futch stated that if there were gross violations with a
number of homes he would wonder if building should proceed until
the matter has been straightened out.
Mr. Musso stated that along North Livermore Avenue about half of
the houses have setbacks less than 50 feet and some have a setback
greater than 50 feet and there are a few located along portola Ave-
nue with a setback of about 25 feet and the site plan indicates what
the setback is as measured from the street.
There was then discussion between the Council and staff as to the
process involved in obtaining a permit for building and that there
had been a misunderstanding in communication and permits were given,
obviously in error, and not realized until this time.
Councilman Futch asked the City if permits are given and the building
for which these are given is in violation, does the City have any
authority to see that the corrections are made, and Mr. Wharton ex-
plained that the City has, in effect, waived its own ordinance by
conduct of its own. He pointed out that if the only problem were a
few maps drawn up by the developer which could be changed, this
would~be one thing; however, if there has been substantial progress
in reliance upon the City's own approvals which are inconsistent with
its own ordinance it would be very difficult to reverse its own
judgement.
The staff indicated that a report on the matter will be presented at
the next Council meeting.
CM-27-l92
November 5, 1973
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come be~ore the C?uncil, ~ayor Mille!
adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. to a brlef exec~tlve ses~lon for
discussing appointments and legal matters as exnlalned prevlous1y.
Resolution Proclaiming
California Retarded
Citizen's Week
In the executive session the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. l46-73
A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING CALIFORNIA RETARDED
CITIZENS' WEEK IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
APPROVE
~
ATTEST
~egular Meeting of November l2, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November l2, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with ~1ayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Futch (Seated after Pledge of Allegiance)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
~.uNUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by a 4-l vote (Councilman Futch Abstaining) the minutes for the meet-
ing of November 5, 1973, were approved as submitted.
SPECIAL ITEM - STATE
COMPo FUND AWARD
Jack Griffith stated that each year a safety contest is sponsored for
cities in California and awards are given based on frequency of in-
juries. He stated that Livermore is being given such an award for
the year July 1972 through June 30 1973 for which it placed third in
the category having l4l-200 employees, with 19 injuries sustained dur-
ing 1 million man hours. He then presented the aaward to the Mayor who
expressed thanks on behalf of the City and its employees.
CM-27-l93
November l2, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(re Poli Bldg. -
Original Town Hall)
Roger Brown, representative of the Livermore Heritage Guild stated
that the matter of the Poli building which was the original Town
Hall has been left hanging in the air and that he has brought Mr.
poli to the meeting in hopes that something can be decided upon.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council would be happy to receive
additional information but would not want to enter into a long dis-
cussion for the purpose of making a decision at this meeting.
Mr. Poli, l7l00 East l4th Street, Hayward, explained that he would
like to move the historical building from the corner of Third and
"K" Street to the northerly portion which would be three feet from
the bank building. He stated that he plans to restore the building
at his cost and that the portions of the building which have been
added on to the original structure will be destroyed so that it will
be in its original design. He will place a cyclone fence around the
building and requests that in turn, he be allowed to build on the re-
mainder of the property and that there be no parking requirements.
In answer to the question regarding restoration of the building, he
assured the Council that he intends to restore the building on the
inside as well as the outside.
~1r. Parness stated that through correspondence with Mr. Po1i it
had been his impression that perhaps the only restoration which
might come about would possibly be paint on the outside of the
building and felt that it would be reasonable to receive some
kind of assurance that the work proposed by Mr. poli actually will
be done.
The Council then discussed the proposal, the amount of building
which could occupy the vacant portion and the amount of parking
requirements requested to be waived - it was concluded that ~pprox-
imately 8 parking spaces would be the required number Mr. Po1i is
asking to be waived.
There was some question as to whether a decision should be held
at this time or whether it should be put over for another week and
Councilman Beebe felt the Council should give an indication as to
whether the City is interested in retaining the building or not,
and if the Council intends to accept Mr. poli's proposal.
Councilman Taylor felt there was no need to restore the building
unless it is to be used for some public purpose and if this is to
be done it would probably require installation of a sprinkler sys-
tem. He then asked if the restoration will be to the extent that
the building can be turned over to the Recreation Department for
use and Mr. poli stated that it will not be restored to the extent
that it can be used by the public in this way, but intends to re-
store it as a landmark for Livermore and not for public use.
In answer to a question regarding ownership, Mr. poli stated that
he is putting up the money for restoring the building and will re-
tain ownership - the building and land will not be deeded to the
City.
The Council then discussed the proposed building plans for the
remaining portion of property if the building is moved, as re-
quested, alternate plans and size of the buildinq to be built.
CM-27-l94
November l2, 1973
(re poli Building)
Councilman Futch stated that Mr. poli's proposal actually is for
50% more building without any parking in exchange for moving and
restoration of the building.
Mr. Brown commented that the building could be used by the His-
torical Society and possibly it could be used as a museum.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he appreciates the offer made by
Mr. Poli but since the property will not be in the public domain
and the City would have no control over how the restoration is
handled and various other problems which may exist, he would move
that the Council respectfully decline the offer made by Mr. Poli,
seconded by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to amend the motion
to read that the Council would accept the offer made by Mr. Poli
if the land and building is dedicated to the City and if some pro-
vision for parking is made for Mr. Poli's proposed building, not
on a 50-50 basis but with some amount of parking.
It was explained that the parking requirement will receive credit
from the area occupied by the house and anything dedicated to the
City (house and fence), seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
~1r. poli stated that this motion would not be satisfactory, as
he will not dedicate anything to the City.
~1r. poli suggested at this time that the City take the building
and move it across the street to where the old librarv is located.
The amendment to the motion was wi thdra~.,n and the Council voted on
the original motion made by Councilman Pritchard which passed by
a unanimous vote.
It was noted during the discussion that the staff recommended denial
of the offer.
(re Use of Preservation
Heritage Ordinance)
Roger Brown, representing the Heritage Guild, asked if the
Council could apply the Preservation Heritage Ordinance to the
train depot and the Buckley Estate, and the Council advised
that the ordinance prevents demolition for only l20 days and
that it would be better to leave the ordinance for a last resort
measure.
Mr. Musso explained that to enforce the ordinance the Council
must first adopt a resolution stating that such is considered
to be a heritage site. Ravenswood (Buckley Estate) is in City owner-
ship and he felt that it would not serve any purpose to pass a resolu-
tion stating that it is a heritage site, other than for the record,
and explained that if a resolution is adopted stating that such is
a heritage site then whenever action is to be taken (which may be
five years) there is a l20 day time delay.
Mr. Parness commented that during negotiations with the S.P. people
over the past couple of weeks it is apparent that there are some
real orospects for use of the S.P. depot and would hate to have any-
thing disrupt these proceedings. He felt that at this time there
is nothing critical with regard to adopting a resolution for enforcing
the ordinance, and nothing is going to be demolished unless there
is another company mistake and if a mistake is made a heritage ordinanc
would not eliminate any such mistake.
CM-27-l95
November l2, 1973
(re S.P. Depot)
Councilman Taylor suggested that the Council table any action
until negotiations going on with S.P. have been finalized, and
the Council concurred.
(Museum Proposal
for Carnegie Bldg.)
Roger Brown also stated that he would like to mention that there
have been rumors going around about LARPD vacating the Carnegie
Building and at this time there seems to be no plans for the
building when it becomes vacant. He pointed out that the Liver-
more Heritage Guild is very much interested in starting a museum
in Livermore and felt that this might be a good spot for the lo-
cation of one. He stated that the members of the Guild would be
willing to operate the museum and that numerous individuals in
the City have offered to make contributions of artifacts with
historical significance to a local museum.
The Council advised that the Guild speak with Mr. Parness and
the staff with regard to acquisition of the building for this
purpose and asked also that the Council be presented with a re-
port regarding the matter.
(Comment re Bay Delta
Resources Recovery Proj.)
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, stated that if the Council has no
objection he would like to speak on one of the items which is
scheduled later in the agenda, but due to the fact that he is
suppose to be attending another meeting at this time he can not
stay to speak on the item.
The Council stated that they would be willing to hear comments on
the matter at this time.
Mr. Hoenig stated that in looking into the solid waste disposal
committee for ABAG he learned that only a very few cities and
counties are voting members, which requires a financial contri-
bution to become a member, on the Solid Waste Disposal Committee,
and urged that the Council communicate with the cities and counties
which are not members calling attention to the project and asking
that they consider joining the committee.
(Comment re Setback
Violation - Tract 332l)
Mr. Hoenig stated that with regard to the setback violation in
Tract 332l (Sunset Development Company) he would like to state
that when there was a question of a setback violation in the
H. C. Elliott tract he spoke in favor of the develo~er, as he
felt such a stand was fair to the homeowners. However, in the
case of this setback violation he feels exactly the opposite,
as a 50 foot setback along a major thoroughfare is very impor-
tant to the house and the people living in it and would urge
that the Council not compromise this position. He added that
he can understand how there can be a communication problem be-
tween the Building Department and Planning Department on the
matter but cannot see how a developer who has professional people
designing tract maps could make such a gross error and would like
the Council to consider very carefully the nature of the error
made, as it would appear that the error was made intentionally.
He also urged that the records of Sunset Development be reviewed
for past "so-called" errors. If this error was intentional he
feels that prosecution should be made to the fullest extent.
CM-27-l96
November l2, 1973
P.H. RE GEN. PLAN - PLAN-
NING UNIT #6 & TEXT
~r. Musso explained to the Council the General Plan amendments to
Planning Unit 6 with regard to Neighborhood Commercial and Industrial
elements as well as other amendments which may be necessary to
implement the objectives of the City Council to be concurrent with
the Interim Zoning Ordinance (moratorium). The Planning Commission
report as well as its~resolution related to review of the General Plan
was also presented to the Council. Mr. Musso also commented that the
changes would allow the City to utilize the provisions of AB-l30l for
denying subdivisions. An addition was made to the objectives of the
Housing Element to emphasize that one of the intents of the City is
to provide a variety of housing, density and housing costs. A better
explanation is also given for density transfers of the General Plan
in clarifying what a density transfer is and how it is carried out.
Councilman Pritchard commented that it is his understanding that
Commissioner Seldon made the motion to amend the General Plan to
indicate commercial land use at the corner of Holmes Street and
Concannon Boulevard and then voted against the motion which Councilman
Pritchard questioned and Mr. Musso explained that this is correct
but the Planning Commission wanted it to be on record that they oppose
changing the text and that changes should be only to the map.
At this time Mayor ~1iller opened the public hearinq for Planning
Unit 6 - Neighborhood Commercial, Housing and Residential Elements
and invited to hear testimony from anyone wishing to speak on these
items.
David Madis, attorney representing Sunset Development stated that
he does not wish to repeat what has been stated at the public hearing
for the rezoning of the corner of Concannon Boulevard and Holmes Street
but would remind the Council that some 350 people signed the petition
in favor of the rezoning and pointed out that the street widening has
been accomplished.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Miller suggested that the discussion by the Council with regard
to AB-130l be put over until next week which would be a more conveni-
ent time for such discussion.
Councilman Futch felt that it would be best to discuss the item at
this time and then decide if it should be continued and wondered why
the Mayor would like to put over any discussion.
Mayor Miller explained that he has not had the opportunity to fully
compare the proposed amendments with the existing plans and since
the agenda is so full he felt it would be best to postpone discussion.
Councilman Futch stated that the majoritv of the Council feels that
the zoning at the corner of Holmes Street and Concannon is the correct
zoning, it has already been rezoned and he would submit that the Counc~
go ahead and make the General Plan conform to the zoning that exists
at that corner.
Councilman Taylor commented that any zoning or rezoning must be in
conformance with the General Plan, after January l, and this means
that all zpning must be brought into conformance by January 3l, and
if it is not done tonight it must be done by January 3l anyway.
Discussion then followed with regard to changes in zoning and confor-
mance to the General Plan.
CM-27-l97
November l2, 1973
(Planning Unit #6)
Councilman Beebe asked what will happen when there is commercial
located in a residential zone - will it automatically be changed
to indicate commercial on the General Plan?
Mr. Musso explained that it will depend upon the area, and it will
have to be determined which zoning will be selected - either to
stay as the General Plan indicates or to change the General Plan to
conform with the existing use for the area, and a subsequent rezon-
ing of that area.
Councilman Taylor asked what can be done when the zoning does not
conform to the General Plan and Mr. Musso explained that one or
the other must be changed which must be accomplished by January 3l.
Councilman Pritchard asked the City Attorney what is allowed with-
out penalty and the City Attorney stated that he would find out
more about the particular law the Council has been discussing and
furnish a written report at the next meeting.
Councilman Pritchard then moved that the Council adopt the Planning
Commissions motion which read, "that if an amendment to the General
Plan is to be adopted, that it be a revision of the Map", seconded
by Councilman Futch.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to comment, for the record,
that the Planning Commission has strongly opposed this use in the
General Plan Amendment because it violates the General Plan as it
stands and there is no way it can be made to conform. This will
pre-empt the General Plan review having to do with commercial and
in his opinion is a special privilege.
Councilman Futch pointed out that the rezoning of that corner is
an accomplished fact and feels that since it is required that the
General Plan conform the City would be in violation of the law ~f
it is not made to conform, and the majority of the Council feels
that commercial zoning is proper for that particular piece of
property.
Mayor Miller pointed out that there are two ways of making the
General Plan conform - either amend the General Plan, or revoke
the zoning.
At this time the motion passed 4-l with Mayor Miller dissenting.
Councilman Beebe asked if the density transfer work was done by
the Planning Commission and Mr. Musso explained that this is an
accumulaton of things from the Council and Planning Commission
generated over the years, and that not h much has been taken from
other communities.
There was some discussion concerning the report made earlier in
the year by Brown and Caldwell with regard to sewer capacity
and water demand related to AB-130l and Councilman Taylor stated
that he would like to get some feedback from the City Attorney
on this aspect.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is really hard for him to ascertain
which material is the old General Plan and which is the new and
it would help to have some type of outline to indicate exactly
what the amendments to the General Plan are. He then asked if on
the last page the portion referring to development timing and on,
is all new, which Mr. Musso stated is correct.
CM-27-198
November l2, 1973
(Hearing re Gen. Plan)
Councilman Futch stated that population projections are undergoing
quite a change and wondered if it would not be a good idea to look
at our projected pooulation compared to those of ABAG and possibly
try to bring them into agreement.
Mr. Musso was directed to report to the Council with regard to
population projection comparisons.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by unanimous vote, the matter was tabled until November 19th.
CONSENT CALENDAR
REPORT RE EMPLOYEE
DISABILITY INSURANCE
(Vern Kihle Application)
The City Manager reported that new regulations of the Public Employees
Retirement System require the approval of the local legislative body
for any employee seeking disability retirement. This pertains to
Vern Kihle's application which is now pending and it is recommended
that the Council adopt a motion authorizing an application to he
made for disability retirement for Vernon Kihle, effective October 26,
1973.
Resolutions re Appts.
to Beautification Comm.
The following resolutions were adopted appointing Walt Davies and
Marjorie Leider to the Beautification Committee:
RESOLUTION NO. l47-73
APPOINTHENT OF MEMBER TO THE BEAUTIFICATION COMr--1ITTEE
(Wal t Davies)
RESOLUTION NO. l48-73
APPOINT~-1ENT OF Hm-1:BER TO THE BEAUTIFICATION Cm~?'UTTEE
(Marjorie Leider)
Resolution Denying Claim
of Masonic Temple Assn.
The following resolution was adopted denying the claim of the Masonic
Temple Association for property damages resulting from blockage of
a storm drain pipe:
RESOLUTION NO. l49-73
A RESOLUTION DENYIN~ THE CLAPl OF ~,1ASONIC
TEMPLE .ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE.
Payroll and Claims
Dated Nov. 9, 1973
There were l65 claims in the amount of $l73,47l.62 and 276 payroll
warrants in the amount of $73,536.l2, dated November 9, 1973, for a
total of $247,007.74, and ordered paid by the City Manager.
CM-27-l99
November 12, 1973
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved with Council-
man Beebe abstaining from Warrant 7955 on the Payroll and Claims,
for his usual reasons.
REPORT RE PUB. WORKS
DEFICIT - BEVILACQUA
TRACT 2619 re BRIDGE
The Public Works Director reported that a major improvement re-
quirement in the Bevilacqua Tract 2619 for construction of a
bridge on Heather Lane crossing the arroyo has not been done
and the developer has aksked that the Council allow postponement
on the construction for a period of one year due to the fact that
the culverts are adequate for the existing flows and because we
are now into the wet weather period. It is recommended that the
one year extension period be allowed subject to provide a bond
to cover the cost and that if the work has not been completed
by July 15, 1974 the City may use the funds received from the
bonding company to complete the work.
Mr. Lee stated that the company has requested that the matter
be continued again, as they are meeting with Zone 7 regarding
the size of bridge to be required. Zone 7 is contemplating divert-
ing some of the flow from this channel which would also affect the
size of the proposed bridge. A meeting is scheduled for November
2lst after which the City Council can make its decision.
The Council concluded that the matter would be discussed on or
before December 17th which was made in the form of a motion by
Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and which
passed by the unanimous vote of the Council.
REPORT RE BAY DELTA
RESOURCES RECOVERY PROJ.
The Public Works Director reported that for the past year our
City has been one of the participants in the joint exercise of
powers agreement regarding the Bay Delta Resources Recovery
Project study done under the auspices of ABAG and with the Council
authority a financial contribution of $l,500 was made for this
purpose. The committee is ready to demonstrate a solid waste
disposal system under a carefully monitored pilot program and
the joint powers agreement formalizes the program and allows
our participation. No additional cost will be borne by any of
the participants and it is recommended that the Council adopt
a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement.
Councilman Taylor moved that the Council adopt a resolution
authorizing execution of the agreement, which was seconded by
Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he agrees but feels that the
other groups should be invited to join.
Mr. Lee indicated that participation by other jurisdictions is
advantageous and would encourage such participation. He felt
that once it is started there will be added support for the
program.
CH-27-200
November l2, 1973
(Bay Delta Resources Proj.)
Councilman Taylor suggested that a letter be sent to the chairman
of the committee or the ABAG staff, suggesting that they make another
effort to get the cities involved, and perhaps pointing out the new
reasons for joining, which he included as part of the motion.
Mayor Miller wondered if this would mean a commitment to a later
expenditure and Hr. Lee assured the Council that this would take
the City into Stage 1 and would not be a commitment for additional
funds; however, he stated that there has been opinion expressed to
the contrary and that before we are finished with Stage 1 there may
be a need for additional funds. Possibly there should be a redraft
to outline this contingency. The majority of the members feel that
there will be other participation later who will be paying their
portion and should take care of any additional needs during Stage
l.
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed by a
unanimous vote and the following resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. l50-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEHENT
(Bay Delta Resources Recovery Project)
REPORT RE ~lOBILE HOME
DNELLINGS & RATIO TO
EXISTING DWELLINGS
The Planning Director prepared a report to the Council pursuant
to its request for the percentage of mobile home dwellings compared
to the number of dwellings existing in the City. The report indicated
that the total number of dwellings is l6,lOO and total number of mobile
home dwellings is 369 (a percentage of 2.3).
The Mayor noted that the Council has set a policy of allowing 4%
of the dwellings to be composed of mobile homes, and suggested that
this item be scheduled for discussion on the agenda, as this is infor-
mational only, and reconsider the percentage of mobile homes to be
allowed in the City. He felt that a 2.5% allowance would probably
be ample.
Mr. Musso was asked what people are told with regard to the policy
of mobile homes and he explained that people are told that the City
does allow mobile homes in the zones which allm., this use and that
there is a limit on the percentage of units allowed, adding that
there are no mobile home applications pending.
Mayor Miller moved that the item be scheduled on the agenda for the
purpose of reconsidering the percentage allowed, seconded by Council-
man Futch and which passed 3-2 (Beebe and Pritchard dissenting).
Councilman Futch stated that in his opinion mobile homes are not motor
vehicles in any way and are a form of prefabricated housing which
should be taxed in the same manner as any other home. Since they
do not pay taxes he would suggest that there be no more allowed until
they are required to pay taxes in the same way the rest of the home-
owners are taxed. He then moved that there be zero increase in the
percentage of mobile homes allowed, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
~ihen Councilman Taylorcommented about a developer proposing to build
mobile home units that would not be on wheels, Councilman Futch stated
that cases such as this would not apply, as they are taxed the same
as a home.
Councilman Futch withdrew his motion, as a decision as to the number
of additional units allowed will be discussed before the end of the
year.
C~1-27-2 Ol
".~ --,.,~.._"_._._~-'----------~_..._.._--~-,----_._~..~~----'..-..---,.-..-
November l2, 1973
REPORT RE TELE-VUE
RATE INCREASE
The City Manager reported that a franchise was granted in 1965 to
the predecessor of Tele-Vue Systems, Inc. for a period of 20 years.
Considerable improvements and modifications to the system have
been made and it appears that the service is satisfactory. Tele-
Vue Systems have now requested a rate adjustment and after a great
deal of consideration and personal discussion with the firm it is
recommended that the franchise be amended to reflect the following
changes:
Current
Proposed
Monthly Rate
Additional Outlets
$ 5.00
l.OO
$ 6.00
l.50
Reconnection Charge - Bad Debts
l5.00 Deposit
(returned - 1 yr.)
Relocation Charge - Outlets
Time & Material Basis
Additional Outlet Installation
lO.OO
l2.00
City Francise Fee
2%
3%
The new rates, if allowed, are proposed to be effective February l,
1974, and remain firm for at least a four year period.
Provisions also will be made insuring cable service to be afforded
to the school system for education needs, provisions allowing the joint
occupancy of underground cable conduit for public safety purposes and
a proposed method for public announcements of emergency and civil
defense bulletins.
The City Manager noted that there has been increase in the percentage
of clientele in the City and Councilman Taylor wondered if this would
result in a decrease in rates, in time, which the City Manager felt
would not likely be a possibility.
The council then discussed the proposed changes to the franchise
and commented on other areas of the franchise which might possibly
be amended at the same time.
Chris Derick, Manager of Tele-Vue Systems, Inc., spoke to the Council
with regard to Te1e-Vue and the proposed changes as well as regard to
the requirements of the FCC to be complied with by 1977, adding
that by this date there will be a minimum of 20 channels available
to the public.
Mayor Miller stated that he has read in the League of Cities magazine
that cities should pay sharp attention to their franchises in the
area of Cable T.V. because there are many things which may happen
which cities should be prepared for an not be left out due to being
naive about the franchise and stated that the following questions
are some which he would like to see the staff consider with regard
to the franchise) and report back to the Council on them:
l) Public education and local government's' access channels are to be
free for a five year period - can this be amended to read that these
be free after the five years? Could the local government and educa-
tion channels be wired at the franchiser's expense? He felt that
the public channel studio should be available to local education and
local government users for free also.
2) There should be some time available for local government on the
two-way channel whenever this is implemented. If these two-way
channels do not arrive instantly there should be something in
the franchise which allows the City to negotiate that matter
in five years.
CM-27-202
November l2, 1973
(re Tele-Vue Rates)
3) There should be some option for the public to purchase Cable T.V.
4) There should be some consideration for taxes or business license
fees, commercial services and regulation in business license fees
for pay T.V. and local channel advertising.
The Mayor stated that he feels all of these things should be mentioned
in the course of the discussions over the rate increase, adding that
he feels the rate increase proposed would seem to be reasonable.
Mr. Derick stated that he feels that in a very short period of time,
here in Livermore, some type of educational access which Tele-Vue
is working out with the educational people at this time will be
available. He also explained the concept of the two-way channel
and some of the FCC requirements.
Mayor Hiller stated that some of the points he has mentioned would
be beyond what is required by the FCC and Mr. Derick stated that
under the state statute the City will have the opportunity to
be sufficiently covered.
Councilman Taylor moved that the rate schedule be approved subject
to an appropriate amendment to the franchise, with the final decision
being made at a later date, seconded by Councilman Beebe and which
passed by a unanimous vote.
REPORT RE SETBACK
VIOLATION - TRACT 3321,
SUNSET HOMES - Mehran
The City Manager reported that as a directive of the Council with
regard to the setback violation in Tract 332l (Sunset Development)
located on Portola Avenue and North Livermore Avenue, a detailed
investigation has been conducted and a full written report has been
presented to the Council on the matter.
Councilman ~~ :ra~~~h~~~ead the report it is
still hard to understand how the lack of communication within the
City occurred and how the building permits were given to Sunset
Development when there were plans indicating setback violations.
He felt that this has been a very unfortunate happening as this is
a serious matter and it would appear that the staff has not been
diligent in keeping the violations in mind once they had been brought
to the attention of the Planning Department by the Building Department.
He added that he feels the Building Department should not have given
final approval until the violations had been resolved. He stated
that he would like to comment on the Mayor's statement which was
made last week and implied that there may have been collusion; he
felt this was unfortunate and that there has been no evidence to
suggest such. He stated that he can see no evidence to indicate
that Sunset Homes or Granada Company has received any preferential
treatment.
Mayor Miller stated that he did not say "collusion" and would not
want to imply that there has been collusion. However, he does feel
that whenever there is a benefit of the doubt or a boarderline de-
cision to be made, there is a resolution to the matter overwhelmingly
in favor of Sunset Development.
Councilman Futch responded to this statement by saying that he cannot
see how the Mayor can say that preferential treatment is given to
Sunset Development without saying that there is some type of collusion
going on.
CH-27-203
November l2, 1973
(Setback Violation)
MaybrMiller:::stated that he would be willing to give one example
by pointing out that Sunset Development is the most consistent
sign violator in the City of Livermore and there must be hundreds
of misdemeanors committed by Sunset Development and not one of
these have ever been taken to the District Attorney.
Councilman Futch responded by saying that to his knowledge this
Council has never approved a sign that is in violation of the
Sign Ordinance and with regard to this matter he would hope that
the developer will agree to abate the non-conforming signs as
quickly as possible. He pointed out that, obviously, this company
has more signs than any of the other developers due to the volume
of business they have done in Livermore and it would stand to
reason that they would stand a greater chance of being in viola-
tion of the ordinance.
Mayor Miller stated that the RS Ordinance has been effective for
about six years and everyone knows the provisions of this ordinance
and felt there is no excuse for a developer who has been in Livermore
for 20 years submitting a map in error, with six out of nine lots not
satisfying the development plan. He pointed out that there has just
been a discussion with the County regarding North Livermore Avenue
being a major street and which has been so on our General Plan for
a number of years and that the staff should well have known that
this is a major street. He agrees that it is not clear where the
communication gap occurred but it would appear that there was an
enormous rush to get the building permits issued and the proper
care was not taken with each individual lot. The 398 building permits
issued were done so in less than a one week period and it should
be fairly obvious that this amount cannot be issued with full care,
and that certain regulations are designed to protect the person
who will ultimately purchase these homes. He stated that he feels
to let the matter pass would be an unreasonable thing to do.
Councilman Beebe asked if ~1ayor Miller is suggesting that the nine
lots with the improper setbacks should be corrected with the proper
setbacks provided, and the Mayor stated that he feels this should
be done. Councilman Beebe then asked if the Mayor is implying that
this will be done at City expense, and the Mayor stated, on
the contrary, there is a provision .in the Building Code which states
that the building permit is not valid if issued when there is a
violation of our codes and ordinances.
Mr. Wharton explained that the section the Mayor is referring to says,
in effect, that the City will not be bound in the issuance of a permit
by its own mistakes - this refers to a building permit and the problem
seems to be that this error does not have to do with the issuance of a
building permit. Although the Building Code talks about building per-
mits and establishes a policy for such permits that has to be the exact
document we are speaking of in which the errors are included. In answer
to a question of whether or not the City has the authority to require
that these foundations be moved, the City Attorney commented that the
situation is the result of apparent errors and misunderstandings on
the part of almost every person who had a hand in this transaction
and he feels the City cannot claim to have been "done in" by those
who are developing this property due to the fact that the errors
were, in part, the responsibility of the City officials and not
detected and corrected by the time the developer made a substantial
investment upon reliance of our official City actions. It would be
unlikely that the City could compel the developer to make these changes
and expect the developer to pay such expense of making the changes.
Councilman Taylor wondered if the developer would be willing to
move the foundations with the improper setbacks which the developer's
attorney responded to at this time.
CM-27-204
November l2, 1973
(Setback Violation)
David ~1adis, attorney renresenting Sunset Homes stated that this
particular piece of property was originally owned by H. C. Elliott,
then sold to the Hofmann Company prior to purchase by Sunset Homes
and at that time the Zoning which was on the property and for which
the map was approved was RL - RL is different with regard to setback
requirements than RS which the land is now zoned. After the land
had been rezoned to RS the final man came in a few months later.
He pointed out that the lots for that subdivision were not planned
by Sunset Homes but Hofmann was not interested in building on these
lots and there was some uncertainty as plans changed and that a large
part of the responsibility for the errors which have occurred and
ultimately led up to the location of those foundations at the present
time must be borne by City officials and the Council because of all
tfie actions of the City and worry over whether or not permits would
even be allowed. It is not practical for developers to come in on
a daily basis to pick up a permit~ therefore, they make application,
pay for permits and take them all at one time. In situations such
as this there are bound to be errors by the builder and the City.
It would be extremely expensive to try to move these foundations, as
there has been extensive work already completed but Mr. Mehran has
offered to put in a buffer of trees in addition to the masonry fence
for added protection to these homeowners.
Mr. Musso stated that there was some discussion regarding the fact
that the subdivision had been approved prior to the RS Ordinance
and that the lots were not designed for this ordinance and perhaps
there were grounds for a variance, but at any rate a variance should
have been requested and it was not. As far as the City officials
being rushed in issuing permits he stated that this was not the reason
for the error - the error, in fact, had been cauqht which was followed
by a misunderstanding over the advice on the matter and the permits
\'Tere issued.
Mayor Miller stated that the thing that bothers him about this inci-
dent is that it took more than lO years to get our zoning ordinance
amended to provide protection for those people who buy the houses
built on these lots. If these protections are removed for the
people buying these nine lots he feels that these people are being
cheated, and if he sounds irritated it is because he is irritated.
Such a violation by a developer means that l5 years of effort have
been "blown" because he gets the permits and for one reason or another
the violations were not caught and the develoner was not stopped.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would have to agree that a lot of
what the Mayor has said is true~ however, he is sure that the staff
catches many errors. He is not trying to say that this error should
be excused because he feels it should have been caught but does not
know what can be done at this point.
The Council then discussed the oriqinal RS Ordinance as well as the
amendments to the provisions of the ordinance, and things that could
be done to help allay the situation.
There was some discussion over planting of trees and Councilman
Taylor suggested that a ulan be worked out for the planting of the
trees on both sides of the fence and so moved, seconded by Councilman
Futch.
It was noted that such would be done subject to staff approval, and
a report back to the Council.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
~tlayor Hiller stated that he regrets to comment that he feels the
errors overlooked in this instance are so gross that he would like
some kind of response and feels that some type of reprimand is in
order.
cr1-27-205
November 12, 1973
(Setback Violation)
The City Manager responded by saying that he knows what the
~1ayor's attitude is over this matter and how strongly he feels
about it but would say that in this case a reprimand would be
out of order inasmuch as all of those who were involved in the
mistake have suffered a great deal and further action on the part
of the City Manager or the City Council, through him, would be
wasted. The staff is fully aware of the error and is making every
effort to see that such will not reoccur, and added that the staff
is very sorry about the whole thing.
Mayor Miller stated that he could accept the City Manager's state-
ment but one hates to see mistakes that allow something like this
to happen after it took so long to come up with the RS Ordinance.
Mr. Musso commented that he feels that the Building Department
has been emphasized and does not want anyone to feel that it was
the fault of the Building Department. He pointed out that they
act as representatives of the Planning Department and the Build-
ing Inspector works on the Planning Department's behalf.
Councilman Taylor moved that the procedures recommended in the
letter from the Planning Director be adopted, seconded by Council-
man Beebe. (This motion was later withdrawn)
Mayor Miller suggested that the staff consider that grading plans
should be brought in with the tentative and applications for building
permits have the lot area and setbacks in the final maps and the
grading in the tentative map. Also, the building permits have the
floor area of the structures as a requirement of those who submit
applications.
Councilman Taylor felt it might not be practical to require the
detailed grading with the tentative and Mr. Lee commented that
the grading plan is usually a large undertaking and can see the
potential for problems; however, in most instances where there
is reasonably level ground there is no need for grading plans at
this stage. Perhaps if the ground is exceedingly steep an indi-
cation can be given as to what type of lot pad will be used.
At this time Councilman Tavlor stated that he would like to withdraw
his motion which was followed by discussion regarding the Hillside
Ordinance Standards.
Mr. Mehran, developer of Sunset Homes, stated that he would like to
apologize for the inconvenience and embarrassment which has been
caused over this matter and explained that the maps and plot-plans
are prepared by engineers who should be meticulous and aware of the
requirements in this case, and also that the building permits for
this tract were not given in one week. He felt that anyone who
wishes to buy any of his homes is not cheated, as they have the
opportunity to see the home prior to purchase and know exactly
what they are getting. If they make a purchase, they do so willingly.
REPORT RE STANDARD OIL
PROPERTY PURCHASE &
~I(OCHO STREET PARK SITE
The matter of the acquisition for the Standard Oil property at
the corner of First Street and South Livermore Avenue was post-
poned from the meeting of October 29th to allow for negotiations.
Standard Oil has consented to a delay for the decision on the parcel
no later than today and it is estimated that Standard Oil will re-
ject a purchase offer for the 8,700 sq. ft. of property for any
amount under $40,000. The staff feels that the lot has practically
no public service utility and could be used to supplement the
intersection beautification but at a very expensive cost and
recommended that the purchase offer be withdrawn.
CT-1-27-206
November l2, 1973
(Standard oil Property
& ~ocho Park Purchases)
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to see nermanent beautifica-
tion at one of our major intersections and would like to consider
making some type of offer for acquiring the property.
Councilman pritchard moved that the City Manager negotiate with
Standard Oil for the best possible price, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Councilman Futch felt there should be some consideration towards
what could be purchased somewhere else for $40,000, and Councilman
Pritchard stated that this could be down; however, it seems to be
a question of whether or not the City desires to purchase this
parcel, and if so, it appears that the City will have to pay the
price Standard Oil is asking.
Mayor Miller stated that he agrees with what Councilman Pritchard
has stated but feels a limit as to the purchase price should be
agreed upon.
Councilman Taylor stated that the City should be able to purchase
about 20 times as much land for $40,000, in other parts of the City
and this will mean that a neighborhood park of four acres will never
be purchased because of this acquisition. It seems that there is
never enough money for park acquisition and always turns out that
it is either this piece of property or another.
Mayor Miller stated that it is true, if this piece of property is
purchased it will mean that something else cannot be bought but
on the other hand this is a location that is very hard to match and
has a greater visual impact than most other parcels.
Councilman Beehe moved to amend the motion to read that the Mocho
Street park purchase be included in the motion because the City
will be receiving lS times the amount of land on Mocho Street for
the same amount of money as the l/4 acre (estimated amount) presently
owned by Standard Oil, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The amendment to the motion failed 2.3 with Hayor ~;1iller, Councilmen
Futch and Taylor dissenting.
The Council discussed the size and cost of the property as opposed
to other areas which could he purchased for the same cost.
At this time the main motion failed 2-3 with Councilmen Beebe, Futch
and Taylor dissenting.
Councilman Beebe moved that the purchase of this property as well
as the property on Hocho Street for park purposes be approved,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and was followed by debate.
Councilman Futch called for the question which passed by the follow-
ing roll called vote:
AYES: Councilman Beebe, Mayor Miller and Councilman Pritchard
NOES: Councilmen Futch and Taylor
Councilman Futch asked if there had been a maximum price decided
upon for the Mocho Street acquisition and the r1ayor explained that
there ~~ould be a maximum of $40,000 spent on the Standard Oil property
and $42,000 for the ~1ocho Street property.
cr1-27-207
November l2, 1973
REPORT RE ISABEL AVE.
RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION
(Route 84)
The City Manager reported that the Suate Highway Commission's staff
is reappraising the maintenance of the Isabel Avenue alignment for a
fut~re placement of a freeway and that it is possible because of a
low cost benefit ratio the routing will be repealed. It is possible
that in time construction of a freeway or expressway along the same
route may take place and this right-Of-way should be reserved to accom-
modate such construction. It has be~n suggested by the people who
are active in these types of projects that an appeal should be made
by the City, officially, to the State Highway Commission as there
is a likelihood that if this is not done they will rescind any further
action in that area. Mr. Parness explained that what he is speaking
of is the preservation of the current right-of-way. It has been
suggested that it would be more impr~ssive if a local contribution
were offered in the amount of 10% of the right-of-way to be divided
with the County (55% City 45% County). It is recommended that the
Council authorize this type of a pro~osal to be made to the County
of Alameda and in turn to the State Highway Commission. The cost
of our share would be approximately $ll,OOO.
Councilman Taylor moved that the council accept this recommendation,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard and which passed by a unanimous
vote.
David Madis, speaking as an attorney for Mr. Elliott stated that
they have no objection with plans for proceeding with this align-
ment but would like to have a decision made as to whether there
will be a freeway or lots on Mr. Elliott's property as they are
reaching the point where they will want to break ground and develop
lots. He felt this should be an inducement for the state to fund .
and proceed with the project.
Mayor Miller stated that before any decision is made with regard
to processing a map regarding lots oh Mr. Elliott's property he
would have to have a report from the: staff on the matter.
Harry Elliott, Jr., stated that he has been involved with this matter
for the past two years and he has been in contact with a Mr. Lammers
who has recommended that the alignment go through. It has gone from
the staff to the Highway Commission with the staff recommending it
and the Highway Commission opposing it. Mr. Elliott asks that the
map be processed and pointed out that they have a tentative map
which expires on January 19th.
The Mayor explained that there is an interim ordinance in effect
which, at this time, prohibits the ~iling of a final map.
It was concluded that the staff would be directed to furnish a
report for the Council before a dec~sion is made.
REPORT RE INTERIM GEN.
PLAN ZONING STUDIES
A written report was presented to the Council by the Planning Direc-
tor which indicated the status of the interim zoning-planning study
which the Council discussed brief1y.1 It was noted that future specific
plan preparation and adoption will proceed at a faster rate than the
initial three plans after concurrence is given by the Council with
regard to format and techniques being used. .
CM-27-208
November l2, 1973
SUM1I1ARY OF ACTION FOR
P.C. MEETING OF ll-6-73
PAVIA/LEONARDO APPEAL
The summary of action taken by the Planning Commission at their
meeting of November 6, 1973, was noted, and Hayor Hiller stated
that he would like to appeal the Planning Commission action in
which they conditionally approved an application for a CUP to
develop lots on Bluebell Drive (V. Pavia and W. C. Leonardo).
There being no objection by any of the Council members, the matter
\Vas appealed.
INTRODUCTION OF ORD. RE
UNIFO~1 SALES AND USE TAX
Changes in the law require an amendment to the ordinance, and on
motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and by
a unanimous vote, the ordinance relating to uniform sales and use
taxes was introduced (title will be read next week).
Also to be presented later is an agreement with the State Board of
Equalization for collection of said sales and use taxes.
~1ATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(re Beautification
Committee's Totem Pole)
Mr. Lee stated that the Beautification Committee is looking for a
spot in which to place the totem pole donated by a citizen of the
community and would like it to be placed in the Centennial Park
close to the intersection of Holmes and Murrieta Boulevard.
~1ayor Miller stated that he would be interested is viewing a sketch
of the totem pole, scaled to size, in the proposed location.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the totem pole is a centennial totem
pole and that Centennial Park is the only appropriate location for it
and moved that this location be approved, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and which passed 4-l (Mayor Miller dissenting).
(Question re Lights for
Christmas Trees - Energy
Crisis)
Mr. Parness asked the Council for direction with regard to lights
for the Christmas trees and decorations in public areas, in view
of the fact the nation is concerned with the energy crisis.
Councilman Beebe suggested that it be eliminated this year, with
\Vhich Councilman Taylor expressed concurrence.
Hr. Parness also commented that the Chamber of Commerce is recommending
that there be no lights this year.
It was the consensus of the Council that there would be no lighted
Christmas tree decorations this year.
~1ATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCE..
(Request for Support
of I-S80 for Safety)
Councilman Beebe stated that the sand and gravel company has asked
CH-27-209
November 12, 1973
(re I-580 Widening)
that the Council reconsider its vote for the support of I-580
widening west of the Dublin area on the basis that it uses the
freeway a great deal and is concerned for the safety of people,
in general, and the trucking industry.
Councilman Beebe stated that in addition to this he feels the
Council owes it to the people who live here to eliminate the
congestion on the freeway that they have to put up with. He
recommended that the Council take the position of recommending
the widening of I-580 and so moved.
Councilman Futch stated that in his opinion the use of the auto-
mobile will steadily decrease and would hate to see a monument
built to the futility of continued expansion of the automobile.
councilman Beebe stated that he would like to add to his motion
that the Council inform the Regional Highway Commission that the
City of Livermore favors the widening of I-580 and also to pre-
serve the center strip for the BART right-of-way.
Councilman Futch suggested that all copies of the Environmental
Impact Report should be obtained by the Council prior to a vote
for any such motion.
The Council concluded that the matter should be discussed at the
next Council meeting and that the Council should be furnished with
the Environmental Impact Report and Councilman Beebe's motion was
withdrawn.
(re Air Resources
Board Statement)
Councilman Taylor moved that the City adopt the Air Resources
Board's statement as the City policy and that Councilman Futch
should be authorized to represent the City Council, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard and which passed by a unanimous vote.
(Bike Accident
at Buena vista)
Councilman Futch stated that he received a telephone call from
a citizen who was concerned over a bicycle accident that had
occurred at Buena vista Avenue and that he would like to know
the details of the bike accidents occurring on East Avenue. He
suggested that the Council take action requesting slower speeds
along East Avenue and that they start receiving reports on the
bike accidents in that area.
(re Encroachment
Permit Signs)
Councilman Pritchard stated that the matter of encroachment permit
signs in the public right-of-way was to have been discussed by
the Council and since it did not on the appear on the agenda for
this meeting he would like to request that it be an agenda item
next week.
CM-27-210
November l2, 1973
(Request for
Prompt Attendance)
Mayor Miller asked that the Council members arrive at the Council
meetings by 8:00 p.m., as there are at least lO minutes wasted
with people arriving at various times.
(re Billboard in Front
of Eucalyptus Trees)
Mayor Miller expressed concern over a billboard in front of a group
of eucalyptus trees located at North Livermore Avenue and Portola,
as trees behind signs are often cut down, and since these
must be protected by the Heritage Ordinance he would recommend that
the o'~ers of these trees be notified that they are heritage trees
and cannot be removed.
(re Model Home Signs)
Mayor Miller stated that the letter regarding model home signs was
not very clear and Mr. Musso explained that the general procedure
for the subdivision signs and model homes is that a permit is issued
for a period of one year and changes are not usually required of them
within that year unless they have been warned in advance. With the
change in the ordinance, any change in the sign or model home would
have to conform with the ordinance.
ADJOURWIENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meet-
ing was adjourned at ll:45 p.m. to an executive session for the purpose
of discussing appointments for the Smog Committee, the BASA Board,
and possibly the Airport Committee.
APPROVE cfJ~ 9!), ~L1/
ATTEST ,....~~
/ .ity Clerk
vermore, California
Regular Meeting of November 19, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 19, 1973,
in the ~1unicipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. '-'lith ~1ayor ~1iller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Futch (Councilman Futch Seated after
the Pledge of Allegiance)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
r-Iayor r-1iller led the Council members as '<Tell as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Cf'll- 27 - 2ll
"..... '__.. _,"m"_ ..... .._..__'_.^_...____.__~_._........._._..._._~_,.._"______,___
November 19, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Statement by Masud
Mehran of Sunset Homes)
Masud Mehran, developer of Sunset Homes, l8l9 Barcelona, explained
that he has a message which he would like to convey to the City
Council and to the people of Livermore in which he would like to
state that the people at Sunset Homes are a group of honest Ameri-
can businessmen and businesswomen and that their record is imoeccable.
He pointed out that there have been allegations made recently~by indi-
viduals within the City government with regard to collusion between
certain members of the City staff and people employed by Sunset Homes,
which he felt is superficially substantiated by the fact that Sunset
Homes has been in business for many years in this City while many
other home builders have come and gone. It has been suggested that
Sunset has been receiving special privileges and that tract errors
have been to the advantage of Sunset Homes in addition to the charge
that they are "cheating" the public. He emphasized that these state-
ments are not true and the attacks are unfounded, and that they are
being taken advantage of. He stated that their continued gentlemanly
silence has been misinterpreted, at least by certain people, and they
are prepared to defend themselves. He felt that if such action by
them is of no benefit perhaps it will be of some good to others
who may be innocently publicly antagonized by insinuations and in-
nuendos. He pointed out that they have been in business in Liver-
more for two decades with one-third of the population buying Sunset Homes
and children who lived in Sunset homes are now purchasing them upon
their parents' recommendation. If Sunset Homes was a disreputable
firm they would not have lasted this long and would not be able to
make such a claim. He felt these unfounded accusations can no longer
be tolerated and leaves Sunset Homes no alternative but to defend
its integrity. He stated that he sincerely hopes this will put an
end to this demagoguery - if he had received personal insults he
would have been able to ignore them but will defend his people when
they are accused of having been dishonest.
In response to Mr. Mehran's statement, Councilman Taylor stated that
he was not present at the meeting in which the allegations were made
but according to Councilman Futch such was not spoken on behalf of
the City Council.
Councilman Futch stated that he had stated that he did not agree with
the comments made by the Mayor and sees no evidence to support the
allegations made, and would venture to say that this would be the
opinion of the majority of the Council. In his opinion the City
would be fortunate to have had developers who have shown as much
concern for the community as Mr. Mehran has.
Councilman Taylor stated that if Mr. Mehran feels he has been ma-
ligned by the City government, this is unfortunate, and that possibly
a reply would be in order. If there is any evidence to support the
accusations the matter should be discussed further, but if not, the
whole matter should be dropped.
Mayor Miller stated that he can write a list of the things he spoke
about - they are in the minutes and have been in the newspaper ac-
count and people who have heard his comments or read of them can
agree or disagree with them as they choose.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he does not want to get involved
in a debate but each of the Council members have their own personal
opinion on many subjects and would feel upset if expression of this
personal opinion was discouraged. Anytime a member of the Council
expresses an opinion it does not mean that the rest of the Council
must take a position on it. He feels the statements made by the
Mayor were his own personal feelings and not a Council position.
CM-27-2l2
November 19, 1973
(Statement by Masud Mehran)
Mayor Hiller stated that he never said anything about "collusion"
which was the main issue in Mr. Hehran's statement and any comment
about there having been talk about collusion by any of the Council
members between the City staff and Sunset Development is false.
He added that he feels the reaction of the majority of the Council
with respect to the comments made by Mr. Mehran is very interesting
and an indication as to what has been going on for 20 years.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that a very serious accusation has
been made about the City government and would like to clarify that
this was not a Council position but a position by one member and
that the statement just made by Mayor Miller leaves all types of
implications and perhaps this is exactly what occurred during the
discussion in which Sunset Homes felt they had been accused of some
type of collusion.
Mayor Miller asked if it would be possible to listen to the meeting
in which he supposedly referred to "collusion" and the City Clerk
explained that permanent recordings of the meeting are not retained
for six months and the Mayor felt it would be a good idea for the
Council to decide how long the tapes should be kept.
Councilman Futch stated that he personally feels the tapes should
be kept for longer than 30 days and that six months does not really
sound unreasonable, and suggested that the Council be furnished with
a report as to what a six month supply of recording tapes would cost.
It was concluded that there will be a discussion over the length of
time the tapes should be retained, at the next meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Use of
Carnegie Building
The City Manager reported that LARPD has intentions of vacating
the upper floor of the Carnegie Building (former library) which
comprises approximately l/3 of the floor space and that the City
has applied for the use of the space to house the Valley Youth
Services Center. LARPD has agreed to the request and would like
to use the remainder of the floor space to accommodate the art
and historical organizations. Discussions for this purpose are
now under way with the civic grouns involved.
Report re Workmen's
Compo Coverage for
Volunteer Services
The City Hanager reported that it has been advised that 'liability
property damage and workmen's compensation insurance coverage
should be obtained for all volunteer citizen groups that are
joined with the City in various fields and the staff recommends
that the Council adopt a motion authorizing a budgetary amendment
which would permit an expenditure for the necessary insurance
coverage.
Councilman Pritchard questioned the possibility of a waiver by
the volunteers and the City Attorney explained that a volunteer
may cause an accident to someone else and there is no way a citizen
can be asked to perform as a volunteer and insure himself.
CH-27-2l3
November 19, 1973
Res. Auth. for Fed. Grant -
Valley Youth Services
Center - 2nd Year Funding
It is a routine formality for the City to file an application
to receive federal funds for operation of the Valley Youth
Services Center (2nd year funding) and it is recommended
that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing application of
such.
RESOLUTION NO. l5l-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL GRANT
FOR SECOND YEAR FUNDING: VALLEY YOUTH SERVICES CENTER
Res. Denying Claim
for Damages
Pursuant to the City insurance carrier's advice it is recommended
that the Council deny the claim of Pacific Gas & Electric Company
for property damages resulting from an accident on July 25, 1973.
RESOLUTION NO. l52-73
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Departmental Reports
Departmental Reports were received from the following:
Activity Report - Airport - October
Building Inspection - October
Fire Department - Third Quarter, 1973
Library - Third Quarter, 1973
Mosquito Abatement District - September
Municipal Court - September
Police and Pound Departments - October
Water Reclamation Plant - September and October
Beautification Minutes
Minutes for the Beautification Committee's meeting of October 3,
1973 were noted for filing.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
REPORT RE PAVIA/LEONARDO
APPLICATION FOR CUP TO
BUILD DUPLEXES
Mr. Musso reported that the Planning Commission approved a CUP
application by Mr. Pavia and Mr. Leonardo for development of
duplexes to be located on Bluebell Drive due to the following
considerations:
1) The proposed duplexes do conform to the General Plan, which
proposes the area to be low density residential due to the
density transfer that occurred with the P.U.D. permit.
CM-27-2l4
November 19, 1973
(Pavia/Leonardo
Application for CUP)
2) Subject to approval of a CUP the proposed use is permitted in
the zoning district in which proposed and could conform to zoning
district or other ordinance requirements by virtue of P.U.D.
approval.
Mr. Musso then described the area in which the lots are located and
pointed out that the amendments recently made in the ordinance pro-
vide that if certain findings are made, with regard to 10ts of
record and PUD permit, that the moratorium ordinance can be waived.
~ayor Miller stated that at his request the matter was appealed
because he does not feel the CUP conditions are satisfied by
this particular application and that Item 6 of the Planning
Commission's findings are not satisfied (parks and schools) as
well as Item 7 (effect on subdivision) as it is not known what will
develop there and how drastic the holding capacity cuts will be. He
felt that approval would pre-empt the General Plan review. When there
was discussion over who ~~ould receive permits during the moratorium
it was decided that individuals who had a lot in order to build on it
(developers building lots) and not for individuals who might wish to
build single family housing. He felt that such an approval would not
remain within the Council's originaY intent and urged that the Council
reverse the Planning Commission's approval of the application, and so
moved. The motion died for lack of a second.
Hayor Miller stated that the CUP granted by the Planning Commission
stands.
DISCUSSION RE GEN.
PLAN Al'1ENDMENTS
Mayor Miller commented that he asked that there be discussion of
the General Plan amendments placed on the agenda for this meeting
so that he would have the opportunity to review them thoroughly.
He felt that after review the amendments there are some areas
which should be discussed.
Councilman Futch stated that he he would like to ask a question
and commented that the Planning Commission had recommended a change
in the map only for the area at Concannon Boulevard and Holmes Street
and wondered to what they recommended the zoning be changed.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission recommended Commercial
Zone and that their plan does not differentiate between type of
commercial (neighborhood or general). It says Commercial Zone and
designates a neighborhood shopping center. He also added that after
having gone over the General Plan amendments this past week he can
see that there might be some confusion over the Housing Element.
He explained there were some changes that were pretty hard to follow
and there might be some question as to where they went as well as
some minor word changes which might make it appear to be a different
statement.
Mayor Miller suggested that the Council go through the amendments
and point out some of the things they feel should be changed or
included. He stated that almost nothing has been said about low
income housing but that he has been informed that all of the Housing
Element has been included. Also, the statement that says every sub-
division must satisfy its General Plan density within itself has been
the Council's policy for a long time and not stated very clearly, if
at all, in the present text and it is not stated in specific words
that they should not exceed General Plan holding capacity for density.
CH-27--2l5
November 19, 1973
(Gen. Plan Amend.)
~1ayor Miller stated that the intent of this revision with respect
to multiples is l80 degrees from what it was in the previous ver-
sion which he admitted was an exaggeration but that in the present
text multiples are encouraged and in the latter multiples are dis-
couraged except for very special places.
The Housing Element was discussed (A-4) and the Mayor felt something
should be added to reflect the following: as well as upgrading the
substandard dwellings, as he felt this is the major source of hous-
ing for lower income people (existing lower quality dwellings) and
if they are brought up to standard it should be in the General Plan.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that this General Plan deals primarily
with land use and upgrading of substandard housing is not necessarily
something to be inserted in this type of thing, although the Council
is concerned with upgrading of substandard housing, which was followed
by discussion over whether or not something of this nature should be
included and Councilman Taylor suggested that the Council ask the
Planning Commission to find a way to include it in the Housing Ele-
ment rather than to try to amend it into the General Plan because
it does not make it come about.
Councilman Futch felt that he would have to agree with Councilman
Taylor in that it really doesn't fit in at the present time.
The Council then discussed the portion of the General Plan relative
to density and the changes made by the Planning Commission on Page 3.
It was also noted that the normal growth projections mentioned on
Page 1 should be resolved, at which time there was discussion about
the projections made by AB.7\G and a general feeling that some of our
o~m input should be included with that of ABAG.
Mayor ~iller stated that he felt there is some merit in considering
our growth projections in conjunction with ABAG's and trying to come
to some interim proposal because our present projections are based
solely upon what has happened in the past and ABAG's are based on
what they think jobs, sewers, and other situations will be. He sta-
ted that the next version of our Table 1 should include the working
papers from ABAG's computer group to see what kind of assumptions
they make.
Councilman Taylor suggested that Table 1 be left for revision after
the extensive attention it will get when the General Plan is reviewed.
He felt it will be the major topic of interest when the General Plan
is reviewed, which was followed by discussion regarding Table 1 pro-
jections.
Mayor Miller stated that it appears to be the consensus of the Council
to wait to discuss density after Table 1 has been revised.
Mayor Miller stated that on Page 2 - regarding residential acres, he
would like to add "private recreational uses" to the list of the things
which do not count, so moved by Councilman Futch, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard.
The Council discussed various private recreational uses and Council-
man Taylor suggested that "privately owned recreational land mayor
may not be considered as residential acres, depending on the advantage
of such recreation use to the general public", be included, and Council-
man Pritchard stated that he would prefer to say "private recreational
uses that are not of an open space nature". He felt, for instance,
that a cabana club is open soace.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to offer an amendment
to the motion to state "private recreational uses 'I,'Thich are not of
an open space nature", seconded by Mayor Miller.
Cf-1-27-2l6
November 19, 1973
(Gen. Plan Amendments)
It was noted that the Council is not trying to eliminate cabana
clubs but it does not want cabana clubs to receive density credit
for that portion of land, and Hayor ~Hller wondered if there is
any type of private recreational use of an open space nature that
the Council would not want in the City. The Council concluded
that it would not be against any type of organized open space
type of recreation, including golf course, bowling, miniature golf
and other activities. ~ayor ~iller suggested that private recrea-
tional uses and recreational uses of an open space nature will be
considered on their merits, and ~1r. ~usso was asked what his sug-
gestion would be.
Mr. Musso felt the wording suggested by Councilman Pritchard would
be the best choice.
At this time the amendment made by Councilman Pritchard passed by
a unanimous vote of the Council and now reads as follows:
VI HOUSING
B. Standards
l. General
c. Residential Acres - (addition in next to last line)
residential use~ private recreation use not of an
open space nature; and quasi-public use and parks
acquired by the public through direct purchase.
At this time the Council voted on the main motion which passed
by a unanimous vote and the above wording was adopted.
It was noted that the Planning Commission would be directed to
apply this at the next review by the Planning Commission.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by a unanimous vote, the following addition was made in the
last line of VI B 2. b. "...Unit excent by density transfer as
provided elseldhere wi thin this Section".
Mayor Miller stated that it does not seem to state anywhere
that any specific plan must conform to the holding capacity set for
the Planning Unit, which the Council also discussed.
l"'layor ~1iller stated that he is not trying to say that the General
Plan should overrule specific plans but only that the General Plan
holding capacity should control and the specific plan would have to
conform to the holding capacity, and moved that any specific plan
must conform to the holding capacity set for the planning unit to
be added to Section VI. B. 2. b.; however, the motion died for lack
of a second.
l1ayor ~1iller pointed out that in VI. B. 2. d. (4) Commissioner Seldon
had moved to add \vording at the end which was voted on and passed but
did not appear in the draft which he stated would read as follows:
".....accordance with the density transfer agreement provided the
holding capacity's entire General Plan area is not exceeded". Mayor
Miller stated that he agrees with the proposal made bv Commissioner
Seldon, and moved to accept the addition, seconded by Councilman
Beebe and which passed by unanimous vote.
01-27-2l7
November 19, 1973
(Gen. Plan Amendments)
Mayor ~1iller commented that there was a deletion which pertained
to densities created in the past and were not to justify future
density increase and wondered if it should be retained, and Mr.
Musso explained that this was deleted because the Planning Commission
did not want anyone to misconstrue the meaning.
The Council next discussed the creation of open space developments
mentioned in VI B. 3. b. and whether or not to add "shall be re-
quired" and after debate Mayor Miller moved that the wording
"possibly be required" be included, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and which passed by a unanimous vote.
Mayor Miller suggested that (5) be added to VI B. 3. c. to read -
Have available, public services to serve the residences, includ-
ing schools, and Mr. Musso felt that this section has to do more
with emphasis on the location of the zoning and densities.
At this time Councilman Taylor noted that the Council had spent a
good deal of the time on the General Plan amendments and if there
are a significant number of other changes the Mayor wants to dis-
cuss, perhaps it could be done quickly.
Mayor Miller stated that he has a number of things to discuss re-
garding multiples and Councilman Futch suggested that the ~~ayor
write out the changes he is interested in submitting, present
them to the other members of the Council prior to the next meet-
ing and continue the discussion at that time, which the Mayor
stated he would be happy to do.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by a unanimous vote, the matter was continued to the next
Council meeting which will take place in two weeks.
CO~~~UNICATION FROM COUNTY
RE PROPOSED SIGN STANDARDS
A letter was received from the Alameda County Planning Commission
in which they included a comparison of their proposed sign stan-
dards and our current City regulations and pointed out that with
the exception of C-l and C-2 industrial zones the standards are
compatible. They reported that no change is being recommended in
their present regulations which limits all signs in a Scenic Route
Corridor to C-N standards.
Mr. Musso stated that he attended the meeting which was held by
the County regarding sign regulations and that they had been very
courteous towards our City representatives and were not too in-
clined towards any major considerations in the ordinance as
suggested and the matter has been continued. He noted that the
ordinance regarding signs was written primarily for the Castro
Valley area. He added that he did not make a direct suggestion
that there be different regulations for various parts of the
County but commented that he felt they were trying to write an
ordinance for many sections of the County and portions applicable
to one valley would not necessarily be applicable to Livermore.
1'-1ayor ~Uller stated that there is to be another meeting on the
matter and he would like City representatives to suggest that
there be various regulations for different sections of the County.
Councilman Futch wondered if it would be reasonable to modify
our ordinance pertaining to highway signs to be more compatible
with the standards of the County - such as maximum of 25 ft.
heights.
CH-27-2l8
November 19, 1973
(County Sign Standards)
Councilman Putch felt that if we list a number of things we are
willing to go along with which agree with some of their standards,
perhaps they would more understanding and willing to cooperate
with some of our suqqestions.
Mayor Miller stated that if there is no objection, the staff will
be directed to prepare a letter indicating that the City is willing
to try to bring some of our standards which are not as restrictive
into conformance with theirs, in the spirit of cooperation, as well
as providing a representative to attend their next meeting.
Councilman Taylor stated that if the City is goinq to appear foolish
at repeated appearances before the County and the chances of their
adopting our suggestions appear to be nill he would suggest that
the City not pursue the matter.
Councilman Futch felt that if there is no chance of the County
cooperating the time may corne when something is very important to
us and this persistence may hamper future requests.
It was concluded that the staff would be directed to write a letter
which the Council would review prior to sending a representative to
the meeting.
REPORT RE TREVARNO
ROAD TENTATIVE TRACT
~mp 3525 & E.I.R.
Mr. Husso stated that the Planning Commission discussed Trevarno
Road Tract 3525 (Ensign-Bickford property) and concluded that
they would recommend considering it a residential area controlled
by subdivision and requiring that the street be improved and dedica-
ted to the City, and that it be preserved as a residential area
through zoning and in order to do this the General Plan should be
amended which shows the area to be zoned industrial. It is the
recommendation of the Planning Commission that the tract be approved
and zoned. He stated that the Planning Commission also discussed
various other asoects of the property such as assessments to cover
the public works imnrovements, a condominium type of arrangement
regarding joint ownership of the open space area, and whether or
not Trevarno Road should become a public road or remain a private
street. He stated that the tenants felt there was no problem ~Jith
use of the road by industry in the area and it was concluded that
it should become a public road. It was noted that there would be
a deed restriction to protect the home buyer for a certain period
of time and explained that this would mean that the property v'lould
have to remain as a residential use for a period of five years and
after this time anyone could convert the use. lIe pointed out that
this could be a condition for a oeriod of 10 years suhject to a
majority change on the property ownership.
'rhe comments made by '\1r. ~1usso were follmved by discussion regarding
rezoning of the property to residential and it v!as noted that the
staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract ~lap 3525 without the
rezoning, subject to the public works improvements.
Councilman Taylor stated that if the pronerty will ultimately become
industrial the City may not want the land to be broken up this way -
the deed restriction may allow an individual to develop his portion
as industrial after some lO years and insures that it may be hroken
up and the City should decide what the ultimate use will be.
Councilman Futch pointed out that there may be only one or t'"O of
the residents who may wish to purchase the homes and this will leave
the rest of the homes.
C~i! - 2 7 - 219
November 19, 1973
(re Trevarno Road)
Mr. Lee explained to the Council the necessary public works improve-
ments to be provided, which includes a sewer line, water facilities,
and that the median in the middle of the street be maintained and
the location of the curb and gutter will provide for an l8 foot
travel lane in the street, street repaving and an increase in the
height of the curbing, a fence and street improvements along First
Street. He pointed out that rather than reauiring a masonry fence
perhaps a chain link fence along the inside of the hedge could
be provided. Mr. Lee noted that if the cost is spread over the
entire frontage it would be approximately $4,000 per house.
David Madis, attorney representing Ensign-Bickford, owner of the
property on Trevarno Road, stated that his client does not care how
the property is zoned - it may be residential or industrial but
would like to see the street remain a private street rather than
public.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as outlined in their letter dated November l6, 1973, sub-
ject to all conditions listed, as well as the EIR Negative Declaration
be adopted, seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Taylor commented that he would like the staff to make
sure that the property is not subdivided prior to assurance that
the public works will be taken care of, as required.
At this time the motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council.
P. C. MINUTES OF
OCTOBER l6 & NOV. 6
The Planning Commission minutes for their meetings of October l6th
and November 6, 1973, were noted for filing.
REPORT RE ENFORCEMENT
OF REC. VEHICLE REGULATIONS
Pursuant to the request of the City Council, the Planning Department
reported on the status of the enforcement program of illegally stored
trailers and similar vehicles in which it was noted that the program
is being continued, but at a low priority. The staff is in the pro-
cess of developing standards which may be used to regulate vehicle
storage on the basis of size rather than differentiating between self
propelled and non-self propelled vehicles. If these standards can be
developed the City Attorney's office will submit a proposed ordinance
to the Planning Commission after the first of the year.
REPORT RE SUBDIVISION
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Mr. Lee reported that he has resubmitted a letter from the Planning
Commission to the City Council which states that they unanimously
object in principle to the concept of allowing off-site signs for
commercial activity; however the development of homes is not car-
ried out in normal commercial areas and therefore a special circum-
stance does exist. They recommended that no change be made in the
policy to allow signs in the public right-of-way at the present size,
and limited in number, at key intersections.
C....1-27-220
November 19, 1973
(Off-site Tract Signs)
Councilman Pritchard moved that the City revoke the encroachment
permits allowing off-site subdivision signs, seconded by ~1ayor
Miller.
Councilman Futch stated that he would agree with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to allow the signs, as they have given
the matter due consideration.
Councilman Taylor commented that the signs are not really supposed
to be a type of advertisement but directional in nature only and
that he felt they were perhaos a little too large.
It was noted that other businesses do not have large signs to indicate
where they are located and Councilman Futch made the argument that
people who shop locally generally know where such things are located
but people come from various other communities to visit the model
homes and need the aid of the directional signs for the models.
Councilman Taylor felt that if someone is thinking of an investment
in the area of $40,000 and drives all the way to Livermore from another
community, they are going to find the models and would view the off-
site tract signs as a grant of special privilege.
At this time the motion passed 3-l with Councilman Futch dissenting.
Mayor ~1iller stated that the City Attornev will determine what the
proper course of action will be and whether or not the signs shall
be allowed to remain until expiration of the permit.
REPORT RE SO. PACIFIC
INDUSTRI.2\L PARK DRAINAGE
LINE (East of Vasco Road)
The City Manager reported that the Southern Pacific Real Estate Depart-
ment has sought approval of a drainage system for their proposed
industrial park located east of Vasco Road, south of I-SSO. A Zone 7
alignment was to have been installed but an alternate system has been
proposed by Southern Pacific which will .result in a considerable
savings as it would be a different alignment and will result in
a lack of major physical intersections by the drainage line. The
Zone 7 staff and the State Division of Highways have agreed to
the alternate proposal which is to be referred to the Zone 7 Board
at their meeting of November 2l and it is recommended that the
Council adopt a motion recommending approval of the alignment, subject
to approval of the proposed plan by the Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by unanimous vote, the recommendation was adopted.
Prior to the vote the alignment of the line was illustrated on a
map by r1r. Lee.
REPORT RE LAS POSITAS
CLUBHOUSE SNACK BAR LEASE
The City ~1anager reported that negotiations over the details of the
lease responsibility for the snack bar operation at the Las Positas
Golf Course clubhouse have been completed and will be assumed by the
golf pro. The lease terms for the snack bar arrangement appear to
be more favorable to the City and the Crosswinds Corporation has given
CH-27-22l
November 19, 1973
(Golf Course Snack Bar)
its consent for the assignment of the snack bar area to a sublessee,
the golf pro, and it will be necessary to install physical improve-
ments to aid in the general decor of the snack bar. It is recom-
mended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of
a lease amendment.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by a 3-l vote (Pritchard dissenting) the resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. l53-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEHENT
(Crosswinds Restaurant Corporation)
REPORT RE LIMITATION
ON MOBILEHOHES IN CITY
The City Attorney reported that the state has not pre-empted the
City's power to exclude mobilehomes from all or some of the zones
within the City, if it is a reasonable exercise of the police power.
He advised that since mobilehomes are one of the few types of 10w-
cost housing it might not be reasonable to exclude them entirely
and suggested that perhaps there could be a limit of a certain per-
centage of the total number of new housing units.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council limit the number of
mobilehomes to 2.3% of our overall housing units, seconded by
Councilman Futch.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the objection of the Council
to the number of mobilehomes allowed is the fact that they do
not pay property taxes and this should be stated as a finding.
He pointed out that what they pay is referred to as a vehicle
tax which depreciates on a schedule so that over a period of
l5-20 years they are paying very little.
Mayor Miller asked that the minutes reflect the comment made by
Councilman Taylor, for the record, and that a motion should
probably include similar wording.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council is not against mobile-
homes, per se, and that if they do not have wheels they are not
considered a vehicle and taxed differently than those with wheels.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that mobilehomes without wheels
would also have to comply with the City's building code.
Mayor Miller stated that words he would like to include are as
follows: "As a result of the considerations of the extensive
study done by the League of California Cities in the institute
of local self government on the economics of mobilehomes and
on the basis of the economic studies done by Councilmen Futch,
Taylor and Mayor Miller at the time the original percentage was
set, provide the economic facts that mobilehomes don't pay their
way and are an unfair form of taxation."
CM-27-222
November 19, 1973
(re No. of ~obilehomes)
Hayor ~iller stated that his previous statement was for the record
but would like to add words to include in the motion which would
reflect this statement.
Councilman Pritchard amended the motion to read that because of the
tax inequities the percentage of mobilehomes will be limited to 2.3%
of our overall existing d~!elling units, seconded by Councilman Futch
and which passed by a unanimous vote.
ORD. RE UNIFORJ'1 SALES
& USE TAXES
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor
and by a unanimous vote, the ordinance amending the municipal code
regarding uniform sales and use taxes to conform with current state
statutes was adopted and the title was read.
ORDINANCE NO. 833
AN ORDINANCE NmNDING ARTICLE I, RELATING TO UNIFORM SALES
AND USE TAXES, OF CHAPTER 2l, RELATING TO TAXATION, OF THE
LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 19 5 9, BY THE AHENDrmNT OF SECTIONS 2l. 1
THROUC;H 2l.8 THEREOF TO CONk'Om1 HITH CURRENT STATE STATUTES.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman k'utch and
by a unanimous vote, the resolution authorizing execution of agree-
ment with the State Board of Equalization for administration of local
sales and use taxes was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. l54-73
"ft. RESOLUTION AUTHORI Z IT'rr, EXECUTION OF AN AGREE!1ENT
(State Board of Equalization)
~'tATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF
(Sewage Treatment Plant
Reservation Capacity)
The City Attorney referred to a memo prepared in regard to the
sewage treatment plant reservation capacity and asked if the Council
wished to discuss the matter at this time, and it was the Council's
decision to set the matter for the agenda of December l7.
(Air Pollution Control
Study Committee)
The City Clerk reminded the Council that a resolution had been
prepared establishing an Air Pollution Study Committee.
!1ayor ~iller stated that the committee is being reconstituted and
appointments have been made, and the resolution is to make the
appointments official. Mayor ~1iller further stated that he and the
City Attorney convened with the members of the Committee and they
discussed what the Council wanted them to do and appointed Gary
Higgins as Acting Chairman.
Mr. Wharton explained further that their discussion was that the
Committee was to study the problem and not necessarily gather infor-
mation for a law suit. If they wish to set up priorities the Council
can react to it. Councilman Taylor added that it should be in writing
and Mr. Wharton was asked set up something in writing in conjunction
with the committee.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, the
following resolution was adopted:
cr1-27-223
November 19, 1973
RESOLUTION NO. l55-73
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AIR POLLUTION STUDY CO~~ITTEE
This resolution included the appointment of the following members
of the committee: Gary Higgins, Acting Chairman; Don Hontan, Gordon
Longerbeam, Dick Ryon, Beverley Berger and John Long.
(So. Pacific Track Relocation)
The City Manager advised that the City Attorney has been investigating
the legal entitlements available to the City on the rights of imme-
diate occupancy for the WP properties. We do have the right of
eminent domain and condemnation rights on the property which is a
big feature, but the problem of occupancy was another matter. The
bond counsel has advised it would be appropriate to obtain an another
qualified appraisal, and Mr. Parness requested that the Council
allow him to obtain this appraisal, assuring them that no action
would be taken by the City until such time as ~~ is approached and
an appeal made.
Motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch
and passed unanimously to allow the appraisals to be made as requested.
(Study Session)
Mr. Parness advised the Council that there would be a joint study
session on r'10nday, November 26, with the City of Pleasanton and
VCSD at the Pleasanton Hotel and the business meeting would begin
at 6 p.m.
~~TTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Energy Shortage)
Councilman Futch remarked that he had attended the meeting of the
League of California Cities and found it to be very worthwhile and
felt there should have been more participation from Livermore.
Councilman Futch commented that he felt it would be appropriate to
have a report from the staff regarding the problems the City might
encounter in regard to the energy shortage and things that might be
done, and the staff was directed to prepare a report on this.
(Bicycle Registration)
Councilman Pritchard asked if there could be some arrangements made
for registering new bicycles other than the times allocated at pre-
sent, and the City Hanager was asked to check into this matter and
report back to the Council at an early date.
(Legal Study re Sewers)
~ayor Miller suggested that the legal study regarding reserving
sewers be sent to the Planning Commission and to the members of the
Steering Committee of the General Plan Review Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at ll:OO P.~.
.APPROVE ()~ ~. ~.It
dJ~1aYOr
~.
ATTEST .
~ty Clerk, Livermore, California
CM-27-224
Regular Meeting of December 3, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 3, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
ABSENT:
None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in
the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES OF NOV. 19th
& NOV. 12th
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor and
by unanimous vote, the minutes for the meeting of November 12, 1973
were approved, as corrected, and the minutes for November 19th were
approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING RE GEN.
PLAN PLANNING UNITS 8,
9 AND 12
A public hearing is being held for the purpose of hearing testimony
regarding the specific plans regarding the General Plan for Planning
Units 8, 9, and 12 - Units 8 and 9 are bounded by Stanley Boulevard,
I-580 (future extension of Isabel Avenue) and Murrieta Blvd.; Plan-
ning Unit 12 is bounded by I-580, First Street, Portola Avenue and
North Livermore Avenue.
Mr. Musso stated that in order to expedite business perhaps it would
be best for the Council to submit, in writing, changes which are to
be made in the text and possibly discussed at another hearing.
At this time the Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for public
testimony.
David Madis, representing Ensign-Bickford stated that he would like
to know how the mechanics of the density transfer works and can
an individual build on part of his cluster density and the other
person can't build for 25 years or until he gets ready to sell it.
He wondered how the City will participate in the density transfers
and approval of the maps and density.
Mr. Musso explained that if the Council adopts the plan, and it is
considered by the Planning Commission and City Attorney to be
a legitimate way to proceed, then the specific plan" in effect, be-
comes a zoning plan. Since it was based on property ownerships at
the time it was adopted it would be incumbent upon the property owners
to divide the property in such a manner that each property owner would
receive the proper density.
Mayor Miller stated that one of the things discussed during the meet-
ing with the Planning Commission was the selling of property rights
and the possibility of the City purchasing the rights and selling
them to other property owners.
CM-27-225
December 3, 1973
(Public Hearing re General Plan
Planning Units 8, 9 and l2)
'--,Councilman Taylor pointed out that transfer of development rights
was just, however, it is not known whether or not it would
even be legal to do so and the Council discussed the matter of
selling property rights with Mr. Madis, as well as what can be
done with open space land.
Mr. Madis asked if the City would be stuck with a plan, once a portion
is developed - could a portion be zoned without changing a whole piece?
Councilman Pritchard responded by stating that there is no General
Plan which cannot be amended.
The Mayor commented that this instance is no different then look-
ing at a General Plan's specific zoning in areas and once you
start on your zoning, if you intend to maintain your holding ca-
pacity you are committed to a series of zones as specified.
Earl Mason of Associated Professions, also representing Ensign-Bickford,
stated he would like a point clarified - what would happen if some-
one came in on the Ensign-Bickford property and part is specified
as cluster and the other is for single-family lots and the developer
would like to adjust this for less open space with a single family
subdivision, would such a plan be considered and would the developer
be allowed to do this or not?
Mayor Miller stated that, generally, this would not be allowed;
however anyone is allowed to make such a request.
Mr. Mason then asked if the developer could reverse the single
family and the cluster development and Councilman Taylor responded
by stating that the cluster development may not be the best choice
but after sufficient consideration the Planning Commission has
concluded that this would be the most desirable area for cluster
development.
Mr. Mason then questioned the use of the open space land and the
Mayor explained the numerous alternatives for the land. He pointed
out that the object is to protect the property owner so that they
aren't paying exorbitant taxes on the open space property.
Mr. Mason wondered what would happen if someone bought the develop-
ment rights in Unit 12 and wanted to transfer them to Unit 8 and
the Mayor explained that this is permitted by the General Plan, sub-
ject to various conditions. He felt that this would not likely
happen, but it is possible subject to satisfying certain conditions.
As long as the overall density transfers do not exceed the holding
capacity of the General Plan, such could be permitted.
Mayor Miller stated that the person with the high density property
has the option to sell the property at a price or pay the taxes
if he decides to hold the property. It is possible that if the
person with the high density would like to sell and nobody wishes
to purchase the property the City felt that they might buy the
development rights if this can be done legally.
Councilman Futch stated that he has spoken with quite a few people
regarding this property and that, in general, people hope to see
more innovative planning which does not include "ticky-tacky boxes"
with uniform subdivisions of equal size lots such as can be seen in
the San Fernando Valley. He felt that this is a new approach and
mistakes may result but this is a starting point and he would en-
courage such planning.
Mr. Madis stated that it is rather difficult to become involved in
innovative planning for people who are not yet living in Livermore
and he feels that the homes to be built here will become occupied
by new people rather than current Livermore residents.
CM-27-226
December 3, 1973
(P.H. re General Plan
Planning Units 8, 9 and l2)
Mr. Madis stated that he felt the ultimate use planned for the
property which has been based upon present ownership is rather
arbitrary and the Mayor stated that no matter how property is
planned or divided it could be argued that the decision was arbi-
trary. This particular plan makes it more equitable for the existing
property owners.
Mr. Madis wondered if this plan, which shows a majority of cluster
development, will not encourage leapfrog development and the Mayor
stated that there are priorities in order of development which are
designed to eliminate the leapfrog type of development, and this
was followed by an explanation of priority by Mr. Musso.
Councilman Taylor commented that he received a telephone call from
one of the property owners on the matter and that the owner had
been alarmed that the matter was scheduled on the agenda and he had
not received notification. He felt that this is a new type of
development and of great concern to the property owners and suggested
that the Council consider continuing the hearing.
Mr. Musso noted that prior to the Planning Commission hearing the
property owners had been notified and wondered if the Council wants
all of the property owners to be notified again if the hearing is
continued.
The Council agreed that the owners should be notified.
Bob Ruggles, partner in Amador Associates, stated that his concern
lies in the property located at North Livermore Avenue and I-SSD,
and wanted to know what the consideration for the General Plan
with regard to this area is doing, and is this an interim measure
until such time as the General Plan is established, which received
a response from Mayor Hiller who stated that the Council has not
resolved this. ~ there in opiRion rCEJarding an outlino .:md the City
Council would hope to resolve this tonight.~ ~.~
~lr. Ruggles pointed out that this land is near an interchange and
that clusters and residential dwellings might not be the best use
for the area and asked that the Council consider no density for
the property. He felt there are many types of uses which could
be applied, such as commercial, which might be better than residen-
tial.
Mayor Miller explained that it has been a county and City policy that
no commercial will be allowed at interchanges and particularly, at
this interchange.
~lr. Ruggles stated that it was his impression that this policy per-
tained to gasoline stations and restaurants such as a Denny's and
the Mayor stated that this may be what the county has said but the
views of the City may differ.
Mayor Miller stated that up to this point the public testimony has
been given on Unit l2 and asked if there is any testimony regarding
Units 8 and 9.
~1r. Musso described the area in which Units 8 and 9 are located and
commented on public testimony which had been given at the Planning
Commission hearing.
There being no further public testimony, on motion of Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by unanimous vote, the
public hearing was continued for two weeks and during this
interim all property owners will be notified.
CM-27-227
December 3, 1973
CONSENT CALENDAR
Res. Accept. Airway
Blvd. Bridge Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. l56-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIREC-
TOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION
RE PROJECT 7l-2l - AIRWAY BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND
AREA IMPROVEMENTS.
Payroll & Claims
There were 208 claims in the amount of $l96,236.l9 dated ll-30-73,
and 275 payroll warrants dated ll-l6-73 in the amount of $70,605.06,
and 286 payroll warrants dated 11-30-73 in the amount of $72,678.13,
for a total of $339,5l9.38, ordered paid by the City Manager.
P. C. !l1inutes
of November 20th
The minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting of November 20,
1973, were noted for filing.
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved with Councilman
Beebe abstaining from Warrant #8202 for his usual reasons.
COMMUNICATION FROM
VCSD RE JOINT POWERS
It was noted that a letter has been received from VCSD in which
they state their withdrawal from the Joint Powers Agreement for
labor relations and consolidated bargaining.
Mr. Parness commented that he regrets that VCSD
draw and would hope that they will reconsider.
the two new board members are not familiar with
hopes that they will decide to join in prior to
season.
would like to with-
He pointed out that
the process and
the next bargaining
COMMUNICATION FROM
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE RE ENERGY CRISIS
A letter was received from the Lieutenant Governor's office urging
that all local government entities take action to reduce the usage
of energy, such as reducing thermostat settings to 68 degrees for
heating and 78 degrees for cooling.
COHHUNICATION RE
EPA REGULATIONS
A letter was received from the Alameda County Hayor's Conference
with regard to the proposed EPA regulations designed to reduce
environmental pollution in the Bay Area.
CH-27-228
December 3, 1973
(EPA Regulations)
Mr. Parness stated that he has attended a meeting in which most
of the city attorneys and administrative officers in the county
attended for the purpose of discussing the EPA standards and one
point of concern was the off-street parking requirement. He stated
that the consequences of these requirements have not yet been really
felt and the meeting was for the purpose of receiving an opinion from
those in attendance as to the filing of a joint cause of action in
the courts to try to stay the imposition of the new parking standards
until the local jurisdictions have had the opportunity to assess their
consequences. Our City, for example, would be obligated to pay to
the federal government by the middle of 1975, $450 for each free
parking stall under the City's jurisdiction. He pointed out that
the only exceptions would be those residential in nature and that
every parking stall on the street in the City would be subject to
this payment, in addition to those located off-street and under the
City's jurisdiction.
Councilman Pritchard asked if this means those spaces which do not
have parking meters, and Mr. Parness stated that is correct, and
the fact that the spaces are assessed has no bearing.
Mr. Parness commented that those who spoke at the meeting were
not necessarily opposed to the attempts of the EPA to do something
about the overall environmental issue but just concerned over the
regulations which have thus far been drafted. He added that it
is the intention of the officials to file a joint action and would
like to know the attitude of the City Council regarding the matter.
The City Attorney commented that the EPA regulations are scheduled
to become law on December 12th and the direct impact on Livermore
would not occur until July 1, 1975; however, the cities in the five
critical air basins in California would have to begin collecting
these parking sums by July l, 1974 and are "panicky" over the regula-
tions. He added that the city attorneys met with the regional ad-
ministrator of the EPA last Tuesday and that he admitted that his
agency was responding to a court order- compelling the EPA to pro-
mulgate regulations to deal with the problem of air pollution and,
in particular, to regulate the vehicle miles traveled. He pointed
out that he did not commit the City in any way but would ask
that the Council give permission to take whatever actions are
necessary; 1) to see that we are represented in the case of
litigation occurring; and 2) to get sentiment that we support
the standards but look for a more practicable way of implementing
them than what has been proposed.
It was noted that EPA's regulations have been impose~ because of
- a, pourt order and because the state was to have prepared a plan
and in the event they failed to do so, the EPA would intervene.
Councilman Futch asked if this is an interim measure to be followed
until the state Air Resources Board has completed its plan and Mr.
Wharton explained that it appears that the EPA will look for any
responsible alternative plan from any political subdivision, be
it city, county or state. In response to the question of whether
or not the state Air Resources Board is working on a plan, Mr.
Wharton stated that it is his general impression that they are
not making any particular headway on this particular problem.
Councilman Taylor stated that during a preview and discussion
of the regulations with EPA officials it was disclosed that
they were supposed to devise a plan for each area taking into
account the local conditions which they did not do. They con-
tracted with an aerospace company to make up a plan for the country.
They agree that there are problems but intend to go ahead and see
what happens and Councilman Taylor feels that it is incumbent upon
the state to respond with a plan of its own.
CM-27-229
December 3, 1973
(EPA Regulations)
Councilman Taylor stated that he feels the City should resist a
plan that has not been thought out, has not considered local
conditions and has not even received local input. There was
no hearing on the plan - it was simply revealed as an accomplished
fact. He felt that the City Attorney and City Manager are correct
in saying that it is in our interest to work for something more
acceptable and moved that the Council take the position that the
City Attorney has essentially asked for, seconded by Councilman
Beebe.
Councilman Beebe asked if it was the federal EPA Board that set
up these regulations, and the City Attorney explained that this
is correct - they were required to do this as a result of a court
order which was the result of a law suit against the EPA for not
doing anything.
Councilman Futch stated that it is his understanding that the motion
is for the Council to approve development of a plan that would meet
the air standards but the particular plan, as outlined by the EPA
is not reasonable and needs further consideration and at the same
time to authorize the City Attorney to take appropriate action.
Mr. Parness urged that the Council allow the City to join with all
of the other public agencies enlisted, today, in filing a joint
cause of action, in the courts, for a stay on the execution of the
order.
The City Attorney explained that what he and Mr. Parness are asking,
is the authority to pursue by administrative and, if necessary.
legal, means anything feasible to substitute the EPA regulations
with something more sensible and suitable which may ultimately
lead to the development of a City, county, or regional plan.
Councilman Futch stated that he feels the City Manager and City Attor-
ney are asking for blanket authority and if there are specific pro-
posals he would be interested in seeing them.
Mr. Parness explained that there are no specific proposals but the
City is faced with the crisis that the standards will be effective
as of December 12th and Alameda County has offered to act as a
coordinating agent to file a joint cause of action and are trying
to enlist all of the public jurisdictions within the county to be
joint parties to this action, and is what he is requesting the
Council allow Mr. Wharton and himself to do. The intent of the
county is not to submit a proposal to meet the standards but only
to allow time to formulate alternate standards.
Councilman Futch stated that he would like to add to the motion
that it is the intent of the Council to join a cooperative effort
for the formation of alternate standards, which Councilman Beebe
accepted as an addition to the motion.
Mayor Miller stated that one of the things which bothers him about
what the Council is being asked to do is that it appears that we
can't satisfy air quality emission regulations required by the
EPA by a certain date and consequently a request for a stay will
be made. He pointed out that the Japanese have no trouble in
finding ways to meet these regulations and that there are ways to
do it. It has been mentioned that the regulations are "bizarre"
and "ill considered" but this can be said only if there is a better
plan and nobody has come up with a better plan. He felt that the
regulations are based primarily on the principal of air pollution
but another important quality is apparent which is the conserva-
tion of fuel and energy by discouraging the use of the automobile.
He felt it unreasonable to request a delay with no alternate plan
available.
CM-27-230
December 3, 1973
(EPA Standards)
Mayor Miller continued to say that he is not sure the City of Liver-
more should become involved with this type of litigation - the object
of the EPA is correct, the state has failed to do its share and there
is no appropriate alternate plan from which to choose.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that, perhaps, if a stay of six months
is granted this will put the pressure on for coming up with alternate
standards.
Councilman Taylor commented that in his opinion there are better ways
of discouraging the use of the automobile than the elimination of
parking spaces as it has been pointed out that where parking does
not exist the driver simply drives around longer looking for a space
or parks further away from the place in which they wish to shop.
He felt that no longer requiring off-street parking for commercial
development might be a mistake which would be permanent and irre-
vocable.
Councilman Futch felt it is reasonable to place a time limit on
the state and six months sounds like a reasonable length of time
in which the Air Pollution Board can come up with something.
The City Attorney commented that it may be a wasted gesture to
place a time limit on an agency over which we have no control
and the fact of the matter is that we will have to comply with
the EPA regulations unless somebody develops a plan which will
exempt us - whether it is us or someone else, and to tell the state
that we will follow their plan if they do it within six to twelve
months mayor may not have any effect. We are free to work on a
plan of our own; however, by the end of January there may be a
different picture as the court will determine whether or not it
will act on a petition to stay the EPA regulations, whether or
not it will compel the EPA to hold hearings and whether or not
the EPA will voluntarily change the regulations and he suggested
that the City wait until this time to decide what further action
will be taken.
Councilman Taylor suggested the whole matter be specifically brought
to the Council again at the end of six months if the state does not
act.
Councilman Futch commented he was in favor of joining the law suit
provided there is some guarantee that plans will be worked out in a
reasonable amount of time. He felt if they set a time limit there
is pressure on the state board to come up with something, and that
is the Council's commitment - they would like them to develop some-
thing.
Councilman Taylor felt they needed to put pressure on them, along with
the other agencies, to develop a plan.
Councilman Futch stated he was not willing to commit the City to a
law suit with an unlimited time.
Mr. Wharton remarked that reference to a law suit is a bit mislead-
ing. What they would be doing is a very simple matter of asking the
court to stay the regulations and in all probability hold hearings
so that they may be revised in accordance with what public input
there is. It is not the notion of a complex, prolonged litigation
based on this particular situation.
CM-27-23l
December 3, 1973
(EPA Regulations)
Councilman Futch asked if they could ask them to stay litigation
for a specified period of time, at the end of which time they would
have a choice of what they want to do.
Mayor Miller asked if he could offer what he felt was a compromise
and stated that one of the things that is inequitable about this
is some cities have to comply by 1974 while others have until 1975.
Why don't they ask that the regulations apply uniformly by 1975
which gives some time for all of them to come up with another plan.
He could not go for a law suit just to stay the regulations.
Mr. Parness stated he felt the Mayor was trying to partially draft
a program or modification of the standards that are being contested
now. He pointed out that the critical thing is that these things
are going into effect next week unless there is some legal action
taken, and the idea is that one be taken jointly because it would
just have the prestige of a number of institutions behind it.
Mr. Parness continued that the idea is to stop the regulations from
occurring and it is his belief that if the courts were to issue the
stay, it would be under a directive that would have a time element
attached to it.
Councilman Futch asked if he believed that, why he thought it un-
reasonable to request it.
councilman Pritchard stated that the courts usually make a determina-
tion anytime they stay anything, and Mr. Wharton added that the court
would set its own timetable for action, and he reminded them that
this is all stimulated by a court order which had demanded hasty ac-
tion. The point is that if we are a party, among many parties, to a
law suit the City may not be able to make the separate contention
if they specify a time of six months and other cities specify a
different time limit. What he can do is to take the Council's wishes
to the group that is to initiate the legal action and they mayor may
not adopt that standard. He felt there should be some flexibility,
either to participate, which is the preferred view, or we do not.
If each city comes with its own special case he did not feel there
could be a unified action. It is difficult to iden ify a period at
this time. All they will be saying to the courts is that the matter
needs further action and ask them to hold hearings so that the City
can act responsibly in support of the previous court's order. At
the time the hearings are held, the City could then present its
policies and it might then be proper for the Council to adopt a policy
which they could carry to the court saying we would like to see
action in six months rather than hinging our participation on a par-
ticular time table. He would like to get into the action and then
advocate the City's policy before the court or before the group of
cities that are going to act.
Mayor Miller restated the motion at this time that effectively the
Council join the other cities of Alameda County to stay the effect
of the EPA regulations to begin December 12.
Councilman Taylo commented with reference to Mayor Miller's suggested
compromise that the regulations should apply uniformly by stating
that he did not feel they should be uniform as it would be foolish
to eliminate a parking lot in Crescent City or apply the same regu-
lations to parking as are required in San Leandro, for instance. One
of the problems with this regulation is that it is, in general, a
uniform thing and does not take into account different towns; what
they needed was more variety.
CM-27-232
December 3, 1973
(EPA Regulations)
Mayor Miller assured him that his point was to set it back until
1975 with everybody treated the same, and this would allow them two
years to get something to replace these regulations.
Councilman Futch suggested that they vote on the motion as is, but
he offered an amendment to instruct the City Attorney to make the
Council's position clear at the time of the hearing - that they are
in agreement with the goals of the act and would like to see some
plan within a reasonable period of time, like six months. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mayor Miller restated the motion as amendment to the main motion to
include that the City Attorney will represent the Council before
the other cities and at court hearings with the position that they
do not object to the goals of the act, but would like to have these
particular regulations examined. The amendment was voted on and
passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
A vote was taken on the main motion at this time which passed 4-1
with Mayor Miller dissenting.
COMMUNICATION FROM ABAG
RE CITY'S APPLICATION FOR
GRANT-AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
AID PROGRAM
The City Manager was asked to comment, and Mr. Parness advised that
with regard to the City's application for a grant for the airport
development aid program it is rather routine and a process they had
to go through as this was a regional planning agency for this type
of public works extension. ABAG has indicated that it meets with
their approval after some investigation and contact with other agencies.
In reply to an inquiry from Councilman Futch as to what public
works improvements this referred to, Mr. Parness stated it was the
acquisition of the property at the end of the west runway - a pro-
tection of the air easement.
Councilman Pritchard asked what is to be done with the property,
and Mr. Parness explained it is intended to be used for farming.
Councilman Pritchard remarked that he was opposed to extending
runways into that area and to putting any kind of operational
expansion into effect for the golf course. He only wanted to make
sure we are not giving the green light to the extension of runways.
COMMUNICATION TO LAFCO
RE DEVELOPMENT FEES
A communication was addressed to the Local Agency Formation Commis-
. _ . sipn from their executive officer regarding development fees in the
City of Livermore.
Mayor Miller pointed out that in the body of the letter there was
reference to a cost of between $3,300 - $3,400 however the tabulation
indicated $2,891, and felt that the City staff was not being repre-
sented properly and he felt a correcting letter should be sent.
Councilman Futch added that all the fees were not necessarily City
fees, and that a letter should be sent indicating that all of the
City fees are just what they add up to be.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard that the staff write a clarifying letter and the motion
passed unanimously.
CM-27-233
December 3, 1973
(Development Fees)
Councilman Taylor felt the important point here is why the staff was
asked to compile these figures - that is, it is to be used as evi-
dence to back up the idea that Livermore is being unreasonable and
therefore, they are justified in by-passing us. If this was so, he
suggested that perhaps instead of simply sending a correction letter
they should "let sleeping dogs lie". He did feel they should point
out that in each instance these amounts cover actual expenses to the
City, and if the fees were not as shown, the difference would have to
come from subsidy of the taxpayers. This is being realized more and
more in many cities. The Council concurred that these statements
were correct.
COMMUNICATION FROM CITY OF LA HABRA
RE VARIOUS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
A communication was received from the City of La Habra regarding
various federal legislation affecting cities, and the Council was
asked to comment.
Councilman Beebe remarked that his only comment is that only one
member of the Council is writing to other cities, and he felt they
should not pay too much attention unless it comes from the official
mayor of the city, and felt they should disallow it.
Mayor Miller replied that it may have been written on behalf of the
whole Council, but in view of the remark the letter was received
for filing.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mayor Miller stated that unless there is a member of the audience
who would like to make comments on the General Plan amendments, he
would suggest that the matter be moved to the end of the meeting,
as the discussion regarding the amendments and the changes he has
included may become lengthy. He stated that he has prepared, in
writing, the changes he would like made and was sorry that he had
presented the other Council members with copies just prior to the
meeting and that t~e have not had the opportunity to review these
changes.
.j~L
Councilman Taller sated that he feels a change should be initiated
in the population projections noted in Table 1, on an interim basis,
and would suggest one half of the present growth rate which he feels
is approximately 7%, and moved that the Planning Commission be direc-
ted to initiate a hearing on Table 1 as soon as practical and get an
interim amendment to the Council. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Pritchard.
Mr. Musso commented that a hearing is scheduled for January and that
this could be included.
At this time the Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
The staff was directed to place the matter on the agenda for the
next Council meeting.
CM-27-234
December 3, 1973
REPORT RE SUBDIVISION
EXTENSION - TRACT 3333
A staff report was presented to the Council which was informational
in nature with regard to Tract 3333 and the portion proposed for
subdivision which is the last active tentative subdivision map in the
City. The tract was approved by the Council on July 19, 1971 and
later extended so as to expire on January 19, 1974 and the lots to
be developed are located within the future Isabel Avenue Freeway
right-of-way. Under the Interim Ordinance building of the sub-
division is prohibited at this time.
It was noted that no staff recommendation was made in the report
and Mr. Parness explained that the recommendation would be that
in the event the Council modifies the present ordinance to allow
development to occur the value of the property, as conceded to by
the applicant, would be established as of this date prior to the
overlay of the subdivision map and the engineering considerations
he wants to give it. It is the intent to ask the state to acquire
this property with 'the City's participation.
Harry Elliott, Jr., speaking for H. C. Elliott, Inc., stated that
the reason they are asking for approval of the final map is because
they have spent two years working with the State Division of High-
ways on the initial acquisition of the 19 acres and it appears that
there is a very slim chance that there will be any participation on
the part of the state regarding this acquisition, despite the wishes
of the City for a route through this area. He felt that further
jf,attempts on the part of the City towards getting the state to
cooperate would be futile. He commented that in his opinion the
stronqest case the City might have would be that development is
~~inent if the state does not acquire the parcel and might provide
the additional impetus needed in getting the state to act. He point-
ed out that this portion of land was omitted from the final map but
if there had been any question with regard to the Highway Division
rejecting the parcel it would have been included in the subdivision
map and units would have been developed. He pointed out that they
went so far as to condition the map in the event of the state's de-
cision not to put a route through the property and that they are
now entitled to exemption from the Interim Ordinance and allowed a
final map on this parcel.
exemption would require the acquisition
not apply to subdivisions, the only a1-
the~zoning 9rdi~a~ce.
~rrL--' ~_ .
Councilman Taylor wondered if it is really tru that there is no
possibility of the state acquiring the property and Mr. Parness
replied that he felt this is not true - the City is making an
effort at this time and, hopefully, the county will join in this
effort and that the City Council has agreed to add a financial
inducement.
Mayor Miller stated that an
of a CUP and since CUP's do
ternative would be to amend
Councilman Taylor pointed out that it might appear to the state
that accepting a final map on the property at the same time the
City is trying to get the state to acquire the property may be
a way of jacking up the price of the property.
Mr. Parness felt that this action would simply be further evidence
that the City wishes to compel the state to act.
Councilman Taylor stated that it is the Council's intent that there
shall be no residential development on the property if a highway
is to go through there and would not want to approve a map until
all possibilities have been exhausted.
CM-27-235
December 3, 1973
(Re Subdivision Estension
Tract 3333 - Elliott)
Mr. Musso pointed out that it has always been in the back of
the City's mind that a freeway might not be developed and
therefore, allowances were made in the design of the subdivision
for a freeway or the alternative of no freeway. In the event a
freeway is not developed there are plans for a major highway.
The General Plan shows that there will be a freeway or major
highway through that area.
Mayor Miller stated that there is no way the ordinance can be
amended prior to January at which time the tentative will
expire and Mr. Elliott commented that a final map should be
submitted prior to expiration of the tentative.
The City Attorney was directed to report to the Council on
this problem at the next Council meeting and the Mayor apologized
for Mr. Elliott's having to return stating that the Council
can sympathize with the inconvenience.
REPORT FROM CHIEF OF
POLICE RE CAT LICENSING
The Chief of Police submitted a report pertaining to household
pets which was in response to a request from the City Council
related to licensing of cats. The four following areas were
investigated and a breakdown of each category was presented in
written form for the Council's information:
1) provision of spay clinics.
2) Limitation of the number of pets allowed each household.
3) Licensing of cats.
4) A fee break for those who have spayed or neutered animals.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe
and by a 4-1 vote (Miller dissenting) discussion of an ordinance
regarding cats was tabled.
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
REPORT RE PORTABLE PARKS
The Beautification Committee reported on the possibility of being
allowed to provide "portable" parks in vacant lots in an effort
to make downtown Livermore more attractive. The parks are low-
cost projects and one of the areas of concern is the lot located
adjacent to Barber's Schwinn Cyclery. Mr. Barber has indicated
that he will probably not build on the property for a couple of
years and has agreed to the location of a portable park on the
site provided the City will assume liability in case of accident.
It is the staff's recommendation that the Beautification Committee
be authorized to proceed with the project and on motion of Council-
man Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by a unanimous vote,
the recommendation was adopted.
REPORT RE DEDICATION
OF POLICE ADMN. BLDG.
The City Manager reported that a request has been received from
the Native Sons of the Golden West requesting that they be allowed
to participate in the dedication of the Police Administration Build-
ing. The Native Sons have a procedure/ritual which they follow and
that they intend to present a plaque for the building during the
dedication ceremony. It is recommended that the Council authorize
acceptance of this request with thanks.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous vote, the staff recommendation was adopted.
CM-27-236
December 3, 1973
REPORT RE LIMITATION
OF MOBILEHOMES
The City Manager reported that at the November 19th meeting the
Council voted to adopt the policy of limiting the number of
mobi1ehomes to 2.3% of the existing residential dwelling units and
that the previous policy had been 4%. It had been recommended that
the limitation be included in the General Plan which was never done
and Mr. Wharton suggested that this recommendation be considered as
well as to suggest that the percentage be adjusted to 2.5% which was
the original recommendation of the Planning Commission in 1971.
Councilman Pritchard moved that a 2.5% limitation be adopted on
an interim basis and refer the matter to the General Plan Com-
mittee for inclusion in the new General Plan.
Councilman Taylor stated that he feels it would be more appropriate
to refer the matter to the Planning Commission rather than the
General Plan Review Committee.
Councilman Pritchard amended the motion to state referral to the
Planning Commission which was seconded by Councilman Taylor which
was followed by general discussion of the matter during which time
Councilman Futch called for the question.
At this time the motion passed by a 4-1 vote of the Council
(Councilman Beebe dissenting).
REPORT RE JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT RE WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The City Manager reported that a final draft of the joint powers
agreement for regional water quality management has been prepared
by the joint committee. A late amendment concerning any party's
time schedule authorizing review and filing of a IINo Objection"
has been changed to 90 days rather than the original 75 days and
it is recommended that the Council authorize execution of the
agreement.
The Council then discussed the draft including the withdrawal
of any party from the agreement.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by unanimous vote, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing
execution of the joint powers agreement to implement a regional
water quality management system.
RESOLUTION NO. 157-73 ~.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(P1easanton, Livermore and VCSD)
REPORT RE PROPERTY
PURCHASES (Mocho Street,
First St. & So. Livermore)
The City Manager reported that oral confirmation for purchase of
property has been received as follows:
Standard Oil Property at First Street and So. Livermore - $35,000
Mocho Street property - $42,000
It is recommended that the Council authorize the purchase of
these sites.
CM-27-237
December 3, 1973
(re Land Acquisition)
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council direct the City
Manager to proceed with the purchase of the properties men-
tioned at the prices listed with the understanding that the
First Street and So. Livermore Avenue site is not to be used
as a parking lot.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to make sure that
both pieces of property are purchased simultaneously.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that LARPD has stated that they
cannot afford to develop a park site and public works improve-
ments plus all the necessary items for a park and that this
would have to be done at City expense and Councilman Taylor
wondered what this would cost the City.
It was noted that the Mocho Street site is to be stockpiled
for future park purposes and that the City is not obligated
at this time for anything on that particular piece of land.
Councilman Taylor felt that even if this is to be a future
project on the part of the City the cost should be made known
prior to purchase of the land and suggested that the staff
furnish such information.
Mayor Miller stated that the cost of a manicured park is in the
order of $10,000 per acre.
Councilman Taylor stated that in the case of the First and So.
Livermore Avenue property, he assumed it would be a City main-
tenance project, but wanted to the know the cost of improve-
ment and maintenance will be; in the case of the Mocho property
what the cost of improvements would be and he presumed that the
LARPD would maintain it. He felt it would be reasonable to re-
quire this information.
Mayor Miller stated it was a reasonable question if it was the
City's intent to develop these parks immediately.
Councilman Pritchard added that five years from now those figures
would be completely irrelevant.
Mr. Parness stated that one of the express conditions of the nego-
tiated purchase of the Mocho property was that it be consummated
within two weeks, which was more than a week ago.
Councilman Futch asked the Public Works Director if he had any
idea what the cost of development would be, and Mr. Lee stated
that the Mocho Street park would come under the figure mentioned
of $10,000 per acre for a manicured park, however the improvements
along Holmes Street are already in; on the Mocho Street side the
curb, gutters and sidewalks are not in but most of the street is
so the cost of the road improvements would not be too substantial
as there would not be undergrounding of utilities there since it is
an overhead area so the street lights and some fencing would be
required. He felt this park would definitely in the $10,000 per
acre bracket, but it would depend on what is put there ultimately,
and there are 3.5 acres in this parcel. He further explained that
there are plans for an equestrian trail in the back portion and
some of this area would be left more in a primitive stage in the
arroyo. As for the park on First Street, there is some 8500 square
feet and he assumed it would be developed to a higher extent, there
being some rest area, shade structure, some mounding to give it some
perspective, maybe a place for some type of sculpture in the future,
some grid work and bike parking stalls and some benches; however,
all the of the curb, gutters and sidewalks have been recently re-
placed by Standard Oil so there is a substantial amount of work
CM-27-238
December 3, 1973
(re Land Acquisition)
already completed, so that even though the cost per acre
might be $25,00 per acre it is less than an acre so it would be
about $5,000 to do what he had mentioned, and when asked how much
the maintenance cost would be he stated it would be about $200-$300
per year.
Councilman Taylor stated his feeling that the public should be aware
of the fact that the Council is planning additional obligations,
which would be in the neighborhood of $40,00. This would mean
that they would be spending about $110,000 which would mean that
much park land the City would not be able to get somewhere else that
is presently on the priority list, and felt they should keep this in
mind. He agreed it would be nice to acquire the Standard Oil land
however he believed that when they acquire park land it should be
on the basis of considered priority in the master plan in conjunction
with the Park District.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that when they were discussing the
Dogwood park, all these same things applied, however the Council
voted for it for special reasons.
Mayor MIller stated he would like to comment on the question of
suppressing information which he found to be curious words and it
could be, perhaps, matched by Councilman Taylor desiring to oppose
the motion and stall, and an exchange of words like that does not
serve any useful purpose. The majority of the Council has already
indicated they wanted to acquire these properties while there is a
chance so delay in getting the financial data which is fairly well
known to incur further obligation could be considered stalling.
Councilman Taylor stated it was not true that he had suggested
putting the matter over; he only wanted to ask the staff what the
numbers were.
Councilman Futch called for the question at this time, and the
motion passed 3-2 with Councilmen Futch and Taylor dissenting.
Mr. Parness stated he had been advised by Standard Oil that they
purchased this property in 1928 and the price they paid at that time
was $35,000.
Mayor Miller stated on behalf of the Councilmen who voted in favor
of the motion, he wished to commend the City Manager for his skill
and ability in negotiating a price lower than the Council had
authorized, and lower than a plausible appraisal on the property
would have been; ~~ 1~he e~t. it w s excellent work
r /'\ f"'! .
p-
I .
REPORT RE "FIRST STREET
ANNEX NO.2"
Mr. Parness explained that the proposed "First Street Annex No.2"
is the 25 acre parcel located east of the industrial area on the
south side of First Street. Favorable recommendations have been
received from the Planning Commission, as required, and LAFCO has
authorized proceeding without notice and hearing since the owner
has petitioned for annexation and waived the right to protest. It
is recommended that a resolution be adopted annexing this area to
the City.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the
following resolution was adopted unanimously:
CM-27-239
December 3, 1973
RESOLUTION NO. 158-73
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS "FIRST STREET
ANNEX NO. 2 It TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE PURSUANT TO
THE "ANNEXATION OF UNINHABITED TERRITORY ACT OF
1939" AND SECTION 35015 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
DISCUSSION RE RETENTION OF
RECORDINGS-CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Councilman Beebe made a motion to approve the recommendation of the
City Clerk regarding the retention of recordings; however Mayor Miller
stated there was no recommendation, and the City Clerk was asked
if it was her recommendation that additional tapes be purchased.
The City Clerk remarked that is up to the Council, but personally
speaking she felt that the minutes were being done in great detail,
and one of the discussions the Council had reference to at the
last meeting had been transcribed in detail. At the present time
after the minutes have been approved the tapes are simply erased.
Mayor Miller stated that at the last meeting one of the developers
had implied he was erasing tapes because they were not 'available;
and it was his wish that they be kept for six months. He then
moved that the minutes continue as they are, that the tapes be
kept for six months and save the controversial or litigation tapes
for a longer period of time. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Futch.
Councilman Futch commented that the City Clerk did an excellent job
of getting all she can in the minutes, but sometimes a question
arises as to the way it was phrased and there is always a question
of interpretation, and Miss Hock stated there could always be a
question of interpretation.
A vote was taken on the motion at this time and passed unanimously.
Mr. Wharton stated that as a point of information, he would suggest
that tapes are not very accessible to people so he assumed that the
major value of the tapes is for the Council's own use because there
is no way of letting the public share what is on the tape unless
they be transcribed into some other form. As long as they are avail-
able as far as legal matters go, they are the best evidence. They
may have some internal use to the Councilor to the City. The ex-
ternal importance as long as they are in existence, they are the
best evidence of what went on at the Council meeting, which is good.
Mr. Wharton further stated that his predecessor suggested that cer-
tain tapes be kept because of the nature of the matters being dis-
cussed, and he felt the practice should continue in any event. It's
an extra step; the only other consequence is there may be an illusion
of greater accessibility, which is just an illusion, and they do have
some legal significance should for some reason the City be sued
within the six month period that they exist.
Councilman Pritchard suggested they should discuss policy - that
the external use of the tapes be controlled by the.City Clerk upon
the condition that if someone wishes to appeal her decision of denial,
that it be done in writing to the Council.
CM-27-240
December 3, 1973
(re Retention of
Council Meeting Tapes)
Miss Hock explained that point is pretty well covered by the law
as far as availability is concerned as she must make them available
at a reasonable time.
'----------
Mr. Wharton added that if the tapes exist, he did not think they
could be withheld and must be made available if someone comes in and
wants to listen to them. The point is that it may not be reasonable
or practical because the machine is being used, and only one person
at a time can listen to one thing at a time when the machine is not
being used by the City.
Mayor Miller remarked if there is any press for the public to listen
to the tapes, then the City would have a moral obligation to buy
another machine.
Miss Hock stated it is a question of what is the record as the minutes
are supposedly the record and are required by law to be done.
Mayor Miller commented that the minutes are the legal record, but he
felt the people have the right to hear what actually went on in the
meeting, and believed it was important to keep those records.
Mr. Wharton stated that the tapes are the legal record as long as
they exist; the minutes are irrelevant.
Miss Hock urged the Council, if there is something they wished to have
added, she would like to be advised and would see that it is done, and
the Council agreed to do this.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Off-Tract Directional
Signs)
The Public Works Director stated that the Council had taken action
relative to tract directional signs, and he has written to all de-
velopers who have permits for tract directional signs, and he has
received a request from Sunset, Inc. to allow a delay as they had
just received a permit for the signs and have a substantial invest-
ment in these signs.
Mayor Miller stated the permit was issued for a year, but the reso-
lution which allows the approval of these encroachments states speci-
fically that they are to be removed with ten days notice, so there
is nothing unusual in this request and the resolution has been in
effect for almost five years and everyone know;the ground rules
They are to come down in ten days after the Council orders them down.
The Mayor restated that the permit states that they can be removed
with 10 days notice, and the Council voted by majority vote that
all of the signs would be removed.
Councilman Taylor remarked that signs put up in September and asked
to be removed two months later might not really be a reasonable
request.
Mayor Miller stated that unless one of the Council members would
like to propose a motion he would suggest that the letter be filed.
C~-27-24l
December 3, 1973
(SAVE Suit)
Dave Wharton stated that he would like to recieve the direction of
the Council with respect to asking our special counsel in the SAVE
litigation to take whatever action is necessary to see that no fur-
ther extension is granted by the court in allowing Associated Home-
builders additional time to file an answer. He added that they are
on their second or third extension and the answer to the appeal will
not be required until January 29, 1974.
Councilman Taylor moved that the City Council so direct the City
Attorney, seconded by Councilman Futch and which passed by a unani-
mous vote.
(Statutes re
Campaign Financing)
. ..... _.f- ......
. .__~h~. Ci,ty_ .?\:tt~~J:'ley.st.a:ted. :t;hat. he has distributed copies of statutes
recently s~gned into 1aW,QY the governor which will be effective in
January concerning campaign financing and disclosure of assets of
City officials and Councilmen. If there is any portion the Council
would like to discuss he stated that he would be happy to do so.
The statutes will also be made available to the City Clerk so that
the public might have a copy if one intends to run for public office.
(re Campaign
Statement Deposits)
The City Clerk commented that there was a $50 deposit charged for
candidates who wished to have qualification statements printed and
wondered what the City Council would direct her to do this year.
Mayor Miller felt that a $50 deposit may prevent interested persons
from having statements printed and felt that the public should be
encouraged rather than discouraged from running for public office,
and suggested that no deposit be required.
Councilman Beebe stated that he would agree there should be no
deposit.
The Council concluded that no deposit would be required.
(re Bids for Cars)
The City Manager reported that bids were received today for the
police cars and trucks and apologized for there not being time
to get the results on the agenda; however, it is necessary that
the Council review the bids due to the extended delay in getting
delivery, particularly for the police cars. The following recom-
mendations were made for purchase on the basis of low bid:
8 Four Door Sedans - $28,017.22 - to Fremont Dodge
3 Four Door Sedans - $ 9,837.33 - to Fremont Dodge
2 3/4 Ton Truck - $ 5,760.3l - to Codiroli Ford
2 3/4 Ton Truck - $ 5,729.71 - to Codiroli Ford
1 3/4 Ton Truck - $ 4,400.41 - To Codiroli Ford
1 1/2 Ton Truck - $ 3,254.08 - To GE Dailey
It was noted that the bid made by GE Daily for the 1/2 ton truck
was $100 higher than the low bid but is recommended due to the
fact that this is a local dealer.
CM-27-242
December 3, 1973
(re City Car Bids)
Mr. Parness explained that the bids for the sedans were for 8
marked patrol cars for the Police Department and 3 unmarked
undercover cars, which was followed by general discussion of
the bid system and awards.
Councilman Futch asked if the cars will come with air condition-
ing and Mr. Parness replied that the cars for the Police Depart-
ment would have air conditioning, and Councilman Futch stated
that in view of the energy crisis he would recommend that air
conditioning not be allowed.
Mr. Parness stated that he feels it is absolutely essential that
the cars are equipped with air for the summer months and commented
that the air conditioning/heating unit is disconnected during the
winter but it is absolutely necessary to have airAinthe .summ~r
(j&-ndLC'-"'7>--<--~ _ -
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor a
by a 4-l vote (Pritchard dissenting) the recommendation to award
the bids to the dealers noted was adopted.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Local Transportation)
Councilman Beebe stated that the General Plan Review Committee has
presented a report to the Council regarding a public survey and
that one of the points which was of highest concern by the public
was the need for transportation locally. He suggested that the
Council set up a commission for working with the staff in an effort
to submit a recommendation for public transportation.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the Council ask for a staff recom-
mendation prior to setting up a committee, as there is a possibility
that a committee is not necessary.
Councilman Beebe moved that a committee be set up to work with the
staff on making a recommendation for implementation of a public
transportation service, seconded by Mayor Miller and which passed
by a unanimous vote.
(re General Plan)
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council commissioned the idea of
a committee to gather information to be used in the General Plan
review process and to be used by a professional planner or the
person to be retained in getting on with this review. He stated
that he brings the matter to the Council's attention because the
City of Pleasanton has had a problem with the firm they selected
and how they proceeded and that it is incumbent upon the Council
to look very carefully at people who are available to do the job.
He suggested that the staff start compiling information on firms
who do this type of work so that interviews can be started as soon
as possible and we can start on the General Plan review. The General
Plan review will take at least a year and it is obvious that the
moratorium will expire, and so moved.
Councilman Beebe suggested that our own staff be used for the
General Plan review and that some outside firm not be hired to
do the work.
Mayor Miller commented that the Council has never actually agreed
that an outside firm would be hired to do the job.
CM-27-243
December 3, 1973
(Re General Plan)
Councilman Taylor felt that it was really essential that the City
obtain outside help but not necessarily a firm such as that hired
by the City of Pleasanton. He felt that the City's staff is not
able to do the work because of the amount of work it is already
doing and would urge that some professional type of help be sought.
Mayor Miller stated that he is in substantial disagreement with the
opinion of Councilman Taylor even though there would be some advan-
tage with getting outside help but feels there should be citizen
input and perhaps an extension of the existing General Plan Review
Committee in conjunction with the staff and possibly some contracts
with outside consultants on one issue or another. He felt that it
is important to continue public participation on the General Plan
review and does not like the idea of going outside the City for
everything. He pointed out that in a City of 50,000 people there
should be enough capable people to work in conjunction with the ex-
isting General Plan Review Committee and staff to do a very good job.
Councilman Taylor stated that he did not mean to imply that there
could not be public input but just feels that it is absolutely
essential to receive professional help from outside the City and
that the people are unhappy with what the City presently has. In
most of the planning it turns out to be just more of the same. He
added that he does not have confidence in the planning staff to
do the job.
Mayor Miller stated that he does have confidence in the staff and
that to hire outside consultants would cost approximately $40,000.
Councilman Futch stated that he has not really seen many reports
which have shown imagination and at this point feels that most
of the original work he has seen has been a result of citizen input.
Mr. Musso noted that an EIR is going to have to be done and will
have to be very detailed and thorough which is possibly one of the
areas an outside agency would be better able to handle than the
staff. He stated that he wanted to point out that there will
be areas that will have to be done by someone else.
Mike Schrader, 1266 Lakehurst, member of the Steering Committee
for the General Plan review, stated a lot of people have spent
many hours on the matter of the General Plan review and if these
people felt that someone was going to be brought in to turn every-
thing around the City may have the same problem that Pleasanton is
facing at present. However, if an individual or two ~s hired to
work in conjunction with the General Plan review people this would
not likely be rejected.
At this time the motion made by Councilman Taylor was withdrawn
and there was no further discussion on the matter.
(Signals at Holmes
and Concannon Blvd.)
Councilman Futch stated that as a condition of the rezoning of
Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard, it was promised that traffic
signals would be installed by the time school opened up and wanted
to know the status of the matter.
Mr. Lee reported that he has been in contact with the State Division
of Highways who have agreed to participate in the cost of the pro-
ject and are prepared to enter into a cooperative agreement for the
installation of the signals. This will also include medians on
approaches to the intersection and it appears that this will be
CM-27-244
December 3, 1973
(Signals at Holmes Ave
and Concannon Blvd.)
a first class installation in all respects. The City is going ahead
with the design of the signal and are well along with it. It is an-
ticipated that this will be done in another month or so. Mr. Lee
stated that it does take time for the state to prepare and process
the cooperative agreement and they are in the process at this time.
It would be the estimate of Mr. Lee that installation could take
place by March, and that bids must also be solicited.
(Bike Registration)
Councilman Pritchard stated that the matter of bike registration
has come up a number of times so he would like to move that the
City Manager be directed to assign someone in the Fire Department
to be available for registering bicycles between the hours of
2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. every day of the week and Mr. Parness
reported that this is being done and the motion was withdrawn.
(Executive Session)
Mayor Miller stated there should be a short executive session regard-
ing appointments to the Air Pollution Study Committee, and East Bay
Division League Task Force. It was decided that only the appointments
to the Committee would be discussed at this time.
(Resolution to be
Adopted at Mayors'
Conference)
Mayor Miller remarked that he had prepared a cleaner version of the
resolution which he would like to send to the other cities, and
it was also his idea to send it to all the councilmen, and have
those of the Council who know other Councilmen in the other cities
to contact them and ask them to support our Council in this matter
pertaining to the LAFCO action. Mayor Miller stated if this seemed
like a reasonable thing to do, he and the City Manager would dis-
cuss the best way to carry it off. The other members of the Council
agreed to the suggestion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council at this
time, the meeting was adjourned to a short executive session at
ll:45 p.m. to discuss appointments to the Air Pollution Study
Committee.
ATTEST
r)(J)~ YJ..~
ijayor !
~::~ (~ ~
City Clerk
ivefmore, California
APPROVE
CM-27-245
Regular Meeting of December lO, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 10, 1973,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Futch, Pritchard and Mayor Miller
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members as well as those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
(Petition Requesting
Retaining Crossing
Guard at Sonoma Ave.)
Gloria Albro, 224 Elvira, read a petition signed by the parents of
children crossing E1 Caminito at Sonoma Avenue requesting that the
crossing guard be retained at this intersection, in which they state
that the safety of their children is far more important than whatever
money might be saved by eliminating the crossing guard.
Mayor Miller asked that Mr. Lee respond to the matter or report
back to the Council as soon as possible.
.", .
Mrs. Bullard, president of the Livermore Education Association spoke
on behalf of the 150 members of the Association requesting that the
Council reconsider elimination of the crossing guard at El Caminito
and Sonoma Avenue. Due to concern for the safety of Livermore child-
ren they request that the crossing guards not be eliminated at El
Caminito and Sonoma Avenue as well as East Avenue and Olivina and
Murrieta Boulevard.
Francis McInnes, 212 Elvira, stated that she has appeared before
the Council in the past asking for speed limit and "watch for
children" signs in her area and unfortunately it took the death
of a child for the signs to be posted and would hope that this
will not occur again.
Mr. Lee pointed out that each of the crossings in which elimina-
tion of the crossing guard is proposed has been considered and
pointed out that three warrants must be met to warrant the cross-
ing guard as follows:
1) Certain volume of school children in an hour;
2) A certain volume of automobile traffic;
3) That there is no controlled intersection within 600 feet.
In the case of East Avenue School, there is a controlled inter-
section at East Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue and the school is
used to house 7th and 8th grade children and not primary children.
At Sonoma and El Caminito there are 4-way stop signs which is also
controlled crossing. with regard to Murrieta Boulevard and Olivina,
there is also a 4-way stop at that intersection, and it was noted
that there is a crossing guard at that intersection.
CM-27-246
December lO, 1973
(Petition re Crossing
Guards)
Mayor Miller pointed out that often it is actually safer for children
to cross at intersections which have stop signs which are there all
the time than at intersections where the crossing guard is there only
periodically. He would suggest that the elimination of these guards
be tried on a trial basis and if there are problems the parents should
report back to the Council.
Mrs. McInnes stated that the Council had agreed to allow the crossing
guard to remain through the rainy season and would request that the
crossing guard be allowed to stay longer.
Mayor Miller stated that perhaps this matter should be referred to
the Police Chief for comment with regard to the rainy day problem
and as to how long he would recommend that the crossing guard should
remain.
~~,ptaff was then directed to place the item on the agenda for
discussion at the next meeting.
(Complaint re Trucks
Parking on Holmes St.)
Ann B~~on, 927 Aberdeen, stated that the back of her house is
adjacent to Holmes Street and that she would like to complain
about the number of trucks which park along the street. She
pointed out that they seem to park for awhile, leave, come back
about 3:00-4:00 a.m. and warm up the engines. On one occasion she
telephoned the Police Department to report that the engine was
running and the driver was not in the truck and it turned out to
be a compressor which was running but this took place for a period
of 18 hours before the driver returned to remove the truck. She
urged that something be done to keep this from being used as an
overnight parking place for the truck drivers.
Mayor Miller stated that this problem has been discussed in the
past and it was his understanding that this type of thing was to
be prohibited.
Mr. Lee stated that most of the area along Holmes Street is posted
"no parking" but just south of Anza Way is not posted, which would
be the portion Mrs. Burton is complaining about. If there is
such a problem there can be more signs extended along Holmes Street.
He pointed out that sections where there were reported problems of
this nature had been posted but he was not aware that there was a
problem at the spot mentioned by Mrs. Burton.
It was mentioned that there are tickets given if trucks are in the
"no parking" zone but Mrs. Burton felt that tickets were of no
value if the trucks park all night, and she felt that in the case
of a truck being broken down it is still unreasonable that the
truck is parked for 18 hours without anyone appearing during that
time to try to fix it.
Mr. Lee felt that posting of the area would take care of the problem
and indicated that this would be taken care of.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolutions re
Appointments
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by unanimous vote, the following resolutions were adopted
appointing members to the Air Pollution Study Committee and the
General Plan Review Committee.
CM-27-247
December lO, 1973
RESOLUTION NO. 159-73
APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE AIR POLLUTION STUDY
COMMITTEE. (William C. Condit, Jr. and Roy A. Renner)
RESOLUTION NO. 160-73
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
REVIEW CO~1ITTEE. (Earl Mason)
Report re Bicycle
Ramp Standards
The Public Works Director presented a copy of the bicycle ramp stan-
dards in detail to be installed over the street curbing which was
informational in nature.
Report re Bike Acci-
dents on East Avenue
Bike Path
Pursuant to the Council's request a report was presented to the
Council on the number of bicycle accidents which have occurred
over the last year and this year on the East Avenue bike path.
The report showed that there were 4 accidents between Madison Avenue
and Vasco Road in 1972 and 6 accidents in this area in 1973
and that all bicycles were westbound.
Report re Alameda County
Parks Advisory Commission
The City Manager reported that the Alameda County Parks Advisory
Commission is considering a new subject related to the State
Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act
of 1974 in which they intend to form a technical qdvisory com-
mittee to assist and will be established with representation
from each agency. A P1easanton resident has recently resigned
which represented the valley community and it is recommended that
the City Council adopt a motion urging the Board of Supervisors
to designate, as a replacement, a person proposed from a list of
qualified citizens as prepared by LARPD. It is further recommended
that the City Council designate our Planning Director to represent
the City as a member of the technical advisory committee to this
County Commission.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and by a unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.
CO~~UNICATION FROM PARC COMHITTEE
A communication was received from Margaret Tracy, PARC Chairman
regarding their progress and it was noted for filing.
CM-27-248
December lO, 1973
REPORT RE TREE SCREEN-
ING FOR TRACT 332l
(Sunset Development)
The Director of Public Works submitted the tree screening plan to
be placed along Portola Avenue and North Livermore adjacent to
Tract 332l (Sunset Development) and Mr. Lee explained the plan
to the Council.
The Council discussed the plan briefly and on motion of Councilman
Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous vote, the
plan was approved.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION - TRACT 3333
(H. C. Elliott, Inc.)
The City Attorney commented that he has checked into the means by
which the Council could act on the question of allowing development
of the H. C. Elliott property (Tract 3333) and it appears that the
action would require amendment of the Interim Ordinance which has
established the moratorium on building and there is no other way
such can be done. He stated that he would caution the Council
against frequent amendments of ordinances unless the amendments
assume more stature than the ordinance and policy originally adopted.
The City Manager stated that he would like to suggest that the Council
take into account numerous fringe properties which have been reserved,
mandatorily, by the Council and that the question of what can be done
with these properties constantly arises. The City Attorney has stated
that there should not be modifications to the ordinance over individual
situations but perhaps an all inclusive type of amendment could be
considered which would take into account these things which have
come up.
Hayor Miller stated that this was discussed a few months ago when
the moratorium ordinance was amended to allow CUP and tract maps
and the City Manager stated that this has no reference to tract maps
or lands which can be subdivided but pertained to lands which were a
part of an original development plan and preserved for another purpose,
such as Mr. Elliott's. The question is, what use can these land be
put to, if any?
The Mayor stated that he thought the direction was clear because
tracts such as this were mentioned during the discussions - all
parcels which are presently undeveloped are subject to possible
change in the General Plan and was the reason no subdivision maps
would be allowed.
Councilman Futch stated that it was his understanding the matter
was referred to the Planning Commission asking that they look into
the areas of the City which might be opened up again and would not ~~
be in conflict with the General Plan.~~. ~
Mayor Miller stated that he believes the Planning commission was to
give the Council a list of the areas of first priority so that the
Council could determine which would be completed first.
Councilman Futch stated that he requested that the Planning Commission
consider the areas of the town which are, essentially, already built
and consider opening up and that this has been sent to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Musso stated that he did not remember a formal request of this
nature and Councilman Futch stated that the only way the question
could be resolved would be to refer to the records for the motion.
C~'1-27-249
December 10, 1973
(re Tract 3333 - Elliott)
Mr. Musso then described the areas which are not to be developed
as a result of the Interim Ordinance and for which questions have
been raised during the moratorium, such as the Hofmann Tract in
the Carlton Square area.
Mr. Parness stated that the Hofmann land was required to be reserved,
at the time the subdivision was approved, for acquisition for school
purposes and was to be placed in this status for a given term of
years. This time has nearly expired, according to the owner of
the property, and an inquiry has been made to the School District
as to their intentions and the School District has replied that
they do not want the property. The owner now wants to know what can
be done with the property.
Mayor Miller restated that every piece of property which is not developed
is subject to change in the General Plan Review, and reasons for
which they were not developed is not relevant.
Councilman Futch stated that he would again make the motion that
the Council refer the matter to the Planning Commission for their
consideration as to what the Council should do about this particular
problem, particularly south of US-580 and south of portola Avenue
and East Avenue, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Harry Elliott, Jr., representative of H. C. Elliott, Inc., pointed
out that in his opinion their parcel is quite unique and has some
things which are not in common with the other parcels in question.
The tentative map's expiration date was given an extension for one
year which will expire in January of 1974 and that originally the
extension was given to force some action on the part of the Division
of Highways who did respond. It has been their understanding that
the City is behind them and feel that they have a valid tentative
and entitled to filing of a final map and in the event the state
does not act, they should be allowed to develop. He pointed that
at this time they are ready and able to file a final map on the
parcel prior to expiration of the tentative.
Mayor Miller stated that the ordinance prohibits the City from
accepting the final map unless it is amended and to do this
there would have to be public hearings by the Planning Commission
and Council which would take too much time - such could not be
done prior to expiration of the tentative. Referring the matter
to the Planning Commission may mean that they may decide to open
up this area; however, it does not mean that the Council will
agree to open up properties in the near future.
Mr. Elliott then asked the status of the letter to the State
Division of Highways in which a request for reopening of the
investigation regarding limited access or freeway through the
property as originally planned.
At this time the motion passed 4-1 (Mayor Miller dissenting).
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
RE GEN. PLAN AMEND.
Mayor Miller stated that discussion of the General Plan amend-
ments were postponed from a previous meeting for discussion at
this time and that Mr. Musso has provided a draft of the changes
proposed by the Mayor.
CM-27-250
December 10, 1973
Mayor Miller pointed out that there had been a transcription error
in the "Miller Draft" on Page 3 in the category of the Housing
Element which should read as follows:
B. Standards
1. General
2. For Determining and Assigning Density:
d. (4) In the event of a density transfer allowing
density to be transferred "out of" or "into"
the Planning Unit the City may impose a higher
or lower density category of zoning in accord-
ance with the density transfer agreement provided
the holding capacity for the entire General Plan
area is not exceeded.
Councilman Futch moved to adopt the first four pages of the Miller
Draft with the noted changes on Page 3, seconded by Councilman
Beebe and which passed by a unanimous vote.
The Council then discussed the changes on Page 5 and the Mayor stated
that the wording suggested earlier and agreed upon by the Council
under 4. b. read as follows:
".....open space created or maintained shall be encouraged and
possibly be required provided General Plan holding capacity is
maintaine~and development is compatible with surrounding land
use. "
It was also noted that c. (5.) under Zoning of Single Family Residential
Areas was determined by the Council not to be-appropriate for this
section and should be deleted.
At this time the above mentioned corrections were approved on motion
of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and which
passed by unanimous vote.
The rest of the changes on Page 5 were approved, with the deletion
of (1) at the bottom of the page which Mr. Musso indicated should
not have been printed, on motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard and which passed by unanimous vote.
Councilman Taylor noted, prior to the vote, that "only" in 5. a.
would seem to be redundant and the Mayor explained that this was
in the original text and !lr. Musso explained the reason the word
had been included originally.
The deletion noted on Page 6 which was (5.) and the Mayor stated
that the Council had discussed deleting this but believes they had
decided to leave it in and the Council agreed that it would not be
deleted.
It was noted that any change from the original Planning Commission's
text and anything other than an addition or deletion will require
no action.
It was noted that (6.) (f) on page 6 was redundant and on motion
of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and by
unanimous vote, this portion was deleted.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the following addition be adopted:
1. General
b.
Specific Plans: "...Specific Plans shall be in
conformance with the General Plan particularly
they relate to density and holding capacity
as
rr-
cr1-27-25l
December 10, 1973
(re Gen. Plan review)
The motion was seconded by Mayor Miller but failed 2-3 with Council-
men Beebe, Taylor and Futch dissenting, and the wording underscored
above was not added to the text.
In C. 1. b. Mr. Musso suggested that the word "distribution" be added
for clarity, as follows: "...detailed with respect to density distribu-
tion." and on motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Futch
and by unanimous vote this addition was approved.
At the end of C. 1. c. a line was added which states, "and in no case shall
holding capacities or densities be increased" suggested for clarity
and the Council briefly discussed whether or not this should be
added.
Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the addition, seconded by Mayor
Miller, but the motion failed 2-3 with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and
Taylor dissenting.
The Council next discussed Page 7 - c. 1. f. and Councilman Taylor
stated that his only concern is that the overall density is right
and the City does not want someone to develop a high density when
the City has been led to believe that it will be developed in a
PUD. However, in the case of the suggested wording he would wonder
if this would automatically rule out certain possible density trans-
fers, as this does not refer to the tentative but rather to the zone.
Mayor Miller stated that this has to do with zoning as the property
is already zoned, the tentative has been applied for and when there
is a distribution of density; the object of this wording is to make
sure that as he divides up he is already disenchanted with his final
map. The final maps all come along with the average density associa-
ted with the zone he is developing in, as in the RS Ordinance.
After some discussion regarding the possible addition of this sen-
tence, Councilman Beebe moved that the wording be adopted and
included, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Taylor stated that the RS Ordinance did not take care of
problems such as the one in the Wagoner Farms area or some of the
PUD's and the Mayor pointed out that this had all been done under
the old ordinance and not the RS Ordinance.
Councilman Pritchard commented that if someone comes in and wants
a higher density he cannot just come in and build them without
commi~ng another piece of property to the average density to make
up for the higher density, and this sugqested wording will not change
this requirement. The wording will insure the City that when someone
comes in with a final map that the overall density will have been
settled.
Councilman Taylor stated that what he wants is a density transfer
that will not involve a change in the zoning on the particular
piece of property. He stated an example of someone wanting to
build on half of his property with a higher density and giving
the City the other half and it was pointed out that overall the
density would be the same and would not result in a rezoning;
it will come in with the final map. The deeds for open space or
land for the City will come in with the final map and are condi-
tions of the final map.
Councilman Taylor expressed concern for adding something the
Planning Commission has not considered commenting that they have
thoroughly gone over the density transfer matter and that this
wording would not really be necessary.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that there is a possibility that
some other council, without having this wording included, could
give one ownership in a PUD a high density and deny another owner-
ship in the same PUD any density whatsoever.
CM-27-252
December 10, 1973
(Gen. Plan. Amendments)
At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed 3-2 with
Councilmen Futch and Taylor dissenting.
Mayor Miller commented that the addition of the wording suggested
in C. 1. i. was done by Mr. Musso, \vhichMr. Musso explained.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and
by unanimous vote, Section C. 1. i. was adopted.
It was suggested that the word "simultaneously" be added at the
end of C. 1. j. Development Timing, to read as follows: "
...following conditions are found to exist simultaneously"
Mr. t1usso also suggested the following wording in C. 1. j. (4) to
read as follows: "...shall include but not be limited to schools,
parks, sewer lines and treatment capacity, water lines and availability
of domestic water supply,...".
Councilman Taylor suggested that the wording "of" be substituted with
the word "for" in C. 1. j. to read as follows: "No subdivision maps
land development or similar project shall be approved...". -
Councilman Futch moved that the additions suggested in C. 1. j. be
adopted with the change in wording as suggested by Councilman Taylor,
and passed by unanimous vote of the Council.
It was noted that up to this point approval has been given through
C. 1. j. (4) and will now discuss (5) on Page 7.
C. 1. j. (5) states - That during the previous calendar year federal
standards for air pollution have been met.
Mayor Miller commented that this statement means that we will con-
tinue to not allow development in the valley as long as this is still
a critical smog area and Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the
wording, seconded by Mayor Miller.
Prior to the vote Councilman Taylor stated that this would mean
if the valley has a particularly windy year and there Is much less
smog developments could be approved for the following year, regardless
of what the average has been.
Councilman Futch felt it would create a "boom or bust" attitude which
is not desirable.
It was noted that C. 1. j. (5), (6) and (7) had not been reviewed
by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Miller pointed out that the Planning Commission discussed
Development Timing and did not consider a major issue such as the
health of the people living in this valley and at some time the
public official is going to have to "take hold" of these kind of
issues. He commented that people who suffer from emphysema and
other respiratory disorders are being condemned to shorter lives
when they must live in areas with poor air quality. Attempts have
been made to get people to discuss this matter seriously since 1966
to no avail, and it appears that the time for serious action has
come.
Councilman Futch stated that he is not opposed to discussing the
issue of smog but feels that is is unreasonable to say that there
will be no development for the next 10 years. He felt that some-
thing can be done about the air quality without resorting to such
a drastic attitude.
CM-27-253
December 10, 1973
(Gen. Plan Amend.)
Councilman Futch stated that there can be a growth rate which is
not zero, with the improvement of the automobile exhaust and the
air quality should meet the federal standards.
Mayor Miller responded by saying that the federal standards can be
met sooner if there is zero growth and during the time these standards
are not being met there are health effects on all the people who live
in this valley.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that if the City does not start tak-
ing initiative on these matters we will be preempted by regional and
federal government.
Councilman Taylor stated that with regard to air pollution it is de-
sirable to have EPA or some agency act on a larger scale, contrary
to the City's worry about land use planning and the fear that some-
one will take our authority away. As far as air pollution is con-
cerned it is important that it be applied over a wide region. He
expressed concern for adopting something like this in view of the
fact that it might be interpreted as trying to stop growth. He
pointed out that this will restrict Livermore, only, and will have
no effect on Pleasanton, Dublin or Geldertown. EPA regulations should
apply to all of these areas and adoption of this will insure no build-
ing in Livermore and perhaps for many, many years. If this is what
is being suggested he would recommend that it not be done in a method
which could be considered "backwards".
Mayor Miller pointed out that the California Environmental Quality Act
says that the guiding criteria in public decisions should be the long-
term enhancement of the environment and a decision of the kind being
made at this time has to do with environmental quality in a smog area
such as ours. What the City would be doing by paying attention to
these environmental conditions is satisfying the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. One of the thinqs that makes
regional agencies seize control of the authority of the cities is
because the cities and other local jurisdictions will not do the
things which they morally should do.
Councilman Taylor remarked that when it comes to smog, he would hope
they seize control because he is more concerned about what the other
cities might do.
Mayor Miller agreed that Councilman Beebe's point in this regard was
very well taken, because if they don't do the right things, then
this Council should take whatever legal means are required to pro-
tect the health of not only their citizens, but ours. Mayor Miller
asked for the vote to the motion to add this to the General Plan,
however the motion failed 3-2 with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Taylor
dissenting.
Mayor Miller made a motion that this item be sent to the Planning
Commission for discussion; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and passed unanimously. ~ ~ ' ~.
Mayor Miller stated the~next item is to se~~verall growth rate
and, of course, any Hlo~er' HAe 1.lU.b tU' put. in something like this
are naturally arbitrary, and the arbitrariness that he has chosen
to put in here has to do with the growth rate of the Bay Area as a
whole. He did not feel that it was reasonable that in the worst
smog area in northern California where schools, water and sewers are
in trouble that we should have a growth rate ten times greater than
the growth rate of the balance of the Bay Area. If the core cities
are losing population where public facilities already exist, there
is no reason why development and housing construction could not take
CM-27-254
December 10, 1973
(Gen Plan Amend.)
place in the core cities to take
jobs are in the core cities. At
tunity for energy conservation.
permits per year.
care of housing for people whose
the same time it would be an oppor-
That turns out to be 250 building
Councilman Pritchard asked if he would clarify that to mean 250
residential, and Mayor Miller agreed that is what he meant.
Councilman Taylor stated he wanted to reiterate a remark made earlier
and that is that there are a great n~~~iteria one might apply;
the one suggested by the Mayor has~ r tlonal basis and there are
others that have rational basis; however he felt strongly in this case
that this item is one of major concern to the Goals Committee, and
will be during the General Plan review. He felt it entirely out of
place for the Council to insert this item.
Councilman Beebe commented that he could not understand the haste
because he felt that the subjects covered by 5, 6 and 7 should come
from the General Plan Review Committee as it was his understanding
that this was part of their function.
Mayor Miller stated to his knowledge no subjects of this kind are
being discussed whatsoever by the General Plan Review Committee.
Councilman Taylor felt it would certainly be a part of the General
Plan Review, and he thought the setting of the growth rate deserved
a lot more discussion. When Mayor Miller asked if he wanted to send
this portion to the Planning Commission, Councilman Taylor replied
that to suddenly start the Planning Commission working on all of these
items at this time is premature, but rather the Planning Commission
should be working with the Citizens Committee and give them whatever
help they can.
Councilman Beebe moved that Items 6 and 7 be referred to the Planning
Commission to be dealt with by them after the General Plan Review
Committee has submitted their factual statements.; motion was seconded
by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Taylor moved to amend the motion to send the "consideration"
of the overall growth rate and consideration of dedication of obtain-
ing public housing by dedication to the Planning Commission. He would
not be in favor of sending these specific suggestions to the Planning
Commission, and Councilman Beebe agreed to the amendment.
Mayor Miller agreed to Councilman Taylor's suggestion on Item 6 -
to set a figure now would require more discussion and should be con-
sidered by the Planning Commission. It is fairly clear that in sub-
mitting this item with those words, he did not expect the Council to
adopt them this evening, but the purpose of submitting No. 6 is to
start considerabion b~ the city because if the question is not raised
nothing will ev~r heppen. However he felt Item 7 was a reasonable
thing to adopt right now, because he has been listening to developers
for fifteen years saying they would build low income houses if they
are granted the high densities they demand, but when they are given
that density they build a $40,000 house on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot and
low income housing is never built. The developers will not build low
income housing because there is no money in it, and they can't be
blamed for that. He doesn't agree with that thinking, but he can
understand their reasoning; however there has to be some mechanism
for providing public housing and he felt the mechanism provided by
Ramapo is a very simple, straightforward mechanism for doing that.
Councilman Beebe stated he would like to have a little more background
of what they are doing in Ramapo, how they are doing it and if it is
actually backed up by court cases.
CM-27-255
December 10, 1973
(Gen. Plan Amend.)
Councilman Taylor added he would like to know if it is really a require-
ment that a developer provide housing in a low income range. He
asked if it was the Mayor's intention to obtain complete dedication
of houses, free and clear to be paid for by the other residents
that move in, assuming that the Livermore Housing Authority would
be happy to have houses to rent, manage and maintain. He wasn't
too sure, and felt there were all kinds of ramifications. He asked
if the amapo ordinance required dedication free and clear to the
public authority.
t4ayor Miller answered that is the key thing - that's the only way
you get low income housing - dedication free and clear which means
that you can rent it at plausible rent.
Councilman Taylor said he would still go along with the amendment,
but wanted to add that regarding Item 6, it is not true that the
General Plan Review Committee and the people involved are not con-
cerned about the growth rate or had not discussed the growth rate;
it is one of the most widely discussed problems of the City of Liver-
more, and will undoubtedly be part of the General Plan review.
Councilman Futch stated they had sent to the Planning Commission a
request for interim change in the General Plan ordinance because of
the growth rate. The reason they discuss the growth rate is be-
cause they intend to do something about it. He definitely felt
they should refer the item with regard to housing to the Planning
Commission. He did not think any of them intended to have a large
amount of houses approved before the Planning Commission has an oppor-
tunity to review it. He called for the question.
A vote was taken on the motion which passed 3-2 with Councilman
Pritchard and Mayor Miller dissenting.
Mayor Miller stated that the remainder of the items has to do with
rearrangement of the text by the Planning Director for clarity,
plus No. 5 which is his suggestion although worded by the Planning
Director which makes it very clear they are taking into account all
future commitments.
Councilman Taylor moved that Item 1 and 5 be approved, seconded by
Councilman Futch, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Miller asked if there was any further discussion on these
General Plan amendments as a whole because he felt by adopting the
amendments they had essentially adopted the whole, but they did
not adopt the pages in the same sense, and suggested that the motion
cover the whole thing.
Councilman Taylor stated that the motion was to change the text;
he moved that the City Council approve the document as it has been
amended regarding the Housing Element; motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously, and the following resolution
adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 161-73
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL
PLAN
REPORT RE TELE-VUE FRAN-
CHISE A~1ENDMENT
The City Manager reported that an application has been filed by
Tele-Vue for a rate adjustment. The rate changes have been approved
by the City Council at a previous meeting; however, certain other
franchise modifications were proposed for investigation which have
all been researched and discussed with the franchisee. In addition,
the City Attorney has drafted a resolution modifying the existing
CM-27-256
December 10, 1973
(Tele-Vue Franchise)
franchise between the City and Tele-Vue Systems, the language of
which reflects the result of negotiations between the City Manager
and the franchise holder.
Councilman Taylor questioned the reference in the proposed resolution
concerning no cost service to the school district, recreation dis-
trict, City and private schools and further no cost of a public
access studio with regard to the timing.
Mr. Wharton explained that with respect to the public access studio
the timing is the same as stated in another portion that all access
channels would become available as of February 1, 1977.
Councilman Taylor moved adoption of the resolution, seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Miller stated he would like to change the wording in the second
paragraph regarding government and educational access channels to
read, "....for a period ending not sooner than January 31, 1982,
and thereafter unless the applicable federal statutes and FCC requ-
lations specifically prohibit it". He felt this would make it very
clear it would have to be specifically prohibited.
Councilman Taylor amended his motion to include the wording as
suggested by the Mayor, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor ~1iller stated he had also asked a question about two-way
channels and there is no reference as to whether we can or cannot
do this. He would also like to see something as follows in the
resolution: "Be it further resolved that there be 10 hours a week,
including prime if requested, available for local government on
one two-way channel". There aren't any now, but if there are some,
local government should get a piece of that action.
Councilman Taylor asked the length of the term of the new franchise
and Mr. Wharton stated that the franchise is a 20 year franchise
running to 1985.
Mayor Miller pointed out that when the two-way channels are techni-
logically feasible the City should have time.
Mr. Derick, representative of Tele-Vue, commented that although the
franchise is for 20 years, under the FCC regulations Tele-Vue will
be required to sit down and prepare a complete franchise with the
City in 1977 to be submitted to the FCC for a Certificate of Compliance.
Mayor Miller stated that he received a telephone call from someone
in the School District this afternoon and the schools are concerned
over the cost of an adapter for educational T.V. They would like
to be able to use Channel 8 when the programs are the same as re-
lated Bay Area stations - there are duplicate Bay Area programs on
Channel 8; however, they feel that this will be about $1,300 for an
adapter.
Mr. Derick stated that this cannot be done with the modulator neces-
sary; however, it is conceivable that occasionally there could be
a duplication of programs but would require another type of modulator
and he believes that preempting channels is illegal and would be pro-
hibited by the FCC.
At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion to
approve the franchise, as amended.
RESOLUTION 162-73
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE
TWENTY-YEAR NONEXCLUSIVE TELE-VUE SYSTEMS FRANCHISE
FOR CATV SERVICE IN THE CITY OF LIVER1I10RE.
CM-27-257
December 10, 1973
LARPD REQUEST FOR
CONSOLIDATED ELECTION
A request was received from LARPD for consolidation of a special
election with the City's General Municipal Election to be held
on March 5, 1973 and on motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard and by unanimous vote approval of the
request was granted.
RESOLUTION NO. 163-73
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO CONSOLIDATION OF AN ELECTION
REPORT RE DIRECT
ELECTION OF MAYOR
The City Council instructed the staff that the matter of direct
election of Mayor be scheduled for discussion prior to election
time for possible inclusion on the March ballot and a report
was prepared a few years ago on the matter by the former City
Attorney.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council prepare wording to
be included in the upcoming election giving the people the
privilege of voting on whether they would like an elected Mayor
or not, and whether the term should be for a two or four year
period, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Taylor felt it is better to have some type of rota-
tion or choice by the Councilmen themselves because in a small
City the job of the Mayor is mainly to preside at meetings and
represent the Council in regional government and would suggest
that the system which has been followed continue to be used.
Councilman Pritchard felt it should not be a matter of what the
Council would like but what the people would prefer, and that it
is quite possible the voters would feel as Councilman Taylor does.
Councilman Futch felt that those who have served on the Council
can better understand some of the advantages and disadvantages
of an elected mayor and that one of the major disadvantages is that
it is possible to have an elected mayor who would not get along with
the rest of the Council and at present, if this is the case, there
can be a change in the presiding officer. He also pointed out that
a four year or even two year term is a substantial amount of time to
devote to the office of mayor which would eliminate a number of
people for the office.
Mayor Miller stated that the elected mayor for two or four years
is a concentration of power in a single man's hands and there is
a possibility that an elected mayor can become "gavel happy",
and nothing can be done perhaps for four years. With the system
now being used the Mayor is merely one among equals as it is neces-
sary that someone preside over meetings and act as spokesman for
the Council's majority views in other situations. In his opinion
it is wrong, in principle, to concentrate power in one person. He
pointed out that as far as the comment that rotation among Council
members is unfair he would agree that he was unhappy about being
passed at one time but the Councilmen at that time chose the person
they felt would make the operation go smoothly and reflect their
views and despite the fact he was passed over he can understand
the principle and that the mayor should be elected among the Council-
men and that it should rotate. He feels that the sharing of the
gavel prevents anyone from becoming "gavel happy".
CM-27-258
December lO, 1973
(Election of Mayor)
Councilman Pritchard felt than an elected mayor will in no way
control the meeting as the Council members can call for the
question, table the matter or take other action for getting what
they want done. Also, the majority of the Council determines what
is discussed and how long the discussion will take place.
Mayor Miller stated that the reasons it is unwise to have the
people elect a mayor are difficult to explain and feels that the
issue could easily be distorted by the newspaper and a number of
problems could arise over election of a mayor. He would therefore
vote against placing the matter on the ballot; however, if the pub-
lic is really interested then an initiative is possible and with
the required number of signatures it would be placed on the ballot.
Councilman Beebe stated that during the time he has served on the
Council the biggest "bone of contention and dissention" among all
the members of the Council has always been over who the next mayor
will be. He felt that as soon as he was elected he could see the
obvious existance of "hard feelings" on the part of the Councilmen
over the issue. In his opinion the Council, in not allowing the
public to vote, is saying that the public is not intelligent enough
to vote on the matter.
Councilman Futch called for the motion which failed 2-3 with Council-
men Futch, Taylor and Mayor Miller dissenting.
REPORT RE REALIGNMENT
OF SPRINGTOWN BLVD.
Mr. Musso illustrated the realignment of Springtown Boulevard from
its present location to an alignment 400 ft. east which was referred
to the Planning Commission as well as the Springtown Homeowners
Association, and which the Council discussed at this time.
Mr. Musso was asked what his opinion of the realignment is and he
replied that he would agree with the Planning Commission who feels
that the best alternative is to continue Springtown Boulevard with
its present alignment on the westerly extreme of the area.
Mr. Lee explained that the ideal distance between the location of
major streets is approximately one mile and is one of the reasons
he would recommend the realignment, and illustrated how the realign-
ment would be better with tributary streets. He commented that there
had been remarks about the realignment bisecting a neighborhood and
in his opinion this is not true as it should bisect the two planning
areas more equally. With regard to the claim that the cost would be
spread more evenly if the present alignment is extended, he stated
that this is not really a valid argument because the City participates
in the excess costs and the developer pays only for the improvement
to the collector street.
Councilman Taylor commented that the property being discussed is
not even within the City's Spheres of Influence anymore and moved
that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation;
however the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Beebe moved to adopt the recommendation of the Public
Works Director for the realignment of Springtown Boulevard, seconded
by Councilman Futch.
Councilman Taylor felt that the possible bisecting of a neighborhood
is probably serious and should be discussed. The channel will be
a natural barrier and the schools are undoubtedly planned with the
present alignment in mind, and unless there are good planning reasons
for moving the line he feels it should not be done.
CM-27-259
December 10, 1973
(Realignment of Springtown Blvd.)
The Council discussed these points as well as the cost for
developing the street and Mr. Musso pointed out that if a realign-
ment occurs the developer will have to develop both sides of
the street and was the reason the developer was opposed to the
proposed realignment.
Councilman Futch stated that he cannot understand the objection
regarding bisecting an area, as this occurs whenever a street
is developed, and the housing is divided from one side to the
other.
Mr. Musso explained that the concern is for one development
which will occur at one time while the other area will not be
developed for many years in the future. In one instance it is
known what will be created, and not in the other. Some of the
land is not in the City limits and consequently is not zoned
for specific use.
Councilman Futch moved to table the matter for one week, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard and which passed by a 4-1 vote (Councilman
Beebe absent during vote).
PROPOSED Z. O.
AMEND. REFERRED BACK
TO PLANNING COMMISSION
The proposed zoning ordinance amendments were referred back to
the Planning Commission from the City Council and the Planning
Commission reported that after discussion they would like to
resubmit the amendments, as revised, to the Council for adop-
tion.
Mayor Miller commented that as he recalls the only portion the
Council referred back to the Planning Commission was the recom-
mendation for a 25 ft. back yard which the Planning Commission
does not wish to adopt.
Councilman Taylor moved to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation, seconded by Councilman Futch.
Mayor Miller stated that he would like to move to amend the
motion to state that the 25 ft. average for rear yards be
changed to a straight 25 ft. minimum, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Mayor Miller stated that a 10 foot setback means that a two-story
house can be 10 feet from the fence and made a correction to say
that additional setback would be required for a two-story house
which could be IS feet from the fence, which is extremely close
to a neighbor's back yard. He pointed out that a survey was
taken and one of the objections was that neighbors are located
too close. He had suggested a 50 ft. backyard setback, but
they settled for 15 on the basis of flexibility and that is the
argument that the Planning Commission is presently using. As a
result of that flexibility the houses of Proud Homes look like
boxcars with the lots as narrow as possible and the houses as
narrow as possible. It has defeated the intent of trying to get
reasonable size backyards for people living in these kinds of
subdivisions. Even the 25 ft. setback is less than what he
personally considers a backyard setback should be, and stressed
that the 25 feet should be an absolute minimum.
CM-27-260
December lO, 1973
(z.o. Amendment re
Backyard Setbacks)
Councilman Taylor stated he has been through this discussion many
times, and the point that has been made is that the main idea is
to get away from the fence line being set so closely that the house
is completely boxed in, and there is no room for design at all. It
does not affect the amount of yard - that is set by the coverage.
The sideyard setbacks have been set, also the two-story house is taken
care of by requiring it to be set further back, and he felt that the
Planning Commission's argument is really quite valid. If they con-
sider changing that, then they should all go through again what the
affect is, particularly now that the RS Ordinance has been in effect,
inasmuch as at the time it was adopted, there were no houses.
Mayor Miller remarked that Mike Uthe had made the comment that no
matter what kind of conditions you impose on your zoning ordinance,
that will determine the design. The design is determined by the
developer's desire to minimize his expenses and to maximize his
profits on his lot layout. The idea of the 25 feet is to give the
people usable backyards.
.
Councilman Futch stated he saw no real evidence that with the per-
cent coverage on the RS lot they would have a problem; however Mayor
Miller reminded him that they had the problem w~th Proud Country.
However Councilman Futch commented it was a smaller lot size.
councilman Taylor pointed out a case in a lot where normally the
builder will take the minimum setback in the front, prescribed set-
backs on the side, he has 25% coverage so when the backyard is
specified, he can make an L-shaped house, with part of the house closer
to the rear lot and have a larger usable yard in the remaining space.
If he's forced to stay within the 25 ft. boundary, you force him
toward a rectangular house.
Mayor ~liller stated his only argument is that he has been involved
in these calcualtions since 1966 and none of the present Planning
Commissioners have put the thought in house layout that those
commissioners did at the time the ordinance was proposed. He asked
that the Council consider what he has said.
Councilman Futch called for the question and a vote was taken on
the motion to amend which failed 3-2 with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and
Taylor dissenting.
Mr. Musso stated there was one other point under Sec. 5.42 (c) and
the Planning Commission recommended ten (10) feet rather than twelve
(12) with regard to side yards in lots over 10,000 sq. feet.
Mayor Miller made a motion to change the Planning Commission's ten
feet back to twelve feet. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion.
Mayor Miller stated this change was incredible - that would be
cramming them together with backyard setback, and then squeeze them
together on the side, and the big objection is that it matches the back.
The original proposal was for a fifteen foot setback on the side for
everyone in the RS zone.
, '-..
Mr. Musso explained the reason for the recommended change, and the
lot size is the determining factor.
Councilman Futch agreed that it should be twelve feet to allow room
to drive a vehicle back as there is frequently a chimney protruding.
A vote was taken on the amendment to the motion to require twelve
feet, and passed unanimously.
The main motion was then voted on and passed unanimously.
CM-27-26l
December 10, 1973
SUMMARY OF PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
(Farrell Appeal)
A summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 4 was presented.
Mayor Miller stated he wished to appeal the action taken regarding
the application of William E. Ferrell for the Zoning Use Permit and
Variance. This will appear on the Council agenda for the next
meeting.
REPORT RE CITY'S POSITION
ON FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Councilman Taylor moved to table the item with regard to the request
of Councilman Beebe to rescind the Council's former statement in
opposition to the reconstruction of I-S80. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe and passed unanimously.
REPORT RE SACEOA FUNDING PROPOSAL
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor
and by unanimous approval, the report regarding SACEOA funding
proposal was continued to the meeting of December l7, as recommended
so a staff report can be made.
HATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Polling Time)
The City Clerk asked the Council for direction regarding the
closing time for the polling places at the upcoming Municipal
Election. Miss Hock further explained a new method which is avail-
able for use at the polling places which would expedite the count,
and then there would be no objection to the 8 p.m. closing, but
if a manual count is necessary she would urge the Council to set
the 7 p.m. closing.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and by unanimous approval the closing time was left flexible
as recommended by the City Clerk.
(Property Available to City-pestana)
Mr. Parness advised that Mr. Pestana has offered to sell the balance
of his property next to Robert Livermore Park - there are nine (9)
acres, and he asked the Council if they were interested in acquiring
this.
Mayor Miller asked him to find out the price, and Mr. Parness advised
it was the same price they paid for the other property three years
ago.
Councilman Taylor stated there were many other areas in the City
more in need of a park; however Mr. Parness was asked to explore
the possibilities.
(Christmas Holiday)
Mr. Parness asked if the Council would agree to allowance of the
annual Christmas and New Year's Eve afternoons off optionally with
the employees.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and passed unanimously to allow the half-day holiday
as suggested.
CM-27-262
December 10, 1973
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE COUNCIL
(Fence on Enos Way)
Councilman Taylor remarked that the backing lot fence is different
on each side of the street on Enos Way and felt they should be alike.
Mr. Lee explained that the fence on the one side is concrete block
and the first design used by the City, and it was quite widely used
and the reaction was that it was a stereotype and he made the de-
C1Slon not to approve that particular design any place else. The
actual structural design was somewhat in question also.
(South Livermore Traffic)
Councilman Pritchard referred to the backup of traffic on South
Livermore at First Street, stating if there are a couple of cars in
the middle lane, it is difficult for people to get into the left
turn lane. He felt if the left turn lane corresponded with lane
nearest the center across the street, perhaps the lane could be made
either straight ahead or left turn.
Mr. Lee stated he would check into this, but did not know whether
or not this suggestion might be helpful.
(Freeway Signing)
Councilman Pritchard stated there is also an absence of signs indi-
cating freeway, and the staff was asked to investigate this.
(Announcement re
Candidacy)
Councilman Taylor stated at this time that he did not intend to
run for another term on the City Council, and he read a statement
which he had prepared for press release.
The City Clerk stated that the new legislation would not apply to
the upcoming election, and the last date for filing a campaign
nomination papers would be December 27, 1973.
(Action by the City in
Violation of Ordinances)
Mayor Miller stated that the City Attorney had furnished them with
a memo pertaining to actions by the City in violation of ordinances,
and had suggested there might be some merit to repeal Sec. ~ot :~
the Zoning Ordinance, and moved that the Council direct the staff ~~-~
to prepare the appropriate words to repeal that section of the ~.
ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor and passed
unanimously.
(Position re Project 2)
Mayor ~1iller stated that the Council had sent a letter a couple months
ago to Zone 7, pointing out that they did not agree, in principle, with
the notion of a water rate increase and asked that they scale down
Project 2 to eliminate a water rate increase. The County is going
to discuss Project 2 at their Board meeting on December 11, and moved
that the Council reaffirm their previous position and get this re-
affirmation to the County in the morning. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Pritchard.
CM-27-263
December 10, 1973
(Re Project 2)
Councilman Pritchard moved to amend the motion to ask them to con-
sider the referendum on the ballot, seconded by Mayor Miller; how-
ever the amendment failed~2 with Councilmen Beebe, Futch and Taylor
dissenting.
The main motion was then voted on and passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to a brief executive session
to discuss committee appointments.
ATTEST
k)avuJlGj - UA.
/~ Mayor
CLW+~~.
j City Clerk
( 27Livermore, California
APPROVE
Regular Meeting of December 17, 1973
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 17, 1973
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Miller presid-
ing.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmen Futch, Pritchard, Taylor and Mayor Miller
Councilman Beebe (Vacation)
ABSENT:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Miller led the Council members and those present in the
audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES APPROVAL
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the minutes for the Council meetings of December 3, and December 10,
1973 were approved as amended.
CM-27-264
December 17, 1973
OPEN FORUM
(Re Elected Mayor)
Ms. Sue Scott, 1101 Farmington Way, expressed her opinion that she
would like to see an elected mayor and listed several reasons for
this position, such as the Mayor being a leader for the community,
elected by the people and respected by regional , state and national
officials. She urged the Council to reconsider their action
taken at a prior meeting and to place a measure on the ballot so
that the citizens could decide for themselves. Ms. Scott recommended
a two-year term with no increase in pay.
Mayor Miller indicated that the Council had discussed the points
raised by Mrs. Scott.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard to place the matter on the
ballot, however the motion did not receive a second.
Councilman Futch stated he does feel the present way of selecting a
mayor has the confidence of the people and does reflect the City
Council's desires and is a much more workable situation than an
elected mayor would be.
There followed a brief discussion as to general law cities which
have elected mayors and no action was taken.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
RE SPECIFIC PLAN - GENERAL
PLAN PLANNING UNITS 8, 9,12J
Mayor Miller opened the continued public hearing regarding the spe-
cific plans with reference to the General Plan for Planning Units
8, 9 and 12.
Planning Director George Musso explained the boundaries of Units
8, and 9 to be Stanley Boulevard, I-580 (future extension of
Isabel Avenue)and Murrieta Blvd.
There were no comments from the audience on the proposal for these
planning units.
Mr. Musso stated that Unit 12 is bounded by I-S80, First Street,
Portola Avenue and North Livermore Avenue.
The Council discussed the density transfer concept and questioned
how it would work since they are imposing the system of density
transfer on the property owners.
The Planning Director stated that the purpose of adopting the
precise plan is to allow the City to utilize provisions of the
State Map Act and Planning Act as a means of growth control.
Councilman Taylor questioned development rights and suggested that
the Planning Director be requested to explain very explicitly, for
the benefit of the property owners, what was actually possible for
them to do now as regards to their development rights and to make it
clear what the difference was between what the Council know about
development rights now and what was just discussed by the Council and
the Planning Director as possible things that could be done with
development rights.
CM-27-265
December 17, 1973
(Public Hearing re General
Plan Planning units 8, 9 and 12)
Juanita Schenone Vidalin, 6680 Las Colinas Rd, indicated that she
was speaking both for herself and her parents who own property on
both sides of Las positas Road in this area. She expressed some
questions regarding development rights and indicated that this
proposal serves the developer over the individual owners who are
at the mercy of the subdividers. Mrs. Vidalin spoke about develop-
ing the property in a different way, that is where the City has
indicated cluster development on the top of the hill, she sees sub-
division taking advantage of these choice areas and possibly trans-
ferring density within their own property. Mrs. Vidal in further in-
dicated that her own property is now landlocked and needs access
from the adjacent parcel. ~pe wished to state a protest of her
. ~~~ acres and the 25 acre parcel owned by her parents to the use
proposed by the Planning Commission.
David Madis, Attorney, representing three owners, disagreed with
the contractual arrangements with some of the property owners as
far as density transfers are concerned, indicating his belief that
it violates the right of the property owners to contract with whom
he pleases. Mr. Madis stated he did not f~~l it was the function
qf ~h~ zoning ordinance to say where the open space should be. On
behalf of his client Ensign-Bickford (162 acres) Mr. Madis wished
to protest the cluster designation.
Norman Warnow, P.O. Box 575, Pleasanton, speaking on behalf of
himself and his partners owning property within the area, stated
that they have much money invested and cannot sell the property.
Mr. Warnow also expressed concern with the different procedures
the City has instituted over the period of the past ten years, none
which seem workable.
Jane Staehle, President of the League of Women Voters, expressed
the League's position on the proposed specific plan, indicating
their approval.
Roger Baroody, 607 Bentley Place, questioned who would maintain
the open space and was informed that someone would be responsible,
namely the owner, if it remains in private ownership and the City
or Recreation District if owned by either entity.
H. E. Christman, 1462 Vancouver Way, indicated he was also a partner
in property with Mr. Warnow, and stated that in his opinion homes
on the hillsides could be beautiful. These would be choice lots and
he did not see why there couldn't be open space as well as homes
accommodated on the same property.
Mr. and Mrs. Valentine indicated that this was an investment and
questioned what return they could expect - there should be some
profit. It is difficult even to pay the taxes on the property
and it is not easy to suggest any use to a prospective buyer.
Robert Ruggles, owner of 32 acres at the intersection of I-580,
North Livermore Avenue and Las positas Road, indicated his feeling
that this is a major traffic artery, not suitable for residential
use but more suited for an intensive commercial or industrial use.
The Mayor reminded Mr. Ruggles that development adjacent to the
interchange is not to be for commercial use.
Mr. Musso commented that the plan does not attempt to regulate to
whom development rights are sold but only that property owners have
a right to sell their development rights.
CM-27-266
December 17, 1973
(P.H. re General Plan
Planning Units 8,9 and l2)
There being no further comments, on motion of Councilman Futch,
seconded by Councilman Taylor and by unanimous approval the public
hearing was closed.
At this time Mayor Miller asked the City Attorney to clarify if there
is any conflict of interest in his voting in this matter.
Mr. Wharton indicated that recent law changes provide that a residence
is not considered as a conflict - only non-residential property is;
therefore he sees no reason for the Mayor to withhold his vote unless
he wishes to.
Mayor Miller stated the only property he owns in this area is at
2862 Waverley Way.
The Council then briefly discussed their concerns regarding clarifica-
tion of the density transfer matter and the possibility that an
explanation of density transfer could be sent to the various property
owners, which should be prepared by the City Attorney.
Mr. Musso stated that acceptance of the concept of density transfer
is based on the recognition that these property owners are not develop-
ers and to these property owners, rights are really ones to sell their
land. The plan does not intend to preclude this.
Councilman Taylor requested the Planning Director to furnish in
writing very specifically what the status of development rights is in
the City of Livermore now and also what the Council has discussed,
and that this be sent out to all property owners before the next pub-
lic hearing. He felt there was a lot of confusion among the property
owners as to what is fact and fanCy~ . r!i2uL
Oouncilman Futch suggested~park funds'~e used for purchase of
development rights, and made a motion to continue a decision and
further discussion on the matter until the meeting of January 14;
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed unanimously.
Mayor Miller made it clear that even though the public hearing was
closed the Council would hear anyone who wished to speak at the
meeting of the 14th during their discussion.
RECESS
AFTER A FIVE MINUTE RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER WITH
ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COUNCILMAN BEEBE.
CHANGE OF AGENDA ORDER
EVANS PRODUCTS - CUP
After the meeting was called to order, the Mayor asked if anyone
present who has an item on the legal agenda might wish to have it
continued.
David Madis, speaking on behalf of Evans Products Company, requested
a continuation of their application for a Conditional Use Permit to
permit construction and use of buildings for rental sales of hardware,
etc., at a site located between 1-580, north of portola Avenue, until
the meeting of January 14.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch and
by unanimous vote, the matter was continued until January 14.
CM-27-267
December 17, 1973
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Correction of Amended Assessment -
Northern Sanitary Sewer Assessment Dist.)
This District was recently amended, and a resolution is necessary
to correct an error in some figures within the report.
RESOLUTION NO. 164-73
RESOLUTION CORRECTING AMENDED ASSESSMENT, NORTHERN
SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-1,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ASSESSMENT NO. F-l.
(Report re Crossing Guard,
El Caminito-Sonoma Ave.)
A report was received from the Police Chief regarding a part time
crossing guard for inclement weather at the intersection of El Cam-
inito and Sonoma Avenue. The report indicates that the intersection
does not qualify for further assignment of a crossing guard, even dur-
ing inclement weather, and further, it did not meet the nationally
accepted standards set forth by the Institute of Traffic Engineers
two years ago when a crossing guard was established at that location.
Chief Lindgren recommended that the phase out of the crossing guard
proceed as planned.
(Minutes - Beautification Committee
Housing Authority)
Minutes were received from the Beautification Committee for their
meeting of November 7 and from the Housing Authority for the meeting
of October 23.
(Departmental Reports)
Departmental Reports were received as follows:
Building Inspection Department - November
Airport Activity - November
Mosquito Abatement District - October
Municipal Court,- October
Police and Pound Departments - November
Water Reclamation Plant - November
(Payroll and Claims)
One Hundred Seventy-six claims in the amount of $272,335.54, and Two
Hundred Seventy-seven payroll warrants in the amount of $71,537.54,
dated December 14, 1973, were ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
CM-27-268
Dece~er 11, 1973
COMMUNICATION RE BICYCLE
LANES - Ron McNicol1
A communication was received from Ron McNicol1 commenting on the
bicycle lanes, indicating they are not safe, in his opinion, and the
lanes with berms are dangerous when bumped by a bicycle tire.
Mr. NcNicoll also complained about the broken glass in the bicycle
lanes and the Public Works Director Dan Lee indicated he was aware
of this situation, however the street sweeper cannot maneuver into
the lanes with berms because they are too narrow.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch,
and by unanimous approval, the communication was directed for referral
to the Police Chief and Bikeways Association Committee for comment.
REPORT RE SITE PLAN
APPROVAL - SOUTHERN PACIFIC
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
The City Manager explained that for the past several weeks various
members of our staff and the Design Review Committee have been pro-
cessing a proposed site plan for this subject development. At a
recent meeting, in company with the principals and their consultants,
some design features were changed, mainly in an effort to modify
aesthetically the Railroad Avenue exposure. Mr. Parness also indicated
that while this permit will be approved by the staff in conjunction
with the Design Review Committee, he felt it was important to pre-
sent the matter to the Council in order to expedite the matter and
obtain the Council's direction.
Burt Forrest, Architect for Southern Pacific Development Company,
presented the proposed plan, outlining the building placement, pro-
posed mounding and green area, bicycle paths, screened delivery
areas, parking, trash containers and renderings of the various
elevations.
Several people in the audience spoke regarding the proposal as
follows:
Leon Seyranian, representing Zepol, indicated he was led to
believe that Railroad Avenue would have major street status
and expressed his concern that this would continue to do so.
Walt Davies of the Beautification Committee spoke regarding
working with the City Beautification Committee and staff on
the plants and ground cover suitable for this area.
John Papini, representing Livermore Valley Square, expressed con-
cern regarding the orientation of the buildings toward his client's
property and questioned what would occur if the tracks are never
relocated.
Mr. Walter Ford, representing Alpha Beta, stated his company favored the
project however cautioned that proper screening treatment should be given
the rear of the development.
The Council discussed the screening fence control which will occur
with site plan approval and some concern was expressed regarding
maintenance of the rear of the development so that it will not
become unsightly and it was suggested that this requirement be made
a part of the site plan approval.
Mayor Miller questioned the second stage of the project, and Mr.
Dan Hanesworth, representing Southern Pacific, indicated they would
not proceed with the second stage until the tracks were relocated.
CM-27-269
December 17, 1973
(Site Plan Approval -
Southern Pacific Commercial Complex)
The representatives of Alpha Beta, Zepol and Livermore Valley Square
were asked their opinion of the revised plans and if they were
reasonably acceptable to them. They agreed that the revised plans
were reasonably acceptable.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the Council voted unanimously to approve of the general concept of the
site plan and that the Zoning Administrator proceed with approval,
subject to City requirements and the provisions discussed by the
Council.
APPEAL RE ZONING USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE - Ferrell
The City Council had appealed a Zoning Use Permit and Variance to
allow moving of a residence to 1900 Park Street from l86 Maple St.
Also included was a variance to allow reduction of frontage or
non-street frontage yards by a total of three feet. The Planning
Commission did approve the applications with the setback of 25 ft.
front yard and 12 ft. side yard. Also proposed in addition to the
application stated was the possibility of the adjacent lot, also
the same size (SOX150 ft.) being consolidated with the subject
property wherein both property owners would then have lots 75XIOO ft.
in depth, which would accommodate the house to be moved without
need of a variance.
William E. Ferrell, 4096 Pomona Way, indicated that he feels ne-
gotiations can be successfull and such was also expressed by Mrs.
Lucille Peters 1916 6th Street, owner of the adjacent property.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Mayor Miller, and
by unanimous approval, the matter of the variance was continued,
with the applicant's permission, in order to expedite, if possible,
the suggested lot alignment, in which case the house could be moved
and no variance would be required. The matter of the appeal on the
Zoning Use Permit for the house moving was tabled.
REZONING APPLICATION RE PROPERTY
SOUTH OF US 580, NORTH OF LAS POSITAS ROAD
A rezoning application was submitted by William Judson for property
located south of US 580, north of Las positas Road, west of First
Street, from OS-A (Agricultural) to ID-H (Light Industrial-Highway
Commercial) District.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous approval this matter was set for public hearing on
January 14, 1974.
(Re Adjournment Time)
At this time the Council discussed adjourning at 12 o'clock and a
motion to do so was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard. After some discussion the vote was called for and
passed 3-1 with Mayor Miller dissenting.
CM-27-270
December 17, 1973
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(Tri-Cities Ambulance)
An application for a Conditional Use Permit had been submitted by
Tri-Cities Ambulance to permit use of an existing building as a
showroom for the sale and rental of hospital equipment at 1519 portola
Avenue. The Planning Commission did adopt the Staff Report, re-
commending denial of the application for the following reasons:
1) the intended use would have an adverse effect on abutting or neigh-
boring property and 2) the intended use is in conflict with the Gen-
eral Plan.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Mayor Miller
to uphold the Planning Commission's decision by denying the Conditional
Use Permit and to instruct the staff to abate the use; motion was
approved unanimously.
PLANNING COMMA MINUTES
The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of December 4 were
noted for filing.
REPORT RE ENERGY
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Various programs have been enacted or are in the process of being
enacted for energy conservation and reports were submitted by the
Public Works, Fire and Police Departments.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous approval discussion on this item was postponed to the
meeting of January 7.
REPORT RE SPRINGTOWN
BLVD. ALIGNMENT
A report had been submitted by the Public Works Director outlining
the justifications for a Springtown Blvd. alignment. This item had
been continued from the meeting of December 10, and it was recommended
at this time that a motion be adopted approving the alignment as out-
lined in the report.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and approved unanimously to continue this matter until a
later time, to be scheduled when appropriate.
REPORT RE JUNIOR COLLEGE
CAMPUS WATER SERVICE STUDY
A report was submitted by the Public Works Director regarding the
Junior College campus water service study inasmuch as the staff had
been asked to investigate alte~nate methods of providing water service
to the Jr. College site in the event that the Zone 7 Project II should
not proceed as planned. This item was tabled as no action was neces-
sary at this time.
REPORT RE SUSAN LANE
ROUTE STUDY
A report was received from the Public Works Director regarding Susan
Lane route study. Mr. Lee explained that Susan Lane was planned to
serve the area at the northwest corner of East Avenue and Vasco Road
south of the Arroyo Seco. He had received an inquiry from the owner
CM-27-27l
December 17, 1973'
(Report re Susan Lane
Route Study)
of one of the parcels as to the alignment of Susan Lane through the
area and indicated there are plans to develop that parcel in the imme-
diate future. Mr. Lee presented five alternates for Susan Lane both
as a cul-de-sac and a through street, and recommended Alternate nAn
which was a fairly short cul-de-sac rather than a through street which
he felt to be adequate to handle the traffic generated in that area.
Robert Klein, representing OGO, developers of one of the parcels
involved with Susan Lane, stated that their proposed housing de-
velopment is going to proceed, however plans must be submitted to
various federal agencies. Mr. Klein also indicated that internal
streets for access within the project were planned.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to approve the general location recommended by the staff, subject to
approval by the Fire Chief as far as the length of the cul-de-sac.
The motion was approved unanimously.
REPORT RE MONITORING
OF ALAMEDA CREEK
A report was received from the Public Works Director advising that
funds have been included in the current Water Reclamation Plant
budget in anticipation of a monitoring program on Alameda Creek as
a cooperative project with other affected jurisdictions. A series of
meetings has materialized in a proposed monitoring program with the
u.s. Geological Survey performing a portion of the monitoring and the
evaluation of data collected. It is recommended that the City Council
continue to support the program and tentatively acknowledge its will-
ingness to enter into an agreement with the U.S.G.S. to provide the
needed services.
A motion was made by Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Prit-
chard, and approved unanimously, to authorize City participation in
this prog~am as recommended.
GRADING STANDARDS
The City Council has recently asked for information relative to the
City's Grading Standards in order that they might consider some modi-
fications to them.
On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote, this report was continued until the meeting of
January 7.
REPORT RE INDUSTRIAL ON-SITE PARKING
LIMITATIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY BD
A report was received from the Industrial Advisory Board with regard
to industrial on-site parking limitations.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and
by unanimous approval, this item was postponed until the meeting of
January 14.
CM-27-272
December 17, 1973
REPORT RE SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT CAPACITY ALLOCATION
A report was prepared by the City Attorney regarding the sewage
treatment plant capacity allocation.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and by unanimous approval this item was postponed until the meeting of
January 21.
REPORT RE LIMITATION ON
FREQUENCY OF G.P. AMENDMENT
The City Attorney submitted a report regarding the limitation on
frequency of General Plan Amendments which lists the mandatory
elements of a general plan as of January I, 1974 as follows:
1) a land use element which includes among other items population
densities, 2) a circulation element, 3) housing element, 4) conservation
element,S) open space element, 6) seismic safety element, 7) noise
element and 8) scenic highway element, and each of these elements is
limited to three amendments a year under the new law.
No action was necessary regarding this report, however, Mr. Wharton
indicated that a policy should be developed setting a time schedule
for possible amendments.
REPORT RE SACEOA PROGRAM
AND FUNDING METHOD
The City Manager reported that the proposed program as formulated
by SACEOA for reference to Alameda County for financial support
through the distribution of revenue sharing funds was postponed.
The City Manager further reported that representatives from each
of the seven South County city governments are meeting within the
next week in joint company with representatives of the state
Office of Economic Opportunity, and it is advisable that any
official position of our City regarding SACEOA's pending proposal
await such a meeting and he asked for Council approval.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch,
and by unanimous approval, the City Manager was directed to proceed
as recommended.
MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF
SANITARY SEWER
Connection Agreement
(First St. - Hutka)
The Planning Director indicated there may be a problem with the
time between final annexation and zoning of the property on the
south side of First Street, east of North Mines Road and Mr. Hutka's
ability to obtain a building permit from Alameda County. If the
problem of a sewer connection can be solved, the matter can proceed
in the interim.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote, the agreement was authorized for execution
subject to conditions approved by the City Manager.
Vacation Grant
(City Attorney)
Mr. Dave Wharton explained to the Council that while he does not
yet have time available for vacation, he would request their per-
mission to use some vacation time, which will be subsequently earned,
during the Christmas holiday, and permission was granted by the
Council.
CM-27-273
December 17, 1973
(Wording for Ballot Measure)
The official wording for the proposed ballot measure re the Stra-
tegic Team Enforcement Program was prepared by the City Attorney,
and on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
was approved as submitted together with a request for the City
Attorney to prepare an analysis which will also be printed and dis-
tributed with the sample ballots.
(Suggested Ordinance re
Disclosure Law)
The Mayor proposed some amendments to the municipal code which would
implement and refine the present City campaign statement requirements
and asked that the City Attorney be requested to draft an ordinance
along the lines suggested.
After some discussion of the proposal, a motion was made by Council-
man Taylor to request the suggested draft with three deletions:
costs of labor donated by persons; no restriction of 7 days prior to
the election for expenditures to be made or donations accepted; and
reporting be left at the $5 amount rather than $2. The motion passed
3-1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
(Salary Adjustments)
The City Manager reported upon the results of a salary survey recently
conducted by the staff so as to ascertain a relative position of
certain employee classifications contained within our clerical and
technical categories. A Memorandum of Agreement in effect for this
fiscal year requires that if such a survey indicates the medians to
be defective by 3% or more, then adjustments of 2% are to be awarded
similar classifications in our City.
A motion was made by Mayor Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and unanimously approved, that the salary resolution No. 125-73 be
amended accordingly, effective January I, 1974.
RESOLUTION NO. 165-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ESTABLISHING A SALARY
SCHEDULE FOR THE CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED EMP~OYEES OF
THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND ESTABLISHING RULES FOR ITS USE,
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 125-73.
(Condemnation re Western
Pacific Properties)
The City Manager reported that Western Pacific is still not agreeable
to settlement of the property purchase necessary for the Railroad
Avenue relocation project, therefore, requested approval of the
necessary condemnation action.
The following resolution was adopted on motion of Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 166-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION OF FEE
SIMPLE ESTATE FOR PUBLIC STREET AND RELATED PURPOSES, IN-
CLUDING RELOCATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD FACILITIES
IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF SEPARATED GRADES AND
ELIMINATION, RELOCATION AND MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD GRADE
CROSSINGS
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting then adjourned at 12:07 a.m.
ATTEST
CM-27-274