The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutCC MINS 1972 Regular Meeting of January 3, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 3, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * The minutes of the meeting of December 20, 1971 were approved as submitted, on motion of Coun- cilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote. MINUTES * * * John Martin, 811 Brennan Way, stated that he is considering asking for a variance on a home that he plans to build, and asked the Council if they could interpret the section in the zon- ing ordinance regarding floor area to mean de- velopable floor area; if so, he would not have to ask for the variance. OPEN FORUM (Request for Vari- ance, Martin) Mayor Taylor felt that the matter warranted more consideration and suggested that it be listed as an item on the agenda or refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Councilman Silva stated that he had always interpreted floor area to mean liveable floor area and Councilman Pritchard agreed, stat- ing that this is similar to what FHA determines to be floor area; usable floor area and not perimeter of the building which would include the garage. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council adopt a policy to con- sider floor area the measurable floor space area that is liveable, seconded by Councilman Silva. (This motion was later withdrawn). Councilman Miller stated that if they intended to make an amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance that to pass a resolution tonight is not the legal way; it should be sent back to the Planning Com- mission and done properly. The Planning Director was asked if anyone computes floor area as Councilmen Silva and Pritchard suggested and Mr. Musso stated that the ordinance now provides for the gross floor area which includes areas occupied by fixtures, etc. The Mayor asked the City Attorney if this motion would be considered a change in the Ordinance; to which he replied that it is, since the Planning Department and builders have complied with the Ordi- nance as previously interpreted. He further stated that where there is a question of interpretation, and it cannot be determined on the face, the administrative interpretation of such becomes the fixed meaning of the ordinance; in this case, the interpretation given by the Planning Director, which has been used for the past three years. He recommended that any change be made through the Planning Commission, as suggested by Councilman Miller. CM-25-1 January 3, 1972 (Variance - Martin) Councilman Silva moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for a specific defini- tion of floor area, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor explained to Mr. Martin that this interpretation could not be applied to his case alone and that they could not make a decision tonight; it would have to go through proper channels because a great number of homes would be affected by this decision. Mr. Martin stated that he is allowed 25% maximum floor area cov- erage of the lot and if the garage is included, it causes his home to cover 28% of the lot, which under the present interpretation, is too large for the lot. He feels his case is an isolated case, in that he is not a developer building a home for anyone else - he is building for his own family to suit their needs, and feels that a strict application of the law violates the spirit with which it is intended; he wants open space. Councilman Miller stated that, in essence, Mr. Martin is asking that the Council increase the allowable floor area coverage, under the Ordinance, in order to permit him to build this house that is too large for the lot. He has seen how precedents are set in City affairs, and even though the original precedent is innocent, the end result means a change for everyone. It is not possible to make a distinction legally, because if a variance is granted, every other person has the same right to make a like request. The Mayor stated that he was opposed to a possible amendment of the Ordinance by an overall interpretation and that there is no problem with the interpretation as it has been in the past - inter- preted unanimously by the developers and the Planning Commission. He further remarked that if Mr. Martin were to apply for a variance he hopes the Council would be able to make a legal distinction in his case. He felt that if the Ordinance is changed everyone will have a house of excessive size. Councilman Silva remarked that he did not like to see Mr. Martin's case handled as one specific case. He felt that if Mr. Martin con- sidered this home too small that others would also, and he thought floor space was being interpreted as liveable floor area. Councilman Miller commented that he agrees Mr. Martin has a problem, but it should not be possible to make a decision on the basis of one person's request without equal application of the law to every- one; they have an obligation to follow the law and apply the law equally. He also remarked that it was disturbing to him to see the Council willing to allow the RS Ordinance to be chopped up when it took a substantial public effort to preserve this ordinance for the citizens, and it will apply to thousands of homes. Councilman Silva stated that his intent is to give the excess to the people, not the developers, and to buy a larger lot would cost more. He sympathized with Mr. Martin because he had been in the same predicament, and was happy that he could build a large home on a small lot. Councilman Miller reminded the Council that it was the public that supported the adoption of the RS Ordinance because some of them lived on lots that they felt were too small. The Mayor asked for a vote on the motion for definition of floor area which failed by the following called vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Silva Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor The Mayor then stated that the present interpretation would stand and that the applicant's only recourse would be to find grounds for a variance if possible. CM-25-2 January 3, 1972 Mrs. Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, stated that she is again appearing before the Council, asking their help in regard to alleged abuse by the Livermore Police Department towards her son. She said that she had been to the Governor of California who told her that she would have to ask for the Council's help. She requested that a full investigation be made and wants the police reports. She stated that under the Constitution she is allowed to bear arms to protect her child if necessary. (Request for Police Reports) Mayor Taylor stated that he felt it a reasonable request that the Council look into the matter and suggested that two members of the Council should be appointed to meet with the City Manager and the Police Chief, which met with the Council's approval. Mayor Taylor then appointed Councilmen Miller and Pritchard, and assured Mrs. Parra that she would be notified of the outcome. * * * A rezoning application has been submitted by Associated Professions for rezoning from Rs-4 to CN, RG-16 and E Districts, property located on the north side of First Street at its inter- section with Portola Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING (Rezoning Applica- tion by Associated Professions) The Planning Director explained that the property was recently annexed, at which time there was some discussion for a similar type zoning; however, the Planning Commission and Council indi- cated it would be considered later on a specific application. There was indication from the staff, and also the general plan indicates a possible shopping center in this area. The Zoning Ordinance allows a neighborhood shopping center of 4 to 6 acres; CN shopping center zoning is considered to be temporary, i.e. for one year, to be reviewed and to be essentially permanent at such time as the shopping center is developed; also 50% of the shopping center has to be developed in the first stage. The Planning Commission felt a shopping center might be premature at the present time inasmuch as there is a shopping center pro- posed in the area of Springtown, which still does not have the required population to support one, also, there are downtown facilities in close proximity. They also considered whether this specific location should be used for a shopping center, and it was concluded that if there were other alternatives, this might be the best location. With regard to the RG-16 District, on five acres, the Commission felt that the general plan did not justify that type of density. He explained the plan was for a shopping center with some associated residential by extension of Scott and Murphy Streets and possibly a small neighborhood park in the area. The Planning Commission felt that the rezoning to CN was premature, and would have adverse effect on more needed shopping centers in the area and that the RG-16 density did not conform to the General Plan and recommended denial. Councilman Pritchard questioned if the denial was based on the location of CN in the area, or rather timing, and Mr. Musso stated the Commission was concerned for other shopping centers which were not able to get started at the present time, which are more critical. Councilman Silva pointed out that the application was simply one for rezoning of the property, however Mr. Musso stated in any neighborhood shopping center it gives the property owner a monopoly for locating a neighborhood shopping center, and the problem is not that one will be built, but rather that one will not be built, therefore the philosophy is that it should be left open until there is the population to support it. The Mayor opened the public hearing at this time. CM-25-3 January 3, 1972 John Barker, Associated Professions, representing the applicant, stated that the application, in essence, is a straightforward rezoning application. He gathered from the comments made that everyone agrees the location is good for a neighborhood shopping center, and did not feel there could be a determination made for a more desirable use for that area. He felt that the impact on the neighborhood would be good rather than detrimental. The major issue seems to be the timing and when it will be developed. He felt a tenant would want to know the zoning is appropriate be- fore he comes in, as opposed to the gamble route. If the zoning is established as requested, the landowner will be in a strong po- sition to discuss future development with possible tenants. The general plan contains many areas of varied zoning, presently un- developed, however those areas do conform to the general plan, and this is exactly what they are asking for - to define the general plan by formal adoption of the zoning. The landowners do own some- what in excess of 200 acres in the general area, and he felt the use of the term "monopoly" was disturbing in that it would seem unfair to give the zoning for a shopping center to someone else rather than the landowner. Mr. Barker stated that their request is for 86 dwelling units in the multiples, but would be open to suggestions with regard to specific numbers. Again, in this instance, the main thing is to establish the zoning, and define the general plan; this could be reviewed more than once a year if necessary. (Public Hearing Rezoning - 1st and portola) Mayor Taylor advised that a letter had been received from the co- owners of the Sands Motel, favoring the rezoning; no other written or oral communications were received. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the unanimous recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission for denial of both CN and RG-16, however the motion failed for lack of a second. Councilman Beebe stated he favored the CN zoning as of now as he felt that since another parcel is so zoned, they have a monopoly, and this would give a choice of several locations, and the one who is able to get proper financing would be the first to develop. In the multiple area, however, he did not favor the 86 units, but rather 4 d.u./acre which would be 32 units, unless there is a trans- fer of density. Mayor Taylor stated he favored the shopping center in the area and did not feel this was a problem, but questioned whether or not it should be zoned now or held at the residential zoning until later and then committed to another use. He felt there was no justifi- cation for the requested density on the small parcel as indicated unless there was a transfer of density in the area to justify it. He did not feel that the CN zoning, as requested, would effect development of other shopping centers unless it would develop pre- maturely. Councilman Miller stated his understanding of the points that had been made and agreed as far as multiple was concerned. The question is on the timing of the CN zone, and he did not feel that this was a protecting monopoly for the landowner, but rather it protected the residents of Springtown, Greenville North and Proud who are in dire need of shopping facilities, and anything that may detract from that would make it more difficult for these people. He agreed a shopping center in this area would be convenient, but felt the point of prematurity should be a matter of concern. He agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation and urged that the application for rezoning not be approved at this time. Councilman Silva questioned if a higher density was not discussed at the time the area was annexed, and was advised that multiple use had been discussed but not the density. CM-25-4 January 3, 1972 Councilman Pritchard stated he favored the CN zoning of the six acres, but leaving the re- mainder of the property as it is now zoned. (PUblic Hearing, Rezoning-1st St. and Portola Ave.) Mayor Taylor asked if it was possible to grant the CN zoning alone and leave the rest of the property for consid- eration at a later date, and Mr. Musso advised they could modify the Planning Commission's recommendation, and on this basis, Councilman Miller made a motion to follow the recommendation for denial of the RG-16 and E Districts; motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard and passed unanimously after the following comments. Mr. Barker stated that the Planning staff report indicates that the total area under consideration (one ownership) is presently zoned Rs-4, on which basis there would be 54 dwelling units allowed on the total parcel. If the Council would consider that number of 54, including the duplexes backing into the west boundary line, the result on the apartment parcel would be eleven; and if this could be considered they would be happy to accept RG-12 Councilman Miller stated that what he was proposing was that they get credit for residential dwelling units on the part that is to be zoned commercial and told Mr. Barker that this could not be done as it was a Council policy that there could not be a density transfer between commercial and residential. Councilman Silva stated that there has been mentioned the possi- bility of transferring density from other property and asked Mr. Barker if he had any comment in this regard. Mr. Barker stated they would be receptive to transferring density from the area south of First Street, south of the tracks, however he had hesitated to bring up that point as he had been reminded that that parcel was not before them for discussion at this time. The Council agreed that any other parcel would have to come before them for discussion at another public hearing. It was the consensus of the Council that the six acres proposed for CN was proper, and Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, that these six acres be zoned to CN District. Councilman Miller stated that the Planning Commission had con- sidered the service station in the commercial zone, and inquired if this was to be considered as part of the motion. Mr. Musso explained that the area of the application is roughly six acres and the Planning Commission added the service station which is now in the area and had not heretofore been zoned commercial. Councilman Beebe stated that his motion did not include the gas station. Councilman Miller continued that it had not been fully resolved in discussions of the general plan, however, the maximum area for a shopping center is six acres and the maximum number of gas stations is one; therefore, since there is already one gas station, the six acres should include that gas station otherwise they are exceeding the maximum size which would be allowed for the uses associated with a neighborhood shopping center. Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Musso if the Planning Commission had considered this point, to which he replied that they did not since they recommended against it. Mayor Taylor pointed out that this property is unlike most shop- ping centers as it is odd shaped and probably would result in less developable area than the same sized parcel would if it was just rectangular. Councilman Miller expressed concern that there might be a second gas station allowed in the area if the present gas station is not included in the six acres. CM-25-5 January 3, 1972 (Public Hearing Rezoning 1st St and Portola Ave.) Mayor Taylor stated they have two alternatives - one to give a variance to allow a CN zone that is larger than normal, and second to get a restriction that there shall be no gas sta- tion allowed in this particular CN. Mr. Barker stated they did not want a second station within the six acres shown in their property and will be happy to do what- ever necessary to assure that. Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney how they could assure there would be no other gas station on this site, and Mr. Lewis explained the only way would be a type of conditional zoning, however he would be concerned about a restriction on a CN zoning in this case where it would not be applied elsewhere. He added that the ordi- nance states that one gas station can be granted a Conditional Use Permit and this cannot vary without a change of the ordinance. Mayor Taylor asked if it would be possible then to zone the entire area CN, and in the same motion grant a variance to enlarge the size of the CN block; to grant a seven acre CN zone might solve the problem. It was suggested by Councilman Silva to rezone the service station site ID, but it was decided that this would not be a solution. The Mayor offered a suggestion which was stated as follows: Zone the entire six acres, plus the existing gas station to CN and at the same time grant a variance to allow the proposed CN Zone to be larger than six acres, which Councilman Beebe accepted as an amendment to his motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and received a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting. The City Attorney suggested that during the time the matter goes back to the Planning Commission, the applicant could apply for a variance along with the rezoning, which prompted a discussion on variance. Mayor Taylor suggested that the motion be tabled, the matter re- ferred back to the Planning Commission for them to consider enlarg- ing the size of the shopping center and to make the necessary find- ings to allow a variance to enlarge it. Councilman Beebe made the suggestion in the form of a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, and it received a unanimous response. * * * PUBLIC HEARING (Rezoning- 433 Junction Ave.-Oyler) The Mayor explained that an application had been submitted by Bess Oyler for property located at 433 Junction Avenue, requesting that the zoning be changed from RL-5 to RM. The Planning Director described the area and stated that the Planning Commission has made no recommendation as to the rezoning because a majority vote could not be reached due to Commission absence. Mrs. Bess Oyler addressed the Council to briefly state that she is asking for the rezoning so that she can add a small cottage, a duplex or extend her house for a small apartment to supplement her income, and added that offstreet parking is available. The Mayor commented that he had received one letter in opposition to the rezoning application by a Mr. Harold Hancock, 467 Junction Avenue, and one letter from Mrs. Katy Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, approving the application. Councilman Beebe made a motion to close the public hearing, se- conded by Councilman Pritchard, which received a unanimous response. CM-25-6 January 3, 1972 Councilman Miller made the comment that there was opposition expressed at the Planning Com- mission meeting, stating however, it was not a majority opposition. He reminded the Council that the density and water problems were again issues involved in the application, and that the Council had discussed that they were not interested in rezoning to a higher density, and that re- zoning of this property would not be wise in view of these pro- blems. (Public Hearing - 433 Junction Ave.) Councilman Beebe asked the Planning Director if under RL-5, which the property is now zoned, Mrs. Oyler would be able to build an extension to the building such as a guest apartment, to which Mr. Musso explained that this is correct with the elimination of cooking facilities in the apartment. Councilman Silva, speaking in regard to what Councilman Miller had stated, agreed that the Council does not believe in increas- ing density over the General Plan, however approving the request would not be increasing the density as the Plan shows the area to be recommended RM. As far as the water problem, it has been agreed that 1500 permits will be issued, on a first come first served basis. Councilman Miller stated that the area is not marked RM in the General Plan and Mr. Musso agreed that it is not an RM area specifically. He asked what the density is 600 feet in circum- ference around the property and Mr. Musso stated that it is very low density because some of the property is vacant. He reminded the Planning Director that some of the property had just been granted multiple in the area and asked Mr. Musso to keep in mind the approvals. Mr. Musso stated that another area to the east could possibly be zoned multiple at a later date, supporting Councilman Miller's theory that the ultimate density could be as high as 15 to the acre, depending on how much RM is zoned, and that over a period of ten years the density increases can add up. Councilman Silva made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the application rezoning the property to RM, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Mayor Taylor stated his reason for opposition to the application is that it is a conjested area because of the number of apartments and he expects to receive applications for multiples on vacant property in the area. Councilman Beebe stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning in view of the fact that if it is rezoned, others in the area could expect the same zoning. The motion failed by a 4-1 vote against rezoning, with Councilman Silva in favor of the rezoning. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The City Manager reported that a joint power agreement has been drafted confirming the addi- tion to this transit planning board represent- atives from Livermore and Pleasanton, which was done at our urgent appeal. The only obligation to our City in participating in this $533,000 study is the commitment of $1800 over the 18 month period which can be made by in kind services. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing the execution of the agreement. Report re BART Extension Study RESOLUTION NO. 2-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT CM-25-7 January 3, 1972 Since the resignation of our golf course super- intendent, supervisorial responsibility has been assumed by the foreman. An appeal has been made to consider reclassification in the foreman position and salary adjustment due to the sub- stantial added duties and responsibilities. As a result of a special survey it was found that our job has an average of 9.1% deficiency in salary level which is $906 per month. It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing the re- classification of this position to golf course supervisor and the establishment of a monthly salary of $1,000. Report re Reclassification Golf Course Foreman Report re Mid-year Salary Adjustment January 1, 1972. be adopted. * * * In accordance with our labor agreement, public works field forces, a mid-year salary adjustment is due because of the escalation in the cost of living index over the past six month term. This adjustment is calculated at 1.75%, effective It is recommended that an amending resolution RESOLUTION NO. 3-72 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. 74-71. Report re League of California Cities Committee Assignments Report re Personal Injury Claim (Randell Robinson) * * * A notice has been received of the appointment of standing and technical committees as follows: 1. Councilman Miller - Community Development 2. Mayor Taylor - Sister City Committee 3. Wm. Parness - Revenue and Taxation 4. John A. Lewis - Urban Environmental Quality * * * A personal injury claim has been filed in the amount of $50,000 for an auto-bicycle accident occurring on November 8 on Holmes Street near Anza Way. It is recommended that the claim be denied. * * * Commendation RESOLUTION NO. 1-72 Earl R. Strathman A RESOLUTION COMMENDING EARL R. STRATHMAN ALAMEDA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, 1955 - 1971. * * * Payroll and One Hundred Sixteen claims in the amount of Claims $107,694.02, dated December 23, and two hundred twenty-nine payroll warrants in the amount of $56,319.26, dated December 20, 1971 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Silva abstained from voting on Warrant No. 1342 for his usual reason. Approval of Consent Calendar CM-25-8 * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * January 3, 1972 The Planning Director stated that the map and plans for the tract are complete and he has the subdivision agreement ready for adoption by the Council as they meet the requirements of the tentative maps; also, conformance bonds in the form of a letter of credit, approved by the City Attorney are on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Lee advised the Council that the developer had used oversized portions of sewer line extending to the treatment plant and that the storm drainage off-tract line is being constructed and credit is being given to the oversized portion of the line. There is one problem that has not been fully resolved, and that is the area around the Hagemann property; they are still working on designs that would be subject to Council approval. Mr. Lee brought up the fact that some trees had been inadvertently removed and the Council had instructed the staff to meet with the Recreation Department to discuss a replacement measure, and it was decided that approximately 15 trees could be planted in the park in 15 gallon size. In conclusion, he stated that all of the requirements have been met. A discussion regard- ing school sites for the tract followed the report. REPORT RE FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 3333 (H.C. Elliott) A final map of the school site was not included as part of the final map submitted and Mayor Taylor stated that he could not understand why it was not now a part in view of the fact that it is a very important part of the neighborhood, to which Mr. Musso reflected that, in his opinion, it is probably because the site is being held open for the School District to buy. The trees cut down were discussed and Mr. Musso stated that the Recreation Department had asked the developer to plant 10 Valley Oak trees of 15 gallon size to be placed in the park, which the developer agreed to do; it had been decided that it was not nec- essary that trees be replanted in the right-of-way or on indivi- dual lots. Councilman Miller was of the opinion that 10 small trees were totally inadequate as a replacement for 300 year old oaks that had been removed. He felt that since large trees were removed they should be replaced by the same. Mayor Taylor stated one thing bothered him which was it had been pointed out that oak trees were extremely slow growing and he wondered if the choice was because the trees removed were oak or if these are the most desirable trees, and asked if any had ever been planted in Livermore, and Mr. Lee advised there were some at the library site. Mr. Bill Millard, resident, stated there are oak trees in the park and he had checked the growth rate over a period of time and found that they have done extremely well; they are a variety of the red oak; also, the cork or Spanish oak does well in the Valley. They do not grow large, but spread fast and make a large and color- ful tree and he stated that the Valley oak, when given adequate water and fertilization, will grow just as fast as any other variety of oak. He did not feel that replacement of the trees should be a recrimination, but in the minds of the people, oak trees should replace oak trees cut down and nothing should be substituted. Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the recommendation for 10 Valley oak trees in 15 gallon containers, however the motion failed for lack of a second. Councilman Miller made a motion that 25 Valley oaks in 15 gallon containers be the condition of approval of the final; the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed 3-2 with Council- men Silva and Beebe dissenting. Mr. Robert C. Bernstein, attorney for Mr. Elliott, addressed the Council with reference to Ordinance No. 767, having to do with CM-25-9 January 3, 1972 (Final Map- Tract 3333) issuance of building permits, and Ordinance No. 762, relative to school facilities in conjunction with the final map on this particular tract. He stated that, assuming the map is filed and the developer is ready to do what is expected, and then the Building Department says they cannot issue building permits, what then. They would like to have some direction from the Council and some statement of policy as to whether or not building permits will be issued. If the Council believes building permits will not be issued, they are ready, willing and able to suggest to the Council an alterna- tive program, based on what Mr. Elliott has done and will do by way of covenant, in the nature of an obligation which he cannot be withdrawn from and to further suggest various alternatives towards development so they answer the City's water problem and the school problem immediately. Mayor Taylor explained that the problem with water is very clear, and although they all differed in degree, the Council felt unani- mously it would be irresponsible not to set some limitation and arrived at a limit of 1500 permits to be issued to lots of record. He felt the school problem was also clear and it was the unanimous intent of the Council to do everything in their power to not destroy the education system in this City. The Council definitely intends not to issue any more building permits on lots not of record as of November 8. With regard to this particular tract, it would be ex- cluded and there would be no building permits issued until the water situation is solved. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Bernstein has posed the problem of a developer, who under existing conditions with the tree problem seemingly being solved, has the right to file a final map and is entering into an agreement to make these improvements. Under these circumstances, in the absence of some other proposal, he would re- commend to the Council that the term of the contract be extended for a period of time so that Mr. Elliott is not forced to put in improvements or continue with improvements he might have made dur- ing the tentative stage until after the water problem is solved, so that he is not tying up substantial amounts of money in improve- ments and run into the problem of commercial frustration of the contract. Mr. Bernstein stated that Ord. No. 767 has a provision whereby a property owner who is excluded from building permits, because he filed after November 8, may submit to the City a private water source, based upon its availability and potability. Mr. Lewis explained the intent of the provision was to prohibit the impairment of the existing water supply by allowing more dwellings than a certain number, assuming each of those dwellings would consume a large number of gallons per day. If there is some security which the City can count on, it would come within the exception of the ordinance. Mr. Bernstein stated their inquiry indicated, with some degree of certainty, that there is a well on the land now that has had very palatable and potable water in prior tests. It will make available about 350 gallons per minute, which is in excess of the 1500 gallons per unit stated in the ordinance, and therefore, Mr. Elliott is able to contract with California Water Service, a supplier of the water, in order to pump this into the various lines for use as a backup system only, as it goes into the entire sys- tem. If this well does not have the water they anticipate, they will have the undertaking to drill another well in order to have a backup system. With this type of alternative process, they will be able to create another source, but they are not saying that the developer could ever covenant and agree that, by reason of this going into the entire system, there would never be ration- ing. CM-25-10 January 3, 1972 Mr. Bernstein further stated that with regard (Final Map-Tr.3333) to the school problem, they have checked into portable schools and with various school offi- cials with regard to their feeling about portable school buildings and found it is possible portables can be used. At the expense of the developer, such will be made available to the schools on a pro- gressive basis; as the units develop, the portable school buildings will be available, based upon the ratio of the number of children per family. Mr. Bernstein also stated that these are the two matters they wished to bring to the Council's attention because of the absence of these being acceptable, they would have to follow along with the suggestions of the City Attorney, i.e. the map would be filed, any undertaking and agreement in regard to the offsite improve- ments and/or covenants by way of bonds, etc., would have to be deferred and it would have to be no obligation on the part of the developer until the permits may be available. He stated that they had tried to be very flexible, taking into consideration the needs of the people and at the same time they can do nothing without the permits they need. Mayor Taylor commented that he was surprised by the offer and that they had not received as generous an offer in the past, but there would have to be some discussion to determine whether or not it is adequate. He asked, for clarification, if the developer plans to provide ready to use portable school buildings on the site until a permanent school is built - to which Mr. Bernstein replied that this is true, and that they have looked into all aspects of pro- viding such a project and they also plan to provide a well, at the developer's expense, to California Water Service Company standards. The Mayor asked if the developer, in addition, plans to pay the Zone 7 fee of which the amount has not yet been determined, per dwelling unit, to which Mr. Bernstein again stated that this cost would also be incurred by the developer. Councilman Beebe asked if it would be possible that the school might be located in another area off the site, and the representa- tive stated that the school would be built wherever it is deemed most necessary - whether it be on the site or elsewhere. Councilman Pritchard remarked that this is exactly what the City has been looking for as a solution to its problems. The Mayor explained that the developer did not want to file a map until the Council was aware of the plans being made for the total development. The City Attorney stated that some of these things would have to be worked out to the satisfaction of the Council and that the obligation of California Water would have to be reviewed before finalization and building permits issued. He felt there would be no problem with the plans for the school and if the Council approves the plans, the necessary documents could be drawn up to effectuate the agreement. Councilman Miller felt that, on the surface, this offer appears to be an attempt to solve the problems that gave rise to the City ordinances in this regard, but until the commitments of other agencies involved are reviewed it cannot be clear as to whether or not this will take care of the problems. He added that there may be problems with drilling for a well and that it is his under- standing that one has to acquire permission from Zone 7 to do this; also, the agreement with California Water should be examined to make sure the commitments are known, adding that water obtained CM-25-11 January 3, 1972 (Final Map - Tract 3333) ~ from the wells has to be sufficient for the whole subdivision on peak days, and if it is not, they are not meeting the intent of the ordinance. He mentioned that the water from these wells should not be of hardness greater than what is presently being produced from Zone 7, as the Water Quality Control Board keeps close tab on these conditions. Councilman Miller ,state.~that there are three al- ternatives: 1) ~ theYttrle a ma~art building without the building permits, 2) delay bonds and other public works improve- ments until the problems are resolved, or 3) the Council could be requested to table the matter until the problems of the Valley are resolved. In his opinion, it would be a wise choice to table the discussion until all the agreements are reviewed and questions are resolved in regard to meeting the intent of the ordinances and then a final decision can be made in reference to filing a map. Mayor Taylor asked Councilman Miller what his position would be should the developer meet all the requirements as far as solving the water and school problems. Councilman Miller stated that if the water and school problems were resolved to his satisfaction, he would see nothing wrong with going ahead with the subdivision, even though he has had serious reserva- tions in regard to growth in the Valley due to the smog situation. Mr. Elliott stated that they cannot guarantee solving the water pro- blems entirely, and should the well not prove useable, California Water will drill an additional well in the vicinity to supplement the existing Cal Water supply. He mentioned that San Diego was having the same school problems so the subdividers furnished the land and portables (shells only) which seemed to work out very well, so they have decided to follow this pattern. He stated that they contacted the people who supply the portables and they, along with Mr. D'Ambra, inspected the shells and felt that they are very satis- factory. It is his understanding that the land, portable shells, bathrooms, air conditioning and heat will be provided by the devel- oper and that the furnishings will have to come from another source. Mr. Elliott further stated that he does not want this matter to be continued, as they have not been selling homes for approximately seven months and feel they cannot continue in this fashion much longer. Mayor Taylor asked if these agreements have to be written into the map, to which the City Attorney stated that these would be separate documents. The Mayor felt that it would not be possible to approve the map at this meeting but they might be able to accept the offer, in principle, and direct that the covenants be prepared, as there are detailed questions that must be answered. He did feel the offer to provide schooling based on the 1.1 child per dwelling unit formula is a reasonable solution, or at least close to a solution. He suggest- ed that the Council adopt a resolution approving the map subject to working out the agreements, generally, as outlined and to set a date for the formal adoption. Mr. Parness stated that there would be a little time involved in meeting with the agencies involved and that when they are ready they can report to the Council. The City Attorney advised that ten days after the filing of a final map it must be approved or disapproved, and that if no action is taken, it is deemed approved. He stated that the Council should ask Mr. Elliott if he agrees to a certain time which should be made reasonable as Mr. Elliott is anxious to settle the matter. Councilmen Beebe and Silva felt that the offer sounds like a rea- sonable solution to the school and water problems, but Councilman Miller felt that he could not make a commitment until the offer is examined. CM-25-12 January 3, 1972 Mr. Elliott asked if the item could be placed on (Final Map-Tr. 3333) the agenda for next week in hopes that all of the material will have been reviewed by then, and if not, it can be continued from week to week until a decision has been reached. Councilman Beebe moved that the issue be continued at the request of the applicant, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and received a unanimous vote. * * * AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT. * * * RECESS Mr. Musso briefly explained the parcel map, property located on the north side of East Avenue, west of Charlotte Way, and discussed the possibilities of including the Arroyo Seco channel as part of the riding and hiking trail system, and it was decided to leave the channel as it is. It was recommended by the Planning Commission to provide a bike trail that will connect Charlotte Way with the vicinity of East Avenue and Vasco Road. REPORT RE PARCEL MAP NO. 816 (T.J. Green) The Mayor mentioned that there are a number of trees in this area that should be preserved, if possible, and added that the channel could be altered in order to save the trees. Mr. Musso stated that they plan to miss as many trees as possible. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the tentative map, subject to the Planning Commission recommendation, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which received a unanimous vote. * * * A discussion was held regarding ancestral trees, PROPOSED ORDINANCE and the removal of them. It was concluded that (Heritage Trees) a tree could be removed if it endangers life or property. Other reasons for removal of trees were also discussed by the Council; a permit to remove trees for the purpose of allowing reasonable access for use of a building site must be approved by the Planning Department. Mayor Taylor asked that the discussion be deferred until the end of the meeting. * * * ~he Mayor stated that the Council has received a report from the Planning Commission regarding definition of "uses of the same general charac- ter", as permitted uses in various Commercial Zoning Districts, and that this is to be used for information only and no action is needed. * * * Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 14 were acknowledged for filing. * * * Mayor Taylor briefly explained that the Planning Director had been requested to redraft several alternatives to the proposed ordinance for free- way oriented signs which Mr. Musso has presented- for the Council's approval. Basically, the RESOLUTION RE PERMITTED USES COMMERCIAL ZONES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE (Freeway Oriented) CM-25-13 January 3, 1972 (Sign Ordinance ordinance is being amended to allow the sign area Amendment) to increase, above the 64 sq. ft. minimum for which the ordinance provides, by 2 sq. ft. for each thousand square feet of floor area in excess of 32,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 120 sq. ft. Mayor Taylor stated that agreement had been reached on an ordinance with no gradual increase which provided for a 64 sq. ft. sign or above a certain size of 175 sq. ft., 50 to 500 feet from the freeway. A gradual increase up to 120 sq. feet was suggested which he felt was better than the original proposal. With reference to 6 (b) of the proposed amendment, Councilman Silva proposed that the words, "other access facility" be deleted. On the other hand, Mayor Taylor thought he would prefer that the words, "such as frontage roads" should be added to the sentence, and Coun- cilman Pritchard suggested the words "to include frontage roads" be added, and Councilman Silva agreed to this wording. Councilman Silva stated that in 6 (h) there is no restriction in that the sign is permitted anywhere within 50 feet of the right-of- way. If a larger sign is requested, he felt the setback should be more than 50 feet and suggested the words, "in excess of 64 sq. ft." be added. He felt this would be an incentive for a smaller sign. He suggested a setback of 10 feet for any other signs. The consensus was for a setback of 25 feet for all signs. Councilman Silva suggested that the maximum of 120 sq. ft. should be increased to 180 sq. ft. Maximum Sign Area 64 sq. ft. 175 sq. ft. Councilman Beebe stated he would make a motion on modification of the Nelson formula as follows; seconded by Councilman Pritchard: Sign Distance from Outer Minimum Bldg. Edge of Traveled Lanes Floor area 25 to 50 ft. none 50 to 500 ft. 25,000 sq. ft. or larger Mr. Lewis questioned if the setback was to be from the property line or the traveled way and the Council concluded that the property line was meant to be the definition. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, stated that in travelling across the country, she noticed the trend along the interstate freeways of signs that indicated gas, services and accommodations and these signs near the exit indicated there were facilities off the road, rather than large individual signs visible from the free- way. She suggested that the Council look at the proposed change from a traffic safety standpoint; also we have the designation of scenic highway to protect as US 580 has been dedicated a scenic highway by the County Board of Supervisors and it is hoped that with the approval of the local jurisdictions that this will be approved also by the State. Another point is to weigh the value of the na- tural environment and ability to see it and the right of business establishments to identify themselves. She urged support of the County standards which she stated were more restrictive than the City standards. Keith Fraser, representing Holiday Inn, referred to a comment made by Councilman Silva that the whole matter is very arbitrary. They have had an appeal pending since April because they were trying to work something out - not on a variance, but an ordinance change. At the time of the zoning for Holiday Inn, they had discussed the normal 500 sq. ft. sign which the staff said they could not have, but perhaps they could have the 280 sq. ft. medium sized sign. This was brought before the Council and reduced to 216 sq. ft., and they were advised it might be more acceptable if they made some type of modification in their application; at 216 sq. ft. they were denied and were told there would have to be a better modification. He was contacted by one or more of the Councilmen, stating they should hold CM-25-14 January 3, 1972 off for four or five months; so from November 1970 until March 1971 they did not file the application. At that time he was asked if he would accept 175 sq. ft. and by modification to the basic sign they were able to come up with a sign that size. He stated that 6 (g) of the proposed ordinance amendment is objec- tionable as Holiday Inn cannot and will not put up a 120 sq. ft. sign. At this point, some two years after they began, they find themselves arguing over something that is very arbitrary, and something they thought they had compromised on, and as late as Nov- ember 8, had a 3-2 vote in favor of what they had been working on for so long. (Sign Ordinance Amendment) Mayor Taylor stated that the existing ordinance was in effect at the time the permit was taken out; the City made no commitment whatsoever that a larger sign would be issued in the future re- gardless of negotiations which may have been done or indications the Holiday Inn may have received from individual Councilmen. Mayor Taylor also stated that the reason for delay is because a change in the ordinance will affect every other business coming into the Valley. Mr. Fraser stated that they had actually applied for a variance and it was decided a change in the ordinance might be better. No promises were made to Holiday Inn, but certain things have taken place, making this a unique situation. They are suffering many hardships, and he mentioned that through November 1971 the Holiday Inn has lost $108,000 just in the year 1971, further stating that there are examples where inns have large signs and are doing a good business and where large signs are not permitted, they have been forced to close. Councilman Silva stated that it was he who had asked Mr. Fraser to delay the application because of the negotiations in process with an industrial client at the time, adding that his variance request would have been denied at that time anyway; actually it was to their advantage to have been asked to delay proceedings. Bill Moore, speaking for Holiday Inn, stated that there is a serious problem with the identification of Holiday Inn, explaining that three hotels in the Bay Area have gone bankrupt because their need for a larger sign was not recognized in time. It was his opinion that if the Council did not want a large establishment with a large sign at that site, it should not have been zoned for that purpose in the first place. He agreed with Mr. Fraser in that this is a unique situation and felt that the necessary findings could be made for a variance without changing the present code, as he feels it is a workable code as it now stands and that if there are too many formulas written into the code it may become unworkable. The present innkeeper of Holiday Inn remarked that a number of people had asked him why the sign was so small and that there were complaints that it was very hard to find the Holiday Inn. He stated that at the rate cars travel on the freeway it is impossible for them to get off the freeway by the time they have spotted the sign because of its size - they have already passed the turnoff. Councilman Silva stated that he wanted Holiday Inn to come to Livermore and voted for it and questioned why they came, knowing the restrictions of the sign ordinance, if a sign the ordinance permitted would not be adequate to assure the success of the HOliday Inn. Mr. Moore indicated that they were not aware of the limitations until it was too late and that if they had had any choice in the matter they would definitely have "bailed out", but it was too late for them to do so. Councilman Pritchard asked if possibly his motion to grant Holiday Inn a variance, would go through to alleviate changes in the ordinance. CM-25-15 January 3, 1972 (Sign Ordinance Amendment) He stated that the findings could be made if the Council wants Holiday Inn to stay in Livermore and was of the opinion that if they are not grant- ed this variance, they will probably not be able to remain. He added that Livermore is not a tourist center, accom- modating tourists - it needs the business of people traveling through and he felt that Holiday Inn is justified in asking for a larger sign. Councilman Miller remarked that the Council has been accused of trying to drive the Holiday Inn under which he stated he resented as the Council voted for it. He further stated they knew the size of the sign they would be allowed at the time they applied, and it is not the fault of the Council if their management is disorganized. They are being very unfair to say the Council is being vindictive - they are only trying to prevent a sign jungle in Livermore. He stated that Holiday Inn has other alternatives for a sign; they knew that when they came here. A city generally meets with resis- tance from nationwide corporations whore interest is not local, when they try to upgrade themselves and the City should not bow to their wishes. To allow them a larger sign may be setting a precedent for the whole valley. Mayor Taylor asked for a roll called vote on the motion made by Councilman Beebe, which failed as follows: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilman Silva stated that his original proposal was based on an arbitrary decision - the Driftwood Home sign which is reportedly 150 sq. ft., and in his opinion, the sign is not too large; therefore he would be willing to amend the ordinance to permit this. He stated that 150 sq. ft. is the amount Holiday Inn would be permitted and that he would not go along with the 175 sq. ft. sign they are requesting. Councilman Silva moved that Item (g) be changed to read 3 sq. ft. for each 1000 sq. ft. of floor area in excess of 32,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 180 sq. ft., which would mean that Holiday Inn could come in with 150 sq. ft. sign; however the motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Miller made a motion that the matter be continued for one week which died for lack of a second. Councilman Beebe made a motion for his original motion to allow a 175 sq. ft. sign for 25,000 sq. ft. or larger, seconded by Council- man Pritchard and passed by the following called vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Silva and Miller * * * A report was submitted by the City Manager explain- ing there are approximately 363 site locations re- quiring repairs of sidewalks which represent a total cost obligation of $34,952.16. The owner has the option of making payment within five days after notification of cost, or upon application, he may pay the sum over a 5-year period, together with a 6% per annum interest. It is assumed that only 10% to 15% of the ownerships may apply for this payment method and, therefore, our budget allotment of $10,000 may be adequate. Since it is unknown as to the number requesting fin- ancial installment payments, it is recommended that applications up to the limit of the $10,000 budget allocation be allowed. REPORT RE SIDEWALK REPAIR Councilman Pritchard made a motion to allow $10,000 in the budget to finance the repairs, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received a unanimous response. CM-25-16 On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, the reading of the ordinance was to be waived and title read only, but Coun- cilman Pritchard withdrew his second and moved that the matter be continued. January 3, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE REZONING (Enos Way) Mayor Taylor stated that the motion would be postponed if there were no objections. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the reading of the ordinance was to be waived and title read only, however Councilman Miller had questions regarding the grammatical structure of the written ordinance creating unexplicit definitions. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE SEC. 8.00 Mayor Taylor stated that if there were no objections, the matter would be continued until next week. * * * The City Attorney briefly explained the provi- sions of the ancestral tree ordinance, and read the provisions of the corrected draft, as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to damage or destroy any ancestral tree within the City of Livermore by cutting, pruning, or the use of any salt, oil, herbicide or other material deleterious to the growth thereof, or, when climatic or soil conditions so require, to intentionally neglect to water or maintain said tree, without obtaining a permit so to do; provided, however, that reasonable trimming or pruning of said trees shall not be considered the damaging thereof. 11 TREE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Councilman Miller stated that it would be a little difficult to prove intent to neglect an ancestral tree. Mayor Taylor stated that an ordinance for these trees is needed and that it will just have to be left up to the good judgment of the staff as to whether a person has intentionally neglected one of these trees. Councilman Miller made a motion to introduce the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Silva dissenting. * * * Councilman Silva reported that he had received a call from a citizen requesting that a cross- walk be provided for children going to Arroyo Mocho School on Florence Avenue. He suggested that one be made on Vancouver Way, also. Mr. Lee advised that he had also been requested to do something about the situation and that the matter is MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Crosswalk~Arroyo Mocho School) under way. r,~~Li~k PC) Paci ic RR Streets) * * * We71e ,(lA.l Councilman Miller reportedlthat he had received a complaint regarding the 0 uthcrn Pacific train blocking North Livermore Ave., Land P Streets and Murrieta Blvd. on December 31, at 5:00 a.m. for at least twenty minutes. He asked if there is an ordinance prohibiting this type of restriction, and if not, why is there not one. Some discussion followed as to what measures could be taken and if citations could be issued. * * * ~47E,L'/lJ (80 u. Lllt::L!l Blocking CM-25-17 January 3, 1972 ( Homes Built in Park and School Complex) this area. matter. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Miller reported that he had a question from a citizen regarding homes being built on the end of the street in the Carlton Square park and school complex, and stated it was the citizen's understanding that no homes were to be built in Councilman Miller asked that the staff report on this * * * There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. * * * APPROVE C IjA- Ma~r~1n ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of January 10, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 10, 1972, 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (Excused Personal) * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those pre- sent in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * It was noted that no minutes of the meeting of January 3, 1972 were submitted for approval. * * * Nick Brass, 1364 Arroyo Road, asked what the find- ings were regarding the investigation of the Kay Parra family and her accusations of the local police force, to which the Mayor replied that it was still under investigation. The City Manager stated that be approximately one week to ten days before the findings submitted. OPEN FORUM (Kay Parra Case) it would would be (Park Development) * * * Masud Mehran, builder of Sunset Homes, stated that approximately three years ago his company had dedicated a park site in Sunset East and that after doing so learned that LARPD did not have sufficient to develop it. An agreement was made to furnish LARPD with for development, interest free, so that the park could be funds funds CM-25-18 January 10, 1972 developed. Another park has since been dedi- (Park Development) cated to the City and he wanted it to be made clear that all the homes around this park site have been sold and that no profit can be made through this proposal. He stated that he wrote to LARPD asking if his company could be of assistance again, to which there has been no response. He is ad- dressing the Council in order to make the proposal public and to hear what the Council has to say - adding that he feels a commit- ment to those who bought homes expecting to have a park available to them. He asked the Council where the money from taxes for the purpose of providing parks is, and stated he wants the park for his homeowners now, not the year 2000. The Mayor commented that he was not sure what Mr. Mehran's proposal was, to which Mr. Mehran explained that there are various ways the company is willing to help, but LARPD or the Council, has to tell them what it is that is needed. Councilman Miller felt that this offer is very generous and men- tioned that it does take time to set up an agreement and felt sure that LARPD is very grateful for the offer, but has not had the time to act. Mayor Taylor stated that since the offer has been made to the City, the staff will check with LARPD and see if there is any way the City can be of help, adding that he agreed with Councilman Miller in that the offer is very generous and clearly in the interest of the citizens in the area. Councilman Silva stated that LARPD has two years in which to com- plete a park and since this length of time has passed, questioned why the park has not been developed, and stated that he would like to have a report as to what the Park District's obligations are. Councilman Miller commented that as it now stands, park dedication is set up to provide for land only, and not for park development to which the Mayor stated that a recommendation from LARPD has been received for their consideration; they would like the Council to adopt a development fee - to be considered at a later date, however. * * * Randall Skinner, 2744 Kennedy Street, asked the (SAVE Petition) Council to explain to him the reasons for a pe- tition circulating in Livermore in regard to building permits and water shortages, stating that he did not understand what it was all about. Mayor Taylor explained that the petition is being circulated pri- vately and has nothing to do with the City, officially. He stated that he is assuming the petition will be submitted to the Council if enough signatures have been obtained for the purpose of being placed on the ballot. Further there is not a shortage of water in Livermore, but rather a problem with the treatment plant that chlorinates the water, and if the plant is not expanded there may be water rationing during peak periods in the summer. He also added that after a certain number of homes have been built classes may have to be on double sessions as clarification of the school problem. * * * An unidentified citizen (student) stated that (Park Development) he, in the past, worked for LARPD and felt they were putting in parks as fast as they could and that they do have a shortage of manpower, but were working to full capacity. Terry Bobba, 1087 Angelica Way, asked the Council if Robertson Park has reached the extent of beautification it has to achieve, CM-25-19 January 10, 1972 (Park Development) to which the Mayor replied that it is really only in its raw state; he is sure it will receive a great deal of development in the future, stating that it is up to LARPD as to when the development will be complete Mr. Parness explained to the students that the City works with LARPD as closely as they can, but the development of parks is in the hands of LARPD and is their obligation. * * * PUBLIC HEARING (Industrial Annex No. 6- Greenville Rd re Zoning) Mr. Musso briefly explained the recently annexed property, stating that the Planning Commission had discussed whether the land should be zoned ID or 1M and now recommends zoning to 1M (Heavy Indus- trial) District. There was some discussion as to the compatibility of a steel mill, for example, and Sears Warehouse to be located on the same property. Mr. Musso stated that there were no objec- tions from the proposed occupants as to the possibility of a heavy industrial plant locating in the area. The resident of 954 Redondo Way, asked for clarification as to heavy industrial vs. light industrial in regard to air pollution and if restrictions will be made in this behalf. The Planning Director stated that there are no performance standards and the problem of smog is regulated through the Bay Area Air Pollu- tion Control District, adding that ID is a little more restrictive than the 1M, which may produce noise or glare, and would be allowed under the 1M zoning. The City Manager stated that the City has the right to regulate regarding treatments that produce water pollution in order that this may be prevented. The City Attorney added that if a manufacturer has a process that will pollute our water so that we do not meet State Standards, the City can require that the process be changed, or not allow the use unless they meet these standards. Inasmuch as there was no further public testimony, Councilman Beebe moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Silva, and received a unanimous vote. Councilman Miller felt the discussion should be discontinued at this time and that Sears be contacted as to their feelings in re- gard to heavy industrial interests occupying the land adjacent to their prospective warehouse, to make sure that Sears is not driven away by some unfortunate zoning. The City Manager reflected that Sears was aware of the proposed 1M zoning at the time they acquired the property. Councilman Silva stated that he would really hate to see this land, which can be seen from the freeway, used for this type of indus- trial business; hopefully it would not be a steel mill. It was decided to contact Sears and the railroad company for their opinion and that the matter be discussed after contacting them. Councilman Miller moved to continue the matter for two weeks, se- conded by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously. * * * CM-25-20 January 10, 1972 The Planning Director stated that the original proposal met with opposition and was referred back to the Design Review Committee. They are recommending that the procedure be removed and that at the time a building permit is issued, or before, that the Building Inspector, the Public Works Director and the Planning Director certify that the design and plans meet the criteria of the ordinance, meaning that there will be no application, no fee, and no procedure, adding that if there are questions as to theme, the Design Review Commit- tee will still be used in an advisory capacity and will serve as an initial appeal board. PUBLIC HEARING RE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE Mr. Musso stated that the Chamber of Commerce suggested: 1) the words "architectural design'1 be added into the ability - relative to the Planning Commission's recommendation; 2) guidelines for "the City Staff" (which he stated is for everyone); 3) applicabil- ity; 4) procedure - 7 days, which he stated is the time tied into the building permit. The City Attorney stated he would like to make a suggestion as to the guidelines, in that when the guidelines are adopted by the Design Review Committee they will make a recommendation to the Council to implement them in proper form. Councilman Beebe asked if the section regarding existing apart- ment houses covers new apartment houses, to which it was ex- plained that it does. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that as an interested citizen and a visitor at the Council meetings, he realizes that the Council has a great deal of important matters to discuss and decide and their meetings are usually very long; therefore, he cannot understand why the Council is asked to review the design of every new structure in the City. He added that there are no standards by which the Council can judge and he would rather see the matter left in the hands of individuals. He does not like to see limitations on individuals who wish to develop property. Mr. Allen stated it had been suggested that there be a theme but nobody seems to have made a suggestion as to what the theme should be; there was so much subjective and so little objective that in his opinion the proposed ordinance was a very poor one. Mayor Taylor stated that as far as the reasons the ordinance came about, one was to avoid discussions in the Council on design, adding that many applications come up for open land uses, condi- tional use permits, and that adjoining property owners are very concerned what is being built next to them and though the Council is not necessarily qualified, they are obligated to pass judgment as to design. Mr. Musso stated that many buildings have been reviewed and that only one has been appealed, out of the 50-100 applications, how- ever they need guidelines. Councilman Miller stated that Mr. Allen had brought up the point of subjective standards and agreed that this is probably true; however, he used the two gasoline stations on Murrieta and Stanley Blvd. as examples of the result of design review, and he felt one could clearly see that these are two of the nicest looking gasoline stations in Livermore. The City Attorney stated that the only reason it has worked as well as it has in the past has been because of the cooperation of the various architects and the staff. The ordinance has been drafted as well as this kind of ordinance can be but if they can come up with anything better they will tell the Council. He also stated that they are dealing with aesthetics and he has urged the adoption of a legal ordinance, or a way to legalize the working machinery. CM-25-21 January 10, 1972 (Design Review Earl Mason, with the Chamber of Commerce, stated Ordinance) that he helped work on the committee that review- ed the ordinance and under "procedure" the staff must review any proposed building or repairs be- fore issuance of a building permit. One of the reasons for the timing was to enable the applicant to get through as fast as poss- ible and the requirement for design review should be listed as soon as possible in order that plans will not have to be changed. A discussion followed as to procedures for land permits and de- sign review requirements to be made known to the builder. It was decided that there is no problem; the builder will be aware early of the design review requirement. Councilman Miller stated that a decision on a major building shodd not have to be made in a week when it will have a great affect on the appearance of downtown. If necessary they should be allowed a month or two to make a final decision since the community may have to live with such a building for forty years. Masud Mehran addressed the Council in response to design review of office buildings and apartments in suburban areas. He commented that the City is fortunate in having knowledgffible, hardworking, sensible and cooperative officials who hold the officesof Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and Chief Building Inspector, and it would be hard to visualize anyone filling these positions with less qualifications even though this is possible. He ques- tioned what might happen in the year 1990 if an investor wishing to build a $6 million project, paying an architectural firm $60,000 for a design, and leaving the final judgment to a possibly unquali- fied Planning Commission and City Council as to the architectural quality and excellence of such a project. Councilman Miller explained that this appeal goes to an architec- tural review committee with training, not the Planning Commission. Also to pay a firm a high price for an architectural design does not necessarily guarantee a desirable design, using gasoline sta- tions in general as examples. Mr. Mehran stated that he appreciated the reasons for the design review ordinance having been initiated, but in his opinion archi- tectural design should be left in the hands of these experts and not to the judgment or opinion of those who may personally dislike certain proposals. He urged the Council to remove the sect ion re- garding apartments and suburban office buildings. He added that he is being very objective in the interest of industry and ,that he has no plans to build an apartment or office building. He stated, also, that he has never been turned down or had a problem but is speaking on behalf of those wishing to exercise their imag- ination. He added that he is speaking for an individual who may come up with a great marvel of architecture which contemporary people may not like. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, agreed mostly with the points made by Mr. Mehran, but stated that, in his opinion, artists and others could serve along with architects to judge design and the City should not have to rely solely on the qualifications of ar- chitects as to judgment. There beJng no further testimony a motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, to close the public hearing, and passed unanimously. Councilman Silva stated that he, as a citizen, is not happy with some of the designs in the City and feels that there is a need to improve the image of our City and knows of no other way to make improvements than with this ordinance. He stated that in Section 22.80 the word "obnoxious" is obnoxious and he would like to see it deleted from the ordinance. CM-25-22 January 10, 1972 Councilman Miller stated that he agreed with Councilman Silva in objecting to the require- ment that a person has demonstrated architec- tural ability - there are people with landscape ability as well as artists who could serve in this capacity. He therefore recommended that in Section 22.82 (b) an addition be made to include that the committee shall have professional train- ing or experience in "an architectural" or "a related design dis- cipline." (Design Review Ordinance) Mayor Taylor stated that the committee is not formed to impose their ideas but, in fact, to go over the standards and that it is extremely important to have an architecture oriented committee, designed to satisfy the client, stating that an artist may not understand certain defined limits as does the architect. The City Manager stated that this point had received the most consideration and that they decided they wanted both professional architects and those considered nonprofessional, to constitute the committee. Councilman Miller moved to adopt Section 22.82 (b), exactly as it is in the text and Councilman Beebe stated that he was in agreement, along with Mayor Taylor; Councilman Silva disagreed. Councilman Silva stated that in Section 22.82 (c) too much power has been given the Design Review Committee, and that he would like the section to read that they will "act in an advisory capa- city to the design review City staff, the Council, Beautification Committee and the Planning Commission, and at the discretion of the City Council..." Mr. Musso explained that to state "design review of City staff" would be an addition and this point was discussed, and Councilman Silva stated he wanted the "City staff" to relate to the staff of the Planning Department, Public Works Department and Building Department. The Council agreed that 22.82 (c) should read, "The Design Review Committee shall develop and City Council shall approve design standards to serve as guidelines..." Councilman Beebe asked if it was necessary that they meet twice a month after the guidelines are established as referred to in Sec. 22.82 (e), and it was agreed if no action was required, it would not be necessary to meet. Councilman Beebe stated that as he had originally said, he opposed the apartment houses being included; however, if the apartment house is facing, adjacent to, or within a commercial or retail business or major public facility, they should be included. Mayor Taylor stated that there have been apartment houses built in the City without architectural design, and in the older part of town with small lots zoned for apartments you could very well have apartment houses with no architectural help at all. In the past, the design review policy with regard to commercial building has worked well. Councilman Miller stated that he considered apartment houses to be commercial and felt this was the place that design review has its best use. Mr. Mehran agreed that public buildings everywhere should have approval of a design review committee, however apartments are residential units and today 60% of all residential units are apartment houses. When they are sold they are called townhouses, and when rented they are called apartments. He felt that apart- ments and townhouses, being residential, are not to be subject CM-25-23 January 10, 1972 (Design Review to review by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Ordinance) Mehran stated there is a great difference between site planning for the apartments and the townhouses and the architectural design of the buildings and asked what criteria the Design Review Committee will use as guide- lines to accept or reject certain designs in apartments, which are residential. He asked if we are talking about site plan approval, architectural excellence of the buildings, the configuration, or how far are we going. When apartments are built, you always have a lender involved, stating that he knows of no lender that is willing to lend money on some architectural monstrosity. He add- ed that if someone has a permit to build, and the Planning Direc- tor and the Chief Building Inspector speak to him about a design they feel is poor, in 99% of the cases, the applicant would be willing to change the design. He stated that in his opinion, re- sidential units should not be subject to approval by the Design Review Committee and asked the Council to keep in mind that apart- ments are residential, as they can be sold as townhouse units later on, and asked where the line will be drawn. Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt Section 22.83 as it stands, however, the motion failed for lack of a second. The City Attorney commented that Mr. Mehran is right in that a con- dominium is a collection of single family units and that there should be an insertion of words in Section 22.83 specifically relat- ing to condominiums or community apartment houses in addition to multiple family residences of five or more, requesting that the section read, "any existing structure or building which is used in whole or in part as a condominium or..." He asked then that additional corrections be made as follows: In 22.85 (c) "the overall structure including buildings. .."; ".. .exposed equipment, and similar structures as they pertain.. ."~ ".. .and similar fac- tors, is satisfactory." In 22.85 (f) "..monotonous repetition." deleting the last sentence in that paragraph. Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia, asked what the payment will be for the Design Review Committee, to which the Mayor explained that a citizen's time is usually donated to the City to serve on City committees, including the Planning Commission. He then asked if the Design Review Committee does not approve a design and it is appealed in Court, would the Court accept the Design Review's opinion, as peers. The City Attorney answered his question by stating that an appli- cant would first have to go to the City Council and exhaust his administrative remedy, then upon taking his case to the Court, he would have to do the following things: 1) test the legality of the ordinance; 2) determine the condition imposed on him is arbi- trary and unreasonable (assuming the ordinance is legal). He stated that the Design Review Committee is administering only the rules and regulations adopted by the City Council, and their func- tion is administrative. Councilman Silva stated that he would like the City Attorney to instruct the Design Review Committee as to the legal aspects of the ordinance, to which the City Attorney stated he would be happy to do so. Robert Allen stated that he would like to see the deletion of a part of the ordinance which provides that if painting or replace- ment is visible from the public right-of-way or accessible to the public, it is subject to design review. Mayor Taylor stated that citizens should have faith in the judg- ment of those appointed to carry out the laws and that their in- tention is not to compete with a leading law firm but to act when the situation demands. A citizen feeling that an ordinance is being abused always has the prerogative to appear before the City Council to state his grievance. CM-25-24 January 10, 1972 Mr. Mehran stated that it was never his inten- tion to imply that the City is going to arbi- trarily and unnecessarily turn down a design on an apartment project, but stated he would like to raise a technical question. At what stage of planning is the developer of an apartment project required to submit his design for approval? How can an investor go ahead with the building under the condition that his design may be revoked. (Design Review Ordinance) The Mayor stated that the applicant can submit his design at any stage, and that he can do so upon acquiring a permit to build. At this time Mayor Taylor called for a vote to the motion which passed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilman Beebe Councilman Pritchard * * * AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH RECESS ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 4-72 Notice of Completion Clubhouse Addition RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR and Airway Blvd. OF PUBLIC WORKS ~O RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION RE LAS POSITAS CLUBHOUSE ADDITION. RESOLUTION NO. 5-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION RE AIRWAY BLVD. CONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING AND DOLORES STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE SANITARY SEWER. * * * Modification of Agreement re Alameda cty Criminal Justice Planning Board A resolution was submitted authorizing execu- tion of the agreement modification regarding Alameda County Regional Criminal Justice Plan- ning Board. An appeal was made by citizens to increase the number of public members. Out of the 22 that serve, only five are public members and after con- sideration the Board recommended that this membership be increased to nine public members, which in turn, was referred to the Alameda County Mayor's Conference for consideration. A special committee reviewed the request and recommended that each member City be no- tified that the request would be granted with their joint approval and recommended that a resolution authorizing execution of the modi- fication be made. RESOLUTION NO. 6-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT. * * * A resolution was submitted requesting urban highway extension funds regarding construction of North Livermore Avenue north of Portola Ave. The appeal is being made for the issuance of a grant of monies to assist in the capital cost --'-----'--_...._,----------,--~_._,-~--_._------~^'-"'"-,-'~..,-~._~_."_..._._~..._._...~.-..".- .- Request for Funds North Livermore Ave. Reconstruction CM-25-25 January lO, 1972 (North Livermore Ave. Construction) of the City-County reconstruction project on North Livermore Avenue from Portola Ave. to US 580. If granted it would be mutually accredited to the City and County. RESOLUTION NO. 7-72 RESOLUTION REQUESTING FUNDS BE ALLOCATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSTRUCTING AND BEAUTIFYING NORTH LIVERMORE AVENUE FROM PORTOLA AVENUE NORTHERLY TO THE ARROYO LAS POSITAS. Report re Building Permits Minutes- Housing Authority and Beautification Committee APPROVAL OF Consent Calendar * * * A report was received from the Chief Building In- spector indicating the number of building permits issued during the month of December. It showed that three single family dwelling units were permitted from December 16 to 29. * * * Minutes from the Housing Authority for the meeting of November 16, and minutes from the Beautification Committee for the meeting of December 7, 1971, were submitted for the Council review. * * * On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar was approved. * * * The Mayor explained that the tentative map for Tract 3333 submitted by H. C. Elliott was a con- tinued item on the agenda and that meetings were held with the water agencies and the School Dis- trict in regard to proposals presented last week by the developer. There are many problems to be worked out and recommendation has been made by the staff to con- tinue the matter another week as additional meetings are to be held with the specific groups involved in this project. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3333 (H.C. Elliott) On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the matter was continued one more week with the consent of Mr. Elliott. * * * The Planning Director explained the application for an automobile sales establishment. The Com- mission is recommending approval for this use, with a time schedule for staging. He mentioned the only concern was for the recreational sales use, but decided to go along with the request, with the require- ment that a landscaped strip of land be provided to average 25 feet in the front portion and that the overhead site illumination is subject to CM regulations. Conditions of approval are as re- commended by the staff with the additional two requirements men- tioned. REPORT RE CUP PERMIT (Codiroli Ford) The City Attorney remarked that there is a provlslon in the ordi- nance regulating the use of water which delays landscaping at the time the permit is issued. Councilman Miller stated his reasons for considering this applica- tion an unsuitable use in an ID-H Zone. He indicated that he sees this as strict commercial and, in his opinion, the City does CM-25-26 January 10, 1972 not need this strip to become strict commercial. (CUP-Codiroli Ford) He used Portola Avenue and US 580 as an example, stating that an area was set aside specifically for automobile sales establishments and to sprinkle them over the City entrances would be wrong and in violation of the General Plan. He commented further that this would be a bad visual image for the City and for those living in certain residences north of First Street and north of Portola Avenue who will look down on something unattractive. He felt to allow open land use of this type would be a mistake, and once it was approved could not be undone; we must regulate the uses at the entrances to the City. Councilman Silva asked Councilman Miller to define where the en- trance ends and where the commercial along First Street begins in his opinion. Councilman Miller stated that open land uses, of which this is an example, are businesses that do not belong on the major throughway of the community. When questioned why he felt that it should be on Portola Avenue, since that was also an entrance, Councilman Miller replied they had agreed, at a prior time, that this type use would all be in one place so that all the City entrances would not be cluttered with this type of use. Councilman Beebe stated he saw no reason to crowd all of one type of business together. He felt that most of the new automobile sales offices were now being designed quite attractively. He felt the parcel in question was zoned for commercial and could be used for nothing else since it is located between the road and the railroad track. Mayor Taylor stated the staff originally recommended apartment houses for the area, but felt it was unsuited for residential dwellings. However, he would not like to have the entrances to the City be garish, but at present there are open land uses downtown in the city core which is the least desirable place. Although the Council did not select the area near the corner of Portola Avenue and US 580 (it was Abbes), they were later approach- ed by others and decided they would take advantage of the situa- tion by making it an auto service center, however it has not materialized. He did not feel it was desirable to set aside a certain piece of land and tell a car dealer this is where they must locate; if not, go to another town. Although he did not feel this was the ideal location, he felt there was nothing wrong with it if properly conditioned. He felt it was better there than along a freeway, and he felt strongly it was desirable for this dealership to remain in the City. Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the Conditional Use Permit; however there was one point he wished to discuss - the 25 ft. setback adjacent to the railroad as he did not feel that condition was necessary for this use, so he would like to amend the Commission's recommendation, however after Mr. Musso explained that this was a requirement of the ordinance, he changes his motion to accept the recommendation as is. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. The applicant, Milton Codiroli, stated he was not against the 25 ft. landscaping across the front, but would prefer to wait with regard to the landscaping and present a plan to the City staff, as his main concern at this time was whether or not the use would be allowed. With regard to the 6 ft. masonry fence along the east side of the property, for safety reasons and prevention of theft, he would prefer a cyclone fence with slats; however if these two conditions are not agreeable, he would accept those as stated. Mr. Codiroli spoke of landscaping for such a use in the Los Angeles area which he felt would be very appealing and wished to submit a similar plan. CM-25-27 January 10, 1972 (CUP-Codiroli Ford) Councilman Silva amended his motion to reflect a variable type of setback to average 25 feet, sub- ject to review of the appropriate bodies. Councilman Silva asked about the requirement for the 6 ft. masonry fence, and Mr. Musso explained that the general requirement would be for chain link fence; for aesthetic reasons the Planning De- partment proposed that the initial part of the fence not be chain link but masonry wall. They are proposing that the area between the back of the landscaping to a point behind the building line be masonry; then go to chain link, and Mr. Codiroli agreed. Mr. Codiroli again asked if the landscaping and fence decision could be set aside at this time until he presented his plans. However Councilman Silva stated he would prefer to leave the amend- ment as is, and if there was a problem Mr. Codiroli could come back later. Dr. Don Rocco, 1130 Batavia, spoke in favor of the motion as he felt it was incumbent upon the City to be able to consider matters with respect to the individual. If they are reputable business men, the City cannot afford to lose them, as there are several bus- inesses who have located in other areas. A person must be able to accept change or reject change but have an open mind; also a man should be allowed to expand his business and increase and better his livelihood. Councilman Miller agreed that life is change, but in making a de- cision as a public official he wanted to be sure the change is for the betterment of the community as a whole. A vote was taken on the motion and passed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor TaylQr Councilman Miller Councilman Pritchard. COUNTY REFERRAL RE REZONING AT 2904 HOLMES ST. (E. Smith) * * * A rezoning application was referred to the Plan- ning Commission for property located at 2904 Holmes Street by Edward Smith, from A District to a residential district with agriculture. The Planning Director explained that the Commission did not agree with ~he rezoning application from the standpoint of density or lot size, but made no recommendation; the County Planning staff is recommending disapproval. The Plan- ning Commission did adopt the staff report and recommended its transmittal to the Alameda County Planning Commission, and the Council concurred with the recommendation. SUMMARY PLANNING COMM. ACTION REPORT RE AIRWAY BLVD. LEASE MODIFICATION * * * A summary of action of the Planning Commission meeting of January 7 was acknowledged for filing. * * * The City Manager reported that the lease recently executed requires that a second industrial struc- ture be erected within eighteen months from the date of the lease execution. The lending insti- tution opposes this provision, claiming it is an unreasonable obligation which is understandable since the City merely has executed a ground lease with rents payable whether or not a structure is located thereon. It is re- commended that the stated lease provision be amended to repeal CM-25-28 references to the erection of a second struc- ture within a specified time period, but re- quittin~ the original structure be not less than ~200,000 in construction value. January 10, 1972 (Lease Modification) A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously to adopt the City Manager's re- commendation. * * * The matter of solid waste disposal has become a regional issue and is presently pending be- fore the Alameda County Mayors! Conference. The respective City Managers in the County are investigating at least five independent solid waste disposal propositions that might have region-wide implica- tions. It is recommended that this matter should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Mayors' Conference current investigation. REPORT RE VPC - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The Council agreed to file the report without comment at this time. * * * The City Attorney submitted a report regarding REPORT RE AB 1301 AB 130l in which he made reference to certain new provisions of the State law which will be of aid to the City in regulating growth. It was his recommenda- tion that the Council direct the Planning Commission to become familiar with the bill and to review the General Plan and specific plan with the idea in mind that they may want to use the powers given to cities under this act and can only do so if we are pre- pared for it. Mr. Lewis stated it is a staff function, first, to start devising what can be done within the limits of this law as it is fairly broad. It can be very valuable to the city and the sooner it can be started the better off we will be. Mr. Lewis explained the bill more fully to the Council and some discussion followed. Mayor Taylor stated that these comments of the City Attorney should be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation for procedure in order for the City to take advantage of the new law, and this was considered Council action. * * * On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote of the Coun- cil, the first reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the ordinance amending Section 8.00, re RG Zoning District, by amending Subsections 8.80 through 8.86 and repealing Subsection 8.88 re lot and Idt development requirements was introduced. PROPOSED Z. O. AMENDMENT TO SEC. 8.00 * * * On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Mayor Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the ordinance amendment to reflect change in fees required for a Conditional Use Permit was introduced. However, the City Attorney stated that this ordinance would delete Section 22.78 amendment, and that the title only would be read at the next meeting, after he had made the change. PROPOSED Z.O. AMENDMENT RE CUP FEES CM-25-29 January 10, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE ANCESTRAL TREES Councilman Beebe stated that he had received com- ments from people who felt that the proposed ordi- nance regarding ancestral trees takes away some of their rights as a property owner and he asked the City Attorney if this might be true, that he was not of the same opinion. The City Attorney stated that he felt it does not. Councilman Silva felt that it is not necessary to obtain a permit from the City if the tree is diseased, or if some other obvious reason necessitates removal, and that they should continue as they have in the past. Councilman Miller moved to introduce the ordinance, seconded by Mayor Taylor, which received the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Silva and Beebe Councilman Pritchard Councilman Miller made a motion to continue the matter for one week, seconded by Mayor Taylor, and passed 3-1 with Councilman Silva dissenting. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- cilman Silva, and by unanimous vote (Councilman Pritchard absent), the ordinance relating to civil defense and disaster, amending Chapter 7, of the Livermore City Code, 1959, was introduced. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, commented that it is his impres- sion by reading a copy of the ordinance, that the City Manager can draft citizens to combat a riot in another city, and he felt it is not right that a citizen is requested to fight in another city. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Campaign Signs) (Polling Hours) * * * Mr. Musso stated that they are sending out letters explaining the ordinance regarding signs used during election campaigning. Mayor Taylor suggested that a copy of the ordinance be sent to the newspaper so that the public will be aware of the regulations regarding these signs. * * * The City Clerk stated that she would like the City Council to give direction as to the hours the polls shall be open. Councilman Miller moved to leave the polls open between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., seconded by Mayor Taylor, which passed 3-1 with Councilman Silva dissenting. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Candidate Fee) * * * The Mayor stated that the City Clerk has reported that there is a cost of approximately $75 to print each candidate's statement. A fee has not been requested in the past, but is permissible, and the Clerk asked for some direction in this regard. Councilman Silva stated that a fee might prevent one from running in an election that has no intention of campaigning and who does so only for amusement. He stated a $50 fee would insure a candidate CM-25-30 January 10, 1972 who is sincere, adding that $75 might eliminate serious prospective candidates. (Candidate Fee) The City Clerk explained that this fee would not eliminate anyone wishing to run, but rather the fee would be charged only for those who wished to have a statement printed. The City Attorney stated that many communities require by ordinance a filing fee which is quite substantial. Councilman Silva moved to adopt a $50 fee for those wishing to have their statement printed, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Miller stated that he would abstain from voting, as he has plans to become a candidate, adding that in his opinion there should be no limitations imposed on anyone wishing to par- ticipate in our democratic processes of voting, and he urged the Council not to charge a fee and to make it possible for those whose financial resources may not allow them the same opportunity as those in a better financial state. The City Attorney explained that provisions are made for those who are poor; that they have the right to avail themselves of court services such as filing fees for divorces, etc., adding that he is not sure how this applies in this case, but they may find that the service is required in certain cases. Councilman Miller stated that this is one of the best ways to let the public know their position on different issues and that it does not seem fair to impose a fee which strikes at people of different economic levels differently. Councilman Silva amended his motion to reflect that if a person qualifies as a "poor person" the fee may be waived, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor stated that there are some costs that should be absorbed in the general budget and that voters might wonder about a candidate if his statement does not appear with the other candidates. The Mayor asked for a vote on the amendment to the motion, which passed unanimously, Councilman Miller abstaining. The vote on the main motion passed 2-1 with Mayor Taylor dissenting, and Councilman Miller abstaining. * * * Mr. Parness stated that he was very happy to submit a recommendation to the Council for their confirmation of the appointment of George Nolan as Finance Director. Mr. Nolan is a graduate of UC Berkeley with a degree in Business Administra- tion and has accumulated a number of graduate units in the field of Advanced Accounting, Public Administration and Data Processing. At present he is the Finance Director of Fairfield and has held this position for the past two years. He further stated that upon verification from his employer, and by judging his personal- ity, it is felt he will be a very good choice for the position. He has accepted the salary of $17,000 per year. Mr. Parness asked that the Council adopt a motion confirming his appointment. (Selection of Finance Director) Councilman Miller moved to confirm his appointment, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously. * * * Councilman Silva stated that he has observed the stop signs at Maple and Fourth Streets and felt they have been very effective. He stated many other intersections should have the same measure applied. (Stop Signs-4th and Maple sts.) CM-25-31 January 10, 1972 (Industrial Ordinance) Councilman Silva mentioned that it is his under- standing there is an Industrial Committee and he felt they should initiate a study for an Industrial Ordinance. * * * (Bicycle Licenses) Councilman Miller stated that a bicycle license ordinance was in the mill and asked what the status is at this time, to which the City Manager replied that an announcement is to be in the stating time and places for registration. paper soon * * * (Urgency Ordinance re Moratorium on Residential Bldg. Permits) Councilman Miller stated that he would like to see the Council adopt an urgency ordinance to halt the issuance of residential building permits until the ordinance, as it is given on the SAVE initia- tive, is adopted, or until election time. The SAVE petition had received over 5,000 signatures which was an indication of how the public would vote should the issue be held until voting time. Councilman Miller made a motion that the Council adopt an urgency ordinance for a moratorium on building until the Council adopts the petition, or until the election; however the motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Silva stated that in his opinion it would be irrespon- sible to adopt an ordinance based on newspaper reports alone. Mayor Taylor stated that the ordinance in no way states that there should be an immediate moratorium and, in his opinion, a building moratorium is not necessarily exactly what everyone had in mind when they signed the petition. He mentioned that the Council is meeting with the School District and the developers to see what can be worked out and to initiate an urgency ordinance would cur- tail these negotiating sessions. He felt that there would be ample time to decide what should be done in response, whether to place it on the ballot, or whether to adopt an ordinance. Councilman Beebe stated that he feels the Council has done just about everything that the SAVE petition is asking, i.e., a water connection fee .will be collected as soon as Zone 7 makes it offi- cially possible to do so, and also the Council has adopted a policy on tentative maps concerning classrooms. * * * ADJOURNMENT Councilman Silva moved that the meeting be adjourned at 12:30 a.m., seconded by Councilman Beebe, and as there was no further business to the Council, the motion passed unanimously, and the adjourned. come before meeting was ATTEST CP ~ i-:r.. ~ - 9 Mayor I / ctl <,~j APPROVE CM-25-32 Regular Meeting of January 17, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 17, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Silva ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * The minutes of the meeting of January 3, 1972, were approved as amended, on motion of Council- man Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, by unanimous vote. MINUTES * * * Charlene Kehret, 1256 Marguarite Street, report- ed that the League of Women Voters' handbook, titled "Know Your Valley" has been published and made a presentation of the first copy to the Council. OPEN FORUM ("Know Your Valley" Handbook) * * * Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, President of SAVE Petition SAVE, Inc. reported that he had submitted to the City Clerk, 306 petitions which had the signatures of 5,691 registered voters in the City of Livermore. He stated that only 1500 signatures are required to qualify the initiative. The signatures represent over one-third of the voters registered in the City and is close to the number of votes cast in the last election, adding that support was received in all segments of the community. He urged the Council to consider the initiative, if it qualifies, and to support it. * * * Masud Mehran reminded the Council that he had (Park Development) spoken to them last week in regard to dedicat- ing the second park in the Sunset East area, stating that if the Council was interested in his proposal that he would like to continue the discussion. Councilman Miller stated that a meeting of the Council members and LARPD is to be held Wednesday evening and invited Mr. Mehran to attend the meeting, to which Mr. Mehran replied that he would like to speak to the Council at this meeting, at the joint meeting on Wednesday and any other meeting that might transpire regarding the matter. Mr. Mehran explained, when asked what his concrete proposal was, that he was waiting to be contacted by LARPD as to what type of assistance is needed for development of the second park. He stated there are various ways this could be done, i.e. 1) the City could develop the park; 2) LARPD could develop it; 3) the City and LARPD could jointly deve lop the park; 4) Sunset Homes, the City and LARPD could; or 5) Sunset Homes could loan money to the City or to LARPD to develop the park. On the other hand, Sunset Homes would be CM-25-33 January 17, 1972 (Park Development) happy to develop the park,as a company, but is not prepared to appear before a board which will de- cide how everything concerning the park is to be done. When asked if, in fact, Sunset does the work, this could be con- sidered a loan to LARPD, Mr. Mehran replied they could not loan trees, grass and sprinklers to LARPD. They would not be using the guidelines of LARPD, but rather the guidelines specified by the City. He stated, further, they have plans for the park which the City can review and they can start development forthwith. Councilman Beebe stated that the Council should accept his offer, but Mayor Taylor stated that the topic should be discussed with LARPD first. Mr. Mehran stated he understands that LARPD is short of funds to develop this particular park, and wants it clearly understood he is in no way criticizing LARPD as he feels they have done a fine job. Mr. Mehran stated that at the last meeting of the Board of Directors of LARPD it was decided that if Sunset Homes would like to develop the park, they would maintain it. Park Sims, 1087 Innsbruck Street, stated that he is acting as a spokesman for the Sunset Homeowners Association, who are very glad that Mr. Mehran has mare an offer to develop the park. He stated that the citizens have derived much pride and pleasure from the first park developed in Sunset East, and the homeowners are eager to have the second one developed. He urged the Council to support Mr. Mehran and his proposal to develop this park. (Trains Blocking Intersections) * * * Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that in re- gard to the matter of trains blocking crossings, it might be wise for the City to contact the rail- roads on the possibility of joint trackage so that trains will not block crossings when switching. The Mayor read a letter received from a representative of Western Pacific Railroad which explained that the blocking of intersections at 5:00 a.m. on December 31, should never have happened and that the obstruction was caused by erroneous information received from Stockton as to the length of the train. He stated that measures were being used to alleviate this situation. Councilman Miller commented that the recommendation for joint track- age had been made some time ago and that it might not be a bad idea to resubmit this possibility. Mr. Parness stated that this proposal has been under study for at least a year; that this procedure had been asked of the railroads fourteen years ago, originally, and they are reminded periodically. The matter is under concentrated study at this time. (Vasco Rd.- East Ave. Intersection) * * * A citizen in the audience stated that, in his opinion, the intersection of Vasco Road and East Avenue could be declared a "disaster area" during the rush hours; a number of accidents have nearly occurred there, and he wondered how many accidents have been re- ported at that intersection. Public Works Director Daniel Lee stated that it is under the juris- diction of the County and that the Council has urged the County to improve this intersection, and if he is not mistaken, it is at the top of the Council's priority in regard to County projects. CM-25-34 January 17, 1972 Mayor Taylor asked what the status of this item was on the County's priority list, to which Mr. Lee stated they have not received a reply, as the matter of the bicycle path along East Avenue had come up at their meeting. Mayor Taylor then asked for an up-to-date report the progress of the requests regarding this intersection. (Vasco Rd.-East Ave. Intersection) as to * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The Title Company has caused an amount to be deposited in an eminent domain action to clear a title problem in a tract map (Tr. 3222) filed by K & B. The action has been settled and dis- missed at no cost to the City, and the City has been asked to endorse a warrant from the court for referral back to the title company. Report re Wagoner Farms Property Disposal * * * Departmental reports were received as follows: Airport - Activity and Financial - Building Department - December Yearly Report - 1956 to 1971 Listing of Residential Permits - January 6-12 Civil Defense - Quarter ending December 1971 Finance Department - Quarter ending December 1971 Golf Course - December Library - Quarter ending December 1971 Municipal Court - November Police Department - December Water Reclamation Plant - December Departmental Reports December Councilman Miller stated that the number of building permits issued up until January 13, was 96, another 53 were issued January 14, and there are III in the mill; totaling 260 building permits this month; it is obvious there is a land rush for build- ing permits. Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to comment briefly on the Police report, which showed there has been an increase in traffic accidents of 28% this year, which he felt was an alarm- ing increase, and thought the City should pay more attention to stop lights. * * * One hundred thirty-six claims, dated January Payroll and Claims 14, in the amount of $238,878.30 and two hun- dred forty-two payroll warrants, dated Decem- ber 30, 1971, in the amount of $59,003.91 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 1531 for his usual reason. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. Approval of Consent Calendar * * * CM-25-35 January 17, 1972 FINAL MAP TRACT 3333 H. C. ELLIOTT Mayor Taylor stated that the issue has been con- tinued with regard to the final map of Tr. 3333, with the permission of Mr. Elliott, from January 10. During this time they have received a letter from California Water Company, but have not heard from Zone 7. Mr. Parness added that they have the policy draft prepared by the School District and which has been discussed, at length, with Mr. Elliott. This policy has been modified by the School Board and is up for possible adoption at their meeting of January 18. Mayor Taylor commented that there has not been a definite agree- ment as to whether the School District and Mr. Elliott agree on a proposal and that it would be more desirable to have the time to do such. If Mr. Elliott is willing to take the risk of drilling a well, California Water Co. will accept a good well to use in their system. He then asked the City Attorney to comment on the position of the City. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Elliott is asking for approval of the map as far as design is concerned and that the only alternative might be to allow for some provision in the subdivision agreement for delay in the installation of public works improvements until such time as things are worked out to mutual satisfaction, adding that it would be desirable to have the map approved when the City has a reasonable understanding as to what everyone agrees to, in- cluding the School District. Mr. Elliott stated that he has been working on a suitable agree- ment for two weeks and that his offer for portable schools still stands. He added that they have been obtaining information from various contractors who supply the proper facilities and will be able to start when the children are out of school in June. He stated that he and Mr. Bernstein met with Mr. Wade of California Water Co., and it was decided where the well will be drilled, etc. and he feels confident that this will be successful. He had also attended several meetings with Mr. D'Ambra of the School District in an effort to work out a solution to the school supplies - it was brought to his attention that the need was not for another high school, but for grade schools. They agreed to allow the use of the Las Positas school site for a location for the portables. Mr. Elliott urged the Council to approve the map, subject to the well being drilled in the area. He stated that all aspects have been reviewed with the City Attorney and the City Manager; the school issue will take a little more time to work out. Councilman Miller commented that the major issue at hand is the fact that if this subdivision becomes final, the lots will not be lots of record as of November 9th; therefore, would not be allowed building permits without some change in the situation for water. California Water Company has stated that the present well is un- satisfactory; drilling of wells is damaging to the underground water basin; drilling of a well for Mr. Elliott is setting a pre- cedent for drilling other wells. He further stated that it is his understanding that none of this can be done without the permission of Zone 7, and they have not, as yet, given their consent. He re- minded the Council that if the well is drilled, even at Mr. Elliott's expense, California Water Company will buy the well and then place it on their water rates which, in turn, will be paid for by the citizens of the community. He stated that it does not seem rea- sonable or businesslike to approve something where the agreements and conditions are not presented to the Council; they do not know what the School District will agree to and whether this well will be sufficient from all aspects. He concluded by stating that, in his opinion, the map should not be approved until the well has been drilled, found to be able to produce enough water to take care of needs during the peak season, and has proved to be satisfactory. Councilman Miller moved to table the approval of the map until such time as all agreements have been submitted. CM-25-36 January 17, 1972 The City Attorney stated that approval of Mr. Elliott's tentative map was given before there was any school policy; the issue is the matter of building permits in respect to the water or- dinance. He explained that approval of tentative or final maps was not to be withheld because of the water problems, but 1500 permits were going to be issued only to lots of record as of November 8, 1971. He felt that Mr. Elliott could insist on final approval of his tentative map; he added that what can be accomplished can best be accomplished by adding in the subdivision agreement that public works improvements will be delayed until the well has proved to be sufficient, clarifying that no permits will be issued until public works improvements are ready to be installed; also a side agreement between the City and Mr. Elliott should be made with regard to the school. He further stated that if design and improvements are found to be proper and in compliance with the tentative map, the Council is obligated to approve the map. He commented that it has been delayed only because there have been other issues to discuss, but they are not at all condi- tions for approval of the map. (Final Map Tract 3333-Elliott) Mayor Taylor stated that it is his understanding that the Council has three alternatives: 1) continue the matter with Mr. Elliott's consent; 2) give the map conditional approval, conditioned on the agreements being worked out, to which the City Attorney advised that this could not be done unless Mr. Elliott approved of such action; 3) the Council could be ordered to file the map. In any case, no building permits can be issued until the water supply situation has been solved, according to the ordinance, and until the school problem is solved. He then asked Mr. Elliott if he would allow the Council to delay the matter another week to work on solutions to these problems. Mr. Elliott stated that he must have the approval of the map be- fore advising California Water Company to go ahead with the drill- ing of the well. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Elliott if he would consent to approval of the map conditioned on working out the agreements, as to the well and school, satisfactorily. Mr. Elliott stated that he would except he would like the school issue to be left open - he wants to be sure that when the School District can take over the management of the school, that he will be relieved of his obligations, or when funds are available to build new schools, the portables can be returned. The City Attorney stated that when a map is filed, it indicates to the public that parcels of lots have been laid out in a certain way, but the City is concerned with the part that states the type of improvements to be made and the important thing is getting the streets in and the conditions. Mayor Taylor stated that the matter cannot be continued without the consent of Mr. Elliott, which he has not given, and that the best assurance for the City would be to approve the map conditioned on working out a satisfactory solution with California Water Co., Zone 7 and the School District. The City Attorney advised that the conditions are unilateral and that Mr. Elliott cannot be bound by them as a condition of the map, but he would be bound by the agreement to the extent that a contract is valid. Councilman Miller stated that it seemed to be the general consensus that the conditions of the schools cannot be made a part of the final map, but felt that the water condition would be made a part of the final. However the City Attorney stated that conditions cannot be added now - it has to be approved in accordance with the tentative requirements. CM-25-37 January l7, 1972 (Final Map Tract 3333) The City Manager stated that, in his opinion, the Mayor's concern for the methods to be selected by the Council are not too appropriate - the City Attorney has pointed out that there are two safe- guards awaiting and that even after final approval of the map, permits cannot be issued until: 1) the water issue is solved; 2) the school problems are satisfied, under the conditions of the ordinance, and Council's approval. Mayor Taylor commented that the ordinance regarding schools refers only to tentative maps, and not to building permits, so the safe- guard as far as the school problem is concerned would be to receive an offer to make a voluntary contract. Councilman Miller stated that although legal grounds are shaky, as pointed out by the City Attorney, he cannot vote for subdivisions when the public facilities are not available - in short, this poses a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. He feels that the public health, welfare and safety and the require- ment for public facilities override subdivision maps. He wanted it to be made clear that he believes Mr. Elliott will uphold his offer, but that this is not the issue. He does not want to vote fo~ any more subdivision.maps until public facilities are available. ,I The Mayor stated that he also feels Mr. Elliott has made his offer in good faith and that there will be no problems in this respect, but there should be as many guarantees written into the agreement as may be necessary. UJ. +' s::: <1> El <1> ~ o ?-l Q, El .r-! The Mayor asked for a motion to approve the final map, conditioned to agreements being worked out with California Water Company, Zone 7, and the School District, to implement Mr. Elliott's offer to provide classrooms as was stated in his offer. He added that it would not be in the City's interest to insist that public works improvements be put in~ there is no intention to issue a building permit. UJ. ~ ?-l o ;3: The City Attorney stated that the last point is very advisable and that the bonds are not as important as the improvements but that the improvements should be delayed to the extent that he is held up; his 18 months, the usual time, should be extended by whatever period he is held up. You definitely must have the bonds, but he did not feel that would be a problem. () .r-! (j) r1 r-l ~~ Councilman Beebe questioned if it was the Mayor's intent to have g~ included in the motion that the improvements should not be put in ~.~ until the conditions have been made clear, and Mayor Taylor stated <1> ~ that no one requested that condition, and no one has ever been ~ m .forced to put in improvements the City did not want, but he felt &'~lbondS should be posted as long as the Council agrees to extend the <1> date. ?-lH ~~. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Elliott if there would be any problem as far +';3:, as the bonds are concerned as they should be filed immediately. S:::(j)~ .r-! 8 Councilman Miller stated our records should show this comment has ~ ct-J been raised, because subsequently, if any devel opers who wish to g,~-"u.!lke UD'~i~lll.. ..f 'll..i.:oo lli!i1.l'L.l~.:> and later find they have no well, ~'they may argue they have made a big investment and have a vested interest in obtaining building permits, there should be this under- standing. Mayor Taylor offered the motion as above stated, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, asked if Mr. Elliott would be required to pay the $500 fee for each building permit, and Mayor Taylor stated he has agreed to the payment of the fee for this CM-25-38 amount until the Zone 7 fee is formalized. Mr. Phillips questioned the number of houses in the tract, stating he did not understand how the owners would be subsidizing the home buyers. January l7, 1972 (Final Map - Tract 3333) Mayor Taylor explained that the fee that Zone 7 has calculated is for permanent treatment plants along the aqueduct, and that is the actual cost to these people to provide a treatment facility for their water. Councilman Miller also explained why it was considered to be a subsidy since it is only a temporary supply, and ultimately may not be used. A vote was taken on the motion which passed 3-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting. (Refer to later resolution). * * * The subdivision agreement for Parcel Map No. 816 ~as not ready at this time, and Mr. Parness asked that this item be continued. PARCEL MAP NO. 816 (Thos. Green) f:JfI1:U___ A mot ion was made by Mayor Taylor, seconded by Counc ilman Ell" t', and passed unanimously, to continue the matter. * * * The Planning Director explained that the tenta- tive map for Tract 3376 is essentially a sub- division of 49 acres into approximately 147 single family residential lots. The property is located northwest of First Street, northeast of Portola Avenue, roughly across from Trevarno Road. The subdi- visio~as submitted, conforms to the zoning districts and regulations as far as lot size. This had been reviewed previously as a part of a Planned Unit Development permit after annexation. The map is now recommended for denial based on the following findings: the subdivision design is not proper based on the recommendation of LARPD that the park is not located in an area satisfactory to them; the redesign of the subdivision and possible relocation of the park was not pursued because the applicant would not give consent for a continuance to allow the map to be revised; matters of school location and location of bicycle paths were not able to be resolved to assure acceptable street alignments and widths; the School District did not provide a school site location. The major opposition to approval of the subdivision was that it was felt to be a leapfrog development, especially since the developer owns other property which could be contiguous to an existing development where a park location has already been established to serve the area, as has the location of two schools. The Commission was also concerned about the grading and did not have sufficient informa- tion to judge the design based on grading. Also of concern to the Commission was a letter from the School District advising that there was no available classroom space to serve the areanor do they anticipate available classroom space in the future. TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 3376 (Wells Fargo Bank) Mr. Musso stated that in discussing this matter with the City Attorney, Mr. Lewis recommended that the map approval be condi- tioned rather than denied, based on the letter from the School District. If the condition is changed in the future, there would be a valid tentative map, and he felt this was reasonable. Mayor Taylor commented that whether intervening land is in the same ownership or not, the problems caused by leapfr~gmg are the same. Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the recomnlendation of the Planning Commission for denial of the tentative map based on the reasons 1,2,3,5,6 and after some discussion with regard to the CM-25-39 January 17, 1972 (Tentative Map Tract 3376) 4th finding, it was included to read as shown in the following listing; seconded by Councilman Pritchard: 1. That the design of the subdivision as defined in State Code Section 11510-a is not proper inasmuch as a park site is located in an area not satisfactory to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. 2. Relocation of the park to a site acceptable to the Park Dis- trict would require revision in the design of the map including pedestrian pathways which was not possible at the time of hearing with the applicant not giving consent for a continuation of time to consider the matter. 3. The matters of school location and the location of any bicycle paths, were not able to be resolved in a manner that would assure acceptable street alignments and widths. 4. That the proposed subdivision constitutes a leapfrog development. 5. The subject subdivision is in an area isolated from any residen- tial development having no parks or schools in close proximity and having no sidewalks connecting the area to other residential por- tions of the City. 6. The subdivider has not furnished sufficient information to assure the City that design of the subdivision will not create a need for excessive grading. David Madis, appearing for the applicant, Wells Fargo Bank, asked the Planning Director on what date the map was filed in the City of Livermore, and was advised December 3, 1971. He then asked how many days had elapsed since December 3, and Mr. Musso replied that the Planning Commission was required to act by January 12, but acted on the 4th of January and the Council by January 17. Mr. Madis asked if that was not more than the allowable time under the statutes, but was advised that the Planning Commission has 40 days in which to act. Mr. Madis continued that he could not understand how the City could annex large parcels of property, as obviously the land will be used for residential purposes, and then shortly thereafter indicate that the parcel cannot be developed at this time because it would be a leapfrog development. He reminded the Council of the develop- ments in Springtown and Greenville North, which are definitely leap- frog, but could not see that this parcel could be considered as such, other than an argument by some people who want to stop all growth in this Valley. With reference to the park location, the developer has indicated to the Planning Commission they would accede to the request that the park be relocated where they wished. With regard to bicycle paths he questioned that the City had a policy or ordinance in this regard; he felt the map met all the legal re- quirements. He could not see how the Council could object to the location of a school site since the School District has the power of eminent domain to take such land as is necessary for the District. For some reason the School District, with their staff, seem unable to select a school site; he felt time and again they have fallen short of their duties and requirements in this regard. There is speculation that the grading may be excessive, however this has not been a requirement of a tentative map; all the legal require- ments in this regard will be met. It had been suggested that the parcel adjacent to Los Altos Heights area be considered for sub- division, however, this property has higher hills and there would be more grading than under the tentative map under consideration. Mr. Madis indicated that Mr. Mason was present to answer any ques- tions with regard to the engineering requirements, and respectfully requested that the Council approve the map. CM-25-40 January 17, 1972 Mayor Taylor advised Mr. Madis that annexation fees are not paid at the time of annexation but only at the time of development. With re- spect to grading, the point is not that the Council does not wish hillside development but because of excessive grading. He felt the City made a mistake in allowing the Los Altos Heights subdivision to develop as far as grading is concerned, and have learned by that. As far as leapfrog developments, the City has also learned by their mistakes in that regard. With reference to schools, it was inconceivable to him the developer would want the children to walk along a busy state highway, with no improve- ments, on the way to school, and since this would create a bad condition, he felt it was indeed a leapfrog development. Tracts are not being allowed to develop north of the highway which are not contiguous to present development. With reference to bicycle paths, the Council has adopted, as an amendment to the General Plan, a bicycle trail system of the City, and it is proper to require a tentative map to be in conformance with the General Plan. As far as school sites, in a leapfrog development it is very diffi- cult to locate a school as it is not known how the street pattern will fit in with existing street patterns. (Tentative Map Tract 3376) Councilman Beebe stated that the developer had agreed to relocate the park site or pay a fee in lieu, and asked if the other findings were flexible. He did not feel that the magnitude was as great with regard to leapfr~ing as other developments which had been allowed. Mr. Beebe asked Mr. Lee if there would be excessive grading necessary, however Mr. Lee stated he did not know at this time, and Mayor Taylor stated that the grading is an integral part of the design to assure that the street pattern is compatible with the contour of the land, and it may not be possible to have a uniform lot layout. Mr. Madis stated they had offered all of this information to the Planning Commission. Councilman Pritchard stated that with the information before them, he would have no choice but to vote against the tentative map. If Mr. Madis would agree to the time extension, he would be happy to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission so that differ- ences can be resolved. Even if it were referred back, he would still be concerned about the leapfroging. Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission would have continued the matter to resolve the differences, however the applicant in- sisted on action being taken that night, and it could not be con- tinued without permission of the applicant. Earl Mason, civil engineer representing the client, stated that the grading would be done in accordance with the ordinance; if it could not be done, they would have to come back to the staff for redesign, however, he felt there was no reason that the property could not be graded to meet the requirements of the ordinance; detailed grading is not done until the final engineering stage. With reference to leapfr~ing, he stated the City could not expect that each parcel would develop continguous to an existing subdi- vision for many reasons. Even it if were continguous, this would not guarantee parks and schools. The schools do have a problem but there must be a certain number of houses before they have a need for the schools. The School District should have done pre- liminary planning for the whole city as far as school sites; you cannot have schools before houses are built. Since the land has been annexed and zoned for residential the owner must pay higher taxes; he should be allowed to develop the land, otherwise it should not have been annexed. Mayor Taylor stated he could not understand why the applicant was not willing to continue the matter to allow time to work out the various differences. CM-25-41 January 17, 1972 (Tentative Map Tract 3367) Mr. Madis replied that they had met all the City ordinances and were willing to immediately change the location of the park, designate the bicycle trails, or whatever else needs to be resolved. When asked why he was not agreeable to make the changes at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Madis replied that the Planning Commission was not interested in approving the map under any cir- cumstances. Councilman Miller commented that subdivisions are permanent and the Council is responsible for their design and improvement, and if they wanted to avoid hill leveling and deep cuts, even though they satisfied the ordinance, the Council had the right to deny and approve as stated by the Subdivision M9.p Act to control these requirements. The actions with regard to leapfrog developments are the Council's responsibility to protect the public health, welfare and safety, and they have that power. Nothing can be done after the approval of a tentative map; therefore if it is not settled on paper at the Council level, there should be no approval and if there are changes made, it should be sent back to the Planning Com- mission for review. Mayor Taylor stated that at the very least there would have to be considerable offsite improvements such as the sidewalk along the north side of the highway to connect with the existing one. The Council can approve, deny or send the item back to the Planning Commission. A vote was taken on the motion for denial and passed unanimously (Councilman Silva absent). * * * CUP APPLICATION 1576 Second St (Harold B.Murphy) An application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted by Harold B. Murphy to permit construc- tion and use of a delicatessen and off-sale liquor store at 1576 Second Street. The Planning Director explained that the map before the Council for consideration was primarily because it involves a use that is not permitted in the zone; it is a CO zone, and retail use is not per- mitted. The Planning Commission concurred that retail use be allowed on the property which has buildings fronting on P Street; however that the buildings fronting on Second Street be limited to the CO Zone. The most important issue was a landscaped strip of 15 ft. along Second Street because of the residences across the street. The developer asked for and received variance to allow the strip to be reduced to 3 ft. to 7 ft. on condition that a masonry wall be installed with a landscaped screen which was part of the application, but not now before the Council. The Planning Commis- sion recommends approval of the CUP to allow retail uses in the stores fronting along P Street. Councilman Pritchard questioned if this was a proper use in a CO zone and felt if it is to be allowed, it should be rezoned. Mr. Musso stated that P Street is now retail and he felt this was a good transition under a CUP rather than rezoning as it would give more control between the CB and CO zones since it could be limited to retail; there is no strong reason to deny the use based on the City's planning. Councilman Miller felt the landscaped strip should be sufficient to enable plants of good size to be placed in the beginning as landscaping, and even though there is a wall, the plants should be large enough to soften the effect. Mayor Taylor suggested that the conditions for landscaping be re- viewed, as he did not feel it proper to specify plant size in a particular application. CM-25-42 January 17, 1972 Councilman Miller thought the plans might be subject to design review, and perhaps they could direct the staff to insure that the landscaping portion provides for adequate screening. that they ask the staff to give consideration to the planting in landscaped strips in commercial areas. (CUP-Harold Murphy) He suggested standards for A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, to approve the Planning Commission1s recommendation sub- ject to review by the Design Review Committee, and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Taylor NOES: Councilman Pritchard ABSENT: Councilman Silva. * * * The Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of January 4 were noted and filed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * * * The City Manager reported that an annexation inquiry has been received from the Transamer- ica Development Company for approximately 117 acres of property north of East Avenue, south of the Western Pacific railroad tracks, west of the Wagoner Farms area. The firm is com- pletely familiar with the City Council's residential building limitation, but wishes to satisfy the annexation procedure and begin with preliminary planning for development of the property so that such plans can be implemented whenever the level of building activity is eased. It is recommended that the matter be referred to the Local Agency Formation Commission and the City's Planning Commission. REPO RT RE TRANS- AMERICA DEVELOPMENT CO. ANNEXATION REQUEST Mayor Taylor commented on the letter received from the firm which, in part, states they are aware they will not be granted building permits and it is their understanding that should the property be annexed, they will be able further to process the zoning and sub- division maps even though building permits will likely be withheld for an unknown period of time. Mayor Taylor asked if the applicant was aware of the City Ordinance regarding schools and was advised they were. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to refer the annexation request to LAFCO and the City Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor commented that this property was between Valley East and the present city and borders major park facilities and by annexing it, they are not implying they will increase the growth rate of the City in any way. It has always been considered that this would be part of the City and he hoped in due course, under proper controls, this will eventually relieve a serious problem that Valley East has, namely access to the rest of the City, to the park and to schools. A vote was then taken on the motion and passed unanimously. Councilman Miller commented that the Council had previously de- cided that density in the future for the City would be 3 d.u./acre or lower and that the General Plan for this property is 4 d.u.; he added that it might be worth considering amending the General Plan for this property to 3 d.u./acre and suggested the Planning Commission might be asked to consider this possibility. He also thought it might be a good idea to notify the property owners in advance of a possible change in density. CM-25-43 January 17, 1972 (Annexation Request) The Mayor stated that the General Plan is usually examined for a larger area and not a specific piece of property, adding that it could possibly be zoned RS-3 rather than Rs-4 and that it probably would not make much difference to the applicant. Ted Fairfield, representing Transamerica Development, stated that they are not prepared to discuss density and asked that the Council reserve their judgment of density until his plan is reviewed. * * * The City Manager commented that the last action to have taken place on this subject was to refer the matter to him following its receipt from the Beautification Committee. The Chamber of Com- merce has agreed to the idea and has recommended the acceptance of Layout No.1. The City Manager requested that he be allowed another week or two in order to present to the Council a more detailed plan of the layout. He stated that all owners are in agreement with the plan. REPORT RE SO. J STREET PARKING Gary Drummond, Beautification Committee, stated that Foresters object and that they have not been swayed in their opinion; they are the only ones objecting to the plan. Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to continue the matter for two weeks to give the staff time to compile information, and passed unanimously. * * * REPORT RE IAN CONSTR. CO. APPEAL The Planning Director explained that it had been requested by Sacramento Savings & Loan, that they be allowed to develop and dedicate the land (area west of Murrieta Blvd., north of railroad tracks) in lieu of fees, for a park site. Mayor Taylor commented that it is his understanding that the question is whether or not a land transfer can be made on an unspecified amount in lieu of fees, and assumes that the amount of in lieu fees would be equal or approximately the same as the value of the land. He stated that this may not be what they are suggesting, but there should be some equity in an arrangement of this type. Some discussion followed regarding the land involved and the channel. Mr. Lee stated that the City could require the minimum section of channel and that any additional widening would re obtained by their dedication of park lands - the minimum section they would be obligat- ed to give is a minimum trapazoidal section with a 2-1 slope on each side with 15 feet of access road on each side. The Mayor suggested that the owner be contacted and made aware of what the City requires, advising him they would like to start im- plementing the new channel policy - avoid the dirt lined channel and make a wider channel and possibly accept, in part, some of the land in lieu of fees. Mr. Musso expressed his concern for possibly getting into something that may require the City to acquire additional residential land to provide park facilities. He mentioned the Hagemann property, which may have to be purchased to round out the area. Councilman Miller remarked that the $38,000 needed to provide park land could perhaps be used for expanding the Arroyo area, but it is his guess that the extra needed beyond the channel could be con- demned for much less than that amount, and the remainder would have to be used for purchasing the Hagemann property or rounding out other things and a rough appraisal should be made for evaluation. CM-25-44 January 17, 1972 Councilman Beebe mentioned that when negotia- tions are made they could state that a land transfer could be made providing it meets some of the Council's specific requirements. (Report From Ian Constr. Co.) Mayor Taylor stated that the staff should be instructed to dis- cuss the possibilities and that the Council is open for receiving dedicated land to allow them to implement the channel policy in that area. The City Attorney stated that the Council tion regarding park dedication or in lieu existing statutes for this kind of thing. way through negotiation, but it cannot be could not make any assump- fees thereof, under the It may work out that required. Mr. Musso stated that with regard to utilizing these funds for parkways, it was decided by the Planning Commission that if it is a natural extension of neighborhood parks it can be used, but not if it is only for the acquisition of a channel. Councilman Miller reminded the Council that there had been some discussion as to the possibility of storm drain fees being used for channel land acquisition. He suggested that a staff report be submitted on the subject, and Mr. Lee stated that they are in the midst of a study regarding storm drain fee policy with regard to channel construction. * * * Mayor Taylor stated that a letter had been REPORT RE PATTERSON received from Zone 7, relative to possible PASS TREATMENT PLANT modifications to their Water Treatment Plant in order to increase its capacity so that projected water treatment and delivery deficiencies for the summers of 1972 and 1973 can be minimized. It is his understanding there are some very minor things that can be done to help water condi- tions during peak periods, but cannot take care of the peak de- mand by modifying the plant. The Council had asked Zone 7 to con- sider modification to the plant, and in essence, the letter is in reply to their request. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 771 ORDINANCE RE AMENDMENT OF CUP FEES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, RELATING TO ZONING, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTIONS 22.70 THROUGH 22.77 AND THE REPEAL OF SUBSECTION 22.78, ALL RELATING TO FEES, OF SECTION 22.00, RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCEDURES. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, the second reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and by the following vote, the above ordinance was adopted: AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Silva * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following vote the ordinance was adopted: AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Silva ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC. 8.00 - LOT DEVELOPMENT Mayor Taylor CM-25-45 January 17, 1972 (Ordinance re ORDINANCE NO. 772 Lot Requirements) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.00, RELATING TO RG ZONING DISTRICT, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMEND- ING SUBSECTIONS 8.80 THROUGH 8.86 AND REPEALING SUBSECTION 8.88, RELATING TO LOT AND LOT DEVELOP- MENT REQUIREMENTS. ORDINANCE RE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION * * * ORDINANCE NO. 773 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7, RELATING TO CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, the second reading of the ordin~e was waived, and by the follow- ing vote the above ordinance was adopted: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor None Councilman Silva PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE FREEWAY SIGNS * * * The Mayor stated that he would prefer to table the proposed ordinance relating to freeway oriented signs until there is a full Council, and to delay the first reading, and placed this suggestion in the form of a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, which received a 3-1 vote with Councilman Pritchard dissenting. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE DESIGN REVIEW PROVISIONS AYES: NOES: ABSENT: * * * A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to introduce the Design Review ordinance, however the motion failed by the following vote: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard Councilman Silva Councilman Beebe stated his reason for voting "no" on the amendment is because he feels apartments should not be included in design review. A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to continue the matter until the next week, however the motion failed by a 2-2 vote. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE ANCESTRAL TREES * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the first reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the ordinance amending Ch. 23B, relating to trees, shrubs and plants of the Livermore City Code, 1959, to provide regulations for the protec- tion of trees was introduced. CM-25-46 * * * The City Attorney stated with regard to the Elliott Subdivision it was assumed, but he wants to make it clear, that the motion in- cluded the usual authorization to execute agreements that go along with it. Also, it is his understanding that further discussion is not required the Wells Fargo Bank application re Tentative Map 3376. RESOLUTION NO. 8-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3333 * * * The City Manager asked that the Council keep in mind the meeting with LARPD on Wednesday, January 19, 1972, at 7:30 at the Recreation Center. January 17, 1972 MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (H.C. Elliott Agreement) on (Joint Meeting- LARPD & Ci t.Y) Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to go over the agenda for that meeting before its commencement, and make sure that it in- cludes items that are reasonable for the allotted time. * * * Councilman Beebe mentioned that the Public Works Department has worked out solutions to problems for a number of citizens who had pro- blems of entry to their property due to state highway alignment, etc., already done on Holmes Street, and added that the four-way stop at Fourth been a very big improvement for that intersection. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Public Works Improvements) Street has (Resignation From SACEOA Board) Councilman Pritchard stated that he is announc- ing his resignation to SACEOA Board, formally, and suggested that a public member from the citizenry should be chosen to fill the position. He stated that the position deserves a lot more time than he is able to give, and a member of the public could best fill the position. Mayor Taylor stated that he felt it was a matter to be decided in an executive session and asked that the Council stay for an exe- cutive meeting to discuss a possible appointment to SACEOA, and an appointment to the Beautification Committee. * * * (Overpass at Portola Ave.) Councilman Miller stated that he had received a number of complaints regarding the slow pace at which the overpass at Portola Avenue is being completed. He used El Charro overpass as an example of one of the overpasses that is being constructed and which is taking time that could be spent on the Portola overpass. Mr. Lee stated that they have a problem with the Portola overpass in that is is on skew and has a central pier, which is located in the middle of the old east-bound lanes. To move the lanes over they had to extend the bridge over the Arroyo Las Positas before the traffic could be moved over. He commented that a very serious effort has been made to complete the North Livermore Avenue inter- change, which will be more beneficial to Livermore than the Portola overpass. * * * Councilman Miller mentioned that it is nearing election time and he hopes the newspapers will make a notification to inform all possible can- didates that they must reveal all their real property holdings in Murray Township in order (Re Electoral Candidates) CM-25-47 January 17, 1972 (Electoral Candidates) to be a candidate for election; and secondly, they must declare everyone who contributes more than $5 towards their campaign and how much (including all committees organized independently or depen- dently) . * * * (Grates vs. Mayor Taylor commented that there are storm drain Bicycle Wheels) grates on East Avenue that allow bicycle wheels to fall through, in the vicinity of Louis stores. He reported that there has been one accident re- ported as a result of this problem and the grate design should be changed to eliminate this problem. Mr. Lee advised that the design has been changed, but some of the old grates still remain in different areas and are to be replaced. (Benches in Shopping Centers) * * * Mayor Taylor stated that he has had a number of comments from older citizens who complain that when they walk around town there is no place for them to sit. He asked if there is any way benches could be installed in a few of the shopping centers in town for the convenience of the public. He mentioned that the matter came up about three years ago, and that the possibility should be discussed. (Quezaltenango Communica t ion) the Council as ADJOURNMENT CM-25-48 * * * Mayor Taylor stated that the Council has received a letter from Quezaltenango stating that they are sending a delegation to participate in our dedica- tion of the parkway and would like to hear from to when they should plan to come to Livermore. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at ll:OO p.m. to an executive session. * * * APPROVE eye ~~~ . Mayor n , 'I . / ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of January 24, 1972 A regular meeting January 24, 1972, Livermore Avenue. with Mayor Taylor of the Livermore in the Municipal The meeting was presiding. City Council was held on Court Chambers, 39 South called to order at 8:15 p.m. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ROLL CALL ABSENT: None * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- MINUTES cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of the meeting of January 10, 1972 were approved as submitted. * * * Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated he was OPEN FORUM disturbed by the announcement there were study sessions regularly, as he did not think these (Study Sessions) were publicized, however it was pointed out to Mr. Allen that he had attended the first one and all were announced at the end of each prior City Council meeting. * * * Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, asked what had (Elected Mayor) been done with regard to having an elected mayor and if this would be placed on the ballot. Mayor Taylor advised him that this matter had been discussed and tabled. Mr. Phillips continued that he had heard that in one state the State Supreme Court had declared it unconstitutional to have the "incumbent's" name appear first on the ballot and from now on they would be listed in the order they filed for office. He asked if it would be possible in the local election to be placed in the order of filing. Mayor Taylor stated that the City is presently bound by the State Elections Code. * * * Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated he attend- (Final Map Approval) ed the meeting at which time the Council passed on the final tract approval of Mr. Elliott with certain stipulations. He questioned how long an area can have a tentative tract approval before final approval must be obtained, and was advised one and one-half years with provisions for a one year extension. He asked if there were additional approved ten- tative maps other than that approved for Mr. Elliott last week that still exist. He felt that Ordinance No. 762, dealing with school requirements is not binding for a period of one and one- half years on the approved tentative maps that are already in effect, and was advised this was correct. Mr. Faltings questioned if the ordinance could be changed to read "all approvals from this date forward" would be subject to Ordinance No. 762. Mayor Taylor stated that the State Subdivision Map Act has very specific language as it regards schools; the Council chose to construe the argument in the Subdivision Map Act which provides CM-25-49 January 24, 1972 (Final Map Approvals) for referral of the map to the School District to mean that if the School District says they cannot service the area, then the Council has grrunds for refusing the tentative tract map. Mayor Taylor stated there are other methods by which the Council could attempt to act to limit building because of schools, and one is under police powers granted to cities; they would exercise that power in the approval of building permits, but it has nothing to do with the ordinance. Mr. Faltings was concerned regarding two other outstanding tentative maps as he felt the community could be faced with a situation of schools not being able to handle programmed growth. Mayor Taylor stated that there is a committee of the School District and City Council that lliet with the builders, and is to meet again, and the builders are due to make their proposal as to what they will do as regards voluntarily building schools. Councilman Miller commented that the Zone 7 water connection fee has been deemed legal and as of last Tuesday is being collected by the City on every residential building permit; however during the interim period when there was no legal water connection fee, the City lost $24,000 as there were 48 building permits issued without fees. Councilman Beebe stated, on the other hand, they gained over $100,000 they would not have had if they had not brought the issue to a conclusion. * * * Masud Mehran reported with regard to the progress made in the development of the second park site in Sunset East, stating that after attending the joint meeting of the City Council and LARPD and various other individuals, he has arrived at the conclusion that the best and most practical way that they could be of assistance to the Park District is for their company to again loan to the District interest free money for the develop- ment of the second park. That way the design and development of the park would be in the hands of the agency responsible for the park. This second park is about half the size of the first one, and they felt a loan of $15,000 would be sufficient for the District to develop it with minimum improvements and primary developments so that it would be usable. Mr. Mehran added that the developers always borrow money on which they pay interest, so what they are doing is borrowing money, paying interest on it, and then loaning it to LARPD without interest for five years. They are glad to do this in order to help the area to develop better, to indicate their interest in public affairs and also indicate they wish to have the parks developing at the earliest date. Mr. Mehran stated there is another park site of 2t acres and should it be necessary to do the same thing, and if their company, at that time is in the position of doing the same thing, will be happy to do so. (Park Site Development- Sunset East) Mayor Taylor felt no comment was necessary but stated that he felt it was a very generous offer and people in the area will certainly appreciate it. * * * SPECIAL ITEM Shirley Ray, Noble Grand of Livermore Rebekah (Flag Presentation)Lodge No. 154, on behalf of the lodge and the Livermore Odd Fellows Lodge 219, presented to the City the new American flag to replace the one presented last year which has become unusable. Mrs. Ray in- troduced the other members of the Lodge and the Odd Fellows Lodge. CM-25-50 Mayor Taylor accepted the flag on behalf of the City, and asked for a motion commending the lodges. January 24, 1972 (Flag Presentation) Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously, that thanks be extended to the two lodges for their efforts in keeping the City's flagpole with a beautiful flag flying the year around. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR A communication was received from Charles A. Prudhon, President of American Tax Payers' Union re BART. Councilman Silva requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * A report was submitted by the Public Works Director re Hillcrest Avenue sidewalk defi- ciency. The missing sidewalk requires pedes- trians to walk in the street and are considered to be a hazard by some of the retired persons now living in the Interfaith Housing area. It that the Council authorize the commencement of acquire the right-of-way. * * * A communication was received from Abe Kofman, Publisher of the San Leandro Morning News, ad- vising that San Leandro would be celebrating their Centennial-Bicentennial this year. All Bay Area cities have been invited to add their well wishes to San Leandro and endorsement of this event with an advertisement in the special issue of the Morning News. * * * Communication re BART Report re Sidewalk Deficiency- (Hillcrest Ave.) is recommended procedures to Communication re San Leandro's Centennial - Bicentennial The City Manager reported that an application has been made by our staff to Lawrence Liver- more Laboratory to afford the services of some of the scientific and technical personnel and facilities to assist our Police Department in the testing of drug materials, their contain- ers and various foreign binder ingredients con- fiscated through enforcement efforts. The Laboratory has agreed to participate in this cooperative effort. It is recommended that a motion authorizing execution of the letter agreement by the City Manager be adopted. Report re Inter- governmental Cooperation Agreement - Drug Testing Mr. Parness indicated to the press that LLL is entitled to some type of news item on this as it is a worthy civic contribution. * * * The City Clerk reported to the Council that the initiative petition recently submitted does qualify and has been certified as con- taining the requisi te signatures. REPORT RE INITIATIVE PETITION (SAVE) Mike Uthe, 1376 Anza Way, stated he would like to make some com- ments with respect to the SAVE petition. He is a registered voter of the City of Livermore, and a member of the Board of CM-25-51 January 24, 1972 Directors of SAVE, Inc., which organized the petition movement. Mr. Uthe spoke briefly to the petition itself in the hope that what he had to say may clarify some comments and ques- tions they have received. He was speaking this evening as an official representative of SAVE, Inc. First, as regard to the language of the petition itself, the petition and the wording was purposely selected so as to accomplish just two things: 1) the declaration of standards which SAVE believes every growing community in California should meet at all times, and 2) the use of such language so as to permit the governments involved maximum flexibility in judgment as regards making nec- essary decisions to meet the standards specified, and that is why the petition does not run on for pages; does not specify in detail the possible solutions or solutions recommended. It merely establishes a set of three standards with respect to schools, or school housing, sewage facilities and water supplies. Now, as a measure and the means of clarification with respect to these three statements of SAVE with regard to housing facilities for school students, sewage facilities and water supply plants, he asked to speak to them briefly, but officially, on behalf of SAVE. (Initiative Petition- SAVE) Mr. Uthe continued that first, Section B-1 as regards educational facilities - the standards there are intended officially by SAVE to be established by the Livermore Unified School District, its Board of Trustees, operating under the California Education Code. That would mean, in their opinion, that the Council would have no judgment to make with respect to whether or not adequate educational facilities exist or not. This should be determined by the legally authorized local School Board. Second, with respect to sewage, the problem there has to do with the word, "standard". It is their present understanding that the Regional Water Quality Control Board speaks of several levels of standards. They talk of standards with respect to the presently operating plant; standards with respect to plants that may be con- structed within five years; plants that may be constructed in terms at later times following that. It is SAVE's intention here that this Council, and that of Pleasanton, may wish to use the words, "requirements" or "operating specifications" rather than "standards", if this happens to be a hang-up in terms of the communication pat- tern that is presently being established between this body and the Regional Water Quality Control District. And what it means, in effect, is that so long as the present plant is meeting the specifications as assigned to it by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the language of SAVE does not apply, and there is no halt to building permits called for. Now, this is irrespective of what the new standards may be for the new plant which we re- cognize as being different. Third, with regard to water supply, where the petition speaks of no rationing of water with respect to human consumption, irriga- tion, etc., it is the opinion of SAVE, it's official opinion, that Phase I rationing, as defined by the Council, is not really ra- tioning. They endorse, at all times, an admonition to the people of this City to conserve their natural resources, whether sewer treatment facilities, water facilities, or whatever it may be, or even schools. Therefore, the word "rationing" in the petition does not apply to Phase I, which of course, we will soon be in, but it does apply in the instance that you should decide to pass an ordinance which limits the use of water officially and is, let us say, guaranteed to be effective by use of the Council's police power upon the people of this City. They are talking here about an official action of the City which curtails the possible use of water in an official manner. They are not talking about a public relations effort attempting to convince people to use less of the water supply; that is not rationing. CM-25-52 January 24, 1972 Councilman Beebe stated he had one question re- garding schools. This summer the schools will be off double session, apparently when the pre- sent plans for construction are completed; therefore, they would be up to normal and will not be able to take care of any more children. If they make an agreement that someone will provide schools, would this, in his opinion, exclude them from SAVE. (Initiative Petition-SAVE) Mr. Uthe replied absolutely, that is why they say they did not want to limit the operating flexibility of the Council by speci- fying in this initiative petition what solutions were approved or approvable by SAVE or which were not. They do not want to tie the Council's hands in any way, but they do believe that the Council has the authority, the power to bring about solutions to problems we are now faced with. All SAVE is trying to do is say, and hopefully the election will prove this out, that people in this City are very concerned about these three major service areas and would like to have them attacked at the highest priority level. Councilman Beebe stated that what SAVE is saying is that they want to see the Council completely enforce the regulations and standards they have already passed, and asked if this was correct. Mr. Uthe replied that it was; in fact, the Council action with regard to new tentative maps was perfectly proper and is fully endorsed by SAVE. Their major concern at the moment is the possible 3300 building permits outstanding - lots of record. Mayor Taylor stated that what has been presented is a statement of what the Directors of SAVE had in mind - what they intended when they wrote the petition. It also has to be clear that the wording, if it is an ordinance, stands by itself. He did not know whether the intent of the circulators had any legal bearing on how the courts would interpret the ordinance. The City Attorney stated it was fairly clear that the court, if it is called upon to interpret the language of the ordinance, will take it word by word and try to obtain meaning from th0se words that were circulated to the voters, and he did not think, in spite of SAVE's intentions, or Mr. Uthe's comments with regard to them, that they can change or modify what the language itself says. Mayor Taylor questioned the City Attorney as to what the Council's action should be now, and Mr. Lewis explained they have two choices: 1) to take the ordinance, without amendment or change, and adopt if; 2) as an alternativ~ place it on the next forthcom- ing City General Election ballot which will occur April lIth. Mr. Lewis stated that in his memorandum he indicated that if the Council wishes to adopt the ordinance, they should take measures to do so not later than February 21. February 21st to some ex- tent is arbitrary, but it is the last date by which the clerk can start preparing the necessary documents - sample ballots, etc., for printing for the forthcoming election. Councilman Beebe asked if they should aEk the City Attorney to delve into the wording of the petition to see if he concurs with what Mr. Uthe is saying - that it is meant to be flexible and can legally be interpreted to be flexible. Mayor Taylor stated that if adopting the ordinance, or placing it on the ballot would be affected by that opinion, perhaps they should, but questioned if that opinion would have any relevance to what actions they could legally take now. Mr. Lewis replied that he supposed a scope for legal examination is whether it is a proper initiative to put on the ballot. His CM-25-53 - ,.._-~.._----------'~"._._..,_.--~-_._-"_._.~--_."._~-->"-"--.------.__,..,.,...__...,._~...,~.,.,.~ '"_'_m."... _.._._.......___...____.____._________._._.._._._._..,_____~____~__~_~___..__.._._...._ January 24, 1972 thinking at the present time, without trying to anticipate what his formal opinion will be, is that it does qualify for the ballot. However, there is a case decided with regard to Proposi- tion 14 that announces state policy in this re- gard and, in spite of what questions there might be with regard to a constitutional or local initiative, he believed it was the policy of the state to allow the people to vote on it and then de- termine whether or not, in fact, it is constitutional when it be- comes effective if they vote in favor of it. (Initiative Petition - SAVE) Mayor Taylor asked if Mr. Lewis could have prepared for the Coun- cil in two weeks a written opinion on whether the petition is a proper one for the ballot, and the Council concurred with this direction. Mayor Taylor also asked Mr. Lewis if this would allow enough time for placement on the ballot, if this was the Council's decision, and Mr. Lewis replied to the affirmative. Councilman Miller stated that waiting for the City Attorney's opinion one way or the other has no effect; they have exactly two choices - either they adopt it or place it on the ballot; there are no other options. If the City Attorney returns the opinion that it is not a flexible ordinance, there is not much they can do about it. Councilman Pritchard indicated to Mr. Uthe that he did not under- stand exactly what he meant and asked if what he was saying is that the two ordinances - the one with regard to the schools and the one limiting building permits with regard to water, and the actions that have been taken with regard to the water reclamation plant, one of which was taken earlier this evening - that these were com- plying with the spirit of what the SAVE petition is about. Mr. Uthe replied absolutely, with no doubt about it at all. The remaining problems outstanding with respect to water and schools is that first of all there is not yet a solution to the school building problem in sight; they hoped they would see this in two weeks, but it is not here tonight. Second, with regard to the water t,reatment facility, with the connection fees and with the building permits presently granted, but not yet completed in terms of construction, and those that are allowable to be granted, there may be problems with rationing this coming summer. He is saying there may be, and SAVE is saying they are leaving that in the Coun- cil's judgment to determine - the Council and their official staff. They have recently received some contrary evidence from California Water Service Company to the effect that they do not see the pro- blem, maybe. SAVE is not in a position to rule whether there is a problem or there is not a problem. They made no pretense here tonight of saying they are the authorities in this particular sub- ject area. They are saying they trust the Council, but they are also saying they do not want official rationing. Councilman Pritchard stated that they do not consider Phase I to be rationing, and Mr. Uthe replied they do not. Mr. Uthe added it has been brought to his attention in recent months by civil en- gineers in private practice that many sewage plants are finding themselves in trouble today because of the ever expanding use of garbage disposal units in the homes. They would not be opposed to a one month experiment where the people of Livermore would be asked not to use their garbage disposals for one month to determine what happens to the plant if they are not used. They might be able to pick up excess capacity by doing so and saving some money, at least in the short term. Mayor Taylor stated that with reference to a statement made by Councilman Pritchard of action taken by the Council this evening, all they did was to indicate to the staff was that they should CM-25-54 administratively pursue one design or another, but took no action regarding expenditure of funds, with regard to the treatment plant. January 24, 1972 (Initiative Petition - SAVE) Mayor Taylor stated that perhaps the City Attorney directed to give legal opinion on this petition by to include Councilman Beebe's question with regard of the ordinance. should be February 7, to flexibility Councilman Beebe made a motion that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare an opinion on the petition, with comments on its flex- ibility; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Jack Phillips stated that since Mr. Uthe was present in an official capacity, the City Councilmen failed to ask one question to which he would like an answer. Mr. Uthe answered three parts, and the petition that he and his wife signed had four parts to it, the fourth part being smog, and asked what SAVE's official definition is and what they had in mind. Mayor Taylor stated that in .his copy of the petition smog is mentioned, but as he understands it, it is not one of the require- ments of the petition. Mr. Phillips differed, stating he felt the SAVE people were trying to "water down" the initiative to keep people from realizing that serious things can happen to this City if the initiative passes. Councilman Beebe thought perhaps the City Attorney should include the reference to smog in his opinion. Milo Nordyke, 2133 Chatteau Place, commented that he was a bit surprised by the statement of Mr. Uthe, and has two reactions: 1) it seems they are beginning to backpedal on the language that they had in the petition; that after they have read it and studied it they now feel that perhaps they have been a bit too arbitrary, or too zealous in the wording. Secondly, he has a feeling of in- credible arrogance on the part of the directors of SAVE that they can tell 5,000 people who signed the petition that the words of the petition do not really mean what they say; that it isn't standards that the Regional Water Quality Control District sets, but what their goals are, or words to that effect. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion which passed unani- mously. Mr. Lewis mentioned that there were members of the Housing Author- ity present, and he felt he owed them a comment. They have had before the community for five or six years the matter of the Villa Gulf Housing, and he would suggest to the Director of the Housing Authority that they take a close look at the petition, because as he reads it, Villa Gulf would be included within the limits of the petition. Assuming the Council enacts the ordinance is one thing; if it goes to the vote and is adopted, perhaps they could obtain building permits before the election. It is a local project and they are specifically governed by the building and zoning regula- tions of the City. They have a problem and they should plan for it. Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney if the staff could discuss this with the Housing Authority, and Mr. Lewis stated he would be happy to. Councilman Miller felt there is a straightforward resolution of this problem since the expansion of Villa Gulf is, in a sense, under City sponsorship. He felt it would not be unreasonable for this Council to set aside l25 building permits for Villa Gulf, as it was clear it was not the intention of the Council to adopt the ordinance tonight to halt the issuance of building permits. CM-25-55 January 24, 1972 (SAVE Petition) Councilman Beebe stated that these permits were included in the 1500 figure which he had pro- posed. Mayor Taylor asked if they could have a legal opinion on this point also. * * * REPORT - CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE FINANCIAL SUPPORT The City Manager explained that an application had been received from the Chamber of Commerce some weeks ago requesting that a change be made in the method of City contribution for their needs and requesting that they receive 10% of the monies received for business license fees, which will also take care of the Christmas decorations. Councilman Beebe moved to accept the recommendation of the City Manager, to allow the Chamber of Commerce to receive 10% of the annual business license fee, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, but the motion failed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Silva and Miller and Mayor Taylor in opposition. Councilman Miller stated that this is a three year contract, that the budget is decided in June and perhaps it should be decided after the April election. He stated that he has not received a copy of the contract and will not vote on something he does not have all the facts on as he does not know what cancellation clauses may be in the contract. He added that the Christmas decorations should be a certain amount and that other expenses should be argued every year and suggested that the matter be tabled until after election time. Councilman Silva felt that the reason the Chamber has made this request is to eliminate the yearly budget session arguments and discussions that arise because of the requests by the Chamber, adding that he would rather see the Chamber come in and present their program and then allow funds needed. He stated that they are just another department head and will have to appeal the same as do heads of departments of the City. Councilman Beebe felt that they probably would still appear at budget session time to present their plans, even if they are allowed the 10%. He stated that this 10% is an override on their business license fee and that the business community needs a strong Chamber of Commerce and spokesman. Mayor Taylor stated that he has reservations about tying a con- tract to 10% of the business license fee. He mentioned that there has been some discussion as to how parks might be developed and it had been suggested that possibly money could be obtained through business license taxes of a certain business, such as the home- builders; therefore, it would not be wise to turn around and give the Chamber 10% of this money. He also agreed with Councilman Silva in stating that he feels the discussions at the budget session are necessary and that Chamber plans should be reviewed. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, Secretary for the American Tax- payers' Union, Local 115, stated that they are also a private organization, as is the Chamber of Commerce, and as a taxpayer he does not want to see tax money used for their support and ex- penses which seems to be the tradition in Livermore. He stated that he expects this business license fee to expand tremendously; therefore, a ceiling should be placed on the amount they are allowed to receive, should this request be adopted. Councilman Silva stated that the use of tax money to support the Chamber is not unique, and that this is traditional throughout the west. CM-25-56 January 24, 1972 Mayor Taylor explained that this proposed con- tract is not an attempt, on the part of the Chamber, to obtain more money - they would, in fact, be operating on $8,000 less this year than in the past if the contract had applied this year. In his opinion, the request is reasonable and it is his feeling that they want to get their financial situation on a more constant basis, but his only reservation is in tying this contract to 10% of the business license fee; this may be used for other things at one time or another, such as park development. (Chamber re Financial Support) After the motion failed, the Mayor suggested that City and Chamber get together before budget time and present a budget in the regular fashion. * * * The Beautification Committee submitted a report and recommendation for the new light fixtures for Second Street after having studied the var- ious alternatives for some months. REPORT RE STREET LIGHTING Walt Davies, 791 McLeod Street, stated that the Beautification Committee is suggesting that 250 watt sodium vapor lights be used for street lighting rather than mercury lights. They are recommending that 20-foot marbelite standards be used on Second Street. Slides were shown to illustrate this report and sugges- tions made for lighting in Livermore. Mayor Taylor thanked the Beautification Committee, on behalf of the City, for the amount of effort and time put into this project. Councilman Silva asked if merchants on Second Street had been con- tacted and Mr. Davies replied that a number had been asked their opinion and the suggestion had been made to him by the merchants to provide a plug in the light standard which could be used for lighting Christmas decorations, or other holiday decorations; also the suggestions for height and style were given him by the merchants. Mayor Taylor stated that the report should be accepted and given to the staff for review, particularly in respect to financing. Councilman Beebe made a motion to refer the report to the staff, seconded by Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously. * * * The City Manager explained that the matter had been referred to him for the purpose of obtain- ing an estimate on the cost of the property for public usage. He stated that he has not yet received the written preliminary appraisal but has received an oral estimate from the appraiser. The land in question is approximately 2.6 acres on which substantial improve- ments must be made before the storm drainage requirements can be met, which have not been completely determined. He stated, however, that they have given some particulars, that after improvements have been made, the usable portion of land will be approximately l.5 acres (60,000 to 65,000 sq. ft.) The approximate value after im- provements are made is $90,000 - $40,000 worth of improvements are to be made by the developer or occupant, reducing the net value to $50,000; from this amount cost of an assessment district is around $10,000, bringing the amount of the property down to $40,000. Zone 7 will reimburse the owner $25,000 for improvements to be made in the channel, bringing the total estimated value to $65,000. Taking this into consideration the City Manager stated that he is recom- mending, regretfully, that the City not proceed with the acquisi- tion of this piece of land as an addition to the intended parkway to the City. REPORT RE MOCHO CHANNEL-MURRIETA PARKWAY PROJECT CM-25-57 January 24, 1972 (Report re Mocho Channel) Councilman Beebe asked if there is some way the Council might negotiate with the owner in conjunction with the development plans to pre- serve a right-of-way for pedestrians and a bridle path as a continuation of our bridle path through the City. Mr. Musso stated that if this land is acquired by the City and left in its natural state, that some time in the future the City may be required to make the channel improvements which will take out half of the land. He stated that it was decided some time ago that it would not be logical to extend the pathway system along the upper bank because it leaves a bad crossing at Stanley Blvd. The alternatives would be to use the cross walk to go on to Murrieta Blvd., or drop the trail and go under the bridge. In other words, this is not a desirable part of the trailway system. Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the recommendation of the City Manager, seconded by Councilman Silva, and the motion passed un- animously. Councilman Miller commented that it is his understanding that some of the trees will be lost if the City does not acquire the land and asked if they could regulate the site design to save these trees. Mr. Mason commented that by placing a retaining wall on the north bank nearly all of the trees will be saved, but if a dirt channel is put in it would eliminate nearly all of the trees. REZONING APPLICATION (Masud Mehran) * * * Mayor Taylor explained that Masud Mehran has submitted an application for rezoning of 140 acres, located between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street, from A-20 District (agricultural)to Rs-4 (Residential) District. A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard to set the public hearing for this rezoning application for February 14, seconded by Council- man Miller, and approved unanimously. * * * The summary of action taken at the Planning Commission's meeting was noted and there were no comments on the summary, but Councilman Pritchard felt that felicitations should be extended to Chairman Millard of the Planning Commission, and a heartfelt thanks to Archer Futch for his past service as Chairman of the Planning Commission, which was taken as a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously. SUMMARY OF ACTION OF PLANNING COMM. * * * The Planning Director has submitted a report with regard to time limits for map approval under the Subdivision Map Act, recommending that the City Council initiate amendment of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a 50-day reporting time for the Planning Commission and to clarify the period of City Council action to date from receipt of the report rather than the filing with the City Clerk as now interpreted. REPORT RE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT Councilman Miller moved to accept this recommendation, seconded by Councilman Silva, and received a unanimous vote. CM-25-58 * * * January 24, 1972 A report has been received from the Livermore Bikeways Association relative to bicycle paths along East Avenue. REPORT RE EAST AVENUE BIKEWAY Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be referred to the staff for a report, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received a unanimous response from the Council. * * * A report was submitted by the Public Works Di- rector concerning the water supply study _ south service area. The report indicates that a water supply deficiency has developed in the southerly portion of the City water service area which comprises the Wagoner Farms development and other adjoining City areas along East Avenue. The Staff has considered alternate projects which would improve the water supply situation in the south service area, which are outlined in the report. The Springtown area water dis- tribution system includes the City's two million gallon capacity Dalton Reservoir. It is recommended that a motion be adopted approving a dual site plan for water reservoir location and authorize interconnection of the Springtown and Wagoner Farms systems. REPORT RE WATER SUPPLY STUDY Mayor Taylor asked if there were any questions from the Council and if there are no objections to the dual site plan suggested by the Public Works Department, he would authorize the staff to proceed. Councilman Beebe asked if this proposal was included in the budget and Mr. Lee replied that it had been. Councilman Beebe moved that the Council approve Alternate 1 (a) and (b) as specified in the report, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion was approved unanimously. A motion was then made by Councilman Beebe to approve the dual site plan, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller abstaining, as he stated he owns a piece of land that may be affected by this action. * * * The pUblic hearing for rezoning of Industrial Annex No.6 was held and closed, however the Council did not decide the zoning district to be assigned (1M or ID District.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE ZONING (Industrial Annex No.6) Mr. Dado, Industrial Agent for Southern Pacific, stated that the railroad would like 1M (Heavy Industrial) Zoning and asked if the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in Sections 14.00 or 15.00 must comply with site conditions and special conditions under Sections 20.00 and 21.00; if so, this is not adequate pro- tection under 1M Zoning. He stated they would also like to prevent a steel mill or slaughter house that would not fit into a planned development. Mayor Taylor asked, for clarification, if Mr. Dado was question- ing if there are sufficient safeguards written into the ordinance to prevent certain types of business from locating here, and Mr. Dado replied that be was. Mr. Musso explained that there are no performance standards and that the only difference between rD and 1M Zoning is what usage is allowed, and any use found to be objectionable by the rail- road, would not be prohibited if the zoning allowed this type of use, or if the zoning regulations are not violated. CM-25-59 January 24, 1972 (Re Zoning Industrial Annex No.6) Mr. Dado stated that they feel the ID is too light and the 1M Zoning is too heavy; they would like to see something in between these zoning categories allowed. He suggested ID zoning, and by Conditional Use Permit allow 1M Zoning, at the discretion of the Council, to which he was told it was a feasible idea. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the ordinance to rezone Industrial Annex No.6 to ID District was introduced; the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only). The City Attorney stated that the ordinance should go back to the Planning Commission for comment on the proposed change as they had recommended 1M (Heavy Industrial) Zoning, after which time it should be re-introduced. * * * RESIDENTIAL TRAIlliR STORAGE Mr. Musso stated that an ordinance had been drafted and had gone through the Planning Com- mission, the staff, the Council and public hear- ings, then the matter was tabled at this point. Mayor Taylor stated there had been some discussion as to whether the item should be placed on the ballot with the consent of the School Board to be voted on at the time of the last school election, but the Council decided not to place it on the ballot at that time. Since then a number of appeals have been made and a number of ob- jections have been made; it is an issue that the Council would like to conclude. At this time they should decide whether or not the matter should be on the ballot for the coming election, or if some other course of action should be taken. Councilman Silva stated that they have been chosen to make deci- sions and since some things are so controversial, they should not be left up to the public to decide - this being one example. He stated further that public hearings have been held and a lot of testimony given, and in his opinion, the Council should be able to make the final decision. Councilman Beebe agreed with Councilman Silva in that the final de- cision should be made by the Council, but he felt that.public hear- ings should be held in order to get more feedback on the matter, and go through the full procedure again before deciding. The City Attorney advised that since the hearings were held some time ago the Council should go through the full procedure again, and perhaps the facts which were presented at that time could be presented in an easier and more complete fashion. In his opinion, at least one public hearing should be held regarding this issue. The Council directed the Planning Commission be requested to start proceedings once again on the subject of trailer storage. Woody Green asked if there was not a petition submitted requesting that this issue be placed on the ballot, and asked when he could get a copy of the ordinance. The Mayor stated that a copy would not be available until after the Planning Commission reviews the draft, but he could get a copy of the old draft; there may be changes. * * * CM-25-60 January 24, 1972 A letter from the American Taxpayers' Union was received with regard to removing the City of Livermore from the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. COMMUNICATION RE BART (American Taxpayers' Union) Councilman Silva stated that should the SAVE initiative succeed and there is a moratorium on building in Livermore BART will not come to Livermore. He felt that the City should withdraw from the District and quit pouring money into something we will never benefit from. Mayor Taylor felt that the legislature will not change the boun- daries to exclude a small town like Livermore; that our tax dollars are going into BART anyway; and we should wait until service starts and see if BART supplies a feeder bus to Livermore. If there is no feeder bus service and it is evident they plan to ignore Liver- more, the City can then withdraw at that time. Ray Faltings stated that he believes the state has passed, and the governor has signed a bill that will require citizens of the state to pay taxes for rapid transit throughout the state. He suggested that our representative be asked to initiate a plan that will allow all contributors to BART to be excluded from the other rapid transit taxes, or that all funds going towards rapid transit be used to lighten the tax burden on those paying for BART. Mayor Taylor stated that a one-half cent gas tax has been imposed on the three counties served by BART, and we are paying this tax now. Mr. Tom Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, suggested that there be a pUblic audit of BART to see how some of the money is spent. He stated that this is not a request to withdraw from BART, but a request for a public hearing. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that two proposals had ORDINANCE AMENDMENT been made and that he had asked for the matter RE FREESTANDING to be held over for discussion in the hopes that SIGNS (Freeway they could come up with something that would not Oriented) be too different from the ordinance the County has. Councilman Silva stated that he based his proposal on the sign adjacent to Holiday Inn, the Driftwood Homes sign) as it was his understanding that the sign is 160 sq. ft. Therefore, he had made a motion to allow 3 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area which would allow 180 sq. ft. sign for the Holiday Inn or 150 sq. ft. sign if they have 50,000 sq. ft. of floor area, which he felt was a reasonable size sign; however the Council did not vote for his recommendation. He stated further that after this time the sign was measured and found to be 120 sq. feet; this sign is being used as the basis for which he is stating his motion _ therefore, he revised his original motion to reflect that the ordinance pro- vide that signs be based on square footage - 2 sq. ft. of sign for each 1000 sq. ft. of floor area, adding that they do not know the footage of the Holiday Inn at this time. He now offered an amendment to Section I, of Ordinance 442, which would allow 64 sq. ft., plus 2 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area in excess of 32,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 180 sq. ft, which he stated to be in the form of a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, and passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe dis- senting. Councilman Miller then moved that all signs located on the freeway be subject to design review, however the motion failed for lack of a second. CM-25-61 January 24, 1972 (Freeway Signs) Councilman Miller moved to introduce the ordi- nance, as amended, seconded by Councilman Silva, and passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe dissenting; reading of the ordinance was waived and the title only was read. * * * ORDINANCE RE ANCESTRAL TREES Mayor Taylor explained that the proposed ordinance with regard to ancestral trees received a 2-2 vote at the last meeting and it was decided to table the matter until a full Council was present. Councilman Miller moved that there be a second reading of the ordinance pertaining to regulations of ancestral trees, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and was carried by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Silva and Beebe dissenting after the discussions, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 774 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23B, RELATING TO TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TREES. Councilman Silva stated that, in his oplnlon, this ordinance was very restrictive and will harrass citizens; he felt that it does not do anything that is not covered by approval of final maps with regard to trees and site approval permits also cover areas of concern. He felt that it would not prevent accidents from happening, such as the case with the Elliott tract construction when ancestral trees were accidentally removed. Mrs. Janet Read, member of the Beautification Committee, stated that the ordinance was begun by the Committee before the accident occurred with the Elliott trees. She stated that if the ordinance passes, they plan to count these trees, and know where each one is located, and that a permit would be required to cut down one of these trees, designated as an ancestral tree or grove of trees. This might pre- vent the cutting down of some of these trees on private property. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that he feels the ordinance would be a positive detriment to the City and will lead to destruc- tion of the present beauty; he felt that people might cut down trees that were almost the size of heritage trees because once they attained this status, the City would have control over what could or could not be done with them from then on. Councilman Miller explained that the reason for the ordinance is to prevent needless deliberate cutting of these trees; it would be con- sidered a misdemeanor under the ordinance and might discourage people from cutting down these trees. Also, someone may not be aware of the fact that they own a heritage tree and will be notified if the ordinance goes into effect. He felt that the ordinance should pass, if for no other reason than to let people know they care about these trees. Dr. Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia, stated that, in his opinion, not only ancestral trees should be of concern, but any tree should be taken into consideration and attempts of preservation should be made. He stated that a grove of trees on Highway 50 were cut down and won- dered what attempts had been made to save them. He stated that trees allover the City are being cut down and hauled away. Councilman Miller stated that the Council did everything they could to get the Highway Department to go around the trees on Highway 50. Mayor Taylor stated that they had a report from the Highway Commis- sion allowing the planting of a considerable number of trees and extensive landscaping as a result of the efforts by the Council. CM-25-62 January 24, 1972 Mr. Lee reported that he has met with the land- scape designer for the State and they have plans for landscaping from Vasco Road to Tassajara Rd. which includes trees and shrubs at every interchange plus ground- cover at every developed interchange (Airway Blvd. and First St.) and will be putting groundcover in as development Occurs at the intersections. (Ordinance re Ancestral Trees) Councilman Beebe felt that if this ordinance is adopted it would be very hard to enforce, adding that if they continue in this line there will be nothing left to private initiative which de- veloped this country and stated that if it is left up to laymen such as themselves, they could end up with the same type of mono- tonous life from now on. Mayor Taylor stated that he agreed with Councilman Beebe, but he considers the ordinances necessary rules that people have to abide by when they live together under more and more crowded conditions. There are a number of laws set up to be enforced, if necessary, but instead of enforcing strict application of the law, they use judgment as to what laws have to be enforced and which are to be used for guidelines, enforced only when the situation demands. * * * There was some discussion as to the Design Re- view Ordinance, and Councilman Beebe felt that apartments should be considered residential, not subject to design review, that these are places in which people live and should be left of the architect. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE DESIGN REVIEW to the discretion Councilman Silva moved to approve the first reading of the ordi- nance (title was read only), seconded by Councilman Miller and received a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe dissenting. * * * Councilman Beebe stated that he had received a letter from a citizen complaining about the garbage pile up on the property of a neighbor. The letter explained that this person does not have the garbage collectors remove garbage weekly and hauls it away himself, which he does not mind, but the objection is to allowing this garbage pile up for three or four weeks before disposing of it. Councilman Beebe asked if there was any way the ordinance regarding garbage could be enforced. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Complaint re Garbage) The City Attorney stated that they could be reported to the Health Department, who in turn could enforce corrective measures, and that this person could be required to use the garbage service available in the City. * * * Councilman Pritchard asked when the sign for Big John's Ranch Market is coming down, to which Mr. Musso replied they were given a de- lay as there was some question as to the tear- ing down of the building and everything on the site. Two weeks ago they were told that some action should be taken in regard to removal of their sign, and he plans to check on the progress. (Removal of Big John Ranch Market Sign) Councilman Pritchard also mentioned that vehicles were parking in this empty lot with price signs on them, taking on the appear- ance of a used car lot. Mr. Musso stated that the owners of the lot had been notified of this fact and that weeds need to be removed there also. It seems CM-25-63 -'-'-~-"'.""_'___"_""_'_'_"'._~m.___ .,_...____.".._._.~.._'. .. _._'.M__.......,__..______,,_____._.__,__,.~._~_...._._ January 24, 1972 (Removal of Sign) that individuals are taking it upon themselves to place their vehicles on this lot; however, Councilman Pritchard observed that the same telephone number was on most of the cars. It was decided that some type of investigation should be made as to the owners of these vehicles, and action taken accordingly. * * * (Legislative Issues) Councilman Silva commented that it has been some time since the staff was instructed to present to the Council information, in order that they could debate the regional government issue, and asked when this might be received. Mr. Parness stated that, as he recalls, the subject was merely opened up, but to bring the Council up to date, he explained that the legislation failed in the last session and from the latest in- formation he has received, Assemblyman Knox does not plan to re- introduce it at this session. However, if the Council chooses to discuss the matter he will supply them with the material. Councilman Silva stated if a specific bill is in the mill or intro- duced anywhere, he would like the Council to have the opportunity to adopt some type of resolution. * * * the Council has already Councilman Silva commented that he noticed in the summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting, the denial of a variance application by John Martin, who had come before earlier, to which the City Clerk advised that an appeal been made and will be before the Council February 7. (Denial of Variance) Councilman Silva stated that he would like to instruct the Planning Commission, if the other members of the Council concur!~d~ .t9 study the RS Ordinance with regard to people whose family is~xpand~ ? , ~ and request allowance of the 35% floor coverage now, rather ~~A~ than waiting for two years after the home is built. Also the portion '~~' of the ordinance re 3 sides not covered will not be counted as floor area. Councilman Silva made a motion to refer their discussion on this matter to the Planning Commission for their comment, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed with a 3-2 vote, Mayor Taylor and Councilman Miller remaining in opposition. * * * hearing to their next Councilman Silva asked when the matter of the parallel signs was to be presented, to which Mr. Musso replied there were too many items on the Planning Commission's agenda for the public be held January 25, so it will probably be scheduled for meeting. (Parallel Signs) * * * (Housing for the Elderly) Councilman Miller stated that during the dis- cussion on the housing for the elderly, after the public comment about someone who had en- dorsed high density, Councilman Miller did not mention his name, but the paper reported that the person endorsing high density was Jack Phillips. He further stated that Jack has assured him that he is not in favor of high density and is now objecting to it. Councilman Miller remarked he had made the wrong connection in thinking that Mr. Phillips was in favor of high density because he had taken the same position as that of the developers in regard to a key section of the RS Zoning Ordinance. CM-25-64 January 24, 1972 Jack Phillips stated that it was Robert Several who linked his name with supporting the high den- sity platform, and he had spoken to Councilman Miller asking that a retraction be made. It is hard to change public opinion after something has print. (Housing for the Elderly) been seen in * * * There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was ad- journed at 11:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT * * * APPROVE ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of February 7, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 7, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by MINUTES Councilman Miller, the minutes of the meetings of January 17 and January 24, 1972 were approved as amended, by unanimous vote. * * * Michelle Allen, representing Junior Women's Club, asked the Council for support of a community pro- ject, which purpose is to purchase a passenger bus for the Valley's Senior Citizens. She ex- plained that they have planned to have a fund raising Mardi Gras Ball, to be held on February 12, at Sunol Golf Club. A king and queen will be selected from local candidates and the ball will include a gourmet breakfast at midnight, presentation of the selected king and queen and dancing. OPEN FORUM (Mardi Gras Funds for Bus Project) CM-25-65 February 7, 1972 Report re Bldg Permits Issued CONSENT CALENDAR A report was received from the Chief Building Inspector re permits issued between January 21 and 27, 1972, with a suggestion that permits be withheld for the developer who has not paid the water connection fee. Mayor Taylor stated that the ordinance has been enacted by the Board of Supervisors and the no one will be exempt from the $450 fee. Councilman Miller stated that he would like the matter removed for later discussion. Reports re Sanitary Sewer, Drainage and Park Fee Adjustment * * * Reports were submitted from the Public Works Director with regard to adjustment of the sani- tary sewer connection fees, storm drainage fees, and park fees, based on construction cost index. These items were removed from the Consent Calen- dar for later discussion by the Council. * * * A letter was received from the Chairman of the Livermore Cultural Arts Council stating that the Fourth Annual Festival of Arts is scheduled for October 13 through 15, 1972. They are re- questing City support by the purchase of two paintings of Valley scenes, at the cost of $300, to be hung in civic buildings. Communication re Festival 172 * * * The Council received a copy of the letter sent to the Valley Planning Committee from the Liver- more Planning Commission, in which they ask the VPC to urge the General Services Administration not to dispose of any property north of US 580, except to other public agencies, until such time as a General Plan for the area is adopted. They also advised the VPC, as well as the GSA, to urge the County to undertake such a study. Communication to VPC re General Plan Studies * * * A report was received from the Planning Director re the status of the Greenview Swim and Raquet Club and the City1s appeal of a Conditional Use Permit. The Board of Supervisors discussed the appeal, but inasmuch as the condition of the permit re sewer connection was considered irrelevant, the Plan- ning Director withdrew the appeal. The applicant will probably re- quest a variance from the County Plumbing Code so that sewer con- nection is not required. At present, development by Sunset Homes to the west, will bring a sewer line within 300 feet of the proper- ty and sewer connection will be required under the terms of the County Plumbing Code. Report re Greenview Tennis Club The applicant does not wish to pay the fees as a condition to sewer connection and they also do not wish to participate in the improve- ment of Concannon Blvd., and the payment of storm drainage fees. Further action may be taken later if a variance application is filed. * * * A report was submitted by the Public Works Di- rector made up by the City Engineering Consult- ants to reflect the mineral quality of Livermore wastewater. The report is in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and it is recommended that the Council accept the report and authorize its transmittal to the Board. Report re Mineral Quality-Water Reclamation Plant CM-25-66 February 7, 1972 With the filing of Tract 3324, it was observed that a prior decision that Baffin Way would ex- tend from Innsbruck Way, east and south, to intersect Vancouver Way, is not possible. Therefore, it will be necessary to change the short portion of the street adjacent to Vancouver Way ney street, in order to provide continuous access. RESOLUTION NO. 9-72 A RESOLUTION CHANGING STREET NAME (Portion of Baffin Way) * * * Each year the State Department of Finance is requested to compute our estimated population which has a direct bearing on the apportion- ment of several State and County grants. This estimate will cost the City $360, but the estimated be many times this amount. It is recommended that a adopted authorizing execution of this agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 10-72 Street Name Change Baffin Way to Killarney Street to Killar- Report re 1972 Population Estimate return will resolution be RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (DEPT. OF FINANCE-STATE OF CALIFORNIA) * * * Minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of December 28, 1972, were acknowledged for filing. * * * Housing Authority Minutes Seventy-one claims in the amount of $80,271.39 Payroll and Claims and two hundred thirty payroll warrants in the amount of $54,759.25, dated January 28; and one hundred thirteen claims in the amount of $94,629.56, and two hun- dred thirty-three payroll warrants, in the amount of $55,750.63, dated February 3, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on warrants No. 1568 and No. 1732 for his usual reason. * * * Councilman Beebe moved that the Consent Calendar be adopted, with his abstention, and removal of those items as indicated; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. * * * Approval of Consent Calendar The Mayor explained that the matter of the SAVE petition had been referred to the City Attorney for advice as to what the Council's action should be and what their options are; also, at the re- quest of Councilman Beebe, for comment on a preliminary opinion as to flexibility and enforceability. REPORT RE INITIATIVE PETITION (SAVE) legal The City Attorney stated that he had reported to the Council, in writing, his detailed thoughts on the matter. He stated that the report was lengthy and asked if they would like his conclusions or if they would like for him to answer their questions. Mayor Taylor stated that they would like to know what action they should take at this time, that it is not necessary to read the entire report, adding that the conclusions of the report might be helpful. CM-25-67 February 7, 1972 (SAVE Petition) The City Attorney stated that the basic conclu- sion he has come to is that the SAVE petition, containing the form of initiative ordinance for the purpose of terminating building permits because of three stated problems is of proper subject matter for the ballot at the April 11 election. He added that initiative measures are not always subject to qualification for the ballot and that there are a num- ber of situations where they have been disqualified; however, this is a legislative measure that qualifies. Where they are disqual- ified, are in cases of executive or administrative matters attempt- ing to be taken over by the people; another area is that involving certain zoning ordinances, generally deemed not to be subject to initiative. Being none of these, this issue qualifies for the ballot. Mr. Lewis stated that it is the policy in the State of California that initiative power is reserved to the people and should be ex- ercised by them wherever possible, and in his opinion, the courts (even if the ordinance is questioned) will determine that it should go on the ballot for disposition at a later date as to its validity or invalidity. Mayor Taylor stated that it is his understanding that they must either place the matter on the ballot or enact the ordinance, with no changes in wording. The City Attorney stated that this is correct and that no changes can be made now or in the future, except by the vote of the people. Mr. Lewis stated that the initiative petition uses the wording, "Regular Municipal Election", however there is no such thing; what we have is a General Election, however he knows what is meant, and felt the court will assume what is meant. The same initiative law says an initiative can be amended or repealed at a regular or spec- ial election, and thought, therefore, probably the people could change it at a special election, because that is what the state law says they can do. Mayor Taylor felt that the Council should first decide whether or not to place the initiative on the ballot; then they could question the City Attorney with regard to the other inclusions he read. Councilman Silva felt they had no other alternative than to place the initiative on the ballot, however in his opinion, the ordinance does not give the voters any alternative but to either stop growth, or allow uncontrolled growth. As a citizen, he will be voting on the issue, and he could not vote for stopping growth or allowing uncon- trolled growth; therefore, he felt the citizens should have a third alternative, which is controlled growth. To allow this third alter- native he made a motion that another ordinance, controlling issuance of permits for new residences, be placed on the ballot, which he read after distributing copies to the other members of the Council. Councilman Silva explained that the basic difference between this and the SAVE initiative is the double sessions portion; his understanding is that we will be on double sessions for the next few months, and in September, hopefully, this will be ended according to the latest re- ports from the School District. If that is so, why stop building per- mits ten days after the April 11th election if the SAVE initiative is successful. When questioned, Councilman Silva stated he would allow modifications or alterations to existing homes and Mr. Lewis was asked to comment on this. Mr. Lewis stated that the ordinance proposed by the initiative pe- tition in paragraph (A) is to control residential building permits, and in (B) it further uses the term residential building permits and there is no definition in any of our local codes or ordinances that define residential building permits; therefore, he reverted to other portions of our code that might be pertinent and also to the closest dictionary definition and residential implies the use of the land, and so the term residential building permit has to be used in its generic sense; there is no intent to limit it to just the construction of new dwellings. He concluded it had a broader CM-25-68 February 7, 1972 meaning than just new homes, single family or (SAVE Petition) multiple and would extend to alterations of any- thing which increases the size of the building so additional living space is added on or a bathroom which would impose a heavier burden on the sewage and water supply. Councilman Beebe seconded the motion made by Councilman Silva; then asked the City Attorney if the SAVE initiative is voted into law by the citizens and then is declared illegal, in part, would it mean that they have lost everything they have gained such as the requirement of the School District with regard to tentative maps, however Mr. Lewis stated that that stands on its own and is not a part of this initiative. Councilman Beebe felt the ordinance proposed by Councilman Silva would be more flexible. Mayor Taylor felt the proposed ordinance was very similar to the initiative measure except for educational facilities requirements. He would propose to add a clause as follows: "that would insure a quality of education acceptable to the Livermore Valley Unified School District Board and equal to or above the average for School Districts in the State of California." The reason is that he was not sure what was meant by the average in the state. We should not have to be tied to the statewide average if the statewide aver- age becomes very low. In Pleasanton they were faced with the al- ternative of double sessions or utilizing other facilities, such as library space and other spaces, and they concluded that the quality of education is better if they maintain these other areas for the purpose for which they were intended. He felt that in the same way we depend on the Water Quality Control Board to set the requirements for sewage effluent, which is their business, we should depend on the School Board to finally set the standards for classroom facilities. Therefore, he made a motion that his proposal be offered as an amendment; the motion to amend was se- conded by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Miller offered alternate wording as an amendment,"that classroom facilities would provide adequate space to prevent double sessions or overcrowded classrooms as defined by the State Educa- tion Code". Councilman Silva stated that that amendment would change the whole reason for the ordinance, which is to have the third alternative for controlled growth rather than to stop growth. Councilman Miller commented that it had been stated that the SAVE initiative was vague, however he felt that the ordinance proposed by Councilman Silva was equally vague because there are no stand- ards as to what is to insure quality equal to or above. He also questioned how the Council would determine the number of permits to be issued; he felt whatever method they choose will be liti- gated in the same way the SAVE issue will be litigated. The thing that really bothered him about the nature of this ordinance is that, in effect, they are in a position to adopt the regulation of building permits as provided for in this ordinance, and in his opinion, the' evidence has been before them since August or Septem- ber re water rationing and since late November about schools, and they should have stopped the issuance of building permits a long time ago. He felt a permissive ordinance such as the one suggested that allows the City Council to decide on standards, not very well chosen, is no different than what they have been doing. The crisis they have had so far is that the public feels they have not been doing the job and, therefore, they have signed the SAVE initiative. The option that the SAVE initiative implies is that the people are going to insist. Councilman Silva agreed that both ordinances were vague, but there are some people who disagree with the opinion that the Council should have stopped building permits a month ago; there are people who feel that this Council and past Councils have done a very good job; therefore, his intention is to give them an alternative to CM-25-69 February 7, 1972 ( SAVE Initiative) vote upon, in essence, for the job that the Coun- cils have been doing. He as a citizen, wants a third alternative; he does not wish to vote against SAVE, because in so doing, he would be voting for growth, and he felt the citizens of the community have uncontrolled that right. Councilman Miller stated his point was missed in that the Council presently can do everything that is suggested in the proposed ordi- nance, and does not need the ordinance to do it. The ordinance could be adopted tonight and not put on the ballot - they have the authority to do that. If people feel they have confidence in the Council, they can vote against the SAVE initiative because the City Council should do precisely this anyway. Councilman Silva stated he could not see putting the future into the hands of people that are experts in school education rather than city growth. For example, if SAVE is successful and there are no more building permits issued in Livermore and in September there are no double sessions, then Livermore can continue to grow. If a developer comes in and presents a plan which the Council denys on the basis that it is "leapfrogging", and the developer apptlals to the County and it is approved, then the City would be placed in the position of resorting to double sessions again. He felt that the City will probably be off of double sessions in September; the de- velopers have offered to provide portables now, andthe decision should be left to the community. Councilman Miller felt that the community has the decision of allow- ing the Council to make decisions by voting against SAVE and if they feel the Council will not do as they wish they will vote for SAVE, adding that it should not be taken personally~ but the community has not had confidence in the way the Council has handled the growth problems of the community; as a result SAVE came about. Councilman Silva stated that he is speaking against the motion to amend on the basis that he would like to have the highest quality of education in the City of Livermore but that the Supreme Court ruled that this is unconstitutional. Mayor Taylor explained that the Court has ruled that it is uncon- stitutional to tie a child's education to the fact that he is in a high wealth or low wealth district. He also stated that he would like to see the School District officers, who are elected to pass judgment on the quality of education among other things, tied into this. He felt that such a body, given the authority to pass judg- ment on whether or not the issuance of more building permits will deteriorate the educational system, is reasonable and their judg- ment should be trusted. Councilman Beebe stated that it is already in the ordinance (the additional requirement placed in the Subdivision Act) that all ten- tative maps must have the approval of the School District that ad- equate classrooms are provided for; this is already the law and what the Council has to observe. Councilman Miller stated there are 3,000 lots of record that do not count. Councilman Silva explained for clarification, that in his oplnlon, if the State Department of Education feels Livermore is below the average quality of education in the State, then building permits should not be issued, at the time they inform the Council of this, through the School District. In other words, he does not wish to rely on five elected officials from an area outside the City to control the issuance of building permits in the City of Livermore. He feels the decision should come from a higher source such as the State Department of Education. Mayor Taylor stated that, in his opinion, the City should control what is done in Livermore, as the State dictates so many of the school policies already. CM-25-70 Councilman Pritchard stated that as it now stands, no tentative map can be approved with- out the approval of the School District. February 7, 1972 (SAVE Initiative) Mayor Taylor stated that this may not be reason enough to turn down a tentative map; adding that the last tentative was turned down because of more traditional reasons, and that the City Attor- ney advised they use these as the grounds for denial, and not the fact that the School District did not approve; at this point these grounds have never been challenged and it remains to be seen what the outcome might be if they ever are. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote to his proposed amendment which failed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva Councilman Miller stated that he is still dissatisfied and would like to offer the wording, more like the SAVE petition and a little different than those of Mayor Taylor, "classroom facilities that would provide adequate space to prevent double sessions or over- crowded classrooms" as determined by the California Education Code; this was made in the form of a motion, seconded by Mayor Taylor, however the motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva It was suggested that the City Attorney take a week to review the ordinance to determine whether word changes might be necessary. Councilman Beebe at this time moved the question, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed 3-2 with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, stated that he is against the ordinance proposal as he feels it will confuse the voter. He suggested that the SAVE petition be left on the ballot, but in his opinion, the citizens feel it is the job of the Council to vote one way or another in regard to the specifics in the ordinance written by Councilman Silva. Lamar Childers, representing the Alameda County Construction Trades Council, stated that he is opposed to placing the Silva measure on the ballot, and is speaking at the insistence of the construc- tion workers in the Valley. He felt that the merits of this pro- posal are going far beyond the question of limiting growth, stat- ing that this will change the American tradition of growth - that the rights of people to live where they please and to develop this nation are in jeopardy with this measure. He stated that he was amazed at the obvious fear of growth in this Valley. Mr. Childers asked the Council if it is not our responsibility to provide schools, water treatment plants and other things necessary for our quality of life; not take a backward step, by stopping all growth. He stated that if this measure goes on the ballot and passes this Valley will become a desolate place - progress is people, and without people you need nothing. He further stated that if the philosophy of the Council is extended, growth every- where may as well be stopped and life extinguished; he added that this measure reflects a defeatist attitude. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he listened carefully to what Mr. Childers has said - he, too, was born and raised in this country and grew up in an area that allowed uncontrolled growth. One has only to look at some of the difficulties in the states of New Jersey and New York to see why we do not want un- controlled growth in this area; it should be controlled for the benefit of all and not just for the benefit of the developers, and it has been done successfully in other areas. CM-25-71 . February 7, 1972 (SAVE Initiative) Mayor Taylor stated that if there are no further comments from the citizens of the community, he would ask for a vote as to whether the Silva measure should be placed on the ballot, which received the following roll called vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCILMEN Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor Councilman Miller RESOLUTION NO. 11-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DECLARING THAT THE MEASURE PROPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE REGARDING REGULATION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD AND CONDUCTED ON THE lIth DAY OF APRIL, 1972. Mayor Taylor then asked for a motion to place the SAVE Initiative on the ballot; Councilman Silva moved this motion, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard and received unanimous approval. RESOLUTION NO. 15-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DECLARING THAT AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY PETITION RELATING TO CONTROLLING THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD AND CONDUCTED ON THE 11th DAY OF APRIL, 1972. Mayor Taylor questioned what might happen if both measures passed and the City Attorney explained that there is a section in the Elec- tions Code dealing with initiative measures which says that in the event of a conflict between two measures on the same ballot, the one receiving the highest number of votes will control. Councilman Silva asked what might happen if the measure which passes is found to be invalid, at a later date, in court. The City Attorney stated that if the two measures receive a 50% vote and one is declared invalid, the other will control, regard- less of which receives the higher vote; one has to assume that the one receiving the highest vote only supersedes the other, provid- ing it is valid. They are both valid ordinances and only in the case of conflict would one supersede the other. Councilman Miller stated that he would like to ask Mr. Childers how many building tradesmen who are working in Livermore, live in Livermore and Mr. Childers stated he could not give the exact number. Councilman Miller asked if he would send him a letter indicating this number. He also questioned what will happen between now and election time with regard to the number of building permits being issued, and stated that he would like to discuss this, but it could possibly be discussed later. Mayor Taylor stated that negotiations are in pr~ss between the committee of the City Council and a committee of the School Dis- trict along with the builders and that the builders made a specific proposal on January 3l regarding the provisions of classroom fac- ilities; the response to this offer will be given on February 14, and it might be better to discuss the matter after this time. * * * APPEAL RE VARIANCE DENIAL- John Martin initial floor circumstances An application for variance submitted to the Plan- ning Commission by John Martin to allow construc- tion of a dwelling that exceeds the permitted area was denied on the basis that 1) no exceptional are applicable to the property, 2) to grant this CM-25-72 February 7, 1972 variance would be granting special privilege, 3) that it is not necessary, and 4) to do so would impair the purposes of the Zoning Ordi- nance and public interest. This report was given to the Council and Mr. Martin has appealed regarding the denial. (Appeal re Variance - John Martin) to the Council Mr. Musso explained that the circumstances were no different than the other property owners in the area and that they did not want to set a precedent. AFTER A SHORT RECESS, THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT. RECESS Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt the Planning Com- mission recommendation for denial of variance, seconded by Mayor Taylor for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Silva stated that he could not support Councilman Miller's motion for the reason that Mr. Martin can leave two sides of his garage open, plus leave the door off, and still use the dimensions of floor area that the Planning Commission denied; in two yearshe can close the garage sides and put the door on and still be within the RS District regulations. He felt it is very foolish to re- quire a citizen to go to the added expense because of this clause in the ordinance, adding that this part of the RS Ordinance should be deleted or amended. Councilman Miller stated that his reasons for supporting the Plan- ning Commission's recommendations are that in order to approve a variance they must make four sets of findings and all must be satisfied; adding that he could see only one finding which is that it would not be detrimental to adjacent properties; however, he felt one could make no other findings and the precedent will impair the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that his sympathy is for Mr. Martin, but his concern is for the precedent. Even though it is inconvenient, there is a way out for Mr. Martin to have a larger house, i.e., by leaving the garage area open. Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to grant this variance to Mr. Martin, as he is an individual and not a developer; however, in thinking it over he feels that he has to come to the same con- clusions as Councilman Miller in that it may tend to weaken the ordinance involved. A vote was taken on the motion to deny the variance which failed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva Councilman Silva moved to approve the variance, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and passed 3-2 with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. * * * The City Council had asked the Beautification Committee to make a recommendation with regard to the lighting on Second Street, which the Public Works Director would, in turn, report to the Counc il. REPORT RE SECOND STREET LIGIfI'ING Mr. Lee stated that in conjunction with the undergrounding utilities on Second Street the lighting has to be revamped, which will re- quire the undergrounding of the services to the lighting, new poles and fixtures. The matter was referred to the Beautification Committee; their report submitted to the staff. During this time CM-25-73 February 7, 1972 (Second Street Lighting) calls were received from interested merchants asking that they be informed of the progress of the project, and some attended the meeting with the Beautification Committee. He stated that they discussed design with regard to effectiveness and aesthetic value and recommended the antique (similar to that on First Street) with a globe on top, situated on 20 ft. poles using sodium vapor lighting. However, through research done on this type of lighting, Mr. Lee stated for a number of reasons, including glare and in- ability to obtain a supply of these lights, it would not be able to fill the needs. Therefore, a second fixture was preferred by the committee - a clear sphere using sodium vapor light. Since the meeting they have tried to contact a supplier, but have not been successful; therefore, they are not positive that this second choice will prove to be the solution. Mr. Lee indicated that the cost will be approximately the same as the cost for the lighting on First Street, and a pole every 100 feet is necessary for proper lighting; therefore, he asked that the Council consider this pro- posal and give their approval in order that they can proceed. Walt Davies, 791 McLeod Street, a member of the Beautification Committee stated that they had recommended a perma-globe type of lighting and would now like to make a substitution of a unit with the same design, which has prism refractors built into the surface of the unit that will direct the light towards the ground. Mr. Davies also presented other specifications and indicated that a further meeting with the Public Works Director is needed to review his findings. Mayor Taylor stated that he knowsof no reason they cannot come to a decision on the primary matter to be decided by the Council, and that is the spacing allowed for the poles. Councilman Pritchard moved that the spacing for the poles be every 100 feet as recommended by the Public Works Director and the Beau- tification Committee, and that the Committee, merchants and Mr. Lee meet to go over the other problems to be resolved, seconded by Councilman Beebe. ~ I Councilman Miller stated that he agrees with the motion with the exception of those needed to attend the meeting to discuss existing problems. He stated that a meeting between Mr. Lee and the Beau- tification Committee representatives should be sufficient, adding that this is a community expenditure and that if the merchants wish to say anything with regard to the lighting they would have a chance to do so at the next meeting when this item is to appear on the agenda. Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion with regard to only the 100 foot spacing and it was approved unanimously. Councilman Beebe moved that the Council appoint a committee com- posed of Gary Drummond, Bobby Hadley, Walter Davies, Bob Bruns, Manuel Duarte, and Bill Bozzini, with Daniel Lee as Chairman, to work out the problems and arrive at a concrete proposal to present to the Council; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Dr. Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia Avenue, stated that the merchants pay for a business license and that 1% of their tax dollars goes directly to the City; therefore, he feels they have a righ~ to discuss the Second Street lighting, as well as Mr. Lee and the Beautification Committee. Councilman Miller stated that the poles are purchased by all the citizens of the community and that this would give them just as much right as the merchants to give their opinions; for this rea- son the Beautification Committee is supposed to represent the wishes of the community by having citizens from the community serve on it. Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion which passed by a 3-2 vote with Mayor Taylor and Councilman Miller dissenting. CM-25-74 February 7, 1972 The Planning Director explained that the matter of the proposed rezoning of the area at the in- tersection of First street and Portola Ave. was referred back to the Planning Commission, as the Council did not agree on their recommen- dation. However, the Planning Commission re- affirms their original recommendation, as they feel that CN Zon- ing would interfere with other businesses in close proximity, such as Springtown, and that a shopping center in this area is a little premature at this time. REPORT RE REZONING FIRST ST. & PORTOLA AVE. INTERSECTION (Assoc. Professions) Councilman Miller felt that the Council approved the CN Zoning expansion because they did not want another gasoline station in this area; their decision was sent back to the Planning Commis- sion, stating that they did not agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. After receiving the Council's deci- sion the Planning Commission reported that they still prefer to deny the CN Zoning for the reasons stated. Councilman Miller mentioned that they discussed a method for eliminating another gas station as follows: the Council would rezone the CN property as soon as a variance application is submitted by the applicant to cover the extra space; they would zone a larger than six acre shopping center, including the existing gas station, plus a var- iance to allow it. '- Mayor Taylor stated the motion they had, which was tabled, was not the legal motion. The Council agreed that they want CN Zon- ing and that they do not want another gas station there. Now they are asking how this can be accomplished and wanted some direction. Mr. Musso stated that the property owner would have to file an application for a variance. They could include, as a condition to the variance, that no other gas stations will be allowed on the site. It was decided that the matter would continue to be tabled until the applicant submits a variance application. Councilman Beebe moved that the six acre parcel be rezoned to CN District upon formal application by the applicant, seconded by Councilman Silva, and received a 4-1 vote in favor of the motion, with Councilman Miller dissenting. * * * The minutes of the meeting of January 18, 1972 of the Planning Commission were noted for fil- ing; there was no discussion regarding the min- utes submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * * * ORDINANCE NO. 775 ZONING ORDINANCE RE DESIGN REVIEW AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY AMENDING SECTION 22.00, RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCEDURES, BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTIONS 22.80 THROUGH 22.87, ES- TABLISHING A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, PROVIDING FOR PRO- CEDURES, AND MAKING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO CONSTRUCTION IN CERTAIN CASES: BY AMENDING SECTION 20.00, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, BY REPEAL- ING SUBSECTION 20.10 and SUBSECTIONS 21.30 THROUGH 21.32. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, the reading of the above ordinance was waived, and by the follow- ing vote, the ordinance was adopted: AYES: Councilmen Miller, Silva and Mayor Taylor NOES: Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe CM-25-75 February 7, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE SIGNS PERMITTED Sec. 21.72-.76 Before a reading was decided upon, the Council discussed numerous changes to be made in the proposed sign amendment, to read as follows: (i) A sign in excess of twenty-five (25) feet from the freeway may have an area of sixty-four (64) square feet. An additional two (2) square feet of sign area will be allowed for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area in excess of thirty-two (32,000) thou- sand square feet; provided, however, such sign shall not exceed one hundred-eighty (180) square feet. Mr. Musso stated that, in his opinion, (i) combines (h) and (g). Councilman Silva stated that during earlier discussions regarding distance of signs from the freeway, it was decided that if a sign is now allowed closer than twenty-five (25) feet from the freeway, this would place the golf course sign someplace in the middle of the fairway. Councilman Miller felt they could come to a decision that would move signs at least 25 feet back from the freeway and somehow eli- minate the position of the golf course sign from locating in the middle of the golf course. Councilman Silva moved to change Section (h) to read, "any sign within 10 feet.. .", seconded by Councilman Beebe, which received a 3-2 vote with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Councilman Miller stated that if Section (h) reads,"a sign within ten (10) feet of the freeway shall not exceed sixty-four (64) sq. ft..." then (g) and (h) are inconsistent and one should be deleted. At the request of the Planning Director it was decided to delete (h) "any sign within twenty-five feet of the freeway shall not ex- ceed sixty-four sq. ft. in area; with acceptance of changes men- tioned in Section (i). Councilman Silva moved to introduce the amended ordinance, and that only the title be read, seconded by Councilman Miller, which re- ceived a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe dissenting. * * * ADJUSTMENTS RE SEWER, STORM DRAINAGE AND PARK FEES Councilman Pritchard made a motion to continue the matters of the adjustment of sewer connection, storm drainage and park fees, as well as the report from the Building Inspector, which had been removed from the Consent Calendar, however the motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Taylor felt the Council should ask the staff to review the sanitary sewer connection fee which has just recently been set, in light of the financial information made available during the last six months. He stated that a fee was set, based on building a facility and sufficient money for expansion of the plant has not accumulated nor been met by sewer connection fees. There should be enough money to take care of a future expansion and he would like the staff to check into the matter. Councilman Miller stated that the tertiary part of the plant is not calculated in the Brown and Caldwell report, and that maybe it would be worth another questioning of this firm to see if there will be sufficient funds to expand another plant. Councilman Beebe made a motion to adopt the recommendation of the Public Works Director to adopt three resolutions adjusting fees relating to sanitary sewers, storm drainage and park fees, seconded by Councilman Miller and received unanimous approval. CM-25-76 February 7, 1972 RESOLUTION NO. 12-72 (Adjustment of Fees- Sanitary Sewer, SANI- Storm Drain & Park) 1972. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF TARY SEWER CONNECTION FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR RESOLUTION NO. 13-72 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF STORM DRAINAGE FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1972. RESOLUTION NO. 14-72 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF PARK FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1972 * * * Councilman Miller stated that there have been REPORT RE BUILDING 1343 building permits issued since last July; PERMITS 547 since November 9 and 301 since January 1. As of the last report (Jan. 27) there are 1434; 638 since November 9; 392 this month and 91 issued on the 28th of January; if you count those in the mill there will be 1870 issued; 1074 since November 9, and 828 since the first of January. He reminded the Council that a letter was received from the School District on December 6, asking that they not issue more than 793 permits because space would not be available for children to attend school; resulting in double sessions. At this point there will be 44 classrooms on double session in Livermore this September, and if the 436 that are in the mill are approved it will result in an additional 16 classrooms or 32 double sessions. He further stated that on December 6 he suggested there should be a mora- torium. The moratorium was not adopted, but the Council was supposed to look at the situation in another thirty days. He continued that it has been sixty days with no resolution of how double sessions will be taken care of, and that all the permits issued since that time will not be covered by any of these agree- ments. He urged the Council to do something to keep the situation from getting worse, and fell that failure to act on December 6, was the failure to make a decision and that the public is tired of allowing issuance of permits. He feels that a moratorium is needed until the April election; that it should remain in effect until ten days after the April 11 election, to determine the outcome of the election with regard to the SAVE petition. He also felt that for the benefit of those in the mill the money should be given back to them and permits not issued. At this time Councilman Miller made a motion that the Council, on the basis of the school problem and the growing "chunk" taken out of the water, impose a moratorium on building permits until April 21. Mayor Taylor stated that the motion failed last time by a 2-2 vote and that the Council was to discuss the matter in thirty days and this was passed because of the difficulty of negotia- tions, and he felt that the matter should be scheduled for dis- cussion at the next meeting; he would second the motion and ask that it be tabled until the next meeting, in order that the school might have time to review the proposal. Councilman Miller expressed his concern that in one week during the time the matter is tabled the 436 permits in the mill can be issued and that this will result in 32 double sessions. Councilman Silva made a suggestion to ask the School District for verification of the figures given as to projections of the double sessions in September before deciding to have a morator- ium; also to find out what they plan to do to solve this problem. CM-25-77 February 7, 1972 (Building Permits) Councilman Miller made a motion for a one week moratorium in order to maintain the status of the 436 permits in the mill, seconded by Mayor Taylor and which failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Pritchard, Beebe and Silva dissenting. Mayor Taylor then moved to table the motion made by Councilman Miller for one week( seconded by Councilman Miller, however the motion failed by a 4-1 vote with Mayor Taylor only in favor. After some discussion Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to the motion made by Councilman Miller to have a moratorium until April 21 which failed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva dissenting. Councilman Miller then made a second motion to introduce an urgency ordinance to amend the Building Code section pertaining to the ex- piration time for building permits to handle the problem of stock- piling. He further stated he would like to introduce this as an urgency ordinance with the finding that a large number of building permits are being issued in relation to previous years, which leads to a presumption of stockpiling, to take inordinate numbers of building permits from the 1500 limit based on water shortage which will evade the intent of the SAVE initiative; therefore, in Section 302 (d) of the 1970 edition of the Building Code between the first and second sentences to insert the words, "in addition, building permits issued for residential dwelling units shall become null and void if foundations are not poured and completed in fifteen (lS) days or framing is not completed in forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance of a building permit". He explained that any- one who is really serious will take the building permit, pour his foundation and put up the frame - otherwise it is stockpiling. Mayor Taylor stated that the motion is highly technical and felt that he could not second a motion of that nature without further thought, and comments from the staff. The motion died for lack of a second. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Removal of Trees-First St.- Codiroli Application) (Bicycle Licensing) that the Council to await a final taken. MATTERS INI- TIATED BY COUNCIL (Big John's Sign) with clearing the given. CM-25-78 * * * The Public Works Director stated that he wanted the Council to be informed that trees on First Street, where a car lot has been approved, will have to be removed. * * * The City Manager reported that he had received information from the League of California Cities indicating that through legislation the State will probably be licensing bicycles and asked concur in allowing implementation of our program decision at the state level before action is * * * Councilman Pritchard asked if anything had been done regarding the property and sign at Big John's Ranch Market, to which the Planning Di- rector stated he has received a letter from Long's (the owner) stating they have received estimates on removal of the sign and demolition of the building and that they intend to proceed property completely, but that no time has been * * * Councilman Pritchard mentioned that after a question is called for, the citizens or those in the audience are allowed to debate, which circumvents the reasons for caTIing for a ques- tion, and asked if there is a way this can be worked out. February 7, 1972 (Policy re Conduct of Council Meetings) Councilman Silva stated that in many cities the only time a citi- zen is allowed to express his opinion is during a public hearing, and he felt that there were very few times a decision on which way to vote was made as a result of input from a citizen prior to the Council vote. He felt that to hear from citizens after the call to question would be time consuming and that it would delay the Council from discussing important decisions to be made, that written communications and opinions expressed during public hear- ings should be sufficient. He also stated that some of the items brought up by citizens are not relative to the discussion, result- ing in a "town hall" type of meeting which hinders the performance of the Council. Mayor Taylor stated that they allow citizens to make remarks as a public relations gesture, and some people like to speak in order to take advantage of the opportunity. He further stated that the policy would be to have no further debate after the call to question; there will be comments from the public limited to the question at hand with no response from the Council. Councilman Silva moved that the Council hear from the public only during public hearings; however, the motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Silva then pointed out that the Planning Commission had adopted a resolution on the subject and wondered why the Council couldn't do the same and suggested that there be an item on the Consent Calendar to adopt the Planning Commission resolution. Councilman Miller felt they were not ready to state they could adopt this resolution, but it might be worth looking at. * * * Councilman Silva stated the Council received a news item from Sacramento praising the Police Department and wondered whether the press had received a copy of it. * * * (News Item re Police Dept.) (Re-election Not Sought-Silva) Councilman Silva stated he has written a few lines stating his reasons for deciding not to seek re-election as Councilman. He mentioned he had written a statement that ended up to be more like a novel so he decided to toss it out and write only a few lines prior to the meeting. He gave his reasons as follows: He feels he can no longer justify the required amount of time away from his family and business; the City has grown and the job of Councilman is now very time consuming, and he feels that to do the job properly it requires a great deal of time devoted to it. He further stated that he has enjoyed serving on the Council, that it has been a great experience, educational, and he recommend- ed it for anyone who might have eight hours a day of spare time. Mayor Taylor stated he is sorry Councilman Silva has decided not to run and will no longer be with the Council. * * * Councilman Miller stated he observed that trees were cut down at Second and K Streets this week- end and has inquired of the Planning Department as to what the reasons may have been. (Tree Removal- 2nd & K Streets) CM-25-79 February 7, 1972 (Tree Removal) Mr. Musso stated he has not, as yet, had a chance to follow up on this request, but he mentioned that there are two developments taking place at that location - the bank expansion and a restaurant. Mr. Lee further explained that one of the trees, possibly eucalyp- tus, was in bad shape, and although they tried to take measures to save it, they did not work out and the tree had to be removed. * * * Mr. Masud Mehran stated that he wished to speak very briefly if the Council would allow at this time, remarking that Sunset has developed a school site in Sunset East, fully improved, almost four years ago. They pay $18,000 a year for taxes and interest for the site, and they have not threatened anyone to in- troduce a tentative map on the land in order to put pressure on the School District to buy it from them. Presently, they are leveling the school site, which is ten acres, as per instructions from the School District, and the leveling is costing an additional $54,000 in addition to the $200,000 investment they have in the site. An option agreement on the acquisition of the site is being prepared in order to use it without paying Sunset, which Sunset has agreed to; soon negotiations will be made in regard to classrooms. He stated that they have not requested building permits in order to meet any deadlines for the increase of fees of any kind. At one time there was a possibility of no building permits being issued for any amount of fees. He wanted it to be understood that Sunset is not stockpiling building permits nor are they requesting permits to beat deadlines for fees and asked that the Council take him at his word. He mentioned that they have paid the recent raise on the sanitary sewer on a group of permits which made a difference of $17,000 to Sunset. This additional $17,000 was paid to the City by asking for the permits 48 hours after it had gone into effect just to indicate that Sunset has good intentions and they are not trying to beat deadlines. He stated the demand for housing is strong; the school site is available and they are capable of pro- viding classrooms and asked what more they can do to prove their good intentions. OPEN FORUM (Sunset Development) Mayor Taylor offered apologies in that the Council perhaps some- times jumps to conclusions as to what the motives of a builder may have been in obtaining permits. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. to an executive session for discussion of appointment to the Housing Authority Board. * * * APPROVE C~ ~ 1:it~ ayo ATTEST aJ~~ornia * * * CM-25-80 Regular Meeting of February 14, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on February 14, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None RO LL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * David Madis, 1054 Canton Avenue,stated that he is asking the Council to grant a transfer of the lease held by Courtesy Aviation, now owned by Pacific Bridge Company, at the air- port on Airway Blvd. He is asking for a trans- fer and consignment of the leasehold interest to him and his wife. Some of the businesses at the airport have gone through a great deal of stress and he filed papers for bank- ruptcy for Industrial Aircraft, who operated their maintenance facility in the Courtesy Aviation Bldg. Mr. Madis also mentioned that one of the other companies using this building is in finan- cial trouble and he would like to take over this building, mak- ing necessary negotiations with the Pacific Bridge Company, in the hopes that he can lease the building and make appropriate arrangements to see that the City has a full service facility at the airport. He mentioned that during the three years Courtesy Aviation operated leasing from the Pacific Bridge Company, they suffered a loss of $300,000. He feels that the City has a fine airport and fine facilities, which in the past have not produced revenues expected by the owners or the City. He stated that he expects to work with the staff and the Airport Advisory Committee to insure that failure which has occurred inthe past will not re- peat itself; that he expects to live up to the terms and obliga- tions of the lease to the City of Livermore and Pacific Bridge Company and that the documents have been prepared for the trans- action. In talking to at least a dozen operators of other air- ports, he has come to the conclusion that Livermore has one of the finest airports in Northern California and there is no reason why, under proper management, it cannot be profitable to the City of Livermore, as well as himself. OPEN FO RUM (Airport Bldg. Lease Transfer- David Madis) Mayor Taylor stated that it would be a good idea to reduce his proposal to writing and present it to the City Manager for an opinion. He felt that the Council would want an opinion from the City Manager and City Attorney before making an approval. Mr. Madis stated that if it is placed on the agenda for the next meeting, he has no objection to waiting for an answer to his request. Mayor Taylor asked that the staff have a report regarding the request in order that it may be decided upon by the next meeting. * * * Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that (Council Procedure) with regard to last week's discussion as to whether or not the public would be allowed to speak before a vote is taken, he would like to make a suggestion. He felt that in the Open Forum portion of the agenda if the words, lion any subject CM-25-81 February 14, 1972 (Council Procedure) not on the agenda" were deleted, this would give anyone an opportunity to discuss anything at that time, including items on the agenda. Mayor Taylor explained that rules for addressing the Council, as appears in the square at the top of the agenda, have been followed and should probably continue to be observed because of the time involved at these meetings. He stated that these rules may be re- vised at some time, however he felt Mr. Allen had brought up a good point. * * * (Ancestral Robert Allen stated that he would like to request Tree Ordinance) the Council to either repeal the ancestral tree ordinance or enact it as an urgency item. He felt that unless one of these is done that anyone can cut down a tree in this category before the ordinance goes into effect. He felt this would be an added protection of these trees. * * * (Political Campaign Signs) Mr. Allen suggested to the Council that political signs that are not on a residential lot perhaps should bear the name of the person authorizing their placement. He felt that there are times placed on property without the proper authority, help eliminate visual pollution of the community. when signs are and this might * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE REZONING BETWEEN ARROYO RD & HOLMES STREET (Mehran) Mayor Taylor stated that Masud Mehran has submitted a rezoning application for the property located between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street, south of Lomitas Avenue, from A-20 District to Rs-4 Dis- trict (140 acres), adding that the application has already been through one public hearing at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Musso explained the property area and stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation is that the property be zoned in con- formance with the General Plan, which is 1.5 units per acre. He mentioned that the zoning regulations are the same whether there is 1 d.u./acre or 2 d.u./acre and that the only problem might be if a developer comes up with a plan where the zoning says 1 per acre and he wants 2 per acre in that particular portion. He men- tioned that density assignments for this area were studied and found that at this time no change should be made to the General Plan. To increase the density to 2 d.u./acre would mean doubling the holding capacity of some of the areas. The other alternative would be to reduce the 1.5 d.u./acre in some areas to .5 and allow 2 d.u./acre in other areas. At this time the Planning Commission recommends allowing 1.5 d.u./acre, with 70 acres to be zoned RS-l and 70 acres to be zoned RS-2 (Residential) District, the line separating the two zones to be determined by the developer with the approval of the City Council prior to adoption of the ordinance of rezoning. Mr. M. I. Quarterman, 2284 Evans Avenue, stated that he has property located on the east side of the area presently being developed by Mr. Mehran and if anything except the lowest density (1.5 d.u./acre) is instituted in that area there will have to be some sort of pro- vision for the sewer system. He stated that the area is low and there is only one sewer line coming to that tract, which is 15 or 16 inches in diameter and will be serving 201 dwelling units; there- fore, a higher density cannot possibly be handled by the existing sewer line in that area. An additional amount of storm drainage CM-25-82 February 14, 1972 capacity has been installed to the west (Elliott) (Public Hearing- and that at this time it is hooked on to the Rezoning, Mehran) system that is being developed by Mr. Mehran. If higher density is allowed, the flow from lack of proper drainage will flow down the arroyo and ruin the proposed trailways in these areas. Mr. Quarterman further stated that Mr. Mehran knew the allowance for density through the General Plan at the time he purchased the property, and urged the Council to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Fred DeMoney, 1114 Innsbruck street, speaking on behalf of the Sunset East Homeowners' Association, stated they feel the overall density of 1.5 d.u./acre, in accordance with the General Plan, is sound and that enough planning has gone into this that it should be maintained. They feel, also, that an increase of density would bring about overpopulation, particularly in the schools. They also agree with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. David Madis stated that he is speaking because he has just been defrauded. He lives in what the developers call Sunset East, that it is old Sunset, and there are a number of people who live in Sunset homes who have a number of interests in homes or home developing and they have never once been invited to a Sunset Home- owners' organization. He stated that a petition was circulated in Sunset regarding the SAVE initiative, which stated that the Sunset Homeowners' Association endorsed it. He challenges these people who say they represent the Sunset Homeowners' Association to invite all of the people in Sunset homes to come to a meeting to let them decide whether or not they will act as their representatives. He stated that he has never appeared before the Council without having been instructed or authorized to do so, and as an attorney been paid for this service. These people appearing before the Council do not represent him nor any of the people they have never invited to their small closed meetings. He stated that the developers say there are l2,500 people in Sunset Town and that this person repre- sents only himself and that this should be taken into consideration by the Council. On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the hearing was closed. Councilman Pritchard asked if Mr. Lee would comment on the sewer conditions which were brought up by Mr. Quarterman. Mr. Lee stated that there is more than adequate capacity of the line (an 18 inch line) at this time, and that there is no correlation between the diameter of the sewer laterals and the discharge. As far as the storm drainage line, he stated he cannot say that all of the area is in that storm drainage district, but whatever is in the district can be handled as it was designed that way; other sys- tems, if needed, would be installed by the developer. Mayor Taylor stated that although the public hearing is closed, the applicant was not present, and asked that the Council give per- mission for Mr. Mehran to speak at this time. Mr. Mehran stated that he has reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1972 and that they reflect most of the thoughts brought out at the public hearing. It is their intent that the development of this land is for the best interest of the public. He feels that the developers are being asked to be more responsible for innovative or imaginative ideas, which means to be different - hence, not in accordance with the General Plan. He stated that the first consideration in a project is that it has to be economically feasible and that there are certain features which determine whether the project will be economically feasible or not; he cannot come up with an economically unfeasible proposition and expect it to work. He stated that they feel they CM-25-83 February 14, 1972 (Public Hearing- can develop the land with a provision for parks, Rezoning, Mehran) developed and improved by the developer; a school developed and improved by the developer and then dedicated to the School District and a provision for open space and make the proposition work economically if they are allowed a few more units than the General Plan allows. He agrees that he knew the allowance for the number of units under the General Plan and that it can be developed under the present zoning with the General Plan. He explained to the Council that he had purchased the land four years ago and that during this time the needs of the City have changed - the City is now concerned with the need for more schools; however, it is the Council's decision whether or not they will allow him the rezoning to Rs-4, and if they choose not to allow him the higher density, he will not be able to provide the school, park and open space. He stated that he agrees with Councilman Miller and the problems he has continuously outlined in the past, stating that he appreciates the continuity of his con- victions, but he also has a desire to correct the problems by being pragmatic. Their only difference in finding a solution to these problems is that perhaps Councilman Miller is approaching the solu- tion in a negative way, while he wants to solve them in a positive way. He stated that Sunset will accept the 1.5 d.u./acre if this is the decision of the Council. Councilman Beebe asked what the density is on the property formerly owned by H. C. Elliott, on Holmes Street, to which Mr. Musso replied that it is 3 d.u./acre and also in answer to Councilman Beebe's ques- tion about the density north of Lomitas Avenue, stated this area is 1.5 d.u./acre. Councilman Pritchard asked why this is referred to as the"General Plan", to which Mayor Taylor explained that a general plan does not designate the exact location of facilities, roads, schools, etc., only typical ones and typical density, and that a specific plan can vary. Mr. Musso stated that under the General Plan the owner has an idea of what can be done with the property, whether it might become indus- trial or residential at 1 d.u./acre or l6 d.u./acre, and suggests what the ultimate development of the land might be. He mentioned that 1.5 d.u./acre does not designate what type of residential de- velopment is allowed - it can be single family or multiple as long as it does not exceed the number of people allowed for that piece of land. Councilman Beebe stated that in light of what Mr. Musso reported, the General Plan represents the holding capacity of the land and not specifics as far as type of plans allowed. Councilman Beebe asked if there is not a legal way open space can be reserved for that purpose only and the City Attorney commented that the only problem is in drafting and that this is a relatively small one. He stated that it depends on what the Council wants the open space to be used for after it is conveyed to the City - whether it shall be used for agricultural purposes or a park, and that once a deci- sion is made as to the use, the problems of conveyance are not diffi- cult. Councilman Silva stated that, in his opinion, open space is good _ even if it remains undeveloped, as is an area behind his house. He stated that he would rather see this than rooftops and that his children spend a great deal of time playing in this open space. Councilman Miller stated that they should keep in mind the possi- bility of developing a few more half acre and one acre lots in the City. He mentioned that when this property was next to the City, it was zoned A-20 because it was felt by the Council that develop- ment was premature and stated that in view of the growth of the City CM-25-84 February 14, 1972 it mayor may not be premature, but if it is not feasible for Mr. Mehran to go with the General Plan perhaps it should be left at A-20. He stated that Mr. Mehran has offered a school, park and open space if the Council allows him a higher density, but Councilman Miller stated he feels that through our present ordinance the City will have the school site and park dedication. A park de- velopment ordinance will probably be in effect in the next six to eight months; adding that if the SAVE initiative passes it will probably insure developed schools. (Public Hearing- Rezoning - Mehran) Mayor Taylor stated that if the Council should decide on Rs-4 zon- ing for this 140 acre parcel with no idea of what might be developed, it would certainly be unwise, and to consider anything but what the General Plan allows should not be done without considerable study as to the effect on the surrounding properties. This is a large piece of property that will take a long time to develop and there should be some way that the promises made could be tied down. He felt that PD (Planned Development) rather than a straight RS zoning would be wise, in that Mr. Mehran may not always be the owner of the land. Councilman Silva stated that he feels General Plan density is general in nature, but in this area it could mean 1.5 d.u./acre or it could mean 2, 3 or .5 d.u./acre. He felt that he could foresee this area as 2 d.u./acre adjacent to the presently de- veloped land and the balance at 1 d.u./acre, which by coincidence is what the Planning Commission recommended as 1.5 d.u./acre overall. Councilman Silva moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone the subject property to RS-l and RS-2 with the specific areas to be determined by the developer. Councilman Beebe questioned if Councilman Silva would consider a transfer of density from one area to another. Councilman Beebe felt that this might be a way of insuring open space, and Coun- cilman Silva felt that this might be agreeable, but not as part of the motion at this time. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion. Councilman Miller mentioned that there is a school site dedica- tion connected with the tract maps and 1500 building permits con- nected to the problems of water and felt that they will probably be faced with a law suit by the developers when this is over. He stated the way problems are solved with regard to approval of maps, is by delay of rezoning for residential purposes. In light of all the problems the tract maps are bringing, he is not in favor of the motion made by Councilman Silva, adding that he feels rezoning is premature. Mayor Taylor asked for a roll called vote to the motion which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilman Pritchard Councilman Silva asked what the public works standards for estate size lots ar~if they are the same as for RS-3 or Rs-4. Mr. Lee stated they are if this is for a conventional type of subdivision; however, if there is a different type of layout the standards may be different. Councilman Silva stated if there are going to be one or two acre lots he sees no need for sidewalks or gutters to be installed in this subdivision - this should receive some considera- tion. Mr. Musso stated that as part of the General Plan amendment there are revisions of these street standards. CM-25-85 February 14, 1972 (Public Hearing re Rezoning - Mehran) Councilman Miller stated that at the 20,000 sq. ft. lot level the elaborate standards are not really necessary. Councilman Silva asked if the widening of Holmes Street will have land taken from both sides equally. He stated that with this new subdivision, widening will come about and it should probably be noted at this time what the plans will be. Mr. Mehran stated, in response to the Council's inquiry, that in order to prevent a jog in the street, land will be taken from both sides of the undeveloped land. He stated that the records should show that there is a possibility and eventuality that lots without sidewalks and elaborate curb and gutters may be considered by this Council to be adopted as standard features for these subdivisions. Report re Bikeway-Green Property- P.M. 816 Communication re Granada High School Stage Band motion be adopted use our City seal Communication re Veterinary Services * * * CONSENT CALENDAR A report was received from the Livermore Bikeways Association regarding the bikeway proposal along the Green property, Parcel Map 816. It was re- commended that the proposal be referred to the staff and Planning Commission. * * * A letter was received from the Granada High School Band reporting that their Stage Band will appear at the Paris Festival de Jazz '72 and asks that they be allowed to represent the City of Livermore. They would also appreciate any support the Council can give them. It has been recommended that a to allow this group to carry our City flag and as a part of their emblem. * * * A letter was received from the Alameda County Veterinary Medical Association offering its ser- vices to the City Council on projects related to general animal health and welfare. They also informed the Council that they plan to notify them of any new developments in this profession. * * * A report was received from the Public Works Director notifying the Council of the recently approved interconnection of the Wagoner Farms area with the Dalton Water Reservoir and the construction of a pumping station, showing the necessary costs involved and stating that they will call for separate bids on the different pieces of equi~ment needed. The total cost of the project is estimated to be ~90,000. It is re- commended that a motion be adopted authorizing receipt of bids for major construction contract and appurtenant facilities. Report re 1972 Water Project * * * Appointment to RESOLUTION NO. 16-72 Housing Author- i ty Board APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY (Kirschbaum) Minutes of Beautification Committee CM-25-86 * * * The minutes of the meeting of January 4, 1972 for the Beautification Committee were submitted for Council review. * * * A report was received from the Chief Bu~ing Inspector showing the number of permits issued from February 3 through February 9, 1972 to be one (1), resulting in a total of 631 single family and 9 multiple family permits since November 9, 1971. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * The City Manager reported that a representative of the Central Labor Council of Alameda request- ed that the matter of the dispute between the Labor Council and the Crosswinds Restaurant, located at the Las Positas Golf Course be placed the agenda. The representative is to be present to express their concerns. February 14, 1972 Report re Building Permits Approval of Consent Calendar REPORT RE CROSS- WINDS LABOR DISPUTE as an item on at this meeting Councilman Silva asked the City Attorney if the City does not have a lease with the restaurant and Mr. Lewis replied to the ~nfirmative. He then asked if the Council has the power to dis- cuss or make decisions as to their disputes and stated that he resents the Council being used to debate a subject which they have no business entering into; this is a private dispute between labor and the restaurant. Mr. Collins, representing the Labor Council stated that he is appearing before the City Council to advise them of the matter because of the location of the restaurant. Councilman Silva repeated that he felt they should not get in- volved and urged the Council to decide whether or not they should hear from the Labor Council representative. Councilman Silva made a motion to table the matter, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, which passed by the following roll called vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Mayor Taylor suggested that if the Labor Council wishes to address the City Council, they do so in writing, and suggested that they contact the staff with regard to what the provisions of the lease are. Councilman Miller reminded Mr. Collins that at the beginning of the council meetings they have an open forum which allows members of the audience to speak on any subject not on the agenda and stated that he would be interested in hearing what Mr. Collins has to say at their next meeting during the open forum. Councilman Miller moved that the matter be taken from the table, as he felt it unreasonable to exclude someone from speaking when they have an item on the agenda regularly scheduled for the Council to hear; motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor, however failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva * * * The City Attorney submitted a report regarding the density transfer agreement modification (Gillice) requesting, in agreement form, a -~-------_._~"-^-~-----------------~~---~.,--._-~-_._,_...'__."_"_._-~.-,.__......---_..,.. REPORT RE DENSITY TRANSFER (Gillice) CM-25-87 February 14, 1972 (Density Transfer - Gillice) continuation of the variance heretofore issued to the applicant for the construction of multiple residential units along Murrieta Blvd west of Holmes street. A density transfer was allowed for the Medeiros Parkway area, east of Holmes st. Councilman Miller stated that he did not have a copy of this agree- ment, which is a very complicated agreement, and he would like to look over the exhibits before there is any discussion on this type of contract. He questioned what properties are to be sold and how this will interfere with the proposed parkway. He stated that the map should be sent to LARPD for their comment, and that all groups concerned should be informed of the modification. Mayor Taylor agreed with the points listed by Councilman Miller and stated that past correspondence, especially with Zone 7 should be reviewed. Mr. Musso explained that unless they changed the map that was filed with the variance, there is nothing the Council can do because they have agreed to accept it with the density transfer regardless of what LARPD has to say. There followed discussion on the properties to be sold, their lo- cation and how they would affect the channel and proposed park- way. Councilman Miller made a motion to table the matter until receipt of a copy of a map showing the area, comments of LARPD and the staff, however the motion died for lack of a second. David Madis, representing the applicant, indicated that provision has been made in the agreement for an amount to be inserted regard- ing the total acreage to be deeded out to private property owners (approx. 42 acres). Mayor Taylor stated he believes the only matter the Council has not agreed to, in principle, is the exact map. Everything else the Council has agreed to, in his opinion; however, it seems that one of the Council members or one of the staff did not agree. The City Attorney stated, as Mr. Madis explained, it is not material because the form of a contract had been agreed upon before in 1970, but there are some variances between the prior agreement and the one presently under consideration. This proposed agreement does not insure that the City can have this land when the permits are issued. It is up to the developer to convince the City of his in- tentions or capabilities. He stated the agreement has been drafted to contain the proposal of the developer as to what he represented he could do. The basic transfer agreed upon in 1970 was the den- sity transfer of 74 units on the east side of Holmes street to the west side. It proposes the issuance of building permits with the agreement of the developer to place the parcel by deed in the name of the title company named in the agreement and the property would be held for one year until the first and second deeds of trust are cleared off and then reconveyed by the title company to the City. During the year the title company has the deed the parcel would be surveyed, the public works improvements for the channel would be agreed on as specified by the Public Works Department as in accordance with Zone 7 and as required by the City. Mr. Lewis stated that the contractor would cause to be designed according to those standards and a contractor would be employed during the summer of 1972 to do the channel work which was agreed upon. A bond could be posted and perhaps that might be reviewed with the Public Works Director. Councilman Miller stated that he still would like to see the variance, the maps, review the text and inform LARPD. He, there- fore, at this time moved again to table the matte r or continue it CM-25-88 for one week, seconded by Mayor Taylor, which passed with a 4-1 vote, Councilman Pritchard dissenting. February 14, 1972 (Density Transfer - Gillice) Councilman Pritchard asked, prior to the vote, if the City's interests are protected by the title company becoming trustee and holder of the escrow. The City Attorney stated that this was the best solu- tion the City had of preventing the property from being disposed of to some other person, but that he cannot guarantee that this would be as good as obtaining the property itself. Under the fac- tual situation that the developer presented, he felt that this protected the City best. Councilman Silva asked which members of the staff had not had a chance to review this matter, and the City Attorney stated that he has had sufficient time to review the agreement modification and knows the contents but Mr. Lee has not had this opportunity and would like to review it. The party representing Mr. Gillice stated that he would agree to a continuance of the matter also. * * * The question of zoning Industrial Annex No.6, recently annexed to the City, had been referred back to the Planning Commission and by unanimous vote they concurred with the Council's proposal to rezone the area from U (Unclassified) to ID (Industrial Development and Administration) District. REPORT AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE INDUS- TRIAL ANNEX NO. 6 On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the ordinance rezoning Industrial Annex No.6 to ID District was introduced. * * * The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 1 were noted for filing. * * * A report was submitted by the Public Works Di- rector regarding release of bond for Tract 3028 (Kaufman & Broad), recommending that a motion, authorizing release of bond subject to deposit of funds in escrow, be adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REPORT RE BONDS TRACT 3028 (K&B) Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the Staff's recommendation to release the bond, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which motion received unanimous approval of the Council. * * * COUNCILMAN SILVA REQUESTED A THREE MINUTE RECESS AND THE MEETING RESUMED THEREAFTER WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. * * * The Council had received a copy of the resolu- tion regarding the proposed form of the ballot for the two measures to be presented at the MuniCipal Election, April 11. RECESS RESOLUTION RE BALLOT MEASURE Mayor Taylor explained that one measure is the "Council Resolution", worded slightly different than as submitted by Councilman Silva, and the other the "SAVE Initiative Petition" also slightly modified. CM-25-89 February 14, 1972 (Ballot Measures) The City Attorney stated that these have been presented to the Council for their determination as to whether or not the wording, as expressed, is fair. Mayor Taylor asked Councilman Silva if the wording in his initia- tive is as he would like it to be without change, to which he re- plied that it is correct as it now stands. The Council briefly discussed the wording of the two measures and it was decided that the wording in the measure suggested by Coun- cilman Silva be exactly as stated in the proposed ordinance. There followed a discussion as to the sequence for the measures and Coun- cilman Miller felt that the ordinance submitted by petition (SAVE) should go on the ballot first since it was submitted first and pre- sented to the Council first; however Councilman Silva stated that his initiative was adopted first, and therefore should come first on the ballot. Mayor Taylor felt that the petition (SAVE) presented to the Council actually stirred up these issues and, in light of this, should appear on the ballot first; however, there are no rules stating which should appear first. Councilman Silva moved that the resolution that was proposed first be placed first on the ballot, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion passed by the following called vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilman Miller suggested that the word "SAVE" be used in the measure in order that voters will recognize it, to read as follows: "...submitted by initiative petition (SAVE) providing that..." Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor felt that it was clear, as it is now written, in that one states "proposed by the City Council" while the other states "submitted by initiative petition". On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, the Council voted unanimously to adopt the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 17-72 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE FORM OF BALLOT FOR TWO MEASURES TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD AND CONDUCTED IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ON APRIL 11, 1972. There was some discussion as to who would write the arguments for the ordinance proposed by the Council to be mailed with the sample ballots. Councilman Pritchard moved that Councilman Silva be appointed to write the arguments for the measure on the ballot, subject to Council approval, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Pritchard asked if the Council decided to take a stand against the SAVE Initiative, is the staff authorized to accept their stand and could the Council authorize an individual to write arguments against the SAVE Initiative. The City Attorney and City Clerk stated that this could be done (inside the body), and they felt that a member outside of the legislative body could not be appointed. There was some discussion as to stands to be taken on the two mea- sures and the City Attorney stated that whichever stand the Council takes, on each measure, by statute, the Council's argument has priority and the second priority comes to the individual voter or CM-25-90 February 14, 1972 association sponsoring the measure, associations (Ballot Measures) of citizens and lastly, the individual voter. Councilman Silva stated that he would like to write the arguments for his initiative but he would not like to bring it before the Council to be torn apart and debated - he would like to speak to each individual Councilman, asking their opinions. He stated he would also like to write the argument against SAVE. At this time Councilman Pritchard moved that the City Clerk notify the organizers of the SAVE Initiative that they have the prerogative whether or not to submit an argument in support of their Initiative, to be submitted by a certain date, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and which received unanimous approval by the Council. Councilman Miller stated that he would like to write the argument against the Council's proposed ordinance, in that he did not vote for it. Mayor Taylor felt that SAVE should be invited to write the argument against the Council's proposed ordinance, rather than appoint a member of the Council to do it; which Councilman Pritchard also agreed with. It was decided to wait and see whether or not the SAVE people wish to write an argument supporting the SAVE Initiative. If they do, Councilman Silva will write an argument against it. Councilman Miller stated that if the people from SAVE do not wish to write an argument against the Council's initiative, that the City Council must designate him to write the "No" Argument. Councilman Pritchard moved that Councilman Miller be designated to write the "No" Argument on the Council's Measure, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received unanimous approval of the Council. * * * Councilman Pritchard stated that before a vote is taken regarding Section 2l.00 (signs) - free- standing signs and those adjacent to freeways, he would urge Councilman Miller to vote with Councilman Beebe and himself in opposing the invasion of the sign ordinance. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE SIGNS (Sec. 21.00) Councilman Miller stated that (g) should read, "No sign to be permitted within ten (10) feet of the right-of-way of a freeway", as previously agreed upon. ORDINANCE NO. 776 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY AM- ENDING SUBSECTION 21.72, RELATING TO SIGNS PERMITTED, AND SUBSECTION 21.76, RELATING TO OTHER REGULATIONS, OF SECTION 2l.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS. On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, the reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following called vote, the above ordinance was passed. AYES: NOES: Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard Councilman Pritchard asked that Mr. Musso give the Council a list of those that have nonconforming signs and the names of those who have been notified. * * * CM-25-91 February 14, 1972 The City Attorney stated that he meant to have the clarification of the water ordinance listed on the agenda for this meeting but it was not finished in time. This is an ordinance amending Section 3.00 of the previous ordinance, paragraph (a) which relates to residential construction - to insert the words, "counted from November 8, 1971" so that the language of paragraph (a) would read, liThe Building Department of the City of Livermore shall issue residential building permits on a first come, first served basis, for construction not to exceed fifteen hundred (1500) dwelling units counted from November 8, 1971, on individual privately owned lots of record and those contained within approved final subdivision maps, which as of November 8, 1971, have full public works improvements." MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Water Ordinance Clarification) Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the clarification of the water ordinance, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which received unanimous approval of the Council; it was considered an introduction of the ordinance, as the title was then read by the City Attorney. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Council Meeting) * * * Councilman Beebe stated that in view of the fact the next Monday is a holiday, they are supposed to meet on Tuesday, the 22nd. However, there being no scheduled public hearings he felt there was no necessity to meet on the 22nd, to which the Council agreed. At this time Councilman Beebe moved that the next meeting be held on Monday, February 28, 1972, and if anything requiring a meeting occurs, the City Clerk is to notify the Council; seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to have the City Attorney write a letter to Mr. Collins of the Central Labor Council, explaining the Council's position in regard to the dispute between the Union and the local restaurant, with Councilmen's permission. The Council all agreed that a Mr. Collins would be an appropriate course of action. (Council's Position re Dispute) the other letter to (Groups or Associations Speaking Before City Council) * * * Councilman Pritchard suggested that all associa- tions, whoever they may be, provide the Council with a copy of their bylaws and by what method their membership arrives at decisions to be made, or the Council does not have to recognize them. Mayor Taylor felt that they might not have the authority to request this, but agreed with Councilman Pritchard that they do not have to listen to people who say they represent a particular association and the Council has no information as to their activities. The City Attorney stated that he is not sure of the legalities in- volved in this type of request but felt that many people might not have an opportunity to obtain a copy of the bylaws before ap- proaching the Cbuncil with a problem. Mayor Taylor stated that he feels the Council has the right to ask a representative for whom he is speaking and how many, etc.; adding that there may be three in the group this year and 100 the next year. CM-25-92 * * * February 14, 1972 Councilman Pritchard stated that since their next meeting will be held on February 28, this is their last chance to decide whether or not to put the selection of Mayor to the people through their vote. He therefore moved that the Council add to the ballot whether or not the City of Livermore shall have an elected Mayor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion failed by the following vote: (Process for Electing Mayor) AYES: NOES: Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor Prior to taking the vote, Dr. Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia Avenue, stated that he would urge the Council to accept Councilman Pritchard's recommendation to place this matter on the ballot - that it might give the people the attitude they are now lacking. Mayor Taylor stated that the members of the Council are responsible to the people and, if during the meetings they are not conducted as they should be, the Mayor can be changed. He stated that in other cities of approximately the same size as Livermore, they seem to follow this same type of procedure which seems to work out well. * * * Councilman Silva stated that something has been brought to his attention and that he would like an executive session to be held for the discus- sion of the subject. (Executive Session Request) Mayor Taylor acknowledged his request adding that they must also make an appointment to the Beautification Committee. * * * Councilman Miller stated that he has received complaints regarding the sidewalk repairs in that tree roots are being cut very deep and people fear that their trees will die. He, therefore, urged the Public Works Department to check into these complaints. (Complaints re Sidewalk Repair) * * * Mayor Taylor mentioned that the School District (Building Permits) staff has made a proposal which was presented to the developers today - they are to meet this week and will have a reply by the 22nd. Councilman Miller reminded the Council that this matter has gone on now for 75 days. He stated that during December the Council decided to wait until the school came to a resolution before halting the issuance of building permits, giving them 30 days. On January 6 and 10, Councilman Miller stated that the City could expect stockpiling to take place. Since this time a large number of permits have been issued which, in his opinion, could only be considered stockpiling, and it is essential to keep our schools from going to double sessions. Again he offered the proposal that the Council halt the issuance of building permits until April 21, after the outcome of the SAVE Initiative has been confirmed. If SAVE does pass, this proposal will have protected the people in the sense that SAVE will protect them from issuance of more building permits, and if it does not pass, then the City can continue to issue permits. This proposal was considered a motion by Councilman Miller, which Mayor Taylor seconded, and commented that the developers involved in negotiations do not intend to take any permits out between now and April 22nd, and all the permits taken out prior to this will be covered by the agreement decided upon by the developers and the CM-25-93 February 14, 1972 (Building Permits) School District. He further added that if they call for a moratorium at this time the Courts may order the City to issue permits and then Livermore may lose the proposed schools, etc. some of the developers intend to provide. The vote was taken on the motion which failed 4-1 with Councilman Miller only in favor. * * * (Proposed Building Code Amendments) Councilman Miller stated that he would like to mention the amendment to the Building Code having to do with the time scale for the expiration of building permits. He stated that the Council should think about what is going to happen to the children of the community with regard to double sessions. Councilman Silva stated that he has a child just off double sessions- that she gets home one hour later than when she was on double ses- sion and she now has a 45 minute lunch hour which she did not have while on double session. He, therefore, concludes that a child re- ceives 15 minutes more of study time if he is not on double session. This is his reason for not being as concerned about children in Livermore being on double sessions. Councilman Miller at this time moved that the Council direct the staff to look into a way they can tighten up the time scale on building permits to prevent stockpiling; however the motion died for lack of a second. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to an executive session. * * * ATTEST / ./-,____,Ci ty Clerk {/Livermore, California APPROVE * * * Regular Meeting of February 28, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on February 28, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor explained that this is Boy Scout Government Week and in the City of Livermore there has been a competition in which all the troops were invited to participate. A number of these boys competed for the honor of sitting in with the Council by writing short compositions; those who were chosen are present at the meeting and the Mayor asked if the Scouts would lead in the Pledge of Allegiance. A Scout member came forward and led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (With Boy Scout Participation) Mayor Taylor introduced the Scouts participating in the Council meeting and asked that each Scout be seated near the Council mem- ber that he was to represent so that he could observe the meeting. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by MINUTES Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the minutes of the meetings of February 7 and 14, 1972, were approved as amended. * * * The City Manager explained that CABLE, Tele- Vue Systems, Inc. has been serving the City for several years without complete success, which has not been entirely their fault, and they have made every effort to improve service. However, in response to a number of inquiries received, which he has in turn discussed with the company, he has met with the General Manager, Mr. Derick of Tele-Vue with regard to solutions to some of these problems and felt that it might be wise for him to address the Council in view of the fact that members of the Council have un- doubtedly received comments from the public. SPECIAL ITEM (Tele-Vue Systems) Mr. Chris Derick stated that Mr. Parness had pretty well summarized the reasons for his appearance, adding that he is not appearing in defense of the history of Tele-Vue and that he is responsible only for what he can accomplish as General Manager. He stated that one of the reasons for problems in the Livermore area is that due to the geographical location there are approximately nine miles of main line trunk going down Vasco Road, which severely taxes the capabilities of the electronics and opens the system to a great deal of exposure. He then discussed changes made since he has taken over the management to improve service to Livermore residents, and future plans for improvements. He mentioned that power outages affect the reliability of CABLE and to combat this problem they have provided the technical vehicles with a standby power plant that can respond, any time of day or night, to any kind of failure that would affect their system. He stated that he and his company have three objectives: 1) they will endeavor to provide the highest quality of CABLE pictures and the most reliable pictures; 2) endeavor to maintain a long term customer education program; and 3) by developing significant lines of communication, they can CM-25-95 ._-'_.-.~-'-----~_.._._--_.,-,-~,_.,..._--"-,-_.._---,~"-""""--'-"-'--" ". February 28, 1972 (Tele-Vue Systems) develop a significant program for public respon- siveness that will allow them to be aware of the needs of their subscribers. Councilman Miller stated that from the public service aspect the question has been raised whether or not CABLE TV will televise pub- lic meetings. He mentioned that there are many public jurisdic- tions in the Valley and that many might profit from being televised. Mr. Derick stated he is sure that within the next five years this will be a requirement. He stated that he would like to get involved in this type of thing, but that the public response is not as great as the Council and he might think, as proven through experiments, and there are technical and financial problems involved in this area. As it becomes feasible they will endeavor to move into these areas. Councilman Pritchard asked what the hookup fee is, what the monthly fee is, and if the pre-hookup in new subdivisions and new areas where homes have just been completed is still provided. Mr. Derick replied that the fee is $5.00 a month for the first out- let and $1.00 for each additional outlet; there is no additional charge for FM outlets and there is no charge for hook-up or install- ation. However, in view of the fact there is no monthly charge for FM there is a fee for the initial hookup which amounts to $10.00. * * * Kenneth Harris, 1684 Spruce Street, stated that he has received a bill from the City in the amount of $47 for damage of a sidewalk caused by a tree which is on his neighbor's property. He stated that approximately four years ago he received per- mission from the City to remove trees in the parking strip of his property. Upon receiving notice of sidewalk damage he went to the owner of the tree which caused the damage and asked that they pay forthis repair. He stated they felt it was not their responsibility and he then went to the City Attorney for advice, which was to ask the Public Works Director for verification of his statement. He stated that Mr. Freitas of the City staff came to his house to in- spect the situation and then received a letter from the Public Works Department stating that the tree on the property of 1726 Spruce Street is the cause of the damage done to the sidewalk of both properties; that it is up to the owners to come to an agreement as to financing the corrections to be made. He concluded by stating that he feels he has done all he can do in this case and is appearing before the Council to gain relief from what he considers to be a deplorable situation. OPEN FORUM (Sidewalk Repair Dispute) Mayor Taylor stated that with the permission of Mr. Harris he would ask that the City Manager check into the matter and report back to the Council with suggestions as to Mr. Harris' recourse. It was explained to Mr. Harris that he has not, as yet, received a bill, but a contractor's estimate of the repairs and that a lien on the property would not be placed until five days after he has received a bill. * * * (Granada Stage Band-Financial Aid) Charles Jennings, 1330 Fairview Court, represent- ing the Granada High School Stage Band, stated that they have been accepted to attend the Paris de Jazz Festival '72 to represent the United States and Livermore and they wish to thank the Council for use of the City seal on their emblem and permission to carry the City flag and represent the City. He stated the cost to attend CM-25-96 February 28, 1972 this festival will amount to $22,000; the School (Granada Stage Band) Board has given them $500 and they are asking the Council to extend whatever financial aid they may be able to give. Seven bands have been selected from the United States to attend. Councilman Beebe stated that he felt this is a very worthy subject and reminded the Council that they had given a soccer team up to $500 to help finance their trip at one time; in that this is worldwide competition, he felt it deserved at least the same support given the soccer team. Councilman Beebe moved to appro- priate up to $500 to the Granada Stage Band when they raise the remainder of the $22,000, seconded by Councilman Silva, and passed unanimously. Dr. Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia Avenue, suggested that the Council reconsider the amount they are willing to give the jazz band. He felt that this event merits more than $500 and the City should give some sort of consideration as to using part of the budget money for support. Mayor Taylor stated that $500 does not sound like much when there is a $22,000 total to be considered, but added that no matter what figure is given someone would say it is not enough; $500 represents the City's support and that is public money of which there is not an unlimited supply. * * * Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that he would like to have a brief report of the ballot measures as he plans to turn in a request to the City Clerk which may be unnecessary. He stated that he would like to know how many ballot arguments have been turned in, etc., clarifying that he is referring to the two initiatives on the ballot. (Arguments re Ballot Initiatives) The Mayor asked the City Clerk how many had been turned in, to which she replied that there has been an argument turned in on the Council's Initiative and two on the Save Initiative. Mayor Taylor explained that the law reads the Council has the authority to make the ballot arguments or designate one of its members to write the argument. The City Clerk stated that the second priority is that the pro- ponents of the measure, or a bona fide organization, write ar- guments. Mr. Allen stated that, on behalf of Local #ll5 of the American Taxpayers' Union, he planned to present a letter to the City Clerk requesting that their arguments against the Council Measure be selected. He stated that the law provides that unless the pro- posing organization makes a ballot argument, the City Clerk has the responsibility to select one argument for and one against each measure, contained in Section 5014 of the Elections Code, and is requesting on the basis of this letter that their argu- ment be the chosen one. Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, stated that this matter seems to be confusing and urged the Council to remove their initiative from the ballot. * * * Roslia Pendley, 2720 Bess Avenue, stated that she feels there should be more encouragement of entertainment for young children and teen- agers. She stated that Livermore should have bowling alleys as well as another theatre for (Youth Activity) a skating rink and the younger generation. CM-25-97 February 28, 1972 (Youth Activity She mentioned that the Recreation Center is not large enough for the children in this town and that possibly the Council could look into a City controlled center for activities for these chil- dren. She directed her remarks to the young people on the Council at this meeting for their suggestions, and one member felt there is enough to do if they wish to do something. She agreed that 4-H and Scouts are good organizations for activi- ties, but some children might not be interested in this type of thing; there should be more than these typ~of groups for enter- tainment. Mike Robinson (Scout) stated he would like to bowl, go to a movie or the skating rink whenever possible, but these activities are so expensive that the young generation cannot afford to do some of the things that are available. Councilman Beebe suggested that adults wishing to provide more activity for the youngsters, contact groups such as Square Dancing Organizations, etc., and see if they can get some group support. George Ruzika (Scout) stated that going to Del Valle Reservoir, etc. often requires transportation that is not available to many children in town and feels that the City needs more activity here in town within walking distance, or that can be reached by bicycling, rather than finding ways to get to out-of-town functions. * * * the Council part in the Joe Whalen stated that he had brought the Scouts to attend the Council meeting and felt that it was time for them to leave; he wanted to thank for their cooperation in allowing the Scouts to take meeting. (Thanks to Council) Mayor Taylor thanked all the Scouts for coming to the meeting. * * * RECESS After a short recess, the meeting resumed with all members present with the exception of Councilman Silva, who returned before approval of the Consent Calendar. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Departmental Reports Departmental Reports were received as follows: Airport - activity and financial - January Building Inspection Department - Activity - January and permits issued February 10 through 23 Fire Department - December and January Golf Course - January Municipal Court - December and January Planning/Zoning Activity - September-December Police and Pound Departments - January Water Reclamation Plant - January * * * year period. satisfactory The City Manager reported that a response has been obtained by us from the present auditing firm for an extension of their agreement to provide the usual services for our City for an additional three The services of this firm have been found to be quite and the fee increase is reasonable. It is recommended Report re Audit Services CM-25-g8 that the City Council adopt a motion authoriz- ing retention of this firm for an additional three year term. February 28, 1972 (Audit Services) Councilman Pritchard asked how long this firm had been doing the auditing, to which the City Manager replied for a number of years. Councilman Pritchard stated that he felt if they missed something one year, it would be discovered in succeeding years by the same firm. The City Manager explained that the same process is followed by all reputable firms, particularly those dealing with municipal audits. In the past other CPA firms were given the opportunity to do the auditing and none showed interest in assuming the task. He felt that this is not the problem, as they do use different personnel to do the auditing. Councilman Pritchard asked what the fee for the service is, and the City Manager replied that the fee for the past three year term is only $450 lower than what they are requesting for the next three year term, and felt this to be a reasonable request. * * * The City Manager reported that in order to qual- ify for a State matching grant in the amount of $5,000 for our municipal airport operation, it is necessary that a similar amount be placed on deposit by the City. This is an annual process and the funds are listed accordingly in the current budget. is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing a budget fer of $5,000 from the airport operating fund to the special port fund. * * * An annexation agreement has been executed for the industrial properties recently annexed. It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing execution of the agreement. * * * An open letter to the City Council from Richard L. Boyd, candidate for Councilman, was received criticizing the Council for their action in not allowing a person to speak with regard to a la- bor dispute despite fact the item was listed on agenda. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 18-72 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBER TO BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE (Edward P. Mills) * * * Minutes of the Investment Committee for the meeting of February 4, and the Housing Author- ity meeting of January 25 were received. Report re Budget Transfer-Special Airport Fund It trans- air- Report re So. Pac. Transportation Co. Annexation Agreement Communication re Council Action Appointment to Beautification Committee Minutes-Investment Committee and Housing Authority Councilman Miller asked if they could have a report on the Invest- ment Policy, from the City Manager, to be given at the end of the meeting. * * * CM-25-99 _._~--~ "_~"_'___"__""""".~""'_"'_"~"~~'."U'___,.__---_._'->"~'_'___...<".n___~__M__.___ February 28, 1972 One hundred forty-five claims dated February 24 in the amount of $169,161.52; two hundred thirty-five payroll warrants, dated February 10, in the amount of $57,185.46 and two hundred forty-six payroll warrants, dated February 25, in the amount of $56,163.08 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Payroll and Claims * * * Approval of Consent Calendar Councilman Miller moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, with the exception of the minutes of the Investment Committee, which he had asked to be put over until later in the meeting, seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unani- mously. * * * REPORT RE VARIANCE REQUEST (Gillice) Mayor Taylor explained that the matter of the Gillice variance request had been postponed from the meeting of February 14, in order to give the City Manager an opportunity to receive a statement from LARPD regarding the effect of property sales on arroyo use, and to distribute to the Council copies of the variance and modification of agree- ment. Councilman Miller stated that if the staff is going to continue to consider this and prepare some type of modified agreement, there are three points that should be considered: 1) the timing of the property deeds and how consistent they are with the wording of the variance; 2) the number of units that are going to be allowed, which is different in the present draft agreement than what is said in the variance; 3) how much of the property that is sold off is sub- ject to the approval of the City. He felt that this has to be examined very carefully; not only does Parcel 9 extend all the way into the channel, but the properties that Mr. Gillice proposes to sell, represent the part of the property which is best adapted to adult public use. They should consider whether the City is getting the best deal if they allow the sale of the properties best adapted to public use. He felt that the City may not be getting the full open space share if they allow the sale of the better pro- perties. It was decided to continue the matter until next week in order to receive further information by motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval. * * * REPORT RE NORTHFRONT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The Public Works Director explained that the Assessment District will provide for sanitary sewer and water lines to be constructed along Northfront Road from Vasco Road to the Green School. He stated that they have received petitions from thirty ownerships (representing 80% of the area) requesting that an assessment district be established to provide for the sewer and water lines. The area is in the County and will require approval of the County to form the assessment district. It is in a potential Commercial Zone, and the approximate cost would be $199,000 for the sewer line and $111,000. for the water line. It is suggested that the Council take the first action and ask the County to participate. Mr. Lee explained that the off- tract portion of the sanitary sewer would benefit other properties not in the District and that after the District is established the Council should form a Benefit District that would recover a por- tion of the cost from the people in the off-tract area. RD. Mayor Taylor questioned that in order to form an assessment dis- trict would it be necessary to annex the property before doing so, CM-25-100 February 28, 1972 and the City Manager stated that he had inform- ed the owners that they would be required to execute a sewer agreement prior to the line being accepted for use and the sewer connection agreement does specify that annexation shall be when it is technically feasible. (Northfront Rd Assessment Dist.) accomplished Mayor Taylor expressed his concern that these people might pay for a line to be put in and then someone may not want to allow annexation of the area, possibly leaving the City in a legal complication, in that the line is theirs but they do not wish to sign an annexation agreement. In his opinion, the owners should realize that annexation will take place at some time. The City Manager advised that if the Council is in favor of pro- ceeding with the matter it should be referred back to the staff in order that they can prepare the technical details in addition to processing some of the necessary agreements. Councilman Pritchard wanted to know how many people are signatories to the 80% area, to which Mr. Busick, their representative, ill- ustrated on a map, those who favored the assessment district. Wr-ll~l1 Tiecke, 860 William Drive, representing California Water Service, stated that they have serviced the area for more than forty years. The highway was widened and they had to relocate all of their facilities to the new frontage road. He stated the sys- tem was upgraded at the time of the highway work, so that in addition to having the Zone 7 system available, they also have booster pumps to function if Zone 7 connection fails. He stated that their position has been historical and their pipes were moved at the convenience of the State, adding that there were three and four inch pipes in the Greenville area, but these no longer exist. Mr. Lee suggested that if the matter is referred back to the staff, they be instructed to meet with California Water representatives to work out any possible conflicts. Councilman Miller questioned the feasibility of annexing this property. Councilman Beebe stated that to annex this area would mean an extension of police and fire service and wondered if now is the time to annex the property. He suggested that they receive a staff report as to the feasibility and practicality of annexation at this time. Councilman Silva moved to refer the matter to the staff for a report, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which was approved unanimously. * * * The City Attorney stated that Mr. Elliott, on behalf of H.C. Elliott, Inc., appealed to the City for action on the filing of his final sub- division map for Tract 3333. He explained that the members of the Council have a memo from him in regard to what is being supplied, and is asking for clarification from the Council before proceeding. He stated that it was his understanding at the time that the Council approved the final tract there were two con- ditions they wanted resolved and at this point they have not been completely resolved. As it is his understanding, there is some on-and off-tract work that must be done and the delays represent a considerable problem to Mr. Elliott. FINAL TRACT MAP 3333 (H.C. Elliott) ~1ayor Taylor stated that he did not understand the problem and wanted to know if the City Attorney is asking if it was the intent of the Council to hold up recordation of the map, subject to these agreements, and Mr. Lewis stated this was correct. CM-25-101 February 28, 1972 (Final Map- Tract 3333) Mayor Taylor stated it seems the agreement was on the basis of making the school and water matters conditions of the agreement. The City Attorney explained that they tentatively talked about placing provisions in regard to water in the subdivision agreement; however, in the interim it was finalized and signed by both parties. He stated that it was contemplated, at the time of the approval of the tract, that the details of the school provision for por- tables would be reached in a side agreement between the City and the developer, though this was really just a way' of forming his !~wo involuntarily imposed conditions". He reminded the Council that he had advised that the conditions were of shaky legal sub- stance if the City tried to impose them without Mr. Elliott's consent. Councilman Beebe asked if what Mr. Elliott is asking is that the City help out with condemnation of easements which he has not been able to obtain and wondered if this should be done prior to appro- val of the map. The City Attorney stated that the reque9t, as stated, is true, adding that it is totally at the expense of the developer and it would be advisable that this step follow the recording or approval of the map, but felt that the question at hand is, what to do with the map at this time, suggesting that they hear from Mr. Elliott. The Public Works Director stated that the subdivision agreement has been executed and the only thing as far as they were concerned with holding up the filing of the final map was the receipt of the deed for the park area, which the developer has been working on, and the requirement of the easements; this has been a problem as some of the property is in an estate. They are prepared to sign the final tract map, as it was their understanding that the school and water problems will be of concern at the time permits are issued and not at this stage. The City Attorney stated that the reason for bringing this up is to identify the problem and, if possible, come to an alternate solution, outside of the agreements. Councilman Miller felt that it would not make sense to allow the map to be recorded without the agreements. Mr. Lee stated that it was his understanding that the map could be filed and that issuance of permits could be withheld, pending the outcome of the problems to be resolved. Mr. David Madis, representing Mr. Elliott, stated that in good faith Mr. Elliott is trying to solve some of the genuine problems of the City, is willing to spend approximately $180,000. which he has been advised is unnecessary for him to spend; however, he is willing to take on the obligation. He asked that the Council demonstrate the same good faith towards Mr. Elliott in approving the final map and to trust the intentions of Mr. Elliott who does not intend to apply for permits until all problems have been worked out with California Water and the School District. Mr. Elliott stated that it was his understanding he would be allowed to go ahead and improve the property until the water was proved out; that he wanted to provide a school, but feels he may have set a precedent, which was not his intention. He has attended meetings with the School Board, and he wants the people of his houses to be assured that their children will have a place to attend school. He stated that he sees no reason why they cannot have the map recorded. Mayor Taylor stated that there may have been a misunderstanding at the time Mr. Burnstein presented the Council with the Elliott offer - CM-25-102 February 28, 1972 to build schools and provide water. Mr. Burn- stein was very general in making the main points of the offer and it was his understanding that these were conditions of final acceptance of the map or permits. In any case, the Dlap was in agreement with the tentative map, and the Council was advised they had no legal basis for not accepting the final map for recording. The offer to pro- vide schools is honorable and the Council would like to get every- thing possible in black and white, as it is a unilateral offer, rather than an agreement. Mr. Elliott has agreed to provide schools for Tract 3333 at the rate of 1.1 child per home, for as long as they are necessary, and no permits will be issued until water is provided from the well drilled, of quality sufficient to serve the people of the tract. (Final Map- Tract 3333) The City Attorney stated that, in his oplnlon, they are in rather poor shape to refuse to allow the map to be filed, but is still of the opinion that the final map should not be filed at this point. Mayor Taylor stated that in this case, they are not really in the driver's seat and if they refuse to record the map, they may be ordered to do so anyway. He also felt that the City will get nothing more in the way of agreements, and asked if this was correct. Mr. Lewis stated that at the time the map was approved, it was felt that the agreements would be worked out by now, but such is not the case for a number of reasons. The water situation had to be worked out between Mr. Elliott and the water company; the School District and the developers are still talking about certain pro- blems regarding portables, but the developer is asking the Council for direction to file the map. Mr. Madis stated there seems to be some question as to whether or not the City will get an agreement, and he assured them they would receive a copy of the agreement between California Water and the developer; however, Mr. Lewis stated that this agreement was not the concern of the Council, but rather the agreement between the City and Elliott that there would be no building permits issued until the water proved out. Mr. Madis stated that California Water has accepted the low bid for drilling the well, and copies will be forwarded to the Council; he assured the Council that no application will be made for building permits until there is good water on the site; also, there will be an agreement with the School District and school facilities will be provided. Councilman Miller recalled that the Council stated they would allow the recording of the map when they received the appropriate agree- ments; if they acted in good faith then, it should be equivalent now. It seemed to him there are two problems - one, having to do with the schools, the other with water. The School District staff feels that most of the details have been resolved, but they did point out it has to be sent to the Board, who will either approve it or refer it back for further study. If it is referred back, it may be some time before there is a resolution, or there may be no resolution. With regard to the water, and how good it is, there are some points in the agreement that we make with Mr. Elliott that should be before them having to do with the use of well water in a subdivision. Councilman Miller explained that this water, in part, arises from water which is percolated by Zone 7 and the water which is percolated down the creek is paid for by the taxpayers; it comes out of what we pay the state for water which is used to recharge our basin; therefore any water which is drawn out and makes use of that percolated water is paid for already by the tax- payers; second thing is the cost of the well, which will ultimately not be paid by Mr. Elliott, but by California Water. When Calif- ornia Water buys water, it adds to the rate base, and the rest of the taxpayers pay for the cost in the higher rates, so there is, in fact, a subsidy for the drilling of the well; third, well water CM-25-103 February 28, 1972 (Final Map Tract 3333) is harder than Zone 7 water, which will ultimately make the situation at the treatment plant worse; finally, our staff, Zone 7 staff and California Water have said that wells, in general, are not a good idea because they degrade the water level in the underground basin. They should, therefore, consider at this time if a well is a reasonable alternative to a proper water supply. Councilman Silva stated that the points brought up by Councilman Miller have good merit, however, he was not present at the meeting when the Council made their decision and asked why these points were not brought up at that time. Mayor Taylor stated they did not talk specifically about wells, but Mr. Elliott talked about his own water source, and he recalled that Zone 7 actually had a lease on a well that had been drilled to agri- cultural standards that was in the area, and in their opinion, they decided it would be useful to have a backup well on that side of town so the well was to be drilled to public water supply standards. It was also his understanding that the well would only be used to supplement the other California Water sources at such time that the water supply in the system became very critical, so it would only be used a few months out of the year; also, California Water has a certain quota for withdrawal from the underground water supply, and he did not feel this quota would be changed by this well. In this particular instance there seems to be good reasons presented by California Water for developing this well; they would not be agree- able to this in other areas. He felt they had no legal basis for refusing the tract map before them; should they continue to hold it up, he felt they would be ordered to record it. Rather than being ordered to record it, he felt Mr. Elliott had shown good faith, and as he said, has set what may be a precedent for dedication of schools, and he felt they had as much legal protection as they would get in this particular case. Councilman Beebe questioned if the Council had ordered that the map not be recorded at the time this matter was discussed previously. Mr. Lewis replied there is no specific statement in the minutes to that effect, and may be the reason it is being discussed, because it was not clear; the Council had talked about two conditions which cannot be put on the face of the map itself, but they could go into the subdivision agreement and the subdivision agreement would pre- cede the filing of the map. Mayor Taylor felt it was the Council's intent to hold up filing of the map until they had the agreement, but apparently that is not Mr. Elliott's intent, and he apologized if there is a misunderstand- ing. Now they are faced with a request to record the map forthwith, and offhand he saw nothing to be gained by waiting any longer. Councilman Beebe made a motion that the staff be authorized to sign the map and it be allowed to be recorded, and for the record, he asked that Mr. Elliott state his understanding of the two agreements. Mr. Elliott stated it was his understanding when the map was approved for final map recordation that they were to agree to the final map requirements which consisted of quite a few easements they had to procure, some through condemnation; that they were to get a potable, usable supply of water. As to the school requirement, he had asked specifically that it not be made a part of the subdivision agree- ment, and he did not feel that it should be, because it has taken him at least a month to get bids and find out the school require- ments. Mr. Elliott stated he had offered to dedicate the use of the classrooms, however the paper had erroneously reported that he was donating the classrooms. They are not permanent classrooms, but portable and they will have to be removed when the need is fin- ished; that is why they cannot say they are donating anything; it is CM-25-l04 only a loan and for that reason he did not wish it to be a condition of the map. They are only giving the use of school facilities up to five years or until bond money or other money is pro- vided for other school facilities. February 28, 1972 (Final Map Tract 3333) Councilman Silva stated he was confused, and asked Mr. Elliott if before he comes in for building permits there will be agreements re schools and water and what he would want the agreements to state. Mr. Elliott stated they would not apply for building permits until an adequate water supply is assured for each house, and through sources other than those now existing which would mean a new well, or new source of water and, further, he would not apply for building permits until agreements and arrangements are signed with people to supply the school facilities and contracts between himself and the School District are executed. Councilman Miller questioned who would make the decision with re- gard to quality of the water, and Mr. Elliott stated he thought that would be made by California Water. Councilman Miller inquired of Mr. Tieke of California Water how the quality of that well water compared with the average water quality ~ the City and he replied that it compares to the other water, and Mr. Elliott commented that he was sure there would not have been agreements with the previous owners and they would not have been so ready to guarantee there would be water if they were not reasonably sure the water was good. Councilman Silva seconded the motion reade by Councilman Beebe and questioned Councilman Miller concerning his objections to the well. Mr. Parness suggested that as a further clarification of the present status the motion contain the statement, with the consent of the applicant, that the building permits will not be issued until appro- priate contracts for water and school facilities are formally adopted by the responsible agencies. Mr. Elliott stated his agreement to this addition; Councilman Beebe agreed to the addition to his motion; Councilman Silva agreed as the second, and the motion passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting. * * * The Planning Director explained that a Condi- tional Use Permit Application was submitted by Mayer Development Co. to allow a retail sales establishment on a site located at the southwest corner of P Street and Olivina Ave. He stated at the time this area was zoned there was quite a discussion relative to proper zoning because of the rather stable residential area to the north, immediately across the street, and it was finally concluded they would establish a CO (Commercial Office) on that portion in proximity to the resi- dences and control the land use that way. There are several al- ternatives, but the best plan seems to be to allow the intrusion and the staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval with special landscaping and other requirements. REPORTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION (CUP Application- Mayer Dev. Co.) Councilman Pritchard stated he was under the impression that items of this nature would not come before the Council, however Mr. Musso stated there are two types of use permits which still must be approved by the Council - one, a major use such as an airport or golf course; the other is where a use is not permitted in a parti- cular zone, however in all commercial and industrial zones you are allowed to ask for any use by a CUP and these must come before the Council because it is change of land use. Councilman Pritchard moved concurrence with the Planning Commission recommendation, seconded by Councilman Beebe. CM-25-105 February 28, 1972 (CUP-Mayer Councilman Miller suggested they should add that Development Co.) the plantings be actually large enough to screen, which should be taken into account in the design review, particularly the area facing Olivina Ave. They should add an additional condition on the permit to provide for the inclusion of the amenities such as bike racks, benches and drinking fountains and possibly public toilet facilities, which they have talked about many times in the past, even though this provision does not now exist by ordinance but is under discussion by the Planning Commission. Mayor Taylor stated that the public has complained that there is no place to sit down in shopping centers, and merchants have com- plained about bicycles being placed against the buildings and win- dows, and they are financially a small factor, but should be applied to everyone and he would hesitate to suddenly insert them unless the ordinance will be before them soon. Perhaps if it is, they could insert a condition that standards of development in effect at the time the building permit application is made must be met. Councilman Miller felt they had this option since this was a CUP they should be able to make certain conditions and thought amenities such as these could be included subject to the conditions of City ordinance. Councilman Pritchard felt that the size of this particular shopping center was not big enough to require public restrooms, however Councilman Miller stated he was not being specific, just whatever is decided by ordinance. When questioned about how long it would be before such an ordinance is ready, Mr. Musso replied about a month or six weeks. He also explained that the site plan approval is before the staff at present and that is the reason it is now before the Council to solve the design problem. Councilman Pritchard stated perhaps they could condition the permit to require drinking fountains, bike racks and benches, and Mayor Taylor asked if they could insert that these amenities, consistent with new standards now in preparation for shopping centers, shall be required. He also asked if the maximum size plants could be re- quired for landscaping. With regard to the setback Mayor Taylor asked if a CO development had occurred, how close to the street would the buildings be built and Mr. Musso replied about fifteen feet, now there will be eighty feet of landscape and parking lot. Mr. Musso stated they have tried to avoid the problem that has occurred at Alpha Beta where there is parking in the rear which is vacant, but still there is lack of space in front, so with the appli- cant's cooperation they have tried to provide a plan that did not have a rear access so the building will be built against the pro- perty line. Mayor Taylor stated he wanted assurance that there would be proper screening for the protection of the residential area. Mr. Musso stated by adding Councilman Miller's proposal that the maximum size plants be required will speed up the screening process. Mr. Mayer from San Leandro, the developer, stated he saw nothing wrong with the suggestions made by Councilman Miller, but did suggest that drinking fountains and restrooms should be attached to the building rather than freestanding where they could be knocked over by an automobile. With all of the conditions stated, he won- dered if it might be possible that two or three of the parking stalls could encroach the landscaping and setback area. They have the cor- rect number of stalls now, but might lose as many as four stalls by a 15-foot setback. The Council discussed the points brought out by Mr. Mayer, and con- curred that these points should be worked out with the staff. CM-25-106 Councilman Pritchard agreed that the amenities mentioned by Councilman Miller be included in the motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion passed unanimously. * * * February 28, 1972 (CUP-Mayer Dev. Co.) Mr. Musso explained that at their meeting the main topic of discussion was the survey which indicated the location of the bike trails ex- tending out of the Wagoner Farms area. The Planning Commission came to the conclusion that because of the small area involved the bike trail may as well be incorporated with the Susan Lane right-of-way. The Bike Associa- tion had recommended we consider going back to a bicycle trail incorporated as part of the channel easement. He then described on a map the area that would be involved with this type of trail, and stated that the Planning Commission recommends going back to the trail incorporated as part of the channel, as suggested. This does require the acquisition of property which does not belong to Mr. Green (Parcel Map 816 which is now pending approval), a por- tion which is approximately 15 feet to the rear of the Green proper- ty. He stated that this can be purchased with park dedication money, and suggested that the City proceed immediatly to purchase this property. REPORT RE CHANNEL TREATMENT ARROYO SECO Mayor Taylor stated that he is concerned with the possible removal of eucalyptus trees if the trail is part of the channel and sug- gested that they build a parallel channel or something else rather than remove the trees. Mr. Musso stated that this was a condition of the approval - that none of the trees can come down without City approval. Councilman Miller moved to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which was seconded by Councilman Silva. The City Manager asked if Councilman Miller would instruct him to proceed with the acquisition of the property, as part of his motion, to which he was agreeable, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * Mayor Taylor stated that he felt the letter re- ceived from the Planning Commission regarding the Council's referral of Assembly Bill 1301, amending Chapter 1446 of the Government Code, effective March 3, 1972, was self-explanatory and did not require a report from the Planning Director. The letter stated the Plan- ning Commission intends to adopt the precise plans, in particular, the areas where urban development is pending. * * * REPORT RE REFERRAL- AB 1301 The Planning Director stated that the letter sent to the Council explained the events of their February 15, 1972~ meeting regarding the possible amendment to the Zoning Ordinance particularly parking and storage of private trailers. The Planning Commission voted to place the issue on the ballot, offering the following three alter- natives: 1) adoption of the proposed amendments; 2) enforce the existing ordinance; 3) enforcement and provision within the City of recreational vehicle storage lots, preferably privately operated. The Planning Commission noted that cost estimates indicate that a storage lot might be economically feasible when located on land pre- sently owned by the City. COMMUNICATION RE Z . O. AMENDMENT RE TRAILER PARKING AND STORAGE CM-25-107 February 28, 1972 (Z.O. Amendment re Trailers) Mayor Taylor stated that the last time the Coun- cil discussed whether or not to place the matter on the ballot, it failed by a 3-2 vote. Councilm~n Silva moved that the matter be set for a public hearing as to the proposed amendment to the ordinance, to be held on March 20, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Earl McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, stated that he feels the peti- tions that were submitted with a number of signatures obligates the Council to the commitment of placing the matter on the ballot. Mayor Taylor explained that the Council had voted down the possi- bility of placing the measure on the ballot, and unless a member of the Council has had a change of opinion, there is no reason to discuss placing it on the ballot. He explained that the Council is going to decide whether to enforce the existing ordinance or adopt the new proposed ordinance, which Mr. McMichael favors, at the time of the hearing, and invited him to attend the public hear- ing to express his views. Councilman Miller suggested that the public hearing be heard by the new Council after the April 11 election as he felt the vote by Coun- cilman Silva and possibly his vote would be a "lame duck" vote. The motion to hold a public hearing on March 20 passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting. * * * PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mayor Taylor stated that if there were no com- ments or questions regarding the minutes sub- mitted by the Planning Commission for their meeting of February 15, they would be noted for filing. * * * ORDINANCE RE TENTATIVE MAPS The City Attorney stated that the ordinance amendment to the Municipal Code to reflect time limit changes for review and recommendation for approval or disapproval of tentative maps needs to be redrafted and asked that the matter be postponed for another week. Councilman Miller moved to postpone voting on the ordinance for one week, seconded by Councilman Silva and passed unanimously. * * * ORDINANCE RE Z.O. CATEGORY CHANGE (Mehran) Mayor Taylor explained that the Zoning Ordinance will reflect the zoning category change result- ing from a prior public hearing on a rezoning application submitted by Masud Mehran for pro- perty located between Arroyo Road and Holmes on the map which they have. Street, as shown Councilman Miller questioned whether the line is drawn to make the areas equal, and Mr. Musso replied that three plans were presented to the developer and he chose the one that was submitted to the Council. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, and by unanimous approval, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the ordinance rezoning the property was in- troduced. * * * CM-25-108 February 28, 1972 ORDINANCE NO. 777 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING. ORDINANCE ZONING INDUSTRIAL ANNEX #6 On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote of the Council, the reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance adopted. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 778 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 767 OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF USE OF WATER AND ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND CERTAIN MANUFACTURING AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORD. 767 RE BLDG PERMITS On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and the above ordinance was adopted. * * * Councilman Miller, stated that he would like the REPORT RE INVESTMENT City Manager to briefly explain the policies on COMMITTEE MEETING City investments and perhaps the Council should direct the staff to prepare a short explanation and submit it to the newspapers and radio station describing how the City handles its investment money, and how much money is gained by investments. The City Manager stated that the Finance Department, with the par- ticipation of the City Treasurer and himself, are very active and meticulous in the manner by which the City's active and inactive monies are cared for. The active funds are, by definition, the real commercial accounts - those needed to pay the bills and run City business. Every effort is made in having the balance in these active accounts reduced to a bare minimum, which takes very care- ful planning. The inactive monies are those which are placed in a trust (state funds and various grants, etc.) which cannot be spent except for special purposes, and then only with adequate capital improvement planning. The disposition of these monies is also carefully plotted and varies between what is called federal paper and time deposits. A weekly check is kept on current inter- est rates for the inactive monies and short-term investments have been made available to the City just recently. Through the dogged efforts of the Finance Department and frugal planning, it is possible for the City to earn $500-$600 over a weekend through these invest- ments and during the past year the Finance Department records indi- cate that the City has earned in excess of $90,000. He felt that it was worthy to note that this would represent a savings of 12i on our tax rate. * * * The City Attorney commented that as a result of a two week lag in the Council meetings the matter regarding the drafting of an ordinance for special treatment for such things as Hous- ing Authorities that are building a number of units, has been overlooked. The Building Official prepared a con- cept for the issuance of one building permit for a number of build- ings or structures which constitute a single development located on not more than one lot or parcel of land. He feels that if the SAVE Initiative is adopted by the voters, the problem may become MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF-Ordinance re Public Housing CM-25-109 February 28, 1972 (Ordinance re Public Housing) pressing in another month or so, and the Housing Authority could be in difficulty. He suggested that if they wish to adopt the ordinance, it should be introduced at this time in order to eliminate time problems. Councilman Miller moved to adopt the ordinance, with possibly one amendment to protect the Housing Authority against delays, and instead of having 180 days mentioned in Item (d), it should be 365 days. Councilman Silva stated that in his opinion this ordinance would be a way to amend the SAVE Ordinance, or to circumvent it; he, therefore did not approve. Mayor Taylor seconded Councilman Miller's motion at this time, and after some discussion the Council voted unanimously to intro- duce the ordinance. (Law Suit re Ballot Measure) * * * The City Attorney reported that a preliminary injunction and restraining order had been placed on the Council and Staff on Thursday, February 24, and was heard by Judge Minder, regarding the limit on the issuance of building permits in Livermore (SAVE Petition) to be placed on the ballot. The judge asked to be allowed to review the points of authorities and come to a decision in two weeks and left it open that if there is a time problem the City can inform him. The City Attorney stated that the judge can do one of two things: 1) enjoin the City from placing the SAVE Initiative on the ballot, or 2) dis- solve the temporary injunction and restraining order and refuse to issue the primary injunction, however he did not indicate which way he plans to go. The City Clerk is free to receive arguments, transmit them to the printer, and the printer is free to set up the type and whatever is preliminary to get ready for the ballot, but cannot actually print the ballots. The City Clerk explained that she had already sent all the material to the printer except the arguments before the restraining order was received, so all else is set up to be printed. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Elected Mayor) * * * Councilman Beebe made a motion to reconsider placing the election of mayor on the ballot, se- conded by Councilman Pritchard. Mayor Taylor stated if this is placed on the ballot there would be the questions of shall there be an elected mayor, then shall the term be for two or four years. Councilman Miller felt they should resolve whether or not the issue will be placed on the ballot; then they could discuss the details. A vote was taken on the motion which then failed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor (Conduct of Council Meetings) CM-25-1l0 * * * Councilman Silva made a motion that they allow citizens to speak only during the open forum or with an oral communication or during public hear- ings. The reason for this is to speed up debate February 28, 1972 and decisions of this Council. During the open forum they could speak on any item, whether it is on the agenda or not; however, if there should be a controversial issue, they could set an informal public hearing and inform the public that they will take testimony; after which time the public hear- ing would be closed to allow Council debate without any comment from the audience. (Conduct of Council Meetings) Mayor Taylor felt that they eliminate a lot of discussion if they ask that a person speak only before the vote, after all the debate and facts are known. He felt if they allowed everyone to speak at the open forum regarding an item on the agenda, there would be random input that would not be pertinent. He stated if someone makes a statement before the vote, and debate starts between that person and the Council, that is the fault of the chair and it should be avoided. Councilman Miller suggested that they not change the rules until the new Council members take their seats and made a motion to table the matter. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion that they only allow the public to speak on any item on or off the agenda during the open forum, or they could submit a written communication or if any subject was controversial there would be a formal or informal pUb- lic hearing. The motion failed by the followed called vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Taylor * * * Councilman Silva questioned the number of double (Double Sessions) sessions which had been mentioned by Councilman Miller during a previous meeting, and asked him how many classes would be on double sessions in September. Coun- cilman Miller stated he would have to calculate that on the number of final inspections that have been granted since December 3, and would report later. * * * Councilman Miller stated there has been some discussion in the newspapers about the manipu- lation of impound fees that the banks collect to pay for insurance and taxes on the mortgages they hold, and some people have had their mortgage payments arbi- trarily lowered one year and then steeply increased the next. The City has no direct relationship to this problem, but there are two things the Council can do. One is to support Senator Holmdahl's bill which would provide that interest be paid on im- pounds. He felt they should ask the City Attorney to procure a copy of the bill. They should also suggest to Senator Holmdahl that when banks make mistakes of this type, they should be res- ponsible for their mistake and not place the burden on the people who pay their mortgage payments in good faith. He would suggest that this be enacted into legislation through Senator Holmdahl. (Legislative Bills re Mortgage Impound Fees) Councilman Silva states his agreement with the legislative bill, however he did not agree that banks should be responsible as he did not know the facts, only what the newspapers reported. Councilman Miller stated perhaps they could offer another proposal which would be to have legislature regulate things in such a way that if there are mistakes made of this type that the homeowner be given five years to make up the deficit. It was the Council's decision to have the City Attorney obtain copies of these bills. CM-25-111 February 28, 1972 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. to an executive session to discuss a labor matter, as suggested by Mayor Taylor. APPROVE ~ ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of March 6, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on March 6, 1972 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, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * PLEDGE OF Mayor Taylor led the Council and those present in ALLEGIANCE the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council- man Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of the meeting of February 28, 1972 were approved, as corrected. * * * OPEN FORUM (Skating Rink) Kathy Grass, 3423 Leahy Way, felt that Livermore should have a skating rink. She stated that she has circulated a petition for signatures of those who wish to see a skating rink built in Livermore. Mayor Taylor stated that the City is not in a position to supply facilities of this type, though he can sympathize with those inter- ested in one, and advised that the wishes of the petitioners should be made known to LARPD and the Chamber of Commerce. * * * (Vote re Indus- trial Annex #6) Jack Phillipq, 551 North P Street, stated that with regard to the vote of the Council for the zoning of Industrial Annex #6, Councilman Miller voted differently than he had on the original vote of January 24. Councilman Miller explained that he and Councilman Silva had dis- sented, as they felt Sears should be contacted before deciding upon CM-25-ll2 March 6, 1972 the Planning Commission's recommendation to zone (Vote re Industrial the area to 1M; the matter was then put over Annex No.6) until Sears and the Railroad could express their views. He stated that at this time no formal vote was taken; however, after hearing from the other interests in- volved it was the Council's unanimous decision to zone the area to ID. * * * Mayor Taylor noted that among those present in the audience were students from the Chabot Col- lege Political Science Class, and extended the Council's welcome to the group. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR A communication was received from Senator Clark Bradley expressing his full support for opposi- tion to any proposed legislation that would im- pose compulsory or binding arbitration for local government for police and fire services, and thanked the Council for their summary of opposi- tion addressed to Senator Dills. * * * (Welcome to Political Science Class) Communication re Arbitration for Local Gov' t. The Chief Building Inspector submitted a report Report re Issuance to the Council informing them of the number of of Bldg. Permits building permits issued from February 24 through March 1, 1972. It indicated that two permits were issued for single family units, making a total of 806 single family and nine multiple family since November 9, 1971. * * * The Public Works Director has suggested that the Council set the date for public hearing for the Water Reclamation Plant Environmental Impact Statement. He explained that under the Federal-State grant program there is a requirement that a public hearing be held on the environmental impact study for any treat- ment plant expansion and suggested that the hearing be held on March 27, 1972. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 19-72 Memo re Hearing Date Weed Abatement 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. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 20-72 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICERS, CON- SOLIDATION OF PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, HOURS TO BE OPEN AND FIXING COMPENSATION OF ELECTION OFFICERS. * * * Resolution re Polling Places & Precinct Officers CM-25-113 March 6, 1972 Sidewalk Claim (McKelvey) RESOLUTION NO. 21-72 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN CLAIM ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF. (Group VI) * * * Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council- man Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * The City Manager reported that the matter on the table is the destiny of the trees on Olivina Avenue; several design plans were proposed some months ago as to what treatment might be used for the preserva- tion of them. One plan is to form an island, moving the eastbound traffic to the south, but this plan proved to have de- fects and defficiencies due to the structures involved on the Hage- mann property. An alternate suggested plan would not change the width of the right-of-way, but would still cause the island to be formed and some of the bike paths would have to be sacrificed. He referred to a map indicating the area and suggested plans. The staff had met with Mr. Hagemann and his attorney on two occassions and felt it only fair to state the design they prefer, which is the latter plan without the island. REPORT RE TREES ON OLIVINA AVE. Mr. Lee further explained the dimensions involved, stating that this plan would allow for parked cars as well as moving traffic, but would eliminate the bicycle path. Mayor Taylor asked if it is necessary to provide for full sidewalks on each side and asked if the parking strip could not be eliminated on the south side, and Mr. Lee replied that this could be arranged which would save eight feet on that side. Mayor Taylor suggested that they reduce the traveled way from 26 feet to whatever is minimum in order that it can remain as far from the Hagemann structure as possible. The Public Works Director stated that the Public Works Department suggests acceptance of the plan which provides for an island because to adopt another plan will restrict traffic in the area in question, as it will cause a change in dimension of the road. Councilman Miller felt that if there is no insistence on parking and the plan which provides for an island is accepted, then the present street will be out another eight feet and it might be possible to miss the existing garage; then when the property becomes a park or is used for another purpose, changes can be made accordingly, re- garding sidewalks and parking strips, etc. The City Manager stated that he felt the width of the street will be adequate to satisfy the needs for the short distance involved, adding that their concern is in trying to preserve the trees, which both plans will allow. He felt that to chose the design the appli- cant favors is a reasonable choice in that it satisfies the appli- cant, preserves the trees, and causes the bicyclist a problem for only a very short distance. Burke Critchfield, attorney for the Hagemanns, stated that the only acceptable plan to them is the design with no island. If this plan is accepted, it allows for the same number of feet in most of the streets in Livermore, with the exception of El Caminito and the pro- posed Olivina Avenue, adding that this is where the problem occurred. CM-25-114 March 6, 1972 If the parking is eliminated on the south side of this area where the trees are located, the amount of distance for the cars to pass by the trees is no less than the standard areas in the City. Even with the parking on the north side, it would eliminate the bicycle trail. He commented that there are many streets in the City which do not provide for a bicycle path. He felt that in view of the fact the Hagemanns have considered donating this property to the City for park land, and since they have been long time resi- dents of Livermore, it is not unreasonable to ask the Council to accept the plan which the Hagemanns prefer. He reminded the Council that the Hagemanns had no knowledge that a new map had been filed by another developer and that when they originally sold the property a jog was to be formed on Olivina Avenue to go around their five acres; the involvement would never have come about if the original agreement had remained. (Trees on Olivina Avenue) Councilman Beebe felt that since the land is to be donated to the City, the wishes of the Hagemanns should be respected; he there- fore moved to adopt the plan with no island, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Miller stated that he would like to speak against the motion and suggested that Mrs. Hagemann be asked to comment on the compromise proposed by him. He asked that the matter be put over for one week in order that they might receive comments from the Hagemanns. He felt that heavy traffic would require the necessity of red-lining the area to the north and removing park- ing priviliges presently existing from those living on that side. The City does not want to lose a traffic way if there is some way a compromise can be reached to take care of it. He would like the Hagemanns to consider the compromise and have the matter con- tinued for one week. Mayor Taylor suggested that the City acquire the right-of-way to ultimately make the street usable, if necessary, according to Plan A, but not to proceed with building the street until such time as it becomes necessary, and develop the property according to Plan B. He asked if it would be possible to acquire this right- of-way, but guarantee that for some length of time it will not be developed beyond the state shown in Plan B. Councilman Miller asked who would pay for the south portion of the public works development, should they adopt Plan A, to which Mr. Lee replied that this would be the obligation of the developer. Councilman Miller felt that if this is the case they could adopt the Mayor's proposal, but at the same time collect the cost of the paving from the developer which will be used in the future de- velopment of the street inasmuch as he would be required to pay for it at the time anyway, but this would insure that the funds are available for that purpose. Mayor Taylor moved to amend the motion to adopt Plan B for the immediate future, but to plan to ultimately widen the street, perhaps not exactly as specified in Plan A, but it would have to be widened someday in all probability. He added as part of the motion, to adopt Plan B with the right to expand the right-of-way when the present occupants no longer occupy the house; also to collect the money to be used for public improvements. Councilman Beebe agreed to the amendment, as did the second, and the motion then passed unanimously. * * * CM-25-115 March 6, 1972 REPORT RE VARIANCE (Gillice) REPORT RE COURTESY AVIATION LEASE Mr. David Madis, attorney for Mr. Gillice, asked that the matter of his application for variance be withdrawn from the agenda of this meeting. Councilman Pritchard moved to table the matter, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received un- animous approval of the Council. * * * The City Manager reported that some of the remalnlng assets of the successors to the original signatories to the Courtesy Aviation Co. lease with the City at the Livermore Municipal Airport have been assumed by new owners, who along with various sub-tenants, ran into financial difficulty. As a result Mr. David Madis asked that the lease be transferred to him and his wife. The City Mana- ger stated that the transfer should prove of worth to the City as well as Mr. Madis, who in the meantime has become the new successor, and recommends that the lease be modified accordingly. Mr. Madis has asked that the rent for the property remain unchanged for an additional term of eighteen months. In return, the current litiga- tion regarding dispensing of fuel would be dismissed and the current lease revised to provide a specific provision against the sale of aviation fuels by the lessee. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the City Manager's re- commendation for modification of the lease, seconded by Councilman Silva. Councilman Miller reminded the Council that there was a dispute at one time over the sale of fuel (with Courtesy Aviation) and asked if the old lease rate remains this will mean that no fuel can be sold by the successor of the lease. The City Manager replied that this is true, it cannot be sold by the successor - only by the City. The City Attorney asked that the minutes reflect that this is a formal resolution of the Council, and the motion passed unanimously to approve the modification of the lease as recommended: RESOLUTION NO. 22-72 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING REVOCATION OF ASSIGNMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGING NEW ASSIGNMENT - PACIFIC BRIDGE COMPANY TO DAVID S. MADIS. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE TIME LIMIT - TENTATIVE MAPS ORDINANCE RE BLDG CODE AMENDMENT * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance regarding Municipal Code amendment to provide time limits for review of tentative maps by the Planning Commission and City Council was introduced and title read only. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance relating to special permits by adding Section 302.1 to the Uniform Building Code was adopted upon clarification by Councilman Miller who stated that the ordinance was to read "365 days" which had been agreed upon when the ordinance was introduced. CM-25-116 March 6, 1972 ORDINANCE NO. 779 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 6.3, RELATING TO SPECIAL PERMITS, TO ARTICLE I, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF CHAPTER 6, RELATING TO BUILDINGS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, TO ADD SECTION 302.1, RELATING TO SPECIAL PERMITS, TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1970 EDITION, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 6.1 OF SAID CODE. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 780 ORDINANCE RE Z.O. AMENDMENT (Mehran) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING. (Mehran) On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the reading of the ordinance was waived, and by unanimous approval the above ordinance was adopted. * * * The Planning Director stated that with regard to the ordinance regarding the time limits for review of tentative maps, the amendment clari- fies that there can now be two meetings to con- sider the maps - it can be heard one night and continued to the next meeting, if necessary; and it gives Planning Commission one more meeting for consideration. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Tentative Maps) the The City Attorney stated that the map would be filed with the Council and then must be decided upon by the next meeting or within ten days. * * * The City Attorney reported that with regard to the legal proceedings with the SAVE Ordi- nance, the Court had called to say that the judge would hand down a formal decision from his chambers at 1:30 p.m. At that time the Court read a 2-page opinion. He further reported that the Court said it did not deem the plaintiffs' suit to be without merit. The zoning argument made by the plaintiffs' attorney was also not without merit and other arguments presented were not without merit, including the clarity of the ordinance; however, the Court felt that the separ- ation of powers (executive, judicial and legislative) was at issue and that it would be improper for the Courts to interfere at this time in the legislative process to determine, or attempt to determine, the validity of the ordinance. Therefore, the judge ordered the temporary restraining order dissolved against both the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore and ordered the preliminary in- junction denied. The plaintiffs may proceed into the appellate courts, either through a writ of prohibition or mandate if they so desire, or may wait until later to urge the matter again, pre- sumably after a vote. If the people do not pass the SAVE Ordinance, the proceedings will become moot. If it is passed, it will be heard again by the courts. The judge refused to grant SAVE's request that the case be declared invalid; it is still effective and the courts still retain jurisdiction of it, and no further action will be taken unless the City receives an order from a higher court. REPORT RE INJUNCTION (SAVE Measure) * * * CM-25-117 March 6, 1972 MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Election of Mayor) Councilman Beebe stated that the people he has spoken with are very desirous of having the oppor- tunity to elect a Mayor, and proposed that the proposition be placed on the ballot, indicating a two or four year term, to let the people decide whether or not a mayor should be elected by the people. His proposal was considered a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and failed 3-2 with Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Candidate Orientation * * * Councilman Silva stated that he had suggested there be an orientation for the candidates. Two years ago this was done and Councilmen who participated agreed that it was very worthwhile and Councilman Silva felt that it should be repeated this year. The City Manager was so directed. Proposed Meeting Format Change * * * Councilman Silva stated that last week he brought up the subject of changing the policy regarding dialogue from the audience, in order that the meet- ings move along faster than they are at present. He stated that he made a motion to this effect, which failed, and it was suggested that he consider the matter for another week. At this time he restated his views from the last meeting. He felt that the public, at this time, is permitted to give dialogue on any subject on the agenda as well as anything not listed on the agenda. Citizens are allowed to air their views just prior to the Council voting on a motion, which does not usually change their way of voting and, in his opinion, is very time con- suming. He suggested that they be allowed to speak only during the open forum on any subject, including items listed on the agenda, and that a time limit possibly be imposed. The applicant, whose item is on the agenda, will be allowed to plead his case, indicating that no time limit would be imposed. He felt that in this meeting people should have been allowed the opportunity to state their feelings regarding the Hagemann property as well as the Gillice variance request, and that it could be considered an informal pub- lic hearing with notification in the newspapers. Mayor Taylor felt that if there had been a number of people present to discuss the Gillice item and then the attorney asked that it be removed from the agenda, it would have resulted in much wasted time, adding that quite often an item is withdrawn at the last minute. In his opinion, this type of policy would only lengthen the meetings and frustrate the public in that they are not always aware of all the facts or reports from the staff and this is the reason for de- ferring comments until after the Council and staff have made their comments. Councilman Beebe asked if this could be tried on a trial basis, allowing citizens to speak during the open forum only, and on any subject. Councilman Miller felt that to adopt something this week and then change it the next, is frivolous; furthermore, a new Council will be reorganized in a matter of weeks and their policies will be es- tablished as they wish. He felt that it might be more worthwhile, in the interest of saving time, to let the applicant speak for a limited time and perhaps submit the rest of his views in writing, rather than letting the applicant and developers speak for unlim- ited time and limiting the public. He feels that the citizens CM-25-118 have just as much stake in many of the issues that take place as the applicant and should be allowed expression. March 6, 1972 (Proposed Meeting Format Change) Mayor Taylor asked for a second to the motion made by Councilman Silva, but the motion died for lack of a second. * * * Councilman Silva asked if Councilman Miller was prepared to give a statement at this meet- ing regarding double sessions, however Coun- cilman Miller replied that he had spoken with the Chief Building Inspector who is not quite ready to supply the necessary information. * * * Report re Double Sessions Councilman Miller stated that there is substan- tial grading going on in the Sunset subdivision, leaving the trees with approximately 5-foot bases and wondered if the Park and Tree Depart- ment could report as to whether these trees could be expected to survive. He asked that the staff be directed to check on the matter. Grading re Trees (Sunset Dev. Co.) Mr. Lee stated that he would check into the matter, and stated that this had been an item of discussion earlier. * * * Councilman Miller stated that presently there is discussion as to whether the legal counsel of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District will be fired or not and he feels that the Coun- cil should support Matthew Walker, as he stands for vigorous enforcement of air pollution regulations, that a letter be sent in support of his retention. Bay Area Air Pollution Legal Counsel suggesting Mayor Taylor felt that before a position is taken, more informa- tion should be known rather than accepting general comments made in the newspaper. Councilman Miller then brought up the fact that the BAAPCD is in the process of doing a study of the Valley, perhaps with reference to population limits, and the study was to be completed in approxi- mately six months. He stated that they had asked the City for in- formation to aid in their study and he wanted to know whether or not they had been supplied with the information they had requested. Mayor Taylor suggested that Councilman Miller inquire about the progress of the study and if they need any more help from the Council, and report back to the Council. Councilman Miller indicated that an item had appeared in the news- paper stating that the BAAPCD, under the requirement of federal law, will have to impose limitations on new industries in areas that have severe air pollution. He felt that Livermore, being the most air polluted City in the Bay Area is the one most likely to be re- fused building permits for industry. His point is that the price we are presently paying for the residential growth, following past Councils' policy, is going to be more painful when we cannot find a way to adequately increase our tax base. * * * CM-25-119 March 6, 1972 Resignation From Beautification Committee Mayor Taylor announced that regarding the Beau- tification Committee, he had received a resigna- tion from Melanie Davis stating that she has spent considerable time serving on the Committee and feels that she should resign in order to allow someone else the opportunity to be a member of the Committee. Mayor Taylor asked that a letter be sent thanking her for her service on the Committee. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST / - City Clerk V Livermore, California APPROVE * * * Regular Meeting of March 13, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on March 13, 1972, in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Ave- nue. The meeting was called to order at b:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Silva (Seated Later) * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Taylor led the members of the Council and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES There being no corrections to the minutes of March 6, 1972, Councilman Miller moved that the minutes be approved, as submitted, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and unanimously approved by the Council. * * * Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that he would like to ask a few questions regarding cam- paign signs. Signs are permitted thirty days prior to an election and asked if that date com- menced Sunday, March 12, to which he received an affirmative reply. He then asked if signs are allowed on the park- ways, telephone poles and on fences along the arroyos, to which the Council informed him that he could not (providing these areas are deemed public property). There was some question as to whether the fences along the arroyos were public or privately owned. The Planning Director adivsed that signs should be twenty feet back from the edge of the curb on private property. OPEN FORUM (Campaign Signs) CM-25-120 March 13, 1972 Alan Morgan, 444 Olivina Avenue, asked about (Re Olivina Avenue) an article he had seen in the newspaper re- garding the red lines to go on curbs in front of the homes on Olivina Avenue, and also about the intended speed limit. Mayor Taylor advised that no Council action had been taken regard- ing placing red lines on the curbs, but it has been discussed. Depending on the anticipated volume of traffic in the area it may become necessary that no parking be allowed along the avenue. He stated that the Council did approve the widening of the street with the east bound lane on the south side of the trees. However, until such time as the Hagemanns are no longer living in the house, the City is going to widen one lane only. He added that red line curbing should not be necessary for a number of years, however, this remains to be seen. With regard to speed zones, he stated that the limit will be the same as any other residential speed limit in the City. * * * Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, stated that (Politics in Action) he would like to express his apology regarding his accusation of Councilman Miller's abstention to a vote, explaining that he had been looking at a vote to an earlier motion in the minutes and confused the votes. He then thanked the Council (stating that he was not at the meeting in an official capacity) for the short meeting of the previous week, allowing the Political Science Class to see how a full meeting of the Council is conducted. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Pritchard asked that the report from the City Manager regarding the business license audits be removed from the Consent Calendar. Report re Business License Audits * * * A report was received from the Chief Building Inspector showing there were no residential building permits issued between March 2 and 8, leaving a total of 806 single family and nine multiples permitted since November 9, 1971. Report re Building Permits * * * RESOLUTION NO. 23-72 Resolution re Safe Deposit Box A RESOLUTION RENTING SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AT WELLS FARGO BANK, LIVERMORE OFFICE, AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO ENTER SAID BOX FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE REMOVAL OF CONTENTS THEREFROM. This resolution was necessary because of the recent change in Finance Director, whose name and signature must now be on file for access. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 24-72 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN CLAIM ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF. (Group VII) (Denial of Claim- Tree Damage) Newkirk) CM-25-121 March 13, 1972 Claim Denial (West) RESOLUTION NO. 25-72 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF SYLVESTA WEST * * * Payroll and Claims One hundred forty-one claims in the amount of $119,797.67 dated March 9, 1972, were ordered paid as approved by the Finance Director. * * * Approval of Consent Calendar Councilman Beebe moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, abstaining from Warrant No. 2027 for his usual reasons, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion was unan-. imously approved. * * * PRESENTATION OF CITY FLAG Mayor Taylor explained that the Community Affairs Committee has completed the City flag and plans to present the flag at this meeting. He asked the representative of the committee to give a short history regarding the selection of the flag. Robert Seldon, representing the Community Affairs Committee, stated that the Committee proposed that a flag be selected and made last Spring. A contest was held for the design and the entries were displayed at the Livermore National Bank. The designs were judged by a group of local citizens who chose the design submitted by Linda Smelley. It was discovered that to make a flag is really rather difficult and expensive, and it was decided to entrust the task of making the flag to Ann Hurtman of Livermore. At this time Mr. Seldon presented the flag to the City. Mayor Taylor, on behalf of the City, thanked the Community Affairs Committee for all the work that has gone into this project, adding that this flag will accompany the Granada Stage Band on their trip to Europe this summer. * * * COUNCILMAN SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME. * * * The City Manager reported that he has been in con- tact with the Cultural Arts Council representative, Mrs. Ellsaesser, who has applied to the City for consideration of funding of a Cultural Arts Com- mittee project - the placing of six kiosks in various locations in the City, as defined by the committee. He stated that Mrs. Ellsaesser is present and will be able to answer any questions the Council might have regarding this project. REPORT RE KIOSK PLACEMENT Mrs. Lois Ellsaesser explained that the Cultural Arts Council has voted and set aside $250 towards the construction of the first kiosk and has recommended that six, in all, be placed around the City. The committee has recommended placing one in front of the Livermore Library; however, the design of the kiosk is not in accordance with the design of the library and an alternate design may be used at this location. Mrs. Ellsaesser explained that the reason the kiosks are suggested is to eliminate the posters for civic information being placed on supermarket windows. The recommended locations are: 1) the park- ing lot by the Livermore National Bank, 2) the library, 3) the Vine Theatre, 4) P & X Shopping Center, 5) Railroad Avenue shopping area, CM-25-122 March 13, 1972 6) at Portola Park, and eventually at Granada (Kiosk Placement) Shopping Center. She explained that one panel would be for each of the following: personal, sports, club activities, cultural advancement, and charitable and service activities to be posted and changed at one month in- tervals. The Committee has recommended starting with one kiosk to see the response it gets, and proceed with the others as funds allow. Rules regarding the use and policing of each kiosk will be adopted. Councilman Beebe moved that a kiosk be constructed for trial, which was seconded by Councilman Miller. Robert Allen stated that he feels there may be a problem in polic- ing this type of thing and suggested that only one be tried. He suggested that a calendar of events be placed in the newspaper, listing dates the events will be held rather than investing in the kiosks that are proposed. Mayor Taylor stated that most of the money going into the first kiosk has been submitted by the Cultural Arts Committee and he felt there is no reason the City should not try one to judge the results. The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion. * * * The City Attorney explained that there has been a recent change in the State law - Business and Professions Code, which requires that all vend- ing machines which dispense personal property, be taxed on a gross receipts basis, with no min- imum. Thus, it was necessary for our Municipal Code to be amended and he has prepared an ordinance. Mr. Lewis also reported that Keith Fraser, Attorney at Law, had a request regarding the regu- lations on palmistry and is asking that the portion covering pal- mistry be considered by the Council for change. REQUEST FOR CODE CHANGE RE PALMISTRY & VENDING MACHINES Mr. Fraser suggested that the Council consider amending the por- tion of the code which requires that a $50/day fee be paid for a business license for palmistry, be amended, to a $500 a year flat fee. The City Attorney stated that he recommends a $500 a year flat fee for Section 12.25 (i) rather than a $50 a day fee, as suggested by Mr. Fraser. Mr. Fraser explained that his client has a business in Martinez and that this $500 a year fee is the rate imposed by their ordi- nance covering this type of business. To prevent a large number of palm reading or fortune telling operations, they further state in their ordinance that one person could obtain a license for every 20,000 persons living in the city. Mr. Fraser further stated that he has received letters of recommendation from the Police Chief of Martinez, as well as the Contra Costa Times, and after reviewing the letter from the Martinez Chief of Police, the Chief of Police of Livermore has no objection to allowing Mr. Merino a business license of this nature. The City Manager stated that this is new to the staff and that they will look into the matter for further evaluation; they have no recommendation at this time. Councilman Miller was of the opinion that palmistry houses are not needed in Livermore and felt there is no reason to change the existing ordinance. CM-25-123 March 13, 1972 (Code Change re Palmistry) Mr. Fraser stated that, in his oplnlon, the ordi- nance is perhaps an unconstitutional abuse, and felt that a $50 a day fee could in no way be justified. The City Attorney stated that other cities usually tax these types of business out of existance, rather than debate as to whether they are good, bad, or indifferent, and felt this has been the reason for the $50 a day fee. Mayor Taylor suggested that before changing the ordinance, they wait for a report from the staff as to what their recommendations might be. With the approval of the City Attorney, Councilman Silva suggested that the matter be continued for one week, pending the result of the staff report and if they do not hear from the staff within a week it shall appear on the agenda for a decision to be made. The Coun- cil agreed with his suggestion and the matter was continued for one week. VARIANCE APPLICATION AND REZONING- 1st st. and Portola Ave. (Wells Fargo Bank) * * * The Planning Director stated that the matter before the Council is not the variance as the variance has been approved, and unless the Council wishes to appeal the variance, the matter is complete. The Planning Commission is informing the Council that the variance has been granted and the Council can now make a decision as to what type of zoning will be allowed. Mayor Taylor asked the Planning Director what the requirements of the Council are at this point, and Mr. Musso explained that the Council should vote on the ordinance to assign CN District zoning to the area of Portola Avenue and First Streets. Councilman Beebe made a motion to rezone the 6.6 acres to CN District, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Miller dissenting, the ordinance was introduced; the title will be read at the next meeting. Councilman Miller stated that if this ordinance is to be adopted, the variance and conditions are very reasonable, but he feels that the CN District zoning, at this time, is premature and a detriment to those residing in Springtown. The chances for the building of a shopping center in Springtown will be greatly reduced and he feels there is a prime need for shopping in Springtown whereas it is more of a convenience for shopping in the Portola Avenue-First Street area. Mayor Taylor explained that this area shown in the General Plan has, for some time, been proposed as a general shopping area and felt that a number of people bought homes in the area with this in mind. Therefore, when an application is received, asking for zoning that is shown in the General Plan, it seems only reasonable that it should be approved. He also stated that the General Plan allows for three shopping centers in the Springtown area, but until the number of residents increase across the highway, the centers will probably not become developed; at this time, there are not enough people located there to support a shopping center. CUP RENEWAL (Wood Street Nursery School) CM-25-124 * * * The Planning Director stated that a CUP has been granted Mrs. Phyllis Wade for her nursery school on Wood Street and that the necessary action by the Council at this time is to save Mrs. Wade from appealing the matter of the street extension March 13, 1972 for Wood street. He explained that the permit was approved with a condition for the comple- tion of the street extension of Wood Street to Third Street. With this renewal of the permit the staff is requesting that the improvements be installed. He stated that it is not important as far as frontage; however, it is an important factor in tying in the commercial property adjacent. It is up to the Council to determine whether the street shall be improved and what responsibilities will have to be taken by Mrs. Wade. He explained that the street to be improved is all on the one acre parcel owned by Mrs. and Mrs. Wade. (Wood Street Nursery School) Mayor Taylor asked what the recommendation is of the staff, and Mr. Musso replied they feel the street should be completed. Mr. Daniel Lee stated that he agrees with this recommendation, however it is not absolutely vital at the present time. Councilman Beebe expressed his concern that to complete the street and require the Wades to make the necessary public works improve- ments might cause them to lose their nursery school business. Councilman Miller felt that the street should be completed from the standpoint of fire engine access to the commercial site. Councilman Miller moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recom- mendation to complete the street, referring to the south half, seconded by Councilman Silva, who stated that, in his opinion, if the Wades were in objection to the Planning Commission1s recommen- dation they would have been present. The motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting. * * * The Planning Director explained that the Plan- ning Commission is recommending to the Council that they allow a pump house and appurtenant facilities to be constructed by the California Water Service Company. The pump is to be con- structed at the northeast corner of Egret and Olivina Avenues. He explained that it may be necessary to establish a small tank for aeration purposes. The site is adequate for the use and the set- backs are in excess of what are allowed. The only issue before the Planning Co~nission was the height or the setback of the aera- tion tank. The staff had recommended that the setback be far enough so that the tank would not be visible over the fence and that it not be over 8 feet in height. The Planning Commission recommendation is to permit an eight foot tank with a 10 ft. setback. He added that the Public Works Director suggested that a provision be made for the design of the tank and pump to eliminate noise to adjacent property; there is also a provision for fencing and screening. REPORT RE PUMP HOUSE PERMIT (California Water) Mayor Taylor stated the applicant had requested a 16-foot high tank with a 10-foot setback. Councilman Miller stated that it has been his understanding that for a number of years it has been the City's policy that all water tanks are to be underground. Mr. Musso explained that the policy has been that the tanks not be visible. Councilman Miller contended that if the City requires the tanks should not be visible, they should not be more than six feet high. Mayor Taylor stated that, in his opinion, the staff recommendation for an 8-foot high tank with a 15-foot setback is reasonable. CM-25-125 March 13, 1972 (Permit re Pump House) Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the staff recommendation, deleting the allowance of a 16-foot high tank as requested by the applicant; the motion was seconded by Councilman Silva and passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting. Councilman Miller stated his feeling that this permit should not be granted because of the hardness of the water which is greater than the equivalent water supply that Zone 7 would provide; there- fore worse for our sewer plant. The well, pump house and storage tank would all be unnecessary if Zone 7 water were being used, add- ing that since Mr. Elliott is not paying for this - it is to be bought by California Water - which means that it will go in on their rate base and those paying for California Water Service will ~. receive th,e burden of pa~i~g" for it....l {. ", 17, ~-k. ~;r6Lt:I-t<L~~_ \l';: ""'1f ~ ~~~~~-4~u'a"<",,<~=Lc tL ,/ t' F and- ~~' ayor Taylor commented that this well is to be used only for emer- n gency water supply, will be replaced by Zone 7 at a later date; also, it has been determined by California Water that this well would be a useable addition to their system. * * * SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION No further action was taken regarding the summary submitted by the Planning Commission listing actions taken at their meeting of March 7, 1972. * * * COMMUNICATION BAAPCD RE AMENDMENT TO REGULATION 2 A communication was received from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District with regard to proposed amendments to Regulation 2. A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to refer the matter to the staff for a recommended action inasmuch as it was just received, and the motion passed unanimously after some discussion. Mayor Taylor commented that this is an extremely important proposal which certainly affects the City, and felt it should be considered and discussed and he asked the Planning Director if a public hearing would be in order, however Mr. Musso was unable to advise the City Council at this time. Councilman Beebe felt we should advise the Regional Control Board that the City would be happy to comply with corrective ordinances as soon as they pass an ordinance prohibiting the immediate Bay Area from polluting the Valley with 56% of the smog we are now getting. Mr. Parness suggested it might be a good idea to ask some of the BAAPCD staff to meet with the Council, and Mayor Taylor directed the staff to have the District make their presentation to the Coun- cil at the earliest possible Council meeting, and if it is not before the date of their hearing, perhaps the Council could request continuance of the date. Councilman Silva wondered if the BAAPCD could refer to the possi- bility of an industry locating in Livermore Valley in the Green- ville Road area, if the pollution might go over the pass easterly. Councilman Miller commented that whatever final wording is adopted, it is going to be restrictive; also, the first effect will be felt in the areas with lowest quality of air which is the Livermore Valley. These kinds of controls will continue to apply to us long after they cease to apply in the Bay Area, and he went on to say how the residential growth, if allowed, would preclude industrial growth and commercial expansion. * * * CM-25-126 This item had been removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time, and Councilman Pritchard explained that his rea- son for having this item removed was that he thought the figure quoted for auditing was quite March 13, 1972 REPORT RE BUSINESS LICENSE AUDITS high. The City Manager had reported that the City was admonished to insure forceful administration of the business license and that accurate reporting be made of business volume by all licensees. For this purpose a spot audit is to be made by the private audit- ing firm annually retained by our City for municipal audit purposes. The firms to be checked will be selected by our auditors from the major business license classifications and strictly on a random basis. The expenditure for this purpose would be $1500, and it is estimated that ten to twenty firms could be contacted, and Mr. Parness felt this would be well worth the cost. Councilman Miller commented that not only is this a wise thing to do for financial reasons, but we have a moral obligation to do so, as there are a fair number of businessmen in the community and an overwhelming majority of them pay their fees honestly; the others have a right to know that everybody is paying their fair business license fee. Councilman Beebe moved that the audit be authorized, seconded by Councilman Miller, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Pritchard dis- senting. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 781 ORDINANCE RE REVIEW OF TENTATIVE MAPS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20.22, RELATING TO REVIEW OF TENTATIVE MAPS AND RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION, SECTION 20.23, RELATING TO TRANSMITTAL OF REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL, OF DIVISION 2, RELATING TO FIVE LOTS OR MORE, AND SECTION 20.27 RE- LATING TO REVIEW OF MAP AND RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION, OF DIVISION 3, RELATING TO FOUR LOTS OR LESS, ALL OF CHAPTER 20.00, RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the reading of the ordinance was waived, and the ordinance titled above was adopted. * * * The Public Works Director stated that the Coun- cil had asked about the trees that were being saved in the Sunset area, and what would happen to those that were ffievated due to excavation. He was informed that it is the intent of the de- veloper to place an enclosure around the trees that are elevated to serve as a pot, and he has checked this with our Parks and Trees Superintendent and was informed that this treatment is very acceptable, the trees will survive very well as it protects the root level. * * * Councilman Silva questioned the Planning Dir- ector with regard to the Planning Commission meeting and a proposed commission which Com- missioner Futch suggested. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Trees in Sunset Area) MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Formation of Committee) Mr. Musso explained they have been investigating the various means of acquiring open space, particularly the methods being used by the Nature Conservancy Study Group, which solicits dedications of land CM-25-127 March 13, 1972 (Formation of Committee) legacies, tax deductions, etc. They are propos- ing a committee or a study group to investigate and if they wish to pursue it further, they will make a recommendation. Councilman Silva questioned their authority to appoint a committee and Mr. Lewis explained they have no authority to appoint a commit- tee other than a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. * * * (DoUble Sessions) Councilman Silva questioned Councilman Miller with regard to his statement that there would be 72 double sessions in September. Councilman Miller reported that the number has since increased and that the question had been, "How many sessions will there be on September I?" He stated that the number after September 1, will be 84 or 85, assuming that everything in the mill is approved and built. He stated that the Chief Building Inspector has done some research on this subject and Councilman Silva might like to ask him for more information. Rerb Street, Chief Building Inspector, stated that in November he was asked to put together an estimate of how many residential units were presently under construction. At that time, the estimate was 945; as of March 1 the number of units that had been completed be- tween November 9 and March were counted, and it amounted to 239. In order to estimate the number that would be built by September 1, they calculated the figure of 2.13 per day (using the March 1 count as a guide) which allowed the estimate that approximately 392 more would be built by September 1, making a total of 631 single family units by September 1. There are 282 apartment units that they feel will be complete long before September 1, as well as 50 townhouse units; leaving a grand total of 963 to be completed by September 1. He stated that there may be slightly more because 815 permits have been issued since November 9 and they feel that one-fourth to one- third of these may also be completed by this date. The overall estimate, taking all of these things into consideration, is 1213 units completed by September 1. He asked that the Council keep in mind that these are only estimates and could vary in actuality. Councilman Miller felt that the 1213 estimate given by Mr. Street is feasible and that by using this estimate, and providing these units are occupied, and subtracting the 793 units the School District stated they could handle, leaves 420 units above the District's es- timate of what they could handle without resorting to double sessions. Using the 1.1 ratio of number of children per house for the 420 units it equals 462 children. Allowing for 30 children in a class- room will comprise 15.4 classrooms and 31 double sessions, by September 1. He added that by the time those in the mill are built it will result in 80-81 double sessions. All of this is based on the assumption that the School District has no more available funds to build than they did at the time they reported conditions back in December. Councilman Silva stated that there seems to be a conflict of opinion regarding double sessions as there was an article printed in the Independent in which the School District claims there will be no double sessions in September and possibly through next Spring or possibly through the school year. Councilman Miller was of the opinion that the School District is not aware of the number of units being built and suggested that the Building Inspector send them a copy of a report giving the facts he had just presented to the Council and their estimate of the num- ber of children and double sessions that will result. CM-25-128 March 13, 1972 Councilman Silva stated that he would like to (Double Sessions) know how the School District arrived at their es- timation of no double sessions and suggested that their report be compared with that of the Chief Building Inspector. Councilman Beebe stated that people are concerned with this matter and felt that it is not unreasonable to ask the School District to verify the figures and if the paper was in error that it should be corrected. He feels that the public has the right to know the accurate figures. Councilman Silva moved that the School District be contacted re- garding verification of the statement in the paper, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. * * * Councilman Silva stated that he inadvertently overlooked the fact that he would be attending a business meeting and would not be present at the March 20 meeting, at which time the public hearing for the trailer storage matter will be held. He asked if the Council could hold up debate until his return, or that a deci- sion could be held for one week if the Council wished. He asked if he could come to a decision by reading the minutes of the meeting or by listening to the tape. (Absence from Meeting - Silva) The City Attorney stated that he felt the tape would be the most accurate way to base a decision upon; however, he can do as he chooses. Councilman Beebe stated that if the decision is held until the following Monday, March 27, he will not be present at that meeting. * * * Mayor Taylor stated that tenure of Gary Drummond, Beautification Committee member, is soon to ex- pire and that Mr. Drummond has stated that he is willing to serve as a member for another year and asked that the information be made available to the Council. He suggested that Mr. Drummond be reappointed to the Committee. (Beautification Committee re Second Term - Drummond) Councilman Silva stated that as he recalls this has always been decided upon in an executive meeting, to which Mayor Taylor stated that Councilman Silva was correct on that point, and that it should be held until the next executive session. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ADJOURNMENT * * * APPROVE 5~ .;;;: ..~ Mayor / ..)/~ Clerk California ATTEST * * * CM-25-129 c:. Regular Meeting of March 20, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on March 20, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Ave- nue. The meeting was called ,to order at 8: 10 p.m . with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard * * * 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 Silva, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the minutes of March 13, 1972 were approved as amended. * * * Mayor Taylor stated that before starting the re- gular meeting there would be some discussion of a special item. He explained that notice has been received from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District indicating that they are consider- ing adopting some long term goals. Among these is the amendment to Regulation 2 - regarding permits, which would greatly expand their power to require permits to control air pollution from station- ary sources. This might be interpreted to include the power of the jurisdiction over residential building. The Council asked that a representative of the BAAPCD appear at this meeting to answer ques- tions and perhaps explain the proposed amendment. Mayor Taylor stated that they are grateful that Mr. Warren Crouse, the Super- vising Engineer of the District, was able to make a presentation to the Council this evening. SPECIAL ITEM (BAAPCD re Regulation 2) Mr. Crouse stated that their proposed amendment is one of the most advanced approaches in trying to correct the problems in the nine county area of any tried over the nation. It will be something in addition to the permit system now in existence. The actual area over which the District has jurisdiction is 5500 square miles with regard to control of air pollution from stationary sources. He stated that with the state and federal governments coming into the picture and enforcing the "Clean Air Act" to protect vegetation and health, this gives the BAAPCD a reason to tell industry that the air quality affects health and in order to protect this quality, the controls are going to have to become more rigorous. Rather than .3 of a grain per' cubic foot allowed out of the stacks, it will have to be .15. He mentioned other regulations that were made more strict, but growth continued. This means that to enforce standards of industry will not, in itself, solve the problems. He stated that the new provision will be that for new construction, expanding or modifying existing facilities which will add to the contaminants in the atmosphere, a permit to construct such facilities will be ob- tained from the BAAPCD. After this has been done the BAAPCD will inspect the construction to insure that their regulations have been met. The facts will then be presented to their Research and Planning Department, who will determine whether or not, by computer calculation, the ambient air quality will be deteriorated to any extent; if so, this group can prohibit the permit to construct. He explained that out of the nine counties (the 5500 square mile area) they expect from 900 to 1500 permits to be requested each year for CM-25-130 March 20, 1972 gas stations, factories, apartment complexes, etc. (BAAPCD) and he estimated that only from 1% to 5% of these requests will constitute a problem.. He stated briefly that long range problems exist with regard to usage of automobiles and that they can work on these problems also. Mayor Taylor asked what the usual course of events might be with regard to adopting the amendment by the District, if they do. Mr. Crouse stated that there is time for a rebuttal of approxi- mately one month, and then a hearing on May 1 will be held in an attempt to adopt this approach for the period of four years in which to reduce the amount of air pollution in our critical areas. Mayor Taylor asked if the Board has already approved the draft. Mr. Crouse replied that the Board, in effect, by accepting the implementation plan sent to the state and the goals as set forth in writing, which the Council has before them, and which was done in January and by agreeing to study and determine the need for automobiles, in a sense, was their approval of the draft. Mayor Taylor asked if a case in which a building permit is denied will go before the hearing board, to which Mr. Crause replied to the affirmative. Mayor Taylor then asked if there is any legal structure for the purpose of further appeal, outside of the Board, to which Mr. Crouse stated this could be appealed to the Superior Court and right on up. Councilman Beebe asked how the amendment will control agriculture and recreation. Mr. Crouse stated that he is not sure, but men- tioned that agriculture is under certain restrictions at this time with regard to permission to burn on certain days only. He feels that they will probably try to eliminate unnecessary burn- ing, but added that they do not wish to become a dictator in these matters. They wish to sit down with those involved in these matters and try to work out suitable solutions. Councilman Beebe noted that it has been mentioned that the BAAPCD will push the development of non-polluting mass transit and wonder- ed if they will have the authority to push BART into this Valley to help eliminate smog. Mr. Crouse stated that he is not a policy maker, but can only fur- nish facts as to what eliminating 40,000 people from driving auto- mobiles might mean. He stated that he can make a proposal, but it would be the ultimate decision of the City and the Board of Dir- ectors. Councilman Silva remarked that Mr. Crouse had given an estimate of from 900 to 1500 permits to be applied for annually, but that the report states that these regulations will pertain to any building or structure, and questioned this conflict of statement. Mr. Crouse explained that those in question will be those of a certain magnitude, and added that the amount of permits will grow. He stated that the 900 to 1500 estimate was for the first year. Councilman Silva asked if permits for residential building in Fremont, for example, would be discontinued before permits are discontinued in this Valley in view of the fact that the Bay Area is contributing to our smog conditions; the reason they are res- ponsible is because of the prevailing winds that carry smog to Livermore from those areas. Mr. Crouse stated that this would not be his decision. His duty is to inform the Board of conditions and make recommendations. Councilman Silva explained that 50% of our smog comes from Fremont and he feels that building should not be curtailed here when there is no restriction in Fremont. CM-25-131 March 20, 1972 ~AAPCD) The City Manager asked what the mechanics will be, provided this amendment is adopted, if small industry applies for a building permit; what is this City, as a local jurisdiction and involved with the issuance of permits, to do. Mr. Crouse stated that their immediate contact is with 180 cities and that the liaison will have to be very good and what they do not catch by surveillance should be reported by building inspectors and planners. Mr. Parness questioned whether or not the applicant should be asked if he has received an okay from the BAAPCD before issuance of per- mits are granted. Mr. Crouse stated that at this time he does not have the answers, but something will have to be worked out. Councilman Miller remarked that it has been stated in the news- papers that the BAAPCD's first emphasis will be placed on the re- gulation of industrial and commercial building - implied by the 900 to 1500 permits spoken of. However, he felt that it is not clear as to whether this is the policy of the Board or a reporter's dream, or what. Mr. Crouse explained that this is the estimate of what the first year might be on new and modified developments for industrial and commercial. Councilman Miller a"sked if this means that industrial and commer- cial regulations will, in a short time, become more stringent and the other things will be put over for awhile, to which Mr. Crouse replied the interpretation was correct. Mayor Taylor stated that it i~ up to the Council to decide whether to submit material by the April 3 meeting to express their opposition or support of the amendment. The Valley Smog Committee might be asked to study the proposal in order to get their opinion. He stated that the Chairman of the Valley Smog Committee is present and asked if he would like to review the matter and present comments. Dr. Todd Crawford stated that they would review the amendment and report back to the Council. He stated that he has not read the material but feels that the general principle is what the Valley Smog Committee spoke about in 1968; the process of implementation has not quite been spelled out. He mentioned that the Committee has been inactive for the past couple of years and asked that some time be given for their review, adding that they would put together a short report by April 3. Dr. Donald E. Watson, 987 Via Seville, suggested that the City Attorney look into the "Federal Clean Air Amendment", stating that this regulation has been made in response to the amendment. The state has adopted an implementation plan to comply with the federal law having to do with regulations, which has been published, and he felt that the legal context for the whole thing should be reviewed. He also commented that the Bay Area is anticipated to meet standards within eight to nine years, which means that clean air will be blowing into the Valley, but the growth of this Valley is such that we will still have air pollution in eight or nine years and contributing 90% to our own air pollution. * * * OPEN FORUM (Precautions re Trains) Steven Cassia, 1826-B Railroad Ave., a representa- tive of the residents in that area, spoke voicing his opposition to the railroads, the Southern Paci- fic in particular, and their contribution to the death of young James Stolcis last week. CM-25-132 March 20, 1972 The City Code states that it shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor not to give proper warning of the approach of a locomotive or car by the ring- ing of the locomotive bell or the sounding of the locomotive whistle. He stated that it was made clear by all who witnessed the accident that no warning of any kind was given. Also, speed regulations should be observed. The reported speed of the train was 40-45 mph and according to the section regarding the regulation of speed, the limit is 45 mph. He wanted to know if it is possible to have this portion of the code amended to a more reasonable 25 mph. His rea- son for requesting the 25 mile per hour rate is that it takes an automobile traveling 40-45 mph, 100 feet before coming to a stop, with the option to change direction - train does not have this option. He reported that a minimum of twenty children, ranging from 5~ years to 14 years of age have to cross the railroad tracks to get to school at Junction Avenue and Portola Avenue Schools and the wind current caused from the speed of the train is great enough to pull a child under it. He urged the Council to comply with his request to reduce the speed of the train traveling through Livermore. He also requested that a patrolman be placed at the train intersections at North L Street or North Livermore Avenue to keep the children back a safe distance from the tracks. (Precautions re Trains) Mayor Taylor, on behalf of the Counci~ expressed their concern and shock over the accident that occurred last week and stated that the Council has long recognized that the Murrieta Blvd. cross- ing by Granada students has been a very serious situation. He stated that, normally, it is the responsibility of the developer to install sidewalk improvements when the property develops, and since the property has been undeveloped, there have been no public improvements put in. He stated that just prior to the commencement of this meeting he spoke with the Public Works Director and asked if some type of asphalt sidewalk could be put in until such time as permanent improvements are made, along one side of Murrieta Blvd. He felt that possibly if children have a place to walk they will not cut across the vacant property and cross the tracks; rather they might cross at one particular place and walk in certain areas that are set up for them. Mr. Lee stated that if the children would cross at the intersection of Murrieta and Stanley Blvds., it would be a safe area in which to cross as they would have the aid of the traffic lights. He suggested that to encourage crossing at this spot, the shoulder could be paved on the east side of Murrieta Blvd. from Stanley Blvd. to El Rancho Drive. He stated that he has looked into the cost which would be feasible and further suggested that the schools be contacted and asked to encourage the children to use the Stanley- Murrieta crossing and discourage the crossing at Wall Street. Councilman Beebe suggested that a sign be placed in areas deemed unsafe which would read, "No Pedestrian Crossing". Councilman Silva asked if some type of fence could be put up by the railroad to prohibit crossing the tracks in unsafe areas, and Mr. Lee stated that this could be looked into. Councilman Silva asked that the matter of the fence be pursued by the staff. Mr. Lee reported that the paving of the areas discussed would not cost over $800 and if this would be agreeable with the Council, they could proceed immediately. Councilman Beebe moved that the cost of the paving be authorized and that the installation of the fence be pursued; the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed unanimously. The City Attorney explained that the ordinance with regard to the speed of trains restricts their speed from 40-45 miles per hour, only in the incorporated area of the City, as it existed in 1958, and he feels the area has not been extended out to Murrieta Blvd.; CM-25-133 March 20, 1972 (Precautions re Trains) he added that he suspects the train was traveling in excess of 45 miles per hour when the accident occurred last week, as the 40-45 mph restriction does not apply in that area. He stated that he will have to check into the matter and find out if the area can be expanded; also he would check with the PUC to see what their regula- tions are. A report of any findings, regarding reduction of speed and expansion of the area, will be given to the Council. With regard to the reported lack of warning by the train, the City Attorney stated that ordinarily a train is not required to give a warning except at intersections and he would have to check to see at what point the train should give the warning if it is eastbound and approaching the Murrieta intersection. He explained that people often complain about unnecessary warnings by trains and these com- plaints have brought about the warnings at intersections only. Mayor Taylor stated that with regard to the request for a guard at railroad crossings, the matter will have to be looked into. He stated that certain formulas are used to determine the need for a guard at certain dangerous intersections over the City and did not know how this might apply to train intersections. Mr. Lee reported that plans for placing gates at every train inter- section are in the mill for as soon as the budget permits, but should be completed within a year or two. * * * (Re SAVE) Walter Griffith, 1650 Elm Street, stated that the builders, School Board and the Council have been discussing the school shortage issue for three months and have not reached a solution. He stated his feeling that the same lack of productivity and unwillingness to solve problems has resulted in school shortages and possible lack of water avail- ability. Thousands of dollars have been spent in an attempt to defeat the SAVE Initiative (Proposition B) and it is apparent there will be no offer made to ease the school overcrowding until after the April 11 Election. He proposed that the Council take action at this meet- ing to continue discussions with regard to the school issue and that no building permits be issued for thirty days, which will help force a decision. In the event no decision is made prior to the election, he will urge citizens to vote yes for Proposition B. Mayor Taylor explained that there has been no discontinuance of discussions, as suggested by Mr. Griffith, and that in fact, the builders have submitted a proposal; the committee appointed by the School District has replied and at the moment the proposal of the builders is before the School District for their comments. Mr. Griffith stated that he had no knowledge of such a proposal and that if there has been one submitted it has not been made public, to which Mayor Taylor replied that it is true the offer has not been made public. David Madis, Attorney at Law, representing H. C. Elliott, explained that at the School Board meeting, Mr. Elliott offered to build and provide twelve classrooms at a cost of approximately $200,000, un- der no compulsion, for a period of five years. It was a volunLary offer made at a public School Board meeting and there was little public attendance. He stated that this is a matter of public re- cord and would like to say, on behalf of all the builders, that they are earnestly trying to solve the problems, but it is the res- ponsibility of the interested citizen to attend the meetings to see what progress is being made. * * * Robert Allen, 223 Donner, stated that it had been erroneously re- ported that a Southern Pacific train had hit one of its own trucks. CM-25-134 March 20, 1972 Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, commented ( Political Signs) that he has had trouble keeping his campaign signs up, that the signs he had on his proper- ty were removed by the City. He stated that he was assured that his signs would be returned and before posting them again he would like to know if he is allowed to place them in the area between the sidewalk and the curb, as they were before. Mr. Phillips was informed that this is City property and he could not put them there and that is the reason they were removed by the City. Mr. Phillips stated that if this is the property of the City he would like the City to water and mow this strip and if damage occurs to the sidewalk as the result of a tree planted in this area, they should also pay for this damage. The City Attorney stated that he has been puzzled for many months as to who has the responsibility of the area between the sidewalk and curb. He stated that he does not want to get into the details because the section is too complex. He explained that the section of the ordinance regarding political signs has always been inter- preted as being in back of the sidewalk. The City Attorney further stated that Mr. Phillips could place the signs back in the public right-of-way area if he obtains a permit to do so, but otherwise he should put the signs in back of his sidewalk. * * * Candy Simonen, Chairman of the Livermore Bike- ways Association, stated that the General Plan shows a hiking, riding and horseback trail along Murrieta Blvd. and they have suggested a trail to run under the bridge at Stanley and the two sets of railroad tracks. She won- dered if the Council might consider surfacing something that would become a permanent part of the trail system, in view of the fact that they are now planning to pave an area along Murrieta Blvd. If this is done, it would extend to the back of Granada High School and might prove to be a very attractive route for the children to get to and from school. (Re Trailway Paving) * * * Councilman Miller stated that with regard to (Comments re the problems brought up by Mr. Griffith, there Moratorium) are some flaws with the proposal - one being that there is less than thirty days until the election and if a moratorium is pro- posed it should last until April 21, when the SAVE ordinance would, or would Inot go into effect. He stated that these are the pro- blems he anticipated last September when he first proposed a build- ing moratorium. He stated, however, the idea is sound, and he has tried three times since September and will try once again. He feels it is clear that the developers are stalling in hopes that they can spend enough money to defeat SAVE. Councilman Miller moved that there be a building moratorium between now and April 21, which failed for lack of a second to the motion. Mayor Taylor commented that he seconded the motion at one time and it failed. He stated that he and Councilman Beebe have attended numerous meetings with the builders - there has been discussion and proposals submitted and the Associated Home Builders have agreed with the request that the individual members come in with a sub- stantial number of permit applications while these negotiations are going on. One builder did come in with an application for a substantial number of permits and agreed, in writing, that whatever agreement is made would apply retroactively to his request for permits. Mayor Taylor explained that he did not second the motion in view of the fact that he has to have some confidence in the CM-25-135 March 20, 1972 (Re Moratorium) integrity of these negotiations and the contracts with the builders, voluntarily entered into, will be legal and enforceable and he feels a little time should be given. Part of the reason for the delay is getting an agreement set up that includes the building of classrooms accept- able to the state. He explained that the School District had re- fused Mr. Elliott's offer of the portables because it is not legal to have portables for over three years, and Mr. Elliott is checking to see what can be permitted, legally, and that he can furnish; until these problems are resolved, no contract can be made. * * * PUBLIC HEARING (Trailer Storage) Mayor Taylor explained that this is a hearing re- garding the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to Section 21.00 (Special Provisions), particularly as it relates to the parking and storage of trail- ers and asked the Planning Director for a brief history of the ordinance and why it is before the Council at this time. Mr. Musso stated that the ordinance was adopted in 1960 and almost immediately following the adoption there was an increase of popula- tion and an increase in the number of campers and trailers per capita. He stated that the trailers and campers became more of a prominent recreational vehicle and were larger in size, including boats, cam- pers, trailers and vans - which were not present at the time of the ordinance adoption, or at least not to any large extent. This brought about an enforcement problem with regard to trailer/camper storage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and a large number of people attended in support of the ordinance as it was. The Planning Commission drafted an ordinance that was a little more strict, and the Council held hearings, listening to testimony, and decided to do nothing at that time. The staff was directed to en- force the ordinance, only upon complaint. The point was brought out at the hearings that side yards are not accessible because of allowable distance between houses, so the zoning in the RS Districts was changed to give more space to one side of the yard; also the same regulations were later adopted in RL districts, which resulted in a 10-foot side yard which is minimum. In 1971 it became apparent that it was not possible to enforce the ordinance because of the size and number of vehicles. These problems were presented to the Planning Commission with the suggestion that the ordinance be en- forced or amended. To enforce it would mean legal action against property owners who did not wish to locate their recreational ve- hicle elsewhere other than in front of their property. He stated that the situation bounced from the Planning Commission to the Council and finally back to the Planning Commission, who held another public hearing, and at this time there was only one person who did not wish to change the ordinance. After this length of time the Planning Commission has proposed a change to the ordinance. He stated that under the present ordinance a trailer can be parked on a residential lot provided it is not in a required front or side yard. It can be parked in a front or side yard that is not required. The Planning Commission now recommends that a trailer can be stored anywhere on the lot - unless there is a 10-foot side yard. If one can get to the rear yard by a 10-foot side yard, one may not be allowed to park anywhere in the 15-foot front yard. The City Attorney asked if the Planning Commission had considered the possibility of the City cooperating with the agreement of ad- joining land owners to make land available between two houses even though the side yard for each might be insufficient. Mr. Musso stated that this has been considered and that people have granted easements to each other to accommodate access to back yards. CM-25-136 March 20, 1972 Mayor Taylor wondered if before they hold a (Trailer storage) public hearing, the Council wishes to have a full Council before making a decision and if so, debate and resolution might be held until later. It was decided that the Council would not come to a decision until Councilman Pritchard has had a chance to listen to the tape of the public hearing. Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at this time. Jack Phillips stated that originally he had supported B-1 (the new proposal! but agreed with the statement made by the City Attor- new that joint ownership or agreement between residents with ad- joining side yards, would be acceptable to provide space between the houses by combining the property-accommodate a trailer, etc. He stated that if the City has a place in which the trailers can be parked by individuals who have no place to put them on their property, there should be no fee, as it was shortsightedness on the part of the Council not to have required adequate side yard access. Mayor Taylor explained that the hearing tonight has to do with only two things: 1) leave the ordinance as it now stands, or 2) accept the proposed ordinance; the City storage is not a matter of consideration at this time. Mayor Taylor asked if the City parking had ever been looked into by the staff, and Mr. Musso stated that it had. He reported that the cost would be approxi- mately $7 to $10 a month for a 10-acre parcel of land which would include fences, lighting and quarters for a watchman. At any rate the ordinance does not cover City parking at this time. Earl McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, thanked the Council for not voting on this issue until a full Council has had the opportunity to vote, and requested that the matter be postponed for an inde- finite length of time, perhaps after the forthcoming election. Leon See~~ 1379 Hollyhock Street, asked if the new ordinance would require a change in 50-60% of the town (out of those exist- ing with not enough side yard access) in order to make room for trailers and campers. The Council was not sure exactly what Mr. See~yfavored and Coun- cilman Beebe asked Mr. Seeley if he felt there would be too many campers and trailers parked in front if the new amended ordinance goes into effect as it will allow those with no side yard or back yard access to park their campers and trailers in front of their house. Mayor Taylor asked if he and friends of his are against having trailers parked in front of the houses, and Mr. Seeley stated that this is correct, and a letter had been sent to the Council to this effect. Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, stated that the people in the two tracts in the Springtown area were told that there were trailer restrictions when they bought their homes, and to allow parking in front would produce a "ghetto" appearance in the area. He asked that trailers not be allowed to park in front of homes. The City Attorney commented that if deeds restrict the parking of trailers in an area, that an ordinance allowing such would not apply to these situations, and that the deed restrictions can be enforced. Mr. Highet stated that he is representing the Springtown Associa- tion and feels that they should not be forced to enforce their deed restrictions due to a City change in their requirements. The City Attorney stated that there is a problem in Springtown and suggested that the association seek private counsel, as it is a private matter. CM-25-137 March 20, 1972 (Trailer Storage) Elwood Bona, 656 Catalina Drive, stated that the ordinance refers to recreational vehicles and asked if someone would define exactly what is meant. Mr. Musso explained that under the new ordinance, anything that is not self-propelled would be considered a recreational vehicle, including a camper that is not on a pickup. It will include boats on a trailer, but it has not been determined what will be done with a boat that is not on a trailer. Ken Tschritter, 210 Edythe street, spoke in favor of B-1, stating that he felt that it was fair to all trailer owners. He added that most trailer owners who have ten feet of side yard in which to place their trailers would be more than happy to store them there; how- ever, those who do not have the room will be able to park in front of their homes. Betty McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, stated that one thing brought out at the Planning Commission's hearing that has not been mentioned is the fact that those in favor of B-1 request that the trailers and campers be parked neatly and safely. Kenneth Adamske, 961 Iroquois, a trailer owner felt that the only equitable way would be to allow a person with a trailer and who has no place to park it other than in front, to do so. He felt to do otherwise would be unfair. Mr. McMichael mentioned that his neighbor has a large trailer with no place to put it, so they made room from both properties for the trailer, which he stated cost him money for someone else's trailer. He stated this example as proof that he feels othellishould be able to keep their trailers, even if it means in front of the house. There being no further public testimony, Councilman Beebe moved that the public hearing remain open until the next meeting, se- conded by Councilman Mille~ and approved unanimously. Councilman Beebe stated that the City has been operating without an ordinance for some time, and he feels that B-1 is a reasonable choice. He would recommend that the Council adopt the ordinance with the B-1 amendment which would give trailer and camper owners a little flexibility, even though the Springtown area would still be restricted. Councilman Silva stated that the only reason he objects to B-1 is the fact that it discriminates against those living in RS Districts. It forces them to put their trailers in back if they have access. There was some discussion about restricting the size of the trailer that should be allowed to park in front of a house, and whether or not this should be a guideline. Mayor Taylor stated that there has been quite an uproar over giv- ing a person the opportunity to park his trailer in front of his house and cannot understand why the ordinance amendment will allow two trailers to be stored in front of homes. Mr. Musso explained that their reasoning was to allow a trailer and a boat, or a camper and a boat to be parked in front. * * * CM-25-138 March 20, 1972 CONSENT CALENDAR COMMUNICATIONS (Re SACEOA Bd) A copy of a communication sent by the City of Pleasanton to the SACEOA Board was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * Two letters were received from Suzanne Orton - one stating that the entrance from Stanley Blvd to Carlton Square is dangerous and curtails po- lice and fire protection in this area. The other letter indicates that the SAVE initiative, if passed, the City to die. (Re Stanley Blvd and SAVE) will cause * * * A letter was received from the Chairman of Fes- (Re Festival '72) tival '72 expressing appreciation for the City's purchase award participation. * * * Departmental reports were received as follows: Departmental Reports Airport - activity and financial - February Building Inspection - February, and Permits March 9 - 15 Fire Department - February Golf Course - February Municipal Court - February Planning - Zoning activity - January Police and Pound Departments - February Water Reclamation Plant - February * * * The following resolutions authorize employment of eminent domain rights of the City for the subject public property needs re subdivision improvements in Tract 3333. Condemnation Proceedings re Tr. 3333 RESOLUTION NO. 26-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ON, OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS CERTAIN LANDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF STORM AND SANITARY SEWER LINES EXTENDING FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SUBDIVISION TRACT 3333, IN A STRAIGHT LINE ALONG THE WESTERN BORDER OF TRACT 3333 TO CONNECT WITH EXISTING STORM AND SANITARY SEWER LINES, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACCESSORY THERETO. RESOLUTION NO. 27-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION IN FEE SIMPLE ESTATE, FOR PUBLIC STREET AND RELATED PURPOSES, OF A STRIP OF LAND CONNECTING THE PROPOSED HAGEMANN DRIVE WITHIN TRACT 3333 WITHIN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE TO LAS POSITAS BOULEVARD. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 28-72 Route of Rodeo Parade 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 9:30 A.M. TO 12:30 P.M. ON JUNE 10, 1972 * * * CM-25-139 March 20, 1972 Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * The City Manager reported, with regard to the plans for the third annual air show to be held at the Livermore Airport, that all requirements have been complied with. The Jaycees have very care- fully worked out the details, processing them through the staff and the Airport Advisory Committee in making nec- essary arrangements. He stated that the only matter of concern was the insurance coverage, which the City Attorney recently advised has been satisfied to the agreement of both the insurance carrier and himself. It is recommended that all of the conditions that were applied last year would be made a condition of the Council's approval and he so recommends. REPORT RE JAYCEE AIR SHOW The City Attorney stated that the limits of coverage on the airport should be the same for the air show, at least, as for everyday oper- ation. In order to do this it means that the Jaycees acquire $2 million basic coverage then they pay the premiums for taking care of the umbrella coverage, which amounts to another $10 million. There are exceptions under the umbrella coverage that would not apply during an air show, which have been removed, bringing the total coverage to $12 million for the City, and the premiums are paid by the Jaycees. Mr. Lee stated that the Council might approve, as part of the motion, an encroachment permit. He stated that the Jaycees have formulated a very good plan for taking care of the people and cars which will require the closing of Airway Boulevard and rerouting traffic during the show, all of which will require a permit. Councilman Silva moved that the Jaycees be allowed to conduct an air show and that approval of the required encroachment permit be given, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received unanimous approv- al of the Council. Mayor Taylor recognized that there were members of the Jaycees pre- sent and thanked them for the work that has gone into this project, on behalf of the City. * * * RECESS AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD, RESUMED * * * COMMUNICATION RE 1972 RODEO PARADE Mayor Taylor explained that a letter had been re- ceived from the Livermore Rodeo Association regard- ing the 1972 Rodeo Parade activity, explaining that a representative is present at the meeting to dis- cuss the parade event for the forthcoming rodeo. Mr. Parness stated that for the past several years the parade has been under the production of the Jr. Chamber of Commerce and that for the 1972 parade they will not be in charge. Dale Mueller, representing the Livermore Rodeo Association, stated that they felt the Association could plan a parade less expensively than the Jaycees proposal of $3,200. They have allotted $1,250 for this event and he asked that the Council match this amount as they have done in the past. Mayor Taylor asked if this amount has been given by the City in the past, and Mr. Parness replied that the City donated $1,500 last year and $1,000 the two years prior to last year. CM-25-140 March 20, 1972 Mayor Taylor mentioned that there had been some (Rodeo Parade) complaints about the speed of the parade, in that some of the entries would hold up the parade by performing in front of the judges. Mr. Mueller stated that a time limit is established to perform for the judges and that if the time is extended they are penal- ized; he felt that the parade moves along at a pretty constant flow, but there are things that can be done to speed it up. Councilman Beebe moved that the City appropriate, through their advertising function, the sum of $1,250 for putting on a parade, seconded by Councilman Silva, and the motion was approved unan- imously. * * * Dan Spruiell stated that Mr. Fraser, Attorney, has been asked to represent him and since he was unable to attend the meeting, asked the Council to continue this matter until another time, possibly another two weeks. VARIANCE APPEAL (Parking-North L st., Dan C. Spruiell) Councilman Beebe made a motion that the matter be continued, se- conded by Councilman Silva, and it was approved unanimously. * * * Mayor Taylor stated that if there are no com- ments regarding the minutes of the meeting of March 7, for the Planning Commission, they will be noted for filing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * * * Mayor Taylor asked the City Manager to give a brief report as to the status of the Valley In- terest Study. VALLEY INTEREST STUDY Mr. Parness stated that they are approaching the end of this very comprehensive study undertaken by joint powers. The consultant feels that it is appropriate, inasmuch as there are some policy questions that are to be proposed and to be discussed, that two legislative members from each of the participating agencies should sit in at this stage, with the Study Committee, until completion. It is recommended that two members of the Council be appointed for this purpose. Councilman Silva moved that the Mayor be authorized to select two members of the Council to meet with the Committee, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. Mayor Taylor appointed Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard to sit on the Committee, in view of the fact that election time is near and Councilmen Silva and Miller may not be available after election. Mayor Taylor asked that the motion include the names of those appointed, and received a 3-1 response in favor of the appointments, with Councilman Beebe dissenting. * ORDINANCE NO. 782 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING. (Wells Fargo Bank) * * ORDINANCE REZONING FIRST AND PORTOLA CM-25-141 March 20, 1972 (Ordinance re Rezoning 1st st & Portola Ave.) On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Silva, and by the following vote, the reading of the ordinance was waived, and the above ordinance adopted: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor Councilman Miller Councilman Pritchard * * * PROPOSED REZONING OF ENOS WAY (Enos) There was some discussion as to why this subject is being read for the first time at this late date and the City Clerk explained that the City was waiting the results of the floating easement of the property, which has now been obtained. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and by the following vote the ordinance assigning RG-IO District zoning to the area on the east side of Enos Way was introduced: AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor NOES: Councilman Miller ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard * * * SACEOA Mayor Taylor stated that the letter received from the City of Pleasanton regarding SACEOA was re- moved from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time. Councilman Silva stated that he thought he had made a motion to withdraw from SACEOA, adding that this job takes more time than Councilmen have available to give. Mayor Taylor felt that they need input from City officials and that someone should fill the void left by Councilman Pritchard, who re- cently resigned. Councilman Miller was concerned with the fact that if the City withdraws from SACEOA Livermore will lose the money which comes to help citizens of Livermore, which we pay indirectly through taxes. He mentioned that this money supports the Headstart Program which many Livermore children benefit from. Mayor Taylor felt there is no reason to withdraw from SACEOA. * * * Councilman Silva mentioned that it has been brought to his attention that where Murrieta Blvd intersects with Olivina Ave. going south, it is no longer a four lane road - it narrows down to a two lane road; if one is not aware of this, he may be traveling on the wrong side of the road. He suggested that arrows be painted on the road, indicating the two way traffic at that point. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Murrieta Blvd Marking) * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. * APPROVE ~/~ ATTEST CM-25-142 Regular Meeting of March 27, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on March 27, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m., with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and ROLL CALL Mayor Taylor Councilman Beebe (on vacation) and Councilman Silva (excused for business reasons) ABSENT: * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard and seconded MINUTES by Councilman Miller, the minutes of the meet- ing of March 20, 1972 were approved, as submitted. * * * Archer Futch, 1252 Westbrook Place, stated that he is before the Council to propose a way to help solve the problem of overcrowded schools. At the School Board meeting of last Tuesday, the Board and H. C. Elliott, Inc., came to an agreement that Mr. Elliott will provide classrooms which will be placed on the school site of his tract for up to five years. Mr. Futch stated that the City, the builders and School District have been meeting for a number of months, to no avail. An estimated 1500 new permits were to be issued because of the probable water shortage, and already over half of these have been issued. In view of the fact that the classrooms will be filled to capacity with the number of permits that have already been issued, he pro- posed that the City stop issuance of permits now to any developer who will not agree to at least as much as what Mr. Elliott has done to help solve these problems. OPEN FORUM Proposed Moratorium (Futch) Councilman Miller made a motion to have a moratorium on the issu- ance of building permits for new residential permits, until the developers provide at least the equivalent of Mr. Elliott's offer; which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Mayor Taylor asked if he would like to specify a time on the motion, like week to week. Councilman Miller replied that he feels there is no reason to in- clude a time limit, as the builders have been promising to give the Council a proposal for two months. The offer made by Mr. Elliott, in his opinion, is unsatisfactory as far as solving the problems, but it seems to be the minimum this Council will move to do at this point in time, and suggested that the moratorium be until April 21. Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to challenge the statement as to what this Council would or would not do with regard to accept- ing a proposal made by a developer; that to his knowledge, there has never been a discussion of this nature. He added that he felt Councilman Miller's blanket condemnation of what this Council will or will not do is a little premature. Councilman Miller stated that Mr. Elliott is not obligated to do anything, but has only made the offer, and in five years he can CM-25-143 March 27, 1972 (Moratorium- Bldg Permits) remove the portables leaving the School District the option of replacing them or taking money out of the teachers' salaries to buy the existing portables. In any case, it is not a permanent solution and will end up costing out of educational money. This is the reason he has considered this offer to be unsatisfactory. If the SAVE initiative passes this will be a different ball game and he would propose that the moratorium be held until April 21, when the measure, if it passes, will become effective. Councilman Pritchard asked if it would not be better to let the School District decide what would be an acceptable proposal. Councilman Miller indicated that the School District stated what they considered to be acceptable, and Mr. Elliott's offer was below their minimum requirement. There was some discussion about whether or not to apply a cash equiv- alent to permit applications, as was done with the water connection fee. The Council discussed whether this should be part of the motion, but it was decided that this should be made in a different motion. Also discussed was the problem of the owner of a single lot and whether to allow one permit per applicant. Councilman Miller stated that each new permit or each house built makes another school demand. The motion states that something the equivalent of Mr. Elliott's offer be provided and suggested that before continuing the motion, they determine the exact cash equiva- lent that Mr. Elliott provided, and request that this amount be paid upon issuance of a permit. Mayor Taylor felt that in view of the fact that the time limit is fairly short and that it would cover 95% of the applications that will be received during this time, they should not be concerned with whether a builder obtains one permit or two, using different names. Councilman Miller explained that when his motion stated the builder be allowed a permit if provisions are made for at least the equiva- lent of Mr. Elliott's offer, it does not apply only to subdivision developers, but an individual builder, as well. The Council then discussed what could be done to allow one permit per applicant, or whether one permit should be issued per subdivision so that a developer could not get permits under different names. They decided that the ownership has to be in the applicant's name, which would take care of problems they wish to avoid~ and allow one permit per applicant. Councilman Pritchard explained to the Planning Director that what they are asking is that if someone owns twenty lots, and they are sold to individual owners after this date, permits could not be issued on those lots. The City Attorney advised that with regard to an urgency ordinance, it takes 4/5 of the Council's vote to be made legal. Councilman Miller asked that the matter be tabled in view of the fact that there are not enough Council members present to form a quorum, either until the next meeting or until another Council mem- ber is present at this meeting, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously. * * * (Ballot Measures) Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, stated that when she received her sample ballot, the statement of qualifications was blank on one side. Also, she- thought the printer had made a mistake in printing the text on Mea- sure B on the ballot. She felt that Measure B should read the same on the ballot as it did in Measure A with regard to particular points, i.e. Sewage Treatment, A Treated Water Supply and Classroom Facilities. CM-25-144 Mayor Taylor asked the City Clerk to look into the matter and report back to the Council at their next meeting. March 27, 1972 (Ballot Measures) The City Clerk explained that the words capitalized were the words used in resolutions adopted by the Council and that this was the wording used, exactly. Councilman Miller asked who had prepared the text and why the capi- talization was not distributed equally, because if one is empha- sized at the expense of the other, this emphasizes one measure at the expense of the other. The City Attorney explained that he had prepared the text for Measure B, using the Initiative which was shortened for the pur- pose of placing it on the ballot and that unless he is mistaken, Councilman Silva had directed as to how Measure A would read on the ballot. Mayor Taylor agreed that the Council had had the final approval of the text of the measures on the ballot and that no complaints were raised at that time. Mrs. Raison was concerned that bold type, or capitalized words, is a type of advertisement, and that a number of voters would not read the arguments for and against and that the type might sway their vote; also if there were a number of blank pages sent out, people might wish to read about candidates they know nothing about. * * * Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, speaking for SAVE, Inc. stated that an effort has been made by some opponents of SAVE to misconstrue the in- tention and wording of the ordinance relative to the term tlresidential building permittl. Voters are being told all improvements will have to stop and that homes that have been burned will not be rebuilt. He read a memo prepared by the SAVE people that stated that the memo is to help clarify the term, "residential building permit". He stated that the reference applies only to new single family, multiple, and trailer court permits. This does not include home improvements such as swimming pools, fences and patios, etc., nor the rebuilding or repair of homes that have been destroyed through casualties such as fire. He stated that SAVE will stand firmly behind Measure B to see that no home- owner is denied his right to improve his existing property. (Re SAVE - Measure B) Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, stated that he signed the SAVE petition to place it on the ballot, not because he supports it, and if the wording new residential building permits is not there they should not expect the voters to assume it is. He then objected to the small type used to print the statement of qualifications for the candidates as he felt the job could have been done with larger type. James Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, stated that he has to agree with Mr. Phillips with regard to the size of the type used for print- ing the qualifications statements of candidates. He then stated that with regard to the measures on the ballot, he sees no reason why one word should be capitalized over another and felt that it might be illegal to do so. Councilman Miller stated that he fails to see how anyone could misconstrue the SAVE Initiative Ordinance and wanted it to be made clear that he plans to approve any permit for reconstruction of a burned house, or improvements for patios, etc. * * * CM-25-145 March 27, 1972 Mayor Taylor explained that this is a hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement (Water Recla- mation Plant Improvement - Stage III) and that two representatives are present from Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers, to answer questions. Messrs. Daniel Norris and Mike Kiado were the two representatives he acknowledged, and he invited them to address the Council, sug- gesting that they explain why a statement is necessary. PUBLIC HEARING RE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY Mr. Dan Norris stated that there are certain procedures which must be followed in order to receive a grant from the federal government for sewage facilities. One of these requirements is that an envi- ronmental impact statement be written to inform the agencies, and the public in general, of the probable impact of the project on the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency requests that a public hearing be held after publication of the statement as a prerequisite to the approval of a grant. The statement has been written, published and circulated to the City of Livermore and sent to the office of the Lt. Governor of the State Clearing House, En- vironmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development Agency, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, City Manager of Pleasanton, Alameda County Planning Department, and a number of other agencies involved. Copies are on file and available in the City Library and a notice of the hearing was also published in the local newspaper. For some of the history of this project, in 1958 some units were constructed that were necessary to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control discharge requirements at that time. Six years later the discharge requirements were made stiffer and the plant was expanded in capacity and upgraded to meet standards at that time. At present the plant has an average capacity of five million gallons per day and an average flow rate of about 4 mgd. The Regional Water Quality Control Board last year issued new requirements applying to the discharge which require a significantly improved degree of treat- ment before sewage can be discharged from the plant. The effect is to require that the plant produce reclaimed water which is suit- able for any use except for direct domestic reuse. He explained that a comprehensive water quality management plan for the watershed located above Niles is in the final stages of preparation and will be published in April. The plan considers both water supply and waste disposal for the entire Livermore-Amador Valley area, and showed a rough diagram of the area considered. He stated the pre- ferred plan for this area is waste reclamation and disposal in this Valley, which will require removal of nutrients which may result in objectionable aquatic growths in the streams or in lakes or re- servoirs. The plant expansion will accomplish the following: 1) will permit the plant to meet the Board's requirements; 2) will be compatible with the comprehensive water quality management plan; 3) will comply with the requirements of the BAAPCD; and 4) will produce reclaimed water suitable for reuse for any use except direct domestic use. The capacity will be increased by approximately 20% - to 6 mgd and the remainder of the project will consist of upgrading the treatment. He then showed a sketch of the comprehensive water quality management plan, explaining that it is the intent of the plan to abandon the Pleasanton Plant and treat all of the sewage in the Valley at the site of the Valley Community Services Plant and the Livermore Plant and store the water in a recreational reser- voir in Doolan Canyon and use the reclaimed water for irrigation and any other use which may develop. During the winter it will be re- leased into the streams and used for domestic purposes. The project includes lime treatment in the primary sedementation tanks now in existance, which provides phosphate removal which is the primary concern in the water; it will provide dual media rapid sand filtra- tion of the effluent from the plant; will provide for disinfection with chlorine followed by dechlorination to eliminate any toxic effect the water might have. The sludge will be segregated by cen- trifuging to separate the lime for reuse, the organic will be burned and the inert ash will be disposed of to land fill. The reclaimed water will meet all requirements for discharge to Arroyo Las Positas and will be suitable for continued usefbr irrigation of the golf CM-25-146 March 27, 1972 course and the airport and for irrigation of farm land. Also, the reservoir will be suit- able for unrestricted recreational use such as swimming and boating, and will be completely compatible with the incorporation of the reclaimed water into the comprehensive plan for water quality management in the Valley. This is the scope of the project and only minimum facilities will be con- structed at the plant which are necessary to improve the quality as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board along with improving the quality wherein an additional 20% capacity is gained. The major items being added are gravity filters, chemical handling and storage facilities and a control center and a building for handling the solids which are separated from the sewage, which would include the furnaces for reclaiming lime and for burning the organic solids. Also, a maintenance building and a new power sub- station, which is required by the additional power loads placed on the plant. He stated that the impact on the environment is given in detail in the statement. They feel that this is a significant advance in the Valley in terms of utilization of its resources. (Environmental Impact Study) Mayor Taylor asked the staff if they are required to accept the report, and The City Attorney advised that the Council should accept the report and adopt it as the City's report. Mayor Taylor stated that the public should address their comments to the environmental impact study, and that they are not passing their judgment tonight on some of the long range solutions. Earl McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, asked why it was first enlarged to a 4 mgd capacity, then 5 mgd and now 6 mgd, when there is an estimated 2,000 population predicted in the Valley in outstanding building permits. Mayor Taylor explained that with the sewer connection fees and the federal grant received for this project there is simply insuffi- cient funds to increase the capacity beyond the 6 mgd as planned. Mr. McMichael felt the project is being done piecemeal and wondered why pure water is not being produced. He felt that it would be more worthwhile to complete the whole project at one time and produce pure water. Mr. Norris stated the quality produced by the plant will meet stand- ards but the State Department of Public Health will not allow people to drink the water; standards imposed on this plant are the second highest in California, Lake Tahoe having the highest standards. Mr. Parness explained that the plant improvement to take care of quality standards will cost approximately $6 million, which is a considerable amount of money when you consider that the original plant cost the City $800,000, and with very little expansion and quantity the cost came to approximately $6 million. He asked what the cost might be to improve the plant as suggested by Mr. McMichaels, to which Mr. Norris replied the cost would be about double. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he does not object to the expansion, as it is badly needed, but is concerned about the next step - the proposed reservoir in that it appears that the water will have to be pumped to the area due to the lay of the land. He felt that some of the open gravel pits that are open and avail- able should be considered for the storage area rather than pumping the water up to the Doolan Reservoir. He felt that this would be a very expensive operation, continuously, and asked that it be stored in the most economic way. Mr. Norris stated that the possibility of the gravel pits was con- sidered for storage; however, by storing it in the Doolan Canyon area it will allow the mineral contents of the effluent to be dis- pensed into the natural flows of the creek and then flushed into the Bay. CM-25-147 March 27, 1972 (Environmental Impact Study) William Leonard, representing the Associated Home Builders, stated that they support the plant but asked since the plant is being upgraded to meet new standards and increasing capacity, how much attributed to the upgrading and how much to the ex- money could be pansion. Mr. Norris stated that it is difficult to determine the dollar value on the expansion, but during the process of upgrading the standards it also gives additional operating capacity. He stated that the only portion of the plant which could be said to have addi- tional capacity would be the tertiary filters. The Public Works Director explained that 80% of the money is coming from federal and state grants, but these monies are distributed equally among the taxpayers; therefore, the people are actually paying for 80% of the project and the other 20% has been through the sewer connection fees from the new homeowners. Warren King, 5321 Sandra Way, asked what had happened to the bond money and to the tax money that was to be allotted for the project. Mayor Taylor explained that the sewer service charge is to pay for operation of the plant only. Before the federal government will grant money for the expansion of a plant, they require that the operations and maintenance be paid by the users. The reason the charge doubled was because the previous tax covered only half of the cost of operation and the rest was covered through the general City tax. The amount now charged through the sewer service fee makes the operation of the plant the entire responsibility of the users. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that he feels growth should pay its own way and that the developers should not be penalized for improving the quality of the water. He felt the people who now live in Livermore should pay for improving the quality and not those coming to the Valley. He also agreed with Mr. Faltings' suggestion for using the existing gravel pits for the storage of water and recreational uses. Mr. Allen also commented on the use of a 1961 USGS map in the study. The Public Works Director stated that the base map is a 1961 map but the USGS map used has been updated a number of times and he felt that the figures and facts are accurate. Councilman Miller stated that he felt Mr. Allen has a point in that there are many more houses that are more directly downwind from the plant than what is shown on the map, and thought it would not be difficult to sketch to scale the new street. Mayor Taylor stated that an updated map could be included with a written explanation, but felt that it would be out of order to re- print the entire document because of a few minor changes in the map. Councilman Rritchard made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Miller stated that he would not like to second the motion because there is a major area of environmental impact, which in his opinion, has been left out and before the hearing is closed he would like to discuss it, and possibly the hearing should be left open. He stated that on Page 5 there is a very short discussion of the existence of a waste water plant and what it might do with respect to population and economic activity. He felt that it is fairly obvious that the air pollution in this Valley is directly related to the growth in the Valley and that expansion of the sewer plant is a direct implication of the possibility of further growth - in this case, an expansion of 20%. The growth made possible by this expansion will increase a percentage of emissions for this Valley and, therefore, it seems that this is a substantial environmental CM-25-148 March 27, 1972 impact; the effects of the air pollution on the Valley should have been considered and, before sending it on to anyone else, there should be some revisions. He stated that the two expan- sions in the past 15-20 years have gone essentially for houses and there is no reserve plan for industrial expansion; in the general continuation of the trend, the houses can be expected to use up the capacity excluding the possibility of any major industrial expansion. Expansion increases our air pollution and, according to the BAAPCD representative, will result in industry not being allowed to obtain building permits in severely polluted areas, of which Livermore is one. Councilman Miller stated that he cannot vote to adopt this statement as the City's Environmental Impact Report without something said regarding the effect of this plant expansion on air pollution. He further stated that he felt EPA would not accept it, as they questioned the study in regard to expanding U.S. 580 with respect to air pollution consequences. The building of a sulphur dioxide coal using plant in itself has no environmental impact, but the minute it is used there will be a big effect on the amount of air pollution by using sulphur containing coal. He is in favor of upgrading the plant, but the expansion is in connection with air pollution and he will not commit himself as being in favor of an expansion of the plant. (Environmental Impact Study) Mayor Taylor felt that possibly the report should show that the expansion would allow for more growth, but that this factor can- not necessarily be attributed to growth in the Valley. He wondered if it would be in order to add an additional letter of addendum to the report. Mr. Norris stated that an addendum would be very appropriate and could reflect the comments made in the public hearing, which is part of the Environmental Impact Study Statement. Mr. Phillips asked if it would be possible to upgrade the plant without obtaining the additional capacity. Dr. Donald Rocco, 1018 Murrieta Blvd., stated that on pages 26 and 27 of the report there is discussion about air pollution. The City Manager stated that the increase of the capacity of the plant could be attributed to the population increase, but part of it may be consumed by industrial use, which mayor may not have an effect on the air pollution consideration. Councilman Miller explained that the representative from the BAAPCD had stated that permits would first be denied to industry and then houses, in a highly polluted area, and there is the possibility that very little industry will ever be allowed here. Roy Miehe, 164 Barber, as an interested party concerned with air pollution and also plant expansion, wondered if Brown and Caldwell had accented the potential for clearer air from green growing that might be encouraged with the treated water. He also mentioned the possibility of using artificifll rain - perhaps spray from planes as they take off, to help cut out some of the air pollution. He stated that the air is always clear after a rain. Mr. Norris explained that the BAAPCD considers water particles in the atmosphere a source of air pollution; therefore, would not accept this suggested solution. Clarence Hoenig stated that the VCSD is required to show a plan for future expansion, once they have reached 80% of their capacity, and wondered if another plan for our City has been submitted as part of the report. Mr. Norris stated that this has been taken care of in another doc- ument which is a part of the total submittal associated with the obtaining of a federal grant. That portion shows what would be CM-25-149 March 27, 1972 (Environmental Impact Study) required to expand to 10 mgd; there are plans to expand to whatever capacity might be required in the future. Mayor Taylor asked if there was a second to the motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Miller stated that if the public hearing is closed, the next move will be to adopt the report which he cannot vote for because of the question he posed regarding air pollution. He stated that if the report comes back with the air pollution matter in the form of an addendum to the report, then it should be available for public hearing and further discussion. He would like to ask the City Attorney if the public hearing could be closed now and allow these comments to be part of the record if it is not a public hearing. He felt that if they have to reopen the public hearing this is costly and the hearing may as well remain open. Mayor Taylor stated that they are operating under a time schedule placed upon the Council by the Water Quality Control Board and the report is part of the process. He asked if the timing on the adoption is such that they need to adopt it at this meeting, or could the matter be continued one more week. Mr. Norris felt that a one week continuance would be within the time limit and would not make a difference. Mayor Taylor asked if the matter is continued for another week, the addendum to the report could be prepared during this time. Councilman Miller moved to continue the public hearing for another week, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and it was approved unan- imously. Councilman Miller stated that before passing from this issue he would like to summarize some of the comments made by Mayor Taylor to be reflected in the record: 1) if the plant were not upgraded, no expansion using sewer connection fees would be possible; 2) the sewer connection fees were substantially too low and, therefore, completely inadequate to complete this plant without federal money; 3) the upgrading contribution by the federal government - some 80% of the cost we all pay for in our federal taxes, and since all communities are using this money, as pointed out by the Public Works Director, to upgrade their sewer plants, the cost is spread out over all of us so that this community, through its federal taxes, is paying for 80% of the cost of this plant. The 20% expansion uses up the sewer connection fees which provide only 16% of the total cost. Councilman Miller stated that the things he just men- tioned were a summary and asked again that they be shown in the record. * * * RECESS AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH COUNCILMEN PRITCHARD, MILLER AND MAYOR TAYLOR PRESENT. * * * CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE ORD. AMEND. TRAILERS (Storage and Parking) The public hearing with regard to the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 21.00 (Special Provisions) as it relates to the parking and storage of trailers was continued from last week because one of the members of the Council was ab- sent, and Mayor Taylor explained he did not feel this should be resolved since there are two ab- sent at this meeting. He suggested that the public hearing be opened, and testimony taken from those in the audience who wished to speak, and then continue it for later CM-25-150 March 27, 1972 resolution, and after some discussion it was decided to set the continuation date to April 10. (Trailer storage - Park:ing Amendment) Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at this time. Earl McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, recalled that some of the state- ments made at the last meeting about the restrictions placed into the proposed new ordinance were not recommended by the petitioners, but rather they recommended what the length should be, and that they be stored in orderly fashion. There were not talking about semis or tractors and the like, but about campers and boats - also campers used for storing tools to conduct a business on which there were no restrictions in the ordinance. They do not recom- mend that these be put in storage but rather stored at their home where they can be watched and their safety assured. He felt they were misrepresented as it had been said that the suggested ordi- nance did not have these stipulations. Leona Smith, 1172 Marigold Rd, asked if there is a law prohibiting trailers to be parked in front of the house, on the driveway, and Mayor Taylor explained that there is such an ordinance but it has not been enforced for the past year because the new ordinance was being considered. What is before the Council is whether or not they should enforce the existing ordinance or should a new ordi- nance, proposed by the Planning Commission, be adopted. This proposed ordinance will allow trailers to be parked in front yards in those parts of town where there is not enough room to get the trailer in the back yard, which is most of the City. In Spring- town there is a deed restriction regarding parking trailers and regardless of what the decision of the Council is, there will never be legal parking of trailers in Springtown, if the home- owners want to enforce that deed restriction. Mrs. Smith stated that her reason for appearing is that there is a trailer parked in the driveway next to her home that is as big as a house and which takes up the whole driveway, one foot from the house and five feet from the sidewalk. Many of the neighbors have objected; a petition was circulated; the police were informed but nothing has been done. It completely obstructs her view and in backing out of her driveway, she is unable to see the street until she reaches the sidewalk. Mayor Taylor explained that the deed restriction is a matter for the Homeowners' Association to police, and not the City and suggested it be discussed with the Homeowners' Association. Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Street, stated with regard to trailers in Springtown they had been told by the Board of Directors they have no way of policing the restrictions; they have no homeowners' association. If anyone wants to place a trailer in front of a house, they will abide by the City ordinance and there is no way to police it without taking the matter to court for a judge to decide before they can prove it. The restriction has no meaning unless it is taken to court. He would not like to have trailers parked in front of houses, and would like restrictions on the size and type of trailers that will be allowed to be parked on the lot if there is an ordinance to that effect. Leon Seeley, 1379 Hollyhock, remarked that this is the same thing over again for about the sixth time, and the Council has been pre- sented with petitions and he has explained it before; the only objection is that he did not believe they should have to prosecute these situations in Springtown because of the amendment change. If there is an amendment adopted, he would appreciate some infor- mation as to whether or not it will be taken care of, which legally, he felt every taxpayer should have that assurance. They have a covenant, and it is required, but the trouble is that most people who have trailers in Springtown are parking them because of the situation allover Livermore. There have been people who have sold CM-25-151 March 27, 1972 (Trailer storage & Parking Amendment) their trailers because they had no room due to the size of their lots. He felt this was all spelled out before, and they should not have to go through it all again as it is a waste of the Council's time. Warren King, 5321 Sandra Way, felt that the situation in Springtown is not the City's responsibility at this time, but a group of home owners in Springtown can take the matter to court. He stated that there are a number of people in Springtown who do not wlsh to have a trailer or camper, but there are a great number of people in other areas of the City who do enjoy their campers and trailers and they have this right. In view of these things he felt that B-1 would be the only reasonable way to go; adding that it should be kept in a neat and orderly place. Marie Oliver, 1189 Marigold Road, stated that she lives across the street from a very large mobilehome and feels that it is an eyesore every time she looks out her window. She stated that it fills the whole driveway and feels that it is downgrading her pro- perty. She explained that, in her opinion, if she wanted to sell her home, the mobilehome would be a hindrance. She felt that if one can afford a large trailer they can afford to house it. Mayor Taylor explained that unfortunately, the ordinance would not be restrictive to a mobilehome which is considered a vehicle, such as the one she is concerned about. The only restriction is that this type of vehicle is not allowed to park on public property for more than 72 hours. Myrtle Wright, 137 Estates Street, stated that she owns a mobile- home which they park at the side of their house so that it does not block the driveway or anyone's view. Don Riggs, 772 Via Granada, stated that he has a trailer parked in the driveway and that the house next door was sold to another party and he had never received complaints about his trailer, nor did it seem to affect the price the seller received for the home. He stated that the reason they want their trailer to remain in front of their house rather than in a lot, or whatever might be made available, is for the reason they have always cleaned up the trailer after a trip and if the trailer has a flat tire they would not be aware of this until they went to the storage place to pick it up. He stated that he would have to pick up the trailer and bring it home to load it for the weekend and as it now stands, his wife is able to load the trailer at her convenience before the weekend. Mayor Taylor mentioned that the public hearing would be continued until April 10 when there is a full Council present, and asked for a motion. Councilman Miller moved to continue the hearing until April 10, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and received the unanimous ap- proval of the Council. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR COMMUNICATION RE STUDENT HOUSING the matter until tinue the matter It was decided to remove the item regarding the communication from the School District re student housing as Mr. Parness stated that Councilman Silva was particularly interested in the matter and asked if it would be possible to continue he could be present. The Council agreed to con- until the next meeting. * * * CM-25-152 A letter was received from the state Division of Highways advising that a completed vehicu- lar, pedestrian and school pedestrian countat the intersection of Holmes street and Concan- non Blvd. does not warrant traffic signals at this time, however the intersection will be kept * * * A report of residential building permits issued March 16 through March 22 was received, indicat- ing 133 single family residential dwelling units permitted, making a total of 941 single family and 9 multiple family permits since November 9. * * * The contractor has completed the 1971 Sidewalk Repair, Project 71-33, and it is recommended that the City Council accept this project as completed. March 27, 1972 Communication re Intersection Holmes St. & Concannon Blvd. under surveillance. Reports re Permits Issued 19'il Sidewalk Repair Project RESOLUTION NO. 29-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION RE SIDE- WALK REPAIR PROJECT, PROJECT 71-33. * * * Summary of action of the Planning Commission meeting of March 21 was acknowledged for fil- ing. * * * The minutes of the Housin~ Authority meetings of February 15 and March b were acknowledged for filing. * * * One hundred two claims in the amount of $100,591.78, dated March 22 and two hundred thirty-six payroll warrants in the amount of $56,899.48 dated March 10, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote (Coun- cilmen Beebe and Silva absent) the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * Summary Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Housing Authority Payroll Warrants and Claims Approval of Consent Calendar Mr. H. C. Elliott explained that the efforts for providing schools for the children in his tract are moving right along; agreements have been signed with the School Board in which he will provide classrooms to be ready for the students at the time they occupy the homes. He stated that with regard to the well, it is near completion; there has been a good supply of water; the well is being enlarged and the testing should be done the later part of the week. He stated that these were the provisions of obtaining the permits and they do not intend to ob- tain the permits until the conditions are met. REPORT RE WATER AND SCHOOL PROVISIONS (Tr. 3333) CM-25-153 March 27, 1972 (Water and Schools - Tract 3333) Mayor Taylor stated that it is his understanding that the essence of the agreement is that hous- ing will be acceptable to the state. Mr. Elliott stated that this is correct, they are approved and he has chosen a unique design for the classrooms, and each classroom contains 960 sq. ft., or approximately 60 sq. ft. more than the minimum. They are carpeted and the air condition- ing is on top of the building rather than on the walls, which is considered the better of the two types of air conditioning. Mayor Taylor stated that a letter was received late today which did, in part, have something to say about Mr. Elliott's agreement and pertained to other matters as well, which he read to the Coun- cil and public at this time. The letter stated the Board's appre- ciation of Mr. Elliott1s agreement, but stated their concern for the following things: 1) the agreement is temporary, and the Dis- trict must somehow obtain funds to purchase the classrooms or pro- vide other such facilities within three to five years; 2) the furniture and equipment which usually comes from bonds must be removed from the District's operating budget; 3) the Board is unaware of any definite proposal acceptable to the District on behalf of other developers to provide temporary school housing; 4) various proposals discussed provide no solution to the growth contributed to existing housing units or those provided by the small builders. For these reasons they have asked that the Council consider the proposal made by Mr. Eldred Chance - that the full cost of school housing be added to the price of each new dwelling unit which would be collected by the City as a building permit fee, which would be approximately $1,675 for a single family dwelling unit. This would be credited toward the bond redemption in order to prevent double taxing, and making funds available for school housing immediately. They urged the Council to pursue Mr. Chance's proposal by asking the Staff to work with the School District Staff to prepare a complete evaluation of the proposal, including accurate estimates of costs, legal consideration, bookkeeping, etc. Mayor Taylor stated that the letter is signed by Edwin Rundstrum, Super- intendent of the School District, on behalf of the Board. Councilman Miller moved that the Staff be directed to work with the School District to prepare an evaluation of the proposal and to include the costs of legal considerations, bookkeeping, etc. and any other similar alternatives that would accomplish the same goals, as there may be some legislative problems with this parti- cular proposal, seconded by Councilman Pritchard with the amendment that the Staff ascertain from the School District as to whether this is their Staff action or Board action. Councilman Miller commented that Mr. Chance, Mr. Futch, and he had submitted proposals in which the arithmetic arrives at approximately the same figure, using slightly different methods of calculations. He felt the proposal worked out by Mr. Chance is a very good one and well thought out. He stated that, in essence, it is a school connection fee, similar to the water connection fee, sewer connec- tion fee, annexation fee, park dedication, which are all similar in intent and in concept. Two years ago a school connection fee was discussed but not carried through by the Council at that time, which he considers a substantial loss to the taxpayers. He feels that the proposal is definitely worth following up as Mr. Elliott's proposal, in the long run, is not satisfactory. In three to five years the people in the Elliott development are going to be in bad shape, or the curriculum money for the schools will be gone if it is used to pay for these facilities. Mayor Taylor explained that if there is to be a school connection fee, a legislative law will have to be passed, allowing such action, but felt it might be worth pursuing. The City Attorney stated that he would be glad to consult with any Attorney who believes that there is a possibility of a statute CM-25-154 which would allow a school connection fee if Councilman Miller would advise him and Coun- cilman Miller stated that he would be glad to advise him in this respect. March 27, 1972 (Water and Schools - Tract 3333) The motion as amended was approved unanimously by the Council at this time. * * * The Public Works Director explained that the final map, plans, and agreements for Hofmann Tract 3321 have been prepared and approved as far as City standards, and are reedy for accept- ance by the Council. The staff recommends that they be accepted along with the first action to be taken on a pro- posed assessment district in conjunction with the tract. He stated that the tentative map was accepted with the condition that a way be found for the developer to participate in the improvements along Portola and Livermore Avenues, adjacent to the area of the tract. The preliminary draft for the assessment district has been prepared by the Public Works Department and maps and petitions have been sent to all property owners in the district. They have received signatures representing 90% of the property, which is over the 60% required to form an assessment district. The developer has posted a bond for his share of the assessment district and has agreed to go ahead and do everything he can to establish the assessment dis- trict. The developer, in case the assessment district is not es- tablished, will participate in the improvements in the amount of $62,000. which Mr. Lee stated exceeds the estimated cost of the improvements. Mr. Lee further stated that there are certain reso- lutions to be adopted, from the bonding attorney, along with the petitions, boundary map and certificate to be filed. REPORT RE FINAL MAP - TRACT 3321 ( Ho fmann ) At the request of Mayor Taylor, the Public Works Director illus- trated the areas that will be part of the assessment district. Councilman Pritchard asked the City Attorney if the map will be conditioned with the school ordinance. The City Attorney stated that it would not, as the filed before the effective date of the ordinance. the developer requested that there be a suspension improvements if building permits are denied, which improvements to be extended over a period of time. tentative was He stated that of public works would allow the Mayor Taylor stated that he would like to make a comment for the record which is that Mr. Scherman undoubtedly understands that the City now has an ordinance which states that only a certain number of building permits can be issued because of an impending water shortage and the number picked was to include existing final maps as of last November. Therefore, in order for the City to grant permits for this final map there would have to be a resolution of the City's water problem and schools. Mayor Taylor felt that the matter should be continued for another week as there may not be three affirmative votes, which are needed to accept the map, as suggested by the City Attorney. He then directed the statement to the City Attorney that this is a final map in agreement with the tentative map, and asked if there is any legal basis for refusing to accept the map. The City Attorney advised that the Council has no legal basis for not accepting the map. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept the final map, seconded by Mayor Taylor. Councilman Miller stated that his position will remain as it was on the tentative - he will not vote to approve subdivision maps CM-25-155 March 27, 1972 when there is a school classroom space shortage problem and when there is no water. Any attempt to regulate a subdivision for the benefit of the community as a whole, is going to be subject to a law suit and makes no difference if it starts with the tentative or final map. He stated that he is against the acceptance of the map; however, it is a useless delay, as the map will be passed when a full Council is present. Therefore, in order to expedite Council business and Mr. Scherman's business he will be willing to vote for the tract map but would like the record to show that it is in order to avoid unnecessary delay, as he is fundamentally opposed to approving a map when there are no schools and there is no water. (Final Map Tr. 3321 - Hofmann) Mayor Taylor stated that there is a legal requirement to accept the map; the Council is acting as an agent of the state in record- ing the map and the law is extremely clear. He stated that he is also concerned about these problems, but feels he has no choice but to vote for approval of the map. At this time the Council voted their unanimous approval of the motion to accept the final map, and agreement and bonds for improve- ments. RESOLUTION NO. 30-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3321 RESOLUTION NO. 31-72 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3321 (Hofmann Company) Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the recommendations of the Public Works Director with regard to the assessment district and resolutions and filings as listed below, seconded by Mayor Taylor, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. Petition - to be filed with the proceedings Boundary Map to be filed with the proceedings Certificate re percentage of signatures to the petition to be filed with the proceedings. RESOLUTION NO. 32-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP RESOLUTION NO. 33-72 RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITIONS IN LIVERMORE-PORTOLA AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 72-6, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 34-72 RESOLUTION APPOINTING SPECIAL BOND COUNSEL AND AUTHOR- IZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 35-72 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITIONS IN LlVERMORE-PORTOLA AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 72-6, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIF. CM-25-156 March 27, 1972 Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he had asked the Council some months ago how many tentative tract maps still existed and at that time there were two (Hofmann and H.C. Elliott). He asked if this means that the board is clear of all tentative tract maps and that every tract map presented hereafter will meet the requirements of growth. (Final Map - Tr. 3321) The Planning Director explained that all of the Hofmann maps have been approved and Mr. Elliott has some maps that have not been approved. Mr. Faltings asked when the City comes to the point that what is happening now is reflected by action taken in the City now. He asked when will the previous agreements come to a stop so that the community can know how conditions are at the time. Mr. Musso explained that the area not included in the final map of H. C. Elliott is proposed freeway right-of-way and possible school site. * * * Mr. Parness explained that the applicant re- questing the amendment to the business license ordinance has asked that the item be withdrawn. REPORT RE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (Palmistr~ Councilman Miller moved to table the matter, seconded by Council- man Pritchard, and received unanimous approval of the Council. * * * Mr. Musso stated that the subject matter of the letter from LARPD on the Arroyo Parkway Study is pending before the Planning Commission and will be before the Council in April or May. COMMUNICATION RE LARPD-ARROYO PARKWAY STUDY Mayor Taylor suggested that comments be received from the staff as part of the input to the Planning Commission. Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission has gone ahead and are attempting to form a study committee of representatives from LARPD, Zone 7 and the Planning Commission to review channel re- quirements. * * * Councilman Pritchard moved that the ordinance regarding the Enos application for rezoning from RL-6 to RG-IO be adopted (title read only) and was seconded by Mayor Taylor. Z.O. AMENDMENT RE ENOS PROPERTY Councilman Miller indicated that he had been against the rezoning because it would be an increase in density and there was no park dedication. However, he stated that not to vote for this ordinance would be a useless delay in that as soon as there is a full Council, the ordinance will be adopted. Therefore, he will vote in favor of the ordinance if the records will show that he objects to the adoption of the ordinance, but is only doing so in the interest of expediting Council business. The following ordinance was approved unanimously (Councilmen Beebe and Silva absent): ORDINANCE NO. 783 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING. * * * CM-25-157 March 27, 1972 PRO POSED AMENDMENT RE VENDING MACHINES PROPOSED ORD. RE HOLIDAYS Sec. 13.1 - (Motor Vehicles and Traffic) On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance regarding Munici- pal Code amendment to pertinent section on vend- ing machines, to provide a gross receipts basis for licensing was introduced and read by title only. * * * The City Attorney explained that before the Council discusses the amendment to the Municipal Code to update the provisions for holidays, this was proposed by the Police Department to bring the legal holidays for parking to coincide with City holidays with the exception of Saturdays and the day after Thanksgiving, which is a big day for merchants. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to waive the reading of the ordinance (title read only), seconded by Councilman Miller, and by the following vote, the ordinance was introduced: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor None Councilmen Beebe and Silva COMMUNICATION RE STUDENT HOUSING * * * Mayor Taylor stated that it was suggested by the staff prior to approving the Consent Calendar, that the matter regarding studenhousing, through a letter received from the School District, be put over until Councilman Silva could be present, and asked if there were any comments at this time. Councilman Miller stated that the Superintendent, or at least his staff, agrees that the number of double sessions to be faced by the School District as calculated by him and by Councilman Miller are the same except for the timing. They are allowed to be as optimistic as they choose but perhaps unrealistic because their argument is that very few people moved in during October and March. Councilman Miller stated that most people move at the end of the school year in order to eliminate changes in schools for their children; furthermore, sales for houses are much higher in the summertime. He added that there were something like 4000 houses sold in the Valley last year; they are shut off in Pleasanton and Dublin and there is no reason we should not expect a housing pressure to be concentrated here. Therefore, it seems the talk of occupancies for seven or eight months is unrealistic. In his opinion, and perhaps others, this would be an implausible guess as to how many double sessions there will be on September 1, or when they will begin. He felt the point to be made is that the 793 dwelling units mentioned in November as the maximum number for which permits will be issued is still valid and that we are going to be over that by a substantial amount sometime in the future with no way to provide for school space. Consequently, if it is put off for two to six months, when we get the double sessions, there is going to be substantial overcrowding in our schools and there is already in the high school and Jr. high school level; they are on 4-day a week classes and have been for sometime; and is con- sidered a degradation in the quality of the school system. The program is going to be cut next year in the junior high schools although there will not be double sessions, but is another way of showing school overcrowding. He felt that it is a little disappoint- ing that the School District can sound so optimistic when every parent feels that the situation is worse than that. Mayor Taylor felt that the School District staff was merely answer- ing a specific question that the Council directed to them; an overall CM-25-158 March 27, 1972 assessment of overcrowding problem was not asked (Student Housing) for. He agreed with Councilman Miller that it is only a matter of time, but it is a little hard to make predictions as to exactly when the estimated number of double sessions will occur, and they have not changed their opinion as to the number. Councilman Miller stated that his arithmetic adds up to 66-67 double sessions with the number of permits which have been pre- sently issued and there are more still in the mill. Mayor Taylor commented that if there are no objections, they will move on, and will direct the City Clerk to add this item on the agenda for next week. * * * Councilman Pritchard commented that a man had been killed on a motorcycle when he ran into the chain across the roadway at Robertson Park and asked why the chain is there. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Fatality - Robertson Park) The Public Works Director stated that this was on private property, not a public street and could be part of the LARPD's security. Mr. Musso explained that residents are putting a chain across Pleasant View Lane, except at Rodeo time, in order to keep the Robertson Park traffic from going through Pleasant View Lane, adding that LARPD has a roadway to enter Robertson Park from the east also. * * * Councilman Miller made a motion to endorse Sena-::;Dr Holmdahl' s Bill about interest on impounds, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. (Endorsement of Bill re Impounds) * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. ADJOURNMENT * * CM-25-159 Regular Meeting of April 3, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on April 3, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:20 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Beebe (Vacation) * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, called attention to the fact that a major freeway intersection (Inter- state Route 84) was not mentioned in the minutes of March 27 with respect to the item regarding the Environmental Impact Study. The minutes of March 27 were approved, as corrected, on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, by a 3-1 vote, with Councilman Silva abstaining as he was not present at that meeting. * * * H. C. Elliott, Developer, stated that he had just received a letter from California Water informing him that the water from his well is considered accept- able as to chemical analysis. Pumping of water from the well started yesterday and it pumped 150 gpm and at this time is producing 460 gpm. He feels that the pumping capacity greatly exceeds the required amount for the tract that will be using it, and estimated that after 50 or 60 hours of pumping the new well will be producing double the amount it now does. He asked that the Council give permission and their agreement for him to obtain the building permits he is allowed, as he has met the requirements of the agreement to provide water and schools, as soon as a satisfactory volume of water is being provided by the new well. OPEN FORUM (H.C. Elliott Tr. 3333) Mayor Taylor felt that it is necessary for the staff to confirm this report with California Water and/or Zone 7 and obtain the necessary certifications that the agreement has been satisfied. The City Manager stated that he received a copy of the letter from California Water and it is apparent from the contents of the letter that the well is qualitatively proper and is being tested by their chief engineer, and it is just a matter of reaching its expected capacity. He also stated the school problem has been resolved and, therefore, felt it would be appropriate if the Council would permit the staff to release the building permits applied for, subject to the receipt of confirmation from California Water who will be the owners of the water system. Mayor Taylor asked how long it is necessary to test a well to be assured that the well will hold up, adding that probably only Calif- ornia Water could answer that question. Mr. Robert Tiecke, Cal Water representative, reported that they will reach the 280 home level in the middle of the week and that there will be an adequate amount of water to handle the number of homes Mr. Elliott plans to build. He stated that they have been very pleased with the results of the chemical analysis and even though it has received only partial analysis, it looks very good. CM-25-160 April 3, 1972 Mayor Taylor commented, just for the record and those who might not know the history of this subject, Mr. Elliott has agreed to pro- vide schools and water for the houses in his tract for a period of five years; the School District has accepted the offer for temporary schools, and he had to develop a water source to supply all of the water required by that tract which will not contribute in any way to a shortage in the rest of the City. Water will not be drawn from the well except in times of shortage. (Tract 3333 - Elliott) . Councilman Pritchard moved that the staff be authorized to issue permits upon the receipt of certification from California Water Service Co. re the well, if satisfactory, seconded by Councilman Silva. Councilman Miller commented that he voted against the issuance of permits before and will do so again in view of the fact that he feels it is an unsatisfactory school situation, as it is temporary. Further, it is a drain on the underground water supply - a well which the rate payers and City are going to pay unnecessarily for on their future water bills. Mayor Taylor explained that California Water felt this well to be necessary as they had a lease on an inferior well in the area prior to the drilling of this one. The School District has accepted the offer made by Mr. Elliott, and there is a chance that the City might be required to issue the permits without any contribution from Mr. Elliott towards the solution of the school problem. Councilman Miller pointed out that the School District sent a letter to the Council, stating that this is an unsatisfactory solution to the problems, due to the temporary nature of the proposal. The motion passed by a 3 to 1 vote with Councilman Miller dissent- ing (Councilman Beebe absent). * * * Dr. Donald Rocco, 1018 Murrieta Blvd., asked for three points of clarification: 1) Section C of Proposition B, what does the statement mean when it reads, "may only be amended or repealed by the voters at a regular municipal electionll. (Question re Ballot Statement) The City Attorney explained that the matter is covered in Sec. 4019 of the Elections Code, and read the section pertaining to the matter. The Code provides for amending an initiative ordinance by submitting it at a general or special election for that purpose, as this is what the requirement is. He stated that even though the measure states IIregular electionll he felt the provisions of the Elections Code could not be changed. Dr. Rocco asked if the measure could be implied that Section C was meant to change the Code, to which the City Attorney stated no - he felt it is just a deviation from elections law and stands as such. Question 2) has there been an estimate of cost or an estimate of decrease of revenue to the City in the event Proposition B passes and what has been done to decrease the cost of expenditures, in the event Proposition B passes, as far as the staff and other per- sonnel are concerned. The City Manager reported that the questions asked by Dr. Rocco are presently under detailed study by the staff and will not be completed by April 11. Dr. Rocco stated that he felt verbal estimates should be given in terms of cost revenue loss to the City. CM-25-161 April 3, 1972 (Re Ballot Statements) Mayor Taylor explained that there are many charges shown on the books as income to the City (those which come along with building), but are matched almost exactly by an equivalent expenditure for services such as water storage, etc. He wanted it to be made clear that fees paid to the City can in no way be considered income to the City, as they are offset by expenditures. Dr. Rocco explained that Pleasanton had reported a 52% loss to City revenue and since Pleasanton was able to come up with a figure perhaps Livermore could do the same. Councilman Silva felt that the City Manager could provide a rough estimate in a week, to which Dr. Rocco explained that he felt the public should be informed as to the loss; that he was not request- ing this information for himself, specifically. The City Manager felt that perhaps no conclusive answer could be given to this question, and he should be informed as to what is going to happen if Proposition B passes. Dr. Rocco felt he is not in a position to say what might happen if Proposition B passes. The City Manager stated that he does not know which direction the community will take, in the event the measure is successful; there- fore, it is hard to answer the questions. He mentioned that Plea- santon has had no building for the past seven or eight months and that Livermore has had a boom in building during this time. Con- sequently, there has been a significant advance accrual of revenues in all of the City's trust accounts which he has been advised will extend at least over the next year to eighteen months. Councilman Miller commented, that as the Mayor explained, these accounts are also paid out. Dr. Rocco felt that it is a simple matter of arithmetic to figure the percentage of loss, and Mayor Taylor explained that it W B simple matter if one has all the facts, but as pointed out by the City Mana- ger, the direction to be taken by the community is not known at present. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that knowing the amount of a figure without knowing how it was determined is meaningless; however, he stated that he would like to speak about three other items: 1) in Centennial Park there are picnic tables, but no litter baskets and felt that this is one area the ecology might be improved; 2) California Water had a leakage at 4th and Holmes Streets, the leak was repaired, leaving an impression in the street. In his es- timation, this could be considered a hazard and cause injury; 3) with regard to the trailer storage ordinance, the Council considers in- cluding a request that the parking of all trailers be prohibited within fifteen feet of an intersection, for obvious traffic safety reasons. Mayor Taylor stated that the Public Works Department would be asked to look into the matter of the wastebaskets and the street problem caused by California Water. * * * Mr. Elliott stated there is another item he would like to mention - that he is developing a mobile home trailer park and that the necessary easements have been procured and the pipework has been placed across the area. He understood that there would be no problem with obtaining permits for Sunrise Park (133 spaces located in Springtown). He stated that the Council requested a widening of the main street into the park of eleven feet which was agreed upon. With regard to school connection fees, it was felt that the request (Inquiry re Mobilehome Park-Elli6tt) CM-25-162 April 3, 1972 that this be an adult park might make them (Mobile Home Park) exempt from the fee and, if necessary, covenants and restrictions would be recorded with the City to insure that the park would always remain an adult community. He added, that if there are too many more fees involved, the trailer park probably could not be built, and asked for comments from the Council. Mr. Musso stated that as far as the Planning Department is con- cerned the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit have been satisfied and that the public works have been taken care of, leaving only the Building Department. He felt that the plans are not ready to be approved as yet. This matter was briefly discussed, however it was decided that it was not a proper subject for the Open Forum and was postponed for one week for further discussion. * * * Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, speaking for (SAVE) SAVE, Inc. stated that SAVE has been accused of being a "stop growth measure". He stated that there have been at least two Council measures taken during the past few months to stop growth, in nature, never promoted by SAVE~ the first one being that no tract maps would be approved unless school facilities were provided; next, action was taken to issue only 1500 permits to settle a water problem. That limit is soon to be reached and the Council will then have to back down or stick with it, and this will stop growth. He felt that SAVE, Inc. can provide services needed in this community through cooperation with the developers and homeowners without stopping growth in the com- munity. Also, SAVE, Inc. has received nL~erous phone calls re- garding the ballots and how they have been printed. They do not mind an honest confrontation in an election, as there are differ- ent views of how the City should grow; however, he stated that there is no doubt in their minds that Proposition A was drafted to look like the SAVE Ordinance. Councilman Silva stated that he drafted Proposition A and that Mr. Hoenig's assumptions were untrue. Mr. Hoenig stated that the format is exactly the same and whether or not it is considered untrue that it was done intentionally, bias is apparent - Measure A has been given preferential treatment in the printing through capitalization. He stated that, legally, there is nothing SAVE can do, but the voters should have the opportunity to look at these measures in the open. He would like to know who authorized the capitalization of certain words in Measure A. The City Attorney explained that he drafted Measure A and Measure B, they were presented to the Council who approved them, through a resolution, and that at the time they were presented to the Council there was no capitalization in either measure. Mr. Lewis stated there were some changes to be made and that the delegation of the wording was given to Councilman Silva. He stated that he does not recall discussion of capitalization, but the City Clerk felt this was discussed at the meeting, as well. Councilman Silva stated that there was a copy of the form discussed and he still has possession of it at home and will submit it to the Council at the next meeting for further discussion. Councilman Miller stated he has no recollection of any discussion of capitalization, particularly with reference to Measure A over Measure B. Mr. Hoenig felt that there was enough of an outstanding difference in the type set of the two measures that someone should have picked CM-25-163 April 3, 1972 (SAVE) up the obvious difference when the proofs from the printer were submitted for changes and corrections. Councilman Silva felt that the capitalization used in Measure A was not that important, and that the voters will read both measures be- fore deciding to vote. Mr. Hoenig felt that it really was not very fair to capitalize in one measure; it should have been used in both measvres, and in his opinion, it was the City Attorney and the Council who decided to take an abbreviated attack on the SAVE measure. * * * (Growth) Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, felt there are enough problems with the City Council candidates claiming that there is rapid growth from previous years and gave official statements from the City Staff: In 1964 there were 731 building permits, 816 in 1965 with a population of 25,000. He stated that in proportion to the 45,000 population we now have, the 1,450 are not excessive. He felt that a great deal of the permits were caused by the SAVE initiative. He stated that he does not like to hear the City Staff say that rapid growth has taken place this year and not over previous years. * * * (Police Brutality) time. in the that a Mr. Phillips stated that some months ago a citizen appeared before the Council asking that they check into the matter of police brutality towards her child and that nothing has been mentioned since that He noted that someone had written a letter, which appeared newspaper, asking what had happened with regard to the request check be made concerning the matter. Mayor Taylor stated that a committee had been appointed consisting of Councilmen Miller and Pritchard, who met at length with the offi- cers involved and the party that placed the complaint. A report was written and given to the party who complained, adding that it would not have been fair to the person who complained to reveal the entire contents of the report. In general, the specific complaint was found to be unfounded, and asked if the City Manager would like to make a comment. The City Manager stated that it was a matter that was met to the satisfaction of the two Council members and all of those involved. Mayor Taylor explained that the incident had cast a shadow over the Police Department and for this reason it might be reasonable to let the public know that the complaint was unfounded. Mr. Phillips remarked that the citizen had aired a very strong com- plaint and to hear nothing more of the matter made it look as if the Council had decided to let it be "swept under the rug", and felt that if the officer was found to be at fault, the public should have been informed and if not, she should have made an apology to the whole City. (Statement of Mr. Phillips stated that with regard to the coming Qualifications) election, he wondered if it would be possible for the candidates to have their statement of qualifi- cations printed in the Sunday edition of the Inde- pendent, in larger type for citizens to read. He stated that he would like to have his $50 filing fee returned, which went towards the publication of their statement of qualifications, as the candi- dates did not get their "money's worth". * * * CM-25-164 April 3, 1972 John Regan, 672 South N Street, remarked that he came down to the Court Chambers on a Friday night, and it appeared that there was a meeting in process. He later learned that the candidates were being interviewed by a radio station. He felt that this would be fine, unless he was paying for the utility bill, as a taxpayer. He felt that if he is paying for the utility bill, business of the Council should be expedited and get on with the agenda. (Re Expediting Council Business) * * * Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, speaking as a co-chairman of the Committee for Rational Valley Planning, stated that he was surprised and very pleased with the comments made by Mr. Hoenig and hopes that the records have shown that this Council has taken action to control the growth rate in the Valley. He stated that this is an indication of the possibility for the people to control growth, if they are concerned, without passage of a measure such as Proposition B. He further stated that he would like to correct a statement made by Mr. Hoenig at the last meeting in which he misrepresented the position taken by Mr. Marguth and himself relative to the SAVE Initiative. He stated that neither of them have ever concerned themselves with what type of building permit Proposition B applies to - patios, etc. as a l1red herringl1. He and Mr. Marguth were quoted as saying the whole issue of swim- ming pools and fences is a red herring, designed to get people off the central issue of SAVE - whether or not it will stop growth. The question of whether it will apply to swimming pools, etc. is just as relevant an issue at this time, and he is glad the SAVE people are concerned about this small impact of their initiative and are urging the Council to do something to fix their mistakes. The problem with the SAVE measure goes much further than the peri- pheral issue of the swimming pools. He brought up the matter of the proposed Valley-wide Planning Study, as recommended by the Rational Valley Planning Committee, for study of problems such as water use and political structure in the Valley, and commented that they would like to be advised when this item will appear on the agenda in order that they might participate in the debate. (Defending SAVE Accusations) * * * Steve Cassia, 1826-B Railroad Avenue commented that he had appeared before the Council two weeks ago with the problem of citizen safety with regard to the railroads. At that time the Council approved the expenditure fur a "sidewalkl1 along Murrieta Boulevard which he felt was outstanding and that he was surprised that it was decided upon so quickly and with so little fuss, and the next day work on the sidewalk had begun. It consists of as- phalt approximately l~ inches thick and is 4 ft. 4 inches wide and is already beginning to crumble from use and goes from a dead- end street at an angle across an empty field up to the side of Murrieta Blvd. and runs along Murrieta to the crosswalk at Stanley and Murrieta Blvd. He stated that there is approximately 36 inches between the tire marks of fast moving cars and the strip provided for the children's safety. (Re Citizen Safety - Trains) One point he had brought up during his last appearance before the Council was the speed of trains through town and the suggestion that this speed be reduced and he wondered if there had been any progress made by the staff in this regard. The City Attorney responded to this question by explaining that a letter has been written to the attorneys for the Public utilities Commission outlining the accident and what the public wanted to know. There is a 45 mph speed limit, and the Public utilities Code almost delegates to railroad companies the right to determine their speed through towns. The courts have said that trains cannot CM-25-165 April 3, 1972 (Safety re Trains) go so fast as to constitute negligence, but the only decisions he could find were those dealing with persons who were injured or where property damage occurred when a train was going too fast for conditions. He stated that he has asked the Public utilities attorney for specific answers to three questions: 1) is it law- ful for a city to set its own speed limit; 2) if it is not lawful, who sets it, and 3) if it is set by the PUC, have they done so, and can this City reduce it. He has asked that they respond and hopes .to hear from them wi thin a week, adding that if there is an urgency he would ask them to respond by telephone. Mr. Cassia then brought up the issue of barricading train cross- ing intersections, adding that he was told this would be done in time, as the funds allow, and that the time was vague and asked if there is a date that citizens can expect to see the barricades erected, particularly at North L and First Streets. The City Manager stated that they are awaiting response from the PUC, indicating their decision as to railroad participation in the cost. He mentioned that gates blocking the railroad inter- sections were part of the capital improvement plan and asked Mr. Yee what the time schedule is. Mr. Yee stated that the barricade at First Street is to be put in this year, but he believes that the one scheduled for North L will not be until next year, or later- he was not certain. Mr. Parness explained that these gates are very expensive and they were to be constructed over a period of three years. Mr. Cassia expressed his concern for the safety of the citizens and asked if there is anything he could do to see that this pro- ject is speeded up to within six months, if possible. Mr. Musso commented that they have been requiring the builders of commercial and residential homes to use screening and fencing of areas where there is a crossing of the right-of-way and the rail- road track. * * * (Ballot Wording) Diane Carpluk, 1117 Roxanne Street, stated that she was very disappointed when she received her sample ballot in the mail, as she feels it is a recognized fact that the public's vote is colored by the placement of an item on the ballot, the way it is written and the type of print used on the ballot. She feels that the Coun- cil is not so naive as to not realize the psychological ramifica- tions of the type of print it used. She commented that she has found, in her profession, that people can be very bright, but when it comes to reading something they may have an eye problem or be very tired and when something in print is made to stand out one might confuse issues and possibly vote just the opposite way of which one intended to vote. In her opinion, something this obvious could not possibly have been overlooked, stating that she credits the Council with more intelligence than to have let this matter just slip by. She felt that while this matter is not illegal, it is certainly unethical, and considers it "dirty politicsJ1. Mayor Taylor agreed that in order to give the people a fair choice, different size print should not have been used. Councilman Silva also agreed and stated that he is very sorry this happened and that it was something he did not notice. He felt that he had been accused of having influenced the staff and explained that he is not seeking reelection and probably would have little influence with regard to decisions made by the staff. * * * CM-25-166 William Busick, 671 West A street, Hayward, stated that four or five weeks ago a committee was appointed to expedite the assessment dis- trict for sewers and water on North Front Road. April 3, 1972 (Re North Front Rd. Assessment District) The City Manager explained that the Council had accepted Mr. Busick's application for the formation of an assessment district and that there are a number of considerations that have to be in- vestigated by the Staff and Mr. Busick: 1) feasibility of annex- ation, 2) utility line sizes, 3) California Water's lines and placement and the cost involved, 4) property ownerships involved in the petition execution, 5) approval of the Board of Supervisors has to be obtained and other things that have to be reported by the Staff. He stated that Mr. Busick has been informed of the Staff work going on and the time all information will be available has not been determined. * * * Mayor Taylor commented that they will now con- tinue the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement for Stage III of the Water Re- clamation Plant improvement, explaining that the Council had decided that an addendum was necessary pertaining to the effect of plant expansion on population growth and its ramifications with regard to air pollution. It was decided that the public hearing should remain open in order to give the citizens the opportunity to offer additional testimony. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT STUDY Mr. Norris, representative of Brown and Caldwell, stated that Mr. Kiato is their authority on air pollution; therefore, any questions pertaining to this specific matter should be directed to him. Mr. Kiato stated that in addition to answering questions from the Council, he is prepared to make a presentation, and that they have a copy of the draft before them. Councilman Miller commented that the copy of the draft had just been received, and felt that it is only reasonable that the Coun- cil members have a chance to look at the draft before deciding whether or not to adopt it, adding that Brown and Caldwell had limited time in which to prepare the draft, but nevertheless the Council has not had a chance to review the material. He urged that the decision on the Environmental Impact Study be put over for one more week. Mayor Taylor felt that Councilman Miller's request was warranted, but explained that there is a time limit involved with adopting the Environmental Impact Study, and asked Mr. Norris if an adop- tion next week could constitute a serious delay. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he will not be present at the next meeting and would like to ask Mr. Norris for clarifi- ca t:Lon of two points: 1) on Page 36 - selection of recommended plans, he felt that the first statement is incomplete. Mr. Norris advised that the statement should read, "It is recom- mended that the present water reclamation plant be improved". Mr. Faltings stated, secondly that page 37 refers to a recommended regional plan but could find nothing that relates to what the re- commended regional plan might be, and expressed his concern for the lack of references to discussions of last week, i.e. Doolan Canyon and the water impounding in that area and as to why it was selected as the only place in which to store water, rather than a continuation of why the gravel pits would not serve the same function. CM-25-167 April 3, 1972 (Environmental Impact study) Mayor Taylor stated that these questions are covered in the Valley-wide Water Study, but per- haps should be referenced in an addendum. He felt that an editorial comment could be made pointing out the source of this reference. Mr. Faltings stated that he is not aware that the Council has approved the Valley-wide Water Study, or that a public hearing was ever held with regard to it. Mayor Taylor explained that this is not something to be approved, rather a requirement imposed by the Water Quality Control Board. They wanted a plan made, the preliminary presentation was made, but final report has not been made. He mentioned that the refer- ence will have to be made to the preliminary report that was made on the progress of the Valley-wide Water Study. The City Attorney stated that if there are any gaps or inadequacies pointed out by a witness, he believes they can be corrected in the report when it is again presented. He mentioned that there will be a complete transcript of the testimony which may be included in the package. Mr. Faltings asked if an adoption of this report will mean that the City is obligated and bound to a dam in Doolan Canyon. Mayor Taylor stated that it refers only to the upgrading and ex- pansion of the existing sewer plant in Livermore. The statement regarding the Valley-wide Water Study refers to a plan not yet adopted. He explained that the expansion of this plant will not, in any way, involve a reservoir in Doolan Canyon which will possibly come in the future when effluent from the Valley's plants is many times its present rate. Mr. Norris stated that the system located above Niles is discussed at some length on pages 16 and 17, due to be published in April. He explained that it is the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement, as laid down by the Environmental Protection Agency, that the statement demonstrate that the project proposed is con- sistent with regional planning within the area; the intent of this statement is to show that the planned project is consistent with regional plans, not that other regional plans will be adopted, as part of this project. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that this evening has been the first chance he has had to look at the addendum and was shocked to find that there is no requirement for an Environmental Impact Study to consider present as well as future developments, such as at the freeway crossroads. He felt perhaps a change should be made in the requirements for this type of study because it is deal- ing with the impact of a new facility upon the entire neighborhood and the US GS map can be quite old. He stated that he would like to address himself, specifically, to the Architects Employment Act, the Design Review Ordinance - Sec. 22.85 which requires private firms who wish to build any private or industrial structure to consider future development or proposed development to insure that the designs are harmonious. His point was that the Environmental Impact Study might take into consideration some of the findings and requirements the City makes for private industry. Mr. Norris commented that the reason the US GS quad map is in there is because it is a requirement of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency that each Environmental Impact Statement contain the most recent USGS quad sheet to demonstrate the topography of the area. Mr. Allen explained that his suggestion is that perhaps a map such as the Chamber of Commerce map, showing the environment, would be easy to put in and might be better for this purpose. CM-25-168 April 3, 1972 (Environmental Impact Study) Mayor Taylor repeated, for clarification, that Mr. Allen's question is whether or not there is anything in this statement that refers to how close the plant will be to present development in the City, and commented that he felt this is covered report. Mr. Norris confirmed this and added that it is discussed in the addendum. in the also At this time Councilman Miller moved to continue the public hearing, until next week, seconded by Councilman Silva and received the unanimous approval of the Council. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Report re Consultant Engineering Services re Airway Blvd Bridge Design A report from the City Manager re consultant engineering services re Airway Boulevard bridge design states that written proposals have been solicited from six consultant engineering firms for the provision of engineering design services for the proposed bridge construction over the Arroyo Las Positas at Airway Blvd. Five submitted written res- ponses which were carefully reviewed by our staff and the two firms considered to be best qualified, professionally and with knowledge of local conditions, were personally interviewed. These firms were Bissell & Karn and Associated Professions, Inc. It is recommended that this design project be awarded to Associated Professions, Inc. * * * The City Manager reported that the details have finally been resolved to the satisfaction of our staff and the County Public Works Director for the design and construction cost of No. Liver- more extending from Portola Avenue to US 580. The agreement provides for landscaped median and traffic signal at the intersection of Portola Avenue and No. Livermore Avenue in addition to full construction work of the highway. The City's parti- cipation in the cost is 50% of the signal amount, 30% of the land- scape/irrigation system and any pavement cost in excess of $2 per square foot, also the proportion of the highway construction work associated with frontages incorporated within the City as of the time of construction. It is expected that Urban Extension funds will be granted by the State for this project in the amount of $360,000. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted author- izing execution of the agreement. Report re No. Livermore Ave. Construction Councilman Miller stated that he would like to inquire about the construction agreement. He stated that the City is participating in part and the street improvements being done should, in princi- ple, fall upon whoever develops the land adjacent. It is his under- standing that the City is going to be doing street work over and ~bove the usual policy of not doing street work and requiring that it be a condition of development. If this is so, it seems that a benefit district should be established so that the City can recover funds spent. The City Manager explained that this is optional with the Council but there will be some street work done which is mandatory under this kind of a cooperative project, just to have it done. The subdivider will have to do whatever is necessary to meet the obli- gations on that part of the work done in the City and the County will take care of the balance which has been proportionately allo- cated. Councilman Miller wondered if the benefit districts could be es- tablished in order to recover the cost, as has been done on other projects. CM-25-169 April 3, 1972 (No. Livermore Ave. Construction) spread the cost of benefit district. Mayor Taylor stated that it is his understand- ing that the only part of the project that borders the City is the part alongside the Hofmann Tract and they have been required to the major street over the tract, using the In Councilman Miller's opinion, they are speaking of two different issues. The City Manager felt that perhaps Mayor Taylor and Councilman Miller were speaking about two different issues and stated that the Staff will look into the matter and report back to the Council. He com- mented that this is an outstanding contract for the City and that the County has been quite generous in awarding as much participation as they did. RESOLUTION NO. 36-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Alameda Cty) * * * Communication re Acquisition of Properties Along Arroyo del Valle A copy of a communication was received which had been sent by the Recreation District to the Calif- ornia Recreation and Park Commission with certain recommendations re acquisition of properties along the Arroyo del Valle, adjacent to Veterans Park. * * * Report re Building Permits A report from the Chief Building Inspector re resi- dential building permits issued March 23 through March 29 was acknowledged, which indicated a total of eight single family residential dwelling units permitted during this period. * * * Bid Award re Controls and Telemetry for Pump Sta. No.1 Bids were received on March 28 for Project 72-4, Controls and Telemetry System for Pump Station No.1 as follows: Ambrosini and Chalmers Co. Universal Engineered Systems Automation Associates, Inc. $ 9,843.00 10,641.00 20,938.00 It is recommended that the bid be awarded to Ambrosini and Chal- mers. RESOLUTION NO. 37-72 A RESOLUTION AWARDING BID (Portion of 1972 Water Project) * * * Minutes Various Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 21 and the Beautification Committee meeting of February 2 were acknowledged for filing. * * * Approval of Consent Calendar Councilman Pritchard moved to approve the Consent Calendar and that the meeting be adjourned, which failed for lack of a second. Councilman Silva moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilman Miller, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * CM-25-170 April 3, 1972 Mayor Taylor stated that the BAAPCD had sub- mitted a report on a proposed amendment to Regulation 2 and that the Valley Air Pollution study committee was requested to comment on particular aspects of the amendment which they have done. A number of questions have been raised but they were in general agreement with the amendment that is proposed. In particular, the committee felt that the amendment was very far reaching and should not be just an amendment to this particular regulation, but that a new regulation should be drafted to cover the extension of the Dis- trict's power over land use control, and asked the other Council members if that sounded like an accurate description of the major conclusion of their opinion. REPORT FROM BAAPCD Councilman Miller felt that the BAAPCD is required to provide re- gulations similar to what they have in the amendment and not much time to do it and felt that a useful recommendation from this Council might be: 1) revise the regulation they have, taking into account questions raised by our smog committee, and 2) write a more comprehensive regulation involving the more general things spoken to by our smog committee. Mayor Taylor felt their comments should be passed on to the BAAPCD at their hearing as is. In general they agree with the idea of extending the regulation to land use control. He then asked if the Staff could be directed to pass comments on to this committee, with the Council's general endorsement, and stated that this could be considered a motion, and Councilman Miller seconded the motion. Councilman Silva agreed that it should be forwarded, but perhaps not with the Council endorsement without first allowing debate and resolving any questions. After some discussion the Council agreed that they could give their endorsement, in general, and they voted unanimously to approve the motion. Robert Allen felt that the whole emphasis of the matter should be that the proposal puts the cost of air pollution on the victim and that perhaps the emphasis by BAAPCD should be on eliminating the cause rather than penalizing the victim by refusing to give him building permits. The Valley is the victim of air pollution caused largely by "over the hill" conditions. Council Miller stated this is the point raised by Councilman Silva and that it is covered in the Statement. Mayor Taylor felt that perhaps they should invite a member of the Valley Air Pollution Study Committee to appear at the hearing to answer questions, if indicated, on the Council's input. Councilman Silva felt the last sentence in item 5 should be clari- fied to specify that it is residential growth rate and not the holding capacity. Dr. Todd Crawford, Chairman of the Committee, was requested to attend the meeting of the BAAPCD. * * * The City Manager reported that a request was made REPORT RE DENSITY of the Council by Daniel Gillice to modify the TRANSFER (Gillice) original terms of the agreement regarding den- sity transfer for property between Holmes Street and Arroyo Road, which was rescinded. In substitution, the agree- ment has been revised to authorize a density transfer to permit the addition of 70 multiple dwelling units to be erected on the west property which qualified originally for 84 units - making a total of 154 units. In exchange, the property along the channel CM-25-171 April 3, 1972 (Density Transfer - Gillice) (41.92 acres) will be dedicated without cost to the City. Some parcels will be sold to adjoin- ing property owners, but have been restricted in depth so as not to interfere with the parkway area, nor on drainage considerations. The agree- worked out and presented to the Council for their this time. ment has been acceptance at Mayor Taylor stated that LARPD had been concerned with the land bordering the property to be disposed of which interfered with the ultimate parkway plan and asked if this has been satisfied. The City Manager stated that a written response was received, in- dicating that it would not interfere with the parkway plan with one possible exception - the encroachment of some of the property that was planned for reservation and will eventually be sold to the adjoining property owners. However, he felt that this point had been resolved by the restriction of size so as not to interfere. Councilman Miller stated that he has quite a long list of questions regarding this density transfer: 1) the present contract is not the same as the draft they received a month ago, in many ways; in particular, the present contract allows Gillice to sell off that southerly, best part of land on the eastern portion and he illus- trated to those present the area he considers best for trailway and parkway, adding that they are owed to the City by the original annexation agreement. He stated that this is the City's property to demand and not Mr. Gillice's to sell off, and the proceeds from what is sold should go to the City. 2) There is a Parcel Q for sale and, from looking at an aerial photograph, that is the better, flatter land which is better designed for park purposes and he felt that that, too, should be deleted from the quantity to be sold. He stated that there were a number of differences in the agreement submitted a month ago. The channel is in a different location, the area of the channel is different and the amount of property to be sold off is different. In the agreement submitted last month, the area in the channel was 18 acres and this agreement shows 17.18 acres. In the discussion of how many units were allowed on the Murrieta piece, there were 80 units and now the number allowed is 84 and there are no land deductions for the 1.24 acres that were owed the City before - that part is allowed by a variance to be in land or money, and it appears that it has all been converted to money. He stated that whether or not it is to be in land or money is at the option of the City. The land that is to be dedicated to the City as a result of a density transfer, the variance re- quires that the land must come to the City and there is no provi- sion for the conversion to money and is in conflict with the condi- tions of the variance. He stated that the final outcome allows Mr. Gillice the exact number of units that he wants - 154, which does not comply with the conditions of the variance, nor does it comply with the annexation agreement. It is to the City's advantage to take the parcels which are good for park purposes and not allow them to be sold as the conditions of the variance allows the Coun- cil to make the decision as to which will be sold. He stated that he does not object to the parcels on Anza Way being sold, but ob- jects to those on the easterly part being sold, since that belongs to the City according to the annexation agreement and the attached map. He stated that he is also concerned with Parcel Q; these are all issues which are involved and should be discussed. Mr. Musso explained that the original amount of channel 200 ft. wide was in the original variance - Conditional Use Permit, and extended between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street. By measuring 200 feet by that distance turned out to be 16 acres. He stated that they knew this was tentative, so in the variance it said ap- proximately; then when the last aareement was made, Mr. Lee re- computed it and came up with an l~-acre figure which was actually 17.18. He stated that if another agreement was submitted, that it would probably have another figure yet, and it cannot be actually CM-25-172 April 3, 1972 confirmed until surveying is done. Th~indicat- (Density Transfer ed to the developer that part of the park dedi- Gillice) cation could be by cash but did not discuss the dedication of land being transferred, but for the 2-1/2 acres that is imposed by the other development, could be in cash and they suggested this as one of the two alternatives. He stated that at the time of the original agreement the number of units was close to 154 - which the developer used as a target. The 4-acre plus site where the apartments are to be developed can be developed without the density transfer under the RG-16 zoning at 88 units - the most they would be allowed, and is one number they are using. The other number was approximately 74, which was not definite, as they did not know how much was going to be sold off and they assumed that 8/10 of an acre would be sold off. He stated that the amount came to an assumption of 74 units, plus the 88 units existing, and the number of units proposed by Mr. Gillice was less than that, so the Planning Department felt that this was within the limits. One area in which they were in error was not stating whether or not there should be one, two or three bedroom units built, in allowing the density transfer; this was left open, so they could not deduct or add - they just used the total figure of 174. He stated that when they approved the ori- ginal plan they felt they might be three units over, but could not be exact. Mayor Taylor asked about the point raised by Councilman Miller re- garding the easterly portion and the disposal of those lots on the south end of the lots and the fact that the land is owed to the City because of some previous dedication agreement. The Planning Director stated that this is just a matter of opinion, but the original contract specified that the owner dedicate a storm drainage channel and necessary setbacks to the City for the Arroyo Mocha Channel, without charge and upon demand by the City. He felt that Mr. Lee proposed that they go to the property line to improve land that is actually in control of the property owners. Mayor Taylor asked if the old agreement specifies that land for an improved channel shall be dedicated, and Mr. Musso stated a storm ffi'ffinage channel and necessary setbacks are specified. Mayor Taylor stated then it becomes a matter of determining where the necessary setbacks are and not that the entire property should be dedicated. Councilman Miller stated that what the annexation agreement says and does not say is not being fully reported by Mr. Musso, as he has a copy of the agreement and of the map and that he would be glad to read it. The agreement was then read by Councilman Miller, and after reading the agreement he again illustrated the area in- volved and stated that those easterly properties are not saleable by Mr. Gillice, in accordance with the agreement. Mr. Parness explained that Mr. Gillice was not a party to the ori- ginal execution of the agreement, nor the map attachment - this was the original owner. He felt that what Councilman Miller has said is the case; the definition of the boundaries was obligated by virtue of the agreement and was never precise. Much later Mr. Gillice came into the picture and introduced the possibility of preserving some of the small parcels. Councilman Miller stated that a new owner's introduction of a notion which is not in agreement with the annexation agreement does not apply; it can be negotiated with but is not his to deal with in that sense. David Madis, attorney for Mr. Gillice, illustrated the changes in the channel, stating that Zone 7 establishes where the channel will go. The differences in the acreage are due to a small corner CM-25-173 April 3, 1972 which is not part of the Gillice holdings. He stated that this accounts for the difference in figures; whether the channel is considered running into Mr. Gillice's property, or if it is determined where the channel actually runs - in the area of the church property. He felt that to say the dedication agreement can be construed to mean all of the property, whether it has anything to do with the channel or not, would be an unconstitutional tak- ing and it would be a condemnation, without an agreement from Mr. Gillice. No court is going to say that the channel, other than that established by Zone 7, should be something else. In addition, the map the Council has for final approval involves a number of other concessions made by Mr. Gillice. There were additional par- cels taken out at the entrance to College Avenue, shown on the attachment to the original agreement which was made up over a year ago by the City Staff; those parcels have been deleted. In addition, Mr. Gillice's lot was reduced to give the uniform configuration on the properties that have been developed. The part Mr. Gillice has actually changed in the calculations is to properly calculate the channel - where the channel is planned by Zone 7. The annexation agreement does not provide for the channel improvement which Mr. Gillice is going to bond in the sum of $85,000 to provide for the development of the channel. He stated, also, that there is some change in the map, deleting two additional pieces of property located by the bridge, because they are on higher ground and not part of the channel area and require recomputation. The changes in the agree- ment were made by Mr. Lee; it is a negotiated item and one that the Staff feels is reasonable and equitable. (Density Transfer - Gillice) Councilman Miller felt that the annexation agreement is a contract which controls, and it is hard to consider that the addition and deletion of parcels are really concessions on Mr. Gillice's part, because the conditions of the variance require the approval by the City for any properties to be sold. He added that the channel is not what it was three years ago or will be in twenty years. He stated that it is his understanding, also, that the channel improve- ments are a part of the variance requirement; therefore, not a con- cession on the part of Mr. Gillice. The City Attorney stated that Zone 7 specifies what the standards are, what they will approve and certain leeways as to widths and depths, and that it must be of proper design to carry the water. He is assuming that this is Mr. Lee's concept of what the channel should be according to Zone 7 standards and those of the City, with the best design to carry the flow. Councilman Miller stated that what is required for channel dedica- tion is part of the annexation agreement, and if it requires that full portion of the parcel, that should apply and Mr. Gillice is the successor to that agreement. Mayor Taylor asked if the successors to that agreement owe the City the land shown on the agreement, or contract, regardless of where the channel might be put at this point. The City Attorney stated that the successors would owe no property if the channel were completely relocated, which is one extreme, but felt that if no water were to run in there, the agreement for dedi- cation for flood control purposes would be null and void. He felt it to be an arguable question and the court would have considerable difficulty with this particular problem if the channel is recom- mended by the City Engineer and accepted by Zone 7, out of the area, in fact, contemplated by the original agreement to some degree. He felt it is not clearly the City's right to demand the property and, on the other hand, there is an area in there that should be included. Mr. Lewis further stated that property owners along the south side have been developing little parcels, as a part of their property, and he felt that there may be some problem with their having some rights in that property. CM-25-174 April 3, 1972 Councilman Silva felt that the staff has pro- bably spent many hours exploring this matter and have determined this to be the most equit- able agreement that can be made. He made a motion to adopt their recommendation authorizing the agreement, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. (Density Transfer - Gillice) execution of Mayor Taylor commented that the reason the Council has generally encouraged the development is in view of the fact that the City will acquire a considerable amount of land to be used for parkland, which would seem to be in the best interest of the public. He questioned whether or not the land to be sold exceeded the amount discussed by the Council last month, to which Mr. Musso stated he thought the only deviation was from the requirement that land be dedicated for the units transferred; the developer now intends to give money in lieu of land. Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, stated that he is very happy to see the property develop - it has been around a long time and he feels it will be a very good development. With respect to the panhandle in the east, he stated that he was on the Council at the time this was negotiated, and it was the first time that property was ever accepted as an annexation agreement and it was not really clear what property was being discussed. He feels that the drainage channel was the property they had talked about. Re- cognizing that the map was subsequently assigned to it he agrees with the City Attorney in that it seems to be a matter of interpre- tation, where on the face there seems to be a conflict between the contract and map. He felt that it is a point that could be argued in good faith and sees no justification for the imp~'IDg of the Staff by Councilman Miller. He stated that he has not always agreed with the Staff in the past, but has never had reason to question their honesty. Mayor Taylor stated that he felt the agreement worked out with the Staff is what the original intent was, fair and acceptable. As to the number of units calculated, he felt there was no question about the method used to calculate the number. Councilman Miller stated the questions to be considered are: 1) which parcels shall the Council allow to be sold off; 2) where the channel belongs; 3) whether the Council permits land to be transformed into cash; and 4) that there is a difference between the statement of the variance and the contract as far as what can be transferred into cash. At this time Councilman Pritchard moved for the question, seconded by Councilman Silva, however the motion failed with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor ~issenting (Councilman Beebe absent). Councilman Miller stated that the question of the variance has to be resolved in order to allow the transformation of land into cash, no matter how rapidly they wish to come to a decision. Mayor Taylor stated that the question raised is, "Is there a violation of the variance by this agreement?" He stated that, in his opinion, to receive cash instead of land in an area where there is already a considerable amount of land, is probably to the City's advantage, as there are other places where land is needed more critically. Councilman Silva moved to amend the variance to allow the transfer for an acre, more or less, to be given in cash instead of land, because in the public interest there is adequate land in the area. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and received the unanimous approval of the Council. The City Attorney asked if the applicant would waive any require- ments of notice, etc., to which the applicant replied to the affirmative. CM-25-175 April 3, 1972 (Density Transfer - Gillice) Councilman Miller stated that he has one more point to decide. The contract states the necessity of Mr. Gillice to transfer property to the City before building permits are issued - building permits are issued for some specified number of units and asks a survey. He felt that a survey should be made first so that exact number of units to be transferred will be known. for the Mayor Taylor suggested that the final number of units be dependent on the actual survey of the properties to be disposed of. Councilman Miller stated that the City does not have the authority to take any of the parcels from Mr. Gillice, by the filing of a parcel map, unless it so states in the contract. Also, if money is to be credited instead of land for park dedication, then it should be stated specifically. He stated that if this is going to be done, the formula for the money should also be in the contract. Mr. Musso stated that if it is not covered in the subdivision map, it is not covered, and the amount of the park dedication should be specified and tied to the ordinance. Councilman Miller stated that finally, there is a bond for the channel improvements and asked if the estimate of escalation in the engineering index over a two or three year period, is built into that estimate for the total. RECESS AFTER A BRIEF RECESS, THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN BEEBE. Mayor Taylor stated that a question had been asked during the re- cess about the channel being narrowed at the Holmes Street bridge, and asked if there is property being disposed of in that area. Mr. Musso stated that the channel will be narrowed at the bridge, and no property is to be disposed of there. Mayor Taylor explained that before any final designs are approved, an adequate trailway will have to be installed, and it is the Staff's opinion, at this time, that there is ample space for the trailway system to be extended at the east end past the lots which were just discussed. Another point to be made is that the City requires a bond to be posted to guarantee the channel improvement and that the design of the channel improvement be done in a reasonable time, perhaps six months; when the improvement commences is up to the City and may be some time in the distant future. He then asked if his assumption is correct, and Mr. Parness replied that the work must be commenced within six months. The City Attorney explained that the work is to be done before next summer, as that is the dry season. Mayor Taylor stated that before work commences, something has to be done about acquisition of property, extending the design for the channel and the trailway system further east to properties not included in the agreement. He felt that the agreement should state that it is at the option of the City as to when commencement of the improvement should be. Councilman Miller felt that perhaps the City might want to do some- thing different than the trapezoidal design that is proposed, be- cause there is some discussion of this with both LARPD and the Planning Commission, and felt that they might require in the con- tract that the money required to do the channel improvements be delivered to the City within nine months and then the City could take their time to do the channel work. The City Attorney advised that if this is done, there should be provisions requiring a new bond to be filed in amounts to cover CM-25-176 whatever extended period it is extended for, because if there is a delay, the costs are going to go up, which should be covered by a bond. He expressed his concern for delay and stated that if there is a delay during the summer project will have to wait another year. April 3, 1972 (Density Transfer- Gillice) period, the Councilman Miller stated that there should be some type of pro- vision for allowing the City the option of taking the money should they decide this is what they wish to do at the end of nine months. Mr. Madis stated that Mr. Gillice is going to receive some reim- bursement and that they cannot pay the City all of the money and give the City all of the rights. He stated that if the amount of the project goes to $100,000, the developer will pay this amount, not just the amount of the bond. There was some discussion between the Councilmen and Mr. Madis as to the City's protection, if in the event Mr. Gillice sells the property and the new owner refuses to pay for the channel work, it was decided that, ultimately, the City has adequate pro- tection against being left responsible for the cost. Councilman Miller commented that in the annexation agreement there was a provision for an annexation fee, and wanted to know vJas the annexation fee collected in 1962, or is it still due? The City Manager stated that it is still due. Councilman Miller stated that the annexation fee amounts to $350 a gross acre and should be in the contract. Mr. Musso explained that it is applicable only to a certain area - the eastern portion, which he illustrated on the map. The City Attorney stated that no building permits would be issued until the annexation fee is paid. Candy Simonen, 692 Jefferson Avenue, representing the Livermore Bikeways Association, expressed her concern regarding plans for location of the trail as there has not been a specific idea pre- sented. She felt that the south side was preferable and if the parcels are allowed to be sold on the easterly side, it will not leave enough room on the south side for the trailway. Mayor Taylor stated that there will, no doubt, be considerable grading in that area, but can only reiterate what the Staff has reported - that there is adequate land for the trailway. Councilman Miller stated that the bikeway, trailway and parkway should run through the southern portion, and to sell these par- cels takes off the better part of the land. Mr. Musso stated that it has not been established that the easterly part is the best part, and that the hiking and equestrian trail will probably be in the channel; there has to be some decision as to where the bicycle trail will go. The City Attorney phrased what he considered the Council's first direction: the computation of park credits based on density will be computed, finally, at the time of the survey and any deficiency created by the building shall be made up in land or money in lieu thereof. Mayor Taylor explained that if there is any discrepancy the City obtains the land from those properties from the upper corner, which the applicant agreed to. The City Manager stated that if there is an excess it should spe- cify that it must be made up in supplementary land or a cash equi- valent, at the Council's option. CM-25-177 April 3, 1972 The City Attorney stated that, secondly, a provision which will allow delay of the channel work at the option of the City Council should be considered. The bond with the developer may be increased to cover the delay of that channel work for the period of time specified. He stated that it was not made clear as to the time to be specified. (Density Transfer - Gillice) Councilman Miller stated money or formula to be specified, what- ever the park fee is at the time the building permits are issued, for all the park dedication. At this time a vote was taken on the motion to accept the Staff's recommendation which passed 3 to 1 with Councilman Miller dissenting. RESOLUTION NO. 38-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the sub-committee of the Council, the School District, City Staff and School District Staff has been meeting since Decem- ber and the builders sometime ago advanced a pro- posal in which they offered to contribute $300 per dwelling unit toward the construction of temporary schools. The School District determined that their minimum requirement would be $550 per dwelling unit to provide temporary school housing, which could be relocated and which meet state standards. He added that this is what the School District agreed to with the agreement drawn up with Mr. Elliott, and from their past action would pro- bably not consider less. Essentially, the builders have agreed to increase their contribution to the school connection fee, to some unspecified amount, and Mayor Taylor stated his feeling that they will agree to the $550 per dwelling unit, provided the City will guarantee that for the next year there will be no sudden and unforeseen increase in fees or drastic changes in zoning on pro- perties that they now have active, or that their business will not be interrupted, agreeing that the number of permits could be vol- untarily limited to a certain amount. He felt that the Council should give some direction as to whether they felt this proposal would be acceptable. One other consideration the builders requested was that they will be limited by the present 1500 dwelling unit limitation because of the water shortage, and will apply to all builders who did not have an active map as of November 8. He stated that the only way this limit can be changed is if Zone 7 would show the City a clear way to take the monies they have accrued and proceed to increase the water treatment capacity. He felt that a solution to the water problem would have to be reached before lifting the 1500 dwelling unit limitation. He then asked the Council members for their opinion regarding the proposal. REPORT RE SCHOOL HOUSING Councilman Miller felt that there were some signatories to this, but some who were not, which Mayor Taylor stated is true, that only the Associated Home Builders have been involved, which ex- cludes Reeder Development. Mayor Taylor stated that it had been the advice of the City Attor- ney to quickly invoke the powers granted the Council under AB 1301 to make sure that the City's specific plans that cover the areas where these tract maps exist include specific school plans and by that method may be able to cover the other developers. Councilman Silva expressed his concern for double taxation for those residents who move within the City, and asked about those who do not have children. Mayor Taylor felt that every citizen has an equal obligation, whether he has children or not, to provide for schools, to which Council- man Silva agreed. CM-25-178 April 3, 1972 Councilman Silva expressed his concern that if (School Housing) developers were providing schools, through the school connection fee, that this might eliminate chances of school bonds passing even for another high school. Mayor Taylor felt that temporary school housing would not affect the defeat of school bonds as there was great support for bonds in the Emma C. Smith School area, where there are portables, and the citizens in the area are anxious to have these replaced by permanent buildings, and the school bonds will be needed to pro- vide permanent housing. He explained that the City is not exactly in the II driver's seat 11, and the courts might order permits to be given, feeling that their voluntary terms should be accepted. Councilman Miller asked if this would apply to Mr. Gillice, with his 154 units, as he is not a signatory. Mayor Taylor stated that he did not know, that possibly apartments would be charged some type of school connection fee; however, the School District is only concerned with a certain amount of money, whether it is $550 or some other number determined by them. Councilman Miller reminded the Council that these buildings will be only temporary and felt that they should strive for permanent housing, which would amount to approximately $1,200 per dwelling unit, which takes into account the question of paying on bonds - the bonds have been subtracted so there is no double taxation. He stated that with the temporary arrangement, the City may be completely without these facilities in three to five years or that they would have to purchase the facilities in that time, which in the long run is no solution; possibly even creating a worse situation than now exists. He stated that a method for getting a school connection fee for permanent housing remains to be seen, and he considers the temporary arrangement a IIbandaidll to be used until something else is found, which is going to require more discussion and should probably be left to the new Council. Mayor Taylor agreed that permanent housing would be more desir- able and if double taxation would not occur, would be even more appealing; however, he stated that to provide for permanent school housing would probably require a new state law, according to the City Attorney. Councilman Silva stated that he was not quite sure why the port- ables are temporary and Mayor Taylor explained that if the units are trailers with wheels, which are quite a bit cheaper than the relocatables, the state law requires that they can be used for a period of only three years, and if they remain, the School District becomes liable. He stated that even though they are acceptable as classroom facilities and the building industry would like to get that law changed, the fact remains that it has not been changed, the School District has no choice but to accept a solution that is agreeable with the state law. The School Dis- trict believes that three years is not enough time to count on for bonds being passed and getting a school built. Councilman Silva asked why the agreement states from three to five years, if they can only be there for three years, and Mayor Taylor explained that the builder is willing to provide the schools for a period of five years. Mayor Taylor stated that the builders have agreed to pay this school connection fee on new permits and to pay on the units for which they have permits, retroactively, in exchange for allowing them to build for one year, and if during this time a moratorium arises, they will withdraw from the agreement. He added that to keep the records straight, the builders have not agreed to pay CM-25-179 April 3, 1972 $550, but it is his opinion that if the City agrees to the condition to allow them to conduct business for one more year they will agree to pay $550 per unit. Also, the School District Board has yet to agree to that aspect of the proposal - they have not stated what sum of money they will accept. (School Housing) Councilman Miller stated that there are only 400 building per- mits left of the 1500 limitation imposed because of water problems, which is not the 700 to 1000 permits they will require. Mayor Taylor felt the Staff should be instructed to meet with Zone 7 and obtain a definite commitment as to how they plan to utilize the money collected to provide water treatment service for the City. He stated that he felt this is necessary, as the agreement with the builders may be contingent upon solving the water problem. He then asked the Council members for their opinion of the agreement, in general. Both Councilmen Pritchard and Silva stated that they agree, in general, and Councilman Miller stated that he has reservations, and is not willing to commit himself to something like this when he knows that there are better things that should be done, and especially when there are builders who are not covered. Mayor Taylor stated that the thing they are faced with is a tempor- ary relief to the problem, and if they do not accept the offer made by the builders, they may be forced to issue permits anyway, with no temporary solutions, or anything at all. Ray Faltings stated that last week he had asked how many tentative maps were still out, and it was reported that there were two. This evening it seems that there are three, and he wanted to know if the developer of Proud Country would add up to a fourth. Mayor Taylor explained that Reeder Development has a tentative, which was formerly the Proud Tract. Mr. Faltings asked how many now exist that are not covered by the present ordinance and it was stated that it appears that Reeder Development is the only developer who has a tentative map that is still out. Jack Phillips stated that trailers are usable from seven to eight years, but they are not up to earthquake standards, and that is the reason the law will not allow children to be housed in them for more than three years. Walter Griffith, 1650 Elm Street, stated that he would like to commend the Council, the School District and developers for progress in solving one of the major problems in the community. He stated that this gives him pleasure, as he had proposed this action on December 6. He stated that what we can look at is not the SAVE Initiative, but solving problems. * * * A letter was received from the School District, regarding the number of double sessions estimated during the 1972-73 school year. It was reported that taking into consideration the residential completions between November 9, 1972 and Sept. 1, 1972, and taking into consideration the number the District estimates to become occupied, they have indicated that no double sessions will occur until March 1973. This matter was continued from the meeting of March 27, in order that Councilman Silva might have a chance to comment. COMMUNICATION RE STUDENT HOUSING FROM (School Dist.) Councilman Silva stated that from the minutes of March 27, indicat- ing comments made by Councilman Miller, and the contents of the CM-25-180 April 3, 1972 letter from the School District, there is a difference of opinion in the number of esti- mated occupancies. In Councilman Miller's opinion, there will be 31 double sessions in September, and the School District feels that until March. (Communication re Student Housing) none will occur Councilman Miller stated that he cannot be sure there will be 31 double sessions, but feels it is quite likely there will be a large number of double sessions, whether they will occur on September 1, October 1, or November 1. The fact is that there is going to be a number of double sessions and with the continued issuance of building permits there will be many. He feels that some of the building that would have gone to Pleasanton and Dublin will end up here in Livermore and the completions will turn into occupan- cies quicker than was anticipated by the School District. He stated that there will be 75 double sessions when they are all occupied, and it is anyone's guess as to when this will be. He stated that the building inspector's estimate of how many homes will be completed by September 1 corresponds with the 31 double session figure. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 784 ORDINANCE RE PROVISIONS FOR HOLIDAYS (Parking) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.1, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, OF ARTICLE I, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF CHAPTER 13, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. On motion of Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilman Silva, and by unanimous approval, the second reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the above ordinance was passed. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 785 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.25, RELATING TO LICENSE TAX - FLAT RATE, OF CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. ORDINANCE RE VENDING MACHINES On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and by unanimous approval, the second reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the ordinance was adopted. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Silva, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance regarding amendment to Chapter 24 re Water of the Municipal Code, to provide for collection of Zone 7 connection fees, was introduced. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE ZONE 7 CONNECTION FEE * * * The City Manager stated that regarding the building permit for the Housing Authority construction there is a substantial amount of money involved here, some of which the Council has no authority over, such as the Zone 7 water connection fee and the Zone 7 storm drainage fee. The total aggregate amount for connection fees for this project is in excess of $65,000 including the Zone 7 fee. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Fees for Housing Authority Construction) Mayor Taylor asked how much, at the discretion of the Council, could be waived, to which the City Attorney stated that they have CM-25-181 April 3, 1972 (Housing some discretion as to the sewer connection fee. Authority Fees) The ordinance provides that it will be collected at fee dollars, however, the applicant can appear before the Council to show why that might be reduced. He also felt there was some leeway to the storm drain- age fee as the Housing Authority is not a person or a subdivider, so it appears that they are not covered under that. He stated that there is no leeway on the plan checking fee or the building permit fee. The City Attorney stated that Zona 7 of the ACFCWCD has a provi- sion in that ordinance for waiver under certain circumstances and felt that they could make an equitable argument in that this is replacement for a number of units now existing. The Housing Author- ity may have to pay some of it, but there is a chance that they can get some relief, regarding the water connection fee. Vila Gulf reported to the City Manager that their notice received from HUD stated in generalized terms that local fees should not be paid on this project. ML Parness stated that he has not had the chance to confirm this. Councilman Silva thought that an agreement had been signed stating that all local fees would be waived, but there was some confusion as to what agreement that pertained to. The matter will be con- tinued to the next meeting. * * * Councilman Pritchard stated that the open forum lasted for two hours this evening and that perhaps a review of the rules are in order. He stated he was under the impression that there was a five minute limitation. He further commented that he felt the chair did an able job in fending off a personal attack on one of the Council members. He asked if the open forum is going to be debated each time; he objected to the fact that there is now not enough time to discuss important issues that come up. He felt that the rule of a five minute limitation should be adhered to and then any action to be taken as a result of some of the comments, should be an item to appear on the agenda. Also, if something comes up in the open forum that is subject to debate, this should be decided upon by the majority vote of the Council. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Re Open Forum Time Limitation) Councilman Miller felt the reason for a lengthy open forum this evening was due to the approaching election, and felt that the open forum problems will dwindle after the election has taken place. Mayor Taylor felt that he could help to speed up the meetings, and felt that Councilman Pritchard's comments were in order. * * * (Blue Cross Payments) Councilman Pritchard stated that he noticed the Blue Cross payments for the City employees have gone up from $36 to $51 a month (for a family) which is 40% increase in health insurance premiums. He asked how much of this amount is the City's share of the increase. The City Managerthought the average increase came to approximately 30% of the increase that the City pays. Councilman Pritchard stated that he feels this is a violation of the public trust by Blue Cross; totally out of line with the federal wage and price guidelines, and feels the Council should instruct the staff to look into the matter with the Internal Revenue Service to determine if this is out of line and why it is costing so much money. He stated his reasons for this is because he feels it is being controlled by the hospitals and the medical profession; it seems to be whatever the traffic will allow. CM-25-182 Councilman Miller agreed and felt that it should be checked. April 3, 1972 (Blue Cross) The City Manager stated that one exception to this is contract- ural commitments made by an agency or individual prior to the effective date of Phase II. The modification that was just im- posed is very well documented but an inquiry will be made. Councilmen Pritchard and Miller felt the IRS should be contacted, not Blue Cross people. * * * Councilman Miller commented that he has received (Complaints re complaints from people in To~n Square, complain- Wasted water) ing about water running into the gutters when the medians are being watered, and if there is such a concern over the possibility of water rationing, why is this allowed. He felt that perhaps this matter should be looked into. * * * Councilman Miller stated that he has received complaints from citizens who live west of Murrieta, and north of Stanley Blvd., who feel that a sidewalk should be on the right hand side of the road - on the westerly side of Murrieta. (Complaints re Murrieta Blvd Si dewalk) Mayor Taylor asked that the Staff look into the matter and per- haps a sidewalk is needed on both sides of the road. * * * Councilman Miller explained that at the last (Re Moratorium) meeting, there were three votes approving the moratorium ordinance, and felt that since th~re were four present this evening, this matter might be reconsidered. Last week it provided that there would be a moratorium on permits unless there is at least an equivalent of the Elliott proposal. He felt that perhaps it could read !!until at least the developer's offer!! to last until April 21, when SAVE will or will not go into effect. Mayor Taylor pointed out that the developer's offer is void if there is a moratorium. Councilman Miller explained that this is not a moratorium, only a moratorium if there is no offer, which will not affect the builders who have agreed to a school connection fee or provisions for schools. Mayor Taylor stated that what the builders have proposed is a voluntary agreement, which will be retroactive, and that the School District has not agreed to what the builders have vol- unteed; the builders might not agree to what the School District may require, and does not wish to jeopardize this agreement. * * * Mayor Taylor moved to reappoint Gary Drummond to the Beautification Committee, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously. Appointment to Beautification Committee RESOLUTION NO. 39-72 RESOLUTION APPOINTMENT TO BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE (Gary Drummond) CM-25-183 April 3, 1972 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. APPROVE ~f2k* ~~~ ",'-;7 /'MaY~! / j/. . .~~. erv Livermore, Calif. ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of April 10, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on April 10, 1972, 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES OPEN FORUM (Re SIB 56 - BART) * * * PRESENT: Counci~ Eeere~ Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva (seated later) * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those pre- sent in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Taylor and by a 2-1 vote with Councilman Beebe ab- staining, the minutes of the meeting of April 3, 1972, were approved as submitted. * * * Bob Olson, 369 Harding Avenue, asked if the Council has taken a position on Senator Nejedly's bill to extend BART into the Valley and Contra Costa areas this year. Mayor Taylor stated that they took a very strong position on a similar bill last year in which he took two trips to Sacramento to help lobby in its favor, as did the Staff. He stated that it is implied that the City takes the same position and believes that the City Attorney has been in contact with Senator Nejedly. The City Attorney stated that this time he has not contacted Senator Nejedly. Mr. Olson stated that the reason he has brought the matter to the attention of the Council at this time, is that a decision is to be made by the committee on Friday; he urged the Council to write to the committee expressing their support of SB 56. Mayor Taylor stated the Council would be happy to comply with this request, and he felt that possibly the City Attorney could con- tact Senator Nejedlyfs assistant to express the City's position. (Assessment Dist. 72-6) like to state the agenda. CM-25-184 * * * Mrs. Murillo, 2458 Portola Avenue, asked that the Assessment District 72-6 be held up for further discussion as the owners of the seven acres facing Portola Avenue are against the District and would their views before the matter comes up as an item on The Public Works Director stated that, at this time, they are completing the design, and at completion a call for bids will be publicized. When the cost has been determined there will be a public hearing scheduled. April 10, 1972 (Assessment District) COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME Mrs. Murillo stated it is her understanding there is a new cost list and she would like a copy of it, and Mr. Lee stated this cost list is merely an estimate and would hope the actual bids come to less. Councilman Miller felt the question to be raised by the MurrD_bs and Fiefs is the equity of the manner in calculating the assess- ment, and perhaps some alternatives might be considered by the Staff, other than what was chosen. Also, he asked if it would be possible to accomplish this work through a benefit district rather than an assessment district. He felt that the option of a benefit district might be considered by the Staff before the cmse of this meeting, and the advantages and disadvantages laid out. The City Manager stated that these questions could be determined at a public hearing, and that is the reason the hearings are held. * * * COUNCILMAN SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME * * * Walter Leonardo stated that he is a builder and (Re Permits Denial) also a resident in Livermore, and that he applied for three building permits last week and had been refused the permits. The 1500 permits to be allowed have not been used up and he was told that he would have to speak to the City Manager and sign and agreement before permits could be issued. He reported that the City Manager stated that, regrstably, he could not issue permits unless the agreement was signed, however he could issue one permit to an individual who plans to build a house. Mr. Leonardo stated that he cannot see that much difference between one and three permits, and is asking the Council for guid- ance in the matter. He stated that he has turned in money for the permits and now cannot obtain them. Mayor Taylor explained that the City, School District and builders have been meeting for some time to reach an agreement with regard to the school situation, and the builders agreed that they would not apply for a large block of permits and would pay, retroactively, whatever amount was agreed upon as a result of the negotiations. He stated that this agreement pertained to large builders in Liver- more and that it would have to be determined by the Council whether or not permits would be issued to other builders who are not a part of the agreement. Councilman Pritchard stated that he did not realize that a limit of one permit per customer had been enforced, or had been decided upon. The City Manager stated that this was a definition he had imposed on the agreement and he had told the Building Department that if a private lot owner wished to obtain a building permit, they should not be asked to comply with the agreement. Mayor Taylor explained that the agreements with the major builders in Livermore are strictly voluntary and did not know if the City could insist that the agreement apply to other builders. Councilman Miller stated that he did not agree with the suggestion the other smaller builders who have not been a part of the agreement, CM-25-185 April 10, 1972 (Permits Denial) should not comply, based on the following argument: Mr. Leonardo has built approximately thirty homes in the Los Altos Heights subdivision which would confirm the fact that Mr. Leonardo is not a single lot owner, and would put him in the class of those who have been asked to sign the agreement. Councilman Pritchard reminded the Council that it has been the advice of the City Attorney that to require signature of the agree- ment is probably not legal and should remain a voluntary agreement. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Leonardo if he would be willing to agree to the terms of the negotiation, and Mr. Leonardo stated that he has no knowledge of the agreement or its requirements and has never seen a copy of it. Councilman Miller explained that the nature of the agreement is to provide for temporary schooling. In view of the fact that each new home creates a demand for schooling that we do not have. Mr. Leo- nardo was asked if he would be willing to put up his share to pur- chase the amount of school space that the new houses he builds will create a demand for. Mr. Leonardo stated that he has not been presented with all the facts and feels that he could not effectively answer the question. He said he is not a land developer, he buys lots; he has paid all the fees such as water, storm drainage and annexation fees, that are presently authorized, and did not have any knowledge of any school agreement but would like to finish the lots he has on record. Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney if the City has any authori- zation to withhold building permits requested by Mr. Leonardo at this point, to which the City Attorney stated he feels the City does not, as far as he knows. He stated that the larger builders have agreed to comply and this is appreciated, but believes the City has no authority to compel them to comply. Councilman Silva questioned why Mr. Leonardo was refused the permits and was told that the Staff was instructed to question multiple per- mits to be issued. Mayor Taylor stated that the reason the Staff had received these instructions was due to the fact that Hofmann Development received a block of permits without signing any type of agreement and the Council did not want this to reoccur. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that this is the third meet- ing of the continued public hearing regarding the Environmental Impact Statement - Water Reclamation Plant Improvement - Stage III. An addendum was sub- mitted to the Council at the last meeting which covered, in general, the subject of increased capacity in the plant and possibly the increased population it will serve which will have an environmental effect on the Valley. The matter was continued in order to give the Council time to review this adden- dum and give people in the community the opportunity to comment. Representatives from Brown and Caldwell are again present and Mayor Taylor asked if there were questions pertaining to the statement or addendum. PUBLIC HEARING RE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT S'rUDY Dr. Todd Crawford, 1075 Madison Avenue, Chairman of the Livermore Air Pollution Control Study, stated that any comments he has to make do not reflect opinions of the committee, as they have not had a chance to review the statement. In general, he felt that the treat- ment of the matter was not quite specific - he did not find any details on the emissions by chemical species from the incinerator CM-25-186 April 10, 1972 and has no way of knowing whether or not it will affect the people downwind, half a mile to the east, or not. The effects of the height of emissions was mentioned as alle- viating the problem, but no information was given as to how high the emissions were. He stated that he roughly rechecked the tons per day as a result of population growth and found this to be reasonable; that some of the labels for curves were wrong, those labelled hydro-carbon should have been labelled carbon monoxide, and the text that follows is also wrong in that context. He felt that the assumption that the 1975 standards would be met is being a little optimistic. He stated that they tried to make the correlation between tons per day emitted and the air quality, which in his opinion, is a dangerous game in our current state of knowledge, and he tries to refrain from doing so. According to rough calculations made by the BAAPCD, the oxygen standards will not be met until 1985 and Dr. Crawford stated the standards are quite different than what they estimated. (Public Hearing- Environmental Impact Study) A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously to close the public hearing. The City Attorney stated that it would be necessary for the Council to pass a resolution to adopt the Environmental Impact Statement, and the Council would receive a transcript of the public testimony given. Councilman Pritchard stated that before coming to a decision he would like to hear from the Brown and Caldwell smog expert. Michael Kiado stated that there seems to be a difference of opinion and felt that perhaps Dr. Crawford had not had a chance to read the addendum that was added to the Environmental Impact Statement. He mentioned that the operation of the project will be in accord- ance with the regulations of BAAPCD and that a 1970 study of multiple hearth furnaces indicated that for the type of application proposed for the water reclamation plant, the use of designs prevailing in 1970 would produce about as much air pollution per capita as driv- ing a factory-new 1972 car 120 yards, consuming one ounce of gasoline. For further comparison of the relative effects of the two sources of emissions, it is assumed the average automobile used by Liver- more residents is 20 miles per Livermore family, or 10 miles per car per day. If only factory-new cars that meet present standards were used the operation of the incinerator would account for about 0.2% of the hydrocarbons emitted in Livermore, about 0.04% of the carbon monoxide, and about 2% of the nitrogen oxides Councilman Pritchard asked if Mr. Kiado would stand on that esti- mate and Mr. Kiado stated that he would propose it as a qualitative estimate, but not guaranteed. Councilman Miller stated that Dr. Crawford covered most of the points to be questioned but stated that with a third of the City being commuters, it seems that 10 miles per car per day is a figure that is too low. He felt also that the discussion of the steam cars is irrelevant. He then mentioned that the estimates of the effects of projected cars and emissions cannot be very realistic because the BAAPCD does not expect the rest of the Bay Area to reach the air quality standards until 1985, and since this Valley is so much worse, it could not possibly meet the standards by 1977. Therefore, these kinds of estimates cannot possibly be correct. He stated that, in his opinion, the reasonable conclusions for the Council to come to on this Environmental Impact Statement are the following: 1) this part of the report concerning air pollution from growth seems to be unsatisfactory and the Council should not accept it (with all due respect to the time limit that was involved and work that was done under this pressure) and give this portion of the report to our Smog Study Committee for review. CM-25-187 April 10, 1972 He stated that in his oplnlon this is not an un- reasonable request since they are the authorities referred to in the references to the addendum. He next suggested that the Council go on with a con- ditional acceptance of the Environmental Impact Report with a note that supplementary material from the Smog Commit- tee would follow. The reason he felt they should go ahead, is to try to live up to the spirit of the Environmental Impact State- ment and the reason the Smog Committee should be asked to have a look at it. It is also clear that the upgrading which is desirable for water quality, including phospherous removal not required by the Water Quality Control Board although very advantageous environ- mentally, together with the other improvements that are going to come about from the upgrading of this plant by using different pro- cess, is sufficient to outweigh the possible smog from growth. To build the plant, which is expended, need not create more smog pro- vided that a response from the Council controls growth on smog or other grounds. Therefore, he encouraged that they go ahead with it but still try to do the right job on the effects of the expansion of the plant and the use of that expansion. (Public Hearing Environmental Impact Study) A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Prit- chard, to approve the recommendation to adopt the Environmental Im- pact Statement by resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 40-72 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WATER RECLAMATION PLANT IMPROVEMENT STAGE III There followed some discussion as to whether the addendum should be accepted as part of the statement or whether it would follow, as suggested by Councilman Miller, and the City Attorney advised that the Council need not accept the addendum as part of the state- ment if they did not wish to do so. Councilman Silva stated, in his opinion, the Smog Committee's re- port should be included with the Brown and Caldwell report for the Federal Government to determine which is correct. He then asked Councilman Miller to expand on his comments before taking a vote to the motion. Councilman Miller explained that, with respect to the commuters, it seems that Brown and Caldwell's estimate seemed to be too low, and that with regard to the Smog Committee, taking into account Dr. Crawford's comments and his observation from trying to read the En- vironmental Impact Statement through, it seems that in the short time scale that Brown and Caldwell had to prepare it, there seems to be a misinterpretation of things the Smog Committee had reportedj which would be quite possible to do. Therefore, he is suggesting that the Smog Committee,who were the people referred to originally by Brown and CaldwellJtake a look at the study, perhaps in conjunc- tion with Brown and Caldwell. He stated that he is in favor of up- grading our treatment plant but the growth which will come as a result of the expansion will have to be discussed at that time and can be controlled by a future Council. He stated that the upgrad- ing of the plant itself is very desirable, but bad odors areJin a sense, air pollution and if they can be eliminated by changing pro- cess, it would be desirable. Increasing the water quality, including removal of the phosphorous is also very desirable and, therefore, he is not opposed to the upgrading of the plant. Councilman Miller offered the amendment to conditionally accept the Environmental Impact Statement, including the addendum, refer the report and addendum to the Smog Committee and tell the recipients of this material that supplemental matter will follow. Councilman Beebe stated he would like to see the motion voted on, as is, and then if the Council later decides to add an addendum to it, this can be done. CM-25-188 April 10, 1972 Councilman Silva stated that the testimony given by Dr. Crawford is a part of the pub- lic hearing and should go along with the addendum. (Public Hearing - Environmental Impact statement) Mayor Taylor stated that he is not sure the Smog Committee is interested ln this being referred to them. Dr. Crawford stated that the Smog Committee could go back to Brown and Caldwell and straighten up problems he found, but that the matter would still come out a few percent in effect. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council adopt the statement as is and invite the Smog Committee to submit an addendum at a later date to straighten out some of the qUestion.s t~a..t came out in the hearing. . . ~ .. ~~~h- ~c~L Councilman Miller stated that ~'f the motion is to include the in- vitation for the Smog Committee to submit some supplemental material he would be in favor of the mot on, otherwise he would be obligated to vote against it as he feels the report or its addendum properly covers this issue. Councilman Miller offered an amendment to the motion to recommend that the Smog Committee be invited to submit something supplemental, seconded by Mayor Taylor. The motion failed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva dissenting. A vote was taken on the original motion which passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting. Councilman Beebe moved that Brown and Caldwell meet with the City Engineers and the Smog Committee and, if the findings are differ- ent, submit a report to the Council for their adoption. The motion was seconded by Councilman Silva and passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Pritchard dissenting. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the hearing regard- ing parking of trailers and campers, etc., has been continued, and he asked Mr. Musso if he would briefly explain the proposed ordinance amendment. PUBLIC HEARING RE TRAILER STORAGE Mr. Musso stated that the existing ordinance provides that storage of trailers shall be prohibited in the required front or side yard and he indicated the area on the map in which storage is permitted consisting of the rear yard, part of the side yard and part of the front yard. He stated that the Planning Commission's proposal is to allow storage anywhere on the lot if there is no side yard large enough; however, if there is a side yard of 10 feet or more, park- ing would be restricted to this area and not permitted within any required street frontage except within the rear 5 ft. of such yard. The proponents of the trailer storage ordinance had indicated that the Planning Commission had rejected their suggestions, and Mr. Musso explained that this was not true and that the Planning Com- mission is recommending that their ordinance be adopted which will allow parking anywhere on the lot and that more than one trailer can be stored on the lot if done in a safe manner. He stated that these were suggestions made by these people and the most recent suggestion made by a gentleman at the last public hearing is not to allow storage or parking within a certain distance of an inter- section which he agreed was an excellent suggestion. Councilman Silva asked if there were going to be limitations with regard to size of trailers which was brought up at the last hearing. Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission had discussed limits on height, type, length, size, etc., and found that the limitations would not satisfy the persons testifying and that there would be no reasonable way to regulate and enforce this type of limitation. CM-25-189 April 10, 1972 (Trailer Storage) Councilman Silva asked if a 60 ft. trailer would be allowed to be stored on an 80 ft. lot, and Mr. Musso stated that under the new ordinance this would be allowed as there is no limit to size, adding that public testimony supported an ordinance with no restrictions. Mayor Taylor commented that not only should public testimony be taken into consideration, but also what the Council wishes is reasonable and proper. Mr. Musso stated that there were approximately one hundred people who attended the public hearing and only one person spoke in favor of restrictions to trailer storage. Councilman Pritchard stated that it is his understanding that the City has no control over motorized vehicles, and asked if this is correct. Mr. Musso stated that the ordinance allows the City some control, but it was written before camper~ of the many types available, exist- ed and it would be difficult to enforce regulations as they are also used for family transportation as well as recreational purposes. He stated that under the ordinance the camper top is covered by the ordinance, but if the camper top is placed on a truck, it is then a part of a motorized vehicle and not covered in the ordinance; and the City cannot require certain regulations. Councilman Beebe stated that he could not understand the unanimous approval of the Planning Commission of a proposal which would allow any type of storage anywhere on a lot with no restrictions and, in his opinion, this is a poor proposal. Mr. Musso explained that he felt the Commissioners did not necessar- ily agree with it, but felt they had no choice due to the public testimony and, therefore, recommend the proposed ordinance amendment and had also recommended that it be placed on the ballot to be voted on by the people at the past election. At this time Mayor Taylor declared the public hearing open. Milt Codiroli, 586 Escondido Circle, stated that the trend, as shown on the market, is going from camper-pickup vehicles to the 18'-20' size trailers which are motorized, but are not used for day-to-day transportation. He stated that his only reason for giving the Coun- cil this information is to make them aware of possible future problems to keep in mind while evaluating the ordinance. Councilman Silva asked what the largest motorized type home is and Mr. Codiroli stated they are available up to 26'-30', but people are favoring the 18'-20' "mini-home". He mentioned that any trailer smaller than 17 ft. is generally not self-contained; the average trailer used by people is usually 19'-21' long, and he felt the Council should be aware of these facts if they intend to impose a limit on length. Under the proposed ordinance motorized vehicles will not be covered or restricted. Roberta Rhodes, 971 Ventura Avenue, stated that she was the person who submitted the petitions to the Planning Commission and, at the time, suggested that the limit be set to restrict storage of anything over 17 feet long. She stated that a 17 ft. trailer could be parked in the driveway and still allow opening of a garage door. Clyde L. Highet, 131 Hibiscus Way, stated that he would be in fa- vor of an ordinance which would prohibit trailer storage in the front yards, and stated he would like to see the matter placed on the ballot for people to state their preference. Mayor Taylor explained that the Council has had two public hearings prior to this hearing and if anyone spoke during these hearings it would not be necessary for them to state their views at this time. CM-25-190 April 10, 1972 A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously to close the public hearing. (Trailer Storage - Public Hearing) Mayor Taylor commented that the Council has to decide whether or not parking will be allowed in front yards, and if so, it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that there be no res- trictions. Councilman Pritchard stated that he would have to agree with the comment made by Mr. Highet, to not allow any type of parking in front yards, and that the present ordinance be amended to prohibit any parking in front, and then be enforced. He stated that he has nothing against trailers and feels they are not ugly, but has had a number of complaints from people who live across the street from one. The general feeling seems to be that if people can afford to have a trailer they should be able to afford to keep them out of sight of the neighbors and store them elsewhere. He felt that the lIB" proposal is so watered down, it is useless. Councilman Beebe stated that it would affect approximately 75-90% of the trailer owners in Livermore. Mayor Taylor agreed with Councilman Pritchard in that proposal B is too liberal and he felt that if it is to be adopted, a number of changes should be made. Numerous other cities have size res- trictions and a number of people have suggested there be size limits. Councilman Pritchard asked the City Attorney if the City could legally include the motorized vehicles, and added if there can be no control over these vehicles, they may as well forget it because they will soon comprise the majority. The City Attorney stated that he is not ready to make a decision, but felt that some control could be exercised over the motorized vehicles on private property if the City does not conflict with the state law on use of streets, but he wants to check into the matter. Mr. Musso stated that the present ordinance could be interpreted to cover campers. The ordinance defines a trailer as any struc- ture or vehicle constructed in such a manner as to permit occu- pancy thereof of sleeping quarters, which could mean a camper, bus, panel truck or even station wagon; therefore, it has never been interpreted this way because of the difficulties it might cause with regard to enforcement. Councilman Beebe asked if they adopted B-1 and impose a 20 ft limit, would the owners be apt to park in front of their homes. Mr. Musso stated that the majority are under 20 ft. and it is not often a larger trailer is used; therefore, the same problem as to where they should be parked is still unchanged if the limit is 20 ft. Councilman Beebe stated that he would be in favor of B-1 but with no parking in the front yard. Mayor Taylor stated that there has been a change in the habits and desires of the citizens during the past five years, but that the proposal as submitted by the Planning Commission would be un- restrictive to the point of being quite unacceptable to the public. He felt that the proposed ordinance be amended to: 1) include the 17 ft. size limit, 2) no front yard parking within 25 feet of the nearest intersection and, 3) only one trailer allowed per dwelling unit. Also, if there is adequate side yard, one must park in the rear yard. Any size trailer would be allowed in the back yard or side yard, and there will be a 17 ft restriction to parking in the front yard. CM-25-191 April 10, 1972 (Trailer Storage) Mr. Musso stated that under the present ordinance, trailers are not allowed storage in the side yards, and the proposed amended ordinance would allow side yard storage. Mayor Taylor moved to adopt B-1 with the three restrictions he had suggested, and that no trailer would be allowed in the front yard if there is access to the back yard. Councilman Silva felt that it is not equitable to allow one person to park a motorized 26 ft. vehicle in his front yard, and his neigh- bor is not allowed to park a stationary 26 ft. vehicle in his yard, or even a 20 f~ stationary vehicle. He also felt that it is un- equitable to force an owner in the RS District to place his vehicle in the rear yard, while a person living in an RL District is not required to do so even if he lives on a corner lot and can easily place it in the rear yard. He stated that a "junky" car is allowed to park in front, or a car on blocks, or an unsightly pickup, but a camper top is not allowed; therefore, he felt the B-1 ordinance amendment proposal was unequitable, and unfair. He felt it the right of the individual to do as he chooses, and if he does take pride in his neighborhood, it is his prerogative. He suggested that the ordinance regulating trailer storage be repealed. Councilman Miller stated that although he has no legal conflict, he has a moral conflict in that he has purchased a boat and will have some difficulty in storing it on his lot; he prefers the con- cept proposed by Councilman Pritchard that there should be no front yard storage. He stated that he is going to abstain as all the bickering could have been eliminated by bringing the issue to the vote of the people, which would have been the reasonable way to re- solve the issue, and that he has suggested it on two occasions. He stated that he will continue to abstain on a direct solution by or- dinance, and will continue to do so until the issue is put before the people, should he be reelected. Councilman Silva stated tha~ in other words, Councilman Miller would not vote on the trailer ordinance, regardless of public testimony, except to canvass votes at an election; he accused him of shirking his duties and asked the City Attorney if he could abstain for the reasons given and, if so, how his vote is counted. Mr. Lewis replied that a Councilman may abstain for a conflict of interest or for whatever reason that he desires. If there is a tie the Councilman possibly could be required to vote. He did not think our rules specify one way or the other. Councilman Pritchard moved the question, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which failed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard NOES: Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller Mayor Taylor asked for a roll call vote on the motion which failed by the following vote: AYES: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Taylor NOES: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller Mayor Taylor stated his understanding of Councilman Miller's rea- sons for abstaining, and asked him to express his opinion in the form of a motion since the Council had not reached an agreement. Councilman Miller moved he would like to place the issue on the ballot and consolidate the measure and give the public a choice at the next bond, or any special election within the next few months. CM-25-192 April 10, 1972 Mayor Taylor stated they were previously ad- (Trailer storage) vised at the school election that there were serious problems with placing this type of measure on the ballot, but Councilman Miller reminded him it had to do with the advisory nature of the issue. Mayor Taylor seconded the motion which failed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva Councilman Silva stated that since this Council has gone on record as not wanting to place this measure on the ballot, he felt this Council should make a decision; therefore, he made a motion to repeal the existing ordinance, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Mayor Taylor felt this to be a giant step backward and stated he did not understand Councilman Pritchard's reason for his second to the motion inasmuch as to repeal the existing ordinance would allow anything. Councilman Pritchard stated his feeling that he had no backing for his provision, which is to enforce the ordinance now existing, and the alternate proposal B-1 is meaningless and would be useless. At this time he read the rules of order for the Council with regard to voting as follows: "Every member should vote unless disquali- fied for cause accepted by vote of the Councilor by opinion of the City Attorney. Self disqualification without approval which results in a tie vote should be avoided as thwarting Council action." He continued that no Councilman could be forced to vote, and by abstaining, in effect, consents that the majority of the Council acts for him, but he felt they could reasonably assume that Coun- cilman Miller is thwarting Council action this evening. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva NOES: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Taylor ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller Councilman Miller suggested that those of the Council who objected to the vote of the people are thwarting an expression of people. Mayor Taylor felt that since the Council was unable to resolve the matter, it should be continued to the time when there is a new Council who may be able to reach a decision after hearing the testi- mony. Councilman Beebe commented that a previous Council had adopted an ordinance which they failed to enforce, now this Council does not wish to make a decision that he felt to be a routine matter and it should be decided. Councilman Pritchard stated since the ordinance is still in effect, he would make a motion that until something is decided, the pre- sent ordinance should be enforced. The motion was seconded by Councilman Silva but failed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva NOES: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Taylor ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller Mayor Taylor commented before the vote that he felt if the present ordinance is enforced in the next few weeks, it could cause com- munity resentment. He ruled that this matter be continued since the Council has reached an impasse. He did not feel that additional public testimony would be necessary, and since there was no motion to the contrary, he directed the staff to place the matter on the agenda for the meeting of May 1. * * * CM-25-193 April 10, 1972 RECESS Report re Office Space Lease Report re Light Bulb Station No.1 AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The City Manager reported that our lease for office space in the Masonic Building will expire shortly, on May 15, and an option is reserved for the exten- sion of two additional one year terms. It is re- commended that a motion be adopted authorizing notice to be sent to the lessor exercising this lease option. * * * A communication has been received from Ripley's Be- lieve It or Not, inviting the City to donate the light bulb which has been burning at the Fire Station No.1 for 71 years, for their collection if and when it ever burns out. It is recommended that a motion be adopted declining the offer. This fixture should be perpetually retained locally in some type of his- torical exhibit at the end of its service, if ever. Report re Correction of Res. 141-71 * * * The Public Works Director reported that there was a technical correction in the wording of Resolution No. 141-71, formerly passed, which must be made to satisfy P.G.& E. rules, and it is recommended that a resolution be adopted amending that resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 41-72 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 141-71 ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND DISTRICT ON SECOND STREET GENERALLY BE- TWEEN SOUTH LIVERMORE AVENUE AND SOUTH N STREET. Authorize Canvass of Election Returns Report re Residential Bldg Permits Report re Pending Sub- division Maps * * * The Elections Code provides that the City Council must, on the Tuesday after the election,meet to can- vass the returns and to install the newly elected members. The resolution authorizing the Clerk to prepare the report of canvass is to be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 42-72 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CITY CLERK TO CANVASS VOTES CAST AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD AND CONDUCTED APRIL 11, 1972. * * * The report from the Chief Building Inspector re residential building permits was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * A report was submitted by the Planning Director pursuant to Council request relative to pending sub- division maps. There are two tentative mags - that for Tract 3333 (Elliott) which includes 178 single family residential lots and will expire January 19, other Tract 3043 (Reeder) for 165 single family residen- which expires June 15, 1973. There are two final maps 1973; the tial lots CM-25-194 not of record on November 8, 1971 - Tract 3321 (Hofmann) which includes 176 single family res- idential lots and Tr. 3333, Unit 1 (Elliott) which includes 280 single family residential lots (since filed). * * * The summary of action taken at the Planning Com- mission meeting of April 4 was acknowledged for filing. * * * April 10, 1972 (Pending Subdivision maps) Summary of Action- Planning Commission One hundred and five claims dated April 6 in the amount of $122,282.98 and two hundred thirty-six payroll warrants dated March 24 in the amount of $56,718.82 were ordered paid as approved City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from Warrant for his usual reasons. * * * Payroll and Claims by the No. 2245 On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- Approval of cilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the Consent Calendar items listed on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * An application had been received from the Red Carpet Realty for variance of parking require- ments at 150 North L street. This item had been continued from the meeting of April 3 at the applicant's request. APPEAL RE DENIAL OF VARIANCE (Parking Require- ments 150 No. L st.} The Planning Director explained that this application is the first variance since the increase of the off-street parking in the CG Zone. Mr. Musso recalled that the increase had been suggested many years ago with regard to off-street parking and the end re- sult was to provide a 2-1 requirement for the first story and a 1-1 requirement for the upper stories. This was done in the CG zone inasmuch as that is where most of the developable property is located and where most of the major development will occur. It was not felt to be proper in the CB zone as it is difficult to obtain 1-1 parking; therefore, the ordinance was amended requiring 2-1 parking for the first story, and the applicant is seeking a variance to this requirement. The Planning Commission felt that the ordinance should be upheld as there were no unusual circum- stances relating to the property, and therefore denied the variance. Councilman Beebe inquired if this was a part of the zone changes which were made recently, however Mr. Musso stated this has been zoned CG since 1960, and only the requirements for this zoning were changed. He further explained that the parking is based on the building and not the use, as there could be a great number of uses in anyone building lifetime. The Planning Commission and the Council agreed at that time that they could not prohibit the use because they could not meet the parking. There followed a discussion regarding parking requirements for different uses, and in reply to a question regarding the proposed use of the property, Mr. Musso stated it was his understanding the applicant intended to move his real estate office to that location. Councilman Beebe stated that at the time they rezoned the area from P to L Street, he voted against it as he felt the properties facing L Street were developed in the manner of the central busi- ness district. That whole block to L Street should be changed in zoning from First to Chestnut Streets as it has too much small development already to expect it to go to some big shopping center CM-25-195 April 10, 1972 (Variance re Parking Requirements) complex. Therefore, he considered it the same as the central business area which allows 1-1, and would favor a variance, and made a motion that the variance be granted, seconded by Councilman Prit- chard. Mayor Taylor questioned the grounds for granting a variance as he felt it was a type of rezoning, and it is implied that surrounding properties would be granted the same variance. Councilman Silva stated he would vote for the motion if the appli- cant would state that this type of use is not retail, simply com- mercial office, which would only require 1-1 parking. Daniel Spruiell, Red Carpet Realty, 2233 Second Street, stated they have two buildings and when they finish development of the first building for office space it will be impractical to change it and they would be very agreeable to placing the office space in front and leaving it that way. In the back there will be a block build- ing, not offices, but one similar to the one on 4th and Wood Streets which would be used for storage or it could be a minimal non-outlet type with no traffic. They have the problem on Second Street now where the cars are marked every two hours and they have no place to park, and will not limit themselves in the future, but rather they will restrict the parking on the back side of the buildlng. When questioned by members of the Council if he would be agreeable to parking restrictions, he reiterated the exact use for the build- ings, emphasizing there would be no retail use. Councilman Silva suggested that they grant the variance since the applicant agrees not to have retail outlets on this parcel; if he should lease to a retail outlet which requires additional parking, then they could state the variance had been violated, and asked the City Attorney if it could be rescinded. Mr. Lewis stated this is what he would suggest that if the Council wished to have a written agreement, it could be revokable in the event certain uses transpired such as retail. The suggestion of Councilman Silva was made as an amendment to the motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion passed 3-2 with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Councilman Miller commented that it had been stated there could be a place of assembly which is not retail but which could create a high parking demand. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the variance; he could not see that an agreement could justify the variance, nor that there was any justification to grant a var- iance for the subject property inasmuch as there could be buildings to meet the parking requirements. Councilman Miller asked for clarification of the motion, specifically the amendment re uses to limit parking, and Councilman Silva indi- cated it was the intent to grant the variance with the condition that there be low parking uses allowed - not retail, and the motion passed 3-2 with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. * * * At the Council's request the application of the Housing Authority for a fee waiver for Vila Gulf was placed on the agenda, and Mr. Parness explained that the records have been searched as to what had been previously discussed with representatives of the Housing Authority in this regard, and to the best of their re- collection nothing was discussed concerning the waiver of any con- struction fees. There was much discussion re the Cooperation Agree- ment, which was a prerequisite of the federal government, because VILA GULF FEE WAIVER APPLI- CATION CM-25-196 April 10, 1972 of a clause having to do with a waiver of spec- (Vila Gulf Fees) ial assessments and real property taxes that might be imposed by the local government. This occurred at the time the LDC was under formation and there was concern by some of the Housing Board members of the possibility of assuming an assessment, but nothing on construction fees. As far as he knew the Housing Authority has listed construction fees within their budget because it was assumed by them that these would be recognized but recently they received some kind of return notation from the review office stating information to the effect that local fees should not be paid and they were deleted from their budget. As to the Interfaith Housing project, the records indicate that the Council had discussed as to whether or not it was proper to assess this project various fees; those mentioned were annexa- tion, park dedication and sewer connection. With regard to the two former ones, they were both deleted; they were not subject to an annexation fee as the property had been in the city prior to the initiation of this program, and park dedication fees were not con- sidered to be appropriate. On the sewer connection fee the Coun- cil finally arbitrarily decided to just assess half of what was due and this was paid. Mr. Parness felt that the Housing Authority project should be sub- ject to the payment of the fee as he did not consider it any dif- ferent than any other type of residential construction. As long as credit was given for those units now existing and occupied, he felt it appropriate that the cost of the project should reflect these fees; if they are not paid, it can be stated they will have to be assumed by others. Mayor Taylor asked why the federal government felt the community should bear the burden of the various fees, and Mr. Parness stated he was told by the gentleman who reviewed the matter that this is a public project, in his opinion, and it sounded impertinent to him for us to suggest that one governmental entity pay another governmental entity fees for the privilege of constructing. He had explained that although the Council does have the right to appoint the board members, it stops there; it is a completely autonomous entity. The finances are completely divorced from the city government and from the city council; the rate structures, their method of operation is all entirely within their own purview, and he would consider it a private venture. A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to deny waiver of the city fees requested by the Livermore Housing Authority. William Struthers, representing the Housing Authority, stated that the dilemma is that they need a permit, and he felt it his duty to make sure they are not foreclosed in the event there are new ordi- nances effective April 28th. He felt there is a way the Council can make it work, and he explained that when you work for the fed- eral government, you do not truly control the money; at this point the final construction contract has not been let even though they are fortunate in that there is a low bidder within the budget, which has been an arbitrary figure according to the whims of Wash- ington so it has been a little frustrating. He felt there are several considerations the Council might make; first, how many units they are actually replacing - in 1955 when the Housing Author- ity took title there were 124; before they took title, there was an agreement with the School District to phase out 77 units - now in 1972 there is one more unit than those originally in which they are using City facilities. In the tailormade agreement concerning the possibility of the LDC as an assessment, the blur between assessment and connection fees can be debated with the City and with Zone 7. As to the building fees, there is no question in this regard - the plan check fees have already been paid and there are other fees due, but since there is no contractor they should put CM-25-197 April 10, 1972 (Vila Gulf Fees) some money beyond reach of the Housing Authority to be released only after the City Councilor Zone 7 said they would reduce a certain fee. The money would be there and they would have a permit even though they have no contractor right now, or may not have on April 28th. If this could be worked out, they could determine where they are truly spreading the expense. This is a low income housing and if they do not meet the operating expenses, the feder- al government funds the money, which is called subsidizing. They do not want the project to fail for lack of money and they are not sure what the total development budget is; if the City Council can do anything, they should reserve one of the building permits for this project which has been pending for a long time. Mayor Taylor asked if the fees were included in the budget, and Mr. Struthers advised that they were except for the new fees which the Council and Zone 7 passed, and then they were all deleted. Mayor Taylor stated if the building permit is granted, it is his understanding the Housing Authority is willing to deposit the money, and the City can consider the matter of a possible waiver of a portion of the fees at a later date. Councilman Miller made a motion that they deposit the fees which will be held in trust for determination of the fees, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously. Mr. Parness questioned if the Council favors the payment of these fees unless it is beyond the financial capabilities so to do, and Mayor Taylor stated he did not favor waiver of fees, but he did not wish to stand in the way of the project to proceed. Councilman Pritchard stated it is a routine matter for the govern- ment to protest this type of fee and he related an incident in this regard. Councilman Silva felt the Council should not go on record as saying they will waive the fees. Mr. Parness stated his point was that if the payment of these fees would cause cancellation of the project, he felt the Council would want to consider a possible modification, but it was his understand- ing that the Council did not favor waiver of the fees if they are within the financial capability of the Housing Authority. Mr. Lewis pointed out that if the City collects the fee for Zone 7, they are obliged to account for that fee and he felt they should contact Zone 7 in the near future. * * * The City Manager reported that over the past several weeks all applicants for residential building permits have been asked to submit a written statement agreeing that the subject residential units would comply with whatever resolution is finally made as to a school housing contribution, or fees in lieu thereof, by residential building developers. H. C. Elliott has appealed on the basis that the mobile home park is committed to be an adult facility and children will be prohibited. Even though this is the intent of the developer, such a covenant cannot be legally imposed and it is recommended that the develop- er file such a school provision statement with the City agreeing to comply with whatever the determination is finally made for school housing, contributions or fees, with the stipulation that in this final determination some reduced level should be made applicable to mobile home developments. REPORT RE MOBILE HOME PARK (Elliott) Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney if they can legally require such a statement and Mr. Lewis replied it had been clearly under- stood that this was a cooperative thing, but it does amount to a voluntary cooperation. CM-25-198 April 10, 1972 Mr. Parness stated that Mr. Elliott was merely asking the Council for their statement of phil- osophy - if they would concur that whatever arrangement is finally resolved with the devel- oper for the payment of the school fee that there should be type of credit or modification given to a mobile home park. (Mobile Home Park - Elliott) some Councilman Beebe expressed the opinion that it was similar to the sewer connection which is different for a home and an apartment house, and if in the end the school housing fee comes out that way, he could see nothing wrong with the staff recommendation. Mayor Taylor stated there would have to be a great deal of dis- cussion before they decide on the fees to be applied to mobile homes and he did not feel they had much choice as the offer is made in good faith and they had no legal way to extract the money and felt the recommendation to be reasonable. Councilman Miller asked what the difference was in the sewer connection fee between the single family and an apartment unit, and the Chief Building Inspector explained the formula for calculating the fees. Councilman Miller continued that there can be no guaran- tee regarding an adult park and he did not feel it would be rea- sonable to promise a reduced level of fees. Councilman Silva felt this is to be debated later and they might change the City Manager's recommendation that some reduced level should be made to some reduced level may be made for mobile home developments. Councilman Pritchard stated for the time being he would agree with the City Manager's recommendation, but he does have some discussion as to not allowing children in mobile home parks, but this can be done later. Councilman Silva made a motion to adopt the City Manager's recom- mendation with the amendment that in the final determination some reduced level may be made applicable to mobile home developments; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. Mr. Elliott stated this mobile home park was designed as an adult park; there are no new family home parks in the area although there is a need, and if this were a family designed mobile home park, he would not object, but explained that the fees now are approach- ing one-third the cost of the lot and if they were to pay anywhere near the amount of the school contribution fee, it would be approxi- mately 10% of the cost of the lot which would be hard to absorb through increased cost of rent to the tenants. If the fees were applied to a $25,000 house, it would be about 2% of that amount. The Council should consider that it would be imposing an extremely high fee for a contribution, which he understands to be a purely temporary type fee, until schools are somewhat caught up. The fee would last the lifetime of the park as it would be about $73,000 on a 133 unit mobile home park. Mr. Elliott also stated he did not understand how they were assessed' $360~r unit for parks. He remembered that the Council had waived that park fee in favor of two or three acres of land they were to contribute that was in the area of a future park program. Mayor Taylor stated that the staff could explain exactly what fees were charged and why. Mr. Elliott advised the Council of the covenants and restrictions that will be applicable to the park. Councilman Silva moved the question, and the motion passed unanimously. * * * CM-25-199 April 10, 1972 AWARD OF BID FOR PUMPS - 1972-4 Project The following bids were received on April 7 for pumps for Pump Station No.1: Allis Chalmers Pacific Pumping Co. Ar-Go Pump Co. Simonds Machinery Co. Coast Pump Co. $ 3,633.64 3,767.40 3,812.12 4,477.42 5,549.30 The low bid by Allis-Chalmers is recommended for acceptance by the City Council. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the recommended bid was accepted. ORDINANCE RE CODE AMENDMENT COLLECTION OF ZONE 7 FEE * * * ORDINANCE NO. 786 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING CHAPTER 24, RELATING TO WATER, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF ARTICLE VI, RELATING TO COLLECTION OF ZONE 7 CONNECTION CHARGES. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the above ordinance was adopted, and the second reading waived. * * * BUILDING The report from the Chief Building Inspector re PERMITS residential building permits issued March 30 through April 5 had been removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time at the request of Councilman Miller who stated that there were 235 building permits issued the previous week, 133 were issued to Mr. Elliott, making a total of 368 and a total of 1326 since November 9. He stated that Hofmann Company and Dan Gillice have signed agreements saying they would pay whatever the home builders, School District and the City agree upon, but he felt there is no enforceability of that type of contract, and a lot of building permits have been issued that need not have been under such shaky circumstances. Mayor Taylor stated they had no legal basis for writing a binding agreement as the agreement was voluntary, almost unilateral. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Fee Change) Assessment District on Livermore- Portola Ave. Re Canvass of Ballots * * * Mr. Lewis explained a change in the fee of the contract with Dan Gillice from $333 to $360. * * * The City Manager reported that the North Livermore Avenue construction contract does not include any property that is not satisfied in our city limits either by subdivision development or the contract itself so there is no chance for a benefit district about which Councilman Miller had inquired. It is all taken care of by the subdivision agreement. * * * The City Clerk reminded the Council of the meeting on Tuesday, April 18 to canvass the votes, and asked if the Council intended to meet on April 17. The Council decided they would not meet on that date and the time of meeting was set for 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 18 to canvass election returns. CM-25-200 * * * Councilman Silva advised it had been brought to his attention that there is a lack of lighting at the library parking lot and he asked if the staff could check into this. * * * Councilman Silva felt there should be an exotic animal ordinance, and if the Council would agree, he would like the staff to look into such a proposal. * * * April 10, 1972 MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Lighting at Library Parking Lo~ (Animal Ordinance) (Formation of New City and County) Councilman Silva stated at one time there had been talk of forming a tri-city in the Valley, but because of political problems involved it was dropped. There is not one civic center in the Valley although all have sites; there has been talk of a mutual corporation yard and a sewage treatment plant for the whole Valley. There is one golf course and one airport for the whole Valley and he felt there is a lot of industry in the other end of the Valley which he would like to see in the city limits of Livermore. The governments in the Valley are very tax conscious especially in Livermore here the rate is less than it was ten years ago although the county tax rate has increased considerably. Councilman Silva suggested that perhaps the staff could inquire about having, rather than a tri-city, a city and county of, perhaps, Del Valle as he felt if we became our own county the taxes would decrease. If this was found to be feasible, they could meet with Pleasanton and VCSD for discussions. Councilman Silva stated he would like this to be in the form of a motion, and it was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously by the Council. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. * * * .,~ ~/ o,tJL-- ~ayo r _I'~"-~Lc "ty Clerk ore, California APPROVE ATTEST ( L * * * ADJOURNMENT CM-25-201 Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 18, 1972 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore was held on Tuesday, April 18, 1972, 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, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the members of the Council and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * CANVASS OF VOTES (General Municipal Election) The City Clerk reported on the canvass of votes, both absentee ballots and the precinct votes, as indicated in the copy of the resolution presented to each Councilman. The resolution of canvass then was introduced by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 43-72 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CANVASS OF VOTES AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF APRIL 11, 1972. WHEREAS, a general municipal election was held and conducted in the City of Livermore, on Tuesday, the 11th day of April, 1972, as required by law; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 42-72 the City Clerk was ordered to canvass the results of said election and certify the same to this Council; and WHEREAS, it appears that notice of said election was duly and legally given, that voting precincts were properly established, that election officers were appointed and election supplies fur- nished, and that in all respects said election was held and con- ducted and the votes cast thereat received and canvassed, and the returns thereof made and declared in time, form and manner as re- quired by the general laws of the State of California governing elections in General Law Cities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City of Livermore met at the Council Chambers thereof on Tuesday, the 18th day of April, 1972, to receive the canvass of the returns of said election from the City Clerk and install the newly elected officers, and having can- vassed said returns, the Council finds that the number of votes cast, the names of the persons voted for, and other matters required by law to be as hereinafter stated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED AS FOLLOWS: That said regular general municipal election was held and conducted in the City of Livermore, on Tuesday, the 11th day of April, 1972, in time, form and manner as required by law; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED, that there were nineteen (19) voting precincts established for the purpose of holding said election, consisting of a consolidation of the regular CM-25-202 April 18, 1972 election precincts established for holding the last general state and County elections as follows: Consolidated voting precinct "A" comprlslng State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30180, 30181. Consolidated voting precinct "B" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30182, 30183. Consolidated voting precinct "c" comprising state and County precincts numbered Livermore 30150, 30170. Consolidated voting precinct "D" comprising State and County precinct numbered Livermore 30160. Consolidated voting precinct "E" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30190, 30191. Consolidated voting precinct "F" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore, 30200, 30201. Consolidated voting precinct "G" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30130, 30140. Consolidated voting precinct "H" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30110, 30120. Consolidated voting precinct "I" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30080, 30100. Consolidated voting precinct "J" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30070, 30090 Consolidated voting precinct "K" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30060, 30091. Consolidated voting precinct "L" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30040, 30050. Consolidated voting precinct "M" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30030, 30031. Consolidated voting precinct "N" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30010, 30011, 30020. Consolidated voting precinct "0" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30250, 30260. Consolidated voting precinct "P" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30210, 30220, 30230. Consolidated voting precinct "Q" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30240, 30270. Consolidated voting precinct "R" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30272, 30273. Consolidated voting precinct "s" comprising State and County precincts numbered Livermore 30271, 30280 That the whole number of votes cast in said City of Liver- more was 11,843; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the names of the persons voted for, the offices for which they were voted, together with the whole number of votes which they received in the entire Citfr of Livermore, are as shown on the attached, marked Exhibit "A'. CM-25-203 April 18, 1972 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED, that at the said general municipal election held in said City on Tuesday, the 11th day of April, 1972, the following persons were elected to the respective offices for the terms stated and until their successors are duly elected and qualified, as follows: DONALD G. MILLER was elected Councilman for the full term of four years; ARCHER H. FUTCH was elected Councilman for the full term of four years; DOROTHY J. HOCK was elected City Clerk for the full term of four years; FRED NOYES, JR. was elected City Treasurer for the full term of four years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that at the said general municipal election held in said City on Tuesday, the 11th day of April, 1972, Measure A was not adopted, receiving less than a majority of votes cast on said proposition, and Measure B was adopted, receiving more than a majority of votes cast on said proposition; the full text of said measures is shown on the attached, marked Exhibit "B" BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the Clerk shall enter on the records of this Council a statement of the result of the said election, showing: 1. The whole number of votes cast in the City of Liver- more; 2. The names of the persons voted for; 3. For what office each person was voted; 4. The propositions that were voted upon; 5. The number of votes given at each precinct to each person and to each measure; and 6. The number of votes given in the City to each person and each measure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of such persons elected a certificate of election, signed by her and duly authenticated; she shall also impose the constitutional oath of office, whereupon they shall be inducted into their respective offices to which they have been elected. CM-25-204 I STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD APRIL 11 , 19-R IN CITY OF LIVERMORE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (When the City Clerk makes the Official Canvass, he must fin out Certificate on back page.) EXH r BIT HA" 1 STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE -,~-4.-__._.=.==;:::;~...;;=';:.~~,::=== ==:::::=.--~..~ ~ en ~ z: c:; ... ac:: a.. La.. Q . ~.. ... 0 Ul f:i1 P:: ~ 'D +-' 'E c: H .... r-I H ro 0 0) == ~ 1; ~ ~ ~ e,81 I~O ~ i 'I~ II ,= + I I I A I 741'i 340: ! 74, 21 : 287. i,370 B 594 297, 50. 25 . 190 :,335 I: ' Joe Michell School C 539 238. 53. 28 .2040 ': 259 973 Coronado Way D 406 210 28' 16 137 :: 217 MendenhallScbQ.Ql E.63L356.o 55-,. 1.8__255. rl-406_ 1642 Vancouver Way F 830, 463; 62 20 218 "493 _ County Fire House G 586 214' 57 I 23 265 228 Fifth Street School H 461 166' 64 19 221 161 3564 Pestana Way I 489 170 44 29 207'181 , " 3866. Pe s.t?J.1_a _~ ?:i_. _._.J___.__~.7.2~ ~.~? ~__ _~QJ..____.......1.2_.________.J:5L_ I 21.9._____.____~--- _______ East Avenue School K 725 377 74 29 242 392 . , Jackson Avenue School L 624 3290 58. 20 181 3570 5206 Kathy Way M 623 391, 44 49 128 386, 931 Larkspur Drive N 724 302, 110: 40 271 311 1695 ..Elm _ S t.r.~~tn_____.__.__~ ____3B4~~J.I.~h---_ __IJ__ ___~~?_.-.-_139_.___ ,: 12.~______#--n. , i! i: Junction Ave. School P 789 350, . 117, 37 .272, '.336. 835 Portola Avenue Q 516 218 73 40 155 212 I 677 Brighton Way R 664 339 70: 29 147_ 352 Marylin Avenue School S 740 373: 102 28 220 371 T ELECTION PRECINCTS H 0) r-I r-I' .r! ~ c:, 0)' r-I i r-I <r: 'D :>:" o r:Q .r! r-I o H .r! 'D o o .c C) +-' :::3 j:y II. Sonoma Ave. School 241 Garnet Drive A ABSENTEE BALLOTS B, 236 149: C D E ---.-- .....---.-----.----.--------- -_.~.~.~_.~"~._-_.__._-_._._-- -,'-'- TOTALS F 1l,8-t35659 G H I J . - - _.._-_. --..- ---- -----_._._~_._._._-- -- -_.._---~---_._.---+-----._.__.._----_._"-------..-...- ----.....-----.-- ----+--- - -.-...... ,-. _.._-~-- --------..-----------.---.------- K L M , 14! 4 61 148 _. -_.+._--_._----_._------~--_.._--_.._-----+-~-....-- ----+---------<-+-------------..--------------. 1280 . 522 3952 i:5854 N o - .----------.--- ----------------.----.------------ '- -.-----.------. .---+-.----.----- P Q R S T ____nO_on .~ ----.r- -~. -,-- - -- -.-- r-- -r-- ..~ --. 1 ELECTION HELD April Jl , 19 7? +-' r 0) bO ..c 'D (f] H +-' H 0.. 0 ro .r! ro .r! u Ul '+--i r-I r-I U ~ '+--i r-I r-I 0 r-I U H .r! .r! .r! p::; rl 0 I-:J H ~ ..c: 0) P:: (') P, H "' E---i H . (f] . J:i:, . . ro I-:J 0) f:i1 r=1 P, r=1 ~ S ~ 0 H ro 0) 'D ..c ~ 0) .r! .r! r-I +-' +-' r-I ~ ro 0 'D rl r-I U c: H 0) ro .r! ro 0 0 H :s I :s I I-:J p::; r=1 J:i:, A 55! B 23 c . 25 D 29 E . 22 ...-._-_.. ------ _.__._-~-_.._.-t-..._-_._._-~_._--. F , 35 G 22 H 11 I 39 _____._.___~L_____+ ~ 2 K 19. L 38 M 19 N ! 29 ------------~-_T_--_,_ ~ g p 37 Q I 56 R 64 s 33 MEASURE MEASURE "All "B" Yes No I Yes No 167 28 18 572 563 261 437 372 351 112 29 37 468 458 234i 328 3221 263 I 144 21, 17 I 413 4041 198: 304 2691 257 . 75 28 19, ! 310 305: 145! 226 216: 175 I -, _15.9_____,_ .~L_ __._ 57_ .___ ~ 1ei _+.5.l~09;- _u~J~ 441_ 410) 275.. , 157~ 22. I 108 40 I 603 594 250! 493 5271 290 . 195. 18 88 10: 433 4211 2341315 243; 321 155 20, 54 6! 324 321, 187( 230 1701 266 156 28, 72 15: 375 368; 178( 275 2111 251 l~'t~--+ ~::----'-~--+-;;- : ;~~ ; ~~ --;;t~;~-~;~I ~ ~~. 127 24 55 32' 495 488. 174: 389 3671 233 . : ! . 110 15 42 26 : 463 450. 160 404 4261182 . 150 42, 118 15 I 537 530 i 283 i 372 346 i 352 -__--TI:.--~3a.....~~._____t_.-2L- ! ~02 29.iL_____J.4Q_t-212-_167~203.. ,170 I 46 ,125 34 ,617,597. 269;463 3971367 ! 108 44, 61 i 30 I 389 380. 169,304 2691228 93 48 104 40 i 507 502. 214,404 4021243 143 39 101 33 ! 575 564, 249,439 4071316 T i f -----.------------o..---~..-- --......,.-------.-......-----...- - "..---------------~-----.,-----------.-----..---..i_----.,---._....___." ._~...__j,"_ I A i B 7 43 1.17 13,204 196, 67: 143 1561 72 c D _.....________.m~~---.--~-- _ _';'u F G, H I J --.-.----.--. .-----~--_._--.-___t_---..---~----____.___ --~____. -.__________.__0.________-----...._______ K L .634 M N o p Q R S T 2598 - - -..------------.....--------.---+------------...-----------+--- .--------- j. , I I ~005283:U 4013 :6865633915159 1438 566 .569 i , t--- i I' i .. ----L__ _________~.. __ ._ --r- '''#'' --r-- -,,-- --r-- I CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS State of California, } County 0 f...........A.LANEP./l.......mm......'..m....m......'....m ss. /, ....m.................."........nDQ.R.OTHY..mJ.......HQCK,....'...m..m.......n.....n......__...m....n.....__m.......__..m.............n.....c ity C ler k of said City, do hereby certify that, in ptirsttance of the provisions of Section 22932.5 of the Elections Code and of the resolution of the governing body of said City, heretofore adopted and entered ttpon the mintttes of said governing body, I did canvass the returns of the vote cast in said City, at the.....m........,m.....mm..mm..,............mn....mm.....m....m........m......___m' ................,.,..,.G.ENE..M.L,..,M.lINIC.IPA..L.n......n...n..........__.'n...__....n..____....B lection held on __'..mm.....A.PRI.L.mmll__mmm' 19..n7..'2., for elective public offices, and/or for and against each measure submitted to the vote of the voters, and that the Statement of the Vote Cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the whole nttmber of votes cast in said City, and the whole nttm- bel' of votes cast for each candidate and/or for and against each meas- ure in said City and in each of the respective precincts therein, and that the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for each candidate and/or for and against each meastire are fttll, true and correct. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this.....,.,...17,th..mm.m.day of ......,..",Ap.!..~.~".,.,....."'.n..'.... ......, 19.....!..?.. (SEAL) ~.~__nm..m.<: ....0~.:.~.J.............., City Clerk. I . ... 'I ,- I , . . By ....'....__m...n..m.n.__..............__..______..__....m...m..__.__.__..n__nm__n__' Deptdy. (The above certificate is to be used only when the governing body has ordered the City Clerk to make the official canvass,) CITY OF LIVERMORE MEASURES Shall the ordinance proposed by the City Council providing that the number of residenti_al building permits to be issued be determined by the Ci.ty YES Council to maintain the following level of ser- vices: SEWAGE TREATlljENT which produces effluent A equal to or above the. requirements of the Calif- ornia Regional Water Quality Control Boar~, San Francisco Bay Region; A TREATED WATER SUPPL Y at u quality and reserve to prevent involuntary rationing; CLASSROOM FACILITIES that will insure NO a quality of education equal to or above the av- erage for school districts in the State of Cali- fornia, be adopted? Shall the ordinance submitted by initiative petition providing that no further residential building permits are to be issued until satis- YES factory solutions exist to all the foll~wing problems (1) Educational Facilities, (2) Sewage and (3) Water Supply, according to standards set forth in the proposed or~inance (no double B sessions in the schools nor overcrowded class- rooms as det erm ined by the Ca,l iforn ia Education Code; the sewage treatment facilities and capa- cities meet the standards set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; no rationing of NO vmter with respect to human consumption or ir- rigation and adequate water reserves for fire protection) be adopted? EXHIBIT t I usn April 18, 1972 Councilman Silva commented briefly on his six years of service on the Planning Commission and Council, stating it had been a rich and reward- ing experience. He thanked the staff for all of their assistance and advice, and his family and children for all the sacrifices they had to endure the past four years. He wished the new Councilmen luck and success in keeping Livermore one of the finest communities in which to live. * * * Councilman Silva made a motion to adjourn sine die, seconded by Councilman Beebe, approved unanimously. * * * The City Clerk at this time administered the oath of office and delivered certificates of election to the two new Councilmen and to the City Treasurer. * * * The City Clerk called the meeting to order at this time and entertained a motion for choice of Mayor for the ensuing year. Comments by Councilman Silva ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATES AND OATH OF OFFICE CALL TO ORDER AND NOMINATIONS A motion was made by Councilman Beebe nominating Clyde Taylor for a second term as Mayor, seconded by Councilman Miller. Coun- cilman Pritchard moved that nominations be closed and that Clyde Taylor be acclaimed Mayor the coming year. Mayor Taylor accepted the nomination and thanked the Council members for appointing him to another term. He then entertained nominations for office of vice mayor and Councilman Pritchard nominated Donald Miller for the office of vice mayor; the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the nomination was unanimous. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. * * * APPROVE iJ~ ~.~ Mayor Pro Tempore (, ~J.0 / /1 ATTEST od~. C. y~~~ Liver r~/ California * * * ADJOURNMENT CM-25-205 Regular Meeting of April 24, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on April 24, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Ave- nue. 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 and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council- man Pritchard and by a 4-1 vote by the Council (Councilman Futch abstaining), the minutes of the meeting of April 10, were approved as amended. * * * OPEN FORUM (re Portola Assessment District) Richard Turner, 2159 Roan Court, stated that he Ave has a preliminary estimate on the Portola Avenue Assessment District 72-6. He explained that he is in the process of purchasing property on Por- tola Avenue, which is similar, and is glad that he is not one of the owners involved in this par- ticular assessment district. He stated that he may purchase 1.3 acres, and using Parcel 6 as an example, as this is approximately the same amount of land he intends to buy, that if this same calcu- lation were to apply to the land he buys, he would have a $24,000 piece of property worth only $12,000. He feels there must have been a mistake as to the preliminary estimate and asked that he be en- lightened on the subject. Mayor Taylor explained that an assessment district has not yet been formed, no public hearing has been held and the formula used for the spread has not yet been approved and the cost was to be spread over the entire tract and not just the homes facing Portola Avenue. The Public Works Director explained that a preliminary meeting re- garding this matter is scheduled for May 10. Mayor Taylor advised that if there are questions regarding the for- mula that Mr. Lee could answer his questions and perhaps he should contact him, adding that the Council is under an obligation to make the spread as fair as possible and urged Mr. Turner to attend the meeting which is scheduled. * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE WEED ABATEMENT Mayor Taylor stated that the hearing is open for the discussion of the weed abatement pro- gram, which is an annual function of the City. A representative of the ~ly Cross Lutheran Church stated they have been in the process of demolishing an old building which has produced a large amount of rubbish. This has been going on since last August and has become an eyesore; however, due to lack of organized help the process of removing this rubbish is slow and he questioned if the program would apply to this rubbish, which they are trying to remove as fast as possible. He stated also that the companies which dug holes for swimming pools adjacent to the church property, dumped this dirt on their land and they have tried to get them to grade it to no avail. CM-25-206 April 24, 1972 Mayor Taylor suggested that Captain Clelland from the Livermore Fire Department be contacted and asked to inspect the property to determine whether or not this time scale would apply to them. (Public Hearing Weed Abatement) The representative stated that Captain Clelland has been by on numerous occasions and understands their problem, but that he would like the Council to be aware of their predicament and to explain that they cannot afford to have the debris hauled away. At this time Councilman Pritchard moved that the public hearing be closed, as there was no other testimony; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. The City Manager stated that he could ask Captain Clelland to ask the contractor to withhold action until the last possible moment in order to allow the church property to be cleared of rubbish by the members. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 44-72 Weed Abatement A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND DIRECTING THE SUPER- INTENDENT OF STREETS TO CAUSE SAID PUBLIC NUISANCE TO BE ABATED. * * * With the filing of Tract 2636 ~n easement was obtained to permit a temporary turnaround. The subject street has since been extended and the easement is no longer needed. Authorization of Quitclaim Deed Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to abstain from voting on the resolution as he resides within 300 feet of the property mentioned. RESOLUTION NO. 45-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED (Portion of st. Mary Drive) * * * In accordance with City Council directive an annexation agreement has been executed by Sears Roebuck and Co. The agreement assures the pay- ment of annexation fees if the property ever reverts to residential use. Annexation Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 46-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Sears, Roebuck and Co.) * * * It has been recommended that the Council adopt Resolution Declaring a resolution declaring intent to obligate TOPICS Intent (TOPICS Funds Funds to the City for the 1972-73 fiscal year and to allocate funds from City to County for the fiscal year 1971-72. These federal monies are to be used for study and improvement projects for safety items. The City joins others in the County to pool monies and a credit is reserved by the contributing local agency. Our City is required CM-25-207 April 24, 1972 (TOPICS Funds) to obligate the monies and in return allocate this fiscal year's sum to the County, which is the coordinating agent in this process. RESOLUTION NO. 47-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DECLARING INTENT TO OBLIGATE FISCAL YEAR 1971-72 AND 1972-73 TOPICS ALLOCATIONS AND ASSIGNING FISCAL YEAR 1971-72 TOPICS ALLOCATIONS TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. * * * Application for This resolution would merely compliment the pre- TOPICS Funds vious resolution whereby the State has budgeted $12 million ($20,404 for our City) for funds to be spent on construction for the frselect system" in lieu of the federal TOPICS grant. This is for the 1972-73 fiscal year and its only purpose is to ease the allocation process to local agencies. It is recommended that the resolution be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 48-72 A RESOLUTION APPLYING FOR 1972-73 TOPICS APPORTIONMENT IN "WASHED" DOLLARS. * * * It was reported by the City Manager that pending federal legislation, HR 11950 is in need of sup- port of local government throughout the nation. This measure initiated by the House Committee on Ways and Means may receive House support. The National League of Cities urges us to impress our Congressman with our supportive views, and it has been recom- mended that a resolution be adopted urging Congressional support of HR 11950. Report re Federal Revenue Sharing Legisla- tion RESOLUTION NO. 49-72 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HR 11950 * * * Report re SB 874 This legislation seems to impose unreasonable contingency liability on the City. It is re- commended that a motion to authorize our oppo- sition be made. * * * Report re Flashing Signals A report, requested by the City Council, was sub- mitted by the Public Works Director regarding flashing signal operations at various intersec- tions, and was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * Communication re Speed Limits A letter was received from State Senator Lawrence Walsh, regarding minimum speed limits on State highways, city and county roads, and was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * CM-25-208 A letter was received from Governor Reagan urging endorsement and support of Proposition No.2 for the sale of bonds for schools. It was suggested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * A letter received from the Veterans Day Commis- sion, County of Alameda, requesting funds was referred to the Chamber of Commerce. * * * Minutes of the meeting of the Housing Authority for March 21 were submitted for the Council's review. * * * April 24, 1972 Communication re Sale of Bonds Request for Funds Veterans Day Comm. Housing Authority Minutes There were two hundred four claims in the amount Payroll and Claims of $325,666.60, dated April 20, and two hundred thirty-seven payroll warrants in the amount of $58,101.72, dated April 7 presented to the Council and ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * Departmental reports were submitted as follows: Departmental Reports Airport - Activity and Financial - March Building Inspector - Permits Issued April 16 thru 19 Emergency Services - January/March Fire Department - March Golf Course - March Library - January/March Municipal Court - March Police and Pound Departments - March Water Reclamation Plant - March * * * It was moved by Councilman Beebe that the Con- sent Calendar be approved, with the abstention of Councilman Pritchard and the removals for discussion noted; seconded by Councilman Miller and which received the unanimous approval of the * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the Planning Com- mission initiated the rezoning of properties located on either side of the Arroyo Mocho be- tween the Southern Pacific Railroad and Holmes Street, and recommended that a hearing be set for May 15. Approval of Consent Calendar Council. REPORTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION (Rezoning Arroyo Mocho Area) On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the hearing was set for May 15. * * * Mayor Taylor stated it has been requested that the CUP application submitted by James D. Clark to allow general retail use within E, CO and CO-H Districts for the property located west and south of the ARCO Service Station at the intersection of Stanley and Murrieta Boulevards be continued until May 15, as Mr. Clark was not able to be present at this meeting. CUP Application (James D. Clark) CM-25-20g April 24, 1972 (cup - Clark) Councilman Futch moved to continue the matter (Purchase of of the CUP application as well as the recommenda- Property-Arroyo tion re the purchase of property along the Arroyo Mocho) Mocho (also a related item on the agenda) to May 15th, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimous- ly by the Council. * * * and required no The Planning Director explained that the report regarding the channel study and improvement, main- tenance in its "true" natural form and other con- siderations, is not a part of the Clark matter particular action on the part of the Council. REPORT RE CHANNEL STUDY Councilman Futch felt that Item 1 on the second page of the report was a bit confusing and stated it should read, "... establish the flow capability of the channel", rather than, ".. .the runoff capa- bility of the Gillice property". Councilman Miller concurred with the Planning Commission's recom- mendation that plans prepared should be submitted to them. Mayor Taylor agreed and added that at the time the Gillice property was accepted, the Council directed that whatever plans are made for that property should be consistent with the plans for the pro- perty to the east in order that they remain compatible. * * * REPORT RE TENTATIVE MAP No. 868 Mayor Taylor stated that a referral was received from the Planning Commissionre Tentative Parcel Map 868 submitted by Edward C. Smith to divide an approximate four acre parcel into two parcels, located along Holmes Street, east side approxi- mately 950 feet northerly of Wetmore Road. The Planning Director explained that this area was recently re- zoned for residential use and that the owner would like to split the lots, which the County Planning Director approves. He stated the main issue is the location as it has to do with the alignment of what will eventually be the Vallecitos-Vasco Road loop. The Planning Commission took into consideration the costs involved in developing a major road, and they decided to locate the road south of the property to prevent excessive development costs for the sub- ject property at this time and the burden of the cost would fall upon the new owners of homes located there. He mentioned also that the Commission recommends a one foot, no access easement for any future street in the area so that if there is any future develop- ment of this property an assessment district could take care of costs for the extension of the street. The lot split as requested by the owner is recommended for approval. There was some discussion regarding this one foot easement and the assessment district, and Councilman Miller suggested that the County receive the recommendation to require the owners to parti- cipate in street improvements, which they do not at this time re- quire, in order to assure that future costs will be taken care of. Councilman Beebe moved to inform the Alameda County Planning Com- mission that the Council approves of the parcel split, but would like some commitment that they will participate in an assessment district if or when it is established. He also commented that the County has allowed homes to be built so close to the road (using Marina Avenue as an example) that if the road is ever widened the people will have to move their homes. Mr. Musso stated that the County setbacks are probably fifteen feet and that they probably do not have future width lines established. CM-25-210 April 24, 1972 Councilman Beebe urged that the staff be direct- (Referral re Parcel ed to inform the County of the Marina Avenue Map No. 868) problem and that adequate setbacks be maintained to allow for future street widening, which was seconded by Councilman Miller as a part of the main motion, and received unanimous approval of the Council. Edward Smith, 1258 Shelborne Road, stated that his intention is to build two homes on the four acres and the homes will be located approximately 450 feet back from the road. The area between the home and the road will be used for pasturing horses. He stated that the City is asking that these two homes pay for street im- provements. Mayor Taylor explained that this would be required only if the property is annexed into the City and the street is extended. He stated that the City does not have sufficient funds to cover these costs and must require adjoining properties to share in the cost. Mr. Smith asked if he would then have the right to locate a street off that side street, and the Council stated he would provided he agrees to participate. * * * A referral was received from the Planning Com- mission of Alameda County re application of Roy Cooper for rezoning from MP (Industrial Park) District to RS (Suburban Residence) Dis- trict, on a site located at the southeast cor- ner of Mesquite Way and Vasco Road. COUNTY REFERRAL RE REZONING (Roy Cooper) The Planning Director explained that the Planning Commission con- curred with the reports from the Staff - that the property is not suitable for residential use and that the industrial zoning be maintained. The Commission suggests that the application be denied and that this recommendation be forwarded to the County Planning Commission. Councilman Miller moved to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial as outlined in their report dated April 20, particularly that a representative attend the hearings; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. * * * Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, and the summary of action taken at the meeting of April 18 were received. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION Councilman Beebe moved that the minutes be noted and filed, second- ed by Councilman Futch, and approved unanimously. * * * BIDS-PUMP STATION The Public Works Director explained that bids on two portions of the pump station and lines that will improve the water situation in the Springtown and Wagoner Farms area have been received, and for the automatic control valves are as follows: Edward S. Walsh Co. Allied Supply Co. Oakland Plumbing Supply Co. Water Works Supply & Mfg. Co. Groeniger & Co. $ 3,286.33 3,359.12 3,37l.64 3,377.05 3,444.33 An incomplete bid for four of the five valves was received from the Charles M. Bailey Co. in the amount of $2,884.39 CM-25-211 April 24, 1972 (Bids - Pump Station) The low bid by Edward S. Walsh Co. is recommended for acceptance by the City Council. The contract is to furnish control valves only. Installation will be by others as part of the 1972 Water Project. The bids for the Pump Station No.1 and 12 inch Transmission Main were as follows: Silva's Pipeline, Inc. Mission Pipeline, Inc. C.W. Roen Const. Co. V. N. Vukasin MGM Const. Company Power-Anderson, Inc. Pisano Bros., Inc. West Valley Const. Co. Ernest E. Pestana Inc. Wm Caprista Underground R. M. Maloney, Inc. Fremont Pipeline Const. McGuire & Hester Monterey Mechanical Co. Engineer's Estimate Alternate A $b4,12b.25 84,834.50 92,870.00 93,278.75 96,147.50 100,400.50 101,869.50 105,444.00 106,240.00 107,577.50 113,091.25 114,224.50 121,455.75 129,084.00 105,004.00 Alternate B "$bO,922.00 83,338.25 88,595.00 91, 14l. 25 91,958.00 97,408.00 97,594.50 100,100.25 101,965.00 103,302.50 110,953.75 111,020.25 118,035.75 126,519.00 100,729.00 Alternate C bl,990.75 80,132.00 90,733.00 87,935.00 92,513.75 98,263.00 97,594.50 101,169.00 104,102.50 96,890.00 106,678.75 105,249.00 118,035.75 129,084.00 87,904.00 The lowest bid by Mission Pipeline, Inc. (Alternate "C") is re- commended for acceptance by the City Council in the amount of $80,132.00. Councilman Beebe moved to approve the bids made by Mission Pipeline, Inc. and Edward S. Walsh Company for the two portions involved, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and received unanimous approval. * * * REPORT RE The City Manager submitted a report indicating SACEOA the status of SACEOA as a CAP agency. Mr. Parness explained that this matter has been brewing for some time and, in the opinion of many observers, the agency has not performed satisfactorily in many areas. It has been subjected to detailed investigation by federal and state offices and as a result the report has been received by him and other cities that constitute its membership, that the Governor has until April 27 to veto funding for this year. He stated in all likelihood the Governor will veto the funding and this City is attempting to announce to the Governor that in the event he decides to take this course of action, the City feels it is a necessary and important program and would like to actively participate in its reconstitution - hope- fully the other seven cities involved will respond also. Councilman Beebe moved that the Council endorse the position paper submitted by the City Manager; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard who stated he would like to have a copy of the letter sent to SACEOA. Motion was approved unanimously by the Council. Mayor Taylor stated he would not read the letter but would note that the Council had received it on behalf of the Chairman of the Nursery School Scholarship Fund, which is assisted by SACEOA, and that it essentially states that the City should continue interest in this program because of the benefits the community receives. REPORT RE FLASHING LIGHTS * * * The report regarding flashing signal operations at various intersections was removed from the Con- sent Calendar for discussion at this time. Councilman Miller stated that he had asked that the item be dis- cussed as he had received a number of complaints regarding the CM-25-212 April 24, 1972 flashing signals at First street and North (Flashing Lights) Livermore Avenue. In his opinion, it would be worth extending the time to 11:00 p.m. for the flashing lights as it is a blind and dangerous intersection, and people keep re- questing continuance of the signalization longer than it is at present. He urged the Council to continue signalization until 11:00 p.m. or perhaps midnight at this particular intersection. Mayor Taylor stated that he is not sure the Council has the author- ity to change the time that the flashing of signals begins and Mr. Lee explained that, generally, the State will cooperate if the City feels there is an overriding reason for changing the time of signalization. Mr. Lee continued that there is an apparent hazard at that inter- section and has done some investigation as a result of complaints made. There had not been a night time accident for five years at the time of the investigation. Often if there is an apparent hazard, people tend to be cautious, making it a safe intersection at night. Councilman Miller moved that the City request the state to allow continuation of signalization until 11:00 p.m. and ask for their consideration to also continue until midnight, which was seconded by Councilman Beebe and received unanimous approval. * * * Councilman Miller stated that Senate Bill 938 is a bill to increase minimum speed limits from 25 to 35 mph. He commented that numerous com- plaints have been heard from people on Holmes Street and Portola Avenue that the speed limits are too high on these streets and he suggested that a letter be sent to Senator Walsh pointing out these types of problems, ultimately opposing bills increasing minimum speed. This was taken as a motion, se- conded by Councilman Pritchard, and received unanimous approval. COMMUNICATION RE SPEED LIMITS * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the communication from Governor Reagan regarding Proposition No. 2 for the sale of bonds for schools had been removed from the Consent Calendar, and asked why it had been removed. RE PROPOSITION NO.2 BONDS FOR SCHOOLS Councilman Pritchard stated that he asked for its removal because he was not sure if not removing it meant automatic approval of the Council, or if the Council should take some type of action. Mayor Taylor moved that the Council endorse Proposition 2, se- conded by Councilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor explained that this proposition would authorize the sale of $350 million of general obligation bonds to the state, of which $250 million would go to schools and the $100 million balance would be used for the school building aid program in rapid growth, low wealth districts of which Livermore is one. The Council voted their unanimous approval of the motion at this time. * * * The City Attorney asked that a proclamation be issued proclaiming May 1 to be Law Day. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Law Day Proclamation) * * * CM-25-213 April 24, 1972 (Welcome to Grand Worthy President F.O.E.) PROCLAMATION BICYCLE WEEK LARPD- Committee Meeting On motion of Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 50-72 A RESOLUTION WELCOMING GRAND WORTHY PRESIDENT OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES - Ken Stewardson * * * The City Clerk read a proclamation issued earlier this evening proclaiming May 1 through 7 to be Livermore Bicycle Week. * * * The City Manager stated that LARPD would like to meet with the City Council committee and asked that they choose a date to meet. Mayor Taylor stated that the committees should be reorganized and asked that if there are any recommendations, they should be presented to him before the next meeting. In response to the City Manager's request that the date be chosen to meet with LARPD, Councilmen Beebe and Miller stated they would meet with them on May 17. Mayors' Con- ference & Meeting Schedules * * * The City Manager stated that notice has been given to the Council regarding the Mayors' Conference to be held on May 10, which is a special session and he urged that all Councilmen attend. He ex- plained it is a labor seminar to be followed by the regular meeting and will be held in Newark at 4:30 p.m. The City Manager informed the Council of a meeting to be held on April 28 - the East Bay Division of the League, to be held in San Leandro and added that the program looks very good and is for all members of the Council. He also informed them of a meeting to be held in San Diego - the New Mayors and Councilmen's Institute, to be held May 17 through 19. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Exotic Animal Ordinance) * * * Councilman Pritchard stated he was not too excited about the exotic animal ordinance; possibly some day there might be a monkey or leopard in town, but wondered if this necessitated an ordinance of its own. ~ Mayor Taylor asked if there was a need for this ordinance, and Councilmen Miller and Beebe felt that other cities do have an ordinance of this type and if it is on the books it would alleviate any problems that might come up in the future. Mayor Taylor commented that since there is an interest in the ordi- nance, it should appear on the agenda as scheduled. (AB 206-Binding Arbitration) CM-25-214 * * * Councilman Pritchard stated he had noticed an item on the bulletin of April 20th regarding AB 206 - binding arbitration. He stated he be- lieves they went on record as opposing that bill. The City Manager stated they opposed the bill last year, but it went through the Assembly Committee and has been referred to the Senate Committee and he was waiting to find out the date before getting the Council's permission to oppose April 24, 1972 (AB 206) of the hearings it. Councilman Pritchard felt they should make their opposition known to the City Manager, then he could handle it as it comes up, which was made as a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Pritchard asked the Planning Director (Garage Sales) why Item 2 of his memorandum regarding garage sales was not being enforced having to do with display of property not in view of the street. Mr. Musso explained it was hard to enforce rules regarding garage sales as they usually occur on weekends. Councilman Miller commented that he had noticed a sign on Anza Way indicating a garage sale, for a number of weeks; whether or not the garage sale continued he was not sure. However, if one has a sale for a living then he should have a license and pay a business license fee. Discussion followed with Councilman Beebe suggesting that the Police Department be notified to inform people it is illegal to have garage sales consecutively. The Council questioned signs advertising garage sales in the public right of way and on tele- phone poles, and felt this is a violation of the sign ordinance and the Police Department should be instructed to remove such signs. * * * Councilman Pritchard stated that AB 1195, by Quimby would seem to preempt the Council's prerogative to control mobilehomes in the community. He, therefore, moved to oppose that bill, seconded by Councilman Miller and the motion was approved unanimously. (AB 1195 - Control of Mobilehomes and Parks) * * * Councilman Pritchard brought up Item 7 of the legislative bulletin regarding Senate Bill 437 regarding campers being used as living quarters on City streets. He felt this preempts the City's prerogative regarding trailer storage and moved that the Council oppose this bill, seconded by Councilman and approved unanimously by the Council. (SB 437-Living In Campers on City Streets) Beebe * * * Councilman Futch stated they have been discuss- (Unsafe Intersection) ing the safety at intersections which brings up the problem of the crossing at Concannon and Holmes Street. It is his understanding that the City has requested the State to participate in the cost of installing a traffic signal at that intersection. It seems that the State reported the flow of traffic and accident rate had not been enough to warrant signal- ization at that intersection. In his opinion, the City has been lucky not to have had accidents at that intersection and he urged the Council to continue to press the state for signal lights at the crossing. In the meantime, it might be wise to post signs to warn approaching motorists that they are coming to an intersection, as a number of children use that intersection to get to Mendenhall CM-25-215 April 24, 1972 School. He added that it is a blind intersection and would like to see the Council take some kind of action regarding the matter and asked how close the City was to obtaining a flashing signal and what conditions are necessary to obtain automatic signaliza- tion for the intersection. Mr. Lee stated that he would look into the matter and report back to the Council. Councilman Futch asked if they couldn't hear from a representative of the state Highway for explanation as to how intersections are granted signals. Mr. Lee explained that they apparently use a traffic warrant man- ual as a system of evaluation and would probably refer the manual to the Council; however, if the Council would prefer to hear from a representative he felt that this could be arranged. Mayor Taylor agreed with Councilman Futch, in that the City has only been lucky that accidents have not already occurred, and it has been reported to him that there have been a number of near accidents. Councilman Beebe mentioned that one of the reasons the intersection is so hazardous is that traffic approaching from the south is tra- veling at a rather fast rate of speed. Councilman Miller suggested that if a representative of the State Highway Department is to attend the meeting he should take a look at the intersection before reporting to the Council. (Re Tax Legislation Conference) * * * Councilman Miller stated that in connection with the material received from the League of Califor- nia Cities, there is a statewide tax and legis- lative conference in which sales tax reallocation is to be discussed and he feels that people of Livermore would think it very nice to have sales tax come "per capita" rather than point of origin. He stated that if anyone from the Staff will be in attendance he would urge them to really push that point. (Re AB 594 - Zoning Procedures) If it extends if it imposes standing that quired to act * * * Councilman Miller mentioned AB 594 regarding zoning procedures, stating that it appears this extends the time the Council has to consider zoning ordinances, but it is not clear whether this is extending time or providing limitations. the time, then the Council should support it, but limitations they should oppose it. It is his under- this is a limitation as the Council is not now re- in a certain length of time if they do not want to. The City Attorney stated that he felt it was probably limiting, but had not gone into it thoroughly and it was decided that the matter will be reported upon by the Planning Director at a later meeting. (Re Bicycle Paths) * * * Councilman Miller stated that there is a link between Quezaltenango Parkway and Almond Avenue Park which should be completed to have a func- tional bicycle path and wondered what the status is at this time. The City Manager stated that it has been approximately two years since he talked to the owner, but at that time the price for the property was quite excessive and the improvement plans for the CM-25-216 April 24, 1972 parkway had not been completed. The Staff felt if they waited, some exchange could be made; however, it appears that this is not going to happen and he felt it might be best to proceed with tion of the property, adding that it is going to be (Bicycle Paths) the acqulsl- very expensive. Mayor Taylor suggested that perhaps the Staff should be directed to go ahead with plans for acquisition. Mr. Musso stated that since the time Mr. Parness spoke with the owner, the priority has shifted from that area to the one connect- ing South Livermore Avenue to Robertson Park, as there is no access. Councilman Miller suggested that both areas be looked into in order to see what should be done. * * * Councilman Miller introduced the subject of the business license fee revisions, stating that if there are to be changes, it must be done by approximately the 15th of May. He requested that the item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, since there were no objections, this request was felt to be order. (Re Business License Fee) and in * * * Councilman Miller mentioned that LARPD had asked (Park Development Council to consider a park development require- Fee) ment such as a fee. Various methods had been discussed as to how the fee could be obtained, and one suggestion was increase of a business license fee. He stated that if this is the chosen method, it might be of some value to consider the park development fee for the next fiscal year. He suggested that this also appear on the agenda, for if other means are not satisfactory this adoption will also have to take place by approximately May 15. He asked that the City Attor- ney discuss some of the options at the next meeting. Mayor Taylor stated if there are no objections, this item will appear on the agenda for the coming week. * * * Mayor Taylor announced that anyone who wishes to be considered for appointment to the Plan- ning Commission should notify one of the Coun- cilmen, the City Clerk or him. (Re Appointments to Planning Commissio~ * * * There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to an executive session to discuss Planning Commission appointments. ADJOURNMENT * * * . Clerk i rmore, California * * * CM-25-217 Regular Meeting of May 1, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on May 1, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor pro tempore Miller presiding. * * * RO LL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch and Miller ABSENT: Mayor Taylor * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor pro tempore Miller led the members of the Council and those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES: On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the minutes for the meetings of April 18 and 24, were approved as submitted. * * * OPEN FORUM (Traffic Control) Gary Westernoff, 496 Humboldt Way, asked what the procedure is for obtaining asphalt concrete bumpers for the purpose of restricting the speed of traffic in his neighborhood. The Public Works Director stated that the City does not use these methods for controlling traffic speed and suggested that in all probability a stricter enforcement of basic speed laws was needed. Mayor pro tempore Miller asked that the Staff check into the matter and report back to the Council. * * * (re Springtown Duck Pond) Noel Anklam, 474 Humboldt Wa~ asked what could be done to improve or restore the beautification of the little duck pond and park located in Spring- town. He stated that the ducks are literally starving and the pond has become a mud hole. Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that it is his understanding that this pond belongs to the Springtown Association not to the City or LARPD. He suggested that perhaps Mr. Anklam should contact this organization if he wishes to pursue the matter further. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Communication re Population A communication was received from the Department of Finance indicating that the estimated popula- tion of the City of Livermore on February 1, 1972 was 43,750. * * * Report re Sister City Visitation A report was submitted from the Sister City Com- mittee re 1972 visitation. This annual travel allocation for two has been approved for the past several years. It is recommended that a motion be adopted approving the expenditure of $700. * * * CM-25-218 A communication was received from Richard L. Boyd, Council candidate in the past election, offering his expertise and abilities to the City Council in accordance with his pledge to make this City a better place in which to live. instructed to send a letter of acknowledgment to * * * The Citizens for Cal-Vet Proposition 1 have asked the Council to endorse their measure in the upcoming primary election. RESOLUTION NO. 51-72 RESOLUTION ENDORSING CAL-VET PROPOSITION NO. 1 * * * The Public Works Director has reported that Tract 3293, located south of College Avenue, consisting of 19 lots, is now ready for ac- ceptance for maintenance by the City as all improvements have been installed to specification. RESOLUTION NO. 52-72 May 1, 1972 Communication from Richard Boyd The City Clerk was Mr. Boyd. Cal-Vet Measure, Proposition 1 Acceptance of Tract 3293 (C. N.Fletcher) * * A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3293 * An ordinance re collection of water connection fees was recently adopted, and the agreement with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District should now be executed. RESOLUTION NO. 53-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT * * * Departmental reports were received as follows: Summary of expenditures and revenues - January/ March Building Inspection Department - March Building Permit Issuance April 20 to 27 * * * Minutes of the Beautification Committee meet- ing of March 1 were acknowledged for filing. * * * Agreement re Collection of Water Connection Fees (Zone 7) Departmental Reports Beautification Committee Meeting Seventy-six claims in the amount of $38,923.19 Payroll and Claims dated April 28 and two hundred fifty payroll warrants in the amount of $57,912.46, dated April 21 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Taylor absent) the items on the Con- sent Calendar were approved. * * * Approval of Consent Calendar CM-25-219 May 1, 1972 REPORT RE TRAILERS The Mayor explained that the matter of the trailer and camper parking and storage was an item post- poned from the meeting of April 10, at which time the Council was unable to resolve the matter. He stated that at this time the matter is not pressing and suggested that it might be best to continue the matter until such time as there is a full Council present. Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter to May 22, se- conded by Councilman Beebe, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. * * * The City Manager reported that at the time May Nissen Park site was to be developed the storm drain fees were set at $3,031.23. An agreement was drawn requiring the payment of the fee at the completion of any storm drain development which would serve the area or ten years later and the debt is now due. An appeal has been made for the waiver of the fee, but if this cannot be legally done, that they be allowed postponement of the payment for an additional fiscal year. REPORT RE LARPD STORM DRAINAGE DEBT Councilman Pritchard moved that the Staff be directed to postpone collection of this payment for an additional fiscal year, second- ed by Councilman Futch, and approved unanimously. * * * Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that the Council had received a report from the City Man- ager regarding an east-central park. The report explained that the matter involves a decision to locate a park somewhere north of East Avenue and east of the high school property. The two sites to be con- sidered are: 1) adjacent to Vila Gulf, and 2) north of Madeira Way. REPORT RE EAST-CENTRAL PARK Mr. Parness explained the sites being considered, stating that before coming to a decision as a result of the discussions last fall, the Council had asked that the Staff investigate the matter and find out what the functional plan might be for both properties, and general cost estimates. The Planning Director described the site adjacent to the Vila Gulf area which consists of 1.31 acres. He stated that if this site is to be decided upon, it would be necessary to acquire the market in the area and also four homes adjacent to the site; this would be an estimated cost of $132,500. They have also considered mov- ing some of the homes located in Vila Gulf housing development down to the street and locating the park more to the center of the development; however, this was deemed unfeasible. He then illustrated the strip of land behind Madeira Way, which is also being considered and explained that they have thought of com- bining a primary elementary school, park and trailway in this area and that the cost would be relatively small due to the land- locked position of the site. He estimated that it could be ob- tained for as low as $40,000 and due to some of the obvious hazards in the area it would be necessary to install a chain link fence in the amount of approximately $12,000. The amount of land at this site is 10.3 acres - 2,800 feet long and one problem with this site is that neither the School District nor LARPD liked the location. Councilman Futch asked what the objections were to the strip of land, and Mr. Musso explained that LARPD felt the strip was not functional, there was limited access and there would be trouble CM-25-220 with policing the area at night, plus there was concern with the hazard of railroad tracks in the area and fear of possible derailment of the train. May 1, 1972 (East-Central Park) The City Manager explained that the Vila Gulf site was not a pro- posal made by him, but he was asked by the developers of Vila Gulf if they could use land elsewhere in the City for housing in ex- change for the land that Vila Gulf is now situated on. It was decided that the project had gone too far and a suggestion was made to use the abutting property as a park site. He stated that it seems the choices are: 1) paying a premium for a choice piece of land, 2) paying a nominal amount for a piece of land with limited functional use, or 3) not developing a park in this area at all. The Council discussed the sites and in answer to some of the ques- tions raised, Mr. Musso stated that the estimate for the strip behind Madeira Avenue included the acquisition of one home to allow access to the land, and it also included a roadway which could be used for policing the area. Mr. Parness stated that LARPD will not lease the property and de- velop it if purchased; therefore, the responsibility of developing and maintaining this piece of land would be up to the City. Councilman Beebe stated that he would not like to see the City becoming involved in the operation of parks and suggested that the staff contact LARPD and ask if they have changed their opinion and would be willing to develop the area. Mr. Parness stated they would be happy to contact LARPD and report back, and he asked if the Council wished to give further consider- ation to the East Avenue park site or just reject it as being too expensive. Councilman Beebe stated they would not acquire much land for the money, and parks to him meant land, and Mayor pro tempore Miller agreed as did the other members of the Council. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated he had thought that the medium site would have been a good location fdr a park site as it is the only open space north of East Avenue and undevelopable for houses, but he felt many problems could be solved by the City acquiring this parcel for recreational use. He did not think the idea too bad even though it was not the best shape for a park and thought it might be reasonable for the liaison committee to ask LARPD to reconsider it. Councilman Futch did not think they had an alternate to offer as it is about the only site as the other is too expensive, and it was his feeling they should attempt to negotiate with LARPD. Councilman Pritchard moved that this matter be referred to the liaison committee to discuss with LARPD, and after the Council has all of their input, a decision can be made; motion was se- conded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously. * * * The City Manager reported that in accordance with the Council's direction the matter of the business license fee adjustment has been placed on the agenda for the report from the Finance Staff, indicating three different alternatives, although there are an infinite number that could be considered, and they have also forecast what the additional financial return to the City would be if they were instituted. Mr. Parness stated that charts have been prepared which indicate the relative position REPORT RE BUSINESS LICENSE FEE ADJUSTMENT CM-25-221 May 1, 1972 (Business License Fee) of these ordinances compared to others if the Council wished to discuss these. Councilman Futch stated that at the time the Council requested this item to be placed on the agenda it was with the understanding there would be a full Council, and since the Mayor is absent, he did not feel they would reach a decision on fees tonight and moved that the matter be continued until there is a full Council present. Councilman Beebe seconded the motion and suggested that the matter be set for May 22, and that Coun- cilmen Futch and Pritchard meet with the staff and representatives from the retail merchants, and come before the Council with a re- commendation. Mayor pro tempore Miller did not feel this would allow adequate time for discussion, and suggested that the matter be continued until May 8 for consideration of the proposals, and perhaps delay the decision until the 22nd, and the other members of the Council concurred. Mayor pro tempore Miller commented that this item was on the agenda at his request because of what he felt were severe compromises made with the City's proposals for revenue last year. At the time the ordinance was adopted, a statement was made that they could review the matter again this year. One item in particular was the enor- mous inequity visited upon the smaller businesses as someone who grosses $60,000 per year in category "A" pays $1.50 per $1,000 and someone who grosses $3 million pays only 25i per $1,000. Some of the proposals are ones he had suggested which all provide for more revenue, which is needed, so as not to increase the property tax. Mayor pro tempore Miller briefly described the proposals as follows: 1) Add 25i per $1,000 for all rates, except base rate, which would mean the percentage increase would be higher for those in the higher gross bracket, but would not affect the smaller business as much and this would make the business license fee more equitable; 2) In- crease the business license fees 10%, which is heaviest again, on the small businesses; 3) Go to a uniform rate, which would generate quite a lot of money - $80,000 to $90,000, which is eight or nine cents on the tax rate; 4) Do something similar to what is being done in Modesto which has category A at $1.00 and category B at 80i and brings in $35,000 more than last year and gives most of the businessmen in town a cut because it would increase only when their gross is about $200,000 to $250,000. Councilman Beebe cautioned against doing anything which might dis- courage business in Livermore, explaining that cities bordering Livermore do not charge a business license fee. He felt that bus- inessmen are apt to locate elsewhere if the City imposes a burden on them. At this time Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion for contin- uance which was made by Councilman Futch. Dr. Donald Rocco, 1018 Murrieta Blvd stated that the businessmen in town were given a delinquency date of April 30, and he felt that it would be unfair for the City to change the business license rate after this date. At this time the Council voted their unanimous approval of the motion to continue the matter until May 8. * * * REPORT RE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT The City Manager stated that for some months there has been discussion between the City Staff, Cham- ber of Commerce and the Industrial Development Committee with regard to industrial standards, CM-25-222 May 1, 1972 particularly public works improvements. The main question has been whether or not to de- velop Southfront Road with a 72-foot wide right-of-way, leaving a 52-foot section for travel and this would necessitate property dedication and the re- location of utilities. He mentioned that the Industrial Advisory Committee has visited various industrial parks on frontage roads, has studied the situation and recommends lowering the standards for that area to a 60-foot right-of-way allowing for a 40-foot tra- vel section, subject to prohibiting onstreet parking. This 60-foot right-of-way would allow an 8-foot emergency parking lane on each side of the street as well as a 10-12 foot easement allowance, a 12 foot and 14 foot travel lane. He stated this is the recom- mendation made by the staff and has the concurrence of the Indus- trial Advisory Board for the section along Southfront Road between Vasco Road and First Street. He felt that one consideration the Council should be aware of is the fact that the present right-of-way consists of 48 feet and that power poles are in place in this area; in order to relocate these power poles there would be a substantial cost to the utility company or to the owner. The present 48 foot right-of-way would allow for a 14 foot lane, a 12 foot lane, an 8 foot emergency lane and a 10 foot utility easement and the only difference in this and what the Board concurred with is that this does not allow an 8 foot emergency parking lane on each side of the road. At any rate, the power poles will still have to be re- located, and he suggested using the existing 48 foot right-of-way. (Industrial Development) Councilman Beebe asked if the relocating could apply to all the poles at one time to allow conformity, rather than ztgzags, and the City Manager replied that this could be done. There was considerable discussion among the Council members as to whether they should require the 12 kv lines to be placed under- ground or to relocate them on poles. The City Manager felt that the cost for undergrounding is excessive for the small strip involved. Councilman Beebe stated that Brian Laney, a PG&E employee, might be able to give the Council some idea of the cost involved, as he has had some recent experience with this type of thing and thought he had priced some of the parcels on Northfront Road. Brian Laney, 145 Topaz Way, stated that he is not prepared to give detailed information as to the cost, but it has been estimated for a small parcel of land at $50.00 per foot for lines coming down a pole and rising on another pole for a very short distance. He stated that the cost for risers to come down a pole is $4,000 and the same amount to go back up a pole. He stated that the dis- tribution of cost is different for different sizes of parcels. He felt that perhaps some arrangement could be agreed upon to provide, for example, that after one mile has been developed, costs could be determined to do that stretch of undergrounding. Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that perhaps the trenching could be done at this time to help lighten the costs at the time of undergrounding. Mr. Laney explained that the majority of cost is not the trenching and conduit, but the wires involved. Mayor pro tempore Miller asked the City Manager if undergrounding of utilities after completion of development of a certain amount of land has taken place can be a condition of the agreement, to which Mr. Parness replied in the affirmative. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that he would like to see a way that, ultimately, the utilities can be placed underground without cost to the taxpayers. He would be against allowing the lines to stay up if there is a chance that in doing so the taxpayers will share the burden of the cost at the time they are placed underground. CM-25-223 May 1, 1972 (Industrial Development) Councilman Beebe felt it is reasonable that this be a condition of the approval. At this time Councilman Pritchard moved that the owners provide for the future undergrounding of the 12 kv lines, which was seconded by Councilman Futch. Mr. Ed Hutka, 1018 Angelica Way, stated that he does not agree with the PG&E in the cost estimates; it is his understanding that the pipe involved costs approximately 40i a foot and that the boxes may be $100 dollars and would be required at each property line. He felt that there would be substantial savings by putting the pipe in now; there may be some problem with PG&E's acceptance of it, but costwise he felt the cost is not that great. Mayor pro tempore Miller asked the City Attorney if this type of agreement would be binding, and the City Attorney stated that in this particular case, where a piece of property is going to have to be sewered that the City has a tool to obtain a binding agree- ment with the property owner. He felt that something should be developed in the regulations to cover other properties in the City to the effect that in addition to putting in streets, curbs, etc. for completion of the street, that the property owner relocate, at his expense, these kinds of utilities. He advised that this be done by ordinance prior to the time of attemtping to impose a re- quirement on someone who already has zoning and does not need a CUP. The Council voted 3-0 in favor of the motion, with Councilman Beebe abstaining (Mayor Taylor absent). The Council then discussed with the City Manager and Public Works Director the differences between the recommended 60 foot right-of- way and the existing 48 foot right-of-way. The City Manager showed an illustration of the area on a map and discussed the footage for the travel lanes. Mr. Lee stated that this area is to be used as a collector street and, in his opinion, a 4-1ane street is needed. He mentioned that other major streets of this type in industrial areas can become pretty congested with traffic coming to and from the industrial areas; also, there should be some consideration given to the truck traffic that could be involved. The City Manager stated that public works standards are not down graded unless it is thought to be a reasonable move. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not this will be used as a collector street. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that he can foresee traffic pro- blems in this area, and feels that four lanes of traffic would be a reasonable choice. Mike Uthe, member of the Industrial Advisory Committee, stated that the committee recommends a 60 foot overall right-of-way which will allow for a 40-foot paved street, with no parking allowed. This will give four lanes, 10 feet in width for driving with no allowance for side distance. Councilman Futch felt that the recommendations of the Industrial Advisory Committee seem reasonable, and in view of the fact they have spent a lot of time looking into this matter, he felt the Council should accept their recommendation. He made a motion to establish a 60 ft. right-of-way, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and it was approved unanimously. * * * CM-25-224 May 1, 1972 The City Manager briefly paraphrased the report regarding the administration of the SAVE ordi- nance and expressed his concern, as well as the Staff's, that with the advent of the new law which became effective April 28, it is essential that the Council consider policy decisions that will guide the Staff in administering the law. He stated that the three public facilities mentioned in the ordinance need this type of adminis- trative direction; each necessitates some type of measuring device that has to be applied by whatever authority might be the proper one, in the opinion of the Council. He felt that one aspect of the administration of the water section should be considered, particularly, as there are more than enough permits that have been issued already which would cause the peak demand of the water to be exceeded at such time as all of these permits have been used and the homes occupied, which is anticipated to be during the sum- mer of 1973. He asked the Council members to consider what would be a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the drafters of this law in order that there might be administrative guidelines set up, and asked that they do this at their leisure during the next week. REPORT RE SAVE ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION The City Attorney commented that he felt the City Manager's report had covered most of the essential issues with the exception of two minor problems: a policy statement by the Council as to 1) enlargements and alterations, and 2) swimming pools and the fill- ing of these pools during critical times. He asked that the Coun- cil consider these two problems as well and that possibly they could have an answer to these by next week. There was some discussion as to whether building permits should be denied on the basis of the Council's limitation of 1500 build- ing permits as of November 8, 1971, which the City Manager re- ported has been reached, or because of the SAVE ordinance. Councilman Futch moved to deny building permits on the basis of the ordinance restricting the number until the Council determines the intent of the SAVE ordinance. Councilman Pritchard suggested that the Council hold a study session for discussing the administration of the SAVE ordinance as there are many problems to be resolved, and he seconded the motion made by Councilman Futch. The City Attorney advised the Council that the City is in litiga- tion and there are things that should be discussed in executive session, and he felt it might be advisable to have an executive session before the meeting next Monday or at such time as the Council might elect. Councilman Beebe stated his feeling that both ordinances should be used; however, Councilman Pritchard stated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Council was much safer using the 1500 permit limit to deny permits, and Mr. Lewis added that in view of the fact that everything has not been settled that is the correct conclusion since we are definite on that ordinance. The motion was then voted on and passed 3-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. The City Attorney stated with regard to swimming pool permits, the Building Official may have some requests this week, and he asked if the Council's direction would be that he be allowed to issue this type of permit unless he is advised otherwise. Councilman Beebe questioned if this permit can be granted in view of the SAVE ordinance, and when Mr. Lewis replied negatively, he said this should be the answer. CM-25-225 May 1, 1972 ( SAVE Ordinance Administration) Mr. Lewis advised that it was not the intent of the promoters of SAVE to include this kind of re- striction, and Councilman Beebe agreed it was not the intent, however that is what the citizens voted for. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that if swimming pool permits are pending and there may be a problem, this aspect should be discussed. Councilman Futch stated he did not feel this was the intent, and felt that the Council would have to interpret the intent of the SAVE ordinance because it is not spelled out in detail; the intent was new residential. Councilman Pritchard questioned the City Attorney about the date the ordinance became effective, which was stated te be April 28; therefore, he felt it was safe to say the water section is defi- nitely in effect now. Mr. Lewis stated if that is his conclusion, then obviously we should be denying permits on both ordinance grounds - the water and SAVE initiative. Mr. Parness stated that there is a questionable type of interpre- tation that can be applied with respect to water, schools or any of it, which would say what is the situation effective at the time a person applies for a building permit. If there is water ration- ing in effect at that time, then the SAVE ordinance technically should be applicable; there is another interpretation, which says that if it can be forecast there is to be a water shortage next month or two months from now there is to be a water shortage or a school housing shortage, then no building permits should be issued in view of that. No one really knows which interpretation is appro- priate, i~s how you think it should be applied. Councilman Futch questioned the amount of water that a swimming pool would use after it is filled compared to a typical amount that might be used for watering a lawn. Mr. Lee stated he would have to make a calculation but it might be something like three-fourths inch per day for evaporation, and Councilman Beebe stated a swimming pool company quoted about 110 gallons per day evaporation, which Mr. Lee felt might be pretty realistic. Councilman Pritchard stated that under the circumstances he would withdraw his vote on the motion, as he felt we should use the SAVE ordinance as reason for not issuing permits, and another vote was taken on the motion, which failed 2-2 with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting (Mayor Taylor absent). Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council use both the SAVE in- itiative ordinance and the Council's 1500 permit limit ordinance as basis for denying building permits, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Michael Uthe stated, in terms of a report they have read from the City Engineer and the City Staff, the City was essentially in a water rationing position when 1200 building permits were issued, not 1500. Further, the Council is worried about SAVE becoming the controlling document of law when the limit on the previous ordinance has already been reached. He would claim at this time that the earlier ordinance controls since the limits have already been exceeded by at least 300 houses, and he did not see where a few swimming pools, plus or minus, mean anything of substance in terms of the position in which this City finds itself. The SAVE ordinance never had anything to do with modifications, alterations, additions or anything else and everyone present knows that, but the City is already over the SAVE limit so why not stand on the ground the Council believes legally to be very safe, and take it CM-25-226 May 1, 1972 from there and use SAVE as a backup. The com- bination of the two ordinances in a court of law could cause the City great trouble, not because the City would lose as he thought they would win both, but the City would be combining roll, so to speak, and there would be no option (SAVE Ordinance Administration) both dice in one left. Councilman Pritchard spoke to Mr. Uthe's remarks, stating it was the initiative that placed the Council in the position it is now in as the Council was forced by initiative to place the matter on the ballot, and the people have spoken. With regard to swimming pools being irrelevant does not hold water as he felt the amount indicated would mean someone could not water their lawn. Mr. Uthe stated Councilman Pritchard was very right on that as the Council is 300 permits over the limits now, and the reason this happened is that it took so much time through due process to get the SAVE ordinance initiated that the developers of the community took out permits wholesale and banked them; he did not think this could be denied as it was an existing fact, and they will be built over the next year or so, not in the next thirty days. Mr. Uthe continued that the SAVE ordinance speaks to new residen- tial building permits and every month the Council receives a report regarding the number of building permits for new structures, modi- fications, alterations and additions. The City Code does not even define what a dwelling unit building permit is, nor a residential building permit, so they had a difficult time drafting the SAVE ordinance and finding some kind of code which could be used for definition; they finally went to the general plan which is in the petition and which was used for definition; they had no other recourse. Everyone knows what a new house is. If a person's house burns down, he is not building a new house, but replacing one that he has lost which is different than building a 100 new houses in a row. He concluded by saying that the City Council preempted SAVE by many months, and again suggested that they be taken one at a time and not combined. Councilman Pritchard stated he was not in disagreement with what Mr. Uthe had stated; also, he was not in disagreement with what SAVE is saying and he agreed with the intent. Since the SAVE ordinance took effect April 28, and since the people voted for it, he was merely pushing for its early implementation. Dr. Donald Rocco stated he merely wished to echo Councilman Prit- chard's sentiments about the SAVE ordinance that went into effect; the Council is now obligated by the people who put Councilmen Miller and Futch in office, and they have both stated they would invoke the SAVE ordinance. There is a question about the statements made by Mr. Uthe, as to whether or not they were in effect. Mr. Uthe is not an attorney; Mr. Lewis is and he has stated these things would not be allowed as far as the interpretation by law is con- cerned; therefore, he did not feel the Council was obligated to accept Mr. Uthe's interpretation of the SAVE ordinance. If the SAVE ordinance is not honored, he felt the new Councilmen would be lIcopping outll. Councilman Futch stated that he had no intention of voting for additional residential building permits, which he felt was the intent of the SAVE ordinance. He felt it was academic as to which one is given as the reason for denying a permit, and the City At- torney would be happier defending the previous ordinance. Councilman Beebe stated he could not understand the reluctance to deny any of the permits on the basis of the water control ordinance, plus the SAVE ordinance and went on to state that if he were to apply for a building permit and it was denied on the basis of water shortage, then found out they had just issued a number of swimming pool permits, he would be concerned and angry. CM-25-227 May 1, 1972 (SAVE Ordinance Mr. Uthe explained that the City of Pleasanton Administration) has continued to issue swimming pool permits even after the cease and desist order of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The court order has not been in effect as regards to modifications, additions or changes even as it involves swimming pools. We must understand where the big risk in SAVE is legally, it has not to do with water; it has to do with schools and is most likely where it will be tested. To allow an opinion to transfer from water to schools will be a great error because we are faced with a water problem. We also should not be inclined to combine measures. If these were a set of ordi- nances passed by the City Council, it would be required by a court of law. In this instance there is a Council ordinance and the people voted for the other one. Mr. Lewis stated these are the kind of things he wanted to discuss in an executive session - tactics, strength and weaknesses of the positions they should take. They can bring us into court on the SAVE initiative, whether we deny a permit or not. He agreed with Mr. Uthe, that the framers of the SAVE initiative did not consider some of the things discussed regarding swimming pools and so on. They must reach a decision and he would like to discuss this in an executive session. If the Council did not want to make a decision on whether SAVE is to be effective now or later, it would give them time for an executive session; if the Council wanted to make it effective that is also their prerogative; what they are really talk- ing about is what to advise the Building Official. Mayor pro tempore Miller gave his interpretation of the City Attor- ney's statements to mean that the delay until they have an executive session with all the Council present is not going to make much dif- ference as far as SAVE is concerned because the existing ordinance is in effect and it makes the question essentially moot. The only question that might arise is as regards swimming pools and they do not know yet about the effect of 8wimming pools as they do not have the calculations to know what interpretation they need to apply about the issuance of building permits, so it is not unreasonable to continue the matter until they have an executive session. He felt the original motion was better; the motion on the floor is to reverse the decision as it was moved to use both ordinances. Councilman Beebe suggested that they continue the matter for one week, and Councilman Pritchard withdrew his motion. Mayor pro tempore Miller suggested that they can discuss later the other aspects of the memo, and entertained a motion to this effect. Councilman Beebe made the motion that the discussion be continued until next Monday, seconded by Councilman Futch, and it was approved unanimously, and the Council agreed to meet at 7:00 p.m. on May 8 for an executive session having to do with possible litigation. * * * REPORT RE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE At the Council's instruction a staff investigation has been made regarding capital improvement fees, having to do with a park development fee, etc. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated this was done at his request and he asked the City Attorney if the park development fee, as proposed, had to be adopted before the fiscal year or whe- ther it could be adopted later depending on other circumstances and still be in effect without preempting them to wait a full year. Mr. Lewis stated it can be delayed until any point in the year that the Council wished to adopt it; in effect, it is an addition and he did not think it would interfere from a mechanical process with the adoption and administration of the regular licensing fee. He did not feel there would be a problem if the Council wished to put it off to another time. CM-25-228 Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that since he had requested the report, he would like to table the matter indefinitely if it was agreeable with the Council. May 1, 1972 (Capital Improve- ment Fee) A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and passed unanimously, to table the matter indefinitely and it was suggested that perhaps it could be discussed at the budget session. Mr. Lewis advised the Council that if this should be adopted later, the fees would not be retroactive. * * * The Public Works Director explained that the pre- liminary plans for Mines Road extension has to do with its ultimate location in the vicinity of the intersection with First street and indi- cated on the map that it comes up to Tesla Rd. and will proceed north to the southwest corner of the Wagoner Farms development and then be extended to First street. There are tentative plans for development along First Street, and he felt it was appropriate at this time to discuss more precisely where Mines Road will be located ultimately. He explained further the general plan in this respect and stated that in previous dis- cussions relative to major streets in this area he had proposed that Mines Road tie into Las Positas Road, as it forms a natural loop street along the northern part of the City, south of the freeway. He stated that the Western Pacific Railroad track rises in the area and passes over the Southern Pacific tracks, and he felt the ideal location would be for the street to continue generally north and then tie into Las Positas. It creates the need for a grade separation earlier than it would at the other location (to the west), but it would be better functionally. If the grade separation remains as indicated on the general plan, it is possible that the road could be extended north across First Street and go through kind of a draw in the hill area and tie into Las Positas Road at that point. Possibly the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission. REPORT RE PRELIM- INARY PLANS FOR MINES RD EXTENSION Mr. Parness stated that the Planning Commission has considered this project in the past and all of the considerations have not been answered, but the question was raised as the result of an applicant, who wishes to speak to the Council, as he has struc- tures he would like to erect along First Street which will possibly be intersected by this street. He stated that even though there has not been a full Staff analysis they have presented some of the facts to the Council for their opinion. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that he felt the Council would not be able to come to a decision at this time, but would be glad to hear from the applicant, Mr. Hutka. Mr. Hutka described to the Council the area south of First Street east of Trevarno Road where he intends to develop, and stated that it would be unwise to run the road to the railroad tracksll later it is not feasible to cross the tracks. He stated that he has no objection to the road going to the tracks, but felt that the City should be obligated to cross the railroad tracks and give citizens a way to cross over to the landlocked area and some way to cross to First Street. He felt that another alternative might be to extend Hillcrest Avenue. He stated that his main concern is for providing a crossing at the railroad tracks. He also stated that he must start construction within six weeks or lose a contract for one customer. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that an extension of Hillcrest Ave. would be very nice but not plausible as the street is too narrow CM-25-229 May 1, 1972 (Mines Road Extension) and cannot serve the purpose. He mentioned the loop street, as discussed by Dan Lee, which loops around and connects with Murrieta Blvd, stating that this plan had been rejected by the Council and the Planning Commission previously. He stated that one of the reasons for the rejection is the enormous cost involved. He urged that this item be placed on the agenda for the next week, with a recommendation, in order that Mr. Hutka can be advised. Mr. Lee stated that if the Council does not wish to connect Las Positas with Murrieta Blvd. he would advise the plan as shown in the general plan which is the westerly alignment. Mr. Hutka was advised that the Council would try to come to a de- cision next week. The City Attorney commented that with regard to the industrial and commercial activities it should be determined by the Public Works Department whether the applications are for a high or low water use, bearing in mind that under the water ordinance high water users are prohibited. REPORT RE Z.O. AMENDMENT (Developable Floor Area) * * * Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the Planning Commission has requested that the Council consider a possible amendment to Section 5.43 of the Zoning Ordinance (maximum developable floor area and floor area definition), but felt the matter should be tabled until there is a full Council present. Councilman Pritchard moved to table the matter, which was seconded by Councilman Futch and approved unanimously. COMMUNICATION RE LAND ACQUISITION Valle; he felt for filing. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT RE AB 594 * * * Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the Council had received a copy of a letter from the Planning Commission which was sent to the California Re- creation and Park Commission regarding LARPD's request to acquire lands along the Arroyo Del that this needed no discussion and could be noted * * * Minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of April 18 were received and noted for filing. * * * Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the Planning Director had submitted a report regarding AB 594 regarding the time limits for zoning matters and asked Mr. Musso if he had additional comments. Mr. Musso stated his feeling that the report was self explanatory but briefly summarized that the time limit has been established to protect the public. He stated that this is important where the Council does not have the option for denial (such as a zoning use permit) when everything is in conformance with the ordinance. Councilman Pritchard felt that this Council is well within the re- gulations of the proposed ordinance and if it passes it will have little affect on this Council in that they do not try to delay de- cisions of this nature. Councilman Futch agreed, stating that the length of time allowed is more liberal than the time the Council needs. CM-25-230 Councilman Beebe moved that no action be taken regarding AB 594 as the Council's present poli- cies comply; this motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Futch. May 1, 1972 (AB 594) Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that at present there are no time limitations and would prefer that this freedom remain, but felt that it was not important enough to argue. He stated that the zoning ordinances were sometimes tricky and that often, time is needed for consideration. A vote was taken on the motion which passed 3-1 with Mayor pro tempore Miller dissenting. * * * The Public Works Director informed the Council that the traffic signals at the intersection of First street and North Livermore Avenue, which were discussed last week, have been changed to extend the automatic signalization to 11:00 p.m. rather than 10:00 p.m. as has been the policy in the past, and the state is checking into the matter to determine whether or not this can be extended until midnight. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY THE STAFF (Flashing Signals) The City Attorney stated that in the past the (Train Speed) public has asked about the railroad speeds. He explained that he has not as yet received a reply from the PUC as to whether or not they set their own speeds, but he has done some research on the matter and feels that the City will have a chance to help regulate the speed of trains traveling through Livermore. * * * Councilman Beebe suggested that the Staff check with the assessor to determine whether it is correct or not to assess open space as part of lots adjacent to it. He stated that this could be an emphatic way to assist in open space if it is not taxed too high. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Assess- ment of Open Space) The City Attorney stated that he would check into the matter but felt that there would have to be some parceling of the lot before the assessor could put different values on the open space. * * * Councilman Pritchard stated with regard to the legislative bulletin they received prior to the meeting that he would like the City Attorney to give the Council his recommendation to Item 4 (SB 1405). (Legislative Matters) Councilman Pritchard also brought up SB 715 regarding compensating zoning (Item 6 in the bulletin) and asked if the City Attorney had any comments. The City Attorney stated that he is a little concerned that the Legislature may be indirectly stating, in effect, that open space means compensation is due. He stated that he will have to study the matter further, but in the meantime a letter should be sent to the Senator stating the City's concern and that considerable study should be made regarding the matter. * * * CM-25-231 May 1, 1972 (Blue Cross Insurance) same appeal was tain a revision Councilman Pritchard had asked if Blue Cross was in violation of the Internal Revenue Service guide- lines, to which Mr. Parness stated that the City is awaiting an answer from IRS and added that the made by the City of Oakland, who were able to ob- in rates as a result of their appeal. * * * Councilman Pritchard stated that he has noticed that our local hospital released a statement to the press with regard to their objection of tak- ing needy cases into the hospital. He stated that in his opinion the hospital is not truly a community hospital as long as they refuse to care for certain people, and suggested that a resolution be directed to the hospital to ser- iously consider the implications of refusing to give aid to certain individuals, when they are receiving federal funds for the imple- mentation of their services. (Local Hospital Policy) The City Manager asked if the Staff could be directed to inquire of the hospital staff what is behind the article and then report back, to which the Council agreed that the matter should be checked further. Councilman Futch agreed that the hospital should take care of the needs of all the citizens in Livermore, whether or not they can afford the hospital fees, as it is not always possible for them to go to another hospital. He felt that perhaps the hospital refuses certain cases that cannot pay in order to keep patient costs down as this cost might have to be added to other patients' bills in order for it to be paid. Councilman Beebe stated that this type of thing is covered in the ambulance contract and that if a person cannot pay the City pays the expenses. The matter was put over for another week in order to allow the Staff time to report back to the Council on this matter. * * * (Welcome to Visitor) Councilman Pritchard stated that if it is not out of order, he would like to welcome Arnold Trujillo to Livermore. He is an Oakland candidate to the 8th Congressional District. Mayor pro tempore Miller acknowledged Mr. Trujillo's presence, adding that the Council is happy that he could attend their meeting. * * * (Proclamation- Soccer Week) Mayor pro tempore Miller read a proclamation re- garding the California Youth Soccer Association and the State cup championship finals which stated that these finals will be held on May 6 and 7 in Livermore and that 1,000 boys actively take part in this sport, and of six clubs in Livermore, two will be representing the City in the finals, and proclaiming May 1 through 7 Soccer Week. Councilman Beebe moved to adopt the proclamation, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously. Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the committee participating in the finals has invited the Council to participate in the parade which will take place at Robertson Park on May 6 at 10:00 a.m. * * * CM-25-232 May 1, 1972 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT L(~( S=. ,:r:--~ , Mayor ) , \~ < l.~... ,-~-- City Clerk vetmore, California v /) -" APPROVE ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of May 8, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on May 8, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members, as well as those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- MINUTES cilman Miller and by a 4-1 vote in favor (Mayor Taylor abstaining as he was not present at that meeting) the minutes of May 1 were approved as submitted. * * * William Jenkins, 570 Escondido Circle, stated that several years ago the Council had agreed upon an open selection process for filling ma- jor positions such as the Planning Commission. He stated that the public has a right to know those being considered and their qualifications and would hope the Council will notify the public of this before a selection is made to fill the vacancies in the Planning Commission at this time. OPEN FORUM (Selection for Public Office) Mayor Taylor explained that an open and public interview has been conducted only once and it was considered an unsuccessful means for selection. Mr. Jenkins felt that the interviews should be open to the public, as the appointments affect the lives of every citizen in the City and they have a perfect right to be included. Councilman Miller stated that since he has been a member of the Council, one open interview has been held and one private interview CM-25-233 May 8, 1972 (Selection for Public Office) session, and the others have been chosen during an executive session by the Council. Councilman Beebe stated that if the public would like to attend open interviews he has no objection, and moved that public interviews be held, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Pritchard felt that open interviews might be beneficial in that the public would be informed as to how individuals feel about certain matters, such as zoning, etc. He stated his only concern is the length of time involved and suggested that two committees conduct the interviews. Mayor Taylor stated that if this method is to be used, it should be done immediately, as the matter is urgent in that the Planning Commission cannot function if there are vacancies. Councilman Futch stated that he would like to offer an amendment to the motion to include that the meeting be held May 9, in view of the urgency of the matter, for open interviews, and that those interested be notified of the open selection process, which was se- conded by Councilman Pritchard, and the Council voted unanimously to approve the amended motion. It was decided there wOlJ.ld be as many interviews on May 9 as time would allow and the remainder would be interviewed May 12 in the Council Chambers, if available. Mayor Taylor asked that the staff work out the details of where the interviews will be held Tuesday, May 9 and that the City Clerk tele- phone all applicants and arrange their interviews in some type of order, which met with the approval of the Council. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the City has been a participant in a major study on sewage effluent disposal methods involving the South Bay Region. This study, undertaken with the strong urging of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, has been completed by a consortium, Consoer-Bechtel. A copy of the re- port has been submitted to the Council and a representative is pre- sent to explain its contents and the role of the City as a sewage treatment agency in the matter. He stated that when the Water Quality Control Board urges the Council to act, the Council is obligated to comply, and the Council needs to compile a long range plan report for sewage in the south bay area. SPEC IAL ITEM (Sewage Effluent Methods) The Public Works Director introduced Mr. B. J. Miller, the engineer with Consoer-Bechtel, responsible for the study, who explained the south bay discharge plans and the recommended plan for the Livermore area which shows that Livermore and VCSD continue with stream dis- charge, adding that the treatment would be increased. He illustrated the recommended facilities on a view graph and stated that for the purposes of the study, they considered that the facilities presently planned for Livermore were already existing. He stated that these would include provisions for adding another 3~ mgd of treatment and ll~ mgd process which essentially removes nitrogen and also removes a very high percentage of phosphorus and metals. This would be the highest treatment of any discharger in the area which reflects the critical water problems in the Valley brought about by no dilution of streams in the Valley most of the year. He listed cost estimates which would demineralize and those which would not demineralize, whichever is deemed necessary, and would help with the problem in the Niles cone area. He summarized by listing their recommendations: 1) finding an in-Valley solution; 2) a Valley-wide waste water or- ganization; 3) a comprehensive mineral monitoring program to determine how much of the salts and minerals from this Valley percolate in the CM-25-234 May 8, 1972 Niles cone; 4) determination be made for protec- (Sewage Effluent tion of the Niles cone; 5) expansion of VCSD and Methods) treatment of Pleasanton1s waste water at VCSD; 6) continued stream discharge and 7) possible demineralization if it is determined that a salt problem exists. He gave, briefly, a synopsis of the major features of the Bay Area Sewer Services Agency now in the process of forming itself, as well as the previous information and stated that this concluded his report and he would be glad to answer any questions the Coun- cil might have. Mayor Taylor thanked Mr. Miller for his presentation and stated that this would be something to be taken up by the Council at a later session after the Council has had time to review the matter. He commented that for some time it has been thought that a pipeline which would empty waste into the Bay would be the answer for the Valley, but it appears that this is not the suggestion of the study. He also mentioned that BASSA is an organization with a lot of force and has the authority to take matters into its own hands, if in its judgment the Valley is not doing its job. He felt that one of the worst things that could happen to the Valley would be the formation of a "BART" by an outside agency for the sewage pro- blems and force the installation of a pipeline to the Bay. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that State statute pro- vides for a public hearing for the purpose of receiving protests or questions regarding the repair amounts, and foJ_lowing conduct of this hearing the subject property owners have five days in which to pay the assessment or it will be placed as a lien on their property, payable with taxes. At the option of the City Council owners may request installment payment over five years with 6% interest. To date there have been five applications for this method of payment. PUBLIC HEARING RE SIDEWALK REPAIRS Mr. Lewis further explained that there is a section in the Streets and Highways Code which states that if the Council wishes to pro- vide people the right to pay in installments the payment of the assessment, which must be more than $100 to qualify, the Council must make provision for that before it confirms the assessment, by a separate resolution. Mayor Taylor asked the staff if there are protests, are they pre- pared to investigate each protest to determine if the charge is excessive, and Mr. Lee replied they are, but he felt they could answer most questions this evening. Mr. Lewis added that the hear- ing may be continued from time to time if there is anything the Council wishes to have investigated to allow for a report from the staff. The mayor declared the public hearing open at this time. Dr. Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia Avenue, stated he had repaired his own sidewalk prior to the t Me the issue occurred, however he did not repair the concrete gutter in the street, but did partially repair the curb to remedy the rise; however there was a rise in the street and he wanted to know the criteria for charging him for the street and the curb, as the contractor tore out the whole curb and gutter after he had repaired the curb, for which he was billed. Mr. Lee explained that the Streets and Highways Code provides that the homeowner be assessed for the repair of curbs, gutters and sidewalks if they are defective or if they are hazardous and obstruct the flow of water. In this particular case they were found to be sufficiently irregular so that they fell under the criteria for repair and the property was subsequently posted. CM-25-235 May 8, 1972 (Public Hearing Sidewalk Repair) Mr. Lee stated that some of the property owners were able to correct the hazard by several in- genious methods, but these methods do not lend themselves well to contracting and were not used. Dr. Rocco stated he could not accept the flow pattern of the water as the reason as water does not flow uphill, and questioned the hazard, and Mr. Lee explained the work was done on the basis of the criteria used. Dr. Rocco insisted his curb was perfectly smooth, and he did not feel the street was his responsibility. He felt the only way he could prove his point was by a photograph and felt the assessment was indeed too high since the work was not ne- cessary. Mayor Taylor asked the staff to investigate the possibility of an unwarranted repair with regard to this property; however, Mr. Lee felt that, in his opinion, the repair was justified in that the hazard was corrected and felt that perhaps there was some misunder- standing in communication. Dr. Rocco stated that he had taken care of the repairs requested of him by the City and that upon inspection he was told that everything was fine, only to come home one day to a curb that was ripped apart by the City and this he could not understand. Viktor Hampel, 1143 Canton Avenue, asked permission to read a state- ment in protest of the sidewalk repairs, which has been signed by several hundred homeowners in the City. After receiving this per- mission he read the letter of protest which charged that the City had been in error by not looking ahead to the potential problems which resulted in damage caused by trees and which the City does not accept the responsibility of paying for these damages. He stated that they would ask that the City change their attitude with respect to the repair of sidewalks and discontinue placing the burden of the cost of repair on individuals. He stated that the cities of Richmond, Hayward, San Mateo, Berkeley and Tracy take care of sidewalk repairs as well as street repairs, suggesting that if these repairs were planned and done a little at a time, the cost would remain minimal. He also read SB 490, which if it passes, will require that the side- walk repair will be the responsibility of the cities and counties throughout California. Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney if this is a protest against the amount of the assessment, or that there was an assessment, to which the City Attorney commented that it seems to be in the nature of a complaint that the City was negligent in acts involving street trees. Mayor Taylor stated that if the City changes policy and intends to take over the cost of repairs and maintenance of sidewalks, this would be provided for at the budget session; however, if it becomes a requirement by the State law, or if the suit against the City which Mr. Hampel is filing is successful, arrangements will have to be made. John McGregor, 356 Edythe Street, stated that he has a piece of pro- perty on Park Street on which work was done by the City and, in his opinion, is shoddish and should not be accepted. He explained that during the sidewalk repair two plate glass windows were damaged due to flying rocks, and for these two reasons he is voicing his protest. The City Attorney suggested that if the windows were damaged as a result of the repair, that he file a claim against the City in or- der to receive any compensation which might be due him. Mr. Lee stated that the work had been inspected and although it was not the best, it was accepted. CM-25-236 May 8, 1972 Al Taylor, 1126 Farmington Way, stated that he has property located at 135 Vista Street and complained about the length of time the City took in repairing the sidewalk and that a ha- zard was created by the debris left for over a week on the sidewalk and that the truck loaded with concrete sat in front of the house for four days, limiting the use of parking area. He felt the costs were reasonable, but the quality of the work and the disregard for citizen safety constituted an overcharge. (Public Hearing re Sidewalk Repairs) Mr. Hampel, speaking on behalf of Barry Baker of Escondido Circle, who owns property located at Hillcrest Avenue and Hillcrest Court, stated that Mr. Baker was charged $450 for work done by the City and has asked that the City check the work as it was left in an unsatisfactory manner. Mr. Hampel also stated that there seemed to be some type of tree trimming at the time of the sidewalk repairs and wondered why the tree trimming was discontinued. Mayor Taylor felt that the tree trimming in conjunction with the sidewalk repair was merely coincidental, which Mr. Lee affirmed, adding that tree trimming is done only in the cases where it is determined a hazard exists. Dr. Rocco asked if it is his responsibility to maintain the curb, sidewalk and gutter from now on as well as drilling at the roots in order for the roots to grow downward, to which Mayor Taylor stated, that under law and conditionally in this City, it is the obligation of the property owner. Dr. Rocco then explained that at the time he purchased his home the sidewalk was in need of re- pair, as indicated by the City, and wondered if some type of in- spection could not be made as well as the usual termite inspection requirement in order to purchase a home, so they would not be put through this type of ordeal. Mayor Taylor stated that it is certainly without glee that the Council instituted the sidewalk program, but due to accidents that have occurred and hazards involved, the City had no recourse but to burden the citizens of the City. At this time Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be continued for one week, pending a report from the Public Works Director, which was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Beebe asked that the matter regard- ing the Southeast Asia War Initiative be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion immedi- ately after the approval of the calendar. (Communication re Southeast Asia War Initiative) * * * Councilman Futch asked which alternate is being approved with reference to Mines Road extension, and was advised that Alternate A is the recom- mended proposed extension, and this will be con- firmed by approval of the Consent Calendar. (Report re Mines Rd. Extension) * * * Councilman Pritchard asked if he might read the Propositions M and N resolution endorsing Propositions M and N for the June primary concerning the South County Junior College District and the Qrovision of a tax over- ride to a maximum of $.56e per $100 of assessed CM-25-237 May 8, 1972 (Propositions M and N) valuation, the revenue of which would be used for all junior college purposes exclusive of bond in- terest and redemption (Proposition M). Proposi- tion N would provide for a tax override to a maxi- mum of $.568 for ten years, commencing July 1, 1972, the revenue of which would be used exclusively for the construction or lease of a complete junior college plant located on the District's Li- vermore site, capable of housing 3600 day students. He added that this will not only benefit Livermore, but neighboring areas and moved that the resolution endorsing these propositions be adopted, which was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 54-72 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING PROPOSITIONS M AND N ELECTION OF JUNE 6, 1972 * * * The City Manager explained with regard to the acceptance of the final improvements in Tract 3342 (Hofmann Co.), that at the time of the re- view of the subdivision agreement, the corner piece of property, a commercial zone, was not owned by the subdi- vider, but the improvement plans for the tract made reference to the installation of one of the narrow commercial walls as on East Avenue, but it was not considered appropriate to require the sub- divider to put this in as he did not own the land, and the lot was not improved at the time. A consideration to delete this require- ment was made, but technically, it still remains as a condition of the subdivision map and in view of this he requested that there be filed with the City an improvement bond in an amount sufficient to cover the installation of the wall along with a statement from Hofmann Company indicating that this will be done within three years, unless it is done by the existing owner. He felt that this insures adequate protection for the City but wanted the Council to be informed of the matter. Acceptance of Tract 3342 RESOLUTION NO. 55-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3342 (Hofmann Company) Sewer Connection Agreement (Harold Dhont) * * * A contract has been prepared for the sewer connec- tion agreement between the applicant Harold C. Dhont and the City for property located at 2691 Southfront Road. Councilman Miller stated that, as he recalls, there are fees as a portion of the agreement which correspond to an addition of the e- quivalent of City taxes, plus a surcharge and he did not see any reference to this in the agreement. Mr. Musso stated that this is in the standard agreement, but what the Council has is the Engineer's recommendation and the Planning Commission agreement, and this will be attached to the standard agree- ment. RESOLUTION NO. 56-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Harold C. Dhont) Conwunication re War on Poverty CM-25-238 * * * A communication was received from the Executive Director of the Good Samaritan Home regarding the war on poverty and CAP agencies especially in the Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore area. * * * A communication was received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the executive officer summary report of their meeting of April 25, 1972. * * * A letter was received from our Congressman George Miller acknowledging the Council's support of H.R. 11950. * * * A waterline has been installed in the industrial area in the vicinity of Naylor Avenue and a ben- efit district is being formed as partial reim- bursement. RESOLUTION NO. 57-72 May 8, 1972 Communication re Water Quality Management Plan Communication re HR 11950 Establishment Waterline Benefit District (Harold Christman) A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CHRISTMAN WATERLINE BENEFIT DISTRICT * * * As a routine matter it is necessary to adopt a resolution in order to remove the name of the former Finance Director and add the current name. RESOLUTION NO. 58-72 Authorization of Officers to Sign Checks A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MECHANICAL METHOD FOR SIGNING OF CHECKS, SELECTING A DEPOSITARY AND PROVIDING FOR THE NAMES OF THE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS AND THE METHOD OF THE SIGNING THEREOF. * * * A report submitted by the Public Works Director states his recommendation that the intersection of Second Street and P Street be made a 4-way stop as the first step in making Second Street a through street. It is felt that this would relieve the traffic on First Street. * * * A summary of the Planning Commission meeting of May 5 was acknowledged for filing. * * * Report re P Street 4-Way Stop Summary Planning Commission Meeting On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Co un- Approval of cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the communication requesting endorsement of the Southeast Asia Air War Initiative was removed from the Con- sent Calendar for discussion as there were members of the audience interested in the matter. COMMUNICATION RE ASIA AIR WAR INITIATIVE Councilman Beebe felt it was an individual matter as to whether or not a person wished to sign an initiative measure and that it is not the prerogative of the Council to enter into trying to sway federal government through initiative measures. They as indivi- duals have a perfect right to obtain signatures individually, and each Councilman can sign if he so desires. CM-25-239 May 8, 1972 Councilman Miller stated that the resolution pro- posed for the Council does not ask support of the initiative itself, but rather support all reason- able efforts to curtail or terminate the military involvement in Southeast Asia, and calls for the early withdrawal of all American military personnel and equipment from southeast Asia, and he felt everyone would agree with these items. The Coun- cil is being asked to endorse the efforts to place the initiative on the ballot, not endorse the initiative itself, and to direct the attention of the voters of the community that petitions plac- ing the matter on the ballot are being circulated. Councilman Miller further stated the public is generally opposed to this war for many reasons of which he named a few, and personally, if the initiative is on the ballot he would vote for it. This is pis personal feeling, but in all conscience, he did not feel he could ask the City to endorse the initiative itself, but did not think it unreasonable to ask the Council to endorse placing the initiative on the ballot. (Asia Air War Initiative) Mayor Taylor stated he shared Councilman Miller's view on the bad effects of the war and would support the first two parts which he had quoted. The initiative petition does instruct the officials of the state of California to thwart the federal government and do everything they can to prevent state resources from being used. He felt it was an unwarranted intrusion of the state into the con- duct of national policy and did not think he could, in good con- science, encourage an initiative of this type to be placed on the ballot; as far as war is concerned it is up to Congress to make that decision. He would oppose a resolution unless it was reduced to the first two parts. Councilman Futch commented that as an individual he was sympathetic to the initiative, but he was not sure that the Council should make it a habit to debate national policy, as they have many local issues that require their attention. He would agree with the motion suggested by Mayor Taylor and would move that we support all rea- sonable efforts to terminate military involvement in southeast Asia and call for early withdrawal of all American military personnel and equipment from Southeast Asia, however this motion failed for lack of a second. Councilman Beebe stated his opposition to voting on motions of this nature pertaining to the federal government. People are ask- ing for resolutions by the Council supporting their actions for almost everything, and he felt the Council should not become in- volved as there are many problems of a local nature that the Council cannot solve. Councilman Beebe moved to table the motion on the request for support; this motion was seconded by Councilman Futch. Mayor Taylor ruled that a motion to table was not debatable, however Councilman Miller stated it may not be debatable by the Council, but since it is an agenda item, the public should have a right to state their opinion and he felt the Council's vote might be in- fluenced by testimony of the public. This technicality was dis- cussed and it was the decision of the Council to hear public tes- timony before the vote to table, and the Mayor asked the persons to be brief in their comments. George Perkins, 1543 College Avenue, stated he was surprised that the Council would agree to even consider the first two items of the initiative, which is very critical of the U. S. government and its position, without making some reference to the atrocities of the North Vietnamese and their invasion. He felt the initiative as written was sickening. Glen Strahl, 768 Adams, agreed with Councilman Miller that the public is tired of this war and he quoted the number of casualties for both the United states and Vietnam, and commented that the initiative urges that the United States withdraw, but they do not urge the North Vietnamese to stop the fighting. He felt we are CM-25-240 May 8, 1972 being asked to surrender in Southeast Asia, and the casualties will be men whose lives have gone down the drain and communism will not have been stopped, and he opposed the initiative. He felt endorsement by the Council, even to having it placed on the ballot, would be beyond its normal authority; the Council is elected to run the City of Livermore and solve its problems, and not to claim to represent the opinions of the citizens on matters such as this. (Asia Air War Initiative) Christopher Catron, 1082 Angelica Way, asked what is really a local issue - to say that war is not a local issue is absurd and he felt each individual must assume his responsibility and the cities, counties and states must communicate the thinking of their leaders to the leaders in Washington to do all they can to end the involvement in Vietnam, and he urged the Council to seriously con- sider the initiative and the responsibility of our City government to take action to terminate our involvement in Vietnam, and asked that they adopt a resolution supporting the initiative which he proposed. Bruce Watson, 3719 Oregon Way, summarized the methods and series of events concerned with our involvement in Vietnarr to the pre- sent time and the reasons given for justification of the tactics we have used and felt there was no moral justification for the actions we have committed there, and urged the Council to support the initiative. Richard White, 561 McLeod street, addressed his remarks to a point made by Councilman Beebe and Mr. Strahl, stating our involvement in Vietnam has created economic distress and consumed funds to alleviate critical urban problems, among other things, and indi- cated that the Board of Supervisors and City of San Francisco as well as Berkeley have passed resolutions opposing our involvement, and in June 1971 the United States Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution urging the President to do all within his power to bring about complete withdrawal of American Troops by December 1971. There is a strong precedent for action by City Councils with res- pect to the Southeast Asian war, and he felt our Council is so involved in mundane considerations they have neglected the most crucial issue of our time and urged their support of the initiative. Larry Hall, 3922 Yale Way, stated the Council addressed themselves to measures influencing the government tonight in asking citizens to vote for Propositions M and N; he did not think it could make an argument that this is something that does not concern the City. James Hahn, 594 Humboldt, stated that this country is plagued with timid souls who see little faith in the strength of democracy and would have our country yield to international threats and intimi- dation and stated that, in his opinion, he would rather be "dead than red". He then quoted a short item written by Lenin in 1918 with regard to the existence of communism and an imperlialist coun- try living side by side, stating that there will be many conflicts until one finally triumphs over the other. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he agrees with one side and definately disagrees with the other, but felt that this is not the place to conduct this type of forum. He stated that the people are represented at the seat of government by people we have placed there and can be controlled through the election pro- cess. He asked if any of these people have taken the time to write these representatives voicing their opinions, and if they feel that these representatives are not performing to their satis- faction as they have the prerogative to see that they are replaced. Larry Walton, 1017 Lisbon Avenue, mentioned that he had listened to a speech by the President in which he said that as soon as the enemy removes itself from South Vietnam then the American troops will be removed; he agrees with this plan and stands firmly behind our President. CM-25-241 May 8, 1972 (Asia Air War Initiative) Bill Zogoda asked that the Council not table the motion of the most crucial issue of their time. Ed LaFranchi, 359 Polk Way, stated that the issue at hand is not whether or not troops should be withdrawn from Viet- nam, but whether or not the Council intends to support the initiative, and whether or not they can represent the people on national issues. Jim Hannon, 1062 Apache street, stated that in his opinion the petition before the Council and their support of it is consistent with the function of a City Council. He stated that the views of the prople should go up the organizational ladder in a democratic society and that the Livermore City government is a part of this ladder and the petition presented to the Council is quite in order. Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the motion to table the matter which passed 3-2 with Councilmen Miller and Pritchard dissenting. Mayor Taylor stated if the Council would like to pass the first two parts of the resolution and these would not instruct the state to interfere with the processes of conduction of foreign policy he would agree to it. Councilman Futch restated his motion that the Council supports all reasonable efforts to curtail or terminate military involvement in Southeast Asia and calls for the early withdrawal of all American military personnel and equipment from Southeast Asia. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. * * * RECESS AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE. * * * The Planning Director explained that there is little to report regarding the Conditional Use Permit application for the Apostolic Faith Temple to be located at Dogwood and Nightingale Street other than the letter submitted to the Council dated May 3, 1972. He stated that the site plan as submitted is satisfactory and the building could be located closer to Olivina Avenue or the homes on the site but the Planning Commission felt it would be best that the building be kept as far~ay from Dogwood Drive as possible. He explained that access would be limited to Olivina Avenue and, for clarification, that the CUP was subject to the site plan approval, a copy of which was included in the agenda. REPORT RE CUP- APOSTOLIC FAITH TEMPLE Mr. Parness explained that the Staff had been directed to meet with the applicants and work out some type of exchange of land in order that there might be some formation of a mini park and he stated they have tried on numerous occasions to contact these people, but to no avail. If the Council is still interested in gaining this type of park, he would suggest delaying any action of the site plan approval until the Staff has met with the owners. Councilman Pritchard stated that in light of the fact that nothing has been worked out with regard to the park, he would move that the site plan be accepted as proposed, which failed for lack of a second. Mayor Taylor felt it would be an unreasonable burden on the church to delay the matter until a meeting is arranged, but Mr. Parness felt that the land exchange would be beneficial for all concerned. Mayor Taylor expressed his concern in that if the site plan is approved and building is commenced, the City might never be able CM-25-242 May 8, 1972 to arrange for the development of a park in that area and he felt it would be advantageous for the church to have a park adjacent to their property. He still urged that negotiations take place within a reasonable length of time, perhaps two order that the matter will not be dragged on forever. (CUP - Apostolic Faith Temple) weeks, in Councilman Miller moved that the matter be continued for two weeks, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Jan Schuyler, 999 E. stanley Blvd., asked that the Council not table the matter for another two weeks, as the church has been waiting for over ten months for the approval of their CUP applica- tion and has expended considerable funds at the request of the Council to provide them with a plot plan on this piece of property. He asked if the Council now intends the submission of another plot plan for a different piece of property which they do not own. He stated that the church people do not wish to have a park adjacent to their land, as this could create the problem of unwanted traffic through their property. Mayor Taylor explained that the City does not wish to demand a land exchange, but had hoped there would be a voluntary exchange, and if the church is against this proposal there is little point in a postponement. Councilman Futch brought up the possibility of the City purchasing the property adjacent to the church land (Sandoval property) for a park, and felt that this would probably be undesirable as far as the applicant is concerned, and in his opinion, it would solve a lot of problems if a land trade could be arranged. Mr. Schuyler stated that in this case it would constitute a com- pletely different set of circumstances and that the only concern at this time is the property owned by the church, not adjacent land which is owned by Mr. Sandoval. At this time, what the City intends to do with the adjoining property is irrelevant. Councilman Beebe stated that in view of the statements made by the party representing the applicant for the CUP he would withdraw his second to the motion for continuance. Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the site plan as submitted, seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed by a 4-1 vote with Coun- cilman Miller dissenting. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that a report had been received from the Livermore Bikeways Associa- tion regarding biking improvements in which they recommended that the Planning Commission and Staff review the report for comment and subsequent consideration during the budget hearings. He stated that he felt their recommen- dation was appropriate but could not come to a decision at this time due to the unknown estimated expenses involved. He also asked that testimony be given at the Planning Commission meeting. REPORT RE BIKING IMPROVEMENTS Councilman Miller urged that the Council encourage the Staff to discuss the matter with the Bikeways representative before giving a presentation to the Planning Commission and at the budget hearings. Councilman Miller moved to adopt the recommendation to submit the report to the Staff and Planning Commission, in conjunction with discussions with the representatives of the Bikeways Association; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. CM-25-243 May 8, 1972 REPORT RE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX The City Manager stated that the matter of the business license fee is rather lengthy and might best be discussed at a later date. Councilman Pritchard felt that due to the fact there were a number of businessmen in attendance, they should be allowed to make comments, even if the matter is to be scheduled later. Councilman Futch stated there were a number of graphs involved that he would like to have the opportunity to review in detail and he felt that time would not permit a proper presentation at this meeting. Councilman Beebe suggested that a subcommittee be appointed to meet with the people involved and come back to the Council with a definite recommendation. Councilman Miller stated that in view of the fact he had requested the idea of the new business license fee in order to obtain more revenue for the City, he wished to be a member of the committee. Mayor Taylor explained that this committee is not to meet for the purpose of determining a new business license fee, but to gather information which might be helpful in determining what will be done with regard to the business license fee. Councilmen Miller and Futch agreed to serve as members from the Council, and the Chamber of Commerce is to select the other mem- bers who will meet in order to gather this information. The matter was postponed, pending the report and recommendation from the appointed committee. * * * REPORT RE CITY SIGN - US 580 Mayor Taylor commented that the Staff has prepared a design for a sign replacement at the golf course site adjoining US 580, and if the Council concurs, it will be constructed and erected by the Staff. Staff has recommended that the Council adopt a motion authoriz- the sign replacement. The ing Mayor Taylor asked if the sign is considered legal, to which Mr. Parness explained that it is a matter of interpretation, but is determined to be within the sign ordinance. Councilman Miller suggested that the matter be referred to the Beautification Committee for comments regarding aesthetics before coming to a decision. Councilman Beebe did not think the proposed sign was as attractive as the sign that presently exists and wondered if it does not now come within the sign ordinance. Councilman Miller asked that his suggestion be considered a motion, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously. * * * PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE EXOTIC ANIMALS On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance regarding exotic animals was introduced and read by title only. * * * CM-25-244 The City Clerk asked how much time should be scheduled for the interviews for the Planning Commission and it was decided that seven min- utes should be allowed for each interview. The Council asked that the interviews commence at 7:00 p.m. * * * May 8, 1972 MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Interviews) The City Manager stated that the property in the proposed Northfront Road Assessment Dis- trict is not within the City and, therefore, the City has no jurisdiction. One of the own- ers would like this land to be annexed to the City in order to make it legally possible to include this portion of the commercial zon- ing as part of the assessment district, and that this take place prior to the formation of the assessment district. The Council concurred with this recommendation. * * * (Annexation Northfront Rd.) Councilman Futch commented on the report he had received from the Public Works Director with regard to the intersection of Concannon Blvd. and Holmes Street. He stated that it indicated there have been no accidents at this intersection, but felt this must be erroneous as the wall at that intersection was knocked down and it is approximately 100 feet away, which might indicate some extenuating circumstances. He felt that the area is expanding and that they might check into the number of permits that have been issued to build in the area. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL (Traffic Light at Concannon & Holmes) Councilman Futch stated he had received a tele- phone call regarding the semi-trailer parking in a residential area, and if a ticket is to be given it would be setting a precedent and all the cars on the block would have to be given tickets as suggested that there be some type of ordinance to cover tion. * * * (Illegal Parking of Semi-Trailer) well. He the situa- Councilman Miller stated that he had noticed (re BART) a press release from BART indicating that the service would go no further than Pleasanton. He felt that this was not necessarily true but should be checked out. * * * Councilman Miller reported an accident that occurred on East Avenue which was not report- ed as there were no injuries sustained by those involved. He stated that it was a collision be- tween a car and a bicycle and was due to the berm located on the side of the road. He asked if there is any way the berm might be removed due to the hazards it can cause. (East Avenue Bike Accident) Mr. Parness stated that he has just received a copy of the notice regarding the proposal to install a parkway and has asked the Coun- cil for their recommendations on the design and location and it is scheduled to appear on the agenda for the next meeting. He felt that if it is the wish of the Council to remove the berm until such time as the parkway is developed, it could be arranged. He explained that the funds for the project have been allocated; it is just a matter of developing the area and getting the Coun- cil1s recommendations. * * * CM-25-245 May 8, 1972 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday evening May 9, to conduct interviews for the Planning Commission. * * * APPROVE L~ fr-j;/:y ATTEST 1/ City Clerk ~vermore, California * * * Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 9, 1972 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 9, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * INTERVIEWS Interviews were conducted with the following people for the Planning Commission: Janet Read Dr. Donald Rocco Margaret Tracy Robert Seldon Helen Tirsell Bette Shroyer Barbara Shaw Dale Turner Walter Daview Mark Eaton Louis Dentici Lawrence Bakken Evelyn Bakken * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further busines to come before the Council the meeting adjourned to 7 p.m., Friday, May 15 to comp~ete 7. 'I ATTEST California * * * CM-25-246 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 12, 1972 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 12, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Liver- more Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilmen Pritchard and Futch ROLL CALL * * * Interviews were conducted with the following people for the Planning Commission: INTERVIEWS James Doggett Dorothy A. Schroepfer Walter Griffith Kathleen Bossler Candy Simonen Robert Allen Gerard de Bruin There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT the Council the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to an executive session at 7 p.m. Monday, May 15. * ~() * APPROVE 0:Lc/ ,~~/ ATTEST ~ / ...~~ /'Ci t;f'; lerk mor~', al.ifor nia * * * Regular Meeting of May 15, 1972 A brief executive session was held to discuss selection of two Planning Commissioners prior to the regular meeting, which was held on May 15, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None RO LL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * There being no corrections or additions to the MINUTES minutes of the meeting of May 8, Councilman Beebe moved that they be approved as submitted, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. * * * CM-25-247 May 15, 1972 OPEN FORUM Mayor Taylor invited anyone present in the audience to address the Council, and as there were no com- ments, the Council would go on to the scheduled public hearing. Before going on to the hearing he stated that the Council would like to welcome the history class students from Li- vermore High School who were attending the meeting. * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE Z. O. AMEND- MENT (Arroyo Mocho) Mayor Taylor explained that the public hearing is for the discussion of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for properties on the east and west sides of the Arroyo Mocho between Holmes Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and asked if the Planning Director would briefly give some history to update the matter for the benefit of those present. Mr. Musso explained that the nature of the proposal is rather com- plex as there are a number of properties involved and the parcel the Planning Commission recommends to be zoned E (Educational) Dis- trict is generally zoned such only when the property has been spe- cified for use for educational purposes. He gave a brief history of the parcels involved and explained that for the most part the zoning is recommended to remain the same - some is recommended for E District, the remainder of the RL-6 is proposed to go to RS-5 (Suburban Residential) and areas that are now in the arroyo are proposed to go to E District. He also stated that the park the School District is trading has no recommended change at this time; there has been some discussion regarding the possibility of a trade between the School District and Gillice property near Granada High School. Mayor Taylor asked if the property recommended for zoning in the CO-H District is where the Richfield Gasoline Station is located, to which Mr. Musso stated this was correct, and that all the rest of the property in that particular area is recommended fo~ Cp (Commercial Office) District zoning ~ ,Co-II M6 -tttL.A:!.-o.--u?t:Aei/!'i--- ~. 11 Keith Fraser, Attorney for the Holdeners,stated he was present to represent their interest and was available to answer questions re- garding their property. There being no public testimony, Councilman Beebe moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and it was unanimously approved. Mayor Taylor asked if the Planning Commission had taken into con- sideration that some time in the future the proposed RS-5 might be rezoned for some other use and Mr. Musso replied that the general plan allows for commercial use. Mr. Musso also stated that he can see the advantage to the Holdeners that their land remain agricul- tural as it is appraised lower than the land that is zoned commer- cial. Mayor Taylor expressed his concern for the Clark property which is recommended for CO, stating that there should have been a plan for the whole area, including the adjacent gasoline station before the station was approved. He stated that this zoning could result in some rather intensive development in that area. This is just an example of what can happen when the owner develops the prime por- tion of the property and allows the rest of the land to revert back to another owner, leaving a portion difficult to develop, and he felt the Council should be aware of this type of situation in the future. Councilman Futch moved that the recommendation of the Planning Com- mission for the rezoning be accepted, which was seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe and approved unanimously by the Council. * * * CM-25-248 Mayor Taylor stated that the hearing regarding the sidewalk repair program had been continued from the last meeting due to complaints received regarding the quality of repair at two locations and these were to be checked on and a report given to the Council by the Public Works Director. May 15, 1972 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE SIDEWALK REPAIR It was reported that the cost for the work done was the proper cost and although the job could have been done better, it passed inspection and was considered satisfactory. Mr. Lee reported that Estelle Smith had asked that her portion be spread over the five year installment plan; she was not one of those on the list that made this request earlier. Mayor Taylor asked if it would be necessary to pass a special mo- tion to include Estelle Smith, 1621 Park Street, on the list for the installment method of payment and the City Attorney commented this should be done before the resolution is passed. Councilman Pritchard moved to add Estelle Smith to the list of those making installment payments, seconded by Councilman Miller, which was approved unanimously. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the pUblic hearing was closed. Mayor Taylor explained that the resolutions regarding this matter are provided for in the Consent Calendar. * * * Mayor Taylor commented that before going to the Consent Calendar he would like to say that a series of interviews have been held for the purpose of selecting two persons to fill the vacancies on the Planning Commission. He stated that he had never seen a group of people more qualified than those who were interested and it was very difficult to come to a decision. He then explained that a motion was in order to approve the appoint- ment of these two people, but prior to the motion stated there were two vacancies - one as a result of Councilman Futch's election to the Council, and the other by Commissioner Nelson who has not attended a number of meetings; however, a certain legal time must lapse before this vacancy can be filled. For this reason the appointment filling the void made by Commissioner Nelson will take place at a later date. RE PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council appoint Dale Turner to the vacant seat on the Planning Commission and that Helen Tirsell be appointed to the second seat, when it becomes open; which was seconded by Councilman Futch and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 59-72 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION * * * CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 60-72 Payment of Assessment for Sidewalk Repair A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN ASSESSMENTS OF $100.00 OR OVER BE MADE IN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS. * * * CM-25-249 May 15, 1972 RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS Easement Grant Arroyo Seco Channel Area (Christopher Land Co.) RESOLUTION NO. 61-71 A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND CON- FIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR SIDEWALK REPAIRS. * * * A request was made of Christopher Land Company for the grant of a 15 ft. wide easement abutting the Arroyo Seco channel area within Tract 3064. This easement is for the eventual improvement as a bikeway and has been granted without charge to the City. It is recommended that a motion be adopted accepting the easement. * * * A second lease has been negotiated with the owner of the property adjoining our present City Hall and used as an annex facility. It is for a term of three years with two successive one year options. The rate is $300 per month, an increase from the present $200. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted au- thorizing execution of the lease. Crossing gates are recommended to be installed on all cross- ings where they do not now exist except K Street. K Street crossing of Western Pacific RR to be closed I Street crossing of Western Pacific RR be closed or gated Miscellaneous corrective work such as signs, pavement markings, etc. (This work is already underway by City forces) The PUC letter acknowledges the advantage to the plan for track consolidation but assumes that such a plan will probably not be reactivated in time to affect the proposed crossing gate project. City Hall Annex Lease (Dutcher) Report re Train Speed Report re Railroad Grade Crossings (a) [~j (e) RESOLUTION NO. 62-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Norris D. Dutcher III) * * * A report prepared by the City Attorney re train speed was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * A report was submitted by the Public Works Director re railroad grade crossing improvements advising that a survey was made by the PUC staff resulting in the following recommendations: The staff recommendation is that the Council request the Railroad Companies to proceed with preparation of the cooperative agreement to design and construct all of the crossing gates at the earliest possible date with the exception of the I and K Street crossings. No action is recommended on the closing of these crossings for the present. The matter should be discussed further during negotiations with the Railroad Companies. It is recommended that the PUC recommendations be adopted. Communication re Reg. 2 CM-25-250 * * * A communication was received from the City of San Mateo re Regulation 2, Air Pollution Control Dis- trict, together with a copy of their resolution opposing the regulation for the Council's consider- ation. * * * A communication was received from Ty Caplin, submitting his resignation as head profession- al at the Las Positas Golf Course effective July 1. Recruitment for a replacement is pro- ceeding. * * * A communication was received from Valerie Ray- mond with regard to the holding capacity for the Valley. This item was removed for later discussion. * * * May 15, 1972 Resignation of Golf Pro Holding Capacity One hundred forty-nine claims dated May 12, in Payroll and Claims the amount of $448, 963.54 and two hundred thir- ty eight payroll warrants dated May 5 in the amount of $56,809.91 were ordered paid as approved by the Finance Director. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 2684 for his usual reason. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved with the exception of those noted as removed. * * * Approval of Consent Calendar Mayor Taylor stated that the matter regarding the James D. Clark CUP application had been continued in order to allow Mr. Clark to be present at the meeting, and in view of the fact that he was not present at this time, the Council agreed to take up the matter later in the meeting in order to give Mr. Clark a chance to speak. * * * REPORT RE CUP APPLICATION (James D. Clark) It had been reported to the Council that Alameda REPORT RE BIKEWAY County proposes to install a bikeway along cer- FACILITY tain sections of East Avenue which would be com- plimentary to the system proposed by the City, and the City Manager has recommended that the Council adopt a mo- tion approving the plan which would be a supplementary feature to the City's bikeway system and would be paid for by the County. Mayor Taylor expressed some concern for the bikeway being temporary since it may be necessary to widen East Avenue at a later date. Roger Everett, 572 Hazel street, a member of the Livermore Bikeways Association, stated that the Association was quite pleased with the County's plans for a two-way bikeway on the south side from the City limits all the way out to Sandia, and some of the north side will also have some type of trailway. He stated that they are writing to the County to inform them of some of the problem ,areas along East Avenue, and would be happy to give copies of these to the Coun- cil. He stated that, in general, they endorse the plan set forth by the County. There was some discussion regarding the berm and the cleaning of the bikeway, and Mr. Everett stated that he would like to talk to the County people regarding some of these things. Councilman Pritchard moved for the Council's general approval of the County's plan with added comments from the Bikeways Association, which was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. CM-25-251 May 15, 1972 (Bikeway Facility) REPORT RE REZONING APPLICATION (Hartwell) Councilman Beebe moved that a letter of appreciation be sent to Supervisor Murphy, which was seconded by Mayor Taylor, and received a 4-1 vote with Council- man Miller abstaining. * * * An application has been received for the rezoning of property on the east side of South K Street (50 ft. north of 5th Street) and the Planning Com- mission has initiated consideration of an area ad- jacent to this site. The application was submitted by John Hartwell and requested consideration of a CP or RM District zoning. Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be scheduled for a pub- lic hearing on June 5th, which was seconded by Councilman Beebe and received the unanimous approval of the Council. PROPOSED ZONING ORD. AMENDMENT (Sec. 21.00 and 31.00) REPORT RE PERPENDICULAR SIGNS * * * The Planning Commission has considered possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of Sections 21.00 and 31.00, and has made recommendation that this matter be set for public hearing before the City Council. This item was included in the motion made by Councilman Pritchard for public hearing on June 5. * * * The Council had referred the matter of perpendicu- lar signs to the Planning Commission for their com- ment and the Commission has recommended that there be no change in the ordinance at this time. Councilman Pritchard stated that he concurs with the Planning Com- mission's report and moved that the Council accept their recommen- dation for no change; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. RE TIME LIMIT FOR PERMIT APPROVALS * * * Mayor Taylor asked for comments regarding time limits for certain permit approvals and the suggestion from the Planning Commission to increase the action time for site plan approval permits. Councilman Miller moved that the Council direct the Staff to prepare an ordinance amendment including the recommendation by the Planning Director about the site plan approval permits, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Mayor Taylor asked if the proposed legislation regarding time limits would affect this ordinance amendment and he was told it would not. The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ORDINANCE MUNI CODE AMENDMENT (Exotic Animals) * * * The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 2, 1972 were noted for filing. * * * RE On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and the follow- ing ordinance adopted re exotic animals: ORDINANCE NO. 787 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CH. 4, RE ANIMALS AND FOWL OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW ARTICLE, ART. VI, RELATING TO EXOTIC ANIMALS. CM-25-252 The Council at this time consi.dered the CUP application submitted by James D. Clark as he was then represented at the meeting by Randy Schlientz. May 15, 1972 REPORT RE CUP APPLICATION (James D. Clark) The Planning Director explained that the application was a request to allow retail uses to the rear of the Arco station located on the corner of Murrieta and Stanley Blvd. He stated that the pro- perty is somewhat L-shaped which allows some frontage on Murrieta Blvd. as well as Stanley Blvd. The application has received con- siderable deliberation because of the design of the channel and not because of the requested use. He also explained that the site plan application was submitted sometime in October and Mr. Clark has been very cooperative in allowing the length of time it has taken to come to a decision. Mr. Musso further stated that the Planning Commission concluded that because of the very restricted access to the piece of property, and the capability of making left hand turns on and off of the property, it would be unsuitable for the requested retail purpose and they recommend that the property remain Commercial Office and Commercial Highway zoning. Mayor Taylor stated that it has been some time since this has come before the Council and asked Mr. Musso to explain some of the de- tails regarding the approved site plan before a decision can be made as to whether or not the request for retail use in the area will be allowed. Mr. Musso explained that the major issue at hand was the alignment of the channel and preservation of the trees, and that the approved plan does allow for preservation of most of the trees but one clus- ter will have to be removed. He commented that an alternative sug- gestion was to purchase the property for park use, but it was de- termined after some study that the cost would render this alterna- tive unfeasible. Another suggestion was to create a trapezoidal channel which was also determined to be undesirable. Councilman Futch stated that it has been his opinion that the Plan- ning Commission has always been against the site plan which Mr. Musso now stated has been approved, and he questioned the sudden change. Mr. Musso stated that he had informed the Planning Commission that upon hearing from Zone 7 it would be necessary for him to come to an immediate decision, as the time limit had long passed; therefore, the Planning Commission gave their approval. Councilman Futch stated that the Planning Commission had given an alternate suggestion which would require the acquisition of the site containing the building which is nearest to the channel; as he recalls that was their recommendation as they had been concerned with the heavy traffic in the area and extensive development along the Arroyo which would have a detrimental effect on the Arroyo plan. He stated that the Commission realized it was expensive for park land, but had urged that at least a portion be purchased for this use. Mayor Taylor reminded the Council that if there is any objection to the approval of the site plan, it can be appealed and scheduled to appear on the agenda at a later meeting. Councilman Futch moved that the Council appeal the site plan and that it appear on the next agenda, which was seconded by Council- man Miller. There was discussion among the Council as to whether or not the CUP should be discussed at this meeting or to consider it at the same time the appeal is being discussed. CM-25-253 May 15, 1972 (CUP Appli- cation by Clark) (Site Plan) Mayor Taylor asked Councilman Futch his reason for an appeal and Councilman Futch replied that the Council had considered purchase of the entire par- cel for park purposes was too expensive, but he felt there was some worth to the City in acquiring the land, even if it is not used for a park. If a total purchase is unreasonable he stated the Planning Commission had suggested a 40-50% land purchase in order to minimize traffic flow through the area, which he felt was a reasonable suggestion and would not re- sult in such a large expense to the City. He also expressed his concern for the results of extensive development in the area with regard to the scenic aspects. Councilman Miller stated that his reason for seconding the motion made by Councilman Futch was because the approval of the site plan submitted would eliminate a grove of trees, and he felt a plan could be chosen which would allow these trees to remain. Mayor Taylor expressed his concern for the traffic that would be generated near a busy intersection. Councilman Pritchard felt if the only reason the Council wishes to appeal the site plan is for possible purchase by the City, this is not reasonable, but if they are appealing because of a problem with the site plan, he would agree to that. Councilman Futch stated he would agree with Councilman Pritchard, but there was the problem of traffic, as well. The Council then discussed problems concerning entrance and exits to and from the property. Roger Everett, 532 Hazel, asked how many trees will be removed and if the developer would agree to make improvements in the channel under the site plan. Mr. Musso explained that three large trees plus nine or ten small trees will be removed and thirty-four preserved and the developer is required to maintain the channel on both sides. Councilman Pritchard mentioned that in the City of Sonora a creek runs along the highway and there are some commercial buildings which very attractively straddle the creek with water running under the buildings. He stated that before a vote is taken there are two things he would like: 1) public acquisition of the property, and 2) a bike trail, probably on the south side of the creek. A vote was taken on the motion to appeal the site plan and passed 4-1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting. (Re Retail Use - CUP) Mayor Taylor stated that the matter at hand is whether or not retail use should be permitted on the property behind the ARCO station which is lo- cated at the intersection of Stanley and Murrieta Blvd. He stated that the Planning Commission had earlier stated their reasons for denial of the request and they have recommended that this use not be allowed. Councilman Miller felt compelled by their reasoning to agree, paru- cularly in view of this history involved and the location being near the hospital and other offices. He then moved to adopt the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission for denial of the CUP, which would leave the zoning CO-CO-H. Councilman Futch seconded this motion for discussion purposes. Randy Schlientz, architect for Associated Professions, stated that he would like to give some of the history regarding the property and answer some of the questions raised by the Council. He stated CM-25-254 May 15, 1972 the land where the ARCO station is located was originally part of the land owned by Mr. Clark and by the rezoning to CO-H the ARCO station was allowed to be developed on the prime piece of this land, leaving a rather difficult site to work with. He ex- plained that Mr. Clark was not looking for a piece of land to develop, but was left with the land and is trying to do something with it; he has been very cooperative in trying to do something that will be satisfactory with Zone 7 and the City; he is paying taxes on this property. Mr. Schlientz urged that the Council take this into consideration and recognize his predicament. He mention- ed that it would be hard for Mr. Clark to realize much value in the land in terms of rental, and would like to work something out that would be acceptable to the City and prove some return to the owner. He explained that they wish the property to be used for some purpose suitable to the area and in conjunction with the high school in the vicinity - such as a small soda fountain, record shop or hobby shop. He commented that there has been an attempt to pre- serve the large trees and this has not been a calloused attempt to force something on the City. He commented that he feels the ARCO station represents retail use and since it has taken the prominent portion of the land they should also be allowed retail uses as commercial buildings located behind the station would be at a disadvantage. He did not feel this would be setting a pre- cedent in the area as this piece of land is separated by Murrieta Blvd. from the other CO areas. He did not think the access is any more of a hazard than presently exists in many areas in Livermore, using First street as an example as medians restrict entrance and exit in two directions at other stores. He then discussed the design and plans proposed for the area, adding that they will try to tie the plans into the ARCO design. (Re Retail Use - Clark) Councilman Beebe felt that if the main customers were from the high school, they generate too much traffic. However, Mr. Schlientz stated that they felt most of this would be walk-in and bicycle traffic. Councilman Miller felt that the existance of property which is hard to develop is not in itself reason enough to allow a CUP for uses which are not now allowed in the area. Councilman Beebe pointed out that there are always complaints about there being nothing in Livermore for its youth; perhaps the Council might consider something which, if managed properly, might be beneficial to them. Mayor Taylor stated it is the Council's obligation to determine whether this use is appropriate in the area and mentioned they have always tried to exercise caution in allowing retail uses to spring up allover town on any odd piece of land which is deter- mined by the owner to be unsuitable or not profitable enough for other purposes. In his opinion, further retail use in that par- ticular area is unwarranted and he would have to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the CUP. Councilman Pritchard stated his feeling that to allow an overall CUP permit for the whole property would be improper. Councilman Futch stated that he sympathizes with the landowner, but as a Councilman, cannot justify the approval of a use that is not suitable in order to make up for the difficulty the owner faces. Earl Mason speaking on behalf of the applicant, felt that there is much land from the ARCO station to the hospital to be filled by offices, and that it is going to take some time to do in this manner. This land is separated from the rest of the area by Murrieta Blvd., and the whole parcel should be allowed retail CM-25-255 May 15, 1972 (Re Retail Use as well as the ARCO station that has taken the best Clark) portion. He felt the applicant is not being un- reasonable in requesting that this area be allowed retail use, but perhaps something such as an auto parts shop near to the station might be more suitable to the Coun- cil, or something more compatible with the existing station. With regard to the traffic, he stated that the students come across the arroyo and do not bother to walk around Wall street, so this would not really be a problem if some type of snack bar ornoontime facil- ity is located in the area for the students. Mr. Musso explained that at the time the ARCO station was permitted, the rest of the land was considered, and a restaurant or motel were considered acceptable uses. Mayor Taylor stated that to say property adjacent to a retail store should be allowed retail uses would be setting a precedent and there could be requests of this nature next to every gas station in the area. He explained that the City is not obligated in any situation to help the owner because of the way in which he received the property. At this time the Council voted unanimously their approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the CUP for retail uses. * * * RE PURCHASE OF ARROYO MOCHO PROPERTIES Councilman Pritchard felt that in light of what has taken place regarding the Clark property and the fact that it is scheduled for next week with regard to site plan approval, the matter re Arroyo property purchases should be continued and so moved; seconded by Councilman Futch. Mayor Taylor explained that they had received a communication and felt it should be accepted. Councilman Miller stated that the communication urges that the City purchase the school property with which he would concur, or at least consider. Mayor Taylor asked the staff to inquire into the price of the pro- perty, obtain an appraisal and report back to the Council. There was some discussion regarding which piece of land the City might wish to purchase and Councilman Futch thought the piece on which the building nearest Stanley Blvd. is located with the excep- tion of adequate driveway into the property should be appraised. The City Attorney stated the Council might want to give the appraiser a little more leeway as this matter is dealing with a piece of pro- perty which is a little unusual in shape and size; it may be that there is a severance problem and the appraiser may be able to advise as to the best choice if there is to be a severance. * * * REPORT RE TRAIN SPEEDS Mayor Taylor asked for a report from the City At- torney as to his findings regarding the speed of trains through Livermore. Councilman Miller stated he asked that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion in order that a determination might be made as to whether or not the speed of trains should be reduced. Mayor Taylor stated that the reason the subject came about was due to the complaints from the public regarding their safety, but in CM-25-256 his oplnlon it is not clear as to whether or not it is any safer at a crossing when a train is traveling at 35 mph rather than 50 mph. May 15, 1972 (Train Speeds) Councilman Miller suggested that rather than discuss the matter at this time, it might be placed on the agenda and that prior to this time the staff could report to the Council. The City Attorney stated that it has not been determined as yet the exact speed of the trains through town and, in his opinion, most of the trains which pass through are very slow freight trains. * * * A communication was received from Valerie Ray- mond re establishment of a holding capacity for our Valley, and Councilman Pritchard stated that he agrees with what Mrs. Raymond has sug- gested and feels the Council of Pleasanton is also in agreement. Possibly, Pleasanton, VCSD and Livermore could get together for the purpose of formulating something similar which could be agreed upon by all and then presented to the County. He stated that he would like the staff to try to work out some type of arrangement and suggested that the Valley Planning Com- mittee work on this matter as well, in conjunction with the others he had mentioned. The County has no choice but to tax land as residential, but they should be informed that certain land is to remain as open space and it should be taxed accordingly, helping to relieve the tax burden in the Valley. COMMUNICATION RE HOLDING CAPACITY (Valerie Raymond) Mayor Taylor stated that in the past the BAAPCD was asked to come to Livermore and make a presentation regarding air pollution as it concerns the holding capacity. It seems they are working on this at the present time and this is actually a matter being raised again and should be divorced from political platforms. He suggest- ed that the matter be discussed at a later time, after input from the Valley Planning Committee which is dealing with the matter at this time. Councilman Miller commented that Mayor Taylor and he, by their comments are reporting as representatives that the Valley Planning Committee has been asked to take a look at the scope of study for the valley-wide plan, in principle, and that the ideas pre- sented at the Valley Planning Committee meeting are not new since the committee has discussed the matter in the past. He agreed with Mrs. Raymond's statement that a ten year projection of the holding capacity should be made, based on conservative estimates.' Mayor Taylor asked that the matter appear as an agenda item next week and the Council may continue discussion of the item at that time. * * * Councilman Beebe mentioned that he noted there has been another drowning at Del Valle Reser- voir and he felt the Council should perhaps write a letter to the East Bay Regional Park District asking them to consider making arrange- ments for a lifeguard at the reservoir, or possibly some of the lifeguards from Shadowcliff Park to the the critical part of the day. MATTERS INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL (Recent Drowning) transferring dam, during Mayor Taylor agreed they should request a copy of the report of the incident in an attempt to determine some type of solution. Councilman Miller reported there are posted warnings which state, 11 swim at your own risk", and not to swim more than fifty yards from shore if you are going to swim. He stated the lake is very long and narrow and has extensive shore line and it is virtually impossible for those in charge to eliminate this type of thing from happening. CM-25-257 May 15, 1972 (Drowning) Mayor Taylor expressed his concern for people get- ting a false sense of security if they know a life- guard is there, which might prove to cause more trouble than now exists. He stated that the Shadow Cliff area is a different situation in that it is roped off for swimming. The Council agreed that the Park District should be contacted ex- pressing their concern and hopes that something can be done to min- imize the hazards. (Request for Executive Session) Required Development of Bike Trails * * * Councilman Pritchard asked if the Council could adjourn to a short executive session in order to discuss a personnel problem, to which Mayor Taylor replied to the affirmative. * * * Councilman Miller felt it might be appropriate to direct the Planning Commission to consider amend- ment of the zoning ordinance to require bike trails as part of the developer's requirements. The Planning Director felt that this was a matter that would fall in the public works category rather than a zoning problem. Councilman Miller stated it is his understanding that something is in the mill which takes care of his suggestion at the present. Re Young Child Week-Poppy Day ADJOURNMENT CM-25-2S8 * * * Mayor Taylor announced that at the request of the nursery schools he will be proclaiming "Young Child Week"; also, May 26 and 27 will be Poppy Day and Veterans will be selling poppys on these days. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to a brief executive session. * * * APPROVE ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of May 22, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on May 22, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Liver- more Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None RO LL CALL * * * The Mayor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle- giance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by MINUTES Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of the adjourned regular meetings of May 9 and 12 were approved as submitted and the minutes of the meeting of May 15, 1972 were approved as amended. * * * Charlene Kehret, 924 Florence Road, read a letter (copies had been presented to the Council), regarding the League of Women Vo- ters' stand re solid-waste management facil- ities urging the Council to ask for delay of approval until the City has had an opportunity to review the county-wide plan. OPEN FORUM (Solid Waste Management Facilities) Mayor Taylor explained that just prior to the hearing in this regard, there is to be a hearing by the County Planning Commis- sion on the Kaiser dump site which seems to be out of order as there should be a county-wide plan before that project is discussed. Mr. Musso further explained that the question of the Kaiser appli- cation has been pending before practically every public agency in the area that the matter has been referred to. Most agencies are awaiting the report from the State Department of Public Health to determine whether or not this type of operation would or would not be hazardous to the water supply, and the various committees have been biding their time until the report is received. The Environmental Impact Study was received and will be before the Planning Commission at their next meeting which will not occur until after the County Planning Commission has taken action. In all probability the issue will be continued until they have all the information, as every committee has requested that no action be taken until all information is available to the various agencies. The Council discussed the various proposed land fill projects and felt that the whole county should be considered for the best alternative. Mr. Musso reminded the Council that the Valley Plan- ning Committee adopted a report from their solid waste disposal subcommittee which was forwarded to each of the public agencies without comment or recommendation. It was recommended that no more sites in the Valley be approved until the regional plan was developed. Mayor Taylor stated the question is whether the City will take a position at the hearings before the Board of Supervisors and County Planning Commission, and suggested we communicate with them that we are in favor of a valley-wide plan before we commit ourselves to such a large project in the Valley; this suggestion CM-25-259 May 22, 1972 (Solid Waste Management Facilities) was seconded by Councilman Miller. Councilman Futch felt we should point out the public agencies have not had a chance to read the technical re- ports, which is a strong factor, and should also be included in the letter. The motion was approved unanimously. Mrs. Kehret questioned who was to do the planning as it is her un- derstanding the County Planning Commission is doing this and she felt the cities should have some input. Mayor Taylor asked the Planning Director what his suggestion was in this regard, however he had no comment to make at this time. Mayor Taylor continued that if he felt a recommendation from the staff was appropriate he would appreciate if he would make it. Councilman Miller questioned if the City has a solid waste element under study for our own City plan, and when we are required by state law to have it. The Planning Director stated he had not had an opportunity to find the appropriate legislation as yet, but was under the impression they had a year. * * * East Bay Regional Park Master Plan for open space Mrs. Kehret advised that the East Bay Regional Park District is holding a hearing on May 31 on its master plan study, and she felt this was the time to ask that our area be included in this study, and inquired if the City is making any suggestions or regional parks within the City's planning area. Mayor Taylor advised that this area has always been included in the long range plan made by EBRPD, and this particular study is being financed by ABAG. He did feel that the City should ask that the study include our existing plans, making it clear that there has been no discussion regarding possible annexation to the District. Mr. Musso advised that our plans have been included, and the District has already consulted with us and will again, and we will be repre- sented at the meeting. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Departmental Reports Departmental reports were received as follows: Airport Activity - April Fire Department - April Golf Course - April Municipal Court - April Police and Pound Departments - April Water Reclamation Plant - April * * * Lease of Airport Hangars A request has been received for renewal of the T-hangar lease for use by the U.S. Border Patrol. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing execution of the lease. RESOLUTION NO. 63-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (U.S. Border Patrol) * * * CM-25-260 May 22, 1972 RESOLUTION NO. 64-72 Establish No-Parking Zone No. Side Highway 84 A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 84 EASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF JUNCTION AVENUE. At a citizen's suggestion, our staff has requested that the Division of Highways provide an additional lane east of Western Pacific Railroad to accommodate vehicles required to stop at the railroad crossing. The purpose of this storage lane is to mini- mize delay for the through traffic westbound and avoid any poten- tial rear end accidents. The Division of Highways has agreed to do the street widening and all necessary stripings if the City pro- hibits parking in this vicinity. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 65-72 Sidewalk Claims A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK NOT TO FILE CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE (Group VIII) RESOLUTION NO. 66-72 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF (Group VIII) * * * A communication was received from the California Roadside Council commending the City and Planning Director and staff on the City's sign control program. Communications re Sign Control Program and Regulation 2 Communications were received from the Cities of San Pablo and Palo Alto re proposed Regulation 2 of the Bay Area Air Pollu- tion Control District. These letters were noted for filing. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- Approval of cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the Consent Calendar items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * A report was received from the Public Works Director advising that the attorney for the Sproul Homes Development has requested an ex- tension of time (three years) for the con- struction of Springtown Blvd., north of Lassen Road. Mr. Lee recommends that the matter be referred to the staff for further discussion with the developer. COMMUNICATION RE SPROUL HOMES PEVELOPMENT ~Time Extension) The Public Works Director also explained that the fact this road is not constructed is not inconveniencing anyone as it does not go anywhere and would only serve the properties adjacent to it, and ultimately would be a part of the Springtown Blvd. extension that the Council has made a requirement of Proud Homes to be construct- ed along with their third unit. If that development had taken place, the extension of the boulevard would have been important. A bond in the amount of $77,000 had been submitted by the developer of Tract 2725, and it is felt that the extension of time for the un- completed work may be justified if the bond amount is adjusted and an agreement can be arranged for the widening of Springtown Blvd. Councilman Miller reminded the Council that this work was to have been completed in 1967, however Mayor Taylor felt it was not in the City's interest to call bonds and force the extension of the CM-25-261 May 22, 1972 (Time Extension Sproul Homes Request) street into undeveloped land, but it would be more to our interest to negotiate for widening of the street and an increase in the bond amount as a condition of a time extension. Councilman Miller felt that since the land is all in the City and is all zoned now is the time to get the street and call the bonds, now while there is still enough money to put in the street. If the City would accept maintenance of the street now, the cost would be very small and insures completion of the street later. Mayor Taylor stated it is his concern that once you force construc- tion of a street into an area where it is already zoned for multi- ple on one side, it will encourage development prematurely. Councilman Miller asked if we are actually in a position to require widening to the new standard and if it can be done within existing tract maps, and Mayor Taylor stated it could be required as a con- dition of extension. Mr. Musso commented that there is a PUD that will expire in the next few months at which time the Council may not choose to renew the multiple zoning, or at that time may decide to widen the street, in which case the improved street would be a hindrance to change. Councilman Miller stated if it is due to expire in a few months, the matter could be continued for that length of time, but not longer. He is concerned by all the promises that keep coming, but the pub- lic works improvements do not, and he felt it was essential that contracts made with the City should be fulfilled, and this is one of those contracts. Mayor Taylor stated if it is in the public interest to fulfill it, it should be done, however in this particular case it forces pre- mature construction of a major street. Mr. Lee stated he would agree with Councilman Miller and would have recommended that the improvements be required because of problems in delay, except for the prospects of getting a full width major street which is worth quite a bit; if they do make a provision that the City can call for the construction at any time prior to the three years, they are not in any worse shape than they are at pre- sent. He reiterated that the recommendation is not for approval of the time extension, but rather to allow the staff to negotiate with the developer for widening of the street and increase of bond; if they are unable to do this, they will make another recommendation. Councilman Futch moved to direct the Public Works Director to in- vestigate what type of agreement can be worked out with the develop- er and report back to the Council; motion was seconded by Council- man Beebe and approved unanimously. Mayor Taylor suggested that the time extension might coincide with the expiration date of the PUD. * * * RE HOLDING CAPACITY FOR VALLEY (Valerie Raymond) A communication had been received from Valerie Raymond re establishment of a holding capacity for the Valley, and the matter was postponed from the last regular meeting for discussion at this time. Mayor Taylor explained that Mrs. Raymond makes the point that there should be a holding capacity for the Valley based on the technological capabilities we can now predict and further mentions a 10-year capacity with modification perhaps every two years. CM-25-262 May 22, 1972 Mayor Taylor continued that the City has asked (Holding Capacity) the BAAPCD to set a holding capacity for the Valley based on smog levels. Also, prior to that time the City of Pleasanton had requested that we direct the BAAPCD to make such a study coordinated through the Valley Planning Committee, however this was turned down by the Council in favor of approaching the BAAPCD separately. He suggested a response to the letter by mentioning what is in progress and beyond that, make sure that Pleasanton, Livermore and the VCSD are all together on such a study. Councilman Miller suggested a resolution similar to what has been mentioned and also trying to get together with Pleasanton and VCSD to include the modifications indicated by Mrs. Raymond. Councilman Pritchard asked if ABAG is not doing a study now and Mayor Taylor replied it is not on a population holding capacity, but they have a general plan for the nine county region. Coun- cilman Pritchard stated his agreement with the letters submitted by Mr. Nordyke and Mr. Marguth in that there should be a study started, but perhaps a resolution, as suggested by Councilman Miller, would help. Mayor Taylor stated that we should take problems one at a time, and air pollution sets a limit in itself in the Valley and is a technical point that requires the BAAPCD study and that resulting information should be available before the general plan study for the Valley is made. Councilman Miller added that the most likely limiting condition on population in the Valley is air quality, this study is being made and should be completed soon. Councilman Futch agreed with the general philosophy that the hold- ing capacity should be changed as technology increases and as land planning techniques change, but is not sure that he would set a specific period of ten years to be renewed every two years; rather he would leave the time more flexible. Councilman Beebe stated that as things stand now, we review density whenever we wish, so he did not feel it was necessary to spell out the details regarding time. Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, commented it concerns him that the most important factor is air pollution; he has been concerned about this a long time and ten years ago at his suggestion we first decided to have an air monitoring station in Livermore, and all but one member of the Air Pollution Control Committee he personally recruited and aided in developing a charter for that organization. Professionally, he has attempted to understand standards, both from the radiation standpoint and chemical pollution standpoint, and one thing that becomes clear is that if the problem is radia- tion pollutants in the air it would be an easy problem as these have been studied for the past twenty years, but chemical pollutants are not at all well understood; there is very little data on which our standards are based, or very little data with regard to chronic health conditions. To say that if we consider air pollution every- thing else is irrelevant, is an over simplification of the problem. He is concerned that we are going to develop a holding capacity on the basis of air pollution, and he felt the row boat example used by Mrs. Raymond is very inappropriate because that is not the way the problem is. He felt it was more like a person in relationship to his weight - a person might consult a doctor who would tell him he should weigh a certain amount, but if you are too skinny there are negative sides to that; if you are too heavy your probability of dying from a heart attack or emphysema is increased, and generally you will not feel good, so a person usually aims at a comfortable weight. There is more in a holding capacity than just air pollu- tion, but there are other things that are also important in terms CM-25-263 May 22, 1972 (Holding Capacity in Valley) cant change in of our ability to function as a separate entity in order to answer our humanity feelings; also, the redistribution of the taxes if we do this kind of thing is important as there will be a signifi- the tax base, so all things should be considered. Dr. Don Watson, 987 Via Seville, referred to Mrs. Raymond's letter and felt that Mr. Nordyke's analogy is a little different from what she addressed as a limiting number. You can pick any parameter and find a carrying capacity, whether it is acreage, water supply, sewage treatment or what not, but the smallest of all the numbers would have to be considered the limiting number. One good reason for picking air pollution to set a carrying capacity, other than in this Valley it might be the limiting one, is the fact that other laws have already been passed which dictate that air quality be used iq determining land use policy. The amendments to the Clean Air Bill passed in 1970 specify land use and transportation controls as part of the measures that must be implemented by the state to meet set standards by 1975. Dr. Watson further stated that a spokes- man from the Environmental Protection Agency contacted the BAAPCD last week and advised them that if they did not meet the standards, the agency would do it, and he did not want a federal agency making these decisions for the Valley as there are many things to be con- sidered rather than just the technological features as mentioned by Mr. Nordyke. If we want to plan and pace our growth rate, we must start somewhere and it is better that we start with something that can be implemented and has the federal and state law beffind it rather than hoping to stay a rural community and have nothing to support it. The staff was directed to prepare a resolution incorporating into it the desires of the Council as expressed indicating the Valley Planning Committee as the coordinating agency. Councilman Miller stated the two issues involved were the ultimate holding capacity and how fast we get there, and the way we get to the ultimate holding capacity can be looked upon as a temporary holding capacity that changes with time. If you exceed your ability to provide services in some area such as sewage treatment, your temporary holding capacity is your present population; if you ex- ceed your water, it is the same; if you exceed standards of air quality it is again the same. The holding capacity you can foresee does depend upon the availability of resources and on technological advances. Councilman Beebe stated the only conflict he could see was that a holding capacity for air quality might be established, and the feder- al or regional government might say we can no longer put sewage effluent, treated to any fine degree, into the stream so one hold- ing capacity is good and there might be a cross purpose; we should study both at the same time. Mayor Taylor felt the Council all agreed they should not exceed the capacity of the public services, and Councilman Miller felt they did since the SAVE initiative, but did not before because they exceeded the school capacity for years. Councilman Miller also remarked about the example used that air pollution was like a persons weight, however an individual has a choice in controlling his weight, but the people in the Valley have no choice as to how much smog is brought upon them by increased growth except through the actions of their public bodies; in fact, it is more like the analogy of the row boat. Whenever public health is concerned, one should be governed by the most conservative standards. * * * CM-25-264 A copy of a communication to the Valley Planning Committee from the Committee for Rational Valley Planning was received regarding a comprehensive valley-wide master development plan. May 22, 1972 COMMUNICATION RE VALLEY-WIDE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mayor Taylor explained that a presentation was made to the Valley Planning Committee for a Valley Master Plan and was discussed. The committee realized a great deal of thought and study was needed to set the scope for such a plan, as well as the cost, before we embark on such a project. They felt the idea was a good one with- out knowing what the scope might be, and it was suggested that the various agencies belonging to the Valley Planning Committee be re- quested to appropriate some money in the budget this year and study the scope of the plan before a commitment is made. He recommended that the Council direct the staff to include some appropriate con- sideration in next year's budget in anticipation of participating in the valley-wide general plan study. The details can be worked out later and the amount discussed at the budget session. Mayor Taylor offered this direction in the form of a motion, which was seconded by Councilman Miller. Councilman Beebe commented that general plans are very expensive and have a lot of nonsense in them instead of just dealing with land planning. Mayor Taylor stated every time the question of valley-wide general plan is raised, the County comments they have one, but he felt there are some obvious unresolved questions such as the boundary between the two cities. Councilman Miller commented that one of the major problems is how to get valley wide cooperation when everybody has their own pro- vincial interest. The only way it will succeed is to work out the financial equities re industrial, commercial and residential use. The Valley Planning Committee should be given the support of the various agencies to attempt to set the scope. Councilman Pritchard suggested that the staff obtain what informa- tion they can on the Tahoe Basin Regional Planning Group. He would like to see the Valley Planning Committee have more teeth than it has. Mr. Nordyke, speaking as co-chairman of the Committee for Rational Valley Planning, stated there has been a great deal of thought for several years that people have talked about looking at things on a valley-wide basis, and felt if they put forth a proposal which encompasses the areas that should be coordinated and the areas that should be studied as one integral unit with a suggested plan, they might make some progress. They cannot move in any direction to change our present political and economic structure in the Valley without doing it on a valley-wide basis and with a plan. The three recommendations they have made which they urge the Council to con- sider are: 1) that the work be done by a good professional planning firm; 2) the concept of a large valley-wide citizens committee to support and work with the professional firm, and when the study is done it should be politically acceptable and the only way to do this is to have a large body of people who understand what they are doing in detail; 3) the VPC has had no authority and no money and for that reason has not been able to accomplish much, and there is no way that VPC can be designated to do land use planning; they must be given some authority and funds wtth which to work, and he felt this study would be a step in that direction. A vote was then taken on the motion which passed unanimously. * * * CM-25-265 May 22, 1972 APPEAL RE SITE PLAN APPROVAL (James Clark) An appeal was submitted by the Council regarding the site plan approval for property located at the southwest corner of Murrieta and Stanley Blvds. The Planning Director explained that the Council denied the requested retail use so that the pro- perty remains zoned for commercial office use. This application was filed~st October ,and was referred to many public agencies and, particularly, Zone 7 because of the channel problems, and Zone 7 questioned whether or not this would conflict with the trailway plan of the City. Over a period of several weeks they consulted with Zone 7, including the Board, on the possibility of some public agency acquiring the property to avoid the improvements necessary to develop the property. The matter was presented to the Council with a price tab of $62,000 which was felt to be too much, so they attempted to find an acceptable development plan. Mr. Musso stated there were several aspects to the plan besides the layout of the building and parking. The building and off-street parking and set- backs were in conformance with the ordinance; the issues were to preserve the trees, to establish the location of the trail~ to de- termine not only the alignment but the design for the flood con- trol structures and to consider the effect on the adjacent property on the opposite side of the channel; there was also some concern with aesthetics of the channel design. One thing that was established is that the developer would be responsible for the protection of the opposite bank and riprap would be provided where necessary to prevent additional erosion of the bank. It was established to his satisfaction that the City did not want the riding and hiking trail to stay on the upper bank and end up on Stanley Blvd. but rather,to cross under the bridge to avoid having the traffic cross a rather dangerous street. They had discussed a possible ramp near the bridge, and designs of the bike trail; they envision a horse trail on the north side of the channel, dropping down at Murrieta and going under the bridge, and the pedestrian and bike trail would be on the south side of Murrieta Blvd. and also drop down under the bridge. Mr. Musso further explained that most of the trees are being saved. The ques- tion of the vertical wall or a sloping bank, which would be a more natural bank, was discussed and the issue appeared to be that we either have a vertical bank or purchase by the City as a sloping bank would cut off half the property, and if you do away with the vertical wall you may lose the trees. The wall would be a masonry block wall up to nine feet high, six feet above grade, the remainder being below channel level and would be tinted brown with shadow d~ks and also planters are proposed along the top to provide greenery. This would be topped with a chajn link fence; the alternate would be a board fence. The access for maintenance will be an easement shared by the Zone 7 and the property owner. Councilman Beebe questioned what type of wall would be used on the opposite side of the channel and was advised that it would be some type of rip rap treatment, cement sacks or concrete. The question was asked about the fence requirements, who required it, and what the specifications were and Mr. Musso advised that both the City and Zone 7 required the fence. Randy Schlientz, Associated Professions, speaking for the developer, stated he did not know the requirements, but could explain what is planned, adding that there is a 4-foot high chain link fence on top of the masonry wall, and the masonry wall is about 7~ feet above ground measured from the creek bed and about 2! feet below ground. Mr. Lee added that the reason for the wall going underground that deep is so the creek scouring would not undermine the footing. Mayor Taylor asked about a County ordinance regarding filling of arroyos which was recently passed by the County. CM-25-266 The City Attorney replied that it was his under- standing the County has asked our City to adopt a corresponding ordinance so there would be dual jurisdiction over the arroyos against dumping, filling or polluting of any kind. May 22, 1972 (Site Plann Approval- James Clark) Mayor Taylor wondered if this ordinance would be applicable to this situation and felt we should check to be sure. Mr. Musso stated the intent of the law is not to encroach into the passage of the channel, however what is being proposed is a channel improvement. Councilman Futch stated his feeling that one of the considerations they should look into is that a development of this type is aesthe- tically pleasing and does not lead to degradation of the area, and one item of concern would be to save as many trees as possible. He stated an earlier plan indicated a smaller building which would save about seven of the large trees and wondered why this was dropped. Mr. Schlientz explained that the small site plan was prior to having a specific survey which located the trees, but that was only a rough outline, and it turned out that the trees are in the middle of the building site rather than on one edge and was the reason for the change in the site plan. Councilman Futch stated they should also consider the effect of the opposite bank being filled with sand and concrete as he felt they should require something more aesthetically pleasing and he displayed several photographs taken along the various arroyos. He pointed out he would like to see a more pleasing effect on the opposite bank, and an attempt to save more of the trees. Mr. Musso stated that the representative of Zone 7 would submit a plan for the design of the wall to them before approval. Mayor Taylor stated that since the trailways are expected to go down under the bridge in this area, the design of those walls from an aesthetic point of view should be carefully reviewed by the City. Mr. Lee stated as far as Zone 7 is concerned, they will cooperate fully with the City, and added the staff will attempt to develop a plan concurrently with the plan of the wall so the Council may be aware of the possibilities. Councilman Miller indicated his concern about the trees and the treatment of the wall and the size of the one building to the north and felt there should be some adjustment of location or building size to save those trees. Councilman Beebe stated he would also like to see a more attractive treatment of the opposite bank. Mr. Musso stated the Planning Commission did not get into detail as to specific trees; the plan was approved by the staff and was one of four or five presented. The reason they have deleted some trees is the fact they are quite small; there are other alterna- tives that would take other larger trees. Mr. Schlientz stated that this plan saved large trees - allover 24 inches in diameter, and again explained the reason for the change in the plan. Councilman Beebe stated it would be impossible to build on the lot and still save all the trees, and the larger trees on the perimeter are being saved. Earl Mason, Associated Professions, stated there was no survey on the first plan, and displayed the site plan to show the location of the various trees, adding that the building is located to save CM-25-267 May 22, 1972 (Appeal re Site Plan Approval) as many of the trees as possible. He continued that the ordinance has certain limitations as to how far the City can request the landlord to go; if there was a dirt channel there would be no trees left or even a site as it would all go. The owner is planning to build quite an expensive retaining wall to make a usable site. He and the owner have discussed the matter and are unable to understand the reason for the appeal. Mayor Taylor stated there seems to be no solution for improving the situation regarding the trees as there is a limit to requiring an owner not to remove the trees when there has been an effort to save most of them. There should be, however, a condition regarding the type of riprap to be used on the opposite bank, or perhaps they should even require a wall. One other item he had raised regard- ing the site plan was the fact that it has traffic entering on two major streets, and wondered if this was of any concern to the City staff. Mr. Musso stated they did consider having only one driveway, but that was discarded as it would just put more traffic in one location; he pointed out there would be no left turns, either in or out and, in fact, this intersection is not as bad as several others in town which he indicated for comparison. Councilman Miller mentioned that perhaps we should require some other type of fence rather than chain link on top of the masonry wall. Mayor Taylor suggested that they require staff approval for the wall, fence and treatment of the opposite bank of the channel. Mr. Mason stated that the client had planned to cover the chain link fence with landscaping such as ivy or something of that nature. If they use an open type fence, it might be dangerous for children. As far as the riprap, there is only about 120 feet of riprap to be installed right on the curve, in addition to the placed concrete and rock drainage spillway from the high bank on the south side. He mentioned the Council can view riprap already placed on the Murrieta Blvd. side where the creek hits the south end of the property. Mayor Taylor stated the Council is in agreement that they prefer design review on the channel treatment in all aspects, and the fence should also be subject to design review. Councilman Beebe moved approval of the site plan with the modifica- tions with regard to the retaining walls, fence design so that the City has final approval for the treatment of both sides of the channel and the design of the fence; the motion was seconded by Councilman Futch. Earl Mason asked for clarification of the Council's intent as re- gards to approval, and Mr. Lee explained that he and Mr. Musso would work with him and bring the options back to the Council with a recommendation. Mayor Taylor explained that they have had a lot of citizen concern with regard to this particular area, and for that reason have dis- cussed it so much in detail, as most people prefer that it not be developed. The motion was voted on at this time and passed unan- imously. * * * RECESS AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT. * * * CM-25-268 The matter of the trailer storage and parking ordinance amendment was continued from the meeting of April 10, inasmuch as the Council was unable to reach a decision. May 22, 1972 RE TRAILER STORAGE AND PARKING Mayor Taylor suggested that Councilman Futch review the minutes of that meeting before they discuss the matter, and perhaps continue the issue until June 12, and this was agreed to by the Council. Councilman Miller suggested also that prior to that time the staff prepare a ballot option report for the Council. * * * The City Manager reported that the six year capital improvement plan of the City includes the acquisition of two pumper units for the Fire Department - one during the 71-72 fiscal year and one the following year. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion authorizing the preparation of plans and specifi- cations for the receipt of bids for the acquisition of two - 1,250 gpm fire apparatus pumping units and, secondly, that the staff be authorized to determine by initial negotiations the lend- ing sources for a lease-purchase finance plan for this equipment purchase. REPORT RE FIRE REQUIPMENT PURCHASE Councilman Pritchard moved approval of the City Manager's recom- mendation, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Miller questioned the reason for the lease purchase rather than buying the equipment outright, and Mr. Parness explained there is no financial capability listed in the capital improvement budget as differentiated from the operating budget. Funding could be made available, but he felt since this would have to come from reserves, the amount we earn from utilization of the reserves ex- ceeds the amount that would have to be paid for a lease purchase arrangement, and would be the best way of financing. The only question is whether the Council wishes to allow purchase of two pieces of equipment at this time, which is recommended. A vote was taken and the Council approved the recommendation un- animously. * * * Mayor Taylor reminded the Council that the delegation from our Sister City Quezaltenango would be here on June 5 and planned to attend the Council meeting. Since there is a recep- tion planned for them later, it has been requested that the Coun- cil meeting be held earlier and he suggested that the meeting begin at 7:30 p.m. to greet the delegation before the meeting and also that the agenda be light to allow the Council members and staff to attend the reception later. SISTER CITY DELEGATION Mr. Parness suggested that there be a resolution of greeting pre- pared to present to the delegation; a gift will be decided on later. * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the ordinance rezoning the area adjacent to Murrieta Boulevard and Stan- ley Boulevard, (including the Clark Property) was introduced. * * * PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE AREA ADJACENT TO MURRIETA & STANLEY BOULEVARDS CM-25-269 May 22, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMEND- MENT RE SITE-- PLAN APPROVAL MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (BASSA Nomination) On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the ordinance amending subsection 25.32 of of Section 25.00 re site plan approval was in- troduced. * * * Mr. Parness stated that on June 7 the Council will be asked to join with a nominating committee com- prised of the cities and County and the Liquid Waste Disposal Agency to select fifteen nominees to be referred to the Board of Supervisors for selection of five to appoint to the new state agency called Bay Area Sewer Service Agency. This is a very important regional enterprise which has just been formulated by virtue of state statute. Mr. Parness wondered if perhaps the Council might want to discuss how our City might best be represented at that meeting as it is a very important issue. Mayor Taylor also stated it is very important that the Valley be represented and did not recall that the City of Pleasanton had par- ticipated in the South Bay Dischargers study, and it is their intent to phase out their sewer plant as soon as possible, which will leave Livermore with the largest plant and investment and concern in the Valley. He felt if there is to be a City representative, it should be Livermore, as we could represent the City of Pleasanton's interest as well as our own. Since they did not participate in the study and will soon be out of the business, they would not stand as good a chance to receive a nomination as the City of Livermore. Mr. Parness stated he subscribed to this idea and hoped the Council would concur with these views and support Mayor Taylor so that our City Council receives one of the nominations for appointment. Mayor Taylor stated if the Council agreed with these views, he would attend the meeting. Mr. Parness explained the process involved in the nominations, and suggested that a letter be drafted for the Mayor's signature for distribution. Chamber of Commerce Conference Room * * * Mr. Parness stated that through mutual arrange- ment, the City has been using the Chamber of Commerce conference room which has worked out quite well, however there are continuing conflicts arising on its use even though the City has great need for it. Due to financial reasons the Chamber has had to re- lease these quarters from their lease, and the owner has inquired if the City would be interested in leasing them. Also, he has dis- cussed the matter with LARPD who has a need for a conference room at times. Mr. Parness asked the Council's permission to negotiate a lease with the owner of the property to lease these conference facilities at a rate of $50.00 per month to be equally split with the Recreation District. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the negotiations were approved. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Bike Trails) CM-25-270 * * * Councilman Pritchard stated the Council had re- quested the budget contain information regarding Livermore Bikeways Association's proposal for bike trails and asked if this had been included. Mr. Parness stated the Council had asked that their letter be referred to the budget session and they expect to do this. Councilman Miller reminded the City Manager that the Council had also requested the staff to discuss the matter with the Bikeways Associ- ation prior to the budget session. May 22, 1972 (Bike Trails) Mr. Musso explained that the staff is attempting to adopt the standards for the bike paths, which has been roughly done with the trailway system, and the second thing is to adopt the plan. Both of these have been sent to the Livermore Bikeways Associa- tion for comment. The third thing is to allocate priorities and place the trails in the budget; some of the trailway-parkway pro- jects are in the parks budget. Councilman Pritchard asked if the bikeways are included in the General Plan and if the Planning Commission would be discussing this subject before it is presented to the Council. Mr. Musso stated they would not be discussing that aspect, but would be adopt- ing the bikeway plan as the trailway plan is already included in the General Plan, and the next step is the bikeway plan. * * * Mayor Taylor asked for a brief executive ses- sion to discuss appointments to the Beautifica- tion Committee and Industrial Advisory Committee. He stated there are a number of committee appointments to be made as there are also appointments to the Design Review Committee and the Council is interested in at least three professionally trained people for this new committee, and they will entertain any appli- cants. Committee Appointments * * * Councilman Futch mentioned that it had been (Arroyo Fill) suggested the City should adopt an ordinance concerning Arroyo fill, and the City Attorney stated he would check and present a draft ordinance for discussion. * * * Councilman Futch stated there have been a number (Air Pollution) of communications from various cities concerning Regulation 2, and he felt this should be discussed. Mayor Taylor advised that the Council's. testimony in this regard was submitted during the hearing based on recommendation made by our Air Pollution Study Committee, and asked that a copy of this letter be submitted to Councilman Futch. Councilman Futch felt that perhaps the statement of the Council's position could be sent to other cities. Mr. Musso stated there was the report of the Air Pollution Study Committee and a letter of transmittal of the report that went to the Board in April, and Dr. Todd Crawford had made a few additional comments on the amended report, and wondered if this should also be sent. Mayor Taylor suggested that Councilman Futch review these before they are transmitted, and it should be discussed again also. * * * Councilman Miller asked if the City had offi- cially acknowledged the communication from LARPD about their request for park develop- ment requirement, as he felt they should be advised it is discussed during the budget session. (LARPD Response) to be * * * CM-25-271 May 22, 1972 (SAVE - Suit Costs) replied that the fee of $10.50. Councilman Miller stated that Judge Minder's de- cision about the SAVE suit indicates that the City is entitled to recover all of the costs and won- dered if a statement of the costs had been submitted and if all costs have been included. Mr. Lewis only cost we are entitled to recover is the filing * * * (Arroyo Fill- Mayor Taylor stated that there is considerable Near Las Positas) fill going on in the arroyo near Las Positas at the north Livermore Avenue exchange and the re- sulting channel was certainly not in conformance with the City's long range plans, and he felt the County should be aware of what our plans are. We should find out who has authorized this fill and if a permit was issued, and asked if the Council could have a report back on this. Mr. Lee stated he would investigate and report back to the Council. ADJOURNMENT * * * There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to an executive session to discuss committee assignments. * * * APPROVE ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of June 5, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on June 3, 1972 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 SPECIAL ITEM (Welcome to Quezaltenango Delegation) CM-25-272 * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * Mayor Taylor introduced Senor German Scheel Montes, first City Attorney and member of the City Council of the City of Quezaltenango, Guatemala, seated at his side, and read the resolution of welcome to bur visiting guests from the Sister City, and asked Mr. Joe Medeiros to act as translator during the course of the meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 67-72 A RESOLUTION WELCOMING OUR VISITING FRIENDS FROM QUEZALTENANGO, GUATEMALA June 5, 1972 On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote the above resolution was adopted. (Quezaltenango Delegation) Senor Scheel acknowledged the greeting and presented the City with a flag of Quezaltenango, explaining that it had been their flag when they were a territory much the same as California before it became a state. Mayor Taylor presented the Council and Staff to the Delegation and they in turn were introduced, and presented gift packs of wine from local wineries. A~red GOldberg, Chairman of the Sister City Committee, introduced all the committee officers who were present and expressed his wel- come to the delegates, thanking them for the hospitality extended to the people of Livermore who have visited the Sister City, and offering our hospitality in return. Mayor Taylor called for a recess at this time to allow the delegates to leave for a reception being held in their honor. * * * AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT FOR THE REGULAR MEETING. RECESS * * * The regular meeting of the Council commenced with the Mayor leading the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * There being no corrections or additions to the MINUTES minutes of the meeting of May 22, 1972, on mo- tion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council- man Futch, and by unanimous vote, the minutes were approved as submitted. * * * Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he OPEN FORUM had appeared before the Council in November, re- (BUdget Sessions) questing that the public budget hearings be held prior to the meeting in which the budget is accepted in order that the Council might have the opportunity to review input from the public, and was under the impression his suggestion was being con- sidered. Mayor Taylor explained that a date for the budget session has not been set and suggested to the Council that they schedule the hear- ing in order that they might have time to study input from the pub- liy for a week if necessary, before adoption of the budget. Mr. Parness explained that the agenda for the study session of the budget is available and anyone wishing to attend the sessions is welcome. He reminded the Council that the budget must be adopted by July 1. Councilman Miller mentioned that most of the decisions regarding the budget are made at the preliminary budget session and felt that the public should attend the preliminary session in order that their input can be received at that time, as well as official public hearings later. He suggested that the public be allowed to make brief statements at the preliminary hearing and that anything which will take over a minute or two should be presented in writing. CM-25-273 ---"--~_'__'_"-~-,.~----"~..._--.,^-.. "."'~"_._--_'^---~_.",.~--~.._-----_.,"-_..-.._...__._--_._."._"'"~.- June 5, 1972 Gilbert Marguth, 1152 Farmington Way, stated that he had appeared before the Council some months back with a petition to install signal lights at the in- tersection of Concannon and Holmes street and re- ceived a letter from the City Engineer stating the traffic did not warrant lights at that intersection. However, he wanted to inform the Council that there will be several hundred more homes completed before school starts in the fall, and a number of sixth grade classes will be going to Mendenhall School, and the children will have to cross Holmes Street. He further stated that another car hit the wall on Holmes Street over the weekend and urged the Council to push the State of California to get traffic signals installed before school starts in the fall. (Re Signals at Concannon Blvd & Holmes st.) Mr. Lee explained that a meeting had been arranged with the Divi- sion of Engineers and a representative came out and viewed the inter- section, however, he did not make any commitment but he did indicate that a warning light would probably be installed at some future time. * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE ZONING ORD. AMENDMENTS- (Sec. 10.00, 21.50 & 21.88) The Mayor explained that the public hearing was in regard to proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to Section 10.00 (CN-Neighborhood Commercial) District; appropriate sections to consider establishment of regulations pertaining to condominium development; Section 21.50 (Animal Hospital and Veterinarian); appropriate section regulatina service stations in or adjacent to residential~eas; and Sec. 21.8~ re regulation per- taining to swimming pools in front yard areas. The Planning Director explained that drafts of the zoning ordinance amendments had been prepared and Sec. 31.00 (Definitions) defines multiple family and single family; Sec. 8.97 establishes that a multiple family dwelling cannot be converted into a condominium unless it conforms to four specified regulations as set forth. He stated that in Section (b) he wished to have the words, "including condominiums" added after "Attached Dwellings" . He informed the Council that the State law specifies the City has to approve a con- dominium project as long as they meet our zoning regulations, and paragraph (c) has been written to reflect this amendment. Mr. Musso mentioned that the ordinance regarding animals would include all kinds of animals, pet stores and Veterinarians. He stated that the veterinarians wanted their hospitals to be allowed in the CN zone and were instrumental in the amendment to allow crematoriums for animals anywhere that a veterinarian hospital is located, but in order to do this they must obtain a CUP. The ordinance as pro- posed also adopts Section 21.88 (e) to read as follows: In any case a distance of five feet shall be maintained between any fence and the waterline of a pool. Councilman Miller stated he could not see a reason to allow pet stores to be located in a CN District where the area is used pri- marily for the purposes of day to day shopping in a residential neighborhood. He felt they should remain in a more commercial area. He explained he does not infer that a pet store in a CN zone is detrimental, but this is supposed to be reserved space for the pur- pose of day to day shopping needs. Councilman Beebe felt that most every family owns a pet of some type and would frequent these pet stores for supplies when they are doing their regular shopping. Mayor Taylor also felt there was no real reason not to allow the small stores with limited supplies to conduct business in the shopping centers. Mayor Taylor declared the public hearing open, however as there was no public testimony regarding the proposed amendments, Council- man Beebe moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. CM-25-274 June 5, 1972 Councilman Futch stated there were mixed feel- ings regarding where to draw the line as to what uses would be permitted in neighborhood shopping centers. (Public Hearing - Sec. 10.00, 21.50 and 21.88) Councilman Miller moved the amended ordinance be prepared as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the addition of the change in wording for Item (b); motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously. * * * Mayor Taylor asked the Planning Director to explain the area involved and what is proposed with regard to the application for rezoning submitted by John S. Hartwell at 5th and South K Streets. PUBLIC HEARING RE REZONING 5th and South K (John S. Hartwell) Mr. Musso stated that the application was for two parcels - one facing K Street, the other facing Fifth Street, which was for multiple residential zoning. He stated that the application was found to be in conformance with the general plan and it has been recommended to approve the portion involving the application. Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission expanded the area of consideration to include the properties generally on Fifth St. and properties fronting on Fourth Street near I Street. Along Fourth Street it has been recommended that CO zoning be allowed, which is in conformance with the general plan and plans for the area. He mentioned that the Fifth Street recommendations are in conformance with the general plan for RM (Medium Residential), and the only problem is with one piece of property presently used for a nursery school which will have to be changed from CP to RM zoning. Councilman Miller asked why the RL-5 cannot be used for a parking lot without increasing the density in the area which is to be rezoned to RM. Mr. Musso explained that the RM specifies this as a permitted use, but the RL zone does not allow this use except in conjunction with a permitted use in the zone. Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at this time. Ruth Freis, 1322 Balboa Way, representing Valley School located on the corner of Fith and J Streets, stated that when she purchased this property which is split between CP and CO zoning, it was her understanding that any change would be at her option. She re- quested that this piece of property remain CP and CO zoning, as the size of the lot will not allow them to do anything with a mul- tiple zoning, and that they wish to keep the school in operation. Mayor Taylor asked if there would be a problem with the school operating in a RM zoning district, and Mr. Musso explained that in a RM zone the elementary school is a permitted use and the nur- sery school is a conditional use. Councilman Miller stated that it is his understanding that if the property is rezoned to RM and the school. discontinued, the property cannot revert back to its original use which was for a doctor's office, and Mr. Musso advised him the interpretation was correct. Councilman Miller felt that what Mrs. Freis is asking is that the property not be zoned RM in order that it can revert back to the original use, if necessary. Councilman Futch moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously. CM-25-275 June 5, 1972 (Public Hearing re Rezoning 5th and So. K Sts.) Mayor Taylor stated that he is in sympathy with the problems facing Mrs. Freis, but felt that it is necessary for the Council to consider the use of her property with the surrounding properties. Councilman Miller stated the major issue is not the Freis property but rather the increase in density in the area. Mr. Musso explained the proposed density and stated that the par- cels will probably not readily develop due to their size. Gloria Taylor, 585 South L Street, apologized for not speaking during the public hearing, and stated she objects to commercial property extending to the south side of town. She stated that she lives across the street from a doctor's office and that there is continual parking and flow of traffic on the street due to commer- cial offices located there. Councilman Futch felt it would be hard to rezone the area to RM and allow one parcel to remain zoned as CP; from a planning point of view, they should remain consistent with the general plan and he would recommend that they accept the Planning Commission's re- commendation. Councilman Miller moved to allow the CP parcel to remain unchanged, as it has been for several years, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Mayor Taylor felt that in view of the fact the school is allowed, the Council should not be swayed by the fact that the property will be of more value to the owner if it is zoned for commercial use should the school be discontinued. He stated the zoning recommen- dations are in conformance with the general plan and the matter should be considered strictly from a planning point of view. Councilman Miller stated that he would agree with Mayor Taylor in that property is always subject to rezoning, but in this instance he felt it is not a serious matter whether or not the area remains CP; therefore, cannot see any reason it should be changed. Councilman Futch felt that each parcel should not be considered separately, stating that the area as a whole should be voted upon; therefore he would oppose Councilman Miller's motion. At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote to Councilman Miller's motion, which passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilman Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt, in principle, the rest of the Planning Commission's recommendation which was RM and CO for all of the property other than the piece the Council excluded; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Futch dissenting. It was agreed that the matter would be referred back to the Planning Commission inasmuch as the Council did not agree with the recommen- dation. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Establishment of Air Quality standards Councilman Pritchard asked that the resolution es- tablishing air quality standards and population limits for the Livermore-Amador Valley be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * CM-25-276 June 5, 1972 The City Manager reported that Alameda County operates a library center for business and gov- ernment in Hayward which is somewhat unique and quite popular for business, educational and other firms of allied research endeavors. The County has proposed that the budgeted allotment become an ob- ligation of the County General Fund since many of the users are from areas in the County not subject to special library tax which, to date, has funded this facility. This matter has been reviewed in detail by our Library Staff and Library Board and they recommend approval. Report re Financing Change - Alameda cty Library Center Councilman Miller stated he would like to discuss the matter of the financing change inasmuch as the citizens of Livermore pay a lot of taxes to the County that we get no return for and, particularly, the City of Livermore provides library services to all residents in the County who live in this area, and he felt there should be a trade-off. He suggested that the financing change be opposed, and the reasons he mentioned be given. Mr. Parness explained that the County is not necessarily asking for support, simply an indication that the Council is not opposed to the change. He felt there is a significant amount of use made by people in our City of this branch section, and unless they can afford its support from sources other than the County library tax, the branch will have to be discontinued. Councilman Pritchard felt that since the Library Board had recom- mended approval, he would tend to agree with their recommendation even though he could see Councilman Miller's point, but if it is not supported, they will lose the library. Councilman Miller felt that if the people of Livermore must pay for the County service then the people in the County who use our library should also pay for our service. The Mayor removed the matter from the Consent Calendar for action by the Council and moved to support the Library Board's recommenda- tion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, mentioned that the booklet publish- ed by the League of Women Voters indicates that of communities in the Valley, the citizens of Livermore pay a greater tax to the County than even the unincorporated area of Dublin; however, in discussion with the County Supervisor he was unable to determine why this was so and felt the City Council should ascertain why Livermore pays a higher County tax than other areas who receive more services. He stated we might be capable of paying the in- crease in this instance if we get a reduction for certain police and fire services that are not rendered within the City of Liver- more, and also animal control. Mayor Taylor suggested that perhaps this matter should be continued since it is quite controversial. The issue before the Council is the change in financing recommended by the Library Board as the library may close if it is not supported. He felt that making the people in the County pay for our library service is a separate issue and should not be connected with the matter at hand. Councilman Futch felt that there were not too many people who made use of the facility and suggested we not pass a supporting resolution. Councilman Beebe had been excused during the above discussion, and since the sentiments of the remaining Councilmen were split 2-2, Mayor Taylor suggested a motion to table the matter, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and it was approved unanimously. * * * CM-25-277 June 5, 1972 Appointment of Planning Com- missioner (Helen Tirsell) Due to the absence of a Planning Commissioner for a period exceeding sixty days, a vacancy must be declared and another appointment must be made. RESOLUTION NO. 68-72 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION * * * Letter re BART A letter was received from the Bay Area Rapid Bus Feeder Servo Transit District indicating their intent to pro- vide bus service from Livermore to the appropriate BART Station. Examination of Sales and Use Tax Records * * * As a technical matter the State will permit an authorized municipal officer to examine sales and use tax records for City retail transacti.ons if such is requested by formal resolution. This pri- vilege might be invoked by us quite infrequently but at times through audits of local retailers. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 69-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS * * * A report was received from the Public Works Direc- tor advising that two house foundations were inad- vertently misplaced in Tr. 2528 resulting in the corner of one house being built over a sanitary sewer line. The developer has purchased property from one lot and added it to the other to reestab- lish the lot line between the houses. In addition the sewer line will be reconstructed along the new property line and away from a house. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion of accept- ance of the new grant of easement and a resolution to quitclaim the old sewer alignment. Report re Sewer Easement-Lots 15 & 16, Tr 2528 RESOLUTION NO. 70-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED * * * The City Manager reported that the number of pub- lic members to be seated on this important region- al board is to be increased from five to nine. This total would be in addition to the seventeen others who are officials from City and County governmental agencies. If there are individuals who wish to participate in this important law enforcement establishment from our City, such names should be sub- mitted at the earliest possible time for consideration for appoint- ment. Further, if the City Council is familiar with any local citi- zens who might wish to serve in this capacity, the name should be referred through the staff as soon as possible. Report re Alameda County Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board Members CM-25-278 * * * June 5, 1972 The Public Works Director reported that in de- signing the Second Street Undergrounding Pro- ject the utility companies recognized that the existing power poles on M Street, north from First Street could be removed without substantial added cost and the property owners had no objection to the improvement. It is more feasible to create a new district to accomplish the work along with the old district, and it is recommended that a date be set for public hearing on the new district. RESOLUTION NO. 71-72 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND DISTRICT ON SOUTH M STREET * * * It is recommended that a resolution be adopted denying the claim of Conrad E. Graham for pro- perty damage. RESOLUTION NO. 72-72 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF CONRAD E. GRAHAM * * * Departmental reports were received as follows: Airport Financial - April Building Inspection - April * * * Minutes of the meeting of the Housing Authority for April 18 were received. * * * Underground Utility District-So. M st. Denial of Claim (Conrad E. Graham) Departmental Reports Housing Authority Minutes One Hundred Thirty-eight claims dated May 26, Payroll and Claims in the amount of $161,563.43 and two hundred forty-six payroll warrants, dated May 19, in the amount of $57,239.56 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved except as noted. (Councilman Beebe excused) * * * Approval of Consent Calendar The Planning Commission has considered amend- ment of Zoning Ordinance Section 21.70 as it relates to signs, particularly Sec. 21.72-E-3 re signs expressing personal opinion or political signs and it is recommended that this be set for public hearing before the Council. Report re Z.O. Amendment re Signs On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and by unanimous vote (Councilman Beebe absent), the public hear- ing was set for June 19. * * * CM-25-279 June 5, 1972 REPORT RE CUP APPLICATION NE CORNER SO. S AND FIRST STREET (Louis Dentici) A report was received from the Planning Commission informing the Council that a CUP application has been submitted on behalf of Louis M. Dentici by Valley Realty for the following uses: 1) construc- tion and use of a commercial building for uses per- mitted within the zoning district; 2) use within the CO Zone for a restaurant; 3) a freestanding sign at 52 South S Street located on the northeast corner of South S and First Streets. Mr. Musso explained that the main issue had to do with the number of seats, parking and access to the area as well as traffic problems. The required parking for seating was in excess of what the ordinance requires (1 to 1). The Planning Commission requested that they pro- vide more parking than the ordinance required due to the fact no on-street parking is allowed, and in order to do this they cut down on some of the seating. He further explained that the applicant was informed that in time some type of median will probably be installed on South S, making a left turn onto the premises difficult or per- haps impossible. The Planning Commission recommended that the barrier or median be installed at the time of the development of the build- ing and that the developer be required to pay a pro-rated share of the cost to install the barrier. The Commission felt that a free- standing sign is not required; as far as the site plan, it is in conformance with the ordinance; they recommend approval of the appli- cation. Councilman Miller pointed out that the real issue at hand is the potential traffic problem and access to the property, and whether that particular corner is suitable for that use. Mr. Lee explained that there are no plans for immediate development of a median, but due to the number of intersections and points of conflict, they have plans to develop one in the future to avoid ex- cessive hazards. Councilman Pritchard stated that the restaurant located on First st. is also located between intersections, and it has not been necessary to develop a median strip to help traffic there and he felt, there- fore, a median would not necessarily be required. The Council discussed visibility problems, the radius of the street involved and the median strip, and since it was felt a median may be required sometime in the future, Councilman Miller thought it might be wise to require some type of bond to cover a portion of the cost. Mr. Musso explained that the City Engineer had reported there is no need for a barrier at this time, but the Commission did not agree with this and felt if a barrier is installed now it is due to the use, and the developers should be required to ~ay a portion of the cost. Mayor Taylor stated he had read the Planning Commission's testimony and he felt the use is suitable, provided the conditions of the use are strictly adhered to, and asked that the Council make their de- cision regarding the use before discussing other related matters. Councilman Miller stated he has reservations regarding the use and if it is necessary for him to come to a decision tonight he would have to vote against the use. Councilman Futch stated he also felt it is not the proper location for a restaurant, but would approve the use, if the conditions are met. Mayor Taylor stated they should discuss the conditions if the appro- val depends upon these conditions being met. Councilman Miller stated that although 1-3 parking ratio is in excess of what the ordinance requires, the Council should determine whether CM-25-280 or not this is adequate space for parking. He felt there will be a number of people who wish to park there and who have boats, and the Coun- cil has the right to condition the use to the parking they feel is adequate. June 5, 1972 (CUP-So. Sand First Street) Mayor Taylor stated that he would have to accept the Planning Com- mission's evaluation of the situation and report that adequate parking is being provided. Councilman Futch moved that the Council approve the use, with the requirement that this use pay for the portion of the median which fronts the property. Mayor Taylor offered an amendment to the motion to add that the developer pay for the portion of the median which fronts his proper- ty at the time the City deems the improvement necessary inasmuch as the median strip would be needed to control traffic in and out of the property. Councilman Miller seconded the motion for the purpose of carrying on the discussion. The City Attorney stated there were no legal problems surrounding the requirement for payment on a portion of the median strip if the Council is convinced that the traffic would cause a hazard if left turns are made to enter the property. However, he expressed concern for how the Council will reach a decision as to how much the developer shall pay and how the sec~rity can be enforced. He felt that there should possibly be further recommendation from the City Engineer in this regard. Mayor Taylor stated, if the applicant would agree, he would like to receive a report from the Public Works Director regarding the median before reaching a decision, and at such time as there is a full Council present. Brad Hirst, from Valley Realty, agreed to continue the matter for one week, but advised that this is an extreme hardship for the applicant inasmuch as they may lose their client for the site. Councilman Futch withdrew his motion, and Councilman Miller with- drew his second, adding he would not like a motion to continue before stating that he will not be able to attend the next meeting, and further that he agrees with the Planning Commission in that there should be a median strip erected and a portion should be paid for by the developer in the form of a cash bond to be esti- mated by the City Engineer. Councilman Miller moved that the recommendations of the Planning Commission to deny the freestanding sign be upheld if the CUP is approved; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously, and the matter was continued to the next meeting. * * * Minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of May 16, 1972, were noted for filing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * * * ORDINANCE NO. 788 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-BOTH SIDES ARROYO MOCHO BETWEEN STANLEY BLVD & HOLME~ On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimous approval (Councilman Beebe absent), the above ordi- nance rezoning property on both sides of the Arroyo Mocho between Stanley Blvd. and Holmes Street was adopted. CM-25-281 June 5, 1972 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE SITE PLAN APPROVAL ORDINANCE NO. 789 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 25.32 OF SECTION 25.00, RELATING TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval (Councilman Beebe absent), the ordinance titled above was adopted. ADJOURNMENT * * * There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. APPROVE C~4 ~ ~4 Mayor ATTEST ~~ / -d~) I Deputy City Clerk Livermore, California * * * Regular Meeting of June 12, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on June 12, 1972, 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. RO LL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Miller * * * The Mayor led the Council members and those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * There being no corrections or additions to the min- utes of June 5, 1972, on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote the minutes were approved as submitted. * * * Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adele, spoke of the new paint store that had opened in an old store on First street, stating it had a shoddy appearance, mostly because of the existing parking lot. He felt when a new business opens, they should be required to redo the parking lot to conform to the new standards and he suggested perhaps the staff should consider some regulations to up- grade the parking lots to meet the new standards. OPEN FORUM (Upgrading Parking Lo t- New Business) Mayor Taylor agreed that this was a good point, stating they do not attempt to regulate aesthetics by law, but rather encourage it to be done by private individuals. CM-25-282 The Planning Director explained that the Commis- sion had considered upgrading the parking lot, however most of the regulations are not directed to the use of the property, but rather to the building. The ordinance does not provide that the new regulations, only that they be maintained. June 12, 1972 (Upgrading Parking Lots) City can require Councilman Beebe suggested that the staff contact the owner of the property and point out the value of improving the parking lot with planted trees, and Mr. Musso agreed this might be a good idea. Mr. Jansen stated the impression he got from discussing this possi- bility with the tenants of the store was that the owner was not that concerned about aesthetics, simply with renting the building. ~1r. Jansen stated he was not now concerned with what can be done to correct this particular situation, but rather what can be done to prevent this in the future. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The Public Works Director explained that the mer- Request for chants in the 2nd Street Plaza Area wish to pro- Encroachment Permit mote an "Animal Petting Zoo" on I'M" Street, be- tween 2nd and 3rd st. for a three day period set for July 20, 21 and 22, and in order to do this an encroachment permit is required. * * * The Public Works Director has advised that the improvements on Tract 3196 have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and City specifications, and recommends the City Council accept this subdivision for permanent maintenance. Final Acceptance Tr. Map 3196 RESOLUTION NO. 73-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3196 (KAUFMAN & BROAD) * * * The City Manager reported that periodically, difficulties occur within the main sewer trans- mission system owned and used by L.L.L. and without appropriate equipment nor operating personnel, they have sought the assistance of the City for mainte- nance calls, and have always paid the City the cost of providing this service. It is thought to be appropriate that this arrangement be officially authorized by the City Council action if it is to con- tinue, and it is recommended a motion be adopted authorizing this continued service. * * * The Director of Public Works submitted a report of the time schedule for the Water Reclamation Plant and recommended that the Council adopt a motion approving the letter draft for trans- mission to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. * * * The City Manager reported that California Water Service Company intends to distribute a brief notice to its customers concerning the need of Cleaning Service A.E.C. Sewer System Report re Water Reclamation Plant Time Schedule Public Notice - Water Conservation CM-25-283 June 12, 1972 (Water Conservation) water conservation and unless the Council objects, the company will proceed with the distribution of the notices. * * * Ninety-eight claims in the amount of $97,360.15 and two hundred thirty-six payroll warrants in the amount of $76,700.92, dated June 9, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 2944 for his usual reasons. Payroll and Claims * * * Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * the City Mayor Taylor explained that prior to the City elec- tion the Council could not come to an agreement with regard to the parking and storage of trailers and it was decided to continue the matter until this meeting. He stated there had been discussion as to whether or not the matter should appear on the ballot for the public to decide and had asked Attorney to prepare the appropriate ballot measures. TRAILER STORAGE & PARKING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The City Attorney advised that if the Council chooses to place the matter on the ballot, they can do so by calling a special election or request that it be placed on the ballot for the November election, at which time the City would be required to set up "City only'l pre- cincts which would cost approximately a thousand dollars. If a special election is held the cost would be approximately $5,000 to $6,000. Councilman Futch explained that when the matter first came up be- fore the Planning Commission they had to decide whether or not to do away with the law concerning campers and trailers, or enforce it, and it was their recommendation to enforce it. The Council decided that a public hearing should be held at which time all who testified, with the exception of one person, agreed that parking should be allowed in front yards. Based on the hearing, the Planning Commis- sion recommended that storage be allowed where access to the rear yard was not available; also, that all future tract maps be re- viewed and conditions met which would assure access to rear yards. The recommendation was sent to the Council, who delayed the matter for another year, then it was sent back to the Planning Commission for another hearing - just before the election. He would like to the matter left to the vote of the people, but felt the proposals were not specific enough. Councilman Pritchard felt there was no need for the people to vote on the issue and felt that the old ordinance should be enforced or amended to upgrade the restrictions. Mr. Musso stated that his staff is working on an ordinance proposal which would regulate many oversized vehicles. He commented that they have received many complaints not only on mobilehomes but also against the big tractors being driven home and parked in front yards. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council direct the staff to enforce the present ordinance, which failed for lack of a second. He then moved to table the matter, which also failed due to lack of a second to the motion. CM-25-284 .. June 12, 1972 Councilman Beebe moved that the Council adopt the amended ordinance as submitted by the Plan- ning Commission, which failed for lack of a second. (Trailer Storage - Parking) Councilman Futch moved that the Council direct the staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption or to be placed on the ballot, using the guidelines suggested by Councilman Beebe and the Planning Commis- sion's original reco~~endations, plus additions as suggested by Mayor Taylor. For clarification this would allow only one trailer per housej not more than 17 ft. in length, and no parking within 25 ft. of the corner. Councilman Pritchard asked if this was not a motion to place the matter on the ballot, he would second the motion, which passed by a unanimous vote. (Councilman Miller absent). Mayor Taylor suggested that the matter of whether or not to place the issue on the ballot should be continued to the next meeting. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the Conditional Use CUP APPLICATION Permit application of Louis M. Dentici, submitted (Louis M. Dentici) by Valley Realty, had been continued from the last meeting in order that further consideration could be given to the prospects of installing a traffic median along South S at Stanley Blvd. He asked Mr. Musso to give a brief ex- planation of the item of contention. Mr. Musso explained that the question is whether or not a restau- rant should be allowed in an area where no on-street parking will be permitted and on a curve. He stated that it would be unfair to require more parking than what would be a normal amount for other restaurants especially since they already have more than the ordi- nance requires. He stated that the other matter of concern is whether or not a barrier should be developed immediately, the design of it, and whether or not the applicant should be required to pay for it or whether this should be done by the City. Councilman Pritchard mentioned that there are two medical facili- ties across the street from the subject property and asked what the combined parking space is for these two properties. Mr. Musso stated that it is very minimum and that it is a very bad situation. He explained that at the time the offices were developed they were allowed the permitted use in the zone and met all zoning require- ments. Mr. Lee concluded that the traffic generated from the restaurant would result in traffic problems at the corner. He, therefore, had recommended that the owner be given notice that at some future date a median would be required to prevent left hand turns to the property. He stated that the Planning Commission felt the barrier should be set up at an earlier date and he thought that they might possibly be right. They would have to see how the traffic volume develops in the area and the accident rate. Mr. Lee pointed out that right hand turn exits only will be permitted in order to pre- vent cross traffic. After the restaurant opens they may find a median should have been installed in the first place, and on the other hand one may not be needed for two or three years. Councilman Beebe pointed out that there is already a problem in the area where people make left hand turns to the medical build- ings across the street, and asked Mr. Lee if he felt this might compound the problem. CM-25-28S June 12, 1972 (CUP - Sambo's) Mr. Lee explained that at the time the medical buildings were built, the traffic was considerably less, and they did not feel a median was justified at that time. Councilman Pritchard questioned the reasons for the median strips along First Street, and Mr. Lee explained they are to provide a left turn slot at P Street; there is also a phase just for left turn traffic. The median strips are definitely for traffic control. Charlene Kehret, 924 Florence Rd., president of the League of Wo- men Voters, stated the League feels a restaurant at this site would greatly increase the traffic problem which already exists and would not be readily accessible from either Stanley Blvd. or Hdmes st. They felt that close adherence to the CO zoning would be less of a problem, and she asked the Council to reconsider the matter. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council had considered the use very carefully and felt it would be allowable if it was conditioned rather strictly to avoid the traffic problems that a lot of people predict will occur in the future. He did not, however, feel they could allow the use without some assurance there would be a median strip and the applicant should agree to provide his fair share for it within a specified time. Councilman Beebe felt that was reasonable, but it should be done on an assessment district basis as both sides of the street are causing traffic problems, and he asked the City Attorney if this could be arranged. Mr. Lewis explained that a formal assessment district would have to be drawn in such a way that more than 50% of the property would have to be included and there would be formal requisites about the majority protest hearing. If the majority of property owners would agree, he assumed it could be done. Mayor Taylor questioned if it would be difficult to calculate what the fair share would be for the property being discussed, and Mr. Lee stated perhaps they could consider a 50% split, however there might be other considerations. Mayor Taylor asked if there was any support to require this median strip to be built at a fairly early date, and if so, there would be some justification to having part of the cost borne by this ap- plicant and not the public at large as the median strip might not be needed if they did not intend to allow a restaurant in a CO Zone. Councilman Beebe felt that a restaurant would cause less traffic than commercial offices, as the flow of traffic from that property as well as across the street would be heavy at the same time; whereas, a restaurant would offer staggered traffic congestion. Mayor Taylor stated that he would move for installation of the median strip and require the applicant to pay half the cost of it within a year of the completion of the restaurant, at the City's option. He asked the City Attorney if a bond would be needed, and Mr. Lewis replied that the bond should be a condition of the permit; motion was seconded by Councilman Futch. Mr. Lee stated that the installation of the median should cost approximately $5,000. Mr. Brad Hirst from Valley Realty commented that the use is pro- posed to generate about $4,893 in tax revenue to the City and al- most that much to the School District as opposed to the present $109 now in one year and felt this should be sufficient rather than being required to pay for the cost of the median. Mayor Taylor remarked that the tax yield to the City is not related to safety precautions which are determined by the Council on recom- mendation by the staff. CM-25-286 June 12, 1972 After some discussion as to whether or not the (CUP - Sambo's) developer should be required to pay for a por- tion of the installation, a vote was taken on the motion which failed by a 2-2 split vote with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting (Councilman Miller absent). Brad Hirst asked the Council to consider allowing the developer to pay the City $500 per year for a five year period to cover their half of the cost for the median. The City Attorney stated that this suggestion is feasible and that there is no reason they cannot enter into an agreement with the City on that basis. Councilman Beebe moved that negotiations be made to accept the offer of $500 over a five year span, and approval of the CUP as presented by the Planning Commission; motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. Mr. Hirst thanked the Council and then asked them to consider their request for a freestanding sign, however he was reminded that the sign was denied at the last meeting. * * * In accordance with the instructions of the City Council, the proposed new sign design for loca- tion at the Las Positas Golf Course site adjoin- ing Highway 580 had been submitted to the City Beautification Committee for their review, however the Beautification Committee did not recommend approval and, in turn, presented another design to be constructed with four horizontal cross arms which would state !lLIVERMOREll at the top, and the three remaining would read Golf Course, Restaurant and Airport, however not identify the bus- inesses by name. REPORT RE AIRPORT- GOLF COURSE SIGN Councilman Beebe asked the City Manager for his oplnlon of the new sign proposal, and Mr. Parness stated he felt the present sign is more than adequate and quite attractive. Councilman Beebe then asked if the sign complies with the present ordinance regarding freestanding signs, and Mr. Parness replied that the staff has had a great deal of trouble interpreting what is meant regarding what is on site. He explained it had to be determined whether or not the golf course and the restaurant are on the site, thereby allow- ing a freeway oriented sign. It was decided by the Council that it did constitute the site of the restaurant allowing the operators of the restaurant or the City to install a freestanding sign. A question remains whether the sign should be limited to the golf course since it is the only property abutting, or to both the res- taurant and golf course, or whether the airport should be mentioned. There is also a question of whether the sign is to be used for visual advertising or for informational and directional purposes. Mayor Taylor felt the golf course and the restaurant should be identified by name and felt the messages on the present sign are acceptable. Garrett Drummond, 567 South L Street, member of the Beautification Committee, stated they had discussed the matter for some time and came to the conclusion that only the uses should be identified whJch would inform the people that there is a restaurant, airport and golf course located there. Also, they had changed the design of the sign. Mr. Parness urged the Council to consider adding the name of the golf course as people from the Bay Area are not necessarily aware that that is the Las Positas Golf Course. The Council discussed whether or not the old sign is still con- sidered illegal under the new ordinance covering highway oriented signs, and Councilman Pritchard stated he would prefer the old sign remain, if possible. CM-25-287 June 12, 1972 (Airport Sign) Councilman Beebe agreed that the old sign would be his preferred choice. Gib Marguth, 1152 Farmington Way, gave the Council some brief his- tory surrounding the present sign , indicating that many hours were spent in meetings and tours of the freeway and they had financial support of the citizens to erect the sign. He stated it was de- signed by a local artist to be complimentary to the open space of the golf course and the design of the clubhouse. In his opinion a decision to destroy the present sign would be a waste of the tax- payers money and put up a sign which would not architecturally add anything to the community. David Madis, 1054 Canton Avenue, stated that when he first arrived in Livermore, the sign that is located at the golf course is the first thing he saw upon entering the City, and felt the sign is quite attractive. He felt, however, that the Beautification Com- mittee and Council should be aware of the fact that there are now a number of services available at the airport which are not indi- cated, such as sale of aircraft, maintenance and flight school. He urged the Council and Beautification Committee consider future developments before coming to a final decision. Councilman Futch moved to table the matter, seconded by Mayor Taylor, however the motion received a 2-2 split vote with Councilmen Prit- chard and Beebe dissenting. Councilman Pritchard moved to halt any action regarding the exist- ing sign and table the matter regarding any other sign; motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed 3-1 with Councilman Futch dissenting. * * * REPORT RE PERMIT TO EXTEND STREET (Reeder Dev.) Mayor Taylor reported that Reeder Development Corp. had applied for a permit to extend Laramie Drive rather than Springtown Boulevard as required by the Planning Commission and Council for Tract 3043. The Planning Director explained that this application is to amend an approved tentative tract map to eliminate the require- ment that a portion of Springtown Blvd. be constructed. He stated that if Laramie Drive (formerly known as Larkspur) is extended, it will come in at Springtown Blvd. and not at the intersection in front of the Gulf Station and Springtown Clubhouse. The Planning Commis- sion recommends that the present provision requiring construction of Springtown Blvd. be maintained in the subdivision map from Gallo- way to the existing Springtown Boulevard to the south, but the Coun- cil might consider the possibility of formation of an assessment district to cover the cost of improvements. Mayor Taylor stated that the tentative map was approved conditioned to the extension of Springtown Boulevard. Mr. Lee explained that, in addition, there was a provision that another bridge on Larkspur be constructed as part of the obligation. Mr. Lee suggested that the Council might consider an alternate sug- gestion to realign Laramie Drive, which is a reactivation of an old proposal, and he illustrated this by use of a map, stating that this plan would eliminate the S-curve or backtracking to get from Springtown to Tract 3043. Mayor Taylor stated that Mr. Lee's proposal would constitute a major change and wondered why this had not been thought of before. Mr. Musso commented that this had been discussed some time in the past but the developers of Springtown did not want an interference in the senior citizen's Springtown development. CM-25-288 June 12, 1972 Mayor Taylor stated that at this point he does not know whether it should be made as a sugges,- tion to the developer or not, but they should either come to a decision regarding Reeder's application or continue the matter until another (Application to Extend Laramie Dr.) time. David Madis, Attorney, representing both Reeder Development and Intermark Investment Company, stated that both companies owning most of the land in Springtown are anxious to see a change in the Springtown Blvd alignment as the present alignment is extremely costly and serves no purpose except to connect with old property boundaries. He felt that the proposal just suggested by Mr. Lee is much more versatile and better able to serve the entire Spring- town community than the one presently existing~ and realized that a concrete proposal cannot be made without more consideration, but asked that the alternate plan be seriously considered. Mr. Madis continued that on behalf of Reeder Development Corporation and Inter- mark Investment Co., he wished to&ate that they are in favor of some type of an assessment district to pay for the Springtown Boule- vard if the assessment district that is formed, generally, will assess all property that will benefit by that street as it will be extremely expensive to construct. Both companies are agreeable to bear their fair share of the cost, but not a disproportionate share of the cost. On that basis, he asked that the Council con- sider the realignment by means of an assessment district so that all of the property that is developed in Springtown pay for the street on an equal basis. Councilman Futch questioned if it was Mr. Madis' intent that the people of Springtown, after buying their home for one price, should now be assessed even though the price included the development of that area. Mr. Madis replied that just because someone got a bargain and did not pay the City, or pay the price for development, he did not feel the next person should be required to pay $6,000 too much. Mayor Taylor stated there was a PUD with all of the public works improvements clearly shown, which the developer signed, and the City agreed to allow the development, and he asked if Mr. Madis was inferring that the developer completely ignored all the other costs and did not charge in the sale price of the homes anything toward these other improvements. Because it can only be assumed that all the people who bought their homes have paid their fair share of all the public works improvements that the developer knew he was obligated to put in. Mayor Taylor continued that however Intermark obtained their property, it was with full knowledge of the liabilities and assets of the property, and the obligation for building that street has always been there. Mr. Madis countered that many years ago the City approved the development of Springtown and planned Springtown Blvd., but failed to require its improvement by several of the former developers in the area, and now they have taken the property by default and the new owners are left with the requirement to improve Spring- town Blvd. He did not think this was fair to place the burden of improvement on Reeder Development Corporation and the Council should give some consideration to spreading the cost of improvement. Mayor Taylor stated that the City was requested to postpone the extension of Springtown Blvd by Reeder Development Corporation with their full knowledge of the obligation which has always been there. One must assume that the two companies that Mr. Madis is represent- ing acquired both the assets and liabilities. Mr. Madis stated that he felt if the residents of Springtown were promised reasonable shopping facilities, they would be willing to pay an assessment of $200 over a fifteen year period. CM-25-289 .. June 12, 1972 (Application to Extend Laramie Drive) After some discussion Mr. Madis stated that maybe the developed area should not be included in an assessment district, and maybe it will be the determination of the City staff that there will be no benefit to the developed area. What he was trying to point out was that perhaps the new alignment might be a solution to the problem of access and the possibilities of an assessment district from the properties that will benefit from it should be explored. Mayor Taylor agreed that the formation of an assessment district was reasonable, but was not at all sure it should be borne by the present residents of Springtown. Mr. Lee stated he could not visualize that the developed property could ever be included in any kind of an assessment district as it could not be justified. Bill Older, attorney, appearing in his own defense, stated he was a resident of Springtown where there are two tracts, and the adult community which they paid for in good faith is insulated from Spring- town Boulevard by several streets. They have often wondered when the fence would be removed and Springtown Boulevard completed to extend to Proud Country. Mr. Older stated that Mr. Sproul did not go broke as had been inferred by Mr. Madis, because he knew for a fact that he was quite wealthy. But in 1966 Mr. Sproul entered into an agreement with the City of Livermore, put up a bond and was to have built Springtown Blvd. and have it completed hyJanuary 1, 1967, which date came and went, and was extended time and time again, and he questioned the staff as to the amount of the bond and the portion of Springtown Blvd. that it covered. He also questioned the recent extension that had been granted Reeder Corporation and why the City has not required that Springtown Blvd. be extended. He could not understand why Mr. Madis, instead of talking about an assessment district, did not approach the City of Livermore and admit that they are "stuck" with the responsibility for extending Springtown Blvd. and request the City to help by forcing Mr. Sproul, under his original contract for which there was a faithful performance bond, to complete the street. This is what should be done rather than allowing the Reeder Corporation which has acquired a bad debt, to reach out and cause the citizens who are satisfied and have their money's worth to be "stuck" through the medium of an assessment dis- trict. He asked the Council if they thought that was fair. He felt the Council should require the corporation which was already five years overdue to give performance. Mr. Older referred to a letter recently received by the City requesting an additional extension of time for completion of the street as though it was a personal re- quest to the City Manager. Mayor Taylor explained that the matter of the extension is determined purely by the Council, not by the City staff who only make the re- commendation. The extension was only for a few hundred feet and there is a bond to cover it. The staff merely asked that since so much time has elapsed, if the Council would consider extending the time, the bond would be increased and the street widened to meet the new standards. The reason the Council did not call the bond is that the issue would have resulted in a stub street, which would go nowhere and actually force more development in the area, and the Council wanted to be sure the bond was increased to keep pace with the construction costs so the street could be extended when the time came. Mayor Taylor reiterated that he did not feel an assess- ment district could be justified to include the existing property owners in Springtown. However, if the undeveloped properties wished to form an assessment district, that would be reasonable. Councilman Beebe moved to continue the matter for thirty days, which the developer agreed to, and also asked that the staff be instructed to contact the Springtown Homeowners' Association and obtain their acceptance regarding the new alignment; motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. CM-25-290 June 12, 1972 (Extension of Laramie Drive) Mr. Madis asked if the Council would direct the staff to contact the owners of the undeveloped property concerning the realignment which had been discussed and the possibility of establish- ing an assessment district for the completion of Springtown Blvd. so there will be something definite to present to the Council at the end of this period. Mayor Taylor agreed that the realignment should be decided upon from a planning point of view; possibly they could call a meeting of the property owners to discuss the possibility of an assess- ment district to cover the cost of the realignment. Mr. Lee stated that they should discuss the matter with Reeder Development Corporation because it does affect a tentative map that is already on file, and if they agree it is worth pursuing immediately, then there is some urgency; otherwise the City would have to wait until the tract expired to take action. * * * Mr. Musso explained that the Bethany Baptist Church has applied for a CUP to construct a church on the south side of Olivina, west of Murrieta, which is in an RL-6 District. He stated that they have met all the requirements as far as public works improvements, parking, etc., and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the application. CUP APPLICATION (Bethany Baptist Church) Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * Mr. Musso explained that an application had been received from Red Carpet Realty on be- half of Harry A. Mosure for a Conditional Use Permit to permit sale of mobilehomes, campers, trailers, trucks and general supplies on a site located at 889 Portola Avenue, on which their former permit has expired. The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to all previous conditions plus an additional requirement to replace a tree which was cut down without permission. CUP APPLICATION - SALE OF VEHICLES (Red Carpet Realty) Councilman Beebe moved to accept the Planning Commission~s recom- mendation for approval, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * A report was submitted by the Public Works Di- rector on the subject of bikeways and the City streets. REPORT RE BIKE- WAYS AND CITY STREETS Mr. Lee commented that the report deserves a special study session and is expected to be discussed during the forthcoming budget session meetings. He stated that the Planning Commission has incorporated the matter into their General Plan amendments which will be scheduled for public hearings. Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission is preparing a trail system for bikes which will come before the Council for their adoption, together with recommendations made by Mr. Lee, and public hearings will be held. * * * CM-25 291 June 12, 1972 PROPOSED Z.O. AMENDMENT RE SEC. 21.30, 21.88 (e) and 8.97 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE CITY CODE AMENDMENT OF CH. 25 RE WATER COURSES On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the ordinance amendment to reflect the Council's ac- tion at the close of the public hearing at the last meeting to add a new Sec. 21.30, 21.88 (e) and to amend Sec. 8.97 was introduced. The reading of the ordinance was waived. * * * An ordinance had been prepared to amend the City Code by the addition of Ch. 25 relating to water courses. Councilman Futch questioned the fact that there was no mention of recreational or aesthetic values and if it was intended that no fill would be allowed, and the possibility of requiring permits for any type of fill. Mr. Lewis explained that the ordinance is not aimed at filling, per se, but littering, garbage and refuse by various kinds of ac- tivity; anything considered unhealthy or dangerous. A motion had been made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to introduce the ordinance, however after some discussion the motion and second were withdrawn and the matter continued to allow the City Attorney to review the ordinance further and report back to the Council. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Arroyo Fill) * * * Mr. Lee stated that the Public Works Department had been asked to check into some grading going on in the Arroyo Las Positas and they found that it was in conjunction with the State Highway work. Mayor Taylor felt that some private citizen was doing some type of filling in the arroyo, and Mr. Lee stated he would check into the matter further. AB 2370 * * * The City Attorney stated that Senator Knox has introduced AB 2370 into legislature which puts a two year moratorium on the liability of public for nuisance and he strongly urged that the Council sup- legislation on this bill. entities port the Councilman Pritchard moved to endorse AB 2370, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe, and the motion was approved unanimously. BUDGET SESSION DATE * * * Mr. Parness stated that copies of the preliminary budget have been distributed and he asked that the Council pick a full day to devote to the budget session. After considerable discussion, the Council budget session commencing at 8:00 a.m. on not schedule a meeting on that date. The budget was scheduled for June 26. * * Matters Initiated by Council (Livermore Day) CM-25-292 decided to hold the Monday, June 19, and public hearing on the * Mayor Taylor stated that the annual Livermore Day at the County Fair is July 10, and traditionally the Council and Chamber of Commerce together sponsor a barbeque for the families of the City staff and Chamber Board members. This year the Chamber does not wish to participate and he wondered if the Council and Staff would like to continue the event. The Council agreed that the barbeque should be held as usual. June 12, 1972 (Livermore Day) It was mentioned also that this will be held on a Monday, which will cancel the Council meeting and it was decided the Council would hold the meeting instead on Tuesday, July 11. It was also de- cided that the Council would not meet on July 3 or 31 unless some emergency necessitated a meeting. * * * Councilman Beebe suggested that some type of double striping be done along Stanley Blvd. in the vicinity of Shadow Cliff Park as there are a number of cyclists who go to the park, and would be helpful as a type of safety measure. * * * (Striping of Stanley Blvd.) he felt this Councilman Futch asked the City Attorney if he would keep the Council posted on any legisla- tion pertaining to schools, in particular, any bill comparable to the school site dedication bill, and also any ruling set down by the Supreme Court regard to school taxes and the spread of the cost. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to an executive session to discuss a personnel matter. APPROVE * * * q~ [.~ t--- , Mayor oL~ .~~ Live~~Ealifornia ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of June 26, 1972 (Legislation Pertaining to Schools) with ADJOURNMENT A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on June 26, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * There being no corrections to the minutes of June 12, 1972, Councilman Futch moved that the minutes be approved as submitted, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller abstaining due to absence at that time. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEG lANCE MINUTES CM-25-293 June 26, 1972 OPEN FORUM ( SAVE ) Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, CVRP, stated that there seems to be some confusion concern- ing the SAVE Initiative and he would like the Council to make their position clear. He wanted to know whether or not building permits are being issued or wheth- er they are being denied on the basis of SAVE, and what resolutions have been made as to what type of building SAVE relates to. Mayor Taylor explained that prior to the SAVE Ordinance, there was an ordinance limiting building permits to 1,500, and when that limit was reached no building permits were issued after that time. He stated that that ordinance, as well as the SAVE Ordinance, is now in effect, and it is the Council's interpretation that the ordinance should be enforced during an impending water shortage and not necessarily wait until there is a water shortage. In answer to Mr. Nordyke's question regarding which type of build- ing is being restricted, the City Attorney explained that it applied to any residential construction, and if it applies to anything other than residential, it has not been so declared by the Council. Mr. Nordyke emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of the developers of the City, but is a concerned citizen who feels the public should be informed as to what action is to be taken regard- ing the granting of building permits. Councilman Pritchard stated that, in his opinion, the SAVE Ordi- nance issue is being sidestepped and he would like to see the Coun- cil go on record as invoking the ordinance, indicating that they have received a mandate to do so. This should be done as soon as possible. He then asked the Building Inspector what people are being told when they are denied a building permit. ~ Mr. Street explained that people are told of both ordinances, but some have requested that the denial be put in writing and he was not sure if both ordinances were listed. Councilman Pd~d moved that the City Attorney, Staff and Building Department be instructed to state in writing, or orally, that both ordinances are being invoked and the reason for the denial of build- ing permits. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor expressed the concern that to make a redundant state- ment with regard to the ordinance might create a compromise to the City's position in Court, and felt that the motion was unnecessary. The City Attorney stated that he felt the Mayor had stated the matter adequately, but the Council has the option to pass another resolution as to the existing situation. Councilman Miller felt it was not necessary to pass the motion made by Councilman Pritchard, stating that people are already being told that the ordinance is being enforced. Mr. Musso commented that it might be noted that commercial as well as industrial building permits are being issued. Councilman Pritchard stated that his motion was merely a point of clarification. At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the motion which failed 2-3 with Councilmen Miller, Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting. * * * the teenagers Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, suggested that the Council consider repairing the storm drain covers rather than replace them as he felt that some of who are out of work could be employed to repair them. (Storm Drain Repair) CM-25-294 It seems that the project was brought about due to the hazard the covers create with re- gard to bicycle wheels falling through them. June 26, 1972 (Storm Drain Repair) Mr. Lee explained that the covers are being repaird by welding strips across them and the project is soon to be completed. Councilman Miller commented that a law has been passed which allows gas tax revenue to be used for the replacement of the dangerous grates. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the public had re- quested a public hearing before adoption of the budget in order that the Council might have time to digest input by the citizens before it is a- dopted. He stated that the budget will not be adopted until 11, and that copies of the budget have been available to the lie at the Library and City Hall. He then opened the public ing for any public testimony to be heard by the Council. PUBLIC HEARING RE 1972-73 BUDGET July pub- hear- Ray Marie Stelts, 547 Nightingale, appeared before the Council with a petition signed by people in her neighborhood which states they would like the Dogwood Park site to remain a natural park with only the minimum improvements to be done with the cooperative la- bor of the neighbors. She stated that last year approximately $33,000 was set aside for the acquisition of the park site and she wanted to know what the Council plans to do with regard to the park site. Mayor Taylor explained that the Dogwood Park site was one of the areas of consideration for a park site, but the owners of the land adjacent to the proposed site have stated that they will not sell or trade their property for the City's use. It has not been deter- mined whether or not the land will be used for a park site or whether another location will be selected. The City Manager commented that the money is not in the budget this year for the Dogwood Park site, but it is a carryover which can be reinserted at the option of the Council. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council has not decided as to which site they should proceed with at this time, but asked if they wish, can they reinsert the words, "Dogwood or Nightingale", and the City Manager replied in the affirmative. Councilman Miller suggested that the City obtain appraisals of the church property as well as the other pieces of property involved and present them to the Council for reconsideration. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council has three alternatives: 1) con- demnation of the church property, 2) making a smaller site, or 3) acquire the other site in the neighborhood. Mrs. Stelts asked the Council to consider the fact that the resi- dents of the area intend to furnish the labor and that one of the individuals has access to heavy equipment, and one other individual will soon receive a contractor's and electrician's license and will be able to furnish labor for lighting that might be necessary. She stated that they plan to raise enough money to rent a post hole digger if the City would be willing to supply the fencing. Mayor Taylor felt it was only reasonable to come to a decision as to whether the City plans to develop the Dogwood site or the Mari- posa site, for which they have received an appraisal. He felt the residents should know what is going to be done, even if they do not proceed immediately with plans. CM-25-295 June 26, 1972 (1972-73 Budget Public Hearing) Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, asked if the City has any plans to contribute money towards a valley- wide plan, adding that he was out of town at the time of the budget session and was unable to attend and did not see anything in the paper regarding it. Mayor Taylor stated that it was felt that a specific amount would not be put in the budget at this time as it is of a tenuous nature and something to be decided in the future. There are funds avail- able in reserve should the Council decide to contribute. Mr. Nordyke felt that it is a future project but would hope that it is not as much as a year away as the Council has indicated that failure of the project to commence cannot be blamed on lack of funds afforded by the Livermore budget. Councilman Beebe stated that this would depend somewhat upon the total cost of the project. Councilman Miller commented that the political aspect of the situ- ation would require some consideration also as it is not just a financial concern. Ray Faltings expressed his concern for allowing $120,000 for T-han- gars on a lease purchase bargain. He stated that, originally, there were approximately eighty persons interested in these hangars, but after closer examination it seems the number interested is really only twenty, and he felt the allowance should be decreased as well. Mr. Faltings stated that with regard to the ambulance service con- tract, it was his understanding that the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, as well as Alameda County, were to pay equal amounts for the service - $7,000 each, however he noted that in the current bud- get there is an allowance of $8,500 for this service and wanted to know if this is the money to be set aside for Allen's Ambulance Service. Mayor Taylor explained that the amount shown reflects the amount of the original agreement signed seven or eight months ago and was a figure negotiated by the three parties. He stated that the $8,500 figure is correct and that Mr. Falting's $7,000 quotation was in- correct. The City Manager stated that perhaps Mr. Faltings had misunderstood, the amount is $700 per month, plus a slight addition ($100) for un- collectables. With regard to the T-hangars, Mayor Taylor stated that this was a business proposition on the part of the City - they produce an in- come to the City and the City will ultimately own them. He explained that the bank required that the City obtain signed commitments from a certain fraction of the people who were interested. The City Manager added that the $120,000 is enough to build 10-12 hangars and they have twenty commitments. Mr. Faltings stated that he could not understand why there is a rise in the cost of living and no increase in the tie-down fees at the airport. He also suggested that the City put their insurance to a bid; also that the City take advantage of their position as a governmental body and obtain the best refunds from airlines, motels and hotels on that basis. He stated if the City deals directly with the airline, they will receive a 5% refund and a 5-10% or higher refund from the motels for housing. With regard to the insurance and open bid system, Mr. Parness ex- plained that no insurance is allotted by the City Council without competitive bidding. With reference to airline and motel refunds, the City Manager stated they expect personnel to be as economical as possible and obtain the most economical accommodations, but the travel budget is not of the scope to allow dealings with the airlines and motels. CM-25-296 June 26, 1972 The Council discussed pros and cons of expanding (Public Hearing re the airport as a result of the comments made by BUdget) Mr. Faltings. Councilman Pritchard felt it was being expanded to accommodate the Bay Area resi- dents rather than trying to discourage them and he expressed his concern for encouraging more automobiles to travel to the Valley, adding to the smog and traffic problems. Mayor Taylor, on the other hand, felt that to have a viable airport is a drawing card for industry in the area, and that the airport is a source of income to the City. Councilman Miller felt that Councilman Pritchard had made a very good point and suggested the Council consider these things. Mike Schrader, 1141 Concannon Blvd., commented that he presumes the Council has taken into consideration the rise in taxes and wondered if the Council has ever considered turning the golf course over to free enterprise or turning it into a park, as he felt the cost of it is higher every year and not very profitable. Mayor Taylor explained that the Council has discussed several al- ternatives, one being to lease the golf course to a private indi- vidual. He remarked that the cost of maintaining a park would be excessive and the City could not afford to let the property be used for that purpose. They concluded that the best alternative was to try to increase the use of the golf course and reduce the losses. Councilman Miller stated that it is not correct the golf course losses are higher every year, noting that two years ago the loss was $75,000, this year $55,000 and the estimated loss for next year is $48,000. The Council agreed that Mr. Schrader's suggestion to lease the golf course to a private enterprise is not without merit and Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council instruct the staff to seek a lessee for the golf course, which was seconded by Coun- cilman Miller and received the unanimous approval of the Council. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council had requested a copy of the tentative budget which included some changes, and asked if the changes are available to the public. The City Manager commented that the changes can be attached to the public's copies, which Mayor Taylor felt would be satisfactory. Mayor Taylor commented that the public would be allowed to give testimony one more time on the budget at the July 11 meeting, and if there is no further testimony, he would like to close the hear- ing at that time. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous approval, the public hearing was continued to July 11. Councilman Futch moved that the funds from the overhead operations of the water be transferred to the general fund, seconded by Coun- cilman Beebe. Councilman Miller suggested that the motion include in lieu tax and the City Attorney advised that if there is to be a change to include in lieu tax, there would have to be a change in Section 24.51 of the City Code which deals with water revenue. Councilman Beebe offered an amendment to the motion to include the two fees as recommended by the staff, which Councilman Futch accept- ed as a part of the motion, which passed unanimously. Councilman Miller asked if a change in the ordinance would require a public hearing, to which the City attorney stated it would not and that the ordinance would become effective in two weeks. * * * CM-25-297 June 26, 1972 The Planning Director explained that as a result of the last election, one of the Planning Commis- sioners initiated some amendments to the sign or- dinance as it relates to signs expressing personal opinion. He mentioned that one change has to do with the length of time allowed a sign - fifteen days prior and thirty days following the first day of business. As far as expression of opinion, they have made two categories: 1) general opinion and 2) political opinion. General opinion signs are allowed for a 30-day period within the period of a year. Poli- tical signs are expanded to include the weekend four weeks prior to an election and up to the election. One sign for each issue on the ballot will be permitted, and a reduction from 12 sq. ft. allow- ed in a commercial area to 8 sq. ft. and an increase from 4 sq. ft to 8 sq. ft. in residential areas have been specified for the pur- pose of a uniform sign allowance for political signs; this will also be in conformance with Alameda County's political sign ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING RE Z. O. AMEND. RE SIGNS (Sec. 21.70) Councilman Futch asked what the definition of "attention getting devices" is and Mr. Musso explained it meant banners, flags, spin- ners, etc.; noise making or smoke generating devices will not be allowed. Mayor Taylor then opened the public hearing for public testimony. There being no public testimony, Councilman Pritchard moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Miller and the mo- tion was approved unanimously. Mayor Taylor commented that the ordinance amendment is a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission and asked if there were any comments from the Council. Councilman Futch felt that it was unnecessary to increase the size of the sign allowed in a residential area except, perhaps, on a vacant lot or a large space. Councilman Futch moved to accept the recommendations of the Plan- ning Commission with the amendments: 1) E. 2. - the deletion of "attention getting devices", and removing the phrase, "for a period of fifteen (15) days prior to and thirty (30) days following the first day of business" with the total period not to exceed a total of 30 days; 2) in 3 (b) not to exceed 4 sq. ft. in area; 3) in 3 (c) 31 days prior to an election and 2 days after and in no case shall a sign area exceed 16 sq. ft. Councilman Miller seconded the motion. Councilman Pritchard offered an amendment to the motion to read 'hot to exceed 4 sq. ft. in a residential area and 8 sq. ft. in a commercial area" related to personal opinion; the amendment was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed 3-2 with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Councilman Pritchard offered a second amendment to 3. (c) - after the word "area" add "exceed 8 sq. ft.", to apply to governmental elections. The amendment was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dis- senting. Councilman Miller offered an amendment to the wording to include, "signs, penants and flags, with further limitations as may be im- posed by the Building Code or for reasons of public safetylf, which will eliminate moving devices and whistles. Councilman Futch se- conded the amendment and the Council voted unanimously to approve the amendment, and the amended motion originated by Councilman Futch was approved unanimously. * * * CM-25-298 CONSENT CALENDAR June 26, 1972 The Public Works Director reported that the City wishes to obtain approval of a Federal Grant Project which will count traffic volume at all important intersections in the City so as to evaluate accident records and future de- cisions would be governed by that information. The program would establish the basic system of a continuing volume count in conjunc- tion with the accident monitoring program and would be titled lfLivermore's Identification and Surveillance of Accident Recordslf (LISALS). Federal funds would amount to $16,814 for an 18-month period and there would be no cost to the City other than in-kind services. It is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute the agreement. * * * The City Manager reported that an agreement between the state Cooperative Personnel Ser- vices Board and the City for preparation and scoring of personnel examinations for our City upon request has been budgeted and it is recom- mended that a resolution authorizing execution of for a three year term be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT * * * Identification & Surveillance of Accident Records State Cooperative Personnel Services Board this agreement The Planning Director advises that the City has received a request for a sewer connection agreement for a parcel located on Preston Ave. in the unincorporated industrial area and pre- sently developed with two single family dwellings. The request has been processed in accordance with the City nances and policies and the recommendation is to authorize tion of the agreement. Report re Sewer Connection Agreement (Dr. J. J. Goralka) ordi- execu- RESOLUTION NO. 75-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT * * * A claim has been filed against the City for damage to cars from street painting, and since the claim was filed in error as the State was probably responsible, it is re- commended that the claim be denied. RESOLUTION NO. 76-72 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO. * * * Claim re Property Damage Application for Funds - Arroyo- Medeiros Parkway Congress has authorized the establishment of a Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-in-Aid Program, providing matching funds to the State and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes. The application must be filed by July 1, and pertains to the proposed acquisition by the City of an approximate 100 acre community park site located in the western sector of the City along Medeiros Parkway. This land acquisition may have an acquisition cost in excess of $400,000 and, if allowed, the grant would provide 50% of the cost. CM-25-299 June 26, 1972 RESOLUTION NO. 77-72 (Arroyo-Medeiros Parkway) A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS MEDEIROS PARKWAY (STAGE 4) PROJECT Inter-fund Transfers * * * A resolution formally authorizing transfers of funds which are authorized in the budget is an annual accounting matter. RESOLUTION NO. 78-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TRANSFER OF FUNDS Salaries 1972-73 Fiscal Year * * * Salary adjustments have been computed in accord- ance with the labor agreements in effect with the four different employee organizations and also in compliance with the decisions made by the City Council, as to certain special classifications at the recent budget sessions. RESOLUTION NO. 79-72 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. 3-72. Departmental Reports Minutes (Various) Payroll and Claims * * * Departmental reports were received as follows: Airport - Activity and Financial - May Building Inspection - May Fire Department - May Golf Course - May Municipal Court - May Police and Pound Departments - May Water Reclamation Plant - May * * * Minutes were received from the Housing Authority for their meetings of May 16 and June 9, and from the Beautification Committee's meetings of April 5 and May 3. * * * One hundred eight claims in the amount of $135,313.51, dated June 23 and two hundred thirty- eight payroll warrants in the amount of $61,039.15 dated June 11, 1972 were ordered paid as approved Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on 3057 because of his association with PG&E. by the City Warrant No. Approval of Consent Calendar COMMUNICATION FROM ZONE 7 CM-25-300 * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, the items on the Consent Calen- dar were approved unanimously. * * * A letter was received from Zone 7 Board of Direc- tors indicating that the Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan being prepared by Brown June 26, 1972 and Caldwell is to be presented to the Council (Zone 7) on July 12, 1972. It was noted that this time conflicts with the date set for the Mayors' Con- ference and the City Manager indicated that they will try to arrange another date at which time the presentation can be made. The letter was noted for filing. * * * The City Manager explained that the calcula- tions for business license fee adjustments have been made in accordance with the Council's instructions. He stated that they have been named in two proposals (I and v) - the Council has previously reviewed II through IV. He explained that I suggests an additional 251 assessment for all business transactions per $1,000 to all rates except the base rate and mentioned that this proposal would result in an additional $20,000 revenue to the City. Proposal V would result in half the amount (131 per $1,000). REPORT RE BUSINESS LICENSE FEE ADJUST- MENTS Mayor Taylor explained that this type of proposal, which is an across-the-board money increase, means the individual doing a large volume of business will pay a proportionately larger tax. Councilman Beebe felt that this was not the proper time to increase the business license fee, pointing out that the fee had been in- creased less than twelve months ago. He added that in his opinion the necessity for a tax increase is due to the halt in building, and if the building industry were in progress it would not be nec- essary. He felt the business district is receiving unjust treat- ment, and that the Council should wait for another year before imposing an increase. He moved that there be no increase, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Futch commented that his first reaction to a business license increase was to object. However, he felt that in view of the fact that residents have been faced with a 10% property tax increase, it would be fair that the 131 per $1,000 would be about equal to what others have to pay, or at least spread the cost. He felt that this increase would be no higher than the raise on gen- eral property tax. Councilman Miller agreed with Councilman Futch with the exception that he would be in favor of the 251 per $1,000 which, in his es- timation, would be more equitable to the smaller business in town. Ken Mercer, President of the Chamber of Commerce, commented that the tax dollars are going to Dublin and Pleasanton, as the citi- zens of Livermore shop there. He stated that if Ple8santon puts in a large shopping center, the problem will be even worse, and to impose a higher tax on the business license aimed at larger business or industry indicates that Livermore does not want them to build here. He felt a quick way to obtain an additional $10,000 would be to get another business in town. To increase the fees, plus City development fees would not draw business to Livermore. For these reasons the Chamber of Commerce asks that there be no increase in the business license tax. Mayor Taylor felt that a 10% increase would not be the determining factor as to whether or not business locates in Livermore and noted that the increase would not be out of line compared to a number of other cities in the area. He stated that the City needs the revenue and at the time the business license fee was increased it was con- cluded that the matter could be brought up in another year if the 10% was not sufficient. He concluded by saying that he would oppose the motion and felt that some increase was justified. A vote was taken on the motion for no increase and failed 2-3 with Councilmen Miller, Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting. CM-25-301 June 26, 1972 (Business License Fee Adjustments) Councilman Miller stated that Proposal I would add an additional 251 to all the rates which would mean that the larger business would pay less per thousand than the smaller businesses~ and is still unfair, but at least more equitable than in the past. He stated that it is unreasonable to assume that larger businesses have a higher overhead and, therefore, less profit than smaller businesses; otherwise, they would break down into smaller businesses. For this reason he felt they could af- ford an equitable business license fee. Councilman Miller then moved to adopt Proposal I (251 per $1,000 to all rates except the base rate) which died for lack of a second. Councilman Futch then moved to adopt Proposal V (131 per $1,000), seconded by Mayor Taylor. Councilman Futch commented that he felt this amount would result in additional revenue while staying in line with other cities in the area and would not discourage new business. Councilman Miller pointed out that a business license fee is not a determining factor as to where business develops as Pleasanton has a business license fee, while Dublin does not, and the proposed re- gional shopping center is planning to locate in Pleasanton. At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed 3-2 with Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe dissenting. * * * RECESS AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING CONTINUED WITH ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. * * * TRAILER STOR- Mayor Taylor explained that the matter of the AGE AND PARKING trailer storage and parking had been continued for discussion from the meeting of June 12. The City Attorney informed the Council that SB-437 by Richardson has passed the Senate and there is a substantial chance it will pass through the Assembly Committee. He stated that it remains to be seen what the Governor will do when and if it gets to him, but the measure is strongly supported by the recreation vehicle indus- try and trailer owners who have waged a strenuous campaign in Sacramento for its passage. He stated that if it goes into effect, a section will be added to the vehicle code and will prohibit adoption of Proposition A, as presented to the Council. They should know the outcome by the end of June or early July. Councilman Futch stated he was prepared to make a motion, but in view of the facts reported, he would rather wait to hear from the State. Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter for three weeks, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council. * * * RESOLUTION RE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL Councilman Miller moved to adopt the resolution regarding Air Pollution Control Studies (a reply to a request submitted by the City of Pleasanton), seconded by Councilman Pritchard, which was ap- proved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 80-72 A RESOLUTION RE AIR POLLUTION STUDIES * * * CM-25-302 June 26, 1972 Mr. Musso explained that the location of the property for rezoning is on the west side of Vasco and North Front Road at the end of the interchange. He stated that the application submitted by F. & S. Porter is for the rezon- ing from A (Agricultural) to M-l (Light Industrial) and on this basis they have recommended denial offue rezoning. The Planning Commission did recommend that the intended use be for multiple residential or possibly the extension of highway commercial. COUNTY REFERRAL RE REZONING VASCO & NORTH FRONT RD. (Porter) Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the Planning Commission's re- commendation for denial, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which re- ceived unanimous approval of the Council. * * * The Planning Director explained that the Plan- ning Commission considered a referral from the County regarding the rezoning of property lo- cated east side Mines Road, 1.5 miles south of Tesla Road from A (Agricultural) to the R-I-B-E (Single Family Residential - 5 acre minimum) District and that they recommend denial of the application on the basis that the whole area should and not just one site. COUNTY REFERRAL - REZONING EAST SIDE MINES RD. SOUTH OF TESLA RD. (Tesauro and Mori) be considered The City Attorney explained that the intent is not to allow the County property to be broken into 5-acre sites, but to reserve large parcels. On the other hand, the intent of the change by the County is to allow those areas which are suitable for estate type residential development to develop in smaller lot sizes. Councilman Beebe moved that the rezoning decision be postponed until the County has made a general plan study, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, but failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Councilman Futch felt that the Council has no way of knowing how far away a general plan study of that particular area will be and felt that a postponement is not part of a general procedure. He moved, therefore, that the Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, seconded by Councilman Miller,and the motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. * * * Mayor Taylor reported that a letter from the City of Pleasanton was received in support of a National Urban Wilderness Park as well as the creation of a metropolitan Bike and Re- creation Trail System, to be presented at the Nationwide Recreation Plan Forum. The Director of Parks and Re- creation of Pleasanton has asked that the Planning Director and a representative from the Councilor the Planning Commission attend the forum to speak on behalf of the suggested projects. He stated that although the time and place was somewhat inconvenient (9:30 a.m. in San Francisco on a Thursday) it was a worthwhile matter and he felt that someone should plan to attend if at all possible. COMMUNICATION RE NATIONWIDE RECREATION FORUM-June 29 Councilman Beebe moved that the Council state their support of the suggested projects and that the Council appoint a member of the staff to attend the meeting; motion was seconded by Council- man Miller and approved unanimously. It was concluded that Mr. Musso would attend the forum and that Mayor Taylor would attend, if possible. * * * CM-25-303 June 26, 1972 P.C. Summary of Action GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Summary of action taken at the Planning Commis- sion meeting of June 20, 1972 was acknowledged. * * * Councilman Beebe moved that a hearing regarding the proposed General Plan amendments be held on July 17, seconded by Councilman Miller and adopted by unanimous approval of the Council. * * * As there were no comments regarding the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of June 2, 1972, they were noted for filing. * * * The Public Works Director reported that certain public works improvements are required in accordance with an agreement with Armco Drainage and Metal Pro- ducts, Inc. to be completed within a specified time, on Vasco Road and Naylor Avenue. In designing Nayor Avenue it was discovered that the existing eucalyptus trees are in the street widening area and it is being recommended that the traveled portion of Naylor Avenue be shifted 5 ft. northerly within the right-of-way to avoid removal of some of the large exist- ing trees. REPORT RE NAYLOR AVENUE ALIGNMENT Councilman Miller felt the proposal as submitted by the Public Works Director was a very good one but felt they could go a step further in making a sharper curve radius on the south side where the big trees are and a broad entrance to Naylor Avenue which would allow this. In this way another tree or two could be saved. Mr. Lee felt that to create a sharper curve would compromise the safety at the corner and he explained that, ultimately, it could become a through street. Councilman Beebe moved that the Public Works Department's recommend- ation be approved with the exception of changing the curve to allow one more tree to be saved; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. REPORT RE AMBULANCE SERVICE CONTRACT * * * Mayor Taylor felt that the matter of the contract for the ambulance service had been covered during the discussion of the budget and, in his opinion, no further discussion was necessary. Councilman Beebe moved to authorize the execution of the ambulance service agreement, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, which was approved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 81-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Allen's Ambulance, Inc.) AMBULANCE SERVICE ADMINISTRATION for ambulance * * * As a companion measure to the above an agreement has been prepared for execution by the three gov- ernmental agencies and the Valley Memorial Hos- pital so that the hospital may serve as the coor- dinating and administration agency on our behalf services. It is recommended that this be authorized. RESOLUTION NO. 82-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT CM-25-304 * * * June 26, 1972 On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous appro- val, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the ordinance was adopted. Z.O. AMENDMENT Sec. 21.30, 21.88(e) ORDINANCE NO. 790 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SUB- SECTIONS 8.97, RELATING TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, OF SECTION 8.00, RELATING TO RG - SUBURBAN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: 21.10, RELATING TO PURPOSE; 21.51, RELATING TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES; AND 21.88, RELATING TO SWIMMING POOL,ALL OF SECTION 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by the unanimous approval of the Council, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the ordinance regarding disposition of water revenue and amending Section 24.51 of the Municipal Code introduced. (Refer to budget discussion on page 297) PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE DISPOSITION OF WATER REVENUE was -l(- * * ORDINANCE NO. 791 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.23, RELATING TO LICENSE TAX - GROSS RECEIPTS OF CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. URGENCY ORDINANCE RE BUSINESS LICENSE FEE ADJUSTMENT On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Mayor Taylor, and by the following vote, the urgency ordinance regarding an increase of the business license fee was introduced and adopted: AYES: NOES: Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe * * * The City Manager stated that last week he met with the lessee of the Crosswinds Restaurant who wishes to appeal to the Council in hopes of being permitted the use of highway adver- tising which he feels is absolutely essential, and that it was implied at the time the agreement was signed that such would be allowed. He would like to place a sign in the area adjoining US 580, and Mr. Parness indicated that he is not quite sure what the Council's decision might be. He pointed out that the Council has stated that the present sign should remain at the golf course, but it has no reference to a restaurant. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Restaurant Sign -US 580) For the benefit of clarification Mayor Taylor stated that other signs submitted for selection by the Council were found to be less attractive than the present one, and the matter was tabled. He explained that the Council had voted to remove the sign at an earlier date, as it does not conform with the sign ordinance, and it is just a matter of determining what type of sign should be selected. Councilman Miller commented that, as he recalls, the Council de- cided that the restaurant is appurtenant to the golf course and would be allowed a 64 sq. ft. sign, but they did not decide as to whether or not the sign should be a part of the City sign or a CM-25-305 June 26, 1972 (Restaurant Sign) separate sign. He then suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda in order to reopen the dis- cussion and also that citizens be encouraged to submit designs for a sign which mayor may not be selected. The Council then discussed the possibility of citizens submitting designs and whether or not they should be submitted to the staff or to the Council as well as setting guidelines for them to follow. After some discussion, the Council concluded that the restaurant would be allowed their own separate sign, subject to design review. The argument for the separate sign was that the use is a part of the golf course property. RESOLUTION HONORING CHIEF MICHELIS MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Stanley Blvd. Striping) * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the resolution honoring Chief Michelis was adopted. * * * Councilman Beebe asked if word has been received regarding striping along Stanley Blvd. as a safety precaution. The Public Works Director stated that they have re- ceived no word and that their only source of infor- mation regarding the area has been from the news- paper. The County is apparently working on something and has asked that the City make a formal request for a raised curb. The Council concurred that a raised curb would be worthwhile and Mr. Lee stated he would contact the County the next day. (Letters to Senators Tunney and Cranston) * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, it was decided that letters would be sent to Senator Tunney, thanking him for his consideration of our problems, and to Senator Cranston asking that he support the Mills Bill re revenue sharing. * * * (Annual Cost- Councilman Futch asked that the Public Works Di- Sidewalk Repair) rector check into the annual cost to the City for continued sidewalk repair. * * * (Gas Tax Use) Councilman Futch commented that he has two bills before him regarding the use of gas tax revenue - SB-325 and SB-IIOO, and indicated that it is not clear as to what uses are allowed. He asked that the City Attorney take a look at the bills and interpret them to the Council in lan- guage that is clear. (re SACEOA Attendance) * * * Councilman Futch mentioned that he will not be able to attend the SACEOA meeting on July 28 and that there will be an election for a number of important people at this meeting. He stated that Pleasanton has an alternate person to attend the meetings and won- dered if it would not be a good idea for Livermore to select an alternate to attend in the absence of the regular representative. CM-25-306 Mayor Taylor stated that he is the alternate, but he will be unable to attend this meeting also, and suggested that someone else be de- signated. June 26, 1972 (SACEOA Representa- tive) On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, Donald Bradley was chosen as the alternate. * * * Councilman Miller asked the City Manager if it would be possible to arrange for a meeting with the LARPD Committee to discuss park acquisitions and anything else deemed appropriate at that time and Mr. Parness agreed to the suggestion and will (Joint Meeting - LARPD & City) arrange the meeting. * * * Councilman Miller mentioned that the County Ad- ministrator and the County Planning Commission continue to approve billboards all around Liver- more, and he suggested that since some of them are very recent, the Council should try to have some of them appealed. He mentioned, specifically, tract signs on County property which the Council has recommended not be allowed and the County ignored their recommendation. He urged the Council to act rapidly or the time limit to appeal would expire. (Billboards Approved by County) On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, it was agreed that the three signs ap- proved by the County Zoning Administrator Mr. Flynn would first be appealed. * * * Councilman Miller noted that on weekends some (Real Estate Signs) real estate firms are putting up A-frame signs in the public right-of-way and sidewalks in front of their offices, and made a motion that the Police Department be instructed to re- move them. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Miller remarked that there Clre a num- (Illegal Signs) ber of businesresand developers who have been in the area a number of years and continue to put out illegial signs and flags, and he felt that the time has come when the matter should be turned over to the District Attorney. There are also some other signs which are in the process of being abated and he felt these proceedings could be speeded up. Mayor Taylor asked the staff to prepare a report on the matter and advise what specific action is required. * * * Councilman Miller pointed out that a large euca- (Removal of lyptus tree had been cut down near the entrance Eucalyptus Tree) to the Standard distributing plant and he thought the matter should be investigated a2he feltitconstituted a misdemeanor. He asked the staff to prepare a report as to what happened and if it was cut down illegally he feels the individual responsible should be cited. Mr. Lee explained that as he recalled, a request was received for the tree superintendent to look at the tree which was reportedly diseased or dead, and in any case, he would report back to the Council. CM-25-307 June 26, 1972 (Removal of Trees) Councilman Miller stated that there are a number of instances in which large trees are cut down and a difference in opinion exists as to whether they were diseased or not. He suggested that prior to allowing cutting of these trees, the tree in question be placed on the Consent Calendar for possible discussion by the Council. After some discussion the Council agreed that they would review trees the staff feels are marginal as an item on the Consent Cal- endar. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to an executive session in order that they might discuss the selection of a golf pro. * * APPROVE ATTEST ( * * * Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 11, 1972 An adjourned regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on Tuesday, July 11, 1972, 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 As there were no corrections or additions to the minutes of June 26, 1972, Councilman Beebe moved that they be approved as submitted, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * OPEN FORUM Mayor Taylor invited anyone present in the audience to address the Council, if they wished to speak on any item not on the agenda. As no person came for- ward to speak, he stated that before going to the public hearing, he would like to announce that the application for a rest home on Bluebird Avenue had been withdrawn (scheduled for later in the meeting). He explained that they would hear a brief comment from a member of the audience but at this time it would be unrelated. CM-25-308 July 11, 1972 Maurice Clack, 199 Donner Avenue, commented that he understands that the application for a rest home has been withdrawn, but has reason to believe that the home is presently being used as a boarding house and asked what could be done. Mayor Taylor ad- vised that if Mr. Clack feels the home is being used illegally, he should file a complaint with the Planning Administrator and the matter would be looked into. (Appeal - Rest Home Bluebird Avenue) Mr. Musso explained that one or two persons are allowed boarding in a home, and that a number of people can live as a family unit with one person as the head of the household. Mayor Taylor asked the Council their opinion as to whether an in- vestigation should be made as a result of Mr. Clack's comments, and the Council concurred that a public complaint has been made and should be investigated. Mr. Clack complained that he felt the hearing at the Planning Com- mission was unfair and Mayor Taylor stated that he could not make specific comments as he does not know the full circumstances and was not present. He further explained that any person has the right to appeal any decision made by the Planning Commission, directly to the City Council, if one does not agree with the decision. He em- phasized that at this point nothing can be done as the application has been withdrawn and there is nothing to appeal. Councilman Pritchard mentioned that although the Planning Commis- sion is appointed by the Council, they have no authority to tell them what their decisions must be and often appeal their decisions. Patricia Rochin, 213 Bluebird Avenue, reported that she checked into the request for a rest home by Mrs. Hughes and found that she did not meet any of the state requirements. Mr. Musso stated that the only requirements of the City are the approval of the Fire Marshall and the County Welfare Department, but the matter never got that far as no application was made. The City only approves the location, not the qualifications of the individual. He assured Mrs. Rochin that if a permit has been issued, the County would have received a copy of it, checked into the matter and would not allow her to operate unless she met all the qualifi- cations. Mrs. Rochin suggested that a person filing for certain permits should be informed of the county and state requirements as well as those of the City in order to eliminate unnecessary complaints and problems. The Council agreed with this suggestion and thanked her for addressing the Council. Councilman Miller commented with regard to action of the Planning Commission that he has served on the Commission and, depending on the circumstances, would sometimes vote for what the neighbors wanted and other times would vote to approve the use. He explained that often a permit is given for a one year period and at the end of that one year, if there are no complaints by neighbors the permit is renewed. One thing, Councilman Miller stated, has continued to bother him and that is application for a permit is allowed with no time limit between applications for the same use. Each time an application is made, the residents have to come to the meeting and argue; after a time, if they quit coming, and there are no complaints, the application for the use may be approved. There is a regulation in some cities that once an application is made and denied, that same application cannot be made for a period of one year. He stated that he would like to see the Council adopt a similar regu- lation as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Clack stated that this is the reason the residents are before the Council this evening and their main concern is having to come down every week to fight the issue. CM-25-309 July II, 1972 (Appeal-Rest Home) Councilman Miller commented that if the Council agrees, he would like the staff to be directed to draft an ordinance which would include this amend- ment. Mayor Taylor felt that this should not be done unless there is a real need for such a regulation, and suggested that they look at the records to see if permits have been issued in this way before amending the ordinance. The staff was asked to check into the matter and, also what is to be done with regard to withdrawal of applications. * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE 1972-73 FISCAL BUDGET Mayor Taylor explained that it had been requested by the public that they be allowed input regarding the budget prior to its adoption. The public hear- ing for this purpose was held last week, allowing the Council to digest remarks made at the public hearing and the budget is scheduled for adoption at this time. As there were no comments regarding the budget, Councilman Beebe moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Futch, and the motion was approved unanimously. Councilman Beebe suggested that the $500,000 accumulated in the park dedication fund be used for one year to pay for the Park Department in its entirety to eliminate raising taxes to balance the budget. He stated that there is more than enough to purchase the parks needed and when the moratorium is lifted, they will receive any additional parks from the developers. Councilman Futch stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Mehran dedicated approximately forty acres of park land and the City needs to reimburse him for some of the money that went into the park fund, and for this reason he felt that some of this money should be used to pay him back. The City Attorney explained that many times a park dedication fee is collected with the building permit fee prior to the time the actual site is acquired. When land is dedicated with the subdivision map, resulting in an overage for that tract, a credit for the park fees should then be given. Councilman Miller stated that he sympathizes with what Councilman Beebe is trying to do but pointed out that during the capital improve- ment session it was concluded there is a long list of sites the City plans to purchase, and the $500,000 will not nearly cover the cost of acquisition of these sites, and it is estimated that a fair amount of this will be spent this year. He added that at the end of the six year projection there is essentially nothing left for the City's property acquisition. He mentioned that Livermore is still very short of park land compared to its general plan and there is a lot of property to be acquired to bring our City up to the general plan standards. Mayor Taylor explained that if the park money is used for operation the Council would have to decide what parks will not be acquired or which will be delayed, and to use the money now would result in a tax decrease, but it would have to be made up in the future to buy the land. The City Manager stated that there are unconfirmed reports that the assessed valuation estimate may have been on the conservative side, and it is conceivable that it will be much higher than estimated which will result in a lesser increase in the proposed tax rate. CM-25-310 Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, felt that the City is in need of more park land, but it is not clear to him as to how LARPD will be able to maintain the parks if the land is doubled. He suggested that the City and LARPD discuss what the proper balance would be between budget at the 501 rate. July 11, 1972 (Public Hearing - 1972-73 Fiscal BUdget) land and the park's Councilman Miller felt that Mr. Nordyke's point was a very good one - if more land is acquired they are going to need more money to care for it. He explained that they have discussed with LARPD how to reduce the maintenance load with an increase in land area and that they are investigating a low maintenance program. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR At the close of the public hearing the following Adopt Budget resolution was passed, adopting the 1972-73 fis- cal budget: RESOLUTION NO. 83-72 * RESOLUTION APPROVING 1972-73 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET * * As required by the Municipal Code a time for the conduct of City Council meetings must be established. The followin~ resolution was ad- opted setting the hour as b p.m. on the first four Mondays of the month and establishing further regulations for varying from this time. RESOLUTION NO. 84-72 A RESOLUTION FIXING TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL * * * An inquiry had been made regarding the status of a large tree on First Street near Martin Avenue which had been removed. The Public Works Director reports that the tree had been inspected by our Tree Superintendent who reported that it was and would not recover, and was subsequently removed owner. Set Time for Conduct of Council Meetings Report re Tree Removal two-thirds dead by the property A further report indicates that in the future when a large tree must be removed, the staff is to report the matter to the City Council for their information. * * * In accordance with the existing lease, a pro- posed increase in dinner prices is reported to the City Council with an explanation and justi- fication also listed. * * * The County Counsel has forwarded copies of a recently enacted ordinance amendment regarding the sale of raw milk and also copies of a pro- posed loitering amendment and some suggested changes in the curfew hours. Our Police Chief Report re Price Increase (Crosswinds Restaurant) Proposed County Ordinances (Raw Milk & Loitering and Curfew) CM-25-311 July II, 1972 (Loitering and Curfew) has also submitted some comments on the proposal and an explanation that enforcement of a curfew should be as one of selective enforcement, with discretion, rather than strict interpretation. * * * Sixty-seven claims dated June 30, in the amount of $112,132.17 and two hundred sixty-five pay- roll warrants in the amount of $67,277.68 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 3148 for his usual reason. PAYROLL AND CLAIMS Approval of Consent Calendar COMMUNICATION RE SACEOA * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved, with the exception of Item 2.2 regarding the quit claim deed in Tract 3333 which was removed for later discussion. * * * A communication was received from SACEOA explain- ing that they would not favorably consider the proposal to operate under a joint powers agreement. Councilman Pritchard moved to withdraw all support from SACEOA, but the motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Taylor felt that a little more explanation was required from SACEOA with regard to their response and indicated he does not understand the intention behind their letter. "The City Manager felt it was their way of indicating that they would prefer that Livermore is not designated as a CAP Agency through such a tool as a joint powe[~greement. ~t{tt;,1Ju , Councilman Futch stated that he and GOUn~illcr ~re ~ impressed with the new Board and felt it was great improvement over the old Board, and he would like to see what the new members can do. In Councilman Pritchard's opinion, it was the administration that was running things rather than the Board and he felt it is out of hand; therefore, he prefers that Livermore withdraw from SACEOA. Councilman Beebe felt that if Livermore continues to receive nothing from SACEOA, it may as well withdraw as funds are going to cities they feel have more critical problems than Livermore. He agreed that the funds the senior citizens receive make it somewhat a worth- while agency. Mayor Taylor stated that the cities are going to propose a new joint powers agency, encouraged by the Governor, which is a chance for a new start and perhaps the Council should wait to see if the proposal becomes a reality before doing anything further. No action was taken at this time. ZONE 7 PRESENTATION * * * Mayor Taylor asked that the Council keep in mind the meeting Zone 7 has planned for Thursday, July 13 in order that Brown and Caldwell may present their Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan. It is a very important matter and Mayor Taylor urged that the Council members be present at this meeting. CM-25-312 * * * A communication was received from the Valley Community Services District regarding their action in approving the concept of the valley- wide master plan development. There being no comments regarding the matter, the Council moved to the next item on the agenda. * * * July II, 1972 COMMUNICATION RE VALLEYWIDE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT Mayor Taylor explained that the communication received from the Clean Air Coordinating Com- mittee listed some suggestions with regard to residential growth and mainly pointed out the requirement in the State law for a clean air element Plan by 1975. COMMUNICATION RE CLEAN AIR in the General Mr. Musso felt the clean air element will come about as a result of the study by the BAAPCD which should satisfy the state require- ment. * * * Mayor Taylor stated that the report made by Hugh Ellsaesser regarding air pollution and residential growth offers some technical sug- gestions as well as offers his assistance to the City. In Mayor Taylor's opinion, he con- cluded that the report indicates Livermore is * * * COMMUNICATION RE AIR POLLUTION (Hugh Ellsaesser) not very smoggy. Mayor Taylor stated that Mrs. Carmen Hughes of 158 Bluebird Avenue had applied for a use per- mit for the purpose of operating a rest home. However, the application has been withdrawn and requires no action on the part of the Council other than a motion accepting withdrawal. The motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. * * * REPORT RE ZONING USE PERMIT-BLUEBIRD (Mrs. Hughes) Mr. Musso explained that at the June 20th meet- ing the Planning Commission reviewed the Coun- cil's decision which was contrary to their original recommendation for property on Fifth Street between South I and K Streets. He ex- plained that rezoning for the nursery school property site does not conform with the General Plan nor to a specific plan of the area. The Planning Commission recommends that the rezoning be done uniformly, if it is to be rezoned, and that it be zoned CO or CP, but not both. REPORT RE REZONING APPLICATION (5th St. Between So. I & K) Councilman Pritchard felt that after consideration and further study of the matter, he would have to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation and moved that the Council accept the recommendation, which was for residential zoning (RM District). The property is presently zoned CO and CP (split zoning). The applicants have requested that it remain in the present zoning. The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch. Councilman Miller felt that there was no reason to allow commer- cial offices in the area and that it would be better if the pro- perty were zoned RM. The vote was taken on the motion to rezone the property to RM which passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. Gib Marguth, 1152 Farmington Way, stated that he agrees with the Council's decision but felt if it was a final decision it was a little unfair to decide in the absence of the applicant. CM-25-313 July II, 1972 (Rezoning on 5th St.) The Council was under the impression that Mrs. Freis had been notified the matter would be on the agenda. Mayor Taylor asked if anyone would like to continue the matter, but the action of the Council was con- satisfactory and a conclusion of the matter. sidered SUMMARY OF ACTION Planning Comm. ing sign. next week. * * * With regard to the summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, Councilman Miller commented that he would like to appeal the Commission's approval of a CUP submitted by Codiroli Ford to allow an increase in the size of a freestand- It was asked that the matter appear on the Council agenda Councilman Pritchard asked why the Planning Commission had extended PUD Permit No. 14 to August 9, and Mr. Musso replied that there was some question of street alignment and a possibility of rezoning of the Reeder property which will be known by August 9, and the Council will then have an opportunity to take action. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION QUARRY PERMIT AMENDMENT REFERRAL (Kaiser Industries) * * * The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 1972 were noted for filing, as there were no comments. * * * At the request of Mayor Taylor, Mr. Musso explained that with regard to the quarry permit there were re- ports forthcoming from some of the water agencies and also they have received the environmental impact state- ment submitted by Kaiser Industries which supported the application. One of the things lacking was a com- prehensive report by some outside agency in the area of environmental impact and technical water studies. With all of the information to date the question of water is one of calculated risk as there is a certain percentage chance that there will be a fracture of the clay barrier, but nobody wants to pinpoint what the percentage is as the consultants representing the various agencies interpret it differently. The Planning Commission felt this was as far as they could go; they would not give a blanket approval, leaving it up to the engineers to decide whether the use should be allowed or not. One proposal was to recommend approval if the water experts say it is safe, but it in- volves a little more than just a question of whether or not the clay barrier will fracture. There are other concerns - those being odor, litter which would affect the roadways and also the problem of sea- gulls at our airport was brought up which seems to be a serious pro- blem in other areas. The Planning Commission also discussed the transportation of garbage. The Commission did not feel they wanted to make a recommendation for or against the application and chose to make a negative sounding report and conclusions. Councilman Pritchard stated he felt the Planning Commission's choice is admirable, and he would in no way vote for a garbage dump in the Valley as he was flatly opposed to one, and moved that the Council flatly oppose any garbage dump in the Valley, seconded by Council- man Miller. Mayor Taylor stated that because of the many unknowns, the opposition of Zone 7 who raised questions about compromising the quality of the water and the questions posed by the Planning Commission, he would also oppose a garbage dump in the Valley. Councilman Beebe stated he would not go so far as to say he would oppose any garbage dump in the Valley because one day our existing CM-25-314 dump would be filled. However, Councilman Prit- chard pointed out that our dumping area is suffi- cient for four hundred years July II, 1972 (County Referral - Quarry Permit) Councilman Miller stated he would like to offer some wording as a conclusion: !!Therefore the City of Livermore recommends denial of this permit now. No similar application should be considered until regional solid waste studies are complete and then only after all the above conditions can be satisfied. Even if the conditions appear to be satisfiable the City presently believes the risks and problems are sufficiently great to warrant permanent denial.!! Mayor Taylor asked that Councilman Miller's wording be added to the Planning Commission's report, and submitted as a report of the City. Councilman Beebe asked what had happened at the meeting which he missed since he was one of the City's representatives. Mr. Musso explained that Pleasanton took the position that they have already acted upon the matter, so could not vote; the repre- sentatives from Alameda County stated they will have to approve it so they could not vote; Kaiser was the applicant so it left the City of Livermore and three quarry operators, so he made a motion to table the matter which passed. Mayor Taylor felt that rather than saying the fill will not be granted, the text should state that it will not be considered as the Council does not want to have anything referring to a conditional approval. A vote was taken on the motion which passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe abstaining since he was on the Quarry Committee. * * * The Council discussed the application (County referral) of G. T. and D. M. Gibson for rezon- ing of property located on Reed Avenue, south of Marina Avenue. The Planning Commission has recommended that the area be rezoned as a whole and not as individual parcels. REPORT RE COUNTY REFERRAL-REED AVE. (Gibson) Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the Planning Commission's rec- ommendation. Councilman Miller suggested that the Council determine how large lot sizes should be when split up, i.e. 1, 2~ or 5 acre parcels or whatever they feel would be proper. Mayor Taylor felt that in this case he would be willing to allow the Gibsons to build on the 5-acre parcel, and against what the staff has recommended, which is to reduce the lot size. He stated that the applicatbn is to build on the 5-acre lot for which the staff has recommended denial. Councilman Pritchard asked thatms motion be withdrawn at this time. Councilman Beebe moved that this Council go on record as approving a County application that far exceeds the density allowable in the General Plan for the area. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion to inform the County that the Council has no objection to the application. When Councilman Miller expressed his concern for future public works improvements and whose burden they would be, Councilman Beebe sug- gested that they urge the County to make a complete study as to all the facets of future developments such a~ sewage, water and various utilities. The motion passed 3-2 with Councilmen Miller and Futch dissenting. CM-25-315 July 11, 1972 The City Manager reported that a proposal, orig- inally drafted by the staff of SACEOA, called for the formation of a group of trained technicians in various fields into a Community Assistance Team. This team would give personal assistance to each of the seven cities comprising SACEOA in each of their specialty areas, such as legal, housing, social welfare and juvenile delin- quency. A grant in the amount of $140,000 has been awarded to fund the program over an 18-month period. The seven cities oppose the program being under the administration and control of SACEOA and, consequently, a joint powers agreement has been proposed to give each city a voice in the administration of the program, as well as the hiring and distribution of services. Mr. Parness stated that he has some reservations but feels it will be handled properly, therefore, it is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement. REPORT RE SACEOA COMMUNITY ASSIST. TEAM GRANT On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Mayor Taylor and by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Pritchard dissenting, the resolution authorizing execution of the agreement was passed. RESOLUTION NO. 86-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT * * * REPORT RE 1972-73 BUDGET AMENDMENT (PurChase of Portable Welder) The City Manager reported that it has been re- quested that the City purchase an arc welding unit in the amount of approximately $1,200 for the purpose of modifying our storm drain grates. It is estimated that the City can save $4.00 per grate if the arc welder is used, resulting in a total savings of $2,292. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion amending the 1972-73 budget in the amount of $1,200 for listing under the storm drain fund. On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and by unanimous approval, the recommendation was accepted. * * * DARWIN PARK The City Manager explained that LARPD has filed SITE DEVELOP. a letter again asking for an official response to an earlier letter they sent asking why they cannot use the City's park fee accumulated monies for the development of the Darwin Park site. He sug~ested that they notify LARPD that the Council prefers that the $23,000in lieu fee accumulated be used for other improvements for parks rather than the development of a park. Mayor Taylor felt that at present the City should not get involved with the development of parks and that it is the responsibility of LARPD and should remain so until the developers start providing parks. Councilman Futch pointed out that this money may have to be used for areas that LARPD will not be interested in developing, such as bicycle paths along the arroyo. The Council concluded that none of the accumulated money should be spent for developing Darwin Park and requested the City Manager to reply to the District. * * * LARPD RE MEDEIRA WAY PROPOSED PARK At the City Council's direction, the proposed property acquisition, situated north of Medeira Way, was referred to LARPD for their reconsideration. CM-25-316 July II, 1972 Their reply was that they feel any development (Medeira Way) in the area should be limited to trails, mini- mum landscaping, and a few picnic or rest areas. They also recommend the location of a park in conjunction with the high school or Vila Gulf development. The City Manager is to send a letter to LARPD agreeing that this park site would fit in with the proposed trail system and pointing out that the City cannot afford to purchase property near Vila Gulf or the high school. * * * An application has been received for the assign- REPORT RE LANGE- ment of the lease on the three acre parcel owned HILDE LEASE TRANSFER by the City along Airway Blvd. The assignee has now received financing for the construction of the industrial structures and plans to proceed immediately. The matter was held up for many months due to our inability to have the parcel in an acceptable form so that it could be legally re- corded. Finally, a resolution was made as to descriptive terms that would satisfy the County Recorder, and due to circumstances beyond their control, Iver R. Hilde, James E. Lange and Michael R. Hilde wish to be relieved of their lease obligations and assign the lease to J. Ronald F~ndleton and Robert J. Costa. It is re- commended that a resolution adopting the authorization of a lease transfer be made, with a condition that the City Manager is pro- vided with a confirmation from the lending institution that capital funds will be made available. Councilman Beebe moved that the assignment be approved with the condition stated by the City Manager, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously by the Council. RESOLUTION NO. 87-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF LEASE * * * A memorandum was received from VCSD informing the Council of the proposed Camp Parks area to be annexed. VCSD ANNEXATION OF CAMP PARKS Councilman Miller stated that he would oppose any of this area being annexed until it is known how GSA plans to dispose of the property. He mentioned that Livermore is downwind from any po- tential smog generators, odors, etc. and may ultimately be greatly affected. Councilman Pritchard felt that he would have to agree with Coun- cilman Miller in that the Council should find out what type of zoning is going to be allowed in the area before agreeing to any type of annexation. Mayor Taylor suggested that the matter be referred to the Valley Planning Committee in order that they might check into the zoning. Councilman Futch stated that the Valley Planning Committee would be the logical committee to refer the matter to and moved that the Council refer it to them, seconded by Councilman Miller, and the motion passed unanimously. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance amending the zoning on 5th Street between So. I and K Streets from Z.O. AMENDMENT RE 5th st. between So. I & K Sts. CM-25-317 July II, 1972 (Rezoning on 5th street) RL 5-0 (Low Density Residential), CO(Commercial Office), CP (Professional Office) to RM (Medium Density Residential) and CO (Commercial Office) Districts was introduced and ordered filed. * * * ORDINANCE RE LICENSE TAX On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by a 4-1 vote of approval (Councilman Beebe dissenting), the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the following ordinance amending the license tax was introduced and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 792 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.24, RELATING TO LICENSE TAX - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, OF CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE ANIMAL IMPOUND CHARGES PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE WATERCOURSES * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Taylor, and by unanimous approval, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and the ordinance amending animal impound charges was introduced and ordered filed. * * * Councilman Futch remarked that before introducing an ordinance that would allow fill into the wate~ courses, he would like to make a few comments. He stated that filling of the channel could cause an imbalance in the system inviting problems such as flash floods. He felt that filling is not only a safety concern, but a problem as far as aesthetic detriment and for these reasons he would be in favor of an ordinance which would prohibit fill in a natural channel. Mayor Taylor explained that the point was raised during discussions of the Stanley-Murrieta application and the City Attorney was asked tolook at the ordinance regarding wate rCQurses and revise it so that fill would be prevented. He stated that the City Attorney feels the ordinance does not accomplish exactly what Councilman Futch wants to accomplish but takes the more traditional position to protect the downstream people against washouts. It is not designed to prevent fill of the arroyos in Livermore. The City Attorney commented that it is designed to protect the quality of the water as well as to protect the lives and property that may be threatened. There was some discussion regarding the legalities involved in pro- hibiting filling and whether or not it is an engineering considera- tion or a factual problem. It was mentioned that a permit is re- quired to fill the arroyo and the Council can deny permission if they have a legal reason to refuse. In Councilman Miller's opinion, the definition of fill is a matter of interpretation and he felt they could apply a stricter inter- pretation than what the City Attorney suggests. He asked what a violation of the ordinance is, to which the City Attorney remarked that a violation constituted a misdemeanor and would be subject to abatement. The City Attorney explained that it would be abated through follow- ing a legal procedure, which example he then explained in detail. Councilman Futch moved to accept the proposed change in the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously, and the ordinance was introduced and read by title only. CM-25-318 ORDINANCE NO. 793 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24.51, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF WATER REVENUE, OF ARTICLE VI, RE- LATING TO RATES AND CHARGES, OF CHAPTER 24, RELA- TING TO WATER, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. July 11, 1972 ORDINANCE RE DISPOSITION OF WATER REVENUE On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the above ordinance was adopted. * * * At this time the Council went to an item regard- ing a roadway easement in Tract 3333 which was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. It was explained that prior to streets being de- veloped in the area, a 20-foot easement was grant- ed for property access. This encumbrance on the property can now be cleared since the easement is no longer needed and it is recom- mended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a quitclaim deed. QUITCLAIM DEED TRACT 3333 (H. C. Elliott) Councilman Miller felt that nothing should ever be abandoned and questioned why it should be. He stated that it is an easement the City bought and is now being quitclaimed for nothing to Mr. Elliott, and that the administrative costs should be charged, or $100, whichever is greater. Mayor Taylor commented that the easement which the City cannot use is of no value to the City, but Councilman Miller countered that it is costing the City money to turn it over to Mr. Elliott, adding that it is of value to Mr. Elliott who should reimburse the City for administrative costs. Councilman Miller moved that Mr. Elliott be charged $100 for the abandonment of the quitclaim deed, but the motion failed for lack of a second. Councilman Pritchard moved to adopt the resolution proposed by the staff, seconded by Councilman Futch and it passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting. RESOLUTION NO. 85-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (Tr. 3333) * * * Mayor Taylor had asked that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion as he thought loitering after 10: p.m. was il- legal. He had misread the ordinance; loitering after midnight will be illegal and he stated he has no quarrel with that proposed amendment; therefore no discussion was necessary. * * * RE COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (Raw Milk- Loitering) Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Lee if he has had any word from the County regarding marking bike paths along Stanley Blvd. in the Shadow Cliffs area. Mr. Lee commented that he has seen the County people who are concerned about the safety in that area and they are working on a solution and also indicated that they have considered the double lines as well as the asphalt berm, but they are not sure if these would be good safety methods. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Bike Safety on Stanley Mr. Musso mentioned that he has spoken with Mr. Hornbeck of EBRPD who has indicated that they have been unsuccessful in obtaining CM-25-319 July 11, 1972 (Bike Safety- Stanley Blvd.) additional land along Stanley Blvd. or right-of- way from the Railroad which could be used as a parkway. Mayor Taylor suggested the City write to the quarry operators asking that they consider giving up some of the right~of-way along Stanley Blvd., and the Council agreed the quarry operators should be consulted. Councilman Futch suggested also that the City might obtain a count of the bicycles that use Stanley Blvd. during the weekend, with the aid of the Bikeways Association if this seemed necessary. Illegal Signs- Removal * * * Councilman Pritchard stated that he has received many comments from people who have removed their business signs which did not conform to the City ordinance and that they object to other signs still being left up. The operator of the Dairy Queen on First Street stated that he felt these people should be made to take their signs down, as he has removed his and is suffering a loss of business as a result. He felt that the staff was not doing enough to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Musso stated that a number of these people are being reported to the District Attorney - they are scheduled. Mayor Taylor explained that the City has to go through due process of the law which is often time consuming. Mr. Musso agreed that there is a lack of staff time as they cannot spend their entire time getting people to remove illegal signs;, also the person pursuing this particular problem is on jury duty at this time. Traffic Conditions- Concannon & Holmes st. * * * Councilman Futch asked if there have been any further comments regarding the traffic hazards at Concannon and Holmes st. He stated that the last he heard, they were considering the possi- bility of some type of flashing traffic light. Mr. Lee stated that they responded by acknowledging their meeting with Mr. Lee, and they had directed their staff to make a study. That is the last he has heard regarding the matter, approximately three or four weeks ago. Trucks in Residential Areas Legislative Bulletin * * * Councilman Futch asked if the ordinance needs to be amended to prohibit trucks in residential areas and the City Attorney stated that the gross weight ordinance prohibits these trucks; however, he in- dicated that there should be posting in areas which are exposed to possible truck use. * * * Councilman Miller noted that the Council should oppose the legislative bill regarding trailer ordinances and the City Attorney commented that he would be taking care of the matter. Councilman Miller next mentioned that he would like the Council to support the League's Subdivision Map Act Ordinance which the laborers are opposed to, and Mr. Lewis stated he would make the appropriate response. CM-25-320 July 11, 1972 Councilman Miller asked that the Council oppose (Legislative Bulletill~ AB-lOOO regarding tax reform. There seemed to be some confusion as to what the bill was all about and it was asked that they get a report from the staff. Councilman Pritchard suggested that letters be sent to Senator Nedjedly, thanking him for his support of SB-1118 as well as his own bill, SB-981 which got out of the Senate. * * * Councilman Miller asked the City Clerk to pre- pare a report indicating whether or not all the campaign contribution reports have been filed, including the extra committees. Campaign Contributions * * * Councilman Miller pointed out that the last building permit issued was on April 27, which has been more than sixty days and if the pro- perty is only staked, he feels this is not considered commencement and the permit has expired. He felt these permits should be considered null and void, regardless whether or not there has been a cement strike. Building Permits Expiration that of The City Attorney commented that the exercise of the building per- mit is up to the discretion of the building inspector and that if there is some type of administrative leeway, it must be effective for everyone in the same way and if there has been an allowance of a couple of days due to some type of hardship, this pattern should be followed. Councilman Miller agreed that in the past there was no pressing public matter at hand and they did not necessarily stick to a definite 60-day deadline. However, he felt that at this time SAVE is in effect and the situation is different. The Chief Building Inspector, Herbert Street, indicated that there are a number of building permits which have not been commenced due to the concrete strike as well as the plumbers strike. He stated that if they begin work and have to stop because of the strike, the work done is subject to vandalism and hot weather damage and for this reason they have not required the work to be done. Councilman Beebe felt these reasons were valid and that the Council should take them into consideration. He felt that people would be buying defective homes had they gone ahead and put in the forms only to have them shrink, etc. Councilman Miller felt that this is the risk of the trades and that it is his duty to speak in behalf of the citizens who voted for SAVE and who are concerned about water problems and school problems in Livermore; that they should not be extenmng time on the permits. * * * Mayor Taylor reminded the Council that the Mayors' Conference Mayors' Conference is to be held at the Air- port Administration Building, Wednesday, July 12, at 6:30 p.m. and urged that all members of the Council attend, if possible. * * * There being no further business to come the Council the meeting adjourned to an tive session to discuss appointments to at 11:05 p.m. APPROVE 0)A 0cL~~; Cl y C e~, ~vermore, California L // before execu- the various committees, ADJOURNMENT ATTEST r~~k 'Mayor . /' .( (' r) / \. \!It CM-25-321 Regular Meeting of July 17, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on July 17, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Ave- nue. The meeting was called to order at 8:13 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * OPEN FORUM The Mayor invited any member of the audience to address the City Council on any subject not on the agenda, however no comments were voiced. * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Before opening the public hearing the Mayor asked Mr. Musso if he would explain the process followed in the General Plan amendments discussions. Mr. Musso explained that a general plan is a re- quirement of State law and that in order to qualify as a general plan it must have certain elements. The elements have grown from a simple land use plan to a facilities plan to include many categories. A General Plan is described as a comprehensive plan or diagram indicating the City's growth to a certain period of time - in our case up to 1990. These categories would include land uses, basic circulation systems (highways, etc.) and public facilities (parkS, schools). He listed some of the required element: 1) housing, ~ safety, 3) conservation and some of the optional ele- ments, i.e. open space, educational facilities, industrial land use and commercial. Mr. Musso also mentioned that at one time there was an agricultural element that is with the open space element at this time and commented that most of the time was spent on the open space element. With regard to educational facilities, he mentioned that there has been no wording for a provision to require developers to dedicate schools, as there is to dedicate parks.. He felt the most significant revision dealt with the open space element which is required by State law and explained that open space is essentially land that is not to be developed for urban uses but reserved for agricultural uses, historical sites or things of this nature. Councilman Pritchard asked if LARPD's recommendations for open space were considered and included, and Mr. Musso stated that most of them were. He commented that various means for obtaining open space land were listed, i.e. dedication, taxes, gifts, or as a by-product of any development. With regard to parks, he mentioned that LARPD would like to place all of the park acquisitions into fewer and larger parks; however, the Planning Commission prefers having neigh- borhood parks near the people as well as a community park nearby. Mr. Musso also described the areas around the airport and the cir- culation plan, which remains basically the same, except that Valle- citos Road is realigned to intersect Hansen Road instead of Wetmore Road. Mayor Taylor summarized by stating that this is a routine general plan updating but does not change the holding capacity of the Valley, nor are there any major land use changes. CM-25-322 July 17, 1972 It was pointed out that the attorneys represent- (P.H.-General Plan) ing the Crohare and Trap Rock properties would like to meet with the staff and asked that the matter be continued for thirty days. At this time Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing and asked if there were any comments, however there were none. Mr. Musso indicated that there were no problems with a continuance other than the fact that he would like to present the open space plan to the state, as it is subject to a grant. Mayor Taylor asked if the Council should consider not approving tentative maps where there are no school facilities. He then ex- pressed concern for the educational element and wondered if the Council should not be more specific with the requirements and asked the City Attorney for comments. The City Attorney agreed that the Council should be more specific not only with education but also public facilities, going so far, perhaps, as providing a layout indicating what they feel as being the general plan for development of undeveloped properties under the General Plan. He added that whether it applies to a portion of property for residential zoning or PUD, they should take con- trol of development. Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be continued for thirty days in order to allow the Staff to come up with provisions for educational facilities in the General Plan as well as to honor the request of the attorneys for a continuance. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion. Mr. Musso explained that he had spoken with the City Attorney with regard to educational facilities and that AB-1301, giving the City more power, was passed after the General Plan revisions had been made. He, therefore, suggested that this be done at the time of the next revision, rather than changing at this point. Mayor Taylor pointed out that this was a very important matter and that the public is very sensitive on this subject. If anything further can be done to insure that educational facilities are pro- vided it should be done now. Mr. Musso reminded him that the Gen- eral Plan is not a law but merely a policy statement. He suggested that perhaps some standards could be inserted reflecting City re- quirements. Councilman Miller agreed that wording should be inserted in the General Plan, as subdivisions must be consistent with the General Plan; therefore, words of this kind are essential. He then suggest- ed if it is required, the Planning Commission should hold public hearings in order to make this type of revision and they should begin now. He mentioned that there is a town in the east called Ramapo , whose general plan extends over an eighteen year period and states that no subdivision will be allowed unless the public facilities have been provided in the time specified by the general plan. In a suit against the city, the court upheld the requirements of the general plan. He felt the concept is similar to what this City is suggesting but they had it all laid out. The City Attorney stated he sees the general plan as a skeleton filled out by precise plans. This is a guide to the City as well as the developers,whether a precise plan exists or not, and they can go from there. Councilman Futch mentioned that he hates to see a major road cut through the vineyards as proposed and wondered what the purpose of the road is if there are no residential areas to be served. Mr. Lee explained that this would be a necessary loop around the City, particularly, if the land around it were ever to develop. CM-25-323 July 17, 1972 (P.H. General Plan) Mr. Musso stated that if a road is not shown in the general plan, something could be built there in the meantime. However, if it is so indicated, this will prohibit building and insure reserved space, if it is needed. Councilman Miller commented that this road has been discussed at length, and as he remembers, the approved plan went through very little vineyard area. He questioned if this was the plan originally approved and Mr. Musso answered that it was, however it was a dif- ferent drawing. Mayor Taylor felt that to show the road in the general plan does not commit the City to developing it, and would agree with Council- man Futch in that unless there is development in the area it would serve no purpose to develop a street that would loop around the City out in the non-urban development areas. The City Attorney advised that it would not be necessary to hold public hearings to initiate the changes discussed. The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion made earlier by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Miller moved to direct the Planning Commission to begin, as soon as possible, their consideration for all public facilities and environmental quality as a condition for development as a series of amendments to the General Plan, and in their specific or precise plans. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed with the unanimous approval of the Council. ( Councilman Miller also suggested that the staff take a look at what Ramapo has done. * * * PUBLIC HEARING RE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DISTRICT (South M st.) The City Attorney explained that the proposed underground district on South M Street consists of only one-half block or perhaps a block. PG&E is doing underground work in the area and it has been determined that the work can be done more easily and more economically at this time. Cecil Hendricks, 1046 Canton Avenue, stated that it is his under- standing that the work for this underground district will cost $50 dollars per lineal foot and felt that that amount was exorbitant. Mr. Lee felt that the figure must have been in reference to some- thing else, as it can be done with a minimum of cost, as PG&E is doing work on Second Street, plus there is a minimum of conversion to be done. He further stated that the staff has spoken with each of the merchants involved and they have raised no opposition to the proposed plans. Edward Barnes, 1086 Bluebell Drive, representative of Diamond National stated it is his understanding that the only cost to Diamond National would be for the trenching and conauit and he asked if there were any costs he is not aware of. Mr. Lee commented that he would be happy to supply Mr. Barnes with written information as to the costs involved if he would contact him, and Mr. Barnes stated they have no objections to the costs, but must receive permission from his superiors to pay their portion. Councilman Futch moved to close the public hearing and adopt the following resolution establishing the Underground Utilities District, seconded by Councilman Miller. The motion passed 4-1 with Council- man Beebe abstaining as he is affiliated with PG&E. CM-25-324 RESOLUTION NO. 92-72 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND DISTRICT ON SOUTH M STREET BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND RAIL- ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Departmental reports were received as follows: Airport activity - June Building Inspection - June Library - Annual - 1971-72 Police and Pound Departments - June Emergency Services - Quarterly - April-June, 1972 * * * The Public Works Director reported that all of the improvements have been completed in accord- ance with City standards in Tract 3064 (K & B) and it is now ready for maintenance by the City. RESOLUTION NO. 88-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3064 (Kaufman & Broad) * * * RESOLUTION NO. 89-72 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION (Robert W. Selden) July 17, 1972 (Underground District South M Street) Departmental Reports Acceptance of Tract 3064 (Kaufman & Broad) (Appointment of Member to Planning Commission) Mr. Robert Selden was appointed as a member of the Planning Com- mission to complete the unexpired term of Robert Thorsen who had resigned. * * * Kay Honodel and Arthur Henry were reappointed as members of the Library Board for another three year term. RESOLUTION NO. 90-72 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD * * * Renewal of the contract for the Municipal Code supplement service is for a two year period and no change in price. RESOLUTION NO. 91-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Municipal Code Corporation) * * * Appointment to Library Board (Henry- Honodel) Agreement re Municipal Code Supplement Ninety-nineclaims in the amount of $123,975.04 Payroll and Claims and two hundred sixty-five payroll warrants in the amount of $59,738.17 dated July 14, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * CM-25-325 July 17, 1972 Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, the items on the Consent Cal- endar were approved unanimously. * * * APPEAL RE CUP SIGN INCREASE (Codiroli Ford) The Planning Director explained that Codiroli Ford has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of an allowable freestanding sign from 32 sq. ft. to 64 sq. ft. Under the ordinance, he is allowed 100 sq. ft. of wall space sign area or 32 sq. ft. of freestanding sign in which he waives the right to the remaining 68 sq. ft. of sign area. He added that a CUP is only the first stage of the sign program involving variances to several sections of the sign ordinance, and variances to allow more sign area than allowed. The CUP allows him to have 48 sq. ft. of freestanding sign, dependent upon visability and magnitude of the use. The Planning Commission made these findings and granted the 48 sq. ft. sign. In answer to a question raised by Councilman Futch, the City Attor- ney advised that the Council can indicate whether or not they would consider an application favorable, if one is to be submitted; how- ever this would not be binding, legally. Councilman Miller explained that his reasoning for asking that the decision made by the Planning Commission be appealed is that the ordinance allows 32 sq. ft. freestanding or 100 sq. feet located on the wall - one or the other. These are the conditions of the ID Zone, in which the applicant's property is located. The appli- cant has the option of going to 64 sq. feet; however there must be certain findings. He mentioned that approximately one year ago the Council discussed signs and determined that a plant the size of General Motors located in Fremont should be allowed a 64 sq. ft. freestanding sign. He felt that the size of property on which the sign is to be located is hardly the size of General Motors; there- fore, he felt that it would not be justified to allow a sign larger than 32 sq. ft. He stated that the staff had recommended that the sign be placed on a wall in order to have a larger sign. He added that Codiroli chose to locate in an ID Zone rather than a Commercial Zone and felt that the City should not erode the pro- visions of its ordinance to accommodate him as in this case it was a self-created problem. Councilman Beebe countered that if man did not create his own pro- blems the west never would have been settled nor would there have been any progress. For these reasons he felt he could not agree with Councilman Miller's philosophy and stated there should be a way through a variance to allow a modest sign. He added that this is what the Planning Commission was trying to do and had used good judgment in doing so. Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the use is permitted in that zone. Councilman Miller felt that it was Mr. Codiroli's business choice to locate there, rather than on Portola Avenue which has been set up to accommodate the large car sales buildings, and he should have to live with the conditions of the ID Zone. Milt Codiroli, 586 Escondido Circle, explained that prior to pur- chasing a piece of property for his dealership he consulted with Mr. Parness in an effort to determine which location would be the best spot to build on with a minimum of problems. He felt that the Council should be made aware of the fact that he did not go into the matter with the idea of creating problems but, in fact, to establish on a suitable site. He explained that the choices were limited and the other alternatives were felt to be unsuitable. CM-25-326 July 17, 1972 He was advised that there was no problem with the site he chose other than it would require a CUP and was told this would be no problem. He stated that he is only trying to get a place of business sign, not just a 32 sq. ft. sign. He pointed out that if he chooses, technically, he is allowed to divide the property into different parcels and have a 32 sq. ft. sign for each parcel but this is not what he wants. He stated that they have various activities taking place under one roof on the 5i-acre piece of land. He stated that he would have to agree that he is in an ID Zone; however, everything developing around the area happens to be commercial. He mentioned a restaurant and a proposed shopping center across the street. What he is asking the Council for is a 200 sq. ft. sign, allowable in commercial zoning, which would allow him to have a brand name sign out in front, used car sign and service sign. He then presented a layout of the plans and stated that in his opinion the size of the sign should be relative to the distance of the building from the roadway. He informed the Council that the building is located 175 feet from the road in this case. He asked the Council to consider the fact that he is asking for a sign that will be convenient and informative to the public. He illustrated the layout of the building, stating that the main showroom is 80 feet long and that there is a wing on each side of the main showroom. On one wing he would like a 2 ft. x 2 ft. sign with the name of the business and on the other wing a sign 2 ft. wide by 30 ft. long for used cars and trucks, plus one free- standing sign at the front of the building - 64 sq. ft. in dimen- sion and a sign indicating their servicing area. (cuP re Sign - Codiroli Ford) Councilman Futch felt that the CUP for the freestanding sign is straightforward in that to exceed the 32 sq. ft. allowable there must be specific findings, and he did not feel he could make those findings, so as far as the CUP, he favored limiting the sign to 32 sq. ft. for that reason. Mayor Taylor stated that essentially they allowed the use, knowing there would be a car dealership located there. They were requested to allow commercial zoning at the Portola Avenue entrance to the City, with an automobile row in mind, but after Abbes located there nothing happened and since it has not developed, he wondered if perhaps they should consider rezoning that area. It is the consen- sus that uses such as this tend to discourage shopping trade down- town, and it has been the City policy to encourage the moving of the auto dealerships out of the core of the City. Mr. Musso agreed that this had been discussed from time to time, but he stated the Council should keep in mind the reason this par- cel was zoned ID, and he explained that at the time it was annexed there were definite ideas about land use and the staff had pro- posed multiple residential and possibly some general commercial along the railroad track. However the property owners on the hill overlooking the area opposed any commercial uses. The property owners of the area wanted the highest commercial obtainable. It was zoned for residential at the time of annexation, and the com- promise was to zone it to ID with the intent of an industrial zone and it could be controlled under CUP to allow other uses, thereby eliminating any associated effects of other uses. The H zone was created for this and it was hoped it would become a hotel-restaurant area rather than general commercial which it is tending toward. Councilman Beebe ask~d what the philosophy was with regard to signs, that if a freestanding sign is allowed, then signing on the building is not allowed. Councilman Miller explained that in better quality industrial parks there are only very small signs, and the argument is that it is the general intent of the City to eliminate the clutter of free- standing signs, but if someone chose to use the freestanding sign, they gave up their wall sign; if they used the wall sign, they were CM-25-327 July 17, 1972 (CUP re Sign Codiroli) not allowed a freestanding sign. The freestanding sign could be placed at the corner of the property. Councilman Beebe stated that when they approved this location for the dealership they, in essence, granted commer- cial use of the area and knew that in order to operate a car agency it would be necessary to have proper signing. However, Councilman Miller stated that proper signing is that which by law is appro- priate to the zone. He also reminded the Council that he had not approved trhe use, and when it was approved they should have taken into account that there were conditions Mr. Codiroli would have to meet; it was his choice to locate in this area. There is opposi- tion to commercial in this area, and an enormous amount of signing is not good for the City. It is not fair to the people who buy in commercial zones to have someone get all the advantages they cannot have because the Council will grant special privileges. Councilman Pritchard moved to deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council more or less implied that they would sign the business so it would be appropriate to an automobile agency, however Councilman Miller stated he did not recall this discussion and it does not appear in the minutes. Mayor Taylor agreed they had not discussed the signing, but felt that in considering the automobile agency most of them had in mind that it would look like an automobile agency in some respects. As far as nearby residents are concerned, the lighting is far more important, rather than signing which would cause more ill effect and this should be carefully watched. The motion to reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Miller and Futch dissenting. * * * PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The Planning Commission minutes of July 5 were presented to the Council. Mayor Taylor questioned the action of the Planning Commission with reference to the school requirement on a certain tract at the time of the final, rather than the tenta- tive map filing, according to our ordinance. Mr. Lewis explained that he had advised the Planning Director that when receiving a letter stating that there are not adequate facil- ities to serve the subdivision, the map should be conditioned by further receipt of a letter rather than denied. * * * APPLICATION FOR BILLIARD PARLOR (Norman Volponi) An application for a bilDard parlor at 150 No. L Street was submitted by Norman Volponi. Section 17.1 of the Municipal Code requires that this application be made to the City Council, and any permit be issued by the Council. Mr. Parness stated the matter had been discussed by the Police and Building Departments, and there is some concern expressed by the Planning Department concerning parking which the Council might wish to take into account. Mr. Musso explained that when the Council granted the variance to the off-street parking there was a provision that there be no re- tail use but rather low parking uses; he felt that this use would be a place of assembly, and he asked if the Council felt this use qualifies as a high traffic generator. CM-25-328 July 17, 1972 Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Volponi had talked (Billiard Parlor) to him at considerable length as to whether this should be considered as retail sales, and he advised him that, in his opinion, it did not. Mayor Taylor stated the Council would not be so much concerned with the interpretation, but whether or not it is felt that the parking facilities are adequate, and Mr. Musso stated that it is a night time use, and he would be more concerned with the auto repair shop adjacent. Councilman Pritchard stated that he had not noticed any problem with parking at the First Street oilliard parlor, and made a motion to issue the permit, and at the same time direct the City Attorney to look into the possibility of placing this type of per- mit under the usual permit procedures; motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Futch. Councilman Miller stated his concern with regard to parking as the Council had granted a variance which allowed less parking than the zone required, and if there will be a parking problem, perhaps the permit should not be granted. Mayor Taylor felt that the law which requires the Council to issue this type of permit is to prevent general nuisances from occurring, and to use that because the Council felt the parking requirement should be different might not be correct. Councilman Miller felt if this were a use permit, without the re- quirement of the ordinance, the question would still arise, and the Planning Department would have referred the matter to them anyway. Mayor Taylor felt that one does not use an ordinance for policing to substitute for a CUP. Mr. Musso suggested that perhaps the alternative could be solved through two separate motions. Mayor Taylor stated that there was a motion on the floor at this time. Councilman Beebe pointed out the fact that the only parking avail- able at the LARPD recreation facilities on Eighth street happens to be street parking which has never presented a problem. He felt that the billiard parlor's traffic would be no heavier than that and many patrons will be using bicycles and walking. Mayor Taylor emphasized that the point Councilman Miller was trying to make is that reducing the parking requirements was done with the understanding that heavy traffic generator uses would not be allowed; however he did not necessarily feel this particular appli- cation should be denied. A vote was taken on the motion which passed with the unanimous approval of the Council. The City Attorney commented that he is concerned with the lack of a uniform procedure regarding this type of permit and asked if it would be considered valuable to spell o~in detail the reasons for granting, or not granting, a permit. Mayor Taylor advised that if the City Attorney felt this would be worthwhile they would like him to check further into the matter. * * * At the last meeting the Council agreed to exe- cute a joint powers agreement with the other six REPORT RE SACEOA TEAM ASSIST. PROGRAM CM-25-329 July 17, 1972 REPORT RE SACEOA TEAM ASSIST. PROGRAM as a delegate and nate. cities instituting the Community Assistance Team program. This requires the designation of a delegate and an alternate to the Admin- istrative Board. It has been recommended that a motion be adopted designating the City Manager the Assistant to the City Manager as an alter- Councilman Pritchard moved that the recommendation be adopted, seconded by Councilman Futch, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. * * * The City. Manager reported that the reports regard- ing the costs for public works improvements for frontage roads have been very contradictory and, in view of the discrepancies, asked that there be a continuance for another week to allow time for the matter to be resolved. He stated that arrangements have been made to meet with some knowledgeable people from PG&E in an effort to conclude what the actual costs of the work will be. REPORT RE FRONTAGE ROAD STANDARDS Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter for one week, se- conded by Councilman Miller, and the motion was approved unanimously. REZONING ORDINANCE (5th Street Between So. I an d K S t s . ) * * * ORDINANCE NO. 794 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF, RELATING TO ZONING. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the reading of the ordinance was waived, (title read only) and the ordinance was adopted. ORDINANCE RE ANIMAL IMPOUND CHARGES * * * ORDINANCE NO. 795 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.29, RELATING TO FINES AND CHARGES UPON IMPOUNDED ANIMALS, OF ARTICLE III, RELATING TO IMPOUNDING, OF CHAPTER 4, RELATING TO ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the reading of the ordinance was waived, and the above ordinance adopted. MUNI C ODE AMEND. TO ADD CHAPTER RE WATERCOURSES * * * ORDINANCE NO. 796 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 25, RELATING TO WATERCOURSES. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the reading of the ordinance was waived, and the above ordinance was adopted. CM-25-330 * * * Councilman Miller remarked that the grading for the Civic Center site was supposed to have been completed last December and wonder- ed why the job is not yet finished. July 17, 1972 MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Civic Center Grad ing ) The City Manager replied that the company is in dispute with the City and has made an offer of settlement of the points of dispute and the City Manager, with the advice of the City Attorney has responded. Mr. Parness stated that he will report back to the Council as soon as he receives an answer. * * * Councilman Miller suggested that in view of the (Park Development fact negotiations with developers for parks are Fees) long gone, the Council should conside~ the adop- tion of a park development fee. He stated that he is suggesting this for two reasons: 1) because it is right, and 2) he felt it is necessary to support the Recreation District's bond issue to be proposed in which the monies will be paid to de- velop what has already been purchased. He continued that the park development fee will insure that development of new parks does not become the responsibility of the taxpayers. Councilman Miller made a motion that the City Attorney be instructed to draw up a draft of an ordinance, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Beebe dissenting. For the benefit of clarification the City Manager asked if the fee to be collected would be a fee equivalent for the development of minimum standards for a mini park. Councilman Miller explained that the estimated fee to develop a park with minimum standards amounts to approximately $200 per dwelling unit and he felt that the fee should be charged per dwelling unit. He mentioned that there is a tract map to come before the Council and asked the City Attorney if the fee could be imposed, should it be approved prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that the fee can be imposed later and that the ordinance has nothing to do with the tract map. * * * Councilman Miller stated that in checking the contributions reported by the candidates during the last election it was found that a committee contrIbuting $500 to candidate Millard reported that this was money left over from a previous election. Councilman Miller stated that there was only $3.00 left over and that there seems to be a serious discrepancy which may constitute a misdemeanor. He suggested that the attorney representing them file an exact accounting of the committee. (Campaign Fee Discrepancy) The Council concurred and suggested that the attorney be notified of these findings. The City Attorney replied that he would look at the ordinance with regard to a burden of proof and respond accordingly to the Council's wishes. * * * Councilman Futch stated that he would like to (Arroyo Mocho Land) see what improvements are needed along the Arroyo Mocho (property dedicated by Gillice) at an early date in order that the Council may have the opportunity to discuss the improvements. CM-25-331 July 17, 1972 (Arroyo Mocho Land) Mr. Lee reported that he is obligated to submit an engineering plan by October 1. The City Manager stated that the City has a deed to the property but the deed is not exactly correct; there are some technical difficulties involved. The City Attorney explained that the corrected deed will be given to the City; however, in the meantime, if necessary it could be established that the deed is for that piece of property. He added that the deed has been recorded but the correct copy will have to be recorded also. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned to a brief executive session at 10:30 p.m. to discuss appoint- ments. * * * APPROVE ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of July 24, 1972 A regular meeting of the Livermore City Council was held on July 24, 1972, 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 The Mayor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES The minutes of the meetings of July 11, 1972 and July 17, 1972 were approved as corrected on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimous approval. * * * SPECIAL ITEM (Design Studies Water Treat- ment Plant) Mayor Taylor stated that there is a special item on the agenda for which engineers from Brown and Caldwell have been invited to make an oral status report of their design studies for enlargement of the water treatment facilities. CM-25-332 July 24, 1972 Mr. J. Cotterall explained the existing facili- ties and those to be constructed. He mentioned that one of the changes, since the last time they reported to the Council, was in the evalua- tion of the various alternatives and the most economical way of providing the facilities. They found that this could be done by relocating the solids handling building from its earlier proposed site. He added that this relocation would allow, even with full expansion, for the FAA clearance requirements. Another change from the original plans is that the main operations building will not house the motor control centers and electrical distribution systems but it is proposed to make uniform distribution of them among the load centers of the plant. This will allow the present operations building to be used for administration and housing of various departments and laboratory. He stated that this would re- sult in a more centralized complex, with the unloading facilities and other facilities around it, plus easy access and that there will be improvement in the lime handling as well as the addition of recarbonation tanks, which process he explained. There will also be some housing and blowers for the secondary aeration tanks. Provisions will also be made for the possibility of furnaces burn- ing at a temperature of 16000. He stated that they anticipate the EPA Task Force will soon adopt the requirement for the procedure of burning the sludge for two seconds at 16000 temperatures. He indicated that, in his opinion, the architectural design of the buildings was very pleasing and they are 25% completed; the struc- tural design is approximately 22% completed and consists mostly of the facilities excluding the soBds handling building. He stated that the construction of the tertiary filters will be completed by the middle of April, 1974, which will bring it into compliance with the Water Quality Board requirements. (Water Treatment Facilities) Mayor Taylor asked if the changes imply any significant change in cost to which Mr. Catterall indicated they would not. Ray Faltings wondered if there is some conflict with the report just given and that of the Valley-wide Management Study Plan meeting. He felt that at that meeting it had been reported that no tertiary treatment was necessary. Mr. Lee explained that there was no conflict between the two and that they were quite compatible. Councilman Miller felt that it would not be very realistic to assume that tertiary treatment will not one day be a requirement. * * * The work has been completed on the weed abatement PUBLIC HEARING program with approximately 82 parcels being WEED ABATEMENT cleared and assessments should now be confirmed and forwarded to the County for collection if not paid. The public hearing is to receive and hear any objections of property owners liable to be assessed. The Mayor opened the public hearing, however there were no comments or objections, and on motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the public hearing was closed, and the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 93-72 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS - WEED ABATEMENT * * * It is our intention to request the County to place residential sewer service charge billing on the property tax statement. This annual hearing must be held to receive comments as to PUBLIC HEARING RE SEWER SERVICE COLLECTION METHOD CM-25-333 July 24, 1972 (Sewer Service) this process however it has no relationship to the amount of billing. It is recommended a resolution be adopted accepting the report of the Finance Director. Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at this time, however no comments were voiced, and on motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 94-72 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REPORT OF CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR RE SEWER SERVICE AND USE CHARGES. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The City Manager reported that our annual calcula- tion has been made as to the surcharge assessment to be made against certain retail establishments on the north and south sides of First Street for the payment of costs associated with the off-street parking lot. An appeal has been made to the County for assistance in the cost, due to the use of a number of spaces by vehicles whose passengers are using adjacent County facilities. These funds, if granted, will inure to the credit of this special account which would permit a later reduction in the retail assessment. It is re- commended that an ordinance be introduced establishing this new surcharge. Central Busi- ness District Parking Dist. Report re US Army Helicopter Tie- Down Fee Waiver * * * The City Manager reported that a request has been received from the Army, through the local re- cruiting officer, for permission to locate a military helicopter at our airport without pay- ment of the usual tie-down fee. Such funds are not available, but it is the intention of this military unit to have the aircraft located here primarily for their training needs and the use would be for a term of approximately one year. Motor fuels would be purchased from the City. It is recommended that the tie- down fee be authorized as long as no rental space is consumed that may be in demand to private parties and with the express agreement that the City assumes no liability for any form of property damage or theft involving the craft. Agreement re Airway Blvd. Bridge Report re Water Line Easement CM-25-334 * * * In April of this year the City Council approved a staff recommendation for the retention of Asso- ciated Professions for the engineering design work re Airway Boulevard bridge. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing execution of the agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 95-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Associated Professions, Inc.) * * * The City Manager reported that an official price for obtaining a water line easement was negotiated with Southern Pacific Railroad many months ago. July 24, 1972 This easement causes the interconnection of the Wagoner Farms distribution system with the new pump lift station installed near Trevarno Road. The easement price is $2,770 which is considered to be a attractive rate. It is recommended that a resolution be authorizing execution of the agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 96-72 (Water Line Easement) very adopted A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Southern Pacific Railroad) * * * A claim for damages for personal injury in the amount of $25,000 was filed on behalf of Anita May Lee by her attorney David R. Finch. It is recommended that the claim be denied. RESOLUTION NO. 97-72 Claim for Damages (Anita May Lee) A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF ANITA MAY LEE * * * A communication was received from Robert Selden expressing appreciation re his Planning Commis- sion appointment and containing resignation as a member of the community Affairs Committee. * * * Communication re Appointment (Robert Selden) Fifty-seven claims in the amount of $43~455.96 Claims dated July 21, 1972 were ordered paid as approv- ed by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. .y, * * Mayor Taylor explained that Ed Hutka has made an appeal to the Council as a result of a denial by the Planning Commission for a variance for a restaurant on First Street. Approval of Consent Calendar APPEAL RE RESTAURANT (Hutka) Mr. Leon Horst explained that the application is for allowing a freestanding sign as well as a wall sign for the restaurant pro- posed to be located on First Street, east of Trevarno Road. The ordinance allows one or the other sign alternate, a 90 sq. ft. sign facing First Street, a 100 sq. ft. sign facing the proposed Mines Road extension, or a 32 sq. ft. freestanding sign. The applicant has requested that he be allowed the 32 sq. ft. free- standing sign as well as a 100 sq. ft. wall sign. Mr. Horst ex- plained that the history regarding the zoning of the property was very controversial in that the Planning Commission wanted multiple family, the owners wanted commercial and the adjoining residents wanted limited commercial. As a result, the property was designed for such uses as restaurant and other motel type uses, and was zoned ID-H. He pointed out that with regard to the specific appli- cation the Planning Department can find no grounds for approval of the variance and the Planning Commission concurred with the findings in that they could also not find grounds for approval. The Plan- ning Commission has held hearings for this matter and rather than table the matter, as requested by the Staff, they denied the appli- cation which is now being presented to the Council on appeal. CM-25-335 July 24, 1972 (Appeal - re Restaurant, Hutka) Councilman Futch asked Mr. Horst if he would point out the site in relation to the residential area now developed and that which is proposed, across the street. Mr. Horst stated that the Planning Depart- ment staff feels the area all the way up to Abbes should be considered as a whole with regard to zoning and Volkswagen signing. Councilman Futch stated his feeling that the Planning Commission's original intent in zoning the area ID-H was to minimize the impact of industrial and restaurant-motel type business on the south side, and to allow large signs and bright lights would be setting a pre- cedent for other businesses coming in with requests for similar allowances. Ed Hutka, 1019 Angelica Way, commented that he had been misinformed by the staff, who assured him that the signs were approved and that there would be no problem in the area he chose to locate the res- taurant. He stated that his client insisted that the restaurant be located on a site that would have enough signs for people to know where it is. There has not been an application for a permit in this area and nobody knew what the regulations were regarding signs and now the staff feels something must be done. He feels that Livermore is ideally located and there is no reason why an indus- trial park should not be located here; that by default, Western Electric is now located at the other end of the Valley, and it should be at this end. He felt that ordinances are not without fault and should be looked at more closely with the welfare of the community in mind, since one distributor could mean $10,000 in tax money to the City. He then showed slides illustrating industrial parks in neighboring cities, all built in the last five years. He stated that the point he is trying to make is that we need a turn-around and the ordinances are not allowing this. He commented that they are asking for the same signing allowed downtown (200 sq. ft.) and they would like to trade this for 85 offstreet parking spaces, which they are not required to do. He felt that this is an advantage to the City in that they are not proposing to crowd the street. Other alternatives which would be acceptable to them would be: 1) a 64 sq. ft. freestanding sign and nothing on the building, or 2) 100 sq. ft. on the building and 32 sq. ft. of freestanding sign. He lastly remarked that they had been mislead by the staff and have lost time as a result; he felt that this had been a mistake but could be rectified by allowing them the variance. Bob White, 1020 W. Capital Avenue, Sacramento, a representative of Smorga-Bob Family Restaurants, explained the procedure he went through after coming to a decision to locate on First Street. He stated that his sign company contacted the City and found that the normal size sign used on his restaurants was not in conformance and that they would allow a 32 sq. ft. freestanding sign on a short pole, plus 100 sq. ft. wall sign. His sign company drew up plans for these signs according to the City's specifications. He stated that in addition to his sign man's inquiry, Mr. Hutka checked into the matter; he was therefore sure that he had done a thorough job having received the same information from two sources. He then signed a lease, had plans drawn up with an architect, and has spent a considerable amount of money on the attorney who took care of the lease and the architect who drew up plans. He stated that after all of this had been done, the plans for the signs were turned down. In answer to Councilman Pritchard's question regarding timing, he stated that he was told sometime in April the sign allowances and specifications, and then when he applied for a permit in June he was told the design and signs he proposed were not in compliance with the ordinance. Mayor Taylor asked if it is clear in the ordinance that only one wall sign or a freestanding sign is all that is allowed in an ID-H Zone, and he was assured by Mr. Horst that it is. CM-25-336 July 24, 1972 Mr. Horst stated that the text of the Planning Commission minutes indicates that the day be- fore the plans were submitted, Mr. Hutka was told that perhaps they would be approved but would require the final approval of the Planning Director. The Planning Director felt they were not acceptable and Mr. Hutka was then notified they would not be allowed. This all took place within a 24-hour period, and the staff does not recall any dis- cussion prior to this particular happening. (Appeal re Restaurant - Hutka) Mayor Taylor stated that the decision must be whether the City wishes to allow a variance in this case and reconsider the signing for this type use in the ID-H Zone, regardless of any discussion which may have taken place. He felt the main problem is not the communications problem which seems to have been in existence re- garding the matter, but what the Council plans to do about the signing. Councilman Pritchard felt that the communications problem should not be overlooked, as they are responsible for actions of the staff; however, in this case the applicant is saying one thing while the staff is saying another. He agreed that the area should be looked into as a whole and a decision reached as to what should be allowed. Mayor Taylor felt that it was not the intent of the Council to allow uses in the ID-H Zone the same signing allowed downtown. Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the proposed restaurant will not serve the industrial clients, specifically, but will receive highway business as well and that two things should be considered; 1) the ordinance regarding ID-H Zones, or 2) rezone the whole area to commercial which seems to be the trend in the area. He felt that with regard to the application before the Council, unless he can completely ascertain what the truth is, he could not vote in favor of granting a variance at this time. Councilman Miller stated that he would have to agree with Council- man Pritchard in not voting to approve the variance, as he felt he could not make the findings for a legal variance. He stated that it was not the intent for the area to become commercial and the reason it received the ID-H zoning. He felt that pressure is being placed on the Council for it to become commercial; however, they should adhere to the regulations to insure that it does not become such. He felt that they have a responsibility to protect the residences as well as the entrance to the City and suggested that Mr. White put a sign on the building. If things change, he could later put up a freestanding sign. He felt that the sign would be quite visible and, hopefully, be a very profitable loca- tion for Mr. White's restaurant. In response to a question regarding the sign allowed for the res- taurant, Mr. Horst stated that 32 sq. feet are allowed for the first SO lineal feet of frontage and then 1/2 sq. ft. for every foot of lineal frontage thereafter. He added that the plans show- ing 133 feet wide would allow him to have a 91 sq. ft. sign and if he is given credit for the 52 ft. of Mines Road he is dedicating to the City, he would be allowed the full 100 sq. ft. on the building. Councilman Beebe felt that if the use is allowed in the area, they should be allowed reasonable identification to go along with their business, and that the request by the applicant was not at all un- reasonable. He pointed out that the sign at the Holiday Inn is a little under 64 sq. ft. which is not readily seen driving down the highway and in view of the fact the uses are highway oriented, they should determine what really would be reasonable. CM-25-337 July 24, 1972 (Appeal re Restaurant - Hutka) Councilman Futch commented that the Planning Com- mission has scheduled a meeting for the purpose of studying and reviewing the sign ordinance with re- gard to highway commercial zones. Councilman Beebe emphasized that if restaurants are to be allowed in the area, they should be allowed enough signing, or do not allow this use in the zone. Councilman Miller stated that in the free enterprise system a per- son is allowed to look over the sites available for the use and then abide by the rules relating to the property. He stated that they have an option to develop in town where larger signs are allowed or in another area where there are more restrictions, but the price of the property would be less. He felt that these were the things which must be considered in making a business decision. Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like the applicant to allow the Council to table the matter, pending the outcome of the hearings on the sign ordinance, in view of the fact that the ordinance might possibly be changed in his favor. He felt that he for one could not vote in the applicant's favor at this time if the applicant is press- ing for a decision tonight. Mr. Horst stated that the public hearings will probably not be scheduled until sometime in September, but possibly by the 15th of August. Councilman Pritchard suggested that Mr. White go ahead with his plans and put up the 100 sq. ft. sign on the wall; he felt that the additional 32 sq. ft. of freestanding sign would be a minor addi- tion and would not make that much difference. Mr. White stated that his choice would be to take the freestanding sign and not have the wall sign, if it comes to taking only one. Mayor Taylor explained that the problem is not the size of the sign but the fact that the variance is in conflict with an ordinance; the pattern will be set for an entrance to the City, which makes the decision rather difficult. He added thatoc this point he would have to agree with Councilman Pritchard and hopes that the applicant will allow them to table the matter. He felt that the Council was not ready to come to a decision at this time regarding the whole area involved. Councilman Beebe stated that it is his understanding the same compu- tation applies to downtown commercial in arriving at sign size - so many square feet related to the amount of each frontage. Mr. Horst added that downtown the businessmen are allowed two signs (one on each frontage), but in an industrial area only one sign is allowed. Councilman Pritchard felt that these commercial uses in an indus- trial area should receive some consideration as they are there for serving the industrial businesses as well as the highway traffic and should be allowed more signing than is necessary for the indus- trial businesses. He felt, therefore, some provision should be made in the signing for these uses. He then commented that he would make a motion to table the matter if it would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Hutka stated that he appreciated the Council's attempt to tackle the problem of the area as a whole, but felt it rather ridiculous to adhere strictly to sign zones, parking zones, etc. and disregard the use. He stated that he does see the Council's problem, however, and would not like to push the issue at this time. He stated that it had been pointed out to him that the land consists of more than one acre and that the land could be split into two parcels with the CM-25-338 restaurant on one and parking on the other and still have the two signs they are allowed. He stated that they do not wish to play this kind of game. July 24, 1972 (Appeal re Restaurant - Ed Hutka) The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch, and approved unanimously. * * * Mr. Horst explained that the applicant is re- questing that he be allowed to construct a sign 16 sq. ft. in base, 8 feet high for a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant to be located at 1817 First street. He has based his need with relation to the site plan located next to Polomoni's. The applicant has stated that due to the location of this existing building, the westbound traffic is affected and this being a restaurant which draws people on the spur of the moment, he needs a sign to attract these customers. The staff felt the problem is not with the signing but the fact that the restaurant is to be built too close to the existing build- ing and recommended that the application be denied with the sugges- tion that the building be moved out closer to the street, which would result in more visibility. The Planning Commission agreed with comments by the staff and denied the application. Mr. Horst then presented the Council with a map of the area and their recom- mendations for placement of the building, and parking. APPEAL RE CUP Jack-in-the-Box In answer to a question by Councilman Pritchard, Mr. Horst answered that disregarding the signing of the area either proposed place- ments of the building would be equally advantageous. Councilman Beebe felt it would be more of an advantage to them to have the building situated back off the street, due to the excessive noise of the large trucks on First street. Mr. Horst stated that although the use might be similar to the gasoline stations, their freestanding signs were permitted only because their canopies obstructed the wall and prohibited the use of a wall sign. Though there is a similarity in use, the site de- sign is different. The City Attorney explained that the law regarding signs generally points out that if a sign is allowed for service stations, or busi- ness, because of something critical about that particular station or business, the sign is not generally available to other businesses. However, if one has a use that is the same as that service station, the law requires that the same sign be allowed. Councilman Pritchard asked if the uses would not be considered the same; as you drive in, stay in your car and receive services from a retail business. In one case you get food and in the other gasoline. Don Atherton, Real Estate Agent, P.O. Box 3, Orinda, stated that he has spent one year looking for a site for Jack-in-the-Box, at their request, and felt that he had found the perfect spot for one. He felt that the heavy traffic on First street (15,000 per day) was an advantage as well as the fact that they have frontage on three sides. He also thanked the staff for their drawing of an alternate suggestion for a layout of the building. He then ex- plained, by illustrations on a map, their proposed plans and lay- out of the building. He mentioned that the only problem with the staff's proposed layout is that a person must turn right from First Street, then right again, and left next, before placing their order. Their plan allows that a person may turn right, off of First Street and is lined up to place an order. He felt that what they are in need of is access that is comfortable for the patrons. He also felt that if there is any kind of line, the proposed staff plan would not be very suitable. He stated that considerable time CM-25-339 July 24, 1972 (Appeal re CUP is spent in determining the best layout and this Jack-in-the-Box) site has been no exception. He felt there are no alternative suggestions in this case. He ex- plained that the building is not such as to attract a significant amount of business and the sign facing First Street must be located so as to allow cars to travel in and out. He stated that this becomes the same type of situation similar to a gas station where there is a circulation of cars and a building set back to allow the circulation. Mr. Atherton presented a draw- ing of the trilon sign, similar to those used along First Street, and stated that it would be the same size as the others with the product of the sign being the same as all walls on the building - stating tlJack-in-the-Boxtl. His client needs this type of sign which is, as best as they can tell, in keeping with the sign ordi- nance. He explained that this is a finding in the ordinance, that a difficulty does exist and the best correction would be to allow the trilon sign. Barry Culbertson, representative of Foodmaker, Inc., 2395 American Avenue, Hayward, stated that they do not want to create a sign jungle and certain businesses do not need pole signs, trilon signs, or landscaped signs due to their particular use. He mentioned that people saving to buy furniture know where furniture stores are lo- cated; if you need a haircut you know where to find a barber and can make these decisions as to where to go in advance. Impulse business, on the other hand, needs signs to attract the person passing through. He stated that a survey has indicated that 23% of their business is received by people who see their sign and drive in on impulse. This 23% needs a sign that they can readily see. He felt that this proposed use required the same type of stand- ards as a service station, in that it is used on impulse, it is set back off the street and a trilon sign is needed in both cases. He stated that they are asking no more than what is allowed by the ordinance, and quoted some of the ordinance to confirm his statement. Earl Mason with Associated Professions stated that in viewing the minutes of the Planning Commission, he noted the mention of other establishments being denied freestanding signs. He stated among these were Senor Taco, Burger Chef and Sambos - all of which are restaurants in which you are seated, rather than driving through as in Jack-in-the-Box. With the exception of Sambos, they are off the main path of traffic and must rely on sources other than signs for their business. He stated it was reported that Dairy Queen re- ceived a pole sign due to the fact that they have two frontages and he felt that it had been allowed because they are some 200 feet off the road which has the main flow of traffic and that a pre- cedent has been set. He mentioned that the design proposed by the staff would not be a very safe way of entering Jack-in-the-Box, and pointed out that this was found to be the problem with the new Bank of America where a similar pattern exists as the one proposed. He felt that the layout of the building should be left in the hands of the developer, as it is his problem and he knows what is right and wrong for his site and will have to live with any problems. Councilman Futch felt that the signing they are asking for is reasonable but mentioned his concern for the precedent it would be setting and what affect it might have on those who were denied freestanding signs. He agreed that this particular site has visi- bility problems, but wondered where the line should be drawn. He stated that he would be interested in hearing what the other Coun- cilmen have to say with reference to a precedent being set for all the other restaurants. Councilman Beebe felt that the trilon signs were the most attrac- tive type of advertising to have come into being and would be happy to grant the sign that has been requested. He indicated that he would not mind if all the restaurants did have them as he is for them 100%. CM-25-340 Councilman Pritchard asked if the same problem exists with this piece of property and the Dairy Queen property, in that they have one parcel of land that extends from First to Second Street, with view limitations. July 24, 1972 (Appeal re CUP Jack-in-the-Box) Councilman Miller stated that Dairy Queen has no exposure from either side, whereas Jack-in-the-Box has substantial exposure coming east and some if you are traveling westerly. Councilman Pritchard felt that one traveling westerly would not be able to see the Jack-in-the-Box until he is directly in front of it and that to allow a sign would not be setting a precedent, as he felt this site obviously needs it and the findings can be made in the CUP. Other restaurants which have been denied signs have had different reasons for wanting them. For these reasons he would be in favor of granting the CUP. Ken Mercer stated that the Economics Development Council of the Chamber of Commerce met with Jack-in-the-Box representatives in order to put together a few facts and figures, and they are in favor of the appeal being made by them. He then read a report which explained the economic factors involved, which indicated that total monies to the City for City tax, sales tax and busi- ness license amounts to $5,275; $3,750 to the schools and total taxes paid including county amounts to $12,740. In addition to the revenue the City will receive, they have asked that the Council take into consideration the fact that the operation will result in employment of a number of young people. For these reasons he again stated that they recommend approval of the appeal. Councilman Miller stated that he views the application as a pre- cedent setter and the intent of the ordinance is to prevent the clutter of freestanding signs. He mentioned that there has been a systematic effort for the past four years to remove or not allow a freestanding sign that does not have a specific justification. There is no question of the fact that the design of the sign pro- posed is excellent, but a row of signs, no matter how attractive, still represents clutter. This was the reason for the consistent denial of appeals for the freestanding signs. In his opinion, no business can expect universal exposure and Jack-in-the-Box does have good exposure on three sides. He mentioned that it might be advantageous to have little visibility going in a westerly direc- tion due to the fact that it would seem to be extremely hazardous to try to make a left hand turn into the establishment just before an intersection and across two lanes of heavy traffic. In time, if medians are installed to separate traffic, the problem may be even greater. He felt that he could well appreciate the appli- cant's desire, but there are other things to be considered. In his opinion, they are asking the Council to provide for something which may create hazards and against the intent of the ordinance to make up for a site that is not quite what it should be for this purpose. Mayor Taylor stated that he could appreciate the comments made with regard to layout of the building; the City can make a suggestion but certainly has no right to tell someone with the necessary ex- perience where the building should be. He felt the issue is whether or not to extend the trilon signs, as allowed at gas sta- tions, to other open land uses. In his opinion, he cannot make the finding that it would create a hardship to deny a freestanding sign. It is not exposed as well as it could be to westbound traffic on First Street, but as Councilman Miller pointed out, it is not necessary. He felt it would not be consistent with what has been done in the past, to grant the variance. Councilman Beebe moved that the request for a CUP for a sign no higher than 8 ft. high be permitted, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. CM-25-341 --~__'_~__""""_"_"_""__0_'~'__~,__,______,,__,_~"_._,_~__.___,.._._,._,_.__~_.._______..__"_...__.. July 24, 1972 (Appeal re CUP Jack-in-the-Box) The City Attorney advised that the Council can make the findings for the variance in this case, however, these findings may be the criterion for other establishments, different in use, who may request a sign. Councilman Futch stated that he has heard enough discussion, but is apprehensive about the precedent to be set. The motion failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Miller, Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting. * * * RECESS AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT. * * * REPORT RE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3407 (Sunset) Mr. Horst explained that the plan of the tentative map for Tract 3407 (Sunset Development Co.) located southeast of Lexington Way between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street is in conformance with the General Plan and has 210 single family units permitted on the 140 acres, amounting to 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The street alignment was found to be acceptable with the ex- ception that they felt the north-south collector street shown to terminate at the Holloway property to the north should have been terminated on Arroyo Road. No schools have been provided for but the park location conforms with the existing plans and the developer has dedicated ten times the amount required, which amounts to 42 acres. There was some question as to which side of Arroyo Road the trailway system will be located as one map showed it on the west side of Arroyo Road while the other map showed it on the east side. With the exception of the collector street redesign and the trailway sys- tem map inconsistency, the staff found the tentative map to be in conformance. LARPD felt that the extension of the north-south collector street into property owned by Alameda County might inter- fere with any future plans for open space. A communication was also received from the League of Women Voters on this subject. Therefore, the Planning Commission discussed with the applicant, the relocation of the street, and the street has been relocated with the applicant's consent. The northern lots are in excess of one acre with which the Planning Commission did not concur, instead they proposed the same type of lot with the pattern the developer had proposed. The exten- sion of Redwood Avenue into the County property was discussed and it was determined that if this area were to become a park the road could be deviated to minimize the effect it would have on the parcel. He then showed the Council a map which the Planning Commission basical- ly recommends for approval and which was prepared by the developer. When asked, Mr. Horst stated that he does not know what the County intends to do with the parcel at the end of Redwood Avenue; they hope it will become a park site or open space of some type. He also mentioned that the minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. graduat- ing up to 80,000 8:1. ft. Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the Tentative Tract Map 3407 with the conditions imposed by all ordinances, seconded by Council- man Beebe. The City Attorney explained that the school facilities must be avail- able before final approval of the map is given as required by the ordinance. He explained that he advised the staff, Planning Com- mission and Council that this provision of the statute be placed in the approval of a map, as a condition, so that in effect you are saying that a subdivision must be served by adequate school facilities in order that the final can be approved. And to be more specific, at the time of the approval of the final map, the condition must be met with a letter from the School District satisfying the requirement of the City's ordinance. CM-25-342 July 24, 1972 Councilman Miller commented that it was the in- tent of the Council, by passing the ordinance, not to allow approval of tentative maps in an absence of school facilities. This was decided in order that the developers would be aware from the beginning not to hire engineers when the facilities are not available. He then read a portion of the ordinance indicating that a letter is re- ceived from the School District stating that adequate school facil- ities have been provided for and that is a condition of the tenta- tive map approval. He felt that there is no way the matter can be delayed until final approval of the map and abide by the ordinance. (Tract 3407 - Tentative Map) It was pointed out that the Hofmann tentative tract map had been approved in this way after the ordinance had been passed. Councilman Futch expressed concern for the trailway, indicating that he would be in favor of requiring a trailway or a bike way on the west side of Arroyo Road. He felt that one is needed for travel to Del Valle Reservoir and the V.A. Hospital Park much sooner than land on the east side will develop and include a trail. The Public Works Director explained the design of the proposed bike paths along major streets in the setback areas, not part of the trailway system. Mr. Horst explained that the General Plan has always shown a bike trail on the west side of Arroyo Road until the last General Plan amendment and for reasons he is not aware of the plan was changed at this time to show the trail on the east side of Arroyo Road. He added that it was considered that either side of Arroyo Road could be used for the purpose all the way out to the dam. Mr. Lee felt the best side for the trail would be the west side. Mr. Masud Mehran, Sunset Development Co., gave the following reasons for asking that the Council consider developing a trail along the east side of Arroyo Road: 1) There is little possibility of having open space on the east side of Arroyo Road because of the large open space proposed on the west side. Lack of a trailway on the east side will place a masonry wall 10 ft. from the road on the west. A trailway on the east side will place the masonry wall some 60 ft. from Arroyo Road. He mentioned the comment made by Councilman Futch that the west side is going to develop soon and that it may be some time before the east side is developed. How- ever, Mr. Mehran stated that they do not know when the west side is going to be developed either at this time. He explained that it may be some time before he can get a building permit to develop the west side. 2) The parcels on the east side of the road are larger parcels than those on the west and because the parcels are larger it is more likely that the east side will develop sooner than the west. 3) Another reason for not wanting the trail on the west side is due to the fact that horseback riders will have the opportunity to take their horses into the open space provided by Shadowbrook which would be adjacent to the trail, should it be developed on the west side. He pointed out that this would ruin the open space area. 4) A trailway on the east side would give Arroyo Road a broader vista. He added that the Planning Commission agreed that the trailway should now be on the east side of Arroyo Road at the time of the General Plan amendment. Councilman Futch mentioned that the General Plan shows bikeways along major. streets on both sides of the street and suggested that it might be appropriate to have a bike trail on both sides of a very major street such as Arroyo Road. Mayor Taylor stated that he is a little confused with the statement that if the trailway is developed on the east side it will allow a broader vista. He felt there should not be any difference - one side or the other with regard to width involved. CM-25-343 July 24, 1972 (Tentative Map- Tract 3407) It was explained that one side would be widened for the bike trailway on the east, and with the open space on the west, would allow for a large area with a broad vista, but would only affect one particular area. Mr. Mehran added that his company feels they have taken enough land away from the Shadowbrook lots in order to create open space and should not forfeit part of the open space for a bike trail, or take more away from the lots to accomplish the land needed for that purpose. He felt the Council's only real reason for wanting the trail on the west side is that they feel it will develop earlier, and is not a very good basis for making long range planning de- cisions. Councilman Beebe pointed out that the foot bridge on Arroyo Road is on the east side and that development will have to be on the east up to Lomitas Avenue as it would be impossible to put a trail on the west side up to that point as it is already developed. Mr. Mehran explained that he is not objecting to the trail being placed on the west, but that the Council is overruling a decision made by the Planning Commission who already approved the map. Mayor Taylor felt the Council should have a recommendation from the staff regarding the matter and that there were other considera- tions such as which side would result in more crossings back and forth on Arroyo Road before they come to any type of decision. Councilman Miller offered three alternatives: 1) continue for another week or two in order to hear from the staff, 2) condition the tentative map that before final approval is given the decision will be made, or 3) deny approval of the tentative map. He asked the City Attorney if the second alternative would be permissible. The City Attorney commented that AB-1301 provides that a tentative shall be approved if it complies with the General Plan, but there seems to be some question as to whether or not the General Plan is correct or will be changed. He felt that in view of this, the map could be conditioned to require the bike path to comply with the General Plan when the final map is presented, as it may be changed in a month or two. Councilman Futch indicated that he would like to see some type of change in the standard backing lot treatment. Mayor Taylor felt this issue was rather a side issue and should be brought up with the Planning Commission again. , :tL~~~ ~~ .~ Mr. Mehran then explained in detail, t-I:l~_plan.B for development of . the 140 acres, adding that the~~e~elopmc~of the land)~ ~one-half million dollars. ~;~, ~ ~f~~ Councilman Miller stated that he appreciates the concept of open space, which the City has been trying to accomplish for some time. However, he felt there were other aspects of the subdivision which cause him concern. For fifteen years he has heard developers tell the City small lots cannot be developed on hilly areas and large lots should not be developed on flat land. In this particular subdivision there are a number of small lots on hilly areas and due to grading problems he felt it would be much better if the larger lots occupied the hilly area. He suggested that if the Council intends to approve the map as it now stands, they should see a grading plan before it is approved. No money has been spent yet and he felt that this might eliminate unnecessary problems if they see the grading plans before work is commenced. He urged that the Council condition the map for larger lots on the hillside, and if this is not acceptable to the majority, a grading plan should be submitted. CM-25-344 July 24, 1972 Mr. Mehran countered that any grading done in the City must be done in accordance with the Grading Ordinance which does not allow, for one thing, any bank to be higher than 10 ft. or having slopes more than 2-1. As long as this takes place within the ordinance it is being done orderly and legally. He added that to increase the lot size proposed by Councilman Miller would re- sult in a reduction of the open space land. He felt the topography of this area compared to that where Councilman Miller lives (used as an example of poor grading plans) is not a fair comparison. He felt that the Council does not have the power to change and subdivide a map when it is in compliance with the rules and regu- lations of the ordinance. He mentioned that, in his opinion, to ask for a grading plan before the tentative is approved is "putting the cart before the horse". (Tentative Map - Tract 3407) (*Refer to CM-25-348; The Council then discussed the lots involved and the design of the tract, and Councilman Miller commented that even though the Coun- cil may not agree that there should be any changes in the plans, they, should still request a copy of the grading plans before approving the tentative. Councilman Miller moved to have a grading plan before the Council gives approval of the tentative map, how- ever the motion did not receive a second. The City Attorney remarked that the Subdivision Ordinance requires, solely, that contours be placed on a tentative map; the Council cannot require Mr. Mehran to submit grading plans as a condition of approving the tentative. Councilman Miller felt that taking into consideration LARPD's comments regarding the park size, the open space area around the slie~ Redemptorist Fathers could be made larger by deleting some lots nearby and transferring these lots to the Holmes Street park parcel. This would provide for a community park and a neighborhood park in close proximity. Mr. Mehran explained that for traffic safety reasons, they had designed the open space around Holmes Street as well as the Redemptorist Fathers property as they did. Councilman Pritchard at this time moved the question on the main mo- tion, however there was no second to the motion. * Councilman Futch made a motion to amend the main motion to include that the Council adopt a proposed trailway on either side of Arroyo Road as determined best by the Planning Commission; motion was se- conded by Councilman Miller. Mr. Mehran explained his company could not accept it simply because they would not know how it should be engineered. In view of Mr. Mehran's remark, Councilman Futch moved to adopt the bike trail system as in the present General Plan (on the west side) in conformance with the standards of the backing lot treatment. This amendment to the main motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. ~JJ..fk;~ eN -,QS-3~7 The Mayor felt he would have to abide by the City Attorney's oplnlon regarding schools and the tentative map; essentially, inserting it as a condition for approval has more legal standing than if the Council simply refuses to approve the tentative. He mentioned that the developer must realize, however, that no permits for building would be issued until certain problems in the City are resolved. Mr. Mehran explained that the City and the developer are not enter- ing into a subdivision agreement; the business before the Council is the confirmation of action taken by the Planning Commission with regard to a tentative tract map design and the engineering matters CM-25-345 "---_._'"_._--------~~------"".""_....~-,-~_.,-~----_.- July 24, 1972 (Tentative Map Tract 3407) involved. The Council is not talking about water, schools, or building permits. The land is going to be engineered as such and all those engineering matters discussed tonight will be the same for eighteen months. He stated that when they enter into a subdivision agreement it will be a different thing. At this time the Council voted on the original motion made by Coun- cilman Pritchard to approve the map with the conditions imposed by all ordinances and conditions listed by the Planning Commission, Planning and Engineering staffs, along with the amendment re bike trail system, and the motion passed ~n&nimouoly. ~-J ?(!..-~ e..('K~,L_"<>--",,, /l'ULu d~~~,,?,' C)-rk ~ J ~~ * * Councilman Beebe moved that the meeting adjourn due to the lateness of the hour, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, but failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Motion to Adjourn PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * * * There being no comments regarding the Planning Com- mission minutes for the meeting of July 18, 1972 they were noted for filing. * * * It was reported that a request for the extension of time for completion of Springtown Blvd. was discussed at the Council meeting of May 22. After thorough investigation of the matter, Mr. Lee con- cluded that an extension of time is not warranted and the widening of Springtown Blvd. should be accomplished by widening on the west side as the area is developed. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion confirming the recommendation to deny the extension of time. REPORT RE TIME EXTENSION TR. 2725 (Springtown Blvd. ) Councilman Miller moved to adopt the recommendation of the Public Works Director and get the mechanism going for the calling of the bonds; seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Miller commented that with regard to the proposed light standards for Second Street, there seems to be some question of scale and height. He suggested that the Council submit a copy of the design to the City's beautification consultants, Ribera and Sue, and askfuem about height, as they originally brought out the question of scale. REPORT RE Second Street Light Standards The City Manager advised that their services may be $150-$300, therefore, the City Manager was asked to inquire regarding the fee for this service, and the matter was continued pending this in- formation. * * * The City Attorney reported that SB 437, which would preempt the City's regulation of the parking of vehicles, does not appear to have sufficient strength to get out of the committee. The bill was continued and it is probable that the legislature will adjourn before the next scheduled hearing. REPORT RE SB-437 CM-25-346 * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the Municipal Code Amendment regarding parking lot fees is merely a reduction in the fees as explained in the staff report. July 24, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE PARKING LOT FEES On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous approval, the ordinance was introduced and title to be read at the time of the second reading. * * * In order to effect the increase in the salary adopted by the City Council at the budget ses- sion, the Municipal Code Amendment to Section 2.46 regarding the Planning Commission salary, this amendment is necessary. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE PLANNING COMM. SALARY (Sec. 2.46) On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous approval, the ordinance was introduced; title to be read at the next meeting. * * * The City Attorney is in the process of prepar- ing an ordinance to amend the business license tax against residential construction building activity for the purpose of imposing a park de- velopment fee - "Bedroom Tax". RE ORD. AMENDING BUS. LICENSE TAX Councilman Pritchard stated that he would like to continue the matter for later discussion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * The City Manager brought up the subject of the major tax reformation and asked if the Council would like to discuss it at this time. He ex- plained that the bill is one of the most signi- ficant bills to have been introduced for tax reform modification. He felt that the most controversial portion, among local government officials, is the tax limitation provision. He indicated that the tax limitation provision has been modified basically as: 1) an exception for bonded indebtedness; 2) an ex- ception for State and Federal mandated programs; and 3) an excep- tion for graduation upward - percentage changes in cost of living and population. He explained that there is a difference in what that figure represents and the percentage increase in the assessed evaluation of the community and that the obvious reason for the insert of the tax limitation provision is to try to counteract the Watson Amendment; it had to be inserted that way in hopes that this would be adopted and defeat the Watson Amendment. Other than that, he felt there were a number of other provisions, but most important to the City would be the "in lieu tax" to make the taxable rate consi&ent with real property. He indicated that the League of California Cities is urging support of it in that it is all the City can hope for. He recommended that the Council support the bill. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (AB 1000) Councilman Beebe moved to accept the recommendation of the League of California Cities in support of the bill, seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. * * * There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT the Council, the meeting was ~djourned at 12:20 p.m. ') APPROVE California ATTEST CM-25-347 Regular Meeting of August 7, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 7, 1972, in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at b:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre- siding. * * * RO LL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * MINUTES (re Tr. 3407) Councilman Futch stated that in the minutes for the meeting of July 24, he would like to add as part of the discussion re Tract 3407 wording to reflect his preference for Exhibit B in the report submitted by Pl. Comm. on bikeways and City streets. It should be made specific that they were discussing Exhibit B in this regard rather than the General Plan, and the bike trail was the one set back in the backing lot treatment. As he recalls, the initial motion was to have the por- tion of the trailways system referred back to the Planning Commis- sion, which the applicant objected to as he wanted a decision. Following that Councilman Futch moved to have bike paths that follow- ed the plan of Exhibit B. Mr. Musso asked if Councilman Futch wanted the bike path to go with the General Plan included with this particular subdivision and Councilman Futch stated that is correct. The horse trails were left open and the only condition was the bike trails which were to be in accordance with the present General Plan, placing them on the west side. Councilman Miller remarked that with regard to the vote on Tract Map 3407, he did not vote for it as the minutes indicated. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by unanimous approval of the Council, the minutes were approved as corrected. * * * Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, suggested that the Council consider a device which will take care of our sewage and garbage which is non-polluting. He mentioned that there are two towns in Ohio which use such a device and which produce artificial gas. He indicated that it is capable of building up its own pressure and would require little pumping, a small amount of filtering would be needed and it produces very little odor. He explained that he has discussed the matter with Mr. Parness who advised that a similar plan is under study and it is anticipated that a pilot plant will be proposed. o PEN FORUM (Proposed Ecology Solutions) Mayor Taylor commented that the City Engineer could be advised to contact the City Engineer of Columbus, Ohio, asking for a full re- port on their operations to determine if it would be applicable to our City. Mr. Tull remarked that financial statements, as well as blue prints, are available for purchase and that Camp Parks could serve as a nucleus for the system which could be self-supporting as well as a generator of electricity. CM-25-348 August 7, 1972 Councilman Miller remarked that it might be use- (Ecology Solutions) ful to notify Brown and Caldwell regarding the matter also. * * * Mr. Tull then suggested that in order to develop (Park Development) and maintain the parks, they sell back to the developer one-half of the park land and use this money for development and then form an assessment district to cover the costs of maintenance. * * * Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granad~ asked when the portion of Murrieta Blvd., between Olivina Ave. and Stanley Blvd. will be brought up to the standards of the rest of Murrieta Blvd. (Re Completion of Murrieta Blvd.) Mayor Taylor remarked that this will be done when other major streets are developed, along with the development of the pro- perties which surround that particular portion. Mr. Faltings pointed out that Murrieta Blvd. is becoming a hazard to bike riders as well as automobiles due to the undeveloped portion. * * * Ray Faltings felt that the City Manager, as well as the Finance Department, should be compliment- ed on the $108,651.14 they received in interest from monies that belong to the City and their investments. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The Public Works Director has reported that Tract 3294, comprised of 51 lots and located in the vicinity of Murrieta Blvd. and Del Norte Drive, has been completed and is ready for final acceptance and permanent maintenance by the City. It is recommended that a resolution accepting these improvements. (Expression of Appreciation re Investments) Acceptance by City Tract 3294 (H.C. Elliott) be adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3294 * * * (Re Parking Zone at 2494 Railroad Ave.) The Assistant City Engineer reported that the Livermore Veterinary Hospital has requested a one-hour parking zone in front of their proper- ty at 2494 Railroad Avenue, and recommends that installation of a one-hour parking zone be authorized. RESOLUTION. NO. 109-72 A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 13.58, DESIGNATING ONE-HOUR PARKING ZONE FOR TWO SPACES LOCATED IN FRONT OF 2494 RAILROAD AVENUE. * * * A report was received from the City re slight damage incurred by a private vehicle caused by an implement falling from a City truck. Damage is $20.85; our City is liable, and it is recom- mended that payment of the claim be authorized. * * * Report re Vehicle Accident Claim CM-25-349 August 7, 1972 A report was received from the City Attorney ad- vising that the City being a purchaser of oil and asphaltic materials from a major state supplier, Chevron Asphalt Company, was asked to be a joint participant in an anti-trust action against this firm and several other like companies. The Attorney General is rec- ommending settlement with some of the defendents, none of which affect our position in this matter. It is recommended that reso- lutions be adopted authorizing execution of a settlement agreement which is a routine and formal matter. Report re Joint Party Suit Settlement RESOLUTION NO. 99-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Wit co Chemical Corporation and Robert L. Feldman) RESOLUTION NO. 100-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Edgington Oil Company) * * * Resolutions re Assessment Dist. Collection 1972-73 Fiscal Year Resolutions need be adopted requesting the County Auditor to place the assessment collections on the appropriate tax statement. RESOLUTION NO. 101-72 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 Dist. 1962-1) RESOLUTION NO. 102-72 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 1962-2) RESOLUTION NO. 103-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Wagoner Farms Assessment Dist. No. 1962-3) RESOLUTION NO. 104-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Lincoln Shopping Center Assess. Dist. 1963-1) RESOLUTION NO. 105-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. (Murrieta Blvd. Assessment Dist. 1967-1) RESOLUTION NO. 106-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Portola Avenue Assessment Dist. 1966-2) * * * CM-25-350 A communication was received from United states Senator Alan Cranston re Federal Revenue Shar- ing, thanking the Council for their support. * * * A communication was received from Wesley Nelson, recently appointed to the Beautification Commit- tee, thanking the Council for this assignment. * * * Minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of June 20, 1972 were submitted. * * * August 7, 1972 Communication re Federal Revenue Sharing Communication re Beautification Committee Appointmoot Minut es- Housing Authority One hundred eiahteen claims dated August 4, in Payroll and Claims the amount of $116,731.70 and two hundred eighty- one payroll warrants, dated July 28, 1972, in.the amount of $64,236.04 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 3416 for his usual reasons. * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- Approval of Consent cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the Calendar items on the Consent Calendar including the re- solutions were approved. * * * It was reported that the proposed hot pressure washer for use in the animal control shelter was far superior to the steam cleaner for clean- ing kennels and removal of waste into drainage channels, and the heat of the water also assists in fast drying. REPORT RE ANIMAL POUND HOT PRESSURE WASHER The City Manager commented that this has come about from the strong urging of the veterinarians in town for purposes of cleanliness and he advised the Council to adopt a motion authorizing a budgetary amendment and the allocation of $650 for the purchase of the system. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the recommendation was adopted. * * * REPORT RE AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICE An application has been filed by Delmar Jones, dba Holiday Limousine Service for a license to conduct a public airport limousine service in Livermore. However, a public hearing for the matter is required and the City Manager has recommended the hearing be scheduled for the meeting of August 14. that On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the hearing was set for August 14. * * * The City Manager reported that the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is a federal pro- gram and a partial subsidy of flood insurance for local incorporated properties which amounts to approximately 10% of the premium cost, how- ever such insurance will not be written unless a local agency in- volved has composed a comprehensive flood control report. These reports are done by private engineering consultant sources and REPORT RE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968 CM-25-351 August 7, 1972 (Flood Insurance are fully paid by the federal government; there- Participation) fore, not only would it be advantageous to have a study done to ascertain what flood control measures are needed, but such a study would also amount to approximately 25% of the needed reappraisal work on the current storm drain plan. The only obligation to the City would be to adhere to building location restrictions that could be sub- jected to floods. It was recommended that the Council adopt a resolution and concur in an application being transmitted by our City for this program. Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the recommendation of the City Manager, seconded by Councilman Futch, and passed by unani- mous approval. RESOLUTION NO. 107-72 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE THAT ITS CITIZENS BE ABLE TO OBTAIN INSURANCE UNDER THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968, AS AMENDED. * * * The City Manager reported that due to financial restrictions the Chamber of Commerce will sell maps to the City at the rate of 101 each which previously had been freely distributed by us. The staff has considered producing maps which would show pictorial and narrative statements regarding munici- pal or civic items of interest. The initial cost for drafting these maps would amount to $800 and would not include the cost for printing or preparing themxt and picture supplement. Thus, for 2500 copies of one color the cost would amount to $1,780. or a little over 701 each. The reproduction cost in subsequent years could be done at a nominal cost as the initial $800 could be elimi- nated. It is recommended that the Council authorize the staff to proceed with the printing of the maps to be sold at a cost de- termined by the Council after final tabulation of expenses. REPORT RE PUBLIC MAP PREPARATION The City Manager explained that it would be a worthwhile public relations gesture, and if the City has their own base map, neces- sary changes could be made to update it every year or two. He had mentioned, also, that the AAA Automobile Association has a very good map which they have offered the City to use, but using this as a base would not allow the City to make necessary road changes. Councilman Beebe pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce puts out 25,000 maps a year and the 2,SOO would merely be a drop in the bucket in comparison. He suggested that the staff meet with the Chamber of Commerce to see if something can be worked out for the purchase of these maps. Councilman Miller agreed that it would be more economical to make use of the Chamber's map rather than competing with them for a City map. He felt that this would not only be less expensive to the City but help the Chamber of Commerce as well. Mayor Taylor felt that they should hear from the Chamber before making a decision to produce another map. Councilman Futch suggested that the Council wait for a year before doing anything else and during this time try to negotiate with the Chamber of Commerce. It was concluded that no action would take place at this time. * * * CM-25-352 August 7, 1972 The City Manager reported that bidding for the improvement of Olivina Avenue in connection with Tract 3333 is near, and particular atten- tion is directed to the segment abutting the Hagemann property. The Council approved an im- provement plan which specifies that an interim paving section is to be installed now with the final work to be done later at such time as the Hagemann property is vacated. A right-of-way is to be acquired now and improvement costs paid to the City at the present time by the developer. These plans are displayed for the Council's review and approval. The cost of the eventual work is estimated to be less than $12,000 and is to be borne by the sub- divider now. All but one tree will be saved - a black walnut tree approximately twenty years old, which will have to be cut down, or they can pave around the tree which would not be in accordance with proper safety measures. If this was done, it would have to be removed later. He added that a cash deposit of $12,000 will be required of the developer to insure future development of the ri~ht-of-way. REPORT RE OLIVINA RECONSTRUCTION - TRACT 3333 Harry Elliott, Jr., III Keyes Court, with H. C. Elliott, Inc., asked for clarification on the proposed alignment. He pointed out that the temporary alignment calls for quite a bit of curbing, gutters, bike path, and sidewalk area which will have to be re- moved at a later date to provide for the future recommended align- ment. The temporary provisions will cost approximately $5,000 and do not include the cost of removing this material later. In the conditions of approval of the final map, H. C. Elliott, Inc., agreed to the realignment of Olivina Avenue; however, they feel they are realigning the street twice. He proposed that if the Council sees fit, they would provide a cash bond based on the cost of the final alignment, which the City can do now, or they will undertake the temporary work necessary and deduct this amount from the cash bond which is the cost of the improvements for the final work. He felt that they should not be required to pay for the same thing twice. He added that in the original discussion considerable time was spent in trying to determine whether or not the developer should be required to place any additional paving in front of the Hagemann property which they do not own. It was concluded that the Council cannot force a developer to acquire any street to serve a subdivi- sion, but if the street does not provide adequate access it can be used as grounds for denial of a map. Mr. Elliott mentioned that it was feared that Olivina Avenue might not give enough traffic flow to handle Tract 3333, particularly if Hagemann Drive was not put in at the time of development. In the meantime they have ac- quired a street which goes through a portion of Hagemann Drive and connects with Las Positas. He mentioned that the tentative plan does not provide for the widening of the actual street in the area; therefore, the traffic problem is not solved with the temporary alignment of Olivina Avenue. It would be solved with the addition of the two extra lanes, however, as formulated in the final map. Mayor Taylor explained that it was determined at the time the Council discussed the final map, the traffic problems caused when the development is complete will require the extra lanes shown and there is no way the Council could say that access is adequate with the constricted street. Allowing the development would re- quire these extra off-site street improvements or access to the development would not be proper; these were the grounds for requir- ing the off-site improvements. He also pointed out that the access street serves only Tract 3333 and, therefore, it would seem only fair that the cost should be borne by the developer. The members of the Council then discussed whether or not a concrete sidewalk and bike lane would have to be concrete as opposed to a less expensive asphalt for a temporary use, keeping in mind the fact that temporary would probably mean at least ten years. They felt the Hagemann property would not be vacant for at least that long and permanent sidewalks cannot be put in until the Hagemanns have vacated. CM-25-353 August 7, 1972 (Olivina Ave. Councilman Pritchard moved to change the design Reconstruction) from a concrete to an asphalt sidewalk for a tem- porary use if it would be substantial enough to last for many years. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed unanimously. The staff is to check into the matter to see if a significant saving could be made by using asphalt; however, the Council did not agree to pay for the cost of the temporary paving as requested by Mr. Elliott. * * * Over the past year the City has considered acquir- ing a site located between Olivina and Dogwood Avenue for the purpose of a mini-park, as requested by the residents of the area. A portion of this land is presently owned by a church which does in- tend construction on the property. The Planning Director explained that "Alternate One" the Mariposa Avenue site, public works improve- ments would amount to more than the value of the property because of the street frontage, however he felt that this amount could be reduced with a different design. This site is not within an area presently pending development and would be obtained at such time as the land wherein the site is located is developed. It has been appraised at $8,000 per acre and consists of a little over two acres. "Alternate Two" is the Dogwood site, consisting of 1.83 acres and includes the church site. Total value of this property is $31,500. Mr. Musso explained that the advantage of this site is that the public works improvements have been put in, there are trees on the site and it has a well. REPORT RE MINI- PARK SITE LOCATION Councilman Pritchard pointed out that acquiring the park on the north side of Olivina Avenue would place the park very close to May Nissen Park. For this reason he would prefer the Mariposa site, adding that he felt it would be less complicated than trying to acquire the church parcel. Councilman Futch felt that "Alternate Three" which is the Dogwood site minus the church property would be the most desirable as it would solve the problem of the landlocked parcels and be less ex- ~ensive. This site is 1.3 acres, and would reduce the cost to $23,000. Councilman Beebe asked if there was any development on the Mariposa site, and Mr. Musso explained that there was none; it is a vacant area at this time. Mayor Taylor mentioned that LARPD is not interested in maintaining or developing mini-parks and that the church is still not interested in selling their parcel of property. Also, he stated that he is in favor of the third alternate. Councilman Miller commented that he would favor "Alternate Three", partially because the people in that area want the park and have offered to donate their labor in helping to prepare the site. Councilman Beebe preferred the Mariposa site as it would be fur- ther from May Nissen Park and would offer more space for a park. Councilman Futch moved to accept "Alternate Three", and that the staff be instructed to proceed with acquisition of the land. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. Rev. Charles Hill, 346 Robert Way, objected to "Alternate Threelf as he remarked that the people in the area complained about the noise made during church services and he felt that an equal amount of noise will result from children playing at the park. He added that their services will be disrupted by noisy children and this will be detrimental to the church. He felt the Council's main reason for turning the area into a park is due to the fact that it is landlocked. CM-25-354 August 7, 1972 The Council felt there would be no real problem with noise in regard to disturbing the church services as the area is small and would not like- ly attract older boys for baseball games. (Mini-Park Site Location) Councilman Beebe suggested, in view of the fact the park will not be developed or maintained by LARPD, that a minimum of landscaping be provided, such as a few trees and just a place for small chil- dren to play. The motion passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting to accept"Alternate Three". At this time the chair moved to direct the staff to negotiate with the church people to determine whether or not they would reconsider selling their parcel adjacent to the park site. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed by a 3-2 vote with Coun- cilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting. The Mayor pointed out that the motions passed were based on the appraisals they have and if it is found that there is a substantial rise in actual cost, the matter will be brought up again for re- consideration. * * * A report was submitted to the Council by the Director of Finance which indicated that the City has earned $108,651.14 in interest accrued for the year. REPORT RE STATUS OF INVESTED FUNDS Councilman Miller commented that one of the banks offem a higher interest rate and assuming that the average interest rate paid is 5%, then 1/4% more would be more in interest rate on the total, and for this reason the money should go where the highest interest rates are paid. Mayor Taylor felt there is something to be said for even distri- bution among the banks, as interest rates fluctuate. Councilman Miller stated that he would agree they do fluctuate, but felt that monies invested in short term notes should go to the place with the highest interest rate when available for investment. /""- With regard to security, the City Manager remarked that a bank is required by law to cover deposits made by public institutions up to 110%. He pointed out, in response to the comment made by Councilman Miller, that the City does try to take advantage of the highest yield and that the amounts deposited in various banks vary, plus the time of maturity occurs at different times during the year. He explained that these banks are very important local tax paying institutions and every effort is made to treat them fairly. Mayor Taylor mentioned that it does not seem right that $600,000 has been deposited in Wells Fargo Bank which is also the trustee for a party that is suing the City (Ensign-Bickford); however, that in no way reflects on the way the local bank has been operat- ing or doing business with the City. The business of acting as trustee was done through the San Francisco branch and possibly not known by the local branch. He felt it to be an unfortunate situation in which one branch is acting contrary to the citizens of the City. Councilman Pritchard moved for a vote of confidence for the Invest- ment Committee's action regarding the matter, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller. Councilman Beebe commented that he differed somewhat with the Council's philosophy; he felt that branches of the government sue one another as a means of having the law step in to say who is CM-25-355 ---________________________________..____L__ August 7, 1972 (Invested Funds) right or to solve a problem. He felt it is not a conflict of interest and that one branch act- ing as a trustee would rot try iDjeopardize the business of another branch. Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the matter was synonymous to an attorney representing both sides in a court action. He felt it just does not work as one cannot represent both the plaintiff and the defendant and be expected to do a good job. The Mayor called for a vote to the motion which passed 1~-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION Z.O. AMENDMENT RE SIGNS (Sec. 21. 70) '- --- * * * As there were no comments regarding the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of August 1, 1972, they were noted for filing. * * * With regard to the ordjnance regarding signs, Section 21.70. Councilman Miller indicated that before the ordinance is introduced he would like to offer a wording change. He reminded the Coun- cil that during previous discussion, they had decided that signs should be limited to flags and pennants for "attention getting devices". He felt the proposed ordinance has not made that point clear and suggested that E. 2. should read, "Signs, with attention getting devices limited to flags and pennants, subject to other limitations as may be imposed by the Building Code or for reasons of public safety....". On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance was in- troduced and the reading of the ordinance waived (title read only). MUNI CODE AMEND. RE PARKING LOT FEES * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- cilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the ordinance regarding the Municipal Code amendment regarding parking lot fees was adopted, and the title was read at this time. ORDINANCE NO. 797 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 623, THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA, TO AMEND SECTION 4 THEREOF, RELATING TO THE ADDITIONAL RATE OF TAX IN ZONES I AND II. ORDINANCE AMENDING SALARY RE PLANNING COMM. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and the following ordinance was adopted: ORDINANCE NO. 798 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.46, RELATING TO COMPENSATION: EXPENSES, OF ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO PLANNING COMMISSION, OF CHAPTER 2.00, RELAT- ING TO ADMINISTRATION, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959. CM-25-356 * * * Mr. Musso commented that the County Planning Commission has approved the zoning for a mo- bilehome park on Vasco Road. He indicated that the Planning Commission of Livermore plans to appeal the matter and asked that some representatives of the Council be pre- sent at the hearing. August 7, 1972 MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Mobilehome Park - Vasco Road) Mayor Taylor agreed that it was a very important matter and the Council representatives would be present to make their wishes known. The Council also agreed that a letter should be sent opposing the zoning prior to the hearing date. * * * MarthaWhittaker (Summer Intern) explained that (Re SAVE Injunction) a letter was received indicating that the Judge had made a decision on the preliminary injunc- tion regarding SAVE and that he denied Mr. Burnstein's request for a preliminary injunction. This means that the City may con- tinue to deny building permits on the basis of the SAVE Ordinance. She reported that no written opinion was given and there were no reasons given for his denial. * * * The City Manager explained that the Community Affairs Committee is having a City picnic on August 20, and have asked that $140 be paid by the City for ambulance service, trophy and miscellaneous expenses. He felt that in view of the effort and work going into the even it able request. (Community Affairs Event) of the magnitude was a very reason- Councilman Beebe moved to approve the requested amount, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously . * * * The City Manager explained that he has distri- buted a report from the Engineering Department regarding the storm drain project and street repair. He asked that the Council give their approval for bids to be solicited for the projects, are in the capital improvements budget. (Re storm Drain & Street Repair Bids) all of which Councilman Pritchard moved to authorize solicitation of bids, seconded by Councilman Miller, and the motion was approved un- animously. * * * (Youth Services Center) The City Manager explained that he had talked with the Council recently regarding the possi- bility of establishing a Youth Services Center. During the past few weeks the staff has spent considerable time and effort on the project and in the preparation of an application to be submitted to the California Commission of Criminal Justice. It has been reviewed by the staff, found to be in order, and needs the approval of the Council through a resolu- tion before it is submitted. He then read the contents of the application and explained that the City is to match the allowance of the grant for the project but that this year the City's only requirement would be in-kind services. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the following resolution was adopted. CM-25-357 August 7, 1972 (Youth Services center) RESOLUTION NO. 108-72 A RESOLUTION RE GRANT RE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION YOUTH SERVICE CENTER * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Illegal Parking-Trucks) Councilman Pritchard commented that he has re- ceived many complaints recently regarding the parking of oversized trucks and trailer rigs in residential areas. He asked what the regulations are in cases like this. Mr. Parness explained that it is his understanding that it is very hard to enforce regulations regarding these trucks in areas which are not posted, or unless it is creating a traffic hazard by blocking the street. The City Manager was directed to meet with the Chief of Police in an effort to determine a way in which to enforce regulations and report later. * * * (Illegal Signs- Councilman Pritchard stated that he is receiving Removal) much pressure from businessmen who have removed illegal signs in compliance with the sign ordinance. They feel that there is gross inequity in the lack of enforcement. He moved to instruct the staff to send the final letters out to those people who are not in conformance with the or- dinance, followed by citations; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. * * * (Sign Policy re Councilman Futch remarked that he has been consid- Drive-in Uses) ering the sign policy with regard to drive-in uses and feels that such can be conditioned in such a way that will limit them and not be detrimental to the sign ordinance. He prepared a report which he passed among the Councilmen with his reasons and ways in which to restrict this type of use. He moved that the Planning Commission be instructed to re- view the sign policy with reference to drive-in uses along the state highways; also, that they consider imposing the restrictions listed as a condition to granting the CUP for freestanding signs. This motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Futch stated the conditions he would like imposed for a freestanding sign to be: 1) it replaces all signs on the building, 2) the sign must be indirectly lighted and 3) must be subject to design review. Also, it would apply only to highway use signs, and must comply with Section 21.86 (k) of the Sign Ordinance. He felt that this would eliminate any precedent for freestanding signs in general. Councilman Miller felt the City should give the Sign Ordinance a chance to become fully effective, and he added that the drive-in freestanding signs were the ones which led the Council to abate these types of sign in order to eliminate freestanding sign clutter, and that it has taken six years of effort to achieve this desire. He urged that the Council wait longer before turning to this type of an option - at least one year. Councilman Beebe felt that Councilman Futch was approaching the mat- ter in a very realistic way by indicating that only highway front- age could be allowed such a sign and that all other signs would have to be stripped from the building. He commented that Jack-in- the-Box, for one, has a definite problem in that the building is not fully visible; this would take care of such a problem. He felt that this suggestion would not be a drastic change in the sign ordi- nance in that it is very restrictive. CM-25-358 August 7, 1972 Mayor Taylor was of the oplnlon that in the case (Sign Policy) of Jack-in-the-Box, this would be fine, but ex- plained that he was not sure that the Council could condition a sign ordinance regulation to apply to highway uses and not to all the other open land in the City. He felt the City Attorney should advise them on this point. (The City Attorney was not present at the meeting.) A vote was taken on the motion which passed 3-2 with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. * * * Councilman Futch asked that the Council direct the Planning Commission to reconsider the trail- way system along Arroyo Road in view of the re- cent action taken. He felt there was some con- fusion, in that he was not certain if they want the horse trail on one side and the bike trail on the other side. (Trailway Discussion re Arroyo Rd. & Engineering Study - Alameda County) Mr. Musso advised that he would prepare a report for the Council to review by next week. Mr. Parness announced that he had received a letter from the County Director of Public Works expressing concern for the public works standards on Arroyo Road, in view of the prospect of growth extending southward along the road. Their concern seems to be for width, drainage, access, etc. He suggested that the City and County participate, jointly, in a major engineering study from the Arroyo Mocho channel, south to Wetmore Road. He has written informing the County that the idea may be favorably received and felt that it was an attractive suggestion with the County paying for half of the costs involved. Councilman Miller suggested that it might be worth checking to see if the County and City arrive at different standards and wondered if the City would be able to use their standards for the final map for Tract 3407. Mr. Musso commented that what was approved in the tentative map will be part of the final map approval. Councilman Futch pointed out that nothing has been mentioned regarding the method of financ- ing the trailway. The Public Works Director has indicated that this will possibly be part of the public works improvements. However, if side of the street, the developers will try to side. (Financing Report re Trailways) it is only on one get it on the other It was concluded that there should be some type of policy regarding the matter that would let developers know in advance what they may be faced with and the obligations involved if they plan to develop along Arroyo Road. * * * Councilman Futch commented that, in his oplnlon, the backing lot treatments are all looking too much alike and he would like the Public Works Department to come up with plans for streets which present backing lot treatment. (Backing Lot Treatment) do not use the Mayor Taylor agreed, adding that he had intended to bring up the subject at this meeting also. The staff was directed to submit a report, giving alternatives to the standard backing lot treatment for the Council's review, as well as costs and who will share the cost. * * * CM-25-359 August 7, 1972 (Re Trailer- Councilman Futch reminded the Council that they Camper storage) had been waiting for the legislative session to end before bring up the subject of storage for campers and trailers in the City. Now that the session has adjourned, he felt that it might be in order to get the matter back on the agenda and it was agreed to schedule the matter for August 28, at which time there will be a full Council present. * * * (Bike Path - East Avenue) He asked that Councilman Miller commented that the County had planned to put a bicycle lane on East Avenue, however, there seems to be no sign of any such improvement, and he wondered what has happened. the staff check to see what the status is presently. * * * (Re Bedroom Tax) Councilman Miller asked what is to become of the "Bedroomlf tax monies and he felt that the money should go for parks. LARPD has inquired about the matter and Councilman Miller suggested that there be some wording to provide for parks, and the City Manager replied that the matter is pending. The Council agreed to wait until the City Attorney is present be- fore they discuss the matter further. * * * (Re Campaign Statements) Councilman Miller reported that a committee which had not reported sources of contributions toward an election candidate has now filed such a report. He stated that he is satisfied; they have met the requirements of the ordinance and that was all he wanted. The Council agreed that the case should be dropped. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to a brief executive session for discussion of pending appointments to various committees and discussion of a legal matter by the City Manager. * APPROVE ornia ATTEST * * * CM-25-360 Regular Meeting of August 14, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 14, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was held at 8:11 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. -li- * * PRESENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Futch, Miller ROLL CALL and Mayor Taylor . ~. Councilman Beebe(tH<---~~-~~4,.~ ~)- * ~~~:C-~ -~~ (!dr ABSENT: Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * There being no corrections or additions to the minutes of the meeting of August 7, 1972, Coun- cilman Pritchard moved to approve the minutes, as submitted, seconded by Councilman Miller, which was approved unanimously. MINUTES * * * OPEN FORUM Tim Walker, 747 Hayes Court, commented that it (Hayes Court Traffic~ is his understanding there was to be no through traffic on Hayes Court which leads to the Inter- faith Housing Development. Apparently, the fre- quent use of Hayes Court as an access to the housing project has created a traffic hazard. Mr. Walker read the contents of a petition, signed by the residents of Hayes Court, asking that the court be closed to through traffic, and to be used only in case of emergencies such as fire, police or ambulance calls. Gene Dupzyk, 4179 Stanford Way, explained that during the original discussions regarding the Interfaith Housing Development, he had understood that Hayes Court was to be a cul-de-sac turn around only and that the Fire Department had requested a drive through which was to be barricaded when not being used for emergency pur- poses. Councilman Futch asked if the majority of the traffic seems to be from the Interfaith Housing residents, or other people using the street as a short cut, to which Mr. Dupzyk replied that, in his opinion, it appears that people are driving into the development, picking up residents to take them some place and then returning, via the same route. Councilman Futch agreed that as he recalls, there was to be no through traffic and the manager of the development had agreed to some type of barricade which would restrict traffic use other than emergency vehicles. The matter was to be checked into by the Public Works Department in an effort to determine the traffic count and if closing the street was an original condition, and Mayor Taylor asked that the Council be given a report regarding the matter. * * * Bob Johnson, 561 Escondido Circle,Co-chairman of the Citizens Committee for Park Bonds, ex- plained that parks in Livermore to be provided for by an election bond and repayment will cost each individual a few dollars a year, but would SPECIAL ITEM (Re LARPD Bond Issue; CM-25-361 August 14, 1972 be very worthwhile and sorely needed in Livermore. He illustrated some of the park sites which are planned, and stated that good recreational facil- ities require an interested community, money for development, proper care and maintenance. He mentioned, also, that a 1969 survey indicated that the majority of the citizens are will- ing to pay for bonds which would provide for rustic parks, trails for hiking and biking, facilities for sports activities and more nature and play areas with wading pools and then noted the develop- ments which will be provided for, should such a bond pass. These include development of Robertson Park, nine neighborhood parks, a drama and cultural center, trails and rest center along Arroyo Del Valle as well as a senior citizens center. Mr. Johnson described the plans for open space as well as the bike trail through a syca- more grove which extends from the V.A. Hospital to Vallecitos Road, and explained that the projects total approximately $5 million to be spread over a five year period. The bonds will be sold as money is needed and only on the vote of the LARPD Board. The cost per resident will amount to 221 per $100 of assessed valuation, thus the cost to an owner of a $25,000 home will be approximately $1.l5 per month. It was pointed out that if the land which has been ded- icated for park uses is not developed, the City will lose this land, also, they wish to develop the parks before prices skyrocket. (LARPD Bond Issue) Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt a motion endorsing the bonds and mentioned that this bond election would provide for nearly every citizen of the community in some way, which is some- thing unusual. Also, the bond is to develop the community and neighborhood parks for the people who are already living in Liver- more and not as a subsidy for people moving to Livermore. The new people will be paying their own way, with regard to park develop- ment, through the proposed "bedroom tax" to be imposed on the build- ing of new homes. Mayor Taylor felt it should be noted that the City does not plan to keep introducing bonds for the purpose of park development and that the Council has felt that growth should pay its own way. This is the reason the "bedroom taxlf was proposed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and the Council voted unanimously in favor of endorsing the bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 110-72 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE LARPD BOND ISSUE FOR PARKS * * * SPECIAL ITEM (Re Central Commercial Development - Southern Pacific Dev. Co.) Mayor Taylor explained that the Southern Pacific Company has proposed a major commercial develop- ment involving their property holdings in the . central business district which amounts to approx- imately 23 acres. They are submitting an appli- cation to the Public Utilities Commission for the relocation of their tracks and have requested that the City pass a resolution declaring that the City has no objection to this move. William Fensterbush, Manager of Special Projects for Southern Pa- cific Development Company described the area to be developed. He mentioned that this will not preclude the subsequent relocation of the rails at some later date, moving them over to the Western Pacific rails. They plan to develop property between P and S Streets, which will include a Long's Drug Store and a new Safeway Store and plan to take advantage of frontage along First Street in addition to frontage along the proposed Railroad Avenue. He mentioned that the present Safeway Store and the Purity property CM-25-362 August 14, 1972 will be coordinated to blend in with the new development to take place; other stores of the area have also agreed to cooperate in this re- spect. The area between South L and Livermore Avenue will be developed into a financial center. They plan to start construction as soon as the rails have been relocated. He further explained that if they receive prompt approval from the Council, in the way of a resolution, they feel this will speed up the relocation of the tracks. (So. Pacific Development) In answer to a question posed by the Council, Mr. Fensterbush stated that they are seeking to relocate the tracks 25 feet south of Railroad Avenue, which will remove them from the center of their property. He noted that they are aware the City Engineer is not present, as well as the City Attorney and City Manager; anticipat- ing the possibility the Council might not be able to pass a reso- lution without consultation with these people, his company offered some wording which indicated that such project will be done with plans reasonably acceptable by the City Engineer. The Mayor mentioned that it is his understanding that the developers plan to fence the right-of-way and asked if they plan to pay for the public works improvements along the frontage streets as t~e~n~.L occur. ~~#~~_~_~ Mr. Fensterbush assured the Council that th a~~ng~~~l the costs of the public works improvements to be consistent with -t~moval of the fence. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council should state in their endorsement that the PUC approve the track relocation as a tem- porary use, in the event the track should be consolidated with Western Pacific. He felt the proposal should be endorsed with the following conditions: 1) that the crossing and improvements are in accordance with City standards and approval; 2) the public works improvements are provided for; and 3) that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City that the tracks will be re- located with Western Pacific or joint trackage is instituted; that the City looks at this as a temporary alignment. Councilman Pritchard mentioned that he is not prepared at this time to vote, as this was the first time he had seen the plans; he had received comments from some of the adjacent property owners who do not know what the plans are. He felt that he would like to have time to look at the plans before coming to a decision. The Mayor agreed that the request for a delay was reasonable since all members of the Council had not had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Fensterbush had no objections to a one week continuance, as requested. Councilman Miller mentioned that he feels everyone welcomes a revitalization of the downtown area and looks forward to this type of proposed development. * * * An application has been filed for the purpose of conducting a limousine service. Mr. Delmar Jones, dba Holiday Limousine Service, proposes to use six limousines for transportation to and from San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose air- ports from Livermore. The Municipal Code requires that the City Council grant such a permit and that a public hearing be held re- garding said application. PUBLIC HEARING RE LIMOUSINE SERVICE - AIRPORT William Struthers, speaking on behalf of the applicant, mentioned that an inspection certificate cannot be obtained unless ownership is obtained. He asked that the Council grant a permit limited to CM-25-363 August 14, 1972 (Public Hearing Limousine Serv.) six vehicles; that the four limousines which are in compliance be allowed permit at this time with expansion to six later, upon approval of the Chief of Police. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Miller moved that a permit be issued for the operation of six vehicles and that any vehicles beyond the present four shall be subject to Section 22.41 of the Municipal Code. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. * * * RECESS The Council had a short recess; the meeting resumed with all members present who were present during roll call at the beginning of the meeting. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Report re Tract The Public Works Department reported that improve- 3032 (Reeder) ments in accordance with approved plans and speci- fications for Tract 3032 (Reeder Development Co.) have been completed and it is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution accepting the improve- ments for maintenance by the City. RESOLUTION NO. 111-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3032 (Reeder Development Co.) * * * Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Council- man Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the item on the Consent Calendar was approved. * * * REPORT RE OFF-STREET PARKING (T.H. Olsen) Mayor Taylor explained that T. H. Olsen is making an appeal to the Council for a variance for a re- duction of off-street parking. His request has been denied by the Planning Commission. The attorney representing Mr. Olsen, however, has asked that the Council continue the matter in order that they might have time to explore alternatives. Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter until September II, as requested, seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved un- animously. * * * REPORT RE APPEAL FOR HOME OCCUPA- TION PERMIT (James Contratto) The Planning Director reported that a permit for a home occupation requested by James Con- tratto had been denied by the Planning Director on the basis of Fire Department investigations and complaints from neighbors. The permit was for assembly of parts and components at his home. It was felt that the use could not be conducted as a home occupation. James Contratto, 1153 Caroline Court, submitted a petition signed by residents of six different addresses, indicating that the busi- ness of Basic Enterprises done at the Contratto home was in no way detrimental or hazardous to the neighborhood and that any denial CM-25-364 of a permit for this use would be unwarranted and unjust. He stated that everyone in the court had singed the petition with the excep- tion of two homes - one party has moved and the other is on vacation. August 14, 1972 (Home Occupation - James Contratto) Mayor Taylor explained that the conditions of this type of permit are designed so that it is not evident business is being done - no excess traffic, obvious storage of materials, and approval of the Fire Marshall. He mentioned that the Council flatly prohibits home occupations which require the storage of paints, solvents and things of this nature. Councilman Futch pointed out that the City has a policy regarding home occupations and that manufacturing and assembly has not been one of the allowed uses. He felt that the Council should be con- sistent and the policy should not be modified solely on the basis of this application. Mr. Contratto stated that at this time they are not involved in any type of assembly. They are packaging nuts and bolts and the majority of the work is done by his wife. Mayor Taylor suggested that the matter be referred back to the staff for consideration in view of the fact that the nature of the business which prompted the investigation has now changed. * * * Mayor Taylor commented that the City Manager REPORT RE DOGWOOD has recommended that the Council adopt a mo- PARK PURCHASE tion authorizing acceptance of the purchase of one of the six parcels to be sold to the City for a park, and the establishment of an escrow for its consummation. The cost for the one parcel is $8,000 (Parcel E - Ledezma). The Mayor expressed his concern for purchasing one parcel prior to finding out if there is a chance that the other parcels can be pur- chased at a reasonable price. He stated that one parcel will do the City no good and that all parcels should be considered. Councilman Futch agreed that if the other parcels will not sell at a reaonable price there would be no advantage to buy one parcel. Councilman Miller moved that the Council authorize the acceptance of the purchase, as recommended by the City Manager, contingent upon the consummation of a contract for purchase of all the other properties to the City's satisfaction. The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch and passed by a 3-1 vote with Councilman Prit- chard dissenting. * * * The City Manager reported that he had met with the General Manager of Piombo Construction Co. on August 11, to discuss matters surrounding the dispute regarding the extracted quantities of soil at the civic center site. The General Manager stated that it is their intention to employ the option of importing replacement soils of a quantity approximating 83,000 yards. This would permit the observation of the grading plan for the property that has been drawn by the staff. No Council action is required until such time as either a modified agreement is executed with the firm or they have made satisfactory performance of the terms of the current agreements whereby the staff can re- port full compliance. REPORT RE CIVIC CENTER GRADING (Piombo Cons t r . ) * * * CM-25-365 August 14, 1972 The City Manager reported that the City Council has approved the joint participation of the City with the County for the widening and reconstruc- tion of North Livermore Avenue from Portola Ave. to U.S. 580. The contract for the work must be modified because the federal government has author- ized a slight change in the so-called urban limit incorporation so as to take in more of the street project, thereby qualifying for an increase in federal funds. Another portion of the revised agreement pertains to the provision for a bikeway with the City paying for 30% of the cost. In all other aspects, the agreement remains the same. It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement. REPORT RE NO. LIVERMORE AVE. CONSTRUCTION (Portola Ave. to U.S. 580) On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the resolution authorizing execution of this agreement was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 112-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (County of Alameda) ORDINANCE RE SIGNS-SEC. 21.72 * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the ordinance re signs permitted, parti6ularly tempor- ary signs and attention getting devices, was adopted, and the second reading was waived. ORDINANCE NO. 799 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO ZONING, BY AMENDING SECTION 21.72, RELATING TO SIGNS PERMITTED, OF SECTION 21.70, RELATING TO SIGN REGULATIONS. * * * The report from the Planning Director regarding the non-conforming abatement program with reference to the sign ordinance was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by the Council at this time. Councilman Miller noted that of the 34 projecting signs, 10 remain non-conforming. REPORT RE SIGN ABATEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Musso explained that of these 10, 4 are in the process of change and the remaining 4 are being cited, and he pointed out which signs are in violation and their location. Councilman Miller advised that one which has not been counted is the big canopy sign located at the Standard Station on the corner of First and S Streets; the Douglas station also has not taken down their sign. Councilman Miller felt that it is time to do something about the subdivision signs and flags which are illegal, also. He mentioned that if they are warned only when they take out permits that it is one year before they need to renew their permit and the signs and flags stay for that length of time. He suggested that time should not be wasted and they should be cited. Mr. Musso explained that at this time no simple citation procedure has been adopted and the judge has to determine a fee schedule (similar to bail schedules) for citations of this nature. Councilman Futch moved that the City Attorney be directed to speak with the judge and advise the Council of a simple citation method to use; the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. CM-25-366 August 14, 1972 Councilman Miller suggested that the developers (Sign Abatement) be notified that they will be cited if the signs do not co me down. If they do not come down wi th- in a given time the matter should be taken directly to the District Attorney, and bypass the usual routine of letter writing. It was mentioned that this was the policy and should be carried out more aggressively. Councilman Miller asked that someone check to see if the Police Department is picking up the A-frame signs on the sidewalks and medians, as previously requested, during the weekend. The vote was taken on the motion which was approved unanimously. * * * The Council was reminded by Don Bradley that the City Employees' Picnic is to be held on Saturday, August 19, at the Alameda Fair Grounds at 1:00 p.m. Also, the City Picnic for all citizens is to be held on August 20th, at Del Valle Reser- voir. In response to the challenge by the Council to a sailboat race with the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission offered a counter challenge that two people will sail in an El Toro rather than a man-to-man race, and the Council accepted this challenge. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Re Picnics; Robert Yee, Assistant City Engineer, reported that with regard to the bike path along East Avenue, he had spoken with a representative of the County who reported that it is anticipated that commencement of the project, hopefully, will be October 1st and completion is anticipated two or three weeks following that. * * * The City Clerk asked that a voter representative as well as an alternate voter representative be selected by the Council for the League Confer- ence so that when there is voting to be done by the City there will be a properly credentialed voter present. (Re Bike Path Along East Ave.) (Re Credentialed Voter Representative , at League Conference) In response to the request, Mayor Taylor and Councilman Pritchard were designated by the Council for this purpose. * * * Councilman Futch felt that in view of the fact the Council meetings have been relatively short it might be worthwhile to have a Council study session in place of a regular Council meeting. He mentioned the financing of bikeways, backing lot treatment and other matters the Council should review. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Proposed Council Study Session) Mayor Taylor explained that the financing of the bikeways, as well as the backing lot treatment, were referred to the staff for a re- port to the Council. He suggested that anything the Council members wish to discuss should be made known to the City Clerk so the matter can be placed on the agenda for discussion. Councilman Futch pointed out that often a matter is not discussed at length due to an applicant waiting to speak on another matter. It seems that a number of items should require more time than what is allowed. * * * CM-25-367 August 14, 1972 (Re Zone 7 Bond Issue) Councilman Futch commented that the bonds for rec- reation were discussed at this meeting but feels he would like to know more about the bonds for water. He stated that he would like to meet with Zone 7 to discuss the matter. Mayor Taylor suggested that if the Council would like, a represent- ative from the Zone could speak to the Council. He felt that at this particular time a joint meeting would not be necessary. * * * (Environmental Impact State- ment) Councilman Miller stated that he read in the news- paper that the Attorney General was interested in the environmental impact and had intervened in the high rise applications because there had been no environmental impact statement. He felt that there was very little difference between the high rise type of building and subdivisions, in principle; one may have 300 apartments, and the other 300 homes. This was an indication that the City should look into the possibility of requiring environmental impact state- ments with subdivision maps, as discussed earlier by the Council and not received very favorably. The Mayor suggested they contact the Attorney General for an oplnlon as to what his office intends to do and what the facts really are surrounding the matter. The Council felt that the California Environmental Protection Act could possibly be interpreted to require statements be provided with tract maps, and decided to discuss the matter with the City Attor- ney before discussirg the matter further. Mr. Musso felt the environmental impact statement should be done at the time of annexation rather than at the end of the action taken, i.e. presentation of subdivision map or issuance of permit. Councilman Futch remarked that the City Manager had been directed to consider a consultant for doing a cost benefit analysis for the north side of the highway and wondered what the progress of this is, and also if it would be appropriate to have the same consultant comment regarding the environmental impact statement. Mayor Taylor felt that anyone reporting the costs for development would tell all costs involved, including costs to the School District, etc. This cost study must be made, in his opinion, before a General Plan study is made of the north part of Livermore. Councilman Futch asked if the Planning Commission is the appropriate agency to prepare the environmental impact statement as a require- ment of the General Plan, or should a consultant be hired? The Council felt it could be decided at a time closer to the time the statement is to be prepared. Councilman Miller felt that it would be wise to ~~rl~~c study to cover the whole General Plan~~~otliqpt that of the north side. However, the majority ofjrh8ACbuncllAreff that they should go one step at a time which he felt was not unreasonable. Mayor Taylor explained that the majority of the holding capacity of the Valley is located on the north side and the reason it re- ceived priority. Councilman Miller pointed out that one of the hidden costs is the large amount of crop damage due to smog conditions. * * * CM-25-368 August 14, 1972 There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to a brief executive session for discussion of appointments. APPROVE / (? {; r' *~.-- ;, C \ L''''-G C- <.:~L "- ~ . Mayor, Oci-~~L / C t'y--G-Ierk L~ e ore, Callfornla ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of August 21, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 21, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:12 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe (Vacation) and Pritchard (Excused) ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * The minutes for the meeting of August 14, 1972 were approved as amended, on motion of Council- man Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimous approval. MINUTES * * * John Regan, 672 South Livermore Ave., speaking as an agent for those involved in the develop- ment of Chateau Park, Unit #2, on College Ave. Tract 3293, gave some brief history involving the lots of the small subdivision before stat- ing that the SAVE Initiative has them stymied. The local lending institution which has loaned them the money for the improvement of the lots is now asking them questions which cannot be answered. It appears that they will be unable to meet their obligation with this institution in the time agreed upon for the balance they owe. To hold these lots for a period of time will mean that the cost will have to be drastically raised to compensate for interest charges, taxes, etc. In March of 1972 he checked with the Build- ing Department and was informed that building permits were still available. He notified the lending institution of this and they agreed to advance funds for the application of the number of per- mits required to complete the tract. However, in order to be fair to those who had already purchased lots, knowing that dupli- cation of plans would occur due to the fact that foundations would have to be poured within a certain length of time, they decided against applying for mass building permits. He pointed out that the Council, by approving the tentative map in March of 1971, was implying that building permits were available. In OPEN FORUM (Building Permits - John Regan) CM-25-369 August 21, 1972 light of this he requested that the Council allow them to receive one building permit per month until the tract has been sold. He explained that they are little people who do not wish to fill the Valley with residences from hillside to hillside. They feel the Council could legally and morally grant this request, and urged that the Council do so. (Building Permits) Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney if there had been any dis- cussion regarding single building permit applications at the time the 1500 permit limit was decided. Mr. Lewis answered that there was not, and explained that the Water Ordinance No. 767 can be amended, or repealed, as soon as the Council feels there is some resolution of the water problem. With regard to the Initiative Ordinance, it is a mandate which the Council cannot affect in any way without going to a vote of the people. The Mayor felt that the people who voted for SAVE had in mind the large builders of the area and not the single lot construction business but would not know of a way to make exception without in- viting trouble from the public. The City Attorney mentioned that to make an exception there would have to be some basic classification made, substantially supported by facts. An exception has been made in allowing the building of businesses which do not consume high volumes of water. Councilman Miller sympathized with the problems Mr. Regan is facing but pointed out that the Council has no authority to grant permits on the basis of SAVE which can only be changed by the vote of the people. It seems that Mr. Regan is caught between the large build- ers and the residents who are tired of double session in schools,etc. The City Attorney explained that perhaps exceptions could be made in specific cases with specific reasons; however, the main issue is a water shortage and the ordinance was striking at the consump- tion of water and the family using it. One such case might be a family using water from their own well or a group of families on property with a joint water system. The Council agreed that there could be no resolution to Mr. Regan's problem, adding that if he chooses, he may appear again before a full Council for consideration. * * * (Re El Charro Road - Public Use) Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, stated that as he recalls, approximately eight years ago, the federal government objected to the El Charro Rd overpass due to the close proximity of Tassajara Road and the airport. They suggested that a bypass road be used for the gravel trucks and that they could use Trosajara Road which would mean constructing a heavy duty road ap- proximately li miles long, to extend the existing road. The Councils of Livermore and Pleasanton and the Board of Supervisors of the County were solicited to approve an overpass at the location. It was agreed that they would approve the overpass with the provi- sions and understanding that EI Charro Road would be used as a public highway. He mentioned that as he recalls this was to be done at the time the overpass was opened; nonetheless, there was no question that El Charro Road would be a public road at some time. At present it is used in the capacity of a private road for gravel trucks. He felt it is time for the Livermore and Pleasanton City Councils to put pressure on the Board of Supervisors to make this road a public road. He stated that he would like someone to check the records, as well as newspaper articles, regarding the matter for resolutions concerning this subject to be used as lever- age in persuading the Board that the road should be used by the public. CM-25-370 August 21, 1972 The City Attorney explained that in order for (El Charro Road) the road to become a public road, the position of the railroads should be checked into since the railroad crossing is a private crossing to be used only by Rhodes and Jamieson. Councilman Miller expressed concern that the bulk of the traffic on El Charro Road will still come from the gravel trucks even if made a public road and that the money for construction of a heavy duty road will result in less funds available for other important roads necessary in Livermore. He added that if the present road is satisfactory and will require no additional revenue for con- struction, he would be happy to have the road dedicated to public use.,-~~ ~....~ ...6.-.-:~L.~_7;2a-r~ .d'-7 ---?~21Z<- :/ /r-'Z/r-~~ *ic- ~ @.,'i~~~ * tJUF ~<~ CZ2~~k-. Milo Nordyke raised the complaint that there is a very large sign on North Livermore Avenue which is a gross violation of the sign ordinance. (Re Complaint of Oversized Campaign Sign) Councilman Miller explained that the sign is a McGovern sign and should be made to conform to the sign ordinance. The staff was asked to check into the matter of the sign and act accordingly. * * * Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, asked that the Council check into the reasons for delaying the extension of Isabel Avenue as a source of rout- ing some of the Holmes Street traffic to US 580, as was proposed in 1959. (Re Extension of Isabel Avenue) The Mayor explained that the Isabel Freeway was delayed by the state because it is not a part of the federal system and they have put all the parts of the Federal highway system first in priority. He noted that the Isabel Freeway is approximately 15th in priority order. * * * The Mayor mentioned that in view of the fact a full Council is not present nothing would be decided regarding the amendments proposed for the General Plan. The matter had been set for hearing on July 17, but had been continued to this meeting and he explained that they would hear any public testimony regardin g the matter, however. He then asked the Plan- ning Director to briefly explain the area. PUBLIC HEARING RE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS The Planning Director explained that there is very little change in the land use elements east of Vasco Road, south of East Avenue, south of Fourth Street and west of Murietta Blvd., but mainly an updating of the area and a change in plan around the airport and the Arroyo del Valle area. He proposed a change (at the request of Trapp Rock, subsidiary of Lone Star Cement) to leave the area south of Vineyard Avenue and Wetmore Road in agricultural zoning. He mentioned that other areas of updating are fire protection and safety standards, which were not controversial. It was pointed out that the education element should be strengthened to meet some of the regulations. Prior to approving a subdivision the follow- ing regulations or standards should be met. Students within an area proposed for development can travel to school without exces- sive traffic, distance or exposure to hazards caused by lack of sidewalks; and the School Board certifies that the residents will not cause an overcrowding of schools based on standards set forth by the Livermore Unified School District Policy No. 3220, thereby reducing the quality of education. He mentioned that CM-25-371 August 21, 1972 (General Plan Amendments) if they prefer, the Council can add state regula- tions Sec. 19556 and 17507 to cover standards re- garding state aid. This would not be a standard of the quality of education, but a standard to determine whether they qualify for state aid. A second section, under implementation, states that the City would continue to seek means for which the cost of new schools can be shifted from property taxes to other revenue sources. He concluded by recommending a change in the educational element, plus the deletion of any change to the Trapp Rock property in the General Plan. Councilman Miller stated that he has no questions but would like a copy of the Education Code sections. Mr. Robert Reed, representing Trapp Rock/Lone Star Properties, agreed that they would approve of the deletion of the segment affecting their property. This would give them time to study the property, as well as that adjacent, in an effort to plan develop- ment of something which would be a contribution to the City. Councilman Futch felt that the normal procedure is to give an ap- plicant guidance, with reference to a General Plan, after public hearings and recommendations have been received by the Planning Commission, reflecting the desires of the citizens. Mayor Taylor answered by commenting that if there is to be a later amendment of the General Plan, the normal procedures will have to be followed, as was the case with this proposed General Plan amend- ment. Councilman Futch moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously. The Council agreed to discuss the proposed deletion of the Trapp Rock property from the General Plan at such time as they have a full Council in attendance - tentatively September 11. Mr. Reed advised that he would probably not be able to be present on September lIth and requested that the Council discuss the matter one week later. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the matter was scheduled for September 18. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Departmental Reports Departmental reports were received as follows: Airport Activity - July Building Department - July Fire Department - June and July Municipal Court - June Police and Pound Departments - July Water Reclamation Plant - June and July * * * Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission submitted their summary of action taken at the meeting of August 15, 1972. * * * Minutes - Housing Author- ity Minutes of the regular meeting of the Housing Authority for their meeting of July 25, 1972 were presented to the Council. * * * CM-25-372 One hundred twenty-two claims dated August 18, in the amount of $129,291.87 and two hundred seventy-seven payroll warrants dated August 11, 1972 in the amount of $62,826.23 were ordered paid as approved by the Finance Director. August 21, 1972 (Payroll and Claims) * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the Consent Calendar was approved. Approval of Consent Calendar * * * The Mayor explained that the matter regarding the Southern Pacific Development and their pro- posal for development of a shopping center as well as track removal and relocation was pre- sented to the Council last week. The Council asked that the dis- cussion be delayed for one week in order that they might have time to review the proposal and the involvements. Also, at that time the Director of Public Works was on vacation which would not allow the Council to hear comments he might wish to make. He apologized to Mr. Ainsworth of Southern Pacific Development Co. that a decision could not be made at this meeting either due to the fact that there were only three Council members present. Also, the Public Works Director had not had a chance to see the plans and review them with respect to traffic implications due to the proposed relocation of trackage. RE SO. PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CO. Mr. Hanesworth commented that an application has not been submitted to the PUC as a resolution by the Council is required before this can be done. Mayor Taylor suggested that the PUC be made aware that relocation of the tracks is only in the public interest. He was not sure that the City would have much influence on their decision to consolidate tracks, or to extract any type of promise from the PUC. Councilman Futch wondered if the Council could write directly to Western Pacific as to their position and under what conditions they would consider consolidation of tracks. Mr. Hanesworth felt the suggestion made by Councilman Futch was good. He mentioned that he had spoken with a representative of Western Pacific who indicated that they would be more than anxious to make their views known. Mayor Taylor felt they should wait until the City Manager returns before writing to the Western Pacific, as he has been correspond- ing with them for a number of years regarding this particular issue. He also suggested that a letter be sent to the PUC asking their position on situations like this in an effort to receive answers to questions the City has been asking for years. He mentioned that he does not know how they might feel about grant- ing a temporary right-of-way in lieu of a permanent right-of-way parallel to Western Pacific tracks at a later date. He explained that the main concern is for possible joint trackage at a later date which will require underpasses, etc., and that the delay is in ~o way a reflection on the proposed shopping center. Councilman Miller commented that almost everyone in the City is very enthusiastic about the proposed shopping center development and explained that the problems of the track must receive special attention due to the fact that the City does not wish to ruin the possibility of relocation in the future for joint trackage. CM-25-373 August 21, 1972 (So. Pacific The City Attorney felt it would be advantageous Development Co.) to Southern Pacific to agree to joint trackage due to grade separation involved. He explained that the company bears the responsibility and it would be more economical to share this cost with another company, the City and the grade separation fund. Mr.Hanesworth explained that time is of the essence; they have made certain commitments to those who would make the development possible. If the matter is held up too long these people may de- cide to withdraw, making their chances for a successful develop- ment doubtful. Mayor Taylor felt confident the Council could reach a decision at the next Council meeting and asked that Southern Pacific Develop- ment bear with them for another week. Mayor Taylor mentioned that the Council has received a letter of protest from the owners of California Properties - General Part- ner of Livermore Valley Square shopping center. Their argument was that they do not want present commercial enterprise diluted by the development of this center. The Mayor felt this argument could be countered by the statement that with a population of 47,000 the development of these stores will not dilute the ratio of stores to residents. Walter Ng, 2435 Longview Drive, San Leandro, commented that he is a property owner in Livermore and just recently read about the development in the newspaper and stated his objection to the de- velopment if the tracks are not relocated. He felt that if the tracks are not relocated and Southern Pacific Development is allowed to build a successful shopping center, the City has for- feited its chance to move the tracks as there would be no economi- cal advantage to the Railroad Company to move them at a later date. To allow the tracks to be moved a few hundred feet will leave the City with the same problem, i.e. being right in the middle of developments. He urged the Council to insist that they move the tracks to a parallel position with the Western Pacific tracks. Leon Seyrinian with Zepol, Inc., explained that they own approxi- mately five acres of land on the corner of Railroad Avenue and P Street and asked if it is intended that Railroad Avenue will be made smaller in width than was anticipated. Mayor Taylor explained that Railroad Avenue will be finished on the south side to the full width with full public works improve- ments and will be fenced off on the right-of-way temporarily. Their commercial buildings will not have access across the railroad tracks. He mentioned that some of the area will be fenced off, but the Council does not know how long the chain link fence will be, as yet. Mr. Seyrinian urged the Council to consider carefully the allow- ance of a railroad and a chain link fence separating two areas of shopping. He pointed out that there is very valuable property adjacent which can be developed and that it would be wise to allow shoppers to cross from one shopping center to the other. He felt that he would have to agree with Mr. Ng who stated that if parallel trackage is not provided for at this time, it will be very diffi- cult to accomplish at a later date. The Mayor explained that he is sure the citizens of the City do not want to take the chance of jeopardizing the reality of develop- ment of this shopping center by requiring joint or parallel track- age which may take a number of years, ultimately forcing develop- ment of the property for another use. He felt the property can be developed now, though somewhat less advantageously, around the tracks. CM-25-374 August 21, 1972 Gilbert Marguth, 1152 Farmington Way, suggested that the Council give this matter considerable thought, explaining that this study was started in 1966 as a community. He felt it would be worthwhile for the Council to go back and read the reports written by the Citizens Committee and the consultants in 1966 and 1967, which may indicate that this particular proposal does not fit with the plans, as seen at that time. He felt that public hearings should be held and that Southern Pacific, as well as Western Pacific, should be invited to Livermore with reports of their intentions before a resolution of support is adopted. In his opinion, it appears that this is the same type of development which has occurred on Chestnut Street and Railroad Avenue, and he urged the Council to take more than one week to come to a decision and to hear from the public as well. (Southern Pacific Development Co.) John Shirley stated that he would have to agree that if the develop- ment is allowed and Southern Pacific Development Company is re- ceiving economic benefit, it would be most difficult to negotiate the next big move, that being joint trackage. He suggested that some compromise be made; four underpasses were proposed, perhaps one .or two could be developed. along wi'th track relocation. He firmly believes that if this development as proposed is allowed ultimate relocation will not be possible for many, many years. Southern Pacific agreed at one time to joint trackage, and he felt it is a very valuable area that will be developed, and now is the time to press for relocation for joint or parallel trackage, and an underpass. Mr. Marguth felt the total benefit should be examined and not solely taking into consideration the Southern Pacific Development Company property. He felt that this consideration for Southern Pacific could result in a cutting off of other business and a dislocation of their businesses. He added that a certain amount of money will be spent on relocating the tracks so why not go one step further to get the joint or parallel trackage, as agreed upon a number of years ago. He mentioned that they not only agreed to joint trackage, but that it would go from Niles Canyon to the Altamont, and perhaps this should be pursued. Councilman Miller agreed that there is no question as to the desire for joint or parallel trackage, but the point is how to do that best and still gain more commercial shopping for the residents as soon as possible. Burt Duke, 1076 El Dorado Drive, stated he sympathized with Southern Pacific in that time is of the essence; however, he urged the Council to strongly consider the pursuit of joint or parallel trackage, because if it is not done now the City will never get it. John Shirley pointed out that underpasses would benefit the whole community and that the whole community should share the burden of the cost involved. Don Hanesworth, representing Southern Pacific Development Company, felt the possibility of joint trackage would have to receive con- siderable examination and certain problems with Western Pacific must be resolved. He mentioned that there is quite a history of studies done to explore all aspects of this proposal and assured the Council that the matter is not closed, and that they have considered alleviating the problem some time in the future. He explained that the managers of Western Pacific and Southern Pacific are not in accord with regard to whether there should be parallel or joint trackage, and there is also an economic question at hand. As far as he knows both railroads involved are anxious to find a solution to this problem, and he asked that the City keep an open mind in the matter. CM-25-375 August 21, 1972 (So. Pacific Development Co.) Mayor Taylor stated that they have asked for con- tinuance for one week in hope they can reach a decision by that time; however, in view of the fact that so much public interest has been aroused a decision may be extended beyond this time. John Shirley commented that his suggestion for an underpass may have been premature in that the cost involved might not meet with the approval of the citizens who have to pay. Therefore, he would suggest that the Council push for the trackage and worry about getting the underpasses later. Walter Motta, 2047 Westbrook Place, felt the cost of moving the tracks to the Western Pacific tracks would not be significantly greater than the estimated $250,000 to move the tracks on their own property. In his opinion, the proposal to require joint track- age or parallel trackage was far better than allowing the tracks to be moved over, as they are requesting. He suggested the Coun- cil consider the possibility that land in that area will not be developed if this occurs and that some of the businesses along Railroad Avenue may be lost due to the fence barrier. Ed Hutka, 1019 Angelica Way, sympathized with the problems he feels Southern Pacific is faced with in coming to an agreement with Western Pacific. In his opinion, Western Pacific has nothing to gain by joint trackage and probably insist that Southern Pacific do everything their way. The main concern seems not to be the financial aspect as much as the problems to be resolved between the two railroads. He agreed that the City would not like to see a chain link fence along Railroad Avenue and supported joint trackage. The matter was then continued to the meeting of August 28, 1972. * * * RE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES (Chamber of Commerce) The Chamber of Commerce has written to the Coun- cil asking that a session be scheduled for dis- cussion of the recent business license fee. Along with the letter a petition was submitted signed by 172 businessmen, who have asked that a special public hearing be held regarding the matter. Mayor Taylor explained that public hearings have been held, an ordi- nance has been passed and is in effect relating to the business license fee; therefore, he felt there was some question as to why the special meeting has been requested and that nothing could be accomplished by the session unless the businessmen would like to ask questions. He suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda for general discussion, as apparently a number of people wish to speak; if it is determined at this time that a special meeting might be necessary the Council could then act accordingly. Councilman Futch moved to schedule the matter as a special item at the beginning of the agenda for the next meeting, seconded by Mayor Taylor. Councilman Miller commented that he would be reluctant to second the motion as public hearings have already been held. Susan Scott, 1101 Farmington, active member of the Chamber, re- marked that there seems to be a general feeling among the Board members, as well as the general membership of the Chamber of Commerce, that the comments during the meeting with Councilmen Miller and Futch regarding the business license fee and prior to its adoption were not reflected in the Council's final decision. They feel that the decision had been predetermined, which left many of the busi- nessmen with hard feelings toward the Council. She urged the CM-25-376 August 21, 1972 Council to meet with these people in an effort to explain the requirements of the budget and the Council's feelings in addition to listening to the Chamber. There seems to be some question as to whether it is a trend to follow in succeeding years~ and what the effect is on the potential new businessman. (Re Business License Fees - Chamber) Mayor Taylor suggested that the discussion be held at a later date in view of the fact it is not a pressing matter. He felt it would be worthwhile, also, for the Chamber to prepare some written posi- tion mutually agreeable by a number of people involved, as well as specific comments to be made by individuals in an effor~ .~ol save time. ~ Councilman Miller commented that if the Counci tries to ben~~-~~r - backwards for one group such as the Chamber, he results are that you are taking away from other community gro ps. He felt that the Council should attempt to be equitable. n this case, the question is whether the tax should go to the axpayer, or should the cost go on the business license fee; it is a question then of equity between the general taxpayer of the community and those who pay a business license fee. He agreed that the Chamber should submit a written exposition of their views. Councilman Futch amended his motion to move the date for discus- sion to September 25 to allow the City Manager to be present. Mayor Taylor seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Mayor asked the staff to comnlunicate with the Chamber, stating the facts regarding the ordinance, that the discussion is not to include discussion of\fees, this will be a general information item, and ask that their comments be made in writing. He asked that the City Clerk draft a letter for his signature. * ~~ lif~~. Mr. William C. Herbert, of S.B. Productions, has written to the police Chief, asking for permission to use a jail cell in the Liver- more Police Station for a film he is making. In response to the letter, Chief Lindgren stated that there would be no problem, but advised that the City Attorney should inform him of any liabilities which might be incurred through filming and that any costs involved due to this filming (such as a police officer standing by or driving a police vehicle) should be re- imbursed by the producer of the film. RE FILMING OF JAIL CELL Don Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager, mentioned that in addition to comments made by the Chief of Police, there were other considerations such as insurance liability, a cleanup deposit, hold harmless agreements, etc. Councilman Futch moved that the filming be allowed, subject to all City requirements, seconded by Councilman Miller, approved unanimously. * * * Mr. Bradley commented that Walter Griffith, Chairman of the Community Affairs Committee, reported an over expenditure of $100 which was used to provide music for the Citywide picnic. The Committee had anticipated music provided at no cost from the army or another group; however, they were unsuccessful and were obliged to hire someone, and have now requested that the Council allocate an additional $100 to cover this expense. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Re City Picnic Expenses) Councilman Futch moved to approve an additional $100, seconded by Councilman Miller, and the motion was approved unanimously. * * * CM-25-377 August 21, 1972 (County Z.O. Vasco Road - Cooper Mobilehome) Mr. Musso reported that the hearing regarding the rszoning on Vasco Road (Cooper mobilehome park) is scheduled for September 7. He will attend and also some Council member. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to a brief executive session for discussion re personnel. APPROVE * ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of August 28, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 28, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * RO LL 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 Council- man Miller, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of the meeting of August 21, 1972 were approved as amended. Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard abstained as they were not present & that meeting. * * * Mark Elliott, 5643 Charlotte Way, referred to the article in the Herald News under his by-line en- titled, "Livermore Disadvantaged in Business?" and specifically to the table at the bottom of the article in regard to the fire hydrants in which it is noted that the fire hydrants for Livermore would be $5500, and stated this to be an error as the figure should have been $lSOO. OPEN FORUM (Newspaper Article) * * * (Boating Trophy) Gil Leppelmeier, 748 Wiffibleton Lane, secretary of the Del Valle Sailing Club, mentioned the various types of sailing boats, stating that the club, in order to promote safe and fun sailing, has es- tablished numerous prizes and awards to be given as an indication of achievement in sailing when merited. Thus, in recognition of CM-2S-378 August 28, 1972 (Trophy) unparalleled accomplishment in a recent race, the DVSC wished to bestow the "Upsidedown Sail- ing Trophy" to Councilman Miller, with the con- dition that it be displayed and that all questions be answered with a full and frank explanation. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 1972 were acknowledged for filing. * * * The resolution setting the 1972-73 tax rate was removed for later discussion. * * * The City Manager reported that negotiations have been underway for months re a parcel owned by Hexcel, consisting of .2 acres, and a settlement of $820 for the parcel has been agreed upon. The parcel is to be used for water pump housing, and it is recommended that the purchase be authorized. * * * PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Resolution Setting Tax Rate Report re Property Purchase - Water Pump Housing A letter was received from the counsel for S. E. Corporation requesting an extension of one year for construction of improvements on Springtown Blvd. until the moratorium on the issuance of new construction building permits has been resolved so that S.E. Corporation can build on its properties, and stating that until such time as they can properly develop the property, S~.Corporation will resist the development of those improvements. Communication re Springtown Blvd. Improvements (S .E. Corp.) Councilman Pritchard asked that this item be removed for later dis- cussion inasmuch as there were a number of people from Springtown present who might wish to speak. Mayor Taylor stated that the City's position is that the City has an interest which is legal and firmly established, and it is the City's intention to take whatever legal action is necessary to protect the City's interest and the Council has instructed the City Attorney to call bonds, or do whatever necessary to build this public improvement, and the City Attorney agreed that this is the City's position. Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in this regard, knowing the City's position. Bill Older commented that he knew the answer which Mayor Taylor had just reiterated, and that the people of Springtown have the utmost faith in the fairness of the City Council, but declined to make any further statement as he felt the Mayor had stated the position of the Council. This item remained on the Consent Calendar. * * * A claim has been filed against the City for in- verse condemnation by the Hofmann Company for Tr. 3321, and the City Attorney directs denial of this claim. Denial of Claim - Tr. 3321, Hofmann Co. RESOLUTION NO. 113-72 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE HOFMANN COMPANY CM-25-379 August 28, 1972 Final Acceptance Tr. 2726 (Sunset Dev.) Tract 2726 (Sunset Development Co.) east of Holmes Street, south of the area known as Sawyer Ranch, and containing 201 lots, is now ready for accept- ance as all improvements have been installed to City standards. RESOLUTION NO. 114-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL AC.CEPTANCE OF TRACT 2726 (Sunset Development Company) Appointments to Appeals Bd. Approval of Consent Calendar CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE SO. PACIFIC DEVELO PMENT CO. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 11S-72 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO BOARD OF APPEALS Earl E. Mason and John Dobbel were appointed as members of the Board of Appeals. * * * On motion of Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * The discussion re the proposed Southern Pacific Development Co. shopping center complex had been continued from the meeting of August 21 to re- ceive comments from the Public Works Director. The Mayor explained that the Council is being asked to support the relocation of the Southern Pacific tracks before the Public Utilities Commission. He advised that he had met with re- presentatives of both railroads, along with the City Attorney and the acting City Manager this date in an attempt to determine the railroads position as regards joint trackage, and the possibility of getting the tracks relocated to the same right-of-way and other alternatives. Mayor Taylor suggested that since Councilman Beebe would be discuss- ing this for the first time, and also that the report from the Public Works Director would be discussed for the first time, the Council should make the statement that final decision would be made at the next meeting, to allow the Council time to digest the information available. Councilman Pritchard stated that unless more information was fur- nished than they now had, he would not be prepared to vote on it next week, as negotiations have been going on for about six months of which he knew nothing about and wondered if it might be lack of communication. He would like some in depth information in order to be able to answer intelligently the many questions that have been asked. Mayor Taylor replied that what was presented is very simple and very straightforward. As far as negotiations are concerned, there have been no negotiations other than those carried on for years with both railroads which take the form of imploring continually consideration of joint trackage. The Council passed a resolution in 1970 asking them to consider this concept, and we received a very unequivocal answer, signed by the general managers of both railroads, saying it was impossible. Councilman Pritchard stated that he had received some information from one individual who is with the Southern Pacific Company and CM-25-380 he received the impression that very close ne- gotiations had been going on with the City for some time. Also, apparently there was a de- tailed presentation made to the Industrial Committee, however no Councilmen were present and should be informed. August 28, 1972 (So. Pacific Development Co.) he felt the Council Mayor Taylor stated that was the reason he had attended the meeting, and it was reiterated by representatives of the Southern Pacific that joint trackage is out of the question as far as they are con- cerned. Their cost, both to changing the signal system and the delays of trains waiting for other trains to go through, simply preclude that possibility. Studies have been made and it is not financially feasible. The Western Pacific is reasonably noncommTItal, however the representative present this evening might wish to make a statement as far as joint trackage is concerned. As far as the SP Railroad moving their track all the way over to a parallel right of way at their expense, that course is considered an impossibility as the financial advantage to opening up their property simply does not justify complete removal of the track. Both railroads consider that when underpasses are seriously considered, and the City is ready to build underpasses, the railroads will have to get together and move the line over simply to decrease the cost of the underpasses. If the trackage becomes parallel now with no underpasses, the state would make no contribution to the project because no grade separa- tion would be created; also, if the tracks were made parallel now, the cost of the underpasses at a later date would be considerably more. It is logical to build the underpasses at the same time the tracks are relocated. Mayor Taylor stated that a bill which passed the Legislature, but was vetoed by the governor, would raise the state contribution for underpasses from SO% to 2/3 of the cost and raise the monetary contribution from $5 to $10 million; also in- cluded was the provision for track relocation if it resulted in the removal of grade separations, which was not the case before. It was clear the relocation of tracks and building of underpasses will be a higher priority item in the future, and it was vetoed because of a technicality, and Mayor Taylor felt it would pass in the future. Further, he could see no way that the City could proceed now with the entire plan as presented sometime ago; the City does not have the power to allow or not allow the development, but simply give testimony to the PUC who will judge the case on its merits; also, he could see no gain to the City in opposing it in the hope of getting something better. Councilman Futch stated that he supported Councilman Pritchard's view in that there was very little information given to the Council when the item was first brought up, and he felt that additional information should be furnished before an item of this importance comes up again, and made a motion that these remarks be passed on to the City Manager when he returns; the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed unanimously. Mayor Taylor agreed it would be a good idea to have before them history of the attempts of the City to negotiate for joint trackage between the two railroads. Councilman Beebe made a motion to continue the matter to the next meeting which will be September II, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously; however the Council concurred that they should have comments from the representatives of both railroads this evening. Daniel Hanesworth, representing the Southern Pacific Railroad, commended Mayor Taylor on his presentation of the facts in what they felt was a very logical manner. He also read a policy state- ment of Southern Pacific Company which included the statement the Southern Pacific does not oppose a parallel track arrangement with the Western Pacific Railroad if such an action were motivated by a grade separation or consolidation project initiated by the City# CM-2S-381 August 28, 1972 (So. Pacific The company is prepared to meet any equitab~e fin- Development Co.) ancial obligations arising from such a project, but cannot economically justify relocation parallel to the Western Pacific based solely upon returns from commercial development. The company is prepared to improve the south side of Railroad Avenue along the length of its commercial development. Councilman Miller questioned whether or not the track relocation which is proposed would be a suitable bypass track if underpasses are built in the future, and Mr. Hanesworth replied that it would be. John Miller, Western Pacific representative, also commended the Mayor for his good job in summarizing the situation as it stands. It is a very complex matter and has a long history which sometime will be solved. He stated that Western Pacific and Southern Pacific spent a great deal of effort some years ago when they brought the relocation project to a place where it could have been built. Western Pacific's stand is to cooperate in every way possible to make this a going project, but they must consider their stockholders. The old project, as it had been presented, provided for the Southern Pacific to build on their (WP's) right of way. This project, he was sure would receive favorable reception from Western Pacific management as they would seriously consider taking Southern Pacific on their track. When all costs are summed up the cost would be very close to that of building two tracks which he felt has always been a better solution. As far as the grade separation project is concerned, Western Pacific is ready to negotiate and go forward with the project whenever the City is ready. However, as far as the current project of Southern Pacific, it is of no concern to Western Pacific. Councilman Pritchard questioned if there is room on the Western Pacific right of way for another track, and Mr. Miller stated not entirely, it would be necessary for them to procure right of way to accommodate it toward First Street. Mayor Taylor invited the people in the audience to state their posi- tion before the Council takes action on the matter in September, however to make any comment they might have very brief. Mr. Hanesworth stated that the Southern Pacific representatives would be happy to meet with any of the Council members, or the City staff, to explain in detail their development plans, and he apologized for not having contacted the Council members before. David Proffitt, 809 El Rancho Drive, stated that he lives where the railroad passes by, and he and several other people present are in- terested in no more railroad trains coming by, as children have a penchant for putting things on the tracks which could cause a de- railment, and he asked that the Council take this possibility into consideration. Bob Abair, 779 El Rancho Drive, stated they have heard a lot concern- ing the cost to the railroads, but no one has mentioned the cost to the citizens directly involved with the railroad who live a short distance from the railroad tracks. They feel if another track is placed near their homes, they would be burdened with additional noise levels, danger to the children and sleep interruption. When they purchased their homes they were advised of the existing rail- roads, which they accepted, but felt this would be an additional burden which the Council should consider. Leon Seyranian, representing Zepol, owners of the property at Railroad Avenue and P Street, stated he has not been advised exactly where the tracks are to be relocated, and felt that the citizens should be made aware of the exact proposal before they are asked for their comments for or against the proposal. They have just com- pleted public improvements along their property inasmuch as they were informed that Railroad Avenue would be widened to 100 ft. and become a first class thoroughfare. CM~25-382 August 28, 1972 Mayor-Taylor agreed that the property owners have (So. Pacific a right to know the details of the proposal, and Development Co.) asked if these property owners along Railroad Ave. could be given a communication indicating the exact relocation of the tracks. He felt that Southern Pacific had made it clear that Railroad Avenue would be completed; their track would be on the south side of that with a fence to protect the public. He felt that the Council should consider that Railroad Avenue be completed to its full width with public works improve- ments which have always been planned. The Public Works Director stated the most practical way would be to publish a drawing, if the newspaper would do that, and he would arrange for such a publication. Mr. Seyranian stated that he and several others had met with the representatives of the Southern Pacific after the last meeting, and felt he could summarize their discussion to be the question of dollars and cents; Western Pacific has one price, and Southern Pacific does not want to pay the price, or vice versa. He felt that since it is such a massive project, involving two large com- panies, consideration should be given to the City of Livermore, and a greater effort made to put the tracks together. His company would support such a project, knowing that perhaps some of their property might be needed for the widening of the additional right of way, as they feel it would be for the best interest of the City. Further, it is only a matter of negotiating, and the City has the right to ask for what is best for the City, as parallel trackage would open up many valuable properties for development in addition to this one. Walter Ng, 2435 Longview Drive, San Leandro, stated he owned the eleven acres directly adjacent to the Thrifty Shopping Center, which he felt is a substantial piece of property in the downtown area. It had been estimated that it would cost approximately $1 million to parallel the tracks, and if the Southern Pacific Company has allocated approximately $250,000 to move the tracks 150 feet, that is 25% of the cost. He felt the City should be able to raise money from the property owners who will realize the benefit of parallel trackage, and this is what should be done rather than having the City split by the two railroads. Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, supported the statements just made by Mr. Ng, as he felt the City now had an opportunity for a really attractive future, and commented that he was distressed that the City staff was making no effort to investigate the cost for two underpasses - at P and L Streets. There was a different tax structure now than there was two years ago, and the City should take some initiative, because in his opinion, he felt that if the City took a strong position, they could determine the situation. Mr. Nordyke questioned the method of traffic control being considered for P Street and Railroad Avenue if the tracks are moved 100 feet north at the same elevation as it is presently a very difficult intersection, and he felt that there should be a report from the engineering staff in this regard. He also wondered about the time schedule of PhaseTI and III anticipated by Southern Pacific. Mr. Fensterbush, representative of Southern Pacific, stated they could not undertake any development without the tracks being re- located along Railroad Avenue. The immediate development is the so-called Phase I, and Phase II will commence as soon as leasing details can be worked out, as well as tying in with adjacent pro- perties, and it is quite possible they will all proceed at the same time. He wanted to clarify the fact that the proposed plan in no way hinders relocation to the WP; also the expenditure for the relocation at this point is justified by the income that will be generated by the project. The cost of relocating to the WP w~l be justified based upon the benefits involved in the elimination of grade crossings, assessment district, etc. CM-25-383 August 28, 1972 (So. Pacific Mr. Nordyke stated that the Council should not Development Co.) consider approval or disapproval of the project based on the drawing presented, but rather it should be based on the drawing of all three phases. If approval is given to the relocation of the railroad tracks, the Council is losing their bargaining rights on all three phases. Ap- proval should be based on alignment of the railroad track and access to the development which will probably be by M or N Streets; also the effect it will have on the First Street traffic pattern. The proposed project is not the whole downtown development plan as suggested sometime ago, only a small part of it, and for that reason the Council should not feel that because the other project could not be financed, this one could not be financed. The staff should investigate the possibility of two underpasses and the re- location of the tracks along the WP line. Mayor Taylor stated that the only way to get underpasses is if the City takes the initiative and arranges the financing, but he doubted if the public will accept a citywide assessment district as a fin- ancing vehicle. He felt it was clearly understood that the Council ultimately intends to have four underpasses, or more as necessary, and although not many alternatives have been discussed, the City Manager has pursued a number of possibilities. All the engineering on the underpasses has been done, and it would be a simple matter to come up with the rough costs for a number of alternatives, and possibly some of these alternatives could be discussed at the next meeting. Don Lincrest of Zepol, stated his feeling that once a set of tracks is built economically, the railroads would not be agreeable to moving them. He stated that the Council has a duty to the City and property tax payers to find a solution with regard to the tracks, and on behalf of Zepol they would be most cooperative to do whatever they can to assist the City in a long range solution, but are not interested in an interim expedient solution. He urged that the Council spend the additional time required to meet with the repre- sentatives of the two railroads in an attempt to find a long range solution compatible to the City of Livermore. A gentleman who stated he was the "z" in Zepol commented that he had talked with many people and all have indicated they want a shopping center. Both railroad representatives have indicated the feasibility of placing the tracks side by side. Being quite familiar with fi- nancing, with 74 years of ~xperience, he knew that by moving the tracks Southern Pacific automatically enhances the value of their property two or three times its value, and if Safeway and Longs locate there, the income alone from those two companies should, over the time that the railroad track would be moved, pay for the cost so there should be no necessity for any contribution from the City. He did not feel that underpasses are necessary at the present time. Harold Updike, 771 El Rancho Drive, stated that two years ago they fought the proposal for track relocation as it is very noisy and especially so since Murietta Blvd. was constructed as the train whistles are sounded for this intersection which is only about 100 feet from his bedroom. He asked if the Council had ever considered having the tracks relocated outside of the City of Livermore as this would eliminate the necessity for underpasses, and relinquish the land for business development, as well as relieve the property owners of the noise. He proposed that the Council seek a solution along those lines. Mayor Taylor stated that this alternative had been investigated in some detail and the cost is enormous compared to the other alterna- tives. In reference to the analogy as regards new building, it has been said that eventually the railroads will move if you just hold tight and do nothing; it is possible things will remain as they are for the next twenty years as they have been this way for the past one hundred. Over the years various moves have been considered and one good possibility is that nothing will be done CM-25-384 August 28, 1972 for a good many years, and if that occurs he is not at all sure that the best interests of the citizens are being served. As far as the underpasses being needed are concerned, it is clear that they are desired, but it is a matter of financing them, and ultimately the cost will be borne by the citizens of the City. (So. Pacific Development Co.) Councilman Miller agreed with the remarks of Mr. Nordyke and felt they should examine the financial aspects of the tax situation and they should explore all options. A vote was taken on the motion to continue the matter until September 11 and passed unanimously. * * * AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. RECESS * * * The Public Works Director reported that with regard to the standards proposed for the Second Street lighting, the matter of the height of the poles had been referred to the Landscape Archi- tect, Ribera and Sue, and they had replied that the 22 ft. height was satisfactory. Mr. Lee explained that the proposed light standard was 25 ft. high and the light projects from the top of the pole and hangs below at 22 ft. REPORT RE SECOND STREET LIGHTING Councilman Miller stated that this was not his understanding, but rather the light standard was 22 ft. high and not the location of the lamp itself, and that Ribera and Sue are suggesting a shorter pole. The whole issue is to put things in scale with the building heights as he understands it. Councilman Miller stated if there is discussion, he felt it could be resolved at their next meeting. Mayor Taylor did not feel that the height of the standards would make a difference, but if the cost could be tripled by changing the dimension a foot or two, it may not be logical, however this should be resolved as there seems to be some difference of opinion. Mr. Lee stated the height should not be based on aesthetics alone, there are other things to be considered. The matter of a final decision was postponed to the next meeting. * * * On a complaint made by the citizens that there was excessive traffic through Hayes Court, the Council had requested that the staff submit a report. REPORT RE TRAFFIC - HAYES COURT ACCESS A report was received from the Planning Director detailing the history through the whole project, and there was evidently no commitment of the City to ever close the access. The Public Works Director's report indicates that the traffic volume is not parti- cularly large for a residential street shown by a survey which had been made, but does recommend that the entrance to the housing property be clearly posted to prohibit through traffic. Mr. Lee commented that some people may be filtering through the access to avoid the intersection, and he suggested that possibly the manager of the project could stop anyone from going through during the commute hours which might reduce the irritation that some of the people on Hayes Street may feel. CM-25-385 August 28, 1972 (Hayes Court Access) Councilman Beebe asked if there was some way both ends of the property could be posted to prohibit through traffic except to the residents of the housing, and Mr. Lee replied that the housing manager should do the posting. Councilman Beebe made a motion that the staff be authorized to negotiate with the project manager to properly sign the area to reduce through traffic, seconded by Councilman Futch. Councilman Miller remarked that there may be more traffic than one would expect and he did not feel that the posting of signs would stop those who have been using the access, and he thought that in addition to the sign perhaps a big bump in the street would dis- courage people more. If after a year the traffic is still excess- ive the Council should consider a barrier except for emergency vehicles. The Council discussed the various types of barriers that might be used, however Mr. Lee advised that he had talked with the Fire Chief and he was opposed to any type of barrier as it would compromise their ability to provide protection for that area. Mr. Musso explained that if barriers were installed it would des- troy the circulation around and within the development that is con- sidered important, particularly by the Fire Department. Another alternative would be to place a barrier on California Way, but then there would be no turnaround and that creates a hazardous situation. Mr. Lewis stated the manager is concerned about the method of stopping cars from going in, and perhaps the Public Works Director might wish to take into consideration a temporary barrier to break the pattern of people who customarily use it to avoid other streets; then remove it after a period of time. Councilman Futch asked if the police can cite the people who use the private property as athoroughfare and Mr. Lewis replied that he felt they can be cited as they are trespassing on private property, and the law does allow the police department to cite in this kind of situation. Mayor Taylor mentioned that he has noticed the situation on dead end streets where many people use that for convenient parking and felt that perhaps this might complicate things even more if there were additional parking and it would eliminate the standard turn- around in a dead end court; he did not think this would be to the best interests of the public, and thought perhaps if signs would stop through traffic, that should be the minimum step, and the staff should be authorized to do whatever they can to help avoid through traf.fic. A vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimously. * * * CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE TRAILER STORAGE The discussion re trailer storage had been continued and referred to the staff to discuss the wording for placing the item on the ballot, but he under- stands there is a problem of timing and asked the City Attorney to explain that. Mr. Lewis stated there was nothing to explain other than we missed the timing as last week was the close off period. The Elections Code requires that a request to consolidate with the General Elec- tion must be made to the Board of Supervisors 74 days prior to said election. When we contacted the Elections Division of the County Clerk's office it was found that the measure had to be in by August 25, and since the proposals would have required considerable work in wording, it was impossible at that point even thIDugh a special meeting had been considered. CM-25-386 August 28, 1972 Councilman Beebe stated that SB 437 (Richardson) (Trailer Storage) which would restrict the right of cities to con- trol the parking or storage of campers and trailers will be before the legislature shortly, and since it is strongly supported perhaps the Council should do nothing at this time, however Councilman Futch did not feel the matter should be postponed indefinitely and asked when it could be placed on the ballot. Mr. Lewis stated the only way it could be accomplished now is by a special election as there would not be another general election very soon, or perhaps it could be placed on the next School Board election ballot. Councilman Miller suggested that they attempt to have it placed on the School District ballot in the spring and contact the County to ask if it can be placed on this ballot. Mr. Lewis stated they would probably agree if the proper wording were set up, and Mayor Taylor stated the last time the Council wanted an advisory type of election, and it is a complicated issue. Mayor Taylor commented that it is unfortunate that this is not to be on the November ballot as the majority of the Council had stated its intent to have it on the ballot. He agreed with Councilman Futch and felt that the matter has gone on for almost three years having the law in the books and not enforcing it, which is the sort of thing that erodes people's confidence in the government. Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the current ordinance be enforced, however there was no second to the motion. Councilman Miller commented that his personal feeling is similar to that of Councilman Pritchard, but he was not sure that was the sentiment of the public, and that is why he has asked that this issue be placed on the ballot. He felt that until such time as it is voted upon, the ordinance should be enforced on complaint, as had been suggested by Councilman Beebe previously. Councilman Beebe stated that this might not be the best solution as it pum the person complaining in a bad light, but he felt that until the matter is resolved, perhaps it is the the best way. Councilman Futch disagreed as he did not feel this was treating everyone equally; also, he did not think it was being responsible to continue to evade the matter and perhaps since the present ordi- nance may be too restrictive, as an interim ordinance he would propose the Planning Commission's recommendation be adopted with the amendments proposed by the City Council to limit the storage to one trailer, camper or boat not to exceed 19 ft. in length, 10 ft. in height or not within 20 ft. of the right of way of intersecting street. He felt that this would be the best compromise as even people who own campers feel that some restriction is needed, so it is a question of deciding what is reasonable. Councilman Beebe suggested that the public be informed that the Council proposes to vote on these amendments at the next meeting and have the Planning Director furnish a sketch. Mayor Taylor felt the allowable length should not exceed 17 feet, and he agreed that the decision should not be made tonight; he also agreed that having a law which is enforced only on demand is completely unequal. Everyone knows that the parking of campers, boats and trailers is governed by a law which is not being enforced. It was decided that the matter should be continued to the meeting of September 18. * * * CM-25-387 August 28, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE IIBEDROOM TAXII The discussion had been continued to this time on the proposed ordinance to establish a tax on the business of construction of residential units. Mayor Taylor questioned what is meant by construc- tion of any unit or building by a bank when talking about special exemptions. Mr. Lewis explained that this is a form ordinance that has been developed for other cities and what it means, briefly, is that in- surance companies and banks are subject to tax only under state corporation law taxes and are excluded from local property taxa- tion. Mayor Taylor asked if this would refer to the bank financing a house, and Mr. Lewis replied that, frankly, he could not answer that be- cause a bank would not be building a house anyway. Mr. Lewis com- mented that it must be one who is in the business of building homes before the tax is applicable. The reason it is done that way is to make the best use of the existing case law which clearly hold it to be a business license tax. Councilman Miller offered a possible wording to take into account the concerns of the LARPD, which essentially is that this refer primarily to parks but leaves open the other options. It would go under Sec. 12.37 and state: liThe fund shall be used primarily for basic park development of community and neighborhood parks as de- fined in our General Plan, but may also be used for the purpose of acquiring, building and improving, expanding and equiping other public property, public improvements and facilities." Mayor Taylor stated that he had intended to just add the words, "including public parks". These suggested changes were discussed and it was decided that the words, "including public parks" added to Sec. 12.37 would be suffi- cient. Councilman Miller moved to introduce the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissent- ing for the reason he felt it should be delayed until after the bond election. It was his belief that rather than neighborhood parks, the people would like a large regional park. Title only was read. * * * TAX RATE FISCAL YEAR 1972-73 The resolution setting the fiscal year 1972-73 tax rate was removed from the Consent Calendar for dis- cussion at this time. George Nolan, Finance Director, stated that the figures received from the Assessor's Office indicate that the City has benefited, along with the other public agencies in the Valley, from the large increase in assessed valuation due, in part, to new construction and the County updating the assessments, so that improvements on the secured roll increased by approximately 25%; the reassessments range from an increase of 6% through 9% and as much as 15% on mar- ket value to reflect the fact that the Valley has the highest in- crease of assessed valuation in the County. There had been a 131 tax increase recommended earlier, but it appears from the figures received the same amount of revenue will be raised with only a 51 increase. Councilman Beebe stated he would suggest that the Council seriously consider not raising the tax rate over last year as the reassess- ments have hit the property owners very hard. He had previously made the motion that the City use some of the money from the park fund so it would not be necessary to increase the tax rate. He continued that we are receiving numerous public dedicated lands CM-25-388 ,,' / August 28, 1972 due to density transfers, etc., we have $500,000 (Tax Rate) in our coffers now to buy an additional May Nissen type park, and we will continue to receive neigh- borhood parks through dedication by tract developers, and for this reason he felt we should take from the park fund levy and not in- crease the tax rate. Councilman Futch felt that because we are getting additional land we may have to use the park funds for some of the development through the arroyos. If the bond issue does not pass, the City may have to put trails through the arroyos, so he did not favor taking money from the park fund. Councilman Beebe stated that the park fund is increasing every year and with all the land we are acquiring there will be a burden on LARPD to maintain these, and the taxpayers are tired of the increases in tax. Councilman Beebe made the motion to balance the budget by using the same tax rate as last year on a one time basis only, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Miller commented that the half million dollars is spent five times over for land on priority list and even though a penny on the rate brings in more money every year, the cost of land goes up more rapidly than the assessed valuation. Councilman Beebe stated that the price of land has somewhat tapered off, and Councilman Miller felt this was due to the SAVE initiative, and that now would be the time to buy more land. Mayor Taylor stated the motion to mean that they reduce the park acquisition portion of the budget from 191 to 141 essentially to keep the tax rate the same as last year. The motion failed 2-3 with Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. A motion was made by Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller, to set the tax rate as recommended by the staff and passed 3-2 with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting. RESOLUTION NO. 116-72 RESOLUTION FIXING TAX RATE FOR ~ISCAL YEAR 1972-73 * * * Donald Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager, reported that the North Livermore Avenue under- pass is to be opened officially on Thursday, August 30, and the Portola Avenue overpass should be operating about the 1st of October. He also announced that it has been arranged for a of Zone 7 to come to Livermore on September II to bond issue to the Council. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF - North Livermore Underpass representative explain the * * * Mr. Musso stated that on September 7 the Vasco Trailer Court Road rezoning will be before the Board of Super- (Vasco Road) visors. This is for the mobilehome park off Mesquite Way which had been appealed to the Board of Supervisors. It was felt that this was in violation of the County's general plan, and since the Council members all opposed the rezoning, it was decided that several would attend the meeting. * * * CM-25-389 August 28, 1972 (Political Sign) Mr. Musso stated that the sign on North Livermore Avenue which was referred to as a violating poli- tical sign, is one appurtenant to the use of the property which is a political campaign headquarters. The sign is just a little in excess as they are allowed a 34 sq. ft. sign on the one side of the building and 35 sq. ft. sign on the other. The Council felt that the sign should be made to conform. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Sister City Visit) * * * Councilman Beebe stated that as a result of their visit last year the Assistant Ambassador was at the official presentation by the Council. In talking to him Councilman Beebe was advised that this person-to-person visitation between the people is doing more good than aid or gifts because we are meeting people and becoming friends with them. Councilman Beebe also stated they have serious needs which are not being taken care of, for instance this is a City of 80,000 people and they have only two ambulances - one which does not run, operated by the hospital; the Red Cross has another and it is only a panel truck, not an ambulance, which is 28 years old. His thought is that perhaps this City could give an allocation to provide the Sister City with an ambulance, and perhaps this could be a community effort. * * * (Sign Abatement) Councilman Pritchard asked if all the non-conform- ing signs have been cited, and Mr. Musso stated that not all of them had, but the remainder would be cited this week. (Screening of Equipment) * * * Councilman Miller asked if our ordinance provides for the screening of roof rop equipment, and Mr. Musso explained this is being done under design review. Mayor Taylor stated that some years ago when this was before the Planning Commission it was felt that this equipment should be screened. A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to refer this matter of screening roof top equipment to Mr. Street, Chief Building Inspector, for possible inclusion in the building code, and passed unanimously. (Herald News Article re Business) * * * Councilman Miller commented about the article written by Mark Elliott in the Herald News, parti- cularly referring to Livermore squeezing out industry and commerce by its high fees, which was indicated by headline, however the data did not support the conclusion. The article compared cost of fees and described some differences in land prices and totalled the fees and showed Livermore to be higher, however the land cost was omitted in the final tabulation; if it is included, it completely reverses their original and distorted conclusion. Councilman Miller ex- plained this more in detail stating that he had thoroughly checked out the land prices, and the conclusion is that Livermore is much more favorable costwise than Dublin, and substantially better than Pleasanton. Councilman Miller stated that while it is true some of our fees are higher, they are designed so that those who create a public need will pay for those needs, including storm drain fees, which is the major difference, and when storm drain fees are not collected at the time of development, the burden falls on property CM-25-390 August 28, 1972 tax, which is 90% paid by residential home- (Herald News Articl~' owners. One of the business expenses cheaper in Livermore than in the other areas is fire insurance because we have a better fire rating. Councilman Miller added that he is tired of the constant sniping at City attempts to improve the City and at the same time encourage business and industry; he was also very tired of the constant distortion of the absolute facts by the Herald News in this kind of issue, whether inadvertently or otherwise. * * * (Piombo Construction Agreement Action) Mayor Taylor asked about Piombo Construction, and Mr. Lee stated he had not heard from them, and Mayor Taylor stated that we are in a posi- tion to either have the firm comply with the terms of the agreement or we would pursue the remedies open to us to take action on their bond or stop their construction project. Mr. Lewis stated that the City Manager had left specific instruc- tion that we pursue it, but we should first resolve what the intention is of the company. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. * * * APPROVE C0~ ATTEST * * * ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting of September 11, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 11, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members, as well as those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * The minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1972 were approved as submitted on motion of Coun- cilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and by unanimous vote. * * * RO LL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES CM-25-391 September 11, 1972 Mr. Paul Lanferman, representing Zone 7, explained that the facilities located at Santa Rita Road and Hopyard Road are in existence and were part of Phase I. It has been apparent that the underground water from these sources will not be sufficient be- cause of the decline of quality as well as availability. Therefore, a contract was signed with the State for 46,000 acre feet of water as there is plenty of water in the South Bay Aqueduct not being used to its ultimate capacity by the Zone. He then explained the process for channeling the water from this aqueduct to the Valley, treating it, and getting it to the consumer. He mentioned that the basic problem is a shortage of treated water for Livermore and a problem with providing quality water for Dublin. Phase II would be for the establishment of a treatment plant located near the V.A. Hospital, a clear well reservoir and a pipeline which would go to Livermore as well as the Dublin and Pleasanton areas. Zone 7 has adopted an ordinance which will require any hookup to Zone 7 to pay a water connection fee to provide for the concept that growth should pay its own way. This will be an additional source of revenue to help pay for the extension and improvement of the system. SPECIAL ITEM (Zone 7 Bond Issue Measure) The Mayor explained that the matter was merely for information for the Council and that this is not a public hearing, adding that the public will have a chance to comment at a later time. The Council has not been asked to endorse the bond proposal at this particular time. Councilman Pritchard asked if a passage of the bonds would result in a raise in water rates to the consumer and Mr. Lanferman replied that it is not anticipated the rates will be higher; the financial analysis was based on current water rates and connection fees. Councilman Futch pointed out that Livermore has already contributed approximately three quarters of a million dollars towards the de- velopment of water facilities for Livermore through water connec- tion fees collected by the City prior to the establishment of a connection fee by Zone7 and asked if Project 2 recognizes these fees. Mr. Robert Becker, Board President, explained that the fees are collected on a zonewide basis to expand the entire facility and that the exact number of dollars col~cted in an area cannot ne- cessarily be spent in that area. He felt that they try to balance the project and that all areas will benefit. Mr. Becker felt that Zone 7 did not want to get into a position where they could show that every tax dollar collected from every individual went to bene- fit him. He pointed out that Pleasanton and Dublin have helped pay for a plant to benefit Livermore and that Livermore will re- ceive as much benefit as any area involved. This is a valleywide project in which the whole Valley will benefit and will also be paying for. Councilman Miller felt the matter is not that simple in that Liver- more residents have been paying taxes for draining the swamps in the west end of the Valley so that development can occur over there. Mr. Becker countered that most of the funds have come from the residents in that end of the Valley and not from Livermore. Councilman Miller then questioned as to whether or not an environ- mental impact statement had been prepared and, if so, he felt the Council should perhaps review a copy of it. Mr. Becker answered to the affirmative; however, stated that it is in the form of a draft at this time and explained that the Liver- more City Council is among the list of those to receive distribution of the final copy. Councilman Miller indicated that it is his understanding that higher water rates would result despite the connection fees to be collected. CM-25-392 September 11, 1972 Mr. Becker advised that Project 2 would not re- sult in higher rates and, if necessary, other adjustments can be made such as in water connec- tion fees. Their financial study indicates that if water connection charges came in at one-half the rate the area has grown over the past three to five years, the project is finan- cially feasible without any changes in rates or connection fees.^~, ~_~~ .)U~ I r 1.;0 ~(JtlP' Councilman Futch questioned as to whether or n~;i~~dmillion gallon capacity is justified over our present seven and a half million gallons, and Mr. Becker pointed out that on hot days Livermore uses thirteen million gallons of untreated underground water in addition to the treated water. (Zone 7 - Bond Issue Measure) Councilman Miller expressed his concern for potential air pollution due to the unlimited growth an infinite supply of water capacity implies. He~inted out that houses are a tax loss to most of the other jurisdictions and what is gained as a tax advantage from Zone 7 would be substantially wiped out by these other jurisdictions. Joe Concannon pointed out that a public utility, which Zone 7 could be considered, does not become involved in any way to determine density of a community. He felt this is not their responsibility, but that they are obligated to fulfill the needs of the community as per predictions for future population determined by the Liver- more Council, VCSD and Dublin. He pointed out that there are two alternatives - Alternate 1, would allow for the development of Project 2, which is to bring Del Valle water to a second treatment plant and will allow for soft water at a more economical rate than Alternate 2. The second alternative plan would satisfy needs for only five years or less - they can only speculate. Water would be released into the Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Del Valle and wells drilled as needed. Water coming from these wells would be 100% greater in hardness and put Livermore in a position similar to what Dublin and Pleasanton are in now; however, Livermore has the choice. Councilman Miller felt the matter should receive considerable consideration when the concerns of smog, schools, and other growth problems are at hand. Mr. Becker emphasized that Project 2 is not a "growth or no-growth" issue. They are obligated to provide water, whether it be through a new treatment plant or underground sources. Councilman Miller commented that the BAAPCD recently discussed the question of controls over development in areas where there are high smog levels and he felt their controls first are going to apply to commerce and industry and then to residences. This Valley is grossly unbalanced with respect to industry and commerce and he asked how a guarantee for reserve for commerce and industry can be made, which cannot be taken on demand for residential con- struction. Mr. Becker felt it unappropriate for any member of the Council to use water as a tool for controlling growth. He felt the Council could use their powers for this purpose. Mayor Taylor agreed that the Council has legal responsibility and authority, though limited, to control growth and that the Council should not try to "pass the buck" to some other agency. He then asked if the discharge area below the dam in the area of the VA Hospital will ultimately be multiple use. Mr. Lanferman stated that it is the hope of Zone 7 that this will be multiple use. Councilman Beebe felt that Zone 7 is doing their best to make provisions for water, and if and when the communities of Dublin, CM-25- 393 September 11, 1972 (Zone 7 Bond Issue Measure) Pleasanton and Livermore want it; they are also trying to keep out of the political side of the issue and added that it is up to the Councils to face these problems without involving Zone 7. Councilman Futch concurred with the statement made by Councilman Beebe, commenting that he felt it his responsibility to find the answers to some questions which he felt satisfied had been accom- plished. Councilman Miller remarked that Zone 7 has done a good job in the past and there is no reason to feel that this should be any differ- ent in the future, but there are certain issues which still exist. * * * RECESS AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. * * * OPEN FORUM (Replacing Business Signs) Roberta Hadley, 4355 Emory Way, speaking on behalf of the Beautification Comrnittee wanted to thank the local businessmen who cooperated in changing their business signs to conform with the sign ordi- nance. The Committee feels that it has been a change which has brought about many hard feelings among the busi- nessmen; however, the ultimate result is an aesthetic enhancement in the business community. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, a resolution thanking the merchants for their cooperation regarding the sign ordinance was passed, and the Council suggested that a letter to this effect be published in the newspaper. RESOLUTION NO. 118-72 RESOLUTION COMMENDING BUSINESSMEN FOR COOPERATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH SIGN ORDINANCE. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Dogwood Park Site Purchase The City Manager reported that of the six parcels involved in the proposed Dogwood Park site, one ownership - Mr. and Mrs. Juan Trevino - had agreed to the appraised market value price of $8,000 offered by the City, and it is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing a sales agreement for this amount, subject to the acquisition of the remaining parcels. In approving the Consent Calendar Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard wished to have their negative vote noted on this particular item. * * * Communication re A letter was received from Mrs. Bernice Allen, Sign Ordinance expressing her objection to the use of smaller signs in Livermore. She feels that larger signs along the highways are very helpful and that the City's sign ordinance represents a step backward. She mentioned that the sign on a bank on Stanley Blvd. had been lowered and' felt it had been more attractive and easier to read before the change. Councilman Miller commented that the Councilor the ordinance had nothing to do with the change of the sign on Stanley Blvd. and CM-25-394 September 11, 1972 that the bank evidently lowered the sign for (Sign Ordinance) their own purposes. Secondly, she had suggest- ed that the Council take a poll to indicate how people feel regarding smaller signs and Councilman Miller explained that a poll had been taken by the Chamber of Commerce which showed people approved of the new sign ordinance 2-1. With regard to highway signs, he noted that the Holiday Inn has had a larger sign approved, but has not taken the opportunity to use the larger sign. Councilman Beebe stated he would have to agree with Mrs. Allen's statement that the Holiday Inn sign is a disgrace to the Inn and the City of Livermore. He felt that on the freeway even the larger sign approved by the Council is too small. * * * Pearl R. Stroud has written to the Council thanking them for their action in July in which the Council declared the completion of Springtown Blvd. to be long overdue. Communication re Springtown Blvd. * * * Formerly the City Council authorized the nego- tiation of a lease-purchase plan for the acqui- sition of two fire pumper units and the solicitation of bids for same. Letters of solicitation as to the lease-purchase means of financing were sent to all local banking institutions. The lowest interest quote was from Bank of America at a rate of 4t% per annum for an $85,000 lease-purchase plan with repayment scheduled over five annual installments. Bids have been received with the following results: Report re Bids Fire Pumper Units Two Apparatus wi Ward Alternates 1 & 2 Van Pelt Howe LaFrance l~Single stage pump $79,678.00 $79,554.80 $97,612.00 2 Standard transmission Tax 4,382.27 3,977.74 4,720.00 Total $84,060.27 $83,532.54 $102,332.00 Tax Adj. for Bart +0.5% + 397.97 + 459.06 Credit Allowance for Delivery - 200.00 None - 2,900.00 Radio + Sirens (Inc.Tax) 3,223.02 3,221.97 3,410.00 TOTAL $t)7,0t)3.29 $t)7,152.4t) $103,301. 06 It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing award of the vehicle purchase to Van Pelt Company, Oakdale, and execution of the lease-purchase agreement with Bank of America. * * * Phase I of the Capital Improvements Projects include the following: 72-2 72-8 71-29 72-51 71-28 1972-73 Street Resurfacing Rincon Avenue Storm Drain So. "H" Street Storm Drain So. "I" Street Storm Drain So. "J" Street Storm Drain Report re 1972-73 Capital Improvements Project - Phase I Construction bids have been received for Mission Pipeline, Inc. W. H. Ebert Corp & Spartan Const. Galbraith Construction Co., Inc. Silva's Pipeline, Inc. McGuire & Hester Richard Yackley, Inc. Engineer's Estimate this work as follows: $134,870.25 151,028.50 153,464.90 154,445.65 166,036.00 172,001.80 165,812.65 CM- 25- 39:, September 11, 1972 (Construction Bids-Phase I) Denial of Claim Payroll and Claims Approval of Consent Calendar APPEAL RE VARIANCE (T. H. Olsen) It is recommended that a motion be adopted author- izing execution of a contract with Mission Pipe- line, Inc. This item was removed for later discussion. * * * A claim has been filed by Hurd & Jamison on behalf of Valentino Forney in the amount of $500,000 for personal injuries, and it is re- commended that a resolution be adopted denying said claim. RESOLUTION NO. 117-72 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF VALENTINO FORNEY * * * One hundred seventy-four claims dated September 8, 1972 in the amount of $150,215.91; two hundred seventy-eight payroll warrants dated August 24, in the amount of $65,584.19 and two hundred seventy-eight in the amount of $63,015.35 dated September 8 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved with the ex- ception of the first item pertaining to the Dogwood Park site which was voted on separately, as well as the Capital Improvements Project. * * * The variance denial appeal submitted by T. H. Olsen to reduce off-street parking at 2954 Fourth Street has been continued to this meeting; however, a request for withdrawal has now been submitted, and it is anticipated that the matter will be scheduled at a later date. Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the withdrawal, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion was approved unanimously. DISCUSSION RE SO. PACIFIC DEVELO PMENT * * * Mayor Taylor explained that the matter regarding further discussion of the proposed commercial de- velopment by the Southern Pacific Development Company is to be postponed. There are a number of alternate plans and cost estimates being prepared as well as track realignment plans. It has been recommended that the matter be postponed until September 25 to allow time to gather all the technical data necessary. He advised that any public testi- mony should be withheld until that time. The City Manager explained that the City is faced with a time con- straint imposed by state statute on grade crossing grants. He added that he does not mean to imply that the City Council will be asked to participate in a grade separation project this year; however, it is conceivable. The deadline for this type of appli- cation is September 22, and an application for this particular matter has been drafted by a consulting engineer who did the design for the downtown development plan, and in the City Manager's opinion, it would be prudent for the City to file an application for at least the "P" Street grade separation project. Nothing would be lost in doing so; if nothing is done the City is pre-empted from proceeding this year. Mr. Parness recommended that the Council adopt a reso- lution authorizing filing of an application for the "P" Street section. CM-25-396 A motion that the application be made as in previous years was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously. September 11, 1972 (So. Pacific Development Co.) RESOLUTION NO. 119-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO FILE A NOMINATION DOCUMENT - PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Bob Abair, 779 El Rancho, appearing as the spokesman for his neighborhood explained that they feel this is the time to formalize their objections regarding the replacement of the Southern Pacific tracks and possible joint trackage with Western Pacific as well as to present their objective alternative plans. He pointed out his objections of the train whistles, the clanging at the inter- section of Murrieta Blvd., and the general noise of a train by playing back a tape recording of a train approaching Livermore from Pleasanton and another moving towards Pleasanton, which was recorded from his bedroom window. He stated that this type of noise is tolerated at intervals up until 1:30 a.m. and commencing again at 3:30 a.m. daily - 7 days a week. He complained about the dust the trains stir up and felt they exceed the allowable noise level, and invited any member of the Council to visit his home at any time to listen to a passing train. The people in the area feel joint trackage or parallel trackage will be adding twice the noise, dust, and safety hazards to their children. Mr. Abair noted hazards created by tracks and referred to pictures which were submitted to the Council by David Proffit prior to this meet- ing, which were illustrations of hazards and indications that tracks appeal to children. The neighbors feel that joint track- age would result in a loss of value to their property and they estimate 130 homes will be affected in this loss. He then gave four alternate proposals, explaining that they would appreciate the Council's consideration of these plans though they may mean additional expense: 1) move the trains outside of town on land which can then be developed commercially; 2) move Western Pacific to the Southern Pacific location for the portion between Rincon and Murrieta, using an underpass for the trains rather than cars; 3)rather than using a temporary bypass with an "s" curve to be used during construction, why not use this as a permanent bypass keeping the tracks away from homes and then placing them at the Western Pacific location after they have passed the area in which the homes are located; 4) locate both trains in the center of the field - the center of what is now Southern Pacific and Western Pacific. He added that they would like to see the relocation of the passing track which now exists on Western Pacific Railroad. They feel that Southern Pacific Development Company is not concerned with the citizens of Livermore, or what they desire, but are interested only in financial gain and he urged the Council to consider the citizens. The Mayor suggested that the plans be directed to the City Engineer who could determine the feasibility of the alternate proposals. He thanked Mr. Abair for speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, saving time involved in listening to testimony from numerous individuals. * * * CONTINUED DISCUSSION It has been reported that the former landscape RE 2nd ST. LIGHTING consultant firm has recommended that the street standard height for the lighting of Second st. should be a maximum structure height of 22 ft. The staff has re- commended that the Council adopt a motion confirming the Second Street light standard design and installation at a maximum of 22 ft. height limitation. Councilman Miller moved that the Council approve the recommendation to adopt the design and installation of the standards at a maximum of 22 ft. height limitation, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. CM-25-397 September 11, 1972 (2nd Street Liahtina) o 0 The Public Works Director asked the Council to consider the factor of glare which is related to distance from the pavement and results in dis- comfort and blinding effects. The 25 ft. height would help to alleviate this type of glare and, in his opinion, the 22 ft. maximum height would present a problem. He added that the aesthetic value would not be substantially minimized should they decide upon a taller standard. Another problem with the shorter standard is uneven illumination which would be improved by using the taller standard. There was some discussion regarding the fact that what is being considered is a 25% more glare factor if the shorter standard is used, and Councilman Miller mentioned that there is not a consid- erable amount of traffic using Second Street since it is not a through street, during the hours the lights would be on. There is not that much need for brilliant lighting on Second Street, we could use lighting of lesser wattage, thereby saving on the power cost, to avoid the minor increase in glare. Mr. Lee explained the source of light is not that critical; with less powerful source of light there would still be the difference in glare problem between the two. Mr. Lewis stated that the Council should consider whether or not it becomes a definite safety hazard by using a standard which is three feet lower. Mr. Lee added that we are at a critical point now, and we would be adding to it as we cannot consider only a three foot difference beause the recommended pole height is 30 ft. Garrett Drummond, 567 So. L street, stated that there are distri- bution patterns which should be considered, of which there are five, and he felt that the problem of glare might be kept down with the proper distribution pattern. A vote was then taken on the motion which was approved unanimously. * * * REPORT RE ADULT CROSSING GUARD (El Caminito- Wagoner Drive) A report was received from the Assistant City Engineer regarding a request for an adult cross- ing guard at the intersection of El Caminito and Wagoner Drive, stating that a survey of this inter- section had been taken and in accordance with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee it does not warrant the need for a crossing guard. Councilman Pritchard questioned the necessity for using the estab- lished guidelines, and wondered if we could not use our own guide- lines for establishing the need. Mayor Taylor stated they have just adopted these guidelines, and if the method was changed it would be necessary to look at many other areas; they should carefully consider the implications of such action. The Council discussed the recommended warrants and Councilman Beebe felt if they were discarded, it would be necessary to appropriate more funds in the budget and reconsider the whole situation. Councilman Pritchard stated the warrants are not mandatory, but rather recommended and did not feel that the number of cars should be as great as Warrant #3 indicates. Councilman Futch felt Warrant #1 is greatly exceeded as to the number of children crossing and did not think it should be necessary that all warrants be met. Mayor Taylor also mentioned the age of the children, because due to construction many very small children are required to cross at this intersection, and Mr. Lee stated it referred to elementary CM-25-398 school children only. Mr. Lee added that an extensive study had been made to develop the warrants and he did not feel the Council should depart from these accepted warrants. September 11, 1972 (Crossing Guard) Mayor Taylor stated that they have approved guards in the past where there are extenuating circumstances and he would like to respond to these types of requests; however, to be fair, they would have to hire twenty or thirty more crossing guards. Councilman Miller questioned the cost for each crossing guard, and Mr. Parness replied that he did not have that figure, but that the budget for the year approximates $15,000 for about twelve guards. Councilman Miller asked if the Police Department and School Dis- trict would consider a volunteer parent organization to serve as crossing guards if parents were willing to set one up, and Mr. Parness stated that the staff would be receptive to this sugges- tion to work under the auspices of the Police Department. Mr. Parness stated that, in fact, he had discussed with the new Police Chief the prospect of possibly broadening the school traffic patrol if it meets with the favor of the School District. The Council favored pursuit of a volunteer parent organization or reinstitution of the school traffic patrol program. Councilman Futch asked if an investigation could be made of the number of other similar crossings and the Council concurred with this suggestion. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to approve a crossing guard at the intersection under discussion, however the motion failed for lack of a second. Mayor Taylor made a motion that a reply be sent to the vice princi- pal stating, on behalf of the Council, they appreciate his con- cern however they must investigate other areas for the cost of changing standards and, in the meantime, an attempt will be made to set up a volunteer organization. The motion was seconded by Councilman Futch and approved unanimously. * * * Milo Nordyke, Chairman of the Industrial Ad- visory Board, indicated that he would like to make an oral report to the Council, adding that other members of the Industrial Advisory Board were also in attendance. These members were Bill Bozzini, Bob Tiecke, Bob Hampton and Herman Leider. He pointed out that the charter and philosophy of the group is that they do want to increase industrial development in Livermore and would like to do several things which they feel will attract industry. They realize that certain types of in- dustry would not be desirable but feel that other restrictions or requirements will control this type of unwanted industry. Indus- try would be a source of revenue to the City through taxes paid as well as an opportunity for employment for local citizens; though there are those, however, who do not agree that industry would be an advantage. In order to attract industry he felt the image of Livermore will have to be changed. To illustrate his point he commented that a survey had been taken in the leading competitive East Bay cities as well as San Leandro, Oakland, Hayward, Union City and Fremont, of their industrial development requirements. The survey indicated, if they are rated in a qualitative way, Livermore is one of the most restrictive in almost every category, and this is probably one of the main reasons why this City is one of the cities which has the greatest need for industry. To improve this situation they made the following REPORT RE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CM-25-399 September 11, 1972 recommendations: I) That the City undertake a comprehensive review of the zoning laws and in- dustrial development standards. They have not been reviewed in the past twelve years and are outdated in that they are based on a philosophy different than that of current development; 2) during the interim time an emergency ordinance is enacted to amend the present zon- ing laws to provide for some of these changes that (a) lot coverage be increased from 50% to 70%, (b) the parking require- ments be made 20% or I parking space for every l~ employee, and (c) that landscaping be required for the first 10 feet from the property line plus the 10 ft. easement - a 20 ft. strip. He pointed out that the report given to the Council which indicated 10% landscaped area was incorrect. 3) During the interim period while the zoning ordinances are being reviewed the Council make a policy statement that each industry will be handled on an "Ad hoc" basis, perhaps under a Conditional Use Permit, for example. They would like Livermore to make it known that this City is interested in industry, regardless of past impressions, and that it is trying to improve its attractiveness for industrial development. (Industrial Development Standards) Councilman Futch asked if the committee had taken into considera- tion the fact that a restaurant, for example, would require more parking than the recommended 20%, to which Mr. Nordyke replied that the 20% applies to industry and parking percentage would be de- termined by the use. Councilman Futch then questioned whether these changes would have to go through the Planning Commission. The City Attorney explained that they would have to go through the Planning Commission, with the exception of an interim urgency ordinance. There was some question in his mind as to whether this would qualify for that type of treatment. To answer another question posed by Councilman Futch, he stated that the duration of an interim urgency ordinance is either 90 days, which the Council can extend, or a length of time can be chosen up to one year. Councilman Futch felt the survey had saved the Council a great deal of time. He agreed that changes are needed and expressed his willingness to ~~Z<..t~~~~ions Councilman Miller asked if the recommended 20% for parking referred to the building or the property; the recommendation states "site coverage" which implies 20% of the building. Mr. Nordyke explained that the 20% refers to the property, observ- ing that the language of the recommendations must be tightened up. Councilman Miller concurred that the first and third parts of the recommendation are reasonable and exactly what the City should do; however, he expressed concern for expanding lot coverage from 50% to 70%. He offered a variation - to abandon the 50% and possibly go as high as 70% depending on the specific case. Mr. Nordyke felt the philosophy of the committee is that things which are financially important to the developer should be con- sidered; such as lot coverage. This is important to the developer and does not affect the economics of the City. Other things such as drainage fees, etc., on the other hand, result in substantial cost and cannot be waived by the City. Councilman Beebe felt the Industrial Advisory Committee is work- ing very hard and industriously and is very concerned about this matter. He commented that it would probably behoove the Council, before a full scale master plan is developed, to grant their re- quest. In view of the fact that each and everyone will come before the Planning Commission and then to the Council there could be discussion and compromise. Mr. Nordyke suggested a compromise of a limitation of 70% on sites smaller than some arbitrary number. CM-25-400 The Mayor asked, for clarification, if the recommendation is that the Council immediately adopt the specific changes in building coverage restrictions, landscaping and parking; that all other items of the zoning ordinance :and develop- ment standards will be subject to "ad hoc" review. September 11, 1972 (Industrial Development Standards) Mr. Nordyke commented that, essentially, that is the correct in- terpretation. The central problem is the parking and lot cover- age which they wish to modify, and the other problems can be negotiated. Mayor Taylor suggested that the staff prepare an ordinance to proceed with haste. Mr. Musso reminded the Council that this would require a public hearing, and the length of time involved would be approximately six weeks. Councilman Futch moved to direct the staff to prepare an ordi- nance, as soon as possible, and to consider modification of the ordinance on a longer time basis; seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed by unanimous approval. Mayor Taylor explained that the intent of the Council is not to make it easier for commercial business to develop in indus- trial area; they will have to meet present conditions. Mr. Nordyke then brought up the problem of un- dergrounding 60 KV lines an Southfront Road. It was cancluded that undergraunding of these lines is nat technically or economically feas- ible. As a result, the 60 KV lines will remain an the poles on Southfront Road. The Cauncil agreed in the past to. require the owner to put in a pipe for the 12 KV lines to go underground, but not for the installatian required to make it a functional system. The installation would amaunt to. an estimated $10,000 for this parcel. The Cammittee then looked at the cost of putting in the plastic pipe which would amount to $1,200 for this parcel. They decided that due to the fact it could not be determined how long the plastic pipe could be in the ground and what condition it would be in at the time the lines are installed, they recommend unanimously that undergrounding af 12 KV lines not be required in this particular area at this time and when development occurs. The exception would be the line between the road and the plant. All telephone lines will have to be underground. UNDERGROUNDING 60 KV POWERLINES To. summarize, the Mayor stated that narmally all 12 KV wires would be required to go underground; however, if the 60 KV lines remain exposed, why not allow the 12 KV lines to remain abave also at this time. Mr. Nardyke stated that he daes not mean to. imply that under- grounding in the area will never take place, but would rather say that perhaps PG&E can be persuaded to pay far this cost or that the tax dollars received from the industrial park can be used for this purpose. He felt that one years taxes wauld take care af the matter. Cauncilman Miller noted that he would hate to see the tax revenue diverted to. other causes when the money is needed to help support the other services. Secondly, he is not willing to see the under- grounding bypassed ar nat made a requirement at this time. Southfront Road is one of the faces of the City and can be observed by the public traveling along US 580 and every effort should be made to improve the appearance. He suggested that some method be used to insure that undergrounding will take place at some time, nat to abandon it at this point. CM-25-401 September 11, 1972 (Industrial Development Standards) The Council then discussed pros and cons of under- grounding only a portion af the lines involved along Southfront Road, agreements and bonds for future installation. Cauncilman Beebe mentioned that the long range program af PG&E is to replace the 60 KV lines with 21 KV substations; however, this may take ten to twenty years. Mr. Nordyke felt that with the revenue the City will receive from industrial development, it might be worth taking a few risks re- garding undergrounding at a later date. Councilman Futch moved to accept the recommendations of the Indus- trial Advisory Committee, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Miller stated that he could not agree to the motion be- cause, in his opinion, the City would be taking the view that standards can be lowered to keep in line with the competition of other neighboring cities; other things besides standards could account for the desirability af a site such as the price of land. He emphasized that there must be a way undergrounding can be paid for at a later date and at the same time not discourage a decision to. locate here. He urged that the Cauncil defer the undergrounding rather than eliminating it as a requirement. Bob Hampton explained that if there is a contract giving the de- veloper the responsibility af installing the 12 KV, this will be far more expensive to him than the already approved methad of installing the pipes underground. He expressed concern for placing artificial barriers which may discourage development. He felt there is much to be gained from income to the City through these developments and, in his opinion, placing the pipe underground will nat accelerate the speed with which the 12 KV will actually be installed. He asked that the Council not do anything to discourage development, and then move ahead toward installation of these lines in the future. The Council at this time voted 4-1 in favor of Councilman Futch's motion; the dissenting vote was by Councilman Miller. Mayor Taylor thanked the Committee, on behalf of the Council, for the many meetings they have held and the time invalved in this praject. Councilman Miller asked Mr. No-rdyke what the Committee's oplnlon is of why Livermore has a bad image in the minds of the industrial developers. Mr. Nordyke felt that this depends upon who you talk to and the impression they received. Different things affect different people, and it is therefore hard to say. For one thing, he felt the de- velopment fees and storm drain fees were excessive compared to other areas; another thing being that it seems there is no flexible philosophy in terms of trying to solve the developer's problem. He attributed this to the fact that the City is accustamed to dealing with tract developers where the City must make sure that it is protected in every way. Bob Hampton pointed out that some of the reasons could be that industry in Livermore would be further away from supply houses and the telephone bill could be quite high if most of their tele- phone calls must be made to the Bay Area. He felt that the im- pressian was not all bad by any means, through his own experience. * * * REPORT RE STATUS EL CHARRO RD The City Manager reported that in March 1964 the City Council passed a resolution urging Divisian of Highways to construct the interchange, however CM-25-402 September 11, 1972 there was no reference regarding a cannecting (El Charro Road) roadway or destiny of El Charro Road. The essence was directed to getting gravel trucks off public streets in the vicinity. Mr. Parness stated that he had talked to. County Road Department and the State Division of Highways in this regard and the response was that the state and Bureau of Public Roads did their usual cost benefit study. He had asked about the economic feasibility of constructing the inter- change as opposed to installing service roads because they are abligated to do that as entrance ways to. the freeway, but it was faund to be more economical to. construct the interchange than to. construct the service roads. In addition, there were two addi- tional side features: 1) to try to promote the idea of keeping the gravel trucks, as far as possible, off the public ways; 2) the Pleasanton general plan does show El Charro Road for future dedi- catian an through to Stanley Blvd. Mayor Taylar remarked that there is a big discussion in Pleasantan at the present time regarding the gravel trucks; they wauld like all to use El Charro Road. He did not feel there was any action that the Cauncil should take as it is in the Pleasanton planning area and they may resalve the situatian. It is evident that there was no vialation of an agreement. * * * The Public Works Director submitted a report re the Airway Blvd. bridge design advising that the preliminary study has been completed and three alternate designs have been considered and cast estimates made on each as follaws: REPORT RE AIRWAY BLVD. BRIDGE DESIGN Ij An Armco Super-span Multi-plate 3 arch design 2 Two-span composite concrete and steel girder 3 Three-span composite concrete and steel girder $198,000 271,000 268,000 The triple span corrugated metal arch structure is the lease expensive and is considered to be very satisfactory and is recommended. Mayor Taylor questioned the Exhibit "All with regard to. the channel and Mr. Lee explained that the idea is to relocate the channel which is an incidental effect, and he further explained the reasan for the change. Councilman Futch asked if the trailway was cansidered in the bridge design as he felt it should be since the channel was being relocated, hawever Mr. Lee explained that the height af the bridge above the high waterline wauld not allow far the trail, but bicycle lanes are provided in the width of the bridge. Mr. Lee stated there are no detailed plans for the trail system in this area, but he will check into. this and repart back to the Council and anything that can be done to accommodate the trails will be done. Mr. Musso cammented that the trailway comes from town and terminates at the golf course by paralleling Airway Blvd. however Councilman Futch stated he felt it wauld have to crass Airway Blvd. somewhere and this should be a part of the whole design. Councilman Futch also pointed out that the right angle bend does not look natural, and felt the channel should be made to loak more natural. Mr. Parness explained that the same principle is involved as in street locations; insafar as possible these impravements are equally divided on property lines. Cauncilman Pritchard moved to. adopt the recommendation of the Public Works Director, seconded by Councilman Miller. CM-25-403 September 11, 1972 (Airway Blvd. Bridge Design) Councilman Beebe questioned if this money could not be better used for an overpass on "p" Street, but Mr. Lee stated this bridge was critical since it is a hazardous area, and it will always be travelled since it is an entrance to the industrial area. heavily A vote was taken on the motion which passed unanimously. * * * COUNTY REFERRAL RE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (Kumparak) A referral was received from the County re appli- cation of G. S. Kumparak for Tentative Parcel Map No. 969, to permit division of 4.86 acre parcel into three parcels on a site located between Con- cannon Blvd. and Lomitas Ave., 607 feet west of ArroyJ Road. Mr. Musso. explained that the proposal to cluster or create on lots with an easement to Concannon Blvd. is acceptable, but the problem is how to get the property owners to participate in the Concannon Blvd. improvements and the Lomitas Avenue impravements and also some future extension of the sewer and water lines. The area does have the capability of quite a few residential dwellings once it is divided. The normal recommendation would be to require, as a condition of the subdivision, that they widen the street and provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, etc.; however this is not required by the County. The Planning Commission suggested a delay; the second alternative is that they dedicate all the right-of-way and just assume that the City will pay the cost of improvements at a later date, including an eccentric widening which is occurring in this case due to change in street standards. The third alterna- tive of the staff is to make the standard recommendation with the alternate of having the right-of-way dedicated. Mayor Taylor stated that the Planning Commission is proposing that we ask the County, as a condition of allowing the subdivision, to require connection to the sewers, dedication of the necessary right- of-way for street and trailway and assurance that they will parti- cipate in any future improvement district to install any future improvements in the right-of-way. Mr. Musso. stated they did not specify improvement district, but rather at such time as aver 50% of the frontages are committed that they then participate. There followed a discussion of right-of-way required for bicycle paths; why the property owner wished to subdivide if he objected to dedicating land for a street. Mr. Lewis advised that the backing lot treatment poses problems in that there is no access from that tract into the street; however, Mr. Musso stated there are other alternatives. Mayor Taylor stated this might be an opportunity for access to a frontage road, however Mr. Musso commented this has been investi- gated but then there would be even greater problems with slopes. Mr. Lee stated it has been the County's practice not to require any of these improvements so they can anticipate that requirement will not be made and all the City can do is ask for what we would normally require if they were in the City and go on record as doing so. Mayor Taylor noted that at the last Supervisors' meeting he attended he drew the canclusion that the Supervisors will be reluctant to approve lots adjacent to. the City until their survey of residential zoning in the Caunty has been completed. He did not feel the County would approve this subdivision, over the City's objection, into. lots smaller than five acres without requiring City standards. CM-25-404 Mr. Musso stated that the zoning is proper in this area, and it will prabably be referred back as a variance if they proceed, due to frontage. September 11, 1972 (Tentative Parcel Map - Kumparak) Cauncilman Miller pointed aut that the recommendation requires a sewer cannectian within 300 ft. of a dwelling; since these proper- ties are long, 300 ft. may not be applicable to the dwelling. He suggested that the warding "dwelling" be changed to read "property". He then maved that the Cauncil recammend denial unless the approval were subject to the following recommendations, listing the Planning commissian's recommendatians and using "property" rather than "dwelling". The Mayar clarified the Cauncil's stand by explaining that the owner shall be required to hook up to the City sewer when it comes within 300 ft. of the property. In his opinian a sewer connection should be made a candition of any development in the City. Cauncilman Miller nated that the Cauncil would still want con- formance to Exhibit "X" along with the other conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. He affered an amendment to his motion to add that approval be subject to the fallawing canditians: 1. Requirement for sewer cannectian agreement. 2. Conformance to Exhibit "X". 3. That the right-of-way necessary to allow a 104 ft. width for Concannon Blvd. and a 60 ft. width for Lomitas Avenue be dedicated to the County for road and bike path purposes as indicated on Exhibit "X". 4. That the subdivider be required and assurances be given that he will participate in the provision of any public works im- provements for Concannon Blvd. and Lomitas Ave., including street paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain, and water lines, and street lighting at such time as over 50% of the lineal street frantage of said streets is similarly committed. The motian was secanded by cauncilman Futch and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Beebe maved that the Council send a letter to the Caunty thanking them for consider- ing the protest of the Council against a trailer park to. be located an Vasco Road, and the sub- sequent denial, thereaf; seconded by Councilman Miller, and unanimously. THANK COUNTY - TRLR PARK DENIAL (Cooper-Vasco Rd.) appraved * * * The County has referred a CUP to allow a re- tail sales use for boats and motors to be located at 5715 Southfront Rd. The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to. the following conditions: 1) Connection to City sewer line, and 2) canformance to. ardinance requirements, signing and fencing. REPORT RE CUP BOATS, ETC. SOUTHFRONT RD. (County Referral) including Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission with the addition that bonding be re- quired far the two. items they listed and that this be listed as Item 3. This mation failed for lack of a second. The Mayor mentianed that bonding of this type has never been re- quired and the Council then discussed the pros and cons of requiring same type af banding. CM-25-405 September 11, 1972 (cuP re Boats County Referral) MOTION TO ADJOURN Councilman Futch moved that the Cauncil accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, se- conded by Councilman Beebe, which passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Pritchard and Miller dissenting. * * * Councilman Pritchard, at midnight, moved that the Council meeting adjourn but the motion did not receive a second and therefore failed. Councilman Pritchard left his seat on the Council to emphasize that he feels the Council meetings should end at midnight. COUNTY REFERRAL RE MINIMUM LOT SIZE (Collier Canyan Rd.) * * * Regarding the County referral for a variance application to. permit reductian of minimum lot size at 5210 Collier Canyon Road, two miles north of US 580, the Planning Commissian adapted the staff report for transmittal to the County, sub- ject to the Council's approval, with the fallowing conditions: 1) a sewer connection agreement specifying hookup when the City sewer comes within 300 ft. of the site; 2) installa- tian of public works improvements through bonding; 3) structures shall be set back at least 77 ft. from the Collier Canyon Road centerline. Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt the Planning Com- missian's recommendations, secanded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion was approved unanimously (Councilman Pritchard absent). PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE MUNI CODE AMENDMENT (Bedroom Tax) REPORT RE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS * * * Councilman Beebe moved that the second reading of the Municipal Code Amendment far license pro- visians on residential construction (Bedroom Tax) be continued for thirty days, after the special election for park bonds. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed unanimously. (Cauncilman Pritchard absent). * * * The Council had removed this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. The construction bids have been received as listed in the Consent Calen- dar, and a recommendation that a motion be adopted authorizing execution of a contract with Mission Pipeline, Inc. Councilman Futch remarked that he would like to see gas tax money put into a fund which will be set aside for future grade separatian. He then moved that the Council approve the recommendation of the Public Works Director, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and which was appraved unanimously. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Expanded Agenda) * * * The City Clerk noted that a letter from the AAUW has requested that an expanded agenda be made available to them over the weekend such as the one used at Council meetings. The City Clerk suggested that since much of the information placed in the agenda, mainly for the Council's infar- mation and that of the staff, would not be of interest to the AAUW observer and that if, upon receiving the agenda, further information was required that a request be made for that particular document. CM-25-406 September 11, 1972 The complete falder made available at the library (Expanded Agenda) and autside the Cauncil meeting door wauld fur- ther assist any abserver. Councilman Miller moved that all private groups be striken from the list of those who. receive an expanded agenda, secanded by Councilman Futch. Mayar Taylar painted out that this mation would result in the Chamber of Cammerce no. langer receiving a capy. The motion passed 3-1 with Cauncilman Beebe dissenting. cilman Pritchard absent). ( Caun- * * * Councilman Beebe felt it unfair for the Council to restrict the development of small beautifi- catian spots far commercial develapments when people are allowed to fill newly constructed swimming pools which take 100 gallons of water. He suggested that peaple not be allowed to fill swimming pools during the peak hours and that the beautification areas be allawed if they are not watered during the peak hours. MATTERS INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL (cammercial Area Landscaping) The City Attorney pointed out that the intent af the ordinance prohibiting the beautification of certain areas was probably aimed at developments having acres af landscaping. Cauncilman Beebe moved that the partian af the ordinance restrict- ing the landscaping be remaved, seconded by Councilman Futch, and received the unanimous approval of the Council. The staff was instructed to. make the necessary changes in the ordinance to reflect their motion. * * * Councilman Futch stated that he would be in favor of endorsing the Coast Zone Conservation Act Initiative, as the residents of Livermore are fairly close to the coast and probably go there on weekends. He moved that the Council endarse this initiative, which was secanded by (Endorsement af Coast Zone Initiative) Councilman Miller. Councilman Beebe explained that he has not read any infarmation which wauld enable him to vate ane way ar anather on the matter. Councilman Futch then read a partian af the initative to. the Council for information purposes. The Council concluded that the matter will be discussed after Councilman Beebe has had a chance to read informatian an the matter. * * * (Re Itemized List - Valley Wide Plan) Councilman Futch mentioned that he has received numeraus phane calls regarding the cauncil in- tent in reference to the Valley wide plan. He suggested that the staff be directed to prepare an itemized list of the steps the Council intends to take - specifically, the cast benefit analysis to be prepared by the City Manager for the narth side of the highway, as well as other steps to be taken for the purpose of better informing the public. Mayar Taylor explained that there are a number af things going on at this particular time: 1) a cast benefit analysis, 2) the Council has agreed to. participate in a Valleywide General Plan and the staff is warking on it to see what scope this involves, CM-25-407 September 11, 1972 (Valley Wide Plan) plus 3) a General Plan review, which the staff is also working out as far as the steps involved. Councilman Miller noted that the previous Council asked that a cost benefit analysis be done for the ftol Lh b.LJc, wIlleh in only 11 fragment of the Cenera.l Plan a-I-'e.a, 3.nd he -B::.~.ffia.:t-the Goul1cil expand thin to oon~~he _w~e~eral Plan area. Mayor Taylor felt the north side 'r~sents the majority of the proposed holding capacity and that the south side is specifically well planned. * * * (Parking of Used Cars far Sale in Park- ing Lot) Councilman Futch brought up the problem of con- tinued parking af cars and trucks with "for sale" signs in the future Longs' Drug Store site. He asked if this was illegal, and Mr. Musso explained that this is private property and not much can be done to prohibit parking there. * * * ADJOURNMENT Mayar Taylor adjourned the Council meeting at 12:25 a.m. to a brief executive session for dis- cussian of a legal matter. * * * APPROVE ~ Cfk, Mf ~ ,(~ '-... \ji~. ~ Ci Liverm e, California ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of September 18, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 18, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. with Mayar Pro. Tempore Miller presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch and Miller ABSENT: Mayor Taylor * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * OPEN FORUM No comments were made at this time. * * * CM-25-408 September 18, 1972 CONSENT CALENDAR The City Attarney has asked the City Council for permission to authorize the legal firm of Bransan, Bronson and McKinnan to. be retained in association with the City Attorney's office regarding the litigation of the City vs. General Insurance (SAFECO). The firm is highly qualified in insurance matters. In answer to a questian regarding fees, Mr. Lewis explained that this would be approximately $40 to $50 an haur when used. Report re Litigation (Judgment-Amadar Valley vs. City) * * * A letter was received from the Granada High Schaol stage Band, together with a sponsor certificate, thanking the Council for their support af the band's European tour. Cammunication fram Granada stage Band * * * The Beautification Committee submitted a copy af the minutes for their meeting of June 7. Minutes of Beauti- ficatian Cammittee * * * On motion of cauncilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimaus appraval of the Council, the Consent Calendar was appraved. Appraval of cansent Calendar * * * Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that the discussion regarding the prapased General Plan amendment was continued from the meeting of August 21st. Written comments have been re- ceived fram the Planning Director in addition to a recommendation that the Council pass a resolution the 11th Amendment to the General Plan. CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE GENERAL PU..N AMENDMENT adopting Councilman Pritchard commented that he has spoken with the owners af the Crohare praperty and Trap Rock Praperties, Inc., who. seem to be agreeable to the property being reverted to agricultural use, provided the Council and Planning Cammission review the property some time in the future. He asked the City Attorney if there are provisions for a study or holding zone. The City Attorney explained that there are no such designations in the ardinance; in his opinion, the Cauncil can designate what properly fits the piece of praperty. Councilman Pritchard stated there is no. abjection fram the awners to the agricultural designation provided there is a later study, and what they would like to do is to. come to. the Planning Com- mission within a year with their plans. If they do. not came forth with plans within a year, it would revert to agricultural or be left unclassified. Councilman Futch felt it was a matter of principle, the Cauncil is suppased to. give some guidelines as to. what will be allawed in the future. Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that same designation shauld be chosen and he would apprave af agricultural. Then if Trap Rack Properties presents plans to. the Planning Cammission, this wauld be fine. He felt it would be unwise to have a partion of the area unclassified designation. Councilman Pritchard maved that the Council adopt the General Plan Amendment, as recammended, with the deletion af the crahare property and Trap Rock Properties, Inc. to be reviewed in one year and now to remain agricultural designation. CM-25-409 September 18, 1972 (General Plan Amendment) Mayor pro tempore Miller suggested a division of the motion: 1) map approval and 2) a motion stat- ing that the Planning Cammissian be directed to iniate a restudy of the Trap Rock property in a year. The motion made by Cauncilman Pritchard was seconded by Council- man Beebe at this time. Robert S. Reed, representing Tra~ Rock Praperties, Inc., explained that it will cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000 to develop the area and they would like some time to develop their concepts. He asked that the Council allow an opportunity to see what can be developed in the area and pointed out that the Council always has the option of rejecting their plans. They only ask that they not be faced with planning of land which has been pre-empted. He fur- ther explained that they will be looking at plans which will benefit the City. Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that the motion made by Council- man Pritchard, the one yet to. come, and the desires of Mr. Reed would be, he felt, compatible. Councilman Pritchard commented that regardless of a designation of property, it does not prevent a developer from coming to the City with suggested plans for development. However, it is the intent of the Council that the property will be reconsidered within a year, at which time there will be another public hearing. The Planning Director advised that before a considerable amaunt of maney is spent for plans the property owners shauld consult with the Planning Commission and Planning Department in order to be in- formed as to what will be allowed. He then mentianed, with regard to. the map, that basically no. changes have been made with the ex- ception of Areas#38 and #39 which have reverted back to agricultural designatian and in the vicinity af the airport where it was shown as urban and agricultural is now shown to be industrial. Councilman Futch stated that he would like to. vote far the General Plan amendment with the exception that he would like to adhere to the Planning Commission's recommendation. He then made a motian to amend the motion made by Councilman Pritchard to reflect that they retain the Planning Commission's recammended designations, but the motion failed for lack of a second. Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that normally he might agree with Councilman Futch; however, when the property is reconsidered in a year, the fact that the Planning Commissian made a recommendation for a certain density will not be lost and will be part of the consideration in the future. Far this reasan he felt to leave it agricultural could do the City no harm and, furthermore, it would not prejudice the Trap Rock owners. There being no. further discussion regarding the matter, Mayor pro tempore Miller asked for a vote on the motion which passed with the unanimous approval of the Council. Councilman Pritchard moved to direct the Planning Commission to. review the property designation at the request of Trap Rock Properties, Inc., seconded by Councilman Beebe, which was approved unanimousl~ The Council then discussed the text of the General Plan Amendment, which Mr. Musso. explained with regard to revisions and population projections. Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that the population projection might cause people who inquire to be too optimistic. Councilman Pritchard suggested that a sentence be inserted to indi- cate that due to possible limitations set by regional planning CM-25-410 agencies, the number projected for the po pula- tian may be lower by the year 2000. September 18, 1972 (General Plan Amendment) Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the Council adopt the text of the 11th General Plan Amendment with the changes the Planning Director suggested and the sentence as stated above. This matian was secanded by Councilman Beebe and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 120-72 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 11th AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN MAP AND TEXT * * * Mayor pro. tempore Miller explained that the dis- cussian of the proposed Zaning Ordinance amend- ment regarding trailers had been continued to. this meeting. It has been recommended that if the Council wishes, the amending ordinance can be introduced. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE TRAILERS Councilman Futch stated that the matter has been continued a number of times and he wauld like to see the Council come to a decision during this meeting. He moved that the Council introduce the ardinance as prepared, with the exception that an page 24 the comment, 110r side yardsll be stricken. He explained that it was clearly the intent to. allow side yard parking, and the discus sian is whether ar nat parking will be allowed in the front yards. Mayar pro. tempare Miller suggested that the Council first decide whether or not the matter should be placed on the ballot for vating upon by the people prior to any discussian of details they might wish to. change. cauncilman Beebe asked if the changes contained in this ardinance reflect the leeway that trailer awners have been asking for during hearings held in the past, and Councilman Futch explained that, in his opinion, mast af the camplaints are being taken care af with the new ordinance. Councilman Pritchard commented that in response to the suggestian put farth by the chair, he would be in favor af voting for the ordinance in an effort to expedite business rather than having a tie vote, explaining that he feels Mayar Taylor wauld have voted for the ordinance had he been present at the meeting; otherwise, he would prefer to see the City enforce the present ordinance. Mayor pro tempore Miller pointed out that there are a number of trailer owners who feel the present ordinance is unreasonable; however, there are also a large number of peaple who do. nat like to see trailers parked in front yards. In his opinion, the only fair way to come to. a canclusion would be to put the matter on the ballot. cauncilman Beebe thaught the matter of the trailers has been left up in the air far too long and felt the Council should come to a decision at this time, delaying it no further; he then secanded the motion made by Councilman Futch. The City Attorney then advised the warding far page 24, 4) Starage within any street frontage yard ar side yard shall be limited to ane (1) trailer or unmounted camper tap. No trailer stored in the front yard shall exceed 19 feet and in no case shall such storage be permitted when camper or camper tap exceeds ten (10) feet in height. Mayor pro. tempore Miller cammented with regard to. Item (g) on Page 25, allowing trailers to be used as tract sales offices, stating he wauld like to. see that item removed and not allow trailers to be used in this way. CM-25-411 September 18, 1972 (Z.O. Amendment re Trailers) Mr. Musso stated that he felt this might be more advantageous to the City than those permanent structures the City does not knaw what to. do with in cases where tracts have gone bankrupt. Mayar pro tempore Miller explained that the motion of Councilman Futch is to introduce the ordinance before them with the changes as stated by the City Attorney. He also expressed his regret that the Council apparently plans to abandon any attempt to place the issue on the ballat. Bill Strickland, 965 Lisbon Avenue, stated that the Council had not mentioned one word abaut safety with regard to storage af campers in front yards. He felt that a person should not be pro- hibited from parking his trailer or camper in front merely for aesthetics. He felt that the Council is guessing at what the community wants and urged that the matter be placed on the ballot, in all fairness. Councilman Futch explained that the matter of safety had not been overlooked entirely as there had been same discussian abaut the hazards of campers being stored on jacks and that nothing over 19 feet should be allowed because it would protrude onto. the side- walk when parked in most driveways. Kenneth Adamske, 961 Iroquois, felt the ardinance is very equitable to the trailer owners and that the 10 ft. height limitation would be beneficial from the standpaint of safety as well as aesthetics. In his opinion, it would be a cumbersame way to operate if the Council had to place every decision to a vote of the people, em- phasizing that he felt this is a decision which can be made by the Council. Richard Monger, 1184 Canton Avenue, commented that his respansibility to his neighborhoad is, first, as a home owner and then, secondly, as a trailer owner and has no right to park his trailer in front of his house. Likewise, he feels that neighbors have no right to impose their tastes on others. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow trailer owners too much liberty, and he urged that the Council vote against it. At this time the Cauncil voted 3-1 with to introduce the ordinance as amended. stressed the fact that he had voted for Council business. Cauncilman Miller dissenting, Again Councilman Pritchard the ordinance to expedite * * * RE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION ACT Councilman Futch moved that the Council consider postponing discussian of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act, an initiative measure, until such time as there is a full Council present and after the League of California Cities meets, suggesting October 24th as the date. Councilman Pritchard agreed that if they wait until after they have listened to the pros and cons of the measure at the League meeting they might be better able to make a decision. He then seconded the motion which passed unanimausly. * * * REPORT RE DOGWOOD PARK SITE The City Manager reported that negotiations have been settled for the acquisition of another par- cel at the Dogwaod Park site. The purchase price of this parcel has been set at $2400, just slightly in excess of the appraised value. He recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing acceptance of this pur- chase price and to open escrow for the purpose of formally completing the sale of this parcel and two others thus far agreeable to sale. CM-25-412 There are three remaining parcels (ane awned by the church) and unless an acceptable sale price can be negotiated for them by September 25th, a recammendation will be made that candemnation praceedings be initiated. September 18, 1972 (Dagwood Park Site) Cauncilman Pritchard indicated that there wauld probably be a 2-2 vote to accept the purchase price for this parcel, so in order to expedite business, he would again be willing to. vate in favar af it as he felt Mayor Taylor would have voted far it. Councilman Futch moved to accept the purchase price far the parcel, secanded by Councilman Miller, which passed by a 3-1 vate with Councilman Beebe dissenting, and Councilman Pritchard voting in favar of the motian in order to. expedite Cauncil business. * * * The City Attarney cammented that the introduc- tion of the Municipal Code amendment would amend Ordinance 767 and 778 which pertain to commercial and industrial property only, and which delays landscaping until permitted by the Council. Last week the Council concluded that there should be no limitation on light industrial and light commercial water users for their landscaping. Therefore, the portian pertaining to that limitation is being deleted. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE COMMERCIAL (Water - re Landscaping) On motion af Councilman Beebe, seconded by Cauncilman Futch, and by unanimous vote, the ordinance was introduced, with the afore- mentianed deletion, and it was read by title only. * * * Mr. Musso stated that the Council may have naticed a dramatic change in the signs during the past week, and that all cancerned have agreed to take them down or have taken out Conditional Use Permits. MATTERS INITIATED BY THE STAFF (Signs) The City Attarney stated a notice in the Califarnia Roadside Council bulletin was very complimentary regarding the coopera- tian of the merchants for their participation in the sign program. * * * Councilman Beebe reminded the Council that a small builder in town had expressed a plea for a small number af building permits to. complete his approved tentative tract. Coun- cilman Beebe wandered if there is any way a hardship case, such as this, could be handled. (SAVE Ordinance Restrictians) Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that this had been discussed with the City Attorney earlier and it seems that the SAVE Ordi- nance, in particular, allows no exceptions of this kind. Councilman Beebe then commented abaut the well that Mr. Elliatt put in and felt that, perhaps, this well would put aut more water during the peak period than would be required by the tract. If so, could the surplus be transferred to this hardship case? Mayor pro. tempore Miller felt it would be to.o hard to. draw the legal line between a small developer with nine houses to. build and the large developer with more lots left. * * * CM-25-413 September 18, 1972 (Students' Request for Picnic Tables) Councilman Pritchard reported that 250-300 students from Livermore High School had signed a petition requesting picnic tables and park benches on the East Avenue Green near the high school. He asked if the staff could check into the matter to. see if something has been provided in the budget for this site. He pointed out that the existing problem is that students tend to. congregate on lawns at private homes in the area because they have no place to sit on these greens. The staff was directed to check into the matter and report back to. the Council. * * * Councilman Futch noted that the BAAPcD plans to. require permits for industrial and cammercial development in areas which have smog problems and that they could possibly deny development in these areas. He urged the Council to adopt a resolution oppos- ing this methad, as he felt it is poar planning to allow unrffitricted residential growth while prohibiting industrial and commercial de- velopment. He felt there must be a balance between the two.. One reason he objects to this type of planning is that it forces people to commute. (Re BAAPcD Permit to Build Industrial Dev.) Councilman Pritchard suggested that Councilman Futch meet with the staff during the week and come up with a draft of a resolutian of this type so it could be discussed at the time a full Cauncil is present next week. * * * (Executive Session) Mayor pro tempore Miller asked if the Council would attend a brief executive session after the meeting to discuss personnel and legal matters. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to attend a brief executive meeting. * * * APPROVE ~~~ '. ./., rayo.r / ;J Ud ~Q ~/ :-1:'_ /~ ...~ C Y lerk Live or~, California ATTEST * * * cM-25-414 Regular Meeting of September 25, 1972 A regular meeting af the City cauncil was held on September 25, 1972, in the Municipal Caurt Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None RO LL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On mation of Councilman Beebe, seconded by MINUTES Councilman Miller, and by the unanimous vote af the Cauncil, the minutes far the meeting of September 11, 1972 were approved as corrected. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by a 3-1 vote (Mayor Taylor abstaining as he was absent from that meeting) the minutes of the meeting of September 18, were approved as submitted. * * * Paul Tull, 2243 Linden street, cammented that OPEN FORUM he has an item to bring to the Council's atten- tion; this being an absalute violation of the public utilities. He painted aut that a sign had been placed in the City Library urging the public to vote yes on the park bonds. He stated his abjectian to the Park District's intentian to use most of the park bond maney for the purpose of acquiring more land for parks, as well as the "improper operation" which is taxing people out of their homes. He stated his feeling that the pre- sentation of the entire election was not correctly done. Mayor Taylor explained that LARPD is a separate body and the City has nothing to say regarding the way they conduct their business. * * * Mayor Taylor explained that representatives of the Chamber of Commerce are present to discuss the matter af the business license ardinance, its coverage and fee structure. SPECIAL ITEM (Business License Ordinance) Ken Mercer, Chamber of Commerce President, gave the Council a capy of the prepared statement by the local businessmen which he read to. those present. The businessmen object to. the new business license and report that af the revenue callected this year they have contributed 24.4% as well as indirectly contributing through sales, gas and cigarette tax. They feel the business license tax is a very important factor in determining whether ar nat Livermore receives new business or whether business locates in Dublin or San Ramon. He pointed out that when the new shopping center comes to. the Pleasanton area, many businesses will relacate there and more tax dollars will be going to that area; somehow these tax dollars will have to be made up and they wonder what the Cauncil intends to do to accomplish this. He mentioned that it behoves the City to try to help the merchants because it is hard to make up the deficit caused by their maving to. other cities. In his cM-25-415 September 25, 1972 opinion, the amount of new fees imposed on the business cammunity is not that great; the main reason they became upset was due to the bad pub- licity raised over the issue. He felt it was the principle of the thing that upset the merchants and that it was just one more factar discouraging business; others are the sign ordinance and site restrictions. He then read a letter fram the Diamond National Corporation voicing protest af the busi- ness license tax increase. The letter pointed out that the addi- tional tax burden would be an incentive for them to move out of the City and that 50% of their business is done with customers out of the City anyway. A second letter was written by Walton's Appliance Service, which he read also supporting protest. (Business License Fees) Councilman Miller mentioned that the Chamber reported they are responsible far $1,244,000 of revenue to. the City and asked how they arrived at that figure as it does not correspond with what he had figured they contribute. He explained that the personal pro- perty tax is hard to. estimate, as well as the real property tax and that they used average estimates to arrive at their figures. He painted aut that various calculations showing assessed evaluation for businesses vs. assessed evaluation for residences indicate that the community contributes 90% af the total property tax collected by the City and the rest comes from the business community. Mayor Taylor commented that Councilman Miller is speaking about the City taxes alone, and nat the taxes that go to the County and the School District, while Mr. Mercer is giving figures which in- clude everything and is paid by everybody in the County. Mayor Taylor noted that about ane year ago the Business License Tax Ordinance was adopted, raising the business license tax, which up until that time, was substantially lower than surrounding areas. This year the City has asked that the businesses pay an additional 10% which affects the businesses on the high end of the scale. It was brought out that 80% of the businesses are below a $300,000 gross; in the high category the fee would be $225 and in the low category about $200 per year. He did not feel the increase affected the low category very much. There are no businesses in the "A" category in the $4 millian bracket; only two in the $3 million bracket. In Class "B" there are four in the $4 million, five in the $3 million and five in the $2 million bracket. Mayar Taylor continued that it had been said that the business license increase had been done quite suddenly; however, it had been discussed in public hearings, at the budget sessions and notice was given. This statement was disputed by Mr. Mercer, who pointed out that there had been anly three weeks fram the time they heard about it until the decision was finally made, during which time they had met with Councilmen Miller and Futch, and they had a copy of the Finance Director's proposal, which was not even considered at the City Coun- cil meeting. Councilman Beebe stated that his understanding regarding the in- justice of the tax is that in the "A" bracket in which there are two. businesses, the increase imposed is from ll~% to 49%; in the $240,000 to $4 million bracket (four businesses) the increase was fram 50% to 73%, and he agreed with their thinking. Milton Codirali, 586 Escondido Circle, stated that he had confidence in the Council, and his concern was not so much for himself as other businesses in town because during the time he was president of the Chamber, he had asked the businessmen to cooperate with the City and to support an equitable business license fee, which they did, and he feels he let them down. At that time the business people in the cammunity stated their understanding that the City needed more funds to operate, and they would be willing to pay the increase which was imposed a year ago; now that proposal is no longer equitable, and he felt we are losing the confidence of these people. The amount of money gained does not offset the damage that was done; the only thing the business peaple ask is that the City CM-25-416 September 25, 1972 be fair in the ardinances that are passed. He further pointed aut that there was only one man different on the Council than a year ago when they felt a fair increase had been made. It seems that what the Council was trying to decide was whether or nat the developer and businessmen were giving the City their fair share. If after three or faur years the City should decide that an increase is necessary, that would be the time to. appraach the business community and discuss such an increase, and if it is justified, accept it. He painted aut that what is needed are additional businesses in the community if they are to carry the larger portion of what the homeowners are having to pay. (Business License Fees) Frank Rhades af Rhades & Associates Design Callabrative, stated that thirteen months ago he had brought his design group to this cammunity and set up a business at which time he was taxed $20.00 which he felt was fair; but this year it had increased to $135.00 which he felt was still reasonable. He was recently approached by a local businessman for the design of a landscape plan, and in reviewing what had been done, he noted that the gentleman was not happy with the general theme of the plan. When he asked who had designed it, he was tald the City had, and it was his feeling that this indicated the City was competing with his own business. He cammented that he had served on an architectural committee far fifteen months befare coming to Livermore and the committee was anly allowed to. present ideas and to cansult as to. the particular project, and he felt that the City should only consult to the businessmen, and if they need additianal assistance, they shauld be referred to local design groups. He felt this was an examplA of what cauld be injurious to. the businessman, and he felt the City should only act in an advisary capacity. Mayar Taylor did nat feel that it was the City's intention to. campete, but they do. use a sketch to get an idea across. The Council indicated that they would look into the matter and thanked Mr. Rhodes far his suggestion. Dr. James McFarland, Dentist at 1915 Fourth street, commented that he lives out af the City limits and is taxed withaut re- presentation. He felt that the reason there is no Class A business in Livermare is due to the fact that an anti-business climate is generated due to the business license tax and he felt it very daubtful that a Class A business will ever exist unless this climate changes. He stated that fram the information he has received, the tax rate last year placed Livermore in the ninety- eight percentile in the State of California. The burden to the homeowner cannot be made lighter with this type of climate being created, and he emphasized that he objects to the business license fee for thase in the health prafessians. Speaking in his own behalf, as he is not a member of the Chamber of Commerce, Dr. McFarland then listed five reasans for protesting the hike: 1) the tax is discriminatory - it singles out one particular class of citizens and forces them to pay a fee which is not re- lated to. an increase in services or benefits; 2) the tax is a graduated income tax since it is based on an individual's gross receipts, which bear a direct relationship to the person's incame; 3) the justification for levying the tax, in his opinion, is based an the false premise that this can be passed an to. the cansumer or patient. The federal wage price board has nat exempted the medical and dental profession from the 2.5% ceiling on fee increases which it has done for other small businesses. Operating costs for these professions are continuing to rise from 5 - 8% per year. There is no ceiling on this tax; it can be raised annually if the Council sa mandated. He asked that the Council consider these professions, explaining that they should receive the same equity provided under the law as physicists, chemists and engineers who. are not subjected to a graduated income tax from the City. He suggested that a flat fee be paid by these professians, which would create a feeling of equity among the professional businessmen. cM-25-417 September 25, 1972 Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, speaking as a chairman of the Industrial Advisory Committee, as this would affect that area also, stated that he felt that $10,000 was a very small portion of the budget, painting out that this $10,000 would mean a difference af a surplus of something like $390,000 ar $400,000, and finds it hard to justify an increase. He stated that Livermore is high, and compared to other places, the fees are higher than many communities. In his opinion, levying tax on a certain group indicates the City would like to. discourage that ~ype of activity. He felt there was no real reasan for trying to obtain a l% increase of the budget from the merchants. (Business License Fee) Mayor Taylor explained that the industrial categories have fees based on the number of employees, and these were not increased; it will nat apply to. these peaple. He added that sometime ago. the Council considered a tax similar to this which was not adopted. Instead a lower rate was adopted and this year the Council has gone back to the ariginally discussed staff recommended schedule. He mentioned that this City is not the highest as the City of Modesto is higher; the tax is nat designed to. discaurage business; it is being used to raise revenue and has no reflection on services ren- dered. The City does not consider $10,000 to. be insignificant and regarding the tax burden on the average homeowner, he explained that if the business license tax was not adopted, the taxes would be imposed on the homeowners. Mayor Taylor explained that for a business doing $400,000 in gross receipts, the additional cost this year would be only $5 - $6 spread aver this $400,000. The amaunt is insignificant, but it seems that the objections are against the principle. Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, explained that he had purchased a car from a local dealer and that the service on the car had not been done as he requested. When he asked to speak to the owner he was told the owner was nat available. He emphasized that he had not received service. He expressed his regret that Nelson's Hardware is no longer in town because they catered to the individual customer, and did not stock only the merchandise a large profit could be realized from. He stated that he shops out of town because a number of the merchants do nat carry items he would like to purchase and they are unwilling to order it for his convenience. He suggested that the Chamber of Commerce shauld get some organization among the business community and that business would return, and the business license tax could be reduced. Gary Barber, 286 McLeod street, co-owner of Barber's Cyclery, ex- plained that a number of the merchants cannot afford to stock a more complete supply of items and that they are faced with the campeti- tion af shopping centers with larger, more modern buildings, and that a number of people prefer to shop in these places, or for one reason or another do not do business in Livermore. In his case, the parking lot assessment and license fee comes to $450 a year, where his competitar in the Valley has no fee at all. He feels it is a little difficult to compete with someone under these circumstances. He asked the Council to consider the serious trouble the merchants will be in when the regional shopping centers locate in Pleasanton and Dublin five years from now, when levying the business license fee. The Mayor commented that a thorough survey of why residents shop out of town was made, and the main reason was not due to costs, but because people felt they could have a larger selection in other areas. Councilman Beebe noted that the general tax rate was increased by 41 and the business license tax was increased by $10,000. In his opinion, the merchants are being doubly taxed because they must pick up the 41 on their property which is assessed at much more than a resident's hame property. He indicated that this was the rea&On he had voted to oppose the hike in the business license fee and that the least this City can do is stay in line with competitive business areas CM-25-418 September 25, 1972 such as Walnut Creek and Cancord and painting out that the license fee in Dublin is nil. He felt that this will definitely influence the attitude big businesses have towards Livermore and their decision to. lacate elsewhere. The main point is psychalogical impact and not the amount of money invalved; what the businessmen are trying to inform the Cauncil. (Business License Fee) the that is Councilman Futch briefly commented that it was the intent of the cauncil to. tax equally the saurces af income available aver which the Council had jurisdiction. They had intended to increase the property tax by 10% but due to more assessed valuation than esti- mated, the praperty tax came to. be samewhat less. They also in- creased the business license tax by 10%. The Council tried to manage the problem of additianal revenue by a fair and equitable method and this was his reasan for supparting the increase. As far as double taxatian, as mentioned by Councilman Beebe, he pointed out that certain services are given the merchants such as palice pratectian and additional fire protection. cauncilman Miller stated that he wauld like to make comments not so brief due to. the fact that an hour and a half of discussion will be fully reported by the news media, and unless some mention is made of the issues discussed, they will not be available to the general public in the proper context. There are two. issues involved in the business license increase: 1) whether the tax revenue shall come from increasing the property tax or from increasing the busi- ness license tax. The businessmen feel that the praperty tax shauld be increased and this hits retired and low income people very hard. The Council decided that it was more equitable to choase the method they did; 2) equity in assessing the variaus businesses in tawn. Councilman Miller pointed out that two-thirds of the businesses pay no. increase, 82% paid less than $8.00, and 93% paid less than $25.00 increase an their business license fee and the business license is deductible from income tax. The uproar of the business community is aver the entire $10,000 increase which amounts to Ii an a $10 purchase, 5i on a $50 doctor bill and $1.00 on the purchase of a new car. The largest increase will be for those in higher brackets, but they are still paying less per thousand than the small businessmen. The small businessmen who have the difficult cash flow problem pay fram three to four times as much per dollar sale as the bigger businesses and this makes it harder for them. That was the reason equity was taken into consideratian concern- ing businesses in the community. Large ar small businesses have individual problems. This resulted in the raising of the business license tax by the method that was used, in order to equalize and as a resul~ 93% of the businesses have relatively small increases in their business license fees. He pointed out that the argument that people will shop elsewhere because of the change is unsupparted by the fact that people shopped elsewhere when there was a smaller license fee. Peaple do nat shop in Dublin and Pleasantan because of Ii an a $10 purchase, etc., but fram the higher prices in the 20-30% area and lack of stock. Also, commercial interests think- ing abaut moving to. Livermore do nat ask what the business license fee is, and evidently this is not of major concern or they would take it into consideration. The tax should be laoked at as a City sales tax, and this is ane af the few ways of raising the needed revenue for the City; it is not the Council's intent to harass the business community. He mentioned that the public seems to have lost faith in the business community and there should be some means of improving services and goods. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council rescind the amendments to the ardinance which was passed June 26 by the cauncil. Mayor Taylor asked how the revenue could be made up should the ordinance amendments be revoked, and if it could be done through the general tax rate. Councilman Pritchard commented the method would have to be re- commended by the staff. CM-25-419 September 25, 1972 (Business License Fee) At this time Councilman Beebe seconded the motion made by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Miller commented that he feels the public would be very unhappy to. have to. pick up the extra burden of the $10,000 on their property tax. Mayor Taylor called for a vote to. the mation which failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Miller, Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Councilman Beebe moved that the City adjust its fees so that it cannot be said that Livermore has the highest business license tax in the Bay Area, seconded by Cauncilman Prithcard. The motion failed by a 2-3 vote with Cauncilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. * * * RECESS AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Departmental Reports Departmental reports were received as fallows: Airport Activity - August Airport - Financial - July, August and for the year ending June 30, 1972 Building Department - August Fire Department - August Galf Caurse - July, August and for the year ending June 30, 1972 Municipal Court - July and August PlanninglZoning Activity - January through August Police and Pound Departments - August Water Reclamation Plant - August * * * Acceptance of Tract 3239 (Kaufman & Broad) The Public Works Director reports that the im- provements are now completed in Tract 3239 (Kaufman & Broad) which is located in the Wagoner Farms develapment, contains 43 lots, and re- commends that these improvements be accepted for maintenance by the City. RESOLUTION NO. 121-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE TR. 3239 (Kaufman & Broad) * * * Commuter Interim Bus Service An appeal is pending befare the PUC, filed by Franciscan Lines, Inc., for a permit to operate two daily commuter bus trips from Livermore to San Francisco and return. This service, now accommodating 55 to 60 residents, is not being the Greyhound schedule. fulfilled by It is recommended that a resolution be adopted which supports the provision of a commute bus service an an interim basis until such time as the promised BART bus service is begun. RESOLUTION NO. 122-72 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INTERIM TERM PUBLIC COMMUTER BUS SERVICE. * * * CM-25-420 September 25, 1972 A summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 1972 was noted for filing. Summary P.C. Meeting * * * One Hundred Nineteen claims in the amaunt af Payrall and Claims $124,572.99 and two hundred ninety-two payroll warrants in the amount of $64,301.90, dated September 22, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the items an the Consent Calendar were approved. Approval of Cansent Calendar * * * The City Manager reparted that the Sauthern Pacific Development Company has announced its intentions to develop a new commercial complex in the western part of the business district. However, the project was received with mixed emotions because of the separation of the dual sets of railraad tracks intersecting the cammercial business dis- trict, even though they were to be moved over slightly. The Coun- cil has received detailed reports from the City Manager as well as cansultants on the matter. A great deal af staff investigatian has been dane and clase contact maintained with the railroad com- pany on just what an alternate plan might be and to try to achieve the end gaal of what the cammunity desires - added property for cammercial growth. The major concern of the railroad company is time. They have been convinced that there is complete economic justification for installing a major commercial center in the western end of the City, which they hope to expand in future years to extend throughaut the central business district core, and they believe there is plenty of ecanomic gain by their campany in sa doing and would like to proceed. Mr. Parness stated his conviction that once a decision is made by private industry they want to mave with great dispatch, and what would hamper these plans is some alternate plan for the relocation af railroad tracks, as they can only be moved about 130 feet to the north and still remain within the bounds of the railroad's praperty. This still daes not accom- plish what the City wishes to. have done and which was the subject of an exhaustive study previously done. Our intentions would be to have the railroad tracks at least be placed an ane right-of-way throughaut the central business district; the alternate aim would be to have joint trackage, which is probably the aim of the rail- raad companies as well. In arder to help the railroad companies on the issue of time, there is a plan that can be used by us that would call for the installation of a temporary loop track around the subject cammercial area between S street and P Street. This track could be installed immediately in a very brief time; thereby opening the land far the commercial development which the Southern Pacific wishes to proceed with. Concurrent with that, and with the concurrence of the Council, the staff would proceed with the necessary engineering and staff studies an the praspects of de- riving local funding for the purpose of permanently installing the relocated tracks an the Western Pacific right-of-way through- out the entire reach of the central business district sector. By this plan Southern Pacific wauld be allowed to. proceed with an interim track bypass system and the City cauld proceed with, hopefully, an assessment district that would be the financing vehicle to raise at least part af the funding necessary to provide our resources to be used, in conjunction with the State's,for the capitalization af the program. The estimated cost of this plan, which is the relocatian af the Southern Pacific tracks far REPORT RE SO. PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CO. COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENTS CM-25-421 September 25, 1972 about two miles and the installation of two separa- tian structures - one at P Street and one at Liver- more Avenue, is set at $3.2 million. Taking into account the contribution of the railroad companies and the state, it is felt local funding shauld be about $1.5 mlUion. Mr. Parness stated that he is not prepared to reveal how much of that sum can be raised equitably by an assessment district, but the staff is working on it, but he feels it is fea- sible to form an assessment district for at least part of that sum. The City government has a major share of responsibility and should contribute an amount in excess of that which he felt can be equitably derived from an assessment district thraugh the utiliza- tion of gas tax proceeds. Mr. Parness pointed out the plans on a map which he explained more in detail, and asked for concurrence of the Cauncil with the plans for the interim track relocation, and the City's establishment of an assessment district. (So. Pacific Develop Co. Improvements) Councilman Miller expressed concern for how much gas tax money will be required for the track relocation even though the general concept seems good. Also, one must consider which projects will suffer shauld the gas tax money go for this project and priorities be changed. The gas tax money is not enough to take care of the ne- cessary street repairs at this paint. Secondly, he stated that it had been his understanding that Southern Pacific had planned to take care of the public works improvements along Railroad Avenue, but during the praposal discussions it appears that they are nat gaing to be required to do this. Also, there was a question about trying to improve the situation of the people residing on EI Rancho by changing the kind of track Western Pacific has, and he wondered who wauld pay for that. To answer some of the points made by Councilman Miller, the City Manager agreed that this money would have to come from the gas tax funds, and the Council would have to relist priority of projects and also determine just how much the City can contribute to this need. As far as the property alang the Western Pacific right-of-way over which a new type of track is proposed to reduce vibrations and noise, the cost is not large, approximately $30,000, which the staff feels should be included in the cost of the improvement. There will also. be dense screening to help the problems of noise and dust. This will be paid for by State Assessment District and railroad funds. Mr. Parness also mentioned that the Council has the policy to require full improvements and widening of streets on which land is developed, but the railroad argues that if they are going to put the trackage in along their railroad frontage either permanently ar for a brief term, it would be improper for the City to require reservation of 22,000 sq. ft. of property, worth approxi- mately $2.00 a square foot, when they have no. expasure or utiliza- tion from that frontage. He feels that they would be willing to commit themselves when the tracks are moved from that location, to. widen and place impravements, whether this might be in two or ten years. Councilman Miller felt that installation of public works improve- ments and widening would show their gaod faith and intention to move for joint trackage at a future time. He pointed out that many businesses and residences did not have frontage on the street but were still required to include public works improvements. The Mayor agreed that the City should receive some assurance that the public works impravements will be placed by the railroad at some future date, if they are not required to do so at this time, and suggested samething in the order of a bond. Councilman Miller was concerned about the possibility that there will be no public works improvements at that location if the tracks are never moved. Mayor Taylor felt the main concern should be the total concept. It will affect the direction of the City for many years to come and CM-25-422 September 25, 1972 there is no question that averpasses and grade separation are needed. He agreed with the City Manager in that the City cannot expect City wide assessment to pay for the cost, as the majority of residents were against this method of payment, but nat the idea. The cost must be borne by the praperties which benefit and it would not be fair to. expect the railroad alone to. bear the cast. He thought the City Manager's plan had merit and the City should let them proceed. (So. PACIFIC DEVELO PMENT CO. IMPROVEMENTS) Councilman Beebe agreed that a step-by-step method would probably be the best way for a City the size of Livermore. As far as the financing, there are different ways to chase from and it may nat end up as an assessment district; it looks like the City may re- ceive some federal aid which could go far this use and may not end up costing the City nearly as much maney. Cauncilman Pritchard moved to accept the City Manager's recommen- dation and instruct the staff to. proceed with the preliminary steps to form an assessment district, to file the necessary applications with the PUC and informfue Sauthern Pacific Company that it is the City's intention to proceed with the plan. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Futch noted that the report submitted by the City Manager indicates that the City has anly ane year to farm the assessment district and he wondered if it should have the option for a longer period af time. The City Manager felt that one year was adequate to see if the assessment district could be formed or to determine what type af funds will be available such as the federal aid mentioned by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Futch emphasized that if the City cannot form the assess- ment district by December 31, 1973, the prapasal states that the railroad can place the tracks where they originally requested and it might be very difficult to get them to help pay to move them further. He urged that the Council not pin themselves dawn to. a definite date which is not very far away. Mayor Taylor explained that the Council is confident Southern Pacific will not oppose an assessment district on all their pro- perties for a reasonable length of time, if there is any limit at all, because the procedure may take some time. Mr. Parness indicated that the time schedule Councilman Futch is speaking of is the time schedule the City engineers have given and nat the cantract with Southern Pacific. Councilman Futch stated he would like to add an Item 6 to. state that the railroad will widen Railroad Avenue and be responsible for the public works improvements at the time the rails are re- lacated to. their permanent pasition; also Item 7 - that they will agree to the City's review of the location of the buildings to determine if they would be appropriate at the time of final widen- ing of Railraad Avenue. He maved that these be made amendments to. the main motian, seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously by the Council. The City Manager commented that both railroads are in favor of the plan, subject to review by their management. Dan Hanesworth, representative of the Southern Pacific Develop- ment Company, explained that they are nat apposed to. the temporary realignment of the tracks. He explained that preliminary approval has been received, but additional management approval is needed and they have received word that it is anticipated there will be no difficulty in securing this approval. They intend to comply CM-25-423 September 25, 1972 with any required City standards for improvements along Railroad Avenue, but do not wish to make any cantributions until the alignment af the tracks has been resolved. In answer to a question posed by Mr. Parness, he stated that he sees no diffi- culty in trying to. obtain a cantract which wauld state that they would improve and widen Railroad Avenue at such time as the tracks are moved. He also answered Cauncilman Futch's question regarding the time schedule by indicating that he sees no problem; it seems realistic and if they are assured that reasonable progress is being made to form an assessment district they will not oppose it. How- ever, they would request that the City be reasonable. (So. Pacific Development Co. Impravements) Mayor Taylor felt the Council shauld cansider the passibility that they will not receive federal aid and this may cause additional time. Paul Tull felt that the railroads will never move their tracks be- cause if they do. their property will revert to the heirs of the people who gave them that land. He felt that possibility should have been researched. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, suggested that if parallel trackage is nat in the foreseeable future, the City shauld require that the improvements be placed in a cash escrow by Southern Pacific until such time as this is accomplished and this should be part of the amendment to the motion. He felt that this would prevent the City fram being faced with a situation such as exists with regard to Springtown Blvd. Leon Seyrenian, from Zepol Inc., and owners of the local bowling alley requested that the tracks not be placed in the area which will be Railroad Avenue right-of-way as they have just participated in a street widening public works improvement with the assurance that Railroad Avenue would be widened as originally praposed. He felt the relocation to Railroad Avenue would be unfair to those fronting on Railroad Avenue who have already paid for improvements. He then questianed the speed af tr~ which will travel over the proposed curve, and Mayor Taylor explained that the design of -the curve will allow a train to. pass at 40 mph and the speed limit is 30 mph. Walter Ng, property owner in Livermore, explained that if an assess- ment district is developed, the railroad will control nearly 50% of the district and the Council should consider how much say they might have. The City Attorney commented that the property awner has no functian in the decision making in the formation of assessments. They have the right to speak at public meetings and to protest. The Council will decide how much the assessment should be and it should be re- lated to benefit and the ability of the property to carry the assess- ment. John Shirley, 4218 Drake Way, felt that the suggestian of gas tax money going towards this project is a very good idea and that it shauld receive top priority on the list of things to be done with it. Mr. Ziegler (Zepal, Inc.) indicated that he had spoken to. represen- tatives of Longs' Drugs and Safeway who indicate they plan to build elsewhere if a decision is not made soon. Robert Gasney, homeowner on El Rancho Drive, stated that he did not buy his home for speculative purposes; he wanted to live there permanently and has insufficient capital to relocate. He feels that this track relocation causes him to lose in that the quality of living will deteriorate for those residents an EI Rancho Drive. He feels his property has devaluated through the years because af the noise of the railroad which now has more frequent use, and the traffic generated on Murrieta Blvd. He did nat feel it was fair that they should be made to suffer losses while others are to benefit. Written comments have been received from E. Charles Straus, Attorney, representing the Livermore Valley Square. CM-25-424 September 25, 1972 Mayor Taylor commented that the Cauncil can sympathize with the homeowners on El Rancho who feel unhappy about the situation, but the railroad has the right-of-way reserved to de- velop double trackage and also has always intended to do this when their business increased. At this point the Cauncil is doing all they can to alleviate some af the prablems far the people an El Rancho Drive by requiring a new type of rails, signals at the crassing to eliminate the whistle of the train. The Council, hawever, has had to consider the great public benefit far track relocation while trying to take into consideration the few com- plaints received from those an El Rancho Drive. (So. Pacific Development Co.) Gilbert Marguth, 1152 Farmington Way, congratulated the Council and Staff for acting as expeditiously as they did with the matter and moving toward what the cammunity would like to see. He stated that in 1970 it was the intent of the Council (at the time of the LDC prapasal) to. use beautification maney, par~ funds, ar whatever maney could be used far impraving the environment far the people on El Rancho Drive. He suggested that the Council begin immediately to. design screening by a wall or trees sa that something in the nature af a permanent barrier will be there at the time the tracks are moved. Dave Praffit, 809 El Rancho. Drive, expressed his cancern mare far safety than noise and asked that the Council do something to regulate the speed af trains through that area to eliminate a passible disaster. He felt that the prapased curve in the rail- road would constitute danger, should the trmrn be permitted to travel at the same speed they use at present. He noted that the daytime speed is not the speed which he is referring to., but the speed they use during the night which he estimated to be approxi- mately 60 mph. Mayor Taylor indicated that the Council would do all they could to. see that the speed af the trains is enforced. Councilman Futch asked if the one year date to form the assessment district is being changed, and Mayar Taylor explained that the date is not a part of the motion, and that the Council is not discussing the details of the contract at this time. However, the Council might discuss the passibility af obtaining some type of guarantee to assure the City that improvements will be placed along Railroad Avenue at such timeas the railroad is relocated. Mr. Fensterbush stated that they will dedicate and improve Rail- road Avenue when the tracks are relocated adjacent to Western Pacific and they feel this is a reasonable request. He explained that the tracks will be in the right-of-way required far widening of t he street. Mayor Taylor stated that it is his understanding that the railroad company feels it is essential to their development to locate their buildings as far narth as pas sible and they abject to placing buildings further sauth to widen the street at this time. Mr. Fensterbush explained that their plans are centered around the future development and widening of Railroad Avenue and that for now they do nat see the necessity for widening a street that has access from only one side. If they have to move their buildings back it will require variance for parking. Councilman Futch felt the City might be better off gambling that they will not have enaugh parking opposed to. the fact that they might not get the street widened at a later date, and maybe the variance for parking might be wiser. The Mayar explained that as he understands it, if part of the praperty is taken away it will reduce either the amount af parking or the size af the buildings which can be built. CM-25-425 September 25, 1972 (So. Pacific Development Co.) Mr. Fensterbush asked that the Council also keep in mind that the railroad company is delaying the rest of the project to accommodate the City's wishes. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council give the staff the directian mentioned and meet with the representatives of the railroad to discuss, in detail, the location of the railroad tracks if they wauld be willing. He felt that it would be unreasanable, at this time,to require definite widening of the street and possibly jeo- pardize all plans. The Council concluded that this matter could be discussed at a later time and for the moment they would vote on the motion to endorse the plans in general. Mayor Taylor called for a roll call vate which was unanimaus. PARK LAND PURCHASE (Dogwood and Portola Sites) at L and Pine * * * Purchase of several small parcels of land proposed for park purposes has been discussed with the owners, and the City Manager reports that it has not been possible to negotiate price and he re- cammends the commencement of eminent domain pra- ceedings for the Dogwood Park site, the park site Streets, and the one at Livermore and Portola Avenue. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting, the recommendation of the City Manager was approved and the following resalution adopted; RESOLUTION NO. 125-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE ESTATE FOR PUBLIC PARK AND RELATED PURPOSES FOUR PARCELS OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED: 1) AND 2) IN THE VICINITY OF DOGWOOD AND NIGHTINGALE; 3) AT PORTOLA AND NORTH LIVERMORE AVENUES: AND 4) AT NORTH L AND PINE STREETS, ALL IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA REFUSE SERVICE RATE STUDY * * * Some time ago our City joined with other jurisdic- tions in the County, all contracting agencies of Oakland Scavenger Company, to conduct a study on an accounting system, forms control and a formula for uniform application in setting of rollection rates. Presenta- tions have been made to the Mayors and staffs of the twelve agencies affected and also to the Alameda County Mayors' Conference. It was recommended that aur City announce their concurrence and suppart of the proposal so that the system can be designed and instituted for all agencies to use. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the Cauncil voted unanimously to approve the City Manager's recommendation. WATER RECLAMA- TION PLANT .. REVENUE PLAN * * * As a part af the City's application for state and federal grants for the plant enlargement is the submission of a revenue program which indicates lacal sources far capital operation and maintenance~ needs. On motian af Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the Council voted unanimously to approve the report as submitted and to authorize its transmittal to the State Water Quality Control Board. CM-25-426 * * * September 25, 1972 The Public Works Director has requested that the City Cauncil authorize amendments to. the Project Report and Environmental Statement for the Reclamatian Plant to include imprave- ments to the irrigation facilities so the City can furnish additianal irrigation waters far public lands. The state Divisian af Highways has requested that reclaimed water be used from aur treatment plant far irrigation purpases alang US 580 for median and interchange plantings. WATER RECLAMATION PLANT ADDITIONAL RECLAMATION IMPROVEMENTS Councilman Pritchard moved that the design engineer be authorized to prepare the amendments, seconded by Councilman Miller; motion was approved unanimously. * * * On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 123-72 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FURTHER EXAMINE THE PROPOSED REGULATION OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE. * * * A formal request by resolution must be made to the State General Services Department to autha- rize purchase by the City's Purchasing Agent of certain fluorescent and incandescent lamps. RESOLUTION REQUESTING BAAPCD EXAMINE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY & COMMERCE PURCHASE OF LAMPS FROM STATE (General Services) On motion af Councilman Pritchard, secanded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 124-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS. * * * On mation of Councilman Beebe, secanded by Caun- cilman Futch, and by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Pritchard dissenting, the reading of the ordi- nance was waived and the fallowing ardinance was adopted: ORDINANCE NO. 800 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE DEFINITIONS (Trailer- Camper Parking) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 31.00, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, SECTION 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21.41 THEREOF RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21.44 THEREOF RELATING TO MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21.58 THERE0F RELATING TO MOBILE HOMES. * * * On motian of Cauncilman Beebe, secanded by Caun- cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the second reading of the ordinance was waived and the following ordinance was adapted: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE LANDSCAPING- WATER (Commercial Uses) CM-25-427 September 25, 1972 (Ordinance re ORDINANCE NO. 801 water) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCES NOS. 767 AND 778 OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE REGULATING THE USE OF WATER AND ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS TO DELETE THEREFROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PERMITTEES DELAY THE PLANTING OF LAWNS, TREES, ETC. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCILMEN (Proposed Ordinance re Industrial Standards) * * * Recently the Cauncil has been discussing pra- posed changes in the Zoning Ordinance relating to ID (Industrial Development and Administra- tion) District and 1M (Industrial Manufacturing) District and the possibility that some changes may have to. be made in the site caverage, parking standards and placement of landscaping. An ordi- nance draft has been prepared by the City Attorney and on mation of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the Council voted unanimously to refer this propased ordinance to. the Planning Commission far pracessing. (Signals at Concannon & Holmes st.) * * * Councilman Futch inquired as to the possibility af signals at the corner of Concannon Blvd. and Holmes Street and if there had been any progress made. The City Manager reported that inquiries had again been made and an answer shOUld be received saon and suggested that any further discussion or action be postpaned until that time. ADJOURNMENT APPROVE ATTEST CM-25-428 * * * There being no further business to came before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to. an executive session to. discuss a legal matter. * * * (' -4~LM:J;f;C- C\L,~k L i)~y- Clerk Lii\r r~re, California * * * . Regular Meeting of October 2, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Octaber 2, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at e:09 p.m. with Mayor Taylar presiding. * * * Present: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayar Taylor Absent: Nane ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * There being no corrections or additions to the MINUTES minutes af the meeting af September 25, 1972, on matian of Councilman Beebe, secanded by Coun- cilman Miller and by the unanimous approval of the Council, they were approved as submitted. * * * Margaret Tracy, representative of PARC (Preserve SPECIAL ITEM Area Ridgeland Committee) regarding ridgelands (Report re PARC - national urban park concept, gave a report, with the assistance of slides, to illustrate the pre- sent state of the valley ridge areas and proposal far an urban land ridge park to include the region from Las Trampas to the county line in apen space and then a connectian fram the San Francisco Water District land eastward to Del Valle. If it is not possible for hiking access in this area, they would seek acquisitian af land easements for this purpose. She pointed out that Supervisor Hannon estimates that the populati~ of the nine counties in the Bay Area will dauble by the year 2000, and wanders where the people will live. PARC wants to know how much open space will be left and if there will be room far these people to hike and enjoy the beauty of the land in the natural state. She stated that this concept would add 20,000 to 60,000 acres of land to park purposes. In answer to a question posed by Mayar Taylor, she replied that the Committee has been working since the Spring of 1972 to prepare the case for this plan and explained that at ane time Bill Herlihy started talking to groups, asking for support, and has spoken to the Council duringethe past year regarding the concept. The pro- ject is further along than when first presented and has much further to go, but they would 9sk that the Council support the concept. Councilman Beebe asked what federal agency funds open space pro- jects such as this. Mrs. Tracy commented that they would like to see the Bureau of Outdaar Recreation allocate maney for a mare detailed land study so that it can be determined just which land cauld be included in such an open space area; beyond that, they do not know which agencies will be of assistance. She indicated that favorable comments have come fram Senatars Cranstan and Tunney. Councilman Miller moved that the Cauncil support the idea in concept, seconded by Cauncilman Pritchard. Councilman Futch felt it might be a very expensive terrain to devel~ end would be a burden on the cities to develop it. He felt it would be a very gaod idea to leave this land for open space. Mayor Taylor noted that there was much support from people all the way from Martinez to San Jose and it is not just a Valley project the Council would be supporting, and asked for a vate on the motion which was appraved unanimously. CM-25-429 October 2, 1972 CONSENT CALENDAR Report re State Div. of Highways The City Manager reported that the State Depart- ment of Highways has written in response to the City's inquiry regarding highway traffic matters. The letter gave the status of the fallowing: I) Signals at Holmes Street and Concannan Boulevard; 2) Alignment and signalization at First street' and North Livermore; 3) Flasher relocation at Holmes Street and Vancouver Way; and 4) Left turn signals at Holmes St. and Fourth St. Councilman Miller commented that the state agreed to allaw regular signalization at the intersection of First Street and North Liver- more Avenue until 11:00 p.m., as requested by the City, and the flashing signals would operate after this time; however, the signals are flashing prior to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Lee explained that it is his understanding the regular signal- izatian had been left until 11:00 p.m., but had been turned back to 10:00 p.m. Abaut two weeks ago. the peaple in charge were contacted and the lights were supposed to be changed to comply with the City's request. Mr. Lee reported that the State at this time has no plans to place traffic lights at the carner of HaImes Street and Concannon Blvd. Councilman Futch suggested that they observe the corner at a time suggested by the Council because the last time they looked at the intersection, the majority of the children crossing were already at school. Mr. Lee suggested the Council wait until the State has put their plans for the intersection into operation before deciding what fur- ther steps should be taken towards signalization. The Council concluded that they would wait to take further action although it was their general opinion the intersection would never be safe without the signals. * * * Agreement With Alameda County re Greenville Rd. Future Width Lines The Caunty propases to conduct a study re Green- ville Road and Narth Greenville Raad future width lines and has asked the City to participate. RESOLUTION NO. 126-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (County of Alameda) * * * The Palice Chief reports that he has studied possible utilization of adult volunteer crossing guards and student traffic patrals. It is re- cammended that valunteer guards nat be used be- cause of possible problems with dependability, no. process for screening as to character af person performing, liability coverage, physical fitness checks. Chief Lindgren did, hawever, feel that student safety patral would be recommended under certain canditions such as: school autharities to have the respon- sibility of organizing, training and supervision with the P01ice Department assisting; patrols should not direct vehicular traffic but rather be responsible for the cantral of children at the curb and permit crossing when safe; and such patrols to be used in the vicinity af the schoal graunds only. The staff was instructed to. proceed with investigatian toward institution of school traffic patrols. Report re Crossing Guards (Police Chief) * * * CM-25-430 The Public Works Director reports that all public works improvements have been installed in Tract 3324 (Sunset Development Co.) and are naw ready for acceptance by the City for maintenance. RESOLUTION NO. 127-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3324 (Sunset Development Co.) * * * The audit of the Hausing Authority for the periad of July I, 1971 to June 30, 1972 was submitted for the Council's informatian. * * * Minutes of the Housing the meeting of August Commission meeting of ~~ledged for filing. Authority Board for 15, and the Planning September 19 were ac- * * * The Consent Calendar was approved as listed on motian af Cauncilman Beebe, seconded by Cauncil- man Pritchard, and by unanimous vote. * * * Councilman Miller felt the discussian of the Zone 7 band measure to. be voted upon on Nov- ember 7, 1972 would be premature at this time due to the fact the Cauncil has not received financial details, no written description of the project or environmental impact report. Octaber 2, 1972 Accept Improvements Tr. 3324- Sunset Development Co. Hausing Authority Audit MINUTES - Housing Autharity and Planning Commission Approval of Consent Calendar COMMUNICATION FROM ZONE 7 RE BOND ELECTION The Council agreed that the matter should be continued until they have received all the necessary infarmation for discussion, and Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be continued for one week to October 10, secanded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Miller pointed out that the water district in the Half Maan Bay area has been invalved in a caurt case in which the con- tents of its environmental impact statement will determine the outcome af the court decisian. He felt Zane 7 might benefit in reading the case, as this might be cannected with the discussians to come. A vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimously. * * * The Assaciated Hame Builders have notified the Cauncil-of their request to the Board of Super- visors for a study af populatian in the Bay Area in cansidering a policy af populatian limitation. COMMUNICATION RE STUDY FOR POPULATION LIMITATION Mayor Taylor cammented that ABAG has prepared a text with their recommendations which the Council has not had a chance to review; he felt the matter shauld be continued until they have seen this. Councilman Futch moved to. continue the matter until October 10, seconded by Councilman Miller, and the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion. * * * CM-25-431 October 2, 1972 COMMUNICATION FROM SACEOA RE REQUEST FOR GRANT SUPPORT A representative from SACEOA has written the Council asking support for their refunding grant request which has been approved by the federal government and currently is in the 30-day Gov- ernor's review period. Councilman Futch commented that the new Board is significantly improved aver the Baard of the past and that they still have staff problems but are putting farth considerable effort to im- prove their operations. He stated that it was his intention to mave that the Council endarse their support; however, a telegram was just received notifying the Council that the Governor has vetaed the grant request. This grant was for operation from Sep- tember through February and he felt it would be very difficult for the cities to organize any alternate plan this soon. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council continue the matter until the Staff can repart back regarding the status of present plans for the cities to. form an interim agency to take over the res- ponsibilities of SACEOA. Councilman Beebe moved to continue to October 10, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller, and voted upon unanimausly by the Council to approve the mation. * * * REPORT RE LAND USE PRO POSAL (Herman Ruth) Mr. Parness explained that Herman D. Ruth & Associates have proposed a development of approx- imately 115 acres narth of US 5eO for the purpose of developing a mobilehome park. He has asked that the Council discuss and give their opinion regarding the proposal. Mr. Ruth presented the Council with plot plans for the site, ex- plaining that they intend to canform to the City's mobilehome park ordinance as well as the park dedication requirement and that they would like to. know if this wauld appear to. be a reasonable proposal before becoming further involved. Mayor Taylor explained that at the time the City did nat form an assessment district because they were waiting for the Junior College District plans to become more definite. The reason for starting development in the area was to accommodate the Junior College to which the City had a commitment. Councilman Miller questioned the general plan density for the area, and Mr. Musso explained that the density is three dwelling units per acre along the freeway (the lower contour) and one and one-half dwelling units per acre along the higher slopes. Councilman Miller felt that in no case should the City go above the general plan density and that a majority of the pea pIe in Liver- more do not want a mobilehome park in Livermore because they are a tax disaster to a city. Councilman Pritchard stated he would hesitate to approve a residen- tial development of any type that close to. the freeway in addition to the inequitable method af taxatian of mobilehomes. Also, the Council has a policy of allowing a small percentage of mobilehomes per population and the Cauncil cannot be assured that this will not be used prior to annexation of this land to the City. Councilman Futch stated that it vialates the general plan density and it would violate the 4% mabilehome policy and, therefore, he wauld nat approve the propasal. Cauncilman Beebe fel~ possibl~ if the college develops in the area a limited number of mobilehomes may be needed for teachers and CM-25-438 October 2, 1972 those warking at the college. However, it has (Land Use Proposal) been felt that the area has been considered to be a high class area for permanent development. He pointed aut that there were ather insurmountable problems which would also hamper the development, such as the 4% policy, the water shortage and the SAVE Initiative. In Mayor Taylor's opinion this would be a classical leapfrog develapment, starting residential development alang the highway without public services. The tax issue is that mabilehome owners do not pay property tax, but rather motor vehicle tax on a depre- ciation basis. He would appose the proposal due to the fact that it is a leapfrag development and a bit premature. If, for some reasan, the Junior Callege daes nat develop it may be a number of years before residential development is ever started on the north side af the highway where services are required. He noted that a similar development was just turned down at the end of East Avenue due to the leapfrag type of development it would create. With regard to mobilehome owners not paying property taxes, Mr. Ruth asked if it would be more satisfactary far his group to sell lots for which property tax wauld have to be paid. Councilman Futch stated that this would satisfy one concern of his, but the general ~lan density wauld still have to be considered. Mr. Ruth then explained that they would be willing to remain in the 4% allowable limit which wauld be appraximately 200 mabilehame units. He felt that he would have to dispute the idea that this would be a leapfrog develapment due to the fact that had the bonds for the schaal passed, development wauld have accurred, ar wauld be occurring in the area, as well as the fact that pipes have been put in far sewage and drainage which is an indication that develop- ment will accur. He added that they are immediately acrass the street from industrial property which is being developed, as well as the airpart. Rather than a change in density, they are asking for a density transfer to 4.3 d.u./acre; the general plan allaws 3 d.u./acre. Mayar Taylor commented that, generally, a density transfer is done within the same ownership and not fram another parcel. Mr. Ruth explained that they would like to proceed right away, but realize that certain problems have to. be resalved, such as sewer connections, water and school facilities. However, he feels there is no real problem and that there are ways in which these things could be warked out to. the satisfactian af all concerned. Their main concern is whether or not the Council would approve of this type af propasal. Mr. Musso pointed out that this proposal would have to be reviewed by the Airpart Advisary Land Use Cammittee. The Mayor felt that in general the Cauncil has not been very re- ceptive to the idea and would prabably DOt entertain the idea of a density transfer. Mr. Ruth cammented that there has been no mention of the 45 acres they have propased to donate to. the City and wondered if they are nat interested. Mayor Taylor felt this has always been encauraged, but at this time he cannot say what the future might hold - the zoning will still have to be considered. He thanked Mr. Ruth for coming to. the Caun- cil and suggested that if Mr. Ruth has a proposal for another use, they wauld encourage him to submit it to the Council, also. Councilman Pritchard cammented that in addition to sewage faci'li ties and water to. be supplied, it might be very difficult to provide fire and police protection and school facilities in that area. * * * CM-25-433 October 2, 1972 REPORT RE REQUEST FOR POLICE SERVICE (Cultural Arts) The City Manager reported that the Cultural Arts Council has requested that the City provide free palice services for their 1972 Arts Festival. Their request has been denied and it was suggested that they appeal to the Council. In the past, the services of the reserve officers have been pravided at no. cast, and this is the first year the request has been denied. It is felt that their budget would allow far the cost normally paid by the City, but it appears that they were natified too late to arrange for this type of fee in their budget. Therefore, they are appeal- ing to. the Cauncil. He added that in the past the City paid far this type of service for the School District who now has agreed to pay for half of this cost. Councilman Miller moved that the Council grant the request and pro- vide for the palice services, as in the past, for this year. He felt that his motion was made on the basis that the Arts Council is a City function, organized by the City and has representatives from the City an it and, secandly, the notice came very late for the changed policy. Councilman Beebe felt that he would be willing to grant the appeal if it wauld nat jeopardize the negotiations with ather graups. He wondered if there is a date fram which the City can say there are no more free services to groups, and from thereafter a 50-50% arrange- ment or whatever agreement is made will be adhered to. Councilman Pritchard brought up the point that it may be the respon- sibility af the City to provide police protection at any public assembly. Councilman Futch was concerned about groups such as UNICEF who have a fund raising event every year and indicated that this cost might severely cut into their profits. The City Manager painted aut that police service far all the ac- tivities held every year is a cost to the public as a whole and that all of the citizens do. nat attend these functions but must pay for the police service. A vate was taken on the motion, secanded by Councilman Beebe, and it was approved unanimously by the Council. * * * REPORT RE SO. PACIFIC DEV. CO. The City Manager reparted that last week the Council discussed whether or nat Southern Pacific Development Company should be allawed to relocate their tracks in the right-of-way area of the p~o- posed widened Railroad Avenue. Discussions have been held with the applicant in an effort to. come to some type of resolutian and they have submitted a written statement to the Council. The Council also received a statement from Livermore Valley Square, adjoining property awners. The City Manager explained the proposed alternate plan as follows: The north side of the street is a right-of-way of 66 ft. which in- cludes 10 ft. of sidewalk, 38 ft. of travel section and the remainder being under public ownership and undeveloped. The applicant would put in the full pavement width, and completely install the full tra- vel section and the only encumbrance would be the installation of the fence in the eventual 10 ft. setback. Later, when the tracks are moved again, the fence can then be moved for an additional 7 ft. and have the fully improved street section. Mr. Parness explained that there was one condition - which is that in order for the City to allow Southern Pacific Dev. Company to do this and still install the square footage of retail floor space and the dictated amount of parking space, they will have to move the S- curve of their track- age a short distance to. the west. This will require them to abtain an easement from PG&E, but it is felt there will be no difficulties involved in obtaining the easement. CM-25-434 October 2, 1972 Mr. Haneswarth, representative of Sauthern Pacific Development Company, indicated that they would be happy to accept this alternate proposal and that they would comply with any requirements for development. It is their understanding that they wauld be required to eventually imprave the tharaughfare for the entire length af their property line which would be Railroad Avenue from P Street to join with Stanley Blvd. He asked that they nat be responsibile for the intercannection at this time, but just the frantage along Railroad Avenue. (So. Pacific Development Co.) The Council then discussed the problems involved with Railroad Avenue and the ultimate plans for the street with reference to the location of the tracks and eventual cannection with Stanley Blvd. Mr. Lee drew a sketch of the area, the praposed track realignment and S-curve af the tracks as well as Railraad Avenue, explaining the proposal in detail. Councilman Beebe maved that the Council concur with the recent staff propasal, seconded by Councilman Futch, and the mation was approved unanimously. Mr. Hanesworth questioned what arrangements will be made under an assessment district and the Mayor explained that he cauld not give an answer at this time, but it will be spelled out in detail at the earliest passible time. * * * The Planning Director explained that, with re- gard to limitations on filing repetitiaus applications for rezoning, the Zoning Ordinance provides that one cannot submit an identical application on an identical piece af property. He mentioned that most of the applications on resubmittals are slightly modified, such as was pointed aut an the Xavier Way development which added up to. seven or eight proposals which were all slightly different and that the problems created in this type af limitatian wauld prabably offset the problems to be solved. REPORT RE Z.O. LIMITS ON FILING APPLICATIONS Councilman Miller mentianed that the matter was brought up at his request, after having seen the irritation of the public over a number of years, from having to appear on numerous occasions to protest or testify. Peaple have protested that an applicant can keep coming back with similar projects until everyone has been worn down, and the applicant finally obtains his request. As in the case af the Xavier Way praposal, the applicatians were essentially applications for the use prohibited the time before - change in density, etc. He felt applications far multiple should not be allowed until some length of time has lapsed, regardless of whether or not it is a different owner. The fact still remains that the public must appear each time the matter is scheduled. Cauncilman Futch agreed with Cauncilman Miller in that he has seen the public testify numeraus times regarding the same praperty, and he would like this to be eliminated. He suggested that, perhaps, the Cauncil could vote as to whether ar not an application shauld be allowed to be submitted, and to require a 4/5 vote of the Coun- cil to present it. Mayor Taylor felt it might be difficult to determine which appli- catians could be termed similar. Councilman Miller pointed aut that two cases in which the appli- cant received the Council's decision in their favor due to re- peated applications, were the Holiday Inn regarding their sign, and Xavier Way. CM-25-435 October 2, 1972 (Z .0. Limits on Filing Applica- tians) The Mayor felt the Council should have more af a basis on which to decide to pass a law of this type than just the two. cases mentioned. In the opinion of the City Attorney, the words, "substantially similar" shauld be added if this method is to be used, adding that there could be a lot of controversy as to whether or nat an application is actually substantially similar. If the applicant does not agree with the Staff's feeling that the appli- cation is similar, he could take the matter to court or wait until such, time as he would be allowed to present the application (after a certain specified time). Councilman Miller felt the 4/5 vote by the Council on borderline cases, as suggested by Councilman Futch, would be reasonable. Councilman Futch suggested that it might be better to require a 4/5, or majorit~ vote of the Planning Commission, rather than the Council. He commented that in order to eliminate repeats or forc- ing an applicant to wait one year in certain circumstances, the Council can apprave something with the stipulation that certain conditions must be met. This would still discourage the applicant with the repeated similar applications within a one year period. Councilman Miller suggested they use the same wording as in the present draft with the additianal wording: "in the same ar substan- tially similar form" and at the end after the word "action" insert "subject to appeal on majority approval of the Planning Commission". After considerable discussion among the Council members and Staff, Councilman Futch moved to continue the matter until next week; the motian was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed by unanimous approval. COMMUNICATION RE ANNEXATION OF CAMP PARKS * * * The VCSD submitted a letter regarding the pro- jected annexatian of Camp Parks; also submitted was a written response from the City of Pleasanton. Councilman Miller suggested that if the majority of the Cauncil agrees, the Cauncil could take the position that they feel Camp Parks should not be annexed until it is planned. Mayor Taylor felt that the reason for selling the property is for its development, and people will want to know what is being planned for the property before submitting bids to GSA for parcels. He stated that they have notified the Valley Planning Cammissian and have indicated that the Council is generally sympathetic to the idea that the property should be planned prior to annexation. Councilman Beebe suggested that they affirm the suggestion that the property should be used for a national cemetary. Councilman Futch moved that the Council send a letter to VCSD stat- ing that the matter has been referred to. the Valley Planning Committee with the comments that the Council feels there should be a general plan for the area before annexation is recammended. Councilman Miller secanded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. REPORT RE COURT DECISION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS * * * The City Attorney had submitted a written report regarding a recent Supreme Court decisian re- lating to environmental impact reports - Friends of Mammoth et al vs. Board of Supervisors af Mono County. He explained that the written re- port was prepared earlier in the week and that he had attended a meeting today in which fifteen City Attorneys were present from Contra Costa County, a representative from the Alameda CM-25-436 Octaber 2, 1972 County District Office, as well as himself. Alameda County has nat met as yet, nor to his knowledge, Santa Clara or San Mateo. He feels these meetings will pragress and that the League is halding meetings and a subcommittee of the Contra Casta graup has been formed which he will prabably attend. He feels this is ane af the biggest cases to come along in this area and it has caught many peaple by surprise. In his apinion, 99% af the public attarneys interpreted the legislation as nat requiring an impact report when a private praject was involved; however, the Caurt ruled, in a 6-1 vote, to require an environmental impact report. He feels this will have a great effect on all the cities in the State af California. The cities now have 30 days to see lf the Court plans to make any madificatians but the cities must move if they want modifications. He felt that the case must be taken at face value and that the Court has stated that since 1970 the City is required to make environmental impact studies on all entitle- ments to use af land. He stated he interprets this to mean all subdivisions, zanings, rezanings, Conditional Use Permits, same variances, and almost everything. He advised that the Building Department be instructed immediately to accept applications but not issue building permits until such time as: 1) the City ob- tains a standard from the Cauncil as to what is required in the way af guidelines, as to. whether the environmental effect will have significant impact; 2) reports have to be developed and he explained that the attorneys will try to develop guidelines re- quired for the City's guidance. Part of the guidelines will be considerations as to. what alternatives there are once it is decided an adverse effect an the environment will be created by these projects. The Caurt will say that if there is an adverse effect on the praject, the Council has a right to disapprove, re- gardless of any other statutes. He indicated that with regard to applications requiring enviranmental impact statements, a public hearing is required in which the public will be allowed to speak. (Enviranmental Impact Reports) Councilman Miller felt that the City Attorney had stated the matter very well in that applications wauld be accepted and per- mits withheld until enviranmental impact reports have been received. Also, this should be understood and not confused with the fact that this is in no way a maratorium or that permits are being re- fused for that reason. The City Attarney reaffirmed Cauncilman Miller's comment adding that this is not a moratorium but is simply a process which must be follawed and that the City has no intention of trying to. tie up any project which is felt to. be impartant to. the City. The Mayor felt that nathing but gaod cauld came from this decisian and welcomed it. Councilman Miller commented that he views the decision with great joy and that the Supreme Court is going along with the ideas propased by him a year ago. The Council then discussed the Court decision and its effect on the City, as well as delays incurred due to. the decisian, and directed the City Attorney to present his comments, as pre- sented to the Cauncil, to the Planning Commission. * * * Mr. Lee noted that a meeting set up by the Valley Interest group to start cansidering the Valley Water Management Study and the implementation schedule. It is anticipated that the Regional Board staff will require consideration at an early date. A date has been at 7:00 p.m. and the Cauncil representatives are and Pritchard. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Water Management Study) set as October 6th Councilmen Beebe CM-25-437 October 2, 1972 (Water Manage- ment Study) Mayor Taylor and Councilman Futch expressed con- cern at the committee discussing which agency will be responsible for the planning of water management in the Valley. The Mayar commented that he wauld not like to see the City forced by the Water Quality Control Board into something which is going to have a substantial effect for many years. He felt alternatives should be considered; possibly turning the matter over to Zone 7 would be reasonable but on the other hand, perhaps not. He felt that his main concern is that the planning should be unified; however, the operations may be another consideration. * * * Mr. Parness explained that the matter he is bringing for discussion is on behalf of Mr. Ed Hutka, who is developing the acreage south of First Street just beyond Trevarna Road. He noted that it involves the drainage system and is eminent due to structures being praposed for development on the front of the property. Mr. Hutka is being asked to install the improvements along the frontage without any contribution for drainage or any improvement going in. The fees that are assessable for the entire drainage, most of which is across the street, would cost an amount of capital in excess of the actual capital cost of the system; therefore, Mr. Hutka has asked that these fees be re- assessed. There is a singular fee applicable to the entire City; in the past the City was divided into eighteen different drainage districts. The staff has been studying the prospects of subdivid- ing the City again in order to allow a little more meaning in the application of fees as to what the drainage costs will be. Mr. Hutka is not apposed to installing this system, but has requested that he be allowed to install only a portion at this time and to temporarily modify the balance by a bubbling manhole to be out- fitted with same type of sump pump. Water wauld be evacuated dur- ing runoff pressures and ponded on his property. When water remains in the pipe the pump would draw it out and it would be placed on the property as well. The engineering staff requests that he install the entire system at this time and he is appealing this decisian to the Cauncil. Re Appeal - Drain Costs (Hutka) Earl Mason, representing Mr. Hutka, explained in detail the process of the praposal to pond the water, and how it will be done. Councilman Futch raised the question of whether or not this pond would create a mosquito problem, and Mr. Mason stated that the water would soak into the ground rather quickly, and would not likely cause a problem. Mr. Lee commented that the difference in this case is that there has been ponding in a tract where the developer has been banded to. insure that the off tract improvements will be made at a later time, but we have never relied on a pumping station. If there are any maintenance problems, hawever, Mr. Hutka has agreed to. take care of them, and perhaps there cauld be some type of bond to cover main- tenance. He added that the City has always had the policy of re- quiring a functional system and that the state Division of Highways would not accept the pumping station; however, the line could be set back off the right-of-way and they would not be involved. Mayor Taylor mentioned that a developer is required to pay not only for the pipes on his property, but also his fair share of the aff site improvements, and in this case, it appears that the par- tion applied to this property is in excess of the actual drainage problems caused by developing this particular property. In addition to City fees the developer is required to actually build all the on site drainage lines. Therefore, he is obligated to put in all the on site drainage which includes all the pipes until they leave the front of his property. He has asked that the $7,000 cost far this be deferred. CM-25-438 October 2, 1972 Mr. Lee advised that it might be a goad idea to require a bond if the Council is to grant Mr. Hutka his request in case the property is ever saId, the City would not have a problem. (Drainage Casts - Hutka) Mr. Parness indicated that his appeal is that abviausly the drain- age fees pertaining to this drainage zone are very inappropriate. Councilman Miller stated that he feels there should be a functional system; hawever, rather than requiring Mr. Hutka to. put up the $35,000 which would be ultimately reimbursed, the City could con- sider using the $35,000 from the starm drain money alang with the $7,000 from Mr. Hutka to build the system all at once, relieving Mr. Hutka of the burden of the extra capital. Cauncilman Futch commented that the City is going to. impound the water an the vacant land owned by Mr. Hutka, but it was not clear why the pump is sa undesirable. He felt that if anything, the undesirable aspect wauld be the impaunding of the water, not the pump. Mr. Lee explained that they are discussing a low valume pump which which would not really take care of storm flows, and there would be a backing up of water. If it is not a completely tight system, it wauld be full of water and water back in the sail and it is nat an ideal type of system. Mr. Hutka stated that the City has requested that two zanes be combined - theirs and Mancini's, which is an extra district and would be an added burden which he is required to. pay. Mr. Lee felt that Mr. Hutka would not have to be paying extra fees, and with regard to. the fact that Mr. Hutka mentioned a great disparity between the cost of what is being collected and what is being spent, stated that he has not checked the figures but he feels that this would be taking the warst possible situa- tion with possibly 80% surface for the area and that, in actuality, there is little difference between the two. He indicated that in this particular zane this may nat be true, hawever. Councilman Futch maved that the Council take the maney fram the storm drain fees to connect the system, and at the time other property develops it would be a condition that he would reimburse the City. Cauncilman Miller stated that he wauld second the motion if he understands that Councilman Futch's motian is for the City to use their share of the $35,000 and that this would be a share Mr. Hutka wauld not have to. reimburse the City; it would save Mr. Hutka fram putting up money at this time for which the City would actually have to reimburse him at a later date. Councilman Futch explained that his motion was to take the money from the storm drainage fees and at the time the ather property develops it would be a condition that they pay the fees for develop- ment. It was pointed out by Mr. Parness that this would cost the City $42,000 rather than $35,000 as requested to complete the system; not requiring the proposed pump. Mr. Lee felt the City has two. alternatives: 1) to advance the $35,000 plus or minus, depending upon the bids, extending the line to the point where it woulddrnin itself and the maney would come from the storm drain fees; 2) not require extension af the line but allow the pump installation and ponding of the water, plus provide a bond for the construction of the line at some future time and maintain the pump. In his opinian, the first alternative would be the most desirable. CM-25-439 October 2, 1972 ~~rainage Costs - Hutka) The City Manager indicated that he felt the motion made by Councilman Futch was very reasonable. At this time Councilman Beebe seconded the motion made by Cauncilman Futch. Mayor Taylor explained that provisions will be made to insure that the City will get back the $7,000. The Council voted unanimously to approve the motion. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Re Youth Council) Councilman Beebe asked what had happened to the Youth Council and if they were still meeting. and Donald active. Mayor Taylor explained that the Youth Council had been disbanded due to the fact that people moved as seniors graduated and it had been diffi- cult to get students to attend. Roger Silva and Bradley had been meeting with them trying to keep it The City Manager mentioned that if the grant is extended it would involve the appointment of a Youth Advisory Council, if his sug- gestion is accepted by the Council. * * * Councilman Futch explained that he had been asked to. refer comments made by the Board of the Chamber of Commerce at their Tuesday meeting following the Monday Council meeting in which the business license fee was discussed. He stated that Ken Mercer had made the same comment, basically, as expressed at the Council meeting; that $10,000 was a lot of money but not their majar concern. They did not expect the Council to change the business license this year but felt that the Council had not indicated that they were not anti- business; they wanted the Council to. indicate this. It was pointed out that somehow they got off on a tangent of figures and this was not their intention. Councilman Futch stated further that he re- sponded with the camment that he had spoken with others involved in the business license fee and it was not the intent of the Coun- cil to increase the fee every time it is updated. He explained that this might not be the true feeling of all the Council members, but in his opinion, was the majority opinion. Also, the Council is nat against business, painting out three cases in which actian has been taken to encourage business: 1) reviewing public works standards along Frontage Road; 2) review of the Industrial Ordinance with the goal of updating it; and 3) steps to acquire commerce by action taken on the Southern Pacific proposal. He felt these indi- cated a desire to make canditions advantageaus to the business district. Councilman Futch indicated that Mr. Mason expressed a desire for the Chamber to contribute by allowing their experts to have a hand in some of the planning. Cauncilman Futch's comment there was to explain that the Council had tried to do this by appoint- ing Mr. Mason to a committee as well as one af their Board of Di- rectors to. the Planning Cammission. Finally, Mr. Mason charged that the motel tax adopted by the Council five or six years ago was not being used far the business community which, in his opinian, was the intent. Councilman Futch explained that he was not on the Cauncil at that time and, therefore, could offer no opinion, but would relay the message. He felt that these were the main points braught aut, and questioned as to whether or not the intent of the motel tax was for the purpose of helping the business community. (Chamber of Commerce - Comments re Business License Fee) Councilman Miller, with the concurrence af the City Manager, stated that this had not been discussed; it was simply a method of raising revenue, and for no other purpose. CM-25-440 Octaber 2, 1972 (Business License Fees) Earl Mason asked that the Council check into. the law at the state level and what it states the motel tax may be used for, explaining that he had been under the impression that this had been the request of the Chamber at the meetirg in which Cauncilman Futch was present, and the City Manager agreed to. report to. the Cauncil regarding the matter. * * * (Re Telephone Rates) Councilman Miller commented that with regard to the problems on Southfront Road, Bob Hampton had pointed out that Livermore and the whole valley is at a disadvantage with respect to. telephone service. We pay a very high telephone rate far the number of telephones connected and that he, for one, has to pay a very high telephone bill for telephane calls into. Oakland. We do not get the service for the high rate we pay as thase in Oakland for a slightly higher cost. It is his understanding that private citizens cannot complain to the PUC but that the City can. It wauld appear that the City shauld apply to the PUC for revision of telephone rates for the Valley and Livermore in particular. Mayor Taylor felt that the Telephone Company was considering a pracess by which each individual could chaose which service area he wauld like to be in and there cauld be possibly a dozen areas in the City in which an lndividual could be in and he was under the impressian this was in the mill. Councilman Miller stated that it has been from nine to twelve months since the Cauncil was tald af this, but nathing has been dane. Mayor Taylor suggested that they ask the Telephone Company far a report an the status of the matter with which the Council concurred. * * * Councilman Miller commented that he has received camplaints regarding parking af trucks in resi- dential areas. He felt that this matter keeps coming up repeatedly, and that there must be some way to combat the problem. * * * (Trucks Parking in Residential Areas) (Speeding & Litter on Wall street) Cauncilman Miller stated he has received com- plaints regarding litter on Wall Street, mainly fram students who attend Granada High Schaal. The persans camplaining suggested that the schools do something; however, the Council cannot require the schools to do anything but Cauncilman Miller suggested that perhaps the City could furnish litter cans. Also, there is a lot of speeding on Wall Street and traffic control is difficult; however, it might be worthwhile to cancentrate on this street for awhile and a few tickets might prove beneficial. Councilman Beebe remarked that Madeira Way also has a speed pro- blem, and that he has had camplaints regarding this street. * * * Mayor Taylor asked if Piombo Construction has been shut down and the status of the matter. (Status of Piombo Canstruction) The City Manager reported that it has been shut down but terms have finally been reached and they are caming in to sign a letter of agreement. The matter was mainly of quantity and quality, which has been agreed upan. They have agreed to. the City's proposal and will start working in the next few days and the jab will be complete in thirty days. * * * CM-25-441 October 2, 1972 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Taylor adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. to a brief executive session for discussion of a legal matter. ATTEST APPROVE * * * Regular Meeting of October 10, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 10, 1972, in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at ~:03 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. * * * SPECIAL ITEM (Zone 7 Bond Proposal) Mayor Taylor explained that the Council had asked for more information regarding the proposed Zone 7 Bond Election in Navember, particularly financial information, and representatives from Zone 7 were present to answer questions. Bob Becker, Chairman and representative from Zone 7, explained that the Pleasanton City Council has approved Project 2 unanimously, as well as VCSD and the County Board of Supervisors. Zone 7 has been working on the project since 1968 with other consultants and there was considerable question as to whether this plan wauld be the best plan for the Valley. They did jointly with the County Water District, hire Brown and Caldwell to evaluate the project. Brown and Caldwell reparted that expansion and impravement of Zone 7 water supply is needed and long overdue. Consideration of the long range water supply and environmental factors favor Project 2 as the first stage of plans most deserving of the support of the Livermore-Amador Valley residents. A recent report points out that sewage problems will be reduced and this would in itself be an endorsement to Project 2. He also mentianed that in the event there is no growth in the Valley, starting immediately, Pro- ject 2 would not go ahead; it is to be supported by revenue bands, and these could not be sold if there were no more growth. Finan- cing is practical as reported by a financial consultant, and they plan to move ahead on this basis. He invited the Council to ask any questions they might have regarding the project. Councilman Beebe felt the fact sheet just received today answered any question one might have, and that it was very well done. CM-25-442 1 October 10, 1972 Councilman Miller explained that there are ques- (Zone 7 Bond tions in his mind some of them being more phil- Proposal) osophical in nature rather than directed to. the program itself. He mentioned that there are some things the Cauncil has asked far and not yet received; one being the full cost and econamic analysis of the revenue sources. Also, how will the financing take place; how valid is the estima- tion that water connections will take care of all this; that re- venue will not have to come from increased water rates. The Council has not yet seen the an~~y~is giving this information. Mr. Becker apologized for misunderstanding the request and indi- cated that stone and Youngberg would be happy to answer any of these questions; however, he felt that he could give some of the information. The problems as far as financing, in his opinion, would take place over the first few years as far as bond financing. It is felt that there is a need for approximately one thousand equivalent connections to make the project feasible which is about 55% of the average graup rate over the last three years. Councilman Miller expressed concern also in the event the public welfare may require a temporary halt in building due to enviran- mental impact, and the one thousand cannection fees per year are not available. This may require higher taxes or water rates. Mr. Becker explained that if it appears the one thousand connec- tion fees cannot be obtained for one reason or another, they will not proceed with the project. Cauncilman Miller pointed out that his concern was also for the conditions in five to seven years when, perhaps, the Environmental Protection Agency or Air Pollution Control District declares there shall be no more building due to smog. This would create a burden for those left to pay for the project. Mr. Becker commented that they plan to have environmental impact studies and Councilman Miller pointed out this should have been dane already, and that public hearings should have been held re- garding environmental impact studies. He added that in his opinion the environmental considerations are important and the Environmen- tal Quality Act says that environmental quality considerations are to be the guiding criterian for public decisions. He mentioned that he feels all of us know that smog is a consequence of further residential growth in the Valley, which represents deterioration. This is one of the things Zone 7 should consider when adding more water. Councilman Miller pointed out that in the past water has been used up by residential growth and he wondered how additional proposed water could be reserved for prospective industry. He felt that Zone 7 has no mechanism with which to achieve this goal and that the City does not have the authority to reserve water. If the air quality is used up by residential growth, this may restrict industrial growth. ( Mr. Becker stated that they share the concern for the environmental quality, as should every responsible agency, and that they are aware of the public's concern as well. Their only response is that they feel their proposal will have a positive effect on the enviranment rather than a negative aspect. In the past Zone 7 has done a tremendous job in bringing up the levels of water in the Valley as well as the quality and they hope to work with the Recreation Districts in making the arroyos open space and recrea- tional areas. They feel that better quality water in itself is a favorable impact on the environment. He agreed that they do not have the tools to say that one corporation will receive water and that another area will be restricted and would hope that the cities involved would act as the tool to work out their prablems. Cauncilman Miller agreed that Zone 7 in the past has done a very good job, but that within the last five years the emphasis has CM-25-443 October 10, 1972 (Zone 7 Bond Proposal) changed with respect to what agencies should be doing. At this time, he would feel that the higher quality of water is outweighed by the disadvantages of smog which arises from residential construction; not the construction itself, but because af the cars citizens drive. He explained that 50% of our smog blows into the Valley from aver the hill, 25% is generated from cars driving around town, and 25% from the freeway and it was pointed out in a study that twa- thirds of this traffic is generated by people in the Valley cam~ muting and wives shopping out of town. He stated that until he can see the economics and environmental impact report, he cauld not support Project 2. At this point, and until an iranclad way af preserving water far industry is proposed, he sees the provision of new water supply as a way af increasing residential development at the expense of industry, commerce and air quality. Mr. Becker painted out that rejection of Project 2 wauld result in an impact an total growth, including the industry the Valley de- sires. Councilman Miller commented that he is aware of this; however, residential growth comes fast while industry comes slawly and the BAAPCD has stated that if smog levels are too high they will elim- inate industry first. * Councilman Pritchard pointed aut that the Council last week agreed to pave the way for an industry that plans to come to Livermore and that this industry uses 100,000 gallons of water a day. He felt it imperative that they be able to have the water they need, adding that this summer we were supposed to have had a water shart- age which we came close to. Witp respect to the environmental impact, he felt that Zane 7 would stap Project 2 should the study indicate there wjll be a detrimental impact on the environment. He felt that in this instance growth is a "red herring" and that anyone not willing to support the Project 2 bonds which will not be using tax dollars is willing to let the Valley continue to have some of the worst water in the Bay Area. Mr. Becker commented that most of the water increase will nat be for new customers but will replace water taken from the underground. With regard to. the financing, he indicated that in twenty-five years they will prabably have a surplus; hawever, finance people tend to. be conservative and do not indicate there will be surplus. He stated that stone and Youngberg is a reputable firm and when they indicate that financing done in the propased manner will be suffi- cient, there should be no reason to dispute their opinion. He felt the connectian fee paid for one industry could be the equivalent of fifteen to twenty homes. Councilman Futch stated that he plans to make a motion to support Project 2 though he has reservations about the magnitude campared with other expansions af facilities. For example, we are planning a 20% expansion of the sewage treatment plant and he felt that in the future all the facilities shauld be expanded at the same rate rather than the leapfrog type of expansion. Mr. Becker explained that Project 1 was for a 10-year period and that Project 2 is from five to seven years, and this one will not be on the line far two. more years. This was cut back from a 10-year $13,000,000 project, originally discussed, and they share the concern for aver building. It is hard to plan a water project for less than five years, and they feel they will not have any unused facilities with this proposal. They feel that they have reached the proper campromise in this case~ Mr. Mun Mar, Zone 7 Staff member, commented that the EPA plans to have standards as far as automobile pollutian and that by 1975 they anticipate plans for removal of substantial amounts of pallu- tants discharged into the air by automobiles. He feels they will have to respand to national abjectives in time. CM-25-444 I . ) - ~ Add to P. 444, CM25 - Corrected 11/24/72 ~b. Councilman Futch mentioned that Mr. Becker had stated the , project could not be financed by a raise in water rates and asked what would happen if for some reason growth were stopped after the bonds were sold and the construction had been started. Mr. Becker commented that he doesn't know what a bond holder would do with a "slightly used water plantll. He added that the estimate is large, with all kinds of contingency factors to cover cash flow during the worst period of time. If we go for 25 years with this bond we are going to end up with quite a surplus, however, there is no other way to finance it because the bond people want to be assured that payments can be made. October 10, 1972 Mr. Becker commented that even thaugh Council- man Miller cannot endorse this project, during his campaign he claimed he loved water; there- fore~ Mr. Becker stated he felt everything will work out. (Zone 7 Bond Proposal) Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council endorse the Project 2 water band issue with the added notation that it is strictly a revenue band and will not cast the taxpayers anything in the way of taxes. The mation was secanded by Cauncilman Beebe. Mayor Taylor nated that with regard to the statement made by Councilman Pritchard of the industry coming to Livermore which uses 100,000 gallons of water a day; this may be misleading, as the industry recycles a majority af its water and in an emergency situation they may use 100,000 gallons. He added that the in- dustry was impressed with the fact that the people of the Valley are cancerned about their water supply and are loaking ahead. He felt the advantages with the praposal far outweigh the disadvantages. Councilman Beebe mentioned that the City of Petaluma is restricting residential growth to a certain number a year with no restrictions to industry; in this way they are reserving their utilities for industry and commerce while allowing residential building for thase who work in industry. He felt it might be wise to observe their progress. Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street. asked what the major improvement of the water quality is, and Mr. Becker explained that the improve- ment will be of hardness and cantent. Mr. Tull then commented that reports furnished by leading insurance firms as well as the President's canference painted out that people die earlier when they drink soft water despite the fact that hard water praduces kidney and gall stones. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that the report af Brown and Caldwell indicates that citizens receiving Cal Water will see little improvement, if any, in their water over a period of time. Approximately 30% of the water will still be taken fram wells and to. keep in step with truth in advertising, peaple receiving Cal Water should be informed of the fact that little improvement will be realized. Councilman Pritchard nated that the objective is not to increase the softness but to keep it from getting harder than it is now. Mr. Lee explained that there is only a certain amount of water that Cal Water can take from the graund and that excess will be taken from Zone 7 and will be cantinued in the future. Therefore, this means that there should be cantinued improvement except from an area which receives all well water. The Council voted 4-1 in favor af the motian to. endorse the bonds, with Councilman Miller dissenting. Bill Jenkins informed the Council that on Saturday, October 14, the Tri-Valley Citizens for Better Water will hold the last annual Hard Water Tasting, between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. at the Sunal Country Club; there will be Valley wines and cheeses served between the tastings, and he cordially invited the Council members to. attend. * * * Pauline Taylor Connor, 2263 Linden Street, complained about price markings in a local market, stating that a per pound price was on an article, and when she went to the re- gister the clerk informed her that it was a per each price. OPEN FORUM (Complaint re Pricing) CM-25-445 October 10, 1972 (Complaint re Pricing) Paul Tull, speaking on Mrs. Connor's behalf, in- dicated that this is how, in his apinion, merchants are driving the public to larger markets or out of town. Mayor Taylor commented that he would hope the business community would regulate their prices and if a violation of any law has occurred, the City could natify the apprapriate officials. It appears that this has been a case of deceptive advertising or perhaps bad business practice, however the Council has no authority in this case and cannat judge. * * * REPORT RE SACEOA Councilman Pritchard stated that under matters initiated by the Council at the very end of the agenda, Cauncilman Futch is prepared to report on SACEOA. However, in view of the fact that there are no public hearings and a number of people in the audience are interested in this matter he wondered if it would be possible for Councilman Futch to. report at this time. Mayor Taylor agreed that this would be a gaod idea and explained that at the last meeting the Council had been informed that the Governor had vetoed the grant to SACEOA and that the matter had been continued. The City of Livermore, along with other involved cities, had agreed that if funds were not available to SACEOA, they would form some alternative agency to keep the funds coming. At this point the cities are in the process of setting up another agency in case the veto is now withdrawn. Councilman Futch moved that the Council express to the Governor, as well as the Office of Economic Opportunity of the western re- gion, that this Cauncil does not appose refunding of Grant #90-142 which is the SACEOA grant. If he does cantinue to. veto the funds the Council feels there should be sufficient time to form their own agency during a phase aut period before this takes place. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion, and added that as far as the local people are concerned, when SACEOA was in business it seemed that aur lacal people were always onlthe short end of the stick. There are other low income programs such as CAPE, Head- start Program and Seniar Citizens Program in Livermore which are very good. One in particular is funding for an automobile for taking elderly people to the store, bank, etc. which he feels the City cannot do withaut. If funds are not available to cantinue this service, he would personally see if service clubs could help to finance this project. Also, he was just made aware that Tubbs- ville was in line for funding for paint far the homes and effarts to make them more attractive. He felt these are all items that are important and require funding. He indicated that he wauld do whatever is necessary to see that these valuable projects are kept gaing. Councilman Futch mentianed one project overlooked, which the Valley has just received funds for, is the Health Care Center in Pleasanton. At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Report re Autamotive Equip. Lease (Shell Oil) CM-25-446 . The City Manager reported that automotive equip- ment is leased to the City far the marketing af Shell Aviation fuel at the airport for $1.00 a year. He has advised Gene Morgan to add the vehicle to aur insurance coverage and requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing executian of the lease. RESOLUTION NO. 128-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT (Shell Oil Campany) * * * October 10, 1972 Repart re Parking Limit - I street Between 3rd & 4th st. The Public Warks Directar reported that the awner of the Weinerschnitzel has requested a twa-haur parking limit be pasted an I street between 3rd and 4th street. A survey indicates that the request far restricted parking is justi- fied and also same restricted parking is recammended for two. spaces on the west side of I Street adjacent to the business entrance of the Herald and News. RESOLUTION NO. 129-72 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THAT AREA ON NORTH I STREET BETWEEN THRID AND FOURTH STREETS FOR LIMITED PARKING. * * * There have been numerous requests to. use all- purpose credit cards at the Municipal Airport. In respanse to this demand Shell Oil Company has presented an agreement which would allow the City to accept other credit cards, namely Master Charge, and Shell Oil to. pracess them. by the Public Works Director that the Council ment. * * * The City staff has prepared a resolution setting up interim guidelines in the business district for Environmental Impact Reports. The resalution pravides the Building Official with said guide- lines for issuance of permits. RESOLUTION NO. 130-72 Report re Airport Credit Card Service Bank Americard or It is recommended approve the agree- Establish Interim Guidelines for Environmental Impact Repo rts A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ESTABLISHING INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS. * * * One hundred seventy-six claims in the amount af Payrall & Claims $152,435.34 and two hundred fifty-six payroll warrants in the amount of $62,972.00 dated Octo- ber 6, 1972, were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from Warrant 4021 for his usual reasons. * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, secanded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved. * * * A letter of complaint was received from Reeder Development Corporation charging that their property on Bluebell Drive and Las Flares Rd. was condemned without their consent or public hearing. They requested, further, that the matter adding that they have never been paid. Approval of Consent Calendar COMMUNICATION FROM REEDER DEV. CO. be investigated, The City Attorney explained that this matter involves a strip of land acquired for a street in Springtown, adjacent to the Elliatt Mobilehame Park. The candemnation of the roadway was dane through a resolution and Mr. David Madis, representing Elliott, filed an action. There has been contraversy between Mr. Elliott and Mr. Reeder over the price of the land which has not been resolved, and he indicated that he wauld report back to the Council at the CM-25-447 October 10, 1972 (Reeder Dev. re Condemnation) time there has been some resolution. Mr. Lewis stated that perhaps this incident indicates that the City shauld review its method of process for this type of thing at some later date. The Cauncil directed the City Attarney to. research the matter and respond to the Council at a later time. REPORT RE LIVERMORE AVE.- 1ST ST. CONST. * * * It was reparted by the Public Works Director that in 1969 the City undertook the development and realignment af North Livermore Avenue and the intersection at First Street. The State Division of Highways agreed that the project was necessary and they would be willing to participate; however, they could not budget for it. Finally, they have agreed to participate to the extent of $100,000 with the City's share to. be $118,000. It is recammended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the requisite State agreements and solicication of constructian bids and acquisitian of the needed right-of-way by the State. Mr. Parness suggested the Council ask the State who the appraisers are and from their appraisal then decide which parcels should be acquired and which course should be fallowed. Councilman Miller felt the proposal, as it stands, for acquisitian would be very advantageaus and that they have the estimate for this. Mayor Taylor explained that this is anly a rough estimate and the Council should know what is being spent before action is taken. Cauncilman Beebe moved to grant the staff the authority to contact the State Division of Highways and pose the questions to them; motian was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 131-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF LIVERMORE AVENUE/FIRST STREET INTERSECTION. REPORT RE SALE OF SPRINGTOWN GOLF COURSE * * * The City Manager's report explained the matter of the proposed sale of the Springtown Golf Course as follows: The annexation agreement with the precedent company to Intermark provided that the golf course property, if proposed for sale, was to be affered first to the City, and if refused by the City, offered to LARPD. He regrettably recommended that in view af the low purchase price affered ($100,000) the City should de- cline the offer and encourage LARPD to purchase the property so that it may remain a public recreation use. The lease agreement with the Municipal Golf Course stipulates that the City, during the time of the lease, shall not purchase or operate any other golf course which may be in competition or adverseley effect the gross receipts of the present Municipal Golf Course. Mr. Lewis explained that the language af the agreement is suffi- ciently tight, so that it would be difficult for the City to. purchase the property for a golf course. It could be done, how- ever, with the consent of the bondholders. Cauncilman Pritchard commented that the City Galf Course has al- ways been in competition with the one at Springtown and fails to see how the change in ownership would affect the amount of play at the City Galf Course. CM-25-448 October 10, 1972 Councilman Miller views the Springtawn property as open space and feels the City should purchase the property, and that it is not essential that the praperty be used as a galf caurse. It is the cheapest piece of apen space the City can get with all improve- ments having been done. Councilman Miller moved that the City acquire the land, which was seconded by Cauncilman Pritchard. (Sale of Springtown Golf Course) Cauncilman Futch suggested the Council ask far a release from the bandholders and Councilman Beebe added that if they give their permission that it be used as a nine-hole golf course, he would like a report indicating whether or not the City cauld aperate a golf course without a deficit. Mr. Parness commented that, at present, it is being operated with- out a deficit. Councilman Miller pointed out the fact that LARPD does not have $100,000 available to purchase the praperty; therefare, it wauld not do any good to offer them the purchase. The City Manager suggested that the Council do two things simul- taneously - notify the present owner and praceed with the acqui- sition while at the same time apply to the bondholders for per- mission to. revake the covenant. If the bandhalders deny the request to. operate the golf caurse, the praperty cauld be retained in City ownership for park purposes or disposed of through some type af interchange with LARPD at a later time. Cauncilman Miller added to his motion, the recommendation af the City Manager to. apply to. the bondholders, secanded by Councilman Pritchard. Ray Faltings stated that it is his understanding this area was to serve as a flood plain, set aside to receive waters in runoff capacity so that the ariginal builders af Springtown did not have to put in the necessary catch drains required of other de- velopers. He felt that potential purchasers should be made aware of the fact. Mayor Taylor stated that the City has never as yet set aside a flood plain. Howard Pabst, 1532 Hollyhock Street, on behalf of the Board of Directars of the Springtawn Association, stated they would res- pect any action the Council might take toward the purchase of the property for apen space and park land and for some agreement with LARPD for their eventual control of the land. It is his understanding that an autside affer has been made on the golf course and the reason the Council has been asked for bids. He explained that the people in Springtawn would hope that the land will be taken over by LARPD and maintained as a golf course and that they would be willing to do all they can to insure this possibility. Mr. Rodriguez, 1837 Niagra, asked if LARPD has given any indicatian that they will help in some way, and Councilman Miller explained that they plan to take a look at the possibilities. Mayor Taylor asked that it be made clear that Councilman Miller has nat met with the Board farmally, but has received camments from individuals an which he has based his personal opinion. The Council vated unanimausly at this time to approve the motion made by Councilman Miller. * * * CM-25-449 October 10, 1972 APPEAL RE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (James Contratto) The Planning Director gave a report on the status of the appeal of James Contratto for a home occu- patian permit. Mr. Musso explained that the home occupation per- mit was applied for in March of this year, which he personally had denied. The applicant appealed this denial to the City Council at which time the matter was re- ferred back to the staff. The staff reviewed the matter again, in light of the applicant's statements, and approved it with the con- ditions that there be limited storage and that all combustible trash be stored as other residential trash in metal garbage cans to be removed once a week with other residential garbage. Initially, the collection of this refuse at the site prompted the complaint. The neighbors in the meantime have appealed by petition the decision to allow the hame accupatian and that is the present status. Mayor Taylor asked if Mr. Musso has reason to believe the applicant will not be able to. canform to the conditians, and Mr. Musso stated if this were true, they would not have approved it; however, whether ar not they conform is anather matter. Mrs. Henry Kienzle, 450 Brighton Way, testifying in protest to the permit being approved, explained that their objection is that the machinery used for the occupation disturbs the television and radio reception in the whole area. She feels the noise created by this machinery should not be allowed in a residential area, creating a day to day irritation. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council usually grants home occupation permits provided it does not intrude on the neighbors in any way and is not obvious that a home occupatian exists; however, if the previous testimony is true, perhaps there should be a public hearing at which time all the neighbors are given a chance to testify. Councilman Futch mentioned that due to the fact this is an occupa- tion not normally allowed in the home, plus the fact there are indications that the neighbors object, it would seem to be something the Council should deny. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council uphold the citizens' appeal for denial of the permit, seconded by Councilman Miller. Mayor Taylor agreed with the motion in general, but felt the appli- cant and other neighbors should be heard before making a decision. Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the applicant had been noti- fied that the matter was to be braught up, but did nat appear, and they have a copy of the petition from a number of neighbors who object to the home occupation. At this time the Council voted 4-1 in favor of the motion with Mayor Taylor dissenting due to the process, only, since he felt the applicant should be heard before a decision is made. * * * SUMMARY OF ACTION (Planning Commission) There being no comments regarding the summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of October 3, 1972, the summary was noted for filing. * * * ORDINANCE RE ZONING ORD. REAPPLICATIONS The City Attorney explained that at the last Coun- cil meeting the staff was directed to prepare some wording for the proposed ardinance regarding re- applications for Zoning Ordinance amendments, and the wording had been derived with the assistance af the Planning Director. CM-25-450 Councilman Miller moved to adopt the amendment to. the Zoning Ordinance, however the motion failed for lack of a second. October 10, 1972 (Zoning Ordinance Reapplications) Councilman Beebe moved that the Council proceed as recommended in the staff report that since a reapplication happens so seldom there is no. real need for the ordinance amendment, and that the matter be tabled indefinitely; mation was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting. * * * Mr. Parness stated that the City is proceeding with all dispatch on the Southern Pacific Com- mercial improvement praject and that he met with them today to disclose preliminary cost estimate figures as well as preliminary methads for assessment spread which, in time, will be presented to the Cauncil. The figures suggested to be made applicable to this company's property are extremely high due to the relatively small size of the proposed district. In speaking with the bond caunsel it was advised that the praper course of action wauld be to have an expert appraisal done, not detailed, but a carefully weighed and evaluated official estimate of what the existing and future land values wauld be. It is felt that this variation might be sub- stantial enaugh to sway the company in favor of the project. The person recommended to the City is prized for his work and ability to. articulate these subjects. It is his hope that a repart can be made indicating the present land values for at least this one major property holding and perhaps same of the abutting ones; what the values would appreciate to in the event the tracks were moved to where the Southern Pacific Company originally intended them to be moved; and last, what these values would be under the proposed assessment measure, i.e. tracks moved adjacent to. Western Pacific. This job would amount to $1,575.00, but in his opinion is necessary. However, the firm indicated that should they be retained, and the project praceeds, appraximately two-thirds of this fee will be applicable to subsequent appraisal wark. MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Southern Pacific Dev. Repart) Councilman Beebe moved that the Council autharize retention of the firm to make the appraisal for $1,575.00; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 132-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE GRANTING SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY FRANCHISE AND RIGHT TO OPERATE RAILROAD TRACK ACROSS P STREET AS SHOWN ON SP DRAWING 37713. * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimaus vote, a re- solutian commending Roy C. Anderson for being selected Citizen of the Year was passed. RESOLUTION NO. 133-72 MATTERS INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL (Commendation - Roy C. Anderson) A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION - ROY C. ANDERSON * * * Councilman Pritchard noted that ABAG plans to hald its general assembly on November 10, which will probably be the hottest meeting they have had in a long time since population control will (ABAG General Assembly) be discussed. The Cauncil asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the meeting of October 24 for the Cauncil's discussion as to what direction the Council intends to take. CM-25-451 October 10, 1972 (Re Bicycle Paths) Councilman Futch wanted to know if it would be possible for Mr. Lee to report to the Council on bicycle paths, striping, etc. in the near future and Mr. Lee stated he wauld be reporting to. the Council. * * * (Re Purchase of Strip to Connect Civic Center to Arrya) Councilman Futch commented that the Planning Di- rector had mentioned purchasing property which wauld connect the Civic Center to the arroyo. near Robertson Park and he wondered what the status is. Mr. Musso. stated that this was just ane of the acquisitions to be made by the City and nothing has been dane at this time. Councilman Futch mentioned that it was his understanding a house had burned dawn and that the property was for sale and if the City wishes to purchase this property they should do so before it is sold to someone who wishes to canstruct another house at that site. He urged that the City Manager not delay as it would result in a loss to the City of this vital connection. * * * (Trucks in Cauncilman Miller stated that with regard to the Residential Area) problem of trucks parking in residential areas, a repart given to him by the City Attorney points out that one way to regulate truck parking is to cite commercial vehicles left in residential streets between the hours of 2:00 a. m. and 6:00 a.m. He has again received complaints about these trucks and it appears that it is within the Council's ability to ask the Police Department to. autamatically cite trucks parked in residential neighborhoods during these hours. He felt they should cite trucks that are obviously commercial, such as semi-trucks. The City Manager felt it might be apprapriate to initiate a warning system prior to a citation. Councilman Miller moved that the Palice Department issue one warn- ing, followed by a citation for large trucks parked in residential areas, however the motian was not seconded. The Council discussed which vehicles would be considered large trucks and concluded that this would nat effect campers, recreatianal vehicles and pickups; it would be left to the discretion of the Police Department. * * * (Longs' Property- Councilman Miller stated that he has received Used Car Lot) mare camplaints about the future Longs' praperty being used as a used car lot. The last time the Council discussed this matter, it was decided that there was nat much which cauld be done as this is on private property. However, if cars are being sold in a commercial area, it may require that they have a business license; possibly pressure can be put on the owner through a business license fee. * * * (Request for Board's Minutes) Cauncilman Miller suggested that in view of the fact a number of County matters are important to the City, the City ask for a copy of the minutes of the Board of Supervisors' meetings as a re- cord of what goes on to be kept at City Hall or the Library * * * CM-25-452 I October 10, 1972 Councilman Miller referred to the repart of the Livermore Avenue intersectian and the note re- garding property being suggested for purchase as an open space area downtown at $4.00 per sq. ft. and wondered if it is being assessed by the Councy Assessor at $4.00/sq. ft. in view of the complaints regard- ing assessments made last ApriL It might be worth while to check the assessment increases the last two or three years on commercial and industrial property vs. increases on residential. There is a persistent feeling, which he shares, that commercial property is underassessed, particularly in dawntown Livermore. House assess- ments have gone up very sharply in the past five years and it appears that this has not been so for commercial praperty or vacant land. (Commercial Assessments vs. Residential) Mr. Lee commented that the $4.00 per sq. ft. was just an estimate but it is his understanding that the assessment was greater than that on that particular piece of property. * * * Cauncilman Miller mentianed that same cities are in an uproar over the Friends of Mammoth decision and the League of California Cities intends to file an amicus curiae brief against this decision. He felt it might be of some value Livermore to submit an amicus curiae brief. (Court Decision re Friends of Mammoth) for the City of Councilman Beebe felt that the furor was raised over the point of whether a town should come out with guidelines on how to operate and not so much the Court decision on the case. Mayor Taylor felt money should not be spent in preparing a brief when our help may not be needed; the City is involved in enough af its own problems which will take up the City Attorney's time. He felt the City is not ready to. detract from the effort and time which could be spent on the SAVE suit and other problems the City is faced with. Mr. Lewis felt he could shed some light an the subject and stated that the Supreme Court has made the basic decision and in his opinion the League will not ask that the basic decision be changed. There are a number of cities who feel upset over the decision but the League will probably not take that position. The League is concerned about trying to clarify the language of the Court re- lated to retroactivity and other issues felt to be causing problems. He felt there is no major threat to the decision and will continue to keep the Council informed. * * * There being no further business to came before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ADJOURNMENT ATTEST ~~'<~ MrJ..YOf)" ('J APPROVE c~ * * * CM-25-453 Regular Meeting af Octaber 24, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Cauncil was held an Octaber 24, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayar Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: None RO LL CALL * * * Mayar Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge af Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * The minutes of the meetings of October 2, and MINUTES October 10, 1972 were approved, with the addi- tion requested by Councilman Futch for October lOth, on mation of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and by the unanimaus appraval af the Cauncil. -)(- * * Ken Mercer, Manager af Pacific Telephone Com- pany, appeared as a representative of that company to give additional information on Valley services, tall costs, message units, all as requested by the Council. SPECIAL ITEM Re Telephane Service and Rates Councilman Miller explained that the questian he had regarding the matter pertained to a comment originally made on the point that industry must pay very high telephone fees compared to those located on the other side af the hill; the phone service is high for a limited amount of subscribers to this type of service. He wondered if the City should go to. the Public utilities Cammissian to ask for more equitable phone rates. Our rate per telephone subscriber available for toll free calls should be the same as other areas araund us. Mr. Mercer stated that he would first like to explain the optional plan available to residents and then he would go into the commer- cial facet. Effective December 1, 1972, residents will have the following options: 1) Chaase ane city wi tmna 20 mile radius to. call for as long as you wish for a flat $3.95 per month, or choose one city within a 21-40 mile radius for a flat $4.95 per manth. A secand city wauld be an additianal $3.00 and a third city wauld be an addi- tional $2.35. 21 Call any city witWna40 mile radius for a I-hour measured time - $3.15 per hour. Each additional minute wauld cost 5ti. 3) A 20-hour measured service where you may phone any city within the 40 mile radius, using 20 hours for $29.95 per month; each additional minute would cost 2~i. This will be available only far a single party line as the equip- ment does not work on double party lines, and the fee will be in addition to the $5.00 fee the resident is currently paying. They are in the process af compiling results on the same service to be offered to business. It is possible that they will contact CM-26-1 October 24, 1972 (Telephone Rates the PUC next year proposing the same type of op- and Service) tion for businesses. With regard to the claim made by Mr. Hampton that Livermore pays higher telephone bills than other businesses in the area, Mr. Mercer's survey indicates that the average bill for business of variaus communities is as follows: Dublin Fremont Hayward Stockton $194.58 161.50 149.22 145.16 Walnut Creek-Concord-Danville Livermore Tracy Pleasantan $144 129 123.16 38 Councilman Miller mentioned that the survey indicating the average of telephone bills for businesses may be misleading due to the fact that most of the businesses of the community would phone mostly in the Valley within the $5.00 rate. The industrial average, therefore, would be brought down because of the relatively low number of calls by the commercial outside the Valley. Mr. Mercer felt the options which would be available are really geared to the custamers need and in Mr. Hampton's case, far example, he felt that perhaps he might even be better off to have a Hayward prefix and pay the mileage charge. He mentioned that there are many services which their marketing department will suggest to de- termine which service is best, at no cost to the customer. Councilman Pritchard asked if the Valley will have its own telephone directory and yellow pages next year, and Mr. Mercer stated we wauld, adding that it should have been this year but a problem arose which the PUC wanted to investigate and the deadline passed during this time causing the delay to. next year. The new directory will have everyone in the Valley listed alphabetically with the city after each name and then the number to eliminate numerous sections as naw exists in the directory. * * * Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, stated that he had protested to the City Attorney the fact that he was not allowed to attend the executive meeting held in the Council Chambers after the meeting of September 25. The City Attorney supplied him with three portions af the Brawn Act, and after reading this he is under the impression that anyone can attend this session except under certain conditions such as firing and hiring. He announced that he has written to the Attorney General with the accusation that the City Manager, City Attorney and present Council members have been cansistently violating the Brown Act. OPEN FORUM (Public Attending Executive Sessions) * * * ~e Festival '72) Adele Pence, 886 Adams, on behalf of Festival '72, presented the City with two purchase awards. These are two award winning paintings selected by the jury. She then thanked the City for its contribution and support of the event. Councilman Miller cammented that he wauld like to. have a resalution prepared commending the Cultural Arts Committee an the preparation of an event which provided a great deal of pleasure for a large num- ber of people in the cammunity; the motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 135-72 A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE CULTURAL ARTS COUNCIL FOR FESTIVAL '72. CM-26-2 Paul Tull complained about School Board pro- cedures after public hearings on the budget. October 24, 1972 (Complaint re School Board) Mayar Taylor cammented that the matter has nathing to do with the City Council and suggested that he go. to the School Board. Mr. Tull then asked the Council for their resignation, in full. Mayar Taylor stated that the praper persan to determine whether or not their executive sessions should be private would be the Attorney General. The Council has always announced the purpose of the sessian and feel that Mr. Tull's accusatians will nat be upheld. He added that the sessions have always been for legal or personnel matters and the Council daes not mind an investigation. * * * George Perkins, 1543 College Avenue, stated that he realizes the School Board matter is unrelated, but would like to. clarify the statement made by Mr. Tull, in that he feels the Board did not ask the public to leave to. circumvent the law, but possibly this was an oversight. The law states that the meeting notice must be published 24 hours prior, and that an announcement just be- forehand, in his apinian, is not within the law. In this instance they did not announce the purpose, or publish the results. (Re Schaal Baard Procedure) * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Departmental reparts were received as follows: Departmental Reparts Airport - Activity - September Airpart - Quarter Ending September 30 - Financial Building Department - September Emergency Services - Quarter JulylSeptember Finance Department - Fiscal Year 1971-72 Quarterly - JunelSeptember Fire Department - September Golf Caurse - Quarterly for JulylSeptember Library - Quarter - JunelSeptember Police and Paund Departments - September Water Reclamation Department - September * * * The Community Affairs Cammittee informed the Council of their September 28th meeting in which they discussed plans for next year's City picnic. Cansideratian is being given to the possibility of holding the picnic next on July 4th. Community Affairs Committee * * * Minutes af the Housing Authority for their meeting of September 26, 1972,were submitted for the Council's information. Hausing Authority Minutes * * * One hundred and six claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims $122,727.84 and two. hundred sixty-three payroll warrants dated October 20, in the amount of $64,813.02 for a total of $187,540.86 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * CM-26-3 October 24, 1972 Report re Steering Comm. (Bay Delta Resources Recovery) A report was received from Robert H. Mendelsohn, Chairman and Supervisor for San Francisco, re- garding the Steering Cammittee for the implementa- tian of the SPUR/ABAG Solid Wastes Plan, in which the City has been asked to. take the following steps: 1) Name an official delegate to the Action Commit- tee; 2) ask the delegate to name an alternate, who may be a staff member; 3) authorize a $1,500 - $3,000 contribution toward Stage 1. The City Manager has recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing implementation of the action requested above. Airport T-Hangar Financing Prapasal * * * The City Manager reported that it has been our plan for quite some time to add to the aircraft starage spaces at our airport, however a means of finaneing caused the delay. Finally, through informal negotiations, a method has been found far a capital loan from a private lending institution for a short term under the so-called "special fund doctrine" of loan payment. It is recammended that a mation be adopted autharizing the staff to proceed with the necessary legal documents that would authorize this construction plan. Private Vehicle Damage Claim YMCA Christmas Tree Sales Final Acceptance Tr. 3222 (Christopher Land Ca.) * * * This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. * * * The Public Works Director reports that the YMCA has again requested an encroachment permit to sell Christmas Trees an Q street narth of First Street. Certain conditions are recommended for granting the permit. * * * The Public Works Director reports that all the public works improvements have been completed in accardance with approved standards and Tract 3222 (Christopher Land Company),comprised of 167 lots, is now ready for acceptance far maintenance by the City. RESOLUTION NO. 134-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3222 (Christopher Land Company) Approval of Consent Calendar * * * On matian of Councilman Miller, seconded by Caun- cilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of 2.7 were appraved. * * * REPORT RE STATE Mayor Taylor explained that the Council had re- PROPOSITIONS quested that time be allatted on the agenda for discussion of State Propositions 14 (Watson) and 20 (Coastal Initiative) adding that the Cauncil has received extensive information on these propositions, includ- ing a text. Councilman Beebe suggested that if the Council intends to. discuss any State propositions that they should discuss all, due to the CM-26-4 October 24, 1972 fact that there are a number af important issues (State Prapositians) such as the propositians on the juniar colleges, marijuana, and death penalty which should all be discussed. Mayar Taylor felt debate an all issues wauld be very time can- suming and that Proposition 14 was somewhat different in that it will affect the operation of City government and the income tax base. As far Propositian 20, the Cauncil has received a tremendous amaunt of infarmatian an it and the League af Califarnia Cit~s has taken a stand on it. Cauncilman Futch commented that he had suggested placing these two issues on the agenda after hearing many comments from con- cerned citizens. He moved that the Council adopt a resolution endorsing Propositian 20 - the California Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Act which appears an the Navember ballot. He then listed a number of organizations which support this measure. It is similar to other bills which have been in legislature (AB-200 and SB-IOO) which were supported by the League of California Cities. The Board of Directars af the League approved Prapositian 20 by a vate af 11-8. He stated that he has read much literature put aut by the opposition and, in his opinion, some of the slogans are de- ceitful, such as "Save Our Coast" and "Save Our Cities", "Vote No. an Propasitian 20". He felt that many of those organizatians oppased to Propositian 20 have a direct financial interest, as opposed to those who support it. Some of those opposed are oil companies, Califarnia Real Estate, and Pacific Gas and Electric. One of the arguments against the initiative is that it would im- pose an appainted rather than elected cammissian. He painted out, hawever, that at least half af the commission will cansist of elected officials; also, that cities and counties around San Francisco. Bay have not experienced any eliminatian of their own authority to regulate development under the same system of shared jurisdictions with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop- ment Cammission. He felt that those who view the Coastal Initiative as a mechanism for eliminating all construction along the coast suffer from total visian. These same fears were expressed in the 60ls when the legislature had before them a proposal to. create the San Francisco Bay Conservatian and Development Commissian. Taday the Be DC is recognized as an effective body emplaying its powers in a fair and equitable manner, to protect the natural resources of San Francisco Bay. He added that greater than 80% of the permits applied for to. BCDC have been approved and em- phasized that Proposition 20 will not create a moratorium but calls for any development to. be well planned and orderly. Councilman Miller stated that he would like to second the motion withaut further comment, as he felt Cauncilman Futch had presented the case very clearly. Cauncilman Pritchard felt he would have to agree with most of the comments made, personally, but wanted to second Councilman Beebe's suggestian to discuss all the prapasitions if the Council intends to take a position on one, they should take a position on all. He stated that same af the others are equally important and unless the Cauncil is prepared to. do. this, he is not prepared to. vate on just one proposition. The Mayar explained that a member af the Council does not have to vote, but if he would like discussion on particular propositions and the Council agrees that they are proper matters far discussion, they will be placed an the agenda. Councilman Pritchard stated that he would agree to. vote an this ane if the Council would be willing to. discuss all of the prapasitians. Dan Steinberg, representative from California Caast Alliance, thanked Councilman Futch for his fine presentation and wanted only to add that he feels the caast deserves some type of general plan CM-26-5 October 24, 1972 (state Propositions) and that the Council might imagine what it might be like to try to make planning decisions without the aid af a general plan. He mentioned that others who endorse the proposition are LARPD, VCSD, Pleasanton City Council and Pleasanton Park District, and hoped that this Council will endorse their support. George Perkins commented that he feels the Council should reflect the direct opinians of the residents and added he has never been asked his opinion by any member of the Council. He also felt that to pass a resolution is redundant, unnecessary and has no validity. It will not count as a vote or even 1/10 of a vote on November 7, and he feels they are wasting valuable time in discussing these resolutions. He felt insulted that the Council feels it necessary to discuss these issues in an effort to influence the vote of the people. This is a political matter and he wondered if it is really legitimate for the Council to discuss how the public should vote. He also felt if they are to discuss one, they must discuss them all, ar they are discriminating. The motian was vated on and passed 3-2 with Cauncilmen Pritchard and Beebe abstaining. RESOLUTION NO. 137-72 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING PROPOSITION 20 (The Coastline Initiative) Councilman Futch mentianed that he had also requested discussion of Proposition 14, which if it passes, will reduce sources of in- come for the School District as well as many other special dis- tricts. It will limit the property tax an the City withaut a re- placement for these funds. In his opinion, it would also increase the cost to the homeowner because funds will have to be made up in some way. It seems that it will nat be an advantage to individuals, but to industry, and large businesses. He moved that the Council pass a resolution opposing Proposition 14, seconded by Councilman Miller. Councilman Miller stated that one of the things that bothers him about Proposition 14 is that it raises the sales tax by 40% which really hits the low income person and the people with small pensions. Councilman Beebe explained that PG&E's only concern with the Caastal Initiative, is that it may delay their plant for three to. five years. With regard to Proposition 14, the legislature and state politicians told the people at the time of the first Watson amendment to vote against it because they would take steps towards tax reform. How- ever, nathing has been done and as a taxpayer and homeowner, he is tired of being told that legislation is going to take care of these taxes when they continue to rise. He felt that he would have to oppose any resolution opposing Proposition 14. Councilman Miller pointed out that the comments made by Councilman Beebe with regard to the legislature's failure to provide tax reform or tax relief is true; however, the difference between Proposition 20 and 14 is that it is pas sible to change tax law, but once land has been set for development, it is irrevocable. He felt that one cannat expect taxes to be reduced, as the Canstitution allaws that property to be assessed at full value, while it is currently being assessed at one-fourth af the value. In time he feels if new people are not elected to the legislature, we will end up with higher property and sales taxes. Councilman Futch asked the City Manager to explain to the Council what this will mean to the City or how it will affect the City if it passes. Mr. Parness stated that the City's combined tax rate is below the $2.00 maximum, exclusive of the bond rate; however, that amount CM-26-6 would be firm. There wauld nat be an immediate effect, but schools and the County would be mast severely hit. Octaber 24, 1972 (State Prapasitians) Mayor Taylor mentioned that the Gavernar strongly apposes the measure and he daes not knaw af any city government who supports it. People may feel that passage may help them with their pro- perty tax; however, the same amount of maney will be spent for these services and the burden will simply shift to incame taxes and sales taxes. The people who will really save are those with large amaunt of praperty - the average citizen will lose. Mr. Parness indicated that he has received a report which he feels to be an impartial repart, prepared by the Assembly Com- mittee an Revenue and Taxation, which shaws that the measure would be underfunded, if adopted, to the point of $1.326 billian to this state. At this time the Council voted on the motion which passed 3-2 with Councilman Beebe dissenting, and Councilman Pritchard ab- staining. RESOLUTION NO. 138-72 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 14 (The Watson Amendment) Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, felt that the Council should qualify their vate by passing on to. the press their dissatisfac- tian with the legislative activity during the past faur years with regard to tax efforts. Failure of the measure to pass is nat an indicatian that the citizenry is not interested in their nonperformance. * * * On November II, ABAG will meet to cansider a repart recommending adaption of a policy set- ting a papulation limit in the nine Bay Area county region. At the request af Cauncilman Pritchard, the matter was placed on the agenda by the Cauncil. REPORT RE ABAG POLICY RE POPULATION LIMITATION for discussion In general, the Mayor explained that the measure provides that ABAG start laoking ahead at the passibility the Bay Area has an ultimate population it can hold, and suggests that planning be done. He felt there is no reasan the Cauncil should not endorse this pasition; in our awn case, we have a general plan and a popu- lation limit for the City. He feels there is a limit for the Bay Area also and that the agency to decide should be ABAG. Mayor Taylor moved that the Council instruct their delegate, Cauncilman Pritchard, to suppart the proposition, seconded by Councilman Miller. Mr. Musso explained that the City has made a projection of 173,000 by 1990, but this is not a limit; he felt the proposal is for a limit and not just a simple projection as was dane by our City. Councilman Futch stated that up until 1990, it is just a projection, but after this time in order to achieve anather growth rate, something else will have to be done. The Council voted on the motion which passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Beebe abstaining; he did not fully understand the prapositian. Cauncilman Pritchard mentianed that same people feel ABAG is a big regianal power, but in reality it allows the City a voice in political matters. * * * CM-26-7 October 24, 1972 COMMUNICATION RE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON FREEZE A communication was received from Richard R. Yackley, Inc. regarding the enviranmental impact related to freezes on future building. Mayor Taylor commented that, in essence, it is a request far the Council to do what they can to override the re- cent decision handed down by the State Supreme Court. The problem at hand, hawever, is that narmally legislative bodies such as the Council do not seek means to override decisions made by the Supreme Court. He sympathized with the request but in view of the fact the decision was made, there is nothing the Council can do to com- ply with the request. The City Attorney pointed out that only legislature can change existing legislation and only the Court can modify its existing apinion. COMMUNICATION RE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT RE CUP-FREESTANDING SIGN (Callaghan) * * * The communication from the Metropolitan Trans- portation Commission regarding National Trans- portation Study was to inform the Council and no discussion or action was necessary. * * * The Planning Commission has denied a CUP for a freestanding sign to be located at 3833 East Avenue (Callaghan Mortuary); the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed. Mayor Taylor stated that a letter has been received from Keith Fraser, Attorney representing Callaghan, asking that the matter be postponed for three weeks to November 13th as he cannot be present at the meeting. He added that if any member of the aud- ience wishes to speak and cannot attend the November 13th meeting, they are welcome to give their testimony, however no. one came farth. Cauncilman Miller moved to cantinue to. November 13th, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which passed 4-1 with Councilman Pritchard ab- staining due to conflict of interest. REPORT RE REZONING APPLICATION (Ensign-Bickford) * * * A request has been received to set the matter regarding a rezoning application far a site located between First Street and Portola Avenue from Rs-4 to E and RG Districts (Ensign-Bickford Realty) to Navember 13th. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by a 4-1 vote, with Cauncilman Pritchard abstaining due to conflict of interest, the matter was set for public hearing on November 13. REPORT RE COUNCIL REFERRAL (Signs) * * * A report was received from the Planning Commis- sian regarding the City Council's referral re- garding freestanding signs in conjunction with uses having reduced visibility. After regular meetings, study sessions and a field trip, the majority of the Commission (4-1) concluded that the present ordinances and poli- cies now in effect should cantinue and recommended that the Council be more liberal in allowing signs but placing stricter regulations on their use. Councilman Miller moved to table the matter indefinitely, but the motion failed due to lack of a second. CM-26-8 October 24, 1972 Councilman Futch had praposed that freestanding signs should be allawed far drive-in type uses along state highways, subject to more restric- tive regulatian as to. size, type, etc., but mast significantly subject to the deletion of any additianal signs on the building. He stated-', after reviewing the findings by the Planning Commissian, that he had felt this wauld be a possible solution to the problem, but after reading the report by the Planning Commission and the remark made by the City Attarney, indicating that there might be some problem with this type of mechanism, he felt the Council should probably go back to their usual method. However, he stated that he still feels Jack-in- the-Box should receive special consideration. (Council Referral re Signs) There being no other mation, the matter was filed. * * * The minutes af the meeting of the Planning Com- mission of October 3, 1972, were nated for fil- ing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES * * * Far the benefit of the audience Mayar Taylor REPORT RE SACEOA explained that the Governor has recently ve- toed the grant to SACEOA which can be overridden by the National OEO; however, this is not likely. The veto apparently was due to the questionable business practices af SACEOA. The Southern Alameda Caunty cities have met to. discuss the formation of an alternate agency to. replace SACEOA sa that thase who benefit will not be without assistance. The City Manager has reported that at a special meeting recently held for the purpose of discussing the destiny of SACEOA, it was revealed that the Governor will prabably not change his pasi- tion on his veto for funding. Under the assumption that the federal officials will nat override this veto, it would be neces- sary far the seven cities camprising the SACEOA area to. initiate, without delay, a replacement CAP agency. Draft of a joint exer- cise of powers agreement has been prepared for this purpose. It is his recommendation that the Council approve aur participatian in a newly instituted CAP agency and the execution of the joint powers agreement for such a purpose. Councilman Futch commented that he has some concern abaut signing a jaint powers agreement at this time, or until such time as the dispute between the Recgan administration and the regional OEO has been resolved. He explained that his concern is far the effect it will have on the present Board and staff. He also felt that the signed agreement wauld create samewhat of a "power play" and that even thaugh he feels the veta will stand, there is always a possibility of an override. He would hate to undercut the efforts af the present baard. The City Manager stated that he feels the joint agreement should be signed, only if the veto is sustained, and that he agreed with the statements made by Councilman Futch also. He did not intend the Council to sign priar to. the announcement of the outcame. Councilman Pritchard felt that one program should be kept alive in this city, regardless of the outcome af SACEOA; this being the organization that transports elderly people to doctor's affices, banks, etc. Perhaps we cauld get together with Pleasantan to keep it going because they are invalved, also. There are approximately forty citizens in Livermore and seven to twenty in Pleasanton that use this service as they have no ather means af getting around. ~~ ~, Councilman Futch moved that ~ agreement be signed in the event the veto is not averridden, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. CM-26-9 October 24, 1972 (Report, re SACEOA) Councilman Miller commented that in the agreement the final decisions essentially have no low-income vote; thase using it have no. real say. This will be essentially in the hands of bureau2rats. Mayor Taylor mentianed that the prablems SACEOA has gane through with bad bookkeeping practices, directors absconding with the funds and ather such problems due to the fact it was not run by elected officials. He feels elected people are responsible to the people and their wishes and they should be able to control large sums af maney distributed in an area like this. Cauncilman Miller's argument was that the political motivations of the people elected and in cantrol may be different from the politi- cal motivations of people who are supposed to be helped by this money. As he reads the cantract it does not say that City Cauncil- men will be the members af the Board. He stated that he is not saying the majority should not be comprised of Council members; however, he feels there should be some representation from the people who are going to be using the money and are affected by it. The Council then discussed various possibilities and their opinions regarding Board members as well as the present system. At this time the Council voted unanimously to approve the motion made by Councilman Futch. * * * The City Manager reported that at present a lease is held far three acres of property fronting on Airway Boulevard. These lessees have already applied for and received conditional consent to assign this lease subject to. the submission of acceptable financial statements. Since that time some change has been made as to the subject assignees, and there- fore, the process must be followed again. He explained that the new assignees to the lease would be Gerald D. Eschen, J. Ronald Findleton, John S. Morken and Jerome D. Groh, all of which have submitted acceptable financial statements. Further, the first in- dustrial structure to be located on this property has been sub- mitted for site plan approval and it is expected that construction would begin soon. He then recommended that a resolution be adopted assigning the lease to. the subject parties. REPORT RE AIRWAY BLVD. INDUSTRIAL LEASE On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 136-72 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR LEASE ASSIGNMENT (Hilde et al) * * * MUNI CODE AMEND. SPEC. CONSTRUC- TION LICENSES In a recent joint committee meeting with the Board of LARPD certain changes were suggested in the draft of the ordinance to amend the Municipal Code praviding for special licenses on construction af residential units or buildings. The City Attarney explained that the ordinance has been amended to concur with the recommendations made by Councilmen Beebe and Miller with regard to. the dispasitian af the praceeds to. include, as a primary purpose, the use of the funds for the improving, ex- panding and equipping of public parks. The change made is sub- stantial and requires that it go back to the first reading for introduction if the warding is agreeable. CM-26-10 October 24, 1972 Councilman Miller commented that the liaison cammittee between the City and LARPD met to. discuss the matter at length and that, essen- tially, there were two issues: 1) The language of the ordinance itself; they wanted "park" em- phasized, which the City Attarney has taken care af, basically; and 2) How we put any money transfers together, which would be involved in the contract with LARPD, and any possible resolution we have which describes haw much maney the City is going to. put into. this. They also wanted to laok at the contract sa that it could be negotiated. The City representatives felt it would be reasonable to look at both at the same time in order to achieve better understanding of all aspects. It is his understanding that LARPD is working on the wording for the contract. One of the members of the committee has given him warding he wauld like to see in the ordinance which Councilman Miller has adapted in order to be reasanable and what the Cauncil might adopt. He then read his adaptatian which the Council cauld give to. aur staff to analyze and place in draft farm, which was stated as follaws: "There is hereby created a fund entitled, 'Public Property Improvement Fund', with subcategories far public parks and other public improvements. The proceeds from the tax, and any penalties or interest callected under this article, shall be paid into such fund and apportianed between the subcategories as set by the resolution which sets the fee. The fund shall be used primarily for the basic development of public parks and for the purpose of improving, expanding and equipping ather public properties and facilities." (Muni Code Amend. Spec. Canstruction Licenses) Councilman Beebe felt this was not reasonable in that he believed LARPD is trying to abtain a large share af the maney, when the City has already stated it will provide the money to improve the necessary parks af dedication in the future. The City should not be committed to a certain portion but give what is necessary for the intended purpose. He felt they might put in fountains ar anything else just to use up this money when the money could be used for the purpose af providing mare fire statians and other important needs far the community. Mayor Taylar agreed with Cauncilman Beebe in that he felt placing the money into categories is restrictive. He would prefer that the Cauncil state their purpase that the money be used primarily for parks, leaving it open to. include fire stations and even schools, if possible, in the future. Councilman Futch commented that it was his understanding the existing fee was appropriate far park development and he sees nothing wrong with having categaries and adding to. these categaries if necessary. Councilman Beebe explained that there may be a possibility of having excess funds which causes his concern. There followed discussion regarding whether or not categories should be used, or the issue left apen. Mayor Taylor felt the Cauncil is respansible for how the maney is spent and Councilman Beebe felt they should be alert to the passi- bility of creating a taxation problem for the citizens, point out that the recent band electian far the develapment af parks failed with a large number of people (approximately 70%) not bothering to vote at all. If parks are developed, LARPD will have to pro- vide maintenance, and if they cannot affard this, they will go to the people for the money and will undoubtedly fail again. Mayor Taylor explained that it is his understanding the Council would like the $75 "Bedraom Tax" to be earmarked far parks. The City Attorney felt if all the money is to be used for parks, there is no need for more than the ane category. CM-26-11 October 24, 1972 The Mayor commented that they should be able to insure the developer and the public that the tax money will go far parks while at the same time the warding of the ordinance should reflect that later an addition could be made to the ardinance to. include another category. However, the $75 will always go toward park development. If they wish they can raise the fee to include additional categories. (Code Amendment re Special Con- struction Licenses) Councilman Beebe emphasized that at this point the Council cannot be sure that $75 is not greatly in excess of what is actually needed. The staff was then directed to prepare the necessary draft to amend the ordinance, including the suggestions made by Councilman Miller, far further discussion. * * * REPORT RE VEHICLE DAMAGE CLAIM Councilman Miller had requested that the report fram the City Manager regarding the private ve- hicle damage claim be removed from the Consent Calendar far discussion. The report indicated that aur local insurance agent has suggested that the amount of claim damage ($222.36) be paid directly by the City, and Cauncilman Miller questianed the necessity af insurance if you end up paying far all the claims. He wondered at what point the City stops paying off and the insurance takes aver. Mr. Parness explained that the small claims were a part of the ex- perience rating, which seem to. run in cycles. These small claims are all tallied and go against the experience rating. This exper- ience history has a result during the next contract bidding and would be to the City's advantage to pay the claim rather than hav- ing the insurance company pay it. Councilman Miller asked if they count the number of accidents or the amount of money paid out, and Mr. Parness indicated he felt that both were factors, but the number of accidents was prabably the primary cansideration. The Council then discussed the possibility of having some type of insurance in which they have a certain amount af deductible allowance. The City Attorney commented that if for instance the City has a $250 deductible and something happens causing $200 or less worth of damage to 400 people, the City would well regret it; thisfu samething that will have to be taken into consideration also. Councilman Miller moved to accept the recommendation of the City Manager, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion was approved unanimously. Paul Tull asked why the City went to. the insurance company when it is their vested interest to steer the City where they can best profit. Mr. Parness and the City Attarney explained that the City had not gane to the insurance company, but rather to. the agent representing the City, and it was felt that he had recommended a sensible approach. The agent is a professianal individual expected to. give this type of service. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY THE STAFF (Bike Paths- Backing Lot Treatment) The Public Works Director remarked that he would like to. discuss a matter relative to. the design of the pedestrian and bicycle paths and backing lat treatment along major streets. He mentioned that a new development is being constructed along Arroyo Road and illustrated designs pertaining to. CM-26-12 the items he mentianed. He suggested that ane 9-ft. wide sidewalk area be used for pedestrians and bicycles. October 24, 1972 (Bike Paths-Backing Lot Treatment) Mayor Taylar asked if one plan shaws that the sidewalk is straight while the bike trail is craoked, and Mr. Lee indicated this is correct; Mayor Taylor felt one on a bicycle might prefer to ride in a straight line rather than zig-zagging and that perhaps the sidewalk should be made narrawer allawing expansian for the bike trail. Mr. Lee explained that the radius is not really as sharp as the illustration might indicate. Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor were cancerned about the safety aspects of combining pedestrian and bike paths. Mr. Lee stated that the separate 9-ft and 5-ft. lanes appear to be an excess of paved area in camparison with the landscaping. Cauncilman Miller suggested that if the setback fram the street were adequate (anather 5-10 feet), it wauld allow far plenty of room for both the bike trail and sidewalk. Councilman Beebe and Mayar Taylor felt if anather 5-10 feet were added, this means more far the City to. maintain. The Council concluded that in the interest af safety it would be better to keep the bicycle riders and pedestrians separated. After cansiderable discussian the Cauncil agreed that the illus- tration with the straight sidewalk and crooked bike trail would be the best choice. * * * Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council not meet an the fifth Manday but rather that they meet an their usual date, Monday, Navember 6th, seconded by Councilman Miller and approved un- animously. * * * Councilman Beebe noted that the signals on First Street are still gaing off at 10:00 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m. as previously requested by the Council, and asked if the state has done anything with this. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Date of Next Council Meeting) (First Street Signals) Mr. Lee stated that he does not know what the holdup is but will check and repart to. the Council. Cauncilman Miller felt that the issue was a little strange in that some nights they remain on automatic signalization until 11:00 pm. and other nights anly until 10:00 p.m. * * * Councilman Pritchard commented that Mr. Perkins had brought up an interesting matter which he was nat aware of and that was that the Council is required to publish 24 hours ahead of time when they will hold an executive sessian. (Executive Meeting Notices) The City Attarney explained that this is required only when they call a special meeting, and that an announcement prior to an exec- utive meeting far the purpase of legal or personnel matters need not be published beforehand. As far as publishing results of this meeting, this need be done anly if action is taken, which the Council daes not do. * * * CM-26-13 October 24, 1972 (SAVE Initiative Councilman Miller felt that since the SAVE Ini- Suit Financing) tiative passed by approximately the same percent- age in bath Pleasantan and Livermore~ and at present we are defending it against the legal prosecution in court, it seems that Pleasanton should help pay for the suit defense. He felt a fair way wauld be on the basis of population which would equal one-third from Pleasanton and twa-thirds fram this City. He maved that the City af Pleasantan be formally requested to pay their share, based on population, seconded and approved unanimously by the Cauncil. (Scheduling Mobilehome Limit on Agenda) (Re Unwanted Newspapers) * * * Councilman Miller asked that the Council consider scheduling a discussion regarding limitations on the number of mobilehomes allowed, on the agenda. The Council agreed that it should be placed on the agenda as the schedule allows. * * * Councilman Miller spoke regarding complaints he has had from people still receiving newspapers after they have requested that they not be thrown on their property. He wondered if there was some type of ordinance prohibiting this once a person has requested that they not be delivered. The City Attorney commented that this kind of ordinance was over- turned by the Supreme Court in a ThousandOaks case, which just came dawn a short while ago, and he will be glad to give the Caun- cil the exact statement of what the law is in that case. One con- stitutes litter, while the other constitutes a violation of the press. (Elliott Tract Signs) * * * Councilman Miller mentioned that there was a dis- cussion at the Planning Commission meeting regard- ing Elliott's tract signs which vialate the can- ditions of his permit. It seems nothing further was done and he wandered if they were still up. Mr. Musso explained that Mr. Elliott had obtained a continuance for the variance. Councilman Miller emphasized that he was still in violation of his permit as it specified a certain day the signs were to. came down, and pointed out that one who violates a traffic law is not given special consideratian, and there shauld be no legal distinction. He stated that he will ask about the matter again in a couple of weeks. (Re County Minutes) (Ordinance re Rezoning Application) CM-26-14 .~' * * * Cauncilman Miller asked if the staff has inquired about the Council's receiving County minutes, and the City Clerk commented that she has con- tacted them and has nat as yet received an answer. * * * Councilman Miller moved that the Council pass an ordinance to stop reapplications for similar things once they have been denied; however the mation died for lack of a second. * * * October 24, 1972 Cauncilman Pritchard asked if the trees lacated (Hagemann Trees) an the Hagemann praperty at the carner of Olivina and Murrieta are in public domain; if so, there are political signs on the trees and they shauld came dawn. * * * There being no further business to. come befare the Cauncil, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT APPROVE * * * " jity Clerk (!liV . more, California ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting af November 6, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Navember 6, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Cauncil members as well as those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of the meeting of October 24, 1972 were approved as carrected. MINUTES * * * Janet Read, 475 Malibu Caurt, stated her thought OPEN FORUM that there must be a way far the City to plan (Planned Growth) for growth after such time as SAVE is no longer in effect. She then explained the "Controlled Growth" law adopted in Ramapo, New York, to be used with the General Plan and an 18-year Capital Improvements Plan in which developers are awarded points for meeting certain standards. The law was taken to Court and finally the New York State Court of Appeals upheld the law. She then pointed out Petaluma's formation af a Residential Control Board who also gave ratings to developers, published results and then held public hearings for the purpose af interchange among the Board, developers and the people. The ratings toak place during September and October, and as of Novem- ber 100 permits (Maximum) would be allowed for each developer with a total of 500 per year permitted far a 5-year span. Bath of these cities have seemed to. reach a legal and reasonable CM-26-15 November 6, 1972 (Planned Grawth) effort to approach to controlling growth and one in which all involved are aware of the destiny for the future. She suggested that the public meet with the Planning Commission and Council in an implement some similar plan. Mayor Taylor cammented that the Ramapo matter had been discussed during the League af California Cities convention, and it appears that the law may be challenged in the near future. Also, the City Attorney from Petaluma explained their plan and its success. However, he felt the Cauncil should look at possibilities for con- trolling grawth rate in Livermore. The Ramapo plan was dealing with long range public works development, while the plan in Peta- luma deals with problems similar to those of Livermore. Councilman Miller thaught the suggestion for meetings with the Planning Commission, Cauncil and people for a chance to "brainstarm" was very good. Also, it would be wise to do something before the pressure is on. Councilman Beebe suggested that the Council cantact the City of Petaluma to obtain detailed information as to how they are con- trolling growth. Councilman Miller felt the point system was worth checking into and suggested that they also contact Ramapo in order to evaluate haw to apply points. He also suggested that Milpitas be contacted with regard to solutions to their problems. Mayor Taylor mentioned that the growth problem is not one of per- sonal opinion, but of facts and that these should be discussed. The City Attorney felt that there should be some consideration given to the fact that Petaluma is using a plan without the bene- fit af the law relating to conservation elements and required by July of 1973, as well as no opinion from the Supreme Court regard- ing the Friends of Mammoth case (environmental reports requirement). The staff was directed to obtain information from Ramapo, Petaluma and Milpitas far discussion later. * * * (Re Vandalism - Kay Parra) Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, praised Chief Lind- gren and the efforts he is making regarding a recent confrontation at her home and in trying to. solve the case in which youths vandalized her home. She feels confident that something can be done to. her satisfaction and to provide safety for the community but expressed sorrow that things have gatten out af hand. Mrs. Parra also stated her intent to become personally involved if anything else happens. * * * Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, suggested that some of the government revenue sharing funds be used far the purpose af equipping the mobile- home shells to. be used for classroams provided by Mr. Elliott to be constructed in January of 1973. He felt a well publicized meeting might be held to discuss the use of the revenue sharing funds and at this meeting they might also discuss the possibility of obtaining the Springtawn Golf Course for open space. He pointed out that the rounds of golf at the Livermore Galf Course have dropped by 478 rounds in the 1971-72 fiscal year and felt there should be some explanation, as well as an explanation as to why the airport is realizing a deficit. (Allocation of Revenue Sharing Money) Mayor Taylor explained that airport revenues fluctuate, as well as raunds of golf played, due to weather conditions, etc. Things CM-26-16 November 6, 1972 (Re Revenue Sharing Money) are being done to. increase number af rounds played as well as decreasing casts, and added that other golf courses have also had a decrease in raunds. With regard to revenue sharing money gaing to. the Schoal District, the City is prahibited by law from doing this; the maney can go only far purpases ad valarem tax money can be used for. Mr. Faltings pointed out that his main concern is for allowing the public to have some say as to how this money should be allocated, even though it appears the Schaal District cannot receive a portion. * * * Carol Farauda, 4362 Drake Way, a member af the Livermare High Schoal CSF asked if there is some way in which the graup can help the City, explaining that they do a cammunity service pra- ject at no cost twice a year. She mentioned that they have checked into taking dawn palitical signs but were infarmed that the campaign people are responsible for this. She asked that if there are any jobs to be done the Council contact her or CSF through the school. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR (Re CSF Service Project to City) The City Manager reported that an application has been prepared by the City to participate in a Federal Flood Insurance Program. Once the City qualifies, this program pravides for federal subsidy of the cost for flood insurance to property awners wishing to. purchase such in- surance in an amount of 10% of the premium cost. Preliminarily, a detailed consulting engineer's flood control study must be done, the entire cost af which is borne by the federal government. A substantial part of this study has direct application to a review, and any passible modificatian of our City starm drain master plan. It is recommended that the Council adopt the following resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 139-72 Report re Application (Federal Flood Insurance Program) RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AS THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE TO ASSIST THE FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE. RESOLUTION NO. 140-72 RESOLUTION TO INDICATE THE BUILDING PERMIT SYSTEM AND THE REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR THAT SYSTEM THE CITY OF LIVERMORE HAS ADOPTED AS RELATED TO THE SALE OF FLOOD INSURANCE UNDER THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE. * * * The Public Works Director reports that the Granada Schoal Principal and the Palice Depart- ment have recommended a restricted parking zone an Wall Street fram Sonoma Avenue to Judith Ave. (No. Parking, 8:00 a.m. to. 4:00 p.m.) due to congestion caused by students resulting in a palicing problem during school hours. Wall Street will be available for parking for night classes in the evening. It is recommended that the Council autharize the limited parking. Restricted Parking Zone (Wall Street) CM-26-17 November 6, 1972 (Restricted Parking) RESOLUTION NO. 141-72 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 129-72 ESTABLISHING A COMPILATION OF LIMITED PARKING ZONES IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT BY EXPANDING SAME TO INCLUDE ALL LIMITED PARKING ZONES IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE. * * * The Public Works Director reports that as a condition of approval of the final map of Tradt 2619, Windsor Land Company granted to the City of Livermore a certain property for storm drainage purposes. The Develaper has entered into. an agreement with Alameda Caunty Fload Contral and Water Con- servation District, Zone 7 for obtaining credits on the development of the channel and as a conditian Windsor Land Company must obtain channel right of way for the County. Since Altamant Creek is a major channel and Zone 7 will be doing the maintenance, it is re- commended that the City quitclaim the channel to. the Develaper and in turn, they can convey it to the County. Instructions to this effect will be forwarded to. the title company. Altamont Creek Quitclaim (Windsar Land) * * * RESOLUTION NO. 142-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DIRECTING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN RECORDS RE WATER CONSUMPTION. Water Records Dogwood Park Site (Santillanes) Payroll and Claims Approval of Consent Calendar * * * A proposed settlement has been negotiated with one of the six praperty owners at this site 10.- cation. Only one remaining parcel, the church property, is unsettled at this time. It is re- commended that a motion be adopted accepting the deed. * * * One Hundred twenty-four claims in the amount of $133,724.59 and two hundred fifty-ane payroll warrants in the amount of $61,908.80, dated November 3, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Coun- cilman Miller, and by a 3-1 vote (Councilman Pritchard absent) the items an the Consent Cal- endar were approved. Cauncilman Beebe abstained fram voting on the park site item and also abstained from Warrant No. 4269 for his usual reason. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE RESIGNATION CM-26-18 * * * A letter of resignation fram the Beautification Committee was received from Kathleen Bossler, and it was suggested that she be sent a letter af thanks for her service an the committee. Also it was mentioned that the vacancy would have to be filled. * * * November 6, 1972 Letters were received from the Alameda County Taxpayers' Association as well as the City of Norwalk, with regard to federal revenue shar- ing funds. COMMUNICATION RE REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Mayor Taylar explained, briefly, that the Taxpayers' Assaciation feels the maney should be distributed to the taxpayers, while the City af Norwalk feels the state shauld allocate their funds to cities in a certain way. Mayor Taylor then suggested that the staff look at the suggestion made by the City of Norwalk to determine if this would be advan- tageous to aur City. Mr. Parness explained that their formula was a little hard to understand because af the unknown inputs, such as census dates, etc. The staff was instructed to check into the matter further and re- part back to the Council at a later date. * * * Mr. Musso explained that Parcel Map #1019 (Hutka) REPORT RE PARCEL is located on the south side of First street MAP #1019 (Hutka) just west af the proposed extension of Mines Raad and that the action af the Council is to discuss whether or not they approve splitting of the lots as well as the required parking and access to parking. The Planning Cam- mission has submitted a recommendation for acceptance af the environmental impact statement, conformance to the map (Exhibit B) and all recommendatians of the Engineering, Fire and Palice Depart- ments. Normally, in residential subdivisions with five or more lots a subdivisian map is required while develapments with less than five lots are covered by a special subdivision ardinance re- gulating approval. In the case of commercial or industrial develop- ment, hawever, the law requires a tentative map followed by a par- cel map. The public works improvement requirements have been established by ather development in the area and this has been submitted by a separate document, as have dedications, plans, etc. The lots do not require frontage on the street nor do they require dimension regulatian. Major consideratians have been air pollution, water pollutian, additional traffic generated by the restaurant and vibration due to. truck delivery, etc. These things were men- tioned with regard to the environmental impact report regarding the development. Councilman Futch asked how the land-locked parcel will be allowed adequate signing. Mr. Musso stated that the sign will be located on their building, and in answer to another question pased by Councilman Futch, he explained that the ordinance does not require frontage on commer- cial property; also, if there is an identity prablem with regard to the sign they can apply for a variance. Councilman Miller commented that in the discussian over naise, the staff report mentioned that the community opposed the noise ordinance and wondered who opposed it. Mr. Musso explained that the performance standards were opposed at the time the industrial ordinance was adapted, primarily by the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Miller mentianed that in the environmental impact report there is a discussian of the economics of industry vs. employees. The emplayees bring cast to community and industry provides the tax base. He commended the staff for thinking of this point and would like the issue expanded. He felt there should be economic impact statements, adding that some industry brings a net profit to the community and some do not. CM-26-19 November 6, 1972 (Parcel Map #1019-Hutka) The Mayar felt that at this time the discussion should be limited to the parcel map and that these other things should be discussed at a later time, and as a part of related ordinances. Cauncilman Beebe moved to. accept the Planning Cammission's recom- mendation to approve Parcel Map 1019 subject to conformance to the map entitled Exhibit "B" and recommendations contained within the reports submitted by the Engineering, Fire and Police Depart- ments, which was seconded by Councilman Miller. Mr. Lee asked that the Council also approve the Development Agree- ment in conjunction with the development of the tract regarding storm drainage, etc. The Council concluded that they would first like to. have the time to review the agreement prior to adoption and asked that this por- tion be put over for one week; however, after considerable discus- sion the Cauncil decided that it would be best to discuss the agreement at this time rather than to delay it. Councilman Miller commented that one question he has is with regard to. reimbursement by the City in the amount of approximately $6,000 - the agreement shows $5,996.76 and that figure does not relate to anything. Councilman Miller pointed aut that this is an agreement already endorsed by the developer. Mr. Lee explained that it was a typing errar which had nat been corrected from the original agreement - it should be $7,855.65. Councilman Miller also mentioned that it was his understanding the City was going to advance the money for the storm drainage and when development was campleted, Mr. Hutka was going to pay the City $7,000 for starm drain fees. He nated that there was no men- tion of this. Mr. Lee explained that Mr. Hutka will install all of the improvements aff-tract from Mines Road to. the east and after they are installed, the City will reimburse him. Also, as the properties develop ad- jacent to the line, they will be charged a storm drainage fee in additian to the equivalent 18-inch starm line. For the portian west of Mines Road, the developer will make initial installation for which the City will reimburse him for the cost in excess of the 18-inch line, and the praperties developing will be charged the storm drainage fee. He explained that the reimbursement discussed was the cost of the equivalent 18-inch line estimated at $7,000.00 as shown in Exhibit "A". The mover of the motion and the seconder agreed to amend the motion to. include the agreement as amended, which was approved unanimously. The City Attorney explained that the dedication must be included prior to the filing af the map which will imply you cannot approve the map without approving the contract. The agreement talks about dedication of the street which should be completed before the map is filed. Mr. Musso stated that they have a parcel map and they do not have to file the final parcel map, but the Public Works Directar needs the agreement approved in order to install improvements. Mayor Taylor questioned what the Council should do in this case, and Mr. Lewis stated that since they have approved bath matters, it would be fine as there is no. legal problem. * * * CM-26-20 November 6, 1972 Summary af action taken at the Planning Commis- sion meeting of October 31, was acknowledged for filing. Summary of Actian of Planning Commission * * * Reports were received fram the Public Warks Director and Planning Directar re major street backing lot treatment. Mr. Lee had recammended that the City cantinue using the same methad of backing lot treatment that has been used in the past, and stated that frontage road treatment becames excessively expensive for the City. REPORT RE BACKING LOT TREATMENT Mayor Taylar commented that ane thing wrong with the frontage lot treatment is that as the neighborhood deteriorates, you can see it. Also., the reasan it is expensive is due to City policy which re- quires the City to. pay above a certain size major street. If it is the City's intentian to. develop the City with frontage raad treatment, it should be chargeable to the development. The Council discussed the pros and cons of backing lot treatment vs. frantage road and cuI de sac access, relative to. aesthetics and safety. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council ask the Planning Commission to review the backing lot treatment as there have been mistakes made in the past. Cauncilman Miller added that perhaps the Beau- tification Committee might also present their views to the Plan- ning Cammission. Mr. Lee reminded the Council that all of the treatment has occurred on the narrower 88 ft. streets, and the new streets would be 104 ft. wide so the walled-in effect will be lessened a great deal. A motion was made by Cauncilman Miller, secanded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously, to refer the matter to the Planning Commission. * * * The Planning Director explained that the Valley Planning Committee has studied the jurisdiction boundary and it is essentially the same as be- fore with the praposed boundary line. One im- portant thing is that the City of Pleasanton is gaing to. remave the Vineyard Avenue property, which is really in our General Plan, from their planning area. The jurisdictional boundaries are samething the two. cities agreed upan several years ago. The letter from the VPC states we should not try to resolve the north side, west of the line, and he did nat know whether that is to be part af the City of Pleasantan, or the future City of Dublin. The problem is not between the two cities, but with the Park District and School District baundaries. REPORT RE VALLEY JURISDICTION BOUNDARIES FROM VPC Mayor Taylor commented that if the VPC cannat initiate the solutian to. the problem, there is nat much they can do, and it is ironic that the School District and Park District are not represented on the Committee. He asked Mr. Musso what he wauld suggest daing, and Mr. Musso stated they should send a letter to LAFCO, and copies to. the School District. Councilman Miller stated that the Valley Planning Committee agreed to ask LAFCO to ask the School District to resolve their problems because LAFCO can adjust all the ather boundaries. Councilman Miller made a motion that the staff be directed to send a copy of the Valley Planning Committee's letter to the School CM-26-21 November 6, 1972 (Valley Juris- dictional Boundaries) District and LARPD, and send a letter to LAFCO, stating that Livermore agrees with the recommenda- tions made by the Valley Planning Committee. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously. * * * A draft had been prepared for interim guidelines and processing procedures for implementation of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, far review by the Council by the City Attorney, and Mr. Lewis suggested that these guidelines and procedures be referred to the Planning Directar; in addition, there will probably be some revisions in the state law as there will be bills that will be discussed, and since Liver- more does rtot have a real problem, we do have the time to review this matter. PROPOSAL RE INTERIM GUIDE- LINES RE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Councilman Futch moved that the draft be referred to the Planning Director far review and repart back to the Council in abaut two. weeks, seconded by Councilman Beebe. Cauncilman Beebe questioned the City Attorney abaut the effective date of the case of Friends of Mammoth vs. Mono County and if any- thing prior to that date was not affected. Mr. Lewis explained that that is one of the big issues, and from what can be determined, it is retroactive to 1971; the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify this issue and give clear guidance as to whether it is, in fact, retroactive. Cauncilman Beebe wandered whether or not the Council should adopt a resolution, or ordinance, however Mr. Lewis stated he did not see the necessity for one, and would not recommend doing that unless sameon8 locally identifies the prablem and makes a request. The motion was vated on and approved unanimously. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY LISTING * * * A detailed report was made by the City Manager which discloses categorically and by priority listing the various capital improvement projects that are necessary for our City and for which no funding is available. Mr. Parness explained that the Council had requested this listing in order to determine what they might be willing to do with the revenue sharing grant. Mayor Taylor stated the Cauncil was faced with a major policy de- cision about where the major portion of the revenue sharing money is to be spent. The largest needs facing the City are capital im- pravements that are deemed necessary but no. possible financing method is available, and he felt one of the pressures which caused this revenue sharing program to be passed was from cities such as Livermore that faresee this revenue gap. Spending these funds for capital improvements is a responsible way to handle the grant. Councilman Futch agreed and felt when the effect is evaluated sometime in the future, they shauld have accomplished samething, and if they can build some of the permanent improvements they wauld have these to show, and it would probably be a savings in the long run if they can be initiated. Councilman Miller also agreed it shauld go. for capital improvements, as he did not feel it should be used for operating purposes since there is no guarantee that the money will continue to be available from what has been done in the past. CM-26-22 November 6, 1972 Mayor Taylor stated that if the money was used to reduce taxes, as cauld be done, Cangress might say that there was no revenue gap; although fram the guidelines, the money can be used for almast anything, but it could be cut aff at any time. Mayar Taylar felt it was the consensus of the Council that the money be used for capital improvements and asked the City Manager if they should take action tanight. (Capital ImprovementE Priority Listing) Mr. Parness stated he wauld hope that the Council would take action as he, together with the principal officers of the police department, is extremely cancerned about their headquarters, and considered it to be top priority. If the Council did want the money to be spent far capital improvements, he would like to pra- ceed with the completion of the necessary architectural plans and specificatians, which will take about four manths, preliminary to construction bidding on the canstruction af the police headquarters, which is a segment af what will turn out to. be our total City administration building, and time is af the essence as it will take about a year and a half before the move can be made. Cauncilman Futch moved that the staff be requested to. praceed with the plans for presentation to the Council; motion was se- conded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Miller stated that the Cauncil had requested that he and the City Attorney prepare a revised draft for the Bedraom Tax Ordinance - one which wauld correspond with the changes agreed upon by the Council at the last meeting. He mentioned that ane af the changes accurred in Sectian 12.30, revised to add ward- ing to. provide that there is a need far parks. A second change was in Section 12.37 to create a "Public Property Improvement Fund" with two. subcategaries - (a) far park develapment, and (b) for anything else. It was suggested by the City Attorney that a specific amaunt be appropriated from the total for these two categories. Also., by resalution, the Council could create sub- categaries for (b) as they chaose. Cauncilman Miller felt that these changes represent the wishes expressed by the Cauncil at the previous meeting. In answer to a question posed by Council- man Beebe, he explained that the wording, "purchase af park land" had been deleted and that land acquisition wauld be taken care of through other public impravements or dedication of land. He then stated that it would be necessary, if the Cauncil intends to adapt the ordinance at this time, to set a dollar amaunt in Section 12.37. He also felt that the $75.00 agreed upon earlier was for the purpose af park develapment and, therefare, should all go into (a) and at this time nothing for (b) unless the Coun- cil decides to. raise the tax. ORDINANCE DRAFT RE BEDROOM TAX Mayor Taylor felt that if they are to increase the tax, this should be dane at the time a full Cauncil is present. Councilman Beebe suggested that the Council adopt the wording at this time and that the City Manager contact LARPD and explain that the double dedication is not for large manicured parks but reasanable development and if LARPD could get by with less than the estimated $75. He felt that there is as much of a need far fire stations as parks and that category (b) should receive same maney for this purpose. The Mayor commented that annexation fees are supposed to. caver items such as fire stations and if the annexation fee is not adequate, perhaps the bedraom tax could be the vehicle for this purpose. Councilman Miller felt if there is excess money in the fund at the end of the year, they can redivide it and plan accordingly; hawever, he expressed concern for allowing too little and running shart. CM-26 -23 November 6, 1972 (Bedroom Tax) MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Suit Against the City) (Chabot College Assessment Dis t) After more discussian the Council concluded that a report fram the staff prior to adopting a spe- cific amaunt was in order and the matter was postponed for one more week. * * * The City Attarney stated that Hafmann Company has filed a claim against the City to. collect in inverse condemnation the sum of $616,000 for damages due to their being unable to complete their subdivision on Portola Avenue. No action was required. * * * Mr. Parness stated that he has received a letter from Chabot College indicating that the Board of Directars have requested a clarificatian as to the Council's policy intention regarding the utility lines which service the campus. They have asked the follow- ing questions: 1) would the City allow the college to extend the sewer and waterlines to the campus area but just to. service the 147 acres. In the event the answer is no, (2) would the City expect the District to pay the entire amount prior to formation af an assessment district? Mayor Taylor explained that the reason the City withdrew from assessment district formation was due to the fact that the City did not want to stimulate premature development on the north side of the highway by extending utilities to. all the other adjacent property owners when the junior college property may never be used. The City Manager felt that it wauld be unwise to allow this service just for their buildings; this has never been City policy and has never been done. The Council agreed that the matter should be put over for two weeks (November 20) and at that time answer their questions. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Exec. Session) (Back Yard Fences) * * * Mayor Taylor announced that a brief executive session would take place after the close of the Council meeting for the purpose of appointments. * * * Councilman Futch commented that he has received complaints regarding back" yard fences where one grade separation is several feet higher than the other. He felt this is a matter which should receive consideration and a formula prepared for the residents to be informed about. Also, the fences alang HaImes Street were mentioned in which the property owner's fence is situated same distance in back of the City's fence, and with regard to filling between the two. fences. The matter was referred to the Planning Director to work out with the Planning Commissian. (Citing Large Trailers CM-26-24 * * * Councilman Miller asked if the City has worked out a policy for citing large trailers, and the City Manager replied this is being dane. * * * Councilman Miller mentioned that LARPD people have asked for another liaisan meeting in the near future. The liaison committee cansists of LARPD people, Cauncilmen Beebe and Miller. * * * Councilman Miller nated that in the past a re- quest for a sidewalk on Hillcrest near the shopping center was mentianed and wandered if this is in the mill. Navember 6, 1972 (LARPD Liaisan Meeting) (Hillcrest Sidewalk) Mr. Parness explained that it was found that the condemnation cast for the sidewalk was excessive and that nothing further had been done. He stated that he wauld give the Cauncil a copy af the figures if they wauld like, and Councilman Miller asked that they see the figures next week. * * * Councilman Miller commented that he had noticed that Mally's had painted the City trash cantain- er in front af the restaurant a brilliant arange. Mr. Parness advised that this was being carrected. * * * (Trash Container at Mally's) Mayor Taylor noted that he had seen an article in the newspaper in which SPIVAK Camp any has applied to. the Caunty far a sign at US 580 and Greenville Rd. Their attorney made the comment that the sign they applied far was in agreement with the standards of the City of Livermore. He wondered if the Planning Department was aware of the application and Mr. Musso stated that they had been notified of the freestanding sign requirements. (Re US 580 & Greenville Area) Mayar Taylor reminded the Cauncil that the City had appased de- velopment in that particular area unless the developers agreed to connect to the City sewers and wandered if the County is gaing to allow them to. use a septic tank. He expressed concern for this and asked that the Council be informed of the status. He mentioned that an environmental impact report would prabably in- dicate that septic tank comrr.ercial developments will not be allowed. Councilman Miller felt the BAAPCD should also be notified. Mayor Taylor indicated that he does not like to. antagonize the Caunty, but that this is a matter strenuously abjected to in the past and that the City should again object and also suggest that they prepare an enviranmental impact report. He asked that the staff report to. the Council regarding the status af the matter. * * * Mayor Taylor adjaurned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to. a brief executive sessian re appaint- ments. * APPROVE 0/ ATTEST ~~- ADJOURNMENT .ty Clerk more, California CM-26-25 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 13, 1972, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylar presiding. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Futch * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayar 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 Coun- cilman Beebe, and by a unanimous vote of those present, with Councilman Pritchard abstaining (due to absence at that meeting), the minutes of the meeting of November 6, were approved as submitted. * * * OPEN FORUM (Re Camments made at League Conference) Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Place, Co-chairman for the Committee for Ratianal Valley Planning commented that Councilman Miller had made comments at the League of California Cities Convention regarding growth and members of the Committee which they feel were slanderous. He then played back a portion of camments made which had been taped during the canvention, and then listed leading and prominent members of the community who make up the Committee, explaining that most of these members would not benefit financially due to growth in the Valley. He then asked that they be given an explanation and an apology; he questioned if Coun- cilman Miller was speaking as a representative of the City and if the Council agreed with the statements made. Mayor Taylor remarked that he could answer one of the questians very clearly. He felt that Councilman Miller was in no way speaking for the City or far the rest of the Council in his appearance before the League; further, as far as demanding an apology is cancerned, that is strictly a matter between Councilman Miller and the parties involved; he in no way wanted to turn the Open Forum into a debate. Councilman Miller commented that at the beginning he emphasized that he was not speaking as a representative of the City, but as an in- dividual; this shauld have been nated in the recording. He stated that comments mad:aI'directlY or indirectly'l can be supported to the satisfaction of th citizens. . ,[A/j Cdf~~ . Councilman Beebe stated that, in his opinion, any member of the Council is technically representing the City and to cast aspersions on certain leaders is in bad taste, if nothing else. He also felt that none of these people have benefited financially in their efforts to discourage the passage of SAVE. Mr. Musso explained that the League of California Cities had speci- fically asked that a proponent of the SAVE Initl:i.ative be invited to speak at the canference and that Councilman Miller had been the person available to speak. Mrs. Chester Fankhauser asked if the trip to the convention was at the City's expense, and Mayor Taylor cammented that attendance to this yearly meeting is at the City's expense. * * * CM-26-26 Mayor Taylor explained that priar to. the meet- ing and publicatian to notify the public af a hearing to be held regarding the Ensign-Bickfard application for property located between First street and Portola Avenue, the application had been withdrawn. A motion, therefare, is in order confirming withdrawal of the applicatian and cancellation of the public hearing. November 13, 1972 PUBLIC HEARING RE ENSIGN-BICKFORD REZONING APPLICATION (Between 1st St.- Portola Ave.) On motian of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the withdrawal was approved and the matter concluded. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 143-72 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (Robert W. Selden) * * * It appears that there has been a duplication of claims alleging tree damage previausly sub- mitted and denied by operation of law. There- fore, it is recommended the Council adopt a resolution to direct the City Clerk not to file certain claims. RESOLUTION NO. 144-72 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK NOT TO FILE CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE. (Duplicates - Group IX) * * * The minutes for the Beautification Committee's meeting of October 4, 1972 were submitted for the Council's review. * * * Appointment af Member to. Pl. Comm. Re Tree Damage Claim Minutes Beautification Committee Meeting On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Approval of Cauncilman Miller, and by unanimous appraval, Consent Calendar the items an the Cansent Calendar were approved. * * * Mayor Taylor commented that the appeal for a CUP far a freestanding sign to. be located at 3833 East Avenue at the Callaghan Mortuary had been postpaned until this meeting. APPEAL RE CUP FOR SIGN (Callaghan) Councilman Prrtchard asked that he be excused from any discussion due to a canflict of interests. Keith Fraser, Attarney representing Mr. Callaghan, stated that he had asked for the continuance and would again ask that the Council allow the matter to. be continued to. the next meeting as he is not prepared to speak at this time. Councilman Beebe moved that the matter be continued, seconded by Councilman Miller and appraved unanimously by the Council. The matter was scheduled for the next meeting - November 20, 1972. * * * CM-26-27 November 13, 1972 REPORT RE VARIANCE APPLICATION (Steven R. Johnson) Mr. Steven R. Johnson, 427 Covellite Lane, has appealed to. the Council for a variance that had been denied by the Planning Commis- sion, to allow building of a garage in the setback of the rear property line where a 5-foot height is allowed. Mr. Musso commented that the ordinance prohibits any structure over 5 ft. high within 20 ft. of the major street or freeway right- of-way. The intent was to prohibit structures from being close to and visible from the freeway. In this case, the Planning Com- mission felt that there were no unusual circumstances prevailing to. allow a variance. Mrs. Johnson stated that she feels it is unjust that extra footage could not have been allowed and that they must suffer as a result. She explained that they are allowed to build the separate garage, but rather than 5 ft. from the back fence they must be no closer than 20 ft. from the fence. If they comply with the 20 ft. regu- lation it will still be seen from the freeway, it will be to.o close to their house to allaw bUlding of a patio, closer to the neighbors, and she felt the noise would be no greater than noise now made in their garage. Also., she mentioned that there will be 20 ft. af wasted space behind the garage if their variance is not allowed. Mr. Musso commented that this has been the first application in which the new law applies - the law having been adopted the first part of the year. The Council discussed freeway elevations with regard to aesthetics and Mayor Taylor suggested that perhaps freeways could be deleted, leaving only major streets to which the ordinance would apply. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council grant the variance and refer the portion of the ordinance pertaining to freeways to the Planning Commissian far study and possible revision. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. Councilman Miller stated that he wauld have to. object due to the fact the Council has no grounds on which to grant a variance. Mayor Taylor agreed that the Johnson's should be allowed to build the garage as they have requested and asked what the procedure wauld be to allow this. Mr. Musso explained that the Council should refer the matter back to. the Planning Commission, asking that the ordinance be amended, ar initiate the amendment. Mayor Taylor felt it was not the intent of the ordinance to prevent structures af this type; however, Councilman Miller disputed this point, adding that freeways and lots backing freeways had been discussed, adding that he would nat be able to vote for the variance because of the lack of legal findings. At this time the motion was voted on and passed by a 3-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting (Councilman Futch absent). * * * REPORT RE JR. COLLEGE ASSESS. DISTRICT The City Manager had reported at the last meeting that the Junior College District had made an in- quiry regarding the City's positian an utility line extensions to their campus. They have asked the fOllowing questions: 1) would the City permit sewer and water lines to their campus to service anly their property, and 2) if not, would the lines adequate for service for the 610 acres be required to be financed by the District with some form of CM-26-28 Navember 13, 1972 reimbursement provided. The cast for the col- lege site for bath sewer and water is estimated at $332,000 and the cost for bath lines far the entire 610 acres is estimated to. be $385,000. The City Manager has recammended that the Council adapt a motion specifying City palicy that the eventual size must be installed either by assessment district means or by the Junior Callege with reimbursement provisians. He stated that he had spoken with the superintendent's office and was infarmed that they are having difficulty with the state Department of Education with regard to. grants being extended to them due to the recent passage of Pro- positian I and have requested that the matter be postponed far at least a two week period. (Jr. College Assessment Dist.) There was some discussion amang the Cauncil members with regard to the two alternatives and whether or not the College District shauld have to pay far the cost and be reimbursed at an unde- termined time, possibly causing a complete depletion of their funds resulting in no further development far the campus. They also expressed concern for not having the Junior COllege located here if the City does nat participate in some way. The City Attorney cammented that their partian would be more if they have to go through a benefit district rather than an assess- ment district. It was concluded that discussion would resume in two weeks, as requested, an matian af Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Caun- cilman Beebe and by unanimous vote of approval by the Council. The Council suggested that the staff check into any other alter- natives and costs which might be pursued. * * * The City Manager reported that a firm is study- ing tentative land uses on property owned by the City, adjoining Airway Boulevard on the easterly side. This land holds promise for commercial, professional office and possibly light industrial uses. A preliminary plat plan has been prepared and the appli- cant is interested in the attitude of the Council regarding these land uses. The City Manager has recommended that the Council adopt a motion appraving the general cancept af the general land use and instructing the City Manager to. participate in negotia- tions for lease arrangements and more specifics as to land use, architectural style and related matters. He illustrated to the Council the eleven acres involved and plans the firm has suggested, indicating that the firm now awaits the Cauncil's general con- currence or objection to the land use. They have proposed develop- ment af a restaurant, motel, service station, two. affices, and a professianal office. REPORT RE AIRPORT BLVD. PROPERTY Councilman Miller suggested that the discussion be delayed far another week to allow him time to look more closely at the map as well as to give Councilman Futch a chance to contribute to the discussion. Mayar Taylor stated that he wauld nat be present at the next meeting, adding that he has seen a number of plans for a restaurant, matel, gas statian complex, but the only thing that ever material- izes seems to. be the gas statian. He suggested that the Council require development of the other businesses prior to allowing the gas station to. go. in, with no reflection on the intent af present developer. Cauncilman Miller reminded the Cauncil that: 1) the Caunty has adopted a plan, approved by the Council, which states there will be no gas stations except at two. interchanges; 2) whether the CM-26-29 November 13, 1972 (Airport Blvd. Property) City owns the property or not, City policy should nat be violated; and 3) the City seems to have a quality for destroying all the entrances to. the City by placing these kinds of uses at each ane. The reason the Council supported the County was to prevent this being done to. the City by others and he felt that we should be particularly careful where we own the property. Also, the BAAPCD may not allow development of anather gas station. Councilman Pritchard moved that the matter be postponed for two weeks (November 27th), seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimausly by the Council. * * * REPORT RE FEDERAL The City Manager reparted that in the past and STATE GRANTS at the present time the City is participating in several federal and state grant applications involving matters of municipal concern. It was thought that the Council would be interested in being informed re some af the various prajects invalved, including the Law Enfarce- ment Assistance Act - Youth Service Center, which has been awarded to the City and will amount to approximately $45,000.00 per year. The Mayor commented that he was glad the staff had been on its toes in looking for this kind of financing. * * * The City Manager reported that the matter of the Bedroom Tax Ordinance had been postponed in order to gather supportive data from LARPD regarding the proposed rate per bedroom for park development purpases. They have indicated that typical park development will cost $10,000 per acre and based on the current rate af dedicated ~ark land, the improvement cost per residential unit canverts to $200. There has been an attempt in the present ordinance to define "bedroom" but despite this, it is conceivable that efforts will be made to subvert this defini- tion in order to avoid the payment rate. Therefore, in order to. preclude this problem it is proposed that a rate be converted to an equivalent amount per square foot of general residential dwelling space. Also, in order to simplify some of our fee assessment prac- tices with regard to annexation, it is suggested that the annexa- tion fee rate be added to the "bedroom tax" measure as a supple- mentary sum. Those properties contractually committed to the payment af an annexation fee would be exempt in favar of this assessment method. It is suggested that the annexation fee be a new rate of $300 per structure. The new ardinance would specify rates be paid per residential structure and calculated on the basis of a square foot rate - park development $200, capital needs $300, for a total of $500 per dwelling unit. REPORT RE BEDROOM TAX ORDINANCE Councilman Pritchard suggested that the Council postpone the matter for discussion and vote at the time a full Council is present as he would anticipate a 2-2 vate at this time. He felt that what had originally been intended to be a Bedroom Tax Ordinance in the amount of $75 has degenerated into an annexation-building permit fee af $500, campletely changed from the original intent. Mayar Taylor mentioned that there were several large land owners who. had refused to. sign the annexation agreement resulting in deannexation; this appears to be a way of collecting this fee withaut the prablems af abtaining contracts at the time of annexa- tion. Mr. Parness added that he knows af two. instances in which one large landowner has been forced to pay the fees for several small owners who. refused to. pay the annexation fee and due to configura- tion they were annexed together. CM-26-30 November 13, 1972 The City Attorney stated that he would like to make two camments he felt to. be appropriate at this time: 1) the ordinance gives credit for existing annexatian agreements and any future agreements; 2) there have been two decisions recently handed down fram the Caurts which have vitally affected the annexatian pro- cedure and it cauld be that the annexation procedure will not be the same device for collecting these fees. (Report re Bedroom Tax Ordinance) Councilman Pritchard questioned whether ar not LARPD has given the City any assurance that once the parks have been developed they will be financially able to. maintain them. Mayor Taylor felt that this would depend somewhat as to whether the citizens want 1 acre per 100 units or 2 acres per 100 units. Councilman Pritchard stated that he is not questianing the amount of land agreed upan far dedicatian (2 acres per 100 dwelling units) but rather whether ar not they are to. be highly developed and landscaped or more in the form of open space parks. He expressed cancern far spending thausands of dallars for development af these parks anly to. find that they cannot be maintained. Councilman Beebe commented that the City may be left in a trap with LARPD saying that all of the parks are going to. be left to. dry up if the City does not vote for more money far maintenance. Mayor Taylor explained that this is a way to. shift the burden from taxpayers who presently pay for park development to the de- velopers by an ordinance designed strictly to. relieve the tax- payers af the burden for park develapment. Councilman Beebe felt that it is not the developers who will be stuck but rather the potential buyers af hames, including students now in our high schaals who will graduate and buy homes in the future. Mayor Taylar felt that there were three major concerns the Cauncil might want to discuss further: 1) adding the annexation fee; 2) whether or nat the park fee is too high; and 3) whether or not the City wauld be forcing LARPD into a policy they do. nat want. Cauncilman Miller stated that LARPD has been talking abaut a park development fee, has asked the Cauncil to. impose one, and has taken into consideration the cost of maintenance. In the past they have stated that they intend to. develap the parks in such a way as to keep maintenance costs at a minimum far the two acres. Mayar Taylar suggested that the matter be delayed far two weeks for the presence of a full Council, at which time a LARPD repre- sentative will be invited to answer any questions the Cauncil might have in this matter. Cauncilman Miller felt the amount of the annexation fee should be raised, adding that he felt inclusion of the annexation fee into the ardinance was wise in that it gives the City an oppor- tunity at collecting the fee as painted out by the City Attorney. The motian made by Councilman Pritchard to. postpone the matter for two weeks was seconded by Councilman Miller. Earl Masan, 5181 Diane Court, cammented that with regard to. fees he was concerned about additional fees being added to the price of hames; over a 30 to 40 year mortgage periad the buyer is paying two. or three times what the cast of the home is. He felt it is not helping lawer-cost housing to. keep adding higher than necessary fees for their intended uses. He also. questioned the problem of maintenance financing for two acres rather than the ane acre per 100 units for parks and stated that jt had been CM-26-31 November 13, 1972 (Report re Bedroom Tax Ordinance) his understanding that the one acre would be de- veloped while the other acre would be left unim- proved. He indicated that simple arithmetic would prove that taxes on the homes are not enough to maintain improved parks discussed at $10,000 per acre. He stated that the paint is the Council should carefully consider what the policy is to be after the land has been turned over to LARPD. Councilman Miller emphasized that LARPD has taken all things into consideration and that they are not blindly asking for a certain amount and not allowing for maintenance. He stated that in the past they have had to set aside a certain portion of their maney for park development; however, with the bedraom tax funds they can use that money formerly set aside for maintenance. Mr. Mason stated that if the land is to be developed at $10,000 per acre and only one acre of the two. donated is to be develaped, it means the fee is four times higher than necessary. Mayor Taylar commented that he understands the concern, but the matter is to be discussed again in two weeks. With regard to. the annexation fees, Mr. Mason nated that at ane time there had been a $75 annexation fee; the Council then enacted an interim emergency ardinance fee of $250 due to a rush of pro- posed annexations which was to be reduced to a realistic figure after storm drain and sewer fees were updated. He felt that some- haw emergency ordinances always seem to became permanent. The Mayor agreed that the fee should be loaked at before being decided upon, but in his estimation it is nat obviausly too. high. He explained that the City has grown and has needs for capital improvements such as another fire station and a new Police Depart- ment building and this figure will help subsidize the costs. Mr. Mason felt that there was double taxation involved in that the new resident pays the fee and also has to pay for the banded in- debtedness the City already owes such as the original sewer plant expansion. Councilman Miller explained that with regard to bonded indebtedness, the amount of money out in bonds for the annexation fees are sub- tracted from the total before it is divided up to see how much the annexation fees should be, eliminating double taxation. This was discussed and agreed upon by the Council at the time the fee was raised. As pointed out by the Mayor, if the facilities re- quired due to the influx of people are not paid by these new residents, the responsibility will fall onto the shaulders of the present citizens. The City is trying to have an annexation fee designed to eliminate the steadily rising tax load on the existing citizens, including those who are retired and in low income brackets. Mayor Taylor stated that as far as Mr. Mason raising these questions, any citizen has a perfect right to ask the Council to account for any expenditure which affects him and it might be appropriate to. ask the staff to prepare another annexation fee analysis for the next budget session. Katie Richardson asked that rather than raising fees the Council work on a way in which to. lower fees for the citizens of the com- munity. She stated that, in her opinion, the $500,000 surplus should be used for these parks. At this time the Council voted unanimously in favor of continuing the matter far two. weeks. * * * CM-26-32 The introduction of the ordinance regarding the Municipal Cade amendment relating to li- censes to establish a tax on construction of residential units was part af the previous discussion and also postponed for two weeks. * * * The Planning Director asked if the Cauncil had any questians regarding the repart an the last ABAG meeting and Councilman Miller commented that the report was unclear. November 13, 1972 MUNI CODE AMEND RE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TAX MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (ABAG Meeting) Mr. Musso stated that there was only one vote of opposition to the open space praperty matter; on the limit an papulation grawth issue there was a majority of support earlier in the meeting but towards evening they lost the quorum and resulted in a filibuster to. kill the proposal. The 1980 populatian was accepted by a majarity; the remainder was a majarity expressian af apinian. * * * (Hazardaus Intersections) Councilman Beebe commented that he has received complaints from citizens on Cedar street between Curlew Rd. and Murrieta Blvd., who. state that a number af accidents have occurred as well as close calls due to side streets that run into Cedar Street. He asked if the street could be checked and stap signs erected where necessary. * * * Cauncilman Miller stated that he has received a camplaint from a businessman regarding the sign on the Napoli Delicatessen and the truck parked on Stanley Blvd. The staff will investigate. * * * (Camplaint re Delicatessen Sign) It has been brought to the attention of Council- (Speed on First St. man Miller that there is much high speed traffic Near Trevarno Rd.) on First Street near Trevarno Road and citizens are concerned for the safety of children in the area. Mr. Lee stated that the matter was brought to the attention of the State Highway Department with a plea to reduce the speed in that area. The result was a 5 mph decrease fram 45 to 40 mph. Cauncilman Miller felt that peaple start picking up speed befare they reach Trevarno Road and by the time they are at that point they may be going as fast as 60 mph rather than 40 mph; he suggest- ed that the PolimDepartment take a loak at the area and start enforcing the speed limit. Mayor Taylor felt another area along First Street which is parti- cularly hazardous is at the intersectian of Martin Avenue acrass from the beauty parlar. The speed limit there is 40 mph where people are turning left onto Martin, traffic is passing on the right where patrans of the beauty parlor are also. parking or leaving. He suggested that the speed limit remain 25 mph past that intersectian. * * * Councilman Miller reparted that the Environmental (Environmental Protection Agency plans to have a hearing Wednes- Protection Agency day on the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Hearing) He commented that the Council had passed a resa- lution at the end of September and it was sent to. BAAPCD; it pointed out that closing off commercial CM-2t;3-33 November 13, 1972 (EPA HEARING) and industrial development was counter-productive for Livermore because local industry could help with employment far our citizens which will, in turn, reduce the amount af commuter traffic and smog. The Valley Planning Committee has taken this resolution, updated it, and plans to submit it to. the EPA. He suggested that the Council also send a revised copy of the resolution which the Council passed in September to the EPA. He stated that he wauld be attend- ing the meeting and would be glad to present the resolution to the EPA. * * * (zone 7 Bond & Law Suit) Mayar Taylor cammented that everyane is aware that the Project 2 bond passed, and that we also have a law suit on the water situation going through the mill. He felt it might be wise to. get a prognosis of the plans fram Zone 7 with regard to timing. He would hope that the City can abtain expert testimony shawing that construc- tion is under way, contracts, etc. '*: * * (First Street Lights) Mayor Taylor stated that he has received more com- plaints regarding the time of flashing signals on First Street on Friday nights. He suggested that perhaps on Friday nights the automatic signaliza- tion could continue until midnight. Mr. Lee felt it would be difficult to request a different time for one particular night. He stated that he would check into the matter. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to. came before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. * * * APPROVE v(;~ :b. ~ ~aYor . ATTEST · ~ .~.~. C' y lerk L' er ore, California * * * CM-26-34 Regular Meeting of November 20, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 20, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. with Mayor Pro. Tem- pore Miller presiding. * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Futch RO LL CALL ABSENT: Cauncilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor * * * Mayor Pro Tempore Miller led the Council members as well as thase present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEG IANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimaus vate, the minutes for the meeting of November 13, 1972 were approved as amended. MINUTES * * * Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that the Beautificatian Cammittee plans to. present pro- perty improvement awards at this meeting and asked that representative Roberta Hadley atep forward in order that she and Mayor Pro. Tempore Miller could present the awards. SPECIAL ITEM (Awards by Beautification Cammittee) Mrs. Hadley explained that thirteen citizens are appointed by the Council to work on various projects, including signs and landscaping at major City entries, light fixtures soon to. be installed on Second Street, heritage tree ordinance, help and advice to the Livermore schaols with their landscaping projects and a saan to be installed beautificatian praject on South J St. along with the Planning Department at times, and that one of these projects is the recognitian and award to. citizens of certi- ficates fram the Beautification Committee in various categaries such as residential impravement andlor landscaping, new commercial development or ~pgrading of existing commercial establishments, signs or some service of value to the community. The following certificates were awarded: Martin Plone - Del Valle Pet Hospital, for upgrading existing older building Bill Dixon - pleasing design, landscaping for a commercial building-service station, First st. and Portola Ave. Fred Noyes - design of home and landscaping Robert Schaeffer - unusual side yard treatment Robert Wall - unusual treatment of corner lat Richard Weingart - unusual landscaping well suited to archi- tectural style of residence Rich Schell Sport C~cle - improvement af existing building Gabriel Comages (10b9 Geneva) attractive landscaping Alfred Davidsan - attractive and well maintained landscaping Groth Bros. Oldsmobile -remodeling and upgrading commercial property Livermore Financial Center - architectural and landscaped addition to. the business community Davey Tree - attractive building and landscaping Bank of America - additian to existing building, attractive landscaping and lighting in parking lot Kelli George and Tammy Partch - launching a private cleanup campaign to benefit the community CM-26-35 November 20, 1972 (Awards) Presentations of the awards were made after which time Mrs. Hadley introduced some of the members of the Beautification Committee who were present at the meeting. Mayor Pro Tempore Miller, on behalf of the Council, expressed com- mendations to those who received awards for helping to improve the appearance and quality of the City. He also thanked the members of the Beautification Committee for working very hard to improve the image of the City visually and otherwise. * * * COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME. (Presentation to Police Chief) Departmental Reports * * * Mayor Pro Tempore Miller commented that the next special item is a special presentation from Union City to Police Chief Ronald Lindgren in recognition of his service to that city where he had previously served as Chief of the Police Department. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR The following Departmental Reports were received: Airport Activity - October Building Inspection - October Fire Department - October Municipal Court - September Police and Pound Departments - October Water Reclamation Plant - October * * * A progress report dated November 16, 1972 was submitted by the Public Works Director with re- gard to Airport Planning and Land Use Study. The planning area was outlined on a map and the re- port indicated that a precise land use plan would be needed for this area to protect the Valley citizen's interests in the Airport and by proper regulations, lessen the effect on the public of the Airport due to noise, etc. The re- port also indicated that at a previous meeting with the Public Works Director and the Planning staffs of Livermore, Pleasanton and Ala- meda County represented, it had been tentatively agreed that a 3-phase effort should be undertaken as outlined. Progress Report Airport Planning and Land Use Study Request for Funds re Recon- struction of No. Livermore Avenue (Between Portola Ave. & U.S. 580) * * * The Public Works Director reported that the City is eligible to receive State Highway Urban Exten- sion Funds, on a matching basis, for construction on Federal Aid Secondary Routes within the urban areas of the City, and approval is recommended for the following resolution requesting such funds to help finance the reconstruction and beautification of North Livermore Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 145-72 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING STATE HIGHWAY URBAN EXTENSION FUNDS BE ALLOCATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,000 DURING THE 1974-75 FISCAL YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSTRUCTING AND BEAUTIFYING NORTH LIVERMORE AVENUE FROM PORTOLA AVENUE NORTHERLY TO THE ARROYO LAS POSITAS. CM-26-36 * * * Upon advice of our City Attorney and insurance carrier, two claims are recommended for denial by resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 146-72 November 20, 1972 (Denial of Claims - Olden - Cook) A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF RICHARD A. OLDEN, JR. RESOLUTION NO. 147-72 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF WILLIAM C. COOK * * * A letter of resignation from the Beautification Committee was submitted by Ed Mills who has been transferred and no longer lives in Livermore. * * * A report was received from the Community Affairs Committee advising that Walter Griffith had re- signed as Chairman, and that Priscilla Payne has been appointed to act as Chairman. The re- port also outlined future events which may possibly be undertaken by this committee and presented for City-wide participation. * * * One Hundred thirty claims in the amount of $120,286.68 and payroll warrants in the amount of $63,910.93, dated November 17, 1972 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. * * * On motion of Councilman Futch, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved unanimously. * * * (Resignation from Beautification Comm. - Mills) Report From Community Affairs Committee Payroll and Claims Approval of Consent Calendar A letter has been received from Long's Drug COMMUNICATION RE Store related to the parking of unauthorized LONG'S STORE vehicles on their property, indicating that parking of these vehicles "for sale" has been totally without their permission. They have ordered signs which will be posted to indicate that no parking is allowed on the site. The City Manager advised that after signs have been posted the City will have the authority to enforce prohibition of parking. * * * Mayor Pro Tempore Miller explained that a letter was written to the Council by Mrs. Pearl M. Stroud, asking that the Springtown Golf Course, proposed for purchase by the City, be maintained as a golf course. She indicated in her letter that homes on the golf course paid $1000 to $1500 more for their lots and the homeowners have invested over $200,000 in it. COMMUNICATION RE SPRINGTOWN GOLF COURSE (Pearl Strou~ Mr. Parness stated that it is the City's intention that it will remain as a golf course and that there seems to be some moral obligation to those who bought lots on the golf course that it should remain as such. Councilman Futch suggested that someone contact Mrs. Stroud with this news. CM-26-37 November 20, 1972 The Beautification Committee has submitted a list of nominees for new membership for the Council's consideration in filling vacancies made by two resignations. At present there are seven men and three women the committee and they would like to have two women appointees fill the vacancies. COMMUNICATION FROM BEAUTIFICATION COMM. (Re Appointments) on to Mayor Pro Tempore Miller stated that the names will be taken under advisement and will probably be chosen at the next full Council executive session next week. REPORT RE Z.O. AMENDMENTS (ID & I M) * * * The Planning Commission has proposed zoning ordi- nance amendments regarding Industrial (ID and IM) Districts and suggests that a public hearing be set for December 11. Mayor Pro Tempore Miller commented that he would like to ask the Planning Director to present the Council with a summary of indus- trial standards along with testimony from other experts in indus- trial development and their opinion, for consideration along with recommendations by the Planning Commission. Also, he wanted to be informed as to what local industry and prospects have to say about possible changes. Councilman Futch felt it would be good to hear from the Industrial Advisory Committee prior to making a decision but not necessarily a special meeting for this. Mr. Musso stated that the proposed changes are through the recom- mendation of the Industrial Advisory Committee. REZONING APPLICATION (Christopher Land Company) * * * A rezoning application has been submitted by Chris- topher Land Company for property located on the north side of East Avenue, east of Charlotte Way, from RS-5 to CN District. It is suggested that a public hearing be set for December 11. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous approval, the Council public hearings will be held for proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments as well as the re- zoning requested by Christopher Land Co. on December 11, 1972. REPORT RE POLICY CHANGES (Rural Develop- ment Standards) * * * The Planning Commission has considered the re- ferral from the Alameda County Planning Commission regarding rezoning of A (Agricultural) District to allow Districts to permit rural residential development on the site located on the south side of Marina Avenue including properties fronting on Reed and Edwards Avenues east of Arroyo Road. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that a staff report re- commending rezoning of subject property in a manner that will re- sult in a density not to exceed 1.5 dwelling units per acre be sent to the Alameda County Planning Department. Mr. Musso explained tha~ originally, an Agricultural District was five acres and that two houses could be built on the five acres. There were problems with this in that two houses would be built on one lot and then split the lot. The County then allowed build- ing of only one house on the five acres to eliminate the problem. As a result of the Williamson Act, the County changed A Districts to 100 acres rather than five which resulted in a number of non- conforming areas in the Valley and requests for variances, etc. CM-26-38 November 20, 1972 An attempt has been made to distinguish agri- cultural from rural residential and is the purpose of the zoning ordinance amendment public hearing to be held in December by this City. He stated that the County is trying to do the same thing. Their staff recommendation is that: 1) 2.5 units may be built on the five acres with all street improvements installed; 2) establishment of proper ratio for lot size and de- letion of the requirement for public sewer and water service (except for Health Department requirement) where lots exceed five acres, and frontage exceeds 300 feet. (Development Standards in Rural Areas) The Public Works Director stated that he had not had the opportunity to report back to the Planning Department with regard to public works standards, but with regard to the Planning Commission's re- commendations to the County re lighting, perhaps the number of street lights could be minimized but not deleted entirely. Also, where frontage is 150 feet or more, elimination of sidewalks may not be warranted in all cases. He felt that street trees should also be required whether or not there is a large amount of front- age or large lots. Utilities are another matter, and there is the possibility of undergrounding or backyard methods. He stated that he would like to have the time to review these things and give a full report. Councilman Pritchard moved that the staff report be sent on 'to the County with an explanation that a report !egarding public works will follow. The motion received a second by Councilman Futch. Mayor Pro Tempore Miller summarized the motion and recommendations as follows: Density not to exceed 1.5 units per acre for this site and recommendations regarding rural residential public works standards will follow in due course. The Council at this time voted unanimously to approve the motion. * * * Minutes for the meetings of October 31 and November 7 of the Planning Commission were submitted to the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mayor Pro Tempore Miller stated that he would like to appeal the variance granted for H. C. Elliott's subdivision sign by the Planning Commission, and suggested that it be listed on the Con- sent Calendar for next week. * * * Mr. Musso briefly summarized the report regard- ing the suggestion for an amendment to the fee structure for Conditional Use Permits and that the fee for a CUP for occupancy of an existing building where site plan approval is not involved be reduced from $200 to $100. He explained that the purpose to reduce the fee where site plan is not involved and little time required. REPORT RE Z.O. AMENDMENT RE FEES - CUP is staff Councilman Beebe moved that the Council accept the recommendation for the reduction of fee and that an ordinance be prepared for the Council to approve; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously by the Council. * * * The Public Works Director reported that with regard to bids for a hydraulic sewer cleaner, FMC Corporation placed the low bid. However, the bid was $800 in excess of the budgeted sum REPORT RE BIDS FOR HYDRAULIC SYSTEM CM-26-39 November 20, 1972 (Bids re Hydraulic System ) due to interim price increases and improved unit resulting from more detailed specifications. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing purchase from FMC Corp. Councilman Pritchard moved that purchase be made from FMC Corp., seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously by the Council. * * * REPORT RE HILLCREST AVE. SIDEWALK INSTALLATION An oral report regarding installation of a side- walk on Hillcrest Avenue was to be given by the City Manager; however, he apologized for not being able to present the report as he had not been able to meet with the appraiser and asked that the matter be continued for one week. * * * ORDINANCE RE A Municipal Code amendment regarding licenses MASSAGE PARLORS (Sec. 12A) - Massage Establishments, Out call Massage Services and Masseurs has been drafted in response to problems encountered by other public jurisdic- tions which have this type of business activity engaged in illegal and illicit practices. The ordinance would require a minimum amount of technical training by the practitioner, screened by the Police Department and payment of a business license fee. The City Attorney explained problems other communities have exper- ienced and the need for such a law. He stated that the City might well be served by an ordinance which regulates conduct of persons engaged in the avocation of masseuse-masseur, adding that provisions of the ordinance are felt to be reasonable. He noted that Mr. Gold- stein, representing the Massage Industry of Northern California, is present and may wish to speak. The Association is comprised of persons interested in the profession and the attempt to maintain high standards in that field. Councilman Beebe asked if the ordinance would put certain establish- ments out of business, such as the health salons. The City Attorney commented that generally these businesses use machines, steam baths and exercise for the purpose of reducing and would not be affected; at least it is not the intention of the ordinance to put legitimate people out of business. He explained that this is a licensing type of ordinance designed to filter out unwanted business. Norma Moyer, 292 Michell Street, licensed masseuse, stated that she is in favor of the ordinance and, in fact, was the one who approached the City Manager requesting that some type of provision be made as a deterrent measure to offset bringing into Livermore any type of establishment felt to be unhealthy for the City. With regard to the number of hours required for obtaining a license, she felt that 100 hours is more than adequate and suggested that it be decreased to 70 hours. She explained that most state certified schools give 70 hours training and it would be most difficult to find a school which would give 100 hours of training. She commented that efforts are being made with regard to state legislation re- garding the number of hours required for licensing and that this would preempt any standard set forth by the City. In answer to a question by the Council, she stated that at this time the State has no requirements for a license and their organization is trying to obtain state licensing and requirements through legislation. As far as the proposed $50 fee is concerned, she stated that she appreciates the fact that investigating must be done of persons CM-26-40 desiring a license; however, this amount for an individual operator, in her opinion, was a little high. She felt that this would dis- courage the individual operator and be an encouragement to larger establishments who would problem paying the fee. November 20, 1972 (Ordinance re Massage Parlors) not have a The City Attorney stated that the ordinance would also require checking by the Fire Department, Planning Department and inspec- tions for any health standard violations, he felt the cost of these services could be estimated to be $50 and that the license does not have a one year expiration time, but that this would be a one time charge. Often there are certain $10 annual fee permits, but in this case the permit would not be renewed every year. Mrs. Moyer co~nented that in January she paid a $5 fee which covered the costs of all the necessary inspections in her home office. Councilman Pritchard asked if Mrs. Moyer could be exempt from the new requirements under the "grandfather clause" and Mr. Lewis stated he felt that by her qualifications she is "grandfathered" into this. She is not, however, grandfathered into the fee. Mr. Musso commented that this was probably done under a home occupation permit, and subsequent inspections in no way deter- mining the qualifications of the applicant. The City Attorney explained that, basically, in a home occupation permit the primary concern is for the neighbors, where this ordi- nance has to take into consideration the public, as a whole and their protection. Mrs. Moyer asked if the $15 investigation fee would be yearly, and Mr. Lewis explained that in her case he would assume that the initial $50 fee would be the only requirement. If she were to hire someone to work for her the $15 would be to cover the cost of investigation of that person. She then asked abour regulatory conditions such as adequate light, ventilation, etc., and the City Attorney commented that her home would have had to meet the regulations and she, therefore, would be covered under that portion also. He stated that she would not be governed by the County ordinance; that she would have to comply with City regulations. It was mentioned that she could be assured by the checking of the Planning Department, Fire Chief, and County Health Department, that she meets the requirements. Paul Goldstein, Counsel for the Massage Guild of California, not speaking as a representative of the Massage Industry, added that he is not favored by many in the Massage Industry. He explained that the Massage Guild is comprised of practitioners who are in- terested in upgrading the standards of the industry and who, for the past year, have been pushing for legislation. He stated that he was responsible for the drafting of the Walnut Creek ordinance and the deliberations of the City Council in Concord; the drafting of an ordinance in Emoryville and then in the drafting and passage of the ordinance in San Francisco. He explained that he wanted to give this background in sharing the position of people like Mrs. Moyer. He stated that it is a known fact that certain activ- ities occur in these typ~of establishments and will continue whether in the field of massage or another field. Ordinances are desired for the encouragement of the individual practitioner in an effort to upgrade the profession with a legal environment. This should result in an effective way of eliminating the illicit activity from the profession. As far as some of the particulars regarding regulations, he explained that there are seven state approved massage schools in the area and that the majority (possibly all but one) offer 70 hours of instruction; on behalf of the Guild and the San Francisco ordinance, he would suggest that a minimum of 70 hours be required. Also, he asked that consideration be CM-26- 41 November 20, 1972 (Ordinance re given to other establishments which could be Massage Parlors) affected by the ordinance, such as slenderizing salons. With regard to the fee, he felt the in- dividual practitioner should receive considera- tion in that it is not an industry and affects no other person; he could be considered as a doctor in aneighborhood treating only one person at a time. This type of practice should be encouraged. Mayor pro Tem~ore Miller summarized points brought out by Mr. Goldstein: 1) 70 hours, 2) question of the fee, and 3) use of "state approval" rather than the Police Chief. Mr. Goldstein stated that there is one other point he would like to discuss, as legal counsel, being interested in legislation he felt the portion in Section 12A.16 stating, "---is engaging in immoral conduct" gives th e Chief of Polic e the discretion to de- termine what "immoral conduct" is and may be a conflict with the state preemption in a recent decision handed down in Los Angeles in a case over a law covering massage. He suggested this be checked out since possibly the wording in the portion mentioned may tend to be a little broad. Councilman Futch asked if one has a state license, would the check- ing be necessary, and it was explained that at this time there is no program for state licensing and therefore a check is required. There are only state approved schools, and persons completing the course are given certificates. Mr. Goldstein explained that the proposed ordinance specifies recognized schools rather than state approved schools. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, suggested that the ordinance be wide enough to provide for the acceptance of not only California State approved schools but any of the 50 state approved schools. The City Attorney commented that it should be recognized that correspondence schools cannot be considered approved, while in the state of New York, they may consider completion of a correspondence school to be state approved; this may open up real problems. Councilman Beebe felt that in view of comments made, the Council would be justified in reducing the number of hours required to 70. Councilman Pritchard felt that the fee should be as suggested ($50) until it can be determined by experience whether or not it is too high or too low. Councilmen Futch and Beebe agreed in that it is a one time fee and actual costs are not known so the fee should remain as suggested in the ordinance. The Council also concluded that the applicant be state approved rather than approved by the Police Chief. The City Attorney felt it should be either state approval or appro- val by the Riice Chief, which met with no opposition by the Council. Mayor Pro Tempore Miller commented that it has been suggested that approval from the Police Chief would be adequate in cases for which persons were trained out of state and that particular state's standards are recognized. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by the unanimous approval of the Council, the ordinance regard- ing the practice of massage was introduced, as amended by the Coun- cil, and read by title only. * * * CM-26-42 November 20, 1972 The City Manager stated that, regrettably, he must request a slight budgetary amendment which has to do with the reproduction mechanics. The person presently assigned to do the task has not been able to do all of the required work and this work is many months in arrears. It appears that student help can be obtained for approximately thirty weeks at fifteen hours a week for approximately $1,300. He stated that he would not request the help if it were not absolutely necessary and would ask that the Council amend the budget for an additional $1,300 for student help for reproduction work. MATTERS INITIATED BY THE STAFF (Budgetary Amendment) Councilman Pritchard moved to grant the request for the budgetary amendment, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which received the unani- mous approval of the Council. * * * Councilman Miller explained that he delivered the resolution made up by the Council regard- ing Industrial Development Standards to the Environmental Protection Agency meeting at the request of the Council. He essentially elabor- ated on the resolution with some comment as to the difficulty of stopping residential development. He stated that he was asked if it was felt reasonable that the resolution would work, and Councilman Miller commented that he did not know for sure, but the local prospect intends to hire two-thirds locally; LLL hires two-thirds locally and Sandia hires approximately 90% of the citizens. He also explained that if there are commuters coming to industry in Livermore it would be better than a Livermore com- muter going to other cities while his wife is driving around in Livermore as the commuter to Livermore would only come in and go out once a day. He also responded to the affirmative when asked if the Council had voted for the ABAG resolution. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY THE COUNCIL (EPA Meeting) (Opposition to AB-889 Legislation) With regard to the proposed amendment to the Environmental Quality Act in the Senate, Coun- cilman Miller stated it was clarifying and strengthening in one sense, while weakening in another. It is being proposed that final maps and building permits will be exempt from the environmental impact reports and he felt that something should be able to be done at the final map level and that the City should oppose this provision. Also, there is a 120 day moratorium in which anyone wanting to get a project through after the urgency ordinance is passed can stockpile their projects, as seen here, in an anticipation of the SAVE Ordinance. He felt if there is to be a moratorium on guidelines there should be a moratorium on projects. Lastly, he noted that jurisdictions have only thirty days in which to file a suit against any project which has not submitted a proper environmental impact report. It takes time to review these reports and to take a position; the pressure seems to be coming from those with private projects. He suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda for the next meeting and asked that the City Attorney get copies of the proposed amendment for the Council. * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ATTEST ADJOURNMENT CM-26-43 Regular Meeting of November 27, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 27, 1972, in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at b:05 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN SEATED OPEN FORUM (Service Donation) * * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Futch (seated later) * * * Mayor Taylor led the Councilmen as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. * * * Councilman Futch was seated at this time. * * * Phillip George, 1670 Pine Street, asked if there is any way in which he would be able to donate his free time for the service of the community. Mayor Taylor replied that there are various commit- tees on which persons wishing to contribute may serve as well as special projects. He suggested that Mr. George contact the City Manager, or himself, to discuss possibilities and thanked Mr. George for his offer. Mr. Parness noted that often people write to the Council with re- gard to committees they would like to be considered for; these are kept on record and often referred to when appointments are to be considered. Councilman Miller pointed out that there were members of the Beau- tification Committee present who might wish to speak with Mr. George about their committee also. REPORT RE Sign - H. C. Elliott Report re Architectural Services - Police Dept. Building * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Miller requested that the matter per- taining to action taken by the Planning Commission regarding the H. C. Elliott tract sign be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion by the Council. * * * The City Manager reported with regard to architec- tural services for the police administration building that the architect's contract has been submitted by Ratcliff, Slama and Cadwalader and calls for ser- vices to be provided on a time and material basis. After lengthy negotiations with them, it is deter- mined that this method will be the most economical for the City. A maximum fee is set for the work at $55,000. An amount has been extracted from the original architect services on the Civic Center site as being a fair approximation of the re- lative amount attributable to the police building portion. This is estimated to be between $5,000 and $6,000 and will be credited to the architects's services. It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing execution of the agreement. CM-26-44 * * * On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by unanimous approval of the Council the Consent Calendar was approved with the deletion of the H. C. Elliott sign matter. * * * Mayor Taylor commented that the Air Pollution Control District has responded to the City's resolution regarding industrial development and that they are looking into the effects of developing industry locally to cut down on commuter generated smog. November 27, 1972 Approval of Consent Calendar COMMUNICATION RE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Councilman Futch remarked that in general it appears that the BAAPCD has received the resolution and comments favorably and seems to be considering them. Councilman Miller felt that it was worth noting that this concept was due to Councilman Futch's resolution. * * * The Council received a copy of a letter sent to the Valley Planning Committee from LARPD with reference to boundary jurisdictions with clari- fications as to areas being taxed by the Park District, boundary changes and representation by affected jurisdictions such as the School District. LARPD has requested that they be included as an official member of the Valley Planning Committee. COMMUNICATION FROM LARPD RE BOUNDARY JURISDICTIONS Mr. Musso commented that the position of the Valley Planning Com- mittee and two councils supporting this position is that the VPC is not able to take any position relative to LARPD and the School District and suggested that the matter be refer~ed to LAFCO. A representative from LAFCO has already stated that they intend to take up the problem of the Districts in an effort to consolidate the problem of boundaries. * * * The Planning Commission has denied a CUP for a freestanding sign, Callaghan Mortuary, located at 3833 East Avenue and the matter has been appealed to the Council. APPEAL RE CUP (Callaghan Sign) Mr. Musso stated that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits a freestanding sign or a pre-existing freestanding sign unless because of the lo- cation of the building as it relates to other buildings, and build- ing orientation, a sign located on the face of the building would not be effective for the use intended. The Planning Commission felt the subject sign would be visible from close proximity and, therefore, denied the CUP application. The Mayor mentioned that the matter had been continued in order that the Council might hear from the attorney representing Callaghan. Keith Fraser, representing Mr. Callaghan, thanked the Council for continuing the item twice in order that they might hear from him. He reported that in this primarily residential area there is a store, a church, multiples, two mortuaries and a cemetery within a two block area. The CUP would be allowed under the CO (Commercial Office) District in the area and the reason they are appealing to the Council for the sign is due to the fact that Mr. Callaghan has had this freestanding sign since 1960, and it is only 18 sq. ft. He realizes that the ordinance regarding signs cannot possibly CM-26-45 November 27, 1972 (Callaghan Sign cover every situation and feels that it is neces- Appeal) sary for the citizens, the owners and people out of town, coming to the mortuary during the even- ings that there be some type of obvious direction. He stated that the ordinance would allow a sjgn on the building three times the size of the present sign, but would not be as effec- tive. At present, the sign can be seen from two blocks away and it would prove to be a hardship to all involved should the sign be removed. He then demonstrated with slides, illustrating signs and giving reasons why it would not be better to have a larger sign on the building. The trees in the cemetery, as well as an apart- ment house, obstruct vision of the mortuary and it would be diffi- cult to see a sign located on the building. He felt that findings could be made in their favor and remarked that one citizen origin- ally protesting the sign, but after hearing the problems posed by Mr. Callaghan, indicated that she understood and would not object. Mr. Leo Callaghan, 686 North 0 Street, owner of property in question, gave some of the history regarding placement of their sign and pro- blems they have encountered. He mentioned that street lighting in the area is not adequate for a business establishment but has been geared to residential needs. When they built the mortuary, there was no apartment building in existence as is now adjacent. The mortuary was set back off the street to a distance which would block out noise from the street in front. In the meantime, the apartment was built and is much closer to the street thereby block- ing visibility of the mortuary. He asked that the Council consider their problems and keep an open mind with regard to the ordinance in that it cannot cover all situations, and that they have made a legitimate plea for allowing their sign. Councilman Beebe stated that one evening he drove out East Avenue and he could not see the mortuary until he reached the edge of the adjacent apartment house. He felt that this would be very con- fusing to people coming from out of town who do not know the area and that the freestanding sign is needed. The size of the sign com- plies with the ordinance, the building is situated back from the street at some distance and he felt there were reasons to grant the variance. Councilman Beebe moved that the Council grant the variance and the proper findings be made to allow the sign at the present loca- tion, however, the motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Miller moved that the Council adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission for denial of the variance, seconded by Councilman Futch. Mayor Taylor commented that his only objection is that the sign is internally illuminated and in a residential area is intrusive. Mr. Musso stated that there had been a suggestion for small illum- inated driveway signs, directional in nature be erected to replace the present freestanding sign. Councilman Miller felt the Planning Commission could not make the findings for a variance and neither could he; in his opinion, a sign placed on the building would be adequate. Mr. Callaghan commented that the suggestion to place a sign at the driveway would not allow the name of the chapel, due to size, and would not be acceptable to them. He added that they do not want a sign for advertisement, as such, and that their only interest is in directing people to their property. Mayor Taylor stated that he would entertain the idea of allowing some type of freestanding identification sign externally illuminated, perhaps redesigned and located in a different position. Also, he commented that Councilman Pritchard is abstaining from discussion and the vote due to a conflict of interest. CM-26-46 November 27, 1972 Councilman Futch commented that the sign is (Callaghan Sign perpendicular to the street and that there Appeal) are no exceptions. He felt that he could ~ ,J~~ ~.! consider a freestanding sign aL Lh~ uIlLLUIle-u~~ parallel to the street. Mayor Taylor felt the motion could be amended to allow an identi- fication sign, which he feels the majority of the Council wishes. Councilman Futch asked if, on an appeal like this, the Council can grant a different type of sign. The City Attorney suggested that there be a continuance and an amendment to the application for the variance. Mayor Taylor suggested there be a motion for continuance of the appeal, with the request that the Council be presented with an alternate design. Councilman Miller expressed disappointment over the attitude of the Council in getting away from the intent of the ordinance as well as overlooking the decision made by the Planning Commission. At this time the Council voted on the motion to deny the appeal which resulted in a tie vote with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor voting for it and Councilmen Futch and Beebe dissenting, (Councilman Pritchard abstaining). Councilman Beebe moved that the appeal be continued with direction to the staff to work on an alternate design to be presented to the Planning Commission. Councilman Futch seconded the motion which passed by a 3-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting (Councilman Pritchard abstaining). It was mentioned that the Planning Commission had not been pre- sented with an alternative for a freestanding sign, but had denied variance for the existing sign. * * * Councilman Miller stated that it was pointed out by the auditors during their audit of sampling the City's business licenses, that there have been concerns expressed by some of those audited on the fact that there are busi- nesses which are not paying the business.l~fee. What they do not pay affects the rest of the ~8i~~3 community in revenue and those businesses are competing unfairly with those who do pay the business license fee. He felt we should work harder at this and encourage those who are concerned, asking that they let the City know who they are to make sure through investigation that all the businesses are paying their fair share. COMMUNICATION RE AUDIT - CITY'S BUSINESS LICENSES The City Manager indicated that efforts are being made to find out those who are not paying the license, but pointed out that time and effort expended in this endeavor is very costly. If the City is provided with names and addresses of those not paying a fee they intend to take action. * * * The City Manager reported that an inquiry has been received from the South County Junior College District regarding extension of utility lines to service their property either by means of an assessment district in sizes adequate to serve some 610 acres, or to serve a campus site area alone. In the latter event, the College District would be solely financially responsible. REPORT RE JR. COLLEGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CM-26-L~7 November 27, 1972 (Jr. College Assessment District) Comparative costs have been prepared for these utility lines by various sizes and the Council has received a copy of the estimated cost break- down. There has been concern expressed by some of the Council members that if an assessment district is formed, involving private pro- perty, it would seem inequitable and unjustifiable to thereafter deny their property use. Therefore, it is recommended that the excess be financially advanced by the City government to service the entire acreage and when private property development occurs it would be assessable as a surcharge. Mr. Parness also explained that the estimated cost for utility lines, sewage and water is $385,000. arrived at by virtue of an assess- ment district proposal that was formed primarily at the instigation of the College District which owns approximately 25% of the ser- viceable area. The District was formed up to a point wherein it was confirmed and then was held in abeyance until some financial capability method could be arrived at by the College District for campus construction. However, such was not forthcoming so it has been sitting in a status quo state for about one and a half years. There are two alternatives for the parties involved: 1) the line size can be installed adequate to serve the 610 acres for a cost quoted as $385,000 - $290,000 for sewage and $95,000 for domestic water, or 2) at the suggestion of the Council other figures have been computed which would be an estimated construction cost merely for line size to serve the campus area at a figure of $228,000. The difficulty is that of financial availability to the District for construction of such facilities even to service their own area. These are the alternatives available, but the question is how might the money be accrued. Mr. Parness felt it would not be wise to allow lines to be installed that would be insufficient later since it is expected that the whole northern region may develop some day. The question to be decided at this time is how the money may be raised. Councilman Futch asked what fraction of the $385,000 would be the Jr. College assessment and Mr. Parness commented approximately one- quarter or $96,000 and if a district were formed it would be a 15-year district, and is one of the reasons they favor a district to be formed. He added that there is a legal difficulty which has just arisen which may put a cloud on the whole thing which involves the size of the college area. As he understands it, if the college properties hold controlling areas then they would not be legally entitled to provide for special financing to payoff their debt by virtue of a recent court decision Mr. Lewis explained that a school district could avoid the consti- tutional debt limitation by fostering an assessment district and then going into a special payment plan under that district law and paying off with special funds; they were avoiding the consti- tution improperly. The court did not criticize the use of dis- trict funds when the school owned less than 50% of the property in the district, where they would not have controlling interest. The bond counsel had just informed him about this point, stated Mr. Parness, and he had not communicated the information to mem- bers of the Board, but had told them he would as to whether or not the Jr. College District could themselves form a separate assessment district just to try to arrive at a financing method that would not necessitate expending presently accumulated funds, and the answer is that it cannot be done by virtue of this court case. Councilman Pritchard asked if the Jr. College District was the majority landowner, and Mr. Parness explained that they are not the majority landowner, but they do have the controlling influence by virtue of the percentage of properties that have executed the petition to form the District - about 64%. CM-26-48 November 27, 1972 Councilman Pritchard moved to continue the matter until the Jr. College District has a chance to study this new issue as he did not feel they were aware of it. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. (Jr. College Assessment District) Mayor Taylor explained the reason for having brought up the district at this time shortly after the bond issue failed, indicating there is a large area north of the highway in which the City did not want to repeat errors made in the past with regard to a leapfrog devel- opment in a remote area without proper services for the people. The City was not sure that the college would decide to locate there and as a result the City would have extended its utilities across the highway and started residential development on the north side and still not have the college. This was the reason for not going ahead with the assessment district originally. Mayor Taylor continued that the Council had asked the staff for alter- nate ways that they could consider extending utilities to the Jr. College site immediately without starting other premature develop- ment and making it clear that the landowners might not be able to develop their land for a number of years. Faced with that possi- bility the Council did not feel it would be fair to draw them into an assessment district under false pretenses. Mr. Parness stated there are a group of alternatives the Council might have: 1) Install utilities at the minimal size at a cost of $228,000 that would service the campus area only, or 2) install utilities the size that would service many additional acres, but for the bulk to be borne by the City government, which can be done, and have a portion of that paid by the College District. He added that the water construction cost is not a problem, but the sewage line is another matter because all the money we have is necessary for the enlargement of the reclamation plant, but if the Council wished to have the system at its enlarged size installed in the event we could obtain financial participation from the Jr. College District, this could be done. Mayor Taylor asked how the Council could recover the cost, and Mr. Parness stated that could be done by assessing proportionate shares on properties that are serviceable later, if and when they develop. Councilman Miller felt the reason the question is before the Coun- cil is that some expression has been made that the majority of the Council is not sure they want to encourage the development in the area by installation of sewer and water facilities to those several hundred acres. In view of air quality and other environmental problems the City may be revising the general plan holding capacity downward in a likely place. The idea of placing oversize sewer and water lines is a future compulsion to develop this area despite what might be sound planning arguments for not allowing that development. Therefore, we would be pouring money into the ground we might not want to use and we might be compelled to use it just because the amortization of it is so fierce. Mayor Taylor did not feel they should go so far as to say that the majority of the Council feel the property should never be developed; it is a matter of premature development. Any residen- tial development in the next two or three years on a similar type scale would be out of the question. Mr. Parness felt that he was speaking for the Council as well when he stated that the whole issue is to try to get the campus open for use. Councilman Futch agreed they would like to see the campus open, but there is a question of $385,000 and if they are not able to recover this, it is of concern. Councilman Pritchard felt it would be foolish to install lines that were inadequate especially if the campus area might double. CM-26-49 November 27, 1972 (Jr. College Assessment District) Mayor Taylor felt it was reasonable to put in a smaller size line if development is still ten or fifteen years away. Dr. Reed Buffington, Superintendent and President, of Chabot College, commented he appreciated that the Council was so conversant with things he might have said, and commented that the people in the area, with the Council's encouragement and help tried to do a number of things. They have succeeded with location and purchase of the property. By the fact that the Council has financed the engineering of the assessment district, legal fees so far and worked with them even so far as sign a contract for effluent from the reclamation plant is an indication of good will and concern that they work together to accomplish their goal. The District feels a tremendous pressure to serve the educational needs of the entire Valley and the campus location is critical to that position. They have not succeeded with previous plans, all of which were very well conceived and would have served the taxpayers with a fine educational plan. They have reoriented their thinking, saying they will have to provide educational facilities in the Valley which will have to be done one step at a time. The most desirable place to take the first step is on the site they now own, and in order to take the first step they must have the utilities described; also other underground expenses that have been mentioned before they will ever be able to get something on the top of the ground, as it were, to provide educational opportunities. Dr. Buffington stated he knowsof the decision mentioned by Mr. Parness and feels it ar- rives from the fact that many Jr. College Districts have assess- ment districts which encompass their own campuses alone which provide water, sewers, parking, roadways, stadiums, lighting, etc. He felt it appeared that kind of thing is at an end as long as the decision stands; the reading of the decision as to controlling interest is not precisely the way they read it; the point is well taken that they understand if the assessment district is formed it will pro- vide utilities to the site at a minimal cost to the taxpayers and district and will enable them to complete the first step. Personally, speaking as a member of the staff, he sees the second step as taking their present resources and doing whatever they can to begin the day program on that site as rapidly as possible. By doing so they will be able to demonstrate to the State that they have become eli- aible for State funds. He spoke of their resources as having $300,000 remaining in their building fund from the bond issue and funds they have collected for the construction of the campus in Hayward and the purchase of the two sites. In addition, they have $100,000 which was placed in a special fund for the purpose of start- ing a junior college, and they have another $95,000 which the Board set aside a number of years ago to provide utilities, or in round figures they have $500,000 which will not go very far. Again, it is the concept of having faith; being willing to take the first step on the basis of faith in order to get started. If they are able to move onto the site with some kind of facility it will be so overcrowded immediately they should be able to make some points in terms of need with the State. They are still in the discussion stage with the State who have said they have limited funds which they use to match local funds for construction of needed facilities and this is defined by the relationship between the number of weekly student contact hours generated by the institution and the assign- able square feet. Dr. Buffington also stated in correspondence just received, which has not been transmitted to the Board as yet, it is strongly suggested that they get started in such crowded facilities as he mentioned, and he realizes the Council feels that it is risky to take minimal resources and open their doors on faith. They have $500,000; they do not anticipate State funds at this time, but they feel the people of this aroa,and the Council feels, that the college is desperately needed and that an assess- ment district would go a long way in providing for the first step, and by doing tha~ they will have minimal resources to attempt to do whatever the Bo~rd may decide is best to get started on the site. He welcomed any questions that the Council might have. CM-26-50 November 27, 1972 Mayor Taylor asked if they had looked into the cost of providing roads, and Dr. Buffington stated they have checked into this and they would provide facilities as close to the ex- isting road as possible to minimize their ex- penditures; the parking lots would be gravel and oil rather than blacktop and parking would be minimal; this has not been decided upon by the Board. Speaking for himself, if necessary, he would be willing to move into a building that is permanent on the outside even if it has no walls as long as there are utilities. (Jr. College Assessment District) Mayor Taylor asked if they had checked the possibility of moving onto other publicly owned land such as the Las Positas School site where the utilities are already in so that all the money could go into educational facilities and not site improvements. Dr. Buffing- ton stated that is one of the alternatives, but they have no assur- ance from the School District that this is possible as they have not been approached on that; the staff has talked about it. It does pose problems in terms of longevity and expansion; it does have one advantage of being only a short distance from Granada High School where there are almost 1000 students in attendance and they do not expect to abandon that operation, as they will not be able to expand administrative staff, but spread them farther. Mayor Taylor asked how many students this site would accommodate and Dr. Buffington explained that by having odd hours they could accommodate many. Councilman Futch reminded Dr. Buffington that he had not commented on the alternatives, and Dr. Buffington stated he had not seen the figures before and was not in a position to comment on them, but felt the monetary advantages to the Jr. College District and the benefit the Council would afford them by creating an assess- ment district is quite evident as they would be in a position to have $500,000 to move toward development. Councilman Miller commented that what is good for the college may have larger consequences, something unfavorable to the community as a whole, namely, encouragement of development of the area before it is ready, so the decision is difficult. He felt that starting on the Las Positas site may have merit; the crowding will be there and the argument can be made to the State. Dr. Buffington commented that the state does not consider quality only assignable square feet and it would count against them. Councilman Beebe did not feel it was feasible to place the college on the Las Positas site as it would eventually result in a split campus, but was of the opinion that it would be best to install the utilities as proposed. The 30-inch line would be best and the City has control so premature development would not be allowed. Mayor Taylor felt hesitant to go ahead with the assessment district as the college may not materialize and there would only be resi- dential development, and he asked the City attorney what obligation they would have if they formed the district and then deneddevelop- ment for any reason. Mr. Lewis replied it was something that could be taken up in more detail with the assessment counsel as it is his understanding that when the property owner has paid up his bonds, he has a right to expect the service that he requests, assuming he is able to get building permits. There is some risk of forming the district and then denying entitlements. Mr. Parness added that an oral statement was made by one partner ownership to the effect that if the Council wished to proceed with the district and had to maintain the present moratorium position on building, he felt they would protest the formation of the district. CM-26-51 November 27, 1972 (Jr. College Assessment District) Mayor Taylor felt it is a difficult decision be- cause they may be denying an education to many thousands, but other alternatives can be explored. Arthur Henry, 434 Estates street, speaking as for- mer chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Jr. College Site selection committee, stated they had felt there was no question the college would go on that site and also no question there would be develop- ment in that area, however it is now evident that attitude is no longer appropriate as they know the problems of development in an isolated area. He suggested one alternative that had not been mentioned and that is looking realistically at what allowing de- velopment of the area would really be, and what the effects would be. It is difficult for him to understand that the Council could offhand reach a conclusion that it is out of the question. Mayor Taylor agreed that this alternative should be considered but the Council's concern is that there might be no control of development if utilities are extended to the area. Clayton Orr, attorney with Orr, Wendall and Lawlor in Oakland and part owner of property in the area and representing the owners of all the frontage land between Doolan and Canyon Road with one excep- tion, stated they had been invited by the City to be a part of this district, and they have cooperated because they have been anxious, but their problem is that the County Assessor believes the property is very valuable. His point is that the Council has left out of their thinking the matter of getting together and negotiating to meet their common problems. He felt by agreement they could control when each property would develop, then the owner would have a clear position to confront the assessor as there would be a difference in tax dollars. The vote was taken on the motion for continuance to a date set at the discretion of the City Manager and passed unanimously. Councilman Futch stated he would like to see some details of both problems in regard to legal ramifications and some figures on these alternatives. * * * REPORT RE AIRWAY BLVD. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Mr. Parness explained that a private development firm is studying tentative land uses on property owned by the City adjoining Airway Blvd. on the easterly side. The eleven acre parcel holds sig- nificant promise for commercial, professional office and, possibly, light industrial uses. The applicant has prepared a preliminary plot plan layout for the site and would like to learn of the general attitude of the Council as to what types of uses will be approved. The matter was postponed from the meeting of November 13 due to the absence of Councilman Futch. It has been recommended that the Council adopt a motion approving the general concept of the land uses and instructing the City Manager to participate in negotiations for lease arrangements and more specifics as to land use, architectural style and related matters. Mr. Parness demonstrated an illustration of the plot plan and pro- posals for the area - a restaurant, service station; possibly two types of business structures (professional or light industrial) and a motel and another office building in the same area as the motel. He asked that the Coucil give some indication as to whether or not this is the type of development they would like in the area. Councilman Futch commented that as he recalls the Council has a policy with regard to interchanges and whether or not they could have commercial development. He felt that this particular one was CM-26-52 decided upon as not being allowed the commercial development. It was explained that some commer- cial development would be allowed on the south side of the freeway, but not on the north side. November 27, 1972 (Airway Blvd. Development Proposal) Mayor Taylor asked what other possibilities would be feasible, should the Council reject this proposal, and Mr. Parness felt the only other alternative would be light industrial. Mayor Taylor stated that it has been the general opinion of the Council that no service station will be allowed until foundations for other portions of the complex have been poured, due to the fact that often the only thing which ever materialized in pro- posed complexes has been the service station. With regard to returns to the City, the City Manager explained that this would be determined by the use and that lease rates for different uses vary considerably. The Mayor mentioned that at present the Air Pollution Control District is contemplating a moratorium on service station develop- ment. Councilman Futch and Mayor Taylor expressed concern for starting a precedent for allowing commercial development of service stations on the south side of the freeway. Councilman Miller felt it would be unjustified for the Council to oppose proposed development of hot dog stands and service stations by the County at entrances to the City if the Council deliberately approves one. Also, he would predict that the County would plaster the interchange with gas stations, should the City allow one on the south side. There are only two entrances to the City which are not cluttered and he would like to see other uses on the pro- perties even though development be further away. In his opinion, this is a key interchange and a decision must be made which will not be disastrous. He felt that something in the nature of a car rental service would be appropriate in that it is adjacent to the airport. Also, he would approve offices and light industrial; mainly, nothing which would be freeway oriented, regardless of what the uses are. He felt that freeway oriented uses should be constructed at entrances which have already started commercial development. Mayor Taylor commented that recould visualize a car rental look- ing worse than a used car lot and this would be far worse than any service station. Councilman Pritchard felt the Council did not make any decisions regarding land uses, but had stated that they would consider possi- bilities. He does not approve of the City getting involved in enterprises, such as the golf course and feels that nothing is specific enough for him to make a decision at this time. Councilman Miller moved that the staff be directed to work with the applicants to come before the Council with other alternatives which do not include freeway oriented uses. Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion. Councilman Miller explained that the motion is not to reject this plan but to be presented with alternatives. The City Manager asked if Councilman Miller is opposed to the restaurant, gas station and motel, which would be considered freeway oriented, to which Councilman Miller indicated he felt he wished to see alternatives to freeway oriented uses. Mayor Taylor felt that a major consideration to any plan should be the architectural design, as he could imagine a number of unattractive office buildings or light industrial uses, such as a freight line using the area for a truck terminal. Also, he felt a CM-26-53 November 27, 1972 (Airway Blvd. Development Proposal) row of apartment houses would be worse than any- thing proposed at this time, as well as some com- mercial, not freeway oriented, such as an automo- bile agency. Roberta Hadley, Chairman of the Beautification Committee, expressed their long standing concern for the beautification of entrances to the City. At present their group has five plans for identification signs and landscaping and it is felt that perhaps this particular entrance may have the most significant impact. She asked that their group be allowed to review the proposed plan before a definite decision is made. Mayor Taylor commented that what they have is not really a plan but a land use plan. He then asked if the applicant, Mr. Eschen, would be willing to submit other alternatives. Mr. Eschen explained that in considering the area they had to first determine the need. There is only one restaurant in the area and no service stations. Service stations go hand-in-hand with other facilities such as the travel lodge and the restaurant. People need a place in which to eat and put gasoline in their cars. The people using the proposed office buildings will also be able to avail them- selves of these services. They felt this was the best land use proposal they could offer and which takes up only 25% of the land. He pointed out that motel users dictate what they want as well as restaurant users and that these things had to be considered. At this time the Council voted 4-1 in favor of the motion made by Councilman Miller, with Councilman Beebe dissenting, as he felt plans for the whole area should be abandoned if freeway oriented uses are not to be considered and instead make plans for landscap- ing and a park or something of that nature. Councilman Miller stated that there has been discussion regarding using the area as a roadside rest and this may be the best use. Mayor Taylor felt another concern should be the monetary return to the City from the land in question. * * * REPORT RE CHAMBER The City Manager reported that several months PUBLICATION COSTS ago an advertising firm negotiated an)oral contract with the previous Chamber of Commerce manager for publication of an advertising book- let. The advertising on the inside of the front cover mentioned our City government, the airport, golf course and restaurant. The cost of the ad is $1,000 and the publisher contends it was to be divided equally between the City and the restaurant and the golf pro. We have no records or recollection of any such commitment. It appears, regrettably, that this commitment was made without our consent. Hopefully, the ad will be of value and in view of the Chamber's financial status it is recommended that the City authorize a contribution of $333 towards the advertising expense. Councilman Miller pointed out that nowhere in the booklet does it mention the City; it refers to the golf course and the restaurant only. The Council has never voted to help finance the ad, the Coun- cil was not involved in any way and he feels they should not be required to expend the requested $333. Councilman Pritchard felt it was poor use of the advertising dollar. Councilman Beebe moved that the Council allocate the City's share for the advertisement. The motion failed due to lack of a second and no further action was taken. * * * CM-26-54 No vember 27, 1972 The City Manager reported that the lease be- tween the City and LARPD for the storage shed located on the Civic Center property was writ- ten for two years and has now expired. The two year lease term was set due to anticipated site development and the Council has declared intention to construct a new police ad- ministration building located in the near proximity and, therefore, a decision must be made as to the continuance of the barn for its present use. Our architects report that the new police building will not be ready until the summer of 1974 and it is, therefore, recommended that the lease be renewed for an additional two year term, after which time the structure would be razed. In the mean- time, the City Manager expressed the hope that some effort will be made in working with some of the major tenants of the building and LARPD to see if new improved quarters can be found elsewhere. REPORT RE CIVIC CENTER STORAGE SHED Councilman Futch moved that the Council grant a renewal for two years with LARPD, with no commitment to raze the building. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. The City Manager felt the point is to serve adequate notice of what the intention is of the City. Councilman Futch stated that he would modify his motion to reflect that the lease will be granted with the Recreation District's knowledge of the possibility and probability of this being the last renewal. Councilman Miller felt this was being hasty and suggested that it be renewed for two years, and in the meantime, a replacement be sought. If a replacement is not found, the building will not be razed, and if one is found, it will be destroyed. Councilman Beebe suggested the Council make a motion exactly as suggested by the City Manager - that the lease will be renewed for two years after which time the building will be razed. This will let everyone know the City definitely intends to demolish it and they will look for other quarters. Also, this is no commit- ment on the part of the City to destroy it if they do not want to. Mayor Taylor explained that the architect should be notified now as to whether or not the building will remain or be destroyed, due to his plans for grading and other considerations. Councilman Futch stated that his motion would include the modifi- cation mentioned above, and Councilman Pritchard stated that he would withdraw the second. Mayor Taylor then seconded the amended motion, however the motion failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Pritchard, Beebe and Miller dissenting. Councilman Miller moved to renew the lease for two years, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, which passed by a 4-1 vote with Council- man Beebe dissenting. * * * The City Manager reported that the matter per- taining to sidewalk installation in front of two houses on Hillcrest Avenue had been re- ferred to an appraiser for the usual report regarding condemnation. It was his professional view that because of the necessary taking for the right-of-way, the sidewalk location would be quite close to the living quarters of the front room area of the structures; this would cause vast affects on the value of the property making it economically unfeasible. He advised that the project not be undertaken and proceed no further unless the Council gives further direction. REPORT RE HILLCREST AVE. SIDEWALK Councilman Miller asked if there isn't something which can be done to provide some type of walkway for the elderly and children. CM-26-55 November 27, 1972 (Hillcrest Ave. Sidewalk) Mayor Taylor stated that the City does not have to acquire the property but possibly acquire per- mission to put in a macadam strip to walk on. It was concluded that this type of arrangement should be made. REPORT RE REMODELING * * * The City Manager reported that in accordance with the current fiscal budget, a personnel officer is soon to be employed. In view of this, it will be necessary to change the office site locations in our main City Hall structure. After study, it is proposed that the City Attorney's office, his library and secretarial quarters be moved to the mezzanine. His vacated location will be used by our new personnel staff. The estimated cost for the remodeling work, including material and labor is $1,500 and it is recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing this budget amendment and expenditure. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council authorize the expendi- ture, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which passed by a unanimous vote of approval by the Council. REPORT RE INTERIM GUIDE- LINES (Environ- mental Quality Act) MUNI CODE AMEND RE MASSAGE PARLORS * * * The City Attorney requested that the matter regard- ing the interim guidelines for the Environmental Quality Act be postponed pendin~ the outcome of legislation with regard to AB-8b9. The matter was postponed to a date not specified and it was asked that the matter be brought up when the City Attorney has something to report. * * * On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun- cilman Futch, and by a 4-1 vote of approval by the Council (Mayor Taylor abstaining due to absence at the introduction) second reading of the ordi- nance was waived, and the following ordinance was adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 802 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER THERETO, CHAPTER 12A, RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, OUTCALL MASSAGE SERVICES AND MASSEURS. APPEAL RE VARIANCE (H.C.Elliott Subdiv. Signs) * * * This item had been removed from the Consent Calen- dar for discussion at this time at the request of Councilman Miller who stated that he had appealed this variance at the previous meeting because he felt the signs should not be at the model home site as that tract is completed. If there is a time set for the removal of these signs, such as the 1st of March, the chance that the model homes will be placed in the tract to which they be- long will be greatly increased. He suggested that the items in the staff report pertaining to the model homes (6 and 8) should be de- nied or allowed only until March 1, which would mean that the dis- play associated with the model homes come down. He felt if the signs were phased out, it would encourage the developer to phase out the model homes. Councilman Miller also referred to Sign 9, CM-26-56 which is illegal in the city limits even though it might be allowed in the County if it were to be moved only a few feet and did not feel it should be allowed on this basis. November 27, 1972 (Appeal re Variance - Subdivision Signs) Councilman Miller made a motion that Area 6, Sign 8 expire on March 1, and that Sign 9 be denied; motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Pritchard, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting. * * * Mr. Lewis requested that there be a short exe- cutive session for discussion of a legal matter. It was also stated that there are appointments that should be made. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Executive Session) (Div. of Water Quali ty Control Board re Hearing) The City Manager referred to a letter which he had just distributed to the Council from the State Water Resources Control Board which re- fers to a hearing that will be held on December 7. The effect of the proposal involved would be to disallow any future state grants to water reclamation enlarge- ments in any geographic areas which are considered to be in excess of federal air quality standards - our Valley community so quali- fies. Mr. Parness indicated that he was merely suggesting that the Council give this some consideration and be prepared at the next meeting to pose a view and, in addition, request that the Board also hold a hearing in northern California so that the agencies which might be affected can personally be represented. Councilman Miller moved that the Council request that the Board withhold action until they hold a hearing in this area; motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously. * * * Councilman Beebe asked if Mr. Lee has had a chance to check the stop signs that come on to Murrieta Blvd. however Mr. Lee stated he has nothing to report at this particular time. * * * MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Murrieta Blvd. Sign) Councilman Futch mentioned a meeting in San (Bike Path Planning) Francisco regarding bicycle path planning and would urge the staff to send a representative to the meeting as it might be beneficial to our planning. * * * Councilman Futch mentioned the matter of a re- port by Dr. Gruen regarding the Livermore- Amador Valley; it was suggested by the City Manager that we schedule a public meeting at which time Dr. Gruen could orally explain details (Gruen Report re Growth) of the report. Councilman Futch stated that he would like to see it discussed by the Council prior to any meeting so they have more knowledge of the report and suggested that it be an item on the agenda. He also suggested that a copy be made available at the reference desk at the library for public review. * * * Janet Read commented that she had requested the report regarding Ramapo, Petaluma and Milpitas planned growth projects also be on the agenda and wondered if this would appear at the same time as the Gruen report. (Ramapo, Milpitas Petaluma Growth Projects) CM-26-57 November 27, 1972 (Ramapo, Milpitas and Petaluma) Mayor Taylor stated that the City Attorney was checking into the planned growth matter and they would schedule the matter on the agenda. It was concluded that the matter should be scheduled for January 15 and the Council requested that they be furnished a report prior to that meeting. * * * (Boat Sales in Councilman Miller mentioned the Planning Commis- Shopping CenteD sion's approval of a boat sales use in a shopping center, stating that it has always been the theory of the Council that day-to-day shopping needs only were to be in these centers, and it would seem that a boat sales use is well be- yond that expected to be in a shopping center. He felt the matter should be appealed and the Planning Commission's resolution dis- cussed in order to see that it does not go into effect immediately. He asked that this discussion be set for the next Council meeting. * * * Councilman Miller stated that he is getting an ever increasing number of complaints regarding hot dog stands and hamburger joints. People want to know if we have to have any more of these and if there can be some type of limitation as Liver- more does not seem to be getting the better type of restaurants to develop here. He suggested that the Planning Commission and Coun- cil discuss possible open land use limitations in the commercial areas. He felt there are two considerations: 1) should we consider limiting these businesses, and 2) can we legally do so. (Land Use Limitations re Restaurants) The staff was asked to report back to the Council regarding the matter. * * * (Legislation re AB-889) Councilman Miller commented that it is his under- standing that AB-889 will be heard in the Senate this week and if the City plans to give any input, they should send some type of recommendation im- mediately since it has been amended five times just in this last legislative session. He felt there are several things which might be of some importance - one being the four or five month moratorium on environmental lmpact reports. This means that all the uses for which environmental impact statements have been required can now go through without the report. This may result in thousands of projects getting through without a report having been made. He then made the following recommendations: 1) urge the Senate to withdraw the moratorium or include projects; 2) urge the Senate to increase the time period for filing an action from 30 days to 60 or 90 days for private projects; 3) during the interim period of a tentative approval and final map approval, they should have the right to require an environmental impact report if conditions have changed, and would urge that there be further consideration of not automatically exempting these things; 4) other jurisdictions should be allowed to require more guidelines than those set up by the Office of Planning and Research - not able to do less, but able to do more. He would urge that the Senate Committee take this into account. The majority of the Council agreed with suggestions put forth by Councilman Miller and the City Attorney was requested to present their position. * * * CM-26-58 November 27, 1972 Mayor Taylor felt there was a major item to be considered by the City Council which is the im- pending general plan review of our City. There also has been discussion of a Valley-wide plan, and in his opinion, one thing missing is the lack of determination as to what kind of city we want Livermore to become. He feels there is a desire for wide community participation and that some provision be made, per- haps in the form of a task force, to survey community attitude. This group should be made up from all segments of the community similar to the School District task force. The committee would not do any planning, but be able to offer instructions to a plan- ning firm when they come here. He feels that people want to have a say in the future of the City which has been indicated in the recent initiative measure. (General Plan Review) Councilman Futch commented that, in essence; th,ls would be to determine the broad goals of what the community wants to be. * * * There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. to a brief executive session for discussion by the City Attorney of a legal matter and possible discussion re appointments. APPROVE * ATTEST * * * Regular Meeting of December 4, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 4, 1972, 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. * * PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard ROLL CALL * * * Mayor Taylor led the Council members as well as those present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- MINUTES cilman Miller, the minutes for the meeting of November 20, 1972 were approved as submitted, and the minutes of the meeting of November 27, 1972 were approved as corrected. Mayor Taylor abstained from voting on the minutes of November 20th as he was absent at that meeting. * * * CM-26-59 December 4, 1972 Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, referred to the proposed meeting at which time "Growth as Con- trolled in Other Areas!! would be taken into con- sideration, and inquired if the Council would consider discussing at that same time the water reclamation activity for the entire Valley since we now have the final report from Brown and Caldwell as to their interpretation of how this problem in the Valley might be handled. OPEN FORUM (Re Meeting on Growth) Mayor Taylor assured Mr. Faltings that this report would be dis- cussed in due time as it is a separate issue; however, the subject set for discussion is very specific. Mr. Faltings asked if a study session on the report could be held so that a wide range activity might be put forth. Speaking as an ex-member of a sewage authority in another state, he felt there are certain areas of the Brown and Caldwell report which have not been expanded widely enough so that a valid decision might be made as to what is best for the community for the next twenty or thirty years. Councilman Beebe explained that at a meeting he and Mr. Lee attended, the City of Pleasanton had endorsed the concept of retaining water conservation in the Valley and had asked that Zone 7 handle this function rather than forming another agency. Councilman Futch questioned if Councilman Beebe was referring to the meeting of a group known as VWI (Valley Water Interest) about which there was a newspaper article, and Mr. Lee explained that it was a meeting of the legislative committee of the VWI and further explained the functions of the group. The alternatives were discussed at the meeting, however no recommendations were made. Zone 7 has been asked to accumulate data on various governmental arrangements that could be used. Mr. Parness remarked that on two previous occasions the consulting engineers presented a report as to their studies and, in addition, distributed a lengthy report to the Council. The last committee meeting referred to is in an effort to conclude direction as to overall management efforts that might be employed. Mr. Parness stated that he had received a letter from the Vice Mayor of Pleasan- ton, who is also serving on this legislative committee and he re- quests that this Council make a determination by the 28th of this month as to what their preferences might be on this subject. Mr. Parness asked what the Council might like to have done, and he would suggest that the consulting engineer appear before them with a very brief resume presentation, either the 11th or 18th, on this aspect of their work. Mayor Taylor felt that the Council should have an outline of sugges- tions made by the staff, as well as Zone 7 staff, so they could con- sider the various alternatives as to who would manage and which agency should do the planning, and the Council concluded that this should be presented at the next Council meeting. Mr. Faltings suggested that the Council have a staff member from the Regional Water Quality Control Board present at the meeting to learn exactly what they have in mind with regard to management. Also, there are two items to be considered: 1) management and 2) alternatives, and he felt it would not be appropriate to make a de- cision on only a short presentation given by Brown and Caldwell as he felt there should be multiple recommendations. Mayor Taylor stated that at the next meeting they would not study the technical part, only the management. However, Mr. Parness stated that the essence of the request made by Mr. Mori is that they would like a determination on two points: 1) overall system of impoundment, and 2) favor regarding the agency or agencies. Mr. Lee asked if Mr. Faltings had information that he would make available for the staff to consider, it might be helpful. * * * CM-26 -60 CONSENT CALENDAR December 4, 1972 The City Manager reported that there is a typi- cal agreement required by the State which has the City maintain those street areas appurte- nant to newly constructed freeway routes that belong to the City, and he would recommend that the Council a resolution authorizing execution of this agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 148-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. * * * Report re Freeway Maint. Agreement adopt An annual request has been received from the Livermore Jaycees for permission to conduct the air show on May 6, 1973. This matter has been processed through our Airport Advisory Committee, who are in agreement. It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing the conduct of this event, subject to the usual provisions for payment of local services, insurance to be provided and restriction of high performance aircraft. * * * Bids have been solicited in accordance with the current fiscal budget for vehicles for several departments and are as follows, to- gether with recommendations for award of bid: Department ~ Building 4-Dr. Sedans Dailey $9,321. 40 Codiroli $t5,710.0t5 Report re 1973 Livermore Air Show Report re Vehicle Bids Edgren $9,415.t58 It is recommended that 2-door, v-8 models be substituted, and that the low bid submitted by Codiroli Ford be accepted. The total difference for the substitution would be only $73.05 for the three units. Police Dept 7 ea. 4-Door Sedans 1 ea. 4-Dr. Sta Wag. Fremont Dodge $1t5,754 Edgren $21,5t52 4,135 Codiroli $21,643 3,951 Edgren $20,556 Dailey $25, 461. 4,397 The bids for the sedans included trade-in for five Dodge 4-door sedans, and it was recommended that the Fremont Dodge be awarded the bid for the sedans and Edgren & Sons the bid for the station wagon. Park & Tree Dept. lone ton Flatbed truck Goe Auto $4,903.1b Daile~ $5,021.7 Codiroli $4,736.69 It was recommended that the bid be awarded to Codiroli Ford * * * A communication was received from the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development re our City's qualification for Federal flood insur- ance and authorizing the sale of flood in- surance, effective December 1, 1972 at subsidized rates on an emer- gency basis for the City of Livermore. However, until they are able to obtain more precise boundary maps of the areas which are most exposed to flooding, only owners of existing structures on the effective date may purchase this insurance. The Fireman's Fund American Insurance Company of San Francisco has been designated as the servicing agent. * * * Notification re Flood Insurance (HUD) CM-26-61 December 4, 1972 Notification re Open Space Subvention (Resources Agency of California) Minutes (Various) Payroll and Claims Approval of Consent Calendar Resignation from Library Board (J. Rosengren) A notification has been received from the Resources Agency of California acknowledging receipt of our open space plan, its non-qualification for the current fiscal year, and eligibility in the 1973-74 fiscal year under the Open Space Subvention Act. * * * Minutes of the Community Affairs Committee meet- ing of November 6, and minutes of the Housing Authority Board meeting of October 17, 1972 were acknowledged. * * * One hundred three claims in the amount of $195,589.56 and payroll warrants in the amount of $67,380.66, dated December 1, 1972, were ordered paid as author- ized by the Finance Director. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant 4490 for his usual reasons. * * * On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- cilman Futch, and by unanimous approval, the items on the Consent Calendar were passed. * * * A letter of resignation from the Library Board was received from Jack Rosengren, who is moving to Washington, D. C. Mayor Taylor suggested that we reply to his letter, thanking him for his service on the Board. He also wished to state there is now a vacancy on the Board, and the City will entertain applications from citizens who might be inter- ested in this position. Communication from Zon e 7 Board re Revenue Bond Measure E Communication re Reappraisal Commercial Properties * * * A letter was received from Robert C. Becker, Chairman of the Zone 7 Board of Directors, stat- ing that the Revenue Bond Measure E on the Nov- ember 7, 1972 ballot was overwhelmingly approved by the voters, and he wished to thank the Council for its support. * * * A communication has been received from the Alameda County Assessor's Office explaining the reappraisal of commercial property in Livermore. Councilman Miller remarked that this question of reappraisal had been raised at his request, and he felt the response of the Assessor was not very satisfactory, and in essence, states that commercial land has had one increase in the last three years and improvements have not been increased at all during that period, while residential properties have had land and improvement increases regularly, which he felt to be very unfair. In his opinion, it was equally important to reassess business land and improvements on the same time scale as residen- tial properties are increased, and the City should request that there be more equity for all properties. The Council discussed the contents of the letter at length and their interpretation of the facts stated, and it was generally felt that they should ask for further explanation. CM-26-62 December 4, 1972 Mr. Parness stated that the staff has had an opportunity to gather some information, parti- cularly in the commercial area, of recent sales which is as current as it can be, and examples of these will be checked with the assigned mar- ket value as given by the Assessor; the same will be done residential and vacant properties. These can be reviewed Council first, or just be referred to the Assessor in the there is marked difference. (Reappraisal re Commercial Properties) with by the event The Council concluded that this would be the most effective manner in which to have their questions answered as there would be spe- cific properties. * * * The Planning Director explained the proposed development at the southwest corner of Chest- nut and P Streets, stating that the Design Review officials felt that the plans for the structure, submitted by Fotomat Corporation, were not satisfactory as the roof height was not proportioned to the length of the structure. A representa- tive of Fotomat met with the Design Review officials and various alternatives were discussed and recommendations made that would be acceptable. The matter is now under appeal by the applicant, although the lack of a unanimous decision would have automatically gone to the Design Review Committee if one had been in existence. REPORT FROM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RE APPEAL (Fotomat Corporation) Mr. Lee commented that if the applicant had been willing to re- duce the height of the roof, they could have come to an under- standing, but he would not agree to this solution. Jim Strala, of the legal staff from Fotomat Corporation, 7590 Faye Street, La Jolla, stated he was under the impression in reviewing a letter from Carl Stunz, dated November 22, that Mr. Musso and one member of the Board agreed the standard configuration was agreeable and that they would aesthetically fit in with the other buildings. The redesign factor of the roof complicates matters for them inasmuch as facilities for heating and air conditioning are in the roof. They have 1300 locations with the same structure and such a change would drastically change their trade dress, known across the country, and entail added expense; needlessly, alter a prefabricated structure; change its fire retardant quality and its structural stability. The building is 4 x 9 ft. and is 12 ft. high. The roof structure conforms with the other buildings; also the design. Since it is an aesthetic decision, he personally feels that it conforms with the other buildings. He showed pic- tures of various models and stated that their standard kiosk is rather obnoxious, but they had developed this new phase in order to accommodate cities like Livermore. Mayor Taylor stated that buildings are designed to be distinctive so they attract attention, but the Council has not been very im- pressed by such buildings. He asked if the committee had seen the architectural plans of the interior, showing the location of the equipment. Mr. Lee stated they felt it was out of proportion, and that the upper two tiers should be removed. It is possible that this would cause them to redesign the heating and air conditioning units, but they could be located on the islands adjacent to the building. As for the concern it would cause structural problems, he is sure it would not be a serious matter. Mr. Sbala remarked that if they increased the length of the building it would reduce the planter area. CM-26-63 December 4, 1972 (Fotomat Corp.) Mayor Taylor asked if they would be willing to wait until the matter was presented to a Design Review Committee, composed of at least three could be done but it might mean a delay of another architects; this month. Mr. Strala stated they had already made commitments, and on the basis that it would produce a hardship, asked that the Council make a decision. Councilman Miller stated they could support the staff committee and suggest that the applicant provide a design satisfactory to our existing committee. The City Attorney reminded the Council that perhaps they have not reviewed the Design Review Ordinance lately, and quoted from this ordinance, indicating there are findings that the Council could make. Mr. Strala, referring to this same Ordinance No. 775, Sec. 22.81, subsections a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i stated they conformed specifically with these, as well as other portions of the ordinance and felt if the ordinance was to be quoted, they should read all of it since it is an aesthetic decision and for that reason was rather arbitrary. Councilman Beebe preferred another design rather than the one pro- posed; Councilman Futch felt that the roof was too large for the size of the building; Mayor Taylor stated he would agree to the design if the roof line was reduced; however, since none of the Council members were in agreement, he suggested that they continue the matter until the full Council was present. The applicant agreed that although it would be expensive, they would agree to reduce the roof height, and after some discussion regarding the materials to be used, an agreement was reached whereby the top tier of the roof would be eliminated and tile material used which would be compatible with the other two struc- tures under construction in the area. However, since the major issue was the height of the building, which the applicant had agreed to reduce, it was the Council's decision to refer the matter to the staff committee for final details. * * * APPEAL RE BOAT SALES AT PINE ST. AND RINCON AVE. An application for a retail sales of marine craft and accessories was approved by the Plan- ning Commission at Pine street and Rincon Avenue (Livermore Shopping Center) and this use had been appealed by Councilman Miller. Mr. Musso felt that the resolution allowing the use was self explan- atory. He stated the Commission had discussed whether or not a hardware or a sporting goods store, selling boats in conjunction with other commodities, would be allowed and decided if there were absolutely no repairs of boats or motors and the use would not pre- empt the establishment of other uses for which the center is in- tended, that this use could be allowed in a neighborhood shopping center. Councilman Miller stated that he did not object to boat sales in the City, but was concerned about the future of commercial growth in the City. We need more shopping facilities, and are trying to maintain a downtown which would centralize retail uses and make shopping easier. Action such as approving boat sales in a neigh- borhood shopping center seems to contradict the City policy as it is not a day-to-day use. Bookstores, dress shops, toy stores and shoe stores, etc. are general commercial and should be in our cen- tral shopping core. He felt that continuation of the policy that has essentially been adopted for this use, would deliberately allow the downtown to die out, and asked how the Southern Pacific pro- ject could succeed if the general commercial uses are distributed out to neighborhood shopping centers. Councilman Miller stated he CM-26-64 December 4, 1972 could understand why the owner of the shopping (Boat Sales) center would wish to keep the center full, but he felt this type of use should be downtown; it was his understanding that they did not locate downtown because there are no appropriate buildings, even though there are approxi- mately 200 acres of land zoned commercial. Councilman Miller felt they should not allow any uses of this kind in a neighborhood shopping center until they resolve the question of what is to be done in neighborhood shopping centers and whether they are going to allow the downtown to fold up. Also, any future shopping center that is proposed should have less acreage so there is not the pressure of having the buildings occupied, and this should be discussed by the Planning Commission. Councilman Miller stated he was not asking that the Council deny this boat sales, but ra- ther that the Planning Commission be directed to approve no more uses of this kind in any neighborhood shopping center until the questions are resolved. Mayor Taylor commented that they have discussed in great detail the size of shopping centers, and one they recently approved they specified stores that will and will not be allowed. On the other hand, since drug stores in the centers are so large, perhaps the centers should be even bigger to accommodate more parking of cars. He did not feel the applicant would move downtown if the use were denied, but rather elsewhere; he felt that the use was reasonable. Councilman Beebe agreed with Councilman Miller that uses such as this should be in the downtown area, but since there is no build- ing adequate for the use, he was not opposed to the location as proposed, especially since it seems that the center has had a difficult time keeping the buildings occupied. Councilman Miller stated that at the time he appealed the appli- cation, it was his intent to ask that the use be denied, but in thinking it over, changed his mind to not deny the use, but to resolve the issue for the future, withdrew his appeal at this time and made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to approve no more general commercial uses in neighborhood shopping centers until they have finished their hearings and make recommendations for changes. Councilman Futch seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Musso reminded the Council that there are very few applications such as this; also, the ordinance places a fairly strict limitation on the uses allowed, and normally this would be under a CUP. He did not feel it was a problem, but rather an advisory type of motion. Mayor Taylor stated that not every business which they would force into the downtown business district, would help the downtown in general and he, personally, would like to have each application considered on its own merit until a policy is established rather than a moratorium. Councilman Futch agreed with Mayor Taylor, but did feel we should consider the shopping center ordinance again. He questioned whether or not there were sufficient tenants to fill the center with the uses as defined for a neighborhood shopping center, and Mr. Musso stated there were vacancies. A vote was taken on the motion which failed with Councilman Miller in favor, Councilman Futch and Mayor Taylor dissenting and Coun- cilman Beebe abstaining (Councilman Pritchard absent). M~orTaylor felt that the minutes would reflect the Council's thoughts regarding the matter. * * * CM-26-65 December 4, 1972 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 21 were acknowledged for filing. * * * REPORT RE CUP INTERPRETATION {Requested by H.C. Elliott) A request has been made by H. C. Elliott for an interpretation of certain provisions of the Zon- ing Ordinance and the approved Conditional Use Permit relative to setbacks. The approved Con- ditional Use Permit for Intermark Development Co., dated June 7,,1971, Condition 6 (d) specifies that no structure or mobilehome shall be located closer than five feet of any lot line. This provision was extracted from the Mobile Home Ordinance (Sec. 21.26 (b)(l)) which was then pending adoption (adoption July 28, 1971). Mr. Musso had explained in a detailed chronological report that the Planning Commission in consideration of the proposed ordinance regu- lations for mobilehome parks visited the Sun Valley Mobilehome Estates, concluding that one change should be the requirement of increased separation between canopies, awnings and similar structures usually associated with a mobilehome use. He stated that the structure is interpreted by the staff based on the Zoning Ordinance, State Mo- bilehome Act, and Building Code to include a canopy, awning or sim- ilar cover. The developer who is now H. C. Elliott and who purchased the pro- perty after plot plan approval, contends that such a structure is not a structure in any conceivable or reasonable definition. Later the developer's engineer asked for clarification of the provision for setback as to whether a raised deck must be set back five feet from the lot line and was advised by the staff that a deck or porch less than one foot high would be allowed, but if the height is greater than one foot, a five foot setback is required. Mr. Musso continued that in the final plans approved by the Building Inspec- tor and by the Planning Department there was no correction of the plot plan for the parking pad since it conformed, based on the assumption that there was to be no carport. The developer contends that the staff should have realized the developer intended to pro- vide carports and made the necessary correction, or should have re- quired a larger lot. The alternatives for the City Council are to uphold the staff and Planning Commission interpretation, thereby precluding carports for many spaces, or interpret the ordinance in a manner suggested by the applicant or amend the permit if they find the development to be still in conformance with the original permit approval. He stated that the City Attorney advises that the variance procedure is somewhat questionable inasmuch as the CUP was approved prior to the ordinance adoption. After some discussion regarding what might be done, Mayor Taylor concluded that the decision is whether or not the park would have carports. Councilman Futch stated the CUP did spell out the requirements of the ordinance, admitting that it could have been interpreted in- correctly, but it reads that I1for the purposes of this provision only, the width of the mobilehome shall include the mobilehome and any other structures attached to it, except awning", which referred to lot size and not the separation between the structure, and he felt the CUP is clear. Also, he felt the staff did point this out to the applicant, but the applicant still proceeded. He did not feel that a variance should be approved under those conditions, however he knew that Councilman Pritchard would favor the variance, and if there is a tie vote, he would vote for approval in order not to delay the business of the Council. r-' Councilman Miller felt that Councilman Futch had stated the issue clearly, and that the variance should not be approved under the circumstances. CM-26-66 December 4, 1972 David Madis, attorney for the applicant, stated (CUP Interpretation) what seems to be clear to the Council members was not clear to him. He referred to the memo from the Planning Director and the paragraph which indicated that the Planning Commission was considering the ordinance and stated that Mr. Elliott and Intermark Investing were not present at those discussions as to the meaning of what the setbacks would be, but were solely concerned with the CUP application where their approval was derived for the park. He also had attended all of the meetings and there was much discussion with regard to the quality of the park being a 5-star park. If the interpretation of paragraph 6(d) is correct, in order to have a carport on any of the lots, the minimum lot size for a 12-foot trailer width and awning and carport would be 25 feet plus 12 feet plus 10 feet according to staff interpretation, which is in excess of anything that appears on any map, as the ordinance indicates the lot size must be 37 feet (25 feet plus the trailer). As far as the staff interpretation is concerned based on the Zoning Ordinance, State Mobilehome Act and Building Code, he had a discussion with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Elliott, Mr. Musso, the engineer and there was no reference to such a method of determining what structure means. They argued about how the setbacks were determJned, so they disagree as to when the interpretation was made, and only now when they read the memo did they find that this interpretation was made. Mr. Madis referred to approved plans which showed 3 ft. setback on one side; on another plan it showed 4 ft. setback from the edge of the patio. Councilman Miller asked if it said anything about carports and awnings in the plans, and Mr. Madis stated that it did not, but under the conditions of the CUP it states that they must provide an awning. Mr. Musso added that on the porch they do not have to observe the setback if it is not over 1 ft. high. Mr. Madis explained that they are not saying their interpretation is necessarily correct, but probably the question should have been raised and answered long ago. Now, they are in a position where they have a completed mobilehome park, and they feel it is desirable and advisable to have carports with the awnings. They do not think itwould injure the community; they think the ordi- nance is unclear in its definitions. At the hearings more time should have been spent debating the individual requirements and they would have had a clear CUP and not had this problem. Mr. Musso explained that at the time the CUP was before the Council, the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance was accepted, and the CUP was not discussed at great length. Mayor Taylor commented that he felt the language could be clearer and that the procedure or ordinance should be changed so that there will be no possibility of misinterpretation in the future. Perhaps the Council should have realized that the ordinance im- plied uno patio covers and no carport coversu. The mobilehome units should not be crowded too close together and a 5-foot set- back between carport covers and structures from the property line is really what was intended which would mean that the structures would be 10 ft. apart. He felt that the main consideration at this time is whether or not the community would be better off if carports in this particular development were not allowed. Mr. Musso stated that he felt it would be better to allow the carports. Councilman Beebe felt that for the benefit of those living in the park, he would like to see that covered carports as ~ell as covered patios are allowed. The Mayor pointed out that this is a very warm area and could not visualize the City prohibiting carports and exposing one whole side of a unit to the sun. CM-26-67 December 4, 1972 (CUP and Ordinance Interpretation) Councilman Miller expressed concern for stopping this type of thing in which the developer says there will be no carports and then decides, after the fact, that they plan to allow carports. Councilman Futch felt that it appeared the foundations were poured and that the developer knew if the foundations were in he could get around the ordinance. Councilman Miller stated that this, in essence, is the same example as a person who decides to build a house which covers 25% of the lot, allowed under the ordinance, and does not include a garage. He then comes before the Council and tells them that he needs a garage; however, it will exceed the 25%. In his opinion, that re- quest should be denied, as should this request stated Councilman Miller. Mr. Madis commented that Mr. Elliott has built in the City for a number of years, has always complied with all the requirements and has never attempted to cheat the City in any way. He reminded the Council that he is building schools for the City and has been a very conscientious person in his dealings. Councilman Miller explained that he did not mean to imply that it was Mr. Elliott, specifically, who was responsible for the problem, but that someone along the way knew there were to be no carports or patios, and that someone was responsible. Earl Mason of Associated Professions stated that he has reviewed the minutes of the meetings for the Planning Commission and the City Council at which time the CUP for this development was approved and there was no mention of a setback in either of the minutes. The ordinance stated that the lot shall be 25 ft. wider than the mobilehome and this is what was approved by the City, with no no- tation that the 3-4 ft. sideyard which meets state standards be any wider. The majority of the homes in parks have covered car- ports or patios. He stated that, normally, when considering approval of a tentative map the following should be considered: 1) the sum of the trailer, 2) the sum of the carport and patio cover, and 3) the sideyard desired. If this procedure had been followed a 40 ft. lot would have been required rather than the 37 ft. lot size approved. It was assumed that the interpretation of the 25 ft. plus the awning was allowed and built to the City's standards. Councilman Miller moved that the Council uphold the staff inter- pretation and the unanimous concurrence of the Planning Commission of this interpretation, which was seconded by Councilman Futch. Councilman Miller commented that if you do not stand by your ordi- nance, you essentially have no ordinance. He felt that, morally, the Council is obligated to stick by the ordinance as interpreted by the staff. Councilman Beebe explained that this is the first trailer park the City has approved and that there are things to be learned. He does not want to penalize people living in the park due to first attempt problems. Mayor Taylor stated that if the Council approves the covers, this should not completely destroy the confidence of the public with regard to upholding the laws of the City. The vote of the Coun- cil will mean simply that covers will be allowed, or they will not be allowed. He would, therefore, reluctantly vote to allow construction of the awnings over the parking area. At this time the Council voted on the motion to deny the carports which failed by a 2-2 vote with Councilman Beebe and Mayor Taylor dissenting. CM-26-68 Councilman Beebe moved that there be a minor amendment to the CUP to allow patio covers in the park, seconded by Councilman Futch to ex- pedite Council business. Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, asked that Mr. Elliott be granted the patio covers in this case and he would hope that the amendment will erase any error which can repeat itself. December 4, 1972 (CUP and Ordinance Interpretation) Mayor Taylor agreed with the statement made by Mr. Hoenig, adding that it might be wise to change the wording in the ordinance to reflect that any exterior structure must be five (5) feet from the property line, in addition to requiring that all structures be shown on maps. The motion made by Councilman Beebe passed by a 3-1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting (Councilman Pritchard absent). Mayor Taylor stated that if the Council would agree, he would in- struct the staff to bring an amended ordinance before the Council with very explicit wording to prevent further misinterpretation. Inasmuch as the Council agreed, the staff was so directed. * * * The City Manager stated that he, Councilmen Beebe and Miller had met with a LARPD Board member committee and their staff and one of the principal topics under discussion was the proposed park development fee ordinance. It is essential that some procedure be drafted for utilization of these monies as to who is to be responsible for expenditures and the chronology, and such a proposal was drafted and is sub- mitted for review. The two committee members feel that the City should not reserve any type of final review and approval rights in this process of park development and this is the whole essence of the controversy. He felt that the procedure, as presented, should be supported. REPORT RE PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSITION OF PARK DEV. FEE Councilman Beebe stated they had agreed to the wording of the procedure, and Councilman Miller added that it was a compromise wording, but felt it was more to our liking than to LARPD. Mayor Taylor commented that he did not know if LARPD intended to completely withdraw any financial support from neighborhood park development, and would hate to have that dictate the de- sign. Councilman Miller stated that the City should raise enough by the proposed fee to handle the development. Mr. Parness commented that the policy should be set with some consideration of the ordinance itself. Councilman Miller moved to approve the sequence as proposed by the City Manager, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and it was approved unanimously. * * * The proposed ordinance regarding business li- cense tax to be imposed on residential units to be constructed had previously been referred to as the l1Bedroom Taxl1 ordinance and had been postponed for further consideration, particularly as to assessment rate and its means of application. BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT, CH. 12 re l1BEDROOM TAXl1 It is recommended that the assessment rate be levied as a square foot amount fur all forms of residential construction. This would pertain to that part of the assessment for park development purposes. CM-26-69 -.".-" ~~,-,.--_..-.._._,--_.-_..~-----~_..__. December 4, 1972 (Bedroom Tax) The other fee collectible by authority of the ordinance (the annexation fee) should be a flat sum set at $300 per residential unit. As to the park development fee rate, our research discloses that the average size for residential structures of the past year or so has been 1300 sq. ft~; thus, in order to raise the requisite approximately $200, the square footage rate of $.15 is inserted. In order to satisfy the justifiable points that due to large variations in house construction sizes there should be a minimum and maximum park development insertion, and the amounts of $175 and $250 respectively, are proposed. Mr. Parness further explained that he felt this was the best way to arrive at an equitable figure. He pointed out tha~ in addition, the City Attorney has written into Section 12.31 (b) the definition of usable dwelling space in reference to mobile homes" suggesting that the usable dwelling space is seventy-five percent of the space made available for the site of the mobilehome. In calculating that requirement, the amount was found to be excessive, and in order to be equivalent he felt the figure should be something like forty percent of the mobilehome space, which would be about $200. Mayor Taylor felt this suggested change was reasonable, and Coun- cilman Miller added they could simplify the method of calculation by simply charging $200 per unit, but would agree that approximately the same amount of revenue would be derived either way. Councilman RItch felt they were all in agreement and moved that the ordinance be introduced; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. Dave Madis stated that he is a member of a special committee of the Chamber of Commerce and would ask the Council to delay their decision on this ordinance for a period of two weeks to give the Chamber's special committee an opportunity to study the ordinance as there have been many changes and even now there is a change to be made. Also, they feel that a matter of this consequence would be decided by the entire Council. Mayor Taylor pointed out that the annexation fee is not at issue but the fact that money will be extracted for parks, and he felt that this had been discussed on many different occasions, and there has been adequate time to consider it and present it. There will be a second reading at the next meeting and he felt, personally, that would be adequate time. The only reason the matter has dragged on is that no building permits have been issued and they have had time to discuss the matter. Councilman Beebe indicated that he felt they should wait until there was a full Council present. Also, although he intended to vote in favor of the ordinance, he wanted to suggest a change from 151 per square foot to 141 per square foot which would more closely approximate the $200 per unit figure. He made a motion that the change be made as an amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Councilman Futch. The City Attorney pointed out that in view of the fact that there may not be a second reading next week, there was a provision in Sec. 12.39 that says the tax will be in effect January 1, 1973 which he felt should be changed to February 1 to give the necessary 30 days allowance for the ordinance to become effective and this could be included in the motion. The motion to change the amount from 151 to 141 per square foot failed by a tie vote with Councilmen Beebe and Futch in favor and Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. A motion w~s made by Councilman Miller to adopt the ordinance as proposed by the City Manager, plus the appropriate date change from January 1 to February 1, 1973; motion was seconded by Councilman Futch and passed 3-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting (Councilman Pritchard absent), the ordinance introduced and title only read. CM-26-70 * * * A proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance is recommended which will reduce the fee from $200 to $100 when occupancy of an existing building, where no site plan approval is in- volved is requested. December 4, 1972 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE CUP FEES - Sec. 21.76 On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimous vote (Councilman Pritchard absent), the ordinance was introduced and title only read. ~- * * * Councilman Beebe asked that time be set aside at one of the meetings to allow Dorothy Bar- lett and George Perry to give a presentation on a sculpture that has been developed in a scale model for the City of Livermore. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Sculpture Presentation) The Council concluded that this should be set for the meeting of December 18. * * * Councilman Futch suggested that whenever a Councilman feels there is an item of signi- ficance and desires to discuss it early in the meeting for the benefit of the audience, this should be allowed. (Agenda Changes) Mayor Taylor stated there is a published agenda and he did not feel they should make changes unless the Council agrees, but suggested that perhaps at the beginning of the meeting, they could raise the point and move that a particular item be brought up for a special reason, but this could lead to many changes. * * * Councilman Futch stated that regarding the cost of utilities to the Jr. College site, it had been suggested the smaller lines pro- posed would not be useful and be an added expense to the District, in general, to pro- vide additional lines when the assessment district is formed. He stated that they will have more effluent from the sewer plant as the city grows, which has already been considered, and felt either one or both of the lines that would be installed just to serve the college site could be used later for pumping effluent to water the landscaping, etc. He felt there was some merit in this proposal and on that basis felt the City could support that concept to some extent provided there was an agreement for the use of these lines before the assessment district was formed. He would like this type of thing considered more in detail and pointed out that the waterline recommended to be for the college only was still a 12-inch line so the flow is greater than the college dis- trict would use, and the return line was an 8-inch line. He thought there was an inconsistency if they were just to consider the college site. By considering all of these points they can reduce the cost of the utilities to serve just the college site, and he would suggest a committee be formed to meet with the college district board to discuss like ideas. They should investigate how much water a college site would use. (Proposed Junior College Assessment District) Mayor Taylor commented that he felt Councilman Futch was interested in having more alternatives explored, and suggested that Council- man Futch be delegated to meet with the staff and the college dis- trict on this issue. * * * CM-26-71 December 4, 1972 (Re Jr. College) Mr. Lee explained that there may be some variation and pointed out the waterline was for fire pro- tection as well as domestic use so the fact it is larger than the sewer line is not relevant. Also, the first phase of the college will operate on minimum pressure and ultimately there will have to be a reservoir to serve the development and there will be need for as large a line as possible. As far as use of reclaimed water for irrigation, they had intended to bring in a separate line for that purpose; however, since that time they have discussed the reservoir in conjunction with the reclamation plant expansion and the City has made application for federal par- ticipation. * * * (Bicycle Licenses) Councilman Futch stated people have pointed out to him that a lot of bicycle riders are without lights on their bikes and asked what the law is, and Mr. Lewis stated they are required to have lights. He was advised that warnings are issued by the police de- partment, and Mr. Parness commented that licensing will begin in January in conformance with the state law. * * * (Holiday Decorations on First st.) Councilman Futch stated it had been brought to his attention that the City has not installed all connections for illumination of holiday decora- tions. Mr. Parness stated that the first light standards were not designed to accommodate the lighted decorations. A temporary wiring can be installed for approximately $2,000. Mayor Taylor stated it was his understanding that where there are electrical outlets, they were paid for by adjoining merchants, however Mr. Parness explained it had to do with the structuring of the standards and wiring, and Mr. Lee added that between L street and Livermore Avenue it was the City owned system, and the merchants wanted no part of it at the time it was installed. The old wiring was used and there is no room to place transformers and switching and it cannot be converted now, but overhead wiring could be in- stalled. Councilman Futch mentioned that it had been stated that the 10% business license was to have gone for this purpose, however Coun- cilman Miller commented this was not so, and Mr. Parness added that the City Council adopted the statement that it would spend an amount for Christmas decorations up to 10%. Councilman Beebe felt it was a shame that only a part of First street was lighted at Christmastime, and Mr. Parness agreed. Councilman Miller felt this should be discussed at budget time. Councilman Futch made a motion that lights be installed, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion passed 3-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting with the comment that expenditure of City money for Christmas decorations is a violation of the constitutional state- ment of separation of church and state and for that reason he could not vote for the motion. * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ATTEST Livermore, California CM-26-72 Regular Meeting of December 11, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 11, 1972 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:13 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. ~INUTES On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Futch and by the unanimous approval of the Council, the minutes for the meeting of Deeember 4, 1972, were approved as submitted. SPECIAL ITEM (Report re Valley Water Management Program) The consultant study, by Brown and Caldwell, regarding a water quality and. management plan for the Alameda Creek watershed above Niles has been completed on behalf of the sewage treatment agencies of the Valley and Zone 7. The City has been requested to conclude a position as to one of the alternate methods of waste water impoundment and disposal and as to the managerial agency for such a plan. Representatives from the consultant firm and from the staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board were invited to the meeting to discuss the matter. Mayor Taylor commented that the two primary points to be discussed were: 1) the plan itself and the recommended alternative and 2) the requirement for unified management under one agency and the Board's thinking in this regard. Mr. Lee introduced Dick Bain and Dr. Caldwell, from Brown and Caldwell, as well as Fred Dierker, Manager of the Water Quality Control Board. These representatives intend to explain and discuss various aspects of the report. Mr. Bain explained some of the history of the study as well as various proposals including a water fowl marsh to be used for land disposal of wastes, migratory birds, and possibly irrigation purposes. He stated that he would like to emphasize the staging for the development as follows: 1) improving treatment - which is being done at present, 2) the time when a reservoir is determined to be feasible and built, and 3) if population requires, there will be provisions for reuse of water from the reservoir, but only as desired. with regard to implementation, he mentioned that there were three alternatives considered: 1) a Bay Area wide agency, 2) a Valley wide agency, or 3) a diversity of agencies running their own plant but coming together for a common disposal facility. It is felt that the most desirable approach should be Valley wide, particularly with regard to the second stage of the plan. CH-26-73 December 11, 1972 (Valley Water Mgmt. Plan) When asked about the planning, should an agency not be designated, he commented that he felt an agency such as the present Valley Water Interest group could continue to function under a joint powers agreement, as was the arrangement for provisions of the report. COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. Councilman Miller asked Mr. Bain to summarize the cost involved in each proposal; how much for each stage, the time scale over which it will be spent as well as the distribution of cost burden. He was interested primarily in the recommended C-l proposal. Hr. Bain explained that Stage 1 is estimated to be between 15-20 million dollars; the present worth of Stage 2 is $30 million (in- cluding capital and operating); possibly, Stage 3 is not required and this will be determined by population increase. Councilman Miller asked to what size and population does the first stage anticipate, to which Mr. Bain explained that normally planning is projected for five years, adding that growth is being tied in with air quality control standards. Mayor Taylor wondered if the plan is adaptable to staging along with incremental increases in population and Mr. Bain assured the Council that the plan is more amenable to staging than the "pipeline" plan. He pointed out that the two other alternatives (piping the effluent or demineralization of the effluent)were less economical as well as less desirable. Councilman Beebe asked if he would explain the financing involved, and Mr. Bain commented that it could be paid off through the sale of bonds or financed largely through a "user" charge. He mentioned that a recently passed law allows for 75% federal granting for facilities for waste water treatment and disposal. Also, there is some money in the state budget at present for grants, and applica- tions for these grants have been made. Mr. Fred Dierker, Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board stated that for a number of years the need for a Valley-wide water quality management plan has been apparent and that the staff of Zone 7 agrees with the recommended plan and feels that it will achieve the kind of water quality control they are looking for. It is felt that with regard to management, Zone 7 should be favorably considered in that it is an existing agency and has the responsibility for water quality control and water supply. In his opinion, he would not favor a special district as he feels this to be another layer of government which is not needed, and that water treatment should be under the jurisdiction of Zone 7. Councilman Miller commented that in the event the State Water Quality Control Board shuts down expansion of sewer plants in the area due to control of air quality, will Stage 1 be adequate to satisfy the water quality standards required by Zone 7 to protect the Niles cone to which Mr. Dierker explained the salt load should be improved before dumping more effluent into the Niles cone. In other words, the salt concentration should be reduced. Councilman ~1iller explained that the lime process to reduce salt content was chosen, with the guidance of Brown and Caldwell, and wondered if we will be in trouble if we reach capacity and do not have a storage reservoir in Doolan Canyon. CM-26-74 December 11, 1972 (Water Management Plan) Mr. Dierker commented that in this case, some other way of managing the salts will have to be provided and one way is the salt rotting concept recommended by the consultants. Councilman Miller felt that it might be impossible to raise the money for the reservoir in the five year period and Mr. Dierker men- tioned that the grant situation is not going to be more liberal than in the past, despite the fact that Congress passed a bill authorizing huge sums of money. Paul Lanferman from Zone 7 commented with regard to a hearing to be held in Sacramento as he felt that some consideration may be given the valley with regard to the smog blowing in from other areas. Stopping growth or moving people out of the area, therefore, would be no solution to the smog problem here. He emphasized that if the valley is cut off from grants it is going to be very difficult to finance expansion. He urged that VCSD and Livermore join Zone 7 by attending the hearing in Sacramento in an effort to point out the problems the valley faces. Mayor Taylor felt that the most worthwhile issue would be to see that our immediate plans are not set aside, such as the expansion plan. He commented that he would hope the rules imposed by the state are reasonable and necessary; if they are applied to the valley they are done so after careful consideration of the facts. In his opinion, he would welcome the state's interest in the matter but it should be made sure that whatever rules the state imposes will allow the City to continue in small steps. Hopefully, the smog problem will continue to improve as federal regulations start coming into effect. Councilman Miller commented that 40% of our smog is generated by local population. Councilman Beebe felt that what Mr. Lanferman is asking of the Council, in the way of vocal support, is to insure grants for the projects felt to be essential. It was concluded that the Council would discuss the matter further at the January 8th meeting; at their next meeting they intend to resolve their position to be taken with regard to the Water Quality Control Board hearing to be held in Sacramento. Councilman Miller commented that Ray Faltings had requested that citizen input be allowed, which Councilman Miller felt was not an unreasonable request - particularly if there are people interested who have some background in water reclamation and water management. He suggested that people be invited to make their opinions or suggestions known to the Council. SPECIAL ITEM: (Zone 7 Progress Report) A representative from Zone 7 is in attendance to briefly explain the status of their plans for water treatment and distribution facilities, in view of the recent bond passage. Mayor Taylor explained that at present there is a building mora- torium due to an ordinance which is tied in with water supply. Therefore, it is quite important that the City know of plans formulated for carrying out Project 2; particularly with regard CM-26-75 December 11, 1972 (Zone 7 Progress Report) to timing. Paul Lanferman of Zone 7 explained that the survey, seismic study and preliminary design has been completed. At this time Zone 7 is trying to determine whether or not they are in agreement with the design consultant's concept. There are some modifica- tions to be made and he expressed their disappointment for the slight delay in the time schedule. It is anticipated that they will be given approval to proceed with the final detail design the later part of December. Final bids will be ready to be accepted approximately in July and contracts awarded in August of 1973. It is their hope that the design time can be cut down which will speed up the whole procedure for the Del Valle water treatment plant. It is estimated that the plant will take approximately one year to build, or perhaps a little longer and they would like to get started by September or October of 1973 which will bring the completion date to anytime from September-December 1974. The two other design facets of the project are 1) the cross-valley pipe- line, which is 50% complete, and 2) the Del Valle pipeline also about 50% and which should be completed about the same time as the water treatment plant. He pointed out that there are considerations which could always delay the project such as weather and strikes; however, they intend to do all they can to see that it is completed as soon as possible. The City Attorney asked if there are any plans for interim upgrading of the existing plant to take care of 1973, to which Mr. Lanferman explained that Zone 7 should be able to supply Livermore with a sufficient amount of water needed. He stated that 1973-74 should be tight, but with minor modifications our delivery schedule should be met during those two critical years. Councilman Miller asked when the bonds are to be sold, and Mr. Lanfer- man explained the process involved and indicated that bonds will not be sold until after the first project is ready to go for advertising and bids are received. Councilman Miller pointed out that, to his knowledge, no environ- mental impact report has been filed by Zone 7 and that legally, bonds cannot be sold until this has been done. Mr. Lanferman stated that a final draft has not been submitted due to the fact that changes are being made; a final report should not be filed until all final decisions have been made. Councilman Miller noted that there were other considerations in the environmental impact report other than design, to which ~~r. Lanferman commented they are aware of the requirements involved. Councilman Miller stated that it was his understanding that Zone 7 was not going to proceed as long as SAVE is in effect, and Mr. Lanferman stated that there are a number of things involved in the SAVE Ordinance such as water and schools. He does not know what the school status is but it was the understanding of Zone 7 that the City is ready to proceed with the modifications for sewage treatment, and that this is necessary for the present population. The City Attorney wondered if the assumption that Zone 7 can take care of water needs of the City is based on present population or if projected growth had been considered. Mr. Lanferman explained that this evaluation had been made on the delivery schedule of the City but felt that some consideration has been given to possible increased use of water or additional demands, by those who submitted the delivery schedule. CM-26_76 December 11, 1972 (Zone 7 Progress Report) Councilman Futch wondered what the assumptions were with regard to water capacity and use during the summer. Mr. Lanferman stated that he does not have the charts at hand but usually it shows so many peak days per year; it is estimated that water will be available and if there is a shortage it means that water will be drawn from other reservoirs - we will not be out of water. Councilman Beebe mentioned that Dublin, San Ramon and Pleasanton have hard water and wondered if the majority of the water from the new plant will go to take care of their needs. It was ex- plained that only about 50% will go to service these areas. OPEN FORUM (Letter re Citizen Participation in Plan Review) Charlene Kehret, 924 Florence, read a letter submitted by the League of Women Voters, encouraging citizen participation ~n the plan review process. Mayor Taylor commented that due to the full agenda for this meet- ing it has been requested that discussion regarding appointments for the Citizens Committee be postponed for another week. (Re Palmistry License Pee) George Adams, owner of an establishment for palm reading, located at 2216 First Street, commented that he is appearing before the Council to ask that the license fee for palm reading be lowered from the present $50 a day fee. He stated that his family is considered to be upstanding citizens, his children attend Livermore schools and they chose to live and work in Livermore because they felt it to be a pleasant community in which to raise their children. He pointed out that the business license plus the surcharge for the parking assessment area came to $516. He stated that he cannot afford these fees and for him to be able to reside in Livermore, this is the only way in which he can make a living. The Mayor explained that, originally, this fee had been set to discourage this type of business from coming to Livermore. Mr. Adams felt that because his business happens to be palm reading, it is no reason for him to be discriminated against - he is harming no one, and he asked that the Council consider his request for a reduction in the fee. The City Attorney commented that he had spoken with Mr. Adams prior to this meeting and that the ordinance regarding the fee for palm reading had been passed long before he was an attorney for the City. He advised that Mr. Adams speak before the Council. He pointed out to Mr. Adams that approximately 6-8 months ago an applicant had appeared before the Council and that his request had been denied. Mayor Taylor felt the question at hand is whether or not the Council wants to encourage this type of business in Livermore. Councilman Beebe felt that some of the people may feel this type of business is not needed, while others put great faith in it. In his opinion, if a business is a clean operation and run in a business-like manner, possibly the City should cease being over restrictive, to an extent that a free society cannot operate. C!'1-26-77 December 11, 1972 (Re Palmistry Fee) Councilman Pritchard stated that he knows, personally, of Mr. Adam's operating a business in one spot in one community since 1949, considered to be a very stable family and problems have not arisen. He felt that there are people who often hand out advice which may be more detrimental than palm reading. As long as they comply with the ordinances he could see no reason to eliminate this type of business. Mr. Adams suggested that a reasonable fee would be $1,000 per year. This would keep undesirable establishments out of the City, while someone who knows the business can pay this type of fee. Councilman Miller suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda for discussion by the Council and a subsequent decision. Councilman Futch commented that he is opposed to prohibiting this type of business by virtue of a high fee and that he would rather allow the business. Councilman Beebe suggested that this type of business be incorpora- ted with the Massage Ordinance which would eliminate unlawful type activity. The City Attorney explained that it would take time to amend the ordinance and that there would be no immediate help for Mr. Adams. The Council concluded that they would be willing to consider a fee of $1,000 as a possibility and eliminate the "back handed" way of keeping unwanted business out of Livermore. PUBLIC HEARING - CHRISTOPHER LAND An application of Christopher Land Company, submitted by Ralph Thompson for rezoning of property located on the north side of East Avenue, east of Charlotte way, from RS-5 to CN has been scheduled for a public hearing at this time. Mayor Taylor stated that this matter is for a proposal of a shopping center in the Wagoner Farms area. The Planning Director stated that the Commission has recommended against the proposed rezoning which is intended to replace the PUD that had recently expired. He prefaced the Co~nission's decision for denial based on the brief philosophy of shopping center analysis and explained that shopping centers in the City are established based on criteria indicated in the general plan which has been set up by experts in the field. The justification for shopping center development is that of a market analysis and the main criteria is population to support a center. Mr. Musso continued that there are presently eleven shopping centers in the City that have been approved and one in the County - six of which are developed. The Planning Commission's action in recommending denial was based on the fact that there are more shopping centers than can be supported at the present time. Mayor Taylor asked why it was suggested that the applicant apply for rezoning rather than continue with the PUD. Mr. Musso explained that the applicant was notified that the zon- ing was expiring and they had the alternative of either asking for an extension of the permit or rezoning; in either case it would be temporary. CM-26-78 December 11, 1972 (P.H. re Christopher Land) Mayor Taylor reminded him there was one basic difference as there were certain conditions imposed in the permit specifically with regard to the gas station, and he did not feel this would be covered under rezoning; however Mr. Musso stated that zoning restrictions would also cover this possibility. The Council briefly discussed the center particularly with reference to a gas station, however the question is whether or not the center should be built at that location. The Mayor opened the public hearing at this time. Anthony Varni, representing the Christopher Land Company, stated that if the Council were to look at the matter from a planning standpoint, the site is on two major streets, adjacent to an apart- ment house complex and has been part of a PUD for ten years, has all street improvement in and is ready to be developed. From a non-planning standpoint such as to protect the interest of the Lincoln Shopping Center, the only thing they hear are complaints about upkeep and services. He felt it is unfair that their shopping center sould be denied in order to keep the Louis Store in existence when it is not being operated properly. They intend to build on this site when the population justifies it and feel they should be allowed to keep the zoning as no one as has asked for it. Lorraine Raiason, 5244 Kathy Way, remarked that in 1972 people have come to the conclusion that convenience is not as important as it was in 1962 when plans were originally made, and pointed out that the sign for the shopping center did not go up until after the Planning Commission met. Mrs. Raiason commented that a shopping center would erode the vineyards, and would also be detrimental to the downtown area. Warren King, 5321 Sandra Way, asked for the opportunity to make a few rebuttals to the statements just made, stating that the vineyard would only be in existence as long as the vintner is able to pay the taxes, which he felt would not be for long under the present system of taxation. He remarked that there are houswives who would shop during the day~ also the County has proposed a trailer park at ~1esquite Way and those people would be using this shopping center. He did not agree as to the traffic hazard that might be caused. He felt that there are more people in that general area in favor of the shopping center. Thomas Raiason, 5244 Kathy Way, stated there are two shopping centers on the east side of town and neither is very successful at present so there would be no guarantee that a third one would be and perhaps all three would go bankrupt, thereby reducing taxes to the City and increase property taxes. He did not feel this was a good location for a shopping center. Ted Wieskamp, 1413 Lillian Street, felt a shopping center at the proposed location would be detrimental to the area, and feels that both the Vineyard and Lincoln Centers are improving and they should be given a chance to make some money. Mike Myers, 5372 Charlotte Way, president of the Rhonewood Home- owners Association, read a petition signed by approximately 85 homeowners, requesting the City Council to reconsider the action of the Planning Commission in their refusal to grant a proper zoning for the construction of a shopping center at the inter- section of Charlotte Way and East Avenue. Floyd Hibbits, 5460 Evelyn Way in the Rhonewood Park, stated he was a real estate appraiser by profession, and had moved here from Oakland recently and did not feel that any center in Oakland was as run down and as poorly managed or poorly stocked as the Lincoln Shopping Center. Perhaps the management of the center is not operating as it should, nevertheless he did not feel they should CH-26-79 December 11, 1972 (Christopher Land) subsidize the owner of that center and any developer should have the opportunity to compete in the same market. They have been told by the sales representative of K & B that there would be a shopping center in that area, and if it does not materialize they could be in for some legal action. He did not feel that a center would alter the traffic situation until something is done in the way of traffic control and urged that the Council move in favor of approving the shopping center. Gene Garrett, 1969 So. Livermore Avenue, stated he had just pur- chased one-half of the Lincoln Shopping Center which has been the topic of discussion, and is working with the Planning Department on plans to develop, clean up and finish the center. They have given a lot of thought to the center and feel that when their plans are completed, it will be much better. He can understand the feel- ings expressed by the people as the conditions can and will be improved. He commented about the size of the proposed center, stating that he &id not feel there was an investor who would invest in a shopping center of that size as the population does not warrant it at this time. He presented the Council with maps on which he had circled certain areas indicating the shopping centers in each and commented if the proposed shopping center is approved, it would mean that there would be three shopping centers within a radius of two miles, and pointed out the population in that area as compared to that in the area surrounding the Granada Shopping Center which he felt to be a very successful center. He felt that the tenants of the Lincoln Shopping Center have been operating under a handicap, and on their behalf asked that the Council not approve the pro- posed center and give him an opportunity to make the Lincoln Center something the City can be proud of. Bob Patton, 726 Hazel, stated that the people in the area had been promised a shopping center. He agreed that perhaps the location was not suitable, but felt that a center is morally obligated, and would recommend if the application is denied that the Planning Commission should be directed to investigate a more suitable location. If they cannot, he felt the area should be rezoned to commercial as it has been for the past ten years. Ralph Thompson, Vice President for Christopher Land Company, stated that the use has been planned for ten years, and they feel it is now at the point where development can proceed. A market profile has been done of the area by commercial developers and they are convinced that it is a viable market and they can come in and provide the commercial center as they feel there are enough people in the area. He asked that the zoning be approved. Also submitted were written comments from the following: Robert L. and Carole Word Hinshaw, 5424 Arlene Way: Expressing enthusiasm for approval. Chuck and Sue Ferguson, 751 Debra Street: Asking that the rezoning be considered. Dr. Lawrence W. Hrubesh, 925 Hazel Street: Favoring the rezoning. Mr and Mrs. Robert Norling, 5482 Betty Circle: Urging rezoning to commercial. Petition signed by 101 people in the neighborhood requesting that the Council reconsider the action of the Planning Commission for denial. CM-26-80 December 11, 1972 (Christopher Land Hearing) The following communications were received requesting the Council to support the recommendation for denial: Candace L. Ingram, 5643 Charlotte Way, #54 Harold Hadcock, 862 Hillcrest Avenue On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by the unanimous vote of the Council, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Futch stated that there are already two shopping centers in the area and another has been approved. He felt it was pre- mature to allow so many so close, and made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. Councilman Miller commented that he understood the feelings of the people of that area who have been promised a shopping center for the past ten years and explained that a center had been approved for First St. and Portola Avenue and that Mines Road would eventually go through to afford access. He stated his feeling that there were not enough people in the area to support another shopping center and would rather encourage existing centers to improve themselves in order to survive, and at this point in time did not think it suitable to approve the proposed shopping center. Councilman Beebe stated the people in the area have been told for ten years that there was to be a shopping center, and although the location may be unsuitable, he felt the City has some obligation, and suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could possibly look for another site. Councilman pritchard stated the vineyards have been mentioned and if the public bodies are interested in preserving them, they should be put in public domain, which he would favor. As far as the traffic is concerned, the people must now go onto East Avenue to go shopping and if there was a shopping center in the area, this would not be necessary. Councilman Pritchard remarked that the City has no business interferring with private sector's decisions as to whether or not money can be made in any specific endeavor; neither does the City have any business subsidizing anyone shopping center over another. The shopping center which offers the best service will get the business. Also, it has been said that the City has some obligation, and if that is so, we should have told people there would be no shopping center built in the area. Councilman Miller made a rebuttal regarding promises, stating it was the developer's and not the City's statement, and the developer's promises do not always come true. He also remarked that approval for a shopping center has not been unanimous. r1ayor Taylor stated that the last time this matter had come before the Council he had voted in favor of continuing the zoning. Although he did not feel that a shopping center would influence the vineyard he agreed that on the basis of planning considerations it would not be sensible to continue commercial zoning in this area at the present time. A vote was taken on the motion and passed 3-2 with Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting. RECESS At this time Mayor Taylor called for a short recess after which time the meeting resumed with all members present. CH-26-81 December 11, 1972 PUBLIC HEARING RE Z.O. TO AMEND INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS Mayor Taylor explained that the Industrial Advisory Committee had suggested an interim zoning ordinance to relax restrictions in industrial districts until a permanent ordinance can be adopted. The main issues involved were setbacks, coverage and parking, which were reported upon by the Planning Department. The Plan- ning Department indicated that the Advisory Board, Chamber of Commerce and industrial developers attended a meeting in which they discussed these issues and came to the following conclusions: 1) Minimum Rear Yard - none except where a yard is adjacent to land which has an existing residence use or zoning applicable thereto, there shall be provided a building setback of 25 ft. 2) Minimum Side Yard - same as applicable to rear yard. 3) Maximum Allowable Coverage - 70%. 4) Minimum Front Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet measured from the required curb face, the first 10 feet of which is to be planted in ornamental type vegetation and outfitted with the necessary irrigation system. Councilman Miller noted that there was no mention of a report from the Fire Department, or comments made by them, to which Mr. Musso replied that the matter was not referred to the Fire Department due to a last minute proposal regarding side yards which the Planning Commission agreed to. Milo Nordyke, Chairman of the Industrial Advisory Committee briefed the Council regarding the background and outlined the discussion of the Advisory Committee's recommendation which is slightly different from that of the Planning Commission recom- mendation, regarding setbacks. The comment was followed by discussion by the Council regarding setbacks. Mr. Parness explained that it was felt to be more fair if the 25 ft. rear yard pertained to lands either zoned for at the present time or used for residential purposes. If they were zoned for something like agricultural, the prior use should have the privilege and it would be incumbent upon the zoning agency, later, should it be converted to residential to make them set back from the industrial. Mr. Nordyke commented that the Committee views the interim ordinance as a continuing interim ordinance and will work on a long range ordinance more specific to the uses rather than the broad aspect. Roger Shaheen, an industrial developer, commented that he would be happy to answer any questions the Council might have and added that he felt the ordinance was a move in the right direction in helping small developers. Ed Hutka, 1019 Angelica stated that in his opinion this ordinance is a move in the right direction, though it does not cover all the problems the industrial developers face, particularly with regard to sign coverage. He indicated that those who met agreed, in general, with the concept of the interim ordinance. Earl Mason, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Committee, re- affirmed statements made by both Mr. Shaheen and ~ir. Hutka in that the the proposed ordinance would be a very major step in helping industrial developers, and builders. It would be their recommendation that the Council approve the recommendations set forth by the Planning Commission, as listed previously. CM-26-82 December 11, 1972 (P.H. re Industrial Reg.) Councilman 11iller moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and which received the unanimous approval of the Council. Mr. r1usso explained that the only difference between the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission and the Committees which met were that the Planning Commission recommended the following: Minimum Side Yard - One side twenty-five (25) feet, the other side zero (0) feet or not less than fifteen (15) feet. A yard adjacent to land not zoned Industrial shall be not less than twenty-five (25) feet. The Committees felt minimum side yard should be the same as the rear yard requirements. Mayor Taylor expressed concern for allowing building right up to the lot line and felt this allowance may create problems in some instances. Mr. Musso commented that the present ordinance requires a 25 ft. setback, which was followed by discussion surrounding setbacks. Councilman Miller stated that he has received comments from indi- viduals in the industrial business (not developers) which indicate they feel 70% coverage may be too much and that 50% would be more reasonable. Mr. Parness stated that there was a member of the Committee who has doubts about the matter but is not willing, at this time, to offer a recommended change regarding coverage until a completely reorganized ordinance has been approved. Councilman Miller moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation but changing coverage from 70% to 65%. However, the motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Beebe moved that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance using the recommendations of the Committees, as listed in the agenda and as listed at the beginning of the public hearing. The motion received a second by Councilman Pritchard and which failed by a 2-3 vote with Councilmen Futch, Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting. Mr. Nordyke commented that he would suggest the Council allow his group to work on the specific provision for setbacks so that the Council may look at two ordinances before making a decision; a week to work on this would be appreciated. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and if necessary, amend the ordinance at the time of the second reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman ~1iller and passed by the unanimous vote of approval by the Council. Mayor Taylor commented that if a particular developer has a problem, as a result of the ordinance, to bring it to the Council; the ordinance must cover the majority of developers and cannot be altered to accommodate problems of one. Mr. Hutka mentioned that he, as a developer, has no intention of covering 70%; however, if the City wishes to encourage wholesale distribution the 70% coverage is needed. CH-26-83 December 11, 1972 CONSENT CALENDAR Report re Historical Monument A report was received from the City Manager regarding a suggestion received from the Native Sons of the Golden West to transfer an historical monument honoring Robert Livermore and presently situated on the north side of portola Avenue near Rincon Avenue to a more appropriate setting and location. It was recommended that a motion be adopted approving this transfer and location to be determined by our Planning Staff in consultation with the Native Sons. Report re Water Reserve and Rationing Status In accordance to direction set forth by the City Council Resolution No. 142-72, the Public Works Director reported that during the month of November 1972 there has not been rationing of water with respect to human consumption or irrigation and adequate water reserves for fire protection have existed. Report re Equipment Purchase Bids have been received in accordance with our current budget for the following: Bidder Tractor Rotary Mower Total Tractor Equip. Sales $4,129.60 $484.25 $4,613.85 Prather Ford 4,400.95 683.34 5,084.29 Hayward Ford 4,827.05 673.09 5,500.14 Hoyt Buettner 4,912.01 709.95 5,621.96 Techel Tractor & Equip. 5,172.60 675.20 5.847.80 Elder & Co. 5,765.31 991.70 6,757.01 Bay Area Tractor Co. 7,063.73 794.42 7,858.15 It is recommended that the low bid by Tractor Equipment Sales Co. be accepted. Bidder Hoyt Buettner Prather Ford Hayward Tractor Elder & Co. Bay Area Tractor Co. Make John Deere Ford Ford Price $1,235.57 1,297.65 1,338.80 1,557.18 1,735.45 It is recommended that the bid be awarded to Hoyt Buettner. Construction Bids re Airport T-Hangars Construction plans and specifications have been prepared by our staff for the erection of 30 new T-hangars at the airport, capital cost $185,000. In accordance with the City Council authorization a loan system has been resolved with Livermore National Bank (now Valley Bank) for a 10-year amortization term at a rate of 4~% per year. Thus far twenty leases have been executed by intended tenants. RESOLUTION NO. 149-72 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORT T-HANGARS Cf.1-26-84 December 11, 1972 (Consent Calendar) Resolution re No. Sanitary Assessment District As a routine matter a resolution must be adopted upon partition of a larger parcel. RESOLUTION NO. 150-72 RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PREPARE AND FILE AN A.lVlENDED ASSESST'1ENT, NORTHERN SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-1, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALA~EDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Resolution re Compliance with Sec. 1770 of Labor Code The following resolution adopts by reference those requirements necessary for inclusion in any bid solicitation notice for public works improvements relating to wage scales for various classifications. It may be used as an exhibit and preclude long listings of wage scale for each separate project. RESOLUTION NO. 151-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE RE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1770 ET SEQ. OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Letter re Building Program A copy of a letter to the Board of Trustees, Livermore Unified School District was received re developer assistance in building program. Expiration of Term - Alameda County Mosquito Abatement Dist. A notification of expiration of the term of William Jenkins, representa- tive to the Alameda County Hosquito Abatement District was acknowledged. Re Jr. College Assessment Dist. A letter was received from the City of Pleasanton re the proposed Jr. College Assessment District. Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, the items on the Consent Calendar were approved unanimously with one exception - Councilman Pritchard stated his opposition to Resolu- tion No. 149-72. PROPOSED ORDINANCE - ADD CHAPTER 3A RE REVIav FINANCING - REPORT On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, the ordinance which creates a fund into which will be deposited the CM-26-85 December 11, 1972 (Ordinances) lease amounts derived from the new T-hangar units to be constructed and loan payments made from these funds was introduced by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Pritchard dissenting, and was read by title only. ORDINANCE RE TAX ON BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard to go back to the first reading and also an amendment to the ordinance to read l4~ per square foot; motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe. The motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting, and the ordinance was re-introduced. Councilman Miller wished the record to show that his dissenting vote was with regard to the decrease in amount per square foot and not opposition to the ordinance. The City Attorney read the title of the ordinance at this time. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL Sand and Gravel Committee Councilman Beebe stated that he and Mr. Musso are on the Sand and Gravel Committee, and they have been informed that the gravel in- dustry is being hampered in the Bay Area by lack of railroad cars and for each car they are unable to obtain places four trucks on the highway. He suggested that they urge the PUC to investigate and this was made in the form of a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously. Landscaping on East Stanley Blvd. Councilman Beebe questioned when the landscaping would be planted on East Stanley Blvd., and Mr. Parness stated it was simply a matter of priority. Mr. Lee added it would be done this spring. Communication re Kaiser Application A letter was received from the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce re- garding the Kaiser application for refuse disposal proposal to fill 775 acres of gravel pits. The City Council had previously taken action on this matter in a letter to the Alameda County Planning Commission. Communication re Easement A communication had been received from Reeder Development Copr. regarding an easement, however the matter has been responded to by our City Attorney. Communication re Planning for the Valley from Wm. Raymond A communication was received from William Raymond re planning for the entire valley and suggestions for accomplishing this plan. It was the Council's decision to refer this letter to the Valley Planning Committee. CM-26-86 December 11, 1972 (Communications) Councilman Miller commented that ~1r. Raymond had asked that this matter be discussed at the next meeting. Report re Sidewalk Treatment A report was received from the Planning Commission regarding stand- ard sidewalk treatment in industrial areas. It is recommended that the report be referred to the Industrial Advisory Committee for comment, and was so directed; however, Councilman Miller did not feel that it should be referred to the Committee. Summary of Action - Planning Commission Summary of action taken at the Planning Commission meeting of December 5th was acknowledged for filing. Motion to Prohibit Smoking A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller to prohibit smoking in the Council Chambers. Mayor Taylor moved to table the motion, which was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed by a 3-2 vote with Councilman Pritchard and Miller dissenting. SB-95 re Jr. College Support Councilman Futch stated there is a Senate Bill 95 which would help to provide funds for the Jr. College District; this has passed and is awaiting the Governor's signature. He felt the Board would appreciate a resolution urging the Governor to sign this bill; this was se- conded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously. Liaison Committee with School District Councilman Miller suggested that a liaison committee be set up with the School District in the same sense as the one with LARPD, and he would like to serve on the committee. The Council concurred that this was a good idea, however it was the consensus of the majority of the Council that the present committee should continue until the issue is resolved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m. APPROVE ATTEST CM-26-87 Regular Meeting of December 18, 1972 A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 18, 1972 in the Hunicipal 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 Pritchard, Futch, Miller and Hayor Taylor ABSENT: Councilman Beebe (due to illness) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE T,~ayor Taylor led the Council members, as 'dell as those present in the audience, in the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL ITEM (Civic Center Sculpture Structure) Roberta Hadley, Chairman of the Beautification Committee, stated that they were requested by Dorothy Barlett and George Parry to review the sculpture as a group, which they did, and it was sub- sequently discussed at their meeting and a letter of recommenda- tion had been submitted to the City Council. George Parry, 468 Franklin Lane, stated that Councilman Beebe was to have introduced him to the Council, but since he was not present at this meeting, introduced himself, and explained that when he came to Livermore a year ago, he was interested in doing something in an artistic manner and it came to his attention that the City Sign was under review. He further stated that, unsolicited, he had made a sculpture which included a sign and told of the concept which he felt to be in keeping with the City and surround- ing area. Dorothy Barlett, 474 Hillcrest Avenue, representing Mr. Parry, presented the financial aspect of the sculpture, explaining that the cost to the City would be $5,000 for the artistic factor, concept and completion of the sculpture and the material would be approximately $2,000. She stated there would be other provisions required of the City to be considered also, such as site prepara- tion, mounding, foundation, installation and maintenance. 11ayor Taylor thanked Mrs. Barlett and George Parry for their ini- tiative in presenting the sculpture to the City, but felt there were a number of things to be decided, in his opinion, such as whether or not the sign should be replaced by a sculpture and exactly what would be appropriate, as well as other factors. Since the presentation had been made at the request of Council- man Beebe, it was felt that the matter should be continued until the next meeting when he would be present. The Council discussed whether or not there should be competition if they did indeed decide that there should be a sculpture rather than another sign. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the matter was continued until the meeting of January 8. The staff was also instructed to report on the full cost of the present sign and what could be preserved for a sculpture, and the cost of a replacement sign. CH-26-88 December 18, 1972 OPEN FORUH 11ayor Taylor invited any member of the audience to address the Council on any subject not on the agenda, hOv.lever no comments vlere voiced. CONSENT CALENDAR Report re Copy [lachine at City Library A request was submitted by Donald Nolte, City Librarian, for permission to resell the library owned copy machine back to the Copico Company. The company l;,JQuld furnish the library with tHO machines which they ':7ould own and maintain, and the library would receive 15% of the profits. It \<Jas recommended that a notion be adopted authorizing execu-- tion of leasing agreement with Conico Co. Report re :lobile unit Scrambler System 1'" report from the City 'lanager re mobile unit scrambler system was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. Report re Police Training A proposal for a report writing class was submitted by the Police Chief, who felt it should receive the highest priority in the Police Department training program. The cost for this program is estimated to be $2,000 and it is likely that the cost can be absorbed within the existing budget. It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing conduct of this training program. Report re Animal Shelter A report from the City ~1anager re animal shelter was removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. Salary P~endment Resolution In accordance with the agreement in effect with the Public Works field forces, mid-year adjustments are to be made to reflect cost of living changes for the preceding six month reported term. This affects these employees only. The increase, certified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 2~%, and will be effective January 1, 1973. RESOLUTION NO. 152-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVEm.l0RE ESTP.BLISHH1G A S1'"LARY SCHEDULE FOR THE CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED mlPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF LIVERl',10RE l\iW ESTABLISHING RULES FOR ITS USE, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-72. Acceptance 1972 Water Project The Public ~'Jorks Director reported that the ':<Jork on project No. 72-4, Hater Transmission Line and Pump station has been completed, and it is recommended that the City Council accept the project for maintenance. CM-26-89 December 18, 1972 (1972 Water Project) RESOLUTION NO. 153-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION RE 1971 WATER PROJECT - Project 72-4. Departmental Reports Airport - November Building Department - November Fire Department - November Municipal Court - November Planning Department - September/November Police and Pound - November Water Reclamation Plant - November Payroll and Claims There were 150 claims in the amount of $97,454.06 and 251 payroll warrants dated December 15, 1972, in the amount of $61,647.09 for a total of $159,101.15. Approval of Consent Calendar On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch and by the unanimous vote of approval by the Council, the Consent Calendar was approved. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND COJv1~mNICATIONS Community Affairs Committee The Community Affairs Committee presented to the Council their statement of purpose and Mr. James Doggett, member of the committee commented that they would appreciate any ideas the Council might have in this regard. He felt that the City Annual Picnic is a good start in the way of a project for the committee and that at this particular time a larger committee would not be beneficial. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council adopt the statement of purpose presented by the committee, seconded by Councilman Hiller and approved by the unanimous vote of the Council. Communication from VCSD re Kaiser App. for Waste Disposal ~vith regard to the letter received from VCSD and a resolution to disapprove of the application of Kaiser Sand and Gravel to use their gravel pits for solid waste disposal, Mayor Taylor commented that the Council has already taken a position of being against the application. He suggested that the Council send VCSD a copy of our resolution. Water Quality Management Plan Discussion (Continuation) Mayor Taylor commented that Pleasanton has asked that the Council take some position with regard to the Water Quality Management Plan. CI'1- 2 6 - 9 0 December 18, 1972 (Hater Quali ty:'1anagement) They would like to know whether or not the City agrees with others in the Valley and what this City thinks of the Water Quality ~anage- ment Plan. Councilman Futch stated that the Council was going to discuss the technical aspect of the plan in January and that the Council was to discuss the position they would be taking with regard to the EPA's proposal for funding of water after five years. Mr. Parness explained that the proposed modification would provide an amendment to state and federal procedures whereby federal and state grants would not be allocable to any jurisdiction in impact areas where oxident levels are exceeding federal standards. Grants would not be receivable by agencies for the enlargement of waste water plants which would provide for capacity of populations beyond a five year population increment. !1r. Parness stated that this plan will affect all of the urban centers in the Valley. In a meeting which took place today, it was the consensus of those in attendance that it would be best if there would be more time allowed in which to obtain the concerted view of all involved in growth in urban areas so that there may be a unanimous view expressed to the state board. He would request that there be a one month continuance of the matter in order to allow time for communication with others. Councilman Futch felt that it should be recognized that we are dealing with a philosophy and perhaps it is inconsistent for one agency to fund money for a purpose which is in conflict with another agency's funding. In his opinion, the details could be delayed but some action should be taken towards endorsing the concept - the comment was made in the way of a motion which ,vas seconded by Councilman Miller. Mayor Taylor suggested that the motion include asking for a delay in the hearing; however after some discussion Councilman Futch decided that he would prefer not to include a delay as part of his motion. Mayor Taylor asked that Councilman Futch restate his motion which was as follows: That the Council approve the philosophy of the plan for approaching the control of air pollution by appropriate land planning and by the withholding of facilities in areas which would worsen the air quality in the severe air quality areas. Councilman Futch also mentioned that he felt the five year increment appears to be a reasonable period of time. The Council then voted unanimously to aporove the motion. Councilman Pritchard moved that the Resources Board be asked to delay action for adopting the rules for a period of 30 days in order to give the City a chance to discuss the matter with others in an effort to arrive at a uniform decision. The motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor. Councilman Futch expressed concern for the possibility that asking for a delay might indicate that the City objects to the philosophy. 'iayor Taylor ~oved to table the motion which was seconded by Councilman Miller and which passed by a 3-1 vote with Councilman Pritchard dissenting. C,1-26--91 December 18, 1972 (Water Quality Management) Mr. Parness remarked that the Water Quality Management Plan is a very important matter to be discussed and urged that the Council set a date for this discussion. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council discuss their position and the plan they would prefer before going to any joint meeting. Councilman Miller stated that he would like to offer the idea that the Council consider among the management plans, not neces- sarily the one recommended by the Valley Water Interest, but the possiblility of a joint powers agency. In his opinion this would give the City more effective and responsible control over sewer connections. REPORT RE RESTAURANT SIGN - CROSSNINDS Mr. Parness reported that for several months the matter of whether a sign would be allowed at the Crosswinds Restaurant was before the Council. The Council concluded that a separate freeway sign would be allowed for the restaurant and the size, height and setback were specified. A request has been received from a design firm to re- ceive City Council review and approval of the sign location and design. He mentioned that the size allowed is 64 sq. ft., within 10 ft. of the right-of-way and 35 ft. in height. Mr. Jack Bishop of Rhodes, Bishop and Associates, stated that he had brought the sign to the meeting with him and that he would like to show the sign to the Council, as well as to discuss possible site placement. Councilman Hiller suggested that the Council take a look at the sign but put the decision over to the next meeting during which time they can consider the aspects. Mr. Bishop explained that the sign and proposed site location is in conformance with City requirements. Councilman ~1iller pointed out that this is the first time the matter has been on the agenda, the sign will be on City property and it should receive deliberate consideration. He suggested that the Beautification Committee might also be consulted as to their opinion of the proposed sign. Hayor Taylor agreed that he would like the Beautification Committee as well as the Staff Design Review Committee to review the proposal. Mayor Taylor commented that it appears the earliest date a decision could be made would be January 8th. Mr. Musso explained that the time and temperature portion of the sign was felt to be in excess of the allowable 64 sq. ft. and was the reason Council approval would have to be given. The Council decided to postpone the matter until their next meet- ing at which time they will try to come to a decision. REPORT RE PALM READER LICENSE FEE SURVEY The City Attorney reported that the Director of Finance had been asked to obtain information from the other cities in Alameda County CM-26-92 December 18, 1972 (Palm Reader Fee Survey) and Contra Costa County as to their practices concerning palmists, fortunetelling, etc. The survey indicated that this type of practice is illegal, with the exception of the City of ~~ewark which charges a business license fee of $187.50 per day for this type of practice; Concord, which charges $200 per day for a business license fee' !lartinez has a $500 per year fee and allows only one license per 200,000 population; Pittsburg, which charqes $30 a year with a minimum tax on gross receipts. Pleasanton and Union City were not contacted. The City Attorney stated that he is opposed to this type of business and feels that the City can make this type of operation illegal if so desired. The information he has received would not lead to a recom- mendation to change the ordinance to reduce the fee. He would suggest that if the Council is opposed to the fee, they make this type of business illegal, as has ~een done in neighboring cities. Councilman Pritchard commented that during the last meeting, Council- man Futch expressed that the use of an extremely high business license fee for this type of activity was the wrong way to go about prohibit- ing unwanted business, and was also a reflection of Councilman Pritchard's feeling on the matter. He would suggest that if this type of business is to be prollibited, it be done constitutionally in not allowing it and not by virtue of a high fee. Councilman Futch moved that the Council adopt the City Attorney's recommendation to prohibit this tyoe of business; the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. Mr. Adams, the palm reader requesting a reduction in the business license fee pointed out that a number of cities have changed their ordinance to allow one reader in their city and again asked that the Council consider his request to lower the fee which would allow him to practice in Livermore. He stated that there is a code among the palm readers which allows only one reader per city and that they abide by this code. In his opinion there should be no problem, should he be allowed to stave j'layor Taylor indicated that the Council understands =1r. Adams I request as well as his situation, and that the Council has had time to consider this. ~hey must also take into consideration the City Attorney's recon~endation. He added that it is always a problem to tailor an ordinance to a particular applicant. r,1r. Richard Boyd, 639 Pelican Court, felt that even though he is opposed to palm readers, due to his personal convictions and stand- point, it would not be constitutional to outlaw this type of business. Prohibiting it would not allow a person who does believe in it, as a religion, to follow his beliefs. He would suggest that the Council leave the license as it is and use the funds derived from the fee to educate the public on the subject. f~yor Taylor explained that the present $50 per day license fee makes it impossible to operate and that the fee, originally, was designed to discourage fortunetellers. The intent is not to legislate against someone who wishes to have his palm read but rather to protect those who might invest very large sums of money and from becoming victims of possible fraudulent practices. Robert Freis, 1322 Balboa stated that he would like to hear some discussion regarding grounds for making such practice illegal. He pointed out that there are other practices in which fraud is discovered and that the particular practice is not driven out - others engaged in the same business are allowed to operate. He felt the Council has no real justification for outlawing such practice. 01-26-93 December 18, 1972 (Palm Reader Pee Survey) Councilman I1iller stated that the point behind their motion is the fact that these activities are used to exploit uneducated, non- English speaking people and fraud is very common. There are many things one could consider legitimate occupations which are prohi- bited because of the criminal aspects of things that are often associated with them. Mayor Taylor stated that the City Attorney had alluded to the fact that the applicant has been in business in the Fresno area and the Council is aware of some of his activities and of action taken by people ,,,ho have been defrauded. The Council feels it is a matter of judgment, the 11ayor stated, and he then asked for a vote on the motion which passed unanimously. The City Attorney \'laS instructed to prepare an ordinance modeled after the Pleasanton ordinance. COUNTY REFERRAL RE REZONING - TESLA ROAD & MINES ROAD A County referral re initiation of rezoning from A (Agricultural) District to permit rural residential development - minimum lot size of five acres - a total of 1433 acres located on both sides of Tesla Road from Greenville Road and both sides of Mines Road between a point approximately one and a fourth miles southerly of Tesla Road and the Del Valle Road intersection. nr. I'Iusso explained that the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion is that the County not undertake the rezoning at this time but rather continue the matter and conduct a general plan study. Testimony was noted relative to tax problems and water and sewer problems, and it was felt the County should have further input be- fore they proceed in such a rezoning. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, and added that one of the residents had made the comment that many of the citizens are unable to attend the County hearings because of the odd time they are held, and he suggested that the Council might include the request that County hearings be held at a more convenient time. Mayor Taylor felt that this request should be made as a citizen's suggestion rather than that of the Council. The motion to accept the Planning Commission recommendation was seconded by Councilman ~1iller and passed unanimously. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE CH, CS DISTRICTS (Signs & Off-Street Parking) The Planning Commission has considered possible amendment of Zoning Ordinance re Deletion of existing Sec. 9.00 CH (Highway Commercial) District; Establishment of Sec. 9.00 CS (Commercial Service) District; Amendment of Sec. 21.70 (Signs) and Sec. 21.40 (Off-Street Parking). It is recommended that the hearing before the Council be set for January 22, 1973. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the hearing was set for January 22. CM-26-94 December 18, 1972 ELECTRONIC DATE PROCESSING The City Manager reported that staff study has been under way for many months on alternates to expand our EDP services and at present our City contracts with a peninsula firm for computer time and this company, OSI, has been preparing our bi-weekly payroll for the past 18 months. He explained that our evaluation process has re- vealed that a new source of computer time can be provided from the 3D Computer Center which is made up of the Castro Valley, Hayward and San Lorenzo School Districts, whose hardware rates, comparatively speaking, are considered to be exceptionally inexpensive. Several initial EDP programs, somewhat simple in nature, have already been programmed for the City that would be utilized in this computer center. These are co~~ercial sewer service billing, business license fee calculations and statistical distribution, salary resolution and salary audit pertaining to personnel data and the commercial data base is partially progra~~ed. All of these programs are being designed under the most universal and basic computer language and since the mmersll.in ~,.Jill be retained by our City, complete flex- ibility rests with us if ever a change is desirous. It is reco~mended that the City Council authorize the staff to nro-- ceed vlith the preparation of the subject programs to be drafted by our local source and to contract with the 3D Center for their utilization. All of this new work can be accomplished by the City within the current budget allotment whic~ is set at $10,000. Councilman Futch moved that the City 'lanager be authorized to proceed with whatever preparations were necessary to implement the subject program; motion vras secondec:. by Councilnan Pritchard, and approved unanimouslv. REPORT FRO~'" "L"'\.YOR TAYLOE FOR GENE:?i\L PLAN STUDY ~layor Taylor submitted a report for a proposed citizens' Commi ttee to prepare for a neVl general plan vvhich he read at this time after passing out copies to the press and the staff. This report outlined the questions which he felt should be addressed by the committee as \'7ell as the makeup of the committee. He felt the work of the committee should be completed in about one year and would serve as a starting point for a consultant firm which would at that time begin vlOr]: on a revised general Tilan. The :'1ayor asked if the Council had any COIT1I'1ents to make on the concept of the pro- posal. Councilman Futch moved that the Council adopt in principal the suggestions set forth in the 'iayor's report and set January 15 for discussion. ~~tion was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimous1v. ORDII>JANCE RE }\.IRPORT I'1PROVEf1ENT: AND REVENUE FINANCING ORDI~ANCE NO. 803 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE N1ENDIlJG THE LIVEPMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 3A RELATING TO AIRPORT. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, and by a 3-1 vote with Councilman Pritchard dissenting, Councilman Beebe absent, the above ordinance was adopted. C~'1-2 6- 9 5 December 18, 1972 ORD INANCE RE CODE AHEND!'<lENT -, SPEC. LICENSE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ORDINANCE NO. 804 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO LICENSES, OF THE LIVEID10RE CITY CODE, 1959, BY ESTABLISHING ARTICLE I, RELATING TO LICENSES: GENERAL, AND INCLUDING SECTIONS 12.1 THROUGH 12.27 THEREIN, AND BY FURTHER N1ENDING SAID CHAPTER 12 BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE II, RELATING TO LICENSES: SPECIAL, TO ESTABLISH A TAX ON THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS. A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Futch, to adopt the above resolution. Councilman Pritchard pointed out that there were several places in the ordinance which referred to buildings, and it was not clear \vhether the reference is to any buildings or residential buildings. Councilman Pritchard also questioned the intent of the ordinance with regard to annexation fees as it allows the City to charge on lots and property that have not been built upon the sum of $300 in lieu annexation fee even if the owners have a valid contract with the City. The City Attorney explained that it was the intent of the ordinance that if a fee was paid under the annexation agreement, it would be credited toward the tax. He added that in the past after we adopted the subdivision ordinance re parks, the City did collect the higher of the two fees. Mr. Parness explained the difficulty encountered by the City in the past in their negotiation with property owners involved in an annex- ation in collecting annexation fees. It had been necessary to re- quire a singular owner to assume the annexation fee indebtedness of the smaller mvnerships vlhich he felt to be an unfair imposition, and now this kind of thing has received legal supportability and - makes it simple to include this type of provision in the same ordinance. Councilman Pritchard stated he agreed but ,vas concerned about specific annexation agreements; I1r. Parness commented that in those agreements it does specify "or as hereinafter may be revised". Mr. Lewis stated it had been called to his attention, and he felt the Council may wish to discuss it; a motel or hotel might be the type of facility the City would want to encourage, rather than discourage, by placing a tax on it. Persons residing in this kind of facility are usually transient in nature and do not provide a burden on parks. Councilman Miller disagreed, stating that some of the residents in a motel and hotel are permanent, and maybe the fee should be lowered, as you expect some of them to be transient. After some discussion on this point, Councilman ~1iller suggested that since there are no motels to be built at present, that they pass the ordinance as it is, and consider an amendment later if the staff feels it is necessary. A vote was taken on the motion at this time to adopt the above ordi- nance which passed unanimously (Councilman Beebe absent). PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS The staff had been directed to prepare an ordinance regarding pro- posed ID/I~1 Zoning Districts regulations and the point raised was whether to exempt the entire periphery of the property from the 25 foot setback. CH-26-96 December 18, 1972 (Industrial Standards) Ilr. 1'1usso exnlained that it was his assumption that the Council was willing to have no side or rear setback, however was concerned about encroachment into future residential areas, so as an interim ?roposal he had proposed the use of a CUP to be used as a tool for allowing any building to be within 25 feet of the zoning district boundary line. He had proposed that the setback bc -that of the property to which it is adjacent, plus an additional setback of 40 fee-to 'layor Taylor commented that if the property backs on anything except commercial or industrial, the applicant must come for a CUP. I.Ir. l1usso pointed out on a map Vl:-18re some of the areas might be affected, stating that most of the industrial area is adjacent to a street or bounded by a County district. 'layor Taylor felt it was the intent of the Council that if the ?roperty backed onto agricultural an~ if the intent is to zone it for residential, they would require 3etbac]~; if the intent is for comP1ercial or industrial use, t}1ey "70uld allov.' building to the pro- perty line. Councilman fliller stated he was not sure as there could be a com- mercial use that could be damaged by a building right up to a pro- perty line. 'lilo Nordyke stated that the proposed ordinance is not quite the same as the co~~ittee had recommended, but he felt it would be acceptable to the committee. flr. ~lusso explained that they had eli.minated the rear and side yard and just used "non-street frontage yard -, as in most zoning requirements. Ee also divided the street frontage yard and the landscaping of the street frontage yard so there is a front yard setback of 15 feet instead of 25 feet. There is a requirement that thE 15 foot setback be landscaped and the landscaping of the public right- of-way can substitute for a part of the area. Councilman Miller did not feel they should go below 20 feet of landscaping, and felt that the Planning Commission had made this recommendation and that it was reasonable. Ilayor Taylor questioned why the landscaped strip had been reduced to 15 feet, and IJr. Nordyke explained that the Industrial Committee had made the recommendation for the reduction from 20 ft. to 15 ft. which would make it possible to utilize the front space for parking and felt the landscaping requirement is a very difficult question to judge on a quantitative basis. ~ayor Taylor stated there were many points that they needed to discuss in great detail, and reminded the Council that the ordinance had been proposed as an interim measure. 'rhe idea of changing the ordinance and dropping a great number of former requirements is to encourage industrial development. Councilman "Tiller stated there is a difference in reducing res- trictions and having no standards at all because anything that is built while the interim ordinance is in effect is going to be per- manent. c1ayor Taylor agreed, but since there has been no discussion by the Planning Commission regarding whether there should be 15 or 20 feet of landscaping, but rather the 20 ft. had been recommended by the co~nittee which has since decided on 15 ft. Mr. Nordyke explained that the function of the landscaping is to provide a softening effect and the committee felt that 15 ft. was adequate to provide an effective psychological barrier to break C\1-26"'97 December 18, 1972 (Industrial Standards) the starkness of the industrial building. He pointed out that they should not carry in their minds the picture of the Stanford Indus- trial park. The motion last \veek had been to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation with the wording on the setback to be delayed until this meeting. Councilman Futch made a motion at this time to amend that motion to include the CUP procedure as outlined in Section 14.34. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed unanimously. A motion was made by Councilman Miller to adopt a 20 ft. setback for a landscaped strip, hmvever the motion failed for lack of a second. A motion was made by Councilman ~iller to change the maxi- mum allowable coverage to 65%, however this motion, too, died for lack of a second. A vote was taken on the main motion which passed 3-1 with Councilman ~Iiller dissenting as he felt the standards were too low. (Councilman Beebe absent) llayor Taylor explained this was proposed as an interim ordinance to get industrial development started in the City, and expressed the hope that the main industrial standard ordinance would corne before the Council \tlithout undue delay, and ""Ir. rlusso stated it is completed and ltlill be referred to the Industrial Comrni ttee immediately. Police Radio Scramblers The item regarding the cost estimate of the scramblers had been re- moved from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time at the request of Councilman Pritchard who stated he felt that the pro- posed expenditure of $4,110 was quite high based on the incident quoted due to one individual. Hr. Parness explained that a strong appeal had been made by the Police Chief because of the vast number of private units throughout the City, and on several occasions when police responses have been made to the scene of an incident or crime, they have been preceded by private parties and many times this has been a source of embarrass- ment to the people involved. In order to correct this and provide for a great deal of police security, the sum in addition to the lease arrangement is thought to be quite nominal, and the Police Chief feels very strongly about this. Councilman Pritchard moved that the City 11anager's recommendation be approved, seconded by Councilman Futch, and passed unanimously. Animal Shelter A report from the City Manager regarding Animal Shelter was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time at the request of Councilman Pritchard, who questioned whether or not it is a waste of money to do anything to the local animal shelter. Mr. Parness affirmed this statement, adding that not only is it too small but it would cost a great deal to convert, and it is on property which is surplus and eventually this property can be sold by the City. Mr. Parness had explained in his report that our animal shelter facilities are completely inadequate and he has received a proposal from the County Field Serivces Division, a new division of Alameda County's governmental organization, for provision of shelter service to our City. He had recommended that the City Coun- cil authorize negotiation of a contract in this regard. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the City Manager's recommendation, which was seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously. Cl'-1-26-98 December 18, 1972 ~L~TTERS INITIATED BY STAFF (Engineering Services re Tract Relocation) The City ~lanager advised that inadvertently two items had been omitted from the agenda which required action by the Council. ~1r. Parness explained three years ago a contract was executed \'li th DeLem.;r Cather providing for engineering services in regard to the proposed track relocation, which was carefully worked out with a maximum fee and all consideration under that contract vlaS satisfied. Now, tentatively those efforts have been reactivated and it is necessary for that engineering firm to proceed in the upgrading of those plans. 1\ nevl maximum figure is inserted together vli th another part of tl'1cir ".Tork which \'!ould be the prepa- ration of an environmental impact re1?ort. 'l'he nev,] maximum fce would be $15,000 and thereafter if, in the event the project proceeds, a second contract will pertain based on the usual engineering curves. j~e \.!ould recoP'.menci. that the Council formally allow the execution of this contract. On motion of Councilman :Iiller, seconded by Councilman Futch, the City ;ianager I s recommendation \-Jas approved. unanimousl v. (Appraisal ']ork Re Trac]~ Reloc. Charles IZ. Lidster) x. Parness explained that a comryanion measure is for appraisal ',mrk, ,'lhich is a second stage I from the same firm that did the original one and which was instrumental in getting the Southern Pacific Company to concur with this line of approach. This is necessary for the City to proceed with the preparation of the con- tract document which must be negotiated between the City and rail- road companies, and has to do ';li th the T'lestern Pacific :R/~J and all effected properties. The same firm \.muld do the '.lork at the same rate applicable to all of their wor~:, and the estimated amount is ten days at $1750. It is recommended that the City be allowed to retain the appraiser for this work. This fee is chargeable against the district. On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman ~iller, and by unanimous approval, the City '1anager I s recomrnendation was accepted. (T-Hangar Construction & Lease) Ar. Parness stated that the Council had allowed the City to pro- ceed with financing method for the construction of thirty T-Hangars at the airport. Prior to that he had lease forms prepared and sent out to interested applicants for execution, indicating they would occupy provided the quarters would be made available. He recommended to the Council we proceed in the event there were twenty rented, and he has been told there were twenty-five executed. He v70uld recommend that the Council authorize the p.irport Super- intendent to serve as the agent of the City in executing the leases at the lease rate of $68.00 per month which is $10.00 per month over the current rate, but slightly in excess of the amortization rate of $57.00 per month. Councilman Futch moved to accept the City r1anager's recommendation, seconded by Councilman ~liller, and passed 3-1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting (Councilman Beebe absent). Councilman Pritchard commented that his vote \-'las in keeping with his usual vote to not vote for anything that looks like expansion of airport and airport services to discourage air traffic in our Valley. C~'1-2 6 -9 9 December 18, 1972 r-1ATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL (Prohibit Smoking in Chambers) Councilman Pritchard reminded the Council that he had made a motion at the last meeting that smoking be banned in the Council Chambers He stated there have been extensive studies done showing the ill effects of second-hand smoke upon the health of those who do not smoke. Also he has talked with many people who have stated they cannot attend the Council meetings because of cigarette smoking, and when the air conditioner had to be turned on at the last meeting to clear out the smoke when it was so cold, he felt this was uncalled for. He felt it would show some leadership on the part of the Coun- cil to help the individuals who do smoke to preserve their own health as well as the Council's. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to disallow smoking in the Council Chambers; Councilman Miller seconded the motion for the precise reasons given, and it was passed unanimously (Councilman Beebe absent). ~ayor Taylor suggested that a notice be placed in the agenda stating that this rule was adopted; also signs should be placed in the Council Chambers to inform the people.e present. (Consideration of Zoning in \'lagoner Farms Area) Councilman Futch suggested that the Planning Commission should be instructed to consider the zoning the the entire Wagoner Farms area and made this in the form of a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard. The motion passed 3-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting, and Councilman Beebe absent. (Specific Planning) Councilman Futch suggested that since the Planning Commission does not have any tentative maps to consider at this time, that they undertake some specific planning studies. Councilman tliller stated that he thought it has been the intention of the Council to place a ballot measure regarding the trailer ordinance on the April ballot and suggested that if the Council intends to do so the time is drawing near and they should commence with the details of getting it on the ballot. (Complaint re Newspapers) Councilman !liller reported that he keeps receiving complaints from people who have requested that newspapers not be thrown on their property but still receive these unwanted newspapers. In Councilman [liller's opinion, anyone requesting that a paper not be thro\vn should have the liberty of having it stopped. The City Attorney has indicated that, legally, it is possible for a person to have a paper stopped if they do not want delivery. Councilman Miller then requested that the matter be placed on the Agenda, possibly in January, and suggested that the newspapers involved be contacted and asked for comments. He added that perhaps a copy of the memorandum from the City Attorney might be sent to them, also. Hayor Taylor stated that the comments made by Councilman Miller may be taken as Council directive adding that he also has received numerous complaints regarding unwanted newspapers. Discussion of the matter was tentatively scheduled for January 22nd. Cn-26-l00 I 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 Way) 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. Itr. 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 i'\.venue might relieve the traffic problem at the intersection of Charlotte \\1ay and East Avenue. Mayor Taylor asked that the County be contacted to see what the problems might be with proceeding immediately, in view of the fact that the area is critical in nature. ADcTOURN"mNT There being no further business to cone before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ",TrrEST l)~3J,~ ~layor Pro Tempore eL APPROVE Clerk California Special Meeting.__o(_JarlUary ~J 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 C~1-26-101