HomeMy Public PortalAboutCC MINS 1971
December 21, 1970
(Continuance
of Public
Hearing)
Mayor Silva stated he would be absent at the January
4th meeting and requested that the public hearing set
for that date be continued in order that he might be
present during discussion.
*
*
*
(Density
Transfer)
Fred DeMoney of Sunset East Homeowners' Association
inquired if and when the matter of the request for
density transfer by Masud Mehran would come before
the Council.
The City Attorney stated that he felt it was necessary for this
matter to come before the Council and had so ruled although an ap-
peal has not been filed at this time.
The Planning Director explained that if an appeal is made, the Coun-
cil would have the option of hearing the matter, setting it for a
public hearing or rejecting the appeal. Without an appeal, it will
require a hearing which will probably be set for some time in January.
Mayor Silva explained that the matter will probably appear on the
agenda of the next meeting with the recommendation that it be set
for a hearing at a future meeting. Mr. Musso pointed out that at
this time the Council has no knowledge of the matter other than what
they have read in the paper as the Planning Commission minutes have
not been prepared.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to
an executive session to discuss personnel problems.
* * *
APPROVE
Mayor
~
ATTEST _--i~~
City Clerk
Inore, California
* * *
Regular Meeting of January 4, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 4, 1971,
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.
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller
Mayor Silva (on vacation)
Councilman Pritchard excused because of
illness in his family.
*
*
*
MINUTES
APPROVAL
The minutes of the meeting of December 21, 1970, were
approved as submitted on motion of Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Miller, by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
CM-23-350
January 4, 1971
Mayor pro tempore Miller invited any member of
the audience to address the Council on any sub-
ject not on the agenda, but no comments were
voiced.
OPEN FORUM
*
*
*
A rezoning application requested a change from
RG-16 (Suburban Multiple Residential) to ID
(Industrial Development and Administration)
District on a site located on the southwest
side of Portola Avenue, 800 feet northwesterly
of its intersection with Murrieta Boulevard,
submitted by Harry A. Mosure, applicant for
Black, Hansen and Smallcomb.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING (SW Side
Portola Ave.-Black,
Hansen & Smallcomb)
Planning Director George Musso explained that this property is ad-
jacent to the Sun Valley Mobile Estates and was zoned for higher
density residential use. Subsequently, this area has been con-
sidered for commercial use, in particular, automobile oriented
activities. The staff is presently working on a proposal for a
new zoning designation for this type of use and it will be pre-
sented for study shortly; in the meantime ID zoning with Condi-
tional Use Permits has been used. The Planning Commission's
recommendation is for ID District as indicated in the application.
Councilman Beebe noted that adjacent property as well as property
across the street is already developed in similar uses and the re-
quest would be compatible.
Mayor pro tempore Miller opened the public hearing.
Dan Spruiell, Red Carpet Realty, stated that development as re-
quested would be an improvement over present use. After a change
in zoning, the applicant would have to request a CUP with site
plan approval.
As there was no further testimony, a motion was made by Councilman
Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to close the public hearing;
the motion was approved unanimously.
Councilman Taylor felt the proposed use was a very good use for
the area; otherwise there would be about 35 units of apartments,
rather isolated, with access to a busy street. He made a motion
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for rezoni.ng
of the property to ID District; the motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe.
Mayor pro tempore Miller disagreed with the change in zoning.
This area has been proposed by the City for ten to twelve years
as a non-commercial entrance to the City from U.S. 580. He felt
what has happened to the area on Portola Avenue is an example
of slow destruction of a City entrance by repeated commercial
approvals over the past years which encourage approvals by the
County for more gas stations, etc. He felt this property should
be used for apartments as formerly planned.
Councilman Taylor reviewed past Council action regarding zoning
of the whole area and stated that the property under consideration
was zoned residential as there were no other prospects. The pro-
posed use generally would not be located downtown but was typi-
cally located near mobilehome parks. Therefore, he felt the
proposed use was better than apartments.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that commercial has been approved
on the north side of Portola Avenue, but he did not wish to see
commercial uses extended on the south side; each approval made
it harder to turn down the next one and there seemed to be no
stopping place.
CM-23-351
January 4, 1971
(PUblic
Hearing -
Black, Hansen
& Smallcomb)
The City Attorney advised that a rezoning change
could not be made on a 2-1 vote for approval.
Therefore, Councilman Taylor made a motion to table
the motion approving the rezoning until January 11;
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and it was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding proposed zoning change
for the area bounded by North L street, westerly to
North S Street, between Park Street and the Western
Pacific Railroad right-of-way was continued from the
meeting of December 14 to this date; however, Mayor-
Silva had requested that this matter be continued
until January 11 due to his absence at this meeting.
All interested parties were notified of the Council's
intention to continue this matter, and no comments
were made regarding such continuance. A motion was made by Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor, that this public hearing
be continued until January 11, and the motion was approved unani-
mously.
CONTINUED
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
ZONING CHANGE
(No. L to No.
S st. between
Park and RR)
Reschedule
Public Hearing
re Rezoning
(Howard Johnson)
Denial of
Claim
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A request has been made by Keith Fraser, represent-
ing Howard Johnson in a rezoning application, to
reschedule the public hearing from January 18 to
a date in February. The Council set the hearing
for the 8th of February.
*
*
*
A claim has been presented to the City alleging that
Thomas A. Fredericks was a City employee and request-
ing permission to file a late claim for damages.
The City Attorney recommends that the City Council,
by motion, deny leave to file the late claim as Mr. Fredericks, now
deceased, was never an employee of the City of Livermore.
Report re
Duplicating
Equipment
Change
*
*
*
A report by the City Manager states that a great
deal of staff investigation has been made regarding
a change in the duplicating equipment used by the
City. It is recommended that the present A.B. Dick
offset press be replaced with an A.B. Dick 9000 sys-
tem consisting of a semi-automated offset press with
a multi-copier and offset master paper converter which automatically
processes paper masters for running on the offset press. Due to
the speed of this new equipment it is possible to replace the pre-
sent Xerox 3600 copier with a Xerox 2400 with a reduction in monthly
rental from $750 to $400. Analysis indicates that present repro-
duction expense of $925 per month will remain about the same, but
would provide a multi-copier unit for the Police Department and
increase production and be more efficient.
CM-23-352
RESOLUTIOW:NO. 1-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Equilease Corporation)
*
*
*
Mr. John Kerekes who had been appointed to the
Airport Advisory Committee has informed the City
Manager that he will be unable to accept the
appointment, therefore, Mr. Noel Shirley has
been selected.
RESOLUTION NO. 2-71
January 4, 1971
Appointment to
Airport Committee
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(Noel Shirley)
*
*
*
One hundred fifty-eight claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims
$46,674.57 and two hundred twenty-two warrants
in the amount of $77,515.78 dated December 30,
1970, were ordered paid as approved by the Finance
Director.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded Approval of Consent
by Councilman Taylor, to approve the Consent Cal- Calendar
endar and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller
None
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
A financial statement has been made by the Cul- REPORT RE CAC 1970
tural Arts Committee regarding its 1970 Festival FESTIVAL OF ARTS
of Arts. Mrs. Muriel Doggett, representing the
CAC, presented a check in the amount of $336.46
which is the unused balance of the City's allocation.
Mayor pro tempore Miller expressed the Council's appreciation to
the Committee for its work and handling of the Festival.
*
*
*
An appeal has been submitted by State Savings
and Loan Association regarding denial of re-
quest for variance to allow an increase of
area for a freestanding directional sign.
APPEAL RE DENIAL OF
VARIANCE RE FREE
STANDING SIGN
(State Sav. & Loan)
The Planning Director stated the sign is for directional purposes
for the drive-in window. The original application requested an
increase in height and reduction of setback; however, the applicant
is now appealing only the square foot area restriction. The ordi-
nance allows a 3 sq. ft. freestanding directional sign of this type;
the applicant proposes a 6t sq. ft. area sign. The Planning Com-
mission denied the application.
David Madis, attorney representing the applicant, requested that
this matter be continued for two weeks in order that he might fur-
ther study the application in regard to visibility, parking and
traffic safety.
The Council agreed to continuance of this item until January 25.
*
*
*
The Planning Director pointed out that this re-
quest was approved as a variance by the Planning
Commission mainly at his request to expedite the
matter. The approval of the Variance was, in
APPEAL RE VARIANCE
IN SETBACK
(Val Peterson)
CM-23-353
January 4, 1971
(Appeal re
Variance-
Peterson)
effect, approval of the use. The intent of the
Planning Commission was to find that the pillars
supporting the overhang of the building were an
allowable projection as an architectural feature.
This item was appealed at the request of Councilman Miller as he
did not understand the circumstances of the Variance. After study
of this matter he felt that pillars supporting a structure have
not heretofore been allowed by the City in the setback area;
secondly, the property can be developed and the remodeling com-
pleted within the terms of the ordinance and he did not think
this variance should be approved.
Val Peterson, the applicant, stated that they had tried to find
a design aesthetically suited for the corner and had been informed
by some of the Planning Commission that if the design was for an
architectural feature and not part of the structure it would be
allowed. This matter was approved by the Planning Commission with-
out any dissenting votes and he had gone ahead with the plans. A
good deal of money had been spent on architectural design; however
the posts could be eliminated, leaving the overhang.
Mayor pro tempore Miller pointed out that posts or pillars such as
those proposed had not been allowed in the setback area and to do
so would be changing the ordinance.
Councilman Beebe felt the pillars added to the appearance of the
building. Councilman Taylor felt the intention of the ordinance
was to prohibit construction of permanent structure in the setback
area. It is difficult to make an old house look like a new one,
and changing the design by removing the pillars would detract from
the remodeling.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
support the Planning Commission's decision. The motion was approved
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe and Taylor
Councilman Miller
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe said he thought similar architectural features, such
as the overhang and pillars, might be a good thing and would add
character to the buildings. He mentioned that the staff was making
a study on Fire Zone I to allow some overhang.
Mr. Street, Chief Building Inspector, stated his study concerned
overhang on public property; at present only non-combustible mater-
ials can be used within this area. A complete report will be
forthcoming soon.
*
*
*
AMENDMENT
PUD NO. 22
(Jupiter Const.
Co., Withdrawal)
A request for amendment of Planned Unit Development
No. 22 has been made by Jupiter Construction Co.
involving density transfer and increase in tandem
dwellings, and a public hearing is to be set.
Mr. Masud Mehran of Sunset Development Company stated that his
views and those of adjacent residents have been expressed at the
hearing before the Planning Commission and he did not feel there
were any additional comments to be made. If the Council agreed
with the Planning Commission's denial of the amendment, he did not
think that a hearing was necessary.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that since the Council had not had
the opportunity to study all the material involved or to hear all
the testimony he did not feel they could make a decision at this
CM-23-354
January 4, 1971
point. The decision was Mr. Mehran's as to
whether he wanted to go ahead with the hearing.
Councilman Taylor agreed as he was not familiar
with all the facts.
(PUD No. 22
Jupiter Constr.)
The City Attorney pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance requires a
hearing unless the applicant withdraws the application. Mr. Mehran
could choose to stipulate that the minutes of testimony and informa-
tion given at the Planning Commission's hearing be submitted, after
his review, as his testimony at the hearing before the Council.
Then the Council could open the public hearing on this basis and
decide whether to continue the public hearing with further testimony
or to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission for denial of
the application. Denial of the application would preclude the
necessity for a lengthy public hearing.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to set a public hearing on the amendment to PUD No. 22 for
January 25; motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Mehran said that at the Planning Commission hearing it was
implied that the most suitable area for tandem dwellings would be
adjacent to the corner of Arroyo Road and Concannon Blvd. Other
alternate proposals discussed at that time were mentioned briefly.
Mr. Mehran pointed out that many of the residents in the area had
said they were not against the building of the tandem dwellings but
wanted them built at another location, not adjacent to their homes
or those units already built.
Everett Martin, Chairman of the Sunset East Homeowners Association,
stated that basically there are a number of units of this type
already built and to increase this number would overburden one area.
Mr. Mehran stated at this time that he wished to withdraw his
request for amendment of PUD No. 22 and there would be no need
for the public hearing. His company would prepare a new tentative
map for the balance of the area within PUD No. 22 and would pre-
sent it to the staff through regular processing channels.
This action was acceptable to the Council. Councilman Beebe told
Mr. Mehran he thought his approach was quite admirable.
*
*
*
A request for an extension of Tentative Map of
Tract 3073 has been made by Jupiter Construc-
tion, Inc. In this connection Mr. Mehran stat-
ed that an extension has in the past been for
a period of twelve months. There are advantages
to having the termination of tentative maps coin-
cide with termination of the PUD; however, in this particular case
he asked that the Council consider the one year extension rather
than the six months. The tentative map of Tract 3073 expired on
December 2, 1970, and extension of the map was agreeable to the
Planning Commission but it was extended only for six months. He
requested a twelve month extension.
EXTENSION OF
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3073
(Jupiter Constr.)
Mayor pro tempore Miller explained the reasons for having the terms
of the PUD and tentative map expire at the same time and why this
policy has been adopted. There is another issue involved; the
tentative map has expired and there are new conditions on park
dedication which apply. He said his understanding is that Mr.
Mehran is agreeable to providing the new dedication requirements
but is concerned about the location of the required parkland. Mr.
Mehran replied that a new tentative plan for the balance of PUD
No. 22 has not yet been designed so he could not say how it would
be presented. Mr. Mehran stated he was specifically addressing
CM-23-355
January 4, 1971
(Extension
Tentative Map
Tract 3073)
himself to the extension of Tentative Map of Tract
3073 for a normal period of twelve months rather
than the six months adopted by the Planning Commis-
sion.
Mr. Musso explained that if a six month extension is made now,
then at the end of that time the map could be renewed for a period
of eighteen months which would coincide with the expiration date
of the PUD, which is December 2, 1972.
Mayor pro tempore Miller pointed out that at this time the Council
only has the option of extending the tentative map for a period of
approximately six months; then Mr. Mehran can present another ten-
tative map which will, by law, be valid for eighteen months.
Councilman Taylor said that in the past few developers have been
able to complete everything within the eighteen months plus six
months - it usually takes more time which generally has been granted
by the Council. He asked the City Attorney if there is any problem
in doing this one way or the other.
City Attorney John Lewis said that the developer does not have to
come in immediately; if a month or two lapsed before submitting a
new tentative, rather than an extension, there would not be a pro-
blem with time. state law provides that within a period of eighteen
months as prescribed by ordinance.after approval or conditional ap-
proval of the tentative map the subdivider may come in with a final
map.
Councilman Taylor said the question is whether the City will be put
into a disadvantageous position if the PUD expires before the tenta-
tive map.
Mayor pro tempore Miller discussed various possibilities relative
to the tentative map of Tract 3073. The PUD will expire in two
years; the proposal now is for an extension of six months and an
18-month renewal at the end of that time. The present tentative
map has expired and now is the time to ask for a new tentative map
to run for eighteen months to begin within the next few months.
Any difficulty in expiration dates could be avoided.
Mr. Musso stated that Mr. Mehran had submitted a request for exten-
sion of the tentative map before the expiration date but due to
meeting scheduling it could not be put on the agenda. Mayor pro
tempore Miller stated the matter was before the Council as an exten-
sion, and the Council could either grant the extension or deny it.
Mr. Mehran is considering alternates in design, and he could bring
back a new tentative.
Mr. Mehran said that as he understood the Council, his company will
introduce a new tentative for the balance of PUD No. 22, and upon
its approval by the Council it will be effective for a period of
eighteen months and this would be agreeable.
The City Attorney pointed out that in the event of the filing of a
new map it would be subject to the new subdivision provisions. Mr.
Mehran said this was not the issue; when the new map is presented,
if the Council does not like it they will have the opportunity to
so state.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to deny the extension with the concurrence of the applicant,
and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller
None
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Silva.
*
*
*
CM-23-356
January 4, 1971
A report was submitted by the Planning Commis- REPORT RE
sion regarding the current status of Planningj. ~OBILE HOME. PAR.KS
activities relative to mobile home parks. ~fl.<J'~~ l~t(.m<-:-~uJ<. - t
iP-.4(l d;'/Lf0l '?AX'- f'-<f/t-,I. tJX- -<--,
Mayor pro tempore Miller said this was a very com~lcated issuet~~/
he was pleased to have this report and no action was required b~~2~J
the Council. (f
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that the matter regard-
ing the settlement for a benefit district forma-
tion and costs for a water line extension to
serve a research park industrial area is a very
complicated one. He explained that there have
been new disclosures since the preparation of the agenda regarding
easements in this area and the validity of these easements. A
meeting on this date with the principals and their legal represent-
ative was held, and they are trying to resolve the matter. With
the concurrence of the parties involved, he requested the matter
be continued for one week for further study. The Council concurred
in this request for continuance.
*
*
*
An application has been received for the annexa-
tion of thirty-two acres of property located
near Vasco Road and East Avenue situated on the
northerly corner. The property is bounded on
the south by the Arroyo Seco; the remaining par-
cel to East Avenue of about three acres is in a
separate ownership.
REPORT RE BENEFIT
DISTRICT RESEARCH
PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA
REPORT RE ANNEXATION
APPLICATION (Vasco Rc
and East Avenue)
The City Manager pointed out the property on the map for the infor-
mation of the Council and suggested that before the Council accepted
the petition for annexation that the balance of the property extend-
ing south of Arroyo Seco down East Avenue be included in the appli-
cation. He stated he understood that the owner of this property
is not opposed to such inclusion.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to authorize acceptance of this annexation petition and
the three additional acres for transmittal to the Local Agency
Formation Commission and City Planning Commission; the motion
was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 733
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.3.1, RELATING TO
OFFICIAL CITY HOLIDAYS, OF ARTICLE I, RELATING
TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF CHAPTER 2 RELATING TO
ADMINISTRATION, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
ORDINANCE RE
MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT RE DATES
OF HOLIDAYS
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
second reading of the above ordinance was waived and by the follow-
ing vote the ordinance was passed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller
None
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that the City Attorney
of Walnut Creek had telephoned and informed him
that the Supreme Court will hear the park dedi-
cation case on February 2 at 9:30 a.m., in the
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Park
Dedication Case)
CM-23-357
January 4, 1971
(Park Dedica-
tion Case)
CONTINUANCE
HEARING -
Rezoning -
Tompkins
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Lottery o:l
Sweepstakes)
Supreme Court hearing chambers. He stated he has
also received notice from the National Institute of
Municipal Law Officers that no information is yet
available as to when any decision will be made re-
garding "two-thirds rule" or the San Francisco
school bond case.
*
*
*
RE The City Clerk advised that a hearing had been
continued on a rezoning application by Josephine
Tompkins for property on Hillcrest and East Avenues
until next week, January 11. Mr. Critchfield,
attorney for the applicant, had requested that this
matter be continued until February 1. There was no
objection to such continuance.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe stated he was absent at a previous
Council meeting when a citizen had recommended that
the City adopt a lottery or sweepstakes. He said
that even if such action would be legal he would
want the matter to be voted upon by the citizens of
Livermore.
*
*
*
Growth Issue Councilman Beebe said that he also wished to comment
upon a previous discussion regarding problems of
growth in Livermore. He felt that they must keep
in mind that there are some 3,000 families in Livermore who in some
manner owe their livelihood to new construction in the community.
The effect on residents of stopping growth would have to be considered
in any discussion of this matter. In regard to local problems, it
is the job of the citizens to see that bond issues are passed to
alleviate the school situation. The smog problem cannot be solved
locally; water shortage would present another situation, one which
would call for immediate consideration.
'Mayor Pro tempore Miller said he had heard statements that the con-
struction labor force and materials come from outside the City. He
felt that Mr. Baker's request was to discuss the issue and the evi-
dence.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that stopping growth would practically
nullify attracting industry to the community or commercial ventures
such as large stores.
Councilman Taylor expressed his feeling that it is fruitless to
discuss stopping growth without a definite proposal before them.
During discussion of the growth rate, it was pointed out that there
has been about a 7% increase and so far Livermore has not been
affected by the economic slowdown of the surrounding areas.
Councilman Taylor stated that many communities are examining their
recent unplanned growth and its problems.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said that some cities, such as San Jose,
feel that their growth has not benefited the original residents,
but people from outside the city.
Electronic
Data
Processing
CM-23-358
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller inquired as to the status
of the electronic data processing. The Finance Di-
rector, Mr. Kennedy, said he hoped to have a report
January 4, 1971
in about three weeks recommending that the pro- (Data Processing)
posal from Optimum Systems, Inc. be accepted
for the first stage of a planned program bud-
geting system for payroll and personnel program. There was a
considerable delay due to organizational problems of the company
and with the City of Sunnyvale, which they had hoped to work with.
It will take about three years to put the entire program into
effect.
*
*
*
There being no ~her business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m.
APPROVE
*
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of January 11, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on
January 11, 1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers,
39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called
to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of January 4, 1971,
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller; the
motion passed by the following vote:
MINUTES APPROVAL
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller
None
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Silva
due to absence at the meeting of
January 4, 1971
*
*
*
Mr. Walter J. Pender, 135 El Caminito, stated he OPEN FORUM
had appeared before the Council a few weeks ago (Sweepstakes)
in connection with the suggestion that a sweep-
stakes be instituted as a form of tax relief. He
referred to the reply to the City's inquiry to the League of
California Cities from Richard Carpenter, Executive Director
and General Counsel of the League. Mr. Carpenter pointed out
pa~action regarding authorization of lotteries or sweepstakes
has failed to gain approval and stated he did not feel this was
the answer to the revenue problems. He suggested that if the
CM-23-359
January 11, 1971
(Sweepstakes) Council wish to follow through with this proposal
that they present it to the League's Revenue and
Taxation Committee or the Board.
Mr. Pender felt that present high tax demands, high unemployment
and other facts should be pointed out to Mr. Carpenter. He did
not feel the City of Livermore needed to go to the League of Calif-
ornia Cities, but should go to the State Legislature with a reso-
lution requesting that a Livermore sweepstakes be legalized. He
presented a draft of such a resolution.
Mayor Silva requested that the draft be given to the staff for
inclusion on next week's agenda and Council discussion at that
time.
*
*
*
(Ban on Sale Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street referred to dis-
of non-return-cussion regarding a ban on the sale of non-return-
able Bottles able bottles. The public should be educated in this
and Sign regard; it is cheaper to buy returnable bottles.
Ordinance)
Mr. Phillips also mentioned the sign ordinance
which has been under study for some months, and
stated that no action has been taken regarding the illegal sign
in his yard. He thought the Council should see that the ordinance
is enforced or some action taken regarding the ordinance.
*
*
*
(Growth
Issue)
Don Watson, 987 Via Seville, referred to the City
Council an article from the Oakland newspaper re-
garding Santa Clara County's growth over the past
twenty years. Santa Clara County is examining its
growth and how best to control future growth and
planning.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that the issue is
an ordinance adopted in 1960 which prohibits the
parking of trailers, mobile homes, etc. in any
required side or front yard. In 1965 the Council
reviewed this ordinance and decided to enforce
the ordinance only upon complaint. In the past
year the number of complaints has been so great
that enforcement is almost impossible. The Plan-
ning Commission first proposed that the ordinance
be enforced; the Council decided that a full public hearing should
be held and to explore the possibility of amendment of the ordi-
nance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in November,
which was attended by about one hundred people who were for the
most part in opposition to the ordinance; therefore, the Commis-
sion is now recommending a modification of this ordinance. Several
alternatives have been discussed in the past. The storage of
trailers is allowed in rear yards and garages; in the past stor-
age was prohibited in side yards since the Fire Chief indicated
such storage could represent a fire hazard; the front yard storage
has been prohibited and a modification has been proposed of regu-
lation allowing certain types of trailers according to size in the
front yards, but this was discarded. The Commission finally made
the recommendation that a modification of the ordinance be made
for those yards not sufficient to allow storage in rear yards.
For example, if there are two 5-foot side yards the ordinance would
allow parking in the front yard. If there is one 10-foot side yard,
parking can be in the side or rear yard. The modification would
allow an additional five feet of the front yard for storage, but
not the required front yard.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
ZO, Sec. 21.00
re PARKING &
STORAGE OF
TRAILERS
CM-23-360
January 11, 1971
Councilman Taylor asked the Planning Director to (Public Hearing re
explain the Commission's recommendation if the Trailer storage)
side yard is too small. Mr. Musso said that if
it is not possible to park the trailer in either
of the side yards, it can be parked anywhere in the front yard.
If it is possible to park in the side yard, another five feet
is allowed.
Councilman Pritchard questioned whether or not the trailer is
any less unattractive in the side yard with the five foot pro-
jection than in the front yard. Mr. Musso said that most com-
plaints are based on appearance of trailers permanently stored
and visibility.
Councilman Taylor asked how many complaints were received in the
past. Mr. Musso said the complaints averaged about eight or nine
per month. The ordinance in the past applied to only those ve-
hicles not self-propelled, nor does the present proposal cover
any self-propelled vehicle. Camper bodies would be treated the
same as trailers under the proposed modification. The ordinance
was originally ~onsidered because of aesthetics and safety.
Mayor Silva then opened the public hearing.
Earl McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, stated that there was a peti-
tion with over 2300 signatures and about 60 businesses which are
affected by this ordinance. He also presented a magazine article
about a town in Illinois which stated that the Circuit Court of
that county has ruled that a similar ordinance was unconstitutional
and unenforceable. He stated that he did not know the reasons
for the Fire Chief's recommendations, but he had evidence and ex-
tensive study that the storage of trailers in side yards was not
a fire hazard. He was requesting storage in a sane and orderly
fashion. Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder; he felt that
their judgment should ~e respected by others in the community.
Val Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth, questioned what is mean in the ordi-
nance by the term "setback". In his case he would be unable to
park in his driveway. Mayor Silva said that the ordinance might
be amended to read "except in driveways".
Roy Diehl, 1188 Marigold, stated that he felt the proposed ordi-
nance as recommended by the Planning Commission, seems fair and
he endorsed it.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to close the public hearing, and the motion passed un-
animously.
Mayor Silva pointed out that about ten letters had been received,
which were about 50-50 for the ordinance.
The City Attorney said that no court that writes an opinion in
California, to his knowledge, has declared an ordinance invalid.
As long as the ordinance is reasonable to do what the Council
felt should be done, he felt the courts would uphold it.
Councilman Taylor asked how storage in a "neat manner" might be
required. Mr. Lewis advised there could be broad generalization
which would be difficult to enforce.
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. McMichael what his views were regard-
ing the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mc-
Michael said the amendments would take care of most of the trailer
owners' problems. He felt rules and regulations were necessary,
but not to take things away as this was their constitutional right.
Many of the people who signed the petition indicated they did not
own vehicles.
CM-23-361
January 11, 1971
( Public
Hearing -
Trailer
storage)
Mayor Silva said there were alternative actions:
enforcement of the ordinance upon complaint only;
amendment of the ordinance as recommended by the
Planning Commission; or repeal of the existing
ordinance.
Councilman Pritchard said that as he understands the amendments
there will still be trailers in driveways and setbacks in about
Bo% of the homes in town. Only those homes with wide side yards
will have to store trailers in back yards and he could not see
that the amended ordinance would accomplish anything.
Mayor Silva felt it was prejudiced against people with large side
yards. People with smaller lots could still store their trailers
in driveways and front yards. The allowance of the extra five
feet was an effort to be equitable.
Councilman Beebe asked if there was any other regulation to cover
flagrant misuse of storage if this ordinance is repealed. The
City Attorney said such vehicles could not be stored in the street,
and if such storage was dangerous or hazardous it could be abated.
Councilman Miller stated he wished to hear from the Fire Chief
about his recommendations. When this ordinance was first passed
in 1960 it was with the full knowledge that most residences did
not allow enough space for storage in the rear yard or side yard.
In 1965 the same situation applied to about 95% of the lots. Com-
plaints are received and there are a number of people who object
to such storage. On the other hand, those people owning such ve-
hicles feel they should be able to keep them. Public opinion on
the whole may have changed since 1960, and he suggested that this
issued be placed on a ballot with a choice of steps from complete
enforcement of the existing ordinance to something less extensive
than the presently proposed amendments. The earliest possible
time would be to include it as a "straw vote" on the School Board
election ballot in April.
Mayor Silva said such a vote would allow expression by everyone,
but he did not think a number of possibilities should be listed;
the issue should be whether the public wants storage in front
yards or not.
Councilman Miller said the choices could be complete enforcement
of the ordinance, storage only in the back yards, storage only in
the back and side yards, no limitations whatsoever.
Councilman Taylor saw no objection to a vote; but there are some
parts that should be decided by the Council such as the report
from the Fire Chief concerning side yard parking hazards. As far
as front yard parking, this could be decided by vote. It would
not be necessary to put it on the ballot, but a questionnaire
could be sent to every home.
Councilman Pritchard said he understood that restrictive ordi-
nances were for the purpose of maintaining the health, safety and
welfare of citizens; he could not see how aesthetic values came
under this purpose.
Councilman Miller said something which degrades property, such as
a junk yard, does pertain to the welfare of citizens. He realized
some people such as those present at the meeting did not feel
trailers lowered property values but others do. Councilman Prit-
chard did not feel trailers and junk yard could be compared in
this way.
Councilman Beebe said he had considered a vote on the issue and
had studied the discussion by the Planning Commission. The import-
ance of the ordinance was to keep the streets clear and he referred
to previous statements regarding storage of trailers on streets.
Mr. Lewis restated his previous remarks that trailers cannot be
stored in the street nor can an automobile. Parking of trailers
CM-23-362
January 11, 1971
or boats in the street would be subject to the
72-hour limitation. This ordinance has no bear-
ing on street parking. Councilman Beebe felt
that since the proposal does not affect street
parking he thought the ordinance could be rejected entirely.
There is no enforcement at all with the proposed ordinance.
(Public Hearing -
Trailer storage)
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Musso if he thought there would
still be complaints if the amended ordinance is passed, and Mr.
Musso felt there would be complaints but these could be handled
more effectively if the ordinance is amended or rejected rather
than explaining present policy. Councilman Pritchard also asked
Mr. Musso if he felt the amended ordinance would be discrimina-
tory since some people would be able to put their trailers in
their front yards and others could not. Mr. Musso said that
personally he felt so.
Councilman Taylor said he was reluctant to change the policy
as half the people of Livermore had bought their homes while
this ordinance was in effect and in force. Chances are that
95% of them did not know or care about trailer parking ordi-
nances when they bought their house, only when they looked into
storing their trailer. There are a number of people who bought
a house on the corner or adjusted to the ordinance and he felt
more should be known about public opinion.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that the Council select two
alternatives - one to allow front yard parking and one would
not - and get the opinion of most of the people in town on that
subject in a feasible manner, whether by poll, election or some-
thing else. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Pritchard agreed that the question is whether or not
storage should be allowed in the front yard or not; it should
not be complicated, but should determine how people feel about
front yard storage. Other questions will have to be resolved
by the Council.
The motion was passed unanimously.
Mr. McMichael said he and his group would demand that this be put
to a vote of the people. He referred again to the article con-
cerning a law passed in Illinois regarding a similar ordinance,
declaring it unjust and unconstitutional.
Mr. Lewis said that he must qualify a statement as to legality
by saying that he did not understand all the facts as presented
in the article. It seemed the article referred to a specific
instance where a gas station dealer was commercially storing
campers on his property.
Mayor Silva informed Mr. McMichael that the legality of the
ordinance would be studied.
Mr. McMichael said that the amendments drawn up by the Planning
Commission allowed parking in the side yards and then if this is
impossible, a variance can be made for parking in the front. This
is all the group has asked for. The Councilmen have brought up
points which are well taken.
Mayor Silva reminded Mr. McMichael that the public hearing was
closed. The Council had made the decision to poll the public,
and this would indicate what the majority of the people felt
about storage of trailers. The Council was trying to do what is
best for the majority.
The Council discussed further action necessary in connection with
this ordinance, whether or not it should be tabled or continued.
CM-23-363
January 11, 1971
Mr. Lewis advised that the information regarding
method and cost of conducting a poll be prepared
by the staff and that the matter be continued from
week to week so that the report from the staff can
be made and the right of the Council to reconsider
the ordinance will be reserved. Once the report is received and
a decision is made, the matter can be continued again to a fixed
date beyond the election. The matter was then continued until the
meeting of January lB.
(Public Hear-
ing, Trailer
Storage)
*
*
*
The public hearing on the rezoning application sub-
mitted on behalf of Black, Hansen, Smallcomb by
Harry A. Mosure for rezoning of the property located
on the southwest side of Portola Avenue, north of
Murrieta Blvd. from RG-16 (Suburban Multiple Residen-
tial) District to ID (Industrial Development and
Administration) District was continued from the
meeting as there was a 2-1 vote on the issue (two
Councilmen absent) and at least three affirmative votes are need-
ed to approve a rezoning.
CONTINUED
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZONING SW
SIDE PORTOLA
AVENUE
(Mosure)
Mr. Musso explained that the issue is whether or not the property
on Portola Avenue should be rezoned to the ID Zone. The recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission, based on past decisions of the
Council, is that the area be rezoned for retail sales of trailers
and related equipment, and the proposed rezoning is for the ID
District.
Mayor Silva stated that the public hearing was open and asked if
anyone wished to speak.
Dan Spruiell, Red Carpet Realty, said that the property will be
on a frontage road and the entrance to Livermore will be changed
with an overpass from the freeway, and the rezoning is for ID
zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for sale of trailers, camper
tops and supplies.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to close the public hearing, and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated he had voted against this rezoning on
the previous week as this is a major entrance and will be visible
from the freeway exchange. RG Zoning was good reasoning at the
time it was so zoned and such development would be preferable
rather than a trailer sales establishment and the Council has
made an effort to uphold the General Plan. The City's entrances
are important; here is an opportunity to abate bad uses along
Portola Avenue.
Councilman Taylor concurred about the importance of the appearance
of the entrance to the City, but the entrance will be changed.
He felt the proposed use would be a permanent installation and the
existing commercial uses are permanent in nature. He point out
children in apartments on this parcel would have to cross by a
gas station and busy corner to go to school. The proposed use
is one that would not be located downtown.
Mayor Silva agreed with Councilman Taylor and felt this parcel
would~be visible from the future entrance.
~()I(' ~ I (tJr. QJ!uL
Councilman Beebe-f~lt the area around this parcel was compatible
with the proposed use and made a motion that the recommendation of
the Planning Commission for rezoning to ID District from RG Dis-
trict be approved, seconded by Councilman Taylor. The motion
passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
CM-23-364
January 11, 1971
The hearing on rezoning application submitted
by Jerome Fahnhorst and adjacent expanded area
initiated by the Planning Commission was con-
tinued from the meeting of December 14.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE REZONING SW
CORNER NO. "0" &
PARK & EXPANDED
AREA
Mr. Musso pointed out that this matter has been
discussed with the railroads and it was explain-
ed that the change would not affect their operation. The change
in zoning would also not affect the present service station except
that the regulations existing now are more strict than those
under the zoning change. Essentially a change from the CG (Gen-
eral Commercial) District zone would eliminate permitted uses
such as heavy machine shops and so forth.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Silva at this time.
Randy Schlientz, Associated Professions, representing the appli-
cant, said the Planning Commission's recommendation was to rezone
the southern half of the block, between Park and Chestnut streets,
based on a policy of the Commission. The majority of the pre-
sently multiple zoned properties have been divided in the middle
of the street. Commercial zoning facing multiple or single family
residential is more critical than multiple facing single family
residential. The back-to-back abutting of districts is less de-
sirable. There are very few apartments in the City which abut a
back yard; the number of objections are in relation to the exist-
ing conditions. In looking at the General Plan, the request con-
forms to the General Plan. All of the existing conditions in-
dicate that dividing at the center of the street is logical and
has worked; dividing at the back or rear property lines will not
be more acceptable to the public.
W. N. Armstrong, 1717 Sixth Street, representing nine property
owners in the general commercial area that do not wish this zoning
to be changed. He indicated the area owned by those opposing a
change in zoning. Only three members of the Planning Commission
were present when this matter was considered by them. This pro-
perty was bought a number of years ago as general commercial
property. He presented a petition protesting a change in zoning
signed by property owners in the area.
Per Perry, representing Shell Oil Company, stated the Shell plant
occupies three acres and is presently zoned for multiple family
residential for about two acres and the balance is zoned CG.
He had recommended that the plant property be left as it is now
zoned or in lieu turning the zoning around so that the multiple
would be adjacent to California Water Company and the CG be placed
along North "p" Street. He had also informed the Council on
December 14 that he was negotiating the sale of the property for
its immediate development and these negotiations have been con-
cluded to sell the property to L. E. Mayer, who plans to utilize
and develop this property in accordance with existing zoning uses
and regulations. Changing the zoning on its axis would not
affect the offer, but a change to CO (Commercial Office) District
zoning would. He requested that action be withheld on the CO
zoning, and in the future the buyer might make application for
a change.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to close the public hearing, and passed unanimously.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the Planning Commission had initiated
the zoning change consideration and would have done so without
having received the application from Mr. Fahnhorst.
Councilman Taylor noted that it is better planning practice to
consider zoning of an area than to consider it piece by piece.
CM-23-365
January 11, 1971
(Public
Hearing re
SW Corner 0
& Park &
Expanded Area)
Often the City rezones property whether an appli-
cation is made or not. He asked Mr. Musso what the
Planning Commission's reasons were for eliminat-
ing the multiple zoning on the Shell property and
for rezoning to CO rather than CG.
Mr. Musso replied that the basic idea was to eliminate the gen-
eral commercial in this area as it is developing into a retail
area, but they did not wish to zone it as CB (Central Business)
District. The CO would give flexibility and still maintain some
level of control. The Commission was agreeable to professional
offices, and preferred this to multiple.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Planning Commission had indicat-
ed CB on the east side and CO on the west side of P Street and in-
quired as to the reasons for this.
Mr. Musso explained there is CB zoning on one corner already
(Value Giant) and they wanted to maintain a higher level of control
across the street. A retail use such as Value Giant would require
a CUP under the CO zone.
The Council discussed further the CO zoning rather than CB. Mr.
Musso explained that the original CB zone did not contain automo-
bile service stations; later a CB-l zone and a CB-2 zone (allow-
ing service stations) were created. Then service stations were
allowed in both CB-l and CB-2 under a CUP.
Mayor Silva felt the appropriate zoning for the area from N Street
to P Street was CB-l and he felt this should be carried over to
either all or a portion of Shell's property.
Mr. Musso said that if the zoning is turned on its axis, with
P Street frontage as commercial, by terms of the ordinance RM
zone can be used for off-street parking for an adjacent commercial
zone, which might be an advantage.
The Council discussed possible zonings and the reasoning of the
Commission for recommending CO zone.
Councilman Taylor proposed that the Shell property be zoned CB-l
and the California Water property as CO; this would protect the
residential property. He made a motion to this effect which was
seconded by Councilman Beebe. The motion was passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
Mayor Silva pointed out that the property from N Street to P Street
is already developed in uses permitted under the CB-l zone. The
present auto parts store in the adjacent block with a machine shop
would be allowed under both CG and CB zones but under the CB zone
the machine shop would have to be a secondary use to the auto parts
sales.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the Planning Commission's re-
commendation that the area from P Street to L Street and Chestnut
Street to the railroad tracks be rezoned CB-l from CG, seconded by
Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Beebe questioned if extending the CB zone to L Street
might not be premature.
The motion to rezone this area to CB-l was passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe
CM-23-366
January 11, 1971
The Council then considered the zoning of that
area between Park street and Chestnut street
and North P and North L Streets. The Planning
Commission has recommended rezoning from RL-5
(Low Density Residential) to RM (Medium Density
Residential) District for half the block on the
south side.
(Public Hearing -
SW Corner 0 & Park
& Expanded Area)
Mr. Musso reported the Planning Commission's recommendation was
based on a line to the center of the block for properties front-
ing on Chestnut. He felt multiple should face multiple rather
than single family and thought if the Council considered rezon-
ing to Park Street, then it should be to the north side of Park.
Councilman Taylor stated that the main reason for consideration of
rezoning for existing residential for multiple use is to encourage
redevelopment in a generally rundown neighborhood or to stabilize
a neighborhood that is deteriorating, or if it is felt that it is
a good area for multiple residential use. In this case he
did not believe this is a rundown neighborhood or in need of re-
development. The applicant does want to redevelop his land but
the others probably do not want to, but would sell if someone
wished to build apartments. In general, he felt the Planning
Commission's recommendation was acceptable.
Councilman Pritchard said he would rather have multiples across
the street rather than in his backyard and most of the people
he had talked to agreed. He did feel that the north side of
Chestnut Street would have to be changed as residential is in-
compatible with CB across the street.
Councilman Miller thought there were two concerns - the increase
of multiple in an area where there are no parks and the schools
are overcrowded. It seems premature to rezone this area to
multiple and there is no need to provide it now. Perhaps this
should be left as RL-5-0.
Councilman Beebe stated he would rather follow the staff recom-
mendation to include the whole block to Park Street for multiple.
Mayor Silva personally did not like to see zones split in rear
yards;therefore, he would rather see the zoning split down the
middle of the street. The vacant lots in this area will not de-
velop as single family, and the only way to develop these lots
is to rezone to RM.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to accept the staff's recommendation to rezone the area between
North Land P Streets, including the two parcels on the west
side of P Street, and Park to Chestnut Streets from RL-5 to RM.
Councilman Taylor said there were only two vacant lots in a
four block area, but the rezoning would be committing a stable,
well developed area of permanent single family residences to
multiple development.
Councilman Miller asked the Planning Director what the number
of permissible dwelling units was. Mr. Musso said that under
the General Plan the area is 8 d.u./acre. The existing zoning
has 54 units and has a potential of 62 and under RM it would
be. 110. to 123 with redevelopment., H. e felt /?- c0-as..ge }n zonin~~ 7 "
to RM lS .premature.,'<'>4,~~~ Z~ ~--c~-74
. ~~ -4.L ;<!. r11 ;Q~~Z ~.~ x!r<---tV42 ?U--"'A_-c--o-~_L ~ ~/~ ~.-4Pit:
The motion for rezoning'from RL-5 to RM was passed by the (>./</, / i.f
following vot e : 41k?v. Il
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva ~/~
NOES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
CM-23-367
January 11, 1971
(Public
Hearing
SW Corner
o & Park
Streets)
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission
proposed that no change in zoning be made on
Western Avenue and El Rancho.
El Rancho
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, to adopt the Planning Commission's
mendation for no change in zoning on Western Avenue and
Drive in the area of consideration.
recom-
Mr. Musso stated a change in zoning from RL-5 to RM would make
the zoning conform to land use, however after further discussion,
the motion for no change in zoning for the area adjacent to Wes-
tern Avenue was passed unanimously.
Mr. Musso stated these items should be sent back to the Planning
Commission for comment prior to the introduction of the ordinance
for rezoning as three of the rezoning actions of the Council are
contrary to the Planning Commission's recommendations.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Communication
from SP RR re
Closure of
Freight
Station
A copy of a communication from the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company to the Public utilities
Commission regarding closure of the freight agency
and removal of the station building in Livermore
has been received.
Councilman Miller felt that the City should oppose
abandonment and submit a request to the PUC that services be re-
stored. The majority of the Council did not feel that any action
should be taken at this time.
*
*
*
Report re
Disposal
Site Appli-
cation
(County)
A second application for a disposal site (CUP) will
be considered by the County Zoning Administrator
on January 12. This property is located adjacent
to the existing Pleasanton site and is situated
about three miles easterly of Pleasanton on Vine-
yard Avenue.
After discussion of the request by Councilman Miller that the City
oppose this application, the Council felt that no action should
be taken in this matter.
Councilman Pritchard felt that action should be taken opposing this
application as the Council had recently stated its objections to
a similar application on Croak Road. Councilman Miller felt the
Council should oppose this application as he did not feel there
is a need for a second disposal site for the Valley other than the
City's present site. ~Jf-~.~ '
A resolution is required authorizing the County to receive and
hold these funds in trust.
RESOLUTION NO. 3-71
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AS COORDINATING AGENT
TO RECEIVE AND TO HOLD ALL TOPICS ALLOCATIONS OF ACTFG
~~ERS FOR APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION TO ACTFG MEMBERS
WITH APPROVED PROJECTS.
*
*
*
CM-23-368
January 11, 1971
A storm drain easement has been granted by
P.G.& E. at a cost of $474 (25% of market
value) on the south side of Stanley Boulevard
near Isabel Avenue. This is to accommodate
the widening of the street in this area to be done by the County.
It is recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing the
Mayor to execute the agreement.
Report re Storm
Drain Easement
RESOLUTION NO. 4-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(P. G. & E. EASEMENT)
*
*
*
An application has been received for an exempt
business license from the Camp Fire Girls for
an annual candy sale from January 29 through
February 22, 1971.
Exempt Business
License
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the items on the Consent
Calendar were approved by the following vote:
Approval of
Consent Calendar
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Beebe and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
*
*
*
After a brief recess the meeting resumed with
all Council members present.
RECESS
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that petitions have
been received objecting to the proposed remov-
al of some eucalyptus trees during the grading
of the civic center property. This matter was
referred to the staff for the particular attention of the landscape
architect who designed the plan for the sunken garden area. The
grading plan was done by the City's staff based upon the master
plan composed by the architects two or three years ago. Grading
plans were designed to include proper land form between these two
properties. There are a number of eucalyptus trees and some
pepper trees along the property lines. The landscape architect and
other members of the staff and Mrs. Kirkewoog had discussed plans
and reviewed the site. The landscape architect had explained his
recommendations for grading and the elevation concept of the plan.
Seven trees would be retained. The architect felt the original
grading plan should be maintained, but the change in plan could
be made to save a portion of the trees. He further felt that the
remaining trees should be removed whenever other plantings reach
sizeable maturity.
REPORT RE CIVIC
CENTER TREE REMOVAL
Mrs. Kirkewoog stated that from the standpoint of the contractor
it would be easier for him to complete his work if the trees are
removed. From her personal standpoint, however, she felt it was
an enjoyable shaded, elevated area with mature trees. There is
no assurance the proposed park will materialize within the next
three to five years, and if the trees are removed there will only
be graded gravel there. She felt the trees should not be removed.
The Council discussed possible alternate plans which would main-
tain the present trees. The City Manager pointed out that if
these trees are left for removal at a later date there will be
some extra costs involved.
CM-23-369
January 11, 1971
(Tree Removal)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to accept the alternate pro-
posal for grading plans.
Councilman Taylor felt that the landscape architect was more in-
formed about the overall plan and perhaps the Council should con-
sider his recommendations more fully. Discussion followed regard-
ing deferring action on this matter until the Council has the
opportunity to discuss with the architect whether the original plan
should be implemented or can an alternate proposal be followed.
Councilman Miller agreed to table the motion for inclusion on the
Consent Calendar for one week in order to hear from the architect.
Civic
Boulevard
Commission
design and
Councilman Miller mentioned that it had been brought
to his attention that the present grading calls for
the grading of Civic Boulevard also. He stated that
the Civic Center Building Committee and the Planning
since 1962 have opposed Civic Center Boulevard as poor
this matter should be resolved soon.
The Public Works Director explained the proposed plans for the
boulevard and adjacent area. A motion was made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Taylor, that Civic Boulevard as originally
proposed as a through street be suppressed. The motion passed by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Beebe (as he was unfamiliar with the site plans)
Mr. Musso said part of the Planning Commission's concern was the
effect of the boulevard on College Avenue. The Council directed
that the architect's comments regarding this part of the plan be
obtained.
*
*
*
APPEAL OF
DENIAL RE
VARIANCE
OFP-STREET
PARKING
(Hutka)
An appeal from denial by the Planning Commission of
Variance for reduction of off-street parking required
for second story building at 1900-194b Railroad Ave.
by Ed Hutka was continued at Mr. Hutka's request
for a week or two, whenever the agenda permits.
*
*
*
COUNTY
REFERRAL RE
ZONING SW
SIDE OF 1ST
STREET SOUTH
TO LAS POSITAS
The Planning Director informed the Council that the
County referral regarding zoning of property on the
southwesterly side of First Street, south of the
intersection of Las Positas Road is for the recently
deannexed Bellman parcels. After deannexation the
property was referred back to the County for zoning.
The Planning Commission recommends that it be zoned
Agricultural.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation that this
property be rezoned to A (Agricultural~.
Councilman Miller pointed out that there was an error in the
County's report relating to the requirements for RS-3 District
zoning category, and suggested that this be called to their atten-
tion when the recommendation is forwarded on this matter.
Councilman Taylor stated we should also point out it was not 13,000
sq. ft. minimum building site area, but rather 10,000 sq. ft. average
CM-23-370
building site area with mlnlmum permitted down to
2,500 sq. ft. because when the applicant appeals
to the County, he will say it is restrictive zon-
ing and the County is used to lot size zoning.
January 11, 1971
(County Referral
SW Side of 1st st.)
Mayor Silva stated that some are against the policy of prezoning
County lands, but if the City can fully protect itself by stating
that adjacent properties were zoned RS-3 and everything remaining
equal this property would also be zoned RS-3.
This point was briefly discussed and Mr. Lewis pointed out that
if it is zoned A (Agricultural) District everything will be back
the way it was before it was deannexed.
Councilman Pritchard stated that with regard to prezoning, the
Council had asked that it be placed on the agenda for a study
session, and the City Manager was asked to furnish the Council
the status of future study items.
A vote was then taken on the motion adopting the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation to zone the property to Agricultural, for
the reason that the zoning is premature without annexation, and
the motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A report was received from the Planning Com-
mission re a draft of letter to the League of
California Cities re mobilehome legislation,
and Mayor Silva asked that this matter be con-
tinued for one week as he had a number of
questions in this regard.
*
*
*
Minutes of the meetings of the Planning Commis-
sion of December 15, 1970 and January 5, 1971
were noted and filed.
*
*
*
Mr. Lewis stated that he had briefly commented
on the two-third vote school bond issue, San
Francisco case and understood a Virginia case
on the same issue is scheduled by the U. S.
Supreme Court on February 2, and if the Virginia
case comes up, he did not know what effect
there would be on retroactivity.
*
*
*
DRAFT OF LETTER
RE MOBILEHOME
LEGISLATION
MINUTES OF MEETING-
PLANNING COMMISSION
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(School Bond Issue)
Mr. Musso inquired whether the Council would Holidays
be meeting on Tuesday since the new holiday
schedule does indicate several holidays on a
Monday, and asked if the Council would pre-
empt the Planning Commission on their regular meeting night.
The City Clerk advised that according to the ordinance if a
holiday falls on a Monday, the Council would meet on Tuesday,
and Mr. Musso stated they would take the Monday holidays into
consideration when setting the meeting for the Planning Commission.
*
*
*
The City Manager advised that he has been work- Grievance - Police
ing on an important issue concerning a grievance Association
re working conditions that originated with the
Police Association, involving their work hours.
The present schedule of the Police Department calls for them to
report to duty one-half hour prior to commencement of their work
CM-23-371
January 11, 1971
(Grievance- shift, which half hour of time is devoted basically
Police Assoc.) to training with an incidental amount to pre-shift
briefing and inspection. To compensate for that
time the police officer is given one half hour
time off from work during his work shift and is actually perform-
ing police duties 7! hours while in the patrol car. During that
luncheon break he is technically on duty and can be called in an
emergency. Criticism has been offered by the Police Department
on the quality of training, which is an administration problem he
feels can be corrected, but further, they feel they should receive
compensating time for the time spent in the training process,
based on a court ruling issued in 1968 in favor of the Oakland
Police Association, wherein the court did rule that any time spent
by an officer in excess of his regular work hours should be com-
pensated. Therefore, an officer who is on duty, but on a lunch
break, was on duty and had to be compensated for that time, and
the Oakland Police Department had to pay for that luncheon break.
Likewise, the Fremont Police Association sued the City for back
pay on the same issue and based on that condition the local asso-
ciation submitted their grievance and contended that the one-half
hour for their lunch break was not compensation for the half hour
pre-shift training. The action that the administration took, and
in which he concurred, was that all luncheon breaks were to be
given to men without any threat of call to duty, which meant the
men were to drive the patrol cars back to the station, park them
and be free for one-half hour. This was quite an upset as they
felt it was an inconvenience to take the car to the station, but
they felt that was a strict interpretation of the letter of judg-
ment. Since that time, there have been meetings in accordance with
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act trying to resolve the issue and there
have been a whole series of compromising offers suggested by both
sides; the most recent was made this date, that ten minutes per
day be accrued so that each man be subject to once a month group
training session lasting approximately three hours, such training
session to be conducted by the Police Captain. This offer was
readily accepted by the Association today. Mr. Parness explained
that the cost would amount to $9700 per year based on the present
salary levels of officers and would mean buying ten minutes of
time per day at a rate of time and a half per man to engage in
this practice which is deemed to be critical to the welfare,
progress and efficiency of the department.
The City Manager recommended that the Council approve this proposal
whereby each man would be subject to participating in a group train-
ing session once per month, approximately three to three and a half
hours in time and that that time be paid for at the rate of time
and a half by the City as additional compensation.
Mr. Lewis stated until the issue is finally decided, he did not
want to say too much but apparently the program was introduced
last spring and if the association went to court they would claim
they were entitled to compensation for overtime since last spring,
but he understands that is to be waived as a part of the recommended
offer.
Mr. Parness stated additionally he would like the Council to under-
stand, and hopefully support, his direction that he has given
orally and will give in written form to the Police Department which
is that the training process will be tested an~ assured as depart-
mental procedure through the course of frequent examination to be
given to each man based upon the training that they engage in and
that a great deal of the merit increases which are weighed annually
for each man will be based upon their experience and credits they
will accrue in the testing process. In other words, if the City
is going to pay to have them go to school, it can be found out
through fair testing processes, and pay increases or decreases will
be dependent upon their record in large part.
Mayor Silva felt the majority of the Council agrees to those terms
and feel it is reasonable since the City is paying for their time.
CM-23-372
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval
the recommendation of the City Manager was
approved.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, se-
conded by Councilman Miller, to send a letter
of appreciation to Margaret Tracy, who has re-
signed, for her years of service on the Beau-
tification Committee, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that Hofmann Company
has a heavy program of littering the public
right-of-way with illegal signs, and felt they
should be cited for doing this.
January 11, 1971
(Grievance - Police
Association)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL (Letter
of Appreciation)
Illegal Signs
Robert Allan, 223 Donner Avenue, mentioned that Sunset Town and
Somerset Homes also had some signs up.
After some discussion the staff was directed to check into the
matter.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated he had received some
complaints re Charlotte Way, which was to have
been completed by October 1st, but the street
lights are not on and they have been digging
holes in the street.
Completion of
Charlotte Way
Mr. Lee advised this has not been accepted by the City as yet,
and it would be taken care of shortly.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva announced that he had received a
registered, airmail certified letter stating
that the Springtown Golf Course would be
closed as of the close of business on January
10, 1971 from Intermark Investing Company. He
suggested that a copy of the letter be sent to the Recreation
District. It was also suggested that a letter be sent to Inter-
mark Investing Company with the Council's regrets.
*
*
*
Closing of
Springtown
Golf Course
Mayor Silva stated a letter had been received
from the Beautification Committee advising a
new slate of officers had been appointed as
follows: Chairman, Garrett B. Drummond, vice
chairman Bob Schaefer, secretary Roberta Hadley. The staff was
directed to send a letter to Chris Gatrousis, outgoing chairman,
of appreciation for his service; also a letter to the new chair-
man, advising that he could come to the City Council at any time
on any matters to be discussed.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva announced that there are two posi-
tions open on the Beautification Committee and
two positions on the Housing Authority Board
and any citizens interested are invited to sub-
mit names on any positions.
*
*
*
Beautification
Committee Officers
Positions Open -
Beautification
Committee, Housing
Authority
CM-23-373
January 11, 1971
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council the meeting was adjourned to an executive
session at 12:30 a.m. for discussion of pending
apPointmen/i; *
APPROVE \
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of January 18, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 18, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
WELCOME
Mayor Silva welcomed Girl Scout Troop 1085 who were
in attendance at the meeting.
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of January 11, 1971, were
approved as amended on motion of Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Golf Pro
Shop)
Clyde .Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, referred to a re-
quest by Intermark Investing for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a golf pro shop at 4875 Primrose
Lane and approval of a clubhouse on Bluebell Drive;
such approval passed by vote of the Council on
October 19, 1970. Mr. Highet pointed out that the
received notice that Intermark is no longer going to
golf course in Springtown or continue with the club-
on Bluebell Drive; therefore, he did not see any need
the permit for the golf pro shop on Primrose Lane.
Council has
operate the
house plans
to continue
Mayor Silva said he understood the golf pro Mr. Russ Dicks hoped
to continue operation of the golf course and the Planning Director
stated that nothing had changed in regard to the operation of the
golf course as there is still the same management and property
owner. The permit for the clubhouse has been issued and a letter
was received which states that Mr. Dicks can utilize the Spring-
town Association's parking lot to meet his parking requirements.
Any arrangement about upkeep is between the Springtown Association
and Mr. Dicks.
After further discussion Mayor Silva pointed out that if the club-
house is not built within the one year period of the permit, the
permit will not be renewed.
CM-23-374
January 18, 1971
Mr. Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock Street, inquired (Golf Pro Shop)
as to the date of the letter referred to by Mr.
Musso and it was stated that the letter was re-
ceived on Tuesday or Wednesday after their closing of the course.
Mr. Kerr felt that if Intermark had not complied with the time
limit set he felt the agreement should be void and the permit
denied to operate the pro shop.
*
*
*
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle Street, asked if it
would be possible to have the agendas printed
on both sides of the paper for economical and
ecological reasons. The matter was referred
to the City Clerk.
*
*
*
Valerie Raymond, president of the Livermore
League of Women Voters, stated the League has
invited Senator Bradley, Assemblyman Bee and
Supervisor Murphy to an interview this Thurs-
day at 8:00 p.m. and extended an invitation
to the Councilmen to attend the meeting.
*
*
*
(Agenda Printing)
(League of Women
Voters Meeting)
A hearing has been set regarding amendment of
Section 20.00 (General Provisions) of the Zon-
ing Ordinance, particularly Sections 20.71
(Future Width Lines) and 20.72 (Special Build-
ing Lines) as follows: 1) Vasco Road, between
U.S. 580 to Tesla Road; 2) East Avenue, between
Vasco Road to Greenville Road; and 3) East Ave-
nue, between Madison Avenue and Vasco Road, portions of
within the unincorporated territory adjoining the City.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ZO AMENDMENT SEC.
20.00 (Width Lines
& Bldg Lines-Vasco
Rd. and East Ave.)
which are
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing, but no comments were voiced.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and by unanimous vote to close the public hearing.
Councilman Beebe lliade a motion that tiLe staff be instructed to
prepare the ordinance to amend Section 20.00 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance to reflect these changes; the motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental reports were submitted as follows:
Departmental
Reports
Airport - financial and activity - December 1970
Building Department - December and calendar year 1970
Civil Defense - quarterly, OctOber/December, 1970
Finance Department - quarterly, OctOber/December, 1970
re revenue and expenditures
Fire Department - December 1970
Golf Course - December 1970
Library - quarterly, OctOber/December, 1970
Planning Director - pending major planning and zoning projects
Police and Pound Departments - December, 1970
Water Reclamation Plant
Councilman Miller wished to discuss the Airport and Golf Course
financial report; a report will be made in this regard by the
City Manager at the next meeting. Councilman Miller inquired
about the Planning Director's report regarding planning and
CM-23-375
January 18, 1971
(Departmental
Reports)
zoning projects, in particular the intention to
study urbanization around the Del Valle area and
stated his feeling that such development should
be discouraged or even prohibited.
It was suggested that the Council wait until the Planning Commis-
sion has bad the opportunity to study this matter and see what
this recommendation might be. Councilman Taylor stated that the
Valley Planning Committee had discussed this area, and that the
County has already received inquiries about subdividing the
area. He was personally opposed to such development.
Councilman Taylor also suggested that a review of bicycling needs
be considered in the discussion and plans for the parkways; that
a study of frontage lot treatments be included under the survey
of development standards; that hillside development standards
should have priority in the list of studies and that the portion
regarding planned development regulation procedures should be
discussed.
Mayor Silva said this report covers the status of items before
the Planning Commission and if any Councilman had questions re-
garding a particular item it should be requested to be included
on a future agenda.
Councilman Miller felt this report indicated that the Planning De-
partment has a very heavy load of work before them and also re-
ferred to the Building Department report which indicates 15% in-
crease in single family permits over last year and 88% more
multiple. This corresponds to a 7% growth rate which is close
i~ i ;h,~,;r~~~~, ~~~LiZ~~~:~lYI'~~~. ~~e~" tZ~h~~~: . ~e~.
~~eUP.. ~~~~ - ~ ~ <L?V~.~ ~
~ ~~~, * lj * *
Sale of Notification has been received from the State Divi-
Surplus Area sion of Highways regarding the sale of certain sur-
(Greenville plus areas. There does not appear to be any public
Rd. and benefit in these property acquisitions due to their
Altamont size, remote location and lack of utilities and no
Pass Rd.) action was taken.
*
*
*
Resolution re
Salary
Schedule
RESOLUTION NO. 5-71
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. 90-70.
In accordance with an agreement authorized with the Public Works
Department field forces, wage levels are to be amended semi-annually
to adjust for the cost of living increases during the six month
term (April through September); the certified factor change is 2%.
*
*
*
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Applications for exempt business licenses have been
received from the following:
International Order of Rainbow Girls - various fund
raising activities during 1971
Philippine American Assn. - quarterly dances to
raise funds for scholarships.
*
*
*
CM-23-376
One Hundred and nine claims in the amount of
$57,627.41 and two hundred fifty-three payroll
warrants in the amount of $77,901.22, dated
January 13, 1971, were ordered paid as approved
ger. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on
for his usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the above items on the
Consent Calendar were approved by unanimous
vote. The other items were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
*
*
*
January 18, 1971
Payroll and Claims
by the City Mana-
Warrant No. 9545
Approval of
Consent Calendar
Councilman Miller referred to a communication
received from Peni Taylor regarding an area ad-
jacent to Pioneer Memorial Park which is pre-
sently listed for sale for multiple develop-
ment. He. thought. t~is area 1;ad ~ r_~ned ') /).
f'.rom multlp~e to slngle faml~y" , tr.<.t:~~fU., } j .
L.~~-e~....,/ii~~P: d.e.(~ ~ -/.-.e.1"<~j~.{ t l'-#Lt; ~/~~dJ
Mr. Musso explalned that the property is located on the east --J
side of Wall street with 1.37 acres which would allow approxi-
mately 25 dwelling units. The rezoning was proposed at the time
of the filing of the subdivision Tract 2425 and was proposed for
both sides of Wall street as a variation in land use for the area.
Multiple was granted on the east side.
Pioneer Memorial
Park
Councilman Miller made a motion to suggest that the Planning
Commission consider the possibility of rezoning this area,
seconded by Councilman Taylor, and the motion was approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
A draft of a resolution proposing a sweepstakes
was submitted by a citizen, W. J. Pender, for
consideration and discussion by the Council.
Mayor Silva felt there were other
uation regarding the tax burden.
should be adopted directed to the
major tax reforms.
Sweepstakes
Suggestion
methods for improving the sit-
He felt rather a resolution
State Legislature requesting
Councilman Beebe felt there should be a state sharing plan rather
than a lottery.
Councilman Miller felt public feeling should be determined, and
if this is reasonable such a suggestion should be made to the
legislature. Revenue is needed, and this might be a way to do it.
The majority of the Council did not feel that this resolution
could be endorsed. Mayor Silva pointed out that there is a com-
mittee investigating lotteries and sweepstakes as means of revenue
in the State of California.
W. J. Pender, 135 El Caminito, discussed the general tax situation
and the need for a method of relieving the heavy tax burden. There
is proposed legislation to this effect (SB-l). A sweepstakes
will not solve the problem, but he suggested that it would ease
the problem. In the draft of his resolution he suggested that a
sweepstakes be tried for a given period in Livermore and if found
CM-23-377
January 18, 1971
(Sweepstakes) successful it could be taken over by the state. He
requested that the Council approve the resolution.
Councilman Taylor said he felt it was inconceivable that the State
Legislature would give permission to one town to run a lottery
and thought it would have to be a state-wide lottery or none. It
would be a waste of time to try to get such permission.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, requested that the Council support
proposed legislation for a state sweepstakes. He was opposed to
a City lottery or sweepstakes, but felt a State sweepstakes could
reliBve the the school tax burden.
The City Attorney pointed out that the Legislature could not allow
a single city to operate a lottery as it would be prohibited by
the Constitution; it would have to apply to all the cities.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to deny the request to draft a resolution regarding the sweepstakes,
and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION
RE SALE OF
DISPOSABLE
CONTAINERS
*
*
*
A resolution has been received from the Board of Su-
pervisors urging the County Supervisors Association
and the League of California Cities to seek action
to alleviate the problem of litter and waste disposal
created by the sale of disposable, non-returnable
containers.
Mayor Silva stated that a communication had been received from
Leon F. Dillenburg, Bay Area Grocers Association, requesting an
opportunity to discuss this matter on another date. This item is
to be continued for discussion to a mutually agreeable date for
the parties involved.
Resolution
re BART
Service to
Oakland
Airport
*
*
*
A resolution was adopted by the City of Oakland Board
of Port Commissioners concerning transportation re-
quirements to and from the Oakland International
Airport, and they have requested support of the City
Council.
Mayor Silva questioned the possibility that if endorsed would it
mean funds would be used that would otherwise be spent in the Valley.
The City Manager advised that without detailed investigation or an
appearance of someone from BART and the Port of Oakland Board of
Commissioners to explain the facts and details, he felt it was
improperto even state a view as it is a complicated matter.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and passed unanimously to note and file the report.
B.eport re
Civic Center
Tree Removal
*
*
*
Mayor Silva read a letter from Ribera & Sue, Landscape
Architects, stating that there should be an interim
retention of a portion of the eucalyptus grove until
new tree plantings achieve some degree of maturity,
however, eventually the existing trees should be re-
moved as indicated by the site master plan.
This matter had been discussed in detail at the last meeting, and
Mayor Silva suggested that since the trees will eventually have to
CM-23-378
be removed, he would like to see them removed
now to save the City the expense later, and
questioned at what point in time the trees
would be removed.
January 18, 1971
(Tree Removal)
Mr. Parness stated that this is an optional thing with the Council
and whoever would be involved in the site planning and developing
of the property. The intention would be generally that within
ten years other trees planted would reach a state of maturity and
the retained trees could then be removed.
Councilman Taylor explained the reason the trees cannot be left
is that no development and no new trees can be planted and public
use cannot be started for five years unless the grading plan is
accomplished. The second reason, not removing the trees at all
forever relegates the gravel pit to nothing more than a gravel
pit as this area blocks it off from the civic center site and the
architect proposed that it be blended together; there has been no
feasible plan for developing the area leaving the trees. To just
vote to leave the trees there must be some feasible alternative
showing the public how they will benefit from a change of design.
Councilman Pritchard stated he felt if they were directed to come
up with a change in design to incorporate the trees they could do
that; meanwhile the workers can drive around the trees.
Councilman Miller asked that his motion to accept the alternate
proposal for grading plans of the architect be taken from the
table and voted on at this time, and made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Taylor to remove the motion from the table which ~~
passed by the following vote{ ~:::2I.a...... a.tt?~~~ ,4-<1..._ ~^-"'.'-<--'{5ti- .' .' d:<,,:<-
l c't~ ~~c.,~t-.,,-~t~-L-.' ~..'t;
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller Ati.-?t ~ ,/ -~)
NOES: Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Silva t
Councilman Pritchard had dissented because he wanted all the trees
to remain, and Mayor Silva for the reason that he wanted all the
trees removed at this time.
*
*
*
A report from the City Manager indicates that
the Master Plan for the Civic Center site re-
quires the acquisition of a triangular shaped
parcel of land to broaden the connection be-
tween the Sunken Gardens and the remainder of
the site. An agreement has been negotiated
for acquisition of the southerly area with the developer, McGah
Development Co., and it is recommended that a motion be adopted
authorizing execution of the agreement and acceptance of the deed.
REPORT RE CIVIC
CENTER PRIVATE
ROADWAY ACQUISITION
(McGah Dev. Co.)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to adopt the staff recommendation to authorize the execution of
the agreement and acceptance of the deed and passed 4 to 1 with
Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the matter of
the Pomona Way Street Extension has been pend-
ing for many months and following an appeal
made to the Council in the fall of last year,
upon Council's instructions, a public meeting
was held by the staff in the neighborhood with prior notice to
all interested parties as to the design plans for the street ex-
tension. He advised there was a significant turnout and some
heated discussion relative to the matter; also the Recreation
REPORT RE POMONA
WAY STREET EXTEN-
SION
CM-23-379
January 18, 1971
(Pomona Way
Extension)
District has requested some decision in order for
them to proceed with the park development.
Public Works Director Daniel Lee presented a theoretical desirable
layout for a major street design after which he explained the street
layout in the area involved, including the extension of Hillcrest
Avenue which had been proposed, stating they have planned on a
collector street to go to the area which is Pomona Way; Jefferson
Avenue will also function as a collector street in the future.
Mr. Lee stated it is felt that the extension of Pomona Way is es-
sential to carry out the plan initially established for the area;
if it terminates, it will form a barrier as will the park and the
school, and will not allow the traffic to move out of the neigh-
borhood as it should.
Mr. Lee also presented some results of current traffic counts and
projected traffic counts based on the tributary areas. He explained
that presently Pomona Way is shown terminating at the park with
Jefferson Avenue going to East Avenue, and there are 1700 cars per
day coming in and out of Jefferson Avenue. ~oming out of Hillcrest
Avenue are 3500 cars per day, of which approximately 2500 come from
the area being discussed. Just north of Pomona Way on Jackson Ave.,
in front of the school, there is a count of 11 per day. The two
counts of 2500 and 1700 add up to 4200, coming out of the subdivi-
sion per day, and based on the number of homes and trips per day,
comes to within 100 of what is predicted for that neighborhood,
and based on these figures the prediction for future traffic is
made. With the extension of Pomona Way over to the future Mines
Road, it is expected the future count on Jefferson Way would be
reduced down to about 1000 per day. The traffic count coming out
of Pomona Way at the east end, one going north on Hillcrest Ave.
to connect to Mines Road; the other going south to East Avenue
might be in the neighborhood of 1000 to 2000 per day, leaving 2300
cars per day to go in and out of the planning area, which is not
excessive for a collector street. Mr. Lee went on to explain the
effect on the street system if there is no easterly extension of
Pomona Way, stating it would create a serious problem on Jackson
Avenue in front of the school.
Mr. Lee said the next question is what effect the extension of
Pomona Way would have on the park, and we are told by the Planning
Director that 18 acres of park south of Pomona Way is sufficient
for a community park; it can provide all the facilities necessary
for a park. It is nice to have a park adjacent to the school and
would be a valuable asset; this would be the negative feature of
extending Pomona Way. On the other hand, he did not believe the
school officials allowed the children to go to adjacent parks
during the school hours; a good example of this is Marilyn Avenue
School next to May Nissen Park.
Mr. Lee continued that another factor that was a confusion to the
whole issue was the lots that the City would have north of Pomona
Way, and it was suggested some time ago that this property be sold
for residential lots. This created the impression that the whole
plan was devised so that lots would be available for sale to pay
for the road extension, and this was not the case - it was an
incidental issue.
Mr. Lee stated that, in summation, from a traffic standpoint for
the convenience of this area, to reduce the considerable amount
of traffic on Jefferson Avenue and to provide good access to the
school and neighborhood this extension is needed.
Mayor Silva commented that the previous Council had endorsed the
plan and the reason for the discussion is that a petition was cir-
culated in opposition to it. Since there is a new Council and
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard have not seen the plan or had the
facts presented to them, the Council would like to discuss the
item once again.
CM-23-380
January 18, 1971
Mr. Musso stated one point that came up at the
Jackson Avenue School meeting was that there
would be access provided, either in the way of
frontage or pedestrian access, on the easterly
boundary of the school as that area develops; it is not so much
access to the school as vehicular access to the front of the
school. The other thing is the alternate which was not mentioned
of curving the street up to front the school; the reason this was
not done is that the school was not particularly interested in
assuming the responsibility of the frontage improvement.
(Pomona Way
Extension)
Mayor Silva asked if the problem of the location of the Recreation
District's private road had been solved and Mr. Parness stated the
section which now curves along the eastern boundary can be vacated
because Pomona Way is a public street and will meet the need.
Councilman Taylor inquired if the street was taken into considera-
tion when the City purchased the property and Mr. Lewis reported
that title was taken just for general municipal purposes, not
specifically park purposes. Councilman Taylor said he understood
that this was not always considered for location of a community
park but for a smaller one and Mr. Parness stated this was true
and that a primary site was one north of the school, but after
study with LARPD the recommendation was made to place the entire
park to the south.
In answer to a question Mr. Lee said the traffic count in front
of East Avenue School was now 8,000 or 9,000 a day and there is
a crossing guard and Mr. Musso reported that a school was not
planned between the Jackson Avenue and Wagoner Farms schools.
John Hudson, 4057 Pomona Way, said the traffic would decrease when
a school is built for the Wagoner Farms area and he felt much of
the traffic counted at Hillcrest Avenue was due to the shopping
center and he did not understand the traffic count previously dis-
cussed. He also felt the children would use the park rather than
the streets to walk home, and the park should be attached to the
school grounds.
Glenn Strahl, 768 Adams Avenue, said the feeling at the meeting
held at Jackson School was almost unanimous against the extension
of Pomona Way. The principal of the school spoke for the school
and park to be connected. He also questioned the traffic count
and did not feel that a collector street was necessary.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Ave., said the first meeting he had
attended regarding this matter was the one held by the LARPD last
summer; there was general discontent at that meeting about the
school being divided from the park. Later at the meeting held by
the City staff the people attending were against continuation of
Pomona Way. He said he had talked to Mr. Bergman, park planner
for LARPD, who had indicated that a north/south street on the
east boundary of the park would be a preferable access. In regard
to traffic flow, traffic could leave in an east or west direction
easily; there would be a problem in getting from one part of the
area to another. The people in the area had indicated they were
against the extension of Pomona Way. Mr. Hoenig said he had also
asked Mr. Bergman if there would be any problem in just holding
this strip in abeyance and not develop it at the present time,
however, LARPD wants a decision in order to commence the park
planning.
Elizabeth Hudson, 4057 Pomona Way, said her first concern is that
Pomona Way is the thruway for children going to school and people
in the area had signed the petition against the street extension.
Nancy Cecil, 4262 Pomona Way, was against the extension of Pomona
Way.
CM-23-381
January 18, 1971
(Pomona Way
Extension)
Mark Eaton, 441 Jackson Avenue, said he was against
the extension; however, he would be against making
Loyola Avenue a major street. There would be a
serious hazard from traffic coming off Colgate Way
around a blind corner onto Loyola Ave. and an increase in traffic
on Jackson Ave. would be a serious mistake.
Sue Steinberg, 4174 Pomona Way, agreed increasing traffic on Jack-
son Ave. would be wrong. If Loyola Ave. is made into a major street,
it should be designed to discourage people from using it and feed-
ing past the school. She was concerned about putting more traffic
on Pomona Way due to the school children. Councilman Pritchard
asked what the reaction would be if Loyola Ave. were extended around
the park on the east side of the park and school. She said if there
was access on the east side of the park it would provide easy access
to the park.
Ann Lee, 1413 Lillian Street, said she had a child attending Jack-
son Ave. School and thought it would be convenient to have a bike
trail up the side of the park.
Mr. Musso pointed out there is a bike trail proposed along East
Avenue to the park.
Roy Slice, 3951 Dartmouth Way, asked if there is a north-south
street proposed on either side of the park. Mr. Musso said Jeffer-
son Ave. is the only one and connects with Jackson Avenue; on the
east side there will be a street paralleling the park boundary.
The undeveloped property is owned by more than one person and can
not be developed yet. Mr. Slice was against the extension.
Bert Gastin, 564 Tyler Ave., suggested that neither Pomona Way nor
Loyola Avenue be extended. He felt the school and park should be
considered as a barrier between the two areas, and no attempt be
made to run east-west streets through.
Marlin Pound, speaking for LARPD, said the design as shown separat-
ing the school and park had previously been approved by LARPD. Their
problem is whether the City is going to proceed; considerable time
has been spent in designing the proposed development and money ob-
tained. The Rotary Club has offered to develop a tot lot in this
area but would have to withdraw their offer if development does not
proceed; LARPD needs a decision.
Mayor Silva pointed out that originally LARPD was not for the ex-
tension of Pomona Way; however, the previous Council made the de-
cision and LARPD had to abide by this decision. Also, he did under-
stand the feelings of the homeowners in the area but felt it was
poor planning not to extend the street.
Councilman Pritchard said hewaBn~convinced of the necessity for
the through street and was concerned that the majority of the people
did not want the extension. He liked the idea of having a cul-de-
sac for parking at the end of Pomona Way; likewise he was not sure
that Loyola Ave. needed to go through.
Councilman Taylor said the proposal to block Pomona Way and Loyola
Ave. both is bad planning as it would be difficult to get to the
front of the school. The School District does not want frontage
and that strip would have to be assumed by someone and he felt
the proposal as presented is the most reasonable one.
Councilman Beebe said he would like to see this kept as open space
and no decision made at this time.
Bill Payne of LARPD felt access would be needed at the other end
of the park from East Avenue and then they could plan accordingly.
Delay does create a problem in planning as stated in a prior pre-
sentation.
CM-23-382
January 18, 1971
Councilman Miller felt the whole 'area should
be maintained as park because there is a short-
age of parks in this part of town. There will
be access to the back of the school for the
area to be developed just as at Almond Avenue and Rincon Avenue.
The problem will be ultimately resolved. If the people of the
area do not want a collector street perhaps it is not necessary.
Yet there should be a driveway or easement for fire equipment
access. The issue is that the people who live in an area should
have some say what happens to it. The question of a collector
street is a local matter.
(Pomona Way
Extension)
Councilman Taylor said that if people voted whether or not they
wanted other major streets such as Hillcrest or Charlotte Way they
might not want them either. Councilman Miller felt there was a
difference between Charlotte Way and Pomona Way.
Councilman Miller suggested that a motion be made of the follow-
ing four points: that there be no through street; that it be
recommended to LARPD that there be a driveway access off Pomona
Way; that there be an easement for emergency fire access through
the park; and that Amling-DeVor be allowed to use this easement
and driveway as their access and eliminate the present access
from the west side. Councilman Miller made the motion, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, that Pomona Way not be a through street.
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Lee if the transportation of children
to and from school is disregarded, would the planning be still
considered poor. Mr. Lee replied it was essential to good plan-
ning to provide for the future; the traffic is there and the
street should be designed for future use.
The motion not to extend Pomona Way failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Councilman Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
After a short recess, the meeting was called
back to order with all members present.
RECESS
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that this matter
concerns the point that the proposed develop-
ment is in conformance with the present regula-
tions and the reason for the variance is to
make it possible to subdivide and sell the units as single family
dwellings. The Planning Commission did agree with the variances,
but the appeal is on some of the conditions of the variances.
The Planning Commission did not request conformance to an ordi-
nance which has not been adopted; there are no regulations which
pertain to the townhouse type of development but the Planning
Commission utilized the work they have done on the proposed ordi-
nance in setting forth the conditions of the variance. The con-
ditions applied could be subject to some modification as a re-
sult of the meetings held last week by the joint Commission-
Council committee. Essentially, the proposal is for a townhouse
type of development of the same nature as the development at Pine
and Murrieta. The only issue is access to Murrieta Blvd on the
northerly boundary of the property, which the Commission felt
should be provided. The problem resolves down to a question of
density, off-street parking and front setbacks on the lot.
APPEAL RE CONDITIONS
OF VARIANCE
(H.C. Elliott)
Councilman Miller said that when the proposal on Pine Street and
Murrieta Blvd. was approved the Council felt that the proposal,
when built, would be an indication of the assets of this type of
development. He thought this appeal matter should be continued
to see the outcome of the previous proposal when it is completed.
CM-23-383
January 18, 1971
(Appeal re
Variance,
H.C.Elliott)
Mayor Silva stated that he did not feel any applica-
tion should be held up because of lack of standards
or ordinances.
Councilman Taylor said this property is presently proposed for
RG-12. He stated he had looked at several townhouse developments
and he felt the new proposed standards are reasonable and did not
see that it was necessary to wait for their adoption.
Councilman Miller said his concern was to wait to see how the
townhouse concept is accepted; not to wait for adoption of the
new ordinance.
The majority of the Council did not feel that consideration of the
application should be delayed and proceeded to discuss the condi-
tions.
Mr. Musso reported that a public hearing is optional; the Planning
Commission held a noticed hearing and only one person testified.
The majority of the Council did not feel a public hearing was nec-
essary.
The applicant Mr. Elliott, stated he had looked at many townhouse
developments and had tried to work out a good design. There are
backup sales for half again as many as those already sold. Profile
studies show that most of the buyers are people without children.
Density has been reduced to 10 d.u./acre. One covered and one open
space parking have been provided.
Mr. Marv Whiteman, planner for Elliott, and an architect with Compla,
said the first four conditions were acceptable and then discussed
those points which they were requesting be chan~~~~
Item 5 (a), Maximum Dwelling Units Permitted. e 'app l ~~
that all but first sentence be deleted. Motion was made by Coun-
cilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to change this condi-
tion to read llTen (10) dwellings per gross acrell, and the remainder
of the condition eliminated.
Mayor Silva felt reducing the number of units allowed would defeat
the purpose of townhouses because then the prices of the units would
go up.
Councilman Pritchard stated that price does not seem to be the
reason for buying these units and that he did not feel he could
consider the economics of the people buying in making a decision.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the proposed 57 units were allowed as
an informal condition of the tentative map. If this property is
developed at 10 d.u./acre, 47.5 units would be allowed.
The applicant's representative said the proposal is for two story
units equivalent in nature and size to an apartment with better
parking and outdoor recreational facilities provided; it would be
more desirable from a neighborhood standpoint.
Mayor Silva said if the ordinance states that townhouses must be
at RG-10, then there will not be applications for property zoned
RG-16 for townhouse development but it will be developed as apart-
ments.
The motion to change the wording to llTen dwelling units per gross
acrell, and the rest of the condition eliminated, was approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
Mayor Silva
(Councilman Miller wished to qualify his vote as he felt it really
could be at 8 rather than 10 d.u./acre but due to the circumstances
of this application voted for it.)
CM-23-384
January 18, 1971
Items 5 (b) and (c) were acceptable to the
applicant.
(Appeal re Variance-
H.C. Elliott)
Item 5 (d), Maximum Building Height: As set forth in Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.88, except that for a group of five (5) or
more dwellings, the end dwelling in each group shall be limited
in height to one story.
The applicant asked that the wording from llexcept . .ll be eliminated.
He stated this assumes that there will be a particular type of
design and this is an inflexible rule which will lead to stereo-
typing.
Councilman Beebe did not feel this point should be tied down so
closely. Councilman Taylor agreed this point should be investi-
gated before inclusion in the proposed ordinance. It was decided
by the majority of the Council to delete the wording as suggested
from this condition.
Item 5 (e) Minimum Setback from Driveways: The applicant requested
that this item be deleted from the conditions as he felt it was
not applicable to the type of project proposed.
Councilman Miller felt that this item should not be deleted and
Councilman Taylor said the sub-committee had discussed this; the
more space used for setbacks which are unnecessary the less open
space will be available. If the garage is set back 20 feet this
allows tandem parking, whereas a smaller setback will force the
extra parking space to be elsewhere as in a common lot.
The Council discussed application of this condition in regard to
the application before them, and what effect it would have on the
proposed design.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
change the wording of Item 5 (e) to the following: Ten (10) feet.
Where a driveway provides access, setback of a garage may be five
(5) feet. II The motion was approved 4 to 1 with Councilman Miller
dissenting.
Item 5 (f) Minimum Off-street Parking: The applicant requested
that this be changed to lltwo (2) spaces per dwelling unitll. Also,
he requested that the last portion of the condition from the
wording, llIn addition,..ll be deleted. The reason for this is
that boat and trailer storage is not allowed on the premises.
The Council favored 4 to 1 keeping the condition as written with
provision for 2~ spaces per unit and one-half additional space
for storage of boats, etc.
Item 5 (g) Minimum Driveway Improvement: The applicant requested
that the last portion reading llcurbs shall be required adjacent
to all open space defined in Section 21.97 (b)ll, be changed to
provide for tire stops. The majority of the Council agreed to
this deletion and added the provision that llTire stops are to be
provided so that cars will not overhand the open space.ll
Items 5 (h) through (m), Item 6 and Item 7 were acceptable to the
applicant.
Item 8 Usable Open Space Required: The applicant requested that
the 1000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit be changed to 700 sq. ft. as
this figure is computed by excluding front yard setbacks on
Murrieta Blvd. and Del Norte Ave. This point was discussed and
the wording I'except the required front yard on Del Norte may be
included as open spacell, was added to Item 8 (b) by the Council.
The remainder of the zoning conditions, Items 9 (a) through (k)
and Items Band C were acceptable as written.
CM-23-385
January 18, 1971
(Appeal re
Variance
Conditions)
solved before
Mr. Musso explained that there is presently a 29-ft.
strip which is proposed for addition to the commer-
cial area at the rear of the service station site on
Murrieta Blvd. This would require rezoning and a
public hearing; It is recommended that this be re-
a final map of the subdivision is approved.
Councilman Taylor stated that in previous discussion by the Plan-
ning Commission it was indicated that a good use for this area
would be a motel-restaurant-service station complex.
It was proposed that this piece of property be rezoned or else
included in the townhouse development, with the decision to be
made before the final map is filed and the Council agreed on this
proposal.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, that
the Planning Commission recommendation to allow the variances be
accepted, with the conditions of approval as amended.
Mr. Musso pointed out that a question which must be resolved con-
cerns the access to Murrieta Blvd. Public Works Department pro-
posed that only an emergency access be allowed, and the Fire De-
partment recommended an open access. The developer was agreeable
to either plan. Since the access would be on a curve, the Council
felt it should be an emergency access.
The motion for allowance of the variances was approved by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
VARIANCE
APPEAL
(Ed Hutka)
Ed Hutka, 1940 Railroad Avenue, has submitted an
appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission
regarding his application for reduction of ten park-
ing spaces required for an existing second story in
the building under construction at the above location.
The Planning Director explained that the subject building received
site plan approval as a one story building for uses permitted in
the Zoning District. The approved parking was conforming, however
when the applicant increased the floor area with the addition of
a second floor (without benefit of zoning or building department
approval) the parking provided then became deficient.
Mr. Mark Eaton, representing Mr. Hutka stated that his client
planned to use the building totally in industrial warehouse uses
and, therefore, does not need all the parking area provided. It
was suggested that a method be found to guarantee, by a recordable
contract, that if these buildings change use that further parking
would be acquired and provided if retail uses are installed in
the building.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous approval, action on the matter was continued until
such an agreement can be prepared and presented to the Council.
Councilman Miller stated there is another thing - there are ordi-
nance violations here inasmuch as the structure was put up with-
out a permit and Mr. Hutka is and has been a building contractor
in the City for some time. It is almost prima facie that know
a building permit is required, and this structure was put up
without a building permit in violation of the approved plans.
Councilman Miller commented that law and order is a very popular
phrase, but it does not just apply to hippies, students and the
poor, but it also applies to the establishment as well. It is
well known there is a lack of confidence in the government, and
CM-23- 386
A~. f;rt:c:,y
,; . ~':./-..-, 1).-;'" l
{/' ~",t1'.
there is a general distrust in government be-
cause politicians/allow deliberate law viola-
tors, who belong to the establishment Dccn3ion
~ and often the business community, to get
away with flagrant violations of the law. Most of the members of
our business community try very hard to abide by the law; there are
always a few flagrant violators who give all the rest of them a
bad name. It seems to him in this situation, when it is so ob-
viou~~~atMrJ,ijutka ,knew about building permits and put this
oui~"'uph4ai'ly-W~~~is is a case where we should finally go to
the District Attorney.
January 18, 1971
(Variance Appeal-
Ed Hutka)
Mayor Silva felt this is a legal matter and should be discussed
in executive session and asked the City Attorney if this was
correct.
Mr. Lewis stated it was not a personnel matter; not qualified for
executive session.
Mr. Eaton stated he felt he had the right to respond to Mr. Miller's
statement. Obviously, it is completely 100% unfounded; he thought
if Mr. Miller would read the Planning Commission meeting minutes,
he would see that Mr. Hutka did not know what it was all about at
that time; he did not even realize he had to get a variance at
that time; he felt he had a completely wholesale building and
as indicated in the minutes if it was completely wholesale, he
had enough parking spaces. As such, he was under the understand-
ing that he was building a wholesale building and had enough park-
ing spaces; however, it was later ruled by the staff that perhaps
in the future we may have some retail business in there and as
such, we need more spaces. He did not think it was flagrant.
Mayor Silva stated that regardless of what Councilman Miller had
stated, it was the decision of the Council what is to be done in
this matter and Councilman Miller stated that for the purposes
of furthering law and order would make the motion to direct the
staff to take the case to the District Attorney; however, the
motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Miller commented that the Council members had made his
case: that law and order only applies to those who are not members
of the establishment.
Mayor Silva suggested that Councilman Miller retract the last
statement inasmuch as it was a very unfair and unjust remark,
however Councilman Miller stated he would not.
*
*
*
A communication had been received re mobile home
parks and a request to transmit a letter to the
League of California Cities urging initiation of
legislation to assure certain taxes and allowance
for school construction funds.
COMMUNICATION RE
MOBILE HOME PARKS
Mayor Silva stated he had asked that this item be continued until
this time, and now asked that the matter be again continued until
next meeting.
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller took the chair at this
time since Mayor Silva stated his interest in
the matter precluded discussion of it.
The Standard Oil Co. is planning a new service
station installation at the corner of First
Street and Portola Avenue and have been re-
quested to include in their improvement plans certain adjacent
street improvements and storm drainage facilities. Certain of the
REPORT RE DEVELOP-
MENT OF PORTOLA AVE.
AND FIRST STREET
(Standard Oil Co.-
City)
CM-23-387
January 18, 1971
(Portola Ave.,
First st.
Development)
improvements lie outside of the developer's area
of responsibility and must be paid for by the City.
A map of the proposed improvements was presented
to the City Council and explained by the Public
Works Director.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
the Council voted unanimously to authorize the financial partici-
pation of the City in the project, with Mayor Silva abstaining from
the vote.
WATER
RECLAMATION
PLANT
EXPANSION
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has submitted a report on
the Water Reclamation Plant Expansion, indicating
that our present plant is approaching 80% of its de-
signed capacity and the Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board requires that the City submit a report
and engineering study to outline its plans for expan-
sion of the treatment facilities.
The Public Works Director recommends that an engineering consultant
be retained (Brown and Caldwell).
The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beebe, second-
ed by Councilman Miller, and passed unanimously:
REPORT RE
VALLEY
PLANNING
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-71
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor made a report on various aspects of
the Valley Planning Committee meeting of January 14,
and in particular the request that member agencies be
given permission to make a proposal to Alameda County
for the land use planning of Camp Parks. Councilman
Taylor made a motion to send a letter to the Valley
Planning Committee endorsing this action; the motion was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated he had been assigned the job of ralslng
the necessary funds for the environmental symposium to be held by
the Valley Planning Committee. Councilman Beebe made a motion, se-
conded by Councilman Taylor, to expend up to an amount of $350 for
the purpose of hOlding such symposium, and the motion passed unani-
mously.
Councilman Taylor indicated the symposium is tentatively set for
April 24 at Amador High School.
REPORT RE
DENSITY
TRANSFERS
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
RE ZO AMEND-
MENT
(Portola Ave.,
Mosure)
AYES:
NOES:
*
*
*
A report from the Mayor regarding density transfers
was continued to the meeting of January 25.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, the first reading of the ordinance
to amend the Zoning Ordinance and rezone that pro-
perty on Portola Ave. from RG-16 to ID District
was waived (title read only) and by the following
vote the ordinance was introduced:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
CM-23-388
Councilman Beebe asked what the schedule was
for installation of traffic signals at Rail-
road Ave. and P street. The Public Works
Director said this was quite high on the
priority list and he would check on the exact
*
*
*
January 18, 1971
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Traffic Signal)
schedule.
Councilman Taylor stated that since the LARPD (Camp Parks)
is not a member of the Valley Planning Committee,
the City should write LARPD a letter concerning
VPC's proposal regarding land use of Camp Parks,
and also invite them to attend the meeting.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00
a.m. to an executive session to consider appointments to the
Library Board.
*
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of January 25, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on January 25,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with
Mayor Silva presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of January 18, 1971,
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, by
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, referred to
previous discussion regarding election of the
mayor and said he would like to see this on
the April ballot as well as a vote on a char-
ter type government.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Signs - Election)
He asked the status of action regarding the illegal sign he had
erected in his yard. The Planning Director informed him that
the record had been sent to the District Attorneyls office.
CM-23-389
January 25, 1971
(Planning
Commission)
until March
Chairman or
Mr. Phillips asked how policy was set for the Plan-
ning Commission meetings - by the Commission or by
the Council. He had not had an opportunity to speak
on an item regarding highway oriented signs before a
motion was passed by the Commission for continuance
1. Mayor Silva said he believed this was for the
Commission to decide.
Mr. Musso stated that generally the Planning Commission allows any-
one to speak before action is taken; in this particular case there
would be a public hearing at which time all would be given a chance
to speak.
Mr. Phillips asked the removal of the Planning Director on the basis
of incompetance. Mayor Silva said this was a personnel matter and
as such would be discussed in an executive session, but he did not
believe any of the Councilmen shared this opinion.
Mr. Phillips then requested that the City sign at the golf course
be removed in one week in accordance with the sign ordinance regard-
ing highway oriented signs. Mayor Silva said this would be con-
sidered along with abatement of all non-conforming signs.
Acceptance
Tract 3129
(Hofmann)
Appointment
to Library
Board
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
All public works improvements have been installed to
City standards on Tract 3129, located at Isabel Ave.
and East Stanley Blvd., and are ready for acceptance
and maintenance by the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 7-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT 3129 (Hofmann Company)
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 8-71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE LIBRARY BOARD
(Jack Rosengren)
The Council also directed that a letter of appreciation for service
be sent to Arthur Hudgins for hls term of office on the Library
Board.
Report re
Painting of
Covers on
Street Lights
Minutes
(Various)
CM-23-390
*
*
*
A report was submitted from the Beautification Com-
mittee regarding painting of the covers on street
lights. It was recommended that Fuller Color D-37
(Engine Gray) be used for painting the street light
covers, and for painting of any new lights installed
in the future. The work will be done by P.G.& E. Co.
as part of their routine maintenance.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting
of November 19, and the Housing Authority meeting
of December 15 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
January 25, 1971
Applications for exempt business licenses have
been received from the following:
Exempt Business
Licenses
Livermore-Amador Valley Emergency Fund Center - sale of used
materials - 1971 year
Order of DeMolay - painting house numbers on curbs
*
*
*
Ninety-one claims in the amount of $43,702.64 Payroll and Claims
and two hundred fifty-six payroll warrants in
the amount of $79,687.62, dated January 21, 1971,
were ordered paid as approved by the Finance Director.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the Consent Calendar was
approved by unanimous vote.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated this is a request
for variance regarding increase in allowable
sign area and reduction of setback for a direc-
tional sign submitted by state Savings and Loan
Association. Three sq. ft. is allowed, and the
request is for 6t sq. ft.
APPEAL RE VARIANCE
DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(State Say. & Ln)
David Madis, attorney representing the applicant, stated a con-
tinuance had been requested for further study regarding the lo-
cation of the sign. They were requesting a larger sign with no
setback on the grounds of public safety; alternatively they would
like to have the larger sign with the standard setback. The
building is now occupied as a business facility and there is a
problem due to the configuration of Stanley Blvd. and the speed
of the traffic. They wished to locate the sign where it would
be effective; the sign is not advertising, but is directional
in nature, directing traffic to a drive-in window.
Councilman Pritchard discussed some existing signs of similar
nature where drive-in windows are used and did not feel any of
these signs seemed to be exceptionally large; anything smaller
would not accomplish the job of indicating location of the drive-in
windows. A small sign would be difficult to see at the location
on Stanley Blvd., especially with the fence which has been erected.
Councilman Beebe felt it might be better to grant a variance for
location of the sign closer to the street so that it might be
easily seen.
Councilman Miller said that if the fence was not required by the
City, the applicant has created his own visibility problem.
Mr. Musso informed the Council that the property under considera-
tion is in the CO (Commercial Office) District zone and has a zero
setback; the adjacent property is zoned agricultural at present
but might be zoned CO in the future.
Mayor Silva stated that if the adjacent property were developed
in the future as CO, a building erected there might also create a
visibili ty problem. t1~ l~kflli~~~.J
Councilman Taylor said that a three foot sigrlA seJ:acR,lal required
might be hard to see, but he did not know on wha~u~rounds it could
be granted without setting a precedent. In an ordinary business
district a 3 sq. ft. sign is adequate, but the traffic on Stanley
Blvd. is fast and creates a problem in seeing a 3 sq. ft. sign.
CM-23-391
January 25, 1971
(Sign Variance
State Savings)
If a larger sign is allowed, it might be allowed
until the traffic speed is reduced. A zero set-
back would be a bad precedent; he felt the sign
size could be increased to 6t sq. ft. as requested
by the applicant, but deny the reduction in setback.
Councilman Miller stated that much of the company's business would
come from the east side of Stanley Blvd. and the sign would be
visible from there. The sign will be used to direct people to the
parking lot as well as the drive-up window. People who will use
the business will know that it is there and the sign will not be
for the benefit of those wishing to use the services of the drive-
up window. It is for marking the location of the driveway and
there is not a need for a larger sign. The visibility of the sign
can be adequate at 3 sq. ft., and the need is irrespective of the
speed of traffic. He felt if a variance is needed, it is for a
reduction in setback, not the size of the sign. A portion of the
fence could be lowered to allow better visibility.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that a turn could not be made
into the parking lot when travelling westerly, only when travelling
easterly.
Councilman Taylor said it had been pointed out to him that in the
downtown area drive-up windows cause traffic jams, and he felt it
was important to include "drive-up window" on the sign.
Mr. Musso stated that a setback of 5 feet would be less a traffic
hazard than a setback of zero feet; it would depend on the height
also.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to deny the request for the variance
as requested and to allow a 3 sq. ft. sign, 5 ft. in height, with
a 5 ft. setback, seconded by Mayor Silva, and passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Pritchard
Councilman Pritchard felt the setback of 5 feet accomplished nothing.
Mayor Silva told the applicant that the building was one of the
most attractive in the community and Councilman Miller added that
the community room which has been provided will be appreciated by
the many community groups in the City.
The applicant's representative said that he appreciated the efforts
of the City and their cooperation during construction.
*
*
*
CUP TO
PERMIT
AUTOMOBILE
SERVICE USE
(Wm. Dalrymple)
The Planning Director reported that the Conditional
Use Permit application is for the occupancy of an
existing building at 240 No. I Street for the pur-
pose of an automobile repair garage. The Planning
Commission and the staff concur that the use is
appropriate and would not be detrimental to adja-
cent uses and the recommendation is for approval. The only condi-
tion is for outside storage of automobiles and states there must
be six foot screening fence in the event automobiles are stored
outside in the future. There was a public hearing with no signi-
ficant testimony except from the applicant.
William Dalrymple, 781 Meadowlark Street, explained his plans for
operation of this repair service and said there were no plans for
outside storage.
Councilman Taylor, made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval
CM-23-392
January 25, 1971
of the CUP as stated in Res. 1-71 for the use
as an automobile repair shop.
(CUP-Dalrymple)
Councilman Miller referred to Commissioner Millard's suggestion
that fast growing shrubbery be planted along the back property
line to screen the residential.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the main motion to delete
Items 4 b., 5 a. and b. from the conditions of the permit relative
to outside storage. After further discussion with the applicant
it was mutually agreed that the condition referring to outside
storage should be left in the permit, and the motion to amend
was withdrawn.
The motion for approval was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A tentative map of Tract 3285 for property on
the south side of Murrieta Blvd. at Fenton St.
has been submitted for approval by Daniel
Gillice.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3285 (Gillice)
Councilman Miller requested that this item be continued for one
week as the Council had not received copies of the staff or en-
gineering reports until just before the meeting; he wished to
have time to review these reports.
The Planning Director stated the proposal is to subdivide an exist-
ing apartment house by means of establishing a condominium. There
is no subdivision of land, but subdivision of the space within a
building; the land remains in one ownership, but it is still classi-
fied as a subdivision under the Subdivision Map Act. The issue
discussed by the Planning Commission is park dedication. Half
of the development, the orignal apartment, was a post-1962 annex-
ation and, therefore, is subject to park dedication. The subdi-
vision which contained the whole parcel is before the 1965 enabling
legislation so park land cannot be requested under park dedication
under the subdivision ordinance. There is the dedication of
about .6 acre under the annexation agreement, which was to be in
money, and he suggested that the park dedication be required from
the land on the Arroyo Mocho area east of Holmes St.
The other issue involves whether or not the proposed subdivision
is a circumvention of a cluster development ordinance. In a prior
case (Elliott) there was a piece of property zoned multiple and
the developer wished to develop single family lots by subdivision
and needed variance to build single family lots in conformance
with multiple lot regulations. In the present case, here is a
multiple which is to be developed as single family dwellings.
The question is whether a condominium is a single family dwelling;
by definition of our ordinance it is not. Such steps might be
taken in order to circumvent the law. Mr. Musso did not feel this
was the case in the application before the Council, but it would
be possible. Also, there are other details which need to be con-
sidered: one is that a homeowner's association is being proposed;
second, the Fire Department would have established different re-
quirements for single family units. There are also different
requirements for the quality of the parking area. The design
conforms to zoning regulations and the Condominium Map Act.
Discussion followed concerning the application of park dedication
requirements of the parcel. The City Attorney said he felt the
one-half of the parcel that was not subject to the previous park
dedication requirements is subject to it now. He did not feel he
could justify applying a new standard in a situation where a
building has been built and is now being subdivided. One-half
would be subject to our existing ordinance standard of two acres
per hundred units or fees in lieu of land. This leaves a problem
CM-23-393
January 25, 1971
(Tract 3285 as to where the land could be acquired as this is
Tentative Map) an existing building. The requiring of fees is
still somewhat in limbo because of the decision of
the District Court in the park dedication case.
Whether fees can be used, and to what extent, will not be decided
by the Supreme Court for another sixty to ninety days. Fees might
be decided upon and held until the decision of the Supreme Court
is made.
Mayor Silva asked the attorney representing the applicant if it
would be acceptable to continue this item. Mr. Madis replied that
it is urgent that a decision be made so that work on this project
might proceed. Under the State Subdivision Map Act there is no
choice except for approval if the property is built according to
City standards. As to park dedication he assumed the requirements
according to the Supreme Court's ruling would be applied.
The City Attorney stated that if a map complies in design with all
of the City's ordinances there is no choice but for approval.
Mr. Madis advised that as a matter of courtesy the applicant would
agree to continue the matter for one week.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract 3285 for one
week, or until February 1, and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
COMMUNICATION
RE MOBILE
HOME
LEGISLATION
The Planning Commission is concerned about the effect
of mobile homes on the community and has prepared a
letter to be sent to the League of California Cities
regarding mobile home legislation for the Council's
consideration. Generally it urges the passage of
legislation to insure that mobile homes contribute
to property taxes in the same manner as other resi-
dential dwelling units and to allow mobile homes to be counted as
foundations for the purpose of obtaining school construction funds.
Mayor Silva stated he wished to delete the second paragraph as he
did not agree with it. He ijuestioned if state legislation is changed
so that mobile home units are treated the same as other dwelling
units on the tax basis, would this enable developers to create a
mobile home subdivision. The Council discussed this point briefly.
Councilman Beebe stated he felt the matter should be presented on
the basis of inequity rather than stating the method to be used.
Councilman Taylor said the only reasonable method he had heard pro-
posed was to tax mobile homes at the same rate as other units.
Mayor Silva felt the letter accomplished the same thing without
the second paragraph, but Councilman Taylor felt it was necessary
to make the letter clear.
Councilman Beebe said that a mobile home was different because in
a single family home one person owns the land and the house, but
a mobile home owner does not.
The City Manager pointed out that there will be difficulty in
assessing taxes on mobile homes in the same manner as other units
since mobile homes do not always remain in one location for the
entire year and it was agreed that there may be an administrative
problem in working that out, but people do not want to continue
subsidizing these units.
Councilman Miller said the tax on mobile homes would have to be
handled in the same was as a house - it would be taxed as of March
1st at its location.
CM-23-394
January 25, 1971
Mr. Musso suggested that the words "and lot" be
added in the fifth line of the second paragraph
after the word"mobile home".
(Mobile Home
Legislation)
Councilman Taylor made a motion to adopt the letter as presented
by the Planning Commission with the addition of the words lland lotll
as above stated; the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard
and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
A summary of action taken by the Planning Com-
mission at its meeting of January 19, 1971,
was noted for filing by the Council.
SUMMARY PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
*
*
*
A report was distributed at the meeting of
January lB, concerning the estimated cost
for referring the question of trailer and
boat storage to the electorate. Discussion
on this matter was postponed until this meeting.
REPORT RE REFERRING
TRAILER STORAGE TO
ELECTORATE
The cost of obtaining voter registration lists and sending out a
postcard survey on this matter would be approximately $1,523; for
consolidation of this question on the April 20th School Board
ballot it would be about $500; for a special election the cost
would be about $5,000.
The wording suggested by the City Attorney is as follows:
llAlthough the vote on this measure is not binding on the City
Council, your advice on the following question would be appreciated.
Should the City Council adopt an ordinance which
prohibits the storage of trailers and boats with-
in the front yards in residential districts?ll
Yes c=J
No c:=J
Mr. McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, took exception to the fact
that the issue will be voted on only by registered voters. Coun-
cilman Miller pointed out that anyone that wishes to have a voice
in the community should be registered and there is no reason why
they cannot be.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to place this question on the April 20th School Board ballot,
and the motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the matter of obtaining a vote on
the question of an elected mayor could be included on the same
ballot. The City Attorney advised that it could not as it would
be the first step in a statutory procedure.
Dan Gilmore, 1233 Olivina Avenue, said when the present ordinance
was adopted it was not put to a vote of the people and he did not
see why this should be done now.
Ira Doss, 909 Norfolk Rd., felt it should be on the ballot as
many people would not say how they felt.
Councilman Taylor said if there is not a deadline of January 28
for the exact wording of the question the wording should be es-
tablished at another meeting. It should make clear that trailers
will not be allowed at homes with existing adequate setbacks. It
should also make clear that storage would have to be in a safe
manner.
CM-23-395
January 25, 1971
(Trailer
Storage)
Councilman Miller offered the following wording:
11 Should the City Council keep the ordinance in
effect since 1960 which prohibits the storage of
trailers, boats and campers within the front yards
in residential areas?"
Councilman Taylor said the Planning Commission was specific in
allowing front yard storage only in those cases where it is phy-
sically impossible to store in the back yard. This was the real
question.
Mayor Silva said he thought the majority of the Council had gone
on record that they did not think it was fair to differentiate
the right of storage.
Councilman Pritchard said Bo% to 90% of the present homes would
not be subject to the ordinance if variances are built in to allow
it in such cases. The ordinance would be ineffective. The only
way to find out the feeling of the people is to ask whether we
should or should not have the ordinance.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the ballot include the
following wording: "Should the City Council keep the ordinance
in effect since 1960 which prohibits the storage of trailers, de-
tached campers and boats in the front yards of residential dis-
tricts"? The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. McMichael did not agree with the proposed wording as he said
his group wanted back yard storage where possible with allowance
of front yard and side yard storage in other cases. Councilman
Miller said it was unfair for some people to store in the front
and othe~not; those who could store in the back would want to do
so. If the people vote for front yard storage it would leave
everyone equally placed.
Councilman Taylor felt the public should be asked if the ordinance
should be amended to allow front yard storage. He offered the
following wording: "Should the ordinance be amended to allow front
yard storage in those cases where back yard storage is not physi-
cally possible?" Side yard storage has not yet been discussed.
Mayor Silva felt that the majority of the Council have already in-
dicated that they wanted to uphold the present ordinance or elimi-
nate it.
Mr. McMichael felt that the people would vote against any ordinance;
he felt the ordinance should be amended as suggested by the Planning
Commission.
Val Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth Way, said the people would not understand
the proposed wording or be able to vote properly.
Councilman Miller suggested that if the word "prohibit" is printed
on the ballot in very dark bold face type it would help clear up ,
this problem.
The motion to have the wording on the ballot as suggested by Coun-
cilman Miller was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Taylor
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to adopt an appropriate resolution to place this question
on the April 20th ballot of the School Board, and was approved
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 9-71
*
*
*
CM-23-396
January 25, 1971
After a short recess the meeting was called
back to order with all members present.
RECESS
*
*
*
Mayor Silva said he had worked with the Planning
Director on a proposal for density transfer.
The question is how to obtain needed open space,
and hopefully prevent urban sprawl. He proposed
to use the north side of town as an example of
his proposal.
REPORT RE DENSITY
TRANSFER
Suppose there are the foothills on the north side and a green belt
from about 600 ft. elevation down to about 200 ft. with a density
of 1.5 per acre. There is higher density at lower elevation up
to 3 d.u./acre near Springtown. There is a developer in Spring-
town who owns land zoned at 3 d.u./acre; if he wished to have
this area at 6 d.u./acre he might trade a portion of the periphery
or green area to be dedicated forever as open space for the higher
density. This would provide perpetual open space. If this were
done for all the City, the holding capacity would be kept within
certain set limits. There are technicalities to be considered as
to method and formula for implementing this proposal.
Councilman Pritchard said the problem he foresaw was obtaining
the land for open space from present owners and Mayor Silva in-
dicated it might be purchased by the developer, given to the
City, and then possibly leased back to the owners for farming
purposes.
Councilman Taylor said that undeveloped land today carries with it
the right to have homes built on it and is so taxed. Such a policy
would decrease the tax in this case. Land presently zoned for
multiple would come down in value if such a policy were adopted
as other land could be available for multiple construction in
exchange for open space. It might help equalize taxes
Councilman Miller said one problem would be choosing the land
to be turned over for open space. It would have to be worthwhile.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that some of the outlying areas
under 600 ft. elevation are selling for $1,000 to $2,000 per acre
while in town it is selling for $6,000 to $8,000 per acre.
Councilman Miller said there would have to be financial equity
too; the transfer should be based on equal value, not just equal
land, however, Mayor Silva stated that if this were done there
would be no incentive for a developer to want a density transfer.
Councilman Taylor felt the City should be careful not to extend
its planning area too far; the existing General Plan boundaries
at the 600 ft. contour should be retained.
Councilman Miller said it would be essential to take away density
equal to the higher density granted so that the holding capacity
would remain the same. There should be a discussion as to what
the planned holding capacity will be in relation to the smog and
water situation.
Mayor Silva stated there would have to be a precise plan for
the core area setting the boundaries.
Councilman Taylor said he thought it was a good idea and worth
exploring.
The Council discussed the implementation of such a proposal and
the problems that might be encountered.
The City Attorney pointed out that there would be serious legal
problems involved. For example if there were two equal parcels
CM-23-397
January 25, 1971
of 40 acres, and one property owner comes to the City
in 1975 and gets a density of 10 or 15 d.u./acre in
exchange for some open space; then later the owner
of the other property comes in and asks for the same
density as all the property adjoining his property, but he has no
offsetting open space to dedicate to the City, the Council denies
this request, and he takes the case to court. If he wins, he and
people situated allover the City will be able to build at the
same density as those who have already built under the density trans-
fer policy. Similarly situated properties must usually be treated
the same way.
(Density
Transfer)
Mayor Silva requested that the minutes of the Council's discussion
be given to the Planning Commission prior to their discussion.
Councilman Miller said this would really be a major study of the
General Plan in regard to open space, holding capacity, and how
such holding capacity will be maintained, and whether our proposed
180,000 holding capacity is realistic.
Councilman Beebe felt something must be done to stop the checkerboard
development of the Valley, and this might be a way to get creative
development.
ORDINANCE
RE REZONING
(SW Side of
Portola Ave.
Northwesterly
of Intersec-
tion With
Murrieta Blvd.)
AYES:
NOES:
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 734
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00
THEREOF, RELATING TO ZONING.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to waive the second reading of
the above ordinance, and the ordinance was passed
by the following vote:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
FUTURE WIDTH
AND SPECIAL
BLDG. LINES
(East Ave.)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Portola
Deannexation)
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated that some problems had been
encountered in writing the proposed ordinance re future
width lines and special building lines on East Avenue
between Vasco Road and Madison Avenue and asked that
its introduction be postponed.
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated he had received a call from
Mr. Flynn of the County Planning staff who had in-
formed him that the area within the Portola Ave.
Deannexation was zoned at Rl-B2, which is a 20,000
sq. ft. lot designation. He felt that there had been
commitment, at least on his part, to the owner of the
deannexed property that the property would be returned
to the same situation as when it came into the City. Therefore,
he requested the Council amend its previous letter to the Planning
Commission and suggest that the property be returned to the 10,000
sq. ft. lot designation.
The Council concurred that it was their intent to have the property
returned to its original zoning designation, and the City Attorney
will so inform the Planning staff.
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCIL
(Signal
Light)
CM-23-398
* * *
Councilman Beebe inquired as to the status of the
light signal at "p" Street and Railroad Avenue. The
Director of Public Works said his report was forth-
coming.
January 25, 1971
Councilman Beebe referred to the previous state- (Illegal Sign)
ment that the matter of the illegal sign at 551
No. "p" Street had been turned over to the Dis-
trict Attorney. The Planning Director stated the procedure was to
advise the City Attorney oE the existing circumstances oE the vio-
lation, and the City Attorney and District Attorney can then de-
cide whether or not to prosecute.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor asked for a report regarding
appointments to the Board of Appeals; whether
such appointments had a definite term, and if
so, what it was.
(Board of Appeals)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor referred to the lack of provi- (Bus stop)
sion for a bus stop in Livermore and stated he
felt there was a definite need for some type of
facilities in this area, perhaps in connection with a public rest-
room. The Council discussed the problem and possible ways to
provide such service.
Councilman Miller felt the Public utilities Commission should be
contacted once again to see what can be done.
Councilman Beebe stated that perhaps some non-profit organiza-
tion, or the Chamber of Commerce, might be able to do something
in this connection. The Council directed that the Chamber be
contacted and the problem presented for their consideration.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller inquired as to the status of (Developer's Signs)
the problem regarding developer's signs on pub-
lic right-of-way. The Public Works Director said
the two companies involved had been contacted and
they had advised they would discontinue the practice.
*
*
*
The Council discussed the possibility of having (Audit)
a member of the firm who made the recent finan-
cial audit discuss the report with the Council. The decision was
not to do so at this time. In response to a question from the
audience, the staff was directed to place a copy of the audit
in the library.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
11:10 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST .',
J~
*
*
APPROVE
*
*
*
CM-23-399
Regular Meeting of February 1, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 1, 1971,
in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at ~:15 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Restoration
of Fire Engine)
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, to approve the minutes of the
meeting of January 25, as amended, and passed unani-
mously.
*
*
*
Mrs. Plechaty, 482 Pomona Court, spoke in regard
to the restoring of the City's old fire engine;
she said she had volunteer teenage labor for the
project, but needed the permission of the City
and provisions for a place to keep it during the
restoration and financial aid.
Mayor Silva requested that Mrs. Plechaty contact the City Manager
in this regard and he would then make any recommendation necessary
to the Council.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZONING SW
CORNER EAST
AVENUE AND
HILLCREST
(Tompkins)
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding the rezoning application
submitted by Josephine Tompkins for property on the
southwest corner of East and Hillcrest Avenues from
RL-6 District to RG-16 District has been continued
to this time from a previous meeting.
Mayor Silva read a letter from Burke M. Critchfield
of the law firm of Miller, Critchfield and Eaton,
representing the applicant, stating that the appli-
cant wished to withdraw the rezoning application. A motion was
made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to con-
sent to the withdrawal of this rezoning application, and was
approved unanimously.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Non-return-
able
Containers)
*
*
*
The Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolu-
tion regarding the sale of beverages in disposable
non-returnable containers. The Council has been
requested to endorse this resolution.
Harold Halpin, 943 Laguna, presented a film which is shown to
employees of Continental Can Company and relates some of the back-
ground of the packaging industry.
Mr. James Dale, representing the Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute, stated his organization represents 90% of the manu-
facturing firms in the state and the nation. They had been working
in the field of litter and solid waste for some time and since 1969
there has been a drop in the litter index of 3.5%. They had also
helped in obtaining the passage of the "Litter Law" which includes
CM-23-400
February 1, 1971
fines for littering and signing provisions.
They had helped promote the federal statute,
Resource Recovery Act of 1910, which provides
funding for local governments for solid waste
disposal solutions. They had been working in these areas for
some time not just as a part of the recent ecology movement but
as a recognition of their responsibility. He presented a chart
indicating the composition of litter; the percentage indicated for
glass of 5.8% was for both returnable and non-returnable glass.
Actually, after deducting for all returnable items only 2.9% re-
mains as non-returnable items. The industry is doing a great
deal to solve the problems in both legislation and public educa-
tion fields. Recycling is a basic solution, and such programs
have been set up to reuse glass. The can companies have been
working in the recycling field also and are planning to have all
of their locations eventually set up for recycling centers. Mr.
Dale explained that their objections to the particular resolution
are: 1) the glass and can fields are cited as the problem; 2) re-
quirement of a deposit as a solution; 3) the concept of a biode-
gradable container, which they feel is contrary to the health
and protection of the consumer. The recommendation of the glass
container industry is for a resolution similar to the one under
consideration with the deletion of reference to a required de-
posit and biodegradable container.
(Non-returnable
Containers)
Councilman Taylor asked what incentive would be given for the
return of glass containers for recycling. Mr. Dale said they
had been paying for such returns to organizations which have
been collecting them; federal funding is in part available for
solutions for recovery from the dumps. Housewives make the
choice in the stores between returnable and non-returnable con-
tainers and statistics indicate lower returns on returnable items.
The City Manager asked if participation in recycling efforts by
the glass companies is voluntary or compulsory. Mr. Dale replied
it is entirely voluntary, but it is being done and cited the
Los Angeles area as an example.
Mr. Halpin, speaking on behalf of the can companies, said that
they were participating in the field of education and recycling.
He described pilot programs being conducted in the schools regard-
ing litter and recycling programs. They are willing to work
with any organization in this field.
Leon Dillenburg of the Bay Area Grocers Association, Inc., indicated
his particular reason for coming before the Council was to point
out certain factors regarding a potential resolution versus an
ordinance regarding the use of soft drink cans and bottles. They
recognized the need for a resolution to make people aware of the
problem but were opposed to an ordinance.
Mr. Dillenburg stated litter does not occur by itself, and enforce-
ment of litter laws will help eliminate this problem. Eventual
reclamation at the dump site or transfer site is the way to approach
this problem. He discussed bottle return rates and stated the
Bay Area has about 6 to 7 tripage rate as opposed to 30 to 35
times twenty years ago, even though the current deposit is 5i
each rather than 2i. Grocery bills will have to include the
clerking time necessary to cover handling the returnable con-
tainers; the health hazards will multiply as more returnable
containers are handled. The one-way bottle resulted from
desire from the consumer for such products. One of the glass
manufacturing companies reported that up to 50% of the new
glass product can be reused glass, but they do not have enough
old glass for their needs at present. Mr. Dillenburg recom-
mended that a resolution rather than an ordinance be adopted
in regard to this problem.
Oliver Martin, 387 Pestana Place, said he had worked with Scout
troops in cleaning roadsides of litter. A good portion of this
CM-23-401
February 1, 1971
(Non-returnable
Containers)
litter has been cans, and lately non-returnable
bottles and he did feel an ordinance should be
passed requiring a deposit on bottles, and re-
quested the Council to consider paying the cost
of transfer of items which have been gathered
for recycling.
The City Manager was requested to contact the dump operator regard-
ing the possibility of eliminating a charge for such groups as the
Scout troops when they dispose of litter they have collected.
Ernest Plechaty, 482 Pomona Court, said that if the can and bottle
companies were really concerned they would more actively engage in
the collection of their containers. The people who create the
problem through advertising should be responsible for solving the
problem. His feeling is that there should be a significant depo-
sit on the bottles.
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle, said the amount of bottles returned for
recycling in Los Angeles is minute fraction of the total. He
thought advertising is responsible for the consumer's choice of
non-returnable bottles.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, stated it is not cheaper to buy
non-returnable bottles; the public should be reeducated in this
regard. He said it is hard to enforce the anti-littering laws.
The City Attorney said there are two problems involved in any ordi-
nance in this field: application of the constitution and a large
body of law that is applicable to beverages, hard liquor, wine and
beer, and also the equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the
U. S. Constitution. In order to have a valid ordinance, legal ques-
tions as to both of these areas would have to be surmounted. Sec-
tion 22 of the Constitution states, "The State of California sub-
ject to the internal revenue laws of the United States shall have
the exclusive right and power to license and regulate the manufac-
ture, sale, purchase, possession and transportation of alcoholic
beverages within the State..." The only way this could be handled
would be to perhaps require a return of the empty container. As
to equal protection, this would concern picking out one of a number
of equally related things and placing regulations on it without
reason without regulating the rest. An ordinance which picks out
a certain type of container for regulation would have to stand the
test of whether or not it is a reasonable classification. The
City Attorney in Berkeley has advised the Berkeley City Council
that there is a distinct problem in classification and advised them
that an ordinance prohibiting the sale of soft drinks without return
would prescribe the constitutional protection against unequal classi-
fication. Mr. Lewis said he was not convinced at this point that
this is the right answer, and he wished to reserve the right to con-
sider this problem. He had written to a larger City in the midwest
about such an ordinance but had not received a reply.
Mayor Silva inquired if there was a court case involving the City
of South San Francisco's ordinance. Mr. Lewis stated he would
write the City Attorney of So. San Francisco requesting a copy of
their ordinance as well as a report on the progress of the litiga-
tion. This case will be a test of whether such an ordinance is
valid or not.
The Council discussed whether they should consider an ordinance
now or wait until the staff has studied the matter and is able to
present a full report. Mayor Silva made a motion that an ordinance
banning the sale of non-returnable containers be delayed for con-
sideration until the court case of So. San Francisco is decided,
but not for a period of more than one year, seconded by Councilman
Beebe. The motion failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Mayor Silva and Councilman Beebe
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
CM-23-402
February 1, 1971
Councilman Miller stated that although the staff (Non-returnable
has already been directed to report on this mat- Containers)
ter, he would like to have a draft of a proposed
ordinance prepared for the Council's consideration.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the Council adopt the reso-
lution adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors with
the exception that the second paragraph stating, "Whereas
cannot be solved on a local level, but must be dealt with on
at least the State level." be deleted.
Councilman Beebe felt that the problem is greater than just the
soft drink containers; paper seemed to be the item that accumu-
lates and there is no ready solution for their disposal. The
whole problem must be studied.
Councilman Miller pointed out there is an existing technology
to handle bottles and cans and a market for their return;
paper is a different situation.
Councilman Pritchard did not feel the second paragraph could be
deleted, and Councilman Taylor said that the resolution was
directed to the State level for action; the second paragraph
does not mean that nothing can be done at the local level.
There was no second to Councilman Miller1s motion.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to endorse the Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 137000 with
the addition of the wording "and recycling" to Item (b); the
motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller discussed some of the comments made by the
speakers in previous testimony. He stated that people should
be educated to return bottles and to prohibit the sale of non-
returnables; the use of non-returnable bottles is merely a shift
in the cost of packaging.
RESOLUTION NO. 11-71
SEEKING ACTION TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEM OF LITTER AND WASTE DISPOSAL
CONSENT CALENDAR
A copy of a resolution passed by the Board of
Supervisors appointing Dr. John Shirley as a
member of the Airport Land Use Commission of
Alameda County was acknowledged.
*
*
*
A report was submitted from the City Manager
re delinquent business licenses, recommending
that a motion be adopted instructing that no-
tice be directed to the two firms, however,
Mr. Parness indicated that such notice was not
necessary at this time since both had since paid
the required fees.
*
*
*
Appointment of
Dr. John Shirley
as Member of Airport
Land Use Comm.
Report re Delinquent
Business Licenses
The City Manager reported that the Federal
Aviation Administration has transmitted the
draft of an amendment to the grant agreement
for the airport. This refers to the grant
for Project No.1, which initially undertook property acquisitions,
and, primarily, construction. They have requested the deletion
of a small amount of acreage, approximately 26, that was recommended
by us for inclusion as a portion of the airport site. This amend-
ment concurs with this deletion, all of which has been taken into
account in the final accounting for our claim against the FAA for
Report re FAA Grant
Agreement Amendment
CM-23-403
February 1, 1971
(FAA Grant
Agreement)
Exempt
Solicitor's
Permit
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
Report re
Tentative
Tract Map
3285
(Gillice)
receipt of the balance of funds due us. When
this amendment is filed a final audit can be
made on this project. It is recommended that
a resolution be adopted approving the amendment.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION FOR PROJECT NO. 9-04-134-D501.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt solicitor's permit
was received from the Zion Hill Missionary Baptist
Church of San Francisco and consistent with past
policy, it is recommended that the application be
denied.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the consent calendar were approved.
*
*
*
The report from the Planning Commission regarding
the tentative map of Tract 3285 was continued from
the meeting of January 25.
Mr. Lewis, City Attorney, advised that State law
requires that the City Council cannot deny condo-
miniums unless the condominium itself violates a
rule, regulation or ordinance of the City. The section makes no
distinction between the map which has an unbuilt upon parcel of
land and that which does. If a building is on a piece of land
when divided would comply with all the zoning ordinances, drainage,
etc. of the City, it would not be subject to denial merely because
of the fact that it is a condominium development. Mr. Lewis
stated he felt that a condominium is subject to a city's park
dedication ordinance. If for some reason it is substandard in
some respect that can be modified (perhaps this would be the
drainage or provision for utilities,) this might also be provided.
But basically, if it complies, you must allow condominium subdi-
visions.
Councilman Miller stated it was his feeling that in this circum-
stance an apartment is being turned into a single family subdivi-
sion through the mechanism of a condominium, and there is not
single family zoning category that is 16 d.u./acre, and therefore
it does not satisfy our single family zoning ordinance, and he
felt this would be reasonable grounds for denial.
Councilman Taylor questioned if any park dedication in this regard
would be a separate matter. Mr. Lewis replied it does warrant
some discussion, but it is a separate issue; it should be resolved
now for the understanding of the City, and the applicant. Any
requirement should also be attached to the map, and he felt it
could be required as a condition of the approval of the map. The
Council could provide that it be in abeyance until the final de-
termination of the Supreme Court's decision in the Walnut Creek
case which should be occurring in the next sixty days.
Councilman Miller suggested that if it is going to be approved,
they could take land which is in the existing decision.
Councilman Taylor stated they should be advised that the City is
due park dedication from this subdivision and exactly how it should
be included.
CM-23-404
February 1, 1971
Mayor Silva asked if there is some park dedi-
cation owed that has not been paid as yet, and
Mr. Lewis replied it was his understanding there
is park dedication provided in a previous approval of this develop-
ment which is not in the form of land, which is not so dedicated
but has been required.
(Tract 3285 -
Gillice)
Mr. Musso stated that in the original approval of the multiple
there was some land (.6 acre) which was to be in fee, and the
fee has not been settled because the final map has not been
accepted by the City, and he suggested if the developer does
own land to the east (as there is one more neighborhood park to
locate in Area I) this could be part of the Arroyo Mocho pro-
perty the City is attempting to acquire; there is a site that
would make a good neighborhood park. Mr. Musso continued, that
if the property was not in the developer's ownership, the fee
could be collected and the property purchased.
Mayor Silva asked how much would be dedicated, and Mr. Lewis
stated that it would be under the new ordinance of 2 acres per
hundred and would depend on the number of units, and Mr. Musso
added that half of it would be covered under the annexation
agreement, and the other half of the development under the sub-
division ordinance, which would be roughly 1.2 acres.
Mr. David Madis, representing the applicant, stated with regard
to the park dedication, they would agree with the City Attorney
that there should be a condition placed on the tentative map
and when the State Supreme Court makes a final decision, it
will be easy to resolve the issue.
In response to Councilman Miller's statement, Mr. Madis stated
that he had erroneously referred to this as a single family sub-
division. It is not; it is a condominium - a condominium defined
by the Civil Code of the State of California; it is a method of
land conveyancing, not a subdivision of real property; it is the
sale of interior wall space within a structure. A subdivision
is defined as dividing a piece of property into a specified num-
ber of lots. A condominium goes to the first coat of paint, so
to speak, does not include the underlying terra firma; it does
not include the supporting members and the structural supports,
including the concrete foundation which is owned by an association.
As far as this condominium is concerned, according to state law,
it has been built, the improvements have been accepted and built
in accordance with the City standards. He felt the City Attorney
would agree that other than the question of an additional park
dedication under the new ordinance applies, or whether the old
ordinance applies, as far as the approval of the tentative map,
state law is very clear that the only choice is approval and he
respectfully asked that the Council do so.
Mayor Silva asked Mr. Madis for his oplnlon regarding the park
dedication to which he replied that it would probably be in the
legal requirement, but did not wish to state an opinion pending
the decision of the Supreme Court. Mayor Silva stated that more
specifically he should ask if they would prefer to dedicate land,
to which Mr. Madis replied in the affirmative if the land is
available, but did not know at this time if it is.
Mr. Lewis suggested that this decision be made upon approval of
the final map.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion for approval of the tentative
tract map, subject to all engineering staff requirements, and
the motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Mr. Musso stated that the City Engineer is recommending that
before this tentative map is approved, that the original final
map be accepted by the City.
CM-23-405
February 1, 1971
(Tract 3285
Gillice)
Mr. Lewis indicated that so long as the previous
final is filed and recorded prior to recording of
this map, he could see no problem.
Public Works Director Doniel Lee stated he had recommended that
the approval of the tentative be subject to the final approval of
Tract 2745. There has been considerable delay in the completion
of Tract 2745, and he felt this should be a point. Replying to a
question by Councilman Taylor, Mr. Lee stated that the delay was
due to payment of fees and correction of minor items.
Councilman Miller suggested that the approval be conditioned upon
the previous tract being final, and Mayor Silva stated that was in
the engineering considerations, and that is included in the motion.
Mr. Lewis stated the improvements had nothing to do with the tenta-
tive per se and was not a valid condition. The City has the remedy
insofar as the subdivision agreement exists and if the developer is
not in compliance with that, they should pursue that avenue rather
than attempt to condition the map.
There was some discussion relative to the engineering considerations
with reference to Tract 2745, and it was pointed out by the attor-
ney for the applicant that some of the lots were owned by other
persons. Mr. Lewis recommended that the engineering considerations
be included as to the lot being resubdivided only.
Mayor Silva suggested that the engineering considerations be amend-
ed, and Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the engineering
considerations be amended to state: "Therefore, prior to the ap-
proval of Tentative Tract Map 3285, the subdivider shall complete
all improvements of Lot 7 within Tract 2745". This motion was
seconded by Councilman Taylor, and approved 4 to 1 with Councilman
Miller dissenting.
The vote on the original motion of Councilman Pritchard for approval
of Tentative Tract Map 3285, subject to the Planning Commission's
recommendation and the above amendment, seconded by Councilman Tay-
lor, was voted on and passed 4 to 1 with Councilman Miller dissent-
ing.
Councilman Miller commented that what is being done is an evasion
of townhouse standards, because for all practical purposes it is a
townhouse and everybody recognizes this; there has to be some
mechanism to prevent this kind of evasion of the townhouse stand-
ards; it is imperative that a resolution be found for the question
of condominiums and to change whatever ordinances are necessary to
prevent this situation from happening again.
Councilman Pritchard stated that a townhouse and condominium are
two completely different things; there are no lots being divided.
Councilman Miller felt Councilman Pritchard was miSSing the point
as Councilman Pritchard was speaking of the legal descriptions,
while he was talking about the effect of the uses of residential
dwelling units.
Councilman Taylor stated he could recognize the problem brought up
by Councilman Miller, however he did not feel it had anything to
do with the application at hand. One sees the mechanism whereby
a desperate developer might try to get around the ordinances, but
it is an imagined thing. The solution to imagining a problem like
this is to look at townhouse laws or apartments and change stand-
ards accordingly so it does not make any difference who the owner-
ship is; they should be built by standards that are acceptable.
*
*
*
CM-23-406
February 1, 1971
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
January 19 were acknowledged for filing.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard made a motion authorizing
the City's participation in the proposed coop-
erative study regarding a comprehensive water
quality management plan for the Alameda Creek
watershed above Niles and payment of our pro-
portionate share of the cost, seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
REPORT RE WATER
MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANT STUDY
Councilman Taylor said that he presumed that a valley-wide cen-
tralized facility would not be the only solution considered and
the Public Works Director stated that the study will include
consideration of continuation of existing entities operating their
own systems. Both lines of consideration will be investigated.
The City Manager stated that the Regional Water Quality Control
Board strongly urges a combined effort, centralization and consol-
idation. Our situation will be studied closely. He hoped the
State authorities will use this study as a guide for future plans
for water and sewage treatment and disposal. There will be a
staff participant from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
who will act as an observer rather than a voting member. He re-
quested that Mr. Lee be designated as our representative on the
technical committee, and that the cost of preparation by the con-
sultant of our application for the grant be authorized.
Councilman Pritchard agreed to inclusion of these two items in
his motion, as did Councilman Beebe who seconded the original motion.
The City Manager said the Water Board would like to have us work
toward a consolidated treatment agency for the entire valley,
which might mean that there would be more than one plant.
Councilman Miller inquired if maintaining our own separate plant
would include provision for a tertiary treatment plant, and Mr.
Lee said this was inevitable because of standards set forth.
Councilman Miller stated the sewer connection fee should reflect
cost of future treatment. The Council also discussed the possi-
bility of water treatment at the source, and the City Manager said
this ooould be included in the scope of the study.
The motion authorizing the City's participation in the cooperative
water study and payment of our proportionate share of the cost,
designation of Mr. Lee as our representative on the technical
committee, and authorization of the payment of the application
fee to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for requirements
applicable to a plant expansion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to waive the first read-
ing of the Zoning Ordinance amendment to estab-
lish future width lines and special building
lines between US 580 to Tesla Road on Vasco Rd.
and on East Avenue from Vasco Road to Greenville
Road (title read only), and by unanimous vote the
ordinance was introduced.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE FUTURE WIDTH &
SPEC. BLDG. LINES
VASCO RD., EAST AVE.
*
*
*
CM-23-407
February 1, 1971
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Traffic
Signal)
Complaint
re Parking
The Public Works Director reported that the signal
at Railroad Avenue and "P" Street is on the Capital
Improvements Budget for 1972-73. Prior to that is
the Vasco Rd. and East Ave. signal and Second and
"L" Streets; also listed for 1972-73 are signals at
Portola Ave. and Murrieta Blvd; Livermore and Porto-
la Avenues and then the one at "p" Street and Rail-
road Avenue. Perhaps circumstances would indicate
a change in priorities.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director stated that the problem
of automobile parking on the corner across from
United California Bank had been corrected.
*
*
*
Report re
BUD The City Manager reported that he had been in a re-
cent meeting with the newly appointed area director
of BUD. He felt that this representative reflected
a new attitude of BUD that they are going in the direction of
local inquiry before any actions are taken by BUD. Mr. Parness
inquired specifically about "235 grants"; he also asked about
allowing residential building without public facilities, such as
schools, to meet the demand. He inquired if the FHA building
program could be disallowed in the event of proof by the local
government agency that certain facilities were not available.
The BUD Director advised this was possible but only in the event
of indisputable proof.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(On-Street
Parking)
(Remarking
Intersection)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe referred to citations given regard-
ing on-street parking downtown. Some merchants have
complained this is hurting their business.
The Council discussed the parking situation, but
did not feel there should be any change at this time.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller inquired about remarking the inter-
section on Stanley Blvd. at El Caminito. Mr. Lee
stated the County controls this section, but he said
he would check into the matter.
*
*
*
(Complaint) Councilman Miller stated he had received a complaint
regarding glass on East Avenue. Mr. Lee said this
area is in the County, but he would check to see
what could be done. Councilman Miller felt the County should be
requested to either sweep this curb area or contract with the
City to do so.
(Public
Hearings-
Open Space)
(Acknow-
ledgement)
CM-23-408
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt the County should be requested
to hold some of the public hearings regarding their
open space plan in the Valley. The staff was in-
structed to send such request to the County.
*
*
*
Acknowledgement of the Council's cooperation and dis-
cussion regarding the trees at the Sunken Gardens was
made by Mrs. Kirkewoog.
*
*
*
The Council discussed their decision to put the
matter of the ordinance regarding storage of
trailers, boats and campers on the ballot of
April 20.
February 1, 1971
(Trailer storage)
Mayor Silva stressed his hope that the question will be understood
by the people voting and there will not be any confusion regarding
the wording.
The Council expressed its understanding that if there is a majority
"yes" vote the ordinance will be enforced, and a majority of "no"
votes will indicate that the ordinance will be oappca.lc4. ~ / /J!~1/1~!
A . ,L ~-=-IC. / r..:L-4.~ '- el. VC--
The City Clerk stated that the election will c;~e than $5~
due to requirements for redistricting by the County Clerk and
additional personnel requirements.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
11:15 p.m. to an executive session to discuss
Housing Authority and Beautification Committee
appointments.
APPROVE
*
ATTEST \....,/
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of February 8, 1971
ADJOURNMENT
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February
8, 1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore.
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Silva
presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and
Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
Troop 939 of the Boy Scouts of America were
present at the meeting and Jeff Hodgins led the
members of the Council and those present in the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. In ob-
servance of the 61st anniversary of the Boy
Scouts and the 49th year of this local troop, Dave Sexton addressed
the Council regarding future activities of the troop and presented
a copy of a booklet prepared on conservation projects and also a
tree to be planted in one of the City's parks.
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AND SCOUT
PRESENTATION
CM-23-409
February 8, 1971
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(School
Crossing
Guard)
(Councilman Pritchard was seated during the above
presentation).
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, to approve the minutes of the
meeting of February 1, 1971, as amended, and passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
Bud Bain, 469 Anna Maria Street, addressed the Coun-
cil on behalf of the Sonoma Avenue School PTA re-
garding the crossing at El Caminito and Sonoma
Avenues. Due to the danger of the crossing it was
requested that a crossing guard be placed at this
intersection. Mr. Bain also submitted a petition
with 257 names of parents of children attending
Sonoma Avenue School.
The staff was requested to present a report in this regard at the
meeting of February 22.
(Gift of Flag
to City)
(Request
for Funds-
Cultural
Arts Council)
(Request for
Funds for
Rodeo Parade)
(Report re
Entrance
Sign)
(Street
Tree Plan)
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Livermore Lodge, No. 219, I.O.O.F. and Livermore
Rebekah Lodge, No. 154, have offered to present an
official United States Flag to be flown on the City's
flagpole. This offer was accepted and the gratitude
of the City extended for this gift.
*
*
*
The Livermore Cultural Arts Council has submitted an
estimated budget for the 1971 Festival of Arts to
be held October 8-10, 1971, and requested funds of
$1795. Tentative approval, subject to further con-
sideration during the forthcoming budget hearings,
was given to the request.
*
*
*
A request has been received from the Livermore Jaycees,
requesting a grant of funds in an amount up to $1500
for the annual rodeo parade. Financial participation
of the City in this event in an amount up to $1500
was approved, subject to a comparable amount being
expended by the Rodeo Association and that an itemized
listing of expenditures be supplied to the City.
*
*
*
A report was submitted from the Beautification Com-
mittee regarding the Portola Avenue identification
sign which will be a visually pleasing entry to our
City. A model of the sign was also displayed and a
listing of the cost submitted.
*
*
*
The staff presented a street tree plan several months
ago which was referred to the Beautification Committee
for their review. The Beautification Committee has
recommended the addition of a provision that the
City Street Tree Policy permit the removal and replacement of the
planted street tree with any other tree from the City street tree
list.
CM-23-410
February 8, 1971
The Council decided to continue this item until
the meeting of March 1 or March 8, whichever
has a shorter agenda, in order that they might
have an opportunity to review it more thoroughly. The staff
was instructed to place it on the agenda as a regular item and
not on the Consent Calendar. Also, the Council requested that
a statement from the staff be included in the agenda regarding
the maintenance policy.
(Street Tree Plan)
*
*
*
The Finance Director has submitted a request
authorizing a budget amendment allocating an
additional $2500 from the Airport Budget to
the Special Aviation Fund so that the City
can qualify for an added grant of matching
money from the State Aeronautics Fund.
(Aviation Fund
Apportionment)
James McElroy, 1545 Wagoner Drive, requested that the Council
consider depositing the tax money derived from gas tax revenue
collected by the County and apportioned to the City directly
to the account for matching funds of the State revenue. He
felt this would be equitable and those benefiting would be
paying for the service.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
at the meeting of February 22, and a staff report on this sug-
gestion will be presented at that time.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Direc- (Report re Sewage
tor regarding sewage treatment mineral quality. Treatment Mineral
Quality)
It is recommended that the report dated January
25, 1971, prepared by Brown & Caldwell, be approved and trans-
mitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board as required.
*
*
*
Harvey M. Owren and David P. Mandeville were
reappointed to the Housing Authority Board for
a term of four years.
(Appointments to
Housing Authority)
RESOLUTION NO. 12-71
APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 13-71
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR NAMING
STREETS, ROADS AND OTHER WAYS AND/OR NAME
CHANGES OF STREETS, ROADS OR OTHER WAYS.
(street Name Change
Procedure)
In accordance with Section 19.33 of the Municipal Code, the
above resolution sets forth a formal process for selecting or
changing street names.
*
*
*
The minutes for the meeting of the Beautification (Minutes)
Committee of January 7, 1971, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
CM-23-411
February 8, 1971
(Exempt
Business
Licenses)
(Payroll
& Claims)
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT
CALENDAR
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZONING
(North side
Mocho st.-
Howard
Johnson)
Applications for exempt business licenses have been
made by the following:
Latin Organization for Betterment - various fund
raising activities during 1971
Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Wives Auxiliary -
fashion show advertising sale and prize solicitaion.
*
*
*
Fifty-nine claims in the amount of $25,517.85 and
two hundred sixty-nine payroll warrants in the
amount of $81,350.11, dated February 5, 1971, were
ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrant
No. 9720 for the usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, the Consent Calendar was approved un-
animously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that an application
has been submitted by Howard E. Johnson for rezoning
of property on the north side of Mocho Street bounded
by the Arroyo Mocho, Holmes Street, and property
presently zoned multiple, and fronts on Mocho Street,
from RS-5 to RG District. The Planning Commission
recommends denial based on non-conformance with the
General Plan, noting that approval of the rezoning
would generate additional traffic and parking problems.
Residents of the area opposed the rezoning.
Keith Fraser, representing the applicant, stated that in 1960 a
portion of the property, .6 acre, was zoned to RG-16. In 1964 and
1965 the applicant obtained a permit for a 78-bed convalescent
hospital and one extension was granted. In 1969 an identical re-
quest for rezoning to RG-16 was made. Since then some changes have
occurred, and the applicant is now asking for 57 multiple units on
the 3.6 acres. He felt the homeowners in the area were fearful of
the increased traffic generated by the multiple use.
Renato G. Martinez, a traffic consultant and owner of RGM Associates
Traffic Consulting Firm, distributed copies of his report. He stated
that the Division of Highways has found that apartments generate
approximately 8 trip-ins so the 67 units would generate a maximum
of 536 vehicles per day. Of this total it has been assumed that
50% would use Mocho Street and 50% Holmes Street. In accordance
with the most recent traffic count the maximum traffic count on
Mocho Street would indicate 300 vehicles at the peak hour, and Mr.
Martinez felt Holmes st. could readily accommodate the increased
traffic. Circulation can be controlled in the proposed development,
with entrance on Holmes Street and exit on Mocho Street. He had
developed traffic activity which would have been generated by the
previously approved convalescent hospital which he stated would be
1,030.
Lynn Carter, 1169 Mocho Street, stated he had difficulty with traffic
on Mocho Street presently as well as gaining entrance to Holmes
Street. He was against increasing the traffic.
Norma Carter, 1143 Mocho Street, stated she was against the pro-
posal because of traffic problems.
Keith Fraser indicated that the proposal included a green area along
Mocho Street to overcome objections by homeowners to location across
CM-23-412
February 8, 1971
the street from multiples. He referred to pre-
vious approval of the .6 acre parcel on Holmes
Street for multiple use at which time the staff
approval was based, in part, upon location of
multiples in the adjacent area and across the
street and difficulty in developing this parcel as a single family
area; further that residential use be maintained along the Mocho
Street frontage of the parcel. The applicant would be willing to
continue this item so that plans could be presented with residen-
tial along Mocho Street. Mr. Fraser felt the justifications used
for the approval of multiple in 1960 still applied and were appli-
cable to the present parcel under consideration. He felt a plan
could be worked out which would satisfy some of the homeowners'
objections, his client and the Council and asked that this matter
be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
(Public Hearing-
No. side of
Mocho Street)
Councilman Taylor pointed out that when this property was rezoned
to multiple on the .6 acre parcel and RS-5 for the balance, this
allowed 10 multiple units and 18 single family units for a total
of 28 units. Now they are requesting an additional 39 units, and
he did not see any justification for increasing the number of units.
Mayor Silva and Councilman Miller did not feel that anything had
changed since the request for multiple was denied by the previous
Council.
Councilman Beebe felt it might be best to refer it back to the
Planning Department for revision of the plan.
Councilman Miller did not feel that an additional entrance on
Holmes Street was desirable. Councilman Taylor agreed that
another entrance on Holmes would not be good and traffic would
have to be on Mocho Street.
Mayor Silva pointed out that if single family units are developed
on Mocho Street, a balance of 2 acres would be left which would
allow a possible 22 units for development as multiple. This
would still be increasing the density.
Councilman Taylor referred to other instances of development
along the Arroyo Mocho where density transfer has been allowed
to permit multiple development on a portion.
The Council discussed possible land use and development on this
parcel.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to close the public hearing, and it passed unanimously.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation for denial of the application on the basis that
the proposed rezoning is not in conformance with the General
Plan; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe
Mayor Silva stated that the plan as presented was a good plan,
but the General Plan density must be maintained. It might be
developed with a density transfer.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that this appli-
cation for a Conditional Use Permit is the re-
sult of a recent rezoning to ID (Industrial)
District for this parcel. The intended use to
CUP TO PERMIT SALE
OF MOBILE HOMES
(Mosure)
CM-23-413
February 8, 1971
permit the sale of mobile homes, campers, trailers,
trucks and general supplies is commercial or re-
tail sales. The Planning Commission recommends
approval with conditions as listed in Resolution
No. 2-71. The applicant had expressed concern in
regard to the requirement for a masonry fence on
two sides of the property as required by zoning restrictions, and
a third side on the east as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Musso stated that the requirement of such a fence has been a
consistent pattern either by zoning or special permit.
(CUP - To
Permit Sale
of Mobile
Homes)
The Council discussed the requirement for the masonry fence or wall
in respect to various zoning requirements and classifications. Mr.
Musso explained that the masonry fence is required for ID (Indus-
trial Development and Administration) District next to residential
zoning. The reason for this requirement is to have a permanent
barrier between industrial, commercial, and in some instances mul-
tiple use and residential zones.
Dan Spruiell, Red Carpet Realty, representing the applicant, stated
there has been some concern about the masonry wall which is being
required. He stated that at the time of the rezoning application
the staff recommendation was that ID Zoning would be the best type
of rezoning for this use and to be compatible with the area, and
the applicant had agreed to this zoning. The cost of erecting
about 1000 feet of masonry wall is about $14,000 and Mr. Spruiell
pointed out that other property has not been required by the City
to erect such a wall.
Mr. Spruiell also referred to the requirement for a ten foot setback.
The only thing indicated within this ten foot setback is planter
area, and the applicant would like to have a five foot setback.
The applicant has also agreed to inclusion of a five foot planter
strip around the property with 32 trees to be planted as recommended
by the staff due to the ID zoning. The applicant would like to
leave the wood fence on the one side, across the back and erect a
cyclone fence on the other side; otherwise it might make it infeas-
ible to develop the property. As brought out at the Planning Com-
mission meeting, Mr. Spruiell stated that this area will not be
the major entrance to the City when the interchange is completed,
but will be on a frontage road. '
Mr. Musso said the reason ID District zoning was used for this area
is that there is no zoning classification at present suitable for
an automobile centered use. The masonry wall has been a general
requirement where uses of this type abut residential areas.
The Council discussed, generally, the possible alternatives, from
variance to the masonry wall requirement and substitution of tree
planting as a living wall; imposition of commercial use require-
ments as in any other commercial use; a five foot fully landscaped
buffer between uses rather than a masonry wall with some regula-
tions as to size of landscape material; a thicker than ordinary
wood fence, or possibly a chain link fence; the possibility that
chain link fence, sprinkler system for the landscaping and mature
shrubs and trees, plus the cost of maintenance may be more costly
than the masonry wall.
Harry Mosure, the applicant, said there are two good wooden fences
already constructed, but he would be agreeable to enclosing the
property with a chain link fence. His property in Concord has a
chain link fence; the use is a very quiet one and there would not
be disturbance from the use. He also hoped that a five foot set-
back would be required so his business could be seen. Mr. Mosure
said his present business grossed about $1,100,000 last year and
he would like to locate a sales lot in Livermore.
Councilman Taylor said he would be willing to allow chain link fence
on the one side with a landscaped area subject to City approval.
CM-23-414
Councilman Beebe stated he would rather see a
chain link fence with the planter installed.
Councilman Pritchard suggested giving the appli-
cant a choice of putting lathing in the chain
link fence or landscaping.
February 8, 1971
(CUP- To Permit Sale
of Mobile Homes)
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the eastern fence be a chain
link fence with a five foot planter as approved by the staff,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
The Council discussed setback requirements. The Planning Director
stated that a neighborhood shopping center requires a ten foot
landscaped setback; CO (Commercial Office) District zone requires
five foot; CG (General Commercial) District zone requires ten
foot; the setback in this instance is in accordance with the
standards being developed for the CUP.
Councilman Pritchard felt a five foot setback should be allowed
as the use across the street had a five foot setback. Councilman
Beebe said he could see why the applicant wanted five feet as
the adjoining mobile home park had a fence next to the sidewalk
without a setback.
Mr. Musso explained that the requirement is that the three foot
fence be set back ten feet from the property line with landscap-
ing in front. The majority of the Council agreed that the
setback should be ten feet.
In answer to Councilman Miller's question, Mr. Musso said that
it is against present policy to allow a trailer to be used per-
manently as an office. There is an amendment pending consideration
by the Council which might allow such use and perhaps this policy
should be reviewed. He felt this could be worked out through
the staff.
Councilman Taylor said he did not wish to see trailers or mobile
units used around the City without Council approval; a decision
should be made on this matter. Mr. Musso said this matter was
a part of the mobile home ordinance to be considered in the near
future by the Council.
Mr. Spruiell stated his understanding from the Planning Commission's
meeting was that a mobile home unit on a foundation would be
allowed for use as the sales office.
Mr. Musso said that a portion of Item A.7 of the Zoning Conditions
listed in the staff report which read "all exposed surfaces of
the building shall be non-metallic where structurally feasible
and architecturally compatible with the rest of the structure"
was deleted for design reasons and not for the purpose of allow-
ing use of a mobile home unit as a sales office.
Mayor Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval
and the conditions attached thereto, as listed in their Resolution
No. 2-71, with the deletion of the masonry wall from the CUP,
but not from the requirements of the ordinance, and the easterly
property line to have a chain link fence and a five foot land-
scaped area approved by the staff.
Councilman Miller stated he was opposed to the use as it would be
visible from the Portola Ave. freeway entry, and he felt it would
have an adverse effect on all the properties in the City.
The motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
*
*
*
CM-23-415
February 8, 1971
ZONING OF
INTERCHANGE
ANNEX
A public hearing was set for March 1, for assign-
ment of a zoning classification to the recently annex-
ed area known as 11 Interchange Annex'!
*
*
*
A public hearing was set for February 22, to con-
sider various Zoning Ordinance amendments for the
purpose of considering the proper zoning for and
regulation of cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums,
columbariums and mortuaries with particular con-
sideration given to the Uses Permitted sections of the RM, RG, E
and CP Districts; Section 21.52 - Special Provisions and Health
Facilities; Section 28.00 - Conditional Use Permits.
ZO AMENDMENTS
RE ZONING OF
CEMETERIES
REZONING Re
451 No. pst.
(Hoblitzell)
REZONING RE
3070 and 3076
East Avenue
(Maniz and
Pritchard)
CITY SIGN
STATUS
ORDINANCE RE
ZO AMENDMENT
(Future Width
and Special
Bldg Lines,
East Ave. &
Vasco Rd)
*
*
*
A public hearing was set for March 1 to consider
the rezoning application submitted by Ross Hoblit-
zell to permit rezoning from RL-5 District to CO
District for property located at 451 No. P Street.
*
*
*
A public hearing for the rezoning application sub-
mitted by Monte Maniz and Robert Pritchard for
property located at 3070 and 3076 East Avenue
from RG-16 (Suburban Multiple Residential District
to CO (Commercial Office) District was set for
March 8.
*
*
*
A report from the Planning Director regarding the
City sign status was continued for discussion at
the meeting of February 22.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 735
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 20.71, RELATING TO
FUTURE WIDTH LINES, AND SUBSECTION 20.72, RELATING
TO SPECIAL BUILDING LINES, OF SECTION 20.00, RELAT-
ING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived and the ordi-
nance was passed by unanimous vote.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
1968 ELEC-
TRICAL CODE
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Sign-State
Savings & Loan)
CM-23-416
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, to waive the first reading
of the proposed ordinance adopting, by reference,
the 1968 National Electrical Code (title read only),
and by unanimous vote the ordinance was introduced
and a public hearing set for March 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-71
AUTHORIZING T~ CITY CLE~K TO PUBL1SH NOTICE OF HEARING
The Planning Director referred to the time and tem-
perature sign just erected at the State Savings and
Loan office. The ordinance specifically states
that such a facility is not a sign. The "time"
sign blocks the sign on t he building, and state
Savings and Loan has advised that one or the other
of the signs will be relocated.
February 8, 1971
Mr. Lewis advised that the specific governs
over the general; when there is a specific
exception the courts will say that this evi-
dences the intention of the legislative body.
It seems, therefore, that it was the specific intention of the
ordinance to exempt this type of device from the sign regulations.
(Sign-State Savings
& Loan Assn)
Councilman Miller said that it is clear that the legislation was
a mistake and this matter should be resolved and limits set.
Councilman Taylor said an interpretation as not being a sign is
stretching the facts in this case and he felt it was outrageous
that the Council was not informed that they were erecting such a
structure when they were discussing the request for the direction-
al sign; it is wrong even though it is legal. Many businessmen
and residents had called in objection to the sign.
Councilman Beebe said he liked the philosophy of the public service
of providing time and temperature but felt the sign was out of
proportion.
Councilman Pritchard agreed with Councilman Taylor that it was
an outrage even though it might be legal.
The Council then referred the matter of time and temperature dis-
plays and other devices of similar nature (specifically Sec.
21.72 (L) of the Zoning Ordinance) to the Planning Commission for
discussion and consideration. Councilman Miller said there were
other items, such as flag display and sculpture, which did not
have any limitations, and these should be reviewed also.
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated that in connection
with Wagoner Farms Assessment District No.
1962-3 a resolution is needed to apportion
the cost of the reapportionment and notifi-
cation to the property owners that these costs
are going to be assessed. After the passage of
a diagram will be filed with the City Clerk and
be held.
(Reapportionment re
Wagoner Farms
Assmt. Dist.)
this resolution
a hearing will
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to adopt the following resolution, and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-71
RESOLUTION DIRECTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PREPARE
AND FILE AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT, WAGONER FARMS ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1962-3, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
*
*
*
The City Attorney informed the Council that
the Supreme Court had heard the park dedica-
tion case last week. The Court has voted on
the basic issue and a Justice will be assigned to write the opinion.
Mr. Lewis hoped the decision will be more favorable than the pre-
vious one by the District Court and felt they would uphold Sec-
tion 11546 on park dedication.
(Park Dedication
Case)
* I/r;e:f/j.~~~
The City Manager stated ~~ere is to be a joint
session in Washington on~ 21-22 hosted by
the National League of Cities and U.S. Confer-
ence of Mayors on the very critical issue of revenue sharing.
Particular reference will be made to the smaller cities in order
(Meeting re
Revenue Sharing)
CM-23-417
February 8, 1971
(Revenue
Sharing)
that their views may be heard. He asked that the
Council review the material they had been provided
with regarding this hearing, and stated that he
hoped one of the Council members, perhaps the Mayor,
would be authorized to attend this meeting. The League of Calif-
ornia Cities is going to have a special gathering of the Congression-
al delegation from California at the meeting so that every repre-
sentative possible will be in attendance.
The staff was instructed to include this item on the Consent Cal-
endar for action at the next meeting, and also to prepare a
brief resume of the President's proposal.
Councilman Pritchard stated he had intended to suggest that letters
be directed to our representatives explaining our position in this
matter; the feeling of our Congressman should be determined.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Communication
Continental
Can Co.)
(BART
Extension)
(Resolution
re Scout
Project)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva read a letter from Continental Can Co.
signed by Mr. Halpin expressing his appreciation
for the time allowed for his discussion, and stat-
ing he would be glad to aid the City in aQ{ecology
project.
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the Port of
Oakland regarding the extension of BART to the
airport and included material explaining their posi-
tion. They urge that the City join in urging the
extension of BART to the airport. The Council has
taken no position in this regard.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to adopt a resolution commending the Liver-
more Amador Valley Boy Scouts who will participate
in the construction of a hiking trail around Del
Valle Reservoir. The motion was passed unanimously.
Councilman Taylor suggested that a letter be written to the East
Bay Regional Park District thanking them for their efforts in plan-
ning the trail.
RESOLUTION NO. 16-71
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE BOY SCOUTS OF THE
LIVERMORE/AMADOR VALLEY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE;
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO EAST BAY REGIONAL
PARK DISTRICT.
*
*
*
(Abatement
of Signs) Mayor Silva referred to the procedure being followed
regarding abatement of non-conforming signs. The
Planning Director stated that letters have been
sent to various businesses that their sign is non-conforming, then
generally the businessman contacts the City and the whole sign or-
dinance is discussed. For the most part people have indicated
they will conform. The next notification will be to gas stations
with non-conforming signs.
CM-23-418
*
*
*
February 8, 1971
Mayor Silva said he had received a complaint
regarding motorcycles on a vacant lot in Carl-
ton Square area. The Police Dept. had stated
this was private property and the Police De-
partment could do nothing. Mr. Lewis said this could be called
to the attention of the landowner and he could request that any-
one riding on his property be cited for doing so. The staff was
instructed to contact the property owner, and also to check into
what can be done about this problem at all locations.
(Complaint re
Motorcycles)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated it had been pointed out to
him recently that the Planning Commission was
the only committee appointed by the Council
whose members cannot be removed without cause. He felt the
ordinance should possibly be amended so that the Council could
remove a Commissioner or any committee member under certain
circumstances.
(Planning Commission
Terms of Office)
The City Attorney said that when someone is appointed for a speci-
fied term there are certain rights to that office which cannot be
interfered with by the appointing body. If there is no term stated,
it is a different matter. Cause is normally considered to be some
serious misconduct in office and not the fact that the official
displeasures or disagrees with someone. The Government Code states
that in regard to Planning Commissioners that they shall be appoint-
ed by the Mayor with the concurrence of the City Council and that
the local governing body may provide a local ordinance for this
and nothing is said about specific removal.
The City Attorney was instructed to look into the matter of cause
and manner of removal for report to the Council.
Councilman Miller felt this was a political situation and changing
the ordinance would have a definite political effect.
Councilman Taylor said he would like an explanation of f1causef1
but an ordinance change did not sound like a good idea.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:45
p.m. to an executive session to consider appoint-
ments to the Industrial Advisory Board and the
Beautification Committee.
APPROVE
)
/\-;~"";" \.
: j
/1
r
*
- ',~..-
(
v"
eA-
ATTEST
-+--...
Clerk
re, California
CM-23-419
Regular Meeting of February 22, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on February 22,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
APPROVAL
SPECIAL
ITEM
OPEN FORUM
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, to approve the minutes as amended,
and it passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The resolution adopted by the Council on February 8,
1971, commending the Livermore-Amador Valley Boy
Scouts for public service in building the trail on
the shore of Del Valle Reservoir was read by Mayor
Silva and presented to Norman G. Pefley, Asst.
Senior Patrol Leader, Troop 902, representing the
area Scouts.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva invited any member of the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the agenda,
however, no comments were voiced.
*
*
*
Planning Director George Musso stated that this public
hearing on proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments re-
garding the regulation of cemeteries, crematories,
mausoleums, columbariums and mortuaries was the result
of inquiries from Councilman Pritchard regarding pro-
visions of the ordinance. The main change in the
ordinance is to allow mortuaries within the "E" Dis-
trict as a Conditional Use; in the CO (Commercial
Office) District mortuaries are presently allowed;
in all other commercial districts the use would be a Conditional
Use; however, it is prohibited in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
District. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the one point on which they dis-
agreed was allowance of mortuaries in residential areas, which re-
sulted in a 2-2 vote. Councilman Pritchard indicated his interest
in this matter and refrained from entering the discussion and did
not vote.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
ZO AMENDMENT
(Permitted
Uses in RM,
RG, E, CP
Districts)
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing but no comments were voiced.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Tay-
lor, to close the public hearing, and approved unanimously.
Councilman Beebe stated that he did not feel mortuaries should be
allowed in purely residential areas or the CN District, but per-
haps they could be located in a transitional are~~o~ residential
to commercial office. ~~v,-
Councilman Taylor stated he was impressed withtthe survey conducted
by the Planning Commission regarding location f mortuaries in other
cities and stated his feeling that they should be allowed in single
family residential districts or neighborhood shopping centers (RL
and CN Districts). Permitted use in CO and I Districts should be
allowed by Conditional Use Permits.
CM-23-420
February 22, 1971
Mayor Silva felt the use should be permitted by
CUP in all districts including R Districts as
there might be areas where this use would be
appropriate and due to the small number of pro-
bable applications this might be the best way to
approach the matter.
Public Hearing-
(Permitted Uses)
Councilman Miller agreed with Councilman Taylor that wherever the
use is permitted it be done through a Conditional Use Permit;
however, the use should also be prohibited in CP and all residen-
tial districts. Multiples do not seem to be a logical place for
location of mortuaries.
Councilman Taylor stated he could not see any objection to having
a mortuary back on or adjacent to a single family use as compared
to RG or office building type use. The main concern relative to
mortuaries in a single family area is the traffic pattern; there
should be major street access.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that mortuaries be conditional
uses in all zones except CN and RL and RS Districts, seconded
by Councilman Beebe.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission had considered
that a cemetery could include all of the uses under consideration
and, therefore, they would be considered together and the mor-
tuary treated separately.
The motion to allow mortuaries by conditional use in all zones
except CN, RL and RS Districts was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
After further discussion regarding location in commercial dis-
tricts, Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the staff re-
commendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.52 as
proposed, and 21.54 as amended to read "when located in E, CP,
RG, RM Districts". The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe
and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were referred
back to the Planning Commission for revision of the regulations
applicable to the various zones.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental reports were submitted as follows:
Departmental
Reports
Airport - financial and activity - January
Building Inspection - January
Fire Department - January
Golf Course - January
Municipal Court - December and January
Police and Pound Departments - January
Water Reclammation Plant - January
Planning Departments - Activity - January
*
*
*
A progress report was submitted in regard to
the Livermore Recycling Project including a
financial statement and the volume collected
during the month of January.
Community
Recycling Report
CM-23-421
February 22, 1971
Minutes
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting of
January 21, and the Housing Authority meeting of
January 19 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Communication
re Mobile
Homes
A communication has been received from Senator
Clark L. Bradley in response to the City's suggestion
regarding mobile home taxation and treatment. This
item was removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
Communication
re Disposable
Containers
A communication has been received from the League
of California Cities regarding the City's Resolu-
tion concerning disposable containers of malt and
carbonated beverages and stating the League's posi-
tion in this matter.
*
*
*
Federal
Revenue
Sharing
As announced, a national congressional-city confer-
ence will be held in Washington, D.C. March 21-23,
1971, by the National League of Cities and the
United States Conference of Mayors to consider the
revenue sharing issue. It has been recommended that
the Mayor, or alternate member of the Council, attend this meeting
to present the Council's views and that a resolution supporting
the proposed federal revenue sharing measure be adopted.
Robert Allen, president of the Local American Taxpayers' Union,
read a statement urging the Council to study the matter more tho-
roughly before any action and listing several reasons against
such revenue sharing. Councilman Miller pointed out that the
reason revenue sharing should be considered is due to the regres-
sive taxes permitted to be levied by cities as opposed to those
allowed the federal government.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-71
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONGRESSIONAL IMPLE-
MENTATION OF CONCEPT OF REVENUE SHARING.
*
*
*
Resolution
Establishing
Naylor Water
Benefit Dist.
In response to Councilman Miller's question, the
Public Works Director explained the City's parti-
cipation in the Naylor Water Line Benefit District
wherein a 12-inch line was constructed and the
City participates in the cost of excess sizing
over an 8-inch line.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-71
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NAYLOR WATER LINE
BENEFIT DISTRICT
*
*
*
Resolution
Approving Bonds
& Agreement
(Tr. 3282
Hofmann Co.)
Tract 3282 is located westerly of the Emma C.
Smith School site and contains 87 lots. All
documents are in order and approval is recommended.
RESOLUTION NO. 19-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3282
CM-23-422
RESOLUTION NO. 20-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION
OF TRACT 3282
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 21-71
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF JEROME
J. WILVERDING
February 22, 1971
(Tract 3282)
Denial of Claim
(Wilverding)
The City Attorney recommends denial of the claim for damages sub-
mitted by Jerome Wilverding and referral of the claim to the
City's insurance carrier.
~~
*
*
Provision for the relocation of Murdell Lane
must be made in connection with the extension
of PUD No. 15 to Carlton Development Corp. The
County has requested that this street be moved
about 820 feet westerly no later than October, 1973. The follow-
ing resolution authorizes execution of an agreement to transfer
this obligation to the developer.
Report re PUD No.15
(Carlton Dev. Co.)
RESOLUTION NO. 22-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Carlton Development Corp.)
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the City Manager re-
garding the method of assigning aircraft in-
lieu tax receipts. In connection with a request
to amend the budaet to allow an increase in the
allocation from $2,500 to $5,000 for matching funds for monies
provided under the State Aeronautics Funds, it had been suggested
that such in-lieu tax receipts be designated by the Council to
match the State's special fund grant. After review by the Fin-
ance Director it is recommended that a motion be adopted affirm-
ing the present method of assigning these receipts with any change
being discussed during budget sessions if the Council so desires.
*
*
*
Special Airport
Fund Apportionment
A report was submitted by the Public Works Dir-
ector advising that he and the Police Chief had
investigated the advisability of reducing the
parking time limit from two hours to one hour on several of the
downtown streets. It is recommended that the parking time limit
be reduced in the designated areas to one hour as follows:
1. Second Street, Livermore to "L" Street
2. "J" Street, First to Third Street
3. "K" Street, First to Third Street
4. II L" Street, First to Third Street
*
*
*
A report was made by the Library Board regard-
ing the possibility of providing Library hours
on Sunday. This item was removed from the Con-
sent Calendar for later discussion.
*
*
*
Applications for exempt business licenses have
been received from the following:
Report re On-Street
Parking Time Limit
Report re Library
Hours
Exempt Business
Licenses
CM-23-423
February 22, 1971
(Exempt
Licenses)
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
SCHOOL
CROSSING
GUARD (Sonoma
Ave. & El
Caminito)
Interfaith Housing - solicitation of funds to fur-
nish Community Center February 22
Ballet Folklorico Mexicano de Livermore - sale of
tickets for show on February 26-28 to defray
costume expense
Job's Daughters - Bethel No. 232 - various fund
raising activities during 1971
*
*
*
Eighty-seven claims in the amount of $74,287.52, dated
February 17, 1971, were ordered paid as approved by
the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from
voting on Warrant No. 9830 for usual reasons.
*
*
*
01 motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor, the Consent Calendar was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
#
A request Aas made by the Sonoma Avenue PTA at the
meeting of February 8 for a school crossing guard to
be placed at the intersection of Sonoma Avenue and
El Caminito. The Public Works Director reported
that a count had been made of the number of children
and number of cars at this intersection in order to
compare these figures with the warrants established
by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee
used to determine whether a guard is justifiable. On this basis
the recommendation is that there is not justification for a cross-
ing guard.
The City Manager advised that this system for determining whether
a guard is needed was adopted several years ago.
Councilman Beebe inquired if a stop sign had been considered as a
traffic control at this point. Mr. Lee said that the traffic in
a 24-hour period did not warrant placing a stop sign at this point.
Clarence Motter, 335 El Caminito, pointed out that El Caminito is
a lengthy and wide street and children have difficulty getting
across the street. About 50% of the children at Sonoma Ave. School
do have to cross El Caminito and this number will increase due to
continuing development in the area. He urged that consideration
be given to providing a safer way for the children to cross.
Councilman Pritchard asked the Principal of Sonoma School if the
children now crossing El Caminito would be shifted to a school
on that side of the street when one is available. Mr. Hill said
he did not know how the division would be made but he felt traffic
would be increasing, as well as the number of children.
The need for the present crossing guard on East Avenue was dis-
cussed and it was pointed out that a traffic signal has now been
installed which would aid the children in this area to cross the
street.
The cost of an additional traffic guard would be approximately
$2,000 per year. Mayor Silva pointed out that if the criteria
for such a decision is changed there will be other requests for
other locations. Councilman Miller felt that those requesting
such services should realize that the additional services would
mean additional costs to the City paid by taxes.
CM-23-424
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the age of
the children crossing should be an extenuating
circumstance and could be included as a part of
the warrants.
February 22, 1971
(School Crossing
Guard)
Councilman Miller made a motion that a crossing guard be pro-
vided at the intersection of Sonoma Avenue and El Caminito;
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously.
The staff was instructed to include the age of the children in the
method of calculating need.
v
'^-
*
*
The application of Associated Professions, Inc.
for rezoning to PD District property located
south of US 580, east of Airport Boulevard, was
referred to the Planning Commission for review
and comment on a proposal to zone the entire
parcel to ID (Industrial Development and Admin-
istration) District by the City Council. The Planning Commission
concurred in the Council's proposal to zone the entire area to
ID District and reaffirmed its original recommendation for mobile-
home park denial and adopted the staff report urging City Council
adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation.
REZONING & MOBILE
HOME APPLICATION
SITE SOUTH US 580
(Assoc. Professions)
John Barker, Associated Professions, requested continuance on this
application pending resolution of the ABAG study regarding noise
levels pertaining to the municipal airport. He requested the aid
of the City in implementing this study which is to be completed
in late March and rescheduling the matter in early April.
Councilman Miller made a motion to continue this matter to an
early meeting in April and to hold a public hearing at that time.
The motion was withdrawn after discussion regarding the result of
the ABAG study.
Councilman Miller made a motion to continue this matter to the
first week in April and to then determine when and if a public
hearing should be held. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Beebe and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Consideration of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment of Section 5.00, Residential District
and Section 20.00, General Provisions was set
for public hearing at a meeting in April when
there would be a full Council present.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Sec. 5.00 and
Sec. 20.00)
The Planning Director explained that the appli-
cation for rezoning submitted by Jerome Fahn-
horst and expanded area initiated by the Plan-
ning Commission for rezoning was referred to
the Planning Commission for review and comment
as the Council's recommendation was contrary to that of the Com-
mission. After review the Planning Commission has submitted a
recommendation; they are still opposed to the rezoning of the
Park Street frontage but do concur with the Council's proposal
to rezone the two lots on the west side of "P" Street to RM
(Medium Density Residential) District and a portion to CB-l
(Central Business) District as indicated on the map.
REZONING APPLICATION
BY JEROME FAHNHORST
& EXPANDED AREA
Councilman Taylor asked Mr. Musso to clarify the recommendation
regarding the Cal Water and Shell properties. Mr. Musso stated
that the original Planning Commission recommendation was to rezone
CM-23-425
February 22, 1971
(Rezoning-
Fahnhorst)
this area CO which would allow uses compatible to
the residential area and other uses would be under
Conditional Use Permit. The Council's decision was
to rezone Shell's property CB-l and Cal Water as CO.
The Commission felt there should be more protection for the resi-
dential areas and recommends CB-l along I!pl! Street, but RM along
Adelle Street and Olivina Avenue.
The Council discussed the rezoning of this area. Councilman Tay-
lor asked why the Commission recommended RM rather than CO. Mr.
Musso pointed out that the RM zoned area could be used as parking
for the commercial. Councilman Taylor said his objection was that
two blocks of single family would be changed to RM zoning and
this proposal would add another one.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that a portion could be CB-l and
the other area to CO. This would place the CB on the front on I!pl!
Street with CO in the rear rather than RM.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the area which is shown
on the revised Planning Commission's map as cross-hatched to CB-l
and the two irregular shaped parcels in the rear, shown in the
dotted area, to CO; motion was seconded by Councilman. Miller.
Councilman Taylor said that all that was necessary to protect the
property across the street is a strip of CO area; he did not think
small pieces of commercial could be developed properly.
The motion to rezone the area to CB-l and CO failed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe made a motion that all the property from the
eastern line of Cal Water's property where it intersects Olivina
for 200 feet easterly and at a depth of 150 feet be zoned CO and
the balance be zoned CB-l. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Taylor.
Mr. Per Perry of Shell Oil Company said that the party who wishes
to purchase the property would wish to apply for a uniform zoning
for the whole property. The proposed zoning would probably not
assist in the sale of the property.
The vote was then taken on the motion which passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Miller and Pritchard
Councilman Miller stated there were two points to be
made - one on the change of RL-5 to RM. First of
all there has been a substantial amount of increase
in RM zoning and there is no way to obtain park dedi-
cation for it under the present ordinance. He felt that before
the property is rezoned there should be a means of obtaining park
dedication. Councilman Miller also commented that some day this
will be a likely place for multiple zoning, but the pressure for
this large an area in multiple is not very great as there are
approximately 2,000 apartment units approved which are not yet
built. Councilman Miller referred to an incident where a couple
of parcels that had been before the Council for duplexes and higher
density and denied, now has a single family house being built on
it, and another is about to have the same thing on it. Thus, he
felt the development of lots can take place in this area. At least,
he felt the Council should wait until the park dedication is de-
cided and that no area should be rezoned to RM until the park dedi-
cation ordinance is resolved.
DISCUSSION
RE PARK
DEDICATION
CM-23-426
Jack Phillips spoke to Councilman Miller's com-
ments that the parcel he had referred to was
Mary Bailey's, and she had applied for a duplex
as she had three lots and only one single family
so now she has two single family houses on three
which did reduce the density.
Mayor Silva pointed out that the multiple had not been increased,
but in fact, it had been decreased.
February 22, 1971
(Park Dedication)
house on them,
building lots,
Councilman Taylor felt they were making a mistake in extending
the dividing line between RL and RM from the center of the block
to the center of the street, and felt the justification for ex-
tending multiple is far greater if it is across the street rather
than in the back of the lot, and did not feel that the four half
blocks rezoned to RM were necessary to stabilize the neighborhood
and encourage redevelopment or anything else.
Councilman Beebe said he was of the philosophy he would rather
have the multiples on the center line of the street rather than
backing with a two story building looking right down on single
family.
Councilman Taylor asked the City Attorney if the park dedication
law pending before the Supreme Court would have any bearing to
which Mr. Lewis replied in the affirmative, and further explained
what would happen in the event the decision is in their favor,
and the ramifications of this decision was discussed further by
the Council, and whether or not the rezoning should be held in
abeyance until the matter of the park decision is resolved.
Mayor Silva stated he would like to proceed with the original
decision and then instruct the staff to come up with the ordi-
nance suggested by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Pritchard agreed but also shared Councilman Miller's
concern and felt they should go ahead on the ordinance and then
if and when the court decision is or is not upheld, it would be
ready to go into effect.
Councilman Miller asked the City Attorney if their position would
be stronger if they waited on the zoning and worked on the park
dedication than if they adopt the zoning and attempt to apply an
ordinance afterwards. He felt they could have contract zoning
if they held up on the zoning until a court decision is reached,
whereas if the zoning is adopted at this time they would lose
the contract aspect.
Mr. Lewis stated he had told the Planning Commission he thought
they could go through the device of a building permit, attaching
a condition by ordinance; however, he had not had much opportunity
to study the other steps in the process from zoning to building.
In answer to Councilman Miller's question, he stated until we
conclude that a building permit is a proper device, he could not
give the assurance he had already given in regard to rezoning.
There are no court cases on this and it is a new field in which
they were venturing farther than most cities in California.
Mayor Silva stated that inasmuch as they all concurred, an
ordinance would be prepared by the staff.
*
*
*
The Council had referred possible rezoning of
property located at the southeast corner of
Stanley Blvd. and Wall Street to the Planning
Commission for review and comment. By unani-
mous vote the Planning Commission does report
that from a planning point of view single
COUNCIL REQUEST
FOR COMMENT RE ZON-
ING (SE Corner Wall
st. & Stanley Blvd)
CM- 23- 427
February 22, 1971
(SE Corner
Wall st. &
Stanley Blvd.)
family residential use is a better use for the
area, but does advise that it feels rezoning
should not be initiated based on a financial con-
sideration, not a planning consideration, and
circumstances have not changed to warrant rezoning.
Councilman Miller stated he did not understand the comment re fin-
ancial consideration as their question had to do with single fam-
ily vs. apartments.
Mr. Musso explained that due to the fact it had been zoned multiple
and changed hands as multiple zoning is a financial consideration.
He did not feel there was justification for changing the zonlng on
the property; in other words, a change of circumstances that might
justify the rezoning from RG to RL or RS is not greater than the
vested interest of the person who owns the property.
Councilman Beebe stated he had attended the meeting and they were
all unanimously concerned and did not feel it was fair to the second
purchaser; it would remove his rights as an individual purchasing
certain valued property. The Planning Commission did recommend
that the City investigate purchase of the property under the park
dedication laws, but it would probably be prohibitively high.
After some discussion on the matter, Councilman Taylor made a motion
to rezone the area to RG-12, limiting it to single story; however
Mr. Musso advised this limit had been changed - there could not be
a second story flat, but one unit could be two story and one single
story. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller, however failed
by the fOllowing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
PROPOSAL RE The Planning Commission considered possible amendment
ZO AMENDMENT of Sec. 28.00 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Zoning
Sec. 28-cup Ordinance, and recommends the adoption of an amend-
ment which, as explained by the Planning Director, according to
Section 65852 of the Government Code is merely a modification of
the administrative function and does not change the regulations or
land use; therefore, a public hearing by the City Council would
not be necessary. Mr. Musso further explained that at the present
time all Conditional Use Permit applications require a public hear-
ing by the Planning Commission and a recommendation; then action
by the Council with public hearing optional at the Council level.
This Planning Commission recommendation is for modification of the
Ordinance so that the Planning Commission could act on land uses
which are allowed by a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council
would continue to act on those uses which are not uses specified
in a zone and on major uses such as airports, golf courses and so
forth. This would take care of the bulk of Conditional Use Permits
that come to the Council, relieving them of many minor items unless
they are appealed. It would also cut down the amount of the fee
on the CUP where the Planning Commission acts.
The amount of the fee was discussed, and Councilman Miller felt
that the greater part of the work was at the Planning Commission
level and the fee should be more than half when there is no Council
action required, and it was decided that the fee should be analyzed
by the staff before the ordinance is prepared.
Councilman Miller also brought up the matter of time limits on a
CUP and stated it was a policy at one time that all Conditional
Use Permits have a time limit, and he felt if a major use is allowed
the time limi~~IOtlla be forever, whereas each CUP should have a
specific time~limit set, and he wished to have this written into
CM-23-428 ~~~
the ordinance also. Mr. Musso explained that
presently there is a limit on temporary land
uses but not on permanent land uses, such as
a service station.
February 22, 1971
(ZO Amendment
Sec. 28 - CUP)
Councilman Miller proposed that a time limit be set on each CUP
without setting up a table, at the time the permit is granted.
Councilman Miller did not agree that the Planning Commission should
act on all they propose; there is something to be said for Council
review. Mayor Silva on the other hand felt that the more authority
that is given to the Planning Commission, the better the Council
would function as much of their time is taken up with trivial
matters. By the same token the Planning Commission is working
towards giving the Planning Director more authority, and he felt
in so doing, the City would function better.
The consensus of the majority of the Council was that they would
still get a number of conditional use permits and would always
have the right of appeal.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of February 2, 1971 were noted and filed.
MINUTES - PLANNING
COMMISSION
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that with re-
gard to the Portola Mobile Home Sales area
and the question of use of a mobile home trailer
for occupancy as an office, that the ordinance
does not presently allow mobile homes or trailers to be used except
under certain circumstances. They can be allowed for a year while
a home is being constructed, in a mobile home park, as a policy
for an accessory building in commercial areas and for a church;
they have been allowed as temporary quarters for business and
as tract sales office.
REPORT RE OCCUPANCY
OF TRAILERS
The Planning Commission considered this matter along with the
presently pending resolution of the trailer storage issue (Sec.
21.41, 21.44 and 31.00); however, the subject matter is separate
from the pending question of storage and could be resolved through
the adoption of a proposed revision to Section 21.58. Public
hearing was held on January 11, and the matter tabled without date;
the Planning Director has recommended that the matter be taken
from the table and resolved at this time. The Building Inspector
and Fire Chief have commented relative to some of the provisions
indicating their opposition.
Councilman Taylor stated that to allow a mobile home for a sales
office would be a permanent commercial use, and did not feel it
should be allowed. The various uses were discussed by the Council.
Councilman Miller suggested that the use of a trailer should prob-
ably be restricted to six months or not more than one year on
any construction site. This point was discussed, and the majority
of the Council felt that as some construction took longer a trailer
could be a temporary use during the time of construction; however
no permanent use would be allowed.
Dan Spruiell, Red Carpet Realty, stated that it appeared this
subject was brought about due to the application for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow a mobile home on a foundation to be used as
a sales office, which is the practice in the trailer sales busi-
ness in other counties. Mr. Spruiell indicated that this item
had been discussed previously at the time Mr. Mosure attended
the meeting, now it appears that the Council is denying the use,
to which the Council agreed. Mr. Spruiell continued that they
CM-23-429
February 22, 1971
(Occupancy of had the mobile home on their plans when they were
Trailers) submitted to the Planning Department but it was
deleted on the staff drawing which was not realized
by the applicant until the Council meeting. At
that time the Council indicated this matter could be worked out
at the staff level at a later time, but tonight it seems that the
mobile home office will not be allowed due to the proposed ordi-
nance. He and Mr. Mosure were under the impression that this
would be permitted.
The Council reviewed the minutes of t~e previous discussion cqn-
cerning Mr. Mosu~e's ap[)lication.~,t'-i!:-w-d4/~~t-<t.,_~d?-_ _aa~" eec:-t -r/.,.f""
::t.L..~.d, ..'-~~/~ -.4r ~~.-~a-~"'-7.,.~....c- ~. OK MJ CI.t:::d~
In regard to the wording of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Musso J
stated the Building Inspector suggested that in Item C) the words,
"residential dwellingll be changed to II sleeping quarters". The
Council agreed this should be changed.
Councilman Miller made a motion to refer the proposed ordinance
to the staff (Building Inspector, Fire Chief and Planning Director)
for review, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which passed unanimously.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
AIRPORT
SIGN
A report was submitted by the Planning Director re-
garding the City's sign at the airport and golf course.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, to instruct the staff to consider a proposed modi-
fication of the subject sign in order that conformance under the
provisions of the sign ordinance will be assured by the amortization
date of May 17, 1972.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, objected to the height of the sign
which is in excess of allowable building height; the report stated
a signing area of 250 sq. ft. and he thought the area was much
larger than that.
Mr. Musso stated the sign ordinance limits the sign height to
35 feet.
Councilman Miller felt the City had a moral obligation to make this
sign conforming as soon as possible rather than wait until the amor-
tization date. He felt the sign should conform to requirements for
signs on a scenic highway. Conformance could be gained by (1) re-
placing the present single sign with two conforming signs 64 sq. ft.,
8 ft. in height; (2) remove the present sign to the intersection of
Airway Blvd. and Golf Course road to serve as a directional sign;
and (3) the design of the appropriate signs be sent to the Beauti-
fication Committee for review and comment.
Councilman Taylor felt the type of sign to be used should not be
restricted but referred to the staff for study.
The staff was requested to review Councilman Miller's suggestions
in making their recommendations regarding the sign.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE
SERVICES
The City Manager reported that this was a problem of
great concern to the City staff and dates back to
two years ago when the company operating the ambu-
lance service appealed to the City, claiming excessive
costs for emergency services forced him to seek addi-
tional financial support and asking the public agencies
involved for aid. The City has had a contract with the operator
which included partial reimbursement for fees not collected for ser-
vice extended by him. This emergency type response has been a
CM-23-430
February 22, 1971
problem which has grown worse over the past two
years. The staff has investigated this problem
in some depth, and a request was made for a cer-
tain amount of dollars to be extended by the three
agencies - Pleasanton, the County and Livermore - and finally a
figure was concluded which was felt to be fair and a contract was
drafted. The term was to expire in seven months or the end of
that year, and it was hoped that the company's revenue and profit
might be determined at the end of that time. There have been a
whole series of meetings going over the financial data provided
by the firm. The operator, Mr. Holmes, has had additional costs
imposed upon him recently by legal requirements; he has quoted
as informally and orally an amount which he felt necessary to
continue service. Mr. Parness said the problem is that emergency
service must be provided for the community, and this is a some-
what quasi-public service. The issue is how much of the cost
must be supported by the local municipal government. It is also
a privately operated business, but cannot be self sustaining.
Recently the community hospital board has considered the feasi-
bility of entering into this business. The joint staff committee
has drafted a proposal and recommended that the City Council
authorize them to jointly participate in the receipt of a formal
proposal by an ambulance contractor to provide this service. The
proposal would be made on the basis of a budget, whereby revenue
and estimated expenditures would be listed and thereby net oper-
ating deficit would be shown. This amount would then be used to
determine the amount of support from the governmental agencies.
Solicitation would be open to all ambulance companies, and it was
recommended that this course of action be followed.
(Emergency Ambulance
Service)
Mayor Silva abstained from discussion and vote on this matter
as Allen's Ambulance is a customer of his business; Mayor pro
tempore Miller presided.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to instruct the City Manager to receive a formal proposal for
ambulance service.
David Madis, representing Allen's Ambulance, stated he wished to
speak against the proposal as competitive bidding would not be
suitable for this type of service. If a competitive bid is re-
ceived outside the area, a company would have to come in and
there would be competition between two services. The quality of
service would probably decline. He could see no benefits from
bringing in an outside operator when there is a local operator
who can provide service. The operator is just asking for reimburse-
ment of his cost from operating emergency service. He asked that
the proposal be rejected and negotiations be entered into with
the present operator. 1/ /J" (/L/J1' /., ;1 ;l. )
1~rY("'<v ft~:I.!~J;;f;.;%:~.lc;g_
The Council generally discussed this type of service, what shou~d~<~~
and could be provided; would it be logical t at the only bidder
in the situation proposed would be Mr. Allen since he is the
local business; whether or not there is enough business for more
than one ambulance operator; the fact that two other agencies
(City of Pleasanton and Alameda County) are involved and the
need is to obtain a low bid; the best contract possible should
be negotiated.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Mayor pro
tempore Miller, to direct the staff to proceed with receipt of
formal proposals for emergency service, and the motion failed to
gain a majority by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
CM-23-431
February 22, 1971
(Emergency
Ambulance
Service)
Further discussion ensued regarding the desire of
the present contractor and his wish to be reimbursed
on an economic justification of the emergency opera-
tion; books and costs will be available. Mr. Parness
reported that the figure of $1200 had been given
verbally as the approximate amount needed to continue service and
the motion made by Councilman Taylor was again voted upon, with
the same result. Discussion was also held on the possibility of
bids being received, if the issue would again come before the
Council, and it was stated that such would be the case.
Mr. Holmes explained that due to government regulations regarding
hours of work, time off and wage payments being imposed upon them
they were being forced to increase their costs.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that since this matter had been dis-
cussed in detail, he felt a motion would be in order, and Councilman
Beebe suggested that since there was a tie vote, perhaps they should
ask Mayor Silva to vote also, and the City Attorney was asked to
advise in this regard.
Mr. Lewis stated that the Mayor had stated he had an indirect finan-
cial interest and if Mr. Holmes would be affected one way or another
by this, that he should not vote, and he remained of that opinion.
Mayor Silva stated that Mr. Holmes was one of his better customers
and if his operation ceased to exist, he would stand to lose that
business, which might influence his vote.
Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to see the matter resolved
on the 15th, and Mr. Parness replied this was very possible.
Mr. Madis stated they would be willing to offer emergency service
until the contract is signed if the Council would authorize the
payment of $1200 per month until that time.
After further discussion Councilman Pritchard made a motion to
direct the City Manager to proceed with a three way contract and
concurrently work out an interim rate for a month to month fee with
Mr. Holmes and bring back a report of negotiations next Monday night.
Councilman Taylor seconded the motion, and it passed 4 to 1 with
Mayor Silva abstaining.
CONTINUANCE
OF CONSENT
CALENDAR
ITEMS
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Trailer
vote)
*
*
*
A communication re Mobile Homes from Senator Bradley
and the matter of providing library hours on Sunday
had been continued until this time, but these items
were now further continued until the next meeting.
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that with regard to the
matter of voting on trailers and where they were
situated within yards, a communication had been re-
ceived from the County stating that the language
preceding the proposition itself, namely, the fact
it was the Council soliciting the advice of the
voters and they would not be bound by the result of
the vote would not be a proper item on the ballot, not authorized
by the Elections Code, and have, therefore, requested that this
be brought to the Council's attention for a resolution correcting
or amending the ballot proposal to eliminate that language.
Mr. Lewis further stated the voters may not understand the proposi-
tion and the intent of the Council on that issue.
After some discussion regarding a change in the wording, Mayor
Silva stated his thoughts, adding he would rather not refer it to
CM-23-432
February 22, 1971
the electorate at this time and was, more or less, (Trailer vote)
changing his vote and asked that the Council with-
draw the request for an advisory election on trail-
ers from the ballot of the schools as he felt it
was becoming confusing.
Mayor Silva made a motion to' withdraw the issue from the ballot;
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard as he felt there
was not enough time to work out the right wording in time to
place it on the ballot.
Councilman Taylor felt an election was a reasonable way to de-
termine the public feeling on this matter. He discussed possible
wording and pointed out that repeal of the present ordinance does
not mean that there will be no regulating ordinance at all. He
felt they should go ahead with the advisory vote with the wording
as suggested by the City Attorney.
Councilman Beebe said he felt that the Council had more or less
abdicated their responsibility in having an advisory vote and
was in favor of removing the issue from the ballot.
The motion to remove the issue from the school election ballot
was then passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
RESOLUTION NO. 23-71
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 9-71
The staff was instructed to so inform the County Clerk's office.
Councilman Taylor said that this did not preclude the possibility
of obtaining public opinion through one of the other methods dis-
cussed.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe said he had received complaints MATTERS INITIATED
about an operation at 3rd and K Streets for stor- BY COUNCIL
age of parts, etc. (Complaint)
The Planning Director stated they were aware of the problem and
the owner had been contacted, and the Fire and Health Department
had been requested to investigate the situatioq. He was asked
to check on present status of the matter for report to the Council.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor felt that the area of the
Sunken Gardens should be patrolled more closely
because of complaints regarding motorcycles.
(Complaint re
Motorcycles -
Sunken Garden Area)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated he thought he was
voting on tentative approval for funds as re-
quested by the Jaycees for the Rodeo Parade.
He requested that any request for money under
the budget be included as a separate agenda item,
not under the Consent Calendar.
(Funds for Rodeo
Parade)
*
*
*
CM-23-433
February 22, 1971
(Ridge Top
Proposal)
Councilman Miller referred to the matter of the
proposed Ridge Top Road in Pleasanton. He sug-
gested the Council request the County to buy the
land rather than building the road and, secondly,
to ask East Bay Regional Park District to reconsider the posi-
tion of open space on the ridge; thirdly, to ask ABAG to comment.
Mayor Silva said he would like to hear from the Valley Planning
Committee regarding this proposal before taking action.
Councilman Taylor said he was deeply concerned about this proposal;
it is designed to open up this area for development rather than
as a tQurist attraction.
Councilman Miller made a motion to request the County not to build
a road on the Ridge, but after further discussion the Council felt
it would be best to wait until the next meeting to take action in
this matter so that they could obtain more information for study
and review.
*
*
*
PROCLAMATION Mayor Silva stated his wish to proclaim March 6, 1971,
as Arbor Day and the City Council concurred.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m.
/'
*
*
*
APPROVE
ATTEST
Mayor
~
"-... j City Clerk
Livermore, California
*
*
*
CM-23-434
Regular Meeting of March 1, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 1,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 So. Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8: 10 p.m. ',filth
Mayor Silva presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the minutes of the meeting
of February 22, 1971 were approved as amended
by unanimous vote.
MINUTES APPROVAL
*
*
*
Garrett Drummond, 567 So. L. Street, announced
that the Beautification Committee would have a
tree planting ceremony and award decals at
those pieces of land newly improved at the cor-
ner of East Avenue and McLeod Street on March 6
at 10:00 a.m. The Council was invited to attend.
OPEN FORUM
(Tree Planting)
*
*
*
Mr. William Struthers offered the trees recently
planted at his property at 1789 Fourth Street to
any municipal, county or state agency which would
like to remove the trees for replanting at another
location.
(Landscaping -
4th & So. N St.)
Mr. Struthers further requested that he be allowed to post a
cash bond to insure planting of street trees acceptable to
the Public Works Director, and that the final building in-
spection be made upon posting of said bond, with the bond
amount to be set by the Council.
Discussion followed on the tree size, the estimated cost, and
the conditions of the bond, and on motion of Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, the bond was set in the amount to
be specified by the Public Works Department to cover the cost
of the trees and their planting, with the condition that they
be planted within a four week period.
Councilman Miller said that Mr. Struthers had had adequate time
to replace the trees, but had chosen not to do this. He also
felt it was a useless waste of the staff's time to prepare the
agreement and handle the cash bond when the matter could be
resolved rapidly by withholding final inspection pending the
planting of the trees and urged that this motion wpu~1not pe, ~
passed. Jf~ ~
The Mayor pointed out the cost would include the cost to the
City for going to bid and other costs incurred in securing
and planting the trees.
CM-24-1
March 1, 1971
(Landscaping Councilman Pritchard said he opposed the motion
4th & So. N St.) because he was not sure that the City should in-
dicate the type of trees to be planted in various
parts of town, but the proposal seems reasonable;
but he would deny the motion for other reasons.
The motion to accept a cash bond was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
*
*
*
(Salaries - Raymond Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, said that it
City Employees) is getting close to budget time, and he proposed
that, due to the situation facing the citizens,
no increases in salary be considered for any City
employee currently earning $15,000; those earning between $10,000
and $15,000 receive a cost of living increase only; and for those
earning less than $10,00 that they be considered for a reasonable
increase in salary. In regard to public transportation, he felt
that all costs of public transportation, if such is instituted,
should be borne by the contributions the community has made and
is making to BART.
*
*
*
(On-Street Walter Davies, 791 McLeod Street, presented a peti-
Parking Limit) tion signed by approximately 150 proprietors, cus-
tomers and friends of the business location called
"The Mall'!, requesting that the 2-hour parking limit be retained
in the vicinity of the Mall, specifically on Second Street between
South Livemore Avenue and K Street.
Councilman Taylor stated he thought the reduction in the time
limit would make more parking available.
Jack Roselli, who has a shop in The Mall, stated that there are
some unique and technical shops who require more time for the in-
dividual customer.
Councilman Miller felt the staff might be directed to work out
appropriate time limits.
Mayor Silva thought this matter should be discussed by other busi-
nessmen as well and suggested that the matter be referred to the
Chamber of Commerce for resolution, and the Council agreed to such
referral.
*
*
*
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
ZONING
(Interchange
Annex)
The Planning Director reported that this matter con-
cerns zoning of the property which was annexed as a
result of the deannexation of certain property in
the Portola Annex; the area consists primarily of the
highway and freeway interchange and City street with
the exception of a small piece which is presently
being developed as a service station. The staff and Planning Com-
mission recommend ID Zoning, pending development of a proper zon-
ing category for highway commercial use.
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing; however, there were no
oral comments and no written comments had been submitted.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and it was approved unanimously, to close the public hearing.
CM-24-2
March 1, 1971
Councilman Taylor inquired if there was any other
portion that might be developed as a gas station
within the proposed annex. Mr. Musso replied
that possibly the rear portion could be; the rest
is owned by the state.
(Public Hearing -
Interchange Annex)
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for zoning of
this annex to ID District and to direct the staff to prepare the
ordinance, and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard abstained from discussion PUBLIC HEARING RE
and vote in the following matter. REZONING
451 No. pst.
The Planning Director stated that the property (Hoblitzell)
under consideration is located on the west side
of North P street. The land use is primarily
single family, but there is a church in the area. The present
RL-5-0 zoning would allow single family dwellings, and the Gen-
eral Plan indicates this area for low residential use. The pro-
posed use is a mortuary, but this use is not before the Council
at this time. If the rezoning is approved with the intent of
allowing a mortuary, such use would be prohibited as the use
must have access to a major street; an application would then
have to be made for a variance. Based on the fact that the
commercial use would be contrary to the General Plan, the
Planning Commission recommends denial. Mr. Musso pointed out
that P street is designated as a collector street, not a major
street.
Two written protests against the rezoning were received from
William R. Holladay and J. R. and M. K. Harrower, 375 Holladay
Court.
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing.
John Corley, representing the applicant, felt that P Street was
adequate to handle all of the traffic resulting from the pro-
posed use as a mortuary. He listed Mr. Hoblitzell's background
and qualifications, and the applicant wishes to build a mortuary
in Livermore. The applicant made several considerations in
choosing this site, and the use would serve Livermore. The
property is now vacant and the area could be upgraded by allow-
ing this use. As far as the applicant is concerned the zoning
is immaterial; they are requesting the use, whatever the zone
may be. Mr. Corley said the proposed use would benefit the
area, the citizens and the City of Livermore.
Discussion followed regarding traffic resulting from the proposed
use, and Mr. Hoblitzell said he would be agreeable to the Police
Chief's recommendations as to traffic routes.
Bill Flett, of Gelderman Realtors in Danville, representing Mr.
Vineyard, property owner, asked the Council to consider develop-
ment of this property as three separate lots; he felt the chances
for such development would be nil.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, did object to CO District zoning
and felt E District zoning would be better.
Mrs. H. W. Kane, 590 No. P Street, stated her understanding that
there would be no commercial zoning on P Street when they pur-
chased their home twelve years ago. Traffic problems have been
created by the recent commercial built on P Street and she felt
the neighborhood would rather have a mortuary than a high rise
apartment building.
CM-24-3
March 1, 1971
(Public Hearing
451 No. P St.-
Hoblitzell)
J. R. Harrower, 375 Holladay Court, did not feel
a mortuary or the commercial zoning was to any-
one's advantage. He thought many of the signers
of the petition were renters; however, Mr. W. R.
Holladay is owner of property adjacent and had
indicated he would object to the rezoning. Traffic is heavy, and
parking would overflow into Holladay Court. Most people would be
reluctant to buy in the neighborhood if the proposed use is
allowed.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, to
close the public hearing, approved unanimously with Councilman
Pritchard abstaining.
Mayor Silva asked the Planning Director if the ordinances would re-
quire adequate parking to prevent overflow, and Mr. Musso replied
that the mortuary at East Avenue is more than adequate but people
choose, many times, to park on the street.
Councilman Beebe felt E District zoning would be more appropriate if
this use were allowed so that commercial would not encroach in the
area.
Councilman Miller said a mortuary is a commercial enterprise how-
ever; there might be other requests for further commercial rezoning.
Councilman Taylor referred to previous discussion regarding location
of mortuaries, and it was generally decided that the use was not best
located in residential and should be on a major street. He felt
there were other locations more suitable for the use.
Mayor Silva felt there might be certain areas now zoned residential
which would be suitable for the proposed use, and these could be
rezoned to some district other than CO District to permit the use.
Councilman Beebe felt this area was transitional an~ as he had in-
dicated in previous discussions, the proposed use might be located
on this property.
Councilman Miller pointed out that residential construction is still
possible on vacant lots on the north side. This particular parcel
could be developed through the cluster ordinance. He felt this
application would allow spot zoning on a residential street and
there are better locations for mortuaries than this location.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the
rezoning; the motion failed to gain a majority by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
NOES: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
Councilman Beebe felt rezoning this property to E District would
protect against further commercial development but allow the use.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to rezone the subject parcel to E
District from RL-5-0, seconded by Mayor Silva; the motion failed
to gain a majority by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
The City Attorney stated that Councilman Pritchard was legally
justified in not participating in this discusssion and vote due to
possible conflict of interest and there being no successful motion,
the action of the Planning Commission for denial stands.
* * *
CM-24-4
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication has been received from the City
of San Mateo regarding possible property tax re-
lief by means of a different assessment ratio
for single family dwellings.
March 1, 1971
Communication re
Property Tax
Relief
Councilman Miller said he thought the proposal had merit and
perhaps we should follow San Mateo's lead. Discussion was de-
ferred on this matter until later in the meeting, if the Council
so desired.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Livermore
Area Recreation and Park District requesting
certain information and considerations re the
Jackson Park area. This item was removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion later.
*
*
*
This item was removed from the Consent Calen-
dar for later discussion.
*
*
*
The Sanitary Sewer Fee Adjustment report sub-
mitted by the Public Works Director was dis-
cussed somewhat and then removed for further
discussion.
*
*
*
Communication re
Jackson Park Area
Right-of-Way
Condemnation
Sanitary Sewer
Fee Adjustment
The City Manager reported that over the past
several weeks contact has been maintained with
our representative on the BART Board and their
legal counsel on a matter of significant concern
to the future of transit services for our Valley.
The BART Board, based upon our insistence, has adopted a formal
policy of pledging that our Valley, together with two peripheral
areooin the district, will receive first priority for rail line
extension before transit services are granted to primarily unin-
corporated areas. However, with the advent of the Metropolitan
Transit Commission regional transit planning, by law, is delegated
to this new agency and their membership includes representatives
from the nine Bay Area Counties. Consequently, it is conceivable
that this Commission would preempt former BART Board pledges, de-
pending upon their voting strength.
Report re State
Legislation -
Transit Planning
In response to this concern two important bills have been intro-
duced to the State legislature, SB 162 and SB 163, both of which
will guarantee our current status on rail line transit extension.
The staff recommendation is for the Council to adopt a motion
urging our State legislative representatives to support these
bills.
*
*
*
Emergency
Ambulance Fee
The City Manager reported that in accordance
with the direction of the City Council a joint
meeting was held with the representative of
Allen's Ambulance Company so as to negotiate an interim subsidy
for the provision of emergency ambulance services in our City
until such time as a permanent arrangement is made. The nego-
tiated fee on a month-to-month basis is set at $1,000. It is
the staff recommendation that a motion approving this fee be
adopted. (Mayor Silva abstained from vote on this item)
*
*
*
CM-24-5
March 1, 1971
Claim for
Damages
(Dean Davis)
Storm Drain
Fee Adjustment
Final
Improvements
Tr. 3143
(H.C. Elliott)
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
CM-24-6
A claim was filed against the City for damages in
the amount of $67.47 by Dean Davis. The damages
were sustained when his automobile struck a manhole
cover. Recommendation is for denial of the claim.
RESOLUTION NO. 24-71
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF
DEAN M. DAVIS OR MELANIE DAVIS
*
*
*
The Public Works Director submitted a report, and in
accordance with Ordinance No. 604, which provides for
yearly adjustment by resolution of storm drainage fees
and credits to reflect the change in Construction
Cost Index, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 25-71
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT
OF STORM DRAINAGE FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1971
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has reported that all im-
provements have been completed in Tract 3143 to
City standards and are ready to be accepted for per-
manent maintenance, and he so recommends.
RESOLUTION NO. 26-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT 3143 (H. C. ELLIOTT)
*
*
*
Exempt business license applications were received
from the following:
AAUVJ/Livermore Playschool - ticket sales for speaker
Toyland Chapter - Children's Home Society - various
fund raising activities during 1971
Granada Little League Women's Auxiliary - various fund
raising activities during 1971
*
*
*
Ninety claims in the amount of $17,279.82, and Two
Hundred Twenty payroll warrants in the amount of
$78,648.77, dated February 24, 1971, were ordered
paid as approved by the Finance Director. Mayor
Silva abstained from voting on Warrants 9894 and 9934
for his usual reason.
*
~
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Miller, and by unanimous vote, the items on the
consent calendar were approved except for those
items which were removed and the abstentions men-
tioned.
*
*
*
Raymond Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, asked to
speak with regard to the emergency ambulance
fee.
March 1, 1971
Comments re
Emergency Ambulance
Service Fee
Mayor Silva stepped down from the chair to abstain from discussion
on this matter, and Mayor pro tempore Miller took the chair.
Mr. Faltings referred to a newspaper editorial in the Herald News,
which he read in part, referring to the interim subsidy. He
stated his feeling that this was an open end negotiation and
Livermore should allow the rest of the Valley to assume some of
the burdens that exist.
Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that the item was incomplete
inasmuch as Pleasanton was being asked for an amount of $1500,
so he did not think Livermore was bearing the greater portion
of the burden.
Mr. Faltings asked what other activity the staff had undertaken
to investigate other means, and he suggested an alternate method
with which he was familiar which would make use of the Fire De-
partment. He felt we were subsidizing individuals rather than
allowing competition to handle the situation.
Mayor pro tempore Miller explained the reason for the interim
negotiations, and Councilman Pritchard added that on the 12th of
March the City Manager would be meeting with representatives from
other entities (Pleasanton and Alameda County) to discuss various
ways of obtaining the best services for the least cost.
*
*
*
A report had been received from the Library
Board re Sunday hours at the Library, and
this item was postponed from the meeting of
February 22, until this time.
Library Hours
Councilman Miller stated he appreciated the comments made by the
Library Board, but there is some public demand for Sunday opening
and holiday weekends, or portions of the long weekends, and suggest-
ed that Sunday opening be tried for three months and if there is
not enough usage, then forget it.
Mayor Silva felt that the Library Board had made an in depth
study and he concurred with their decision.
The report from the Board indicated that there appeared to be
very little public demand, and they did not feel that the added
cost warranted even half-day service on Sunday.
Councilman Taylor expressed his agreement with the decision of
the Library Board, adding that as the City grows this matter
should perhaps be reconsidered; Councilman Pritchard also agreed
with the Board's decision.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., stated he made use of the Library
for one main purpose, and that was the Council Agenda packet
which is placed there. He suggested a Sunday opening or that
the agenda be placed somewhere other than the Library for the
use of the public.
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle st., speaking as a student, stated that
Sunday opening would be best for him in working on research
papers, and he was greatly disturbed during the last four day
weekend when the Library was closed and he had work to do. He
mentioned the fact there were four others who had tried to get
in at that time.
Arthur Henry, Chairman of the Library Board, stated they did not
mean to slam the door entirely on this suggestion, but it was
CM-24-7
"-"..-'"----..,......,_..,.._,...._--'-_..'"'--r----.'...,.-....,'-,..",--,..,,-----,----,---------,
March 1, 1971
(Library
Hours)
done as they have had very few requests directed to
them; secondly, it does involve a significant cost.
They will keep an open mind on the issue and if they
feel it is justified, they will try to find the money
for it. Another issue is the problem of closing during the holidays;
It has happened twice during the past year, however did not happen
before that, but it does represent time and a half compensatory
time for the employees and again is a cost situation.
Councilman Miller asked Mr. Henry if the Board would reconsider
this matter during the budget session.
*
*
*
Communication
re Flag
Contest
A communication had been received from the Community
Affairs Committee suggesting that a contest be held
for the design of a City flag. A request for an
amount of $100 was made to cover a $50.00 cash award
for the winning design and the cost of having the
flag made and donated to the City. The committee proposed several
rules to govern the contest.
Mayor Silva indicated that he felt this was an appropriate suggestion
from the Community Affairs Committee and thought it was a good idea.
Walter Griffith, Chairman of the committee, stated that the committee
felt the flag should be displayed in City Hall rather than on the
flagpole.
Councilman Miller suggested that since the Community Affairs Com-
mittee is a City sponsored committee he felt the proposed designs
should be turned in a City Hall rather than the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Griffith said the committee felt the whole community should be
included in this effort and the Chamber is a part of the community.
It would relieve the City staff of the burden of collecting these
designs for the contest. It had been suggested that some of the sub-
mitted designs be displayed at the Chamber and in local store win-
dows.
The majority of the Council felt that it would be acceptable to let
the Chamber handle the details of the contest, but that it would
be emphasized the sponsoring committee is a City sponsored one and
not from the Chamber. The Council approved the expenditure of
$100 by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SKYLINE
PARKWAY
PROPOSAL
The Planning Commission has submitted a report re-
commending that the Council advise the County Board
of Supervisors that the concept of the proposed
parkway not be pursued further and that public monies
not be spent on a project that would permit or enhance
urban development of the ridge.
Before discussing the proposal Mayor Silva indicated his desire to
refer it to the Valley Planning Committee for recommendation. He
felt that they should hear the reasons from the County as to why
they had made this proposal.
The Planning Director explained that the objective of the County
was to create a scenic parkway; however, the Planning Commission
did not agree with the concept of establishing a road in this area,
but rather to leave it as the County General Plan indicates in
open space.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that sometimes the Council does not
represent both sides of an issue, and this is such an instance
CM-24-8
March 1, 1971
where the Council represents only one side or part(Skyline Parkway)
of the citizens of Livermore. This matter does
not require coordination of the several cities
involved, and the Council has the responsibility to point out to
the County how the citizens of Livermore feel about the proposal.
Councilman Pritchard said if the land would be controlled by the
County it would be a different situation. Instead the land will
be owned by others and the County will not have control. He
stated he was against putting a road on the ridge.
Mayor Silva stated he was in agreement with the statements made
by the Planning Commission, but there was not any testimony from
Alameda County and he was hesitant to make a decision without their
testimony. He would be willing to forward the recommendations
with the statement that with the facts presently before the Coun-
cil, the Council is against the proposal.
Councilman Beebe said he was not sure that denial of the proposal
would not deprive the future citizens of a regional park in this
area.
Mr. Musso stated the General Plan indicates the Pleasanton Ridge
and the Sunol Ridge to be a park area extending from the Calaveras
area north to ultimately connect with the Water Company lands.
The proposed parkway plan is essentially in conformance with the
General Plan with respect to the recreational aspects; the only
difference is that the County plan indicated no major roadway
through the area. Palomares Road is shown as a secondary road and
Foothill Road as being a north-south route. There was no route
proposed between them, but the proposed parkway plan indicates
a connection between the Sunol Valley Regional Park and Water
Company lands and the East Bay Municipal Utility District lands
near San Leandro reservoir. The proposed roadway will extend
up Pleasanton Ridge, along the top, until it reaches Highway 580
at Palomares Road, then drops down and goes up Norris Canyon Road
over the hill into the water company lands. The proposed design
includes a trailway system for pedestrians, horses, and bicycles,
and a recreation area is proposed as an adjunct to the roadway
with picnic and camping area. The main concern of the Planning
Commission is whether the road is necessary. The other facilities
could be provided without the road. The money to be expended for
the construction of the road could be used to acquire parkland
and the existing roads could be used for access. The total cost
is estimated between $64,000,000 and $55,000,000. If the roadway
is built, the cost of the adjacent land will increase to the point
where it would be too costly to acquire for recreational purposes
so it would probably be developed.
Councilman Miller made a motion to: 1) oppose the road to the
County and adopt the recommendation on page 2 of the Planning
Commission's report with a change in line 2 to read, "Rather it
is recommended that the $64,000,000 or any expenditure of monies";
2) to send a copy of the Planning Commissionls report to the East
Bay Regional Park District and request them to reconsider their
previous recommendation; and 3) to send a copy of the letter to
ABAG and request comment about this violation of their open space
proposal. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to amend the main motion by
adding the words, "based on the information before us", seconded
by Mayor Silva, and passed by a four to one vote with Councilman
Miller dissenting. The main motion as amended then passed un-
animously.
*
*
*
CM-24-9
..-..---..'_-_m'-.__-..-'..-r-'-"'..'.' "'...."....'-..........."'...,-...,..''----
PLANNING
COMMISSION
SUMMARY
A summary of action taken at the Planning Commission
meeting of February 23 was noted for filing.
Councilman Miller stated he understood that extensions
of Planned Unit Development permits over 60 days require a hearing
by provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Musso advised that this does
apply to commencement date, but in the case of Springtown and Lincoln
the extension involves completion dates.
Councilman Miller felt the extensions should be reviewed by the
Council. Problems have arisen in the past regarding extension of
PUD permits. The permits should either be resolved or else expire;
they should not be extended over and over.
Mr. Musso stated that perhaps a little more detail could be given
on the summary in such cases so that the Council would be aware of
the details involved.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
STREET
TREE PLAN
A report was submitted by the Public Works Director
regarding the street tree plan.
Garrett Drummond, chairman of the Beautification
Committee, said the committee had considered that
portion of the plan concerning residential areas. The concern was
based on the problem of providing diversity and variety in residen-
tial area. There is too much similarity in our developments and
only through diversified planting can that variety be added. The
committee urges that the street tree paln be modified as recommended.
Councilman Miller offered an amendment that replacement of any street
tree with any other tree from the street tree list be made "after
consultation with the staff". This would give the staff an oppor-
tunity to discuss the reasons for the recommended choice with the
homeowner.
Councilman Pritchard felt residents should have freedom of choice,
referring to those instances when it was necessary to replace a tree.
Councilman Taylor stated that a tree is a neighborhood asset in
the public right-of-way, and the homeowner should not have the right
to cut down that tree and replace it with a much smaller one.
The City Manager asked what the Council's intent was as to replace-
ment of trees - would replacement be allowed by choice or only when
there was a valid reason for removal and replacement with another
variety, such as damage to sewer lines or sidewalks.
The Council discussed the problems involved, would it encourage
tree removal because the owner did not like the particular tree
or is it reasonable to allow the homeowner to choose the type of
tree he wishes for replacement. It was decided that the majority
of trees will be planted by developers, which will be alternated
on the various streets resulting in a certain uniformity.
In the matter of replacement, the Council decided by a four to one
vote (Mayor Silva dissenting) to allow replacement when necessary;
homeowners would have the option to replace that tree with another
variety as approved by the City. The Council's action, in effect,
approved the staff recommendation as presented with the option re-
garding replacement trees.
RESOLUTION NO. 27-71
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRECISE PLAN FOR CITY
STREET TREES
*
*
*
CM-24-10
March 1, 1971
Discussion regarding the communication received
from Senator Clark L. Bradley regarding taxation
of mobile homes was continued from the previous
meeting.
COMMUNICATION FROM
SENATOR BRADLEY RE
MOBILE HOMES
Councilman Taylor said he did not feel Senator Bradley understood
the situation as presented by the Council and suggested that a
committee be appointed to draft a reply.
Mayor Silva suggested the staff be instructed to reply inasmuch
as he felt that Senator Bradley misinterpreted the Council's letter.
Councilman Pritchard was concerned about the use and taxation
rather than mobile homes as a type of dwelling.
Councilman Taylor did not feel Senator Bradley's remarks were
pertinent to the Council's inquiry.
The City Manager said an in depth study is being conducted now
by the Institute of Local Self Government. John Houlihan is
heading this study and he has advised that it will be done in
about three months and should provide a great deal of information
on this subject.
The Council felt that a reply should be made to Senator Bradley
with further explanation of the Council's position.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard abstained in the discussion
and vote on this matter.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE CEMETERIES,
MORTUARIES
In connection with the Council's previous dis-
cussion and action regarding the proposed Zon-
ing Ordinance amendment which pertains to the regulation of
cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums, columbariums and mortuaries
and revision of Section 28.00 (Conditional Use Permits), Council-
man Miller raised the question of the association of crematories
with mortuaries. If mortuaries are to be allowed in residential
areas, crematories should not be allowed as it is more of an
industrial use. Mr. Musso stated that the crematory is a minor
adjunct to the other uses.
Robert Pritchard, 4886 Primrose Lane, pointed out there are two
types of cremation processes and both more than meet the pollution
regulations; there is no smoke or odor emission of any kind.
Councilman Miller urged that the Council members reconsider per-
mitting the location of mortuaries in residential areas.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to waive the first reading of the proposed zoning ordinance amend-
ment, regulating cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums, columbariums
and mortuaries and revising Section 28.00 (Conditional Use Permits),
and by the following vote the proposed ordinance was introduced
and filed:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
In connection with the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment to assign zoning categories to various
areas west of North L Street, south of Park st.,
north of railroad right-of-way, Councilman Miller
stated there may be problems in obtaining park
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE ZONING NO. L &
PARK STREETS AREA
CM-24-11
----.'-'--'--,..,-'----'-"--'--------'_..
March 1, 1971
(Re Zoning
No. L & Park
Streets)
dedication in this general area. He had discussed
this situation with the City Attorney who recommended
that the staff be directed to prepare a Park Plan
indicating possible park locations within this general
area so that if an ordinance is passed providing for
park dedication from multiple units legal points will be clarified
and made more tenable. Secondly, on the assumption that such a
park plan existed at this moment, what would be the best way to
secure park dedication. The best way would be to obtain it by
contract zoning; the next best way would be through the issuance
of a building permit.
The City Attorney stated that at the present time there are a cer-
tain number of intangibles. More authority at a later date would
be assured upon conditional zoning. Districts should be established
throughout the City and standards set up similar to those in sub-
divisions.
Councilman Miller said he was concerned about park dedication. There
is only one property which requested rezoning; zoning of the other
property involved was initiated by the City. Action should be de-
layed until park dedication is worked out. The best time to get the
conditions of public dedication needed is at the time of the zoning
which increases the property value.
The City Attorney explained that contract zoning is a type of zoning
where ordinances are written which state that the City may only grant
the zoning if the property owner agrees in writing to do certain
things. The idea is that the zoning has to stand on some condition
such as increase in streets or provision of parks. Rezoning of that
property puts a burden on the community, and the property owners can
be required, in a reasonable way, to meet that burden through a
contract which precedes the zoning. If the contract is broken, the
zoning cannot be denied but must be rezoned in the regular manner.
Until a park district is established, the City cannot say what will
be required.
Councilman Taylor stated that this is the largest parcel which has
been rezoned from single family to multiple, and it is in the public
interest to provide park dedication.
The Council discussed delaying the rezoning until the method of re-
quiring park dedication can be worked out and at the close of dis-
cussion Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to waive the first reading (title read only) of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendment to assign zoning categories to various
area, west of No. L Street, south of Park Street, north of railroad
right-of-way, and Shell and California Water Service Company proper-
ties; motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 18,
SEC. 18.21
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, to waive the first reading (title
read only) and by unanimous vote the proposed ordinance
amending Chapter 18, Section 18.21, relating to
sewers was introduced.
*
*
*
CM-24-12
March 1, 1971
Discussion of a communication from the City of
San Mateo regarding possible property tax re-
lief by means of a different assessment ratio
for single family dwellings was removed from
the Consent Calendar.
COMMUNICATION RE
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
Councilman Miller discussed present methods of tax assessment
and the fact that single family homes do not accrue income as
business properties do. A change in assessment practices as
suggested would require a constitutional amendment.
The Council discussed how such a proposal would affect the com-
munity. Councilman Taylor felt that more information was needed
before this matter could be fully considered.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylo~ seconded by Councilman
Miller, to consider this proposal in more detail at a later date.
The motion failed to gain a majority by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
NOES: Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the Liver-
more Area Recreation and Park District in regard
to the development of Jackson Avenue park. This
item was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion at this time.
COMMUNICATION RE
JACKSON PARK AREA
Councilman Miller referred to LARPD's suggestion that a street
be designated on the easterly side of the park for future de-
velopment. If the City does agree to construct the street,
LARPD should be willing to join the City by providing funds
for the street in the amount equal to cost of public improve-
ments they would otherwise have to provide if the street is
not constructed.
The Council felt they should wait for a staff report on this
request before discussing the matter further.
Mayor Silva said he would like to know if it would be feasible
to allocate a certain portion of community parks for the storage
of campers and trailers.
Councilman Miller said it had also been suggested that a portion
of the airport property be fenced for storage and those using
the facilities would pay for them.
The Council directed the staff to explore this possibility and
to make a report to the Council.
*
*
*
Tract Map 3222 was recorded with a small portion
inadvertently included which is not in the de-
veloper's ownership. A report was submitted by
the Director of Public Works with the recommen-
dation that the Council authorize the commence-
ment of condemnation procedures and to seek immediate possession
with all costs to be borne by the title company or developer.
This item had been removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion at this time.
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONDEMNATION
(Tract 3222)
Councilman Miller stated he did not feel the City should enter
into the resolution of this problem; it is not the job of the
City to condemn for a business mistake.
CM-24-13
-,..'-.-'--_..__...."..,'--,..,' "--_..........,..,, ......_,_...."-,-------",..
March 1, 1971
(Right-of-Way The Public Works Director said an honest attempt
Condemnation) has been made to acquire the land. If this por-
tion of the area is not purchased, there will be
an opening in the street system. He felt it was
in the interest of the public to accept this re-
commendation. Mr. Lee said there is an alterna-
tive as the title company is willing to file a corrected map
which would leave a gap in the street. All the facilities such
as sewers and water lines would have to be rerouted.
The City Attorney said that in discussion with the title company,
it was agreed that their attorney would handle all the proceedings
and costs.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe to adopt the staff recommen-
dation for commencement of condemnation procedures, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard. Motion was passed and the following resolu-
tions were adopted by a four to one vote with Councilman Miller
dissenting.
RESOLUTION NO. 28-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION OF A
TRIANGULAR PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE, FOR
PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES, LOCATED BETWEEN THE MOST EASTERLY
AND WESTERLY EXTENSIONS OF THERESA WAY AS SHOWN ON TRACT
MAP 3222, CITY OF LIVERMORE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 29-71
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR ACQUISITION OF
THERESA WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY - EMINENT DOMAIN
*
*
*
SANITARY
SEWER FEE
ADJUSTMENT
Consideration of this item was removed from the Con-
sent Calendar for further discussion.
Councilman Miller felt that the inclusion of mobile
homes under classification "A" should be resolved.
The Public Works Director said a survey of the present situation
would be made and a recommendation made soon.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 30-71
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF
SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1971
*
*
*
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Federal
Revenue
Sharing)
Councilman Beebe referred to previous discussion re-
garding federal revenue sharing proposal. He felt
it might be better if this money came directly to
the cities as a proportion of the income tax.
Mayor Silva said this would be his recommendation
at the forthcoming conference in Washington, D.C.
The Council discussed possible ways of carrying
out such a proposal.
(PUblic Hear-
ing Continuance-
East Ave.-
Maniz,Pritchard)
* *
It was requested by the
hearing for rezoning on
8th, be continued until
was granted.
*
applicant that the public
East Avenue set for March
March 29 and permission
*
*
*
CM-24-14
As the Mayor and the City Manager will be out
of town on the 22nd of March, it was suggested
that there be no meeting on that date, but that
a meeting be held on March 29th.
*
*
*
March 1, 1971
(Meeting Dates)
Councilman Pritchard referred to a communication (Filing Fee)
received from the Beverly Hills Chamber of Com-
merce. He felt some of their suggestions were
against the democratic process. The Council discussed the possi-
bility of requiring a filing fee, and the staff was directed to
include this on a future agenda for discussion.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller said he understood the junk
yard on Portola Ave. was to have been abated.
The staff was directed to check on this matter.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller inquired as to status of re-
port regarding conversion of City automobiles to
propane. The City Manager has been working with
the County in this regard and a report should be
forthcoming.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked if the effect of varying
densities of development on the runoff is in-
cluded in the study and report being prepared
on the Arroyo runoff. The Public Works Director
said the report should be ready in a month or so.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked if there is a proposal
in the Transportation Study for a low level bus
service to LRL and Sandia Corp. The City Manager
said this wouldbe asegregated part of the report
and the consultant recommends this be instituted
whatever other decisions are made.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller suggested that the vineyards
should be protected by designating them as a
state asset. This would mean permanent use
as vineyards and a resultant tax break. He
felt this matter should be investigated.
(Junk Yard -
Portola Ave.)
(Conversion of
City Autos to
Propane)
(Arroyo study
on Runoff)
(Transportation
Study)
(Preservation of
Vineyards)
Councilman Taylor said permanent zoning has been proposed more
and more over the years. The staff was instructed to contact
one of the local vineyards and see how they felt about this
proposal.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva referred to the Beautification Com-
mittee's recommendation for renaming the East
Avenue triangles as East Avenue Greens.
(Naming of East
Avenue Triangles)
The Public Works Director advised that just recently he and the
Landscape Architect had prepared a procedure for naming such
areas which was presented to the Beautification Committee. The
procedure routes such matters to the Beautification Committee,
CM-24-15
March 1, 1971
(Naming of
East Ave.
Triangles)
ADJOURNMENT
to the Planning Commission, to the City Council
for final approval. This procedure will be pre-
sented for Council adoption.
The suggested name was informally agreed upon and
will be formally adopted at the next meeting.
*
*
*
come before the
at 12:20 a.m.
APPROVE
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of March 8, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 8, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. with Mayor Silva pre-
siding.
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the minutes
of the meeting of March 1st, were approved as amended.
OPEN FORUM
(Police
Patrol)
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, asked the Council
if they have considered having two patrolmen to a
car after dark. Mr. Parness advised that in most
instances this is the practice; usually using police
reserve officers. If there are not two officers,
then there is a followup car on the way when an
officer is making a contact.
Mr. Phillips congratulated the Council for having a crossing
guard placed at El Caminito; also, he inquired if a traffic signal
is being considered for that crosswalk as he felt there should be
one there.
Mr. Phillips advised the Council that his trial has been set for
April 16 with regard to his violation of the sign ordinance.
(Time Limit
on Various
Applications)
*
*
*
Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock Street, stated he had
suggested several months ago that a limit be placed
on the frequency of a zoning request, building permit
or other permit submitted to the Council for consi-
deration, and in particular referred to the applica-
tion for the mobile home park near the airport. He questioned the
Council as to why the matter could not be resolved the first time
CM-24-16
March 8, 1971
since the Planning Commission's recommendation (Time Limits)
was presented and petition submitted by the
property owners and homeowners opposing the
application instead of cluttering up the agenda two or three times.
Mayor Silva stated that as long as the required fees were paid,
there was no alternative but to consider the matter.
Councilman Miller stated he had suggested a limit of six months
or one year be set before a reapplication can be made, but the
majority of the Council did not agree that a limit should be
placed, and Councilman Taylor agreed, adding that if the same
application is submitted time after time, it does wear you down,
but did not think they had a legal choice not to consider an
application; however, in this particular instance there was sub-
stantial change between the first and second applications. Coun-
cilman Pritchard added that the matter was continued inasmuch as
there was additional information regarding the use of the land in
and around airports coming out of a study by ABAG.
The City Attorney added that some jurisdictions do have a limit
which generally covers an application for rezoning or permit which
is the same or similar to a previous one that is barred.
Councilman Pritchard remarked that Mr. Kerr had appeared before
them many times before, and felt the situation was no different
than when he appeared before the Council as they always listened
to what he had to say.
*
*
*
The public hearing on the adoption, by reference,
of the 1968 Edition of the National Electrical
Code is held in accordance with uniform code
adoption procedures. This code will replace
the current 1925 edition. Notices have been
transmitted earlier to all interested contrac-
tors and our Board of Appeals recommends adoption.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ADOPTION BY REFER-
ENCE OF 1968 EDITION
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE
The City Manager explained that this matter has been under study
by the staff for many months; information about its potential
adoption has been submitted to all contractors - electrical and
building; opinions have been solicited and it has been processed
through the Board of Appeals prior to introduction to the Council.
Tom Murphy, representing the Association of Home Builders of the
Greater East Bay, also the construction industry via building code
action, wished to congratulate the Council on behalf of the in-
dustry on their action in adopting the 1968 electrical code and
keeping the codes as up to date as possible, thereby eliminating
needless cost and expense.
There being no further comments from the audience, or were com-
ments submitted, on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and by unanimous approval, the public hearing
was closed.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and by unanimous vote of the Council, the second reading of the
ordinance was waived (title read only) and the following ordinance
was adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 736
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LIVERMORE CITY
CODE, 1959, RELATING TO ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL ELEC-
TRICAL CODE, 1968 EDITION, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
CM-24-17
- _._--_._---_._--_._~-_._.._...._.. ..-...-....-..-.-
March 8, 1971
Weed
Abatement
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 31-71
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.
The above resolution is the first step in the annual program for
weed abatement on vacant properties. A total of approximately 1,000
parcels have been posted.
Report re
Airport
Lease
Modification
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a lease agreement for
the Fixed Base Operator requires that semi-annual pay-
ments, based on gross receipts, be paid to the City
within 30 days after the close of each period, with
a statement by a C.P.A. in support. The Lessee has
found the 30-day time allowance to be insufficient
to prepare the C.P.A. statement and they have requested a modifi-
cation of the requirement. It is recommended that the lease modi-
fication be approved as follows:
1. Requirement for advance quarterly gross receipts payment
2. Annual C.P.A. statement of tenants business activities
Beautification
Committee
Minutes
Exempt
Business
License
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
SUPERVISORIAL
REDISTRICTING
*
*
*
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meetings of
February 4 and 18 were presented to the Council.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license was
received from the American Legion, Livermore Post
No. 47 for a benefit variety show to be held on
April 19.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the items on
the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva reported that it is now necessary to
redistrict the area for supervisorial districts
based on population. Supervisor Murphy would like
to see Livermore-Pleasanton Valley in one district,
to include Dublin, and would also like to take in
Fremont and Newark, excluding Union City. There have been state-
ments made that one supervisor would like the foothills from
Berkeley, swinging through Castro Valley, including Dublin which
would give two supervisors for the Valley, and Mayor Silva indi-
cated he did not agree with that proposal. Another problem is
that Newark, Union City and Fremont want to remain under one super-
visor. Due to the population, one of those cities has to be deleted.
The Council discussed the possibility of benefiting from having
two supervisors; however, it was generally agreed that the Valley
should remain in one district. Also discussed was whether it would
be best to be included with Fremont and Newark, or Hayward and
Castro Valley.
CM-24-18
March 8, 1971
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded
by Councilman Miller, that the Valley should
remain together, and that the Valley in total
should be in the same district as Fremont and
Newark. The motion was approved unanimously and the staff
directed to draw up the formal resolution for submittal to
Board of Supervisors.
(Supervisorial
Redistricting)
was
the
RESOLUTION NO. 32-71
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CONSOLIDATE LIVERMORE, PLEASANTON, DUB-
LIN, FREMONT AND NEWARK WITHIN THE SAME SUPERVISOR-
IAL DISTRICT.
*
*
*
A notice has been transmitted by Robert G. Olson,
alerting the City as to the proposed redistrict-
ing of Congressional Districts which may cause
our Valley to be segregated from the Bay Area
complex. Our affiliation with the metropolitan core and East Bay
communities should be maintained, and Mr. Olson asked that the
Council adopt a resolution for submittal to the State Legislature,
urging consideration in their deliberations on reapportionment
and favorable redistricting.
CONGRESSIONAL
REDISTRICTING
PROPOSAL
Mr. Olson, 369 Harding Avenue, addressed the Council and further
stressed the fact that it would be more desirable to remain in
the district as an integral part of the Greater Bay Area, rather
than as part of the San Joaquin District; secondly, he felt the
northern part of the state is poorly represented in the Assembly
Election Reapportionment Committee. When the Committee was es-
tablished, of which there are fifteen members, all but three are
from south of the Tehachapis - Bob Monigan from Tracy, Willy
Brown from San Francisco and Bob Crown from Alameda, none of
whom have a particular interest in the Valley or its future.
After some discussion by the Council, a motion was made by Coun-
cilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unan-
imously, to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 33-71
RESOLUTION RE REDISTRICTING OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS
There is to be a public hearing on the 1971 reapportionment of
Legislative, Congressional and State Board of Equalization Districts,
on March 26, 1971, at Sacramento. Councilman Pritchard indicated
that he would like to attend this meeting and perhaps present the
resolution at that time. If he is unable to attend, other arrange-
ments will be made.
Mr. Lewis suggested that the resolution be sent to the committee,
and at the meeting other prepared comments could be made.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that an applicant is
interested in annexing property located south
of U.S. 580, east of North Livermore Avenue
and abutting the former Coast Manufacturing
Company property on the north side. It comprises about 130 acres.
Prior to preparing the detailed description and maps the applicant
wishes to inquire of the Council its interest in this proposal.
REPORT RE INQUIRY
ON ANNEXATION
Councilman Miller asked the City Attorney if he had a conflict of
interest in this matter; Mr. Lewis advised him that he did not
CM-24-19
March 8, 1971
(Annexation
Inquiry)
and could participate in the discussion, however
should the property be proposed for rezoning, if he
is within 300 feet, it would be necessary to abstain
at that time.
Mr. Parness explained that the property is in one ownership, with
one possible minor exception. It is fairly symmetrical and would
not cause any unusual islands or small protuberances that would
be incorporated around it in the event that it is allowed. Being
in one ownership would preclude any difficulties of annexation
agreements if they do propose development. Mr. Parness stated that
recently it is his understanding there may be some interest from
abutting properties in joining the annexation. One of the primary
purposes of the applicant before they prepare all the description and
mapping is they would like the Council to decide what should be
included.
The Council discussed the surrounding properties and concurred that
they should inquire if other properties are interested in annexa-
tion at this time.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Council proceed with investi-
gation of adjacent properties and to consider the annexation without
any commitment to use as the policy of the Council.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to start the wheels on the annexation, with adjacent proper-
ties, both east and west, to be contacted for the purpose of includ-
ing them in the annexation. There is to be no commitment as to use.
Mr. Norman Warnow stated that he had control of the 44 acres ad-
joining the subject property on the west, and saw no reason not to
annex to the City. He stated there was another piece of property
of 18 acres between Las Positas and the freeway that could possibly
be included.
The motion was voted on and passed unanimously.
Earl Mason, Associated Professions, stated this property belonged
to his client, and he would like to know if it is permissible to
consider the application for rezoning concurrently with the annexa-
tion as has been done sometimes in the past.
Councilman Miller felt the Council should wait until a report is
forthcoming from all the properties before they decide on that issue.
Mr. Parness asked if it would not be appropriate, assuming they
would concur with the configuration of the annexation proposal,
as they have done in the past sometimes, that they be permitted to
submit land use proposals while the annexation matter is under
consideration.
Councilman Taylor asked if this was with the idea that if the use
which is requested might not be granted it would give them time
to withdraw. Mr. Mason stated he did not know whether or not this
was the intent of his client; the main purpose is to save the three
to five months time it takes to annex, so the public hearings could
proceed, and a tentative answer could be given as to what would be
allowed shortly before final annexation is signed.
Mr. Lewis explained the problems that might be involved if the
interested parties should withdraw after annexation proceedings
are initiated.
Councilman Miller pointed out there was one thing different in
what was being requested by Mr. Mason and what has been done occa-
sionally when they have carried on zoning applications concurrently
with annexation proceedings; the zoning application reflected ex-
actly what was in the General Plan. He felt the application being
CM-24-20
March 8, 1971
presented, which would include a mobile home (Annexation Inquiry)
park, did not reflect the General Plan; therefore,
he felt the Council should be more cautious.
Councilman Taylor stated there are other problems; before they
decide specific zoning they must do a specific General Plan study
of the area.
Mr. Mason stated that is one reason his client would like to limit
the annexation to his piece of property and his application because
if there are other properties involved and one person withdraws,
and you change it 5% or 10%, you have to begin allover and refile.
Mel Baker, 907 Miranda Way, stated the Council should consider
some of the unwelcome effects the annexation might have on the
community and referred to the increase in population, more cars,
pollution, overcrowding of schools and increase in taxes, and
hoped all these factors would be weighed.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the tenta-
tive map of Tract 3294 was a subdivision map
for a townhouse development which has a series
of lots fronting on common easements and common
open space. The map BS submitted is in conformance with the zoning
ordinance. Many of the public works improvements are installed as
indicated in the staff report. The question of the triangle, a
portion of Lot 29, is still not resolved; there is a zoning action
pending before the Planning Commission. The main discussion cen-
tered around the fencing treatment and the access on Murrieta;
emergency access is indicated just south of the commercial area;
the main access is to be off Del Norte Drive. There would be no
backing lot treatment of fencing along Del Norte; there would be
a backing lot type of fencing treatment along Murrieta Blvd. The
only modification that the Planning Commission proposes may be
for purposes of aesthetics and site plans that the fence in the
corner portion of the common area of Murrieta Blvd. and Del Norte
could be reduced in height or eliminated.
TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 3294
(H.C. Elliott)
The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to the recom-
mendations contained in the Engineering, Planning Department and
City Fire Department reports.
The Council discussed the density and possible zoning of Lot 29,
and Councilman Taylor suggested that the wall could be lowered
in the vicinity of common greens as it was not necessary for
privacy, and this point was discussed, and the Council generally
agreed this could be done except in the storage area. The sugges-
tion was noted by the Planning Director who was directed to do
whatever would be aesthetically pleasing with regard to lowering
the fencing in certain areas.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the Council approval was not
to exceed 10 d.u./acre, and it does exceed that by one-half a
dwelling unit. He suggested that a piece of land out of Lot 29
be used to make up their 48 units, then they would be at exactly
10 d.u. per acre so they would not have to redesign their tract.
This point was discussed, however it was generally agreed that
it was in conformance with prior instructions. Councilman Miller
stated that the placing of the units in relation to the common
area did not allow for much open space and he did not think the
design was a very good design, which indicated that the density
even at 10 d.u. per acre was too high.
Councilman Taylor agreed, however felt that the problem was due
to the fact it was an odd shaped parcel. The proposal before
them fits the proposed townhouse ordinance according to the re-
quirements for usable open space and number of units per acre.
CM-24-21
............-......--..........----........---r-...........-.......-...........
March 8, 1971
(Tract 3294,
H.C. Elliott)
Councilman Miller stated that although this plan was
in conformance with our specifications, he felt they
should make some changes in the proposed townhouse
ordinance before it is finally adopted.
Mr. Musso stated that the main cause of the problem is the auto-
mobile as it is necessary to provide a garage on each lot to ob-
tain FHA approval.
Mr. Lewis stated that this number of units was computed when Mr.
Elliott made his dedication of park land in the park site off
Murrieta Blvd. However, since that time there has been an adjust-
ment of the ordinance and now there is a higher standard and no
place for land dedication left in this area. Under our .present
policy, if we take fees they could only be used on some site close
to the airport, and he asked Mr. Musso if there was a place in mind
for that, to which Mr. Musso replied in the affirmative and stated
it would probably be redesigned and the park moved in conjunction
with the air approach easement.
Mr. Lewis stated the question really is if they want, on a resub-
division of a parcel where there has been a dedication or the pay-
ment of a fee, to assess the difference between the old and the new.
Councilman Miller stated it was the reasonable thing to do as they
had agreed they would use the new dedication because the need exists
for a park.
Mr. Musso stated the property was zoned multiple for a certain num-
ber of units and the dedication was based on that number of units.
The reason it is before the Council now is they want to resubdivide
that same number of units.
Councilman Miller explained that originally the parcel was zoned
RG-12 which would have allowed twelve apartments per acre, and park
dedication was based on that number of units; now the number of
units has changed;however the park dedication has changed on the
part that is now being developed, which means that he receives a
partial credit for what he has already dedicated.
Councilman Beebe stated the developer could build 58 units by just
taking out a building permit; he is building lesser units and it
is being suggested that he be charged additional money for additional
park dedication.
Councilman Miller said that the developer has, in fact, resubdivided
and this is the point at which park dedication is determined.
Councilman Taylor said there were two questions involved: was it
morally right to require this extra park land after land has al-
ready been dedicated for multiple use; the other pertains to the
ordinance as now written. Since the ordinance has been rewritten,
the intent of the Council has been to require the new standards
in those instances which have come before the Council.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
apply the park dedication at two acres per hundred units for this
resubdivision with the appropriate credits for the ten less units.
Councilman Pritchard stated that if this property had been left
at the original zoning of RG-12, the extra park dedication would
not have been required. Since it is being resubdivided, the
extra park land would be required.
The motion to require the park dedication at the new standards with
appropriate credit was passed unanimously.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation, as amended regarding
the backing lot treatment and subject to the Engineering and Fire
Department reports; the motion passed unanimously.
CM-24-22
An application has been made by Jupiter Con-
struction Company for amendment to PUD No. 22.
The applicant has requested that the public
hearing for this application be set for April 5;
Councilman Miller requested, that if the applicant
the hearing be set for April 12 as he could not be
the meeting of April 5.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission considered possible
names for the frontage road generally located
northeasterly of the Airport at the request
of the Director of Public Works. The Commis-
sion considered several aviation oriented names
recommends renaming the street to "Kitty Hawk".
March 8, 1971
AMENDMENT TO PUD 22
(Jupiter Constr. Co.
concurred,
present for
REPORT RE STREET
NAME FOR FRONTAGE
ROAD EAST OF AIRPORT
and unanimously
The Council discussed the various suggestions including the
Planning Commission's recommendation, but felt that the renaming
of the street should be continued for one week in order to con-
sider other possible names before a decision is made.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director
regarding Jackson Avenue park public works im-
provements. A request has been received from
the Recreation District concerning certain road
improvements in the vicinity of the proposed park.
RECESS
REPORT RE JACKSON
AVE. PARK PUBLIC
WORKS IMPROVEMENTS
The Planning Director reported that several questions had been
raised by the Recreation District and one of the major questions
concerns the alignment of Pomona Way as it extends easterly.
The Council had previously indicated that the extension be straight
through, leaving the property on the north for resale in order to
recover the cost of the street. The Recreation District suggests
the extension be moved northward to border the school.
The suggested treatment by the Recreation District for the area
to the east is to serve a portion of the eastern frontage with a
short street; however, this would be very costly. The City staff
now proposes a series of group streets which would provide open-
ing to the park without extensive street frontage and minimize
traffic, and which would be installed as part of any development
to the east. The cost of the proposed cul-de-sacs which extend
into the park should be shared by the Recreation District. There
are also problems in connection with the private lane on the
westerly side of the park.
In response to Councilman Pritchard's question, Mr. Musso explain-
ed that there is on-site provision for parking. The Council was
shown a tentative plan for the development of the park by Mike
MacCracken, member of LARPD Board, who discussed the various de-
tails including the planned location for a horse trail. Mr.
MacCracken stated a meeting would be held for discussion of the
proposed design by residents and concerned citizens in the near
future.
Mr. MacCracken continued it is important to make some decisions
regarding this park so that development can be started this spring.
The letter sent to the Council by LARPD outlined the optimum sit-
uation for designing the park. A long narrow park, with backing
frontage on both sides, makes the park look like a channel and
prevents people from seeing the park. The Recreation District
CM-24-23
.-.---..-...........-..-...........--..--..-..--.....
March 8, 1971
hopes there will not be a cul-de-sac on Claremont
Way as it takes a large area and is expensive.
Residents are strongly opposed to extending Clare-
mont Way through to East Avenue. Another crucial
question is providing access across Amling-Devore
Lane for utilities to the park. He questioned
whether or not this utility access could be made on Pomona Way.
Alignment of Pomona Way adjacent to the school property would
provide for a larger park, but the LARPD Board did not feel they
should be responsible for the cost of the street. LARPD will be
responsible for the road work along East Avenue and they felt it
reasonable to ask that the City be responsible for Pomona Way im-
provements. The District could not see a need for sidewalks along
Pomona Way as internal walkways could be used. Also, there would
be a problem from the lighted tennis courts if there is backing
lot treatment along that area. It was the District's understanding
that if a road were put in the City would do so on park land which
would not have to be purchased from the owner (Pestana). They had
only requested the road extend one-half the way, not three-quarters.
(Public Works
Improvements-
Jackson Ave.
Park)
The Council discussed the points in the staff recommendation.
1) The Council agreed that there is a need for a minimum turn-around
or cul-de-sac extending into the park design at the end of Clare-
mont Way; the sidewalk might be eliminated and no parking allowed.
2) LARPD had planned to have City water service provided from
East Avenue and California Water Service from Pomona Way in order
to have enought water pressure for the turf and pool. The staff
was directed to investigate the various possible means and economics
of providing water, including a temporary arrangement with California
Water Service Co.
3) The cost for extending Pomona Way through the park site would
be $56,000; about $3,000 would be saved if the sidewalks are not
put in on the park side. A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard,
seconded by Councilman Miller, to realign Pomona Way directly ad-
jacent to the school property.
Discussion followed regarding financing of the extension; Council-
man Miller pointed out that the extension does not have to be done
immediately but provisions should be made for the extension. A
roll call vote was requested by Councilman Pritchard. The motion
failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe made a motion to extend Pomona Way straight across
unless LARPD is willing to assume an equal portion of the cost for
realigning the street (sidewalk on park side to be eliminated),ad-
jacent to the school; motion seconded by Councilman Taylor, and
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard
The Council discussed possible street patterns and parking provlslons.
Councilman Miller suggested that a long straight street running
along the east side, in place of the loops suggested as alternates,
would be a good idea and the cost would probably be assumed in
part by the City and Recreation District as they must provide
parking anyway. He felt the park should be visible rather than
backing lot treatment and urged the Council to view the long term
rather than the short term effect.
After discussion the Council felt that a decision was not necessary
at this point in time regarding the street pattern on the east.
It is the intent of the Council that a street will be provided along
the tennis court area in any event.
CM-24-24
March 8, 1971
5) The Public Works Director pointed out that (Public Works
in past instances of park development, the streets Improvements-
have not been paid for by the City. The policy Jackson Ave. Park)
has been that whoever develops the property pays
for the street. If the City were devcloping muni-
cipal property, the City would pay for the streets. Whenever the
street is reconstructed by the City, as on Rincon and Chestnut
streets, the adjoining property is not charged. Mr. Parness
stated that the schools are requested to pay for streets front-
ing on their property.
Mr. MacCracken stated that the Recreation District only leases
the park land; title remains with the City, and they felt that
the City should pay for the streets. The Council discussed past
policy and the manner in which streets have been paid for when-
ever parks have been developed.
The Council referred to previous discussion regarding the exten-
sion of Pomona Way. If Pomona Way goes straight through, the
adjacent lots will have to assume the cost for the street to
the middle point; the money received from the sale of the lots
would defray the cost incurred by the City for the other half
of the street. Mayor Silva requested that the minutes reflect
that the Pomona Way extension is a special case and the Council
is not establishing a policy regarding the City's responsibility
for street frontage improvements. The policy regarding finan-
cial responsibility in the provision of street frontage improve-
ments was referred to the joint City-Recreation District Committee
for discussion and recommendation.
The City Attorney pointed out that if Pomona Way goes straight
through the portion northerly of the centerline of Pomona Way
will not be within the jurisdiction of the LARPD.
In regard to a question posed by Councilman Miller, Mr. Lewis
stated that the decisions made tonight are the first which set
the boundaries of the park, either the southerly boundary of
Pomona Way or to the center of the street.
6) The Council did not wish to discuss the sidewalk standards
for the Pomona Way extension until a later date when the plans
can be presented in more detail.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission minutes of their meetings PLANNING
of February 2 and 23 were noted and filed. COMMISSION MINUTES
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, to waive the first read-
ing (title read only) of the proposed ordinance
rezoning the recently annexed area known as
"Interchange Annex" to ID District and by unan-
imous vote the ordinance was introduced.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE ZONING INTER-
CHANGE ANNEX
*
*
*
~
Councilman Miller suggested several changes in
the text of the proposed ordinance regulating
cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums and mor-
tuaries and Section 28.00 re Conditional Use
Permits. The following changes were made:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
REGULATING CEME-
TERIES,CREMATORIES,
MAUSOLEUMS & MOR-
TUARIES, SEC. 28.00
CONDo USE PERMITS
Item 28.52, last sentence should be changed as
follows: "Conditions must include (a) Time Limit for commencement
and completion of development. (b) Time Limit after which use
is to be terminated. Conditions may also include but shall not
be limited to the following: (with items c thru i)".
CM-24-25
March 8, 1971
(Ordinance re
Cemeteries,
etc. )
Item 28.51, insert words "all of" before "the
following findings".
Ross Hoblitzell, 358 El Caminito, stated that he
did not feel cemeteries and mortuaries should be
required to have access to a major street. The Council discussed
their previous reasons for requiring such access.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to waive the first reading of the proposed zoning ordi-
nance amendment regulating cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums and
mortuaries and Section 28.00 - Conditional Use Permit (title read
only) and by the following vote the proposed ordinance was intro-
duced:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller (as he was opposed to mortuaries in
residential areas)
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
ORDINANCE RE
ZONING NO. L,
PARK STREET
(Fahnhorst and
PC Initiated)
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 737
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 Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived, and by the
following vote the ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ORDINANCE
AMENDING
SEC. 18.21
(Sewers re
Service
Laterals)
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 738
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I, RELATING TO
GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF CHAPTER 18, RELATING
TO SEWERS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959,
BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 18.21, RELATING
TO SERVICE LATERALS.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
second reading of the above ordinance was waived and by unanimous
vote the ordinance was passed.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Contract-
Sipes)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Parking)
CM-24-26
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that a contract which pro-
vides for the reimbursement of the City in install-
ments for an amount of $450.30 for damage to a City
pickup has been drawn up for authorization by the
Council and signature of the Mayor. The motion to
so authorize the Mayor was made by Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard inquired as to status of the
agreement to be made with Mr. Ed Hutka regarding
parking for his business. Mr. Lewis advised that
the City staff is working with Mr. Hutka presently.
*
*
*
March 8, 1971
Councilman Miller referred to the Planning Com- (Sign Violations)
mission's minutes regarding Atlantic Richfield
sign violations. Mr. Musso stated that a var-
iance had been granted but has since expired; the Planning Depart-
ment has contacted them regarding these signs but no reply has
been made. Now the Commission has requested that they come in to
the Planning Commission meeting for discussion regarding the signs.
Councilman Miller felt stronger action should be taken as they are
in violation of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that he
has exercised jurisdiction by asking the company to appear; after
this is done further action can be taken.
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that the City has re-
ceived a complaint and summons filed in the Su-
perior Court on behalf of Dublin Properties
which involves that area of Wagoner Farms developed partly by
Leonardo and another subdivider and involves fees and credits
held in trust. The Council had previously instructed that these
monies be deposited in trust pending possible court action. The
City is also included as defendant for several thousand dollars
which sum is said to have been given to Leonardo improperly. This
will have to be contested in Court, and he has been asked to accept
service of summons on behalf of the City, and Mr. Lewis so requested
and received approval of the Council.
(Summons re Dublin
Properties)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva felt that the Council should have
a representative at the meeting of the Board of
Supervisors on March 11 regarding the proposed
Skyway route. The Planning Director was asked
to represent the City.
(Board of
Supervisors)
*
*
*
The Council decided to have its regular meeting
on the 22nd of March and not to meet on the 5th
Monday, the 29th of March.
(Council Meeting)
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45
p.m. to an executive session to discuss appoint-
ments to the Beautification Committee.
*
*
*
ATTEST ~
()~ YJ,\~
M.a..yor. YPrr~~L tEempore
~~~
Clerk
rmore, California
APPROVE
*
*
*
CM-24-27
Regular Meeting of March 15, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 15, 197~,
in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at b:10 p.m. with Mayor pro Tempore
Miller presiding.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Political
Signs)
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and
Miller
ABSENT: Mayor Silva (on vacation)
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, to approve the minutes of
the meeting of March 8, 1971 as submitted; motion
passed by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, inquired as to means
which may be used to prevent political signs from
being placed on public property. Mayor pro Tempore
Miller stated that the signs are definitely not allow-
ed on public property, and if any citizen observes
such signs they should call the Public Works Depart-
ment regarding removal. The Planning Director advised that a letter
was being sent to all candidates advising them regarding placement
of their signs.
(Additional
Police Force,)
VCSD
Communication
re Camp Parks
Disposition
Parking
Time Limit
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, suggested that
additional police officers be added to the force
so that two officers can serve in each patrol unit
during the night shift.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication has been received from Valley Com-
munity Services District regarding a resolution
adopted declaring their intention with regard to
the disposition and future planning of the landsof
Camp Parks and its environs and stating their policy
re annexation to the District.
*
*
*
A request has been made by a property owner for a
one-hour parking zone on the corner of Second and
"N" Streets. A report regarding this request was
made by the Public Works Director, and it is re-
commended that a resolution be adopted authorizing the change in
the parking time limit.
CM-24-28
RESOLUTION NO. 34-71
A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 13.58, DESIGNATING
ONE-HOUR PARKING ZONE FOR THE WESTERLY SIDE OF "N"
STREET BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND STREETS.
*
*
*
March 15, 1971
A report was made by the City Attorney regarding Report re Associate
the need for associate counsel assistance in a Counsel Services
suit which has been filed against the City by a
property owner west of the present municipal air-
port. The claim should be legally contested by the City, and it
is recommended that a resolution be adopted designating such counsel.
RESOLUTION NO. 35-71
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ASSOCIATE COUNSEL IN ACTION
FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION: MOLDT, ET AL, v. CITY.
*
*
*
Three appointments were made to the Beautifica-
tion Committee to fill vacancies due to resig-
nations from the Committee.
Appointments to
Beautification
Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 36-71
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
(Mrs. Kathleen Bossler, Tom den Daas, Dale Turner)
*
*
*
Permission to use State Route 84 for the rodeo
parade has been requested by the Police Chief
on behalf of the Rodeo Committee. The Division
of Highways advises that before such permission
can be granted a resolution must be adopted by
the Council.
Use of State Rte 84
for Rodeo Parade
RESOLUTION NO. 37-71
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FOR
PERMISSION TO USE A PORTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 84
AS THE ROUTE FOR THE LIVERMORE JAYCEES RODEO
PARADE BETWEEN 8:30 A.M. -12:00 M. JUNE 12, 1971.
*
*
*
The County has requested that a resolution be
adopted in regard to the necessary relocation
of Murdell Lane. The street is to be relocated
no later than October, 1973, and the City's ob-
ligation has been transferred to the property owner, Carlton
Development Company, and bonded as a special proviso of their
PUD extension. It is necessary to adopt the following resolu-
tion so that the County can proceed with the Stanley Blvd.
improvement.
Relocation of
Murdell Lane
RESOLUTION NO. 38-71
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CAUSE THE RELOCATION OF
MURDELL LANE A DISTANCE OF 820 FEET WESTERLY OF ITS
PRESENT INTERSECTION WITH EAST STANLEY BOULEVARD
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1973.
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received as follows:
Airport - activity and financial - February
Building Inspection - February
Fire Department - February
Golf Course - February
Planning Activity - February
Police and Pound Departments - February
Water Reclamation - February
Departmental
Reports
CM-24-29
March 15, 1971
Communication
re Greyhound-
West Facilities
A communication has been received in response to
our inquiry to Greyhound Lines-West regarding
provision of facilities.
The Public Works Director explained that if another
location is obtained it might be necessary to improve the street
to prevent deterioration from the added traffic and weight of the
buses. He stated that no reply has been received from the PUC in
this regard.
*
*
*
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Exempt business license applications have been made
by the following:
Foresters of America - dance on March 20
Jr. Hi Camp Fire Girls - bake sale
st. Michael's Soccer Boosters - sale of candy
Livermore Softball Association - sale of soft
drinks, coffee, candies, etc. at park during game
American Little League Women's Auxiliary -various
fund raising activities during the year
Fraternal Order of Eagles - spring festival April
21-25 (Also a request re street closure)
Candystripers - Valley Memorial Hospital - bake sale
*
*
*
Payroll and
Claims
One hundred twenty claims in the amount of $76,839.52
and two hundred seventy payroll warrants in the amount
of $80,481.60, dated March 11, 1971, were ordered
paid as approved by the Finance Director. Councilman
Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 10035 for
his usual reason.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to approve the Consent Calendar,
and passed by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
CUP-Auto
Rental Agency
4186 East Ave.
(Canfield)
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
operation of auto rental agency and auto storage
in a neighborhood shopping center at 4186 East
Avenue has been made by Damond L. Canfield.
The Planning Director stated the use would be on
a part of the shopping center which is undeveloped. The use has
been allowed since 1968 and was originally granted for a short per-
iod of time and then extended for two years; then a reapplication
was made and the use again granted up to the present date. The
Planning Commission feels that this is not a suitable use in a
neighborhood shopping center and recommend that the permit be denied
with an extension for a period of time (until June) for relocation
of the business.
The parking area had not been paved since this was considered a
temporary use and improvements had not been required. The approved
plan calls for use of this area for future parking for the shopping
center.
The applicant, Damond Canfield, stated that the CUP is for a rental
agency, but the agency is not in the shopping center. The shopping
center parcel is used only as storage for automobiles, and the
agency itself is located in his service station at 4186 East Avenue.
His rental arrangement with the shopping center is on a month-to-
month basis and could be terminated at any time.
CM-24-30
The Planning Director explained that the use is
in a CN zone and the auto rental use is not per-
mitted. The reason for the application is the
operation of the auto rental agency out of an
automobile service station.
March 15, 1971
(CUP -
4186 East Ave.)
Councilman Taylor asked the applicant how many rentals were
handled; Mr. Canfield said they could run as high as eighty a
week and the turnover is quite rapid with the Lawrence Radiation
Lab and Sandia as major users of the service.
Upon question by Councilman Pritchard, Mr. Musso stated that a
car rental agency use would be permitted in General Commercial
and Central Business and Industrial zones. The real problem
resulting from this use has been congestion.
Councilman Taylor stated that this rental agency had been lo-
cated at several other places in town where it is permitted prior
to its present location, but it had never been very satisfactory
in those locations. He felt it now seemed to be ideally located,
and the parking of the cars does not seem to be offensive, and
he felt it was reasonable to continue this use on a temporary basis.
He could not see any reasonable place for relocation of this bus-
iness at the present time.
Mr. Musso asked Councilman Taylor if he felt the agency use should
be continued on a permanent basis at the service station site.
Councilman Taylor said no, but presently there is adequate park-
ing at this site and he felt it was a good location for the use.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the auto rental agency use be
continued for one year provided the month-to-month tenancy for
parking with the shopping center is continued; motion was second-
ed by Councilman Pritchard.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the allowance of the pro-
posed use would mean essentially abandonment of that section of
the ordinance prohibiting city-wide commercial use in a neigh-
borhood shopping center. A rental agency is not a neighborhood
use but a city-wide use. This particular use has been renewed
several times, and at the last time it was renewed it was said
to be the last renewal. The applicant had had time to find a
place for relocation. Approval of this use would be precedent
for such use at other service stations.
Councilman Taylor stated that this shopping center had never been
completed which leaves a large parking area not needed by the
commercial development. Secondly, the number of cars does not
contribute to congestion and the only problem is parking of the
cars. In this case they are using area already designated for
parking and asked where would there be a better location for
the use.
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt it was more convenient if located
downtown, however Councilman Taylor felt there was enough con-
gestion downtown and location of the agency downtown would only
add to that congestion.
The Council discussed conditions under which the use would be
continued, and felt that the use could be continued if the area
leased for parking from the shopping center is not needed for
expansion of the shopping center. If the month-to-month tenancy
should be terminated, the use would create a problem. The motion
to continue the use for a period of one year, provided the park-
ing tenancy agreement is continued, was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, and Pritchard
Councilman Miller
Mayor Silva
CM-24-31
March 15, 1971
PROCLAMATION Mayor pro tempore Miller recognized the attendance
(DeMolay Week) of a group of DeMolay members and the proclamation
of this week as DeMolay Week.
*
*
*
TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP
3293 (C.N.
Fletcher Co.)
A tentative map for Tract 3293 for property located
on the south side of College Avenue, east of Angel-
ica Way, has been submitted by C. N. Fletcher Co.
The Planning Director explained that this is a re-
submittal of a map which had been approved for several
years. The map had expired and under a state law must be resub-
mitted. The submitted map is almost identical with the original
one except that the additional one acre for park dedication has
been provided. Another lot, adjacent to College Avenue, is not
part of the subdivision and Mr. Musso felt it should be included.
The Council discussed whether the lot should be included in this
tentative map and whether it was required to be included by provi-
sions of the Subdivision Act.
The City Attorney stated that a lot must be included if it is
necessary for proper development and design of the subdivision.
Mr. Musso felt the lot should be included and numbered as Lot 19.
Councilman Taylor asked Mr. Musso what the problems were concerning
flag lots and dog-leg cul-de-sacs. Mr. Musso said that in most
planning situations dog-leg cul-de-sacs are avoided, and the Fire
Department and F.H.A. do not approve of such planning. In this
instance the problem can be solved by making Sherry Court into a
straight cul-de-sac, creating two flag lots. The Council dis-
cussed the advantages and disadvantages of the two designs and
other possible solutions.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation, with the in-
clusion and numbering of the lot on College Avenue, for approval
of the subject map subject to conformance to Exhibit "B" and the
conditions contained within the Planning, Engineering and Fire
Department reports (excluding Planning Consideration No.8 regard-
ing Sherry Way turn-around.)
The Public Works Director said that in planning they try to avoid
the four-way intersections as they are greater points of conflict
than three point intersections. There are also economic consider-
ations such as traffic lights which can then be eliminated as a
necessity when 4-way intersections are not installed.
The motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval then passed unanimously (Mayor Silva absent).
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RE
TRAILER PARKS
A discussion of the proposed amendment of several
sections of the Zoning Ordinance regarding trailers,
trailer parks and their regulation will be held
in a joint session with the Planning Commission on
Tuesday, April 13. A public hearing date will be
set on this item after the joint session.
*
*
*
ALLOCATION
FOR MOBILE
HOMES
A communication from the Planning Commission regard-
ing possible establishment of a percent allocation
for mobile homes and citing their reasons for re-
commending that a map indicating potential areas
for mobile home parks not be made will also be dis-
cussed at the joint Council-Planning Commission
meeting on April 13.
*
*
*
CM-24-32
An application for rezoning of an area on the
north side of Murrieta Blvd., 150 feet south
of Portola Avenue from RG-12 to Commercial
District has been made by H. C. Elliott, Inc.
March 15, 1971
REZONING RE NORTH
SIDE MURRIETA BLVD
(H.C. Elliott)
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to set this matter for public hearing on April 12; motion passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning for an area located
on the south side of Linden street, 50 feet
easterly of North P street, from RL-5-0 to RM
District has been made by Wm. N. and Candy Davis.
This rezoning application was set for public
hearing on April 12 by the previous motion.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission minutes of the meeting
of March 9 were submitted but no action taken.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, to waive the second reading,
and by unanimous vote (Mayor Silva absent) the
following ordinance was passed.
REZONING RE SOUTH
SIDE OF LINDEN ST.
(Wm. N. Davis)
PLANNING COMM.
MINUTES
ORDINANCE RE ZONING
"INTERCHANGE ANNEX"
ORDINANCE NO. 739
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00,
THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to waive the second reading
and by the following vote the ordinance shown
below was passed:
AYES:
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RE CEME-
TERIES, CREMATORIES,
MORTUARIES AND SEC.
28.00 - CUP
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller
(Councilman Miller voted "aye" in the absence of Mayor
Silva to reflect the majority vote of the Council)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
ORDINANCE NO. 740
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO ZONING, BY:
AMENDING SUBSECTION 7.22 '(DELETING SANITARIUMS, BUT
ALLOWING MORTUARIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN RM DIS-
TRICTS); ADDING SUBSECTION 7.27 (MAKING HEALTH FAC-
ILITIES A PERMITTED USE IN RM DISTRICTS); AMENDING
SUBSECTION 8.23 (MAKING MORTUARIES A CONDITIONAL
USE IN RG DISTRICTS); AMENDING SUBSECTION 8.27
(MAKING HEALTH FACILITIES A PERMITTED USE IN RG
DISTRICTS); ADDING SUBSECTION 16.27 (MAKING A MOR-
TUARY A CONDITIONAL USE IN E DISTRICTS); AMENDING
SUBSECTION 17.50 (RELATING TO THOSE OCCUPATIONS RE-
LATING TO PROFESSIONS IN THE CP DISTRICT); AMENDING
SUBSECTION 21.52 (RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR CEMETARIES AND OTHER USES); AMENDING SUBSECTION
21.54 (RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR LABOR
CAMPS, MOTELS AND MORTUARIES); AND AMENDING SECTION
28.00 (RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT).
*
*
*
CM-24-33
March 15, 1971
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Ambulance
Service)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Ridgetop
Area)
The Finance Director reported on the progress of
the ambulance service study and stated that six
proposals had been received in response to the re-
quest for information. These will be discussed
with the County purchasing agent on March 17.
Interviews will be held with these companies and
a report made to the Council soon.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe felt a proposal which has been
made to designate the ridgetop area as a national
park should be considered and our representatives
contacted in this regard. The staff was requested
to prepare resolutions to be sent to our representa-
tives on this issue on motion of Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous
approval.
Councilman Miller also suggested that in lieu of designation as
a national park, the area should be designated as a state park.
(Saturation
Density)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe asked the Planning Director what
the Planning Commission minutes referred to in men-
tioning saturation density. Mr. Musso said this re-
ferred to efforts to determine what the saturation
holding capacity and density of our end of the Valley would be
from foothill to foothill, which was determined to be approximately
285,000 people.
Councilman Beebe felt that more consideration should be given to
means of providing open space. The City Attorney has indicated
that this might be accomplished through dedication of the tract
map, but this must be made attractive to developers to get them
to have density transfer within the tract.
Mr. Lewis said he had discussed density transfers with members of
the Council and the Planning Commission. Presently this cannot
be done, and changes will have to be made in the law before it can
take place; however, he had recommended to the Planning Commission
that study be made along this line in the event such changes do
take place so that the City may take action at the later time.
Mr. Musso said that open space can be provided through density
transfer now if the developer wants to do so, but there is the
problem of maintaining the dedicated land.
Councilman Beebe felt efforts should be made to cooperate with
the developers rather than trying to force them.
The Council discussed ways of providing open space and what efforts
can be made by the City to work with developers in designing areas
so that perpetual open space is dedicated.
(Valley
Planning
Committee)
CM-24-34
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor reported that the Valley Planning
Committee expressed, informally, an interest in con-
sidering any questions regarding the General Plan of
any of the agencies. Mr. Fales of Pleasanton pre-
sented ideas they had discussed about a Valley-wide
study.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard requested a more detailed
report from the Fire Department about calls to
776 Hanover street regarding possible fire and
then later for a fire causing damage.
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller said that notification
of a hearing regarding reapportionment will be
held and Carlos Bee had sent a statement of his
views in this regard.
*
*
*
March 15, 1971
(Fire Dept.)
(Reapportionment
of Districts)
Mayor pro tempore Miller commended Alden Lane (Arbor Day)
Nursery for the more than 600 free trees given
out in observance of Arbor Day. The Council un-
animously voted to commend Alden Lane Nursery,
and Jack Williams in particular, for this public service.
*
*
*
(Del Valle
Park Fees)
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated East Bay Park
District has assigned some new fees for Del
Valle Park and felt it might be recommended
that the passes for entrance include weekends
rather than just week days. The staff was requested
a letter to the District regarding the fee structure
ing that the passes be extended to weekends.
*
*
*
to prepare
and request-
Along the line of variances and extensions of
PUD permits, Mayor pro tempore Miller inquired
about the Planning Commission minutes regarding
the Due & Elliott property. The tentative has
expired on this RL property, and according to the policy of this
Council, rezoning should be initiated to RS, but the Commission
did not do so because the representative implied that RS zoning
was being considered; however, an extension still allows an RL
map to be approved unless the Planning Commission initiates the
rezoning to RS. Mayor pro tempore Miller suggested that the
Council direct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to RS
on this property since the tentative map has expired.
(Council Request
for Rezoning)
The Council discussed the property involved and Councilman Taylor
agreed with Mayor pro tempore Miller, and made a motion to direct
the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning of the whole corner
to residential districts considered by the Zoning Ordinance; the
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilman Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: Councilman Beebe
ABSENT: Mayor Silva
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that K - B at
Wagoner farms was flying ten flags which is in
violation of the ordinance and felt they should
be so informed.
*
*
*
(Flags at K - B)
CM-24-35
March 15, 1971
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. to
an executive session to discuss legal matters.
*
*
*
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of March 22, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on March 22, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor pro tempore
Miller presiding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and
Miller
ABSENT:
Mayor Silva (on vacation)
*
*
*
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 15, 1971,
were approved as submitted on motion of Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor, by unanimous
vote.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
Mayor pro tempore Miller invited any member of the
audience to address the Council on any subject not
on the agenda, but no comments were made.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Withdrawal of
Rezoning Ap-
plication,
North Side of
Murrieta
(Elliott)
A communication has been received from H. C. Elliott,
Inc. requesting withdrawal of the rezoning applica-
tion for the parcel located on the north side of
Murrieta Blvd., south of Portola Avenue.
The Planning Director stated that this matter had
been discussed by the Planning Commission, and
they had recommended that several conditions be
placed on the rezoning, including the annexation of the remainder
of the property which is now in the county. The applicant had re-
quested a more liberal commercial zoning than the one considered
by the Planning Commission.
The Council discussed whether they wished to accept the withdrawal
request or if they should proceed with the public hearing, set for
April 12, and consider rezoning this parcel.
Councilman Taylor felt that this piece of property should be in-
cluded in the townhouse development and Councilman Miller stated
CM-24-36
March 22, 1971
(Rezoning Applica-
tion, Elliott)
some thought should be given to rezoning it as
commercial in the hope of exercising some con-
trol over future commercial development on the
adjacent county land owned by the applicant.
After further discussion, the majority of the Council felt that
the withdrawal should be accepted and the land left at its pre-
sent zoning of RG-12 and added to the adjacent townhouse develop-
ment.
*
*
*
A Communication has been received from the
City of Lafayette enclosing a copy of their
resolution in general opposition to the com-
mercial advertising policies and program of
BART. This item was removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
A communication has been received from John W.
Noonan, of the firm of Miller, Critchfield &
Eaton, attorney for the Livermore Police Asso-
ciation, requesting clarification of several
points relating to the In-Service Training
Program for the Police Department. This item
was removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion at an executive session following the
meeting.
*
*
*
A communication from Standard
been received regarding a new
material for use in bottles.
material resists breakage and
erated.
Oil Company has
type of resin
The new bottle
is easily incin-
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 39-71
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING THAT A PORTION
EAST STANLEY BOULEVARD WITHIN THE CITY
LIVERMORE BECOME A PART OF THE COUNTY
HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
OF
OF
Communication re
BART
Communication
from Police Ass'n.
re In-Service
Training Program
Communication from
Standard Oil Co. re
New Resin Bottle
Resolution re
East Stanley Blvd.
A request has been made by the County Public Works Department for
jurisdiction of East Stanley Boulevard during the course of re-
construction. At the conclusion of the work jurisdiction will
be returned to the City.
*
*
*
Two claims in the amount of $20,000 each have
been filed against the City for alleged person-
al injury and property damage occasioned by a
traffic accident on November 30, 1970, on
Portola Avenue. It is recommended that the
claims be denied.
RESOLUTION NO. 40-71
Resolution re Claims
Against City
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF ELFRED O'NEAL WEAVER
RESOLUTION NO. 41-71
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF MARTHAJANE SCHAFER
CM-24-37
March 22, 1971
Report re
Capital
Improvements
Projects
Report re
Quezaltenango
Parkway
Light Poles
A report was submitted by the City Manager regarding
Capital Improvement Projects for 1970-71. It is
recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing
advertisement for bids for these projects.
RESOLUTION NO. 42-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS ASCERTAINING WAGE SCHEDULE
AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR
EIGHT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Director
regarding the Beautification Committee's recommenda-
tion that the 16-foot marbelite street poles removed
from First Street be installed in the Quezaltenango
parkway. The staff felt the poles could be modified
for use in the Parkway and that they would be aesthe-
tically pleasing. It is, therefore, recommended that the use of
the poles and the expenditure of about $400 for their conversion
be authorized.
*
*
*
Minutes The minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of
February 16 were acknowledged.
* * *
Claims Sixty-eight claims in the amount of $73,829.12,
dated March 18, 1971, were ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager.
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
PROPOSED
ZONING ORDI-
NANCE AMEND-
ING SEC.
21.00 (Off-
Street
Parking)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, the Consent Calendar was approved
unanimously (Mayor Silva absent) with the exception
of those items which were removed for later discussion.
*
*
*
After discussion, a motion was made by Councilman
Pritchard to continue the first reading and vote
regarding Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section
21.00 - Off-Street Parking; Off-Street Parking and
Loading Space; Off-Street Parking Lots; Areas; and
Garages for two weeks until April 5.
The Planning Director said there was an application
pending and he wished to determine their thinking
on requirements for restaurants. Originally, the
ordinance required any restaurant to have parking based on the
number of seats. The Planning Commission agreed that a restaurant
should not be required to have parking based on the number of seats.
This presents difficulties as restaurants locate in various types
of buildings - new and existing and those with other uses. He
recommended that special requirements for restaurants be deleted
and requirements be set at the ratio of other uses. Parking re-
lates primarily to the building, and secondarily to the use. Park-
ing would then be determined by the zone rather than the use.
The Council agreed this was not unreasonable.
The motion for continuance of the first reading and vote was se-
conded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously.
CM-24-38
*
*
*
Discussion of the communication from the City
of Lafayette regarding the commercial adver-
tising policies and program of BART was con-
tinued from the Consent Calendar until this
time.
March 22, 1971
COMMUNICATION RE
BART ADVERTISING
POLICIES
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that the City of Lafayette's opposi-
tion to commercial advertising by BART was a reasonable stance
and felt the Council should adopt a similar resolution.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that BART anticipates up to 3% of
their revenue would result from such advertising, and questioned
if this would have any influence on BART extension of service to
the Valley.
Councilman Taylor suggested that this matter be studied by the
Staff for comment to the Council. Perhaps a shorter and more
general statement should be presented to BART rather than adopt-
ing the resolution from Lafayette.
The Council agreed that this matter should be referred to the
staff for later report.
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that the final
census count is 37,703 for the City of Liver-
more.
*
*
*
The City Attorney reported that the law suit
discussed at the executive session of March
15 had been settled within the r~g~ a~ di-
rected by the Council. (~7Jt~ ~.)
* * *
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Census
Count)
Pending Law Suit
The City Attorney referred to comments which
had appeared in the newspaper concerning the
proposed bill for land dedication for schools
introduced by Assemblyman Carlos Bee. This
bill would provide for dedication of land or the payment of a
fee in lieu of land for subdivisions; secondly, it would provide
for the reservation of land until such time as the total develop-
ment is made. Support will be solicited from school districts
and superintendents. It is hoped the bill will receive hearing
in committee this time. State Superintendent of Education Riles
had previously expressed opposition to AB 1271 as first presented.
*
*
*
Land Dedication
for Schools
The City Manager discussed SB 333, a bill which
provides for compulsory and binding arbitration
for labor disputes for all conditions of employ-
ment or working conditions involving members of
the Public Safety Departments. Mr. Parness felt adoption of this
bill would have dire consequences as all arbitration and negotiat-
ing powers would be taken away from the City and the Council and
allow it to revert to the compulsory Arbitration Board.
Various Pending
Bills (SB 333)
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to direct the City Manager to make known the City Council's oppo-
sition to this bill, and it passed unanimously (Mayor Silva absent).
*
*
*
CM-24-39
March 22, 1971
AB 52 re
Public
Improvements
Mr. Parness also directed the Council's attention to
AB 52, a new measure which requires compensation to be
extracted from any City government for street widen-
ing or for public works improvements for land develop-
ment prior to issuance of any type of permit. This
bill would require us to pay for improvements even though the im-
provements do cause the generation of additional traffic. The
present law is proper and supportable, and Mr. Parness requested
authorization to announce our opposition.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to authorize the presentation of the Council's opposition to this
bill; motion passed unanimously (Mayor Silva absent).
SB 292
(Development
& Environ-
mental Effects)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness referred to SB 292 which considers
the environmental effects of subdivision develop-
ment within the City. It does place the burden
upon the City to declare and prove that any sub-
division improvements should be disallowed for a
number of reasons. This would place within the
hands of local government the decision making process as to allow-
ance of local developments.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to support this bill and commented
that we should investigate the means of payment for the impact
study. Motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that provision of schools should be
added to the list of possible reasons for disallowing development.
The City Attorney suggested that this point be presented to Assembly-
man Bee for discussion with the author of the bill as to inclusion
in the bill.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., suggested that this matter be in-
cluded on the agenda of a subsequent City Council meeting. Mr.
Parness pointed out that this matter will be heard and discussed
in a few days and there was not time for inclusion in the agenda
folders.
The motion to support SB 292 was approved unanimously (Mayor Silva
absent), and it was decided that another method be used to investi-
gate the school effects.
*
*
*
SB 263 Councilman Pritchard referred to AB 263 which would
authorize exceeding the dollar limit for costs of
police and fire protection. Mr. Parness said this
bill is an effort to release the city managements from limitations
of ability to pay such costs as set by tax rate. Such exemptions
for all personnel costs have been discussed, but at this point such
action, especially on an isolated basis, would not be good. After
discussion it was felt no action should be taken at this time.
Proclamation
Municipal
Clerk's Week
AB 163 &
SB 213 .re
Tax on
Bottles
CM-24-40
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by
Mayor pro tempore Miller, and passed unanimously to
proclaim the week of May 17-23 as Municipal Clerks'
Week.
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller referred to the proposed
AB 163 and SB 213 which would impose a tax on bottles
and containers. He felt the Council should support
these proposals as he felt it would encourage recycling.
Councilman Pritchard felt it would place a bur-
den on small retailers because of the great
amount of bookkeeping which would be required.
March 22, 1971
(AB 163 & SB 213)
Councilman Taylor felt there was a great deal of difference in
the two bills as AB 163 refers to non-returnable bottles and im-
poses a tax; SB 213 would impose a tax on every container sold.
Councilman Beebe referred to the letter included in the agenda
from Standard Oil Company regarding their new plastic bottle
material which can be incinerated; however, Mayor pro tempore
Miller stated this would only add to the air pollution whereas
glass can be recycled.
Councilman Taylor said it had been pointed out to him that the
plastic bottle would not require a large amount of fuel to re-
cycle, but the glass requires the expenditure of a large amount of
fuel to recycle. It might be better, ecologically, to recycle
plastic rather than glass due to the waste of natural resources
for fuel. Councilman Taylor felt that more study should be made
before endorsing these proposals.
The staff was directed to obtain a copy of this proposed legisla-
tion for the Council's information and study.
The City Attorney also referred to a study made in another city
regarding aerial studies of air pollution.
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller said the League of
Women Voters had requested that the proposed
joint session with the Planning Commission on
the 13th be set for another date as this is
the night the League will be having Candidates'
Night. The joint meeting was reset for April 27.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL (Joint
Meeting with
Planning Commission)
Mayor pro tempore Miller referred to the pro-
posed parking ordinance, and in this connection
wished to request that consideration be given
to widening the parking stalls. He stated he
had received numerous complaints about the difficulty of getting
in and out of cars in parking lots. The minimum width had been
adopted.
Parking Stall
Widths
It was the general consensus of the Council that this point should
be reconsidered on the 12th rather than the 5th of April.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20
p.m. to an executive session to consider the
matter of the In-Service Training Program for
the Police Department.
APPROVE
*
ATTEST
~ ~
r pro tempore
-"~L
\ <:- /
. \...::. " /_---
J;ty Clerk
ercl6re, California
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-41-
Regular Meeting of April 5, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on April 5, 1971,
in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at b:20 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor
Silva
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Miller (both on
vacation)
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Silva led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 1971,
were approved as submitted, on motion of Councilman
Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Miller
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Park)
Marion Stelts, 547 Nightingale Street, spoke in re-
gard to a vacant lot between Nightingale st. and
Olivina Ave. which is for sale. A poll of the neigh-
bors had indicated the desire to see it developed as
a park, and Mr. Stelts requested that the Council
development.
consider such
The Planning Director reported that this parcel had ~en included
in the Capital Improvement Budget for the coming year and is a
possible site and might be as large as two acres if more property
is acquired.
The Council agreed that this possible park development should be
investigated by the staff.
*
*
*
(City Limits Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, inquired if the City
Sign) Limits sign located between 8th Street and the gas
station is properly located. It was pointed out
that the north side of South Livermore Avenue is
within the City Limits, but the south side is not. The sign is
placed to indicate where the City limits extend on the south side.
The City Attorney advised that it would be best to consult with the
Public Works Department and the Police Department as the sign is
located at this point for technical and traffic reasons. These
departments were directed to check into this matter and to contact
Mrs. Parra with an explanation.
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING
Amended Assess-
ment District
No. 1962-3
(Wagoner Farms)
A public hearing was held regarding the proposed
amended assessments in the Wagoner Farms Assess-
ment District No. 1962-3. Mayor Silva opened the
public hearing to receive any protests.
The Director of Public Works, Daniel Lee, explained
that this matter is the reapportionment of assess-
ments in the Wagoner Farms Assessment District and stated that the
original assessments were prorated in the Wagoner Farms area; the
CM-24-42
April 5, 1971
district was formed in the first place to pro-
rate or spread the costs of water and sewer line
improvements in the Wagoner Farms area. The cost
of the improvements was prorated on a square foot
basis, evenly over the entire Wagoner Farms area.
Subsequent to that time there has been a multitude of subdivisions
within the assessment district area. Councilman Taylor asked if
this included just the area of the Planned Unit Development and
Mr. Lee said "yes". (Ed. The area of the assessment district
is that which was contained within an area known as "Wagoner Ranch-
East Avenue Annex"). Mr. Lee said there have been a number of
reapportionments because of new subdivisions and as these new
subdivisions have been filed, the assessments have been reappor-
tioned. They have consistently been reapportioned on an area basis,
and this particular reapportionment was done by Associated Pro-
fessions and prorated on an area basis. While the zoning and
land use, land value, topography, location of streets, etc. could
be a factor in some proration, in plans for proration of cost in
this particular instance it was determined that all areas bene-
fited equally in accordance with the area in each parcel.
(Public Hearing -
Wagoner Farms
Assessment Dist.)
The City Attorney, Mr. Lewis, stated that, not as a part of this
assessment district proceeding, it might be noted that there is
a contract from Kaufman and Broad by which they agree to pay the
assessment created by this apportionment on the City's park site
on Kathy Way. This is for the Council's execution. Councilman
Taylor asked if there was any question regarding the disposition
of this item, and Mr. Lewis informed him there was not.
Mr. Lewis said the Clerk might note for the record that notices
have been sent out to all property owners affected by this re-
apportionment. It was so noted.
Mayor Silva inquired if anyone wished to make a statement either
for or against the proposed amended assessment; no comments were
made.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to close the public hearing, and passed unanimously.
Mayor Silva stated that a motion would then be in order, unless
there was debate, to adopt a resolution confirming the assessment.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to adopt the amended assessment in the Wagoner Farms
Assessment District No. 1962-3 and to adopt the resolution by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
None
Councilmen Beebe and Miller
RESOLUTION NO. 43-71
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENT AMENDING
ASSESSMENT NOS. E-12 and 132, WAGONER FARMS ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mayor Silva referred also to the Resolution regarding the dedi-
cated park site (Kathy Way Park) which is included as an item
under the Consent Calendar. Councilman Taylor referred to a
statement in the agenda which stated that testimony must be sought
from the Assessment Engineer. The City Attorney informed the
Council that Mr. Lee is the Assessment Engineer of record in this
instance. The City employed Associated Professions to do some of
the technical work, but it was in the name of the City Engineer.
Mayor Silva then stated that testimony has been given by the
Assessment Engineer.
*
*
*
CM-24-43
April 5, 1971
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
(re Schools)
(Revenue
Sharing)
(SB 162 &
SB 163)
(Proposed
Alameda cty.
Skyline
Parkway)
(Del Valle
Pass System)
(Expression of
Appreciation)
(AB 1032-
School Land
Dedication)
Report re
Rate Revision
(Greens Comm.)
Request for
Extension-
Tract 2726
Improvements
(Mehran)
CM-24-44
CONSENT CALENDAR
A written communication had been received from
Mrs. Joy F. Anderson, 849 Hanover Street, regard-
ing the proposed remodeling of the high school
auditorium.
*
*
*
A written communication has been received from
Senator John V. Tunney regarding revenue sharing
and stating his favor of this program.
*
*
*
Communications have been received from Senator
Clark L. Bradley and Assemblyman Carlos Bee regard-
ing SB 162 and SB 163 (re BART) and also Senator
Bradley's comments re redistricting; that the City
of Livermore should remain within the Bay Area.
*
*
*
A written communication has been received from
ABAG regarding the proposed Alameda County Skyline
Parkway, stating they have begun a review of the
project.
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the East Bay
Regional Park District in reply to our inquiry re-
garding extension of the proposed annual Del Valle
pass to use on weekends as well as weekdays. It
is hoped that as new facilities are installed that
the passes can also be extended for weekend use.
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the Amador
Valley Chapter, Order of DeMolay, expressing appre-
ciation for courtesies extended during DeMolay Week.
*
*
*
A report was made by the City Manager regarding
pending legislation AB 1032 - school land dedication.
This measure has been introduced by Assemblyman Bee.
*
*
*
The Greens Committee has considered some slight re-
visions to the golf course rates, primarily to
attract late afternoon weekday play. It is recom-
mended that these revisions be adopted.
*
*
*
A request for extension of time to complete improve-
ments in Tract 2726 located east of Holmes Street
and south of Concannon Blvd. has been made by
Masud Mehran. It is recommended that the extension
be granted.
*
*
*
April 5, 1971
RESOLUTION NO. 44-71
Agreement re
Assessment for
Kathy Way Park Site
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT ( CHRISTOPHER LAND CO.)
The Kathy Way Park site has been assigned an assessment amount
in the Wagoner Farms Assessment District No. 1962-3. However,
the land developer was committed to provide the park site free
and clear of any encumbrances. The agreement authorized by the
above resolution obligates the developer to pay the assessment
amount on behalf of the City. ($3,160.81 total including
delinquencies).
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 45-71
Agreement re
Parking and VariancE
Appeal (Hutka)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT (Edwin F. & Janice G. Hutka)
Action on the Variance appeal regarding parking requirements for
added construction at 1940 Railroad Avenue by Ed Hutka was post-
poned until a recordable agreement could be drafted which would
provide increased parking if retail uses are installed in the
building.
Councilman Taylor expressed concern whether the City is protected
by the prepared agreement and whether it would be enforceable by
the City at a future date.
The City Attorney advised that the $5,000 damages mentioned is
liquidated damages, and does not represent true damages as this
would be hard to determine. He believed that this amount was
sufficient to provide remedy to the City. Also, he pointed out
that the other features of the contract are more desirable from
the City's viewpoint. The owner covenants not to use the proper-
ty for commercial purposes in excess of the square footage set
forth. The City can go into court and force the property owner
or successors to abide by this provision. Provisions are in-
cluded which set forth which leases would be void and which would
not and the owner also consents to judgment. The covenants are
binding on subsequent owners; the only question concerns how far
down the line the consent to judgment applies.
Councilman Taylor questioned if this would allow other property
owners to come in for similar requests. Mr.Lewis stated he did
not think this set any precedent as this is an unusual circumstance.
It is spelled out in the preliminary clauses that the intent con-
cerns a man who constructed a building without sufficient parking
provision under the ordinances and so long as the general com-
mercial use is not exceeded for the building according to the
parking ordinances he may so use the building.
Mr. Lewis pointed out that the Variance had been previously
approved by the Council contingent upon an agreement regarding
parking provisions. The Variance would provide that a certain
portion of the building would be used for general commercial use
and the remainder for warehousing only.
Mr. Lewis further stated that if another application for Variance
for parking was received the Council would have the choice of pur-
suing the remedy under the Zoning Ordinance and under the Building
Code.
Councilman Taylor did not feel the agreement was a good remedy
and this situation should not be encouraged. Problems might
arise if a similar situation should come before the Council. Mr.
Lewis said he did not feel that this type of situation would
occur again, and approval of the agreement would not set a pre-
cedent. The Variance appeal was then granted also as outlined
in the agreement.
CM-24-45
April 5, 1971
Minutes -
Beautification
Committee
Exempt
Business
License
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
CUP RE
MORTUARY
3070-76 East
Avenue
REZONING RE
NORTH S IDE OF
EAST AVE.
(Carl Nelson)
The minutes of the Beautification Committee meet-
ings of March 4 and March 18 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license was
made by the Livermore Playschool for various fund
raising activities during 1971, and Livermore
Cowbelles - sale of sandwiches April 10 to finance
youth projects.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, the items on the Consent Calendar were
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
An application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
a mortuary in the RG-16 District at 3070-76 East
Avenue has been made by Monte Maniz. Since a quorum
was not present to act on this request because of
Councilman Pritchard's abstension on this applica-
tion, the matter was continued until April 12.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning of a site located on
the north side of East Avenue, 850 feet west of
Vasco Road, from RS-5 District to RG-IO District
or other districts of the Zoning Ordinance, has
been submitted by Carl Nelson/OGO Associates.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous approval, the matter was set for public hearing
on April 26.
PUD NO. 15
AMENDMENT
(Hofmann)
MINUTES
REPORT RE
PROPOSED
ANNEXATION
(Las Positas
Avenue Annex
No.1)
*
*
*
Also set for public hearing on April 26 by the above
motion was request of Hofmann Company for Amendment
of PUD No. 15.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
March 23 were noted for filing.
*
*
*
In accordance with instructions of the Council, letters
have been directed to all known property ownerships
in the vicinity of the subject annexation application.
Response has been received from four of the eight
ownerships, of which three (Pacific Union Conference,
33 acres; Pleasanton Investors, 18 acres; and Mrs.
Lena Schenone, 18 acres) are agreeable to annexation
of their property. The other ownership, D. J. and
M. O'Neil (2 acres) is opposed. It is recommended that a motion
authorizing the transmittal and filing of a revised annexation map
in accordance with the new property ownership additions to the
Local Agency Formation Commission and the Planning Commission be
adopted.
The City Manager pointed out which properties would be included
in the proposed annexation on the map for the Council's information.
CM-24-46
April 5, 1971
Councilman Taylor stated that the corner of
Livermore and Las Positas Avenues is a poten-
tial commercial area which is now in the county,
and it would be a good idea if the land around
the intersection could be included in the annexation.
(Las Positas Ave.
Annex No.1)
Mr. Parness stated that no reply had been received from the
other ownerships so it is assumed that they are not interested
in annexation.
Councilman Taylor said that it seemed the only feasible way
to develop this property is to have access from one or both
sides of Las Positas or some other system of streets. If a
proposal for development came before the City, could the de-
velopment be denied because it is isolated from the normal
extension of public services. He felt it was protection for
the City to annex property, but did not wish to create a pro-
blem in this area. Las Positas Road is not in the City at
either end but is a county road; in this situation could de-
velopment be denied.
The City Manager said the other utilities would be a part of
the development of a subdivision; the street access would be
the only problem facing the City and he did not know if this
would be an overriding reason for denial of development.
The City Attorney stated that it seemed doubtful under the
present law that a subdivision could be denied merely on the
basis that the country roads in the periphery of the subdivision
were inadequate. However, under present proposed legislation
there may be provisions which would control this situation.
Councilman Taylor asked if this land were extended City services
where the sewer line would be located. Mr. Lee explained that
there is a major sewer line which parallels the freeway on the
south side and goes right through this property.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to authorize the transmittal
of the revised annexation map for filing with LAFCO and our
Planning Commission; motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor
and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva requested that his report regard-
ing revenue sharing be continued until April
12 so that a full Council could be present for
discussion on this issue.
REPORT RE REVENUE
SHARING
*
*
*
The City Manager pointed out that there is a
meeting of the East Bay Division League of
California Cities to be hosted by Livermore,
on April 16 at Sunol Country Club. Secondly, there is a meeting
on May 5 for City Council members on labor relations under the
auspices of the Mayors' Conference. He urged the Council to
attend these meetings.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Meetings)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor referred to a newspaper article
in which sane members of the Air Pollution Con-
trol District suggested that they might have
power over development and land use planning
in regard to pollution. He asked the staff to
investigate the details.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Air Pollution)
*
*
*
CM-24-47
April 5, 1971
(Volunteer
Service)
Mayor Silva reported he had been contacted by the
Military Wives' Club, who have volunteered their aid
for any project in which the City might wish to en-
list their support. The Clerk was requested to ex-
press the Council's appreciation for their civic
interest.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being
Council the
further business to come before the
adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
APPROVE
*
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of April 12, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on April 12, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m., with Mayor Silva pre-
siding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Taylor, Beebe, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 1971, were
approved as submitted, on motion of Councilman Prit-
chard, seconded by Councilman Taylor by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard, Taylor and Mayor Silva
ABSTAIN: Councilmen Beebe and Miller
*
*
*
SPECIAL
ITEM
Mr. Harold Bellon behalf of the Livermore Lodge,
No. 219, I.O.O.F. and Mrs. Nora Ross, of the Rebekah
Lodge, No. 154, presented a new larger American flag
(10ft. x 15 ft.) for the City's flagpole which they
had previously offered to donate as a perpetual gift
to be flown each day, and they asked for the privi-
lege of raising and lowering the flag during the
following week, which had been approved by the City
Manager and Police Department.
(Flag
Presentation)
Mayor Silva accepted the gift and expressed his
appreciation and on behalf of the Council.
*
*
*
CM-24-48
April 12, 1971
Mr. E. M. Quarterman, 2284 Evans street, stated
people are making a wrong left turn from Holmes
street onto Concannon Blvd. and staying on the
north side of the divider strip and he has no-
ticed several near accidents. He has discussed
this with the City Engineer and felt the state
should properly mark the street, and Mr. Lee was
asked to investigate the matter and make a report.
OPEN FORUM
(Intersection
Holmes st. &
Concannon Blvd.)
*
*
*
Marion Stelts, 547 Nightingale street, stated (Park Site)
that although the park between Murrieta Blvd.
and Nightingale street had been discussed at the
last meeting, he wished to point out that there might be a mis-
understanding on the part of the LARPD as their figure for devel-
opment was $160,000 whereas the women in the neighborhood had a
minimal development in mind, wherein if the land was purchased,
the people would do the work themselves, however the LARPD in-
forms them there is a contract involved and the City would not
allow this type of development.
Mayor Silva stated this was one of the reasons the matter should
be postponed until next week when a report from the staff would
be forthcoming.
*
*
*
Robert Strobel, representing Buena Vista Rabbitry (Animal Ordinance)
at 4940 Tesla Road, referred to the animal code
prohibiting the sale of rabbits, chicks, and ducks
in pet stores. He requested that the code be re-
vised or abolished in this regard.
The City Attorney advised that he had discussed this matter with
Mr. Strobel as well as an owner of a local pet store who had
stated that they felt this provision was unfair and unreasonable.
Mr. Lewis said this provision was about ten years old and that
the state Code has a provision prohibiting the sale of dyed chicks.
The basis for these provisions at the time they were made was to
prevent mistreatment of animals. After investigation the Council
might wish to consider revision of the code.
Mr. Strobel said he wished to include in the reV1Slon the provi-
sion that if such animal, after sale, is abandoned or cannot be
kept by the purchaser, it would be taken back.
The City Attorney was directed to investigate this matter for
report to the Council in the near future.
*
*
*
An application for amendment of PUD No. 22 for
the area on the west side of Arroyo Road, north
and south of Vancouver Way, has been made by
Jupiter Construction, Inc. Also to be considered
is tentative map of Tract 3288.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
PUD NO. 22 AMENDMENT
AND TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3288 (Jupiter)
The Planning Director stated that the proposal is to redesign
the subdivision with a density transfer to allow tandem houses
as the Ivanhoe Villa type of construction. The density had been
reviewed by the Planning Commission; the difference in density
is 22 lots between the approval of January 2 and 9, 1969, and
the amendment of February 23, 1970. The amendment is not clear
about the 22 lots; the developer would like these lots put back
into the present amendment. The Planning Commission recommended
that eleven of the lots be deleted as a compromise and also as
a part of the design amendment. The next point discussed by the
CM-24-49
April 12, 1971
Planning Commission was land use. Neither the
Planning Commission nor Planning Staff could see
any problem in regard to the type of land use.
The general concept of the design, the relation-
ship of the single family on large lots to the
couplets on small lots, was discussed and the
staff prepared a revised plan which corrected some of the inade-
quacies. The FHA had also submitted a similarly revised plan.
The Planning Commission did adopt a map similar to the one proposed
by the staff. The question of grading was discussed, but the en-
gineers indicated there would not be excessive grading necessary.
The plan generally conforms to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
and the developer acknowledges the 50-foot setback requirement on
major streets; street width alignment is satisfactory; public fac-
ilities in regard to the park are not settled.
(Public Hearing
PUD NO. 22 &
Tentative Map
Tr. 3288)
The park presented a rather major problem inasmuch as we have already
had park land dedicated to serve the southern portion of the develop-
ment. The requirement for additional park dedication would have
to be at a second park site in the area. The Recreation District
has stated that they do not want two parks in the area and given
their reasons in a letter. The alternatives considered are a park
further along Arroyo Road or one closer to Holmes Street. Another
alternative considered was to take the cash dedication rather than
the land and buy land adjacent to the present park site which is
adjacent to a school site and approved lots. The School District
had indicated they might be agreeable to a smaller school site and
a larger park, but this would not increase the amount of open space,
only change the ownership. Also the alternative had been discussed
of abandoning this park site and acquiring a larger park site in
the area under discussion, but redevelopment for residential use
might be too expensive. All of these alternatives had been discussed
but none were agreeable to all parties. The Planning Commission
proposed a revised map with a backing lot treatment against Cartier
Drive; the rest of the design is similar to that submitted. In the
southern portion of the subdivision, a modification of the street
design was made to break up the long street parallel to Concannon
Blvd. The staff had proposed a plan shifting the park more toward
the higher density area. The park could also serve as a buffer be-
tween the higher density area and the larger lots in the development.
The original park dedication was 2.58 acres and after credit to the
developer for the additional units there would be about four acres
for the park.
Mr. Musso explained that the original development was for 365 units,
including apartments. After the plan was approved the developer
asked for an amendment to the plan to allow the couplets which caused
a reduction in the number of units by 22. The plan was changed,
but the Planned Unit Development was not. As a result the plan in-
cluded 342 units but the permit allowed 365 units. This point was
discussed briefly.
The increase in park dedication from that in the original plan is
due to the increased requirement from one to two acres per one hun-
dred units. The Planning Commission recommendation is for two parks.
The obligation would be the City's if the Recreation District does
not develop the second park.
The City Attorney advised that the agreement with the Park District
has nothing to do with this stage of development as this is a part
of the subdivision process. When the City gets the park, the Park
District is offered the land for maintenance under the terms of
the agreement. They do not have to accept but it would have to
be an unusual circumstance for them not to accept the land.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing.
CM-24-50
April 12, 1971
John Newton, 1170 Innsbruck, stated he and his
neighbors had protested the previous proposal
in this area and the applicant withdrew his re-
quest. The second plan avoided, generally,
most of the major problems protested by the
neighborhood, and no organized protest had been
made against the present design. The proposed plan was not de-
signed as they had felt it should be and they had hoped the Plan-
ning Commission would request the applicant to resubmit the plan,
providing more open space and better park access. He suggested
that the Council request the applicant to resubmit the plan.
(Public Hearing -
HID No. 22 and
Tentative Map
Tr. 3288)
Edwin Barsis, 1071 Innsbruck, stated the Council was familiar with
the open space plans for Parcel A, circulated by some citizens
as well as the present plan for Parcel A which the Planning De-
partment called one of the best plans ever proposed in Livermore.
He said this was not his opinion. The proposed plan before the
Council does not meet the goals of PUD Zoning as stated in Sec. 19.00.
The proposed plan is inferior in respect to land use and design
and open space, and Mr. Barsis stated his feeling that the open
space ideas should be incorporated in the development; if agree-
ment cannot be reached on this, the proposed plan should be re-
jected in favor of the present plan.
Edward Quarterman, 2284 Evans Street, spoke in regard to the
proposed location and grading of the extension of Concannon Blvd.
adjacent to this area. He requested that the proposed street
design be reconsidered in respect to the adjacent properties.
The Public Works Director stated that a preliminary study is
now underway on Concannon Blvd. in cooperation with the County.
The question had come up early in the study as to whether the
required width should be split on the property lines, and it was
concluded that it would be better to proceed through the area as
now planned. The parties involved are reimbursed for the center
portion of the street. Only one structure is close to the boun-
dary of the proposed street extension, and this is still a com-
fortable distance.
Mr. Quarterman referred also to the hiking trail, which would
require an additional 27 feet, proposed by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Director said that consideration had been given to
land use planning for the large lots south of Concannon Blvd.
and Lomitas street. One of the solutions proposed by the Plan-
ning staff is the use of a frontage road to provide development
of the Lomitas area, which is not a part of the present proposal
and would not necessarily have to be on the same grade as Con-
cannon Blvd, and this has not been studied in detail. The hiking
or bike trail had been suggested in conjunction with the frontage
road.
Mr. Lee explained that when the first tract on the west was de-
veloped the street width required was 88 feet with 44 feet to be
taken from the north side of this PUD with the other 44 feet taken
from the other side. Since that time the standards have been
changed to 104 feet which requires that 60 feet be taken from
the south side in the already developed area. If, at the point
where development has not been started, the width were taken
evenly from both sides, an "s" curve would be created and the
County would object to this design.
The Council discussed the street width and extension but it was
felt that any discussion of the possibility of a frontage road
or trail was premature.
Fred DeMoney, 1114 Innsbruck st., directed the Council's atten-
tion to open space planning and referred to examples shown in
"Architectural Forum". Open space can be handled through a home-
owners association which would enhance the adjacent property. He
suggested that such a proposal be adopted by the Council.
CM-24-51
April 12, 1971
(PH-PUD 22 &
Tentative Map
Tr. 3288)
Clark Sims, 1087 Innsbruck Street, pointed out there
is a difference between good house design and good
subdivision design. He felt the applicant could
design a better proposal. There are several things
wrong with the proposed plan; the City should demand
a better design.
The Planning Director stated that there had been some discussion
by the Planning Commission to ask the Council to refer this de-
sign back to them for further consideration. No formal motion had
been made although two commissioners had indicated they would like
a review and a third had indicated that, except for legal reasons,
he would be willing to review the matter. Mr. Musso said the
majority had felt that since this matter was approved as a result
of a public hearing it should not be changed without similar con-
sideration.
Everett Martin, 1122 Innsbruck st., felt the design should be an
asset to the community. The decision on this plan would affect de-
sign in this and other areas of the City.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to close the public hearing, and it was approved unanimously.
Councilman Beebe stated he had seen the proposal indicating open
space which had been drawn up by one of the Planning Commissioners,
which had lots of appeal. He stated that the applicant had been
before the Council three times without obtaining approval, and this
time had accepted a patched up design worked out by the Planning
Commission. He did not know if it would be fair to request the de-
veloper to change the design again.
Councilman Miller said the question is whether there is a better
plan than exists or not. This is not an RS District zone and there
is not a tentative map for approval; this is in fact a PD zone and
the map has already been approved for a single family design. The
request by the applicant is for a change in the PUD which can be
amended provided the change is better than the original plan, which
is amatter of Council judgment on the intent of the ordinance.
There is an alternate plan which seems to be as good or better than
the existing RS-3 type single family already approved. The proposed
plan is not as good as the single family design, as it is high den-
sity with congestion and no open space for the residences of the
duplexes and the park also has difficult access. The area which
is now rolling hills will be graded to flat elevation and this plan
does not really satisfy, in his opinion, the intent and purpose of
the Planned Unit Development ordinance. He suggested that the'de-
veloper be encouraged to come back with a plan which would have some
15 to 20 acres of contiguous open space for common usage of the
people in the duplexes, with perhaps a homeowners organization or
some mechanism for keeping it maintained. This would require asking
the applicant to agree to continuance.
Councilman Beebe said that he thought some of the reluctance in using
a plan with a homeowners organization is due to the fact that the
mechanics for such a plan have not been worked out. Some way has
to be worked out to guarantee permanent maintenance.
Councilman Taylor agreed with much of Councilman Miller's statement.
This area has been approved under a PUD for single family. At the
time the Ivanhoe Villas were approved, part of the justification
was that it was adjacent to Robertson Park. This has been a success-
ful unit of development, but there must be a better way for further
development of high density areas. This is an opportunity to ask
the applicant to design a better way. He felt the plan drawn up
by Commissioner Thorsen should be considered by all the members of
the Planning Commission as a possible idea for the area. He sug-
gested that the applicant be asked to continue the matter and let
CM-24-52
April 12, 1971
the Planning Commission take another look at
this plan, or perhaps the applicant could take
another look at alternate ways to provide open
space.
(PH-PUD No. 22 &
Tentative Map
Tr. 3288)
Councilman Pritchard agreed that one of the desirable parts of
planned developments should be open space; however, in this case
the developer has decided on a different type of concept. He
personally would like to see open space around this unit of the
subdivision. He referred to object~ons voiced by the members
of the Sunset East Homeowners Association in the Planning Commis-
sion minutes and testimony, but changes have been made to meet
these objections. Interpretation of the terms of the ordinance
leads to a matter of personal taste. Personally, he would like
to see something different designed for this area, but if the
developer does not wish to develop a homeowners association or
similar means there is nothing the Council can do about it.
Previous objections by area homeowners had been based on the
location of such a unit of development adjacent to an established
area; therefore the unit had been moved to the corner of the de-
velopment. In regard to open space, the mistake was made in the
overall density granted to the PUD. Control for open space will
have to be done by density control rather than PUD requirements
unless the ordinance is rewritten to require development as the
Council wishes.
Mayor Silva stated he felt the developer was requesting change
due to change in the market; the new type of development is in
greater demand. He was for amending the PUD. If there is a
flaw in the ordinance, then it should be amended to reflect the
changes desired by the Council, and ground rules would be set
down for developers. The applicant in good faith is asking for
a change and has accepted the Planning staff's plan over his own.
He did not feel the rules should be changed at this time, and
thought a motion was in order to either approve this concept and
continue details to another evening or a motion not to accept the
plan without open space.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to refer this application for
amendment back to the Planning Commission with the request for
a design incorporating more of the space in common open space
rather than individual yards; motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller. The motion failed to gain a majority by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
A motion was then made by Councilman Pritchard to accept the
Planning Commission's recommendat ion for approval of the PUD
amendment in concept, with details as to streets, park location,
etc. to be decided later.
After further discussion it was pointed out that the motion really
is not the Planning Commission's recommendation as the map is not
being approved or disapproved. The motion was changed to approve
the concept of the PUD amendment, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
The City Attorney concurred that it would be best to withdraw the
motion and to continue the matter.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the motion should be for approv-
al of the plan as presented by the applicant or just the concept.
Mayor Silva felt that since the details of the plan, such as the
location of the parks and streets have not been discussed in
length that the Council should only approve the concept now and
continue the details and actual plan. Councilman Pritchard said
he had made the motion with the intention of approving the plan
as presented, and if this could not be done he would withdraw his
motion; Councilman Beebe then withdrew his second.
CM-24-53
April 12, 1971
(PH-PUD 22 &
Tentative Map
Tr. 3288)
Mayor Silva made a motion to continue this matter
until April 26, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
The applicant, Masud Mehran, stated that the first
request on this subdivision had been in November,
1970, and it is now April, 1971. Several schemes
have been presented and discussed with the Planning Commission
during this time. He said he would not be in Livermore on April
26, or the following week as he would be out of town, and for the
last twenty years he had represented himself before the Council.
He requested that the plan either be rejected or accepted with the
usual modifications at thi~tiJ?e. ~ ~>_J~-t..cf~a~'..e.~ r,
~ ",~~ I -h.tt:' Gb.L
Mayor Silva said he coul not vot 0 the plan #ithout a con inuance
for further discussion. The motion for continuance was withdrawn
by Mayor Silva and the second by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Silva then made a motion for denial of the application for
amendment to PUD No. 22 due to lack of time for discussion and
Tentative Map of Tract 3288 as it is no longer consistent with the
PUD; motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Upon question of Mr. Mehran, it was stated that this action indi-
cated that the matter would revert to the previous valid PUD permit
with map as indicated, and a new map would have to be submitted.
The City Attorney addressed the Council in regard to the plan which
had been drawn up by Commissioner Thorsen. For all intents and pur-
poses this plan is a presentation of a third person who happens to
be a Planning Commissioner. It ordinarily should be presented in
that form at the time of the public hearing so that it is considered
by the Council and the public is aware of it. This does not prevent
a Councilman from obtaining permission from the Chair to present a
plan or concept to be presented to the Council and the public. He
did not believe it proper to refer to some plan in the hands of
only one or more Councilmen.
*
*
*
An application has been submitted by William N. and
Candy V. Davis to permit a change from RL 5-0 Dis-
trict to RM District for property located on the
south side of Linden Street, 50 feet east of North
"P" Street. The Planning Commission recommendation
is for denial based on non-conformance with the
General Plan. They also stated the application
would be precedent for further multiple zoning in
the area. The area is presently single family and duplexes, which
were built under the RL 5-0 District zoning as it existed before
1965, which allowed duplexes under a permit. A major area east of
this location and a recent change off Chestnut Street, as well as
one spot zoning, have been assigned multiple zoning.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZO NING SO.
SIDE LINDEN
(W.N. Davis)
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, said the corner of N and Walnut
Streets had been zoned for a triplex rather than a duplex and was
rezoned in 1968 by a 3-2 vote. Another request had been denied
since that time. He felt the General Plan in this area was poor
and said he was in favor of this rezoning.
Earl Odell, representing the applicant, referred to past zoning in
the area and to the multiple zoning allowed in 1968 only two blocks
away from the present area of consideration. The lot being re-
quested for rezoning is large enough for multiple and multiple
zoning would not change the character of the neighborhood.
CM-24-54
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Mayor Silva, and by unanimous vote, the public
hearing was closed.
April 12, 1971
(Public Hearing-
Rezoning - Davis)
The Planning Director pointed out the location of other duplexes
in the neighborhood.
Mayor Silva stated the vacant lots in this area will probably not
develop as single family and was in favor of the application.
He was not in favor of allowing single family residences to be
replaced with multiple.
Councilman Taylor felt there are some stable single family homes
on the north side and some single family development should be
preserved. If this area is going to be approved for some duplexes,
then the whole area should be considered and provision made for
a park and school.
Councilman Beebe stated the General Plan calls for 4 d.u./acre
but it is already 4.82. The General Plan does not recognize what
already exists. The staff should be instructed to investigate
the possibility of a park location.
Councilman Miller felt that the vacant lots could be developed
for small custom houses. Further denial of duplexes would halt
the deterioration of the north side and preserve it; spot zoning
is not good zoning.
Councilman Pritchard did not think allowing duplexes made the
neghborhood deteriorate; the vacant lots did not add to the
neighborhood. He made a motion to rezone the property to RM
District, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Beebe stated he was in favor of rezoning the vacant
lots in the area but did not want to see a precedent set for
presently developed property.
The motion for approval of the rezoning and referral back to
the Planning Commission was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication has been received from Kenneth
W. Buckley stating his resignation from the
Beautification Committee. The Council directed
that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mr.
Buckley for his years of service.
*
*
*
Notification has been received from the State
Compensation Insurance Fund regarding dividends
earned by the City employees due to their safe-
ty record. The Council instructed that a
letter of commendation be sent to the employees
for this safety record.
*
*
*
A communication has been received from Senator
Bradley in response to the City's telegram ex-
pressing opposition to AB 52, which stated
Senator Bradley's view of this proposed legis-
lation. Also included were his comments on SB
Resignation from
Beautification Comm.
(Buckley)
State Compensation
Insurance Fund
Dividend
Communicat ion re
Proposed Legislation
(AB 52 & SB 333)
333.
CM-24-55
April 12, 1971
Agreement
for Easement
(Oddon)
RESOLUTION NO. 46-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
(Louis D. and Carolyn M. Oddon)
The above resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with
Louis D. and Carolyn Oddon is for an easement for a portion of
the sewer line extension easterly from Wagoner Farms to serve the
Research Drive properties. Similar easements will be sought from
two other property owners along the route.
*
*
*
One hundred sixty-six claims in the amount of
$79,028.00 and two hundred forty-four payroll
warrants in the amount of $79,470.88, dated March
20, and two hundred fifty-seven payroll warrants
in the amount of $80,986.19, dated April 5, 1971, were ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager. Mayor Silva abstained from
voting on Warrant No. 10272 for the usual reason.
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
RECESS
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to approve the Consent Calen-
dar and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS, THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
The City Manager explained that the Recreation Dis-
trict has two possibilities before them - use of
California Water or use of City service. It has
been found that the extended cost for both of the
services is approximately the same, but the dis-
cussion centered on the estimated initial capital expense of about
$17,000 to bring the main line to the park. The Recreation Dis-
trict stated that they had no objections to receiving City water
at the park site, but did not feel they could absorb the added
expense. Since the City staff feels that the intervening area is
important for service by the City system, this would be a prudent
expenditure and logical water service extension. Normally, the
cost of the extension would be borne by the private developer,
with proportionate reimbursement from the properties as they con-
nect at a later time. In this instance, since the City would be
the one making the capital expense, it would be consistent to re-
quire a benefit district for those properties which might later
connect to the line.
JACKSON AVE.
PARK WATER
SERVICE
The Council discussed the water pressure which would be available
and the Public Works Director stated it would be at least equal
to that of California Water Service. He did not feel the City
should guarantee 45 Ibs. pressure and stated Cal Water would not
make such a guarantee.
The City Manager explained that the economic study included all
available costs and fees projected over a thirty year period, and
the total values using these comparative measures were roughly the
same, with the Recreation District assuming all the costs. However,
the Recreation District does not feel they can sustain the immediate
capital outlay for the extension. The question is whether the
Council wishes to extend the City service in this direction now
to serve future development in this area.
The Council discussed the advantages and disadvantages of extend-
ing the service as well as such problems involved as alignment of
CM-24-56
April 12, 1971
the line, whether the extension is premature,
and the manner in which a benefit district could
be required of future development.
(Jackson Ave.
Park Water Service)
Councilman Miller made a motion~ seconded by Councilman Taylor~
to adopt the recommendation of the City Manager to extend the
water system to the Jackson Avenue park site to be financed by
the City from the proceeds of the municipal water system.
Marlin Pound, District Board Chairman, indicated they wished to
go on record specifying the water pressure of 45 Ibs. as the
sprinkler design will require 40 Ibs. They did want a moral
obligation from the staff and the Council that the City service
can meet this requirement. Also, California Water would only
service the park on a permanent basis. There is the advantage
in California Water Service that there would be three locations
for service which might decrease the cost of the line within the
park. The District is proceeding with the development and a
decision must be made so that work can be commenced.
After discussion regarding costs to the Recreation District over
the thirty year period, Mr. Pound said they felt that there are
other figures which had not been included in Mr. Parness' report.
Other costs and savings have not been calculated by using Cal
Water service. Assumptions must be made in both instances for
a long period of time. The Recreation District's preference at
this time would be to have California Water service.
The motion to extend the City service failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
Due to a citizen's inquiry regarding renovation
of the old 1921 Seagraves Pumper used by the
City until 1960, the Fire Chief stated the res-
toration would be beneficial to posterity but
had not been undertaken because of the time and
expense involved. He advised that it would take $1500 to $2000
to restore the pumper to first-class running condition. There
is also another 1915 truck being renovated by the firemen them-
selves at their own expense.
REIDRTS FROM
FIRE CHIEF
(Renovation of
Seagraves Pumper)
Chief Baird was requested to talk with Mrs. Plechaty and others
interested in this project and to draw up a plan for the restora-
tion including who will do the work, where it will be done, who
will retain ownership, and where it will be kept after restoration.
Then this plan can be presented to the Council for further dis-
cussion.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by Fire Chief Baird, (Fire Station Sites)
listing possible future fire station locations.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, second-
ed by Councilman Beebe, to proceed with the aCqQisition of the
fire station sites recommended by Chief Baird as soon as possible
with ..i.nclusion in the budget discussion. The motion passed unani-
mously.
*
*
*
An appeal has been submitted by Harry A. Mosure
from Variance denial by the Planning Commission
of his request to delay installation of a re-
quired masonry wall along the north and west
property lines of the site located at 889 Portola
APPEAL RE VARIANCE
DENIAL (Mosure)
Avenue.
CM-24-57
April 12, 1971
(Appeal re
Variance
Denial-
Mosure)
The Planning Director reported that a CUP had been
approved. As a recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission, a brick wall on three sides of the property
was requested. Two of these walls were required by
ordinance and the third was a recommendation of the
Planning Commission which was deleted by the Council.
The Planning Commission has granted a Variance to the requirement
that the construction of a wall adjacent to the single family resi-
dental would be required immediately and the wall adjacent to the
mobile home park within one year following final building permit
approval. There are now wooden fences at the site. The applicant
has requested a Variance which would eliminate the brick walls
completely.
Mr. Musso explained that the brick wall is required by ordinance
on the side next to the mobile home park and the Planning Commis-
sion recommends that this be delayed one year. On the side adjacent
to the single family construction, the brick wall is required by
ordinance, and the Planning Commission recommends it be installed
immediately. The wall on the side adjacent to the existing com-
mercial county property was previously deleted by the Council.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
deny the appeal from the Variance granted by the Planning Commission
but the motion failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NO ES :
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard made a motion amending the Planning Commission's
action by delaying the provision of a masonry wall on both sides
for a period of two years, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller did not feel there were grounds for granting of
the Variance, but the majority of the Council felt that the exist-
ing wood fence would provide protection for adjoining properties
for the two year period.
The motion to delay construction of the masonry walls for two years
was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NO ES :
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
APPEAL FOR
CONTINUANCE
RE SITE PLAN
(Intermark)
*
*
*
An appeal has been submitted by Intermark Investing
Co. for an additional 90 days in which to submit a
site plan for a mobile home park on a site on the
east side of Las Flores Road, north of U.S. 580.
The Planning Director reported that approval was
granted in concept to Intermark's request for a mobile home park,
and a revised plan was to be presented to the Planning Commission
within 180 days. Intermark is now requesting an additional 90 days.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to grant the request for an extension of 90 days, and
passed unanimously.
CUP TO ALIDW
MORTUARY AT
3070 EAST AVE.
(Maniz)
CM-24-58
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard abstained from discussion and
vote on this matter due to personal involvement with
the application.
A request for a Conditional Use Permit has been
submitted by Monte J. Maniz to allow a mortuary at
3070 East Avenue. The Planning Director stated
that the use conforms to the zoning and has
been recommended for approval by the Planning
Commis s ion.
April 12, 1971
(CUP re Mortuary)
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval of the CUP to allow the use.
Councilman Miller wished to make it clear that allowance of this
use does not indicate approval of the extension of commercial uses
along East Avenue. Mayor Silva indicated that he felt this use
was not commercial in nature but a service type facility and
Councilman Taylor stated it was always intended that there not
be strip commercial along East Avenue.
Councilman Beebe said he felt this type of use was separate from
any type of commercial use, and that he had favored the "Ell Zoning.
Councilman Miller felt additional wording should be added to
A.IO to include design review and approval prior to issuance of
building permit.
The motion for approval of the CUP passed unanimously (Councilman
Pritchard abstaining).
In order to clarify previous action, a motion was made by Council-
man Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to accept the with-
drawal of the application for rezoning of the subject property,
and passed unanimously (Councilman Pritchard abstaining).
*
*
*
A report was submitted regarding electronic
data processing services available through
Optimum Systems Incorporated.
REPORT RE ELECTRONIC
DATA PROCESSING
SERVICES
Dave Morton, representative of OSI, explained that cities of
20,000 population and upward could benefit from use of the ser-
vice as the firm no longer planned to charge a minimum fee.
Mayor Silva stated he would like to see an actual statement of
savings at year-end from use of this service. Also, he inquired
if an additional position would be necessary if this system is
used, and the Finance Director stated it would not. He referred
to the City of Sunnyvale and their experience with the program
and indicated our City would be using this information.
The Council discussed the system and its utilization by the City,
and generally felt even if the savings would not be immediate,
there would be in future manhours.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to adopt the recommendation of the City Manager, which passed
unanimously.
Mr. Parness explained that there is no specific allocation for
this program at the present time as it had been deleted in the
budget, but there would be by the time it has commenced.
*
*
*
Due to the failure of the tax override last
November, proceedings on the junior college
have been held in abeyance. This has affect-
ed the proposed utility assessment district
to serve the area. These district proceed-
ings are at a mid-stage whereby all engineering
and bids can be solicited for the work prior to
the public hearing on the district formation.
REPORT RE COLLEGE
DISTRICT ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
has been completed
the conduct of
CM-24-59
April 12, 1971
(College
Assessment
District)
The City Manager explained that a number of responses
have been received from the property owners in the
area as the result of contact by one of the property
owners, favorably inclined, and indications are that
65% of the area of the district favor proceeding
with the formation of the district.
Mr. Parness stated he has been in contact with the Bond Attorney
and there are three alternates available:
1. By action of the City Council the District proceedings can be
rescinded.
2. The District status can remain in its present state for a year
or eighteen months assuming that during that period some means may
be derived for college construction purposes.
3. The District can proceed.
The College District Board formally has stated their intent in pro-
ceeding at this time depending upon the attitude of the property
ownerships in the area.
The Council questioned the cost to the property owners, however ex-
act figures are not available at this time. Councilman Miller stated
that the District was originally set up to take care of the Junior
College and since it is at a standstill, he felt if the assessment
district is completed there might be a leapfrog development. It
would be premature to continue with the assessment district at this
point and favored alternate (2) until the bond issue is passed for
the Junior College.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that if the owner of a large parcel
came in and asked the City to help form an assessment district to
extend utilities, it would be denied. The difference is the Junior
College is there, and he felt they have an obligation to extend
utilities to the College District. As explained by a Board member
if they proceeded at this time there would be a savings due to in-
flation. They do have a specific general plan for that area and
if utilities are extended to the area, they would be hard pressed
and he also favored alternate (2).
Councilman Beebe expressed his opinion that he had favored alter-
nate (2), but if they do not proceed they might lose the college.
Mayor Silva suggested they adopt alternate (2) with the stipulation
that if there is a successful bond election prior to that time that
they proceed.
Mr. Parness explained that he had discussed in depth alternate (2)
with the Bond Attorney who advised him that no district proceed-
ing of this kind has been held as long as is contemplated here; there
is no court precedent on it, and he did not know whether or not
this would intrude on the validity of the proceedings; it possibly
might.
In view of this, Mayor Silva inquired of the City Attorney if they
would be in a better position if they continued for just six months,
to which Mr. Lewis replied if they are going to take the chance and
must make a decision regarding time, it would be best to go for
the shorter time, and he further explained what could happen.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor to allow the District status to remain in its present state
for six months, and passed 4-1 with Councilman Beebe dissenting.
*
*
*
CM-24-60
Various names had been suggested by the Plan-
ning Department to be assigned to the frontage
road northeast of the airport, which matter had
been continued, as the previous recommendation
of "Kitty Hawkfl had not been accepted.
April 12, 1971
REro RT RE NAME -
FRONTAGE ROAD
After some discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to approve the name of flKitty
Hawkfl, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Summary of the Planning Commission action of
April 6, was noted and filed.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller made a motion that the Zoning
Ordinance amendment re off-street parking re-
gulations be amended under Sec. 21.45 (b) (5)
and (6l parking stalls to be 10 ft. rather
than 92 ft. The motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller, Pritchard and Taylor
Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
SUMMARY PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
PROroSED ORDINANCE
RE OFF-STREET
PARKING
A motion was then made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and passed unanimously to introduce the ordinance as amend-
ed, and waive the first reading (title read only).
*
*
*
The City Clerk asked the Council when they
would like to hold the public hearing re the
RS Ordinance, and the 3rd of May was the date
set for the hearing.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated he had complaints with
regard to the speed limit on First Street near
Trevarno Road, and felt we should ask the state
that this be lowered.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Public Hearing
RS Ordinance)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Speed Limits -
First Street)
RESOLUTION NO. 47-71 COMMENDATION
roLICE CHIEF
RESOLUTION COMMENDING roLICE CHIEF JOHN R. MICHELIS
FOR FORTY YEARS OF SINCERE AND DEDICATED SERVICE TO
THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
A motion was made by Mayor Silva introducing the above resolution,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
REro RT RE
Mayor Silva had prepared a report re Revenue REVENUE SHARING
Sharing, which matter was continued to the
26th of April; however, Mayor Silva asked that
the Council endorse a letter which had been prepared for his
signature to be sent to Senator Cranston regarding the matter
and to Congressman Miller, stating the Council's reasons for
supporting revenue sharing,.. and inviting Congressman Miller to
meet with one or more of tl:e Councilmen.
*
*
*
CM-24-61
April 12, 1971
APPO INTMENT
OF MAYOR
Mayor Silva expressed his gratitude to the Council
and the staff and citizens of Livermore for having
made the past year a very pleasant one for him as
Mayor. He felt that it was a full time job since
the City has grown and should be rotated annually until such time
as Livermore has an elected Mayor. Due to his business obliga-
tions he stated he would find it very difficult to fill this posi-
tion, if he were asked, for the coming year and requested that
he not be considered for a second term.
Mayor Silva stated he felt it was not necessary to adjourn to an
executive session and called for nominations to select a Mayor.
Councilman Taylor stated his first preference would be that Mayor
Silva continue as Mayor for the coming year, but since this was
not to be, he nominated Councilman Miller, however there was no
second to this nomination.
Councilman Miller commented that he was surprised by some of the
members of the Council in view of their previous arguments about
the role of the Mayor, but the fact there was no second to his nom-
ination was not totally unexpected. This event is obviously com-
pletely political as no one has ever questioned his ability to
handle the gavel fairly. On the other hand, the decision of some
of his colleagues ~llows him to present his point of view much
more vigorously, without the need to be neutral as would be neces-
sary if he were mayor. Councilman Miller nominated Councilman
Taylor; seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Pritchard stated his first preference would be Mayor
Silva and felt it regretable he had decided not to continue on as
Mayor as opposed to a previous position he had taken, as he felt
Mayor Silva had done an excellent job and appreciated it personally.
He had seconded Councilman Miller's nomination of Councilman Taylor
as Mayor as he had desired to place Councilman Taylor's name into
nomination last year. He did not feel that his action this evening
was political; his philosophy was known as not to consider the
rotation of the chair for the mayor. His position has been, and
is, that the man most qualified for the job should have the chair,
and for this reason had seconded the nomination of Councilman
Taylor.
The nominations for Mayor were closed and Councilman Taylor was
selected as Mayor for the coming year by acclamation.
Mayor Taylor was seated at this time and stated nominations were
in order for Vice Mayor.
Councilman Beebe nominated Councilman Pritchard for Vice Mayor,
seconded by Councilman Silva, who made a motion that the nomina-
tions be closed. Motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NO ES :
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard,Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Miller
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being
Council
a.m.
APPRO VE
ATTEST
*
*
*
CM-24-62
Regular Meeting of April 19, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on April 19,
1971 in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva
and Miller
ABSENT: Mayor Taylor (excused)
RO LL CALL
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva, the minutes of the regular meeting
of April 12, 1971, were approved as amended by
unanimous vote (Mayor Taylor absent).
* * *
MINUTES
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Lane, related a rumor
he had heard concerning Councilman Miller, and
suggested that perhaps this was the reason he
was not elected Mayor, further stating that Coun-
cilman Miller has done a good job and this City
needs him.
OPEN FO RUM
(Comments re
Councilman Miller)
*
*
*
Larry Wirick, 1139 Innsbruck Street, speaking
as an individual referred to an open space con-
cept which had been denied the week before based
on the rationale that the City ordinances did not
provide for or had no jurisdiction involving homeowners' associa-
tions for maintenance of open space. He felt this was ambiguous
inasmuch as there are presently two homeowners' associations op-
erating which maintain two open spaces within Livermore, and he
asked for an explanation~ this ambiguity.
(Open Space Concept
re PUD No. 22)
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard stated the Council did not disagree
with him regarding open space, as he did favor it, and Councilman
Silva added that there is no ordinance which requires homeowners'
organizations.
In reply to a question as to what would happen if the homeowners'
organization should dissolve~ the City Attorney advised that re
Springtown there is a provision in the annexation agreement, a
general statement, that the facilities intended for public use
should not become a pUblic charge. However, there are no provi-
sions to require a homeowners' association to be formed or main-
tained when it is formed. There are covenants that go into the
deeds under which people receive their property and it is binding
on those people. These covenants can be enforced by the home-
owners' association or any individual owning another lot or parcel
within that area.
Councilman Miller commented that the issue was qot whether the
Council could force the developer to provide a homeowners' asso-
ciation but rather on a PUD on which a tract map already existed
and whether or not they should replace one map for another, and
the City has the option of accepting or rejecting an amendment.
If the Council accepts the amendment, and the majority want a
homeowners' association and the developer wants his plan or plan
change, he would have to provide the association. If not, and
the City is satisfied with the existing map, then the existing
map remains as approved. The PUD is like a contract and they
cannot force something on the developer, neither can the developer
force a change on the City.
CM-24-63
April 19, 1971
(Open Space
Concept)
The City Attorney explained that the courts are more
inclined to treat a PUD like zoning, and he cited a
case of the City of Sausalito vs. Marin County in
which Marin County was made to go through a zoning
process for the adoption of a Planned Unit Development permit, and
further explained the City's position in such matters.
Councilman Miller stated essentially his point was they did not
have to force the developer; if he is not satisfied with the con-
ditions he does not have to adopt the City's program.
Councilman Beebe stated since the Planning Commission approved the
PUD on the basis of existing law, when it came before the Council
there were other conditions over and above those the Planning Com-
mission considered, asked what position that placed the Council in,
legally.
Mr. Lewis advised that the Council has the right to make a judgment
on its own. Last week there was no real evidence of any open space
plan before them as it had not been brought up and for that reason
he felt it should not be considered.
*
*
*
Mrs. Lois Hill, member of the Valley Ecology Cente~
introduced Mr. Craig Norleen, spokesman for the YMCA
Ecology Club who advised that the club must regret-
ably terminate its recycling efforts as the business
has been too good and the volume exceeded their ability
to handle; therefore, they are endorsing the Community Ecology Cen-
ter and will assist them and this summer will devote their time to
the pollution problem at the Del Valle Reservoir. They will also
attempt to increase membership of the club and will be in contact
with the BAAPC Board Center sampling air station on Railroad Ave.
to keep informed on the levels of pollution in the Valley.
SPECIAL
ITEM
(Recycling)
Mrs. Hill congratulated the club on being the first in the City
to begin recycling operations and thanked the club members for
their various efforts in this connection and their future endeavors.
Mrs. Hill further spoke of the recycling program and the Center's
plans for the future and explained how participation can grow as
more items are collected for recycling. Mrs. Hill stated that they
have learned the reason no compensation is offered for tin is be-
cause all profits are turned over to the Anti-litter League. The
Ecology Center has solicited the help of Continental Can Company
in making it possible to collect cans in Livermore without losing
money. She suggested that a letter be directed to John Gallagher,
Continental Can Company, 155 Bovet Rd., San Mateo 94402, which
might enhance the possibility of their cooperation in recycling tin.
Mrs. Hill thanked the City for providing the location for the re-
cycling operation and the Livermore Disposal Company for providing
bins and transportation and invited suggestions from the Council
and the citizens in general. Inasmuch as this is "Earth Week!! Mrs.
Hill felt it would be appropriate for the Council to pass a resolu-
tion urging increased citizen participation in community recycling
and other positive endeavors to help solve our environmental problems.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and approved unanimously to direct a letter to the Continental Can
Company, and to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 48-71
RESOLUTION URGING INCREASED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
IN COMMUNITY RECYCLING.
CM-24-64
April 19, 1971
CO NSENT CALENDAR
Communication re
Request for Funds -
Sister City Visit
A communication has been received from the
Sister City Committee Chairman with a report
of the past year and request for funds and
designation of a Council representative to
make a visit to our Sister City Quezaltenango. Councilman Silva
requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion at a later time.
*
*
*
A summary of activities of the Police Department
indicated that Officer William E. Bankert had
completed a nine week course at Chabot COllege/
Alameda County Police Academy and finished first
in a class of thirty-three men. Councilman Silva
suggested that he be sent a letter of commendation
for this achievement.
Letter of
Commendation
*
*
*
Departmental Reports were received from the
following:
Departmental
Reports
Airport - financial and activity - March
Building Department - March
Civil Defense - quarterly - January/March
Finance Department - quarterly - January/March
revenues and expenditures
Fire Department - March
Golf Course - March
Justice Court - February
Library - quarterly - January/March
Planning- Zoning Activity - March
Police Department, Pound - March
Water Reclamation Plant - March
*
*
*
Notification has been received from the Depart-
ment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Admin-
istration re control tower for our municipal
airport and that construction would commence
approximately January 1972. Also a request is made
to make soil borings and to locate equipment at the
Report re Airport
Control Tower
for consent
new site.
*
*
*
A report has been received from the Alameda
County Mosquito Abatement District for the
fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70.
Report re Mosquito
Abatement District
*
*
*
A status report was submitted re the water
reclamation plant expansion.
Report re Water
Reclamation Plant
*
*
*
A status report was received re the Valley
Water Management Study.
Report re Valley
Water Management
Study
*
*
*
CM-24-65
April 19, 1971
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REFORT RE
AMENDMENT 0 F
RESOLUTION
(Beautification
Committee)
Applications for exempt business licenses were re-
ceived from the following:
Livermore Y Mens' Club - rummage sale on April 24
Livermore Babe Ruth League - various fund raising
activities during the year.
*
*
*
One hundred and four claims in the amount of
$62,934.89, dated April 15, 1971, were ordered paid
as approved by the City Manager.
Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant
No. 10383 for his usual reason.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously to adopt
the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception
of the one item which was removed for later discussion.
*
*
*
A report was received from the Beautification Com-
mittee regarding amendment of the Resolution Es-
tablishing Duties and Responsibilities of the
Committee.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded
by Councilman Miller, that the amendment be
adopted and it was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Miller
ABSENT: Mayor Taylor
REFORT RE
EMPID YMENT
o PFO RTUNITY
DRUG ABUSE
PRO GRAM
RESOLUTION NO. 49-71
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 95-70 BEAUTIFICATION
COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF STRUCTURE, DUTIES AND RESFONSI-
BILITY
*
*
*
A communication was received from Rev. William Charlton,
director of the Inter-Church Counseling Service, ap-
pealing to the City for participation in a work oppor-
tunity program for young persons formerly involved
with the drug problem.
Mr. Parness reported that funds for the City's parti-
cipation in this program for the two month term would
be about $300. He felt it to be an extremely worthwhile program
not only for its therapeutic value for the persons formerly under
the drug influence but an opportunity to learn a job skill and be-
come economically productive, and recommended that the City Council
authorize participation in the program.
Councilman Beebe felt it would be a very good program and made a
motion that it be adopted, seconded by Councilman Miller; motion
passed unanimously (Mayor Taylor absent).
REFO RT RE
PUD NO. 22
AMENDMENT
CM-24-66
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the owner of Jupiter
Construction Company has filed an appeal with the
City on the rejection of the amendment of PUD No. 22
which transpired last meeting.
April 19, 1971
Councilman Miller stated they have been admon- (PUD No. 22)
ished by the City Attorney in the past that once
a final action is taken, the matter cannot be re-
opened, and he felt this to be the same situation
and it would seem only right that the lawful procedures provided
for by ordinance should be followed for an amendment to the PUD.
Unfortunately that meant starting over, but no matter what plan
they looked at which they had not seen before they would refer
it back to the Planning Commission. The application should pro-
ceed through standard administrative procedures to bring back a
different plan.
Councilman Beebe asked the City Attorney for confirmation of this
point and Mr. Lewis stated he had reviewed the tape and researched
the matter and he has advised the Council in the past that in re-
zonings or other applications for permits that once a decision is
made denying a permit, it is final. He has examined Mr. Mehran's
letter and realized the time spent on this project, but felt he
must affirm the advice previously given that the matter was ended
at that point.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard pointed out that from the minutes it
would indicate the reason given was there was not enough time on
the part of the Council to study the amendment and asked the
City Attorney if this could be a legal problem.
Mr. Lewis replied that it could be as it was apparent from his
examination of the tape that at least three Councilmen were some-
what basically in favor of the general plan, but wished to discuss
details more, and a motion made for continuance was rejected by
the developer saying he could not be present; however, he did
not feel he could change his advice on that basis.
There followed a discussion of the action taken at the last meet-
ing concerning this matter and the reason for the denial of the
amendment, and it was pointed out that the developer essentially
advised the Council to either accept the amendment as it stood
or reject it, which they did.
Mr. Musso explained there were certain time limits through the
ordinance and the state Code in which the Planning Commission
and Council must act and beyond that they must have the permis-
sion of the applicant to continue. Mr. Lewis stated there is a
time limit imposed on the Planning Commission re recommendation
for amendment, but not on the Council.
David Madis, 1054 Canton Avenue, advised he was not appearing on
behalf of the applicant but was present at the last Council meet-
ing and felt they should very carefully consider the appeal before
them as he did not agree with the City Attorney as he felt he was
in error for the reason that this Council held a public hearing
and heard testimony and the public hearing was closed. Now the
City Council has an opportunity to hear from the party involved
and he did not feel anyone could be prejudiced by rehearing at
this time. He did agree with Mr. Lewis that the majority of the
Council felt a reasonable proposal had been made. There is no
requirement that the City Council make a decision at a certain
specified time; if they had continued the matter with the con-
sent of the applicant there would have been no problem. He felt
it would be very salutary from the point of view of the City at
this time to reconsider this plan again.
Councilman Miller felt this advice would be contrary to that
given by the City Attorney, and Councilman Silva added it would
set a precedent, and made a motion to deny the appeal to recon-
sider the action taken by the Council last week re PUD No. 22;
motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
CM-24-67
April 19, 1971
(PUD No. 22) Councilman Silva then asked the City Attorney if he
could amend his motion to state that the request
for amendment to PUD 22 be referred back to the
Planning Commission, not to have a public hearing,
but have all people who testified to be notified that it will be
coming back again with minor changes or no changes. However, Coun-
cilman Miller stated there had been another plan submitted, which
they had not considered, and for this reason it should be referred
back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lewis advised that the City Council could request the Planning
Commission to expedite the matter, but there would have to be a
public hearing as there are different plans.
The motion was amended to request the Planning Commission to ex-
pedite the matter, and the amendment was seconded by Councilman
Miller.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard asked the City Attorney for further
clarification as to the legality of their denial, and Mr. Lewis
stated that unless there is a time limit, there is a legal basis
and quoted Sec. 26.51 re Planned Unit Developments. He further
stated that the denial was not due to lack of time, but because
the Council wished to consider the matter further on a different
day which was not agreeable to the applicant.
Councilman Beebe stated the location of the park was the main rea-
son for the continuance requested.
Mr. Lewis felt this was an opportune time to mention something
about alternate plans and stated that it is entirely legal to have
a hearing at the Planning Commission level and have them make
amendments to that plan; it is like a zoning and in a zoning and
PUD you have something before you that is advertised for the public.
In this case there is a plan proposed by the developer that has
certain things he thinks are desirable from his standpoint. The
Planning Commission makes suggestions that do not radically alter
the plan, and approve it on that basis or make a recommendation
to the Council on that basis. On the plan submitted they can place
conditions within their jurisdiction. When it comes before the
Council, the Council is considering the plan as it is brought to
them and not some entirely different plan. They cannot take an
entirely different plan and impose it on the developer. The de-
veloper has the right to have his plan or any reasonable modifica-
tion heard and decided by the Council. The Council cannot turn
it around at any stage and say there is something entirely different
and say they would like the developer to do that. If a plan is
reasonable and complies with all ordinances and any conditions that
you wish to impose because of public health, safety and welfare,
such as a certain amount of open space, this can be done, but you
cannot impose upon the developer a particular design he does not
like. Also, a plan cannot be rejected simply because it is a plan
they do not like. ~/~~->L
Councilman Silva did not feel this was the issue, butApreferred~
to see another type of plan as they desired more open space.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard felt the issue last week was that they
denied the amendment to the PUD simply on the basis they did not
have enough time to discuss the matter that evening when they had
the option to continue it with or without the developer's permis-
sion and felt they were in error in denying the plan simply because
they did not have the time to study it, and for that reason wished
to reconsider the decision.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, stated he had read that Mr. Mehran
"blew his cool after he had won". He felt he had "blown his cool",
but differed on the opinion that he had won. He did not think any
developer who had spent so much time and submitted several plans
had "won" anything when he was turned down.
CM-24-68
The vote was taken on the motion to deny the
appeal which failed to gain a majority by the
following vote:
April 19, 1971
(PUD No. 22)
AYES:
NO ES :
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva and Miller
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Mayor Taylor
Councilman Beebe felt they may have acted too hastily, and after
some discussion, a motion was made by him to approve the request
of the applicant in order to correct a possible previous legal
error; the motion was seconded by Mayor pro tempore Pritchard.
Councilman Miller commented that for the record the question of
legal error was debatable, and the advice of the City Attorney
is that this matter not be reopened in this way.
Councilman Beebe stated that on the other hand the City Attorney
also advised them at the previous denial, not being based on
anything according to City law or public health, welfare and safety
could be challenged, too.
Councilman Miller stated anything could be a point of legal
challenge regardless of how ridiculous it might seem.
Councilman Silva asked the City Attorney, on the basis of this
motion if there might be the possibility that they might be
legally incorrect in denying the amendment last week.
Mr. Lewis replied that any time a lawyer gives a client advice
there is a possibility it is incorrect; it happens he gave the
best advice he was able to give. Every time he gives advice it
is possible someone could attack it.
A vote was taken on the motion which failed to gain a majority
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilmen Silva and Miller
Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director
re park site acquisition in an area at the end
of Dogwood and Nightingale Streets.
REPORT RE PARK SITE
ACQUISITION
Mr. Parness advised that the Mayor had called to relay a statement
from one of the members of the Recreation District Board who asked
that this matter be continued so the LARPD might have an oppor-
tunity to consider the matter at their meeting of April 27.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Mayor pro
tempore Pritchard, and approved unanimously, to continue the
matter until May 3.
CouncilmanMiller stated there was a Recreation District - City
Committee which might discuss this matter between now and the 3rd.
Marion Stelts, 537 Nightingale Street, pointed out that the
LARPD is of the opinion that the contract calls for a very expen-
sive development of any park that is required, and they are think-
ing of something much more modest and this may make the difference
between whether the City can afford a park at this time or not.
Mr. Musso explained that Mr. Stelts was referring to something
the LARPD has to know about before they discuss the matter. It
was his understanding the park would come out of park dedication
funds and under park dedication the park has to be improved within
CM-24-69
April 19, 1971
(Park Site)
two years. The Park District is not proposing
that the park be improved, yet the City is obli-
gated to improve the park within two years by the
dedication agreement.
There was some discussion on this matter and the Council indicated
it favored the park in principle, but the matter would have to be
worked out with the LARPD.
The motion to continue the matter until May 3rd was voted on and
passed unanimously (Mayor Taylor absent).
*
*
*
With reference to Tentative Map of Tract 3294, the
Planning Director stated that the plan reincorpor-
ates into the subdivision that piece of land which
was proposed for commercial zoning to the north and
the application was withdrawn by the applicant.
The triangle is now included as part of the site
which has not been substantially changed but spread out a bit and
two more units added in. The Planning Commission recommends
approval.
TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP
NO. 3294
(H.C. Elliott)
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for appro-
val of the tentative map of Tract 3294.
Councilman Miller commented that he did not agree with the first
tentative because the design of the open space was very poor.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller
Mayor Taylo r
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the propdsed
change to rename Olivina Avenue to Chestnut Street
was to eliminate some of the confusion as to the
naming of what is really a through street alignment.
The Planning Commission took the request under ad-
visement at the request of the Public Works Director
and considered the alternative of renaming Chestnut
Street or renaming Olivina Avenue; they chose to
rename Olivina Avenue, held a public hearing, and had no protests.
The point was made that Olivina is an historical name and will be
preserved in other areas, possibly around the Olivina Ranch to the
south. The Planning Commission recommends that Olivina Avenue be
changed to Chestnut Street.
RECOMMENDATION
STREET NAME
CHANGE
(Olivina Ave.
to Chestnut
Street)
Councilman Silva suggested that since this was a major change the
Council should also have a public hearing. After some discussion
as to why it was decided to change the street name to Chestnut
Street rather than Olivina Avenue, the fact that there were only
two responses made, the possibility that people were waiting for
another hearing before the Council and whether or not the hearing
should be formal or informal, a motion was made by Councilman
Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to renotice the people for
an informal hearing and it passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Miller
Councilman Pritchard
Mayor Taylor
CM-24-70
The Planning Commission minutes of the meeting
of April 6 were noted and filed.
April 19, 1971
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
*
*
*
In accordance with instructions of the City
Council several meetings have been held over
the past few months with representatives of
the Chamber of Commerce and the commercial
community on the subject of business license amendment. In joint
attendance have been one or more members of the City Council.
REPORT RE BUSINESS
LICENSE AMENDMENT
The major elemental differences between the draft of the ordinance
and the one presently in effect are as follows: 1) new gross in-
come brackets and millage rates have been increased; 2) no gross
maximum limit applies on gross volume; 3) millage rate on gross
income volume applies to both professional classifications and to
contractors and builders.
The City Manager recommended that due to the importance of this
matter and the expectation it will generate much discussion for-
mal consideration should be continued until the meeting of April
26. This would also permit the Chamber of Commerce to announce
their official view on the subject.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and approved unanimously, to continue the matter until April 26.
Councilman Silva stated at that meeting he would like to have a
list of specific types of businesses affected by this ordinance
change, i.e. the fees they are now paying versus the fees they
will be paying in the future.
Mr. Parness explained they do plan to have graphically displayed
some of the variations in the fees but not disclosed as to the
particular business for obvious reasons.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard announced that the Chamber of Commerce
is planning a general membership meeting on Friday morning at the
Holiday Inn and the Council members are invited to attend.
Councilman Miller expressed the hope that the newspapers would
bring this issue to the attention of the public inasmuch as not
only the business community is involved, but everyone else is
also. This is a major tax reform issue, the object of which is
to reduce property tax, and most of the members of the community
would like to see their property tax reduced.
Councilman Beebe agreed that it was an important issue as the
present ordinance is completely obsolete, but people should not
expect "Santa Claus" as the citizens would still have to pay,
but rather than on property tax they would be paying more for
their purchases locally. Councilman Silva disagreed that it was
a major tax reform but rather just another ordinance which is being
updated, as this Council has gone on record stating they are in
favor of keeping pace with other communities as far as tax pro-
ducing ordinances are concerned.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva asked to abstain from discus-
sion on the emergency ambulance service as one
of his clients was directly involved.
REPORT RE EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE SERVICE
The City Manager reported that over the past months the staffs of
the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, working jointly with re-
presentatives from Alameda County, have been deeply engaged in
this subject. A recommended course of action has been composed,
CM-24-71
April 19, 1971
(Ambulance
Service)
together with all of the preceding history and
events in this project which report had been in-
cluded in the agenda. The matter is of signifi-
cant concern to the entire Valley community and
because the report material and supporting documents are so vol-
uminous, it is recommended that any discussion be continued to
the meeting of April 26, as he felt it was such an important
issue that all Council members should be present.
David Madis, representing the applicant, stated that the most sig-
nificant thing on this subject is the explanation given in the
agenda, !lover the past many months!l inasmuch as the discussions
have taken place over a year. They first started out with a re-
quest that they continue the emergency ambulance service in order
that the County, City of Livermore and Pleasonton might get toge-
ther and work out a scheme for the service for the entire Valley;
they objected at the time, but since the emergency ambulance ser-
vice was necessary they negotiated with the City on a temporary
basis. Mr. Madis referred to the various phases they have gone
through, and now there is a completely new !Iball game!l where Valley
Memorial Hospital is supposed to participate in a fantastic pro-
posal that has never even been before the hospital board.
Mr. Madis stated that Allen's Ambulance Service is prepared to pro-
vide the City with an emergency ambulance service. The proposal
with the hospital is to give all the power and authority of the
county and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton to the hospital;
the hospital had already offered a proposal for this service which
was withdrawn. Mr. Madis continued by stating that the new proposal
is not realistic and they asked the Council to make a firm proposal
tonight. They have been receiving a subsidy of $1000 a month pur-
suant to the Council's interim authorization; they are ready to
enter into a contract now and would ask that the City not go into
all the extended negotiations which will take many more months,
but consider their contract now for $800 per month and 100% of the
agency initiated calls (uncollectible calls). Their reason is
critical - they need an indication at this time in order to pro-
ceed to give assurance to employees of Allen's Ambulance Service
that they will be operating this service. Mr. Madis urged the
Council to direct the City Attorney to proceed with preparation of
the contract for signature next Monday night. The contract would
be for five years and since they feel there should be some kind of
quality control, his client would agree to the establishment of a
committee with a representative from the City, Valley Memorial Hos-
pital, and persons from the medical community to guide them in the
direction of improving the quality.
Councilman Beebe questioned the difference in the monthly rate for
Pleasanton and Livermore which Mr. Madis explained. Councilman
Miller stated they had an obligation to explore the other propos-
als and felt the recommendation of the City Manager is a reasonable
one for them to follow.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard made reference to the report which in-
dicated there are very few cities, if any, that subsidize ambulance
service and for the most part the counties are responsible for this
activity and he agreed that the county should be responsible. Coun-
cilman Beebe mentioned that most accidents happen on highways and
wondered if the county could not use gasoline tax funds to provide
this service, however Mr. Parness stated the use of gas tax funds
was highly restrictive and they can only be used for maintenance
and construction purposes; in regard to the in-lieu fee monies
they can be used for fire protection and law enforcement on streets
and highways.
Mr. Parness reiterated that this was an intricate subject which has
required a great deal of consideration on the staff's part and he
felt the entities involved had composed a very authoritative and
reasonable report for consideration by the Council. Mr. Parness
CM-24-72
April 19, 1971
stated he was amazed that the representative (Ambulance Service)
for Allen's Ambulance Service would insist that
some decision be made by the Council at this time
since they are being retained on a fee which is
considerably higher during the interim period than that which has
been proposed for a new contract. The issue is subregional in
nature and that philosophy has to be used in considering the issue.
Mr. Parness further stated that in his discussions with the Valley
Memorial Hospital staff, representatives of their Board of Direc-
tors and Administrator they are extremely concerned about the
possibility of fragmenting ambulance service for the Valley which
would almost be a public health disaster, and he would urge that
the matter be continued for the Council's further consideration.
The hospital board will meet this week and be able to formally
declare their position in regard to the recommendations and it
can be fully discussed next week.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to continue the matter until April 26.
The terms of the contract offered by the Walnut Creek firm were
discussed and Mayor pro tempore Pritchard stated his concern
that even though the contract now is for $500 from each of the
three entities, later they might ask for more, and Mr. Parness
agreed this was a possibility; on the other hand, the same thing
could be done by Mr. Madis' client.
Mr. Madis stated that if by next Monday they would agree to come
back if all the details as to budget, quality control in working
with the medical community, Valley Memorial Hospital, the County,
the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton could be worked out by that
time after all these months.
Councilman Miller stated the decision is not his (Madis) but that
of the Council and whether or not they wished to proceed with the
recommendation of the City Manager.
The vote was then taken on the motion and passed by the following:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe and Miller
Councilman Pritchard
Councilman Silva
Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 741 ORDINANCE RE OFF-
STREET PARKING
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 21.40 THROUGH 21.46
OF SECTION 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS, OF
ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to waive the second reading and adopt the above ordinance,
and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Miller
None
Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
Discussion of the communication received from
the Sister City Committee regarding a request
for funds and designation of a Council repre-
sentative for a visit to Quezaltenango, as has
the past three years, was continued until this
SISTER CITY REPORT
been authorized for
time.
CM-24-73
April 19, 1971
(Sister City
Report)
Councilman Silva stated he thought that it had been
discussed with the Sister City representatives that
a delegation would be sent from Livermore only every
other year, with a group from Quezaltenango coming
to Livermore on the alternate years. Secondly, he thought the re-
presentatives should be chosen before the budget expenditure was
approved.
Committee Chairman Jose Medeiros stated that Alfred Goldberg, in-
coming Vice Chairman of the committee, would be the committee's re-
presentative.
Mrs. Wilhemina Medeiros of the Sister City Committee reviewed past
visitations by the City's representatives and stated she did not
recall such discussion relating to visits only on alternate years.
Mr. Dan Lee, who is a member of the Sister City Committee, stated
he felt that discussion of alternating the visits had only been on
an informal basis and that most members felt that this was too long
a period between visits to maintain an effective contact.
Discussion followed regarding past contacts and visits between the
two cities. Mr. Medeiros pointed out that the chairmanship of Que-
zaltenango's committee is a political appointment and changes fre-
quently. The present group serving on the committee has organized
the program and contact has been more frequent recently.
Councilman Silva said he would like to see the visits become a two-
way exchange and felt the only way to accomplish this was to have
Livermore's visits be on alternate years to encourage official visits
from Quezaltenango. He made a motion on this basis that the request
for funds be denied and that next year the request be made again,
but there was not a second.
Mr. Medeiros felt denial of the request would hurt the program as
each year the program is expanding. A great deal of communication
is needed; there were political problems and reasons which were
making it difficult for a delegation from Quezaltenango to come to
Livermore. '-110...._ ~ A ()./ ~
Councilman Miller said that i~t~~i~ discussion of
this request for funds he had ~tles~ieftecr whether the City should
provide the subsidy for this visit; it seemed the Sister City Com-
mittee should investigate some means of fund raising to carry out
this program, and any Councilman should bear his own expense. If
he did go this year, he would pay his own way.
Councilman Silva did not agree that the Councilman should pay his
own way as he would be serving in an official capacity for the
City and carrying out City business.
Councilman Miller felt that representing the Sister City program
was not the same as carrying out other business of the City. He
felt the program was an excellent one and should be continued but
funds should be provided by some other means.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the request for $700 for travel
expenses for the two Sister City representatives be approved, se-
conded by Councilman Miller. The motion approving the request for
funds passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NO ES :
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, and Miller
Councilman Silva
Mayor Taylor
Mrs. Medeiros explained to the Council that other than this request
for travel expenses the program had been entirely self-supporting.
CM-24-74
April 19, 1971
Councilman Miller spoke in regard to the Valley
Planning Committee's Symposium on April 24.
Public officials will be attending from all
over the County. Problems facing the Valley will
be discussed. Data will be collected regarding
the problems of the Valley so that a general view
regard to the general plan for the Valley.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(VPC Symposium)
can be seen in
Councilman Miller explained that there will be panels of mixed
interests which will discuss the various topics, and there will
be some time for public response and participation.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt it would be reasonable
to adopt a resolution expressing the Council's
view that the Junior College is desired and
supported and that Livermore intends to provide
the utilities at the time they are needed.
(Proposed Junior
College)
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard felt a statement of the Council's views
should be in writing and presented to Mrs. Dorothy Hudgins, re-
presentative to the Junior College District, before the board
meeting. He then read a statement which outlined past Council
action and the reasons for the recent action extending the pro-
posed assessment district to provide utilities for the junior
college site. The Council affirmed its unanimous desire to have
the junior college locate at the proposed site and directed that
a letter be prepared in this regard for presentation to the
Junior College Board.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
/'/2 f.?
APPROVE ~
Lfi4
Mayor
ATTEST (
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of April 26, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on April 26, 1971,
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, Pritchard, Miller, RO LL CALL
and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Silva
* * *
CM-24-75
April 26, 1971
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and by the following vote, the
minutes were approved as amended for the meeting
of April 19, 1971:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Silva
ABSTAIN: Mayor Taylor
OPEN FORUM
(Cultural
Arts Subsidy)
*
*
*
Katie Richardson voiced her protest of the Cultural
Arts Council being subsidized by the taxpayers'
money, and Mayor Taylor explained that it was not
a subsidy, as such, but for tent rental inasmuch
as there were no facilities for that activity.
Councilman Miller added that the CAC was originally set up at the
request of the City and the Recreation District.
Frontage Road
Realignment
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, questioned why
the frontage road near Airway Blvd. was not realigned
as had been previously considered, and Mr. Parness
explained that there was a gas line intervention
on the property and the alignment which was to have been relocated
was determined to be too costly.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
AMENDMENT TO
PUD NO. 15
(Hofmann Co.)
*
*
*
An application had been received from Hofmann Com-
pany for amendment to Planned Unit Development
Permit No. 15. In this regard a communication was
acknowledged from Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. Wendt.
The Planning Director explained that the reason for
the requested amendment was due to the necessity to
relocate Murdell Lane to match County plans for median strip, left
turn lanes, etc., stating that the Planning Commission had approved
a similar design. The Planning Commission had also proposed that
Albert Way be extended to provide access to Murdell Lane.
There is still the problem of density. The developer proposed that
they be allowed to take the density of the entire subdivision as
originally submitted; they wish to include any density not used from
the original allowance added to this last unit of the subdivision.
The Planning Commission recommends continuing with the density as
originally approved and that any additional density achieved by
dedicating lands be included as a part of the density or allowable
units. In regard to the proposed trail system along the west bound-
ary of the subdivision, the Planning Commission plans to tie in
Max Baer Park, the Holmes Well Park, and then north to connect to
Isabel Avenue and the airport. In the past, this was proposed for
the westerly side of the freeway, but development now indicates the
easterly side would be better. In correspondence with the state,
it has been ascertained that an existing trailway of this sort would
be recognized in freeway construction. The park dedication is in
excess of that required which is 6.28 acres.
Mr. Musso explained that some of the conditions for approval dis-
cussed at previous meetings by the Planning Commission were not in-
cluded in the recent discussion. The commercial area is indicated
as CO-H (Commercial Office with highway uses to be allowed). Any-
thing other than a restaurant-motel, such as a gas station, would
CM-24-76
April 26, 1971
require a Conditional Use Permit. The shopping (PlID No. 15)
center is a six-acre center which conforms to re-
quirements. Some of the conditions not included in
the present permit concerned sprinkler system,
existing trees, and construction of a gas station not to be allowed
until 50% of the foundations were made. There is a provision for
preserving the school site for a period of time. The Planning
Commission recommends approval subject to the site plan and permit
approval.
The City Manager stated that in working with the developer and his
staff on this permit he had experienced a great deal of cooperative
spirit on their part in regard to the increased park dedication,
the guaranteed reservation of the school acreage, and assumed the
burden of the relocation of Murdell Lane.
Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Musso to outline the differences in the
request of the developer and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Musso explained that it is proposed that Albert Way be extend-
ed through to Murdell Lane rather than left as a stub street;
total units would be 173 residential units, including the IS
parkway units. He also pointed out the setbacks which would be
required for the townhouse development.
The Council discussed the original density assigned to the PUD
and also the possible purchase of the parkway land by the State.
Councilman Silva asked about the present commercial area and Mr.
Musso said that originally a ten acre commercial neighborhood
shopping center was approved for the site. With the relocation
of Murdell Lane this was no longer a good integrated neighborhood
center site. The developer then had the choice of putting more
homes on this site or using part of this for highway oriented
commercial.
Councilman Miller referred to those conditions which had been dis-
cussed previously but which were not included in the Planning
Commission's present recommended permit. Mr. Musso indicated he
felt they would have been included by the Planning Commission but
he had not reminded them to include these conditions. Councilman
Miller stated he believed the Council had agreed on these items,
but the matter was continued due to the relocation of Murdell Lane.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing.
Barry Scherman, representing the Hofmann Company, stated the type
of project which is being proposed differs from the tentative map
which was filed due to the relocation of Murdell Lane. The cluster-
type of housing is springing up over the Bay Area and they felt
this type of housing was needed in Livermore. He showed some slides
of similar projects which had been designed by the same architect.
Each unit will be owned by the occupant, and he will have title to
the ground beneath the unit and share in the common area. The
unique fact is that there is a homeowners I association to be form-
ed which will perpetually maintain the common areas from a fund
supported by the homeowners. He defined density as being a stand-
ard which is set to prevent overpopulation of any given area, thus
crowding schools, creating traffic problems, etc. Density is
really people and in single family homes developed at four to the
acre, there will be 16 people to the acre with 3.9 people to the
unit. In the proposed project of 230 units of varying size, there
will be an average of 2.65 people per unit. This would work out
to be approximately the same number of people in the 230 units as
would be living in 155 single family units, but the single family
units would have to sell for $26,000 or more, and the sale price
of the proposed project will run from about $18,500 to $21,000.
It is simple economics and land facts that the increased number of
CM-24-77
April 26, 1971
(PUD No. 15) uni ts will allow development at the lower price.
He felt all the details and problems could be worked
out with the staff, but was concerned about the
parkway land as this is now under negotiation with
the state. Perhaps a common walkway easement dedicated for this
purpose might be worked out by setback of the units; he would pre-
fer that it not be on the freeway property. Additional open space
requirement would place too heavy a burden on the homeowners and
make the cost of maintenance too high per unit.
Councilman Beebe inquired about the unused density from the remain-
der of the PUD. Mr. Scherman felt it would amount to about 15 or
20 units to be transferred. They were requesting more units than
this as they felt increased density was necessary to get the pro-
ject off the ground.
Mr. Scherman stated that based on land costs and estimated construc-
tion costs they estimate a cost of $18,500 for the two bedroom unit
and $21,000 for a three bedroom unit. The homeowners' association
costs would be about $25 per month. Mr. Scherman also explained
that the parking area will be a part of the common area in the pro-
posed project.
Councilman Pritchard questioned Mr. Scherman regarding the number
of bedrooms in their other single family units. He computed fewer
bedrooms in the proposed 230 units than in 155 single family units.
Robert Wendt, 319 Elvira street, said his background was in archi-
tectural planning and design and he had been asked to be spokesman
for a group of residents of the area. Their ideas on the proposed
PUD were contained in the petition presented to the Planning Com-
mission. They felt that two items should be included to make this
a compatible community. First, screened storage for boats, trailers,
etc. should be provided within the development itself. Second, the
size of the buildings at the perimeter of the site should be limited.
He presented a sketch illustrating this point, and discussed their
relationship with adjacent single family units. The group did sup-
port the Planning Commission findings in other respects.
Gene Trasti, 160 Amber Way, said he and his neighbors are concerned
about the school situation, and asked the Council to consider the
acute problems in this area regarding density and balance of the
community.
Larry Peppmeier, 182 Amber Way, asked about the school property
and what would happen to it if the School District does not have
the money to buy the land. Councilman Miller said that the reser-
vation clause requires that the property be held for two years until
after the last house is built.
Mr. Scherman said he felt the suggestion for screened storage of
boats and campers was a good one and agreed. He said that in re-
gard to the school problem, the school site will be reserved for
three to three and a half years and it is hoped that a bond issue
will be passed by that time enabling the school district to pur-
chase the site. He stated again that the project will not generate
as many school children as single family homes.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to close the public hearing and it was approved unanimously.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the number of units to be permitted be
discussed first. The number of units originally indicated for
this area was 155; the Planning Commission has recommended 190, with
credit for the parkway units, and the applicant requests 230.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the present bounds of the PUD
do not include the area to be acquired by the State. If area is
added to the PUD, then more units would be allowed. Councilman
CM-24-78
Miller stated he felt that the Council's policy
has been, for some time, that density transfers
and increase in General Plan densities would not
be allowed. He stated that the map which had been
for 66 single family and 90 apartment units, which
for fewer bedrooms.
April 26, 1971
(PUD No. 15)
approved called
would provide
Councilman Silva said he felt the applicant was requesting a major
change in philosophy as he was basing density on the number of
bedrooms rather than units per acre. Perhaps the method of com-
puting holding capacity should be changed but this would involve
long debate. He felt basing it on the units per acre was working
out close to actual number of people.
Mayor Taylor said that requests to include all remaining density
in the last unit of a large development had come before the Coun-
cil before, but they had been denied.
Councilman Pritchard felt that some changes in policy should be
studied, and the way density is computed was one of the changes
he would suggest. He referred to a previous approval of a town-
house development which has now been occupied and there are only
two pre-school children.
Councilman Beebe felt the Council should be cognizant of changes
in building trends and development such as townhouses, and these
matters should be studied again. He felt allowing transfer of
density to provide open space was a different matter than gather-
ing up credit for units in the whole PUD.
Mayor Taylor stated that there must be some justification for an
increase in density other than the idea that the site is more
valuable if density is higher.
Councilman Miller said they did not have the right to regulate
the number of the bedrooms, but rather they can regulate lot size,
number of units, and number of streets. There is no practical,
reasonable way to regulate the number of bedrooms without inter-
ferring with the builder's business.
Councilman Pritchard said that in this case the number of bedrooms
is known. The Council must have guidelines but they must also be
flexible to serve the public. He stated his feeling that the Coun-
cil table is not the place to control the number of people.
Councilman Miller stated that equal treatment under the law does
not mean that one developer can persuade the Council to give him
300 units and the next one can persuade the Council to give him
200. Variances have been discouraged because they give one spec-
ial privilege over another, and an attempt is made to apply rules
about density and policies in a uniform way.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission
recommendation for 155 units, plus any additional credit for units
justified by either the dedication of the proposed parkway ease-
ment along the western boundary or by the transformation of the
highway commercial to residential, all to be based on 4 d.u./acre.
Councilman Silva felt that if the developer has other lands which
he would dedicate to open space in order to increase the density
in this PUD this should be included in the motion. Councilman
Miller amended his motion to include this provision and the motion
was then seconded by Councilman Silva; however, after further dis-
cussion Councilman Miller said he could not agree to inclusion of
this provision unless the land were within the same planning unit.
He felt this could be done through amendment to the PUD.
Mayor Taylor pleaded with the Council that before they accept
this suggestion they should have a specific proposal, see the land
and decide what they will do with the dedicated land and if the
park district can support it.
CM-24-79
~
w
~
'~~APril 26, 1971
'~
(PUD No. 15)
Councilman Silva stated his proposed motion would
be to consider the proposal.
~'f
~
~ J
~J
iu
"I:..~ <,
~ ,~
'I;>
'+-~
it
~j
~
~'i
After some discussion, it was decided there was no motion, and
Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the Planning Commission
recommendation amended as follows: to increase the density based
on dedication of parkway; change the highway commercial to resi-
dential; also, they would consider increasing the density if lands
within the general plan area are dedicated to the City for open
space.
There was no second to the motion and Councilman Miller remade his
original motion with the option they could always consider this
type of proposal.
Councilman Silva clarified his motion by stating that if the appli-
cant wished to increase his density he could dedicate the parkway;
change the highway commercial to residential or purchase land some-
where in the general plan area and dedicate it to the City for
open space; however the reservation on the last item is that the
-Council would strongly consider this proposal. The motion was se-
conded by Councilman Beebe, and passed by the following called vote:
AYES:
NO ES :
Councilmen Beebe, Silva ani Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Councilman Pritchard stated for the record he did not vote against
the motion for the same reason as Councilman Miller.
Councilman Miller made a motion to accept the Planning Commission
recommendation to extend Albert Way and special setbacks. He also
wished to add several other conditions: Under General, add Item 8,
"All existing living trees shall be saved unless they conflict with
necessary construction. Removal of any living tree shall be subject
to approval of the Planning Director.'! Add the landscaping conditions
that were in the previous draft under commercial; under D. add No.3,
that no gas station building permit be approved until 50% of the
foundations of the shopping center are poured. Councilman Miller
further stated there are 6.2 acres shown as dedicated park, but if
there is going to be other park land dedicated there should be some-
thing in the permit to indicate there will be another dedication
which would be legally required; there should be something specific
about the difference in the two types of parks and this should be
in the permit as well as on the map. Councilman Miller commented
on Mr. Wendt's presentation and stated as suggested by him the boat
and trailer storage should not be adjacent to existing single family;
screened from all residential units. Also, Mr. Wendt asked and the
applicant agreed to restrict the size of the units near the single
family which should also be included. Councilman Miller also felt
they should resolve the number of gas stations in the PUD and a
condition D.4 should be added that there be not more than one gas
station in the PUD.
The motion was rephrased as follows: to adopt the Planning Commis-
sion recommendation regarding Albert Way and special setbacks; the
question of the trees; the landscaping conditions in the original
permit in the commercial area; no gas stations permitted until 50%
of the foundations are poured for the remaining commercial which
has been required in recent applications; to clarify in the PUD the
legal requirements for park dedication.
Mr. Musso stated that Item G should be deleted as there will be
all townhouses.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Silva and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt a statement on the screen-
ing of boats and trailers, i.e., "Boat and trailer storage shall
not be adjacent to existing single family and shall be screened
from all residential units existing in the PUD." The other condition
CM-24-80
April 26, 1971
is that the applicant agreed to not more than a (PUD No. 15)
four unit construction adjacent to single family.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Silva and
approved unanimously.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller that they not allow more
than one gas station in this PUD; the motion was seconded by Mayor
Taylo r .
Councilman Silva agreed that there should be only one gas station
in a neighborhood shopping center, however there is commercial
highway, which requires service stations, so he saw no reason why
they should not allow at least one in the commercial highway area.
The motion failed by the following called vote:
AYES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Silva made a motion to allow one service station in
the neighborhood commercial and one in the highway commercial,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NO ES :
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
The City Attorney made the recommendation that because of the
conditions attached to this amendment varying from those made
by the Planning Commission, that the matter be referred to them
and brought back to the Council for approval at a later date. In
view of a recent case ruled on by the District Court of Appeal
the permit should be adopted by ordinance.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller to refer the application for amendment to PUD No. 15 back
to the Planning Commission for review and comment.
Jack Phillips stated he felt two hours had been wasted in dis-
cussing the amendments and suggested they have the applicant
dedicate the park land, reserve the school site for a five-year
period, and keep the rest for a reasonable shopping center and
have the PUD termed for five years with no minimum requirements.
The motion to approve the PUD and refer it back to the Planning
Commission because of substantial changes then passed 4 to 1
with Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
Mr. Scherman questioned exactly what was meant by the action and
Mr. Musso advised that the permit was good until May 1, 1974; it
can be extended after that and amended at any time during that
period.
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
RECESS
*
*
*
An application for rezoning had been submitted
by Carl Nelson/OGO Associates on a site located
on the north side of East Avenue, west of Vasco
Road, from RS-5 District to RG-IO District.
The Planning Director explained that the Planning
Commission recommendation was for denial based on
nonconformance of the General Plan and the fact that there was no
density transfer or anything to justify an increased density in
this area nor would any be possible with the present property
ownerships. Mr. Musso said there was a history of various proposals
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZO NING NO RTH
SIDE EAST AVE. WEST
OF VASCO RD
(Carl Nelson)
CM-24-81
April 26, 1971
(PH Rezoning
No. Side East
Ave. West of
Vasco Rd.-
Nelson)
for this area, and he explained these in more de-
tail; there is multiple on one side and industrial
on the other. In a sense, the Planning Commission
initiated a reversal of what has been done in the
past, by proposing that the rezoning be denied and
remain in the RS-5 District.
Councilman Beebe stated it was his understanding at the time other
property in that area was rezoned to RG-IO, that they would con-
sider the same for this parcel and asked on what basis it was de-
nied by the Planning Commission, and Mr. Musso stated it was be-
cause there could be no density transfer from one property to the
other. The Council discussed density transfers in general and
the zoning in the surrounding area.
Mayor Taylor then opened the public hearing.
Barnard Adams of Castro Valley, representing the applicant Mr. Nelson,
asked the Council's consideration in rezoning the property as re-
quested. In representing his client he has found it somewhat con-
fusing trying to decide what the property could be used for. They
have met with the staff, made a field survey, and subsequent to
that had FHA make a feasibility study. When they appeared before
the Planning Commission it was found that some of the facts which
were brought out in the beginning, which they felt would have rea-
sonable weight in the decision for a location of this type, were
given very little consideration. Mr. Adams listed the conditions
as being the existence of commercial area now under development;
the series of applications which set the opportunities available
for the land and perhaps the trend; the application for industrial
zoning which never was developed and the consensus of those with
whom they spoke that this would be reasonable for multiple dwelling
use. He felt this was a reasonable area for multiple as it would
not disrupt the single family development; and the owner was being
required to make improvements not normally required and these re-
quirements could only be met if the area could be used and devel-
oped so it would economically pay for the improvements, which are
widening of East Avenue, further widening and work to be done on
the flood control creek in the rear, the dedication and extension
of Susan Lane through the property and a 15-foot bicycle path de-
dication along the front of the property. Other FHA projects of
this type are being developed in adjacent areas at 16 to 20 d.u./acre.
He felt this was a logical area for RG-IO zoning as the property
adjacent is already zoned RG-IO, and he felt this would be a good
rezoning.
Mr. Carl Nelson recalled that this property at one time was zoned
residential but then changed to RS-5 to allow apartments in a
planned unit development. He had brought in clients who received
rejections for their plans. Mr. Nelson said he then talked to Mr.
Barnard Adams, president of the California Real Estate Association,
and asked him for help. Mr. Adams located the present client who
is a responsible builder, and the proposed plan should be accept-
able since it will not be the type of project that will attract
large families and be a burden on the schools.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to close the public hearing, and it was approved unanimously.
Councilman Pritchard personally welcomed Mr. Adams to Livermore.
Councilman Beebe said he recalled discussing the rezoning of this
property to RG-IO when the adjacent property was rezoned. Mr.
Musso said that the last time this property was discussed in re-
gard to rezoning the matter was dropped because the City did not,
at that time, have the authority to obtain the improvements they
wished on this property, such as the channel work and extension
of Susan Lane. Since that time it has become possible to impose
requirements for public works improvements through zoning.
CM-24-82
) jJ
r/: II I,';;
>- C"x. L 1/
-r.l' .-p_//j__;,L-~"--~-'~~ I!_
.f'.... . ,.J,", I'f,' ilK:
i' I-",j I, " ,. '(-f'
Councilman S,ilva felt that although he had turned
down previous application5i:b:ftI'Ba he now
thought that due to the many required improve-
ments it would be impossible to develop this land
as single family. Also the property was between
RG-IO and ID zoning, and he did not feel this was
compatible with single family development.
April 26, 1971
(PH Rezoning No.
Side East Ave.,
West of Vasco Rd)
Councilman Miller stated he agreed with the Planning Commission
that the density not be increased. He felt most of the problems
in this area were caused by the rezoning of the Oddon property to
industrial, and recalled discussion at the time this property was
rezoned that if it was not developed within two years or so that
the rezoning should revert. He thought the Planning Commission is
apparently considering rezoning the industrial property, and until
the best plan for this area is determined this rezoning should not
be approved.
Councilman Silva pointed out that the staff had recommended approv-
al, and did not think action should be contingent on possible con-
sideration by the Planning Commission some time in the future,
and Councilman Miller replied there were other reasons than Plan-
ning Commission consideration to deny the application.
Councilman Pritchard stated he concurred with the staff's recom-
mendation, and Councilman Beebe stated this was a good location
for multiple because it would allow people working at the labs
to live close to their work and cut down on traffic.
Councilman Silva made a motion to rezone the property from RS-5
to RG-IO with the conditions listed by the Planning staff, se-
conded by Councilman Beebe.
The City Attorney advised that the City Engineer's oplnlon as to
whether or not this area will generate additional traffic to re-
quire widening East Avenue and whether improvement of the channel
is required because of proper drainage of the site and improvement
for upstream runoff.
The City Engineer Mr. Lee, stated he did feel the widening of
East Avenue to 104 ft. width and the installation of the improve-
ments is made necessary by this development and should be included
as part of the conditions. Also, he felt the runoff from the pro-
perty will augment the flow in the channel and to properly protect
the development it will be necessary to improve the channel.
Mayor Taylor stated he was against the rezoning to RG-IO as he
did not feel multiple should be extended in this area. RS-5 would
allow higher density than single family, and this zoning was
assigned in recognition of the added cost of improvements.
Councilman Miller said that this RS-5 zoning was given previously
to encourage cluster type housing, not single family.
The motion to rezone the property RG-IO was approved by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
This matter will be referred back to the Planning Commission for
comment prior to introduction of the ordinance.
*
*
*
As a part of the annual weed abatement program,
a public hearing is held to receive any protests
to the City's weed abatement notices.
PUBLIC HEARING-
WEED ABATEMENT
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing, but there were no protests,
CM-24-83
April 26, 1971
(PH - Weed
Abatement)
either verbal or written. On motion of Councilman
Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, the public
hearing was closed by unanimous vote.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and approved unanimously to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 50-71
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND DIRECTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO CAUSE SAID
PUBLIC NUISANCE TO BE ABATED.
Report re
Jaycees
Air Show
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mr. Parness reported that the second annual Jaycee
Air Show is planned for Sunday, May 2. The insur-
ance problem for this event has been resolved to
the satisfaction of our City's general liability
agency and our City Attorney. It is recommended
that the Council authorize this event, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Adequate insurance coverage, with the cost borne by the
Jaycees, as a rider on the City's policy
2. Necessary crowd control and safety precautions satisfactory
to federal, state and local requirements be provided.
3. Payment made to the City to cover necessary material and
personnel cost
4. Return grounds to former condition insofar as cleanup and
maintenance
5. Any other requirements considered necessary by the Airport
Superintendent
6. Authorization for the City Manager to execute any waiver
required by the FAA re the temporary tower
Communication
re BART
Advertising
Po licy
Request re
Veterans Day
Commission
Communication
re Railroad
Crossings
Resignation
from Beauti-
fication Comm.
CM-24-84
*
*
*
A communication from Bay Area Rapid Transit District
re their advertising policy was removed from the
Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
A request was received from the County of Alameda
Veterans Day Commission for a contribution, and it
is recommended that this matter be referred to the
Chamber of Commerce.
*
*
*
A communication received from W. G. Funk regarding
railroad crossings was removed from the Consent
Calendar.
*
*
*
A letter of resignation from the Beautification
Committee was submitted by Robert F. Schaefer.
*
*
*
April 26, 1971
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting (Minutes-Various)
of April 1, and minutes of the Housing Authority
meeting of March 16, were acknowledged and filed.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that one of the rea-
sons the present business license fee ordinance
has been in effect for so long has been the
staff's reluctance to change it as it has always
and will probably always cause a stir in the
community.
BUSINESS LICENSE
FEE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
He stated the present ordinance was adopted in 1960; the revenues
generated have slowly climbed so that this year about $60,000 will
be received from this source of revenue. About one year ago the
redraft was undertaken by the staff, and other ordinances in effect
in close proximity to Livermore have been studied and the recently
completed survey prepared by the League of California Cities has
been reviewed in detail. The goals of the redraft were to: 1)
correct illogical bracket structure or categories, 2) regressive
rates indicated, 3) maximum tax limit regardless of gross,
4) professional classification only had flat rate, 5) public
utilities not assessed any fee, and 6) drastic need for revenue.
He pointed out the percent ratio of the license fee in relation
to the total City revenue, the sales tax revenue, based on per
capita amount, and per $1,000 of taxable scales, and cited figures
which showed that the percent of the total had declined in these
relationships. In the survey of other cities, it was found that
the majority, or 51% of the cities received between 2% and 3.9%
of their total revenue from license fees. This indicates our rate
was excessively low in comparison, and several defective parts
existed in the existing ordinance. The proposed amendment was
presented to the Council about two months ago, at which time the
staff was directed to meet with interested civic groups and indi-
viduals for discussion of this amendment. The Chamber of Commerce
formed a committee which had met with the City staff and some
members of the Council during this time to study this proposed
amendment and the proposed ordinance amendment now being presented
was redrafted and changed as a result of these discussions. Two
schedules had been prepared, based on the percentage of return
or margin of profit. Another modification had been inclusion of
a declining scale for the millage rate for each of the gross
brackets. A change has also been made to indicate a more gradual
and more numerous incline in the gross sales brackets. Several
proposals were distributed to the Council in regard to the general
scales which showed modification in the general level of rates.
Mr. Parness presented charts indicating comparisons of business
classes, and discussed each of these comparisons in detail.
In answer to Mayor Taylor's question, the City Attorney stated
that under the Business and Professions Code, a specific statute
allows cities alone to license for revenue.
Milt Codiroli, president of the Chamber of Commerce, felt there
were two areas which needed further consideration. One is the
fee charged contractors; the cost under the proposed ordinance
is prohibitive; second, the fee for professional people is on a
flat fee basis, not on a sliding scale. The Chamber had tried
to be reasonable and fair in their consideration of the proposed
increase in the fees and their proposal is a substantial increase,
which they felt was proper. He stated that the comparison in fee
CM-24-85
April 26, 1971
(Business
License Fees)
structures should not be made with Modesto and
Fresno, but rather with Pleasanton, Hayward, Fre-
mont, Walnut Creek and Concord. He did not feel
the business license fee should be higher than
these cities. Mr. Codiroli reported that of the 230 who attended
a meeting of the Chamber in this regard, 156 said they would accept
the Chamber's proposal and 6 who said they would not. It is well
agreed among the business community that not all businesses pay
the licnese fee. The City has no system of audit or way of de-
termining collections, and this is grossly unfair to those who do
pay the fee each year. The Chamber's proposal would increase the
small businessman's fee but the greater burden would be placed on
the higher brackets. Consideration should be given to the work
of the Chamber in studying this matter.
James J. McFarlane, 1915 Fourth street, felt that a business li-
cense fee is discriminatory in that only one segment of the
community is called upon to pay the tax, and the revenue is dissem-
inated to the community at large. He thought this was a form of
exploitation of the business community and asked the Council to ask
themselves to consider if this is a fair way to obtain revenue.
He wished to go on record as being opposed in concept to raising
revenue from one segment of the community.
Robert S. Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, felt the revenue gained from
the business license tax would not be a significant part of total
City revenue and the bookkeeping burden on the City and individual
businesses would be far greater than benefit gained. He urged the
Council to reject the increase and, further, to repeal the exist-
ing license tax. In answer to Councilman Miller's question, Mr.
Allen said he would rather see the revenue raised by increased pro-
perty tax.
Donald T. Rocco, a dentist located at 1018 Murrieta Blvd., felt
the scale for professionals should be the same as other businesses.
He was opposed to the increase proposed by the City and felt the
Chamber's program was more equitable.
Leon Dillenburg, Bay Area Grocers Association in Oakland, said
statistics show that the profit in supermarkets has been decreas-
ing. He would rather pay the revenue through property tax than
pay this fee as property tax would be deductible on state and fed-
eral income tax and some benefit could be derived.
Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, was opposed to the increase
in the business license tax. She felt taxes should be leveling off
rather than increasing, and the increase in this tax will affect
all consumers as well as the business community.
Clifford Marcussen, 1063 Via Madrid, felt more business should be
encouraged to locate in Livermore to broaden the tax base. The
local businessman's investment should not be jeopardized by add-
ing more tax.
Mr. Dalrymple of A & A Auto said he had located in Livermore two
and a half years ago after living in a community where the taxes
were excessively high. He would endorse the Chamber's proposal
rather than the City's. The whole tax structure must be kept in
mind.
Harold Kamp, 1980 Locust Street, stated it seems that the atmos-
phere and attitude of some of the community is not in favor of
industry. The community needs more balance and something should
be done to keep the people here.
David Greiner, a stockbroker in Livermore, said the margin of in-
come in his business was very low, and the license tax borders on
being confiscatory. This tends to influence the way he runs his
business and is unacceptable in the American system. He suggested
that the Council consider the manner of assessing the fee.
CM-24-86
April 26, 1971
The Council discussed the category under which
Mr. Greiner's fee would be assessed and pointed
out his fee would be based on his commissions
only under the professional scale.
(Business License
Fees)
Charles Brown, a real estate broker, asked about fees which would
leave the City, for instance a business with only a branch office
in Livermore.
Mr. Parness said the intent of the proposed ordinance is to assess
anyone conducting business in the City. The City Attorney said
this would have to be determined under guidelines of the law which
would require substantial contact or business generated within the
City. The Council discussed the manner and method of collecting
the fee on an equitable basis from everyone doing business in the
City, whether based here or out of town.
Ralph Laughlin, real estate broker, spoke to the problem of collect-
ing the fee for all business conducted, and felt it would be diffi-
cult to collect. He felt it penalized the individual working on
his own and not the salaried person.
Bud Ellis, a dentist, asked the reason professional people are
not being treated as other businesses. He referred to the flat
rate of 2 mils per thousand rather than 1.5 mils or a sliding
scale.
Mr. Parness explained that there are reasons for assessing on a
flat rate basis and many cities do this. In discussions with
the business representatives, he and members of the Council had
been told businesses differ as to margin of profit and overhead
costs attached to the volume of business. Some businesses make
a good return on their investment due to the very large volume
of businesses conducted.
Mr. Ellis said his business is different because if for some
reason he cannot function his business cannot carryon. He
asked for further consideration of the fee on professional people.
Mrs. Prudhon spoke as a purchaser and customer in Livermore.
She would refuse to pass on her purchasing power to businesses
who would pass on their increase in fee to their customers with-
out having the chance to speak.
Mr. Codiroli pointed out in clarification of his previous remarks
that the business community was not entirely happy about the in-
crease, but felt that the Chamber's proposal was more fair than
the City's.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to continue discussion regarding the business license
fee ordinance amendment until the meeting of May 3.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS, THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva abstained from discussion and
vote on this matter due to business connections
with one of the firms.
REFD RT RE AMBULANCE
SERVICE
The City Manager explained that this matter had been continued
from the previous meeting in order that the Mayor might be pre-
sent for discussion and to receive a letter in this regard from
the Valley Memorial Hospital Board. It is the staff's recommen-
dation that the proposal contained in the report distributed to
the Council be followed, i.e., that the step plan be followed
CM-24-87
April 26, 1971
(Ambulance
Service)
with the first step being to refer the entire
matter to the Valley Memorial Hospital, who have
indicated formally by action of their Board of
Directors that they will assume responsibilities
to serve as the technical appraisal agency for provision of the
emergency ambulance service for the Valley and serve eventually
in a coordinating administrative role for this service, subject
to the provisions of the joint powers agreement to be entered
into by the three subject agencies.
William Struthers, chairman of the Board of Directors of Valley
Memorial Hospital, reported that the Board has voted to accept this
responsibility. He and the hospital administrator, Tom Andrews,
were present to answer questions.
David Madis, attorney representing Allen's Ambulance, said that
his client had also prepared a proposal for this service. The
hospital had originally worked out a proposal with a budget of
$44,000 to provide two ambulance locations within the Valley.
They had then decided not to follow this plan and now proposed
to become administrator of Allen's service. The $44,000 represents
a subsidy of about $4,000 per month. He questioned if it is de-
cided to service the area of Dublin, which is further from the
hospital than Livermore or Pleasanton, would the cost be charged
equally. He said Allen's could provide the ambulance service for
$800 per month under a regular contract. What is the hospital
going to provide - in-service training or tell Allen's whom to
hire or fire or how to treat employees. In the Hospital's propo-
sal, they requested that the ambulances be located on existing or
future governmental facilities, yet under the present proposal
the hospital says they will provide the space. Mr. Madis asked
if the City of Livermore is willing to delegate its responsibility
and authority. Allen's would be willing to work with a committee
in regard to service. But is the City going to delegate its
authority as to standard of service and care and will the type of
service be stated without regard to cost of such service. Allen's
Ambulance did not wish to participate in a proposal whereby the
Hospital would administer their ambulance service.
Mayor Taylor said the Hospital would advise only from a medical
point of view. The proposal did not commit the Councilor City
to a blank check as the agencies will have final review. In re-
gard to the Hospital's proposal to operate the ambulance service,
the Council is not considering this proposal at all but is con-
sidering their proposal to administer the service.
Mr. Parness said the essence of the recommendation is that this is
a highly technical type of service and the ambulance service is
an arm of the service of the hospital; the logical thing is to
have the people who administer the hospital take part in the ap-
praisal of the ambulance service. Further, a decision was needed
regarding delegation of authority to the hospital for formation
of a committee of people within their organization to appraise,
qualitatively, the emergency ambulance service in whatever final
form it may be. Secondly, ask the hospital committee to recommend
to the Council which contractee should be accepted, and in the
event that recommendation is accepted, to allow the staffs of the
three governmental agencies involved, working in conjunction with
the hospital staff, to draft a joint exercise of powers agreement
which would implement this system subject to further formal con-
sideration and approval.
Councilman Pritchard inquired about the $1500 which was mentioned
in the report, and Mr. Parness explained that this was the amount
inserted by one of the applicant agencies which is proposing am-
bulance service. Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Andrews if the
hospital was prepared to put on paper the manner in which the
services will be graded qualitatively and what method would be
used in obtaining a figure to present to the study committee and
what services the hospital will give to the contractee.
CM-24-88
April 26, 1971
Mr. Andrews said he had talked to the executive
committee which consists of the Board of Direc-
tors with the medical staff in this regard, but
no commitment has been made by the committee as
to which operator should be recommended. Mr. Andrews said the
Board of Directors, nor he himself, would be able to make a re-
commendation, but the medical staff committee may. The services
the hospital can provide have been listed, and he would be glad
to discuss any additional requests for services with an operator.
The operators would be evaluated from a medical, qualitative
standpoint, not in regard to fees or bids, etc.
(Ambulance
Service)
Councilman Pritchard said he personally would need more informa-
tion as to how they would accomplish these things before making
a commitment to them.
Mayor Taylor stated that the only group capable of making a
medical judgment is the medical profession.
Mr. Parness pointed out that joint powers agreement will be form-
alized later and will give specific duties to each agency and to
a singular one, hopefully the hospital, which will be an overall
contracting agency for evaluation and administration purposes.
This first step will give the hospital the chance to make a state-
ment as to the service and perhaps a recommendation as to a con-
tractee. If they reject making such a recommendation, then the
City will have to decide how it will be done.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the City Manager's re-
commendation.
Councilman Beebe felt this matter should be continued for a week
in order to get some answers from the hospital in writing. He
asked the City Manager about County participation and Mr. Parness
replied that they have been led to believe the County will parti-
cipate financially in this arrangement on a one-third basis.
Mr. Andrews stated the Board met on Wednesday, and he hoped that
it would be possible to get a statement at that meeting.
Councilman Miller then withdrew his motion, and the Council con-
curred in continuing this matter until May 3.
*
*
*
The public hearing on the application submitted
by Associated Professions, Inc. for rezoning to
PD District pro~erty located on the south side
of Interstate 580, east of Airway Blvd. was held
on November 16. At the meeting of November 23,
as the Council's action was contrary to the re-
commendation of the Planning Commission, it was referred back to
them for review and comment. The Commission's comments were pre-
sented to the Council on February 22, but further action postponed
until such time as pending engineering studies by ABAG could be
completed in accordance with a new state law regulating noise em-
issions in and about public airports. These engineering studies
have not been completed.
REZONING TO PD
DISTRICT SO. SIDE
OF U.S. 580
(Assoc. Professions)
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission had recommended
denial, but the Council assigned ID District zoning with the option
of the use for a mobile home park under a conditional use permit.
The Planning Commission concurred in the ID zoning but reaffirmed
their original stand on the mobile home park.
Mayor Taylor mentioned that this item would entail a long dis-
cussion, and asked if there was anyone thing in particular the
applicant would like resolved other than whether or not he could
have the trailer park.
CM-24-89
April 26, 1971
(Rezoning to
PD Dist. So.
Side 580 -
Associated
Professions)
Dan Spruiell stated he would like an explanation
of the map and asked if Mr. Lee would explain to
the Council the noize zone, and then the applicant
would be agreeable to continue the matter until
May 3.
Public Works Director Daniel Lee explained a map
of the area, including the end of the runway and the portion to
the east, with the noise impact areas superimposed on the map.
The noise impact areas are indicated by the NEF scale (Noise Exposure
Forecast). This scale is based on such factors as magnitude of
noise of each fly-by, duration and number of fly-bys, and distribu-
tion of theseoocurrences three times a day. The State has adopted
noise levels for future planning around airports. Mr. Lee also ex-
plained a projection of operations at the airport for 1985 and the
type of aircraft using the airport at that time.
Mr. Lee pointed out the area under consideration and the NEF con-
tours based on projections for 1985. According to the standards
established by the federal agency using NEF scales there should not
be any residential development within the "30" contour, and the
area between 30 and 25 is a borderline area since any increase in
traffic would raise the noise level in this particular area. Mobile
homes would probably be more susceptible to noise since the residents
might be older and the size and type of construction of the units
could be a factor. He stated that he did not feel residential should
be allowed in the 25 contour. There are other considerations beside
noise such as exposure to aircraft.
Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney whether use of this map and
report and its recommendations would indemnify the City in a future
suit against the City for noise. The City Attorney explained that
the study was to give guidance to the County committee which will
be setting up zones around airports and also to cities in allowing
zoning. The state law sets a standard, and within the areaof the
30 contour there are restrictions such as which uses are permitted
in that zone. In the 25 contour there would not be a limitation
in the use in the area. None of this study will indemnify the City.
Councilman Miller asked what would happen if in five years the State
changes its standards; it is probable that upgrading will occur.
Councilman Pritchard said he had decided when the matter was continued
in order to have ABAG's report he would abide by the results of the
report.
The City Attorney said it would be desirable to have an air easement
if this development is allowed as a matter of protection for the City.
Mayor Taylor felt it would be best to ask the Airport Advisory Com-
mittee for comments on the ABAG noise report, and the majority of
the Council agreed.
Mr. Spruiell said his client is agreeable to working out a noise or
air easement with the City if this development is allowed.
Mr. Lee said he had checked with the State about purchase of the
right-of-way. There are funds for purchase of such property, but
they require a plan and must be convinced that the builder is ready
to proceed before they will act. He was requested to contact the
state again in this regard.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
LEASE OF CITY
PROPERTY ALONG
AIRPORT BLVD.
The City Manager reported that negotiations have
been completed for lease of three acres along Air-
port Blvd. just east of the airport on land formerly
occupied by the water treatment plant oxidation
ponds. There are three one-acre parcels. Construc-
tion on one parcel is to be a 21,000 sq. ft. building
CM-24-90
April 26, 1971
with a market value in excess of $100,000. When (Lease Property
this building is occupied, comparable units will Along Airport Blvd)
be constructed on the other two parcels. The re-
turn to the City from the ground lease will be
about $4,320 per year plus possessory interest taxes. Frontage
improvements will have to be installed by the City at an estimated
cost of $29,000.
After discussion the Council felt it would be best to obtain al-
ternate bids which would allow further widening of the street
beyond that portion fronting on the subject property.
The City Attorney stated the lease has provisions for construction
of the first unit to be completed within eighteen months of com-
mencement of term of lease and a second and like unit to be com-
pleted within expiration of five years.
Councilman Miller did not feel that the return is large enough
as it will take a number of years to pay back the cost of im-
provements.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to authorize the lease and
authorize bids for utility and frontage improvements to the site,
with alternate bids for extension of improvements, and designa-
tion of this property as surplus property resulting from the ex-
pansion of the sewer plant and elimination of the ponds and the
City has not immediate or foreseeable use for the land. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 51-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
(Hilde, Lange, Findleton and Hilde)
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that bids had
been received for various capital improvement
projects as listed below:
REPORT RE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS BID
SOLICITATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Oliver de Silva, Inc.
Gallagher & Burk, Inc.
Silva Brothers
Independent Construction
Piombo Co.
Teichert, Inc.
McGuire & Hester
Pellegrini Construction
$ 296,433.14
301,522.47
309)089.45
317,748.74
320,141.84
326,905.64
335,960.50
428,821.28
$311,745.50
Engineer's Estimate
The Public Works Director recommended that the bid be awarded
to the low bidder, Oliver de Silva, Inc.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to accept the recommendation and award the bid to Oliver
de Silva, Inc., and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Discussion of a communication from the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District regarding their advertis-
ing policy and also a communication from W.G.
Funk regarding use of certain type of railroad
crossing devices were removed from the Consent
Calendar, but due to the lateness of the hour
these matters were continued.
BART ADVERTISING
POLICY & COMMUNI-
CATION RE RR
CROSSINGS
CM-24-91
April 26, 1971
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Park
Dedication)
although it has
The use of fees
will be made to
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Police Week)
(Sister
City Visit)
(BART
Extension)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-92
The City Attorney advised that the Supreme Court
has upheld the constitutionality of the park dedi-
cation statute and all provisions of the Walnut
Creek ordinance, sustained the decision of the
trial court and threw out the decision of the
District Court of Appeals. The main points, as
he understood the decision, is that the City has
the right to have a park dedication ordinance and
need not give credit for private improvements,
a broad range of leeway in use of those credits.
to improve the park was upheld. A further report
the Council in writing.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard felt it would be appropriate
to designate the week of May 9 through 15 as Police
Week and May 15 as Police Memorial Day. This re-
quest had been made by the Police Association. A
resolution will be prepared.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller reported that he would be unable
to act as the Council's representative for the
visitation to the Sister City this year.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor reported on the hearing held by the
Senate Committee on Public utilities and stated
he had testified on behalf of the Valley Planning
Committee regarding BART extension. The bill did
not get out of the committee.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 a.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of May 3, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 3, 1971,
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 Beebe, Pritchard, Silva,
Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Silva, the minutes of the regular
meeting of April 26, 1971, were approved as
amended by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
RO LL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., referred to a OPEN FORUM
letter written to the Council regarding the pro-
posed business license fee ordinance amendment.
He stated the paragraph in reference to California
Water was incorrect and wished the Council to note this.
*
*
*
Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance -
Residential District include Section 5.00 re-
garding accessory uses, minimum lot width,
minimum yards, maximum developable floor area,
and addition of Section 5.59, computation for
purposes of determining density, and Section
20.00 - General Provisions and Accessory Buildings.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RS DIST.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Taylor, but no oral comments
were made and no written comments were received. Councilman
Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to continue
the public hearing until May 17, and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Council heard a report from the City
Manager and testimony from various individuals
at the previous meeting regarding business li-
cense fee revisions, but discussion by the Coun-
cil was continued until this time.
BUSINESS LICENSE
FEE REVISIONS
Jack Phillips referred to previous comment that Modesto and Fresno
should not be considered in the comparison of fees charged and
stated he agreed.
Carolyn Oddon, 5846 East Avenue, protested the new fees proposed
by the City. The Chamber of Commerce proposal, she felt, is much
more satisfactory. Even with this proposal, the consumer will have
to absorb the additional cost. She objected to this forced taxa-
tion, and felt it was a factor in businesses moving from Livermore.
William Turner, 6246 Mines Road, said he had been in business in
Livermore for two years. He stated there were some inequities
CM-24-93
May 3, 1971
(Business
Licensee Fee
Revisions)
which, if they were not structured differently, he
would refuse to pay. Life insurance and casualty
insurance agencies are state regulated and, there-
fore, apparently pay no fees. He has paid taxes
on the mutual fund sales in his business, however,
for the past two years. There needs to be some clarification
as to what is taxed and what is not.
The City Attorney advised there is no license fee on the insur-
ance company itself, but under the proposed ordinance a life in-
surance broker would be taxed on his commissions.
Ebert Lounsbury stated he resided just outside the City limits.
It seems that the ordinance is a tax on all business and profes-
sional people to increase income of the City. He suggested that
all professional people, including those employed at the Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory, be taxed on the basis of their professional
standing.
The City Attorney stated that these persons are not doing business
within the City, per see The only way they can be taxed on income
is through income tax, and the City is prohibited from assessing
an income tax.
Ralph Laughlin, real estate broker, inquired if the City staff
would have to be increased to administer the proposed fees.
The City Manager advised that it is not the intention to ask for
increase in staff, but it might be necessary to ask for a slight
increase in funds to cover the cost of spot auditing, which would
probably amount to one man-month for an employee of an outside firm.
Councilman Miller said it is usually the case that auditing brings
in as much or more than the cost of the audit. This would carry
out the intention that all be taxed equally and equitably.
Dan Graham, 276 Hillcrest, felt that the sales tax should be in-
creased which would tax everyone, not just the businessman. He
did not feel the increase could be passed on to the customer as
this would just increase the volume and sales tax.
Mr. Parness pointed out that the City cannot increase the sales
tax as this is under the jurisdiction of the State.
Mr. Lewis stated that a business license fee is not deemed to be
an income tax by the legislature or court. This tax is deducti-
ble from the gross income as are other taxes.
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle street, felt large businesses such as
those locating in Dublin should be the ones that we would want
to locate in Livermore. He wondered how much they considered
the business fee in deciding where to locate. This should be
considered by the Council.
Mr. Parness stated that in his numerous contacts with potential
business clients the question of business license fees had never
been discussed.
Dr. James McFarlane said he thought that fees levied against pro-
fessional people is indeed an income tax which discriminates
against the self employed person.
Councilman Miller spoke in regard to references made to this bus-
iness license fee, in fact, being an income tax. It has been
pointed out by the Chamber and others that businesses with the
same gross do not necessarily have the same net income. For this
reason the gross receipts tax schedule had been divided into two
parts according to net profits on sales. The license fee is not
based on personal net income but on gross receipt; the law pro-
hibits basing the fee on net income.
CM-24-94
May 3, 1971
Milt Codiroli, president of the Chamber of Com-
merce, said that in his business his profession-
al employees' pay is based on their production,
just as a businessman. He did feel the business
license fee would be a factor in location of a
firm, other factors being equal.
(Business License
Fee Revisions)
Aubry Greer, local businessman, asked just what the money raised
by the fees would be used for. If the revenue is for all the
people, then why should the business man pay. The cost should
be shared by all and not just a few.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner, referred to a letter which he had ad-
dressed to the Council in which he pointed out the property tax
accounted for 28% and the sales tax for about 26% of the total
tax revenue. The present license fees account for about 3.3%;
the proposed fees would be 5.7%. He was opposed to this means
of raising revenue. Enforcement would be difficult and impose
a large bookkeeping task on merchants. Such tax methods might
drive business away from the City and thus lose property and
school taxes.
Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, felt people would be willing to
pay slightly higher prices to shop locally if the service and
merchandise available warrant.
Mayor Taylor closed the discussion at this time in order for the
Council members to debate this matter.
Councilman Silva said he had a few questions in regard to the
proposed ordinance. He questioned how the fees would be assessed
for contractors and subcontractors. The contractor would sub-
tract his subcontractor costs and pay on that basis and the sub-
contractors would pay their portion. He was concerned about
collecting fees from outside persons. The issue was discussed
and the staff pointed out that audit would be one means and a
physical check of trucks and places of business would aid in
determining who is and is not paying the fee.
Councilman Beebe said he did not know how it would be possible
to collect the fee from everyone doing business wholesale in
Livermore.
Councilman Pritchard inquired about the classification of real
estate brokers. The Finance Director stated real estate brokers
are in the professional classification; only the agency or broker
would be taxed and not the salesmen.
Mayor Taylor stated that this license fee has been in effect for
a number of years; the matter to be considered is an increase in
this fee because the business community is paying a progressive-
ly smaller portion of the cost of running the City. The City
provides many special services to the business community not pro-
vided for the general taxpayer;certain items are included in the
City budget which benefit the business district. For example,
the upgrading of the fire department enables the business community
to enjoy lower fire rates. Twenty percent of the police patrol
is for the business community. Streets in the business community
are maintained on a greater frequency. One full time police de-
tective is hired to work with the business community through semi-
nars and help on bad checks. There is no charge for connection
to the burglar alarm system. The citizens at large will object
to spending large sums of money to benefit the business district
from their tax dollars unless the business community supports
their benefits. The benefit from reduced fire rates and service
makes for far greater savings than the cost of business license
fees. It is difficult to spread this license tax equitably just
as it is for other taxes. There is justification for levying
this license fee other than just raising revenue.
CM-24-95
May 3, 1971
(Business
License Fee
Revisions)
Mayor Taylor discussed the reason for assessing pro-
fessionals on a flat fee rather than a sliding scale.
A professional cannot increase the margin of profit
by increasing volume; he can increase volume only by
better service.
Mayor Taylor felt the amounts to be assessed were fairly reason-
able. It would be about $1.50 per $1,000 on the upper limit.
Councilman Miller felt the effect of the amount on the sale of a
car, for instance, would be negligible as far as the customer is
concerned.
Councilman Silva discussed references made by several people that
this is an income tax, and he thought it did border on being such a
tax. He asked why business license fees are not based on number
of employees and/or vehicles.
Mr. Parness said basing the fee on number of employees would lose
the equity of the tax as there might be a large gross volume bus-
iness with no employees.
Mayor Taylor indicated this involved philosophy of taxation. It
is usually based on services received and ability to pay. There
has to be some relation between ability to pay and the tax.
Councilman Miller stated that the City Attorney had reported that
gross receipts are defined by statute not to be an income tax.
Second, taxation on gross receipts was recommended by the League
of California Cities and is being adopted by many cities as fees
are upgraded. Gross receipts is the method for having the busi-
nesses pay for economic growth and services provided.
Councilman Beebe said the main points concern the fee schedule
and the classification for professional people.
Councilman Miller stated that fundamentally this increase in li-
cense fees is a tax reform issue to shift the burden from the pro-
perty tax and to eliminate some of the inequities. The proposed
increases for the majority of the businesses are relatively small.
The increase will amount to no more than approximately $60 for a
gross of $150,000 or less, and for a gross of $250,000 the increase
will be a little more than $100. Most of the burden in the past
has been carried by the smaller businesses, and this will still
be the case if the compromises suggested are adopted. The elimi-
nation of the upper limit will place a greater share on the bigger
businesses. Not all of the fees will be passed on to the customer.
Changes in the license fee schedules might account for enough re-
v~nue to be ~quivalent to lOt', on(Jhh'prop~rt~c~/.rat4e.... w<){~?,i~en-
tlal propertles pay 90% of tl{~ui{Ierr; :w.hid:l a..LsJ" (f-:!€,c6UY$ges --iR-
dustry. A business license fee which ke~s pace with the sales ~~
dollar and sales tax is favorable to the tax structure for the?X(~'~
residents. Councilman Miller also expressed his appreciation for\~
the spirit of cooperation evidenced by the committee from the Cham-
ber of Commerce who had worked with the City committee on this
draft and proposal.
Councilman Pritchard did not agree that this was a major tax re-
form issue. Hopefully, the business license fee revenue will be
brought more into line with other communities and be made more
equitable. The present ordinance will be revised to bring it up
to date.
Councilman Silva agreed that this is not a major tax reform but a
revision of an ordinance as has been done with other ordinances.
He felt the fees should be increased in line with fees of other
communities.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to adopt the proposal of the Chamber of Commerce as
the fee structure for revision of the ordinance.
CM-24-96
May 3, 1971
Councilman Miller did not feel the Chamber's fee
structure was adequate and that the fourth pro-
posal drawn up by the City was reasonable.
(Business License
Fee Revision)
Councilman Pritchard stated he had seconded Councilman Silva's
motion for the sake of discussion, however, he, together with
Councilmen Beebe and Miller, did discuss another fee schedule -
not quite as low as the Chamber's proposal, but not as high as
No.4, and asked if either Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Parness could take
these figures and explain where they would be on the chart.
Mayor Taylor commented that after hearing the discussion and look-
ing at the curve felt that the City staff's proposal was too high
and wished to consider something lower, and also asked that this
line be drawn on the chart. Mayor Taylor further stated that he
felt the Chamber's proposal was honest and straightforward and
reasonable; Livermore is as revenue poor as any city in the Bay
area as we are a commuter community. He agreed with the state-
ments made that Modesto and Fresno are out of our area, but felt
it reasonable to consider them for comparison purposes.
Councilman Beebe felt we should concern ourselves with our com-
peting shopping center areas - Concord, Walnut Creek and Hayward.
Milt Codiroli of the Chamber of Commerce discussed the inclusion
of doctors, dentists, etc. under professional classification in
the City's proposal. This might be unreasonable in the future
in the event a group of doctors formed a clinic which would con-
stitute one business with much higher gross income. Also, he
felt the contractors should be under Schedule B because of the
high price item they sell. He was critical of the City's pro-
posals as being too high and not made in good faith, and said
the proposal made by the Chamber was one the business community
could live with. If the Council feels it must raise the rates
again in the future, it can always do so. The adoption of the
Chamber's proposal would be more fair and reasonable to the busi-
nessmen in competing with other communities and would improve
the relationship between the City and the Chamber.
Mayor Taylor pointed out the meetings between the City and the
Chamber had not been an attempt to negotiate a rate as tax rates
are not set in this manner. Councilman Miller stated that when
the meetings had first started the Chamber had considered a zero
tax increase; for the most part the increase will be small. He
personally felt the straight rate is the only fair way to assess
the fees, and graduated fees penalize the small businessman.
The various proposals by the City were efforts to take into account
the objections made by the Chamber. He felt the Chamber's pro-
posal was too low and the only real difference in the City's
proposal was in the high gross businesses.
William Dalrymple, 781 Meadowlark Street, asked if there were
enough large businesses in Livermore to account for the antici-
pated revenue under the City's proposal without a large part of
the increase coming from the smaller businesses. Mayor Taylor
pointed out that 7% of the businesses were considered large busi-
nesses. Councilman Beebe said that the major portion of the
fee will come from the businesses with gross of $500,000 and more.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the difference in the two proposals
of $75 on a gross of $250,000 would be unfair and why. Mr. Codi-
roli replied that a large gross does not necessarily mean a high
net income and costs are escalating. He wanted the City to try
the Chamber's proposal for a year and see how much revenue is
collected, and then to see how much revenue is increased by strict
enforcement.
The question was called for and the motion to adopt the Chamber's
fee structure failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Taylor
CM-24-97
May 3, 1971
(Business
License Fee
Revisions)
AYES:
NOES:
A motion was made by Councilman Miller to adopt the
5th Proposal made by the City and presented at the
meeting, which was seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
but the motion failed by the following called vote:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the Chamber of Commerce's fee
schedule, amended to place contractors under Schedule B and pro-
fessional people in Schedule A, be adopted, seconded by Councilman
Silva.
Councilman Miller felt that contractors should be in Schedule A
as they do not belong in the same classification as car dealers
and grocery stores since they have higher profit.
The motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
RECESS
REPORT RE
EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE
SERVICE
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
Discussion regarding the emergency ambulance service
was continued from April 26 in order to obtain a
written statement from Valley Memorial Hospital re-
garding the process to be used in a qualitative
appraisal. Councilman Silva abstained from discus-
sion and vote on this matter.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to refer the matter to the
assigned Valley Memorial Hospital committee to establish the cri-
teria for the services and to select the qualified company with a
plea to expedite this matter as much as possible, and the motion
was seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
REZONING TO
PD DISTRICT
SO. SIDE OF
U.S. 580
(Associated
Professions)
*
*
*
Discussion regarding the application submitted by
Associated Professions for rezoning to PD District
(Planned Development) property located on the south
side of Interstate 580, east of Airway Blvd. was
continued from the meeting of April 26.
The Public Works Director explained that the noise
contour standards which were adopted by the State
will go into effect in December. The legislation establishes a
noise level scale. He explained the pattern created at the air-
port based on 1985 volumes of air traffic, but felt the estimate
was very conservative. Mr. Lee discussed various factors to be
considered in regard to estimates of air traffic and types of
aircraft. His report indicates that residential development should
not be allowed in the 25 contour. The Airport Advisory Committee
had discussed this matter and had made a recommendation. In an-
swer to Councilman Pritchard's question, Mr. Lee explained that if
in the future the 30 contour does encroach on development, then
the residential owners could have some claim against the airport.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that the Council go on record as not
being in favor of the airport becoming a regional airport. Mr.
Lee discussed what areas of control the City had over the airport
usage.
CM-24-98
May 3, 1971
The Planning Director explained that the orlgl-
nal application before the Planning Commission
was for rezoning to PD District and an applica-
tion for a PUD. The Planning Commission recom-
mended denial of the Planned Unit Development
permit which included the industrial-mobile home park, but in the
event it was approved by the Council, PD District zoning should
be allowed. The Council rejected the plan and concluded that ID
(Industrial Development and Administration) District zoning would
be proper, allowing the applicant to come in with a Conditional
Use Permit application for mobile home park or industrial use.
The zoning was referred back to the Planning Commission, which
concurred with ID zoning. The matter is now before the Council
to approve the ID zoning; the next step will be to file a CUP
for a possible plan including a mobile home park, industrial
complex located at the intersection of Isabel Avenue and Highway
580. About half of the property is proposed to be developed as
a mobile home park of 350 spaces. The remainder will be an in-
dustrial tract.
(Rezoning to PD
Dist.-Associated
Professions)
Mayor Taylor stated the Council's consideration at this time
should be on the ID zoning, and to give the applicant an indica-
tion whether any type of residential will be considered. The
Council may zone the area "ID", "PD" or leave it as agricultural.
Mr. Musso pointed out that if the Council should decide to zone
it "PD" District, it would be necessary to have a precise plan
to be adopted by ordinance.
Councilman Silva inquired if "ID" zoning is assigned the area
and a CUP is then requested, could the parkway be required. The
City Attorney advised that certain conditions that are necessary
for the actual operation of the use can be included as conditions
of the CUP. He would need more time to study whether the park-
way could be so considered.
John Barker, Associated Professions, said the applicant's goal
is to achieve the land use indicated on the proposed map. During
previous discussions various numbers of mobile home spaces had
been discussed but indicated as less than the 800 included on
their original proposal. They had agreed to the establishment
of a trailway through the property, and proceeded according to
what they felt had been the previous direction of the Council.
Mayor Taylor felt the first issue to discuss was whether or not
residential would be allowed in the area. The Planning staff
had felt that the best use of the area was industrial due to the
location of the airport.
Sue Walker, 1257 Higuera ct., referred to previous rezoning of
land east of the old Livermore airport which had allowed two-
story development. She had bought a home there with the under-
standing that the airport would be moved shortly, but it was ten
years before it took place. During this time they had experienced
noise and problems from the airplanes landing at the old airport.
She felt a large agricultural buffer should be kept around the
airport to protect residential development and urged the City
Council not to make the same error twice.
Mr. Lee said that from a noise standpoint, industrial would be
compatible for the area around the airport, however Councilman
Miller felt the Council should consider a zero number of mobile
home units in this area.
Councilman Silva stated that the only reason for increasing his
approval from 178 units to 350 would be the improved industrial
park included on the plan. This improved 50-acre industrial park
would aid in attracting industry to the area. He would overlook
CM-24=-99
May 3, 1971
(Rezoning to
PD District-
Associated
Professions)
the 350 mobile home sites in order to have the in-
dustrial park area. Further, he would like to see
the state purchase the right-of-way for the inter-
change before development. Improvements should
be completed on both the mobile home park site and
the industrial park at the same time.
Mr. Musso stated that approximately 206 mobile home spaces would
be deleted when the interchange is constructed.
Councilman Beebe said he was in favor of the
industrial park, and thought the street work
improvements should be done simultaneously.
units will be decreased upon construction of
felt they would really be approving only 144
development of the
and other public works
Since the number of
the interchange, he
units.
Mayor Taylor discussed a residential development so widely separated
from the rest of the City which might present problems. In gen-
eral, he opposed the residential use in the area as bad planning.
Councilman Miller commented that the prospect of this mobile home
park being used in the future as an industrial area is slight due
to the high return on the mObil,e ~e park'~Tk .
i7,3sofC/ Oy(/ ~ ~'CL-Je .
Councilman Silva made a motipn that the conc~~~ of the plan which
contains a minimum of 52.8 a'fres for industrial, 21 acres for pub-
lic park, and the balance of 44.8 acres for mobile home park at
8 d.u./acre, including the channel of 8.4 acres be approved; and
approval include the conditions that public works improvements for
the industrial park must be done before the mobile home park is
occupied; prior to development the state shall be requested to pur-
chase the interchange, which portion would be deducted from the
mobile home site; that an air easement be obtained and that if a
CUP is granted that it be limited to fifteen years. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Bill Bennett of the Airport Advisory Committee reported they had
concurred in the industrial use in this area but were concerned
about the mobile home park development due to proximity to the
airport. He stressed the future contribution of the airport not
only to Livermore but to the whole Valley.
In this regard, Mayor Taylor asked if the owner of the land could
grant an air easement to the City, indemnifying the City in the
future, which would hold the City harmless to complaints by the
homeowners. Mr. Lewis explained it would not indemnify the City
in that sense, and explained the traditional terms of an air
easement.
Dave Killiany, 888 Curlew Road, representative of' the Livermore
Civic Improvement Association, asked what became of the mobile
home ordinance, and Mr. Musso advised that it was to be set for
a public hearing before the City Council. Mr. Killiany then
asked how they could approve a mobile home park before the ordi-
nance is adopted, and Mayor Taylor advised that the motion is a
general one and the map would not be acted upon until later; it
was further indicated that the ordinance would not refer in any
way to the specific areas where they may be allowed.
Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, cautioned the Council that the School
District cannot service any children in that area and that is an
official statement from the administrative staff at the School
District. Personally, he did not understand how residential de-
velopment could be considered in that type remote location for
all the services; also why should there be residential develop-
ment as a condition of obtaining industrial park land.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Ave., recalled prior hearings and the
concern of the Council that there were no industrial plans for
CM-24-100
May 3, 1971
this area; it was his understanding the Council
had directed the staff to develop a plan. He
felt the Council was considering the proposal
solely on the basis of the industrial park,
which he agreed was tempting, and thought this
would set a precedent for an industrial park in the future. It
would be deceiving to allow people to move into this area if,
indeed, the State will be acquiring this land at some point in
time for a freeway. He felt this was the wrong place for a
mobile home park, and if there are to be mobile homes in the
community, they should be better located.
(Rezoning to PD
District - Assoc.
Professions)
Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, agreed with the previous two
speakers and felt that the industrial park was merely a bribe.
Also, he was reading of developers purchasing land near freeways,
developing it as cheaply as possible and selling it back to the
state at a highly inflated value and asked the developer if their
company had purchased freeway property elsewhere in the state
and resold it to the state.
Mayor Taylor did not feel that question was pertinent to the
application and suggested Mr. Johnson question the developer
after the meeting.
Lorraine Raiason, 5244 Kathy Way, commented on the air show which
had been held the day before, and stated there were people from
allover who commented very favorably about the airport, and
asked that the Council not crowd the airport.
Thomas Raiason, 5244 Kathy Way, stated his opposition to mobile
homes in this area and questioned the need for more mobile homes,
especially in this area because of the noise, plus no school
facilities and the distance from public utilities.
Mrs. Demetra Wilson, 737 So. M Street, as a future School Board
member, stated she was very opposed to the idea of more mobile
homes in Livermore, as they do not provide proper taxes for the
schools and felt this was leapfrog development and was certainly
not proper adjacent to an industrial park area.
Fred DeMoney, 1114 Innsbruck st., speaking as a member of the
Sunset East Home Owners' Association, stated that on this issue
they would have to take the position of opposing the mobile home
park. The staff reports point to ID without mobile homes. He,
personally, viewed a mobile home as a form of housing and felt
they should be given same degree of treatment and preference of
location as normal conventional residential. The question should
be, then, if residential should be located in that area, and the
Council should look at it from that point of view and not approve
the motion.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated there would be consider-
able tax revenue from industrial land even before industry lo-
cated in the area, to more than support the few children who
might be in the area. He favored a property owner deciding what
he wants done with his property.
John Barker appealed personally with regard to action that might
be taken this evening rather than delay decision on the map,
plan and PD application before them. He stated they found no
quarrel with the 15-year limitation, the mobile home ordinance
draft of December 29; there are good, sound engineering consider-
ations covering the project, and if the Council felt free to
approve the application, in concept, his request was that they
also approve the map so they could proceed as they have been
many months in this process and time is expensive.
CM-24-101
May 3, 1971
(Rezoning to
PD District-
Associated
Professions)
Mayor Taylor stated the Council has never voted
on whether or not to have mobile homes in the area,
and considering the public interest, felt they
should take that much time. However, he did feel
the Council needed more time to study the details
of the application.
Councilman Miller stated he would like to review the comments
already made and began by saying the City has opposed for many
years the mixture of industrial and residential uses as most in-
dustrial developers do not like residences adjacent to them -
each is a detriment to the other. With regard to the airport, the
present standards do not specifically prohibit residential, but
indications are that the standards on noise will become more
restrictive, which to him would rule out residential of any kind
in that area. Most important, they cannot locate a school there
and even the School District has opposed the use of residential;
another thing it would be a leapfrog development; also, it would
be irresponsible of the Council to create high value zoning the
taxpayers would have to pay for when the state builds the freeway.
He felt any of the above points was sufficient to turn down any
application for residential in this area, and this is also the
reason the Council rezoned this property from residential to A-20
several years ago as residential zoning had been designated for
the area before the airport was moved. He felt the real push was
for the trailer court and the real theory is that one zones for
the public interest and not for the highest profit to the land-
owner. In a democracy the public should have some voice in what
happens to their City, and there has been almost total public op-
position to this proposal and it has been opposed by the staff.
In his opinion, this action of the Council is a callous disregard
of the taxpayers because of the tax inequities having to do with
mobile homes.
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Barker if this was a 5-star adult park
to which he replied that it was. He also questioned the accusa-
tion with regard to the value of the land, however Mr. Barker
stated he was not qualified to answer that question. Councilman
Silva asked if a letter could be directed to the State in this re-
gard requesting that the state proceed to purchase the intended
right-of-way.
Mayor Taylor stated that they had debated all sides of the issue
and he had no doubt that however each man acted here, in his
judgment, is to the best interest of the City, and asked for a
roll call vote on the motion before the Council, which passed
by the following:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor stated this was only an approval in principle and
felt they had several items to discuss with regard to the map
before it can be approved.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard to continue the matter to May 17, and refer the plan
to the Planning Commission for their comments, and passed un-
animously.
REZONING NE
CORNER EAST &
HILLCREST AVE.
(Belz,Lincoln,
Seligson &
Newport Co.)
*
*
*
A rezoning application has been submitted by
Arthur Belz, Lincoln Lumber Company, Robert Selig-
son and Newport Company to rezone the northeast
corner of East and Hillcrest Avenues from RL-6
District to Districts provided by the Zoning
Ordinance.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote, this matter was set for hearing on May 24.
CM-24-102
May 3, 1971
The City Council previously passed a motion de-
claring their intent to allow a mobile home
park on the subject property subject to ap-
proval of a site plan. The Planning Director
explained that the Planning Commission recom-
mended approval of the subject site plan sub-
ject to the conditions indicated on the staff report. The issue
which the Planning Commission did not resolve centers around the
dedication of park land. Mr. Musso indicated on the site plan the
proposed location, which would be a continuation of a parkway ex-
tending from the proposed park near Scenic Avenue south along the
PG&E right-of-way and then along the freeway right-of-way to
serve as a buffer and to connect to the neighborhood shopping
center. This is a part of the proposed parkway system. The de-
veloper has proposed, in conformance with this parkway plan, in-
clusion of this land as a part of the parkway; the issue is whether
or not it should be accepted as a part of the park dedication.
In order to establish this procedure the Planning Commission has
recommended that the matter be referred to LARPD to see if this
would qualify as a neighborhood park.
SITE PLAN FOR CUP-
BLUEBELL DRIVE
& US 580 (Associated
Professions)
Mayor Taylor felt this matter should be continued in order to
receive a decision from LARPD as to whether they would accept
this area as a park and Councilman Silva said that the easement
for access to Las Flores should be on record before proceeding
with the plan.
Councilman Beebe stated he would want to add conditions regarding
the type of park which would be allowed. He wished to see strict
requirements included such as those for a "five-star" park, and
referred to Mission Bay Mobilehome Park in San Leandro. San
Leandro had asked the operators for an operating code, including
conditions that no one under eighteen will be accepted, which was
a part of the permit. The City Attorney was asked to review the
code.
David Madis, attorney representing the applicant, said there is
a ten-foot utility easement along the back edge of the property.
He would ask the Council, upon approval of the map, to condmen
the access including the end of the park trail system so that
it connects through to Las Flores, and that the Council also
approve the condemnation of the proposed collector street in
the event problems with the present land owner cannot be resolved.
The City Attorney stated it has been the policy, and in fact may
be a part of the annexation agreement for this area, that ease-
ments and rights-of-way needed for proper access to property are
to be provided and the City's power of condemnation may be exer-
cised by the developer.
Ron Countryman of Intermark Investing said that due to the access
problem they were trying to get enough specifics so that they
might proceed with easements.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to continue this matter until May 24 and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the re-
zoning of the property on the south side of
Linden Street, 50 feet east of North PSt.,
was approved by the Council and referred back
to the Planning Commission for review and
comment. The Commission reaffirmed their
original recommendation, and the Council may
now adopt an ordinance.
REVIEW OF REZONING
APHLICATION SO.
SIDE LINDEN ST.
(Davis)
(Ordinance
Introduction)
Councilman Silva referred to some statements in the report from
the Planning Director to the Commission in regard to definition
CM-24-103
May 3, 1971
(Rezoning
Application-
Davis)
of llnew" duplexes and "spot zoning", and his dis-
cussion regarding difficulty in denying similar
rezonings on adjacent properties.
The City Attorney said it would be difficult to
deny a rezoning application on either side of the subject proper-
ty for a duplex. The Council discussed the problem of setting
precedent.
Mr. Lewis said if the general pattern of the neighborhood is
fixed at residential and the Council desired to hold it for res-
idential, there would be merit in this position; but in a case
where this had not occurred and the property was developing on
all sides as RM or RG it would be difficult to say a property in
the middle could not be rezoned. There would have to be some
geographical boundary indicating reasonable lines for develop~ent.
Mayor Taylor felt there should be a geographical line which would
indicate zoning boundaries, and this was a problem they should be
aware of.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to introduce a zoning ordinance amendment to reflect the rezoning
of the subject property from RL-5-0 to RM District, and to waive
the first reading (title read only).
Councilman Miller stated he had received a call from a resident of
this area of town who was quite concerned over approval of this
application for duplexes. The resident said many of the property
owners in this area had been fighting multiple zoning for fifteen
years and felt continued rezoning would eventually drive the single
family owners out of the area.
The Council discussed rezoning in the area with particular refer-
ence to the vacant lots. Councilman Miller stated "spot zoning"
for duplexes in this area had been stopped in 1967 but this would
reopen this problem and each rezoning would serve as justifica-
tion for the next. Mayor Taylor agreed this was a clear possibility.
If the Council is going to allow rezoning, a survey should be made
of the area and the number of people determined so that possible
park and school provisions can be made.
The motion for rezoning and introduction of the ordinance was
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
REPORT RE
POLICE
MEMORIAL DAY
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously, to
modify the City flag policy to permit an annual
observance of Police Memorial Day on May 15.
*
*
*
REPORT RE IN-
SERVICE TRAINING
PAYMENT
A claim has been made by the Police Department
for time spent by personnel for in-service
training prior to assigned shift duty between
April 1 and December 7, 1970. On this date
the present in-service training procedure was
put into effect. It is recommended that the claim be rejected
as the former process could be considered as a part of their job
performance.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Silva, to reject this claim, and approved unanimously.
CM-24-104
Councilman Miller said he had requested dis-
cussion of the communication from BART be
included on the agenda in hope that the Council
would adopt a resolution similar to the City of
Lafayette in opposition to BART's advertising
policy. After discussion the Council decided
to take no action on this matter.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication has been received from W. G.
Funk suggesting the possible use of rubber
rail crossings which have been developed.
The staff was requested to explore this possi-
bility with the railroads and the PUC.
*
*
*
A communication addressed to the District Attor-
ney by Roscoe I. Brown and Mr. Musso's reply in
regard to the City's sign ordinance were noted
by the Council.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Housing
Authority regarding the Annual Contributions
Contract and stating the amount of in-lieu
taxes and probable taxes if property were
privately owned.
*
*
*
Application for exempt business licenses were
received from the following:
May 3, 1971
COMMUNICATION
RE BART ADVERTISING
POLICY
Communication re
RR Crossings
Communication re
Sign Ordinance
Communication -
Housing Authority
Exempt Business
Licenses
Livermore Barbarees - various fund raising activities
during the year
Livermore Aquacowboys - Aquathon on May 26 and solicitation
of funds for swim team
Kiwanis Club - pancake breakfast June 12
*
*
*
One hundred twenty-two claims in the amount of Payroll & Claims
$52)846.99 and two hundred thirty payroll war-
rants in the amount of $79,561!57, dated April
28, 1971, were ordered paid as approved by the
City Manager. Councilman Silva abstained from
voting on Warrant No. 10460 for his usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Silva, the Consent Calendar was
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the ordinance to adopt the
Municipal Code amendment regarding the Busi-
ness License sections was introduced and the
Approval of Consent
Calendar
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE BUSINESS LICENSE
SECTIONS
CM-24-105
May 3, 1971
(Business
License
Ordinance)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(BART)
AB 1032
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCILMEN
(Policy re
Appointments)
(Mobilehome
Connection
Fee)
( Police
Department)
first reading waived (title read only), by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
The City Manager advised that the Senate Com-
mittee on Public Utilities voted 6-1 to pass the
BART bill regarding extension of service to the
Valley.
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that AB 1032 re school
land dedication would be heard on May 11 in com-
mittee.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard referred to policy regarding
appointments, and felt the Council should discuss
whether they want to consider people outside the
City for appointments. The Council decided to
include this on the agenda for the 17th.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard restated his opposition to
the City airport becoming a regional one. Also,
he felt that the staff could investigate the feas-
ibility of a mobile home connection fee. Some
method for assessing fees should be determined.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor referred to the article in the news-
paper regarding harrassment by members of the
Police Department. He wished to make it clear
that any abuses will not be tolerated, but he was
satisfied that the cases which are called to attention of the
City are investigated diligently by the City Manager and Police
Chi ef .
Mr. Parness stated that in the instances where he had investigated
a complaint he had found the uniformed officer had acted in the
right.
(Presentation)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-106
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor presented a plaque to former Mayor
Silva and expressed the Council's appreciation for
the work he had done on behalf of the City and
Council.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:25 a.m.
*
* ,~
S
APPROVE
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of May 10, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 10, 1971,
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 Silva, Miller and Mayor ROLL CALL
Taylor
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard (excused to
attend Mayors' and Councilmens' Legislative Institute)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the minutes of the meeting
of May 3 were approved unanimously as amended.
*
*
*
MINUTES
Val Yoakum,3832 Dartmouth Street, requested
again that the City appoint a citizens' com-
mittee to study the financial aspect of taxa-
tion on mobile homes. According to the Planning
staff, applications will be made for 3,000 units
and there are already 6.2% mobile home units of the total units
in the City now. The tax burden is increasing and this matter
should be studied soon.
OPEN FORUM
(Taxation on
Mobile Homes)
Mayor Taylor said that action in this regard would have to be con-
tinued until a full Council was present for discussion. Councilman
Miller advised that a study of taxation of mobile homes and their
effect on communities is presently being undertaken by the League
of California Cities and the County Supervisors Association.
*
*
*
An informal public hearing was set to consider
the Planning Commission's proposal to change the
name of Olivina Avenue to Chestnut Street in
order to provide a continuous street name. The
street is presently named Chestnut to the east
and Olivina Avenue to the west of "p" Street.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
STREET NAME CHANGE
(Olivina Ave. to
Chestnut Street)
A petition with signatures representing 58 of the 73 residences
protesting the name change has been filed, and letters were re-
ceived from James G. and Helen B. Moore, 1212 Olivina, Bethany
Baptist Church and Blanche Dunaway.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated he would like to see the
street names remain as they are at present and could see no rea-
son to make the change.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, to
close the public hearing, and it was approved unanimously.
Councilman Silva made a motion to leave the names of Chestnut
Street and Olivina Avenue as they are at present; motion seconded
by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector in regard to the Water Reclamation Plant
expansion. The design has been completed by
the engineering firm and application has been
Report re Water
Reclamation Plant
Expansion
CM-24-107
May 10, 1971
(Water
Reclamation
Plant)
Report re
Traffic
Complaints
Report re
Claim for
Damages
(Jennings)
Communication
Fraternal
Order of Eagles
Minutes of
Beautification
Committee
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REQUEST FOR
CITY PARTICI-
PATION IN
ADVERTISEMENT
( CAPE)
made for inclusion on the project list for the
Fiscal Year 1971-72 for Federal Grants and state
Grants from the 1970 Clean Water Bond Fund.
*
*
*
A report has been prepared by the Public Works
Director regarding traffic problems and complaints.
The Division of Highways has indicated the speed
on East First Street near Trevarno Road will be
reduced to 50 miles per hour. Pavement markers are
also to be installed by the State on Holmes st.
at Concannon Blvd. and the intersection of Holmes
St. and Catalina Drive.
*
*
*
The City Attorney submitted a report advising that
a claim for damages in the amount of $13,000 has
been filed alleging assault and battery, false
arrest, etc. by Patrick V. Jennings. It is re-
commended that the claim be denied and referred
to the appropriate insurance company.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Livermore
Aerie of the Fraternal Order of Eagles expressing
appreciation for the exempt business license
granted for their Spring Festival.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting
of April 15 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva, and by unanimous approval, the items
on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
The Community Association for Preschool Education
is joining with other head-start schools in Southern
Alameda County in the preparation of a yearbook.
The local school has requested that the City of
Livermore participate in this project by purchase
of a full page advertisement for a cost of $50.00.
Councilman Silva made a motion to deny this request for funds; he
stated that CAPE is a very worthwhile project but that the City can-
not participate in requests from all other organizations and grant-
ing of this request would set a precedent. Councilman Miller se-
conded the motion and expressed his feeling that although this is
an outstanding program, taxpayers' money cannot be used in this way.
The motion was passed unanimously, and the staff was requested to
address a letter to CAPE expressing the fact that the Council does
endorse their organization but explaining that the City cannot par-
ticipate.
REPORT RE BUS
DEPOT STATUS
*
*
*
The City Manager explained that he had been in
contact with the Greyhound Bus Lines and the PUC
in regard to the status of the local bus depot and
its lack of facilities. Greyhound has expressed their position
that it is not economically feasible to provide the facilities
CM-24-108
requested due to the low carrier operation.
They would be willing to move if other facil-
ities were available and if the City did not
place heavy requirements upon them.
May 10, 1971
(Bus Depot Status)
The staff was requested to advise the bus lines if a suitable
location becomes available.
Councilman Silva also inquired about the possible installation
of a pay phone at the present bus depot location, and asked that
the staff contact the telephone company in this regard.
*
*
*
The Chief of Police has recommended that Offi-
cer Wicksten be granted permission to accept
an appointment as the Northern California re-
presentative to the Association of Credit Card
Investigators and to attend the 1971 Training
Conference to be held in Denver, Colorado, and
that $347.00 be allocated to cover his expenses.
REPORT RE POLICE
PARTICIPATION IN
NATL. ASSOC. OF
CREDIT CARD
INVESTIGATORS
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to
approve the recommendation and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager stated he was pleased to re-
port that a proposed lease has been prepared
and negotiated with an intended tenant for the
restaurant and lounge at the Las Positas Club-
house. At the time the clubhouse was built,
provision was made only for "shellfl quarters. During the last
four years meetings have been held with about four dozen pros-
pective tenants representing the full spectrum of types of food
service; most had expressed a hesitancy due to the cost of out-
fitting the structure.
REPORT RE RESTAURANT
LEASE-LAS POSITAS
CLUBHOUSE
The prospective tenant is the Berkeley Science Capital Corporation,
which is an investment oriented organization. They have retained
management for the venture who are well qualified. The lease
which has been prepared is attractive to both the City and restau-
rant operator; it does provide an incentive during the early years
of operation, and as business increases the rent will increase,
as it is based on a percentage of the gross. Mr. Parness stated
he felt the proposed operation would be a quality one, and the
installation would be a prideful addition to private enterprise
in the City. Mr. Michael Casey, representing the prospective
tenant, was present at the meeting and would answer any questions.
Councilman Silva inquired about the estimated cost of $30,000 for
capital improvements as he thought previous estimates had been
much higher. Mr. Parness stated that other estimates had ranged
up to as much as $250,000. However, due to the type of operation
proposed the cost of the capital improvements has been estimated
at this cost.
Mayor Taylor inquired about the return to the City. Mr. Parness
explained that the minimum rental to the City would be $850 per
month. The $30,000 will be expended to provide a main entrance,
service entry, air conditioning and permanent internal fixtures.
The City Attorney advised that the existing snack bar operator
has a five-year lease for approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of space on
the lower floor. In the lease is a provision that if the City re-
ceives an offer for leasing the second floor, which includes an
offer to operate the snack bar location, then the present operation
has the opportunity to make a like offer. The present operator
CM-24-109
May 10, 1971
(Restaurant-
Clubhouse)
then has thirty days in which to make such an offer;
if he does not make an offer, he has six months
from the time of the second tenant's occupancy to
terminate his business. The second operator would
then have the opportunity to acquire the present operator's equip-
ment. If the Council approves this lease for the second floor op-
eration, the operator of the snack bar will be given formal notice.
Councilman Silva asked how the City would be protected if the pro-
posed operation is not satisfactory. Mr. Lewis stated that the
City can insist that the operation be first class and the food and
beverages be of the same high standard of other comparable businesses
in the community. There would be recourse through Court procedures
to insure satisfactory operation.
Mr. Casey, president of Berkeley Science Capital Corporation, re-
lated some background regarding his company and their decision to
back this operation in Livermore. He generally explained the pro-
posed method of operation and stated that this was hopefully only
the first of several such ventures. The motif will be built around
the theme of the airport, and the architect for this operation is
well qualified and capable of creating an exciting, unusual atmos-
phere.
Upon question from Councilman Miller, Mr. Casey estimated that the
operation will gross $250,000 at a minimum with $500,000 by the
third year. The rate of return will run from a low of 10% to 15%
or more on sales.
Mr. Casey introduced Mr. Dave Kamrar, the prospective operator of
the restaurant. Mr. Kamrar stated he planned to employ college
age help, which seemed to fit into this type of operation.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, ex-
pressing the intention to enter into this proposed lease and to
provide for such execution after the expiration of thirty days,
but no more than 45 days; and to authorize the City Attorney to
give notice to the present snack bar operator in accordance with
his lease provisions; and to authorize the expenditure of the funds
($30,000) for capital improvements necessary for the proposed lease
agreement.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, inquired about the signing for
the venture. Mayor Taylor stated that the lease provides that any
signing will be in accordance with the City's ordinance. Mr. Casey
said they were aware of the stringent provisions of the sign ordi-
nance, and hopefully, they would be able to place a sign to attract
highway traffic.
Jack Douglas, 1610 De Soto Way, present operator of the snack bar,
felt the prospective operators should be required to present plans
and specifications before the lease is considered in order that
he would be able to see what he was bidding against.
The City Attorney advised that the procedure involves a descrip-
tion by the prospective operator of the proposed decor; the lease
provides as a condition that before construction starts the oper-
ator will provide plans and specifications for any improvements
which will be installed, subject to the approval of the City.
They will have to put in plumbing cases and wiring and a number
of things necessary for the building to serve as a restaurant.
The City has these items listed to the extent of its commitment
of $30,000; if after the entrance way, service entry and air con-
ditioning, there is anything left over, the City will put in the
cases and some of the wiring to the extent of $30,000, which is
our only commitment.
Mr. Parness explained that Mr. Douglas' suggestion is not practicable
at all; this company has negotiated a lease in its proposed form
CM-24-110
May 10, 1971
and they have in mind a certain type of designed (Restaurant-
theme. It is conceivable that their plans might Clubhouse)
differ from what Mr. Douglas has in mind. The
only thing before the Council for approval is the
minimal capital expenditure they must make; that is all that can
be laid before the present holder of the lease, Mr. Douglas, and
Mr. Douglas has thirty days to answer with a proposal of his own.
Mr. Douglas said he did not see how the City could proceed until
they have some plans as Mr. Parness had always stated it should
be a first class dinner house. He did not feel a first class
dinner house would go, and that is the reason he has not come
in with a proposal.
Mayor Taylor mentioned that the terms of the lease with Mr. Douglas
are very clear, and that he has thirty days time in which to
come up with a counter proposal.
In answer to a question Mr. Lewis explained that the lease they
have is one that has been worked out over the years by the public
lessors of land to people who are operating restaurants, speci-
fically Jack London Square, Berkeley and San Leandro, and these
public agencies have had some experience in this sort of lessor's
public area and have found this type lease acceptable.
Mr. Lewis further commented that the terms of the City's lease
with Mr. Douglas are that we do not make an offer to him until
we have a proposal that is acceptable to the City, which is
deemed to mean the City Council. Then notice will be given to
him to put into effect the 30-day notice period as stated in his
lease. The terms of the lease state Mr. Douglas has 30 days to
accept or reject the proposal, and if it is not accepted within
30 days, it is deemed as being rejected.
Tom Murphy, owner of Don Pepe's Broiler in Livermore, said it is
common in the food industry to furnish renderings and drawings
showing what is planned for decor and furnishings. He stated
he did not feel the City should become involved in a restaurant
at the golf course as the City is not ready to support a first
class restaurant there.
Mayor Taylor felt the City could not afford to pass up this offer
with a return for five years and the risk almost entirely taken
by the operator.
Councilman Miller said the City had been critized for some time
for not obtaining a lessee for the second floor of the golf course
building. The cost of adding the second floor was very small in_. ;
compariso:;,~-t:o . th.c..e,!<?tal cost of th~ bUi,lding ....'~ ,.no/'Yo"~~WI'-,,/-~f~~/' '11IfT'"
1....:-1...,;...r;...-....fIY'./' ,">..-t'-'-.~_...v~ //" .'/"'.? i/t.tt(',I', (I" ,( l''(J:,;;,I~* ';;)/Ik., t
The motion expressing the intention to ~nter into the proposed ~z;0J~
lease was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
*
*
*
//~--
A rezoning application has been submitted by
H.J. Callaghan to rezone a site located south-
easterly of the intersection of Maple Street,
East Avenue and Seventh Street from RL-5-0 to
RM District. Councilman Silva made a motion,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved
unanimously, to set this matter for public
hearing on Jure 7.
REZONING SE CORNER
MAPLE ST., EAST AVE.
& 7th ST.
(Callaghan)
*
*
*
CM-24-111
May 10, 1971
COUNCIL
REFERRAL RE
RESTRICTIONS
FOR CLOCKS,
THERMOMETERS,
The Planning Commission considered the City Council
referral regarding possible revised regulations in
the Zoning Ordinance concerning clocks, thermome-
ters, etc. It is the recommendation of the Planning
Commission that these structures be regulated through
Design Review procedure rather than adopting an
ordinance.
Councilman Miller stated that clocks, thermometers, etc. are, in
fact, signs and should be so considered; if they are freestanding
structures with the shapes and appearance of signs, they should
be handled through a CUP. He requested that this matter be con-
tinued until a full Council was present to discuss this matter.
The Planning Director stated the Commission also discussed a maxi-
mum size beyond which they would be considered a sign. In most
ordinances these structures are not considered signs.
Mayor Taylor felt this item should be continued until a specific
proposal is made for handling the matter.
Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation, but the motion failed due to lack of a second.
Councilman Miller made a motion to table this matter until a full
Council is present, seconded by Mayor Taylor. The motion passed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
PLANNING
COMMISSION
SUMMARY
PC Minutes
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Council
Agenda)
*
*
*
The summary of action taken at the May 4th meet-
ing of the Planning Commission was noted.
*
*
*
The full minutes of the Planning Commission meet-
ing of April 20 were noted.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated it had been discussed
with the City Clerk that she be allowed to set
dates for rezoning application hearings without it
being included on the Council's agenda for such
action.
Councilman Miller said he wished to see the material such as the
staff report and minutes before time for the public hearing so
that he might be advised of the content of the application.
Mayor Taylor suggested that this be placed on the agenda for reso-
lution at a later date.
*
*
*
(Lawsuit) The City Attorney advised that a pending lawsuit
involving Pacific Mechanical Corporation for extra
work involved in the construction of the secondary
sedimentation tank at the sewer plant had been resolved as the
City has received notification of a judgment in favor of the City.
(Authorize
Use of Seal)
CM-24-112
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that a letter had been re-
ceived from the Livermore Valley School of Voca-
tional Nursing which will have its first graduation
May 10, 1971
in June. The graduates will be presented with (Use of Seal)
a commemorative pin, and the students have ex-
pressed a desire to adopt the Livermore City
seal as the design of the pin. They have requested authority
to use the seal.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to authorize the use of the seal by this group, and it was
approved unanimously.
* * *
The City Manager stated that the groups using
the structure on the Civic Center site have ex-
pended all of their available funds on the im-
provement of the structure, but they must have
sanitary facilities provided.
Sewer Line Extension
(Civic Center Barn
Renovation)
It has been proposed that the present sewer line be extended to
the edge of the property. This extension will be necessitated
at some time in the future for development of the area, and will
cost approximately $1200 to $1300.
Councilman Silva felt this should be included on next week's
agenda as a formal request, and he requested that the report
include who would normally be required to pay for this exten-
sion if development did proceed.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller wished to have it verified
that Mr. Struthers had met the conditions re-
quiring him to plant 2-inch caliber trees at
his offices within the time limit imposed.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Street Trees)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that LARPD has discussed (LARPD Master Plan)
their Master Plan and since it is related to our
General Plan, he felt the staff should review it
and comment to the Planning Commission and the Council. In parti-
cular, he felt such things as park standards should be reviewed.
Mr. Musso said he had checked and it had not been typed as yet,
but would be included on the Commission agenda as soon as possible.
Councilman Miller made a motion to refer LARPD's Master Plan to
the Planning Commission as soon as it is received from the Re-
creation District; motion was seconded by Councilman Silva, and
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that approximately (Police Reserve)
1100 hours in the past quarter had been contri-
buted to the City by our Police Reserves without
pay. He felt their effort on their part should be recognized by
the City and a letter of commendation should be sent to these
officers. Councilman Miller made a motion to this effect, se-
conded by Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor read a letter from the Mayor of
Walnut Creek expressing appreciation for the
help and services given by Mr. Lewis, the City
Attorney, and the City of Livermore in their
case regarding the parkland dedication ordinance.
(Parkland
Dedication)
Mr. Lewis advised that it is possible that the case will be
appealed to the Supreme Court, however not probable.
CM-24-113
May 10, 1971
(AB 1301)
Mayor Taylor stated that AB 1301 will be heard by
the Committee on Zoning and Land Use Planning.
This bill provides that county and city govern-
ments can approve subdivisions only if they meet certain conditions.
One of the findings is that the subdivision is not in the public
interest or would cause environmental damage.
After discussion, the Council agreed to put this item on the agenda
for further consideration. The general feeling of the Council is
that this bill should be supported by the City.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of May 17, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 17, 1971,
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
ABSENT:
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva
*
*
*
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the minutes of the meeting of May 11,
1971, were approved unanimously as amended.
*
*
*
Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, stated that from her
contact with low income people in Livermore she
felt they would rather withdraw from SACEOA and
start their own Community Action Program. She
stated she had discussed this matter with Assemblyman Brown and
the head of the State OEO, who had stated that if a separate pro-
gram is initiated he would send a representative from the State
to help in organization. Mrs. Parra requested that the Council
consider withdrawing from SACEOA and establishment of a local
program.
OPEN FORUM
(SACEOA)
(Complaint re
Police Dept)
Mrs. Parra cited an instance on September 24, 1970,
stating she and her family had experienced police
brutality. Further, she said she was requesting
an electric fence around her property as there had
instances of theft from her automobiles and she felt
not have police protection either.
been several
that she did
CM-24-114
May 17, 1971
Mayor Taylor stated that the matter regarding
the police action would be investigated. He
also referred to participation in SACEOA and
stated he did not know the particular proce-
dure for withdrawing from the program, but suggested that Mrs.
Parra circulate a petition or list of people interested in form- d
ing a separate program.nnn thnnr 1'1hn h'1"(! '1 nn~pl 'Ii nt ne;ni nnt.,. ~-r.!>',
8..8r.r->:nA_; then this matter could be investigated further. After O<fil,'.:.It;
further discussion Mayor Taylor asked that a report on the mechan-
ics of withdrawing be submitted by the City Attorney.
(Complaint re
Police Dept.)
Mayor Taylor said a report would be requested from the Police De-
partment in regard to her charges and they would be discussed by
the Council.
The City Attorney advised that there is nothing to prohibit an
electric fence so long as it is constructed in conformance with
the zoning laws. It cannot be constructed in such a manner so
that it becomes a public nuisance to a passerby or neighbor who
might come into contact with it without intending to cause damage
or harm to the property.
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
*
*
*
Thomas Condran, news director at KYTE Stero,
suggested that the Council meetings start
earlier in the evening, and he wished to put
this issue before the Council that the meeting
begin one-half to one hour earlier.
(Council Meeting
Time)
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding Zoning Ordinance
Amendments proposed for Section 5.00, Residen-
tial District, relating to Accessory Uses, Min-
imum Average Lot Width, Minimum Yards, Maximum
Developable Floor Area, Floor Area, Computation
re Density; and Section 20.00 General Provisions,
was continued from the meeting of May 3 for fur-
ther discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT S EC. 5. 00
and 20.00
Mr. Musso, Planning Director, indicated the major issue is whether
or not the floor area ratio in the RS District zone should be in-
creased. It also involves regulations regarding accessory build-
ings and structures; certain terms have been defined also. The
Planning Commission considered several alternatives as to the
allowance and computation of floor area ratio (ratio of floor area
to lot area). One point considered was to give credit for a de-
tached garage in order to encourage detached garages. The amend-
ment would allow 25% first development, with 10% additional or a
total of 35% ultimate development.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, said he objected to Item 5.43 (b),
which states 25% floor area. He requested this be changed to
25% coverage.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to close the public hearing, and approved unanimously.
Mayor Taylor asked about the provision in 5.42 C, requiring that
one sideyard be graded and maintained in a manner that will not
preclude vehicular access to the rear yard. After discussion
Mayor Taylor felt that the word "permanent" should be inserted
before vehicular as trees, etc. should be permitted but not per-
manent structures. It was decided not to change the wording.
CM-24-ll5
May 17, 1971
Councilman Silva referred to Item 5.32 - Average
Width; he questioned why long narrow lots should
be prohibited. It was pointed out that a problem
such as the one on Buena Vista might arise and
variances would be requested for construction and
subdivision of the very long narrow lots. Councilman Silva felt
this would prevent a property owner from buying an adjoining lot
for addition to his property and adding to his open space, as he
had done at his residence recently. Mayor Taylor felt this pro-
vision would affect new subdivisions 90% of the time, and any un-
usual cases could be taken care of through variance.
(Public
Hearing-ZO
Amendment)
Councilman Beebe asked for clarification of Item 5.43 - Maximum
Developable Floor Area. Councilman Silva pointed out that several
years before the Planning Commission was divided as to whether the
provision should be for 30% of site coverage or 25% floor area.
The Council at that time accepted the 25% floor area coverage, how-
ever he felt the main consideration should be in regard to side
yards, front yards and rear yards; the percentage of coverage is
immaterial as long as these setbacks are maintained. Councilman
Silva cited the reasons he felt the 30% site coverage should be
adopted; but in this connection he would increase the rear yard
setbacks and make the front and rear yard setbacks flexible.
Councilman Miller said the result of changing the 25% floor area
coverage would be to have two-story houses on smaller lots than
one-story houses with the same floor area; in effect, it would en-
courage the building of two-story houses. He stated one of the
arguments for having relatively small backyard setbacks was to
allow developers flexibility in placing their houses. He felt
open space could be maintained only by keeping the 25% floor area
provisions. The present RS District zoning ordinance was adopted
due to public pressure and testimony. The whole idea was to create
usable open space according to the size of the house.
Councilman Silva said the 25% floor area limit did not affect RS-3
District zoning as it does Rs-4. Twenty-five percent coverage on
a 7,000 sq. ft. lot is a small home with 1450 sq. ft. of living
space.
Councilman Miller said the argument that small lots were necessary
to have lower priced homes has not been the case; in fact, expen-
sive houses have been built on the smaller lots. The only way to
have a cheaper single family house is to decrease the square foot-
age. The size of the house and property available should be pro-
portioned.
Councilman Silva said that the more moderately priced homes are
built in the RL zones which allow more footage. Councilman Miller
said that Kaufman & Broad homes are under RS zoning.
Mayor Taylor felt a change to 30% site coverage was too large a
change, but some credit should be given for the second story. He
proposed that at least half the second story be credited in Rs-4;
otherwise it was too much of a penalty for two-story homes.
Councilman Pritchard said he was not prepared to make a decision,
but felt Mayor Taylor's proposal sounded reasonable. He felt
Councilman Silva's proposal regarding flexible yards might be
sensible, too.
Councilman Miller said he had computed many existing plans in
this regard and felt that the floor area limit was better than
site coverage as it did not discriminate but also did not favor
two-story houses.
Councilman Silva illustrated his proposal on the blackboard.
CM-24-1l6
Mayor Taylor requested that the Planning Direc-
tor furnish the new Councilmen with background
material on the previous decisions and adoption
of the RS ordinance.
May 17, 1971
(Public Hearing-
ZO Amendment)
Councilman Miller made a motion to reopen the public hearing and
to continue it until June 21;-the motion was seconded by Council-
man Pritchard and approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Manager reported that the Department
of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Ser-
vice wished to renew their annual lease for
occupancy of aircraft parking space at our air-
port for the 1971 fiscal year, and recommended that
authorizing the execution of the lease be adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 52-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Department of Justice, Immigra-
tion and Naturalization Service)
*
*
*
A communication was received from Senator Alan
Cranston re federal revenue sharing and removed
from the Consent Calendar for later discussion.
*
*
*
A letter of appreciation to our Landscape Design-
er from Mr. Edwin Rundstrom, Superintendent of
the Livermore School District was received, ad-
vising that the landscaping plans for Granada
High School have been approved by the School
District Trustees.
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Report re Lease
(Border Patrol)
a resolution
COMMUNICATIONS
(Revenue Sharing)
(Landscaping
Planning Services)
Departmental
Reports
Airport - activity and financial - April
Building Inspection - April
Fire Department - April
Fire Service Analysis Program - January through March
Golf Course - April
Municipal Court - March
Police and Pound Departments - April
Water Reclamation Plant - April
*
*
*
Exempt business license applications were ap-
proved for the following:
Livermore National Little League - various fund
raising activities during the 1971 season
Exempt Business
Licenses
Society of American Indians - fund raising activities and
food and clothing collection
CM-24-117
May 17, 1971
(Exempt
Licenses)
Livermore Independent Soccer Club - various fund
raising activities during the season
Latin Organization for Betterment - fund raising
and solicitation to assist needy family
*
*
*
Payroll and
Claims
One hundred forty-eight claims in the amount of
$83,969.40 and two hundred sixty-three payroll
warrants in the amount of $81,291.31, dated May
13, 1971 were ordered paid as approved by the
Director. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on
10651 for his usual reason.
Finance
Warrant
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the items on
the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
APPEAL RE
ZONING USE
PERMIT FOR
HOME OCCUPATION
(Robt. Taylor)
An appeal has been submitted by Robert Taylor,
4350 Cornell Way, regarding the denial by the
Planning Director of a zoning use permit to operate
a paint contracting business as a home occupation.
The Planning Director stated that before approval
of a home occupation notices are sent to residents
and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. In
this case an unusual number of complaints were received and the
request had been denied as he did not feel it qualified as a home
occupation.
Robert Taylor, the applicant, advised that he had obtained storage
for his equipment in a building outside the City and all he was re-
questing was the use of a telephone and to do book work in his home;
the other items of complaint had been taken care of.
Mr. Musso explained that if a legal place of business can be es-
tablished other than the home, a home occupation permit is not re-
quired. As far as the parking of a commercial vehicle, or truck,
on the street or premises, he is able to do so as long as he has
another place of business. If there is a permit issued for a home
occupation, then certain rights are precluded such as parking of
employees' cars and storage of trucks on the premises.
Councilman Silva made a motion to table this matter, but there was
no second.
Mr. Taylor said that he had obtained the storage shed for his equip-
ment, but wished to establish his home as his legal place of business.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to grant the Zoning Use Permit
for this home occupation at 4350 Cornell Way, conditioned upon
items 1 through 5 in the letter of denial from the Director of
Planning, for a period of one year. Motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva.
Councilman Miller questioned what procedure could be followed if
the conditions of this permit are violated. Mr. Musso said this
would require the filing of a complaint and then the Planning Com-
mission would hold a hearing and investigation as to whether the
permit should be revoked. The City Attorney said this would re-
quire the presence of the complaining persons so the complaint
would not be based on hearsay.
The motion to approve the permit was approved unanimously.
CM-24-118
May 17, 1971
Councilman Miller suggested that the staff send
a letter to the residents who had complained, in-
forming them of the conditions of the permit.
(Home Occupation-
Robt. Taylor)
*
*
*
An appeal has been submitted by Holiday Inn re-
garding denial of a request for variance for
allowance of sign not in conformance with the
ordinance in respect to size, height, and text,
and application for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a freestanding sign on a site located west
of Las Flores, north of Interstate 580.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORTS (CUP and
Variance Appeal re
Sign, Holiday Inn)
The Planning Director explained that the ordinance restricts the
sign to 64 sq. ft. and the applicant desires to construct a larger
sign. The County adopted a fairly restrictive sign ordinance which
is now in effect regarding scenic highway located signs. The City's
ordinance is not as strict as the County's; for instance, the County
does not allow freestanding signs in proximity to the freeway, not
over 50 sq. ft. in area and 100 sq. ft. in aggregate. It is the
attitude of the Planning Commission at this time that the ordinance
not be amended. Commissioner Nelson will be reporting to the Com-
mission in this regard at the forthcoming meeting. The Commission
has recommended in this case that the ordinance not be amended
and the variance not be permitted. The applicant has a CUP for a
sign, but the size is the issue in this instance.
Mayor Taylor said he recalled that when this was before the Coun-
cil previously, the Council discussed the possibility of a variance
and then directed the Planning staff to restudy the ordinance in
regard to highway oriented signs.
The Commission had reconsidered the ordinance but did not wish
to consider a change that would permit this particular sign;
they did wish to continue the matter to consider Commissioner
Nelson's proposal that the sign area be increased as distance
from the freeway increases.
Mayor Taylor said he personally believed that granting of a variance
on grounds of economic hardship could not be Bone; however he sug-
gested that this be continued until the Planning Commission has
finished its study. It might be that the members of the Council
should initiate and recommend some changes in the ordinance to be
submitted to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding possible change would be before the Council at the next
meeting and then the Council could proceed.
Councilman Pritchard asked if this would require a public hearing,
and the City Attorney advised it would. Councilman Pritchard con-
tinued that people identify with the Holiday Inn sign as it can
be seen allover the country. He, personally, had seen these signs
up to 2500 sq. ft. They are usually large enough to be able to
see the sign in time to turn off a freeway and stated his feeling
that the Holiday Inn should have a sign large enough to be seen.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to grant the variance to allow a sign 216 sq. ft. in area.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that to grant this variance certain find-
ings must be made such as: 1) the ordinance deprives the appli-
cant of privileges enjoyed by other properties; 2) granting of
the variance does not constitute the granting of special privilege;
3) not be detrimental to adjoining property. This means that the
findings must be legally substantiated, and the variance would be,
in effect, changing the ordinance. In his opinion, this would
CM-24-119
May 17, 1971
(Sign Variance
Holiday Inn)
chan~e the mlnlmum on signs under the ordinance,
and this was perhaps too drastic a change in size
allowed. The ordinance should be changed in a
systematic way rather than by granting this variance.
The City Attorney advised that granting of this variance would not
change the ordinance by definition, but it would vary from the
strict terms of the ordinance. If a variance is granted in one
situation and a comparable situation arises, this would be a con-
sideration in a similar application. This would apply to any
business which depends on attracting the public, or which might
use identifiable signs or logos, and not just to a three-story
motel like Holiday Inn.
Councilman Beebe said he had had many comments about the size of
the sign from people who felt a larger sign should be allowed.
The Commission had been requested to review the ordinance some
months ago but no recommendation had been made.
Councilman Silva asked Keith Fraser, attorney representing the ap-
plicant, if they would be agreeable to a continuance. Mr. Fraser
said they would be willing in hope of getting a better size sign.
He said he had planned to submit this request for variance some
months ago, but had been requested to wait until the review of the
ordinance was completed. He reviewed past action by the Planning
Commission, and said he did not feel that the Commission intended
to make any change.
Mr. Fraser said the purpose of a variance is for an exceptional
situation. He referred to Dublin where variances have been granted
for larger signs in the County. There will not be another industry
the size of Holiday Inn locating in Livermore in the next few years.
Therefore, he felt it would be justified to grant the variance.
It seemed logical to him that a "sign transfer" could be worked
out for the unused signing on the building just as a density trans-
fer is worked out. He did not feel a gas station compared to
Holiday Inn due to size of building, etc.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that, in fact, a sign transfer
had been made from unused signing on the building to arrive at the
size of the present freestanding sign. Councilman Miller stated
that the ordinance does provide for this but places an upper limit
on the allowable sign to prevent large, oversized signing in the
City.
Councilman Silva suggested that the Planning Commission be urged
to make a recommendation regarding the sign ordinance within thirty
days, then it could be determined if a variance might be granted in
accordance with proposed ordinance changes.
Mr. Fraser stated he felt it was fairly clear that the Planning
Commission did not intend to make an ordinance change in regard
to this issue.
Councilman Silva pointed out that if the Planning Commission takes
action and makes a recommendation, either for a change or denying
a change, the matter would then come before the Council which may
then initiate some action on its own.
Silia Baker, 541 Bell Avenue, noted that she had observed Holiday
Inns at other locations without highway signs. She said that at
the Planning Commission meeting reference had been made to beauti-
fication of highways.
Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, felt a change in the ordinance might
be instrumental in bringing other large businesses to Livermore.
She felt the sign should be allowed as the motel is built and em-
ploys a number of people and pays taxes to support the City.
CM-24-120
May 17, 1971
Robert Freis, 3041 Kennedy Street, referred to
signing in Fresno and felt this should not be
allowed.
(Sign Variance -
Ho liday Inn)
Lee Canterbury, 3181 East Avenue, felt the Holiday Inn sign is
attractive and would not detract from the City. She felt the
Council was being bogged down by the Planning Commission.
Milt Codiroli, president of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that
the decision on Holiday Inn should be made separately from a de-
cision on any gas station or other application, without worrying
about setting precedent.
Donald Rocco, 1130 Batavia Avenue, agreed with Mr. Codiroli and
added that he felt it was unfair for a business to be bound by
a method which would decrease their income. He urged the Council
to make a decision now.
Mayor Taylor stated that setting a precedent was a legal matter
and could not be just stated, but must be determined by legal
means.
Councilman Miller said the real issue is what the City looks like
to the rest of the world. An industrial prospect was lost a num-
ber of years ago because of the appearance of the City. When the
ordinance was considered and drawn up, testimony of professional
developers and builders indicated that sign control is important
and appearance is a factor.
Councilman Silva felt the ordinance should be changed rather than
taking the Council's time to hear all the variances, however he
was not sure that a 216 sq. ft. sign should be allowed.
The motion to approve the application for variance failed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva made a motion to continue the matter for thirty
days, at which time, hopefully, a recommendation re highway oriented
signs will be made by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS RESUMED
WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
RECESS
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that Jupiter Con-
struction Company had requested a minor amend-
ment to the PUD and approval of the Tentative
Map for Tract 3324. The change in the PUD is
to change the number of dwelling units shown
on the present tentative map from 364 to 342; the Planning Com-
mission felt that the last action of the Commission and Council
was proper and the change should not be allowed. The present
map is in conformance with the map submitted with the original
PUD, with respect to streets, etc., but with the additional lots.
In regard to the park fees, it is felt the fees should be accepted
in lieu of land.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3324
(Jupiter Constr.)
In regard to the approved number of dwelling units, Mr. Musso
explained that the original permit was approved in 1969 with a
list of conditions and an approved map which was the former sub-
division map. The subdivision map and permit both listed 364
allowable dwelling units. In February, 1970, the permit was
CM-24-121
May 17, 1971
(Tract 3324 amended to 342 dwelling units but the number was
Jupiter Constr.)not changed on the map. This change in 1970 was
to go from the apartments to the Ivanhoe Villa
units. The developer asked for the reduction due
to the change in type of construction for this particular tract.
At the time no density transfer was approved within the PUD; this
matter was not resolved as some thought the units would be removed
and some thought they would be transferred.
Councilman Miller stated that at the time one of the arguments for
approval of the Ivanhoe Villas was the reduction in density.
Councilman Silva asked the City Attorney which had precedent: the
PUD with the higher number of units or the number indicated on the
map and Mr. Lewis replied that he thought the PUD would govern.
Mayor Taylor stated that it seemed that the previous Council had
failed to resolve this matter and the present Council would have
to do so.
Councilman Silva stated he felt the previous Council made a mistake;
the PUD permit should have been amended; he must accept the City
Attorney's opinion.
Mr. Lewis explained his reason for indicating the PUD would govern.
The PUD is in the nature of zoning and provides a classification
of land in essentially the number of units which can be built.
The subdivision agreement incorporates a tentative map to show
street layout and type of construction, etc. On the tentative the
number shown differs from that in the PUD. A different tentative
map would still be governed by the zoning on the land even if it
is through a PUD.
Mr. Musso read from the PUD which stated that the number of allow-
able dwelling units shall not exceed 364.
Councilman Miller said the change had been requested by the devel-
oper for the Ivanhoe Villas and made a motion to adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation, subject to the conditions that the
number of units be 236 in this tract and further subject to park
fees in lieu of land, conformance to Exhibit "B" and recommendations
of Planning, Engineering and Fire Department; the motion was se-
conded by Mayor Taylor.
Mr. Masud Mehran addressed the Council and advised he would be
happy to state facts indicating why there is confusion in the num-
ber of dwelling units. On June 9, 1969, Sunset Homes' application
for PUD No. 22 was approved authorizing 364 units, including 132
multiple units; on December 16, 1969, said PUD was amended deleting
multiple residences and allowing attached dwellings. This was to
be built in two separate phases - one, which called for 106 lots
has already been completed, leaving the balance of 258 units in
phase two. A staff report dated February 23, 1971 on Tract 3288
states the total allowable dwellings is 364 units; it also deter-
mined that the parksite should be 2.58 acres based on calculation
of one acre of additional land for each 100 dwelling units. There-
fore, there is unquestionable justification for 258 units as phase
two in PUD No. 22. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission has for
some reason ordered a reduction in the number of units, cutting
off 22, and allowing only 236 instead of the authorized 258. They
achieved this reduction by a whittling process, slicing off 10
units in February and further cutting off 12 units on May 4, and
in neither case was there rational reason given, leading one to
believe that their actions were arbitrary and whimsical. Mr. Mehran
stated further the units are not the matter in question; they are
discussing the matter of faith; the community has the right to ex-
pect the elected leaders will keep faith; the citizens are entitled
to believe that once a decision is made, it will be adhered to.
Mr. Mehran presented the Council with two maps to help clarify
CM-23-122
May 17, 1971
some of the confusion, explaining that at all
times there were 364 units indicated; the units
were not actually counted, but the PUD document
indicated 364. In recent months he has presented plans for tandem
houses in different locations, but learned that this is not what
the City wants him to build irrespective of how good they are and
how people want to buy them. They have come back to a design
which has been pointed out by the Planning Director to be identical
with that originally presented on the balance of the PUD; he could
not understand how the number of units allowed them for this parcel
of land could be reduced. In conclusion, Mr. Mehran stated that
any number the Council would select, even less than 236, he would
accept, and let their conscience be their guide.
(Tract 3324 -
Jupiter Constr.)
Mr. Musso indicated that on one of the maps before the Council,
there were not 364 units -- the number change did occur; however
Mr. Mehran stressed that the PUD document which he felt was a
contract did indicate 364 units. Mr. Musso stated that in the
amendment to the PUD on February 1970 there was a specific action
reducing the number of units which is in the minutes at that time;
it was not reduced this week as Mr. Mehran had stated.
Councilman Silva felt that he must abide by the City Attorney's
opinion, and made an amendment to the motion that the total number
of dwelling units in the subject tract be 258, which goes along
with the PUD. This would increase the total to 364; this motion
for amendment was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller stated that this would change the whole motion
as the purpose of the motion was to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation, that the total number be 342. If this amendment
is in order, Councilman Miller felt he could not vote for his own
motion.
Mayor Taylor felt that the amendment to the motion was in order
inasmuch as there were many items in the recommendation, and
ruled that the motion to amend was in order, and the amendment
passed by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Before the vote was taken on the main motion, Park Sims, 1087
Innsbruck Way, stated that the residents of the homeowners asso-
ciation have appeared to discuss the applicant's proposal and
were opposed previously as they felt they were poorly planned.
Tonight they would like to go on record as saying they are not
opposed to this plan, and would like the Council to approve the
Planning Commission's recommendation. They also felt that perhaps
in the future the Council should study a PUD more carefully.
Councilman Miller questioned Mr. Mehran with regard to the ex-
tensive grading of the hills, stating he would like to see the
rolling hills remain, and Mr. Mehran replied it was not his
intent to do any unnecessary grading; also, they are controlled
by the grading standards of the City and the Federal Housing Ad-
ministration and all plans must be approved by them; in addition,
the new ordinance indicates there should be ten feet on one side
of the house for vehicular access.
Councilman Miller also mentioned that there were various lots on
Concannon Blvd. and Arroyo Rd. which are fairly shallow and
pointed out that the RS ordinance requires an extra setback for
people who live close to major streets. The extra setback applies
to the houses above the ordinary rear yard setback and there will
have to be some special house design on the shallow lots. He felt
the records should indicate this problem of the setbacks had been
called to Mr. Mehran's attention. Mr. Mehran replied it was not
his intention to ask for a variance.
CM-24-l23
May 17, 1971
(Tract 3324
Jupiter
Construction)
AYES:
NOES:
A vote was then taken on the main motion to approve
the Planning Commission's recommendation, as amend-
ed, allowing 364 total dwelling units in the PUD
instead of 342; specifically in this subject tract,
258 units, and passed by the following called vote:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Mr. Mehran asked that the time limit be set for 18 months, which
is customary, on the map which had just been approved.
Mr. Musso indicated that the State Law does require 18 months,
however the PUD expires within a year, so there will be an overlap,
and Councilman Miller questioned if the PUD has the wording that
if the permit expires, the Tract Map expires and asked what the
underlying zoning was, and Mr. Musso stated it was PD zoning.
This point was discussed, and Mr. Mehran stated he was asking for
extension of the PUD to match the expiration date of the map.
Mr. Lewis stated there were minor amendment provisions in the PUD
where the Planning Commission can make minor change, and this would
not be considered major. Mr. Lewis stated further it has been the
policy of the Council in the past few years to take such action as
is necessary to make the actions come out concurrently, and in view
of that policy, he felt the Planning Commission would take whatever
steps were necessary.
Mayor Taylor stated this would be left on that basis and he asked
that Mr. Mehran submit a written request to the Planning Commission
for the extension of the PUD to coincide with the expiration date
of the tract map.
REZONING
AND PUD
APPLICATION
(Ensign
Bickford Co.)
*
*
*
An application has been submitted by Ensign Bickford
Company (Associated Professions, Inc.) for rezoning
from RS-3 and Rs-4 Districts to PD District and an
application for PUD, property located on the north
and south sides of Portola Avenue at its intersec-
tion with First street. This property is in the
Portola Avenue Annex recently annexed to the City.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to set the application for public hearing on June 14, and
passed 4 to 1 with Councilman Miller abstaining due to conflict of
interest.
REPORT RE
PROPOSED
ANNEXATION
NE CORNER
VASCO RD &
EAST AVE.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Commission
and the Local Agency Formation Commission re pro-
posed annexation of property located at the north-
east corner of Vasco Road and East Avenue, known
as "East Avenue Annex No. 10", approximately 61 acres.
The staff recommendation is for the adoption of a
resolution initiating proceedings for annexation
and setting the date for public hearing on the proposed annexation.
A motion was made by Councilmah Miller, seconded by Councilman
Silva, and approved unanimously, to adopt the resolution initiating
the proceedings and setting the date for hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 55-71
A RESOLUTION GIVING NOTICE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE'S INITIATION
ON CITY'S MOTION OF ANNEXATION UNDER THE UNINHABITED ANNEXATION
ACT OF APPROXIMATELY 61 ACRES OF LAND, REFERRED TO HEREINAFTER
AS THE "EAST AVENUE ANNEX NO. 10", TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
CM-24-124
*
*
*
May 17, 1971
The City Council referral re possible revised
regulations concerning clocks, thermometers,
etc. was postponed from the meeting of May 10
at the request of Councilman Miller. The Plan-
ning Commission had recommended that no action
be taken at this time as it would not come up very
REFERRAL RE
REGULATIONS (Clocks,
Thermometers, Etc.)
often.
Councilman Miller proposed that the wording in the sign ordinance
be changed to read that "any clock, thermometer or similar device
which is not freestanding, nor exceernsix square feet, shall not
be deemed to be a sign". In other words, it would have to be on
a building and not bigger than 6 sq. ft~ otherwise it would be
a sign and covered by sign regulations. He felt this would give
us some regulations.
Councilman Silva stated his argument last week was that the Plan-
ning Commission's recommendation was acceptable as they stated
there would not be many, and it would be before Design Review
Committee, and did not feel this should be added to the sign
ordinance.
Councilman Beebe questioned what happened in the instance of the
existing clock and thermometer since there was no design review
and felt the ordinance would require this.
Mr. Musso explained based on the ordinance it was not a sign and
no permit was issued for it as a sign, but a building permit was
issued for a structure; and should have gone pefore the Design
Review Committee, but did not; it was an error on the part of the
staff.
It was the consensus of the Council that such structures would
be subject to review by the Design Review Committee.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that sanitary
sewer service could be obtained for the building
on the Civic Center site by extension of the
line southerly on Dolores Street and easterly
on Pacific Avenue. He explained two alternates
for this extension and recommended the one he felt would be best
(Alternate "B"); later that line would be necessary to provide
sewer service to all the buildings constructed along Pacific Ave.
REPORT RE SEWER
LINE EXTENSION -
(Civic Center Site)
Councilman Silva stated when the Council approved the use of the
structure by the Cultural Arts Council, it was done with the under-
standing they would not spend any money on the remodeling of this
structure, and he felt they would be expending $320 for the sewer
extension. Councilman Silva then proposed that the Cultural Arts
Council absorb the $320 cost, and if at a future time the line is
not abandoned, the City would reimburse them the sum of $320. He
would approve Alternate B, less the $320; this motion was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector re hillside public works standards.
HILLSIDE PUBLIC
WORKS STANDARDS
Councilman Silva made a motion that this matter
be referred to the Planning Commission for their review; this
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously.
Mayor Taylor brought up the fact that with a new hillside annexa-
tion, it was urgent that an ordinance be adopted in this regard.
*
*
*
CM-24-125
May 17, 1971
A report was submitted by the City Manager regard-
ing a Management Institute Training Program. Our
City had participated in a joint study session
with the Alameda County administrative staff and
other cities for the purpose of appraising the need
and participating intent of County and City govern-
ments in formalizing in-service training programs
for prospective management and mid-management level personnel.
Mr. Kennedy, Finance,Director, explained that only at the time the
City participates in the program would a request come before the
Council for an allocation of funds. A contract has been prepared
between the County, the City of San Leandro, City of Fremont and
the State Personnel Board for participation in the program, and
the staff recommendation is for approval by resolution for execu-
tion of the agreement.
REPORT RE
MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE
TRAINING
PROGRAM
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote the following resolution was adopted.
REPORT RE
POPULATION
ESTIMATE
RESOLUTION NO. 53-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT
(Joint Powers Agreement on Management Institute)
*
*
*
Each year an agreement is made with the Department
of Finance for a population estimate which affects
all funds allocated to our City on the basis of
population. The staff recommends that a resolution
be adopted authorizing the execution of the agreement.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, and
by unanimous approval, the following resolution was adopted.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
SOLICITOR
REGULATIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 54-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Department of Finance of the State of California)
*
*
*
An ordinance draft has been prepared amending the
Municipal Code to require a provision for removing
solicitor regulations from the business license to
a separate place in the Code.
The City Attorney explained there are two things
that are slightly different than the previous solicitor's ordinance;
first, it would increase the amount of the bond from $1,000 to
$5,000; second, there is a provision which would require persons
who solicit to be identified and to post a bond.
The Council discussed the proposed ordinance which also provides
for collection of a fee to offset the work necessary by the Police
Department to issue a permit as this is not a business license,
but aside from a business license. Mr. Lewis explained this would
not preclude charitable organizations.
Councilman Miller commented that there should be a higher fee to
discourage as much as possible solicitation, however Mayor Taylor
pointed out that the fee is not designed to regulate people, but
to cover the City's cost. Councilman Miller also asked how an
aggrieved citizen would collect from a bond without going to court
which was an expensive procedure, and Mr. Lewis stated the best
procedure would be to go through the small claims court in which
case the cost is minimal.
CM-24-126
May 17, 1971
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, to introduce and file
the ordinance and waive the first reading (title
read only) for the addition of a new section,
Sec. 14.24, to require that canvassors and solicitors carry
tificate of identification and post a bond.
(Proposed Ordinance-
Solicitors)
a cer-
Aubrey Greer, a local businessman, asked if this would mean that
a person could come in and obtain a permit without obtaining a
business license, and asked how they could control solicitors
who come into the town and do not have a local business.
Mr. Lewis explained that this ordinance was one of the most success-
ful ways of controlling solicitors because when a solicitor comes
into town, it is only a matter of a few hours before the Police
Department receives a telephone call questioning solicitors and
expressing concern about the identity of the person.
A vote was taken on the motion for introduction of the ordinance
and it passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The first reading of the proposed amendment of
the Livermore City Code relating to business
license taxes was held on May 3. Councilman
Beebe stated that when he had made the motion
to approve the proposed schedule of fees he had included contractors
in Schedule B. He now felt that since contractors may deduct amounts
paid their subcontractors they should be in Schedule A. Council-
man Beebe made a motion to make this change, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
RE BUSINESS LICENSE
FEES
Milt Codiroli of the Chamber of Commerce said the difference in
fees would be approximately $250 if the categories are changes
and felt it was an insignificant dollar amount of revenue to the
City. All contractors have many requirements such as planning
to meet the City's requirements and land dedication. He did not
feel the fees should be changed again as the schedule accepted
two weeks ago had been accepted by the business community.
Councilman Pritchard explained that the Council was trying to
achieve equity and parity.
Mr. Codiroli stated this is one business where the added expense
can be passed on to the buyer, and again, the revenue was not
enough to have too large an effect on the City one way or the
other and he urged the Council to leave the fees as previously
set and not to make additional changes.
Councilman Beebe said that the Council had accepted the philosophy
of the Chamber in general regarding high volume businesses, and
he felt the contractors were just in the wrong category.
Councilman Silva said he viewed this not from the standpoint of
the cost to the homebuilder but the home buyer who would have to
pay it. The Council discussed what the increased charge would
be per home and at the close of discussion the motion to change
the contractors from Schedule B to Schedule A was approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Mr. Codiroli reported that the Chamber was working on the school
bond issue which takes money, and that the contractors were the
ones who usually came through with financial help when needed.
He felt this was a slap in the face to the contractors. Some
$7,000 was needed to put this bond issue across and most of the
CM-24-127
May 17, 1971
(Business
License Fee
Ordinance)
money would come from the high income people. He
was embarrassed to face these people now.
Dr.' Rocco, who has offices in Livermore, agreed
with Mr. Codiroli and felt this was not fair to
the businessmen of Livermore.
Councilman Beebe said that he had studied the matter since the
issue was voted on two weeks ago and felt that contractors did
not fall in the same category of high volume businesses such as
car dealers, grocery stores, and chain stores; he felt the honest
approach was to put this classification, contractors, into the
right category.
Dr. Rocco stated he felt that the Council should not make a deci-
sion before they were sure of their action, even if there is a
deadline; they had the power to change the deadline and time was
wasted by continual changing of the Council's actions.
Robert Freis, 3041 Kennedy, felt the Council had acted in the pro-
per spirit by trying to make the fees equitable.
Councilman Silva said a question regarding professional men such
as dentists had been brought to his attention. Some dentists sub-
contract some of the work such as dentures; would this be deducted
from their gross receipts.
The City Attorney advised that he did not believe they were en-
titled to this specific deduction. If a manufacturer makes a pro-
duct in Livermore he pays business license tax; he in turn sells
that to a businessman in Livermore who pays the tax. This is a
factor in most of the classifications in one degree or another.
It was concluded that this was a part of the cost of doing business.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to waive the fir~ reading (title
read only) of the amendment to the City Code relating to business
license fees, and by the following vote the ordinance was intro-
duced and ordered filed:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
ORDINANCE RE
ZONING CHANGE
LINDEN ST.
(Davis)
AYES:
NOES:
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the second reading of the ordi-
nance was waived, and by the following vote the
ordinance rezoning from RL 5-0 to RM District,
property located on the south side of Linden St.,
50 feet easterly of North P Street was passed:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
ORDINANCE NO. 742
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF
THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF,
RELATING TO ZONING.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Revenue
Sharing Report)
CM-24-128
*
*
*
Councilman Silva brought up the matter of his re-
port on revenue sharing which had previously been
continued. It was the decision of the Council to
hear this early in the evening at the next meeting,
and to discuss what action might be taken along
this line.
*
*
*
May 17, 1971
Councilman Miller referred to a comment in the
newspaper from the President of the Apartment
Council of the Greater East Bay, which is a div-
ision of Associated Homebuilders, citing Liver-
more as a typical city which is squeezing out the majority of
citizens through denial of multiple units which would be available
to lower income families. Councilman Miller suggested that the
Planning Director be directed to write a letter to the papers and
the organization pointing out the true situation as he objected
to misrepresentation regarding the City. The article stated that
only 3% of the land in Livermore is zoned for multiple family
use, and Councilman Miller stated that 25% of dwelling units,
built or approved, are in fact apartments.
(Multiple Units
Zoning)
Mr. Lewis suggested that the letter be prepared for the signature
of the Council.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor felt that attention must be given (Zoning Plan)
to adoption of a specific plan for the area north
of the present City Limits and Highway 580 and
between First Street and North Livermore Avenue.
Councilman Beebe said that a policy must be adopted in regard to
dedication of perpetual open space.
Councilman Silva wished to include some planning toward working
out the density transfer plan which he has proposed.
Mayor Taylor stated that he wanted to see a suggested plan from
the staff and the Planning Commission; this would be a starting
point. He said he had talked to one of the owners of a piece of
the property, who had suggested something like a density transfer
within his ownership, but before this could be done general plan-
ning as to streets and adjoining property would need to be made.
After discussion, it was decided that the plan would go through
the Planning Commission and come before the Council as a specific
plan; Councilman Silva will also work with the staff in regard
to a density transfer proposal.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45
a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST
[~~
MaYOr'f} ~
exld QlZeL
~i fy'Clerk
've more, Callfornla
APPROVE
*
*
*
CM-24-l29
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on May 24, 1971,
in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at ~:08 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presi~ing.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva,
Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 17, 1971, were
approved as amended on motion of Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
The Alpha team of the Livermore Atomic Soccer Club
has won the State championship and has been invited
to Seattle, Washington, to participate in the re-
gional contests. The Coach and Manager of the team,
Mike Thompson, reviewed the growth of the Club and
explained how the funds are raised for the teams
and the need for additional funds for travel expenses. The team
will be representing the City and the State, and Mr. Thompson asked
for any financial aid the City would be willing to extend. The cost
would be about $2,000, and the team has already raised approximately
one half of this amount.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Atomic
Soccer Club)
Councilman Pritchard felt the team should be supported as they will
be serving as ambassadors for the City.
Mr. Thompson stated that in two or three years the Club will be
self-supporting, even for additional expenses such as this, but due
to heavy capital outlay at this time because of growth of the sport
they were short of funds.
Councilman Silva felt this was a fine program and suggested appro-
priating funds up to $500 to match any funds raised from this date on.
Mayor Taylor stated he felt that this team served as inspiration to
others; this request was not in support of recreation as such but
to enable this team to represent the area.
The motion to appropriate the funds as stated was seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard.
The City Attorney said that the justification for this appropriation
is that this trip will advertise the City, and this was included as
a part of the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
Councilman Silva made a motion to adopt the following resolution
commending all the teams who have participated in the Club; motion
was seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 56-71
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE LIVERMORE ATOMIC ALPHAS
AND ALL TEAMS COMPETING IN THE VARIOUS SOCCER LEAGUE
COMPETITIONS.
*
*
*
CM-24-130
May 24, 1971
Bob Taylor, 585 So. L street, representing the OPEN FORUM
California Roadside Council, stated that recent- (Scenic Highways)
ly Highways 580 and 680 had been indicated as po-
tential scenic roadways by the Governor's com-
mittee. This is the first in several steps to guarantee parts of
these highways as scenic corridors and he requested that the City
act now, in conjunction with the County, requesting the State to
work with our City to outline the corridors and facilities for
U.S. 580 through Livermore. The State will then work with the
City in regard to zoning to preserve the vistas, historic sites,
etc. along the highway.
Mayor Taylor asked for a report from the staff regarding this
matter, and in particular, the effect on zoning and financial status.
*
*
*
Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, spoke in regard (Signs)
to the sign ordinance and said she supported it,
as did many other residents of Livermore.
*
*
*
Birdie Meyer Bianchi informed the Council that
she had sent for a copy of CAP memo No. 71-A,
dated February 26, 1971 which tells about CAP
eligibility and establishment; when it is re-
ceived she will meet with the City Attorney
regarding this matter.
(SACEOA)
*
*
*
A rezoning application has been submitted by
Lincoln Lumber Co., et al, for rezoning of pro-
perty located on the NE corner of East Avenue
and Hillcrest Ave. from RL-6 District to dis-
tricts provided by the Zoning Ordinance includ-
ing CN, RG Districts.
PUBLIC HEARING re
REZONING FROM RL-6
(Lincoln Lumber Co.)
The Planning Director explained that this application is for a
shopping center which was originally approved about fifteen years
ago. It was first approved by zoning, but since development did
not occur the zoning was withdrawn and a Planned Unit Development
permit issued. Since that time some development has occurred but
there is potential for additional building and storage. Several
extensions have been granted, and at the time the last one was
made it was conditioned upon filing of rezoning applications by
each of the property owners. Applications have been filed, and
the Planning Commission recommends rezoning of the property from
RL-6 in conformance with the approved plan for a neighborhood
shopping center, apartments, gas station and then zoning of old
Hayes Court area to RS-5 to allow cluster development. The Lincoln
interest would like to have its property rezoned from commercial
to multiple, but the Planning Commission did not feel this was
desirable. Parcel 4 was added to the commercial zoning by the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing. Letters of protest were
noted from Floyd Mathes, 4238 East Avenue, Mr. and Mrs. O. L. Van
Arkel, 4218 East Avenue, and Interfaith Housing, Inc. expressed
their concern regarding rezoning of the property on their southern
border so that the area would remain in single family, one-story
development, the same approximate size of the surrounding homes
as they had tried to do in planning their development.
Mr. Richard Callaghan, representing Arthur and Lorraine Belz,
said his clients own that property directly east of the Louis
Stores; they were acceptable to the CN zoning recommended by the
Planning Commission.
CM-24-l3l
May 24, 1971
(Public Hearing
Rezoning re
Lincoln Lumber)
Harry West, 1126 Tulane Court, felt the density in
the area is going up more than is desirable in the
area and suggested breaking up the development
with small parks, especially that property desig-
nated as Lincoln I and Lincoln IV.
Mr. Musso commented that this was considered at one time, but due
to the assessment for public works in the area against the property
the cost was too high.
Jean Dupsyk, 4179 Stanford Way, said he would like to see the shop-
ping center finished and could not see any reason for an increase
in density in the area. A condition of the approval of the shopping
center was that single family homes would be built on the Lincoln
II property but this has not been done. He urged that the staff
report be adopted with the addition of the recommendation that more
access be allowed for commercial development.
Milton Custer, 620 Milton Avenue, concurred with the staff recom-
mendation and was opposed to higher density.
Keith Fraser, representing the applicant, said that in regard to
the property behind the shopping center which they had requested
for RG-16 zoning, he would not argue that point at this time. He
hoped the RS-5 would not be changed as this was a hard parcel to
develop for single family. They would agree with the staff report
regarding the two parcels behind the shopping center.
George Larsen, 761 Hayes Court, requested that the applicant make
known their plans for the two parcels behind the shopping center.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the action before the Council is to
give this property zoning. The zoning would be as permanent as any
action can be; it can be changed only by request before the Council.
Mr. Fraser said his client would like to sell the property; he has
had offers based on multiple zoning, but if it is zoned CN, he will
try to sell it on that basis.
A motion made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to close the public hearing, was approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation for rezonings as indicated in their letter dated
April 28, 1971, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, as follows:
Lincoln I:
Lincoln II:
Lincoln III:
Lincoln IV:
Seligson:
Belz:
Newport:
CN (Neighborhood Commercial) District
RS-5 (Residential) District
CN Neighborhood commerCialj District
CN Neighborhood Commercial District
CN Neighborhood Commercial District
CN Neighborhood Commercial) District
RG-16 (Suburban Multiple Residential)
District
In answer to Councilman Silva's question, Mr. Musso said the pur-
pose of the proposed commercial zoning on Lincoln IV was to provide
access to Lincoln I. Councilman Silva asked Mr. Musso to explain
why he recommended RL-6 be maintained rather than commercial for
Lincoln IV and Mr. Musso replied there are single family homes ad-
jacent. If it is commercial it could provide access to the back
property as well as parking.
The motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation for re-
zoning was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
CM-24-132
May 24, 1971
The public hearing is to consider possible
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of Section
31.00 (Trailer, Trailer Park); Section 21.40
(Off-street Parking - Mobilehome Park); Sec-
tion 21.00 (Special Provisions), possible re-
peal of Section 21.20 as it pertains to Per-
formance Standards and possible addition of
Sections 21.20 through 21.29 as they pertain to regulation of
Mobilehome Parks; and Section 21.50 (Trailer Parks).
PUBLIC HEARING RE
PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Sec. 31.00 & 21.00
Trailer Parks)
Mr. Musso explained that the State Mobilehome Code was used as a
basis for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment; input was re-
ceived from various interested parties such as other cities,
organizations in the mobilehome industry, engineers, etc.
Mayor Taylor inquired about provisions for setting a percent limit
to total development for mobilehomes. Mr. Musso stated the Commis-
sion had studied the possibility of setting a limit and where mobile-
homes could be located, and this was considered separately and not
as a part of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Taylor felt that this
was a separate question to be resolved by resolution and eventually
included in the General Plan.
Mr. Musso said that if certain properties were indicated for mobile-
home development this would affect the price of the property; cri-
teria has been set out in the ordinance.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and invited those present to
comment at this time.
Harry Wilson, representing the Livermore Civic Improvement Associa-
tion, 926 Curlew Road, stated they would like to go on record as being
in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation as they felt
it showed a definite response to the community's desires as well
as good planning. They are opposed to the amendment offered by
the Chamber of Commerce. When questioned if he had read the amend-
ment, Mr. Wilson stated he had not seen the final copy, but knew
the synopsis of it.
Mr. Steve Killiany, 888 Curlew Road, stated the letter from the
Chamber of Commerce was at the library together with the agenda,
and the Chamber recommends deletion of a paragraph of the pro-
posed ordinance whereby mobilehomes should not be dependent upon
school sites, recreational parks and shopping facilities and the
association feels this should be oneof the criteria for establish-
ing the location of the mobilehome site.
Mr. Killiany continued that the school system needs help and felt
the Council was in a position to give it some help; in adopting
the ordinance the mobilehomes should be placed in an area with
available schools and school space. Mr. Killiany quoted a March
1970 issue of Fortune with regard to the number of children in
mobile homes; the article also discussed cost, manufacture, type
of people who live in them, and stated one out of two mobilehome
families are of childbearing age - under 35. Also, in view of
the fact this ordinance will regulate zoning for real property,
and since Councilman Pritchard's livelihood is in the real estate
industry, asked that his comments be limited to his capacity as
a citizen and to abstain from voting as a member of the Council
because his actions cannot be unbiased by virtue of his livelihood.
Councilman Pritchard stated that although he did deal in real estate
property he did not deal in mobilehomes or property for mobilehomes,
but would adhere to the City Attorney's decision.
Mr. Lewis explained that if Councilman Pritchard was handling a
piece of property and there was a request for rezoning or a permit
which would include mobilehomes he would be legally wise to declare
that interest and not vote on the matter. However, there is
CM-24-l33
May 24, 1971
(Public
Hearing re
Mobilehome
Parks)
nothing in the law which requires him to not vote
on a matter in which he has no interest merely be-
cause he may be involved in real estate.
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Lane, stated mobilehomes
have been the subject of many recent discussions
before the Council, and he was sure they were aware of the many
arguments raised by the citizens because of their tax structure.
He felt this ordinance would be a good place to put a restriction
limiting the number of mobilehomes, and urged the Council to con-
sider this as part of the ordinance.
Harold Enos, 484 Colusa Way, asked that the Council locate mobile-
homes in the residential areas and accord them the same rights and
consideration as any other residents; however, keeping in mind the
petition against mobilehomes and the inequitable system by which
they are presently taxed. Mr. Enos quoted a report to the Wisconsin
Dept. of Natural Resources by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
wherein it was pointed out that mobilehomes are dehumanizing, a
major source of urban blight and that they stifle the growth by
undermining the bax base of a city. It is also reported that less
than one of six is moved from its original site until it is junk.
He did feel Livermore could live with a certain number of mobile-
homes and would ask that the Council limit the number of mobile-
homes to 5% or 6% of the total permanent residences.
Thomas Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, as a concerned citizen stated his
feeling that it would be to the best interest of the city to adopt
the ordinance without the amendment suggested by the Chamber and
suggested that a limit of 2~% be entertained for mobilehomes.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, stated it had been mentioned that
people who live in mobilehomes are second class citizens and resent-
ed this as he would be considered a second class citizen in some
people's eyes. As far as the developers being the blame for growth,
he did not feel this was true. As far as inequities are concerned,
it has also been mentioned that people who live in less than $40,000
homes are on a "free ride" as they are not paying their fair share
either.
John Fitzgerald, 746 Grace street, stated his sentiments had been
expressed by many this evening as he is concerned about the number
of mobilehomes being considered by the community. He suggested
that the staff report be adopted as it stands with 2~% limit placed
on the number of mobilehomes.
Everett Martin, 1122 Innsbruck, stated he had studied the staff re-
commendation in detail on this subject and would concur with it,
and was impressed with the fact that the staff has taken into con-
sideration their three point argument to determine where these
mobilehomes should be located rather than specify a mandatory or
desirable area. He felt there should be a percentage set for
limiting mobile homes.
Joseph Lee, 622 Bentley Place, stated it was his understanding
mobilehomes were not taxed in the same way that conventional hous-
ing is and they are neither appraised nor assessed in an equal way
and suggested that the Council adopt an ordinance which would ban
all mobilehomes from the City until such time that the assessments
are equal and evaluations are equal, and felt if this was done by
this and other cities perhaps mobilehome lobby will fight for equal
taxation.
Earl Mason, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated he had
worked on the report submitted by the Chamber, and would like to
clarify some points. The Chamber has not made a stand for or
against the mobilehomes per se; this is an ordinance proposed by
someone other than developers, written to cover the development of
mobilehomes when they are allowed. The Chamber felt it should be
CM-24-134
May 24, 1971
reviewed to make it as workable as possible
both from the City's and developer's stand-
points and that it should be equally fair
for mobilehomes as it is for any residential
growth; the same criteria should be used. First the development
comes and the facilities come later, so he did not feel that this
should be placed as a prerequisite for mobilehomes. The same
thing applies to the last part of the Chamber's letter with re-
ference to the park dedication; in the ordinance it requires that
the developer include 250 square feet for each mobilehome site,
at least 25% of which shall be open turf; and it requires swimming
pools, recreational areas for the use of the people in the park.
In this regard the Chamber says that the developer must provide
two acres of parkland for each 100 mobilehomes in addition to the
250 square feet, which is about six tenths of an acre per hundred
homes. In most developments the City would be pleased if a devel-
oper would put in a swimming pool and recreational building and
be glad to count that land as park dedication. Mr. Mason felt
that the developer should be credited for the recreational area
which he is required to furnish for mobilehome parks.
(Public Hearing re
Mobilehome Parks)
steve Killiany stated it was time that the City required the
development of schools with the development of homes; not after
the development of homes as now occurs.
Mayor Taylor stated that it is part of the general plan that when
a residential area is planned the schools, parks and shopping areas
are also considered. Also, it was his interpretation of the com-
ments made that this is not a special thing applied only to mobile-
home parks; you would not have a subdivision where there is no
school planned.
Mr. Musso explained that this ordinance goes beyond that; one of
the concerns of the Planning Commission is that a normal develop-
ment of a subdivision takes a matter of years from the time of
first zoning, submittal and filing of maps, etc. which gives the
school district time to react to the development and they can
start counting students. In a mobilehome park they cannot be
counted until the children are actually there. It may lag, as
they know there are less children and it may lag for a period of
years before it builds up a demonstrated need and by then it may
be too late to provide school facilities. The time element makes
it different and is one reason it has been treated differently.
Councilman Pritchard advised that the Council is on record as
supporting the Bill Assemblyman Bee is carrying that would cause
school dedication to be made upon filing of tract maps.
Mr. Killiany stated he was aware of this legislation, but was
indicating that they have a chance now with relation to mobile
homes and schools.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Taylor stated this was a complex ordinance and suggested
that the Council question the staff; then they could get down to
a matter of philosophy, and suggested that the matter of per-
centage not be discussed at this time; he felt a percentage
should be set, and it could be discussed either later this even-
ing or next week.
Mr. Musso explained the subject of percent of mobile homes was
considered, but he did not feel that the ordinance was a proper
place for it as it was not related to the development of a mobile
home park.
The City Attorney stated he would consider the matter of limita-
tion to be appropriate in the General Plan where it could be
spelled out as to the general intent.
CM-24-l35
May 24, 1971
(Public
Hearing re
Mobilehome
Parks)
It was suggested that the percentage limitation
be placed on the agenda for the next meeting to
be held on June 7th.
Councilman Miller stated it had been suggested that
the stiffest conditions be placed in the ordinance
and that San Leandro's ordinance be used as a guide. Before any
final decision is made, he suggested that they be given copies of
the San Leandro ordinance.
Councilman Beebe stated he had a copy of an agreement approved by
the San Leandro City Council and accepted by the developer; this
agreement was over and above the requirements of the ordinance on
trailer parks - additional protection. Copies of the agreement
will be sent to the Councilmen for review.
Mayor Taylor, after some discussion of the bearing this ordinance
would have on the one now before the Council, stated the public
hearing had been advertised, any changes should be made by the Coun-
cil, to refer it back to the Planning Commission would be unneces-
sary delay. It was decided they would discuss the items as listed
and which they wished to have changed.
Item A under 21.22 - Location, reads that the site is in an area
having schools, public parks, shopping facilities, and other fac-
ilities deemed necessary to serve the needs of the people living
in the park. This could be interpreted many ways and this section
was discussed in detail by the Council, just how they could change
the wording, after which it was decided after the words "other
facilities" it should read, "either existing or planned for con-
struction in the immediate future"...
Councilman Silva stated as far as location, under this same section,
he felt that mobilehomes could be permitted in zones other than
the RG and RM Zoning Districts as set forth and suggested that rather
than specifying only these two zones, the wording should be "permitted
in any residential zone allowing 8 d.u./acre or greater density".
Councilman Silva stated that in a commercial area, density is not
a factor and they should not be allowed in an area where density is
restricted.
Councilman Pritchard stated if mobilehomes are treated like resi-
dential uses, as most people suggest, the recommendation should be
to allow them in residential areas. His point was that they do
not normally allow a residential use in a commercial district. Be-
cause of this the Council discussed the use in the RS District,
specifically the RS-S District, and Mr. Musso thought it might be
allowed in the RS District with a Conditional Use Permit rather
than a Planned Unit Development permit.
Councilman Beebe pointed out they could argue about trailer parks
being residential in nature; however, the person purchasing and
developing the property and making the profit from it, is a com-
mercial operation and he felt it could be allowed in most any other
zone rather than the RS; in fact, in some cases it could be a
buffer to Industrial Zoning.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that any place you want to have a higher
density use for buffer, it is already zoned RG or RM.
Councilman Miller stated they are no more second class citizens
than apartment dwellers who are restricted to certain zones; one
other point, apartment houses are commercial operations also, in
the same sense a mobilehome park is.
Councilman Silva asked about Item D, which reads- The design of
the park is in a manner that its existence in the area proposed
will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the use or future
anticipated use thereof. He felt this section should be deleted.
Mr. Musso explained that this provision is in the CUP and zoning
CM-24-l36
May 24, 1971
ordinance wherever a different use is introduced
in an area. Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard a-
greed that it was not necessary since such find-
ings could be handled through the CUP and PUD
permits. The item was deleted by a 3-2 vote.
(Public Hearing re
Mobilehome Parks)
Item 21.23 - Site Area Restrictions
Mr. Musso explained that the fifty acre limit was set as a larger
park would probably not be built and the Commission did not feel
a minimum limit was necessary due to economics.
Item 21.24 - Driveways and Access
The Council discussed the effect of traffic generated by a mobile
home park and felt that commercial (CB, CG, CN Districts) should
be added to Item A.l. In Item 21.24 D, the Chamber had recommended
a lower Roadway Design Standard for Traffic Index than the 4.5 in
the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lee explained that the 4.5 index is
used for cul-de-sacs and is considered a minimum according to the
volume of traffic and conditions.
Item 21.25 - Landscaping, Screening, Open Space, Recreation
Councilman Miller did feel that a six foot high solid board fence
should not be allowed on street frontages as it does not look as
well as other types. Mr. Lee said that generally board fences
have not been satisfactory due to maintenance and Mayor Taylor
suggested that board fences be allowed only with staff approval.
After further discussion Mayor Taylor made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Silva, to add the wording "any board fence facing a
public street shall be approved by the Public Works Department."
In Item B - Landscaping, the question was raised about enforcing
the maintenance of the required landscaping. Mr. Lee pointed out
that requiring underground automatic sprinkler system had helped
to solve this problem. This was discupsed but no change was made
at this time. (JI~ftif00J: .
Councilman Miller felt 1000sq. ft. of open space should be re-
quired in Item C - Recreational Facilities. This is the same as
required for townhouses. He made a motion to adopt 1000 square
feet for recreational open area rather than the 250 sq. ft. in
the proposal; there was no second to the motion.
Item 21.26 - Lot Regulations
The lot width requirements were discussed briefly.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to continue this matter for the first reading for two weeks, and
it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication has been received from the Cal-
ifornia Chapter, International Conference of
Building Officials regarding an award presented
to the Chief Building Inspector Herbert Street.
The verbal appreciation of the Council was added
in recognition of this award.
Award - Building
Inspector
*
*
*
Comments from Charles Prudhon, President of the
American Taxpayers Union, Local 115, regarding
the forthcoming Council budget hearings were
acknowledged.
Budget Hearings
*
*
*
CM-24-137
May 24, 1971
Airport Land
Use Committee
A communication has been received from the Airport
Land Use Committee of Alameda County re land use
proposal in the vicinity of the Livermore Municipal
Airport.
This matter refers to the rezoning and PUD application adjacent to
the airport on the east which was recently the subject of a public
hearing before the Council. This committee will review and re-
commend to the appropriate governmental agency a course of action
on any proposed land use in the vicinity of public airports. In
accordance with their responsibility, the Committee has requested
copies of documents, mapping and minutes relative to the Council's
review on this application. Mr. Musso will be the City's personal
representative at the hearing of the committee.
Reports From
Public Works
Director
*
*
*
Reports from the Public Works Director were received
on the following projects:
Traffic signal maintenance - East and Hillcrest
Avenues; So. Livermore Avenue and Fourth Street
modification
Railroad Avenue widening.
No parking zone - East Stanley Blvd.
Airway Blvd. extension to Kitty Hawk Street -
It is recommended that a motion be adopted approving the recommend-
ations contained within the reports, with the exception of Airway
Boulevard, which will be discussed later.
LARPD
Master Plan
*
*
*
A report has been received from the Livermore Area
Recreation and Park District regarding their Master
Plan. It is recommended that this report be re-
ferred to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Miller noted that the standards set forth in this Plan
are lower than those previously adopted by LARPD.
Minutes
Exempt Busi-
ness Licenses
*
*
*
The minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting
of May 4 and the Housing Authority meeting of
April 20 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license was
received from Boy Scout Troop 906 for the sale of
flag kits and sno cones during rodeo week.
*
*
*
Seventy claims in the amount of $24,258.93 and two
hundred forty-three payroll warrants in the amount
of $81,265.22, dated May 21, 1971, were ordered
paid as approved by the Finance Director. Council-
abstained from voting on Warrant No. 10715 for his usual
Payroll and
Claims
man Silva
reason.
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
CM-24-l38
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Silva, the items on the Consent Calendar were
approved by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS RESUMED
WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva requested that his report and
discussion re Revenue Sharing be referred to
later in the meeting.
*
*
*
Mr. Viktor Hampel, a local resident, has con-
tacted the City Manager regarding the subject
of sidewalk disrepair and wishes to personally
discuss the matter with the City Council.
May 24, 1971
RECESS
REPORT RE REVENUE
SHARING
REPORT RE SIDEWALK
REPAIR
The City Attorney pointed out that the public notice dated May
24, 1971, prepared by Mr. Hampel refers to sections of the Street
and Highway Code relating to proceedings under the Improvement
Act of 1911 which deal to responsibility of certain public offi-
cials. For instance, if someone should trip and fall, he assumed
that the City would have actual or constructive knowledge of the
condition of the sidewalk if that were, in fact, the cause of the
accident. If Mr. Hampel files the slides he wishes to present
with the City it would have the same effect as putting the City
on notice regarding existence of cracked or raised sidewalks.
Mr. Lewis said he did not feel that the City is liable to the
public or an individual member of the public due to the document
presented by Mr. Hampel unless there is injury due to the sidewalks.
Mr. Hampel presented some slides which he had taken illustrating
the condition of sidewalks on various streets in the City of
Livermore. He stated that damage had occured in the newer parts
of town where trees were planted incorrectly by developers - too
close to water and sewer lines and along the street between the
curb and sidewalk without enough allowance for growth. If more
than one-half inch upset occurs, an assessment is levied against
the homeowner for correction of the sidewalk if the owner does
not take care of the situation on his own. He discussed methods
which could be used to correct this situation and his belief that
the law stated the homeowner is responsible to maintain the side-
walk in the condition received, but is not responsible for paying
for the ignorance of the City. In compliance with the law, he
has served notice on the City in this regard in the event of
legal action. He had talked with several members of the staff,
including Mr. Parness, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lee about this problem,
and now appealed to the Council to establish a program between
the City and the residents.
Mayor Taylor requested that the staff prepare reports in this
regard, preferably before the budget hearings.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor read a letter from LARPD regarding
their position relative to a proposed park site
acquisition adjacent to Dogwood and Nightingale
Streets. LARPD has advised that they do not
wish to be responsible for development or main-
tenance.
PARK SITE
(Dogwood and
Nightingale St.)
Councilman Silva said that there are in lieu park dedication fees
which must be spent in the area and Mr. Musso advised there is
another possible site which has been considered.
Mr. Lewis also advised that an appeal on the park dedication case
will probably be made within the 90-day period.
Councilman Silva felt that action should be delayed for 90 days to
see what the result of the appeal would be; Councilman Miller
suggested that in the meantime an appraisal of the properties
CM-24-139
May 24, 1971
(Park Site)
be obtained to assess the cost, including develop-
ment and future maintenance, before action is taken.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the financial situation be de-
termined with an appraisal of the cost of acquisition, development
and maintenance and operation be made for these locations, seconded
by Councilman Silva. Councilman Miller also included the sugges-
tion that the staff work with the residents in the area regarding
development and maintenance of the proposed site. The motion was
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
CUP & SITE
APPROVAL
(Intermark)
Consideration of the CUP for a mobilehome park and
site plan approval submitted by Intermark Investing
Company was continued from the meeting of May 3,
pending review of park design and clarification re-
garding park dedication.
Mr. Musso reported that the mobilehome park is in general conformance
with our proposed new ordinance. It is in a multiple residential
zone and is allowed under a Conditional Use Permit presently. The
main issue is ~he access to Las Flores Road and the status of the
area indicated for parkland. The General Plan indicates a parkway
which is the PG&E right-of-way south to U.S. 580. A parkway has
been suggested to connect with the shopping center and Las Flores
Road. The developer has proposed that the portion indicated public
park be part of his park dedication. On the assumption that park
dedication means neighborhood park, the matter was referred to LARPD
for their opinion. LARPD replied that the area is not acceptable
for a neighborhood park. As far as the Planning Commission is con-
cerned, the plan is still valid whether it is a neighborhood park
or not. The developer does receive density credit although he is
not allowed park dedication credit. In regard to the access it
would be extended in conjunction with the emergency access to Las
Flores Road, which might have to be condemned. Essentially, the
matter before the Council is for approval subject to conformance
with the new ordinance with the addition of some special conditions
regarding access and park dedication. Mr. Musso further stated that
LARPD recognizes this area as open space on their master plan but
does not choose to participate in a parkway. The City would be re-
quired to maintain this parkway.
The Council discussed the parkway issue, is it the setback required
by the City which is proposed as a parkway, and is this more desir-
able than having a setback maintained in a weed and dust free con-
dition; the cost of maintenance should also be considered in rela-
tion to its use; will the developer maintain the area if given
credit as park dedication requirements. Also suggested was the
possibility of dedication in perpetuity, with the land made part
of the parkway system, however, concern was expressed that the
area was too small, and not readily availble for use by the public.
The Council discussed the possibility of accepting part of the
acreage as park dedication under the condition it will be landscaped
to some acceptable extent and the public trailway guaranteed.
The City Attorney indicated that a condition could be included that
if credit is allowed for this buffer to be part of the park dedica-
tion requirement the land could be owned by the developer without
conveyance of title, but the public allowed to use it, similar to
an open space easement, the agreement established by the CUP.
Mr. Barker, representing the developer, stated that they would like
to offer the property to the City for parkway, have it count toward
park dedication and be devoid of any responsibility beyond that
point.
Mayor Taylor stated he did not feel it would be in the best interest
of the City to accept the property for City ownership and dedication
if the park district says it does not look enough like a park for
CM-24-l40
May 24, 1971
them to develop it as a park, and it would ben-
efit the residents of the mobilehome park much
more than anyone else because they are adjacent
to it. He felt it would be reasonable to accept
part of that acreage as park dedication under the condition it will
be landscaped to some acceptable extent and the public trailway
be guaranteed.
(CUP & SITE APPROVAL
- Intermark)
Councilman Silva said if it is part of our parkway system, he did
not think it was reasonable to place an undue burden on any de-
veloper to develop the parkway system for us, and asked if it
could be accepted for parkway dedication and not develop it.
Mr. Lewis explained we have a duty to ultimately develop it and
make it usable; he felt a reasonable time should be set with an
understanding with the developer. If it is accepted for open
space, it should be understood by the developer.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the tract map and
accept the space as open space for the City, and the motion was
seconded by Councilman Silva.
Mayor Taylor questioned if he meant this to be part of the park
dedication, and Councilman Pritchard replied that according to
the City Attorney they should designate it as open space.
Councilman Miller pointed out that if they take it as park dedica-
tion, not only would the City have to maintain it, but the would
lose $330 per unit for other park space; open space need not al-
ways be public open space, it could be agricultural or otherwise,
and it doesn't cost any money. This strip is required because
the developer is required to have a setback, and if the Council
specifies it should be landscaped and is a required setback, it
does not have to be dedicated to the public; there is no public
access.
Councilman Silva stated his reason is they may, at some future
time, wish to extend this strip to Las Flores Road as part of the
parkway system and would not be able to do this if the developer
were allowed to landscape and maintain it.
Mayor Taylor stated he was willing to accept the strip as a part
of the park dedication requirements if it is going to be maintained,
and allowed as a public access, as there is advantage to the park
in having that strip and asked Mr. Barker if this would be agree-
able to them.
Mr. Barker replied they would like to offer it to the City for
parkway, have it count toward park dedication and be devoid be-
yond that point of any responsibility for it.
Mayor Taylor asked the Council if they were willing to accept this
parkway without any utilities; he felt it would be more logical to
. have a watering system built with the original development, and
Mr. Barker stated they would be happy to stub out utilities to
the strip from the mobilehome park and make them available.
Councilman Miller stated if they would accept the strip as public
parkway there would have to be twenty feet setback.
Mr. David Madis, Attorney at Law, referred to the Northeastern
Annex No.2 agreement, dated June 7, 1962, between the City and
Marnel Development Company, with reference to the paragraph that
in the event the owner is unable to acquire the necessary rights-
of-way or easements the City agrees to institute condemnation
proceedings to acquire the same with all cost, expenses and at-
torney fees to be paid by the owner. It also provides that the
owner may recommend an attorney to proceed with the condemnation;
and further provides that this is binding upon the heirs, successors
CM-24-l41
May 24, 1971
(CUP & SITE
APPROVAL -
Intermark)
and assigns which would include the subsequent
property owners. Mr. Madis stated they would re-
quest that the City pass a resolution as to the
descriptions and necessary requirements to provide
for the emergency vehicular access and including the
extension of the parkway to Las Flores which must cross over another
owners property; they would also ask the City in that resolution,
of necessity and convenience, to allow the development of the 36
foot wide portion of the 72-foot wide street proposed for the other
side of the property. The property as it is presently constituted,
is without access because when the highway was widened that access
was taken. Mr. Madis asked that the Council pass such a resolution
and further stated his applicant would pay for any condemnation
proceedings to provide for the access over to Las Flores, includ-
ing the parkway.
The City Attorney agreed that this was in the annexation agreement
and the City has always taken the position that it is binding on
the City and all the successive owners and recommended that the
Council pass the resolution which he would prepare for the next
meeting.
Mr. Countryman stated the only reason they are requesting the con-
demnation is because they have been unable to obtain any response
from the owner although they have made several offers and attempted
to make some arrangements.
Councilman Silva questioned whether or not it was the right thing
to do, to condemn another person's property, and after some dis-
cussion along this line the City Attorney advised it is up to the
court, and it is the responsibility of the developer to carryon
the proceedings and he will abide by the court whatever the judg-
ment might be. The City is obligated by the annexation agreement
to provide the authority of the City.
Mr. Musso stated there was one other thing - with reference to a
path or walkway system through the park itself and recommended that
if it is required, it should be made subject to staff approval, .
as a mobilehome park does not lend itself too well to the system.
Councilman Miller pointed out that when the CUP was originally ap-
proved Councilman Beebe had voted with the condition that this park
would have five-star requirements and strict standards, but none
of these have been included in the ordinance or conditions. The
Council has not seen the standards for San Leandro as has been
discussed or these other requirements and he felt they should not
take action before reviewing them.
Mr. Musso said that the five-star requirements had been reviewed
but they were not items which could be included in an ordinance.
Councilman Beebe said he would like to see a provision included
that this be an adult trailer park, and if for some reason it is
changed in the future, the applicant would have to come back before
the Council to show reason for the change.
Councilman Silva said he would not be able to vote for such a pro-
vision.
Councilman Miller said he wanted to see those conditions included
which had been discussed to insure high standards for this park
as had been expressed by some Councilmen. He wanted to see the
conditions in writing before approval. The plan before them was
unacceptable to him the way it stands.
Councilman Pritchard felt that the Council had delayed long enough
and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission were
sufficient. Discussion followed concerning inclusion of a condi-
tion that this be a five-star park.
CM-24-142
May 24, 1971
Councilman Beebe made a motion to amend the main (CUP & SITE APPROVAL
motion that the approval be conditioned upon a -Intermark)
review of the specific conditions within two
weeks; motion seconded by Councilman Silva and
passed 4 to 1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
The main motion, as amended,to approve the map subject to review
of the specific conditions was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
Action and discussion on the proposed zoning
ordinance amendments re Residential Townhouse
Development, Section 21.90, was continued for
one week.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Townhouse Develop-
ment)
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission COUNCIL REFERRAL
is considering the Council's request to review HIGHWAY SIGNS
the sign ordinance in regard to highway oriented
signs and continued their discussion until their
meeting of June 1. A public hearing will be required by the Plan-
ning Commission and the Council if the ordinance is to be amended.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to direct the Planning Commission to set a date for the public
hearing, and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the first reading of the or-
dinance to rezone a site located on the north
side of East Avenue, west of Vasco Road from
RS-5 to RG-IO District was waived (title read
only) and the ordinance was introduced by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
A summary of action taken by the Planning Com-
mission at its meeting of May 18, 1971, was
noted for filing.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva's report regarding revenue
sharing was continued to a future meeting.
*
*
*
A request from the City of Pleasanton has been
received regarding smog control planning for
the Livermore-Amador Valley. This item was
continued until the meeting of June 7.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard requested that discussion
of his reports regarding City Council policy re
residential requirements for Commission/Commit-
tee appointments and mobile home fee listing be
continued due to the lateness of the hour.
REZONING SITE
EAST AVENUE WEST
OF VASCO
(Nelson-OGO)
SUMMARY OF ACTION
(Planning Comm.)
REVENUE SHARING
SMOG CONTROL PLAN-
NING FOR VALLEY
REPORTS RE APPOINT-
MENTS-MOBILE HOME
FEES
CM-24-143
May 24, 1971
(Council
Meeting Hours)
Councilman Pritchard suggested that the Council
consider meeting earlier in the evening so that
the meetings would not run so late into the night,
or perhaps having part of the meeting from 4:00
to 6:00 p.m.
Councilman Beebe suggested that the Council consider a cutoff time
at perhaps midnight.
Councilman Silva thought that the only way to cut down on the amount
of time was to change the town hall type of meeting before the Coun-
cil. Often several members of the audience speak on the same item
which takes a great deal of time; this could be limited to the open
forum.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Council members themselves take up
a great deal of time in repeating their points. He felt it would
be a mistake to cut off the public.
After further discussion, Mayor Taylor felt that he would just call
for the question whenever he thought the debate was becoming re-
petitious.
Councilman Beebe felt public hearings should be limited to one hour
and then continued.
The Council decided it would be best to continue starting the meet-
ings at 8:00 p.m. as an earlier hour would be a hardship on some
members of the Council.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RE
SOLICITORS
ORDINANCE NO. 743
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14, RELATING TO
MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY
CODE, 1959, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION,
SECTION 14.24, TO REQUIRE THAT CANVASSORS AND
SOLICITORS CARRY A CERTIFICATE OF IDENTIFICA-
TION AND POST A BOND: PROVIDING FOR THE PRO-
CEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH IDENTIFICATION
AND THE POSTING OF SUCH BOND
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
second reading of the above ordinance was waived, and the ordinance
was passed by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT RE
BUSINESS LICENSE
TAXES
The City Attorney stated that contractors are
in Classification "All on the theory that a
contractor is not a technical or professional
category, and are in "A" as a general person
doing business.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance
shown below was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
ORDINANCE NO. 744
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE
LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, RELATING TO
BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES.
CM-24-144
The Planning Director informed the Council that
recently the Planning Commission on items not
the subject of a public hearing has been making
a motion; then opening up the matter for dis-
cussion which eliminates a certain amount of
time.
May 24, 1971
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Council
Policy)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to past considera-
tion regarding converting City vehicles to
propane and asked for a report on the status
of this matter.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(City Vehicles)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to the railroad cross-
ing at Walnut and 111" Streets which does not have
signals or lights, and asked that the staff check
into this for report as to what should be done.
(RR Crossing
Walnut and I Sts.)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to the item under (Airway Blvd.
the reports from the Public Works Director Extension)
regarding Airway Blvd. extension to Kitty Hawk
Street. He noted that the cost was $63,000 c,,:k>;J-;~t{~L
rather than $30, em as estimated earlier. l-"X':JL * <-
The City Manager explained $33,000 was to extend the road all the
way to the intersection as discussed by the Council rather than
just part of the way for the proposed industrial development.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to approve the expenditure for the extension, and it was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1: 10
a.m. to an executive session to consider appoint-
ments to the Industrial Advisory Board.~
* * *
APPROVE ~ r:/L
May'"
;' /'
I
ATTEST
-*~ ClIlsoc
~~
J;:<'
CM-24-145
Regular Meeting of June 7, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 7, 1971,
in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at ~:07 p.m., with Mayor Taylor presiding.
*
*
*
RO LL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva,
Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the members of the City Council
and those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 24, 1971, were
approved as amended on motion of Councilman Silva,
seconded by Councilman Miller and by unanimous vote.
OPEN FORUM
(Repair of
Sidewalks)
< ,.. *
?t1~ ~
Samuel A. Telles, 4279 Amherst Way, wished to speak
about safety in the streets and referred to three
aspects - legal, mechanical and human - of this
subject. He felt the City was approaching the mat-
ter of sidewalks which need repair in the wrong
manner. His understanding is that all of the bad
sidewalks could be fixed for approximately $50,000, and submitted
that the City was the proper agency to repair these sidewalks. He
referred to personal experience regarding repair of sidewalks in
the Cities of Hayward and Berkeley. Mr. Telles felt tha~f the
sidewalks are not repaired someone will be seriously hur~ killed;
the City would not be able to say they did not know the sidewalks
were unsafe. He urged that the City focus their attention on this
problem. ~,~~' c7~~"~~!~{ ..~ ~~, /~-L//~~
;ktL.;!f-1-,-CaU'iar~:'I~' (J;,tf d:v4L.... -- L. -* (/ (/
/ J ~ Ct.O_D
Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock Street, spoke in regard
to an article in the newspaper concerning the pro-
posed park dedication and comments made by the
LARPD. He hoped that the Council would prevail
upon Intermark Investing to dedicate that portion adjacent to the
9th tee, including the fountain, for a recreation area.
*
*
(Park
Dedication)
*
*
*
(Soccer Clubs) Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, questioned the recent
appropriation to the Atomic Soccer Club and felt
this club could not represent Livermore.
*
*
*
(Donation- YMCA Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle st., stated that the YMCA
for Trees) Ecology Club wished to express their appreciation
for the cooperation of the City during the term
of the operation of their recycling center. He
presented a check in the amoung of $65, on behalf of the Ecology
Club, which is the estimated cost of trees for planting in the
Madeira Way park behind Livermore High School. Mayor Taylor ex-
pressed the appreciation of the City and said this was an excell-
ent example for the youth of the community.
*
*
*
CM-24-146
June 7, 1971
Ray McClure, 5721 Crestmont Avenue, requested (CUP-Intermark )
that the item regarding Intermark's Conditional
Use Permit provisions be discussed earlier in
the meeting. The Council agreed to removal of this item from the
Consent Calendar for discussion prior to the reports.
*
*
*
Gilbert Leppelmeier, 748 Wimbleton Drive, spoke
in regard to the establishment of a percent li-
mitation on the number of mobilehome units to
be permitted in the City in respect to the total
number of residential units.
(Limitation on
Number of Mobile
Homes)
Mr. Leppelmeier stated that at the public hearings on this subject
before the Planning Commission and the Council it had been made
clear that allowing mobilehome parks constituted a subsidy through
higher density and fees. Unless the Council wishes to change the
character of Livermore, the amount paid by every resident of Liver-
more must be considered. The cost to the taxpayers for the proposed
industrial park, which was allowed in conjunction with the mobile
home park near the airport, over the next fifteen years is between
$2 and $3 million. The Council must decide whether or not to make
the subsidy, and he asserted that it is not in the interest of the
community to allow mobilehomes until present conditions are changed.
He requested that no mobilehomes be allowed.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the rezon-
ing application is for property on the south
side of Seventh street between McLeod Street
and East Avenue, from RL-5-0 to RM District,
submitted by H. J. Callaghan. The property
backs the subdivision on Brennan Way with two
single family homes to the north and residences to the south on
McLeod Street. The area is indicated on the General Plan at
8 d.u./acre with the intention for some duplexes and some single
family residences. The Planning Commission had considered the
alternatives of the RG and RM zoning districts; it was generally
considered that higher density would be allowed but there was some
concern from the neighbors to the east as to building heights.
The Commission concluded that the RG zone would be best as it
would provide setbacks to protect the adjacent property owners and
a density of RG-12 which would allow a two-story unit with rear
yard setbacks of 50 feet.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING SO. SIDE
7th STREET
(Callaghan)
Councilman Pritchard abstained from discussion and vote on this
matter as he declared a financial interest in property within
300 feet of the subject property.
Mr. Musso stated that this particular General Plan area is bounded
by East Avenue, Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road and the PG&E right
of way. The area which is indicated as 8 d.u./acre is located
along Livermore Avenue to the highway and also property north and
south of the downtown area.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing.
Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, objected to a two-story building ad-
jacent to her single family home.
R. M. Callaghan, representing the applicant, said that under RM
zoning a two-story single family home with a smaller setback would
be built on the property. The application for RM zoning is appro-
priate under the General Plan. With the exception of the two resi-
dents to the east, the neighborhood is agreeable to the two-story
multiple proposed. He felt the request for the RM zoning is a
better use than the RG-12 due to the triangular shape of the property.
CM-24-147
June 7, 1971
(Public
Hearing re
Rezoning -
Callaghan)
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the public hearing was closed by unan-
imous vote (Councilman Pritchard abstaining).
RG-16, and
or nineteen
each story.
zoning.
Mr. Musso explained that the setback for one-story
building is 20 feet for RG-12 and 10 feet for
20 feet in RG-IO. Under the RM zoning, about eighteen
units would be allowed; 5 ft. setback is required for
Only a 5 ft. setback would be required under RL-5-0
Councilman Miller felt RG-IO would be another alternative, as this
would allow eight units rather than ten units under RG-12.
Mr. Musso stated that RM zoning has been allowed in the area, but
the Commission recommended RG to require the additional setback.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation with the exception that the density be RG-IO rather
than RG-12; the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for rezoning to RG-12,
which passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Smog Control
Plan - City
of Pleasanton
A communication has been received regarding Resolu-
tion No. 71-71 of the City of Pleasanton concerning
a smog control plan for the valley communities.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
Park
Dedication
A communication has been received from James Fales,
City Manager of Pleasanton, regarding the recent
park dedication case and its conclusion and commend-
ing the City Attorneys who prepared the case.
Councilman Miller requested that a resolution similar to the one
prepared by Pleasanton be prepared by the staff for adoption by the
Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 57-71
A RESOLUTION THANKING THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK,
ITS CITY ATTORNEY, AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE
SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE OF THE PARK DEDICATION CASE.
* * *
SACEOA Reports from the City Attorney and the City Manager
were submitted to the Council regarding SACEOA. The
City Attorney reports that the City may withdraw
from SACEOA by giving notice of this intention, however if such should
be the case the formation of a Community Action Agency would re-
quire certain population densities, 100,OOOfor a City, which is far
above our population count.
*
*
*
LARPD re A report from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park
Park Sites District regarding park site acquisitions recommenda-
tions has been received by the Council. It is recom-
mended that this matter be referred to the Planning
Commission. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion later in the meeting.
CM-24-148
June 7, 1971
A report has been submitted by the Public Works Report re Power
Director regarding high voltage power line stand- Line Standards
ards. It is recommended that the present policy
requiring steel power line standards be repealed
to permit use of stained grey poles. This item was removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion later.
*
*
*
A report from the Public Works Director has
been prepared regarding sidewalk repairs.
This issue was raised at the last meeting by
a concerned citizen, Viktor Hampel. Since
the repair of the sidewalks constituted a public
volving expenditure of public funds, the program
in the forthcoming budget sessions.
*
*
*
A report has been prepared by the Beautification
Committee regarding the purchase of additional
litter containers. This matter was removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion later in the
meeting.
*
*
*
Report re Sidewalk
Repairs
works project in-
should be considered
Report re Litter
Containers
All the required documents are in order and the
Public Works Director recommends that Tract
3239, containing 43 lots and located in the
Wagoner Farms area, north of Katrina Street
and Charlotte Way, be processed. The following resolutions were
adopted authorizing execution of subdivision agreement and accept-
ance of bonds and map of Tract 3239 (Christopher Land Co.)
RESOLUTION NO. 58-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3239
RESOLUTION NO. 59-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3239
*
*
*
The County requires passage of a resolution es-
tablishing a no-parking zone on East Stanley
Blvd. from Isabel Avenue to the Arroyo Mocho
bridge in accordance with previous action by
the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 60-71
A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF
THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST STANLEY BOULEVARD BEGIN-
NING 375 FEET WEST OF NANCY STREET AND ENDING
250 FEET EAST OF WALL STREET.
*
*
*
Resolutions authorizing the Mayor's signature
on checks issued by the City from the Crocker-
Citizens National Bank, Livermore Branch and
the Bank of America National Trust and Savings
Association, Livermore Branch, are necessitated
by the recent change in the office of Mayor.
Agreement and Map
Tract 3239 -
Christopher Land Co.
No-Parking Zone -
East Stanley Blvd.
Resolution Author-
izing Mayor's
Signature
CM-24-149
June 7, 1971
(Mayor's RESOLUTION NO. 61-71
Signature)
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
RESOLUTION NO. 62-71
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
Appointments
to Industrial
Advisory Bd.
(Tlecke, Uthe,
Nordyke,Bozzini
and Hampton
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS
ADVISORY BOARD.
Resolution
re Easement
Condemnation
*
*
*
The following resolution was adopted regarding
the appointment of five members to the Industrial
Advisory Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 63-71
TO THE INDUSTRIAL
*
*
*
In connection with the design of the site plan for
the proposed Intermark mobilehome park development,
condemnation of the portion required for public
easement is required. All costs associated with
this condemnation will be borne by the developer.
RESOLUTION NO. 64-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION IN FEE
SIMPLE ESTATE, FOR PUBLIC STREET AND RELATED PURPOSES, OF
A STRIP OF LAND 36 FT. IN WIDTH BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE
EASTERLY LINE OF BLUEBELL DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 800 FT. EAST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF BLUEBELL DRIVE AND LAS FLORES STREET,
IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, SAID STRIP OF LAND RUNNING THENCE
APPROXIMATELY 500 FT. SOUTHEASTERLY; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT-
ING CONDEMNATION OF AN EASEMENT, FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, OF
A STRIP OF LAND 50 FT. WIDE, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 299,
TRACT 2370, LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA.
* * *
Communication
re Mobile
Home Park
Taxation
(Senator
Bradley)
Beautification
Committee
Minutes
Exempt
Business
Licenses
CM-24-150
A communication has been received from Senator
Bradley regarding mobile home parks and associated
taxes. Senator Bradley does not agree with the pro-
posal to tax mobile homes in the same ratio as
single family residences.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of May 18 of the Beauti-
fication Committee were acknowledged and filed.
*
*
*
Applications for exempt business licenses were
approved for the following:
Livermore Valley Post 7265 - VFW-sale of food and
beverages during rodeo, June 12 and 13
Livermore Rodeo Association - conduct of rodeo
on June 12 and 13
Livermore Junior Women's Club - various fund raising
activities during the year
June 7, 1971
Amador Valley Chapter - Order of DeMolay- (Exempt Licenses)
sale of food and beverages during parade
on June 12.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved
with the exception of those items which were
removed for later discussion.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
*
*
*
Mrs. Lee Canterbury, 3181 East Avenue, questioned (Exempt Business
the Council as to who or what entity was in Licenses)
charge of the sale of food and beverages during
the rodeo performances. It was stated that the
Rodeo Association would probably be the entity, with the possibility
that the Recreation District would have some say since the park
is owned by the District.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the matter
of the Conditional Use Permit for Intermark In,..
vesting was continued in order that the members
of the Council might review the written condi-
tions. Last week he advised the permit would
be in conformance with the items listed in the Planning Commission's
recommendation and also the proposed City ordinance. He has re-
viewed the conditions of the Planning Commission - the standard
conditions that are used on a permit, and extracted the conditions
from the ordinance which are particularly pertinent to this appli-
cation and eliminated everything that was irrelevant and every-
thing that was not on the map. Mr. Musso further stated the per-
mit covers all the points brought up; they did indicate a pathway
system, but it is only suggested, and would be up to the final
approval as the design of fences, walls and exterior landscaping.
CUP - Intermark
Investing
(Mobile Home Park)
Councilman Miller asked about the width of the pathways, and
felt a standard should be set, and Mr. Musso stated there has
been no discussion on the width - the idea is to have a sidewalk
yet allow it to be interior rather than adjacent to the street.
Mr. John Barker, Associated Professions, representing the applicant,
stated they had been informed sidewalks adjacent to the curb for
the purpose of allowing pedestrians to walk down one side or the
other of roadways would be adequate to which they were agreeable
and he felt that a width of three to four feet would be fine, and
they assumed the landscaping would be done in the front yard areas
in back of the sidewalk.
Councilman Beebe suggested a 4-foot width; Councilman Miller agreed
this would be adequate for the walkway, but wondered about the
width of the landscaping, inasmuch as this would be the responsi-
bility of the developer rather than the tenants of the trailer park
as they would not be able to impose the condition of landscaping
upon the renters.
The Council discussed the landscaping and what requirements should
be imposed inasmuch as the permit states that open areas shall be
landscaped or otherwise maintained in a dust free and fire safe
condition.
Mr. Barker stated it was their intention to have the normal treat-
ment of a five-star mobilehome park, which is that the individual
front yards would be landscaped by the tenants very similar to a
single family residential development; the developer will require
in the conditions that the tenant landscape the areas nicely.
CM-24-151
June 7, 1971
(CUP-Intermark) The Council agreed that the walk should be four
feet wide with the requirement that it be land-
scaped for at least four feet on each side, ex-
cept in the case where the sidewalk is next to the street; then
it can only be landscaped on one side. Mayor Taylor added that
this is not to be misinterpreted that the City wants a specially
set aside landscaped strip to parallel the walkway as that would
detract from the development.
Councilman Miller stated there were other conditions which he
wished to have imposed on the CUP which are included in the Wood-
all Five star Park regulations and some are set forth in the con-
ditions for mobilehome parks by the San Leandro Planning Commission,
as follows:
5 c
5 f
5 h
5 i
~ ~~)
~ ~~)
4.
5.
6.
7.
11.
16.
18.
22.
25.
There shall be a sidewalk from the trailer to the street
Patios shall be at least 8 x 30 ft.
All Trailers shall have skirts
There shall be awnings, cabanas and porches on all
trailers
Hitches shall not be visible
There shall be a recreation hall that has a kitchen
and tiled bathrooms
There shall be late models
Play space for kids and pets
All utility service should be underground in the
interior
There shall be no exterior TV antennas
Garbage cans shall be enclosed
Water faucets shall be on each lot
Landscaping should be with living plants
Landscaping plus wall around the whole park
Boat and trailer storage area screened
Utility connection screened from public view
No children allowed
Councilman Miller indicated that these were generally listed as
the items are actually more detailed.
Mayor Taylor asked if the Council wished to discuss each item;
however Councilman Beebe stated these were all good conditions and
should be included. Mr. Barker was asked if there were any objec-
tions to these conditions to which he replied there was only one,
with regard to the 8 x 30 ft. patio; they would like the option of
a raised deck. It was pointed out that there is that option.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
that the above list of conditiorobe added to the other conditions
of the permit.
Mayor Taylor referred to the condition that no children be allowed;
he pointed out that the park management can require this but the
City cannot enforce such a requirement as part of the ordinance.
Councilman Beebe said that in San Leandro a permit was applied for
in accordance with the Woodall Five-Star provisions and granted on
this basis with the condition that if or when the policy was changed
the owner must come back to the Planning Commission and Council to
show that the necessary amenities had been provided for the children.
Councilman Silva stated that he would not support granting a permit
with the "no children" clause as he felt it was discriminatory
against families with children. Mayor Taylor pointed out that
there would be a long period before a school could be provided in
this area.
The City Attorney advised that the City can neither require or deny
the park to have children; however, if children are permitted,
whatever the age may be, it is a function of the Council to require
that adequate play area be provided.
CM-24-l52
Mr. Barker stated that the operator intends to
make this a five-star park for adults only.
June 7, 1971
(CUP-Intermark)
Councilman Miller read from the Woodall list of requirements which
state that if pets and children are allowed there must be a place
for them to run and play without cluttering the streets and yards,
and further state that most five-star parks are for adults only.
The motion to add these provisions to the other conditions of
approval as stated in the draft permit was passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva
Mr. Musso asked whether the Council would like to state its position
in regard to the park dedication.
Mayor Taylor stated he felt the question of the strip of parkway
being accepted for public park, to be improved and maintained in
perpetuity by the City, should be discussed further.
Councilman Silva said this is proposed for a parkway; the money
can be accepted for park dedication and then this strip purchased
for the parkway, or the money can be used for parkland in the area.
Mayor Taylor stated his major concern was about the cost of main-
tenance; if the property owner developed this strip, it would
serve his development.
Councilman Silva said that it must be decided whether the parkway
will be completed all the way or if part might be eliminated due
to cost. If it cannot be completed, then the in-lieu fees should
be accepted. Any parkway north of this property cannot be required
under a subdivision development.
Councilman Pritchard felt it should be decided whether the parkway
is desirable as it has been shown on maps, with the concurrence
of LARPD. It should be decided if the City wants this parkway
and the means for obtaining the land.
Councilman Miller suggested that a bicycle path with a five to
seven foot easement along the south as a condition of this CUP
be required; the maintenance would be low and the developer has
to landscape anyway. It would not have to be counted as a part
of park deducation.
Mr. Lewis said there is a permanent fence along the back so the
trailer park would not have access to this path; he did not see
that the trailer park development could require dedication of
the property to the public; there would be difficulty in justify-
ing this requirement.
Mr. Musso felt the justification would be a density transfer to
provide open space. The Council's action of the previous week
had given the developer credit for density transfer and park
dedication.
Mr. Lewis said that for clarification, density transfer is justi-
fication in a CUP or subdivision for a condition for open space
but it cannot be taken further and used for dedication of land
for public use.
Mr. Barker pointed out that the applicant was not asking for
density transfer for the public park area indicated. The units
allowed had been calculated at 133 or 137 units.
The Council discussed the use of park dedication land and in lieu
fees. Councilman Miller felt the money should be used to provide
CM-24-l53
June 7, 1971
(CUP-Intermark) for park in the area, not other parts of the City,
as this was the purpose of the park dedication re-
quirement.
Councilman Silva felt that if the park is accepted as designated
then the parkway would be necessary to connect with the shopping
center; however, the triangle could be eliminated and in lieu
money accepted.
Mayor Taylor stated that a ten foot easement should be required
along the bottom next to the property line, and the rest should
be used for park dedication somewhere else.
Mr. Lewis said that heretofore the courts have required that dedi-
cation of the property must be justified by the burden that this
particular development creates. If testimony reveals that this
development creates pedestrian traffic then it might be justified
to dedicate this parkway or easement.
Mr. Barker said the applicant was offering simply what had been
shown by the City for many years as open space for the trailway.
Joe Urban, 1758 Broadmoor Street, said the PG&E easement is lim-
ited in use. The park dedication money could be used in other
areas to better advantage.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that this parkway strip along
U.S. 580 be eliminated from this plan and City maps and that the
City accept in lieu park fees as an amendment to the conditions;
the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mr. Musso explained that the original concept was to use the PG&E
right of way to tie the area together; elimination of this parkway
would not change the original idea.
Councilman Silva said if this part of the parkway is eliminated,
then he did not see how the rest of it could be worked out.
Ray McClure, 5721 Crestmont Avenue, said there is a good deal of
concern by the residents of Greenville North about the park situa-
tion. Negotiations will be made to turn the present swim club
over to the LARPD for operation. In general, people in the area
favor the use of the strip under the power lines as a connecting
link.
The motion to eliminate the parkway strip along U.S. 580 and accept
in lieu fees as an amendment to the conditions of the CUP passed
4 to 1 with Councilman Silva dissenting.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions as
amended. After further discussion, Councilman Pritchard amended
the motion to eliminate the condition that the park be limited to
adults on the grounds that it is illegal. The amendment to the
main motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
The main motion to approve the CUP was then passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor said the map would have to be redrawn to meet these
conditions and approved by the staff so long as it is in conform-
ance with the conditions.
*
*
*
CM-24-154
June 7, 1971
Mrs. Trudeau stated she had additional informa- SACEOA
tion regarding SACEOA and felt a locally based
program would be helpful. Mayor Taylor request-
ed that she pass this information on to the
City Attorney.
Kay Parra, 819 Brennan, remarked about the organization of SACEOA
and gave several complaints about SACEOA. She felt the Council
should investigate this matter seriously.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the matter before the Council is
consideration of withdrawal from SACEOA and forming our own CAP.
The City Attorney has been requested to look into this matter of
withdrawal, and will report further. Councilman Silva requested
that ways of forming a district of 100,000 people to qualify
according to the provisions of the law be further investigated
as he favored a local organization if it can be done.
*
*
*
A report has been received from the Public
Works Director regarding planted median strips
along the major City streets and the cost of
construction and maintenance of these areas.
REPORT RE MEDIAN
STRIPS
It is recommended that this matter be referred to a study session,
and Councilman Miller suggested that a copy of the report be sent
to the Beautification Committee for their review.
After further discussion, it was decided to include this item on
the agenda at one of the shorter meetings in July for about a
one-hour discussion.
Councilman Silva thought that this might be discussed in connec-
tion with the budget session, but Mayor Taylor stated that during
the budget session a decision for the coming year could be made
but a long range policy should be set after more careful consider-
ation.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the report calculated a $.50 rate
for maintenance for the parks, and this was the same as the total
for the park district.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has considered rezoning
of property located on the northeast corner of
North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue from
RL-7 and RL-10 Districts to residential districts
provided by Zoning Ordinance and PD District.
REZONING NE
CORNER NO. LIVERMORE
AND PORTOLA AVENUES
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
by unanimous vote, the public hearing was set for June 21.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor explained that the provlslons of
this section regarding townhouse development
had been drawn up by members of a joint com-
mittee, including Councilman Beebe and himself;
then it had been considered by the Planning Com-
mission which had accepted all of the provisions
except one involving setbacks.
AMENDMENT ZO -
SEC. 21.90
TOWNHOUSE DEV.
The Planning Director explained the discussion involving the
setbacks, and stated the Planning Commission had concluded that
there is a necessity to have some landscaping in front. The
setback, in regard to the front and rear building line, would
have to have at least one 10-foot setback which would probably
be in front. An enclosed garage fronting a driveway would have
to be set back 20 feet.
CM-24-155
June 7, 1971
(Amendment
Sec. 21.90)
Mr. Musso referred to the mlnlmum driveway im-
provement (Item 21.93 B) and suggested that
additionally a concrete curb be required.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Planning Commission, City
Attorney and staff should be directed to add provisions to define
and separate townhouses and condominiums, so that they could not
be developed in evasion of the townhouse ordinance~ After dis-
cussion Councilman Miller made a motion to this effect, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, and p<;l-ssep unanimously. '~fh<.-L(t-?1f~'r T ,7-1 .
-d<~c...;'~ 7' ~ 4~~~~' ~~7)(... '7t'~;I",I'Z.' .' . t# {).JJ,z;f, (Jl;j'.:A:.R.A~
The staff was directed to prepare an ordinance fo;1lntroduction
at the next meeting with the noted change.
PLANNING
COMMISSION
SUMMARY
REPORTS
( Council
Policy re
Appointments)
*
*
*
The summary of action taken at the Planning Com-
mission meeting of June 1 was acknowledged and
filed.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to re-
commend that Council policy be changed to allow
appointments to all the committees/commissions,
with the exception of the Planning Commission,
not be limited to just residents of the City.
Councilman Miller did not feel that those who do not pay taxes to
the City should serve on the committees. There should be enough
qualified residents to fill the appointments.
After discussion, Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Miller, to adopt the policy that appointments to the
City's Committees/Commissions would be filled by City residents
only. The motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
(Mobilehome
Fees)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard said his intent in requesting
the staff to report on mobilehome fees was to in-
vestigate the possibility of collecting fees from
mobilehomes to compensate for taxes paid by single
family houses. He questioned whether a mobilehome connection fee
could be collected, but the City Attorney advised that a special
fee cannot be levied on one class of users.
Councilman Silva asked if the sewer service fee could be increased
as the mobilehomes do not pay the entire cost of the water reclama-
tion plant which is borne by ad valorem taxes. The City Attorney
was asked to investigate this possibility and other means of collect-
ing additional fees from mobilehomes.
Councilman Miller asked the City Attorney if it was true that a
special business license tax classification for mobilehomes cannot
be made, and Mr. Lewis replied that this is true as the classifi-
cations cannot be discriminatory.
PRO POSED
ZONING ORD.
AMENDMENT
(Sec. 2l. 00
MObilehomes,
Trailer Parks)
CM-24-156
*
*
*
A proposed zoning ordinance amendment has been pre-
pared regarding mobilehomes, trailers, travel tra~l-
ers, and recreation trailer parks (Sec. 21.00). The
Council agreed to postpone introduction of this or-
dinance amendment so that the provisions adopted as
discussed and in the CUP application for a trailer
park by Intermark Investing could be incorporated
into the amendment.
June 7, 1971
(ZO Amendment-
Sec. 2l. 00)
In regard to the establishment of a percent
limitation for the number of mobilehome parks,
the City Attorney advised that this should be
made a part of the General Plan rather than a
part of the ordinance; also the City Council should discuss whether
certain areas would be designated as being suitable for mobile-
home park use. Discussion of these items was set for the meeting
of June 14.
Mr. Lee, 622 Bentley Place, addressed the Council regarding mobile-
home fees, and stated the logical way to approach equal taxation
would be to ban mobilehomes until the method of taxation is changed.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the first reading of the pro-
posed ordinance rezoning the northeast corner
of Hillcrest Avenue and East Avenue to CN, RS-5
and RG-16 Districts was waived (title read only)
and by unanimous vote the ordinance was introduced.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, the first reading of the proposed
ordinance regarding Municipal Code amendment of
Section 6.18 to delete reference to the 1958
Uniform Building Code was waived (title read
only) and by unanimous vote the ordinance was
introduced.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, to waive the second
reading and by the following vote, the follow-
ing ordinance was passed:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
ORDINANCE NO. 745
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMEND-
ING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF, RELATING TO ZONING.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE NE CORNER
HILLCREST & EAST AVE
(Lincoln et al)
MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT (Sec. 6.18
to Delete Reference
to 1958 Uniform
Bldg. Code)
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT-REZONING
NO. SIDE EAST AVE.
(Nelson/OGO)
Resolution No. 71-71 from the City of Pleasanton SMOG CONTROL
regarding a smog control plan was removed from PLAN TO VPC
the Consent Calendar for discussion concerning
action to request the Valley Planning Committee
to investigate air quality control standards for
the Valley.
Councilman Silva suggested deletion of Item 2, regarding setting
of ceilings for industrial and commercial development consistent
with air quality standards.
Mayor Taylor felt the VPC should not back away from this problem
but should take a look at the problem; we could not just look at
Livermore and set limits, and this was a chance to work this out
for the Valley.
Councilman Silva felt that the City should request this information
directly from the BAACPD rather than refer it to the Valley Plan-
ning Committee.
CM-24-157
June 7, 1971
(Smog Control
Plan to VPC)
gain a majority
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Mayor
Taylor to adopt a resolution similar to the City
of Pleasanton referring these questions to the
Valley Planning Committee; the motion failed to
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Silva made a motion that the Council contact the BAAPCD
regarding questions on the desired holding capacity of our General
Plan area and a letter written requesting the City of Pleasanton
to write a joint letter for their planning area and also the County,
with a copy to the VCSD, seconded by Councilman Beebe. The motion
passed four to one with Mayor Taylor dissenting.
REPORT RE
POWER LINE
STANDARDS
(60,000 KV)
*
*
*
Discussion of the report submitted by the Public
Works Director regarding a change in the policy
requiring steel poles for high voltage (60,000
Volt) power line standards was removed from the
Consent Calendar.
The Public Works Director said that he felt the Council should re-
view the cost of the steel as compared with grey stained poles and
the advantages of both.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to allow modification of the standards to allow stained grey wood
poles for high voltage (60,000 Volt) power lines, and passed un-
animously.
REPORT RE
LITTER CON-
TAINERS
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Budget
Session)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Tax Relief)
*
*
*
The Beautification Committee submitted a report
regarding purchase of additional litter containers.
The Council discussed whether this item had been
approved and budgeted; the City Manager was re-
quested to check and report the status on the
agenda for the next meeting.
*
*
*
The City Manager requested that the date be set
for the bud~et session and the Council decided
upon June loth at 9:00 a.m. at the Rincon Fire
Station.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe suggested that a resolution be
adopted and telegrams sent to our representatives,
Speaker of the House and Speaker of the Assembly
asking that meaningful tax relief measures be
passed to aid homeowners and the elderly taxpayers
of the State of California. Councilman Beebe made
a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to send these telegrams
urging action, and passed unanimously.
(Elected
Mayor)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard referred to the issue of an
elected mayor and pointed out that the cities of
Alameda and Newark have elected mayor form of
government. He felt the residents of Livermore should have an
opportunity to decide on this issue, and wished to see a resolu-
tion adopted to put this issue on the ballot for the next election.
Mayor Taylor suggested that this item be included on a future agenda
for discussion and that the report which had been prepared be reviewed.
CM-24-158
*
*
*
June 7, 1971
Councilman Pritchard stated a major property (Parking-South I St.)
owner at the South I and 3rd Street intersec-
tion would like to have diagonal parking on
South I street between Third and Fourth streets.
Mr. Lee advised that a study has just been completed on that
intersection, and the survey reveals that the traffic there is very
heavy and because of this diagonal parking would be disruptive
and would be a step backwards; also there are one or two stalls
open at all times. The area is becoming more commercial which
makes the need for good traffic flow more important.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva felt a letter received from
LARPD indicated they had misunderstood the ac-
tion of the Council with regard to the parkway
strip in the mobilehome park.
(Communication re
Parkway-LARPD
Mr. Musso explained they were responding to his letter, as the
original proposal by the developer was that they be given credit
for their park dedication. In the park dedication policy, it has
always been neighborhood or community park; there has never been
a thought, with one exception, of crediting park dedication to
parkway as it was supposed to be density transfer or other means.
Councilman Silva stated a letter should be directed to LARPD
advising them that the majority of the Council indicated last
week they did not wish that to be used as a neighborhood park
but as a parkway and he did not think the Recreation District
maintained the parkway system.
Councilman Miller stated that the point LARPD wanted to make is
they did not believe this was the proper use for park dedication;
however, Councilman Silva did not feel this was improper use of
park dedication monies, and he wished a letter directed to LARPD
to clarify the Council's intent that this not be used as a park
but as a parkway requiring minimal development which the City
would maintain and improve.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva stated he had noticed several (Street Trees)
homes which did not have trees, probably because
of problems with the sidewalk they had been cut
down and not replaced. He wished to point out that he did not
feel we should require anyone, after initial development which
requires one tree, to replace a tree that for any reason is down;
he felt if a property owner did not desire a tree, this should be
his right and he would like to have the policy changed, that after
five years if the tree comes down it does not have to be replaced,
and after considerable discussion, made a motion that this sugges-
tion be adopted, however the motion failed for lack of a second.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated there is a bill before (Legislative Bills)
the legislature about a tippler's tax and liquor
license fee and these are sources of revenue for
the City. He suggested that alctter be addressed to the appropriate
legislative committee asking for their adoption; however, Council-
man Pritchard stated that the hearing was today, and it was too
late.
Councilman Miller stated there is also a bill (AB 2294) to eliminate
the cities option to prohibit trailer parks, and they should oppose
this bill if they want to set a percentage for trailer parks. The
League of California Cities is opposed to this bill as it takes
away some of the power from the counties and cities.
CM-24-159
June 7, 1971
(Legislative
Bills)
(Junkyard)
Mr. Lewis advised he would be in Sacramento the
next day and would direct a letter to the chair-
man of the committee.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked when Mr. Lounsbury will
be required to conform to the court's judgment
that the junkyard be terminated.
Mr. Lewis stated there had been no reply from the District Attor-
ney's office, but his attorney feels he has complied with the
specific terms of the judgment. Councilman Miller asked Mr. Lewis
if he would check into the matter.
(Water
Rationing)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller inquired about a report regard-
ing water rationing and what the situation would
be should this occur.
Mr. Parness advised that the City had appealed to Zone 7 as the
agency would amass this data and had asked the Zone 7 staff to
give our City some guidance. They are gathering the information,
but it has been delayed due to the illness of one of their princi-
pal staff members.
(Non-Returnable Councilman Miller asked about the report concerning
Bottles) the ban on non-returnable bottles and mentioned
that the state of Oregon has adopted such a bill,
and Mr. Lewis advised he would have a report soon.
(Trees-
Struthers)
Councilman Miller inquired about the trees in front
of Mr. Struther's property as the Council had speci-
fied 2-inch caliper trees.
Mr. Lee advised that there was evidently some misunderstanding;
the trees were checked in the nursery, but the trees which have
been planted are not 2-inch caliper and he was checking into this.
(Smog)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-160
Councilman Miller stated that the Air Pollution
Control District points out that Livermore has the
highest smog level in the Bay area, with very high
oxident levels.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
to discuss litigation.
ATTEST ~
Liver~' e,~rnia
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of June 14, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 14, 1971,
in the Municipal Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at ~:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Silva
RO LL CALL
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of June 7, 1971,
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
by unanimous vote.
MINUTES
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor read a letter which was being sent SPECIAL ITEM
to the Mayor of our Sister City Quezaltenango
and introduced Mr. Gabriel Rodriguez from Guate-
mala. Mr. Rodriguez addressed the Council and expressed his
appreciation for the hospitality shown him during his visit.
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
*
*
*
Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, stated
she felt that the Council should open the meet-
ings with prayer for divine guidance and the
Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
(Taxes)
Mrs. Richardson referred to the problem of rising taxes, in
particular the rate to be set for the City at the budget hear-
ings. She expressed her objection to the City subsidizing
private organizations with taxpayers money, and said she hoped
that the Council would open the budget session with prayer for
guidance.
*
*
*
Don Watson, 987 Via Seville, requested the Coun- (Valley Planning
cil to reconsider designating the Valley Plan- Committee)
ning Committee as the agency to study air pollu-
tion and the holding capacity for the Valley, as
suggested by the City of Pleasanton. This issue had been brought
before the Pleasanton Council by Mr. Gerton who, as a member of
the BAAPCD, had studied the problem first-hand. The Pleasanton
City Council had acted upon this issue after considerable study.
Mr. Watson expressed his reasons for urging that the Valley Com-
mittee be assigned this responsibility and said comprehensive
environmental planning must be implemented. All of the govern-
ments of the Valley, when acting jointly, have an excellent chance
to be asked to participate in the planning decisions which will be
made by regional or state authorities. For this reason he asked
that the Council reconsider action in this regard.
Mayor Taylor proposed that the BAAPCD be asked to send a repre-
sentative to talk to the Council and present technic~information.
*
*
*
CM-24-161
June 14, 1971
Mr. Viktor Hampel, 1143 Canton Avenue, presented
a request signed by Perry C. Norman, 1091 Madison
Avenue, and himself, for disclosure of all de-
fective sidewalk locations identified by the City
and other pertinent records not later than June 16, notarized by
the Superintendent of streets and/or Director of Public works, in
legally valid form. This request also referred specifically to
injury of a resident on June 5, 1971, and subsequent discussion
at the Council meeting of June 7, and a letter written by Mrs.
Perry C. Norman on June 9. Further, it was requested that all
magnetic tapes from the meetings of May 24, June 7, June 14, and
future meetings or sessions dealing with the City sidewalk disre-
pair be kept until the legal and financial obligations of the City
and residents in this regard are decided.
(Sidewalk
Repair)
*
*
*
(Penalty for
Defacement of
Property)
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., spoke in regard to
defacement of public property, and asked for con-
sideration of increasing the penalty for such
action or perhaps paying for information regard-
ing this action.
*
*
*
~udget)
Mr. Allen also asked that the enterprise funds,
which total about $1 million be examined, and the
rental or leasing of such facilities (golf course,
airport and water reclamation plant) to private
enterprise be considered.
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING
RE REZONING
PORTOLA AVENUE
(Ensign Bickford
Company) ,
A rezoning application submitted by Ensign Bick-
ford Company (Associated Professions, Inc.) for
property located on the north and south sides of
Portola Avenue and the north side of First Street
at its intersection with Portola Avenue from RS-3
and Rs-4 Districts to PD District was set for
public hearing at this time.
Councilman Miller abstained from discussion and vote on this rezon-
ing application due to the fact that his residence is within 300
feet of the subject property.
John Barker, Associated Professions, introduced Mr. George Stubble-
bine, Vice President of Ensign Bickford Company.
Mr. Stubblebine said it has been the policy of his company to be
acceptable neighbors and due to the controversy in the community
over mobilehome parks, he wished to withdraw the rezoning applica-
tion of his company for the subject property. He was advised by
the City Attorney that zoning could be reinitiated at any time,
even on the same subject, if the applicant desired.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
accept the withdrawal of the application by the applicant; motion
was approved unanimously (Councilman Miller abstaining).
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Sales Tax
Distribution
A communication has been received from the City
of Woodlake regarding legislative changes to re-
distribute the sales tax on population basis.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion later in the evening.
*
*
*
CM-24-l62
June 14, 1971
A communication was received from Viktor Hampel (Sidewalk Damage)
regarding damage to the curb and sidewalk from
street trees. The Council directed that this
item be removed from the Consent Calendar and referred to the
City Attorney. The City Attorney was also requested to present
his report on this matter and Mr. Hampel's other request to the
Council.
*
*
*
Departmental reports were submitted as follows:
Airport - financial and activity - May
Building Department - May
Fire Department - May
Justice Court - April
Golf Course - May
Planning-Zoning activity - April
Water Reclamation Plant - May
Departmental
Reports
Councilman Silva noted that the Golf Course report indicated a
profit of $1200 for the month of May.
*
*
*
A report was prepared by the City Attorney re-
garding the sewer service charges for mobile-
homes, as requested by the Council. The City
Attorney advised that, in his opinion, higher
sewer service charges cannot be made for mobile-
homes and trailers on the basis of the fact that
mobilehomes do not pay ad valorem taxes to the City.
*
*
*
Exempt business licenses have been applied for
by the following:
Report re Sewer
Service Charge for
Mobilehomes
Exempt Business
Licenses
Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association - telephone
solicitation for circus to be held at County Fairgrounds.
*
Livermore Art Association - annual outdoor art show on June 19
*
*
One hundred thirty-one claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims
$160,252.65 and three hundred fifty-seven pay-
roll warrants in the amount of $112,958.89,
dated June 9, 1971 were ordered paid as authorized
by the City Manager.
Councilman Silva abstained from voting on Warrants No. 10872 and
No. 10812 and Councilman Beebe abstained on Warrant No. 10861
for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vot~ the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved
with the exception of the item that was removed.
*
*
*
An appeal was submitted by Rev. Charles A. Hill
from the denial by the Planning Commission of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction
and use of religious facilities on the property
located at the end of Nightingale Street. The
applicant requested a continuance for thirty days,
and the Council was agreeable.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
APPEAL RE DENIAL OF
CUP TO ALLOW CHURCH
ON NIGHTINGALE
(Hill)
CM-24-163
June 14, 1971
REPORT RE
FOWL AND
RABBITS
The City Attorney said the Council had received
a request to amend the local ordinance which pro-
hibits the sale of chicks and rabbits as dyed
animals and novelties and prizes to provide for
the sale of these animals with the provision that
any persons selling these animals retail would be required to
accept the return of the animal if the buyer wishes to return it
for any reason. The ordinance was adopted some years ago to pre-
vent the misuse of these animals.
A letter had been received from Glad Sargent, President-Founder
of Pets and Pals, regarding the reason for such legislation as is
now in force. Mr. Lewis said that he had failed, through oversight,
to notify Mrs. Sargent that this matter would be before the Coun-
cil, but felt his report would explain the situation.
Robert Strobel, 4940 Tesla Road, representing Buena Vista Rabbitry,
spoke in regard to comments made by the Poundmaster in his letter
addressed to the City Attorney. He was offering to take any rabbit
that was unwanted and advertise for new homes for them and care
for them until a home was located. He wished to amend the ordinance
so that these animals can be sold as pets with the requirement that
the seller take the animals back if they are unwanted at a later
date. The animals would not be sold or given away as novelty items.
Bill Howell, owner of the Pet Palace, said he was interested in the
welfare of the pets sold by his store and concurred that rabbits,
chicks and ducks are not overly susceptible to disease and can be
cared for by a child in an acceptable manner. He would be agree-
able to the provision that a retailer accept the animal back if
the owner so desired.
Councilman Miller felt that these ordinance amendments could be
tried for a period of time to see how it works out.
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Lewis whether the California Penal
Code provisions would preempt a local ordinance. Mr. Lewis said
the State law specifically prohibits the sale of dyed animals
whereas the local ordinance does not state this specifically.
The State law states the type of conditions which have to be main-
tained in order not to violate the law and our ordinance concerns
the general sale as novelties.
Councilman Miller made a motion to direct the staff to prepare an
ordinance which contains the general provisions as proposed, second-
ed by Councilman Pritchard. The motion was amended to include a
provision that a report be made by the Poundmaster in one year as
to the result of the ordinance and the amended motion was passed
by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
PUD NO. 15
(Hofmann Co.)
The City Council held a public hearing regarding
PUD No. 15 (Hofmann Co.) amendment and extension
on April 26. At that time the permit was referred
back to the Planning Commission for review and
comment due to the many changes and amendments
made by the City Council of the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
The Planning Director explained that the biggest change in this
submittal is the proposal to use an ordinance rather than a PUD
permit which had a time period; on the advice of the City and
County the Commission is now proposing an ordinance be adopted.
The enabling ordinance, under the provision of Sec. 19.00 - Planned
Unit Development Districts, is to come before the Planning Commis-
sion on Tuesday, and hopefully, be before the Council next week.
Mr. Musso further explained that this ordinance establishes a basic
Planned Development District and then a division into Planned Devel-
opments, so that in this case the Hofmann Company will be a special
zone; it will have its own regulations; it will have its own land
CM-24-164
June 14, 1971
use map that will be adopted as a part of the
land use plan.
Mr. Musso continued that the item before the Council is Section
19.15 which is the Planned Development No. 15, the Hofmann Company
Planned Development District. Conditions to approval are as re-
commended to the Planning Commission; there is reference to a map
which was approved by the Council, and there is a neighborhood
commercial area and, very simply, the uses that are allowed and
the regulations to the uses are specified by reference to the CN
Zoning District. In the Highway Commercial District the uses are
as specified; CO Zone the regulations are as specified in the CN
Zone - a combination of the two zones was used because of the CO
uses and CN regulations because of the greater setbacks, more
parking, etc. The Multiple is noted more specifically; the elemen-
tary school is noted; also parks A,B,C and D - one required from
PUD No. 12; the other from the subject Planned Unit Development
permit, to provide recreation area or a volunteer dedication of
some open space along Stanley Blvd.-Isabel Avenue, if possible.
There are some conditions as to hOlding the elementary school for
a period of time; the townhouse residential would conform to the
new townhouse ordinance with some special setbacks from single
family residences that the Commission requested and as approved
by the City Council. There are conditions relative to performance,
conditional approval for certain uses, site plan approval for all
new uses, some landscaping requirements, analysis of land use,
residential density calculations and last there is the time schedule
for development which begins by requiring the tentative map of
the entire development to be filed by July 1, 1972 with the entire
development to be completed by January 1, 1974.
(PUD NO. 15)
Councilman Silva questioned if the permit spelled out that there
is to be only one service station in the highway commercial, and
Mr. Musso stated the permit allows one automobile service station
subject to approval of CUP; in the neighborhood commercial the
ordinance already specifies only one. Councilman Silva pointed
out that the permit indicated "only one" service station on one
page of the permit, but felt this should be repeated again, and
Mr. Musso suggested perhaps it should be stated that "the other
service station shall not be permitted until 50% of the foundations
of the remaining commercial development are poured". Councilman
Miller added that this should mean 50% in the highway commercial
before that station is built and 50% in the neighborhood commercial
before that station is built so that 1 (c) and 2 (c) would read
the same.
Councilman Miller stated that in 4 (b) he did not feel that "resi-
dential development" is clear to mean construction of dwelling
units, which was the intent of the Council as this could mean just
development of lots; he intended that all houses be built and
then make the count of two years. He suggested that the wording
be changed to read, II all residential dwelling units, the land use
shall revert..."
Mr. Musso stated that 5 (a) should read "Shall be developed..."
and 5 (b) read "Park dedicated... II
Councilman Miller stated he would like the PUD permit to say what
they are, essentially, doing in the annexation policy and which is
sort of an agreement with the Rec District; namely, dedicate the
park within two years or until all houses in the PUD are constructed,
whichever comes later. This would give the City an option so that
if they dedicate the land at the time of the final map and then no
houses are built for five years, the City would not be committed
to develop the park, and asked if this could be added, explaining
his reasons, and suggested that in 5 (b) after the words Iltwo years
ff! dedication" to add the words, "or completion of construction of
all the dwelling units in the PUD, whichever is later". He felt
this could be part of the subdivision agreement or written in on
the final map when the park is to be developed, but thought it
; safer to put it in the permit now.
\
"~ tt:i?1- .,dJ.,. i (' k'. r.
tl I CLvt~-
\.' l v;J
CM-24-165
June 14, 1971
(PUD NO. 15)
Mayor Taylor stated the reasoning behind this is that
LARPD is in a bind for budgeting for developing
parks, and this would allow two years after the
last house is built for development of the park.
The City Attorney stated that the Court in the Walnut Creek case,
even though it related strictly to subdivision law - the State law
and local ordinances adopted by Walnut Creek - probably broad
enough to encompass the kinds of constitutional issues that are
involved here. He stated that the Court said that a condition
which requires dedication with a corresponding duty to develop at
a reasonable time related to that development is proper. They
did not say it had to be at a certain time, but reasonably related
to the development of that subdivision; although the City might be
running on the fringe to say two years after the last development,
he assumed the Court would give some prerogative. He did agree
with Councilman Miller the City had that obligation that if the
Park District does not develop, the City has an obligation to see
that it is done. Mr. Lewis suggested that they specify "not later
than two years after the completion".
Councilman Silva stated he appreciated our position, but asked
about the developments that are only about 75% complete and some-
thing happens and the remaining 25% is not completed. If Council-
man Miller's suggestion is adopted, these people may never have a
park as has happened in Greenville North and suggested a two year
limit after 75% of the dwellings are completed.
The ensuing discussion indicated that there was understanding as
far as Councilman Silva's suggestion, but since there is a fixed
amount of money for park development, the two year time limit would
protect the City; there is nothing to indicate that the development
could not be sooner.
Mr. Musso asked if it might be better to state that the "City will
not accept dedication until public works improvements are accepted",
as dedication has been accepted at times with the acceptance of
the final map.
Mr. Lewis advised that it should be in the final map as there is
no difficulty with title insurance and deeds, and it is a matter
of record at that time.
Councilman Beebe questioned Item 2 (c) under Residential Density
Calculations as the Council had discussed the "general plan area"
and the wording shown in the permit indicates "immediate area".
After considerable discussion the majority of the Council agreed
that the wording should remain as shown.
Mr. Lewis suggested with regard to density transfer, this is a
general policy the City may want to consider, talking to the City
of Pleasanton and the County; to establish some agreement as to
the long range planning goals of each and have a clear understand-
ing of what the County, City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore
intend to do and what is to be annexed. Perhaps the Council would
want to consider whether they would want a density transfer, assum-
ing there are no problems, in an area that the County is going to
maintain in an agricultural preserve, so zoned, hereafter.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to approve the permit as amended, and passed by a 4 to 1 vote with
Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
Councilman Pritchard stated his reason for voting negatively is
that there are more bedrooms in this plan. Councilman Miller stated
his reason for voting for approval is that there are less dwelling
units than proposed by Councilman Pritchard.
*
*
*
CM-24-166
June 14, 1971
An application for zoning to PD District was
submitted by Associated Professions (Dumas) and
a hearing held on November 16, 1970 with.dis-
cussion continued to November 23, 1970. A de-
cision was made to rezone the entire area to ID
District and the matter referred back to the
Planning Commission; on May 3 the Council approved, in concept,
the land use proposed and again referred the matter to the Plan-
ning Commission for review and comment. The plan submitted for
the area was considered at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 1, 1971; this matter has also been referred to the Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission.
PROPOSED PUD ZONING
FOR LAND ADJACENT TO
AIRPORT (Dumas -
Associated Prof.)
The Planning Director explained that the issue before the Council
is a plan designed for development of this property for a mobile
home park, industrial park and some public park. The Planning
Commission reaffirmed their original recommendation for denial;
however, if the Council approves the plan, the plan submitted is
acceptable with some changes or modifications, with several con-
ditions to be included in the approval.
Mayor Taylor stated that this proposal had been considered by
the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission and Dr. John Shirley,
chairman of the Commissio~was asked to comment on their hearing
and decision.
Dr. Shirley stated that Commissions have been established in every
County to look at development and institute master plans for the
area around airports. Once the master planning and land use is
established, plans for land adjacent to airports will be approved
on this basis; until that time however the Commission is advisory.
In this particular case the Commission has recommended against
the development. The present runway is now used almost to capacity,
and planes taking off would be very close to the proposed develop-
ment and there would be problems. A second runway will be needed
in five to ten years, which will increase the traffic and proximity
to the proposed development, and other airports in the area are
experiencing trouble now with mobile home development near their
airports. The sound or noise level standards which have now been
determined are rather preliminary and more detailed studies will
be made.
Councilman Pritchard said he did not wish to be in the position
of circumventing a law which will go into effect soon, and per-
haps this matter should be continued until such time as the Com-
mission makes specific planning recommendation for the area.
Councilman Silva indicated he thought that the City would plan
the area and the Commission would agree or not agree. Dr. Shirley
said they would work together to make the plans.
Mayor Taylor stated it seemed the Commission had clearly rejected
the proposed plan; they might approve another plan. Rather than
go against the testimony of the Commission, the alternative is to
reject the plan and let the applicant submit a new plan when the
Commission had indicated approved uses. The Council could recon-
sider whether to allow the mobile home use before discussing the
details.
Councilman Pritchard said if this plan is approved now, could the
Commission preempt the Council's decision if development has not
been begun by the time the Commission formulates its master plan.
The City Attorney stated he did not think the Commission could
preempt the Council's decision, and also advised that Dr. Shirley's
comments should not be taken as testimony as the hearing is already
closed; the vote of the Commission could be considered however.
CM-24-l67
June 14, 1971
Dan Spruiell, representing the developer, asked
what period of time they were discussing if the
matter is continued. Mayor Taylor said that
would be until the Commission has drawn up its
master plan, which is indefinite. Mr. Spruiell
said his client could not wait indefinitely; further, their proposal
meets the requirements of the ABAG study and their proposal is
outside the high noise level determined by the ABAG report.
(Proposed PUD
Zoning - Airport,
Associated Prof.)
Councilman Silva made a motion not to accept the recommendation of
the Airport Land Use Commission, but the motion failed for lack of
a second.
Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the recommendation of the
Land Use Commission, which is that the proposed mobile home park
use should be disapproved; the motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller.
Mayor Taylor urged that the Council reject the mobile home park as
it would cause many problems for the City and the land around the
airport would someday be valuable industrial land.
Councilman Beebe said he felt he must listen to the report made
by the Land Use Commission as he thought the take-offs and landings
over the proposed use would create serious problems.
Councilman Silva said he hated to lose the proposed park land and
industrial park, and did not see that new evidence had been introduced.
Earl Mason, Associated Professions, referred to the ABAG study which
was based on 1985 air use and on power take-offs and asked what
factors the Land Use Commission would use for their master plan if
not this study made by ABAG's consultants. He pointed out the bene-
fits from the proposed development such as more taxes, more jobs, etc.
from the improved industrial park. Designating all the land around
the airport as industrial would be penalizing the owners as it just
will not develop for many, many years; there is presently no improved
industrial land available in Livermore, and the applicant is willing
to finance these improvements so that land will be available for
industrial development. He stated that the County Counsel emphasized
that this Commission, in its work, must state the fact in their de-
cisions; Mr. Mason also said a statement was made by the Chairman of
the Commission that they would make their decision and then find the
facts to fit it, and he did not think this was the way to run the
Commission.
Mr. Musso said this statement was out of context and the intent was
to determine the position of the Commission and then develop the
reasons and the intent was not to avoid giving reasons. Dr. Shir-
ley said the reasons had been given orally but not written down.
Mr. Mason said that the Commission was advised that it was to be
advisory, and that their reasons were not included in the resolu-
tion sent to the City. Mr. Musso further stated he wanted to
clarify the fact that the Commission, of which John Shirley is
Chairman, did not reject the report of the ABAG consultants; the
Commission did, in fact, accept the report without question, and
he recalled that the Commission agreed with the ABAG report but
that outside of the noise curve (25 NEF) the land use was still
incompatible with the airport.
The Public Works Director said that the ABAG report was preliminary
as it was submitted to us prior to inclusion in the official report
to ABAG; however, he was satisfied as to the correctness of the
data included, but there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to
interpretation of the report. The noise curves have been developed
to correct existing deficiencies and to some extent they establish
areas of liability for cities. A curve to establish areas of pro-
tection for the airport would be extended further out. Projection
of airport use in 1985 could be lower than actual use; other factors
than noise alone must be considered.
CM-24-l68
June 14, 1971
Mayor Taylor pointed out that with reference to
technical standards, if noise standards and pub-
lic tolerance were an exact science, they could
write into the State laws the boundaries estab-
lished and all the facts and figures, and a Commission would be
unnecessary. But as is the case with many technical subjects,
a committee of technical men is necessary to use judgment, and
if a risk is involved it has to be taken into account; in this
case there is a matter of risk that must be considered. The fact
that the Council does have a report and allows this report to
influence one way rather than another does not mean the report
has been ignored, but rather that judgment is used in taking the
recommendations into account.
(Proposed PUD
Zoning - Airport)
Councilman Silva asked if a confidential report had been submitted
of which he was not aware inasmuch as it was not his intent to
place the City in jeopardy of possible law suits and felt he had
been placed in an embarrassing position.
Mayor Taylor stated there was no confidential report; the point
he was trying to make is that standards people will tolerate change
through the years; also the noise produced by planes, and he would
have to admit it is always a matter of risk when you try to guess
what is going to happen. A committee can look at a technical re-
port and not agree with it, but still accept it; he agreed with
the Public Works Director that there is nothing wrong with the
survey and the instruments are probably right, but it is too early
to commit the City on the basis of a few readings.
Councilman Silva stated this should have all been taken into con-
sideration when the Elliott tract was approved; he reasoned his
problem might be that after years of trying to locate industry
in Livermore to help the tax situation, we now have someone willing
to spend the money to improve 50 acres of industrial park, and to
him the mobile homes faded away when that proposal was made. For
many years he has defended the reputation that the City Councils
of Livermore have had in being anti-industry due to many rumors
circulated, but did not feel he could do so any longer when it is
known that the City of Livermore turned down 50 acres of improved
industrial park; no one will say they turned down 50 acres of
mobile homes also.
Mayor Taylor stated that the item under discussion is whether or
not they will allow mobile home parks; not whether the Council is
for or against industry. We must keep in mind we have, without
this development, three plots of land under contract now for
building speculative industrial buildings in this immediate area,
and no mobile homes are involved.
Councilman Miller stated that with regard to the rumors, the City
has never turned down a bona fide industrial applicant; every
member of every Council the last fifteen years has done his utmost
to get industry to come to this community. He felt the people
who spread the rumors are the residential land developers because
the members of this community will not let them run roughshod over
us. If false rumors are spread, it is not the fault of the Council
or the citizens of this community; the public should be aware of
who it is that tries to ruin our reputation on industrial acquisi-
tion.
Councilman Beebe stated that, as a layman, he has listened to
various sides on this matter and all he can do is base his vote
on a technical statement as to the airport. On the one side he
could see the Airport Land Use Commission making the decision and
also agreeing with decibel noise level presented by ABAG; on the
other hand he felt he must be influenced by the report from the
Public Works Director who reports that perhaps the area of pro-
tection should be expanded, and would like to see the matter con-
tinued until determination is made exactly what should be protected.
CM-24-169
June 14, 1971
(Proposed PUD Councilman Beebe asked if it would be possible
Zoning - Airport) to obtain an unbiased technical report to govern
them. He, too, was interested in obtaining the
50-acre industrial park and the 21 acres of
open space dedicated, but other factors must be weighed. He agreed
that the mobile home park misses the 25 decibel level which is the
allowable maximum, but would like to see a report that goes fur-
ther to determine if there is any compatible use for this area.
If the developer would agree to a thirty or sixty day continuance
to allow time to obtain a technical study, that he as a layman
could accept, he would vote "no" on this motion and change it to
ask for a thirty or sixty day extension as he is not convinced
what is right.
Mayor Taylor stated that whatever the study revealed there would
have to be a committee of people to interpret it, and the Airport
Land Use Commission was picked because of their knowledge in matters
of airport use and because they represent the interest of the County
as a whole, and an airport is a regional asset. Mayor Taylor asked
if the staff had any comment to make with regard to such a study.
Mr. Lee replied he would assume this information should be made
available to the Airport Land Use Commission as they plan the area
in the vicinity of the airport. They will have available to them
the advice from the ABAG representative Mr. Walter Gillfillan, who
is well informed on this subject and from that they should be able
to arrive at a good zoning proposal that will protect the future
residents in the area and also the airport.
Councilman Pritchard asked if Mr. Gillfillan had taken part in the
ABAG study which the Council had been given, to which Mr. Lee re-
plied in the affirmative, adding that he had taken part in the
retention of the engineers who did the study and would be in a
position to interpret what is meant and give advice to this Commis-
sion.
Mayor Taylor felt that what Mr. Lee was saying is that the ABAG
representative should make this information available to the Air-
port Land Use Commission when they form their plan, but that is
not what Councilman Beebe had in mind - he wanted another study;
either this plan is good or bad and ~e reject it now and if the
study shows that some area may be pushed back and is compatible,
then the matter can be reopened.
Councilman Pritchard stated it was his intent to vote "nofl on the
motion for two reasons: first, they have the ABAG study and there
is some conflict as to what it means because Mr. Lee has said that
outside of the lines drawn the City is free of any liability and
the Airport Land Use Commission made their recommendations to the
Council without the expertise of this study, or any study, and
this was why he had originally brought up the subject of having
the Airport Land Use Commission do studies which were apparently
not done, but just a matter of public testimony at the one meet-
ing; then coming up with this resolution. He would still like to
see expert testimony given to the Commission and then have them
make their decision.
Mr. Musso explained that the Commission had read and accepted the
ABAG report with the 25 NEF line; but the Commission said that
even though the proposed mobile home park is outside this contour,
they still feel it is an incompatible use.
Mr. Lee said the 25 NEF is a federal factor for noise level; he
also stated that the noise level study was done mainly to correct
existing deficiencies where houses already exist and encroach on
the approaches to a runway. The area of protecting an airport is
a different matter; it probably would be better not to have houses
right up to the 25 NEF line in this case. The Land Use Commission
will take this all into consideration in drawing up their master
plan, and it might be possible for them to complete their plan in
six months.
CM-24-170
June 14, 1971
Councilman Pritchard asked if the federal factors (Proposed PUD
will be the same as the FAA standards. Mr. Lee Zoning-Airport)
said these are minimum standards to be used in
correcting a bad situation of encroachment and
are a guide for planning around an airport, but noise is not the
only consideration - there is exposure, types of construction and
many other factors.
Dr. Shirley said that Mr. Lee's comments were correct. The data
in the ABAG study is good, but it is not the whole story; a more
comprehensive study to be made will give more answers. Cities
may be liable and be forced to buy residential areas; if the stand-
ards are too restrictive it would be very hard on the cities.
Standards for protection may be much more restrictive.
Councilman Silva asked the City Attorney if the City would be liable
for these mobile home units if an air easement is obtained. Mr.
Lewis stated that under existing court cases and law, we would
not, as these units would be personal property moved onto the site.
A valid air easement would protect us against inverse condemnation.
The easement would have to cover us against future noise, vibration,
etc. A further comment is that the issue is consideration of stand-
ards adopted in California law in the administrative code that say
what must be done when property is within the 25 NEF line: The
use can be abated which means condemning houses or other use, or
discontinue or abate the airport to whatever degree is necessary
to accommodate the surrounding use. There is still the basic law
that if a City creates a disturbance, without an easement, then
the City is liable to suit.
Dan Spruiell asked about possible condemnation of the land due
to the 25 NEF line. The City Attorney stated there is a general
statement in the law that no findings of this Commission in and
of themselves shall constitute making a City liable.
Steve Killiany, 888 Curlew Road, encouraged the Council to accept
the Commission's recommendation. He pointed out that the ABAG study
is actually a forecast and could be wrong.
A resident of 492 Colusa Way stated that noise in this part of
town is bearable, but in the future this may change due to in-
creased use. It is proposed that the runway will be extended
and a second one constructed, and a control tower is to be built
which will increase the noise level. There is the probability of
accidents on take-off which would be over the proposed mobile homes.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, said that so far the discussion
has been centered around noise and he did not believe that noise
was too objectionable as there are homes along major streets and
railroads which experience noise too.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, said that the Council should
take action - either approve or disapprove this issue which has
been before the Council several times.
Gilbert Leppelmeier, 748 Wimbleton Lane, said he wished to speak
on behalf of those people who were supposed to move into the pro-
posed mobile home park. These people would be asked to sign away
their rights and then move in fifteen years. The 25 NEF line is
a guideline which can be changed by future developments. The pro-
posed mobile home park will cost the City in taxes with no real
benefits to be gained.
Don Watson pointed out that when an individual buys land for an
investment he is not guaranteed that he will make money on his
investment. The City should not have to guarantee return and be
concerned about taxes assessed on the land.
Councilman Silva said that no one is forcing anyone to move into
the proposed mobile home units, and that this would be the indi-
vidual's choice.
CM-24-171
June 14, 1971
(Proposed PUD-
Airport)
Earl Mason, Associated Professions, asked if the
Council would be willing to postpone a decision on
this matter in order to hear the expertise of Mr.
Gillfillan, ABAG project coordinator.
Mr. Lee said he felt Mr. Gillfillan would be reluctant to make
specific planning recommendations; he could give expert advice on
noise factors, but this is not the whole story.
Mr. Mason said his firm would be agreeable to continuing this mat-
ter for two weeks to get someone from ABAG, or the consultants, to
come before the Council to explain their report.
Mayor Taylor wished to point out they were talking about getting
someone to come in to explain the curves, but not to say such de-
velopment will be okay.
Councilman Silva urged the Council members to make a decision and
not to continue the discussion any longer.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, felt the planning for the airport should
be considered more in regard to the noise level; also the Council
was overestimating the advantages of the proposed industrial area,
and suggested that this issue be submitted to the Industrial Ad-
visory Board. He did not feel industry would locate next to a
mobile home park which might become second class.
Thomas Raison, 5224 Kathy Way, said the City has a good investment
in the airport and this should be considered; a mobile home park
might lower this investment.
Joseph Lee, 622 Bentley, recommended the Council take advantage of
the Land Use Commission and its work. He supported Councilman
Silva's recommendation to let the mobile home park fade away.
Mayor Taylor restated the motion that the Land Use Commission's
recommendation that the proposed development would be incompatible
with the airport and a detriment to both the mobile home develop-
ment and the function of the airport and that the Council disapprove
the use be approved. The motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva
Mr. Musso said the matter of rezoning must be resolved. The Plan-
ning Commission had recommended ID Zoning or PD Zoning if a Planned
Development Permit for the mobile home park is approved. The zoning
was considered for ID zone by the Council on November 23.
John Barker, Associated Professions, said the property owner was not
present but in consideration of his interest, asked that the zoning
be left as agricultural.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to leave the zoning on this property as A-20 (Agricultural), and it
was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
PARCEL MAP
SURVEY NO.5254
(Malloni)
The Planning Director reported that this matter con-
cerns a parcel map for property located at the north-
west corner of Chestnut Street and Junction Avenue,
proposed for multiple residential use and the sub-
divider had asked for a resubdivision of this land
CM-24-172
June 14, 1971
into four parcels as a parcel map. Everything
is in conformance except that Parcel A is not
conforming to the Zoning Ordinance which re-
quires a 50 ft. average width rather than the
45 ft. width proposed. The Planning Commission
has recommended approval with the 50 ft. wide lot.
(Parcel Map Survey
No. 5254)
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, to
accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for approval;
motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission minutes of the June 1
meeting were noted for filing.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
*
*
*
The Council discussed mobile home park regula-
tions pertaining to percentage limitation and
designation of site locations. Councilman
Pritchard said he felt the mobile home units should be
to 5% of the existing dwelling units, with designation
fic locations.
MOBILE HOME PARK
REGULATIONS
limited
of speci-
Councilman Beebe said he agreed with the 5% but did not feel that
the matter of site designation should be discussed now.
Councilman Silva said he was not in favor of percentage but
favored site location designation.
Councilman Miller agreed with the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation for 2~%, but did not feel sites should be designated.
~~
~
(~
Mayor Taylor agreed it would be poor planning to designate par-
ticular sites, but felt 4% limitation would be alright and stated
his reason for not designating sites is that these lands would be
removed from present development and would be picked up by land
speculators. This is not done on any other land and our ordinance
now states that mobile homes can be located in residential areas
in RM and RG zones.
i
~
Councilman Silva said his reason for wanting designation of site
is to save time in discussion as on the previous issue. There
will be a number of applications in RM and RG zones, which will
require additional Council time with little chance of approval.
Mr. Musso reported there are 188 mobile homes existing, plus 137
approved, for a total of 325 units.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to establish 5% as the maximum per-
centage of mobile homes to be allowed based on existing dwelling
units, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
,\
-<::,
\,,~
tf
~
i
}
."
Mr. Musso explained that existing dwelling units refers to the
number of poured foundations.
Councilman Miller stated that the Planning Commission recommends
a maximum percentage of 2~, which is approximately the number now tl
existing in Livermore. This percentage should not be increased ~
until mobile homes count for schools and they pay their fair share ~~
of taxes. The deficit between a mobile home and equivalent l).ous- _ . '>:
ing would amount to about 10,i on the tax raterrtl..e ,i1t/<J~-<2ji,-dv'.A'2?,6[ f-
In answer to Councilman Silva's question regarding legality of
this limit, the City Attorney advised that the answer is the same
as that referred to regarding the inclusion of a limit in the
General Plan. It can be stated there will not be any and attach
the conditions, thus establishing policy.
CM-24-l73
June 14, 1971
(Mobile Home
Parks)
Discussion followed regarding the amount of subsidy
which mobile home units generate.
Mr. Leppelmeier, 748 Wimbleton Drive, commented on his reasons for
opposition to mobile home units, in general: 1) they are not low
cost housing; 2) land assessment is essentially the same per square
foot, but taxes on the units are different as single family assess-
ments escalate while mobile home unit values decline each year.
He cited figures for like value mobile home units and single family
residential showing taxes paid by each, and requested that the Coun-
cil not approve these units until tax methods change.
steve Killiany, 888 Curlew Road, said residents of mobile homes use
the same facilities and services as other residents but do not pay
the same taxes. He was against more mobile home units in Livermore.
Joseph Lee, 622 Bentley, supported the previous statements. He
suggested that the tax issue be treated separately from the setting
of the percentage to be allowed. Tax methods will not be changed
until enough City Councils voice their opposition by banning these
units.
Alyce Watson, 743 Wimbleton Way, felt that 5% was too high, especially
because of the school situation.
The motion that the percentage be limited to not more than 5% of
the total dwelling units failed to gain a majority by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to set
the limit at 4% of existing dwelling units, and the motion passed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe and Miller
*
*
*
REPORT RE
RESTAURANT
LEASE
The present lessee of the golf course snack bar has
appealed for additional time to prepare an applica-
tion for the tenancy of the restaurant. The City
Manager recommends denial of the request.
Burke Critchfield, representing Mr. and Mrs. Douglas, the present
lessee, stated the reason for the request was that Mr. Douglas had
not learned until last week that he was not being considered for
continued operation of the snack bar and, therefore, has not had
sufficient time to prepare an offer. His client had been contacted
previously by the proposed operator and asked if he wished to con-
tinue operating the snack bar. Since that time the proposed oper-
ator has changed this offer and expressed the intention to operate
both the upstairs and snack bar. Mr. Critchfield said that his
client was asking for modification under Section 34 of his lease
to have time to exercise his right of refusal.
The City Manager stated there was an obvious misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of what was said. Mr. Douglas has had ample oppor-
tunity to contact the City for additional information and clarifi-
cation during the thirty day term, and the request for an additional
45 days is unjustified.
The City Attorney explained that under the previous lease with Mr.
Douglas, there was a 30-day option if an offer was received which
the City intended to accept for the premises including the snack
bar. So, if an offer was received for the upstairs, not including
CM-24-l74
June 14, 1971
the snack bar, the City did not have to make (Restaurant Lease)
this kind of offer to Mr. Douglas. An offer
must be made within the time expressed. The
hearing was on May 10; Mr. Douglas was contacted on the previous
Friday that a copy of the lease and proposal was available for him
to examine. This was, in fact, sent to Mr. Douglas by certified
mail on Friday evening, but Mr. Douglas was not home and a notice
was left by the post office and the package returned to the post
office. After a ten day period the package was returned to the
City Attorney's office by the post office; Mr. Douglas had been
into his office since that time to discuss this matter. The last
possible date under this option was Saturday, June 11.
Mr. Dave Kamrar, representing Berkeley Science Capital Corporation,
proposed applicant for the restaurant, stated there was no offer
made to Mr. Douglas; they were willing to listen to a proposal
from him which took place a week to ten days after the Council
meeting of May 10. Some period after he talked to Mr. Douglas,
a contact was made through Mr. Critchfield, his attorney, in a
phone call to Palo Alto and a meeting set for Monday, June 7.
On Monday Mr. Critchfield's office called and cancelled that
appointment and suggested they meet June 8; on June 8 he called
Mr. Critchfield's office and informed him their group would like
to continue on the original proposal to operate the restaurant
Gompletely and to have his client either exercise his option or not.
Mr. Critchfield stated his complete agreement with Mr. Kamrar1s
comments; all he was asking was for equitable, reasonable and
fair treatment as far as his client is concerned. After Mr. Kamrar
called his office on Tuesday, he attempted to contact Mr. Parness
and advised him his client was unable to work something out with
the applicant to operate the upstairs and downstairs, and wished
to see all the material and the renderings to be able to make a
fair evaluation. All he was asking for is additional time to
analyze the plans and the proposal and give them an answer.
Mayor Taylor stated that at the Council meeting it was made very
clear that they wanted a proposal to operate a restaurant if the
present operator was serious.
Councilman Silva felt that the present operator should be given an
additional thirty days to come up with a proposal, and asked Mr.
Douglas if it was his intent at the meeting to make a proposal.
Mr. Douglas stated he had not started to get a set of plans for
the inside because the drawings the City is required to have
and the renderings before anything can be built by the City has a
definite bearing on anything he would want to do. If there is
only an artist's sketch, and he does not know what materialw to
be used, it would be physically impossible for him to make a deter-
mination until he has the plans and specifications which is what
he had said earlier. Councilman Silva stated that the other com-
pany is able to do what is required.
Mr. Critchfield stated that Mr. Douglas' lease carefully spells
out he has the first right of refusal; all they are asking is for
the same opportunity to examine the facts and figures which would
be required of anyone. He does not have to come in with a counter
proposal; all he has to do is meet or match any proposal by any
applicant. Mr. Parness has mentioned that Mr. Douglas has had
three or four years, however there has been no concrete proposal.
His client is interested in doing something, but they must have
something to work on; frankly, they did not begin working on it
until last week when he found out he was not being considered to
operate the snack bar.
Mr. Lewis stated he did not wish to argue, but at the meeting of
May 10, they advised that according to the lease with Mr. Douglas
they had to submit the lease they had received, for execution or
non-execution, to Mr. Douglas and his wife within 30 days. At
CM-24-175
June 14, 1971
that time Mr. Parness advised him that the $30,000
would be expended for the design and construction
of the ramp leading to the upstairs from the main
entrance; secondly, it would be expended for a rear
entrance to the kitchen which is required by the building code;
thirdly, by air conditioning and any money remaining after that
would be contributed toward plumbing, etc. At that point there
were no drawings or plans available to either party and in the
lease it specifically said the plans and specifications would be
drawn up by Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader and would be subject solely
to the City's approval. It was not the approval and is not the
approval now of the restaurateur as to what that looks like; the
City's obligation is to spend $30,000 which will be done.
(Restaurant
Lease)
Councilman Miller pointed out that Mr. Douglas had delayed a week
before doing anything if he was interested in presenting a proposal,
and his delay was certainly not the fault of the City.
Michael Casey, with Berkeley Science Capital, stated it was his
understanding, and certainly was never intended by either him or
his board or even brought to a vote that they would operate only
the upper and Mr. Douglas the bottom part of the restaurant. Mr.
Douglas was contacted to explore the possibility; there was never
anything said that he would operate the bottom and they the top;
it was to have a meeting to explore the possibility. As far as the
entrance, he did not know what it would be like, either, but felt
that was a businessman's decision and risk; he felt it would be as
attractively done as the rest of the building is. Another point
is the claim that they are not prepared to make an offer because
they were delayed ten days; however they are asking for a forty-five
day extension. He did wish to put one rumor to rest - that is that
Mayor Taylor is one of the shareholders - he wished to assure every-
one that Mayor Taylor is not and never has been a shareholder and
felt that this innuendo and hint of conflict of interest was un-
fair both to Mr. Taylor and their investment group and hoped this
statement would put the rumor to rest forever.
A called vote was then taken on the motion to accept the City
Manager's recommendation for denial of the extension and passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
GARBAGE AND
RUBBISH RATE
MODIFICATION
tions were
1969 for a
commencing
The City Manager reported that in the spring of
1969 considerable negotiations were conducted with
the Oakland Scavenger Company due to their appli-
cation for a rate increase. Their contract per-
mitted an adjustment as of January 1, 1969, provided
economic conditions so warranted. Final negotia-
concluded and new rates were approved effective July 1,
2-year term with adjustments pledged by the City Council,
July 1, 1971 until December 31, 1973.
Mr. Parness explained that it was regrettable, but after examina-
tion of their books and operational and revenue statements which
were found to be in order, they are committed to the increase in
rates. In this regard, he has the rates of all agencies served by
the company and there are increases pending for all of them which
are higher than those that would be in effect for our City. He
has met with these other agencies on this subject and discussed the
dilemma faced by governmental jurisdictions in discussing the sub-
ject of utility rate increases and their lack of expertise. The
State PUC has a technical staff who do nothing but this and perhaps
this should 1:::>e the way such a matter ought to be appraised. The
agencies were in accord that perhaps what is needed is a consultant
firm, retained by all the cities jointly, and after proper investi-
gation of the accounting methods used by this public utility enter-
prise, compose for us an accounting format that could be used
annually in appraising what their expenditures and revenue experience
is per jurisdiction so that a formula could be adopted that can have
some reliability or validity in trying to make a decision. The
CM-24-176
June 14, 1971
recommendation is that the Council adopt a motion (Rate Modification
approving the adjustment in accordance with the Garbage-Rubbish)
previous resolution.
Motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to
accept the recommendation of the City Manager authorizing the
adjustment of rates.
Councilman Miller commented that the percent of increase was
higher for residential than for commercial. Councilman Beebe
questioned whether or not, by dropping the twice weekly pickup,
the rate might remain the same and Mr. Parness stated it was
possible and the representatives of the company are agreeable to
discussing this. Mr. Parness added that he felt the rate already
committed is fair, but thought the twice a week pickup would be
the subject of some discussion at the time a new contract is
negotiated.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated the City Manager refers
to this service as a public utility, however he felt the only
reason it is such is that there is a restriction on the right of
other people to enter into the business. He felt if this restric-
tion were removed, providing competition, the actual market value
of the services, there would be no need for regulation and audit-
ing of books.
Mayor Taylor stated by terms of the contract they are required to
negotiate this rate increase.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, commented he never works for a
contractor who doesn't lose money, and they take the job on a
competitive bid knowing their costs; they don't care if they lose
money, but expect the workers to make money for them.
Joseph Day, 622 Bentley Place, commented that when the new rates
became effective, they became more efficient and came earlier in
the morning and had called them requesting that they come into
the residential neighborhoods after 7 a.m. and pick up the com-
mercial trash earlier, but was refused.
Mayor Taylor explained that before the new contract was negotiated
they had picked up at 5 a.m., and were asked not to start until
5:30 a.m.
Mr. Alberti explained they have two different types of trucks for
commercial and residential. He also referred to the twice-a-week
summer pickup and mentioned that he did not feel the increase was
enough to cover it, but since it had been established, it would
be handled. If the City wished, they could work out something
and rather than have the twice-a-week pickup, pass the savings
on to the customer rather than put it out on labor costs.
Councilman Miller felt they should leave well enough alone, and
Councilman Pritchard asked what rate they would propose without
the twice-a-week pickup. Mr. Alberti replied the amount they
would collect on the increase is $45,000 and 75% of that goes
just for the labor cost. What he would do is set the rates for
no increase for one-can customers and 251 rather than 51 increase
for two cans on a once a week basis. If a customer wants twice
a week service the $2.00 customer would pay 75% more, which would
be $3.50 for the three months, or a total of $4.50 more for the
three month period; at $2.35 the cost will be $4.20 for the one-can
customer.
Councilman Pritchard asked how the City was involved in setting
the rates and why it was not a free enterprise. Mr. Parness ex-
plained that this method was used at the outset of the contract
term; there has to be a reasonable contract period to attract a
firm such as this one, who is willing to invest in equipment and
CM-24-177
June 14, 1971
(Rate Modifica- have the personnel to do the job. At one time
tion - Garbage) they operated under a 5-year contract when the
City was much smaller; the present contract is for
ten years and will expire in January 1974. But
once the rate is set at the outset, there has to be an adjustment
process throughout its term wherein there can be substantial eco-
nomic variations that occur. This is why so much difficulty is
occasioned by other types of utility services and that is why most
of them are subject to the State PUC in making rulings on this
very point.
Mayor Taylor asked for a roll call vote on the question, and the
motion passed unanimously.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
TRAILER,
MOBILE HOME
PARKS
PRO POSED
ORDINANCE
REZONING SOUTH
SIDE 7TH ST.
(Callaghan)
RESOLUTION NO. 65-71
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING FEES FOR THE COLLECTION
OF GARBAGE, COMBUSTIBLE AND NONCOMBUSTIBLE HOUSE-
HOLD REFUSE.
*
*
*
The introduction and vote re Zoning Ordinance
amendment - Trailer, Mobile Home and Travel Trailer
Parks; other related items; regulations for Town
house Development and other related regulations
was set for this time; however Councilman Miller
asked that this item be continued for one week
inasmuch as there were a few minor items which
had not been inserted in the ordinance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva, and by the following vote, the
reading of the ordinance was waived (title read
only) and the ordinance rezoning the parcel lo-
cated southeasterly of the intersection of Maple
Street, East Avenue and Seventh Street from RL 5-0
to RM District was introduced:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
ORDINANCE RE
Sec. 6.18
(Obsolete Bldg
Code)
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 746
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO
BUILDINGS UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION, OF CHAPTER
6, RELATING TO BUILDINGS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY
CODE, 1959, BY AMENDING SECTION 6.18 THEREOF, RE-
LATING TO INTENT OF ARTICLE.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, and
by the unanimous vote of the Council, the second reading of the
ordinance was waived, and the above ordinance was passed.
ORDINANCE RE
REZONING NE
CORNER HILLCREST
& EAST AVE.
(Lincoln Lumber)
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 747
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMEND-
ING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Mayor Taylor, and by
unanimous vote of the Council, the second reading of the ordinance
was waived, and the above ordinance was passed.
CM-24-178
*
*
*
June 14, 1971
A communication from the City of Woodlake re
sales tax distribution and a suggestion for
change in method of allocation was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion at
this time. Councilman Beebe suggested that
a similar method of collecting sales tax be endorsed for this area,
support the City of Woodlake and urge the State Legislature to re-
form the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law of 1955.
Communication re
Sales Tax
Distribution
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Silva, to adopt a resolution endorsing the position of the City
of Woodlake and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 66-71
A RESOLUTION URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO INSTITUTE
REFORM IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SALES TAX REVENUE BY
UTILIZING A PER CAPITA FORMULA.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director advised the Council
that with reference to the Granada storm drain
channel, the City originally accepted an ease-
ment for the channel rather than title to the
right-of-way; the ownership remained with the developer for some
reason. In the meantime, there have been taxes accumulating on
it since 1965. The developer will dedicate it to the City and
give us a Quitclaim Deed on it, and he would like to have the
Council accept the right-of-way and petition the Board of Super-
visors to waive the taxes from 1965 to present.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Granada
Channel Easement)
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to adopt the recommendation of the Public Works Director,
and passed 4 to 1 with Councilman Miller dissenting.
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that with reference (AB ]032)
to the school land dedication Bill 1032, it
went through the Assembly with a vote of 54 to
3 in favor of passage, and is now in the Senate.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that a letter to Assemblyman Bee
would be in order.
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that the billing for
parking lot assessment must be forwarded and
he explained the formula by which the busi-
nesses are assessed. He stated that in order
to have the stores on the north side of First Street pay the same
percentage formula as they did for previous years, it would mean
a $560 annual subsidy and asked if the Council would wish to con-
sider assuming that or, if a ratio is applied to the stores on
the north side to reduce their percentage by the same ratio as
the stores on the south side have enjoyed, it would be $1400.
(Parking Lot
Assessment)
Councilman Miller stated he would offer no subsidies and suggested
that the staff do whatever is necessary to make it come out right.
Mayor Taylor stated that failure of the business community to form
an assessment district to build two parking lots was the reason,
and he felt it would be out of order for the City to subsidize a
lot formerly supported completely by the merchants.
Councilman Beebe questioned if the County had been requested to
pay more due to the Municipal Court activity and Mr. Parness
CM-24-179
June 14, 1971
(Parking Lot)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Flag Salute)
(Sidewalk
Repair)
reduce the cost
ing bids, etc.
advised they had simply refused.
Mayor Taylor stated since there was no support of
a subsidy by the Council that the staff take what-
ever action necessary.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard suggested that the Council
salute the flag weekly as he felt it was a nice
custom, and after some discussion a motion was made
by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to salute the flag weekly, and passed 4 to 1
with Councilman Miller dissenting, stating that
symbolic gestures are less important than deeds.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to the repair of side-
walks and stated we should consider the suggestion
of Mr. Tilles and contract, by seeking bidders, to
have all the sidewalks fixed at the same time to
and relieve the homeowners of the trouble of obtain-
When it is all completed then assess each homeowner.
Mr. Parness explained that sidewalks are repaired through a bidding
process, however we must give the property owner the right to do
the work himself.
Mayor Taylor stated he felt the budget session would be the time
to discuss this and asked that the staff furnish the Council with
a report on the cost at that time.
(Bicycle
Licensing)
(Community
Affairs
Committee)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-180
*
*
*
Councilman Miller suggested bicycle licensing and
the use of license plates which might reduce the
problem of theft of bicycles, and asked that this
be explored and a report made to the Council.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor stated that the Community Affairs
Committee has been quite active, and the flag con-
test they have been conducting, which was approved
by the Council, will be held next Wednesday, June
23, at the Livermore National Bank, and they wished
the Council to attend.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 a.m.
*.. * ~
APPROVE C~ z: 1 /~
, Mayo r
ATTEST~~LL
t C'l-exk
Livermore, California
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of June 21, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 21, 1971,
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, Silva, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the members of the City Coun-
cil and those present in the audience in the
Pledge of Allegiance
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, requested OPEN FORUM
that representatives of the American Taxpayers (BUdget)
Union be recognized and allowed to speak at the
budget session to be held on Wednesday night as
other organizations have been allowed to do in conjunction with
their requests for funds. ATU wished to present its resolution
and give their objections to items in the budget.
Mayor Taylor explained that the Council only hears from depart-
ment heads concerning the budget and also the Chamber of Commerce
representatives as the City has a contract with them. The Council
does not carryon dialogue at the budget session with private cit-
izens. Comments will be heard at the public hearing to be held
later; written statements could be distributed to the Council.
*
*
*
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, stated he felt that(Budget Hearings)
the ATU should be allowed a chance to express
opposition to budget items, such as the subsidy
to the Cultural Arts Council and the Chamber, which had asked for
more than the amount called for under its contract.
Councilman Miller clarified the fact that he is the delegate appoint-
ed to represent the City Council on the LCAC, not an elected officer
of that organization as suggested by Mr. Tull.
*
*
*
Roy Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, said he hoped
the members of the Council will have an open
mind at the hearings on the budget and listen
to what members of the community have to say
about items on the budget.
(BUdget Suggestions)
Mayor Taylor advised Mr. Faltings that if someone has data or
information regarding the budget that it would aid the Council
if it is presented in writing before the next meeting so that
the members of the Council might consider it.
*
*
*
An application has been submitted for rezoning
the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and North
Livermore Avenue from RL-7 and RL-IO to residen-
tial districts provided by the Zoning Ordinance
and PD District.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING NE CORNER
NO. LIVERMORE &
PORTOLA AVE.
(Feeney et al)
CM-24-181
June 21, 1971
Mr. Musso explained that this rezoning had been
requested by the Planning Commission; the proper-
ty was annexed to the City some years ago and
zoned RL-7 and RL-IO and a Planned Unit Develop-
ment permit was granted. The development of the
property was, in effect, a density transfer type of development
so the developer could utilize the terrain to the best advantage.
The Planned Unit Development permit was about one-third completed
and has now expired and the Commission then undertook rezoning.
The PD zone was considered, however, it was concluded that a PUD
permit was not necessary and that straight zoning was best. The
second type of zoning considered was RS District, and the Commis-
sion's intention was to rezone comparable to the development com-
pleted. The density proposed is comparable to the density indicated
by the General Plan and to the density previously approved for the
development; there is no indication or plan for commercial. Another
question concerned setbacks; present restrictions have provisions
which were not formerly set forth and are much more detailed than
previously given. The Commission recommends rezoning to RS-3 and
Rs-4 in the same configuration previously existing (RS-4 in the
flat area and RS-3 in the hill area).
(Public
Hearing -
Feeney et al)
Councilman Beebe asked if the streets proposed are in conformance
with the hillside standards in the proposed ordinance. The Public
Works Director stated that the engineering considerations include
provisions regarding the grading ordinance as the hillside ordinance
does not apply in this case.
Letters received regarding this rezoning were noted from the follow-
ing: Mr. and Mrs. John F. Yates, Mr. and Mrs. LeRoy Green, Mr. and
Mrs. Ralph Sharp, Mr. and Mrs. Paul S. Brown, S. G. Roberts, David
M. Buchla, Mr. and Mrs. John F. Miller, Mr. and Mrs. Roger A. Ma-
roody, Dr. and Mrs. James C. Watson, and Mr. and Mrs. Roland S. Noack.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing.
David Madis, representing the landowner, said his client concurs
in the recommendation of the Planning Commission and requests appro-
val of this recommendation and also the tentative map submitted for
this area.
Barry Scherman, representing Hofmann Company, said the density, if
the map is approved, would be about 3.2 d.u./acre and agreed with
the Planning Commission's recommendation for RS-3 and Rs-4.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
close the public hearing, which was approved unanimously.
Mr. Musso explained that the PD Zone had been included in the hear-
ing at the Planning Commission meeting because they were not sure
about the plan to be presented. After seeing the proposed plan it
was unnecessary to consider PD zoning. It had been brought out at
the Commission's hearing that a mix of the two zonings was not
possible originally as can be done now.
Councilman Miller pointed out that originally the General Plan in-
dicated a 2.5 density for this whole area, but the density was later
increased at the request of the developer. He felt the whole area
could be zoned RS-3.
Mr. Musso stated the change in density occurred when the 2.5 den-
sity class was eliminated from the General Plan. The existing
General Plan density indicates 4 d.u./acre along Livermore Avenue
and 3 d.u./acre for the remainder.
Councilman Miller stated that often the General Plan density is
increased when requested, but it could be decreased also, as in
this case.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to
accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
CM-24-182
June 21, 1971
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to
delete Rs-4, but there was no second for this
proposed amendment.
(Public Hearing -
No. Livermore &
Portola Ave.)
Mayor Taylor said it was quite natural for people living in the
area to wish this property to be developed at as low a density as
possible with the development of the area as high class as possible.
However, the proposed zoning is in every way compatible, and su-
perior in many ways, to the existing zoning of RS-IO.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the recommendation to re-
zone this area to RS-l, but there was no second. Councilman Miller
cited as his reason for this amendment the fact that the School
District predicts a shortage of schools in this area and the fact
there is no elementary school available in the immediate area. He
said it was his feeling that the general law says that the City
can protect its school children under the public welfare aspect
of the State law. The primary responsibility of the State, which
includes the City and the School District, should be taken into
account. He referred to remarks made by former Mayor Marguth that
the City can bankrupt its school system and the school system by
its high tax rate can drive away industry. Taking these things
into account, the time has come to consider the request for re-
zoning back to Agricultural or to RS-l.
The motion to approve rezoning to RS-3 and Rs-4 as recommended by
the Planning Commission was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
Although the public hearing was closed at the
meeting of May 17, a subsequent motion was a-
dopted to reopen the hearing on the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding Section
5.00, Residential District re Accessory Uses,
Minimum Average Lot Width, Minimum Yards, Maximum Developable
Floor Area, Floor Area, Computation re Density, and Section 20.00,
General Provisions.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZO AMENDMENT
(RS District)
It had been requested that the staff make available to Councilmen
Beebe and Pritchard preceding information regarding testimony and
presentations made at the time of the adoption of the present ordi-
nance. Mr. Musso stated that a search of the files indicated that
such information had not been filed with the City by those pre-
senting testimony and, therefore, was not available to the new
Council members. Councilman Silva suggested that the staff pre-
pare some informal sketches illustrating what had been discussed
previously.
Mayor Taylor suggested that due to Councilman Pritchard's absence
this matter be continued for a period sufficient to allow study
of material to be prepared by the staff. After discussion, the
Council continued resolution of this matter until September 13.
The public hearing was then opened for testimony on the proposed
amendments to the RS Ordinance.
Mike Uthe, 1376 Anza Way, said his estimate of the time involved
in the preparation of the original ordinance was from 10 to 15
thousand manhours. There were about 10,000 written pages and
graphs illustrating and comparing various proposals. Mr. Uthe
stated the final major argument at that time centered around
whether or not to use a floor coverage area or side yard and back
CM-24-l83
June 21, 1971
yard size as setbacks. He said he was never con-
vinced completely one way or another, but wished
to find a manner to reduce noise and create a
better sense of family in the neighborhoods. The
majority of the Council preferred the floor cover-
age regulations and the ordinance was so constructed. He stated
that if the Council now wished to go to the setback standards, he
would suggest going back to a lot size criterion rather than a
density criterion.
(Public
Hearing-
RS District)
Harry Wilson, 926 Curlew Road, said his house was developed under
the present RS ordinance, and compared to those built before
adoption of present ordinance, he felt that the ordinance had
caused an improvement.
H. Leider, 1091 Batavia Way, stated his house was built in 1957
under RL provisions, and he felt his house was very satisfactory
as was the neighborhood. However, he believed that there was a
lack of privacy which seemed to be somewhat solved by the present
RS ordinance.
Earl Mason, Associated Professions, said he had been involved in
the discussions and consideration when the present RS ordinance
was adopted. He asked the Council to look at present development
where 30% lot coverage has been allowed rather than the 25%. He
felt there can be good development with 30% lot coverage.
Councilman Miller said the development referred to had actually
been built at 25% coverage with possible expansion to the 30%
coverage if the homeowner chose to do so.
Barry Scherman, Hofmann Company, pointed out that one of the things
25% coverage practically eliminates is the 3-car garage. It also
makes it difficult to design a two-story house under 25% coverage.
Discussion followed regarding planning that would allow pleasing
two-story construction.
Mayor Taylor said that not all builders will design their houses
in a manner to get maximum yield as it seems they would also con-
sider other factors such as the aesthetics of the design on the
lot.
Roger Anderson, 4354 Guilford Ave., said he lived in an RS-3 zone.
He felt increases in lot coverage and setbacks should be carefully
considered. There are lots available under RL zoning for people
who wished to have only minimum yards. The RS zoning should be
continued in the same manner.
Janet Read, 475 Malibu Court, referred to a survey in which she
had participated regarding the RS zoning. A committee of four
had surveyed various areas of town regarding privacy provided
and yard sizes. She gave the results of the survey which indicated
the majority felt they lived too close to their neighbors and
needed more privacy and more setback between houses. She felt
changes should not be made until more time has elapsed to see the
results of the present RS ordinance, and that total floor coverage
should be counted so that two-story houses would be further away
from adjacent houses.
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, said the privacy in his house is
nil as the house was built some twenty years ago. He felt that
another survey might be made to see what people feel now, and be-
lieved it would be logical to give extra allowance for second
story but limit the percentage of such designs in anyone parti-
cular development.
James Shaw, 4313 Guilford Way, felt changes should not be made in
the present ordinance until the results can be measured.
CM-24-184
June 21, 1971
Bob Schaeffer, 785 Wall Street, stated he found
a number of two-story houses adjacent to each
other was objectionable.
(Public Hearing -
RS District)
Mrs. Lee Heaton, 1392 Kathy Court, felt it was better to have
larger yards and requested that the ordinance not be changed.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, noted that his former neighbor-
hood had a playground in the center of the block; he did not feel
that yards were necessarily the place for children to play ball.
He suggested that perhaps all of the second-story would not count
on total coverage and that unheated areas such as garages which
cannot be used for residential purposes not be counted in the same
way. He felt vehicular access should be provided.
David Madis, 1054 Canton Avenue, felt the testimony could be sum-
marized by saying that people wished to have varying types of
housing and the purpose of the housing ordinance should be to
allow freedom of choice. The allowance should be increased to
30% to provide flexibility to meet public need. The market demand
determines what is built.
Mayor Taylor said that many people buy tract homes and do not
realize what side yards will be or that two-story homes will be
adjacent. Side yards were not provided until City ordinance re-
quired them.
Councilman Silva felt it was not the Council's place to inform
buyers facts about the homes for sale. The people should have
the right to select their home, and if the yard is not wide enough
it is not the Council's fault the buyers did not look into this.
He said he did not favor changing the side yards required but did
wish to change the site coverage to 30%, incorporating a rear or
front yard increase. There should be a minimum of fifty feet di-
vided between the front and rear yards.
Councilman Miller said the people had voiced their oplnlons when
the RS ordinance was adopted and gave their objections to the RL
ordinance. The RS ordinance had been adopted to overcome these
objections as the builders had not provided the choices voiced by
the public.
Norman Warnow, P.O. Box 575, said that from his experience in the
real estate business, he had found the women wanted a large yard
but the men want to know the cost. Lot coverage is not usually
asked about. The developer is not always the bad man, and there
seems to be a conflict with the Council. The important considera-
tion is the home buyer rather than the builder or the Council.
S. G. Roberts, 2816 Waverley Way, felt it was not the proper
attitude for the Council to say lllet the buyer bewarell, but rather
the Council's responsibility to protect the interest of the citizens
in Livermore. Increasing the lot coverage would degrade the liva-
bility of Livermore.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, said that even though his back
yard is 200 feet, it still is not big enough to play ball; this
should be done in the parks. He did not feel this matter should
be continued for such a long period as the Council members should
have been aware this was coming up. Also, most of the testimony
about the RS ordinance was given by people living in RL zoning.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, said he lived in an RL zone but
wished that he lived in RS zone. He felt developments in the re-
maining RL zone should have a time limit placed for such develop-
ment and then it should be rezoned to RS or other zoning.
David Madis clarified his previous statements by saying he was
not advocating a system of laissez-faire homebuilding, but he felt
CM-24-185
June 21, 1971
(Public
Hearing -
RS District)
the ordinance should be as flexible as possible.
The matter to be considered is the cost; City fees,
City requirements, and all the parts of the finished
product determine the cost of the house, including
the lot size. Not all people can afford the high
priced lots and requirements; Livermore can be made into a very ex-
clusive suburb through zoning and requirements. There has to be
a place for lower income people to buy a home, and workers in in-
dustry have difficulty in buying a home. There have to be regula-
tions, but the entire City cannot be built according to one high
quality segment of the City.
Mr. Anderson said variety is not gained by taking away restrictions.
A mixture of RL and RS zoning can provide the needed variety.
Robert Allen said he would like to see a tract developed without
restrictions; the result might be so imaginative that we might want
this type of development. Low density not only means high cost lots,
but it adds to the need for transportation and results in more smog
problems.
Mr. Uthe suggested that Councilman Silva's proposal might cause a
modification in yard requirements which would create problems.
During previous consideration of the RS ordinance, it was calculated
that the price increase on a standard house would be about $2,000
from the change in the ordinance. Today, the identical house can
be purchased on RL-7 lot and RS-3 lot for only a difference of $500.
The difference is due to the service costs along the frontage, not
the land per se.
Mr. Leider said it is difficult now for lower income people to buy
housing at 2~ times their salary as approved by FHA.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to
close the public hearing, and it was approved unanimously (Councilman
Pritchard absent).
Councilman Silva said the reason he was proposing the additional
5% site coverage is to allow the purchase of a little larger home
for the same price it would cost to get the little larger yard.
Councilman Miller stated one thing that was overlooked was that
the cost of the house itself was in proportion to the number of
square feet; the only way for the lower income people to get a house
is to have a smaller number of square feet. Yet builders do not
build low priced houses on the smaller lots but build larger ones.
By placing a limit on lot coverage it requires smaller houses on
the smaller lots.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
continue this matter until September 13; motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Attorney reported that at the Council
meeting of May 24, approval was obtained to re-
lease some street property owned by the City
on the north side of Railroad Avenue, extending
east from P Street. This property is no longer
necessary for the Railroad Avenue Widening needs.
Recommendation was made for adoption of a resolution authorizing
execution of the Quitclaim Deed.
Quitclaim Deed
(Street Property
Railroad Ave. &
P Street -Zepol,
Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 67-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED
*
*
*
CM-24-186
A communication was received from the lOth
District-The American Legion, together with
a copy of their resolution re the Oath of
Allegiance said at City Council meetings.
*
*
*
Minutes of the meeting of June 1 for the Beau-
tification Committee and minutes of the Housing
Authority meeting of May 18 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Applications for exempt business licenses were
received from the following:
June 21, 1971
Communication re
Oath of Allegiance
(American Legion)
Minutes (Various)
Exempt Business
Licenses
Rainbow Mothers' Club - various fund raising activities
for the year
Granada Booster's Club - dinner and dance on July 10,17 and 26
*
*
*
At the meeting of June 7, the City Attorney was
asked to research the possibility of secession
from SACEOA, and presented his report to the
Council again reiterating that we can withdraw,
but pointing out the hazards to existing programs.
*
*
*
Report re Secession
from SACEOA
An appeal from denial of a Variance for a sign
size filed by Holiday Inn was heard by the City
Council on May 17. Although the Variance was
not issued the City Council instructed that this
matter be continued for thirty days to await a proposed ordinance
modification for highway signing under study by the Planning Com-
mission.
Report re Holiday
Inn Sign Variance
The ordinance change has been set for public hearing the the Plan-
ning Commission on July 13 and will be referred to the City Council
shortly thereafter. It is recommended that a motion be adopted
to continue this matter for an additional thirty days.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote,
the items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
Approval of Consent
Calendar
The Planning Director explained that Tract Map
No. 3321 is a part of the area considered for
rezoning earlier in the evening. It is bounded
by Livermore Avenue but excludes a narrow strip
at the corner of Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue. One of the
issues involved is park location and access; other points discussed
were the zoning line, access in and out of the subdivision, and
design of the subdivision according to the terrain. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of an access south to Portola Ave.
The final map was changed to move Park Glen Drive south of the
property line, and the Planning Commission originally made a pro-
vision for a major parkway access to connect the loop to the park
in the vicinity of Lots 162 and 135, which they referred to as a
II parcade IT. The Recreat ion Dis trict did not approve of the II parcade II
and advised they would not maintain it. The final recommended map
is essentially the same design except the loop was eliminated and
the streets extended and connected to the existing subdivision.
TRACT MAP NO. 3321
(Hofmann Co.)
CM-24-l87
June 21, 1971
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Musso why one Commis-
sioner did not like the proposed plan for the hill
area. Mr. Musso said one reason is that the exist-
ing Los Altos area does have some excessive cuts
which created drainage problems, etc. The ordinance also provides
that lots at the boundary of the subdivision cannot be below the
minimum size without obtaining a Conditional Use Permit; therefore,
the map had to be changed to widen these lots to conform to the or-
dinance. The zoning line which cut across the 260 ft. contour was
changed to apply to the property line; this did not change the num-
ber of allowable lots under the RS-3 and Rs-4 zones, and the only
major difference is the minimum lot size.
(Tract Map
No. 3321)
Also discussed was the proposed access to Portola Avenue; the Com-
mission felt there should be access from the subdivision to Portola
Avenue, however, there was a question as to whether it should be
required with the initial tract or when the property not within the
subdivision is developed.
The Public Works Director reported that the considerations for access
are traffic and convenience which are interrelated. He explained
the calculations for traffic load projected using the existing Royce
street access rather than creating another access to Portola Ave.
Traffic volume does not seem to be a consideration for making another
access, but in regard to convenience an average maximum of 450 feet
would be travelled from anyone lot without the second access.
Councilman Miller felt the second access to Portola Avenue would
be easier and less dangerous for traffic than entering North Liver-
more Avenue which will be the major access to the freeway. Also
discussed was that a second access to Portola might cause more pro-
blems because of the location of Portola Avenue School on the south
side. Councilman Miller said if the entrance was offset from the
school entrance this would aid in solving this problem.
Mr. Lee said that access to major streets is usually kept to a
minimum; the ratio of people served in the tract must be considered
in relation to those using the major street. Distance between
accesses is usually kept to a minimum of 1320 feet or one-quarter
mile.
Councilman Miller felt that perhaps the street pattern within the
tract is such that it makes another access necessary, and suggested
that rather than the access another street pattern might be better.
Mayor Taylor pointed out another point to be considered is the strip
of property along Portola Avenue which is under another ownership.
When the PUD was first considered the present developer was urged
to try to get this land included in the tract. Development of this
strip later will create a problem due to the cost of public works
improvements; the developer might come in when this land is to be
developed stating that he could not bear such costs, and might re-
quest higher density or commercial to support such costs. Actually,
the cost of the improvements on Portola Avenue should be spread over
the entire development. He thought that the tract could not be
accepted until some mechanism is worked out for development of the
street. The Council discussed previous problems on East Avenue and
Murrieta Blvd.
Mayor Taylor made a motion to direct the staff to propose a mech-
anism to assure development of the street (assessment district or
equivalent method); motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Barry Scherman of Hofmann Company stated that this had not been
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting other than changing
Park Glen Street to the property line. The developer is already
responsible for improvements along North Livermore Avenue and the
land adjacent to this tract is under four different private owner-
ships. He did not feel his company should be burdened with this
additional development because of conditions which now exist.
CM-24-l88
June 21, 1971
After further discussion Mr. Scherman suggested
that if an assessment district is formed, it
should include North Livermore Avenue also.
(Tract Map 3321)
Mr. Lewis stated that one of the alternatives to an assessment dis-
trict is to condition zoning. The same thing is achieved by con-
ditioning approval of the tract map by the requirement that cash
or something in lieu of cash, such as doing the work in the exist-
ing right-of-way, be a condition of this subdivision approval.
The other method using an assessment district gets the street
improved now but the City might have to condemn, with the cost
of condemnation borne equally under the assessment district. This
would add to the cost due to engineering and other work involved.
Possibly the developer should be given the option to: 1) prior to
approval of final map an assessment district shall be formed
having boundaries (described) or 2) agree to do something else to
eliminate that burden prior to the final map.
Mr. Scherman said that if the strip along Portola Avenue were to
develop first they would have to bear the cost of improvements;
it is a matter of who comes in first with a proposal.
Mayor Taylor said that past experience shows that small parcels
of land do not develop at low density when there is the burden of
street improvements.
After further discussion a motion was made by Councilman Silva,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, for approval of Tract Map No. 3321,
as previously discussed, with the condition that the subdivision
map be conditioned with the agreement of the property owner to
enter into an assessment district for the improvement of North
Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue adjacent to the tract bounda-
ries with the standard backing lot treatment, or some other agree-
ment approved by the staff and developer, which would provide an
equitable agreement for the major street treatment required.
Mr. Musso explained that the street shown to the right of the park
will extend along the park boundary unless there is a school site
adjacent in which case it will go to the right; the street will
connect in some way with Waver ley Way eventually.
Councilman Miller said he was concerned about the street location
in regard to the park as they have tried to assure that half the
park perimeter will have access. Mr. Musso said that it may be
difficult to do this without having the street climb the hill;
the indicated park location had been considered as the best site
for the park. Councilman Miller suggested that if the park dedi-
cation is extended to the west it might be wise to buy a couple
of the lots indicated in this tract for providing park frontage.
Mr. Musso pointed out that provision has been made for a pedes-
trian access from the center of the tract to the park and this
has been agreed upon and would be fifteen feet wide. Mayor Taylor
stated that when the street lights are located it should be checked
to see that one of the lights is placed in order to illuminate the
walkway. It was decided that the setbacks adjacent to the walkway
should be fourteen feet and a walkway should come out to the
cul-de-sac from the park because of safety.
Councilman Silva made a motion to amend the main motion by adding
the acceptance of the park site as located on the map, and the
pedestrian walkway as discussed, with no additional access to
Portola Avenue as conditions of approval; motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe. The question was called for by Councilman Silva,
seconded by Mayor Taylor.
Mr. Warnow stated he had been included in the Murrieta Assessment
District and had property now off North Livermore Avenue and thought
it would be included in this proposed district. Discussion followed
regarding possible access to the forty acres he owned adjacent to
this tract however no decision was made.
CM-24-189
June 21, 1971
(Tract Map
No. 3321)
Mr. Scherman said he preferred not to have an
assessment district but suggested that his company
would pay anything over and above the costs of a
regular subdivision street (36 ft. of paving) or,
in other words they would pay the cost of undergrounding and the
balance would be assessed against the other property.
Mayor Taylor said he felt the motion as worded already included this
possibility.
Discussion followed concerning a pedestrian walkway to provide
access for school children crossing to Portola Avenue School. It
was suggested that seven and one-half feet be taken off the pro-
perty line to provide this walkway with the remainder to come from
adjacent development. Mr. Scherman pointed out there are existing
storm drain and sanitary lines, and there is just enough room be-
tween the two to put lots. Changing the line 7t feet would place
these utilities on a lot rather than the lot line.
Mr. Lee said it appeared the walkway would have to be on the adja-
cent property because of these lines. A solution would be for the
developer to purchase 15 feet adjacent to the present property line,
using the City's powers of condemnation if necessary. This condi-
tion was added by concensus to the motion for approval. Mr. Lee
said that we could also form an assessment district to recover half
the cost of this walkway from the adjacent property when it develops.
The motion for approval with the listed conditions was passed by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Councilman Pritchard
REPORT RE
LARPD -Master
Plan
*
*
*
The LARPD preliminary Master Plan has been distri-
buted to the City Council and, in turn, referred
to the Planning Commission for their report. Inas-
much as it had been suggested that the Council might
wish to have a study session meeting for more de-
tailed discussion on this item, the chairman of LARPD had advised
they would not have a representative present at this meeting.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and passed unanimously, to continue the matter until the meeting of
July 19.
Charlene Kehret, 1256 Marguerite Street, President of the League of
Women Voters, addressed the Council regarding the proposed change
in the park standards as given in the Master Plan. She referred
in particular to the need for community parks.
PLANNING
COMMISSION
SUMMARY
AMENDED
ORDINANCE RE
OFF-STREET
PARKING LOT
*
*
*
The summary of action taken at the Planning CommE-
sion meeting of June 15 was noted and filed.
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated that the ordinance amend-
ing Ordinance No. 623- Central Business District,
Off-street Parking Lot, Business License Fee sur-
charge, is an urgency ordinance to reestablish the
rates to be paid in Zones 1 and 2 to maintain the
same amounts as paid previous to the business li-
cense fee changes. This proposed ordinance is based on estimated
amounts of fees to be collected, and will be effective July 1.
CM-24-190
June 21, 1971
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Silva, the following ordinance was
adopted unanimously (Councilman Pritchard
absent) :
(Ordinance re
Off-Street Parking
Lot Fees)
ORDINANCE NO. 748
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 623, THE
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVE-
MENT AREA, TO AMEND SECTION 4 THEREOF, RELATING TO THE
ADDITIONAL RATE OF TAX IN ZONES I AND II.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ZO AMEND-
MENT (Trailer,
Mobilehome &
Trailer Parks)
Councilman Miller referred to some proposed
changes in the proposed ordinance which were
not incorporated in the draft. Under Item
21.25 (B) 5, the wording "landscaping within
the front setback of each mobile home shall
consist of living plant material'l should be
included; the other Council members agreed. Under
the Council decided that the word "tiled" could be
ference to the restroom.
Item 21.25 (c) 5,
deleted in re-
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to add wording similar to that in San Leandro's ordinance which
stated that trailers occupying the park at opening should be new
and then in the event of a vacancy replaced by new ones. The
motion failed to gain a majority by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe and Miller
Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Pritchard
A motion to approve the ordinance as amended, was made by Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, and passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilman Pritchard
The Planning Director referred to his memo listing several miscel-
laneous amendments which were inadvertently not repealed and de-
finitions which are now obsolete; these changes are to be incor-
porated into this proposed ordinance.
A motion to approve the portion of the proposed ordinance amend-
ment pertaining to the Townhouse Development was made by Council-
man Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, and approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilman Pritchard
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, the
first reading of the proposed ordinance (title read only) was
waived and the Zoning Ordinance amendment referring to Trailer,
Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Parks; regulations for Townhouse
Development, and other miscellaneous items was introduced by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilman Pritchar~
*
*
*
CM-24-l91
June 21, 1971
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
FOWL AND
RABBITS
ZONING
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
REZONE SO. SIDE
7th St.
(Callaghan)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Industrial
Brochure &
Map Printing)
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, the first reading of the proposed
municipal code amendment regarding fowl and rab-
bits, in general (Chapter 4) was waived (title
read only) and the ordinance was introduced by
unanimous vote.
This ordinance is to be reconsidered after one year.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Silva, to waive the second reading
and by the following vote the ordinance indicated
below was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Councilman Pritchard
ORDINANCE NO. 749
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00
THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
*
*
*
The Administrative Assistant, Don Bradley, in the
absence of the City Manager, stated the Chamber of
Commerce's industrial brochure and map are in the
hands of the printer at the present time. The cost
had been estimated as $1500 for the brochure and
$1100 for the map, a total of $2600. The bid price
is $2550 for the brochure and $560 for the map.
The brochure which is to be printed has been pre-
pared by a public relations firm; the City Manager has reviewed the
brochure and is very impressed with its format. It will be done in
two colors with some 16 pages and many pictures; the work on the
map has been done by our staff. It has been suggested by the City
Manager that a pocket be included on the last page of the brochure
so that the map may be slipped into it, and the cost of this pocket
is about $500. The bid price is for about 2,000 brochures and 3,000
industrial maps.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to approve this additional expenditure for the brochures, and passed
unanimously.
Golf Course
Clubhouse
Entryway
Design
*
*
*
Mr. Bradley informed the Council that the architect
has begun work on the design for the entryway to
the Golf Course clubhouse. Two alternatives have
been suggested - one is a mound effect with a ramp
type entrance and storage of 800 sq. ft. beneath it,
at an estimated cost of $10,000 to $11,500; the
second is to have a simple switchback type of stairway at an esti-
mated cost of $3,000. It is recommended that the mound type entrance
be approved as this would be a part of the $30,000 improvements to
be required by the proposed restaurant lease.
Mr. Lewis stated that there are existing code sections which re-
quire that public facilities be designed so handicapped people may
have access, and the mounding effect would satisfy this requirement.
It is our option to select the design as the lease provides, with
the lessee to be consulted.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
approve the mound type of entryway for the clubhouse, and passed
unanimously.
CM-24-l92
The Planning Director stated that he had gone
through the Kaufman & Broad development on
Olivina Avenue; the open space has been util-
ized in the front yards rather than the back
yards and Mr. Musso suggested that the Council
view this project.
June 21, 1971
(RS Ordinance
Discussion)
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that the original (Restaurant Lease)
action of the Council had been to let the
thirty-day period expire and then to enter
into a lease with the Berkeley Science Capital Corp. for the
Golf Course restaurant operation.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
following resolution was adopted by unanimous vote (Councilman
Pritchard absent).
RESOLUTION NO. 68-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
*
*
*
Mr. Lewis said that in connection with the
City's policy regarding industrial growth
he had prepared a resolution, which was read
by the Mayor.
(Supporting
Industrial Growth)
In the first paragraph Mayor Taylor added the wording "municipal
airport" and in the forth paragraph add the wording "Industrial
Advisory Committee". The resolution, as amended, was passed
unanimously (Councilman Pritchard absent) on motion of Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller.
RESOLUTION NO. 69-71
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INDUSTRIAL GROWTH
* * *
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20
a.m. until Wednesday evening at 8:00 p.m. at the
Rincon Fire Station for budget study session.
APPROVE
* ~~*
(f4~ ~ Ml::; ~
'l~LJ
. t 'J le)I'k
mo e, California
ATTEST
*
*
*
CM-24-l93
Regular Meeting of June 28, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on June 28, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
* * *
RO LL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Silva, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Beebe
* * *
PLEDGE OF: Mayor Taylor led the members of the City Council and
ALLEGIANCE those present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle-
giance.
* * *
MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of June 14, 1971, were
approved as amended, on motion of Councilman Prit-
chard, seconded by Councilman Silva and by unanimous
vote, (Councilman Beebe absent). On motion of Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Silva, the minutes of the meeting of June 21,
1971, were approved as submitted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilman Beebe
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
(Petition
re Green
Meadows
Development)
Robert Patton, 726 Hazel Street (Tract 2694) presented
to the Council a petition signed by the residents of
Valley East, Wagoner Farms, Park Plaza and Rhonewood,
and stated he would like to open the discussion for
other residents after he read a petition which had
been signed by 314 people. This group was petitioning
the Council to prevent Kaufman & Broad from proceed-
ing with the development known as Green Meadows until
the following topics had been thoroughly reviewed: 1) the probable
detrimental effect of the market value of the surrounding homes; 2)
the availability of adequate school facilities; 3) distinct possibility
that deed restrictions on existing homes would be prohibitive; 4) capac-
ity of existing water and sewer facilities; 5) adequacy of accesses
for emergency vehicles.
OPEN FORUM:
Mr. Patton stated he would like to discuss item (3) in which he was
particularly interested, and explained that there are 132 lots in
Tract 2694, with 94 existing structures; the lots have been on the
market on an individual basis and sold to Kaufman & Broad; most of
the people had been given assurance by previous developers that com-
parable houses would be built on existing lots, and they do not be-
lieve the assurances have been carried out. A group of the residents
in the area had met and were told by Mr. Musso that the houses meet
the building restrictions. The declarations of deed restrictions
state that these houses must be approved by an architectural committee;
since the committee has not given approval or disapproval, they wished
the Council to consider holding up the building permits for these
houses until approval is given. He felt that the move to develop
has been done in such a hurry they have not had time to act, and a
letter had been sent by the architectural control committee to Dennis
O~Brien of K & B, asking him to cease and to submit the plans and
specifications as required under their declaration of restrictions
~ copy of which he also presented to the Mayor).
Mayor Taylor asked if there were other people in the audience who
felt the same as Mr. Patton regarding his presentation, that they
CM-24-l94
June 28, 1971
(Petition)
indicate agreement by a show of hands rather than repeat what has
already been stated. He felt at this point it was necessary to
obtain an opinion from the City Attorney as to what course of action
to follow.
City Attorney Al Lewis, explained that this was essentially a dis-
agreement between private property owners; the City has zoned the
property and approved the final subdivision maps and, as long as
the dwellings comply with the zoning and building code restrictions,
he could not see where the City would come directly into play. As
far as the water and sewer facilities, he assumed they had been
considered as part of the final map approval. With regard to
access for emergency vehicles, he did not know if this had been
considered with approval of the subdivision maps. He stated that
if there is a critical problem regarding any of these items, the
Council could exercise, under police power, certain rights, he
believed, but they would have to check these out. Assuming those
facts do not exist, it remains a dispute between private property
owners as to deed restrictions and which they have a right to en-
force against the owner of the lots.
Mayor Taylor stated his feeling that the City should have some way
of preventing an entire tract of homes being built, all of which
are in violation of deed restrictions.
Mr. Lewis stated that if there are widespread problems, as expressed
by the speaker, the Council is concerned, but it still remains a
problem between private property owners, and if the City were to
deny building permits on the basis of private deed restrictions,
the City could become liable for damages to the developer and,
therefore, felt it is incumbent upon the City to be sure of the
facts.
Councilman Miller asked what could be done if they could not with-
hold building permits; however, Mr. Lewis stated he could think of
no remedy, and Councilman Miller suggested that perhaps the repre-
sentatives of the homeowners consult with the City Attorney un-
officially and perhaps he could advise them what their legal sit-
uation is.
Councilman Pritchard stated that suppose Mr. Lewis was a private
attorney and he, as a private citizen, had property on which there
were deed restrictions and he felt there was a violation, and his
deed restrictions were valid and could be enforced in court, what
would his advice be.
Mr. Lewis stated that the first thing would be to pursue a remedy
that would give relief at the least expenditure of money, which
would mean bringing such pressure to bear against the owner of
the property to comply with the restrictions that were felt to be
proper, or believed to be proper. Mr. Lewis said in looking at
the deed restrictions, one item as of 1967 or 196B, is existence
of a committee which is the architectural control committee, con-
sisting of three people who have certain duties, one of which is
to approve the plans, and if they have not been given plans, they
would be contacted and informed of the facts in regard to the plans.
If they were unsuccessful it would be necessary to commence action
in court by way of injunction to prohibit the violation of the
covenants. Mr. Lewis stated that method is available to any group
of property owners when someone else is violating a restriction
that is applicable to them all.
Councilman Miller stated that if the same supposition existed as
mentioned above, and the material that had been distributed at the
time the people purchased the homes was one set of statements and
what was being done now showed a different set of facts, would it
be possible to go to the California Real Estate Commission for
relief, to which Mr. Lewis replied it was a possible remedy.
CM-24-l95
June 28, 1971
(Petition - Councilman Silva asked Mr. Lewis if he could dis-
Green Meadows) cuss this matter with the people in the area, and
Mr. Lewis replied he would be happy to do so if
this was the Council's wish. Councilman Silva also
asked if a letter could be sent to Kaufman & Broad by the Council,
requesting that they give the citizens their full consideration as
the Council assumes something is not just right.
Mr. Lewis stated he would be glad to discuss the matter with a re-
presentative of K & B, assuming the developer was willing to do that.
John Cotcher, who lives in a neighboring tract, stated the people
in his area are in full sympathy with the plight of those in Tract
2694, and if there are homes built for $22,400 to $25,400 inter-
spersed among th~ existing homes that are valued at $30,00 to approach-
ing $50,000, it will have a probable detrimental effect on the market
value of those homes. The petition regarding the covenants and deed
restrictions may require a test in court, and it should be clear
that the covenant makes provision for replacement of the architect-
ural control committee by a majority of the landowners in the sub-
ject tract. The committee that was set up for that particular tract
consisted of three men who were builders or associated with the
building industry. No one has passed upon K & B's plans. The people
in the tract duly recorded in Alameda County recorder's office, have
registered a majority vote for a new architectural control board
and K & B must now submit to this board their plans and specifications
and await that board's approval before they proceed with construction.
Mr. Cotcher named a few of the points of construction of the homes
anticipated to be built, which he felt definitely would not be com-
parable; he brought up the anticipated water shortage which is being
investigated; the access for emergency vehicles which is not adequate
for the number of homes.
Duncan Tanner, 664 Hazel street, stated the worth of his home to be
$35,000 and he would be completely surrounded by the Green Meadows
homes, as there are no homes surrounding his home now and was very
interested in the action and thanked the Council for their support.
Mayor Taylor asked if the architectural review committee had been
appointed as set forth in the covenants, and was advised that it
had been.
Councilman Silva asked if Mr. Lewis could speak with regard to econmic
segregation in subdivisions as the City Council has no means to en-
force prices on homes.
Mr. Lewis felt Councilman Silva had pretty well stated the Council's
position, explaining that public agencies are, generally, expected
to provide for adequate housing to all types and many communities do
this through the so-called " salt and pepper" effect; in subdivisions
and especially the RS ordinance is designed to provide lots of dif-
ferent sizes for different types of dwellings. The developers, in
many instances, try to govern, as in these restrictions, the type
of improvements on the lots, and to this extent they are acting pri-
vately and the government, therefore, has no say.
Councilman Miller stated that there was little the Council could do
officially; the only time the City can do anything is at the time of
issuance of a PUD or approval of a tentative map; those are the times
that the people should come to the Council and be heard. Another
point Councilman Miller stated is that whenever there is any sug-
gestion of rezoning to lower density, the developers complain that
their economic values may be hurt. When the shoe is on the othe~
foot, it is unfortunate for the homeowners who also have property
whose value is of some concern to them. The question of water is
a matter of discussion on the agenda, and he stated the people could
remain for that. Councilman Miller complimented the group for their
speed in reconstituting an architectural review committee.
*
*
*
CM-24-196
June 28, 1971
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated with re-
gard to the repair on Second Street between Q
and P streets, there are no laterals being laid
to an area that has not as yet been developed.
He felt the area has been rezoned, and if no laterals are laid,
it would mean reopening the street to insert laterals at that time;
also the area adjacent to the 2nd Street shopping center has vacant
lots and he felt it would be feasible and advisable for the City
to insert the laterals at this time for the same reason.
(Construction -
Second Street)
Mr. Faltings also pointed out a safety hazard (Safety Hazard)
on Murrieta Blvd. between Stanley Blvd. and
Olivina Avenue, as there are no street lights and a person not
familiar with the area would have a tendency to head toward Wall
Street, and he suggested the City install some reflectors so the
headlights can pick these up.
Mr. Lee advised that at the present time all existing inadequate
laterals are being replaced, and he felt as far as he knew there
would be adequate laterals into all lots, but would check into
the matter.
With regard to Murrieta Blvd. he stated there were reflectors in
the center of the street, but Mr. Faltings felt a white line on
the outside of the street at that point would also be helpful.
Councilman Silva asked if Mr. Lee would check the possibility of
reducing the height of the wall at Murrieta Blvd. and Olivina Ave.
as the view at the approach is obstructed.
*
*
*
The Community Affairs Committee has conducted
a contest for the design of a proposed City
flag as their first project for promoting com-
munity spirit.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Flag Design Award)
Walter Griffith explained their reason for a City flag contest,
stating there were 22 entries, the design was chosen on the
basis of Livermore's heritage, and they felt it depicted the
Sister City theme with the orange and white background. He
presented the winner, Linda Smeley, 289 Wall Street, with the
first prize of $50.00.
*
*
*
The City Manager explained that the proposed
"East Avenue Annex No. lO", is located at the
northeast corner of East Avenue and Vasco Rd.,
and Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at
this time.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
PROPOSED "EAST AVE.
NO. 10 ANNEX"
There were no protests made, nor written protests received, and
on motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Silva, and approved unanimously, that the proceedings be continued
awaiting receipt of an annexation agreement, and that the follow-
ing resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 70-71
RESOLUTION FINDING AND DECLARING THAT A MAJORITY
PROTEST HAS NOT BEEN MADE AT THE PROTEST HEARING
HELD PURSUANT TO SECTION 35120 OF THE GOVERNMENT
CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON "EAST AVENUE
ANNEX NO. 10" TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
*
*
CM-24-197
June 28, 1971
CONSENT CALENDAR
Transfer of
Funds
As a routine matter it is necessary annually to
officially authorize the transfer of monies inter-
fund as specified in the current fiscal year budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 71-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TRANSFER OF FUNDS
*
*
*
Planning
Commission
Minutes
The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of
June 8 and June 15, 1971 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Exempt
Business
License
An application for an exempt business license was
received from the Livermore Babe Ruth League for a
concession stand.
*
*
*
Payroll
and Claims
One hundred sixty-six claims in the amount of
$48,045.33 and two hundred sixty-one payroll warrants
in the amount of $81,322.70, dated June 22, 1971,
were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the items on the
Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
DOMESTIC
WATER
The City Manager reported that several months ago
following the loss of a proposed bond issue as
offered by Zone 7 for expansion of their physical
facilities, the City Council asked that information
be gathered on the prospects of water use and the
critical nature of our water supply. A report has been drafted by
the Zone 7 staff, which has been distributed to the Council, with
slightly revised figures, but essentially it is about the same as
that included in the agenda, and in that connection, he introduced
Mr. Mun Mar, staff engineer of Zone 7, to present the report and
answer any questions.
Mr. Mun Mar stated that, basically, the staff had prepared a more
technical report which included the Pleasanton area, but for the
Council had prepared a report, primarily for the Livermore area.
He felt the main question the Council had was the future demands and
the ability to produce the water for the next few years since the
Zone was unsuccessful in the bond issue to build to capacity. He
explained that the four summer months of 1970 were used as the basis
for all determination for the next few years. Mr. Mar explained
the plant capacity, advising that during this summer there will be
six days, particularly in August, that the demand on the system
would exceed the ability to produce; in 1972 there will be 24 days,
and in 1973 there will be 74 days. Since there are only 120 days
in this four month period, it would mean that in 1973, 61% of the
time the demand would exceed their ability to produce. As a result
of this, at times there would be a drop in the water pressure in
the entire water system of the City, and the more the demand, the
lower the pressure. There will be water, but not in the usual quan-
tity. There are other things that dictate their ability to deliver
water such as outages.; i. e. collapse of the Patterson Pass Reservoir
in 1966, power failures in the summertime, repair in the metering
system; there could be mechanical failure at the plant with regard
to chemical feeders, pumps and various equipment that is part of the
operating equipment.
CM-24-198
June 28, 1971
In reply to a question from Councilman Silva (Report re water)
with regard to growth rate, Mr. Mar stated it
is anticipated greater problems will exist, and
the earliest greater capacity on the line is possible would be
1973, depending on financing by means to be considered at their
next Board meeting. He felt from all indications the Board would
proceed with Project 2 again and ask the voters for financing
capability. At the last election the voting requirement was one-
half and based on the requirement of the Supreme Court ruling
they would now need two-thirds authorization, so they feel it will
be a big job to demonstrate the necessity for improvements.
Mayor Taylor stated that even though Mr. Mar did not seem to think
there would be a real problem until 1973, it is here now, and
will get worse. He stated he would like to have the opinion of
the Public Works Director, considering not only the City water
service, but California Water Service Company capacity.
Mr. Lee stated that the amount of water anticipated does take into
consideration California Water Service Company's ability to pump
from the wells. The Zone7 District has projected the community's
growth, its need for water after Cal Water has pumped from its
wells, and shown the capacity of the plant, and with that in mind,
it shows the deficiencies.
Mr. Tiecke of California Water Service Company stated that the
report was very accurate.
Councilman Silva asked, in view of the report, how many more build-
ing permits could be approved and asked that the staff report have
some indication of how many could be approved before the 1973
!lcut-off!l date.
Mr. Lee stated that with the system now it anticipates growth of
approximately 10% per year, and with this system 10% could be
allowed in the growth.
Councilman Miller commented that he did not consider one day in
five to be acceptable level (projected for 1972); Mr. Mar has
left the impression that if a treatment plant is not built in
1973, there will be water rationing. His understanding is that
there are two choices - there can be water rationing or a morator-
ium on building permits to avoid that situation. The City Attor-
ney was asked if they could withhold issuance of building permits
if there is a water shortage.
Mr. Lewis felt the answer to be in the affirmative, but the ques-
tion was on what facts would the Council make the determination to
exercise the police power to prohibit issuance of building permits,
subdivisions, etc. They have the police power - the answer is
when, and that is established by facts presented to the Council,
showing an emergency exists.
Councilman Miller felt the people would go along with one day in
twenty, but did not feel they would go for one in five, and com-
mented that water rationing takes away the right of people to live
their lives without oppressive regulations. He suggested that in
two weeks there be an item on the agenda for a moratorium on the
issuance of building permits for the following reasons: 1) if they
continue to issue building permits, there will be water rationing;
2) if they continue to issue residential building permits, there
will be no reserve whatsoever for any industrial or commercial
development which the City needs; 3) they are not legally required
to suffer water rationing. He urged the City Council to consider
the issuance of a moratorium until the public decides if it wants
to subsidize a new water plant and the plant is actually built
and operating.
Councilman Miller made a motion to have the above item on the agenda
two weeks from now to discuss a moratorium on building permits to
avoid an impending shortage in 1972, however the motion failed for
lack of a second.
CM-24-199
June 28, 1971
(Report on
Water)
Mayor Taylor felt that Councilman Miller was correct,
but his objection was the timing as he felt the
legal standing on a moratorium depends on the facts
presented and everything being considered and felt
to consider this in one week would not be proper, and asked how
long it would take to prepare a staff report.
Mr. Lee advised he did not know how long that might be until it
was determined what the scope would be of such a study; the effect
on fire protection; the effect of lower pressure that could be tol-
erated for different kinds of domestic use and a number of things,
and felt they should at least have a month.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Mayor Taylor, to allow
four weeks for a report from the staff and to have a discussion on
a moratorium, and it passed unanimously (Councilman Beebe absent).
*
*
*
An application has been made on behalf of the Liver-
more Lions Club for a waiver of the green fees for
a planned Las Positas Golf tournament. Even though
this is considered to be a worthwhile local commun-
ity benefit, the date selected is during the height
of golf course play and on a weekend day, and since
no waivers have ever been granted for tournaments of this type, it
would establish an improper precedent; therefore, the staff recom-
mendation is for denial.
REPORT RE
GOLF COURSE
GREEN FEE
WAIVER
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Miller, and approved unanimously to accept the recommendation.
ORDINANCE
RE Sec. 4.3 re
Fowl & Rabbits
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 750
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.3, RELATING TO
FOWL AND RABBITS GENERALLY, OF ARTICLE I, RE-
LATING TO GENERAL MATTERS, OF CHAPTER 4, RELAT-
ING TO ANIMALS AND FOWL.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
vote, the above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilman Beebe
ORDINANCE RE
AMEND. SEC.
21.00 RE MOBILE
HOMES, TRAILER
PARKS, ETC.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt that an item regarding the
provision of new trailers, and that any vacancy
be replaced by a new trailer had been deleted from
the proposed ordinance, and made a motion to have
a first reading of an amended trailer ordinance
in this regard. He felt this had been approved
and there was a 2-2 vote last week, and asked
Councilman Pritchard to indicate his approval, however Councilman
Pritchard did not feel this was a fair requirement and the motion
was then withdrawn by Councilman Miller.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to waive the second reading, and by the following vote,
the ordinance titled below was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilman Beebe
CM-24-200
June 28, 1971
ORDINANCE NO. 751 (ORDINANCE RE
MOBILE HOME PARKS)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL
PROVISIONS, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE,
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, TO ADD SUBSECTIONS 21.20
THROUGH 21.27, RELATING TO MOBILE HOME, TRAILER, TRAVEL
TRAILER, AND RECREATION TRAILER PARKS; TO REPEAL SUBSEC-
TIONS 21.49, 21.49.5 and 21.58, RELATING, RESPECTIVELY, TO
PARKING AREAS, SHADE TREES IN PARKING LOTS AND TRAILER
PARKS; TO AMEND SUBSECTION (b)( RELATING TO MILTIPLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS, OF SUBSECTION 21.44, RELATING TO MINIMUM OFF-
STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS - SPECIFIC, BY THE ADDITION OF
SUBSECTION (5), RELATING TO MOBILE HOME PARKS; TO ADD SUB-
SECTIONS 21.90 THROUGH 21.97, RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING SECTION 31.00, RELATING TO
DEFINITION, BY REPEALING THE DEFINITIONS OF !!NURSING HOME!!,
!! PARKING AREA, PRIVATE!!, II PARKING AREA, OFF-STREET PARKING
LOT, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE!!, "PARKING SPACE, OFF-STREET","SIGN",
AND !!TRAILER PARK, TRAILER COURT, TRAILER CAMP", CONTAINED
THEREIN.
*
*
*
A letter was received by Councilman Pritchard
with reference to an access road to Hartford
Avenue from Springtown, and he asked the Pub-
lic Works Director when this was to be scheduled.
Councilman Pritchard also mentioned the dust pro-
blem in that area due to construction and asked if
something could be done.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Access to Hartford
Ave. from Springtom:
Mr. Lee stated that the dust would be taken care of by surfacing
the road, or it would be closed to traffic, and a report will be
forthcoming on the access.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated there was a traffic
hazard, caused by persons attempting to make a
turn onto Larkspur Drive, as there is only one-
way traffic from the Gulf Station, and Mr. Lee
advised that he would check into the matter as
the station owners had been advised of this problem at the
time the building permit was issued.
(Traffic Hazard -
Bluebell Dr. &
Larks pur Dr.)
*
*
*
A communication was received from ABAG re AB- (AB 1057)
1057, Regional Government, that there be dir-
ectly elected regional government rather than
regional government consisting of elected County and City officials.
The City had opposed this bill before as they were for government
by elected representatives, and felt they should direct the staff
to indicate that to our Assemblyman. Councilman Miller suggested
a half and half, but did oppose all directly elected officials.
It was the consensus of the Council that they would prefer, if
they must compromise, the half appointed and half elected official
body for regional government.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 9:45
p.m. to a brief executive session to discuss legal matters.
Inasmuch as Councilman Beebe was not present, it was felt that they
would not adjourn to the Fire Station for the Budget Session as in-
dicated in the Agenda.
CM-24-201
APPROVE
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of July 12, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on July 12, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:12 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presiding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva,
Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the members of the City Council
and those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of June 28, 1971, were
approved as submitted, on motion of Councilman
Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, by unan-
imous vote (Councilman Beebe abstaining).
*
*
*
o PEN FORUM
(Traffic
Problem)
James McAtee, operator of the service station on
the corner of Bluebell Drive and Springtown Blvd.,
stated that a "No U TurnfT sign had been erected
on the corner of Bluebell Drive and Larkspur Dr.
which had caused his business to drop 25%. He had
proposed to extend a driveway so that a left turn
could be made into the station.
Daniel Lee, Public Works Director, said there had been previous dis-
cussion regarding extension of the driveway beyond the intersection.
There is not sufficient room at the corner for a U-turn without back-
ing up and this was the reason for the sign. The Gulf Company had
proposed extending the driveway to the intersection of Larkspur Dr.,
which would make it a four-way intersection; this would increase
the points of potential conflict at the intersection and might even-
tually lead to the necessity for a traffic signal. If the driveway
were extended, it should be extended far enough to avoid the con-
flict at the intersection. The Gulf Company had been aware that
medians would be located there at the time of construction.
Mayor Taylor said the problem seems to be between public safety
and the convenience of the customer.
Councilman Silva suggested that a full report be requested regard-
ing this corner and traffic problems. Mr. Lee suggested that he
also discuss with Mr. McAtee and and a Gulf Company representative
alternatives for this problem before report to the Council.
*
*
*
Viktor Hampel, 1143 Canton Avenue, petitioned the
Council regarding his letter dated June 7 stating
damage has occurred to his property due to a City
approved tree. He requested that a reply be di-
rected to him from the City Attorney in this regard, as had been
instructed by the Council. Mayor Taylor asked that the status of
this matter be determined.
(Sidewalk
Damage)
Leo von Gottfied, 3847 Yale Way, referred to notification received
regarding repair of sidewalks. He felt it makes no sense to re-
pair the sidewalks if the trees are to remain. Neither did he
feel the form received could in any way be considered due process.
He urged the Council to be receptive to suggestions from the citizenry.
CM-24-202
July 12, 1971
Dallas Smith, 194 EstatffiStreet, said he under- (Sidewalks)
stood it was his responsibility to repair the
sidewalk. He felt the situation was unfair as
the problem was caused by trees which the City required.
Mayor Taylor asked how many notices had been sent out, and Mr. Lee
said approximately 100 in the first and second of five areas to
be handled. Mayor Taylor said he felt that the manner of notifi-
cation should be reviewed so that the citizens receiving them
would understand the situation better. Mr. Parness agreed that
the letter which was being mailed could be reworded and more de-
tailed information given.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the trees in this area of town
were not City approved trees, but those required by the FHA. The
problem had arisen because of the width of the parkway strip; in
recent years the sidewalks have been placed adjacent to the curb
and trees planted within the yard area.
Councilman Beebe referred to discussion regarding removal of the
tree causing damage and allowing another tree planted within the
yard area.
Councilman Silva felt some of the history and reasons for the trees
could be included in the letter sent out to the residents.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the City is in the process of getting
bids for all of the repair work, so that the residents may have
the choice of doing the work themselves or having it done at the
lowest possible price.
Mr. Lee said there is uncertainty as to how to proceed; contractors
doing this type of work might not be able to handle such a large
volume. Perhaps the situation should be reviewed week by week to
see how much work will be involved. The Council discussed the
manner for obtaining the bids for the sidewalk repair.
Mr. Parness restated his suggestion that the notice be redrafted
as a public relations gesture, and that after the proper notice
and a reasonable time, a report be made to the Council regarding
the amount of work to be done; then the Council can decide how to
carry out the program.
Councilman Miller said he thought that this had been discussed at
the budget hearing, and he felt the people should be given an
option to have the work done by one master contractor under the
direction of the City with the hope of getting the lowest possible
price; doing it themselves; or hiring their own private contractor.
This should be included in the notice and time given so that a
logical choice can be made.
The City Attorney advised that the notices sent out by the Public
Works Department are statutory in nature - the exact language is
specified by the Streets and Highway Code, and cannot be eliminated.
Mr. Hampel asked when the policy allowing removal of a street tree
was instigated as he had requested removal of a tree and had been
denied this option. Mr. Lee said this had been the policy for
several years.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor said the tentative budget had been
available to the public for some time, and the
City Manager reported that after changes decided
upon by the Council, the operating budget has
been balanced and the capital outlay budget is
under preparation and will be available for review in the next few
weeks. The Council has elected not to suggest a tax increase or
modifications of the sewer service charge.
PUBLIC HEARING
1971-72 Fiscal
Budget
CM-24-203
July 12, 1971
(P.H. - BUdget) Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., said that salaries
are one of the major items in the budget. He cited increases over
the past two years and computed a median increase of 16.1%, based
on the preliminary budget without increases allowed by the Council
for the staff. He asked when the final salary ranges would be
available, and was handed a copy of the salary resolution for re-
view. He was advised that the Council had reviewed his written
report on salary increases.
Mayor Taylor stated that a dollar limit had been set on certain
salaries (no more than $100 per month) while other members of the
staff received an increase on the order of 5.5%, with certain se-
lected department heads receiving more since a salary survey indi-
cated they were out of line.
Councilman Pritchard wished to point out that the decision regard-
ing salaries was not a unanimous consensus on anyone item.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
close the public hearing, and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller said he would like to reduce the increase allotted
to the Chamber of Commerce and made a motion to make the Chamber's
allocation in the amount of $6,000 originally budgeted. Councilman
Silva objected to detailed discussion of the various items as these
had already been discussed during the budget sessions. Mayor Taylor
seconded the motion which failed to gain a majority by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman
he did not
of $30,000
be $60,000
that money
Beebe stated he was voting against the budget because
feel the deletion of the street repair item in the amount
was justified. It was shortsighted to think there would
available next year for this item. Mayor Taylor agreed
was necessary to fix streets.
Councilman Silva made a motion to adopt the 1971-1972 fiscal budget,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard. The motion failed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Mayor Taylor indicated he did not agree with many items in the budget,
but voted for it as he thought they had arrived at the best compro-
mise possible, and asked if there was an alternate motion.
Councilman Silva stated he had not changed his mind about the pre-
liminary budget, but was of the opinion that Councilman Pritchard
had, and asked what his motion might be.
Councilman Pritchard stated there are things they did not all approve
of in the budget, but did not wish to spend the evening debating
the budget; if it was not to be approved as they had agreed in the
budget hearing,he would exercise the same prerogative, and give a
dissenting vote.
Councilman Silva made a motion to return to the expenditures in
the budget the $30,000 street resurfacing program; these fees to
be transferred from the park fund of which there consists something
like $160,000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to amend the main motion by a com-
promise and suggested $20,000 to keep the street program going,
reduce the park fund by that same amount, and restore $10,000 to
the park fund. The amendment failed for lack of a second.
CM-24-204
The main motion was then voted on and failed by
the following vote:
July 12, 1971
(Public Hearing-
Budget)
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Oouncilman Miller made a motion to adopt the 1971-72 budget which
they tentatively agreed upon at the budget session, commenting
there were items in the budget he did not approve of such as the
one his amendment had tried to correct. Councilman Pritchard se-
conded the motion, which failed by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Pritchard
Councilman Silva spoke to Councilman Pritchard's remark by stating
they had voted 3-2 to approve the preliminary budget, with Council-
man Beebe and himself dissenting. Councilman Miller added he re-
called there were three votes to approve the budget as it stands,
with the direction to the staff to put back the money over the next
couple of years to take care of the street resurfacing which they
all agree needs to be done.
Councilman Pritchard stated that perhaps they should have another
study session to review the budget, and after some discussion a
motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to table the budget until the end of the meeting, and passed unan-
imously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Attorney submitted a report in reply
to a request on June 14 by Mr. Hampel and Mr.
Norman regarding inspection of public records,
specifically with regard to sidewalks.
*
*
*
A communication was received from Robert Allen
with regard to railroad grade crossings. This
matter will be discussed during the capital im-
provement study session.
*
*
*
A resolution authorizing solicitation of bids
for Airway Boulevard construction. This work,
formerly auth~rized by the City Council, is to
widen Airway Blvd. for its full length along
our industrial acreage and to extend the utility
lines to service the three acres which have been
lease.
Report re Sidewalks
Communication re
RR Grade Crossings
Solicitation of
Bids - Airway Blvd
Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. 72-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
ASCERTAINING WAGE SCALE AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ADVERTISE
FOR BIDS.
James McElroy, 1345 Wagoner Drive, asked if Airway Blvd. will be
straightened, and Mr. Lee advised this change had been incorporated
in the design.
*
*
*
CM-24-205
July 12, 1971
Acceptance
Tr. 3206
(H.C.Elliott)
All fees have been oaid and the work installed to
City standards, in Tract 3206 and it is now ready
for acceptance by the City for maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO. 73-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3206
Salary
Res olut ion
*
*
*
In accordance with the decision of the City Council
during the budget process, changes have been made
for all employee classifications as to wage rates.
RESOLUTION NO. 74-71
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. 5-71.
Report re
Major
Developments
Communication
re General Plan
Studies - League
of Women Voters
Minutes -
Beautification
Committee
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
FINAL MAP
TRACT 3294
(H.C. EIJbtt)
*
*
*
A report regarding pending major developments was
submitted by the Director of Planning.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the League of
Women Voters regarding a study of various general
plans for the Valley. Mayor Taylor felt this
report had some merit and suggested that it also
be referred to the Planning Commission.
*
*
*
Minutes of the meeting of June 15 of the Beautifi-
cation Committee were acknowledged.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Silva, and by unanimous vote, the items on the
consent calendar were approved as presented.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that the improve-
ments on Tract 3294, the townhouse development on
Murrieta Blvd. near Portola Avenue, have been com-
pleted and recommended execution of the subdivision
agreement and acceptance of the bonds and approval
of the map.
Motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and approved unanimously, to authorize execution of the agreement
and acceptance of bonds and approval of the map.
RESOLUTION NO. 75-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3294
RESOLUTION NO. 76-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3294
CM-24-206
*
*
*
A communication was received from David S.
Madis re Tract 2745 inasmuch as the owner,
Daniel Gillice, had requested permission to
discuss this matter with the Council.
July 12, 1971
COMMUNICATION RE
TR. 2745 and REPORT
Mr. David Madis, representing the developer, Daniel Gillice,
stated this item was before them on the matter of the final map
and asked Mr. Lee to give the Council the background as far as
englneering considerations and other problems with regard to the
final map.
Daniel Lee stated this was a map within a map, actually Tract
3285 is the condominium subdivision of Lot 7 in Tract 2745 and
it is recommended that the improvements in Tract 2745 be approved
concurrently with the acceptance of the final tract map for the
condominium Tract 3285. Most of the improvements are done in the
original tract, which is behind the hospital, and the public works
improvements that are not completed are minor, consisting of street
trees and sidewalks on some undeveloped lots and fence repairs
along the Arroyo Mocho. There is a letter from the bonding com-
pany stating the bond still on file is sufficient to cover these
items up to the amount of $9,000. The City has a cash bond for
the balance of credits, minus the $4,700 fees that are due, which
is sufficient to complete the improvements that are remaining. It
is recommended that concurrently with the acceptance of the new
tract the Council accept the improvements in the old tract, exon-
erate the original bonds except the $9,000, accept the improvements
that are uncompleted and accept the accounting on the credits and
fees that are due on the original tract. The City Attorney has
approved the covenants in conjunction with the condominium develop-
ment and it is recommended that the Council resolve the matter of
park fees on the tract.
Mr. Lee further explained that the city limits line ran through
Lot 7 which is now being subdivided as a condominium development,
and that for one-half of the lot, which now comprises about 62
units, the developer is paying fees at the rates which were in
effect at the time for Tract 2745 which is reflected in the account-
ing of fees. The easterly half which was inside the City when
Tract 2745 was developed was not subject to park fees, but at the
time the Council accepted the last tentative map (Tract 3285), it
was their understanding and interpretation of the Council's dis-
cussion that this was new development within the City and the
park land dedication or fees in lieu thereof would be charged on
the easterly one-half. There are 63 units in this part and the
fees would be in the amount of $333.00 per unit for a total of
$20,979.00, or land in the amount of approximately 1.2 acres.
There was discussion at the time of approval that the developer
might dedicate land within the same planning unit. Mr. Lee ex-
plained that the developer is now questioning the dedication re-
quirement on the 63 units on the easterly half of the property.
Mr. Madis.stated that this is a situation where no fees could be
collected on Tract 3285 as to the 62 units, for which a charge of
$333.00 per unit is now proposed, if a condominium map had not
been filed on the property. In other words, no fee would be pay-
able if this were retained in a single ownership and used as a
rental property. The owner has elected, however, to file a map
on the project and to divide it into 124 units, owned separately.
There will be no increased duty or responsibility as far as the
City is concerned; but now an additional $21,000 in fees is being
required merely because the ownership will be divided. This
additional cost will have to be passed on to the buyers and the
effect will be that the individual homeowner will be taxed, whereas
the large landholder would not be taxed this additional amount.
The potential homeowners will not receive any additional benefit
from the additional charge, when in fact, the City will receive
additional tax from the individual units. An additional burden
of $21,000 has been placed on this one-half of the property, and
they felt this was unfair. Further, it is possible under State
CM-24-207
July 12, 1971
(Tract 2745-
Gillice)
Subdivision Map Act to have a condominium project
without ever filing a tentative map or coming be-
fore the City of Livermore for approval, thereby
avoiding the imposition of additional fees. Mr.
Madis explained that this mechanism is now being used extensively
for condominium projects allover the state, but that he was unaware
of this procedure at the time of the original filing of this appli-
cation. In answer to Councilman Pritchard's question, Mr. Madis
stated they did not wish to withdraw their application as they
felt this would be unfair to the City as they believed in local
planning and control by the City. Yet they felt this additional
burden was unfair to this development.
The City Attorney said he had read the section Mr. Madis referred
to, and explained that it had been added to the Map Act in 1965;
at the same time as the section on park dedication. The terms of
this section are not entirely clear. As Mr. Lewis understood the
condominium section, the City is not to collect a fee for map
checking, which is permitted by the Subdivision Map Act, based on
the number of units in the air, but rather the usual way based on
the number of parcels in the condominium subdivision. For example,
Lot 7 will have perhaps 125 units, a number of which will be in the
air and the lot will be divided in somewhat a three dimensional way;
the air space is divided up for the purpose of sale and this is the
difference between the condominium subdivision map and the ordinary
subdivision map. The legislature intended that the fee not be
based on a division of air space and can be controlled only insofar
as zoning controls. The state law on park dedication allows the
City to adopt a local ordinance using a reasonable fee based on
the community burden. Using Mr. Madis' interpretation, a condomin-
ium subdivision, whether created now or created as in this case -
dividing up an existing building - would escape any fee; he did
not feel this was the intention of the Legislature when this sec-
tion was written. Therefore, he differed with Mr. Madis and ad-
vised the Council that they were entitled to require the payment~
these fees. Further, this section uses an occurrence, i.e. the
act of subdividing, as the vehicle for collecting this fee, and he
did not see any inequity for collecting this fee now and using it
for developing neighborhood parks. There is no question of collect-
ing a double fee as park dedication was not required on the eastern
part of the project when it was built; these fees can now be im-
posed as an event, the subdivision of an existing building, is
occurring under the City's jurisdiction.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the units which were already sold
had been sold at a price including the additional park fees; Mr.
Madis said they had not.
Councilman Miller said that if the fees were not included in the
price, then a business mistake had been made because they were aware
that the fees were to be charged at the time of approval.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to approve the Public Works Direc-
tor's report and specifications including park fees as discussed.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mr. Madis said when Tract 2745 was originally drawn on the map and
accepted by the City a portion, in excess of five acres, indicated
now on the map as channel, was taken from the development for dedi-
cation to the City for recreation, flood control and other public
uses. They did not feel that all of this area was necessary for a
flood control channel; a credit should be given for a portion of
this five acres which will be used for recreational and park pur-
poses to be fair and equitable to the developer.
Councilman Silva said he thought some density transfer was allowed
for this dedication. Mr. Madis said some density transfer was
allowed for development at 16 units per acre but actual development
CM-24-208
July 12, 1971
was at thirteen units. There was this additional (Tract 2745 -
density to be considered. Councilman Silva asked Daniel Gillice)
why these arguments were not presented at the
time of approval of the tentative map. Mr. Madis
replied he had been optimistic about the Walnut Creek park dedica-
tion case and possibly had made an error in this regard. He said
he had not been aware of the conditions regarding the five acres
dedicated from Tract 2745.
If the Council rejects their arguments, Mr. Madis requested that
a period of 90 days be given to the developer to work out the park
dedication with the City staff for the area to be dedicated for
public park between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street.
Councilman Beebe said this was a part of his motion as this pro-
vision was included in the recommendation from the Public Works
Director. Councilman Miller said this should be subject to Coun-
cil review.
Mayor Taylor stated this proposal is to work out some kind of
agreement regarding this additional land.
The Planning Director explained that the formula agreed upon for
the density transfer included any possible park dedication require-
ments; it was the total property, less the channel, less any park
dedication, and the remainder was allowed for density transfer.
Councilman Beebe restated his motion to condition the approval
subject to review of the agreement between the staff and developer,
and Councilman Miller agreed.
Councilman Miller said if this is to be changed from apartments
to a type of single family ownership, since all the fees have not
been paid, then the question is open as to which annexation fee
should apply. He submitted that the equivalent single family an-
nexation fee should apply, which is $75 per unit rather than the
$50 now charged.
The City Attorney stated that Resolution No. 75-64 specified $75
for single family and $50 for multiple family units. Condominium
as defined by the Civil Code has a specific category; it is classed
for zoning purposes as single family, but he thought perhaps con-
dominium is not typical of the single family unit. The annexation
agreement states that where land is partly developed and partly
undeveloped, for the purpose of assessing the fees each building
shall be given approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of land which indicates
the Council had a concept of a house and a lot. Whether a condo-
minium is closer to a multi-family unit as contemplated by the
resolution or whether it is more like a single-family unit must
be determined. If it is decided it is closer to a single-family
unit, then it must be decided which fee is to be charged. He did
not know why a difference in fee had been designated in the resolu-
tion.
Councilman Miller did not feel that the Council had intended the
difference in fee to be proportional to the area for single family
and multiple units. There was a per unit intent in the resolution.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the motion to set the
annexation fee at $75 rather than $50 for the units to be converted,
but the motion for amendment failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Lee pointed out that for Tract 3285 there is not a subdivision
agreement as improvements are being completed in conjunction with
Tract 2745. If the park fees are to be delayed, there should be
an agreement to protect the City as there will not be a bond.
Mr. Madis was agreeable that an agreement be worked out that appro-
priate land, subject to staff approval, or in lieu fees would be
paid by the signing of the tentative map.
CM-24-209
July 12, 1971
(Tract 2745 -
Daniel Gillice)
Mr. Madis stated one of the engineering considera-
tions they wished to discuss concerned the paving.
The paving had been completed, but there was a
question regarding additional requirements. Mr.
Lee said that one of the conditions for approval of the tentative
map was that the internal streets be constructed with a section
equal to a traffic index of 4.5 for fire and police vehicle access.
Mr. Madis requested that the condition be deleted as the paving
was adequate now and had met the standards at the time of construc-
tion, and should not be inadequate simply because the air space
is now being divided.
Councilman Pritchard stated that if this is indeed a requirement,
then any other apartment units and buildings in town should be
required to improve their standards for public safety.
Councilman Miller felt that in this case the City does have the
option to require the higher standards and should do so.
Mr. Lee said several items had been checked, such as lighting,
sprinkler system for the common landscaped areas, but the paving
had not been determined as being adequate since Mr. Madis had re-
quested this item be placed on the agenda for approval before the
Public Works Department had checked all of these items.
Councilman Silva made a motion to amend the main motion to include
the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the internal
paving be brought up to the present standards, if necessary. The
motion to amend was seconded by Councilman Miller and passed by a
four to one vote (Councilman Pritchard dissenting).
The amended motion to accept the Public Works Director's recommend-
ations and specifications for approval, including the condition
that the park agreement worked out by the staff and developer be
reviewed by the Council, and that the internal street standards
meet the requirements for a traffic index of 4.5 was passed unani-
mously.
*
*
*
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3333
(H.C. Elliott)
A tentative map has been submitted for Tract 3333
(H.C. Elliott) for property located southerly of
Las Positas Boulevard, northerly of Arroyo Mocho.
Councilman Miller made a motion to deny the tenta-
tive map on the following grounds: the School Dis-
trict has pointed out there are no school facilities to serve this
property and existing facilities are fully occupied. This is a
public welfare matter covered by the City's police power and,
therefore, this subdivision map should be denied.
In response to Councilman Silva's question, the City Attorney ad-
vised that he did not believe the City could legally take such
action.
Mayor Taylor agreed with Councilman Miller's concern as there will
be no more school buildings built in the foreseeable future unless
a bond issue is passed or some other action taken. He seconded
Councilman Miller's motion for denial. The motion passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Silva.
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS RESUMED WITH
ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT.
*
*
*
CM-24-210
A tentative map has been submitted for Tract
3342 by Hofmann Company for property south of
Stanley Boulevard, east of Isabel Avenue.
July 12, 1971
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3342
(Hofmann Co.)
The City Attorney stated the issue regarding
schools and denial of tentative maps on this
solved. Unless there is some distinguishing
north side as opposed to this section of the
should have the same effect.
basis must be re-
factor for the
City, Council action
Mayor Taylor stated that the previous map represents a new exten-
sion to the City while Tract 3342 is the last map of an existing
PUD, but Councilman Pritchard said ;he could not see that any
difference existed in the situation.
Mr. Musso pointed out there was no testimony in the referral from
the School District regarding this subdivision as was made for
the tract previously considered; the matter to be considered re-
garding this tract is the redesign caused by the relocation of
Murdell Lane.
The City Attorney explained that if there are schools to serve
one part of town and not others, this is one matter; if the
school system as a whole has the capacity to absorb students, this
is a point of consideration. If there is a distinction that can
be made, this could be established at a later time. He wished
to point out to the Council the problem regarding this issue.
Councilman Miller made a motion to table the matter for one
week to request information from the School District as to the
ability to serve residents in this tract. There was no second
to the motion.
Mr. H. C. Elliott, developer of Tract 3333, which was previously
denied, said his map as presented was acceptable and legal and
two school sites had been indicated on the map. His feeling was
that he would sue for damages, especially if the map of Tract
3342 is discussed and considered, whereas his tentative map was
not.
Mr. Musso said that the School District had expressed the desire
for a continuance in order to study the last draft of the map of
Tract 3342.
Bruce Jamieson, representing the School District, said he was
present to ask for a continuance in regard to this tract map as
the map had only been reviewed in the morning and a decision had
not been made.
Mayor Taylor felt that an executive session should be held to
discuss this situation with the City Attorney before proceeding
further.
At this time the Council Chambers were cleared in order to have
an executive session concerning possible legal action regarding
Tract 3333 and consideration of Tract 3342.
*
*
*
After termination of the executive session, the
Council meeting was resumed.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3333
(Elliott - Cont'd.)
Councilman Miller referred to his previous motion
for denial of Tract 3333 (Elliott) tentative map.
He stated that when he made his motion he had not believed he would
gain Council majority for such action. He conceded that he made
the motion to call attention to the school situation and such
action as a possible solution to this problem. However, in order
to have a proper test case, testimony made by school officials
CM-24-211
July 12, 1971
(Tract Map 3333, and board members must be entered into the record
H. C. Elliott) to strengthen the case presented. Councilman
Miller felt denial on these grounds could be sup-
ported and was the correct action to take in such
matters for protection of the citizens. Until the record supports
the case, the present motion in the circumstances does not provide
appropriate record for avoiding a suit or supporting such a posi-
tion.
Councilman Miller made a motion to rescind previous action denying
outright tentative map of Tract 3333 on grounds as stated; seconded
by Mayor Taylor.
Councilman Pritchard stated the net effect of the motion on the
floor is to rescind previous illegal action.
Mayor Taylor said that there are times the City has to resort to its
police powers, granted by the state, to protect the welfare of the
citizens; such action with proper foresight is entirely proper.
Councilman Silva felt the motion for denial was illegal and this
was his grounds for voting against the motion. Councilman Beebe
agreed and stated that the Council should heed the advice of the
City Attorney.
The motion to rescind previous action, denying Tract 3333 tentative
map was approved unanimously.
The Planning Director explained several points to be considered re-
garding Tentative Map of Tract 3333. He pointed out the property
is bounded by the proposed Isabel Freeway, the Arroyo Mocho channel
area, existing development on Curle~ Road and the Las Positas Blvd.
In regard to the school situation, a plan was developed for the whole
area which was submitted to the State. The Alameda School site to
the north was approved; the Las Positas High School site was approved
only because it is already purchased; objections were given to the
Olivina School site; the other two school sites were approved as
they were outside the airport approach. Other locations are possible
and have been considered. Mr. Musso said the question is whether
the subdivision map can be denied because the School District is
unable to commit themselves regarding the school sites at this time.
Mayor Taylor said a subdivision map has been presented to the Coun-
cil indicating houses and possible school sites; it is not known
whether the site will be approved. In previous cases a school site
has been reserved, but a subdivision map might be filed on the pro-
posed site in this case.
Mr. Lewis said he did not feel it was proper for a tentative map
to indicate a proposed school site as being divided into lots and
parcels with a street running through it. It should be left as one
lot on the map. The school site is a public facility and relates
to the design of the subdivision. As a legal matter, if the Council
feels a large lot should be left for possible acquisition as a school
site, then this should be included in the design of the subdivision.
Mr. Madis, attorney representing the developer, stated the Courts
had rejected the argument in one case that a tentative map could
be denied because the school district had not replied regarding a
school site inasmuch as the School District has the powers of con-
demnation for school purposes.
Mayor Taylor commented that from a planning point of view the City
has the right and power to indicate a school site when the map is
designed.
Mr. Musso said the School District decides where they want a school;
then submit it to the jurisdiction that has authority. The Planning
Commission can then give an unfavorable report; however the School
District can overrule the Planning Commission and proceed to acquire
the site.
CM-24-212
July 12~ 1971
Councilman Beebe made a motion to continue this (Tract Map 3333)
matter for one week in order to obtain comments
from the School District; the motion was seconded
by Councilman Silva.
John Barker~ Associated Professions, said the applicant did not
wish to continue the matter. He said that initially they were
told by the Planning staff that no school sites were required;
hence the map was filed without provision for school sites. On
June 17, 1971, the School District wrote aletter to the Planning
Director stating that inadvertently indication for a school site
in the subdivision had not been included on their recommendation.
Mr. Barker felt sufficient time had elapsed for study and review
of this map.
Mayor Taylor commented he understood the desire of the applicant
to get this matter settled, but felt continuance should be made
so that better planning can be done~ especially with regard to
school sites.
Mr. Madis said the applicant would be agreeable to continuance of
this one issue with regard to the school site if the other issues
regarding the map could be resolved.
The City Attorney advised the Council regarding the time element
set forth in the ordinance in regard to this matter, and said
the tentative map should be considered at this time.
For the benefit of the School District members, Mayor Taylor stated
any aspect of the map pertaining to school site and location will
be discussed next week.
Mr. Musso said the next issue concerned the park site, which is
indicated south of Olivina Avenue, backing on to the Arroyo Mocho.
The only question concerns the saving of some of the trees by
changing the configuration.
Mr. Barker said they had agreed to maintain the worthwhile trees
and these had been indicated on the map.
Mr. Musso stated, hopefully, the City would acquire the Hagemann
property some day to expand the park. Mayor Taylor stated that
planning in this general area had been discussed once before and
it was mentioned that the Hageman property was in some type of
trust and asked if this had some bearing on the issue.
Burke Critchfield stated that previously there was a problem in
that when the Hagemanns sold the surrouncling property in 1962, there
was a life estate created for Mrs. Hagemann. Since that time,
and very recently, they have been able to acquire that life estate
so there is no longer a restriction in that respect.
Mr. Musso stated that the freeway alignment has been established.
The developer had originally planned to file a subdivision map
disregarding the freeway right of way line, but instead at the
request of the Planning Department, filed a subdivision map taking
the freeway alignment into account. There was a requirement for
a major street in the event the State does not build a freeway.
Yolo Way would include a turn-around and the stub street would be
just a reservation so that ultimately access could be provided
in the event the State does not build a freeway. During discus-
sion regarding the design of the north-south collector street
through this and the adjacent property, three alternatives were
considered. One is to cross a bridge and then the railroad tracks
to get to Stanley Blvd; this would probably be the most desirable,
however the railroads will not agree to another crossing. The
alternative, then~ is to curve the street in the direction of
of Murrieta Blvd., or turning and staying on the north side of
the creek and bisecting the park and school site to connect to
Murrieta Blvd.
CM-24-213
July 12, 1971
(Tentative Map
Tract 3333)
The present alignment was decided upon where no
commitment will have to be made at this time as
to the direction for extension. Access would be
through Oli vina and Junco Avenues with future ac.-
cess to Las Positas when development so requires.
A parkway has been proposed within the freeway right-of-way. This
would be a dedication of parkway that would be acquired by the
State and replaced in kind and would be a part of the cross-Valley
trailway system which would extend from the Wagoner Farms area.
Mr. Musso said one of the problems in design was the pipeline which
runs through the property. There are some lots indicated which
may not conform with the ordinance, but these will be checked on
the final map. Councilman Miller felt this should be indicated on
the tentative map so that no confusion will arise when final ap-
proval is to be made. Mr. Musso said that a check will be made
of the tentative map and any non-conforming frontages or sizes
will be noted, but the lines will not be redrawn on the tentative.
Mr. Musso stated that the other big issue considered by the Plan-
ning Commission was the required public works improvements on Oli-
vina Avenue. The Public Works Department recommended that the
developer improve the frontage on the Hagemann property; the Plan-
ning Commission considered widening Olivina Ave. to Murrieta Blvd.
but finally concluded that since there were two moving lanes and
sidewalk on the north side the developer would not be obligated to
improve all the frontage.
Mr. Lee discussed some points concerning widening of Olivina Avenue,
stating his recommendation that Olivina Avenue be widened through
the Hagemann property. At present the street is two-thirds of the
travel width and it should be widened including curbs, sidewalks
and gutters because of the additional traffic to be generated. Mr.
Lee felt this work should be done concurrently with this tract.
It might not have to be done immediately; perhaps a cash bond could
be made to insure completion of the work and securing of rights-of-
way; secondly, he felt that the provision for extension of the
collector street to Las Positas should be required after develop-
ment of a set number of lots, perhaps 75 to 100 lots. Olivina Ave.
will need to be widened to 72 feet which would require 17 ft. of
additional pavement, plus 5 ft. of sidewalk; this could be required
at development of 250 lots or a limit set by the Council. Mr.
Lee recommended that the engineering considerations as written be
adopted with the additional provisions that a cash bond be accepted
in lieu of the construction on Olivina Ave., that right-of-way be
acquired, with construction to be done after 250 homes in the sub-
division or such time as the Council deems it necessary.
Mayor Taylor felt Mr. Lee's suggestions were reasonable because of
the large number of houses without other access. The City Attorney
said that a condition requiring improvements of a street outside a
tract must be substantiated by a clear showing that it is necessary
for the proper design of the subdivision. Mayor Taylor pointed out
that this tract could not be developed with the only access being
provided by a partially completed street on the south and the other
being a connection to a neighborhood street on the north with fur-
ther access delayed for perhaps a lengthy period because of lack
of development of adjacent property. Approval should be conditioned
on some manner of guarantee that these improvements will be installed.
He thought perhaps a benefit district could be formed. The City
Attorney stated that an assessment district could be formed, and
this could be considered. Mr. Lee added that a barrier strip could
be retained on either side of the road.
Councilman Miller said that design must include improvement of
these streets as access without the improvements would be limited
and even hazardous. He suggested that the Planning Director's re-
commendations be adopted, leaving open the option of forming an
assessment district. Perhaps a time period should also be given
for the access on the north.
Councilman Silva felt that provision should be worked out so that
if this developer pays the full cost of development he will be re-
imbursed by other developers using the street in the future.
CM-24-214
July 12, 1971
Mr. Lee said that creation of a barrier strip
as suggested would insure that part of the cost
would be borne by abutting properties for the
north access. When the developer purchased the
property from the original owners, he understood the obligation
for streets in the vicinity. The City Attorney said creation of
a barrier strip might cause problems for access of the property
owners.
(Tentative Map -
Tract 3333)
Mr. Madis protested the suggestion of the City Engineer that the
developer can be compelled under the Subdivision Map Act and the
City ordinance to construct any public improvements on any pro-
perty not on this subdivision. He stated this property has access
comparable to other development in the City. In addition, there
is the problem of non-ownership of the Hagemann property - with
their protest and desire not to develop their property, and his
client being powerless to proceed; he considered this to be an
illegal and improper condition of the Subdivision Act. The Coun-
cil cannot plan roadways on property until it is made available
for subdivision. The Council would be asking his client to de-
velop roadway on someone else's property without their consent
which he felt was an illegal and arbitrary action.
The City Attorney advised that the Council cannot force the developer
to acquire any streets to serve the subdivision but if the street
does not provide adequate access this could be grounds for denial
of the map.
Mr. Critchfield explained the position of the Hagemanns in re-
gard to their property, stating that when this property was to
be purchased from the Hagemann estage, an agreement was drawn up
including reservation of this 5-acre parcel as a life estate;
also, it was agreed that when Olivina Avenue was extended, it would
jog so that it would go around the 5-acre parcel rather than cut
through the property. If the street is widened as suggested, a
number of very old fruit trees, and the fence would have to be
removed. Mrs. Hagemann wishes to live on the property for the
remainder of her life, and preservation of the site as a park has
been considered. They protested any part of the five acres being
taken for the widening of the street. Perhaps later some arrange-
ment can be worked out.
Councilman Miller said it seemed that the Hagemann property is
protected, and the developer will have to work out some way to
acquire property on the north side to provide for the street
widening. Mr. Critchfield said he had not yet examined whether
the agreement referred to would be binding on the successors of
the purchaser Mr. Condor.
Mayor Taylor said that the Council probably would not force de-
velopment immediately, at least not until the park and school site
is developed.
Mr. Lewis asked that the record show that the Council believes
it is an absolute necessity for adequate access to be provided,
and this access must be extended to the other ownership. This
is not a landlocked subdivision but needs to improve the access
and make it less hazardous, and and it is the City's policy to
allow its power of condemnation to be exercised to obtain the
necessary right-of-way. The Council has the right to approve,
disapprove, or conditionally approve a tentative tract map. The
map can be disapproved because it is not designed properly to
provide adequate access to existing public streets. Approval
can be conditioned in effect upon design providing better access;
unless better access is provided this would be an improper sub-
division, which should be disapproved.
Mayor Taylor felt approval of the map should include a solution
for the access problem.
CM-24-215
July 12, 1971
(Tentative Map A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded
Tr. 3333) by Councilman Pritchard, to approve the tentative
map of Tract 3333, subject to the provision of
adequate access, which does not presently exist;
such access on Olivina Avenue is to be provided within two years
of the approval of the final map, but subject to review and poss-
ible extension at that time by the Council; a cash bond and right-
of-way to be provided as recommended by the Public Works Director,
and the widening of Olivina Avenue past the Hagemann property
assured by some vehicle; and the upper access and extension to
Las Positas will be required with development of the first unit.
Mr. Madis asked if it was agreeable then to work with the staff
to form a benefit district to bear the cost of providing the two
accesses. Mr. Lee felt this should not be done on Olivina Avenue
as this was the responsibility of the developer as he knew the
advantages and disadvantages inherent with the property. The
north side is already developed.
Councilman Silva said his motion was stated to mean that if anyone
benefited from this widening of Olivina they should participate.
If the Hagemanns are not determined to benefit, then they would
not participate.
Councilman Miller asked if the problem of blocks which are too
long has been solved in the design. Mr. Musso pointed out that
some changes have been made but not all of the blocks have been
corrected. Councilman Miller stated the City has had a policy for
some years that no block shall exceed 1500 feet without provision
of a pedestrian ~alk or a street. Councilman Miller made a motion
to amend the main motion to require that this provision be met,
seconded by Councilman Silva. The motion to amend was passed unan-
imously.
Councilman Miller referred to the requirement that park dedication
should be at the time of the first final map. Mr. Musso said that
in lieu fees are accepted at the time of permit and land is accepted
or a deposit made at that time. The Council discussed whether park
dedication can be required at the time of the first map if only a
small portion of the total units are included. Mr. Lewis said this
was not a matter of concern in approval of the tentative map as
approval is pursuant to the provisions of the ordinance.
The motion to approve the tentative map of Tract 3333, as amended
and conditioned with nothing implied or approved regarding the school
site, was passed unanimously. The tract map is not approved pending
a decision on the school site.
Mr. Critchfield asked then about the position of his client, the
Hagemanns. He asked if the City intended to exercise its power of
condemnation. Mayor Taylor replied that eventually the street
would have to be widened; the developer will have to guarantee
to the City that the street can be widened whenever it is necessary.
*
*
*
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3342
(Hofmann Co.)
Councilman Miller inquired why the tentative map
of Tract 3342 (Hofmann Co.) was before the Council
at this time when the Planning Commission would be
considering this on Tuesday evening concurrently
with PUD No. 15.
Mr. Musso said that ordinarily this would be the case. Mr. Barker,
Associated Professions, said they were told the PUD would be
written in conjunction with the map itself. The major item of
consideration of the map is the land use and the PUD would be
drafted from that.
CM-24-216
Mr. Musso said the developer had submitted a new
map late that evening which had not been review-
ed by the School District or LARPD. The shopping
center location and multiple units were changed
as well as the street design and the school con-
figuration.
July 12, 1971
(Tentative Map
Tract 3342)
Barry Scherman, representing the developer, stated that the map
submitted was identical for all intents and purposes in land use,
with the exception of the exchange of the multiple and commercial
locations. The reason for the late submittal was the fact that
it had just been given to him.
Councilman Miller felt the map should be referred back to the
Planning Commission and commented about the location of the park
site. Mr. Scherman said the LARPD had requested the park site be
changed as they felt the first plan had too much street frontage.
Councilman Silva felt that the staff should review the map, whether
or not it is referred back to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the tentative map
of Tract 3342 after Mr. Scherman made a change in the street design,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, however the motion failed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilmen Silva~ Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller made a motion to submit the map for the review
of the staff and the Planning Commission~ to be reconsidered by
the Council on the 19th. The motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor.
Council discussed the matter further but no vote was taken on the
motion.
Councilman Silva made a motion to continue this matter for one
week and the staff was directed to bring the map before the Plan-
ning Commission on Tuesday; motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller~ and passed four to one (Councilman Pritchard dissenting).
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Com-
mission for June 29 were noted and filed.
*
*
*
The report submitted by the City Manager with
regard to bicycle licensing and the proposed
ordinance were continued for one week.
*
*
*
The report from the City Manager re municipal
water department water assessment and the pro-
posed ordinance were continued until the next
meeting.
*
*
*
The report from the City Manager regarding the
education incentive pay plan for the Fire De-
partment was continued until the meeting of
July 19.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a standard form
agreement had been prepared for architectural
services due to the golf course clubhouse modi-
fication. The rates are listed in accordance
MINUTES
(Planning Commission~
REPORT RE BICYCLE
LICENSING
REPORT RE WATER
ASSESSMENT
REPORT RE EDUCATION
INCENTIVE PAY PLAN
(Fire Dept.)
REPORT RE ARCHI-
TECTURAL SERVICES
(Golf Course
Clubhouse)
CM-24-217
July 12, 1971
(Architectural
Services)
with current practices and based upon a time and
material formula; the maximum fee is listed at
$2,000.
On motion of Councilman Silva~ seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous approval, the City Manager was authorized to execute
the agreement.
*
*
*
REPORT RE The federal government has instituted a new summer
"STEP" PROGRAM work program called "Supplemental Training and Em-
ployment Program" (STEP). A matter of 1800 posi-
tions have been authorized for Northern California.
Those intended to fill these vacancies would be, mainly, heads of
households who are unemployed and might be on state or county wel-
fare assistance and from minority groups. The pay, set at $2 per
hour for a 40-hour week and extending over a 13-week term, is fully
paid by the federal government which, incidentally, is tax free to
the recipients. Our City has been asked to consider the acceptance
of twenty such persons and every effort will be made to recruit them
from our area. Our only cost is involved in some minor clerical
recording.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and by unanimous vote, the staff was authorized to execute this
agreement.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
REZONING
(No. Livermore
& Portola Aves.)
AYES:
NOES:
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, first reading of the ordinance
was waived (title read only) and the ordinance
rezoning property located on the northeast cor-
ner of North Livermore and Portola Avenues from
RL-7 and RL-IO to RS-3 and Rs-4 Districts, was
introduced by the following vote:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(LARPD
Master Plan)
Tract Maps
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor indicated that a meeting had been
set for July 19 with regard to the LARPD Master
Plan. However, he would not be present for that
meeting and asked if the joint meeting could be
set for 7 p.m. the evening of July 26, and notifi-
cation will be sent to the Recreation District.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard suggested that the School
District should be advised that there is a legal
time limit with regard to approval of the tentative
map. The staff was instructed to note this action.
*
*
*
BUDGET The approval of the 1971-72 fiscal budget was con-
APPROVAL tinued from ea~lier in the evening for further dis-
cussion. A motion was made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Mayor Taylor to adopt the budget as tentatively agreed
upon at the last budget session, and the resolution passed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
CM-24-218
RESOLUTION NO. 77-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1971-72 FISCAL BUDGET
*
*
*
July 12~ 1971
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10
a.m. to an executive session to discuss a legal
matter.
*
*
*
APPROVE
" ...-..,,\ ,/ .:'
ATTEST \~ ~.
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of July 19, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on July 19, 1971~
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor pro tempore
Pritchard presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Miller ROLL CALL
Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard led the members of
the Council and those present in the audience
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, addressed
the Council regarding the unencumbered budget
allocation to the Chamber of Commerce for ad-
ministrative services. He felt this item
tends to undermine the confidence in local
government. He said he had worked on the re-
cent school bond election, as had the Chamber. There were many
people in the City who had opposed this measure and were at a
disadvantage. During the campaign he had observed that the
Chamber offices were used continuously for that purpose. The
burden of proof was the Chamber's and Council's to show that
the budget allocation was not in any way used in the campaign
for the election. Secondly, he had learned from members of the
campaign that the Chamber Manager, Paul Marshall, had revealed
that the Chamber plans to run Milt Codiroli for election to the
Council next April. He did not believe it was ethical or fair
to allow the Chamber an unencumbered fund which cannot be proved
as not being used in a political campaign. The Chamber should
be able to stand on its own two feet, and when this is achieved
rapport will be gained and the underlying principle of democracy
that no public funds are used for such elections will be supported.
Therefore, Mr. Hoenig asked that the Council review their action
in view of this statement.
OPEN FORUM
(Chamber of
Commerce)
*
*
*
CM-24-219
July 19, 1971
Leo von Gottfried, 3847 Yale Way, read a letter
from the ad hoc committee on sidewalk damages re-
presenting homeowners claiming damages against the
City due to sidewalk repairs necessitated by roots
of required street trees planted between sidewalks and curbs. The
letter was signed by Leo von Gottfried; 3847 Yale Avenue, Perry C.
Norman, 1091 Madison Avenue; Viktor E. Hampel, 1143 Canton Avenue;
Lucien B. Maccario, 1320 Anza Way; James Adam, 1162 Batavia; and
Peter M. Griffin, 540 Jensen Street. One hundred eighty-eight
claims for property damage signed by property owners were present-
ed to the Clerk.
(Sidewalk
Repairs)
At the end of the meeting Viktor Hampel presented 117 additional
claims to the Clerk.
(Granada
Stadium Fund)
(Recognition-
DeMolay)
North
Livermore
Reconstruction
*
*
*
Dr. Donald Rocco, on behalf of the Livermore Lions
Club, referred to a letter received from the City
Council, regarding the Granada High School Stadium
Fund. He asked that the City Council support this
effort by playing golf in the tournament and chal-
lenging other City Councils.
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard recognized the presence
of several members of the local chapter of DeMolay.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A letter has been received from the Livermore Cham-
ber of Commerce regarding the reconstruction of
North Livermore Avenue. Councilman Miller requested~
that the City urge the County Board of Supervisors
to undertake this reconstruction now while the road
is closed due to freeway work. The staff was requested to direct a
letter to the Board requesting that construction bidding take place
as soon as possible.
ABAG re
Citizen's
Task Force
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the Associa-
tion of Bay Area Governments setting forth comments
and a proposed schedule for establishment of a
Citizen's Task Force.
Councilman Miller stated that it seems some form of regional govern-
ment is inevitable, and it would be useful to have a local represen-
tative, perhaps from the League of Women Voters, on this committee.
He requested that this item be included as a regular agenda item
at a future meeting.
Population
Estimate
Report re Bus
Feeder Line
Service
CM-24-~20
*
*
*
The State Department of Finance has estimated the
total population of the City at 41,000 as of June 1.
This is an increase of 3,297 from the official
decennial census figure of 37,703 as of April 1,
1970.
*
*
*
A report was made by the City Manager regarding
the bus feeder line service report printing. The
budget item for this service was computed as $1500.
However, the bids received by the BART staff indicate
July 19, 1971
a low bid of $3123 resulting in a deficit of (Bus Feeder Line)
$1623, not including tax. It is recommended
that the City Council authorize an additional
$600 as our participating share in the increased
cost.
*
*
*
Report re County
Radio Service
Agreement
A report was submitted by the City Manager re-
garding the County Radio Service agreement.
This is a franchise document required by the
County and will extend year-to-year unless
terminated by either party upon 30-day notice.
All of our mobile radio equipment is now serviced by the County
under an informal arrangement. The rates assessed are the actual
costs to the County. It is recommended that a resolution author-
izing execution of this agreement be adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-71
*
*
*
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
[n accordance with the memorandum of understand- Report re Education
ing executed last year with three of the employee Incentive Pay Plan
organizations, Education Incentive Pay Plans are
required for institution on July 1. Copies of
the plans pertaining to the Police Department and Fire Department
were submitted to the Council for consideration. This item was
continued, with the consent of the Council, at the request of
the attorney for the Livermore Police Association.
*
*
*
A report from the County indicates that the
total assessed valuation applicable to Liver-
more will be less than the amount estimated
by the City. This is almost entirely due to
additional property exemptions granted by the County without our
knowledge. A copy of the Finance Director's report was submitted
also.
*
*
*
Report re Assessed
Valuation Variances
Proposed
Industrial Annex
No.6
An application has been received for annexation
of approximately 200 acres of property located
in the easterly extreme of the City, bounded on
the north by US 580, on the east by Greenville
Road, and on the south by the Southern Pacific railroad tracks.
It is recommended that a motion be adopted to transmit this appli-
cation to the City Planning Commission and to the Local Agency
Formation Commission for report.
*
*
*
The final map of Tract 3293 has been completed
in accordance with the conditions of the tenta-
tive map. It is recommended, therefore, that
the following resolutions be adopted approving
the map and authorizing execution of the subdivision
acceptance of bonds.
Report re Tract
3293 (C.N. Fletcher)
agreement and
RESOLUTION NO. 79-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3293
RESOLUTION NO. 80-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO TRACT 3293
*
*
*
CM-24-221
July 19, 1971
Report re At the City Council meeting of July 12 memorandum
Park Dedica- of conditions was accepted concerning resubdivision
tion Tr. 2745 of Lot 7, a portion of Tract 2745 and Tract 3285.
Approval Tract An agreement has been prepared, executed by the
32~5) owner of this property, conceding to the negotia-
tion of conveyance of park lands to the City. It is recommended
that the following resolution be adopted authorizing execution of
this agreement, approving map of Tract 3285.
Departmental
Reports
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
RESOLUTION NO. 81-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF TRACT 3285, CITY OF LIVERMORE
* * *
Departmental reports were submitted as follows:
Airport - Activity - June
Building Inspection -June
Civil Defense - quarterly - April thru June
Fire Department - June
Library - Annual
Municipal Court - May and June
Planning Department - zoning activity - May and June
Police and Pound Departments - May and June
Water Reclamation Plant - June
*
*
*
One hundred fifty-five claims, dated July 16, 1971
in the amount of $141,283.78; one hundred fourteen
payroll warrants, dated July 2; and fifty-eight
payroll warrants dated July 7, 1971, were ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager. Councilman
Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 11185
for his usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Miller, the Consent Calendar was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
The report regarding bicycle licensing was continued
from the City Council meeting of July 12 for con-
sideration at this time. Councilman Miller explained
that he had requested an ordinance regarding licens-
ing of bicycles be considered due to the large num-
ber of inquiries he had received for such a measure.
There is a high ratio of bicycle theft and licensing
is meant to be a protective measure, not one for revenue. Council-
man Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to waive
the first reading of the proposed ordinance amending the Municipal
Code regarding licensing of bicycles (title read only) and by the
following vote the ordinance was introduced.
REPORT AND
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
BICYCLE
LICENSING
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Beebe explained that the licensing charge would be $1.00
for a permanent decal, and a $1.00 transfer fee if ownership is
changed.
The City Manager pointed out that the cooperation of the press
would be appreciated to inform the public regarding times and places
for licensing.
CM-24-222
*
*
*
In the preliminary budget review the City Coun-
cil agreed to the assessment of 1% franchise
fee against revenue derived from the municipal
water operation. This fee would be consistent
with that exacted from the California Water
Service Company and P.G.& E. Funds are to be
credited to the new fiscal budget.
July 19~ 1971
REPORT AND PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE MUNI-
CIPAL WATER DEPT.
ASSESSMENT
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller~ the
first reading of the proposed ordinance amending the Municipal
Code to provide for disposition of revenue as noted was waived
(title read only) and by the following vote the proposed ordinance
was introduced.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Miller
None
Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
Appeal from denial by the Planning Commission
of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construc-
tion of a church at a site located between
Dogwood Drive and Olivina Avenue at Nightingale
Street has been made by the applicant, Rev.
Charles A. Hill, for the Apostolic Faith Temple.
of the applicant the matter was continued on June
days.
APPEAL RE DENIAL
OF CUP (Apostolic
Faith Temple)
At the request
14 for thirty
The Planning Commission denied the CUP for the requested use.
Mr. Musso explained the surrounding area is predominately single
family residential and the site is located adjacent to seven lots
without street frontage due to a situation in existence at time
of annexation. The Zoning Ordinance allows location of a church
in any zone provided findings can be made that the site is large
enough, properly related to traffic, not detrimental to adjacent
properties, and approval can be conditioned if any of these situa-
tions do exist. The Planning Commission denied the application
primarily because they felt the use of the property where the
church is to be located would preclude the proper development of
the adjacent properties. Several exhibits had been prepared
showing possible solutions in design. There are problems regard-
ing access, location of the church building~ etc. Several of
the adjacent homeowners felt the use would be detrimental to
their property and a petition representing most of the adjacent
properties was signed. Mr. Musso explained the site plan~ stat-
ing there is adequate area for off-street parking, but due to the
shape of the property, maximum parking use cannot be obtained.
Rev. Hill said he realized they do not have a 2~ acre site, but
there are other churches in the City which are on smaller sites
and some without off-street parking. It was their wish to establish
a place of worship and to work with the community.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard asked about plans for expansion of
the building, and Rev. Hill stated it would be some time before
a larger auditorium would be necessary; when the church outgrew
the facilities, they would relocate and sell the present property
to another church group.
Councilman Miller agreed that small churches have a difficult job
in finding a place to begin construction, but the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council must take into account the effect of one
property on another. He could see from a study of the map the
problems of traffic and access and also the problem of the develop-
ment of the other properties adjacent to the proposed site. With-
out agreement among the adjacent property owners to ~:ork out the
problems involved, he felt the recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission should be adopted. Councilman Miller made a motion to
accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial
of the CUP, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
CM-24-223
July 19, 1971
(Appeal re
Church Site)
Rev. Hill stated that one of the property owners
had discussed a trade of land - the frontage on Dogwood
for his lot on the back of the proposed site. He
said the problem involved in regard to the shape and
configuration of the undeveloped land in this area existed at the
time the land was annexed, and whether this is developed by the
church or someone else, the problem will still exist. Councilman
Miller said that other development, such as a house, would not
create the traffic problems.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard said he felt the CUP as presented on
the narrow strip of land was inadequate. If some arrangement
could be worked out for the other property to come together under
one ownership, then a solution could be made. Allowance of the
church on the proposed site did not seem to be good planning.
Rev. Hill inquired if in the event the church could not buy the
adjoining properties at this time and a property swap could be worked
out, could the other property owners get access to their land through
an easement.
After further discussion regarding a possible land exchange, Coun-
cilman Miller withdrew his motion and Mayor pro tempore Pritchard
withdrew his second to the motion for denial.
Councilman Miller then made a motion to continue the matter for
two months to allow the applicant time to work out an agreement
with at least the three property owners of the adjacent property,
and hopefully all six of the property owners plus the church pro-
perty for some type of arrangement to solve the problem of the
landlocked properties. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe
and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3333
(H.C. Elliott)
Consideration of the tentative map for Tract 3333
(H. C. Elliott) was continued from the Council
meeting of July 12, pending review of the school
locations by the School District.
The Planning Director stated this matter was continued to work out
plans for the school site. The site had been relocated adjacent
to the new alignment of Las Positas and Isabel freeway. Two designs
had been indicated and the underlying subdivision was deemed satis-
factory. The area where the school site was formerly located has
been subdivided satisfactorily. A solution to the long blocks has
been worked out with two pedestrian walkways and the additional
street discussed last week. The improvement of Olivina Avenue and
the extension of the collector street to connect with Las Positas
at time of initial development has been indicated as agreed upon
at the last meeting. Also indicated are two lot reservations in
the event the Isabel Avenue freeway should be subdivided. The
Planning Commission had discussed the existing tree stands and
the channel. An existing oil line easement has dictated more or
less the entire design of the subdivision.
Mr. Musso explained that originally the School District had indi-
cated there would be no schools necessary to serve the area. The
Planning Commission agreed that the 7-8 school might be relocated
somewhere else and that possibly the K-6 school might be just a K-3
school. Now the School District feels that both a 7-8 and K-6
school will be needed; that the Las Positas high school site should
be relocated and the K-6 and 7-8 schools located on the present
site off Murrieta Blvd. One problem with this site is that the
State might object to the site due to the proximity to the airport.
If the two schools are located on the high school site now owned
by the School District, then sites in the tract might not be needed.
The School District has agreed that if the school is located within
the tract, the proposed site is the best location.
CM-24-224
July 19~ 1971
Councilman Beebe inquired if the access streets
required were being done by creation of a bene-
fit district. Mr. Musso said he did not believe
anything further had been done in this regard.
This can be worked out in the future; the condition of approval
of the map is that this be worked out in some manner.
(Tentative Map
Tract 3333)
Councilman Miller asked how many trees will be affected in the
middle of the subdivision as he did not wish to see these trees
destroyed.
Mr. Barker, Associated Professions, said three alternate sites
had been proposed to the School District, and the one of their
choice was agreed upon by the applicant for school reservation.
The trees referred to are sycamore trees which are in very bad
condition and they did not feel these trees were worth saving.
The oak trees and a stand of euclyptus trees as well as some
sycamores are within the park site. Indicated on the map are
7.8 acres of park dedication, and with the 30 acres set aside
for school site reservation, approximately 100 lots will be lost
from the subdivision. If the School District does use the site,
they would expect the City or Park District would acquire the
difference of land, i.e. if there are 280 lots the 7.8 acres of
parkland indicated is in excess of the required dedication and
they would expect the excess to be acquired.
Councilman Miller said it might be wise to get an agreement now
stating an option price if the excess parkland is acquired.
The City Attorney stated that the question seems to be reasonable
anticipation of the time when the City's bargaining position
lessens or is greatest. Mr. Lewis said it seemed to him that it
was greatest at the present time except for one limitation, which
is that the City does not yet know what will happen on the park.
It is not known when the final map will be filed; therefore, we
find ourselves in the position of wishing to purchase land when,
in fact, the park dedication may never come about. This could
be covered by taking an option on the property contingent upon
filing of the final map and agreement on the purchase price now.
The final map could not be denied on this basis, but now is the
best time to negotiate on a price for the additional land.
Councilman Miller stated he thought they should proceed with
negotiations to obtain an option, and Mr. Lewis suggested that
the City Engineer and City Manager should discuss the matter and
then meet with the applicant's representatives.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to accept the tentative map,
conditioned upon further negotiations between the staff and the
developer regarding preservation of the park site, seconded by
Mayor protempore Pritchard and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated he did not wish to vote for the tract
map mainly because of the present state of the School District;
however, it was clear that if the full Council were present there
would be a majority in favor, and therefore, he would vote for
approval to reflect this majority.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the proposed TENTATIVE MAP -
map was reviewed by all departments, the School TRACT 3342
District staff and the LARPD staff as directed (Hofmann Co.)
when the matter was continued at the meeting of
July 12. The final map is essentially the same as the one submitted
by the applicant except that the street design has been changed to
provide a through street from Amber Way. The main concern was
the configuration of the school and park sites. The School Dis-
trict wanted frontage on Murdell Lane and this has been indicated;
the Park District did not want any frontage on Murdell Lane but
CM-24-225
July 19, 1971
(Tentative Map the Planning Commission recommended that all of
Tract 3342) the park dedication be taken on this site to open
up the park and school site which is contrary to
the recommendation of LARPD. The Planning Commis-
sion instructed the staff to consider light, glare and traffic
from the shopping center in planning the adjacent residential area.
The plan as submitted as far as relationship of land uses is satis-
factory.
There is to be a 10-acre school site and a 6.58 park site with an
additional lot to be added. The park and school site is long and
narrow and, hopefully, the two districts can work out a good plan.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this plan.
Councilman Miller felt the design in regard to the school and park
site is better than the previous plan. Councilman Beebe made a
motion, seconded by Mayor pro tempore Pritchard, to approve the
tentative map of Tract 3342; motion approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, and Pritchard
Councilman Miller
Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor
AMENDMENT
PUD NO. 15
(Hofmann Co.)
*
*
*
The Planning Commission considered the amendment
of Planned Unit Development Permit No. 15 (Hofmann
Company), a development of approximately 57 acres
located south of East Stanley Blvd and easterly of
Isabel Avenue, to permit construction of a commer-
cial and residential complex.
Barry Scherman pointed out that at the time of the previous amend-
ment to the PUD the whole front section, including the cul-de-sac,
along Stanley Blvd was indicated as commercial with two service
stations granted at that time. The Carlton interests had expressed
their desire to have this included in the tentative map; however,
he assumed that this would be included in the discussion regarding
the PUD amendment rather than at this time.
Councilman Miller stated he wished to discuss the buffering regard-
ing the commercial area as well as some other details but felt this
should be done in connection with the PUD public hearing rather
than the tentative map. Councilman Miller made a motion seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to set the public hearing regarding amendment
to PUD No. 15 for August 2, and it was approved unanimously.
ZO AMENDMENT
SEC. 21.70
(Signs)
COUNTY REFERRAL
REZONING TO RS
(Pinguelo)
* * *
.~ ~rCdi;:~ .
AAdraft of the pro~osed zoning ordinance amendment
to Section 21.72-A-6 (Freeway Uses Signs), 21.76-G
(Freestanding signs - Conditional Use Permit),
21.76-K (Conditional Use Permit), 21.75-D (Signs
Visible from a Scenic Highway) was noted and filed.
*
*
*
A County referral has been received regarding re-
zoning application for a site at 810 Herman Avenue
located on the west side, about 880 feet. south of
Scenic Avenue, from A (Agricultural) District to
R-S (Suburban Residential) District to establish
a mobile home park.
Councilman Miller made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation for denial of the subject application; motion second-
ed by Councilman Beebe, passed unanimously.
CM-24-226
*
*
*
County referral regardin? an application for
rezoning of a site at 1348 South Livermore Ave.
from R-l (Single Family Residential) to C-2
(General Commercial) made by Phillip and M.E.
Redmond has been received to permit a vehicle
storage area.
July 19, 1971
COUNTY REFERRAL
REZONING TO C-2
(Redmond)
Mr. Musso explained that one of the arguments for allowing this
rezoning was that the City is creating a large mound which would
buffer this site and the future park site. The mound will, in
fact, be a five foot landscaped knoll in the design of the park.
Mr. Musso stated he would attend this hearing to present facts
about the design of the civic center site.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of
this application; motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the Ala- COMMUNICATION RE
meda County Planning Commission regarding Offi- SCENIC HIGHWAYS
cial State Scenic Highways. Councilman Miller
said the County Planning Commission is urging
the City to declare our intent to conduct studies to qualify
Highway 580 as a scenic highway. He said he felt the City should
initiate steps in this regard. Councilman Miller made a motion
to start the procedure to have Highway 580 declared as a scenic
highway; motion seconded by Mayor pro tempore Pritchard passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission summary of action taken
at the meeting of July 13, was received.
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF MEETING
Councilman Miller referred to action taken approving signs at
several service stations. He had looked at these signs and felt
that only two of the six approved met the conditions of the ordi-
nance. He wished to appeal the approval of the four other signs.
(Agenda Items 4.2 and 4.34 Items 1 and 2, and Agenda Items 4.4
through 4.7, Items 1 and ). The motion was seconded by Mayor
pro tempore Pritchard and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 752
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 REZONING
NE CORNER NO.
LIVERMORE & PORTOLA
AVENUES
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Mayor pro tempore
Pritchard, to waive the second reading of the ordinance, and by
the following vote the above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Miller
None
Councilman Silva and Mayor Taylor
For the record Councilman Miller stated he opposed this rezoning,
but voted in the affirmative at this time to reflect the majority
feeling of the Council and so expedite the Council's business.
CM-24-227
July 19, 1971
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Sale of
Property)
ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Miller said that a member of the LARPD
had pointed out there was a legal advertisement
for property for sale which might be the Sally
property. Councilman Miller felt it might be use-
ful to check this out so the City might bid on it.
*
*
*
There being no further business to came before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE
~~~
Mayor
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of July 26, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on July 26, 1971, in
the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The special
study session was called to order at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
SPECIAL ITEM
LARPD PRE-
LIMINARY
MASTER PLAN
*
*
*
PRESENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor
Taylor
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe and Silva (on vacation)
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present
in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that generally the
Planning Commission felt that the park standards
included in the LARPD Preliminary Master Plan should
be revised; they did concur with LARPD that cost of
park development is such that possibly more community
and less neighborhood type parks are desired. However,
they felt the total park requirements were considerably less than the
park dedication which will be obtained by the City and were less
than the standards used in the past. The City has always interpreted
the State requirements to mean that park dedication is to be used
to serve the area from which dedication is made. This would mean
local parks and not major regional or district parks which are
designed to serve other than a local neighborhood. The Planning
Commission did concur with some of the recommendations of LARPD;
however they would like to have the LARPD and City consider vest
pocket parks or play lots as a supplement to the larger parks.
The Commission felt the park standards should cover the amount of
park land that will be dedicated (two acres per 100 dwelling units).
CM-24-228
July 26, 1971
One major change that has occurred is that two
district parks have always been included in
plans--one on the north side and one on the
south side which was determined to be the
park at the Civic Center; this park is now
indicated to be a community park, and district parks are indicated
to be areas such as Brushy Peak and Mines Road. The City and LARPD
plan in 1965 proposed one neighborhood park for every school; one
community park, such as May Nissen, for every Planning Unit; two
district parks~ one on each side of town. Now community parks
are increasing and neighborhood parks are about the same as origi-
nally proposed.
(Special Item-
LARPD Preliminary
Master Plan)
Mayor Taylor stated that there had been a park of about 100 acres
indicated near the Rod and Gun Club on the Livermore General Plan.
Mr. Musso said that in 1967 when this designation was first made
LARPD was contacted about their choice for a park on the north
side and they choose the FCC monitoring station due to the possi-
bility of getting it as surplus property. The City has always
indicated the Dalton site.
Lowell Bergman of LARPD stated that the Master Plan presented has
not been accepted by the Board as yet; they wished to get the
comments of the Council, the School District~ and the County first.
Mr. Musso explained that the staff recommended that all types of
parks would come from the required park dedication. The size of
the community park would be based on the size of the Planning
Unit which is determined by the number of schools in the unit.
In answer to Mayor Taylor's question, Mr. Bergman explained that
the plan being studied is a park district master plan and included
in this plan would be capital facilities such as buildings and
pools. Also the Brushy Peak area could be either a district or
a regional park according to the type of development; it might
have a hiking trail leading into it with very little development
there as a regional park.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council discuss the question of
whether the park district envisons lower park acreage than the
present dedication will bring. The Council has been under the
assumption that there would be park dedication of two acres per
100 d.u. in the newer areas of town; as he understood the plan
there would be a lower ratio of park land.
Mr. Bergman said this was true, but they must build with flexi-
bility. If standards are put into a master plan, they must be
obtainable. He felt actual park dedication will average out at
1.3 acres due to the amount of in lieu fees. If a specific
figure is set, difficulty would be encountered in meeting that
standard. The Park District would not only be unable to afford
to develop certain higher standards but would not be able to
purchase the land unless in lieu fees are put into a special fund
for application for matching funds.
Mayor Taylor said they have generally assumed that in lieu fees
collected would go to purchase land somewhere else. Mr. Bergman
referred to trailways and pathways which he thought would be
deducted from park dedication. Councilman replied that the trail-
ways in question were treated separately. Mr. Musso said that
the City has not adopted a policy that such land or money from
park dedication would go into parkways.
Councilman Miller stated he felt that the City should get every
square inch of park dedication land possible and all in lieu fees
will be spent for park acquisition. He felt it was reasonable for
LARPD to assume that two acres per 100 d.u. will be obtained.
Mayor Taylor said that density credit has been allowed for land
such as that along the arroyo which is not suitable for development,
but this is in addition to the required park dedication.
CM-24-229
July 26, 1971
(Special Item-
LARPD Preliminary
Master Plan)
Councilman Pritchard inquired whether in lieu
fees would be used to purchase land in the
Greenville North area. Mr. Musso explained that
in this area there was a park committed under
the annexation agreement which the developer
has succeeded in avoiding over the past several years due to the
wording in the agreement. It seems that another site will have to
be selected. Councilman Miller said that in this case park fee
money will be used with reimbursement from in lieu fees if possible.
The Council discussed the recent rulings regarding use of in lieu
fees for purchase of park land. Mr. Musso said the ruling states
the money must be used for the neighborhood, in conformance with
the General Plan. In the City's General Plan, this is done by
Planning Unit. The people within a subdivision contribute the
money, and it should be used for them.
Councilman Miller felt the City should be striving for more than the
two acres per 100 d.u. Every effort should be made to increase the
standards, not lower them.
Mr. Bergman said that as a result of meetings of various park and
recreation districts throughout the country, a staff member of the
National Recreational and Park Association with headquarters in
Washington derived a standard per 1,000 people for neighborhood
parks of 2.5 acres; district parks of 2.5; large urban city or
district type parks of 5 acres; regional parks of 20 acres. These
are the same standards used by LARPD except for 15 acres for
regional parks.
Councilman Miller said park dedication applies only to community and
neighborhood parks. He had calculated that in fact the dedication
required should be three acres per 100 d.u. and he felt the City
should have more than the minimum.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the arroyo dedication will increase or
supplement the required dedication. The Planning Commission is
presently working on changes for Planned Unit Development which will
create more open space since 25% of the area will have to be in
various types of open space. This would be in conformance with the
National Park Recreation Open Space standards.
Mayor Taylor stated he felt the Council was in agreement that the
standard would have to be somewhat flexible but that there would be
two acres per 100 d.u. or better for park land. There is no policy
regarding tot lot development.
Mr. Bergman stated that there are tot lots within the larger park
areas but due to maintenance costs LARPD must watch cost of this
type of park development.
The Council then discussed methods of ralslng funds for such purposes,
such as a tax override which must be renewed every ten years and be
for a specific purpose.
Mr. Bergman inquired what can be done about areas within the City
which do not have the two acre dedication. Mayor Taylor said it
would be pointed out to residents that standards have been updated
since certain areas were developed.
It was concluded that standards need to be flexible; tables should
be established but applied to the circumstance existing as practi-
cal. Also, it has been said that parks should be adjacent to
schools; this is desirable in many cases but some parks should be
separate. The District representatives decided to take the
Council's comments under study, and further action will be taken
during the course of their discussions on their Master Plan.
*
*
*
RECESS
After a brief recess the meeting was called to
order for the conduct of the regular business
of the Council.
* * *
CM-24-230
July 26, 1971
The minutes of the meeting of July 12, 1971, MINUTES
were approved as submitted on motion of
Councilman Miller~ seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and by unanimous vote. The minutes of the meeting of
July 19, 1971, were approved as corrected on motion of Councilman
Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, by unanimous vote, with
Mayor Taylor abstaining due to his absence at the meeting in
question.
*
*
*
Mr. Leo von Gottried, 3847 Yale Way, stated
his belief that the Council had directed that
no further notices be sent regarding sidewalk
repairs and urged that no notices be sent until a solution can be
suggested; however, Mayor Taylor indicated that such not the case
and the program was to proceed. The staff was investigating the
costs involved and other aspects of the problem and would report
to the Council.
OPEN FO RUM
(Sidewalk Repairs)
*
*
*
Mr. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, thanked (Ambulance Rates)
the Council for seeing that sewer laterals were
installed on Second Street, between P and Q
Streets, and also for the reflector button on Murrieta Blvd. Mr.
Faltings then questioned the ambulance rates for Allen's Ambulance,
indicating that they seemed to be 50% higher than others in the
area.
Mayor Taylor explained that the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton
and the County of Alameda were in the process of contracting with
the ambulance company for service with Valley Memorial Hospital
acting as consultant to evaluate the services.
*
*
*
Mr. Craig Lighty, 367 Scott Street, indicated (Sidewalk Repairs)
that he had recently purchased this property
and that it had been posted for sidewalk repair
for the past seven years but no work had been done, nor apparently
had any enforcement of the repair order been made. The Public
Works Director, Dan Lee~ stated his belief that this could not
have happened since a repair program had not been conducted in
recent years, but he would check into the matter.
*
*
*
The Mayor opened the public hearing for
submission of any objections from property
owners to the charges for weed clearance.
Mr. Craig Lighty, 367 Scott Street~ stated
he owned the property at 1152-68 Holmes Street
and had received a notice to clear the property, but had decided not
to do the work himself and to allow the City to proceed with their
program. He has now received a billing; however, the work has not
been done.
PUBLIC HEARING
WEED ABATEMENT
PROGRAM
Captain Clelland, who was in charge of the program, stated he
would investigate and rectify the error.
There being no further protests, the hearing was closed by unanimous
vote.
*
*
*
CM-24-231
July 26, 1971
(Weed
Abatement)
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 82-71
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS - WEED ABATEMENT
This resolution confirms the assessments for weed abatement~ and
those not paid by August 1 will be forwarded to the County Auditor
for placement on the tax roll.
(Beautifica-
tion Minutes)
*
*
*
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting
of July 6 were noted. A question was asked re-
garding the entry sign at Holmes Street presently
being installed by Mr. Mehran, and Mr. Lee
explained that the plan had been designed to the City's satisfaction,
but later a sign was added, calling for redesign of the landscaping.
(Incentive Pay
Plans - Police
and Fire Depts.)
*
*
*
Consideration of the Incentive Pay Plans for
the Police and Fire Departments was continued
from the meeting of July 19, 1971, at the re-
quest of the attorney for the Police Association.
A revised plan for the Police Department was prepared and distributed
to the Council at the meeting. Mr. Parness reported that agreement
had been reached with the Police Association just today regarding
this plan and the In-Service Training Program. In addition, Mr.
Parness indicated that the Police Association had decided to with-
draw all claims for overtime pay.
It is recommended that the Incentive Pay Plans for the Police and
Fire Departments~ and the Tuition Reimbursement Plans be authorized
for formal institution.
(Approval of
Consent
Calendar)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the items on the Consent
Calendar were approved as presented by the follow-
ing vote:
NOES: None
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Silva
PARK LAND
APPRAISALS
(Western
Sector Sites)
*
*
*
The City Manager reported preliminary appraisals
were conducted for two prospective park sites
located in the western sector of the City--the
Dogwood site, approximately 1 3/4 acres, at
$20,000 for the site, and a second site along
Mariposa Street at $8,000 per acre. The Council
briefly discussed the appraisals and asked that a written report
be submitted for later discussion with the whole Council.
Mr. Musso also explained that the intent is to utilize park
dedication fees in the area. In answer to a question regarding
the Dogwood site, Mayor Taylor indicated that this matter would
be discussed again in 60 days.
Also speaking on this matter was Cheri Rittmann, who urged the
establishment of a park in the neighborhood since many residents
have large families, and it is too far to go to May Nissen Park;
little children are teased by older ones there.
CM-24-232
*
*
*
Councilman Miller appealed the Conditional
Use Permit approvals granted by the Planning
Commission as follows: freestanding si~ns -
Shell Oil Co., 1737 First street and 31~ So.
Livermore Avenue; Atlantic Richfield Co.,
899 Rincon Avenue and 174 So. L street.
July 26, 1971
APPEAL RE SIGNS
(Various Service
Station Sites)
Planning Director George Musso explained that all the service
stations were noticed regarding non-conforming signs, and several
operators either conformed to the regulations or made applications
for permits. The Commission had discussed the facts and some
freestanding signs had been granted, the findings made, and others
were denied. Generally, the Commission concluded that they could
not set standards and most stations are located in such a manner
that the building cannot be seen; after some experience they may
wish to have an ordinance amendment.
There followed a discussion as to the visibility of signs at older
station sites which are not as extensive in size as many new ser-
vice stations; stations located on well travelled streets or free-
way oriented stations and those on streets which are not as rapidly
travelled by traffic; multiple frontages as opposed to one frontage;
the need for clarification of a policy with regard to this type of
sign; the problem of making a class finding for this particular
type of business without having the same problems arise with other
open uses which may require stricter regulation. It was concluded
that more discussion should be held on this subject. On motion
of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by
unanimous vote, the matter was continued for one week, and the
two other service station applications (1679 First Street and
286 So. Livermore Avenue-Atlantic Richfield) not previously appealed
now be appealed for discussion at the meeting of August 2.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director's report regarding
this subject had been submitted and referred
to this meeting for discussion so that the
Council may formally declare the arterials for
median strip placement in order that the staff will
direction necessary for future planning. Since the
membership was not in attendance~ it was decided to
discussion for one week.
PLANTED MEDIAN
STRIPS - REPORT
have the policy
full Council
continue the
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor reported briefly regarding the
proposed legislation which would provide
that monies would not be used for BART line
extensions outside the District before all
line extensions promised within the District
had been installed. The legislatlon was killed in Committee and
the Council discussed what alternatives might be open to them such
as withdrawal from the district; how it might be possible to
retrieve monies already paid into the District; prevention, by
suit if necessary, of extensions outside the District.
REPORT RE BART
RAIL LINE EX-
TENSION BILL
It was finally concluded, on motion of Councilman Pritchard,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, to direct the
staff to explore what legal action is available to prevent use of
out funds outside the District for extensions of service; withdrawl
from the District; solicitation of aid from other communities who
might join our City in any actions either to retrieve funds or
withdrawal from the District.
*
*
*
CM-24-233
July 26, 1971
ORDINANCE AMEND-
ING CITY CODE RE
BICYCLE LICENSING
ORDINANCE NO. 753
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE,
1959, BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF CHAPTER 5A,
RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF
BICYCLES.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived, and by the
following vote the ordinance was passed.
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Silva
*
*
*
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CITY
CODE RE WATER
REVENUES
ORDINANCE NO. 754
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24.51, RELATING
TO THE DISPOSITION OF WATER REVENUE, OF
ARTICLE V( RELATING TO RATES AND CHARGES, OF
CHAPTER 24, RELATING TO WATER. .
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived, and by the
following vote the ordinance was passed:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Beebe and Silva
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Trailer Storage)
Planning Director Musso reminded the Council
that the trailer storage matter had not been
resolved, and it was decided to place this
matter on the agenda for the meeting of
October 4~ 1971.
*
*
*
(Detour - No.
Livermore Ave.)
Public Works Director Dan Lee advised the
Council that the temporary closure of North
Livermore Avenue, north of Portola Avenue,
resulting from freeway construction, was
creating an excessively long detour for residents north of the
closure. As a result~ many were using the unimproved portion of the
Hartman Road extension into the Springtown area. Some construction
is in progress, and Hartman Road will eventually become improved
in part; however, it should be clear that the City is not accept-
ing a sub-standard street installed for detour purposes only. There
was concern expressed regarding the City's reponsibility for any
injuries or accidents.
*
*
*
(Notice of
Trustee Sale)
The City Manager reported that the Sally
property (in the creek adjacent to the Arroyo
Mocho) is apparently for sale at public auction
to satisfy a deed of trust. This parcel is
area offered for dedication to the City to satisfy conditions
a Conditional Use Permit for an apartment complex.
an
of
The Council discussed the various avenue of action which might be
taken, and it was decided to obtain further information and have
a report at the next meeting for possible action.
*
*
*
CM-24-234
It was decided to send a letter of
appreciation to Senator Cranston indicating
our support of his view on revenue sharing.
July 26, 1971
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCILMEN
(Legislative Bills)
Councilman Miller expressed concern regarding
some proposed legislation (SB 1489) which would require certain
mandatory elements for general plans, and the staff was directed to
prepare a letter expressing our opposition; also our opposition
should be voiced regarding AB 2294 concerning local control of
mobilehome parks.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come
before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:25 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
* * *
APPROVE r:. ~ ~ /:..
~
. cJt' .. )J
. j~ ~
ATTEST '-.-.. .. . ~ :e_
( Cl ty Clerk
Ll ermore, California
*
*
*
Regular Meeting - August 2, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on AuguGt 2,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 So. Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 with Mayor Taylor presiding.
ROLL CALL
* * *
PRESENT: Councilmen B\;ebe~ Miller~ Pri tchard~
Silva and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
P LEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those
present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of July 26~ 1971, were
approved as amended on motion of Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, approved by the followtrg vote:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmen Beebe and Silva (not present at the meeting
of July 26)
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM Verle Gilson, 424 Virginia Drive~ presented a
(Divider Strip petition signed by 143 residents of the area
on Murdell Ln)stating their complaint regarding the installation
of the median strip on Stanley Blvd. The petition
stated that the only access to their area is now from Murdell Lane
and is insufficient for fire and safety reasons and also makes
it difficult for residents to enter their subdivision.
CM-24-235
August 2, 1971
They felt there should be a left turn lane for access to Nancy Street.
Mayor Taylor stated he recalled the discussion at the time the planning
was done for this street design and asked the Public Works Director
Dan Lee to comment~ Mr. Lee reported that at the time the tract was
developed the width of Stanley Blvd. was 88 feet; subsequently the
next tract was developed with Murdell Lane to have access to Stanley
Blvd. The County reqUred that the left turn lane into Nancy Street
be eliminated to conform to their standards. When Murdell Lane is
moved 800 feet to the west, there will be permanent left turn lanes
into Murdell Lane; the 88 foot width does no't allow sufficient space
to provide for a left turn lane. The median curbing has been com-
pleted and this is a cooperative effort between the City and County
since Stanley Blvd. is both in and out of the City. The cost has been
shared with the County and the plans were approved some months ago.
Mayor Taylor inquired if moving Murdell Lane to the west would change
the situation and Mr. Lee replied that the relocation of Murdell Lane
was a part of the original planning. At Nancy Street there is just a
four foot median which does not allow room for the future median at
Murdell Lane which would require 800 ft. to avoid excessive turning
or shifting of traffic, this is the standard used by the County.
The Council disoussed the original design of the subject area, and
agreed that a pedestrian walkway should have been provided along the
canal to permit better access for the school children.
Mayor Taylor suggested that the City petition the County regarding
red-lining the curb to permit the left turn lane.
Councilman Miller felt some effort should be made to persuade the
County to allow this additional access.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to review
this intersection and to try to work out some way to provide an access
to Nancy Street; motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The proposed amendment of PUD #15 (Hofmann Co.)
for the area located south of East Stanley Blvd.,
east of Isabel Avenue, will permit construction
of a commercial and residential complex. The
Planning Director stated that the design of the
subdivision has been approved, and the issue remaining is the reg-
ulation of land use under the PUD permit procedure. The design in-
dicates that Murdell Lane will curve to enter Stanley Blvd. 800 feet
from the subdivision boundary in proximity to the future freeway off-
ramp. The area behind Elvira st. will be single family with Albert
Way extending to Murdell Lane. The school and park site will be to
the left of the end of Murdell Lane and single family residential use
will be at the extension of Pearl Drive, and along Stanley Blvd. will
be a multiple family area and neighborhood shopping center (6 acres).
The remaining issue concerns the land use; the PUD which will be adopted
as an ordinance as soon as the enabling ordinance is ready, is essenti-
ally the same as the permit for the townhouse development; the main
change is deletion of the section concerning the townhouse development
and the numbers have been modified. The single family residential
will conform to the Rs-4 regulations; the neighborhood shopping area
will will conform to the neighborhood shopping regulations; the ele-
mentary school site is reserved with a time limit for two years follow-
ing completion of all residential construction, after which time
they may subdivide and build on this site if the school district
does not exercise its option; the provision for park dedication is
fora6.~9 acre park; there is a time limit for final development of
the property which calls for filing of tentative map by July 1, 1972,
and completion of the entire development by January 1, 1974.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE AMENDMENT
PUB # 15
(Hofmann Co.)
Mr. Musso indicated the changes which are included in the final draft:
B.l.a - the commercial is 6.00 acre maximum parcel site; B.5.a - the
park is 6.51 acres based on the number of units; D.2 - amended com-
CM-24-236
August 2~ 1971
mercial is 6.00 acres and the difference becomes (PUD # 15 - Con't.)
4.35 acres~ and 3.78 would be changed to 4.35 acres
converted to residential @ 4.0 d.u./ac. = 17 d.u.; D.3 - total
residential dwelling units would then be 172; E.2 - the 3.40 acres
for park dedication would be changed to 3.44 acres~ for a total
of approximately 6.63 acres (to be determined by final number of
units approved on the map).
The Planning Director also reported that the LARPD is still opposed
to the amount of frontage indicated for the park.
The Mayor opened the public hearing on the amendment to PUD #lS.
Mr. Barry Scherman, representing the applicant, stated that when
the acreage was determined by computer it was indicated as 17.+
acres rather than 16.3 shown and he understood from previous dis-
cussions that if there was acreage above the necessary amount
required for dedication of park and school sites that lots could
be added along the street to reduce the park frontage. This has
been determined to be four lots and will reduce the excessive
frontage by 320 feet and the school and park districts can work
out a configuration suitable to them. The map indicates 94 lots
with a balance of 78 multiple family units for a total of 172.
Mr. Scherman stated the acreage was indicated as 16.59 which was
less than the 10.00 school site and the 1.63 computed in Item D.3,
or a difference of .04 acre, and he requested flexibility as this
amount was within a reasonable limit. A second question occurs
regarding the rear access to the shopping center. Mr. Musso had
stated there was a required setback and a requirement for a
masonary wall under the ordinance, and there was also a provision
in the permit to provide maximum protection to the single family
residences from glare and noise of the shopping center, which per-
tains in particular to the east boundary next to the cul-de-sac.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to
close the public hearing, approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller suggested several changes and additions to the
draft of the proposed amendment:
Add Item B.l.f): Residential shall be buffered by a 20 ft.
landscaped strip with trees or other tall buffer to screen from
noise and glare, subject to City approval.
After discussion, Mayor Taylor stated he felt a change like this
should be a part of the ordinance and should be sent back to the
Planning Commission for their review and comment. Councilman Silva
agreed that this was a major change and should not be done as part
of the permit.
Councilman Miller suggested a compromise wording to include "may be
buffered" rather than shall so that if the ordinance is changed in
this regard, this will be reflected in the permit. It was agreed
that if the ordinance is changed, the developer will have to meet
the provisions of the ordinance in effect at the time a building per-
mit is applied for.
Item 5.c): Add wording to read "within two years of dedication
or two years after construction"; this change was agreed upon by
the Council.
Item D.3): Insert word maximum to read "total maximum permitted
residential dwelling units." The Council agreed to this insertion.
Item E.4): Park dedication should be made at the time of
submittal of first final map.
Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Musso if this had been done before, and Mr.
Musso pointed out that Councilman Miller was referring to the entire
CM-24-237
August 2, 1971
(P.H. re Amend-
ment PUD #15)
park dedication. For instance, if half of the
property is developed, the full dedication for the
172 units would be required. The dedication or
some guarantee of dedication is required now at
the time of final map for the number of units covered by the final
map. Councilman Miller said he recalled that the park ordinance
adopted by the City included provision for dedication of park land
for the total units to become due as soon as the first final is sub-
mitted, and also that easements can be required to provide access
to the land.
Barry Scherman stated he agreed with this, but stated they have en-
countered a problem in this regard. Whenever a piece of land is
dedicated to the City, they have trouble getting the property off
the tax roll and would rather sell the land to the City by deed for
a small amount in order to have it recorded; then this property
would automatically be segregated by the Tax Assessor's Office. Then
at the time of the final map this could be given to the City by deed
and so recorded. The staff was instructed to include the proper
wording to this effect.
Add Item F.7): Upon expiration of the PUD all tentative maps
shall also expire.
The Council agreed to insert wording for this provision, if the City
Attorney agreed it was proper to do so.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to
amend PUD #15 as outlined; motion approved unanimously.
*
*
*
AMENDED TRACT
3222 - PROPERTY
REVERSION
(Kaufmann &
Broad)
The City Manager explained that some weeks ago the
Council allowed an application to permit the ex-
tension of Theresa Way. Now it has been found that
the County of Alameda will not allow the recordation
of the amended map; there must be a reversion to
acreage of that portion involved, and then relotted.
Gene Rhodes, who served as the special counsel in the condemnation
proceedings of this parcel, said that originally there was an error
in the engineering so that when the subdivision map was submitted as
a tentative map, the whole area was rounded out in a broad curve in
lands which did not belong to the subdivider. Since it was in the
interest of the City and the public in general for Theresa Way to be
extended as a continuous street, condemnation proceedings were held
and the area now determined to belong to the City would be the area
carried through from the two extensions outside the triangle indicat-
ed. The triangular area is now a part of the tract, but the area
within the curve belongs to the original owner and is not a part of
the tract. There are provisions in the subdivision law which say
corrections can be made in the case of an improper description, but
it is the opinion of the County counsel this does not apply in this
instance. Therefore it is recommended that action be taken by the
City Council to revert the area in question to acreage; the Council
must indicate that action will be taken after a public hearing,
following the publication of two separate weekly notices. Mr. Rhodes
read the title of the notice of the intended reversion of this por-
tion of land, and asked the Council to indicate their intention to
hold the public hearing on August 23 and to allow the publication of
the two weekly notices.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to set the public hearing for August 23 with proper notice; motion
approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller inquired if the full cost of the staff time for
the condemnation proceedings was being borne by the property owner,
and Mr. Parness advised that it was.
*
*
*
CM-24-238
CONSENT CALENDAR
August 2, 1971
A request has been received from the League of
California Cities that each City Council
designate a voting representative and an
alternate for the Annual League Conference to
be held September 26-29, 1971. Mayor Taylor was selected
delegate with Vice-Mayor Pritchard as the alternate.
*
*
*
The following resolution extending greetings
from the City of Livermore will be presented
to the City Council of our Sister City,
Quezaltenango, by the Sister City delegation
who will be visiting Quezaltenango.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-71
(League of Calif.
Cities - Delegate)
as the
(Resolution re
Greetings to
Sister City)
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING GREETINGS TO SISTER CITY
QUEZALTENANGO, QUATEMALA
*
*
*
The improvements for Tract 3142 (H. C. Elliott,
inc.) have been installed to City standards
and should now be accepted for maintenance.
The following resolution was adopted authoriz-
ing final acceptance of Tract 3142.
(Accept Improvements
Tract 3142 - H. C.
Elliott, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 84-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3142
(H. C. Elliott, Inc.)
*
*
*
A report has been submitted by the Planning
Director in regard to the proposed sewer
connection for Greenview Swim and Racquet
Club. This matter was removed from the
Consent Calendar and continued for one week
at the request of the applicant.
*
*
*
(Report re Green-
view Swim & Racquet
Club Sewer Connec-
tion)
A report by the Planning Director with an
outline of the procedure to be followed
regarding designation of Route 580 as a
scenic highway was submitted for the informa-
tion of the City Council. Action has been initiated by the Council
and the Board of Supervisors requesting the State Highway District
Office to initiate studies for such designation.
(Report re Scenic
Highway Route 580)
Councilman Silva inquired what restrictions might be imposed if this
designation is made. The Planning Director discussed this point
briefly and pointed out that the designation would make funds avail-
able for landscaping, etc. Mayor Taylor said he understood that no
zoning powers would be taken from the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 85-71
A RESOLUTION IN REGARD TO ROUTE 580 - SCENIC HIGHWAY
*
*
*
The minutes of the Housing Authority meeting
of June 15 were noted and filed.
*
*
*
(Minutes of
Housing Authority)
CM-24-239
August 2, 1971
(Warrants)
One hundred forty-three warrants dated July 30,
1971, in the amount of $235,415.57 were ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager. Council-
man Silva abstained from voting on Warrant
#11268.
*
*
*
(Approval of
Consent
Calendar)
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the Consent Calendar, as
amended, was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
STATUS REPORT
RE SIDEWALK
REPAIR
The Public Works Director Dan Lee reported that
notices have been posted in four of the five
areas, and a total of 671 notices have been
posted. Of this number, 28 permits for removal
of trees have been made. The next step is the
posting of legal notices with a specific date for completion of
the work. Seventy-seven encroachment permits have been issued for
residents to repair their own sidewalks. The fifth area will be
noticed within a week or two; after this is done another status
report will be made to the Council. Mr. Lee suggested that be-
ginning with Area #1 the official notice be served, and later a
decision can be made whether to notice all of the defective side-
walks to have them repaired at one time or whether to take a few
at a time for bids.
Councilman Miller felt that a bid should be put out for the work to
be done so that individuals could know how much the repairs would
cost.
Mr. Lee felt that in the call for bids the City should include for
each job the drawing prepared for the homeowner so that a cost for
each job could be determined; then a total bid could be obtained.
Councilman Silva felt that most of the people were confused regard-
ing what course of action to follow, and he thought it might be
appropriate to send another letter explaining what the City intend-
ed to do with another letter at a later date as to the cost for the
repairs. The Council stated they wished to see the next notice
before mailing.
The Council discussed sending out information to homeowners des-
cribing methods of deep-watering and alternatives to avoid trouble
with sidewalks due to the trees.
Leo von Gottried, 3847 Yale Way, said he understood from the
Council's discussion that they intended to approach this problem
by removing the present concrete and replacing it with new material,
thus creating a hugh load of rubble. He urged an investigation of
more ecological and inventive approaches to the problem, such as
hydraulically lifting a section of the sidewalk. He did not believe
deep-watering would solve the problem either.
Councilman Miller felt the lifting of sidewalk sections and cutting
back roots would be the better solution but thought it would entail
more labor time. He asked Mr. von Gottfr&ed if he or someone else
might make a systems survey in this regard; Mr. von Gottfried
said someone might be able to do this.
Mayor Taylor thought another solution might be the curving of the
sidewalk and felt this should be permitted. Councilman Miller
statedUhat many people want to preserve their trees and should be
allowed other solutions in order to do so.
In answer to a question, Mr. Lee explained that whenever an applica-
tion is made for a permit to remove a tree, the City meets with the
CM-24-240
homeowner to work out where the tree can best
be relocated within the yard.
August 2, 1971
(Sidewalk Repair)
Dr. Donald Rocco suggested that cutting of the tree roots while the
tree is not dormant might cause damage; he also stated that curving
the sidewalks might cause personal injury to those unaware of the
situation. He thought that many people were damaging their trees
when removing the roots improperly.
*
*
*
After a brief recess the meeting was resumed
with all Council members present.
RECESS
*
*
*
The Public Works Director explained that the
typical neighborhood planning unit will be
about a mile square and from this is determined
the amount of planted median which will be
necessary for every planning unit. In this way costs were determin-
ed and the assessed valuation estimated to calculate the related
costs. Various treatments for the median strips, such as medians
with approximately 69% planted area and 31% surfaced with special
treatment, medians with less maintenance with surfacing such as
brick or exposed aggregate~ and also medians with just asphalt
covering, were studied and costs determined.
REPORT RE MEDIAN
LANDSCAPING COSTS
Councilman Beebe said he had asked residents what they thought about
the median strips, and most had indicated they liked the present
treatment but did not wish taxes to be raised for this purpose.
They felt that surface treatment with trees, rather than ground
cover, would be better and thus cut the cost of maintenance.
Mr. Lee said that trees cannot be placed where they would obstruct
the view of traffic, and for this reason ground cover and shrubs
must be used in certain areas. He explained that the first time
cost per single family residence would be $17.05 and annual main-
tenance cost of $1.39 more for the 69% planted median than for
surfaced medians. Councilman Silva said that this would be a cost
to the homeowner per year of $2.39 to $2.50 over a twenty year
period.
Councilman Beebe pointed out that it is probable that additional
personnel will have to be added each year for maintenance, and the
cost has risen to $135,000 over the past five years.
Councilman Miller made a motion to continue the median strip policy
for 69% landscaped median, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Silva stated this maintenance should be appropriated
from the park fund monies, and this suggestion was discussed.
Mr. Parness stated that these median strips cannot be maintained
from present revenue sources, and if the Council does not add to
the revenue source this year, it will mean that the budget next
year will reflect the program through an added tax imposition.
Mayor Taylor said the park tax of 19i was instituted before this
policy on median strips, and it has been agreed that this is for
capital acquisition. Next year if the Council is not willing to
absorb a 3i tax increase for this program, then the median strips
will have to be discontinued. This will have to be spelled out to
the people and determined if they are willing to support it.
Councilman Beebe felt that a small part of the park tax, such as
2i or 3i could legitimately be used for median strip maintenance.
The City Attorney has advised that up to 25% could legally be used
for this purpose. Councilman Beebe stated that some people do not
CM-24-241
August 2, 1971
(Landscaping
Median Strips)
use the public parks and would share in the use
of median strips.
Councilman Silva made a motion to amend the main
motion that the revenues for the median strips be taken from the
park funds in the amount of 31, with 21 for maintenance and 11 for
capital improvements; motion for amendment was seconded by Council-
man Beebe.
Councilman Miller said it had been decided at the budget sessions
that all of the 191 park tax would be used for parks, and for this
reason he could not vote for the amendment as it implied that part
of the park fund would be used for median strips in the current
budget. He would be willing to consider an increase in the 191
park tax rate to cover median strip costs, but now the full amount
of the park funds was needed to acquire park lands.
Cpuncilman Pritchard asked Councilman Miller whether he felt that
the initial development should come from park tax money. Council-
man Miller said he felt it should come out of gas tax money, and
that the policy and financing should be left to next year's Council
for a decision.
Councilman Silva stated he did not believe all of the park tax
money would be needed this year for park acquisition. Mayor Taylor
said that the amendment would in effect be changing the budget.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner, stated that the State Highway Division
uses a great amount of maintenance free landscaping, and this type
of median does not seem to be used by the City.
Mr. Lee said that the Public Works Department is aware of the State
program and the cost for State maintenance, which is 7 cents per
square foot per year. The City's cost is within this range.
The motion for amendment was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor restated the motion for amendment and pointed out that
only 161 of the park tax rate would be for acquisition and 31
would be used for medians from the budget for the fiscal year 1971-
1972.
Councilman Pritchard asked for reconsideration of the motion as he
did not understand that the action would change this year's budget,
and changed his vote from lfayelf to lfnolf; the motion for amendment
thus failed by a 2-3 vote.
The main motion to continue the present policy for landscaping of
median strips was passed by the following vote
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
Councilman Silva requested that the record state that he was for
the landscaped median strips but was against the revenue source.
Councilman Beebe agreed, but added he felt the design of the median
strips could be made in a manner to lower the cost of maintenance.
Mr. Lee commented that he had calculated the personnel needed for
maintenance and felt the increase in maintenance cost would be
about $1,400; recent past experience does not give a true picture
as the City has been upgrading all of its medians to the land-
scaping standards. This would mean about one-quarter a man in-
crease for the coming year.
The City Manager inquired if the map attached to the report indicat-
ing the medians to be maintained would be considered as the guide
in locating the medians.
CM-24-242
August 2, 1971
The Council consensus was that the policy of
placing medians on all major streets would
be continued.
(Landscaping
Median Strips -
Policy)
*
*
*
The Airport Land Use Commission will hold a
public hearing on August 11th to consider
and establish planning boundaries for the
area around the Livermore Municipal Airport.
REPORT RE AIRPORT
LAND USE PLANNING
COMMISSION -
GENERAL PLAN
BOUNDARIES
Mr. Musso explained that the County has
invited our submittal of a tentative plan;
their proposal is to expand the planning area boundaries to
the census enumeration districts for statistical purposes.
Musso pointed out these boundaries.
include
Mr.
The City Manager advised the Council that the law gives the
Commission, in the event boundaries are determined, the right to
compose a general plan for the area~ and any intended land use with-
in that confine has to be referred to them for report.
Mr. Musso said he understood that there is no responsibility on
the part of the City to refer applications to them. He had dis-
cussed this with the Commission, and they indicated they would
probably make some provision to review the action of the City.
Mayor Taylor said it seemed that the Commission wants to define the
area for their planning~ and this is the purpose of the map sub-
mitted. Mr. Musso said the Commission does not propose to do a
land use study but to review a general plan prepared and submitted
by the City. Mayor Taylor noted that the Council was aprehensive
but thought it was just a routine matter. Councilman Silva pointed
out it would take a four-fifths majority of the Council to overrule
the Commission, and approving the map might place the City under
their authority.
Mr. Lee stated he and Mr. Musso had studied this map, taking into
consideration certain factors. The noise zone of the airport ex-
tends about halfway to the boundary indicated, and the State is
concerned about schools between the noise area and the boundaries.
He felt the boundaries suggested would be in the best interest of
Livermore in protecting the airport.
Councilman Miller stated he understood the Commission wanted to
set these boundaries in order to study the area, and it does not
mean there will be restrictions within the whole area.
Mr. Parness stated this was a very pertinent question. He said
there seemed to be a difference in his understanding of the
Commission's action and what Mr. Musso had been led to believe.
Therefore, he urged the Council to direct that during the forth-
coming hearing it be determined whether, when this boundary is fixed,
the Commission will have inviolate rights to review any application
for land use which might come before the Council prior to a decision
being made. If this is not the case, then the matter of indicating
boundaries is entirely changed.
Councilman Beebe stated he felt it should be indicated to the
Commission that the Council felt the area is entirely too large
an area unless it is explained and clarified just what jurisdiction
the Commission will have over this large area. Councilman Beebe
made a motion to this effect, seconded by Councilman Silva~ passed
unanimously. The City Manager was directed to report at the next
Council meeting on this matter. Mayor Taylor felt it should be
made clear to the Commission that we are not objecting to the
boundaries, but just want clarification as to their plans.
*
*
*
CM-24-243
August 2, 1971
PLANNING COMM.
MINUTES AND
SUMMARY OF ACTION
The Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of
July 13, 1971, and the summary of action taken at the
meeting of July 27, 1971, were noted.
*
*
*
APPEAL RE
SERVICE STATION
SIGNS
An appeal requested by Councilman Miller to
Planning Commission action granting freestanding
signs at various service station locations
(Atlantic Richfield and Shell Oil Co.) was con-
tinued from the previous meeting.
Mayor Taylor explained that during previous discussion it was decided
to continue this matter in order to have a full Council present and
to give Council members the opportunity to view these locations
personally.
Mr. Musso stated that the Conditional Use Permit procedure provides
that a use which is located in such a manner that building signs are
not visible may be granted freestanding signs. The Planning
Commission felt that in the case of automobile service stations the
use should be in a class by itself, and there would be a class find-
ing that automobile service station signs are not generally visible
and permits would be granted. The Commission also discussed amend-
ment to the ordinance, but felt that at this time the CUP procedure
would enable the City to study the effect of the ordinance and also
gives an element of control not allowed under flat ordinance allow-
ance. This was a policy change by the Commission.
Councilman Miller summarized the reasons for his appeal of four of
the six locations, stating that in his opinion findings could not
be made to justify granting the signs as the building signs are
visible. In regard to the other two, these had been appealed to
determine what conditions should be placed on the approval of any of
the signs. He urged that the permits at four of the locations be
denied; if these are approved, others will be and this will change
the effect of the sign ordinance.
Councilman Beebe referred to the stations located on the corners of
Murrieta and Stanley Boulevards and stated he felt these low stand-
ing ground signs were attractive and better than signing on the
building.
Councilman Miller stated there was no guarantee that the signs being
appealed, or those at other stations, would be attractive or appeal-
ing.
Councilman Beebe suggested that it should be a policy that when-
ever a station is remodeled, consideration should be given to a
freestanding landscaped sign.
Mayor Taylor felt it was clear that the old signs must come down.
Councilman Pritchard said that there can be conditions imposed under
the CUP procedure, and this is a good way to control signs for this
use. He felt the action of the Planning Commission was correct and
should not be appealed.
Councilman Silva felt that the new designs for ground signs would
be better than the building signs. Those stations with canopies
do have a problem with the signing being visible; in most cases
he would be in favor of granting ground signs such as those re-
ferred to through a CUP.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the signs at the Shell and ARCO
stations on Murrieta Blvd. might not loook as good on smaller lots
or differently designed buildings. In general, he felt some free-
standing signing will have to be allowed, but in the process of
design review the matter of scale must be considered. After
further discussion, Mayor Taylor stated he felt that the consensus
CM-24-2411
Councilman Silva said he felt they agreed
that ground signs should be allowed, and there
should be design review; it must be decided now if there is a
canopy whether a ground sign will or will not be allowed.
August 2, 1971
(Appeal re Ser-
vice Station
Signs)
was to allow freestanding signs in certain
cases.
Mayor Taylor felt that it could be stated that in making findings
regarding visibility, it should be taken into consideration whether
or not there is a canopy, but Councilman Silva did not feel this
was defined sufficiently.
Mr. Musso said that this was one of the reasons he had recommended
that class findings should be made on service stations, and the
Planning Commission had agreed.
Councilman Silva expanded on his statement and added that if a
ground sign is allowed, then the company logo or identification
would not be on the building; however, other signing would be with-
in the sq. ft. allowance. It was decided this might cause problems.
Mayor Taylor felt the consensus was that if a freestanding ground
sign is allowed, the remaining sq. footage will be allowed on the
building.
The Council discussed further the matter of canopies, and felt
that the station on Rincon Avenue should not be allowed the free-
standing sign as there is no canopy and visibility is good.
Councilman Miller felt sign size could be handled through design
review. Councilman Silva said he did not think that in the case
of the other five stations being considered that 16 sq. ft. allow-
able signing was too much. Councilman Miller suggested that per-
haps the permit could state "not greater thanll a specified size
and would give an option.
Councilman Miller also suggested imposing some upgrading standards
for the buildings as a condition of allowance of the freestanding
sign. Mayor Taylor stated that upgrading of the stations would
be a good thing, but granting of the signs should not be used as
a lever to get this done.
Councilman Silva made a motion to affirm the Planning Commission's
recommendation to approve the five signs for locations at 1) 1737
First St., 2) 318 So. Livermore Avenue 3) 1679 First Street,
4) 286 So. Livermore Avenue~ and 5) 174 So. L Street; motion was
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Richard Damon, representative of Atlantic Richfield Co., stated
that the station at Rincon and Pine does have a canopy.
The motion to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval of the five signs listed above was passed by a 4 to 1
vote (Councilman Miller dissenting).
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to affirm the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation for approval of the CUP for a freestanding
sign at 899 Rincon Avenue (ARCO), seconded by Councilman Beebe.
The question arose regarding the definition of a canopy, and after
further discussion it was decided that problems in applying the
law could arise.
Councilman Miller made a motion to table action regarding this item
until the meeting of August 9, 1971, to be included on the Consent
Calendar. Motion was seconded by Councilman Silva and passed by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
CM-24-245
August 2, 1971
(Appeal re Ser- Ward Duncan, construction superintendent with
vice Station Signs) ARCO, said the canopy at the station in
question is a freestanding canopy over the
drive slabs and pump island and is not attach-
ed to the building itself. He pointed out that the lettering on
the building usually includes Atlantic Richfield on one side and
ARCO on the other. The intersection corner sign is the one that
is visible from the road and which brings people into the station.
REPORT RE
ANNEXATION
SO. VASCO ROAD
& NORTHFRONT RD.
the applicant for
a continuance for
*
*
*
A request for an indication of the attitude
of the City Council on annexation of 42 acres
located on So. Vasco Road, south of East
Avenue, and for 150 acres located on North-
front Road at the Greenville interchange has
been received. The City Manager advised that
these two items is out of town and has requested
two weeks.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion for continuance, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, approved by a four to one vote (Mayor Taylor
dissenting) .
*
*
*
The City Manager stated he had discussed the
trustee sale of the Sally property with the
parties involved; the matter is up for hearing
on August 11. However, he was informed by one
of the principals involved that escrow will be
opened this week to reimburse the holder of the second deed of
trust. Mr. Parness asked that this matter be discussed in execu-
tive session in order to obtain direction regarding possible pur-
chase of this property at the sale.
REPORT RE
PROPERTY TRUSTEE
SALE (Sally)
WATER COMPANY
RATE REVISION
APPLICATION
*
*
*
The City Manager informed the Council that
California Water Company has resubmitted an
application for revision of their rates, after
having just applied for revision in July of this
year. The application now being submitted is
for amounts to take into account inflationary items due to denial
of a portion of their first application by the PUC. The revision
amounts to between 5% and 7% in addition to the increased rates
already granted.
Mr. Parness stated it is very difficult for a city to formally
oppose any utility rate revision as we are not qualified to
question their statements. The Council agreed that the proper
action available to them would be to contact the referee and call
to his attention this increased cost of providing utility service
and to urge the PUC to make a very careful appraisal of the
application.
REPORT RE CO-
OPERATIVE FISCAL
STUDY - OAKLAND
SCAVENGER CO.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the proposed
cooperative fiscal study with other jurisdic-
tions that are serviced by the Oakland
Scavenger Co., which is to be conducted by a
consultant firm, would provide a valuable
guide for all involved in appraising the
economic status of this type of service. The City's cost is
estimated to not exceed $2,500, and may be less.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to accept the City Manager's recommendation and authorize formal
participation in this study effort in an amount not to exceed
$2,500; motion passed unanimously.
CM-24-246
*
*
*
August 2, 1971
(Report re
Cooperative Fiscal
Study - Oakland
Scavenger Co.)
Robert Allen, 223 Donner, stated it was better
to rely on competition rather than regulation
of a public utility.
Mayor Taylor explained that the sewer service
and use charge was discussed in detail at the
budget sessions. Discussion centered around
several points~ one of which was a communica-
tion received from federal officials stating
that granting of federal funds would be con-
tingent upon the operation of the sewer plant
being paid for by its users. The City's plant
50% from the general fund.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT RE
SEWER SERVICE AND
USE CHARGE
is now financed by
The City Manager stated that the latest regulation adopted by the
State Water Resources Control Board has been received, and it seems
evident that the State will insist that the user charges be in
effect when cities are applying for grants. The present proposed
design for expansion of the sewer facilities may approach
$4~000,000 and a grant of 80% will be applied for under this pro-
gram. This stringent regulation will be imposed upon the grant.
r'
An urgency ordinance had been prepared, stating the rate revision
would go into effect September 1. The Council discussed the plant
expansion, and the fact that it will be necessary to meet the
Water Control Board's purity standards as well as to meet City
growth. Unless this new regulation is met, there would be no money
for expansion.
The City Manager read the proposed ordinance for the information
of the Council, which stated the proposed rate of $2.00 per month.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the Council adopt a
Resolution of Intent that the tax rate for the fiscal year 1971-
1972 will be reduced by an amount equal to the proposed increase
in the sewer service and use charge; the motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe, passed unanimously.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to adopt the ordinance regarding
the rate revision for the sewer service and use charge, seconded
by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller stated he did not believe the recent regulation
precluded residents from paying for this service out of taxes; he
did not favor this step.
Councilman Silva said he had opposed this charge in the past, but
if the Council felt that cost of services should be borne by the
users, then this would apply to the sewer service and use charge.
The motion to adopt the ordinance was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilman Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
NOES:
Councilman Miller
ORDINANCE NO. 755
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.80~ RELATING TO
RATE, OF ARTICLE III~ RELATING TO SEWER SERVICE
AND USE CHARGE, OF CHAPTER 18, RELATING TO SEWERS,
OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
*
*
*
CM-24-247
August 2, 1971
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Driveway at
Gulf Station)
(nump Site on
Croak Road)
indicated their
read a proposed
be presented at
The Director of Public Works reported that the
problem regarding the location of the driveway
for the Gulf Station on Bluebell Drive has been
worked out with the manager.
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported that the Board of
Supervisors will consider an appeal regarding
an application for a dump site on Croak Road
on August 5, and stated he knew the Council had
opposition to the County Zoning Administrator; he
resolution stating opposition to this application to
the meeting of the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, the
following resolution was adopted four to one with Councilman Pritchard
dissenting.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCILMEN
(Golf Course
Lease)
RESOLUTION NO. 86-71
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING CROAK ROAD DUMP SITE
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe noted that the Golf Course
staff has been reduced to the proposed level;
therefore,he now wished to change his position
regarding leasing of the facility to a private
operator.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that due to the economies put into
effect in the operation of the Golf Course and the new operation
of the restaurant, operation of the Golf Course by the City be
continued for one more year.
Mr. Parness pointed out other economies in operation which would be
put into effect during the coming year, and informed the Council
that they would see substantial reduction in costs and increased in-
come during that year.
Councilman Silva inquired if the monies saved from the reduced
salary expenditures could be used in the street resurfacing program.
This was discussed briefly, and Councilman Beebe suggested that it
might be better to let the General Fund build up.
The motion to continue City operation of the Golf Course was passed
by a four to one vote with Councilman Miller dissenting.
Councilman Silva made a motion to re-initiate the street surfac-
ing program to one-third of the original amount ($10,000); motion
was seconded by Councilman Miller, approved unanimously.
(Civic Center
Site - Barn)
(Housing
Authorithy
Vacancy)
CM-24-248
*
*
*
Councilman Miller extended an invitation to the
Council members to take a look at the work done
by the Livermore Cultural Arts Council and
others on the barn at the Civic Center site on
August 4th at 8:00 p.m.
* * *
Mayor Taylor advised that there would be a
vacancy on the Housing Authority due to the
resignation of Commissioner George Bunyard.
*
*
*
August 2, 1971
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10
a.m. to an executive session to consider authori-
zation for possible purchase of the Sally property.
*
*
*
APPROVE W~wJ '-y) .~
, Mayor Pro-tempore
ATTEST evJ~~L
) ~ Ci ty Clerk
U Livermore, California
*
*
*
Regular meeting - August 9, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 9, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:05 with Mayor pro-tempore
Pritchard presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Miller, Pritchard and ROLL CALL
Silva
ABSENT: Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
Mayor Pro-tempore Pritchard led the Council and
thode present in the Pledge of Allegiance
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street addressed the
Council regarding their recent action increasing
the sewer service charge
OPEN FORUM
(Sewer S8rvice
Charge)
*
*
*
Leo von Gottfried~ 3847 Yale Way~ presented 32
additional claims regarding the sidewalk repairs
due to damage from trees. He also inquired about
the letter of notice to homeowners regarding damage to sidewalks
and necessary repairs and stated that he felt this item should
have been included on the regular agenda rather than reviewed
by the Council under Matters Initiated by the Staff.
Mr. von Gottfried was informed there would be ample opportunity
for interested persons to discuss the letter of notice.
(Sidewalk
Repair)
*
*
*
Mr. Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada commented that he had sent
two letters to the Council posing several questions but had not
received a reply. One of the questions was in regard to water
reclamation activity and any progress made to correct the deficit
shown in the preliminary budget. Also~ if consideration had been
given for the corresponding increase in water reclamation fees
or sewer fees for other than single family dwellings and the
basing of the sewer fee on the amount of water used within the
dwelling. Also questioned were certain fees at the airport and
golf course. Mr. Parness was requested to investigate and reply
to Mr. Faltings.
*
*
*
Mayor pro-tempore Pritchard advised that this public PUBLIC HEARING
hearing was to hear objections to the method of bill-RE BILLING OF
ing~ not to the charge itself, then opened the SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES
CM-24-249
August 9, 1971
hearing, however, no comments were made. On motion of Councilman
Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the public hearing was closed
by unanimous vote. Resolution adopting the report of the Finance
Director re sewer service charges and authorizing the Auditor to
place the charges on the current assessment roll is included as
an item under the Consent Calendar.
(Resolution re
Sewer Service
Charge)
(Resolution
Authorizing
Execution of
Agreement re
Criminal Justice
Planning Bd.)
be adopted.
(Housing
Authority
Resignation
Bunyard)
(Resolutions re
Placement of
Assessment Dist.
Levies on Tax Roll
CM-24-250
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 87-71
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REPORT OF CITY FINANCE
DIRECTOR RE SEWER SERVICE AND USE CHARGES
*
*
*
In order to legally establish the proposed
regional Criminal Justice Planning Board for
Alameda County it is necessary that the pro-
posed member public agencies (Alameda County
and seven cities within the County) execute
a joint exercise of powers agreement. It is
recommended that the following resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 88-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Criminal Justice Planning Board)
*
*
*
A communication has been received from
George Bunyard submitting his resignation
as a Commissioner of the Housing Authority
to become effective July 13, 1971, due to
the fact that he has moved from Livermore.
, ,
*
*
*
It is recommended that the following resolutions
be adopted whereby the special assessment levies
may be placed on the tax roll for collection.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL
TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
(Northern Water Assessment Dist. No. 1962-2)
RESOLUTION NO. 90-71
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.
No. 1962-1)
RESOLUTION NO. 91-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL
TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
(Wagoner Farms Assessment District No. 196~-3)
RESOLUTION NO. 92-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL
TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
(Lincoln Shopping Center Assessment District
No. 1963-1)
RESOLUTION NO. 93-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL
TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
(Murrieta Blvd. Assessment District No. 1967-1)
August 9~ 1971
RESOLUTION NO. 94-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT LEVY TO BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL
TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF ALAr~DA
(Portola Avenue Assessment Dist. No. 1966-2)
*
*
*
Action regarding the appeal re granting of a CUP
for a freestanding sign for service station at
899 Rincon Avenue (Atlantic Richfield-ARCO) was
postponed from the meeting of August 2 to allow a
visual appraisal of the subject property by the
Council members. This item was removed from the
calendar for discussion later in the evening.
(Appeal re CUP
899 Rincon Ave.
Freestanding
Sign)
consent
*
*
*
The City Manager reported for the information of
the Council that the application for annexation
of property located south of Las Positas Road,
situated between No. Livermore Avenue and First
Street has been withdrawn.
* * * (Report re Gas
The project for installation of a gas line extend- Utility Line -
ing from the PG&E main line at Airway Blvd. to the Airport-Golf Crs.)
airport administration building and also to the
golf course clubhouse was discussed at some length during the
preliminary budget sessions. The estimated cost is $12,000 to
be equally shared by the golf course and airport funds. In further
discussions with PG&E~ it has been determined that the initial
cost would be the City's but a portion would be reimbursed over
succeeding years from revenues generated by subsequent connectors
to the utility line. It is recommended that a motion be adopted
authorizing installation of this work.
....
(Report re Las
Positas Road
Annex No.1)
Mr. James McElroy~ 1345 Wagoner Drive, objected to the sharing
of the cost of installation of the gas line by the airport as
he did not think these facilities needed to be used by the
airport~ only actually necessary for the proposed restaurant
at the golf course. He stated that the airport's share of
$6~000 represented the amount of deficit shown in the airport
fund~ and requested that the Council members remember this when
considering the budget next year and any proposed increases in
airport fees.
Mr. Parness stated that 50% of the cost will be partially
reimbursed by a General Fund debit because some offue cost
is allocable to the industrial park now being leased along
Airway Boulevard, gas line is necessary to service the industrial
sites.
* * * (Approve Censent
Calendar)
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller,
the Consent Calendar was approved. by unanimous vote, with the
noted removal of Item 2.5 re signs. (Councilman Beebe abstained
from voting on the item re PG&E and installation of the gas
line due to conflict of interest)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva stated he was the one who had APPEAL RE CUP
requested that this item be continued from the (899 Rincon Ave
previous meeting in order that he might have an Freestanding Sign)
opportunity to view the site and determine whether
or not the location has a canopy. He has done so, and feels that
since there is a canopy that the freestanding sign should be
allowed.
Councilman Miller stated he felt this station is sufficiently
CM-24-251
August 9~ 1971
different, including the design of its canopy, that findings
regarding the signs might be different. He did not feel that
the canopy interferes with the viewing of the station in this
instance, and the visibility of the site is better than the
others which had been considered. Unlike others, this station
is in a neighborhood shopping center, and people in the area know
the location and type of station.
Councilman Silva agreed the main structure is visible, but felt
the issue is whether ground signs with landscaping or signing on
the building is better. Signing on the building would be reduced
if a ground sign is allowed.
The Planning Director advised that ground signs with landscaping
would be allowed within the setback area of 10 feet from property
line in this zone;' which requiresa setback such as the CO District;
in downtown areas where there are no setback requirements the signs
must be 20 feet from the street. Landscaping was also required by
the Commission in the CUP.
Councilman Miller stated that allowing a freestanding sign in a
neighborhood shopping center use is really granting special
privilege over other uses in the center.
Councilman Beebe referred to previous action denying pole signs
in a neighborhood shopping center~ stating his feeling that the
ground signs were more attractive than building signs, but wondered
how other types of businesses would be handled if they desired a
similar sign.
Councilman Silva made a motion to uphold the action of the Plan-
ning Commission to approve the CUP for a freestanding sign at
899 Rincon Avenue, with setback and landscaping as provided by
the ordinance, motion seconded by Councilman Pritchard, passed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller
Mayor Taylor
The operator of the station, Art Mooney, stated there are numerous
accidents at the intersection where his station is located, that
if people could not see the stop sign in the street~ which is very
large, then he could not have good representation without a sign
on the corner. There is no identification on Pine Street, and
due to the off-set and adjacent buildings signing on the building
would be difficult to see.
*
*
*
REPORT RE SECOND
STREET PARKING
The Public Works Director advised that the
improvement and reconstruction on Second st.
is almost complete. It is recommended that
the diagonal parking be abated in the two block area on Second
st. between So. L and So. M Streets. Notice has been sent to the
property owners informing them of this intention to convert to
parallel parking, and they are in substantial agreement except
that they wish to add two hour parking limits around the shopping
center on Second, Third, So. M and So. L Streets through the
commercial area.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to accept the Public WorksDirector's recommendation for
parallel parking on Second Street and two hour parking designation
as requested, with a letter to be sent to all concerned explaining
the reasons for the change, motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-71
RESOLUTION ABOLISHING DIAGONAL PARKING ON SECOND STREET
* * *
An agreement has been drafted which provides
for the conditions in regard to the accept-
ance of Tracts 2459 and 2619. Tract 2459 is the
first unit of the Bevilacqua development and
FINAL IMPROVE-
MENTS & ACCEPTANCE
TRACTS 2459 & 2619
(Windsor Equities)
CM-24-252
August 9, 1971
Tract 2619 is the second unit now under construction. Mr. Lee
explained the location of the two tracts and pointed out that
where Scenic Ave. intersects Heather Lane a bridge is required
for access as a condition of the first unit. A separate bond
in the amount of $60,300 to guarantee this work was provided
and the agreement will allow completion of the work concurrently
wtih Tract 2619 improvements. The agreement also provides that
the improvements for Tract 2619 will be completed by December 15,
1971; trees to be planted which were not installed in Tract 2459,
a cash bond in the amount of $1350 will be posted for this work.
The City Attorney Mr. Lewis advised that action had been initiated
some eight or nine months ago to call the bond on these tracts~
but due to delay in the court procedure it has not come to trial.
Approval of the agreement and the tract at this time will not
negate our legal action~ and both the attorney for the bonding
company and the subdivider understand that the action will be
maintained until the improvements are completed.
Mayor pro-tempore Pritchard inquired whether Windsor Land Co.
is a partnership or corporation and the City Attorney stated that
Windsor Land Co., which is a partnership, was the Bevilacqua
agency that commenced the subdivision. Windsor Equities, Inc.
is a corporation and is a separate company although it is con-
trolled by Bevilacqua interests and is taking over the completion
of the subdivision.
Councilman Miller asked are the individual partners liable for
failure to deliver on Tract 2459, and Mr. Lewis stated that they
had been sued individually as well as a partnership; one of the
principals had passed away prior to suit and his estate was in-
cluded in the suit re calling the bond. Legally speaking, Windsor
Land Co. and Windsor Equities are separate. The situation now is
that a corporation is carrying on the obligations of the limited
partnership; our action will not release Windsor Land Co. and
the agreement makes it clear that an additional party is being
accepted to perform the original obligation.
Mr. Lee advised that the improvements on Tract 2619 are in progress.
The bridge was a part of the improvements for Tract 2459 which have
not been completed or accepted for maintenance by the City. The
agreement would accept these improvements even though the bridge
is not completed~ but will be by December~ 1971. Another point
in the agreement concerns parks, the agreement provides that the
20 lots which remain undeveloped in the first unit would pay a
fee based on the current requirement of $333 per lot plus all the
lots j.n the second unit would pay the current fees, and in the
event a park site was provided which would be suitable to the
City these fees could then terminate. Mr. Lee proposed an amend-
ment to Section 5 of the agreement that the developer pay park
fees on all of the remaining lots in Tract 2459 and all lots in
Tract 2619; with the development of any additional property in
the area (the whole PUD) dedication be four acres of park land
just below the school site be made. These four acres, plus fees,
would satisfy all the park requirements for the west half of
Northeast Annex No.4. LARPD had indicated they would like to
have a major park in this area, and the four acres dedication,
along with the fee~ would provide the capital to either help
develop the major park or this park. The developer is unable to
dedicate the four acres at this time as it is encumbered and not
free for park dedication immediately.
Mr. Lee explained that in addition, the agreement provides that
the City will quitclaim the channel back to the developer since
it must be dedicated to the County for Zone 7~ he will receive
credit from the County. Also provided is a requirement that the
developer will pay outstanding fees from Tract 2459, and in addition,
agreement has been reached on the storm drain credits and fees for
the second unit. Concurrently with the acceptance of the improve-
ments of Tract 2459~ the bond would be released.
CM-24-253
August 9, 1971
Councilman Miller felt interest should have been included on the
fees unpaid in the agreement reached in 1969 as the monies had been
due since 1965. Costs for these public works improvements have
surely increased in the interim, and the costs should be increased
to cover the present public works index so that if the company
defaults the City will have sufficient money to install the im-
provements. Mr. Lewis stated this had been partly covered as a
few years ago the Public Works Director made the decision, under
the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, to increase the amount
of bonds required. The City is placing the bonds, at the present
time~ at the maximum amount allowable by law.
Councilman Beebe asked if the new engineering fees and charges
agreed upon last year are being reflected in these contracts~ and
Councilman Miller suggested that the bridge cost increase should
also be reflected in the agreement.
The City Attorney stated that he felt the agreement was very
equi table as far as the City is c~~e~ - ~--tLc... /~
Councilman Miller felt that the City hadJex~..p rienced difficulty
with Bevilacqua, as haq/)~~~sidents of the area, and he was con-
cerned for this reason.~~ay of the par ~ain getting the
short end of the agreement with Bevilacqua. All of the public works
improvements should be installed now as they might default again, and
a cash bond should be posted sufficient to cover all the public works
improvements so that if they are not completed by December 15 the
City can proceed.
The City Attorney explained that bonds are posted for Tracts 2459
and 2619, this is the obligation that we have and must look to.
He stated the supposition that by mutual agreement one could require
a cash bond, but unilaterally he did not believe this could be done.
Mr. Lee stated that delay of the bridge installation had not caused
inconvenience, but delay in the acceptance of the tract has caused
the property owners some inconvenience. Windsor does own the prop-
erty to the west, and before it can be developed the bridge will
have to be constructed and Heather Lane extended. In fact, Windsor
has recently brought in plans for cluster development on this area
to the west, and there is some incentive for the developer to finish
the work.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
adopt the resolutions authorizing execution of the agreement, with
the amendment as suggested to Section 5, and to authorize acceptance
of Tract 2459 for maintenance, and the resolutions were adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller
Mayor Taylor
RESOLUTION NO. 95-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
(Windsor Equities, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 96-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT 2459
Prior to vote on the above motion, Mr. Tocci, representing Windsor
Equities~ stated he had not had time to study the proposed amendment
to Section 5, but it appears to be acceptable. He also stated that an
agreement had been made with a lending company to improve Tract 2619
and to provide construction loans for 205 lots. The improvement
money has been vouched for and sub-contracted and is guaranteed
to these subcontractors; completion should be reached by December
15 if not before. Plans are under way to complete the property to
the west as well as to the north.
CM- 24- 25 4
August 9, 1971
The City Manager reported that according to the REPORT RE COUNTY
County Planning staff~ who are assistants to the AIRPORT LAND USE
Commission, the boundary lines eventually adopted COMMISSION -
do not necessarily mean that these lines will GENERAL PLAN AREA
constitute the planning area of the Commission; it
probably will be something less than this area, but they do want
to indicate an outer peripheral boundary. As to the responsibility
of the cities and Commission in regard to land use within that
area, the law and the interpretation of the County staff is that
once the plan has been composed and adopted, hopefully consistent
with our thinking~ any type of land use proposed to the City in
accordance with the plan will not be processed through the Com-
mission. Any land development proposal contradictory to the
General Plan will have to be submitted by the City. There is
some question as to whether the Council must act first, then
submit any application, or should said application be submitted
prior to decision by the Council. This is a procedural matter
and must be decided eventually. Mr. Parness said the County
staff feels that the the boundaries as suggested are best for
the City as owner and operator of the airport; the City of
Oakland is~ in fact, asking that their boundaries be extended
to include the area of other cities so that development will occur so
so as to protect the airport.
CouHcilman Silva stated that Oakland is already built~ and the
more we can protect our airport by including more area the
better, he felt our City should retain as much control as is
possible.
Mr. Musso pointed out that part of the area within the proposed
boundaries is within the Pleasanton Planning area, and we may
be pleased to have the Commission protecting our airport interests
in the Pleasanton planning area.
The City Attorney reminded the Council that they have the right~
by 4/5 vote, to override the Commission.
Mayor pro-tempore Pritchard inquired if 4/5 vote were not available,
could the matter be handled by referendum and Mr. Lewis replied
that in this case it has to be assumed that the state has occupied
the field and that referendum does not lie to overrule the decision
of the Commission.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller~ seconded by Mayor pro-tempore
Pritchard~ to adopt the Planning Commission and staff recommendation
for the boundaries.
James McElroy, 1345 Wagoner Drive, said that the aircraft using
the airport are small craft with the exception of one larger one
which already exceeds the boundaries of the planning area in its
flight path and approach to the airport. Larger aircraft would
need a larger pattern. If the airport develops, the area proposed
might be too small rather than too large.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard inquired if a policy had ever been
adopted regarding the development of the airport, and Councilman
Miller said possible expansion had been discussed.
Mr. McElroy pointed out on the map the boundaries of the area which
he considered would be affected by the use of the airport by
different craft.
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, said he was amazed at the area in-
volved which includes present development; he did not feel our
planning functions should be subordinated to the airplane to such a
degree. Planning should be limited to area not presently developed.
Councilman Miller said he felt that effort should be made to avoid
possible suits due to airport use.
Councilman Silva stated he would rather rely on the oplnlon of the
City Attorney in regard to land use planning than the Commission.
CM-24-255
August 9, 1971
(Report re cty.
Airport Land Use
Comm. - General
Plan Area)
He inquired if the City can control the airport
use, or if the Land Use Commission can preempt
the City to create an airport for use by
larger and more powerful planes.
Mr. Parness said the destiny of the airport and its future use is
entirely in the hands of the Council and the Federal government.
Councilman Silva asked if we can deny the use of our airport to
larger planes if such use is requested. Mr. Lewis said the City
does have the right through FAA to designate when the airport becomes
unsafe or unsuitable for a certain type of traffic. FAA can re-
cognize this fact and inform airplane operators through their
material. Aircraft have the right to land and take off as long as
they observe federal, state, and local regulations.
Mr. Parness stated it was not in the purview of this Commission to
tell the Council that the airport must be expanded to accommodate
larger planes. They can review expansion plans proposed by the City
but cannot dictate how the airport is to be expanded or used.
Councilman Beebe stated that the majority of the members of the
Commission are aircraft minded people who probably do not want any
residential development close to the airport. The airport should
not take precedent over all other land uses in the Valley.
Robert Allen said he understood airport land use planning is to pro-
tect people from noise and hazard; people have learned to live with
noise and hazard from other sources, such as railroads, and he fail-
ed to see why such importance should be given to airplance use.
Mr. Lewis said the Commission has been established by State law; the
question now is what recommendation is to be made to the Commission
as to the best area of consideration.
Ray Faltings spoke in regard to the movement of the airport before,
and he felt any extension of the airport and use should consider the
noise and other problems involved.
Mr. McElroy stated that the City can control air traffic to a cer-
tain extent. Secondly, the aviation industry does not object to
residential development but does feel the adjacent land uses should
be compatible.
Mr. Musso stated that a part of the study to be conducted by the
Commission is to look at the future of the airport and its design.
ABAG is also looking into this matter.
The motion to accept the Planning Commission and staff recommendation
for the boundaries of the area to be set by the Land Use Commission
failed to gain a majority by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
Mayor Taylor
The Public Works Director stated that one of the most important
points to be considered is that the City's planning area only ex-
tends to the golf course, barely off the end of the runway. The
extension of the planning boundaries is in the best interest of
protecting the airport, which is of tremendous value to the Valley.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the boundary on the eastern
end be reduced toon~half mile from the limits of the airport,
which would eliminate the already developed area. Councilman
Miller said he felt the Council agreed the planning area should
extend into Pleasanton, and that City would expect part of the
proposed area to be within Livermore's planning area. There was
no second to Councilman Beebe's motion.
Councilman Miller suggested that the matter be tabled and no
recommendation made. The Council discussed the effect of such
action.
CM-24-256
Councilman Miller restated the original
motion to accept the Planning Commission and
staff recommendation regarding the boundaries;
the motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Silva, Miller
Councilman Beebe
Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
The attorney for the applicant, Greenview
Swim & Racquet Club, which had requested a
sewer connection, has requested that this
item be postponed indefinitely.
August 9, 1971
(Report re cty.
Airport Land Use
Comm. - General
Plan Area)
SEWER CONNECTION
AGREEMENT -
GREENVIEW SWIM &
RACQUET CLUB
Councilman Beebe made a motion to continue this application for
sewer connection for an indefinite period; motion seconded by
Councilman Silva, approved unanimously.
*
*
*
After a brief recess the meeting was resumed RECESS
with the Council members present (Mayor Taylor
absent) .
*
*
*
An appeal has been submitted by Thomas J.
Green in regard to denial of variance applica-
tion to permit second story flats on pro-
perty located on the north side of East
Avenue, east of Wagoner Farms.
APPEAL RE DENIAL
OF VARIANCE
(Thomas J. Green)
The Planning Director reported that this is a request for variance
from two points of the ordinance. One was a limitation on the
number of dwelling units within a building; the ordinance specifies
five but it has been pointed out to the Planning Commission that
this should be an even number of units to allow coupling up on
water and utility connections. The applicant has requested six
units. The other request is to allow two story construction of
flats, or one unit upstairs and one unit downstairs. Mr. Musso
reviewed the Planning Commission discussion which centered on
whether or not the ordinance was desirable. The RG-IO-12-14
zoning was adopted which allowed lower density development but
imposed one story limits and a limitation on the number of units
in a building. The ordinance was later changed to allow two stories
provided it was a townhouse design. The Commission could not find
any issue with the development except there is relatively less
open space, but felt the ordinance should be upheld and denied the
variance for second story flats.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard asked why it would be better to allow
townhouses with the two stories than flats as proposed. Mr. Musso
replied that the experience of the Commission over the years is
that objections were based on the desire not to have living units
on the second story, only sleeping quarters. The reasons for
adoption of the ordinance were discussed. Mayor pro tempore
Pritchard stated he felt it was frustrating to deny a development
whereby a trememdous amount of open space would be gained, and the
allowance of second story flats would not harm anyone. He could
not understand the original intent of the ordinance and why a
variance should not be granted in this case.
Councilman Miller said that findings must be made to grant the
variance, and if changes are to be made perhaps the ordinance
should be amended. Councilman Miller stated that residents in
single family units do not like two story apartments, and this
project does to some extent border on single family. The
CM-24-257
August 9, 1971
(Appeal re Denial
of Variance -
Thomas Green)
ordinance started out to correct such a
situation. There are several options
available: setback might be increased from
50 ft. to 100 to 150 ft. from the boundary
line; two stories might be allowed even in RG-IO; create two
categories in RG-IO--one for development adjacent to single family
and the other where it is not surrounded by single family; creation
of RG-8 zoning. He preferred increasing the setbacks to 125 ft.
Councilman Silva suggested that he would rather have his living
quarters relate to the open space. Councilman Miller pointed out
that storage and parking spaces, etc. could be within the 125 ft.
setback with living space still related to open space.
~~~.L_
Councilman Miller stated that he would "the ~tion by
stating that the intent of the Council is to increase the setbacks
in RG-IO, 12 and possibly 14 zones to 125 ft., and in view of the
Council's favorable consideration of these increases in setbacks,
he would then move to offer a variance to this applicant to allow
two-story construction in RG-IO subject to the condition that
there be a 125 ft. setback from all commercial, residential, and
industrial areas and setbacks of 75 ft. from multiple. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Silva.
The applicant, Thomas Green, pointed out on the site plan that the
unit orientation is away from the property lines. The present set-
backs would place 70 ft. between this and adjacent development.
The design included 50% open space rather than 30% through strict
adherence to existing RG-IO ordinance. Mr. Green felt it was
significant to differentiate between single family and commercial
uses in regard to setbacks.
The Council discussed how this increase in setbacks would affect
the site plan for this applicant. It was pointed out that variance
cannot be granted on design as this is too subjective.
There was further discussion of possible changes in the RG require-
ments for two story construction in regard to setbacks and relation
to adjacent property.
Mr. Green said he felt it was in the public interest to permit a
variance that will allow flexibility of a site plan such as the one
presented due to environmental aspects. This fact, along with the
unusual circumstances regarding the location of the property,
should support findings for a variance. The variance might be
better than amending the ordinance to increase the setbacks to
125 ft.
Mr. Musso pointed out that in regard to this application the 125
ft. setback would apply only to two sides as it fronts on East Ave.
on one side and a street on the Arroyo side. A relocation of some
16 units would be involved to meet the 125 ft. setback requirement.
Mr. Green suggested that a good compromise would be a 75 ft. set-
back all around the development.
The motion to approve the variance to permit the second story con-
struction with the 125 ft. setback as discussed was approved
unanimously (Mayor Taylor absent).
*
*
*
COUNTY REFERRAL
REZONING AREA
ROBERTSON PARK,
ARROYO ROAD,
MARINA AVE. &
WENTE STREET
A county referral of the proposed rezoning
from R-l (5000 sq. ft. minimum lot) to
districts provided by the Zoning Ordinance
for an area bounded by Robertson Park,
Arroyo Road, Marina Avenue and Wente St.
has been received.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard acknowledged a letter from George
Barber, 841 Lambaren Avenue.
CM-258
August 9, 1971
(cty. Referral
Rezoning - Robert-
son Park area)
Mr. Musso said this rezoning had been
initiated by a group of property owners on
Marina Avenue because the area north of
Marina is zoned for 5000 sq. ft. lots which
are too small to be reasonably developed. The Planning Commission
has recommended that the west half of the area be zoned A-20
as there is no sewer trunk line in the area and to avoid five-
acre subdivisions. On the area near the Arroyo there is a sewer
line available and this is proposed for two per acre zoning north
of Concannon Blvd. (10,000 sq. ft. lots) and the area south of
Concannon Blvd. in half-acre lots. There had been testimony
at the Planning Commission opposing the zoning.
Councilman Miller made a motion to recommend to the County that
the one portion to the east be zoned A-20 and the two parcels on
the west for one acre zoning. There was no second to the motion.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the
east half of the area to A (Agricultural) District with a twenty
acre minimum parcel size; rezone the west half of the area,
north of Concannon Blvd. extension to R-l (Residential) District
with a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size; and to rezone the west
half of the area south of Concannon Blvd. extension to R-l
(Residential) District with a one-half acre minimum lot size.
The motion was approved unanimously (Mayor Taylor absent).
*
*
*
A progress report was submitted regarding
the abatement program for non-conforming
signs. The report was acknowledged by the
Council.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that, as directed
by the City Council, the BAAPCD staff has
been contacted regarding a meeting with the
Council and other public jurisdictions in
the Valley to discuss possible density controls
relating to the valley smog issue.
PROGRESS REPORT RE
NON-CONFORMING
SIGN ABATEMENT
PROGRAM
REPORT RE BAAPCD
MEETING
and other matters
The Council indicated that the meeting should be set for Sept. 23,
and that other public agencies within the valley should be asked
to attend. Councilman Silva felt the meeting discussion should
be limited to the comments made by Dr. Feldstein on land use
planning in the BAAPCD area in relation to smog. Mr. Parness
said this was generally what had been indicated to Mr. Callaghan.
The Council felt that the discussion should be generally limited
to land use planning aspects.
The City Manager reported that the trustee
sale of the Sally property had been postponed
until the 24th of August. It is probable that the sale will not
go through.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that
the developer has agreed to place the
entry sign on Alden Lane and Holmes st.
as proposed.
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that the litigation
which the City had been involved in had been
concluded except for the final argument some
time in September. (Amador Valley Investors
vs. City of Livermore)
*
*
*
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Entry Sign)
(Li tigation)
(Sally Property)
CM-24-259
August 9, 1971
(MTC Regional
Transit Plan)
The City Manager stated that a study which is
a part of the MTC regional transit plan will
soon be conducted by BART. MTC was awarded
a federal grant to undertake a number of studies, one of the major
ones to concern rapid transit service to the Valley. The budget
for this study is $533,000. The quasi-legislative administrative
body to oversee this study is the Board of Control which will con-
sist of three membemof MTC and four membe~ of BART. Mr. Parness
felt at least two of the members should be appointed from the
Valley since the study will affect us, and asked that the Council
instruct him to request the BART Board to appoint at least two
members (one from Livermore City Council and one from Pleasanton
City Council). A motion to this effect was made by Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, passed unanimously.
*
*
*
(Criminal Justice
Planning Board)
Mr. Parness reported that there are some
public members to be appointed to the
Criminal Justice Planning Board. He asked
if the Council might have someone in mind who would be willing to
serve on this Board, and suggested that a representative from one
of the minority groups might be considered.
*
*
*
(Sidewalk Repair
Notice)
Mr. Parness discussed the notice which had
been prepared to send to residents in regard
to sidewalk repair.
Mr. Lewis advised that the cost of the repair can be paid over
several years if the Council concurs. Councilman Miller suggested
that it should be included in the letter that the City is going to
solicit a bid for the remaining work, which will hopefully result
in a reduced cost. Mr. Parness pointed out that if this is includ-
ed (payment over several years), it will require a financial out-
lay on the part of the City in extending the funds. The Council
discussed the financing in this manner. Mr. Lee felt it might be
misleading to add such wording as the bids received might be more,
due to all the costs incurred in getting bonds and preparing the
bid, than if the property owner took care of it.
Councilman Miller felt the people should be able to choose between
the City's contractor and their own. Mr. Parness said once the
City gets a contractor it is virtually too late for individuals to
do the work unless it can be done before he gets there. Mr. Lewis
stated that if the contractor does not know how many pieces of
work he will actually get, then he will not know how to bid. Mayor
pro tempore Pritchard said he did not know how we would get a
contractor to bid if he does not know how much work he will have.
Mr. Parness explained that this informal notice is given to the
property owners and the sidewalks marked. Then the legillnotice
will be given which states the property owner has two weeks to re-
pair the sidewalks, and once the two weeks has expired an appraisal
has to be made by the staff as to what has to be done by the single
contractor by bid.
Councilman Miller felt that people should be given a chance to get
a lower price, and whether this is possible won't be known until
the bids are received.
Councilman Beebe said that when this was first discussed the staff
was asked to get a City-wide bid, with a specific price for each
parcel, and then the property owner would be notified of the cost.
Most of the people seem to'be going ahead with the work now.
Councilman Miller stated that this letter does not give even a
hint that the City intends to obtain bids. The City Attorney ad-
vised that this is because of the statutory form of the notice
and there will be some confusion but it must be clear that the
CM-24-260
August 9, 1971
law is not being changed. Councilman Miller
said this is wny an additional letter should
be sent with the notice to explain the options.
(Sidewalk Repair
Notice)
The problems involved in getting a bid were discussed. Mr. Lewis
said that the cost of estimating each of these properties will
have to be built into the bid; it cannot be anticipated that
the volume will make the bid lower. The situation is that if
people are encouraged to wait for the City to get a bid to see
what the cost will be, then the bid cost may not be as low as
received in previous years. The City can try, but the result is
uncertain.
Councilman Silva asked if the time limits of two weeks and five
days stated in the notice can be changed. He was advised that
the wording can be changed to ffmust be commencedff rather than
"must be done1! in Item No.6. The time for payment can be
changed for installment payments.
Councilman Miller felt that the letter should encourage people to
call the City about how to cut back the tree roots.
Leo von Gottfried, 3487 Yale Way, said people in his area are
removing trees in instances where the sidewalks have not even
been marked. He urged that the letter ask people not to take
drastic steps. The Council discussed this point.
Mr. von Gottfried pointed out that the reason for going to a
class action was that the Ad Hoc Committee felt that this matter
was something the liability insurance of the City should cover
if the suit is successful. Mr. Lewis stated that the City's
insurance premiums are based on past experience, and it was a
false assumption to assume that the cost of the repairs will not
be borne by the City in some manner. If the insurance company
has to pay it, the City's premiums will reflect this and ultimate-
ly the taxpayers will have to pay the cost. The assumption that
someone will pay for it for free is incorrect.
Mr. von Gottfried said it was inequitable and unjust that the
property owners be made to pay for the honest mistakes of other
people, the City as a whole.
Viktor Hampel, 1143 Canton Avenue, spoke to three points in the
notice letter. He felt the statement in Item 2 was incomplete~
and then read a portion of the invitation for bid for insurance
by the City in 1969, which listed past experience including
several claims in regard to falls on sidewalks in 1968. He
thought the City was giving the impression to homeowners that
claims due to sidewalk injury had not been paid by the City~ but
he had talked to the City's insurance carrier, Gene Morgan, who
stated claims had been paid out of court by the City's insurance
carrier, as well as homeowner's policies, for such cases where
City tree damage was involved. Thirdly, he quoted statements
made by the City Attorney recorded in the Council minutes of
May 24, 1971, which he felt were not in accordance with this item
in the notice letter. He stated he would present further state-
ments in writing to the Council.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe inquired about the referral
to the Planning Commission regarding the
highway oriented sign portion of the sign
ordinance. Mr. Musso said this had been continued for three weeks
in order to have a meeting with Pleasanton and the County to talk
about highway signing regulations, and would be before the Planning
Commission on August 10.
(Highway Oriented
Signs)
*
*
*
CM-24-261
August 9, 1971
(Lounsbury's
Junk Yard)
Councilman Miller inquired as to the
situation regarding Lounsbury's junk
yard off Portola Avenue, and asked the City
Attorney to check into this for later report.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to letters in the
newspaper urging installation of a phone at
the Bus Station. The Council was informed
that arrangements had been made for a phone booth to be installed,
but due to other construction it would be four to six weeks before
this could be done.
(Bus Station
Phone)
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come be-
fore the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 12:10 a.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE (C -r:;+
ATTEST oj · ~~~L
/ . City Clerk
L~ermore, California
Regular Meeting of August 16, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 16, 1971, 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 pre-
siding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Miller
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor pro tempore Miller led the members of the City
Council and those present in the audience in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of August 2, 1971 were
approved as submitted on motion of Councilman Silva~
seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous
approval.
*
*
*
CM-24-262
August 16~ 197'1
Kay Parra, 819 Brennan Way, referred to a com-
plaint which she had made two months prior
concerning the Police Department, and submitted
a bill for injuries incurred. Mrs. Parra also
asked if there was the possibility of forming a
Police Review Board. It was the consensus of the Council that
the staff should obtain information from other cities along this
line and study the possibility before presenting the matter to
the Council for discussion.
OPEN FORUM
(Complaint re
Police Dept.)
Mrs. Parra also asked concerning her prior request(SACEOA)
re SACEOA and Mr. Lewis gave a resume of the report
he had previously presented to the City Council in this regard,
generally stating the facts about "opting out" of SACEOA. Mrs.
Parra asked if there was some means of obtaining the money from
SACEOA to which the Valley is entitled, and Mayor pro tempore
Miller stated he would advise Councilman Pritchard (the SACEOA
representative) to present this matter at the next meeting with
SACEOA, and report back to the Council.
*
*
*
The City Manager advised that he had received a
letter from the County Director of Public Works
with regard to the west turn lane onto Stanley
Blvd., advising the City of two alternatives:
(1) acquire additional twelve feet on the south side of Stanley
Blvd to achieve necessary widening in accordance with their
standards, or (2) extend certain street alignments in the tract
across the channel which might give them a little more accommo-
dating travel method. The Public Works Director also reminded
them that the commitment was officially made by the Council to
close Nancy Street at the time the contract was originally exe-
cuted calling for the full improvement of East Stanley Blvd.
(Nancy Street
Closure)
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated the Council had no choice in the
matter, and asked if the street could be red lined to allow a
turning lane as there is backing lot treatment on that street.
Mr. Parness advised that this matter would be on the agenda the
following week.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Departmental
Reports
Airport - Activity - July
Building Inspecting Dept. - July
Fire Department - July
Police and Pound Departments - July
Water Reclamation Plant - July
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector regarding bids received on the following:
Report re Bids
(Airway Blvd.)
Proj. 71-34
Airway Blvd.
Teichert Constr. Co.
Gem Construction Co.
Pelligrini Constructors
Proj. 71-32 Total
Dolores & Paci-
fic San. Sewer
$ 3,405.00 $82,d50.50
4,858.00 98,478.30
5~838.10 103,800.70
$79,445.50
93,620.30
97~962.60
It is recommended that the work be awarded to the low bidder,
Teichert Construction Co.
*
*
*
CM-24-263
August 16, 1971
Communications
Sidewalk Repair
Communication was received from Viktor Hampel re
recommendations and corrections to notice in the
sidewalk repair program.
*
*
*
Communication was received from Gib Marguth concern-
ing resolution of dispute re K-B subdivision. Mr.
Marguth met with the representatives and their le-
gal counsel from the homeowners group and the developer, and as a
result of that meeting both parties agreed to work toward a solution
that included the following:
K-B
Subdivision
1. All of the dwellings to be constructed in the subject tract would
be built using "conventional" building techniques.
2. All unsold units would be built using shake roofs and the devel-
oper would attempt to convince the purchasers of the units already
sold to change to the shake roofs.
Report re
Las Positas
Clubhouse Bids
work and it is
*
*
*
As a supplementary matter to the reconstruction
work required for the upper floor of the clubhouse,
it is required that an air conditioning system be
installed. Competitive bid is required to do this
recommended that the Council authorize receipt of bids.
*
*
*
One Hundred one claims in the amount of $63,698.27,
dated August 11; two hundred sixteen payroll warrants
in the amount of $44,232.51, dated July 16; and two
hundred eight-six payroll warrants in the amount of $60,125.43, dated
July 30, 1971 were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Coun-
cilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant 285 and Councilman Silva
abstained from voting on Warrant 244.
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
League of
Women Voters
Information
Booklet
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Silva, the items on the Consent Calendar were
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the League of
Women Voters re an information booklet, compiled
by the League, and a request for funds to assist
in defraying the cost.
Mrs. Valerie Raymond explained the booklet which was being prepared,
and advised that the cost was more than had been anticipated as it
covem the Valley; they hoped that the Council would consider off-
setting some of the cost.
Councilman Silva felt that the Chamber of Commerce should be asked
to contribute as they are the public relations arm, and felt it is
their function, and made a motion that the Council not appropriate
any funds as requested, however the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to purchase $100 worth of the booklets
at lOt a copy for the City to distribute, seconded by Councilman
Miller, and passed 2 to 1 with Councilman Silva dissenting.
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle Street, suggested that ads be solicited
from the local merchants to cover the cost of publication, however
Mayor pro tempore Miller, stated that the League has already re-
ceived funds from the merchants.
CM-24-264
A request has been received from Cornett
Realty inquiring as to the attitude of the
City Council on the annexation of 150 acres
located on Northfront Road at the Green-
ville interchange.
August 16, 1971
REPORT RE ANNEXATION
INQUIRY -
NORTHFRONT ROAD
The City Manager stated that the property is on the extreme
remote extension of the City; it can be made contiguous along a
portion of Highway 580. The applicant wishes to apply, in the
event of annexation, for a PUD for highway commercial, multiple
residential, and single family development. It would be costly
and difficult to provide the extension of City services to
property as remote as this parcel. He recommended that the re-
quest be denied.
Councilman Silva inquired about previous discussions regarding
formation of a benefit district for sewer extension. Mr. Parness
said several commercial interests along Northfront Road had
approached the City two or three years ago for extension of
utilities to that area, particularly a sewer line. The response
was that it might be possible for an assessment district to be
formed for that purpose and sewer connection agreements executed
with owners or users if they wanted sewer service in advance of
annexation. Nothing had been done in this regard.
The Planning Director stated that this property is indicated as
residential although the City has agreed to a highway and auto
traffic oriented commercial area along a portion of Northfront
Road. Various densities are indicated with 2 and 3 diu/acre to
the rear with a portion as agricultural. There are no schools
to serve the area. The Council discussed whether the annexation
could be denied due to lack of schools; the City Attorney advised
that annexation is a decision of the Council, and if there is
reason to deny the annexation they may do so.
Councilman Silva asked about possible annexation of a 200 ft.
deep strip for highway commercial zoning as had been discussed
before. Mayor pro tempore Miller said this would require the
consent of the other property owners. Councilman Silva pointed
out that the previous Council had gone on record as favoring
highway commercial for a depth of 200 ft. along the road, but it
would not be feasible to annex 200 ft. with a portion of the
parcel left outside the City. Parcels over 200 ft. might be
zoned agricultural, with indication that it would be premature
to zone it for residential development.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said the feeling of some of the Council
had been to limit the development on the north side to that
sufficient to provide a school and shopping center, and the
remainder would wait until later.
Mr. Musso indicated that some of this area is already zoned for
development, but approval would depend on a sewer line in the
area. There would be no hindrance for highway commercial ex-
cept the lack of a sewer line.
William Busick, 671 West A Street, Hayward (owner of property
along Northfront Road) indicated the zoning approved for an area
approximately 700 ft. deep. He explained how the lines had been
decided and stated the area had been zoned up to and including
the Greenville School. The City Engineer had drawn up the plans
for the sewer line, and approximately 80% of the property owners
have agreed to put the sewer line in on the basis of a 15-year
district. The sewer line would extend from Scenic Avenue to
West Avenue, across South Lane, to Vasco Road, to Northfront
Road as far as the Greenville School.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said that the Council and Planning
Commission in the past have been favorable to commercial use but
that residential was premature as it would be leapfrog develop-
ment. He would support the recommendation of the City Manager
for denial of the annexation.
CM-24-265
August 16, 1971
(Report re
Annexation
Inquiry -
Northfront
Road)
Councilman Beebe felt this would be a good area
for commercial and also industrial uses.
Councilman Silva said he would favor commercial
but did not think residential should be approved
at this time as it was premature. If Mr.
Busick could put together a group for highway
commercial development, he would favor highway commercial along
this frontage road.
Mr. Cornett, the applicant, stated he had talked with the City
Manager and others involved with planning in Livermore, as well as
other cities, and the hue and cry seemed to be that housing is a
dirty name, but it is necessary to get people into the area. He
remembered hearing the Livermore area scream because the population
reported was not as high as it should have been which caused a
cutback on the federal level. There is a need for more commercial
entities as they do not take up a lot of services but afford a big
tax base. In this proposal there is a party ready to come in for
development while Mr. Busick has tried for several years to get
utilities down Northfront Road but has not been successful. It
takes a long time to put a LID District together, and it puts an
indebtedness against the City. The developer in this proposal is
ready to put the water and sewer lines in and to pay these costs in
order to have a reasonable plan approved. He had assured the
developer that the City Council would look at any proposal which
would be beneficial to the City. This development should promote
the commercial development down the road, and in this way a portion
of the cost will be recovered. Mr. Cornett requested that this
matter be postponed until a full Council is present for action as
he felt it was an important matter.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
continue this item for one week, passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a request has been
received for the annexation of some properties
located on South Vasco Road, abutting and contiguous
to the City limits, constituting about 40 acres.
The request is for the views of the Council as to
the receptiveness of the City for an official annexation of this
property. The property is an extension of a remote sector of our
incorporated bounds and although it can be serviced with utilities
the other forms of municipal services would be costly and difficult.
The staff recommendation is that the proposal be denied.
REPORT RE
SO. VASCO RD
ANNEXATION
The Council iEling was in agreement with the City Manager's recom-
mendation for denial, and especially so since the General Plan for
the area was for industrial use.
Mr. James Cornett, 177 Front Street, Suite G, Danville, stated there
were two ~ery erroneous statements made, and he intended to withdraw
the application. It was stated that the area was in a very remote
sector, however it does abut the City limits; they are not leap-
frogging, but trying to extend the city and offer services to the city.
They are bounded by industry, and an agricultural preserve, and by
a commercial entity that the County set up and are landlocked. They
have spent a great deal of time with the Industrial Committee and
the Chamber of Commerce, and the Industrial Committee agrees that
there is an abundance of industrial land not being used; also that
there must be someplace for the people to live who are going to
work in the industry that is in Livermore.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated acceptance of the withdrawal of the
annexation application.
CM-24-266
August 16, 1971
The Planning Director reported that a meeting
had been held with the County (Pleasanton was
unable to be represented) regarding discussion
of freeway sign standards. At the next meeting
the three ordinances will be reviewed by the
group, and hopefully, a recommended change will be agreed upon.
There is a distinct difference in the philosophy between the three
jurisdictions, and this is what the representatives will be con-
sidering. It was pointed out that Commissioner Nelson is on the
committee, and probably his suggestions in this regard will be
discussed also. The Council discussed points in Commissioner
Nelson's proposed ordinance in relation to service stations.
ZO AMENDMENT
Sec. 21.70 -
Freeway Users Signs
Councilman Silva stated that he felt a moratorium was indicated
for requests for signs greater than allowed by the present ordi-
nance, and he was against moratoriums except as a last resort. He
felt that it would take quite a while for this committee to make
a recommendation and a change to be made in the ordinances; he
felt each application should be considered on its own merits until
such changes are made.
Mr. Musso said the Council was now free to set a hearing regarding
freeway oriented signing and then to draw up their own ordinance
as the matter had been sent to the Planning Commission for report
and the prescribed public hearing.
Mayor pro tempore Miller pointed out that the Commission had unan-
imously recommended that this matter be continued until the details
can be resolved.
Councilman Silva made a motion to continue this matter for one
week in order to determine if the majority of the Council wishes
to initiate its own hearing and changes in the ordinance; motion
was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Street, suggested that the size of the
signs be keyed to the assessed valuation.
Mr. Musso said this is essentially what happens under the present
regulations as the size of the building determines the signing
allowance, and larger buildings are generally assessed at higher
amounts.
Keith Fraser said that during discussions regarding freeway
oriented signing and signing along scenic highways, a statement
had been made by one of the commissioners that it might be years
before decisions regarding scenic highways could be made. He was
not opposed to a short continuance but was opposed to continuing
this matter until a decision is reached by the joint committee.
After further discussion the motion to continue this matter for
one week was withdrawn. Councilman Silva made a motion to con-
tinue the discussion regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance amend-
ment to Section 21.70 - Freeway Users Signs, Freestanding Signs
and other pertinent sections of the ordinance for four weeks;
motion seconded by Councilman Beebe was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that when tenta-
tive Tract 3333 was presented the location of
the parkway-trailway was indicated to be deter-
mined after Planning Commission study. The
Commission reversed the original decision to
see if the parkway could be included within the tract. Originally,
it had been decided that if this parkway was included as part of
the state right-of-way, then at such time as the freeway is acquired
and developed the State would integrate the parkway; lette~so
TRACT 3333 -
LOCATION OF PARKWAY-
TRAILWAY
CM-24-267
August 16, 1971
(Tract 3333- stating have been received from the state Divi-
Parkway-Trailway) sion of Highways. The Planning Commission,
after consideration, concluded that the parkway
might be relocated by the State and placed in a
different location, and has asked that an amendment to the map be
made to indicate the parkway in Tract 3333. The one problem would
be that the developer would be trading setback for the parkway as
setback from the freeway would not be required if the parkway abuts
the development. The recommendation is to go back to the developer
and request relocation of the parkway; it might be necessary to
compromise with part of the parkway within the tract and part within
the freeway. It has also been recommended that the bare minimum of
development be made, with no fence on the west side.
Councilman Silva said that perhaps the point that the 50-ft. setback
required from the freeway will not be required if the parkway is
located along the freeway should be discussed separately. A com-
promise might be indicated that if the parkway is located on the
tract, the 50-ft. setback will not be required, and perhaps 50% of
this land will be park dedication.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said the developer would receive density
transfer credit, and discussed how such credit might be used. He
did not feel it was necessary to give park dedication credit.
Mr. Musso point out that if the parkway is included in the freeway
right-of-way the State would probably integrate it into the design
of the freeway, provide crossings, etc.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said that the Commission's thinking was
that if the parkway is already designated the State is more likely
to replace it. The State might relocate it on the other side of
the freeway.
Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation, amended as follows: the proposed parkway be located
within the future State freeway right-of-way, with Items 2 and 3
as stated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Street, said it should be borne in mind
that if the parkway should cross the railroad tracks there would
have to be grade separations which would fall under the jurisdiction
of the Public utilities Commission and the City would not have the
authority to grant an additional crossing. Mr. Musso agreed there
would have to be a grade separation which would be considered as a
part of the construction of the freeway. It seems now that the
parkway will have to start at the Holmes Well site, cross over to
the other side of Isabel Avenue, go up the Cal Rock buffer area, up
west side of Isabel Avenue, across the freeway to the creek, and
then probably under the Arroyo Mocho, then north.
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt it would be better to have the parkway
within the subdivision. He moved to table the matter until the full
Council was present, but there was no second.
The motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, as
amended, that the proposed parkway be located within the future State
freeway right-of-way; that the first phase improvement consist of
only grading, bike trail paving and tree installation; and that
header boards and fencing be relegated to later phase of improvement
was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva
Councilman Miller
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
Mr. Musso stated that in this connection the Planning Commission had
instructed the staff to investigate and consult with the Park District
to set forth some minimum standards for park development.
*
*
*
CM-24-268
August 16, 1971
The summary of action taken at the Planning
Commission meeting of August 10 was submitted.
Mayor pro tempore Miller requested that the
approval of a CUP for the use of an existing
service station at 175 No. L street be appealed
for consideration at the next meeting. Mayor
pro tempore Miller made a motion to appeal the approval of
CUP, seconded by Councilman Beebe, approved unanimously.
*
*
*
SUMMARY OF ACTION
PLANNING COMMISSION
(Appeal re Service
Station, 175 No.L)
the
The Board of Supervisors, through direction to
Herbert G. Crowle, Director of Public Works and
Road Commissioner, has replied to the City's re-
quest that the Board proceed immediately with
the reconstruction of North Livermore Avenue from
Portola Avenue to U.S. 580 so that the work could be carried on
while North Livermore Avenue continues to be closed to through
traffic due to the present work on the freeway.
REPORT RE NO.
LIVERMORE AVE.
IMPROVEMENT
The City Manager stated that the County contends that the length
of time necessary for the reconstruction would be considerably
longer than that period North Livermore Avenue will be closed in
connection with the freeway work. Their suggestion is that if
the City feels that North Livermore Avenue improvement is criti-
cal, it should be discussed entering into a joint improvement
project with the County. This might be the proper thing to do,
but there are other improvements for joint participation which
might be reviewed and placed according to priority.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said two suggestions to reduce the de-
tour had been made, one to reconstruct North Livermore Avenue
from Portola Avenue to the interchange and the second one was
through Las Positas.
The City Manager advised that the County will reconstruct the
bridge across the arroyo to minimize the inconvenience later.
Councilman Silva said this section of North Livermore Avenue
would be heavily used because it would be the major entry off
the freeway, and he felt the staff should be instructed to meet
with the County now rather than to wait until the priorities
can be set.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said he felt the priorities should be
reviewed as other accesses are necessary also.
Councilman Silva made a motion to make North Livermore Avenue
reconstruction the first priority; motion seconded by Councilman
Beebe~ passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe and Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that the prime appli-
cant has not yet indicated a final decision,
and properties to the north and south have not
executed annexation agreements in regard to
the proposed East Avenue Annex No. 10. There
is very little to be gained by having an annexation agreement
executed with the exception of having an understanding about
various public works installations. As to the payment of fees,
the absence of an annexation agreement does not necessarily cause
any difficulty. Mr. Parness stated that the City Attorney has
advised that the ordinance be introduced, as this must be within
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE EAST AVENUE
ANNEX NO. 10
CM-24-269
August 16, 1971
(East Avenue
Annex No. 10)
sixty days after the conduct of the public hearing,
and during the interim period these agreements may
be executed.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said he was against annexation where agree-
ments have not been signed.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, the
proposed ordinance for annexation of the property included in East
Avenue Annex No. 10 was introduced and the first reading of the ordi-
nance waived by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Miller
None
Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
SECTIONS 12.23
and 14.24
(utilities
Taxes and Soli-
citors)
*
*
*
Some amendments to the Municipal Code are necessary
in Section 12.23 to provide that utilities are not
taxed in excess of merchants, manufacturers and busi-
ness corporations, and also some minor changes in the
requirements for solicitors are to be made in Sec.
14.24.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the proposed ordinance regarding municipal code amendments
to Sections 12.23 and 14.24 were introduced and the first reading
waived by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe~ Silva and Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCILMEN
(Truck Route)
up the right of
Vineyard Avenue
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe reported that at the meeting of the
Sand and Gravel Committee in Pleasanton a route is
being worked out whereby the gravel trucks will not
travel on the main streets. In this connection they
felt it would be beneficial if the City Council
could push the Highway Advisory Committee to firm
way on Isabel Avenue freeway at least from US 580 to
in order to get the truck traffic off the City streets.
The staff was instructed to contact the Highway Advisory Committee
in this regard.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, asked that efforts be made in this
regard so that heavy traffic would be removed from Holmes Street.
*
*
*
(Bridge-Arroyo Rd Mayor pro tempore Miller inquired about restrictions
Pedestrian Path) against bicycles on the Arroyo Mocho Bridge. Assist-
ant City Engineer Robert Yee stated he had been
in contact with the County about this, and due to
some near accidents on the bridge it was felt that it would be safer
for bicycles to use the pathway.
(Proposed ZO
Amendment)
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller referred to discussion re-
garding the landscape buffer for commercial develop-
ment in connection with PUD 15, and made a motion
the Planning Commission to consider the placement of
buffers with tree screening adjacent to shopping centers
to request
landscaped
CM-24-270
as an ordinance amendment, and also the addi-
tion of amenities such as drinking fountains,
benches or other seating, etc. for the shoppers
convenience. The motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe.
August 16, 1971
(Landscaped Buffer)
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Street, felt this might be for the
benefit of the public and could be provided by park dedication.
The motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
APPROVE
~ ~1?1::j
~..
C . .Clerk
Li er re, Callfornla
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of August 23, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on August 23, 1971,
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
RO LL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the members of the City Coun-
cil and those present in the audience in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of August 9, 1971 MINUTES
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller~ and
by unanimous approval. (Mayor Taylor abstained)
*
*
*
Mary Salbeck, 1678 Alvarado Court, approached OPEN FORUM
~ the Council for some backing against the appli- (Service Station
cation of Mr. Lounsbury for a service station Lounsbury)
on Portola Avenue. Mrs. Salbeck was concerned
with the fact that the towing service would
mean that the wrecking yard would be perpetuated, and she had
been opposed to the junk yard previously. Mrs. Salbeck was aware
that this property was in the County, and she stated her intent
to attend the meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
on September 15, to present her disapproval of this application.
CM-24-271
August 23,
1971
(Service
Station
Lounsbury)
Mayor Taylor advised that the Planning Commission
had voted unanimously to oppose the application
inasmuch as these matters are not normally referred
to the Council.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt essentially the same reso-
lution as had been adopted by the Planning Commission and the mo-
tion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed unanimously.
Traffic Hazard
(Pine St. &
Murietta Blvd)
PUBLIC HEARING
REVERSION TO
ACREAGE
(Property
Adjacent to
Tract 3222)
Communication
re Airport
Planning
Boundaries
Acceptance of
Tr. 3282
(Hofmann Co.)
Tax Rate
Fiscal Year
1971-72
Payroll and
Claims
CM-24-272
*
*
*
Don Thomas, 746 Meadowlark, called attention to a
public hazard created on Murietta Blvd. due to the
foliage that has been planted in the median strip
near Pine Street. The height of the plants obstructs
the view, when making a left turn onto Pine Street,
of cars coming north.
*
*
*
At the request of the City Attorney, the public hear-
ing re reversion to acreage of certain property
adjacent to Tract 3222 was continued until later in
the evening. Later, at the request of Mr. Lewis,
a motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously to
table the matter until the next meeting, and the
Public Hearing was continued.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication was received from the Airport Land
Use Commission re postponement of consideration of
our municipal airport planning boundaries to Sept.
15, 1971, to allow additional time for Pleasanton
to consider the location and implications of the
planning boundaries and to make a fully considered
recommendation to the Commission.
*
*
*
The public works improvements on Tract 3282 having
been completed in accordance with the approved
plans and City specifications, it is recommended
that the tract be accepted by the City for permanent
maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TR. 3282
(Hofmann Land Development Co.)
*
*
*
Final assessed valuations have been received from
the County Auditor, and the tax rate has been set
for the fiscal year 1971-72.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-71
RESOLUTION FIXING TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1971-72.
*
*
*
Eighty-three claims in the amount of $32,115.20,
dated August 20, and two hundred thirty-six payroll
warrants in the amount of $57,376.43 dated August
13, 1971 were ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager.
*
*
*
August 23, 1971
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, the items on the Consent
Calendar were approved unanimously.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
The Public Works Director explained that in re- REPORT RE NANCY
ply to the City's inquiry re the difficult access STREET CLOSURE
onto Nancy Street from Stanley Blvd., the County
Director of Public Works made two suggestions:
(1) to widen the section of Stanley Blvd. on each side of Nancy
Street where it is now constricted to 88 feet of right-of-way
width, which would allow four lanes of travel, the median lane
would be wide enough to allow left turn traffic onto Nancy Street,
would allow two parking lanes as well as ten feet from curb to
property line on each side. In addition, the second possibility
would be to make a connection through from Anna Maria to El
Caminito and he suggested two locations - Karen Way or Sonoma Drive.
Mr. Lee advised that the first suggestion was investigated and it
would require the acquisition of the backs of ten lots and would,
in one instance, encroach on a house that exists as the back
lots range from 13 to 35 feet. The improvements would amount to
$35,000. An estimate was not developed for the right of way.
The second suggestion was considered and the connection to Karen
Way or Sonoma Drive was not considered to be proper because it would
create 4-way intersections. It should be half way between Sonoma
Drive and Karen Way and would consist of taking two existing
homes and their lots and construction of a roadway and bridge
across the channel between the two streets and the estimate was
approximately $110,000. This would improve the access; however
it would not be substantially better than the Murdell Lane access
that is being planned at present.
Alternate three suggested by Councilman Miller, that the parking
be eliminated on Stanley Blvd. through that section~ is a workable
one through the City's standpoint, however this is not satisfactory
to Alameda County because it violates the standards for the feder-
ally assisted projects. If modifications were made in the medians
to accommodate this third alternative, it would cost $8,700 to
make the necessary modifications.
Councilman Miller questioned the amount of federal funding and
felt there was a lack of cooperation from the County and suggested
that the Bureau of Public Roads be contacted with regard to his
suggestion.
Mr. Parness stated that he did not feel this would be proper
inasmuch as the Bureau of Public Roads works directly with the
County and not the City, especially since the City did agree to
the closure of Nancy Street and would cause irreparable damage
in future negotiations with the County on other road projects in
the area.
Councilman Silva asked what the reaction of the County would be
if the City would request the third alternative, and Mr. Lee
advised that it would be rejected. Councilman Silva made a mo-
tion that the County be asked to adopt the proposal for the change
with the reason for reversing the previous Council's decision,
and the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved
unanimously.
Verle Gilson, 424 Virginia Drive, referred to a map which indi-
cated the accesses into the area, and asked the Council to con-
sider the time it would take for an ambulance or a fire truck to
locate the source.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, suggested that the City attempt
to obtain an easement from the Southern Pacific Railroad to widen
Stanley Blvd. on the railroad side.
CM-24-273
August 23, 1971
Councilman Miller commented that these matters
come before the Council on a routine basis and
not as a public hearing, so that the persons in
the area are not aware of the effects of major
street reconstruction and placement of medians and questions of
access and suggested it might be useful to send out notices of an
informal public hearing.
(Nancy Street
Closure)
Mayor Taylor agreed it would be a good thing, but stated that the
point is the City should not have allowed a street that long to be
built, but the developer objected to the cost of crossing the
channel, even with a pedestrian walkway for the school children;
this should have been overruled.
Kenneth Lee, 303 Jillana, pointed out that no one parks along
Stanley Blvd. anyway, and it would be the least expensive method.
He felt that any of the alternatives would be warranted except for
the cost. Mr. Lee questioned the Murdell Lane access and asked
if it was permanent, however Mr. Parness informed him it is to be
used only until October 1973 at which time Murdell Lane is to be
relocated. Mr. Lee felt that Nancy Street is the main entrance to
the area especially since there is a gateway there.
Councilman Miller suggested that Mr. Lee and the other people in
the area contact the County officials and County Supervisor Murphy.
Mr. Lee suggested that notice of public hearings be sent to people
other than those within the required 300 foot area; he felt the
area to notice should be expanded.
*
*
*
ANNEXATION
REQUEST -
Cornett Realty
~n annexation request was received from the Cornett
Realty, Inc. for an area on the north side of
Northfront Road at the Greenville interchange.
This matter was postponed at the applicant's re-
quest, due to the absence of two Councilmen at
the last regular meeting. An excerpt of the minutes of the pre-
vious meeting had been submitted to the Councilmen.
Mr. James Cornett, 177 Front Street, Suite G, Danville, explained
he had requested that his application for annexation be continued
in order that he might have the views of the full Council. Mr. Cor-
nett stated that all of the areas that he has been involved in,
any City or County, tries to grow and bring in entities that result
in a higher tax base than single family dwellings. He is offering
a piece of property that will open up over a mile of commercial
property, and bring in water and the necessary sewers. Mr. Cornett
stated he could not understand the recommendation which indicated
there is no compelling public need; on the other hand Livermore is
not a country town any more, but rather the gateway to the San
Francisco area and asked how the Council thought it could stop the
growth of this~ea and why they felt the annexation was not needed
at this point when the City is crying for funds to subsidize the
schools.
Mayor Taylor stated that the applicant wants apartments, some single
family and commercial, however the Council has already approved an
area right at the interchange for highway commercial, and a long
stretch of commercial on the north side of US 580 - almost three-
fourths of a mile, and the property owners have already come to-
gether to agree on an assessment district to extend the sewer line.
He agreed with the City Manager that this represents a leapfrog
development of the kind that has caused a lot of problems in the
past. Although it is true that there would be additional taxes from
apartments, it would also be an extreme burden on the City to ex-
tend services to that area and an extreme burden on the school dis-
trict to bus the children to the schools.
Councilman Beebe felt it was premature for development as proposed,
but not for industrial use.
CM-24-274
August 23, 1971
Councilman Pritchard agreed with the comments
of Mayor Taylor and Councilman Beebe, because
having lived in Springtown for three years, he
is firmly convinced it was a premature~ leap-
frog development as they suffer from the lack of city services
even now. Most of the children must be bused to schools; it is
difficult for the policemen to patrol the area. He also felt
the Wagoner Farms area was premature. Councilman Pritchard
agreed it would be a good place for highway commercial there,
as well as at the interchange, but not for any residential use
at this time.
(Annexation Request
Cornett Realty)
Councilman Miller made a motion to accept the City Manager's re-
commendation to deny the request for annexation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously.
Councilman Silva stated, for the record, that the Council feels
that commercial development along Frontage Road is not premature.
Councilman Silva did feel that industrial might be premature;
however Councilman Miller felt annexation should not be encouraged
at this time inasmuch as the General Plan indicated residential use.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that this was
an unusual application inasmuch as there is a
pre-existing automobile service station struc-
ture on the property. The service station was
terminated and then became a retail use for the
sale and installation of tires. That use terminated and the
applicants wish to reestablish as an automobile service station.
They would like to have a trial period to get started in the
business and later submit a plan for the redevelopment of the
station. The Planning Commission approved the use for a period
of time - 120 days. They have an idea what the applicant proposes
as far as design, and the applicants are to submit a site plan
within 60 days. There is no approval yet for a freestanding sign,
only signs conforming to the ordinance and temporary signs~ as
allowed for grand opening purposes, for thirty days. The only
complication with the action is the question of what happens at
the end of 120 days if the applicant should decide not to file
a plan or redevelop the station; the City would be in the posi-
tion of having to terminate the business. The Planning Commis-
sion recommended approval of the temporary use.
APPEAL RE CUP
(Service Station -
175-187 No. L St.)
Councilman Silva made a motion to approve the recommendation of
the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller stated that his reason for appealing the Plan-
ning Commission's action was the fact that there are an excessive
number of gas stations in the community and even the best ones
are relatively unattractive and are a blight on the adjacent
properties. It is generally conceded by planning and zoning
people in the whole country that gas stations are an economic
detriment to the properties in the general area, and in Livermore
are a detriment to the City as a whole because there are so many
of them. It has been a complaint of the people for many years;
there are forty gas stations in the City now; there is no economic
need in the community as a whole for another gas station and it
is easy to make the fingings for denial. In this particular in-
stance the site is too small for a gas station; there will be
adverse effects on adjacent properties. The time has come not
to approve every application for a gas station that carnes before
the Council; they can improve the economical health of the down-
town by not having so many detrimental uses~ of which this is
the primary kind; they should deny the temporary use for 120
days, and in fact deny the application altogether.
Councilman Beebe agreed with Councilman Miller that there are
too many stations, however at the present time the structure,
CM-24-275
August 23, 1971
(Appeal re CUP
Service Station)
even though it is not used as a gas station, has
the appearance of one. After 120 days it will
be remodeled into a new structure and the new
gas stations are a vast improvement over the
old ones, and it would add to the area.
Councilman Silva disagreed by stating it would never be revamped
into a major type of serv,ice station; it would be improved but
that is all.
The Council discussed the possibilities of what might happen at the
end of the 120 day period should the applicant choose not to re-
develop the station, and asked the City Attorney for an opinion
regarding the length of time it would take to terminate the use.
Mr. Lewis advised as soon as the temporary use expired, there is
the possibility of a nuisance existing, and it could be abated
under fairly prompt civil proceedings, or possibly criminal pro-
ceedings.
Mayor Taylor asked if it was possible, in addition to the CUP, to
make a separate contract between the City and the applicant wherein
he would agree to abate the use. Mr. Lewis advised that if there
were something posted in the way of a guarantee that would provide
for the removal, it might be done by contract, but as far as estab-
lishing the removal conditions, it could be done by a permit or'
by the posting of a bond.
Councilman Silva amended his motion to include the posting of a
bond sufficient to perform all the necessary improvements and to
meet the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission for recon-
struction. The motion to amend was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. Lewis advised there should be an engineer's estimate for the
amount necessary for the construction and set the bond for that amount,
guaranteeing the faithful performance of the work. Mr. Lewis stated
that the City Engineer has remarked this is private property and,
therefore, the consent of the applicant to do this work should be
included in the permit.
Mayor Taylor said he agreed there were too many gas stations in
town, and this station is an example of old fashioned, outdated
service stations which had incurred the wrath of many people against
them. He foresaw this old building being used for many years in
marginal uses. In this particular case the City is better off getting
a use which will improve the building. He agreed with the Planning
Commission.
Councilman Miller inquired what kind of bond would be required. Mr.
Lewis said this would have to be determined later. One type of
security to be considered might be a letter of credit with a bank
whereby there would not be the legal problems involved with going
through a bonding company.
Mayor Taylor stated the aim is to have a guarantee that if the City
and the applicant cannot agree on the modernization and it is not
completed, the City should have some protection. Mr. Lewis stated
that the demolition of the building would be to the long range ad-
vantage of the City if it is not improved. The staff might talk to
the applicant to see what can be worked out.
The motion to amend the main motion requiring a bond or some kind
of condition whereby the City will be protected in the event the
improvements are not made was approved unanimously.
Brad Hurst, Valley Realty, representing the applicant, presented a
rendering of the improvements planned and a picture of the building
in question. He requested that the Council approve the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
CM-24-276
August 23, 1971
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, to table the consideration
of this matter in order for the staff to meet
with the applicant to determine some method
of guaranteeing that the improvements will be
table was approved unanimously.
(Appeal re CUP
Service Station)
made; motion to
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that the consi-
deration of the appeal regarding a CUP for the
Apostolic Faith Temple was postponed from the
meeting of July 19 to allow the applicant to
work out some alternative to the site. The applicant has done so,
and the proposed site is better in respect to parking and the
access problem and helps solve some of the problems with the de-
velopment of adjacent landlocked property.
APPEAL RE CUP -
(Apostolic Faith
Temple)
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing and their review and recommendation; motion passed unan-
imously.
Rev. Charles Hill, 346 Robert Way, the applicant, said he did not
understand why this was being referred back to the Planning Com-
mission. Mayor Taylor said the Council wished the opinion of
the Commission as this is a new design and different piece of
property. The decision by the Commission would be final, unless
appealed again.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to waive the $200 fee for the application, and passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
Preliminary information has been gathered re-
garding potential park sites in the vicinity
of Olivina Avenue. An appraisal has been ob-
tained on the land, and a comparison of the two
sites in regard to development has been made. There is roughly
$9,000 to $10,000 in park dedication monies available, and there
is an estimated $18,000 coming from the remaining undeveloped
land. The Dogwood site only has about 40 feet of curbing and
sidewalk to be constructed but the City would have to participate
in the complete public works improvements for the Mariposa site.
The Mariposa site is estimated to cost $33,500 and the Dogwood
site of comparable area would be $31,800. There are about twenty
trees on the Dogwood site.
REPORT RE WESTERN
PARK SITE LOCATION
Mayor Taylor pointed out it was his understanding that the LARPD
has stated they will not accept a 2-acre park in this area for
maintenance, and if the Council purchases this land it will become
the responsibility of the City. The matter facing the Council
seemed to be a matter of policy - whether the City will build a
park, what kind of park it will be, and if the City will be res-
ponsible for the park maintenance in perpetuity.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to table the matter until action is determined on the application
by Apostolic Faith Temple. The motion to table was passed by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mrs. Marion Stelts, 547 Nightingale Street~ told the Council that
this item was presented in open forum around the first of April,
CM-24-277
August 23, 1971
(Western Park
Site Location)
and was presented to the Planning Department be-
fore the application for the church. The neigh-
borhood wanted a play lot for their children, and
the people around the Dogwood site would offer
their labor both in the development and maintenance of this piece
of land, including the use of heavy equipment for levelling the land.
Councilman Miller felt that the point about who was first in these
two matters was a good one, and he, therefore, made a motion to
untable the matter, but there was no second.
Councilman Pritchard said the difference is that one of the appli-
cations is by the property owner, not by other property owners in
the area, and although he agreed with many of the points for loca-
tion of the park here, he felt any property owner deserves first
consideration.
Councilman Miller felt the property owner should be forewarned that
his property might be condemned if the Council feels there should be
a park here, and this should be discussed now.
Mayor Taylor felt the policy regarding small parks should be decided
as the money would come from the park fund; this is a major policy
change and should be discussed regardless of the merits of these two
sites.
Councilman Silva felt the Council had already gone on record as
favoring a small park in this area and Mayor Taylor stated there had
been no formal action.
Mrs. Stelts said the Planning Commission had gone on record as fa-
voring the Dogwood site for a park. Mayor Taylor said that they
had looked at it from a planning point of view and agreed a park
site would be nice. Mrs. Stelts referred to cooperation by the
neighborhood children in cleaning the property of weeds and trash,
and they would continue to do so if the park land is obtained.
Mayor Taylor asked that a report be prepared regarding the mainte-
nance of the property and related matters to be included on the agenda
for consideration at an early date.
Councilman Silva suggested that the Council consider policy regard-
ing development and maintenance of mini-parks, and even perhaps
larger parks.
LAS POSITAS
CLUBHOUSE
ENTRANCE BIDS
REPORT RE
AMENDMENTS
Sec. 20.00 re
Width & Bldg.
Lines-Stanley
Blvd. & 1st St.
*
*
*
The report regarding bids for the construction work
for the Las Positas Clubhouse entrance was continued
for two weeks at the request of the City Manager on
motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and by unanimous approval.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, to set the consideration of possible
amendment of Section 20.00 (General Provisions) of
the Zoning Ordinance to establish future width and
special building lines on Stanley Blvd. and First
Street for public hearing on October 4.
Councilman Silva felt it might not be advisable to set width lines
for First Street at this time as there is the possibility First
Street might become a collector street rather than a major street,
and future planning should be considered.
CM-24-278
*
*
*
August 23, 1971
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, se-
conded by Councilman Beebe, to waive the second
reading of the following ordinance, and by unan-
imous vote the ordinance was adopted.
ORDINANCE RE
MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT (Sec.
12.23 & 14.24)
ORDINANCE NO. 756
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.23, RELATING TO LICENSE TAXES
BASED ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO BUSINESS
LICENSES, BY THE AMENDM'ENT OF THAT PARAGRAPH ENTITLED "CLASSIFICA-
TION 'D' UTILITIES" OF SAID SECTION, AND AMENDING SECTION 14.24,
RELATING TO SOLICITORS, OF CHAPTER 14, RELATING TO MISOELLANEOUS
OFFENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that he had just been
notified by the applicants regarding the proposed
East Avenue Annex No. 10~ that due to difficul-
ties in obtaining the consent of all the land-
owners involved, they have decided not to pursue
the matter. The applicants understand that if
action is not taken by the Council at this time
the annexation will be deemed disapproved.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE EAST AVE.
ANNEX NO. 10
(Second Reading)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller inquired about Item H (d) re- PROPOSED ORDINANCE
garding the requirement for an improved channel. RE PUD (Sec. 19.00)
He felt the word improved should be deleted as
the Planning Commission has considered using
natural rather than improved channels. The Planning Director
said the policy of the City is to take the natural channel and
to give density credit for everything beyond an improved channel.
Councilman Miller did not think "improved" should be included and
moved that this be deleted from the proposed ordinance; motion
was seconded by Councilman Silva and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller inquired about Item H (c) regarding right-of-way
for use of utilities. The major power lines that go through the
City have easements, and he did not feel they should have density
credit. The item refers to exclusive use and he was not clear
whether this was an exclusive use. The Public Works Director said
if there is an easement it is not considered an exclusive use.
Councilman Miller felt it should be defined as right-of-way ease-
ments and rights-of-way, and in this case felt the word "exclusive"
should be deleted. If density credit is given~ the easements will
be included in lots. Only limited uses are allowed in these ease-
ments. Councilman Miller made a motion to change Item H (c) to
read, "Any major right-of-way for the use of utilities or similar
uses." There was no second to the motion. Mayor Taylor felt
that since this would be a major policy change, an amendment
should be considered at a later date.
The Planning Director explained the effect of the adoption of the
ordinance in regard to Planned Development; it would in effect
grant a customized zoning district adopted by ordinance rather
than by a permit.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to introduce the Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 19.00
(Planned Development) and to waive the first reading of the pro-
posed ordinance, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for PUD No.
15 was introduced (title read only).
PROPOSED ZO
AMENDMENT -
(PUD No. 15)
*
*
*
CM-24-279
August 23, 1971
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF Mr. Lewis referred to a matter previously dis-
(Gas Station} cussed regarding the gas station on L Street as
he had had an opportunity to d~scuss the matter
with Mr. Hurst, and felt he understood their in-
tention and could now make a recommendation to the Council.
Within 60 days the applicants will decide what they intend to do
on a permanent basis and submit a plan for the improvement of
the service station in compliance with their application. With
regard to the bond, it would depend on what is approved by de-
sign review and it is not possible to say what the cost will be
until improvement requirements are decided. Upon completion of
the review and approval, if they decide to go ahead, they will be
agreeable to putting up a performance bond or if they can obtain
one, a letter of credit, and all will be completed within 120 days.
The Council discussed their views in this regard and Mayor Taylor
stated that what the Council wants is that before they allow the
use to commence, they want some assurance in addition to possible
revocation of the permit; in other words, some leverage to termi-
nate the use if they do not go ahead with the improvements.
Mr. Hurst stated it was their intention to submit plans within 60
days, have the improvements completed within 120 days, and it is
their intent to operate during that period.
Mayor Taylor stated that was the point, before they would allow
the operation to begin, the Council wanted more leverage than just
cancelling the permit.
Mr. Hurst asked if the temporary use could be approved subject to
recommendation that a cash bond or performance bond would be re-
ceived.
Councilman Silva made a motion to remove the matter from the table,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva made a motion to approve the application contingent
upon approval of the City Manager as far as performance surety. If
this bond cannot be worked out, then the permit will not be issued.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller commented that the Council should have the oppor-
tunity to see what has been negotiated so there will be no misunder-
standing; stating that if a gas station is allowed here it will
always be a gas station, and urged once again that the Planning Com-
mission's recommendation be denied and the whole permit be denied.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, calling for the question, and passed unanimously.
The vote was then taken on the main motion to approve the Planning
Commission's recommendation subject to performance bond or surety
being worked out and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
Street Trees
(Claims)
Mr. Lewis stated that the City has 45 days to act
on the claims regarding street trees from the time
of filing. He has reviewed carefully the claims
and asked for supplemental information because, in
opinion, the claims were not clear. They did not indicate when
damage occurred and to what, whether it was a sidewalk or drain.
his
the
CM-24-280
August 23, 1971
Mr. Lewis recommended that the Council adopt (Claims)
two resolutions - one, directing the City Clerk
not to file all claims which either indicate
that the damage arose more than one year prior to the filing of
the claim or contain insufficient information so that determina-
tion can be made. The second resolution is that the Clerk be
directed to file those claims where it does appear the claim was
filed within one year of the alleged damage~ but that this Coun-
cil deny those claims on the basis of no legal liability. They
will be treated in groups two different ways.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and by unanimous vote, the following resolutions were passed:
RESOLUTION NO. 100-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK NOT TO FILE
CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE.
RESOLUTION NO. 101-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN
CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated that at the last
meeting when he was absent, Tract 3333 was
approved and the bicycle trail was put into
the freeway right-of-way. It was his under-
standing it made no difference to the developer
and he felt a more proper place would be outside the freeway
of-way, and asked that the Council reconsider the action.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Parkway - Tr.3333)
right-
The Council discussed the various possibilities which the State
might act upon as far as the freeway is concerned, and if there
would, in fact, be any savings to the community if the trail was
put into the freeway right-of-way.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that this matter be reconsidered,
and that it be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, however
the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Miller made a motion to approve the bicycle path in-
side the subdivision, subject to the agreement of the developer,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Silva made a motion to call for the question, seconded
by Councilman Beebe~ which failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Silva and Beebe
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor stated he saw no advantage either way~ the only
requirement is that it be developed with the tract.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, suggested that perhaps if it is
inexpensive perhaps the state would put it on both sides of the
freeway rather than put tunnels underneath.
The motion to place the bicycle path inside the subdivision,
subject to the agreement of the developer~ and the motion failed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Councilmen Silva, Beebe, and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
CM-24-281
August 23, 1971
(Various
Assembly Bills)
Councilman Pritchard asked what action had been
taken regarding AB 2946 pertaining to discrimina-
tion in planning or zoning, and Mr. Parness stated
this only applied to charter cities.
Councilman Pritchard also inquired about AB 1735 re railroads as far
as assessments are concerned, which will be heard by the local
government on September 14. It was felt that this bill should be
opposed, and Councilman Miller made a motion to oppose the legis-
lation, seconded by Councilman Silva, and it was approved unani-
mously.
(Expression
of Thanks)
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor stated he would like to thank Gib
Marguth for the time and effort spent in the nego-
tiations with the people in the dispute in the
K-B subdivision.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE
~ <2--r;,~
~' /..). ~ay~.r
~~ -
CCerk
Liverm e, allfornla
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of September 13, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 13, 1971,
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
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
SPECIAL ITEM
(Community
Picnic)
CM-24-282
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilmen Silva and Miller (Excused absence)
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meetings of August 16 and 23, 1971,
were approved as submitted on motion ot Councilman
Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, by unanimous
vote.
*
*
*
The Chairman of the Community Affairs Committee, Walter
Griffith, addressed the Council in regard to a com-
munity wide picnic which is to be coordinated by the
Jaycees. The picnic is scheduled for September 26, 1971,
at Del Valle Lake from 9:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. Admission
September 13, 1971
will be 501 per person (over 12 years of age). (Community Picnic)
Some of the activities include games for the
children, a raft race across the lake, a kite
flying contest, music and boat races. Mr. Griffith read a pro-
clamation proclaiming September 26 as Livermore Picnic Day, and
on motion of Councilman Beebe~ seconded by Councilman Pritchard~
the following resolution was adopted unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 102-71
RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING LIVERMORE CITY PICNIC DAY
Mr. Griffith stated there would be an ambulance, a fire truck and
one ranger assigned to the Lake for the City's use; the Park Dis-
trict has been very cooperative in working out the details.
*
*
*
A brief recess was called in order that the RECESS
Proclamation might be signed and pictures taken.
*
*
*
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, distributed a OPEN FORUM
flyer regarding the Alameda County Land Use Com- (Airport Boundaries)
mission which stated the date of the public hear-
ing in regard to planning establishment of the
boundaries for the Livermore Municipal Airport. He suggested that
the Council reconsider their appraisal of the powers of this Com-
mission and its effect on the City. The Commission can make re-
strictions on the type of buildings, specify the use of land,
and determine building standards. He felt that in order to pro-
tect the citizens and the airport, the Council should rescind
its action of approval and be noncommittal until more is known
about the powers and scope of the Commission.
*
*
*
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, spoke in regard
to the proposed bus transportation services. He
asked if the public would have the opportunity
to vote for or against this means of transporta-
tion when the survey is completed; secondly, will BART use the
funds collected from the Valley to operate the connecting bus
lines to the BART facilities, thus allowing the Valley communities
to operate the local feeder lines if they so desire; thirdly, if
the AC Transit is to provide service, will the Valley area be a
separate assessment district or will Valley residents be privileged
to pick up the AC Transit deficits for the rest of the Alameda
County operations.
(Bus Transportation
Services)
Mayor Taylor stated that if any service is instituted which would
require public financing, it would have to be authorized by vote.
The BART Board has made a commitment that there will be feeder
service, at least on an experimental basis, for a period of six
months to a year, starting next summer to determine the demand.
Mayor Taylor indicated he could not answer questions in regard
to AC Transit because he had not discussed this matter. There
would be more study before the matter is brought before the people.
The City Manager said a report would be distributed shortly which
would cover Mr. Falting's points. As to the matter of AC Transit's
participation in the service to the Valley, one of the alternatives
open is to have an annexation to the AC District, which would not
involve an assumption by the Valley communities of the District's
indebtedness. It would mean the division of our Valley as a
separate subdivision in the AC District. As to the matter of a
vote or voice by the citizens in this regard, this was a very
pertinent political question; it would not be mandatory, but the
wishes of the people should be assessed.
CM-24-283
September 13, 1971
(Re Sidewalk
Repair)
Mike Burger, 3844 Pestana Way, inquired whether
bids have been sent out for repair of sidewalks
and what the results were.
The Public Works Director stated the inspection of the sidewalks
was just about completed, and a status report would be ready for the
Council probably next week setting forth a proposed schedule for
calling for bids.
Mr. Parness stated this would be the next step, and the bids would
be revealed publicly. It is hoped that there would be a month
during which property owners could make a decision whether to do
the work themselves.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE TRACT 3222
(Property
Reversion)
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding the proposed reversion
of property to acreage in connection with the ex-
tension of Theresa Way in Tract 3222 was continued
until this meeting. The City Attorney now advises
that the matter not proceed, without prejudice to
a later request for reversion and the title company
concurs.
Mayor Taylor inquired if anyone present wished to speak in this
regard, but there were no comments made nor were any written com-
ments received.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to close the public hearing
and to table this matter without prejudice; motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
Report re
Crossing Guard
Murrieta Blvd.
& Olivina Ave.
Report re
Clubhouse
Remodeling Bids
Contract
Amendment -
Traffic
Records
System
Encroachment
Permit - YMCA
Christmas Tree
Sale
Report re
GAS Tax
Allocation
CM-24-284
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report has been submitted by the City Manager
regarding the need for an adult crossing guard at
Murrieta Blvd. and Olivina Avenue. It is recom-
mended that the assignment of a guard at the sub-
ject location be authorized.
*
*
*
The report by the City Manager regarding club-
house remodeling bids was removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
At the request of the City Manager discussion of
a contract amendment in regard to the Intergovern-
mental Cooperation Consolidated Traffic Records
System was withdrawn for possible later action.
*
*
*
A request has been received for an encroachment
permit for the sale of Christmas trees on "Q"
Street north of First Street, by the YMCA. It
is recommended that a motion be adopted author-
izing an encroachment permit issuance subject to
the conditions listed by the Public Works Director.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director submitted a report re-
garding the County gas tax allocation. The pro-
posed allocation to the City of Livermore for
the 1971-72 fiscal year is $128,443.31. It is
September 13, 1971
proposed that the construction of the Airway (Gas Tax Allocation)
Blvd. bridge between Interstate 580 and Club-
house Road be partially financed under this
fund. It is recommended that a motion be adopted approving
this program for transmittal to the County.
*
*
*
A report has been prepared by the Public Works
Director in regard to a proposed underground
utility district for First Street, "0" Street
to "s" Street, and Second Street from Livermore
Avenue to "N" Street, and to request authoriza-
tion for street lighting installation on these
streets.
Report re Proposed
Underground
Utility District -
Second Street
The Public Works Director stated that the undergrounp work on
First Street has actually been completed, and that authorization
only in regard to the street lighting was necessary on First st.
The Council discussed briefly the design of the lighting to be
installed on Second Street and whether the design approved should
be different than that on First Street. The public hearing in
regard to the utility district was set for October 26.
*
*
*
It is recommended that the City Council author-
ize the execution of the cooperative agreement
with Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton
to participate in a traffic control mapping in-
ventory. The total cost of the project is estimated
with Livermore's portion to be approximately $8~600,
be paid from the Mayor's Formula Gas Tax monies.
Traffic Control
Mapping Inventory
to be $91,000
which will
The following resolution was adopted authorizing execution of
the agreement:
RESOLUTION NO. 103-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING INTENTION TO ENTER INTO JOINT
EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
AND CITY OF PLEASANTON REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF BASE
MAP AND TRAFFIC INVENTORY.
*
*
*
A report was prepared by the Public Works Di-
rector in regard to the status of tracts within
the City.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Alameda
County Taxpayers Association regarding the
financial future of the cities.
*
*
*
An information sheet regarding BARTD was re-
ceived, listing general interest facts about
the district.
*
*
*
Report re Tract
Status
Alameda County
Taxpayers Assoc.
BARTD
CM-24-285
September 13, 1971
Beautification
Committee
Two members of the Beautification Committee have
submitted resignations: Chris Gatrousis and Lloyd
Jansen. A communication has been received re-
questing that two adults and two high school stu-
appointed to the Committee to bring membership to its full
Also the minutes of the meeting of July 20 were submitted.
dents be
number.
Minutes -
Housing
Authority
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
*
*
*
The minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of
July 27, 1971, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
One Hundred and seven claims in the amount of
$208,075.45 and two hundred forty-eight payroll
warrants in the amount of $57,941.35, dated
August 27, were ordered paid as approved by the
City Manager.
Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant
No. 483 for his usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that the concern of the
Cultural Arts Council and Councilman Miller, who
is the City Council's representative, is in re-
gard to provision of sanitary sewer services to
the structure at the Civic Center site which will
be the site of the Cultural Arts Festival on October 9 and 10. In
the event this service cannot be completed by that date, it is
hoped the Council will approve the the use of sanitary toilet fa-
cilities to be paid for by the CAC. The LARPD will not accept
this site for supervision until there is full compliance with all
City code provisions, but if the Council allows the festival in
the structure, with provision of sanitary facilities to be in-
stalled by other parties, they are agreeable and will provide staff
and participate in the affair. This will in no way serve to sanc-
tion the facility by their agency until the code is complied with.
REPORT RE
CULTURAL ARTS
FESTIVAL
It is recommended that the Council authorize use of the chemical
facilities, in the event they are necessary, so that the Festival
may be held on the site October 9 and 10, and that the terms ex-
pressed by LARPD be observed.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to approve the use of the Civic Center site for the festival and
use of the temporary sanitary facilities if necessary; motion
passed unanimously.
REPORT RE
EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE
AGREEMENT
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that the agreement presented
for consideration by the Council is the culmination
of many months of negotiating efforts on the part
of our staff in cooperation with the City of Plea-
santon and Alameda County. Valley Memorial Hos-
pital was also an active participant in the nego-
tiations with Allen's Ambulance Service. The three public agencies
have concluded a mutually acceptable agreement with Allen's whereby
the service would be afforded, by a contractual arrangement, to
CM-24-286
September 13~ 1971
the Livermore-Amador community. The contract
would be tripartite in nature, whereby one
phase would be an arrangement between the three
governmental agencies forming a joint exercise
of powers arrangement for the service. This contract has been
distributed to the Council. Second, there would be a contract
between the servicing agent and the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agency. Third, there would be a contractual arrangement which
will delegate to Alameda County the administration responsibil-
ities, and in turn Valley Memorial Hospital would act as the
overseer of the entire proposal.
(Ambulance
Agreement)
Basically, the contract calls for a public subsidy of $700 per
month from each of the three agencies. The contractee is obli-
gated to provide these services on a 24-hour basis with virtual
equal service to the three centers. The period of the contract
is for five years with an annual review; a detailed financial
tabulation must be maintained by the contractee so the respec-
tive staffs can closely appraise the expenses and revenue, and
in the event the amount of gross revenue as opposed to the amount
of gross e~pense exceeds 10%, then the subsidy will be reduced
proportionately. It is hoped that this method will work, and it
is recommended that this primary contract be executed by the Mayor
and also the concurrence and execution of the other two agreements
authorized.
Councilman Beebe inquired if there was any provision for phasing
out this subsidy in the event the population in the Valley becomes
large enough to support the service. Mr. Parness said their sur-
vey of other communities at first did not reveal any which were
subsidizing this type of service, but it has been since determined
that some areas are, of necessity, entering into this type of
arrangement. Population is a factor because the larger the com-
munity the more service required, and is relative to the revenue
generated. Therefore, it is hoped to phase out public subsidy of
this service, and population generation is one factor.
Councilman Beebe also asked if there is assurance that the County
of Alameda will concur with this tri-agency contract. Mr. Parness
said the County has participated in the discussions, and it is
certainly hoped that they will do so if Livermore and Pleasanton
concur.
Mayor Taylor stated that essentially this will be operated as a
utility with 10% profit, but it is not mentioned how profit will
be determined. In particular, how fast will capital equipment be
written off. Mr. Parness said they were relying heavily on the
methods employed by the Internal Revenue Service applicable to this
type of business. One of the methods included in the contract
which was accepted hesitatingly, is the accrual system of account-
ing, and the definition of expenditure and revenue items.
Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Parness to briefly describe how the con-
tract could be terminated if deemed desirable by the City. Mr.
Parness said it is the option of the City Council in the event
they are not satisfied, notice can be given. One of the other
agencies might pullout, thus forcing the City to do so, or there
might be a breech of the contract. The County will be responsible
for the audits and will be working closely with Valley Memorial
Hospital, who will be in day-to-day contact with the contractee.
Mayor Taylor said they are faced with the fact this service cannot
be completely self-supporting, and the community demands this service.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to adopt the City Manager's recom-
mendation to participate in this tri-agency emergency ambulance
service for the period specified, and to adopt a resolution for
for execution of agreement~ and to authorize the execution of the
other two necessary agreements; motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and approved unanimously.
CM-24-287
September 13, 1971
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, said he understood
that the contract with Allen's Ambulance now in
effect provided for the City to aid in the collec-
tion of fees which were unpaid and to guarantee
Allen's the amount if the fees were not collectible. He asked if
this was a part of the tri-agency agreement. Mayor Taylor said
it was his understanding that the new contract provided for the
County to aid in collection after Allen's had done all that was
possible to make collection, and in the event the fee is proved
uncollectible Allen's would be reimbursed for the amount. Mr.
Parness said the amount would be charged to the area from which
the fee originated, but the effort for collection would be by the
County.
(Ambulance
Agreement)
David Madis, attorney for Allen's Ambulance, stated he concurred
fully with the statements made by Mr. Parness. The contract will
provide quality control of a service; all parties look forward to
the time when there will be no necessity for a subsidy. Even at
the termination of the contract there will remain many advantages
from the organization for updating and improving the services. All
the agencies involved have received a great deal of information
from the negotiations.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that he had reason to
personally endorse Allen's Ambulance, but he opposed the contract
and the whole concept behind it. He did not feel it was the pro-
per function of City government to engage in supporting private
business, and felt there was no merit in engaging in a subsidy.
Perhaps the rates should be raised if the service cannot make a
profit. He urged the Council to reject the contract and reject the
concept of City backing.
Councilman Pritchard stated approval of this contract was contrary
to his feelings about private entities being subsidized by govern-
ment, however, this is a situation of necessity; perhaps it can be
looked upon as a contract with Allen's carrying out the terms of
a contract with the City which has been done on other occasions.
In the interest of the health and safety of the citizens of Liver-
more, he would reluctantly vote for this resolution.
Mayor Taylor agreed that there are other cities where this service
is provided from general fund taxes. It is clear that without some
support that the type of ambulance service necessary could not be
provided.
The motion was approved unanimously (Councilmen Silva and Miller
absent) and the following resolution adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 105-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
(Allen's Ambulance)
Mayor Taylor made a motion to reduce the amount of the interim sub-
sidy from $1,000 per month to $700, effective the end of the month
or upon execution of this contract, whichever occurs first; motion
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
REPORT RE BIDS
FOR POLICE
VEHICLES
The City Manager reported that bids had been re-
ceived from businesses other than those within our
incorporated area as he believed that at least
three bids should be received on police vehicles
for competitive reasons. The following bids were
received and it is apparent Fremont Dodge is the
lowest bidder.
CM-24-288
4-dr sedans (6)
1972 compact 4-dr(1)
1972 4-dr sta wgn(l)
G. E.
Dailey
$16,7t57.26
2,914.67
3,145.27
John Edgren
& Sons
19,9t55.27
3~001.68**
September 13, 1971
(Bids-Police Cars)
Fremont Codiroli
Dodge Ford
14,472.36 17,334.07
No bid
2,926.54
3,315.00
No Bid
No bid
** No trade-ins
Mr. Parness felt that in reviewing the bids the difference of
$2300 or $2400 was too important to discount; secondly, there
was the matter of the 12,000 mile warranty and where it would
be afforded. If the vehicles are purchased from Fremont Dodge~
the servicing could be done by Edgren Motors in Pleasanton.
The last item of consideration was the performance of the vehicles,
and the Police Department felt that the Dodge cars were preferable
because of safety and need of servicing record and conversion cost
items. Therefore, the Police Department and the City Manager con-
curred that taking all these points into account~ the purchase of
the six 4-door sedans be made from the Fremont Dodge Company.
The Council regretted that the cars required could not be pur-
chased locally at a similar amount. The problem of selling the
old cars through the City rather than trading them in was dis-
cussed briefly.
It was also recommended that the compact 4-door sedan and the
station wagon be purchased from G. E. Dailey.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to award the contract to
Fremont Dodge for the six sedans, which was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe and approved unanimously.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the compact 4-door sedan and
the station wagon be purchased from G. E. Dailey; motion was
seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS RESUMED
WITH THE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.
RECESS
*
*
*
Due to the fact that there has not been an
opportunity to discuss the bids for air condi-
tioning for the Las Positas Clubhouse with the
architect, the City Manager requested that this
matter be continued for one week.
REPORT RE AIR
CONDITIONING BIDS -
(Las Positas
Clubhouse)
*
*
*
A communication has been received from the Ama-
dor-Livermore Valley Historical Society regard-
ing the proposed street widening of Olivina
Avenue west of Murrieta Blvd. and the trees on
the Hagemann property which would be affected.
STREET WIDENING OF
OLIVINA AVENUE
Mr. Parness stated the point raised by the Historical Society is
a good one, and the trees in question are under study by the Tree
Superintendent for appraisal as to quality, age, health conditions,
and to plot them on the street alignment. A more detailed report
will be ready in a week or two.
*
*
*
CM-24-289
September 13, 1971
AC TRANS IT
DISTRICT REPORT
ZO AMENDMENTS
SEC. 5.00 -
RS DISTRICT
MINUTES
PLANNING
COMMISSION
A letter has been received from AC Transit re-
garding implementation and progress of a study
of the transit needs for Contra Costa County and
offering their help in a similar study of our
needs.
*
*
*
The discussion of the possible Zoning Ordinance
amendments for Section 5.00 - RS District - was
postponed to this meeting, but on the motion of
Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
further postponed, by unanimous approval, until a
full Council is present (October 12).
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of
August 24 and 31, 1971, were noted for filing.
The Planning Director pointed out that an appeal
has been filed in regard to the front yard swimming
pool and fence.
Mayor Taylor commented on the commercial zoning application for
property in the County near the Civic Center site. Mr. Musso stated
this would be followed up at the Board of Supervisors meeting.
ORDINANCE RE
ZO AMENDMENT -
PUD NO. 15
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the second reading of the Zoning
Ordinance amendment for PUD No. 15 was waived and
by the following vote the ordinance was adopted:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilmen Silva and Miller
ORDINANCE RE
ZO AMENDMENT
PUD PERMITS
ORDINANCE NO. 758
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED
UNIT DISTRICT NO. 15
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 757
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442 OF THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
ZONING, BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 19.00, RE-
LATING TO P.D. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived and by the
following vote the ordinance was adopted:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilmen Silva and Miller
REPORT RE
CLUBHOUSE BIDS
designed with
ed. The City
it to achieve
CM-24-290
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that originally the plans
called for a ramp device for the entrance to the
clubhouse, but the bids received were considerably
more than estimated. The entrance has been re-
the mounding eliminated and poles or posts substitut-
might later be able to fill in this area and landscape
the same general design theme.
September 13, 1971
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, se- (Clubhouse Bids)
conded by Councilman Beebe, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution to reject the original bids and
to readvertise for bids on the revised design.
Motion was approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 104-71
RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF
GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE ENTRANCEWAY & EXIT: PROVIDING FOR
READVERTISEMENT UNDER MODIFIED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that the applica-
tion by Greenview Swim and Racquet Club had been
reviewed by the County. The Health Department
stated that for a limited use for a limited time
a septic tank would be all right and that the
facilities should connect to a public sewer when
it is within 200 feet. This should be fairly soon with development
of the subdivision to the west. In regard to the extension of
Concannon Blvd., the County made no requirements for the public
works improvements to be installed. He asked the Council if they
wished to appeal this to the Board of Supervisors.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Greenview
Swim Club Sewer
Connection)
Mayor Taylor stated that allowing a septic tank across from other
development was not good planning. If the septic tank is allowed~
then the Club would not have to sign a sewer connection agreement
with the City. The street (Concannon Blvd.) should be provided
for, also, as it would have to be extended.
Councilman Pritchard said it was his understanding that the pro-
blem is that due to the large amount of area required to be covered
for the courts a very high assessment was computed under the City's
formula for storm drains.
Mayor Taylor felt the City should protest on the basis of allowance
of septic tank development at the edge of the City. If a permit
is granted by the County it should be under the condition that a
sewer connection agreement will be signed when the sewer comes
within a specified distance. It should also be made clear to the
County that the City requires the street to be built at such time
as needed.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that the applicant and the City
meet to try to reach an agreement. On motion of Councilman Pritchard~
seconded by Councilman Beebe, it was agreed that if time permitted
this matter would be continued for one week; otherwise, an appeal
would be directed to the County, but in any case the staff was di-
rected to meet with the applicant to try to resolve this matter.
The motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported on the application of
the City to participate in a federal program
(Emergency Employment Act) for employment oppor-
tunities for citizens. Our County and four cities have been
allocated in excess of a million dollars. The program agent
for cities less than 75,000 is the County, and one-half this
money has been designated to the cities by the County. The
priority listings for employment include population, minority
totals, welfare recipients and war veterans. Based on this
formula Livermore would qualify for three employment slots in
an amount of approximately $20,000; $2,200 would have to be
afforded by the City but this could be in-kind services. It is
recommended that the Council authorize participation in this
(Emergency
Employment Act)
CM-24-291
September 13, 1971
(Emergency
Employment Act)
program. The details are not definite yet, but
we will be allowed to employ about three people
with funds from the federal government. The idea
is to allow people to get on-the-job or in-service
training.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to sanction the participation of the City in this program, and it
was approved unanimously.
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCILMEN
(Stanley Blvd)
(Parking -
So. "I" st.)
(Police
Department)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe asked that the County be contacted
about including a bicycle-pedestrian path along
Stanley Blvd. when improvements are made to the
Shadow Cliff Park.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe inquired about the "no-parking"
limit at the "I" Street parking lot. He felt there
should be a time limit to allow people parking for
use of the Post Office. The Public Works Director
was asked to check on this.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe inquired if the Police Department
was short of needed personnel. The City Manager
reported that this matter is studied in detail each
year, and the demands and financial ability of the
City are used to make recommendations for personnel. The City
could use several, perhaps 20 or 25, additional officers, but other
factors must be considered. Recommendations were made and accepted
by the Council, but additional men does not mean a decrease in crime.
The citizens are not shortchanged but have adequate police protec-
tion as evidenced by our standing with other cities. There are two
vacancies now for which testing is being done and which should be
filled by next month.
(Beautification
Committee)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard asked that the press bring
to the attention of the citizenry that there are
openings on the Beautification Committee.
The staff was directed to write a letter of thanks for service by
the two members who are resigning (Gatrousis and Jansen).
After further discussion the staff was directed to ask the school
district staff to notify the high schools regarding representatives
for the committee.
(Welfare
Task Force)
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor said he had received a letter from
Marie Schweikert, who is the City's representative
to the Welfare Task Force Committee, stating that
a report was made on September 7. He asked that
the County be contacted about getting a copy of this report, and
when public discussion of the report will be held.
(Congratulations
to Sister City)
CM-24-292
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor referred to the celebration by
Quezaltenango of their 150th Anniversary of
liberation from Spanish rule, and made a motion
to send a resolution of greetings and congratu-
lations; motion seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 106-71
GREETINGS AND CONGRATULATIONS ON 150th
ANNIVERSARY OF LIBERATION TO QUEZALTENANGO.
*
*
*
September 13, 1971
(Congratulations to
Sister City)
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10
p.m. to an executive session to discuss appoint-
ments to the Housing Authority.
*
*
*
APPROVE ~
~ .
, 1
ATTESTl~~~
*
*
*
i
Regular Meeting of September 20, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on September 20,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was calledto order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva~ Miller
and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle-
giance.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of September 13,
1971, were approved as submitted, on motion
of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Mayor Taylor,
and by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
An opportunity was given for any member of the
audience to address the Council on any subject
not on the agenda, however no comments were
made.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental reports were submitted as follows:
Airport - Financial and Activity - August
Building Activity - August
Fire Department - August
Golf Course - August
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
o PEN FORUM
Departmental
Reports
CM-24-293
September 20, 1971
Departmental
Reports
Report re
Freestanding
Sign Approvals
Uniform
Building
Code
(1970 Edition)
P,roposed
Ordinance
International
Conference of
Building
Officials
Regional
Occupational
Program
Municipal Court - July
Planning-Zoning Activity Report - July and August
Police and Pound Departments - August
Water Reclamation Plant - August
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director
regarding freestanding sign approvals from Septem-
ber 5, 1967 to August 24, 1971
*
*
*
A report was submitted from the Chief Building In-
spector regarding adoption of the 1970 Edition -
Uniform Building Code.
The reading
read only),
ordinance
sections of
matter will
18, 1971.
of the ordinance will be waived (title
and by action of the Council, the
introduced, and pursuant to specific
50022.3 of the Government Code, the
be set for public hearing on Oetober
*
*
*
The report from Chief Building Inspector~Herbert
Street regarding his attendance at the Internation-
al Conference of Building Officials annual business
meeting was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
A report was submitted from the City Manager re-
garding the Livermore Unified School District's
request that the City participate in a new program
designed to afford high school students an oppor-
tunity to participate in on-the-job vocational
training during the school year. No direct expenses are involved
on the City's part, rather City supervisors are expected to afford
some instruction and appraisal of student work efforts. The City
would be indemnified against liability and adequate insurance will
be post~d by the District. In accordance with this program four
students will be assigned to the water reclamation plant each day
during afternoon hours for the school year.
Amendment to
Lease with
Border Patrol
Resignation
Airport
Advisory
Committee
CM-24-294
RESOLUTION NO. 107-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the Border Patrol
has been leasing two tee hangars from the City,
but now wishes to release one. It is recommended
that a resolution be adopted to amend the lease
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
RESOLUTION NO. 108-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF LEASE
*
*
*
A communication has been received from Noel C.
Shirley submitting his resignation from the Airport
Advisory Committee due to his transfer from Liver-
more.
*
*
*
Copy of a news release from the San Francisco
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, dated Septem-
ber 10~ 1971, was included for the information
of the Council.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that the
improvements on Tract 3128 had been completed
in accordance with the approved plans and City
specifications. It is recommended that the
following resolution be adopted to accept this
subdivision for permanent maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO. 109-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT 3128 (McGah Development Co.)
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that an additional
group of claim forms have been submitted con-
cerning repair of damage to sidewalks.
RESOLUTION NO. 110-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK NOT TO FILE
CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE.
RESOLUTION NO. 111-71
September 20, 1971
BARTD
Tract 3128
Acceptance
(McGah Dev. Co.)
Report re Sidewalk
Repair Claims
(Group II)
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN
CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF.
*
*
*
Mrs. Kay Parra filed a claim several weeks ago
alleging personal injury damages, caused by
members of the Police Department~ in the amount
of $719.50. It is recommended that a resolution
be adopted denying this claim.
RESOLUTION NO. 112-71
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK NOT TO
FILE CLAIM OF KAY PARRA FOR PERSONAL INJURY.
*
*
*
Report re Claim
Personal Injury
(Kay Parra)
One hundred warrants dated September 17, in the Warrants and Claims
amount of $49,875.41, and two hundred forty-
seven payroll warrants in the amount of $56,664.08
were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Councilman Beebe abstained on Warrant No. 575, and
Councilman Silva on Warrant No. 536.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller~ the Consent Calendar was
approved unanimously, with Items 2.4 and 2.10
deleted.
*
*
*
An appeal has been filed with the City Council
by the California Music Merchants Association,
Inc. proposing a modification of our new busi-
ness license ordinance pertaining to vending
Approval of
Consent Calendar
REPORT RE BUSINESS
LICENSE FEE
MODIFICATION
CM-24-295
September 20, 1971
(Business
License Fee
Modification)
machines and amusement devices. Mr. George A.
Miller of the Association requested that this
matter be continued until October 4 in order
that he may be in attendance at the discussion.
The Council agreed to the continuance, and re-
quested that the City Manager submit his recom-
mendation at that time.
*
*
*
APPEAL RE
VARIANCE FOR
INCREASE IN
FENCE HEIGHT
An appeal has been made regarding the variance
granted by the Planning Commission to increase
fence height in the required frontage yard from
the minimum of three feet to six feet at 1047
Lakehurst Road.
The Planning Director reported that this application and its ap-
proval were the result of a building permit issued in error to
permit a fence within the required street frontage yard. A fence
within the required street frontage yard can extend out to a 15-
foot setback; the location of the swimming pool in this case is such
that it cannot be fenced in conformance with the law regarding pools.
The issue faced by the Planning Commission was whether or not to
deny the variance and possibly be faced with the cost of restoring
the property to its original condition, or granting a variance.
The Commission did grant the variance basing its findings on the
fact that the error resulting in the excavation was due to unusual
conditions not applicable to other properties. The appeal has
been made by adjacent property owners. Mr. Musso pointed out
the issue is not whether the swimming pool can be allowed, (it is
proper), however the pool requires a six foot fence and it cannot
be erected to this height because of limitations applicable to that
area where it would be erected.
Mayor Taylor inquired if, when the request for the permit was made,
was it clear the pool was in the front yard and would require a
six foot fence. Mr. Musso said his experience with the application
indicated that the plan was correct in all respects but the appear-
ance on paper was misleading that the pool was in the front yard.
He stated the Planning Commission was concerned primarily with the
alignment of the fence; the fence indicated by the Commission was
set back as much as possible leaving a diagonal alignment (Exhibit B)
but the neighboring property owner supported the alignment requested
by the applicant with zero setback (Exhibit A) and the staff recom-
mendation was shown on Exhibit x.
Mayor Taylor asked if the City denied the application would restora-
tion of the property be the City's responsibility. Mr. Musso said
this was the opinion of some of the Commissioners.
Mrs. Jones, 626 Brookfield Drive, stated she appealed this applica-
tion on the basis of allowing the pool in a semi-public location.
She felt it would be a hazard to children. A six-foot fence would
mar the appearance of the neighborhood as she felt the front yard
was a part of the neighborhood. Some of the property owners in the
neighborhood felt this did not meet aesthetic beauty. She felt it
was an error on the part of the City, md that the variance was grant-
ed because they did not want to pay the property damage. If the
applicant had begun the pool without a permit, the City probably
would not have allowed him to continue.
Mrs. Diane Rogers, 69 Brookfield Drive, felt that if a six foot
fence is against the City's laws, then it should not be allowed.
Since an error was made it should be rectified rather than a vari-
ance granted.
Neil Stender, 1047 Lakehurst Road, the applicant, noted claims that
the hazard would be exceptional with a front yard pool. He felt
this was not true as anyone entering the area could be observed.
CM-24-296
September 20, 1971
He said the original plan indicated that the
fence would be laid out immediately behind a
thick hedge of eucalyptus; it would be visible
only from his driveway and neighbor's lawn.
Mr. Stender presented a model drawn to scale, and discussed de-
tails of the application. His neighbor approved of the original
fence line. The permit was issued on August 4, and excavation
begun on August 13; the permit was withdrawn after the excavation
was completed on the 16th. Mr. Stender stated he had been ad-
vised by legal counsel that the appeal by Mrs. Jones was not a
legitimate appeal against the item in question - the fence, but
against the front yard swimming pool. He felt some of the people
had signed the petition against the permit without any information
other than that supplied in the paper. Mr. Stender stated he had
a petition containing signatures of immediate neighbors who all
viewed the plans in detail prior to signing the petition of support.
(Variance re Fence
Height)
Councilman Beebe asked if any of those signing the appeal were
within the 300 feet of his home, required for noticing, and Mr.
Stender stated he doubted that they were, and if that was the
requirement they would not have received pUblic hearing notices.
Councilman Beebe referred to the Planning Director's original re-
commendation which showed a slant corner on the fence and asked
the reason for the design. Mr. Musso replied it was primarily to
give better visibility to someone coming out of the driveway of
the property next door. Mr. Musso added that on the question of
the notification - there was no public hearing held. The Planning
Commission called a special meeting in order to expedite the
fencing of the hole. No hearing is required and none was held;
however, he had been directed to write a letter to the neighbors
in closest proximity and about fifteen letters were sent advising
that the action had been taken and their right of appeal.
Councilman Silva asked if the Planning Commission had accepted
the fence line to accommodate the filtering equipment. Mr. Musso
advised that the Commission intended to approve the staff recom-
mendation~ however on the plea of the applicant agreed to allow
the enclosure of the area. Councilman Silva felt that the equip-
ment could be moved to another area inside the fence.
Councilman Silva asked if visibility of landscaping applied only
to corner lots, and Mr. Musso stated there is a provision that if
this planting constitutes a hedge it becomes a dividing instru-
mentality and, in effect, could be illegal and there is also the
provision that landscaping can be required to be trimmed if there
is a clearance problem to provide visibility.
Mayor Taylor stated that the argument is not a particularly good
one since the trees are there, the hazard is already there, and
adding a fence behind it does not create an additional hazard.
If you can see through those trees at ground level, as they do
not get bushy until they get a little higher, they could be trimmed
very simply to provide visibility. The fence is required, by law,
to protect that pool. If the variance is granted it should be
made to conform as much as possible, and the main intent of the
setback, in addition to aesthetics, is safety. If it is found
that the trees constitute a hazard now, perhaps they should be
trimmed on the end. Mayor Taylor stated it is with reluctance
that they consider granting a variance of this type inasmuch as
they have turned down proposals in the past for front yard pools,
mainly for the same reason. Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney
if the City denied the variance would we be subject to withstand
the cost of filling in the pool and restoring the property to its
original condition, and Mr. Lewis advised that it was difficult
for a lawyer, in this case representing a client, to ever admit
liability; he assumed that there are possible defenses we could
raise; his recommendation to the Council would be that the pool
company and the City do what they can to remedy the situation as
CM-24-297
September 20, 1971
(Apostolic
Faith Temple)
discussed possible multiple development for these
lots, but Mayor Taylor said he felt such rezoning
would not be approved.
David Madis, attorney representing the applicant, said he had re-
viewed the application and could not find any legal objections to
the development of this property. The applicant has a 31-ft. wide
access directly from Olivina Avenue which would allow proper access
for all types of vehicles. The applicant would meet the objections
of the residents on Dogwood Dr., Meadowlark and Nightingale Streets
by agreeing to a restriction, allowing no access to Dogwood Drive
and would go so far as to dedicate a strip of land and agree to
perpetually maintain it until the City determines access is nec-
essary. The applicant also should point out that most people
would rather have their land zoned multiple than agree to a swap
with the church for a church site on RL-6 density. The site is
fully adequate for the requirements of this use. It is an unnec-
essary and unreasonable burden to place the requirements for the
development of the adjoining properties on the applicant's property.
The applicant can meet all the requirements, restrictions and con-
ditions imposed by the law, and there is no plan for any development
for the few remaining lots without access. Denial of this applica-
tion does not solve the problem of the development of these lots
or access. Mr. Madis felt the applicant's plan should be approved
or modified in a manner to meet any objections; the problem should
be solved now. He felt the reason the land swap fell through was
because the other property owners thought they could get more for
their land if it is zoned multiple.
The City Attorney said he was concerned about the law in regard
to religious uses. His review of the texts and some California
cases indicate that California may not be as strong in protecting
"religious uses in residential zones" as some other states. There
seems to be a design to protect the right of persons to establish
churches in neighborhoods where they are permitted. Although they
are permitted under conditional uses, the courts have looked upon
denial in placing upon the public agency the burden to show that
use would have something more than general problems; there should
be a serious threat to traffic or clear violation of setbacks, re-
quirements, etc. Mr. Lewis said he was concerned, too, about pro-
tection of 1 a n dlocked parcels. This is not the same as requiring
dedication for frontage for street widening,etc.; it is strictly
concern about future development of lots which are landlocked. He
hoped that the Council, if they deny this CUP, would have some clear
grounds based on traffic or congestion rather than vague problems as
presented. He did not see being landlocked as grounds for denial
of a use.
Councilman Miller stated the ordinance for CUP is clear that use
should not be adverse to adjacent property; he felt they were follow-
ing the ordinance.
Mr. Lewis said that this is a legal lot which can be developed; if
a single family was proposed for the use, all that would be necessary
would be a building permit. Probably a court would say that the con-
cern over internal development, whether single family or church,
would be an improper condition.
Mayor Taylor said, then, as he understood the City Attorney, that
the City's ordinance aside, the Council might be forced to grant
some kind of permit.
Councilman Silva said he felt that the shape of the parcel might
be a finding because of fire protection, and this would be a major
finding in denial. If the Council denied this application, he
would move for rezoning of all parcels in question to resolve this
problem, probably as Rs-4 or RS-5.
CM-24-300
September 20~ 1971
Mayor Taylor asked if a permit were requested to (Apostolic Faith
building a single family house on a 1 an dLocked Temple)
parcel, without access to a street, could it be
denied. Mr. Lewis said that the normal require-
ment is that a lot have frontage on a public street.
Councilman Miller made a motion to table this matter until October
12 so the City Attorney might resolve some of these questions and
the Council might review testimony of the Planning Commission in
detail, and that the Planning Director might present findings for
and against the applicatj.on; motion seconded by Councilman Silva
and passed three to one (Mayor Taylor dissenting).
*
*
*
A communication has been received from Alameda
County concerning our request for an opening
in the median strip on Stanley Blvd. to allow
a left turn lane for Nancy Street. The County
Public Works Director Herbert Crowle advises
that they do not feel a reduction in the standards
turning lane is feasible.
MEDIAN STRIP
OPENING FOR NANCY ST.
ON STANLEY BLVD.
to permit the
Daniel Lee, Public Works Director, exhibited some graphic displays
of possible designs. Councilman Miller said he could not see why
the curb could not be redlined as suggested. Mr. Lee pointed out
that elimination of the parking lane would mean that traffic would
have to merge directly into the outside land and stated that the
inconvenience will not be as great when Murdell Lane is relocated
in its final alignment as there will be a left turn lane at that
point.
Mayor Taylor said that it seemed unless there is a valid proposal
to overcome the safety aspects, there does not seem to be much choice.
Mr. Lee indicated the staff was working on a. proposal to obtain
some of the railroad land to possibly extend the street on that
side~ and the report would be presented to the Council when it is
completed.
Verle Gibson, 424 Virginia Drive, said that he estimated that 65%
of the homes in the area backed the request for a turning lane
for Nancy Street. He felt the main concern was the emergency and
fire access. As additional development is made, the traffic load
at the intersection of Murdell Lane will become heavier and the
problem greater.
Robert Wentz, 319 Elvira Street, felt the people of the area
should be given the opportunity to speak in regard to such issues
when they are considered.
Mayor Taylor stated there had been ample opportunity for residents
to speak and such comments were welcome even though there was not
a public hearing on such an issue.
Leo Bailey, 811 East Stanley Blvd., said he did not favor the
possible widening as his house would be one of those affected.
He said an emergency vehicle could make a U-turn at the next
intersection or break might be made in the median for emergency
use only. He felt most of the people in the area were interested
in convenience, rather than emergency access.
Wilbur Bernard said his house fronts on Robert Way two doors from
the intersection of Eobert Way and Nancy Street. The change on
Stanley Blvd. has benefited people in the immediate vicinity by
reducing the high speed driving. Not all of the residents were in
favor of the request for a turning lane.
CM-24-301
September 20, 1971
(Nancy street) Mayor Taylor said that if at some time in the future
it is determined that the street can be expanded to
the north, then there would be the possibility of
putting in a left turn lane. As it is now, the County will proceed
unless more right-of-way is obtained.
Kenneth Lee, 303 Jillana, referred to the moving of Murdell Lane
and the fact the County put in the intersection at the present lo-
cation, which is only temporary.
Mayor Taylor said that Murdell Lane was relocated due to its prox-
imity to other intersections; this matter is definite and settled.
Mr. Lee stated that the developer will relocate Murdell Lane in
developing PUD No. 15 and the present street is only temporary to
give access further down the street. Temporary access to the pre-
sent location of Murdell Lane was requested by the City and granted
by the County; the move should be completed within a year or so.
*
*
*
Greenville North
A report has been prepared by the Planning Direc-
tor regarding park site acquisitions. He stated
one of the reasons for the report is that many
of the sites proposed by LARPD are due soon;
park site has not been settled yet.
REPORT RE PARK
SITE ACQUISITIONS
Councilman Miller suggested that he and Councilman Beebe discuss
this with Mr. Musso and determine priorities and costs before their
next meeting with LARPD. Mr. Musso said his recommendations would
be included in the Capital Improvement Budget, and these should be
discussed also.
Mayor Taylor stated he would like the Planning Commission's recom-
mendations as to park locations.
In answer to Councilman Miller's question, Mr. Parness advised that
the trustee sale of the Sally property had been delayed until December.
*
*
*
REPORT RE PARK
IMPROVEMENT
COSTS - WESTERN
SECTOR .
A tabulation of costs for purchase of a park site
in the western sector of the City and improvements
and maintenance has been made on two proposed sites.
Councilman Miller questioned the costs and said
they seemed to be much higher than his information
indicated they should be. In particular, the cost of $30,000 per
acre is considerably more than the $8,000 spent by LARPD at the
Sunset Park. Ribera and Sue had estimated maintenance of a typical
park should be between $1500 and $2500 an acre while the report in-
dicates $4500. Therefore, the implication is that this would be a
highly manicured park; not all park land in the City must be like
this. Secondly, if the park is located on Dogwood Drive the resi-
dents have offered their help, and the figures were misleading.
Donald Bradley, the Administrative Assistant, indicated the figures
used in the tabulation were development costs given by the Supt. of
Parks and Trees based on general landscape and development costs
used by landscape designers. It is a medium grade type of park de-
velopment, and the figure of $31,000 would be for a contractor who
would come in and do all the work. The Portola and Centennial Park
costs are lower as City labor was used for these developments.
The City Manager pointed out the estimates are based on one acre
park sites, and would decrease per acre for larger sites. He
understood that LARPD used $10,000 per acre for estimating costs
for an improved park. The maintenance costs are based on actual
costs for grounds such as the library area.
Councilman Beebe said he was opposed to the City's entering into
more park development than they now engage in; if a small park is
CM-24-302
required such as this, it should be kept in a
natural state.
September 20, 1971
(Park Improvement
Costs)
Councilman Silva stated he felt there is a need
for mini-parks, but there is a need for some development. Mayor
Taylor said the question would be whether a sprinkler system would
be needed. There could be no grass or trees without a sprinkler
system of some type, and even though minimum development might be
satisfactory now, at some future date when others move into the
neighborhood they would question the City having a park that might
become filled with weeds.
Marion Stelts, 547 Nightingale Street, stated that over half of
the development cost is tied up with the sprinkler system and turf.
He wondered if any consideration had been given to planting the
park to the environment we have - plants that could be planted in
the fall, and established during the rainy season. The neighbor-
hood does not want an expensive manicured park, however not dusty
either~ and felt there should be some alternative.
Mrs. Marion Stelts~ spoke to the comments made regarding injuries
ill the neighborhood and cited a case where a youngster had severely
cut his foot whilo walking through May Nissen Park. She stated
their neighborhood has never had a law suit, and it is a mess when
people dump their garbage. Their thinking would be to have some
Bermuda grass planted or something like it which doesn't require
water and mentioned that the trees in the area are not receiving
any water now, and they do well. Mrs. Stelts stated there is a
well and pump on the land and felt this should be investigated,
and these points should all be taken into consideration. She
felt too much emphasis is placed by LARPD on barbeque pits and
picnic tables which would be ridiculous in their own backyards, so
to speak. Play lots are just a place for the children to play~
and she felt manicured trees would be destroyed, and could not be
properly maintained regardless of the number of sprinkler systems.
Rev. Charles Hill, 346 Robert Way, stated he had an application
for a Conditional Use Permit to build a church on their property
and questioned if the meeting was to decide if the property was
to be used for a park.
Councilman Miller stated that the item was to determine what it
would cost to develop an acre of park land such as the Dogwood
site or any given acre in some part of town. Mayor Taylor added
that there were two possibilities for a small park in the area
presented - one the Dogwood site and another further south; the
principle of building small parks had never been discussed. If
it was the Council's intent to have a park at this location, this
would have been done regardless of Rev. Hill's application.
Rev. Hill continued that if their application for a CUP is denied,
as far as their keeping the property would depend a lot upon the
decision made in these meetings. If their CUP is denied, and the
Council's decision is to build mini-parks, they would be willing
to sell their property.
Charles Brown, 1037 Portola Avenue, stated he owned a piece of
property in Modesto, and when it was suggested that certain grass
be planted that would grow in the summer without watering, pointed
out that his property has this type of grass, that cannot be tramped
down or killed, and if this is brought into Livermore, there would
be a lot of impatient landowners with it in their front lawns.
Mayor Taylor referred to the statistics given in the report which
had been presented and stated his concern that they would commit
money that should go for park acquisition for the City, to park
maintenance, thereby insuring themselves they would have less
parks in the future as far as acreage is concerned. They may have
CM-24-303
September 20, 1971
(Park Improve- a tendency to do this, but it should be weighed
ment Costs) very carefully as it would amount to a considerable
amount of land over the years, assuming they have
a fixed income for park acquisition. There have
been other requests for the City to acquire property for neighbor-
hood parks. Mayor Taylor suggested that the Council discuss this
matter once again with LARPD as the District feels that the construc-
tion and maintenance cost monies would be better spent on larger
parks and they have stated they want nothing to do with mini-parks.
The City, if this park were approved, would be committing them-
selves also to other areas in the community where needs for parks
are even greater. Mayor Taylor felt it would commit the City to
a long term policy, and did not think it would be the right thing
to do.
Councilman Miller did not feel this was the case because in the
past few years they have had park dedications; where the shortage
of parks is acute is in the older part of Livermore and Granada
Village.
Mayor Taylor said he felt the concern was the cost of maintenance;
over a period of ten years or so the cost of acquisition and de-
velopment is small. What may happen is that the park money will
be spent for maintenance rather than acquisition as there will be
a fixed amount of park money available.
Councilman Silva agreed that at this time the maintenance cost is
not available, but a number of two or three acre parcels could be
purchased throughout the City, leaving them for the time being as
open space. At some time in the future the City will be built out
without land available for purchase.
Councilman Miller stated that in some cases the neighborhoods may
be willing to bear some of the burden of improvement and maintenance.
Mayor Taylor said he thought if this was done the neighborhood
should get together to form a non-profit organization to contract
with the City to do certain improvements.
Councilman Beebe felt that all the City would have to do is main-
tain the land in a condition free of fire hazard; there might be
pressure from the neighborhood later if the support did not continue.
The Council discussed the City's obligation for park development
and use of dedication money and park tax monies.
A citizen commented that if the land is not purchased now, even
though money is not available for manicured development, it will
not be available in a few years.
Mayor Taylor stated that a policy decision had been made by the
Council that the 19i tax rate for park funds would go for land ac-
quisition. Now it must be decided whether, if the land is acquired,
the City is obligated to develop it.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., felt a tot lot close to home is more
valuable to families with youngsters than a larger neighborhood
park further away. He thought a large number of these lots should
be acquired and developed ~~
Rev. Hill suggested that if park development is done by
neighborhood groups there should be a surety bond to guarantee the
park would be completed by a specified date or the responsibility
would revert to the City.
Robert Gleason, 1322 Balboa Way, suggested that there are several
ways to develop parks for children that do not cost a great deal
such as those at some of the nursery schools.
The Council agreed to continue discussion until some future time.
*
*
*
CM-24-304
September 20, 1971
The Planning Director reported that a referral
has been received from Alameda County Planning
Commission regarding an application by Maile M.
Hansen for rezoning from A to M-l for a site at
6175 Southfront Road and an expanded area of
31 parcels southeasterly of Southfront and Vasco
Roads initiated by the Commission.
COUNTY REFERRAL RE
REZONING (South
Front Road - Hansen)
Mr. Musso stated that this area is the remainder of that indus-
trial land adjacent to US 580 and Southfront Road. M-l (light
industrial) zoning is recommended by the County Planning Commis-
sion, the City staff and Planning Commission. Part of this area
is under annexation to the City, and when annexation is completed
the City might want to take a closer look at the zoning.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and passed unanimously, to transmit our recommendation for
rezoning of the subject properties to M-I to the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors.
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Com-
mission meeting of September 14, 1971, was sub-
mitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF ACTION
Councilman Miller referred to the approval of freestanding signs
for Standard Oil service stations located at 1334 First Street,
2259 First Street, and Barcelona Rd. and Concannon Blvd. He in-
quired if these stations had canopies. Mr. Musso said he did
not believe the one at 2259 First Street had a canopy.
Mr. Musso said the Planning Commission had discussed at some length
the matter of granting freestanding signs to stations with canopies,
as discussed by the Council, but felt that the complications of
determing whether the canopy decreases the visibility of building
signing or not was difficult to administer. Therefore, they felt
freestanding signs should be approved in accordance with past action.
Councilman Silva abstained from discussion on this item due to
conflict of interest.
Councilman Beebe said the signing on the building on First Street
is not visible from the east at this station location.
Mayor Taylor felt that if there is a choice, canopies should be
discouraged because of aesthetics; he would oppose any policy
which would encourage canopies.
Councilman Miller said he had proposed in the past that canopies
not be allowed, but had never gained a majority for this idea.
After discussion, no action was taken.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE (Councilman
Pritchard absent).
RECESS
*
*
*
Several months ago the City Council asked
that a report be prepared by Public Works
Director Daniel Lee, regarding an analysis
of the projected water demand versus the
available supply.
REPORT RE WATER
DEMAND
The Council felt it would be best to continue this matter until
a full Council was present, but felt some questions might be answered.
CM-24-305
September 20, 1971
(Water Demand) Councilman Silva asked if there were to be a build-
ing moratorium, would it also have to apply to
commercial and industrial. The City Attorney said
he would rather answer this later, after the contin-
uance.
Councilman Miller suggested that at the present our City is not
balanced for residential and commercial as indicated on the General
Plan; we are required to have a General Plan and to follow it so
this might have a bearing on our position. Councilman Miller
also stated that one of the arguments raised during the last Zone 7
bond election was the possibility of creating an assessment district
or other mechanlsm to finance water treatment plants so that the
burden does not fall on existing taxpayers to provide facilities
which they do not need. Perhaps the staff might consider this.
Councilman Silva said he did not think the City should consider the
method of financing; this should be done by Zone 7.
The Public Works Director stated he felt the assessment district
would be so cumbersome and would involve City and County develop-
ments in different stages. He did believe that unless action is
taken by Zone 7 before November 1972 for a bond issue, the Council
would be faced with serious action such as water rationing, build-
ing moratorium, development of new wells, all of which would be in-
ferior to Project 2 or a modification thereof.
The Council discussed the possibility of Zone 7 having a bond issue
on the coming November ballot and why it was being delayed.
Mayor Taylor felt the matter was serious enough for the City to
contact Zone 7 relaying our concern and urging action in this re-
gard at the earliest possible date. Councilman Silva suggested they
also take a look at a water connection fee.
Councilman Miller did not think the public, in general, would accept
water rationing; they might accept Step 1, listed by the Public Works
Director. This problem is coming upon us very rapidly and a decision
must be made soon.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, due to the urgency of Livermore's
need, to urge the Zone 7 to proceed at an earlier date if possible
for their bond election and that they consider water connection
fees for financing; motion was seconded by Councilman Silva.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, asked the Council to make an in-
quiry to Zone 7 about the kinds of financing alternatives considered.
He said he understood the Zone has employed a professional consultant
firm to explore new alternatives to Project 2. He felt the reason
the Zone was considering revenue bonds is that only a 50% majority
would be needed rather than two-thirds. He felt the City should
ask about methods studied and the results of the study; secondly,
if it would be possible for Zone 7 to go to the voters with some
alternatives other than revenue bonds.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller made a motion to ask Zone 7 what alternate methods
of financing were considered and the arguments for and against the
methods or options. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Silva made a motion to continue this discussion until
the 18th of October, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed un-
animously.
*
*
*
CM-24-306
The City Manager reported that bids have been
received for the Las Positas Golf Course Club-
house entryways as follows:
September 20~ 1971
BID RE LAS POS ITAS
GOLF COURSE CLUB-
HOUSE ADDITION
Schmidt & Pollard
Hayward, CA
$19,540.00
Don L. Barrett Constr. Co.
Livermore
19,777.00
Weirick Construction Co.
Danville
22,908.00
Leuning Construction, Inc.
Hayward
24~515.00
It is recommended that the bid be awarded to the low bidder,
Schmidt & Pollard, subject to the approval of the architect.
The Council discussed whether there would be any benefits accruing
to the City if the bid were awarded to the local bidder.
Councilman Miller made a motion to accept the City Manager's re-
commendation to award the bid to Schmidt & Pollard; motion se-
conded by Councilman Silva and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Bids have been received for the installation
of an air conditioning system for the restau-
rant quarters at the Las Positas clubhouse.
Bids were solicited based upon two alternates:
1) install system as designed originally for the building in 1966;
or 2) another system which is certified to provide equal perfor-
mance. Results of the bids are as follows:
Cal-Air Conditioning Co.
Dorn Refrigeration
Tom Bailey Plumbing
$ 9,930
9,983
16,849
BIDS RE AIR CON-
DITIONING FOR
CLUBHOUSE
~Alt. 2]
Alt. 2
Alt. 1
After review by the architect and mechanical engineering firm,
it is recommended that the bid be awarded to Cal-Air Conditioning Co.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and by unanimous vote, the bid was awarded to the low bidder,
Cal-Air Conditioning Co.
*
*
*
Discussion regarding the attendance of the Chief
Building Inspector~ Herbert Street, at the In-
ternational Conference of Building Officials
on October 6-13 was removed from the Consent
Calendar for consideration at this time.
International
Conference of
Building Officials
Councilman Miller requested that this item be discussed in regard
to certain requirements for Fire Zone 1 exterior materials. He
felt that it would add to the attractiveness of the downtown area
if some other materials could be used in Fire Zone 1.
Mayor Taylor said there was an amendment to this effect two years
ago, and asked Mr. Street to report on the status.
Mr. Street reported that several changes have been suggested by
the City and the requirements are much more liberal now than
originally; there is yet another amendment to be considered which
will liberalize them even more, which will come up at this meeting.
Fire Zone limits are under study to determine if there should
be another division to make them comparable in different cities.
CM-24-307
September 20, 1971
(Conference -
Building
Officials)
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
STAFF (Design
Review Comm.)
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
ADOPTION OF
1970 UNIFORM
BLDG. CODE
Development
Plan for
Downtown
Councilman Silva made a motion to approve the ex-
penditure of funds for Mr. Street to attend the
conference ($352.00); seconded by Councilman Beebe
and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager inquired about further direction
regarding the Design Review Committee. Mr. Musso
stated that the sub-committee had met and reviewed
a draft of tre proposed ordinance but had not met
since May. The Council requested that a report be
made on the status of the proposed ordinance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Silva, the first reading of the proposed ordinance
regarding the adoption of the 1970 Uniform Building
Code was waived (title read only) and by unanimous
vote (Councilman Pritchard absent) the ordinance
was introduced. The 2ublic hearing on this matter
was set for October l~.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe said several people had asked why
a theme for downtown development had not been adopted
so that future remodeling might be along the same
idea.
Mayor Taylor felt the impetus for this should come from the downtown
merchants and property owners because of objections to requirements
being imposed.
The Council discussed whether this should be a part of the Design
Review Committee. After consideration, the Council felt the Beau-
tification Committee might explore the possibility of setting a
theme for the downtown area, and Councilman Miller suggested ex-
ploring ways of getting input from the merchants. Mayor Taylor
felt that at this point a plan of action should be suggested by the
staff. Mr. Musso said that provision is made in the proposed ordi-
nance regarding design review for a committee of semi-professionals
to do just this. Therefore, the Council decided to wait for the
ordinance before taking action.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, suggested calling on the community
for suggestions regarding a theme.
Complaints re
Airplanes
Light Pole
Paint Color
CM-24-308
*
*
*
Councilman Miller commented on complaints regarding
low flying airplanes, and asked how this should be
done. The public Works Director said they should
call the airport and the complaint will be recorded.
If the number of the plane is available, the com-
plaint will be referred to the FAA.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller inquired about the color used
by PG&E in painting the light poles on First Street;
the Beautification Committee did not think it was
the color selected and recommended by them. Mr.
Beebe said he was not aware that any change had
been made from that recommended.
*
*
*
September 20, 1971
Councilman Miller inquired about the status of Sidewalk Repair
the bids for the sidewalk repair. Mr. Lee said
a schedule has been outlined, and it is suggest-
ed that bids be called for on October 4 with
bid opening to be on October 27, with bid results to be sent on
October 29 to property owners and on November 17 official notices
would be sent and properties posted for work not completed; Nov-
ember 29 bids would be awarded for remaining repairs.
Mr. Lee suggested that the explanatory letter, which the Council
directed to be mailed informing them of the City's intentions and
their options be sent on October 29.
The City Attorney inquired about possible creation of a hazard
from cutting of roots, and asked if there was any way to determine
this. Mr. Lee said that it cannot be determined if the trees have
adequate support; the property owner must use some judgment of
their own.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
to an executive session to discuss appointments
to the Housing Authority~ Beautification Committee
and Airport Advisory Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
>f /}n/Jj e.ftt. 31:< r
r~
.
/
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of October 4, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 4~
1971, 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
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
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of September 20, 1971 MINUTES
were approved as amended, on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote.
CM-24-309
October 4, 1971
OPEN FORUM The representative of Sunset East Homeowners Asso-
(Sunset Homes) ciation, Park Sims, 1087 Innsbruck Street, referred
to recent events celebrating the 20th Anniversary
of Sunset Homes in Livermore. The Association
wished to congratulate Sunset Homes for the community spirit which
the celebration has shown.
Mr. Masud Mehran of Sunset Homes, expressed his appreciation to
the City staff and Planning Commission for their participation
in this development over the past twenty years.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to adopt the following resolution commending Mr. Mehran and Sunset
Homes for their community spirit and congratulating him on the 20th
Anniversary of Sunset Homes, and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 113-71
RESOLUTION COMMENDING SUNSET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON THE
OBSERVANCE OF THEIR 20TH ANNIVERSARY IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
(Financial
Reports)
*
*
*
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., suggested that the
warrant listing included in the agenda indicate,
by code number, what department or budget item the
expenditure is for. Also, he suggested that there
be a forecast of expenditures in the budget and a periodic resume.
This would aid in determining how effective the City government is.
Another suggestion is that the airport report include the number
of operations.
Proposed
Property
Condemnation-
East Avenue
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Attorney recommends that eminent domain
proceedings be undertaken to acquire a parcel of
land 14 feet in width, extending 325 feet westerly
of Hillcrest Avenue on the southerly side of East
Avenue.
Councilman Pritchard requested, on behalf of the owner, that this
matter be continued until the meeting of October 18.
COMMUNICATIONS
(re Growth)
(Water
Supplies)
(Crowded
Schools)
*
*
*
A communication was received from Walt Kolander,
4078 Stanford Way, urging that steps be taken to
stop growth and that a poll of all residents be
taken on this subject.
A letter was received from J. R. Morton, 4384 East
Avenue, suggesting that a building freeze be made
effective if a water supply emergency is found to
exist until the supply capacity is expanded to meet
the needs.
A communication was received from three concerned
mothers regarding the crowded schools, suggesting
that developers be required to donate land and
supply half the funds for a new school at the time
they are given permission to build.
Councilman Miller commented regarding the above three communications
and referred to an article in the Tribune which indicated it might
be time to stop the population growth because this region cannot
withstand indefinite population increases; the growth problem has
caused a great deal of concern.
CM-24-310
October 4, 1971
Councilman Silva suggested that the letters re- (Growth)
garding growth be answered with a summary of the
minutes of the meeting in which the Council voted
to deny a tract map based on the school problems,
and later it was necessary to reverse the decision
due to legal problems.
Mayor Taylor stated the Council is concerned about all three of the
first items on the Consent Calendar, but did not feel that a letter
should be sent indicating a solution had been found, but only to
say that the Council is concerned and the water problem will be
discussed at the meeting of the 18th; the minutes could be in-
cluded as an example of the Council's concern.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that a question had
been raised about extensive grading with re-
gard to Tract 3324, and asked that this item
be continued until next week in order that the
amount of grading be examined, however Mayor Taylor suggested
that this item be removed for later discussion before a decision
is made for continuance.
*
*
*
An analysis of the 1971-72 property tax rates
for the cities in Alameda County was received
from the Alameda County Taxpayers Association.
*
*
*
Minutes were received from the Beautification
Committee for the meetings of August 24 and
September 7, and from the Housing Authority
for the meeting of August 31.
*
*
*
(Tract 3324
Sunset Homes)
News Facts -
Alameda County
Taxpayers Assoc.
Minutes (Various)
The City Manager reported on a reclassification
study conducted for an engineering classifica-
tion within the Public Works Department. Cur-
rently Engineer I position is authorized and
substantial additions to the duties and respon-
sibilities of this position have resulted in a recommendation that
the classification be changed to Engineer II, which is an approxi-
mate 9.6% pay variation. Further justification is that the current
employee has completed the first stage of his professional regis-
tration status and is close to receiving a masters degree in civil
engineering. It is recommended that a motion be passed authorizing
the reclassification change.
*
*
*
Employee
Reclassification
(Public Works Dept.)
Due to a severe industrial injury suffered by
the maintenance mechanic at our water reclama-
tion plant it has been urged by the State Work-
man's Compensation Fund that this employee be
reassigned. Due to a limited number of employee
classifications in the job for which he is skilled, his new job
assignment carries a wage level lower than his current one. It
is recommended by the City Manager that a motion be adopted author-
izing a job modification whereby the maintenance mechanic wage
level is allowable in the street department staff.
*
*
*
Upon receipt of a request from the Chamber of
Commerce, the request received from the Calif-
ornia Music Merchants Association for change in
the business license fee applicable to coin op-
erated amusement machines has been postponed
for one week.
Personnel
Reassignment
(Ansick)
Business License
Change-Coin Operated
Amusement Machines
CM-24-311
October 4, 1971
Modification
Grant Agreement
(Airport
Construction)
An amendment to our Federal Aviation Administra-
tion grant program revises the final figure
allowable to the City for the airport construc-
tion from $867,544 to $878,397.
RESOLUTION NO. 114-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING THE MAXIMUM OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES
SET FORTH IN THE GRANT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE CITY
OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 14, 1965.
Appointments-
Planning
Commission,
Housing
Authority
Sidewalk
Claims
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
APPEAL RE
SERVICE STATION
SIGNS (1334 and
2620 First St.)
*
*
*
The following resoJutions of appointment were
adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 115-71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
(M. Elteen Kirschbaum)
RESOLUTION NO. 116-,71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
(Leo Gutierrez)
RESOLUTION NO. 117-71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(John C. Nelson)
*
*
*
Denial of sidewalk claim by resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 118-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK NOT TO FILE
CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE (Group III)
*
*
*
One hundred forty-one claims in the amount of
$141,993.05, dated September 30, and two hundred
fifty-eight payroll warrants in the amount of
$55,991.74, dated September 24, 1971 were ordered
paid as approved by the Finance Director. Council-
man Silva abstained from Warrant No. 721.
* * *
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, the items
on the Consent Calendar were approved as amended.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that in earlier
discussions it was felt that signs should be
attached to the building or parallel to the street;
then the question arose as to buildings which were
set back from the street. It was concluded that
where a building is set back, the sign could be
freestanding at the same point as a building would be. A problem
then arose with service stations on corner lots, and when consider-
ing the corner lot on Murrieta and Stanley Blvd. it was decided
CM-24-312
October 4, 1971
that a trilon sign could be allowed, and the or- (Appeal-Signs)
dinance was amended to allow a diagonal sign.
The trilon sign and diagonal sign are equivalent
to what would be a normal corner sign allowed under the ordinance.
This is the issue involved in the application for signs at stan-
dard Oil Company Chevron (1334 First Street) and Douglas Oil Co.
(2620 First Street).
Councilman Silva abstained from discussion regarding the Standard
Oil Company application and appeal.
Mr. Musso indicated the application by Standard Oil Co. for a
trilon sign was denied by the Planning Commission as the location
involved is not a corner lot; the applicant feels that as there
is a curve in front of the station, it should be considered as
a corner lot. A Conditional Use Permit has been approved to
allow a freestanding sign and the question of appeal is relative
to design of the sign.
In the case of the application made by Douglas Oil Co., this is
a request for a variance; the sign was allowed parallel to the
street, but they request that it be perpendicular to the street.
Councilman Miller made a motion to deny the appeal by Standard
Oil Company regarding the design of the sign at 1334 First Street,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Pritchard inquired about the radius of the curve, and
Mr. Musso pointed out its relation to the property line. The
Council discussed whether this could be considered as a corner
lot and the visibility of the signing approaching the station.
Vince Haavisto, representing Standard Oil Company, stated that
when they were advised that their existing sign must be removed
in conformance with the ordinance, he had inquired as to what
type of signing would be permitted. He had been told a sign of
trilon nature would be acceptable, and had made plans to have
one installed. This station basically serves First Street, and
they were requesting equal treatment for this location as had been
granted two other stations in the City which have trilon signs.
They had been advised that their usual signing (the Standard
Chevron emblem) could not be attached to the canopy.
Councilman Miller said that there are three possibilities:
(1) a sign can be placed on the building, (2) Standard's colors
are well known, and (3) the sign as provided in the ordinance is
within visual distance of people traveling down the street. The
issue here is treatment equally with other businesses in the
middle of the block.
Mr. Haavisto said a sign on the building could not be seen and
would be of no purpose; secondly, Standard Oil Co. uses a softer
color scheme rather than the red, white and blue.
The motion to deny the appeal for a trilon sign at the Standard
station at 1334 First Street was approved by unanimous vote
(Councilman Silva abstaining).
Mr. Musso stated that this matter concerns a
request for a variance following granting of
a CUP to allow a perpendicular sign. A CUP
had been granted by the Planning Commission to
allow a freestanding sign; the applicant feels his exposure would
be better if a sign is allowed perpendicular to the street. The
Planning Commission denied the variance as this is an interior
lot and it would be inequitable to allow the sign in this case.
Douglas Oil Co.
(2620 First St.)
Councilman Miller made a motion to deny the request for variance
for the Douglas station at 2620 First Street, seconded by
CM-24-313
October 4, 1971
(Douglas Oil)
Councilman Beebe. Councilman Miller felt the
station was aware of the regulation when the
Conditional Use Permit was discussed and granted.
The applicant was not present.
The motion to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation for
denial was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that this matter had
been presented to the Council and referred to the
Planning Commission for preliminary approval of
the sites. Using this report, the Commission had
prepared a future General Plan amendment in regard
to fire protection; this plan should be adopted at some time in the
future after the required public hearings, as a part of the General
Plan.
REPORT RE
FUTURE FIRE
STATION SITES
Councilman Miller inquired about the location at Holmes and Concan-
non. The City Manager said that this would be discussed in depth
with the Council when the Capital Improvement Budget is presented
shortly.
REPORT RE
AIRPORT-GOLF
COURSE SIGN
*
*
*
The Planning Commission recommended that the City
conform to the Zoning Ordinance and that the various
facilities in the area, i.e. treatment plant, air-
port, golf course, be allowed on-site identification
and the subject complex be allowed an identity sign
stating only the name of the area.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to remove the airport sign as
quickly as possible, seconded by Councilman Miller.
The City Manager stated
with the ordinance, and
matter until that time.
abated in thirty days.
that May is the deadline for conformance
asked if the Council wished to delay this
Councilman Miller felt the sign should be
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the freeway will be nearing
completion in May and perhaps new signing can better be decided
upon when the freeway signing is known. Councilman Pritchard made
a substitute motion to abate the sign by May 31, 1972, with the
staff to prepare the new sign before that time.
Councilman Miller felt the State should be requested to also indi-
cate signing for the golf course. Mr. Parness stated he did not
feel they would do this as they would only indicate airport, not
City of Livermore Airport, on the freeway sign.
The motion to abate the sign by May 31, 1972, was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, and approved 4 to I with Councilman Miller dissenting.
REZONING
(Hosker Lane)
*
*
*
A rezoning application for an area adjacent to
Hosker Lane, north of First Street, has been re-
ceived. On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, the matter was set for pub-
lic hearing on October 26, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller
CM-24-314
It is necessary to set a public hearing for
the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to
provide regulation of subdivision of land by
condominium or to regulate development of land
to be subdivided by condominium subdivision.
October 4, 1971
PROPOSED ZO AMEND-
MENT RE CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT
Councilman Miller stated that since there may be development
which would be regulated by this amendment before adoption of
the amendment moved the adoption of an interim ordinance to
correspond with the wording of the Planning Commission (Sec. 20.35)
which would essentially freeze the situation for ninety days or
until adoption of the ordinance, and also to set the proposed
amendment for public hearing on October 26.
Mayor Taylor felt adoption of this emergency ordinance was neces-
sary to prevent circumvention of the townhouse ordinance agreed
upon.
Councilman Silva did not agree with this proposal as he felt
ownership was immaterial.
The Council discussed the purpose and reason for the interim or-
dinance so that the City might be protected until a decision is
made whether to adopt the amendment regulating condominiums.
The motion to adopt the interim emergency ordinance was passed
by a four to one vote with Councilman Silva dissenting.,
ORDINANCE NO. 759
*
*
*
The Planning Commission minutes of the meeting
of September 14 were noted for filing.
*
*
*
A report has been submitted by the Public Works
Director re Tract 3333 and the proposed widen-
ing of Olivina Avenue. The Council continued
this item for two weeks until the 18th of Octo-
ber in order for more information to be gathered
in regard to the condition of the trees, street
design, etc.
*
*
*
Modifications to the existing lease with Cour-
tesy Aviation have been prepared in accordance
with the negotiated settlement of the pending
litigation with the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REPORT RE TR. 3333
OLIVINA AVENUE
WIDENING
LEASE MODIFICATION
(Courtesy Aviation)
The City Manager asked that this matter be delayed until October
26, until the City Attorney returns, and the Council agreed to
the continuance.
*
*
*
CM-24-315
October 4~ 1971
SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT-MAP
ACCEPTANCE
Tr. 3324
(Sunset Dev.)
This item had been removed from the Consent Calen-
aar for discussion at this time. In answer to a
question on the extensive grading which had been
proposed in the tract, the Public Works Director
Daniel Lee advised it was well the Council was
aware of the extensive grading that had been pro-
posed in this tract, however it is in conformance
with the grading ordinance which is a chapter of the building code;
also, it is in conformance with the cut limitations in the zoning
ordinance. There will be grading and when it is observed by the
Council they will know it is not creating cuts and fills such as
those which had been experienced south of Concannon Blvd. Mr. Lee
explained the manner in which the tract would be graded, stating
he did not anticipate any problems.
Councilman Miller stated that even though the grading conforms to
the ordinance, the Council's authority under the Subdivision Map
Act gave them this last opportunity to approve or disapprove a sub-
division and they were responsible for the final design. He felt
the subdividers all wished to have the land flat, and it was wrong
to level a tract that has attractive contours and it was the Coun-
cil's obligation, in his opinion, to preserve this land, and they
should examine the situation and remedy it before there are extensive
cuts and fills, as it is an unnecessary leveling of the land.
Councilman Beebe agreed with Councilman Miller as far as cuts and
fills, and commented that this was a very expensive operation, and
felt that if a developer could develop the land as it stands, he
would be most happy as long as the roads comply with FHA requirements.
Councilman Miller stated the point he wanted to make is that they
should take another look at the tract before they approve the sub-
division and asked that the matter be continued for a week or two.
Mayor Taylor stated that the ordinance tried to avoid large banks
which would wash down into the neighbors property, and he felt that
the point Councilman Miller was trying to make was that if not so
much land were removed, it would be a better subdivision.
Councilman Miller also brought up the fact that the spoil area would
be in an orchard and the fill would be as high as four to five feet
and it is his understanding that if there is more than a foot or two
of earth placed around the trees it would cause them to die eventually.
Mr. Lee replied that there is no question about it that there will
be the removal of many trees even considering the construction of
the tract in streets and building locations. The only way this can
be avoided is by a cluster type development and the time to discuss
that is at the time of the tentative tract map. However, in a tract
of this size when it is completed no one will know the difference;
to construct a tract of this kind requires quite a bit of excavation,
and the developer has complied with all the provisions of the ordi-
nance and as far as the Public Works Department is concerned he has
satisfied all requirements.
Mayor Taylor asked Councilman Miller what he had in mind asking for
a continuance on the matter - whether it was to study the map, or
just to discuss the item once again, in which event he felt a con-
tinuance would be fruitless.
Councilman Miller stated the Council had the responsibility for
the design and approval of subdivisions, many of which would satis-
fy the ordinances - some good and some bad as far as design is
concerned, and the Council had the option, by authority of the
Subdivision Map Act, to approve the design of this subdivision.
Councilman Miller stated he was no longer willing to vote for sub-
standard or minimum standard subdivisions in any way, and did not
feel that in this City they should have subdivisions which consist
of graded flats, and before they decide on this particular map the
Council should take a look at it. If the other members of the
CM-24-316
October 4, 1971
Council are willing to accept a tract, bull- (Tract 3324)
dozed flatand-like it the way it is, they
could vote for the final map when it comes
up next week after they have had a chance to look at it. In his
opinion, the tract is unsatisfactory from a standpoint of grad-
ing, and it is his suggestion that they continue the matter until
the developer does something about it or they deny it. It is his
intention to view the property with a topography map and make an
attempt to find out how much grading there will be.
Councilman Miller made a motion to have the matter continued for
two weeks to study the grading problem, and Mayor Taylor second-
ed the motion for purposes of discussion.
Masud Mehran stated that with respect to Councilman Miller's ob-
jection to the fill, and the removal of existing walnut trees,
the northerly section, from an engineering point of view, balances
itself and they are not taking soil from the southern portion
and adding it to the northern portion. Mr. Mehran added that
in the past twenty years their company has gone through a great
deal of expense to save every tree they could possibly save for
two reasons - one, that they are beautiful, and secondly, they
help to sell the houses. The elevation on the northern part will
not be changed due to soil removal in any other section; the
southern section is a relatively small parcel of land and has
one peculiarity, which is that it is bounded on four sides with
established grading: on the east it is bounded by the establish-
ed grading of Arroyo Road, on the south by Concannon Blvd., on
the north the established grade of Vancouver Way, and the west
by the established grade of Tract 2914; whatever happens in
this tract must comply with all of the other established grades.
They do not want to move any more dirt than is necessary, and the
fence placements have made some of it necessary in this case.
Councilman Miller stated that at the time the tentative map was
discussed it was not known that there would be extensive grading,
and this is not known until the final map is ready for approval.
Councilman Miller continued that his other reason for requesting
a continuance is that anyone who proposes any project, upon which
the City must take action, is required by the Environmental Quality
Act, to file an environmental impact study and there should be
an environmental impact study for this subdivision which they
should review before they approve the tract. Another reason,
Councilman Miller offered, is that we are possibly facing a water
shortage, and this would effect the whole City, and until this
question is resolved on October 18, they should not approve the
tract. It would be foolish to approve a subdivision map at this
point if they are not going to allow any more building because of
water rationing.
Councilman Silva stated in regard to the water problem, he felt
the Council would handle any necessity for a moratorium on build-
ing by the method of not issuing building permits; therefore, if
the final is approved and the time comes when they are seeking
building permits, the permits will not be issued; whether the
subdivision is approved or not, has no bearing on the water sit-
uation. With reference to the environmental impact study, it is
something he has read about in the papers, but this Council has
not seen any official guidelines and felt they should before it
is made a part of the requirement for any subdivision. He felt
they should accept the staff recommendation.
Councilman Beebe also felt they should accept the staff recom-
mendation; he knew for a fact that water stands in some of the
areas in this tract and fill is necessary.
Mayor Taylor stated that in regard to the environmental impact
study, it was brought up at the League of California Cities meet-
ing, at which time it was learned from the Attorney General's
office that they are in the process of preparing guidelines as
CM-24-317
October 4, 1971
(Tract 3324)
to exactly what the state law implies as far as
requirements of the City would be concerned. It
is by no means clear that they can deny a subdi-
vision because they do not have this study. Mayor
stated he felt they should adopt an environmental element
General Plan, but did not think this was the time to discuss
Taylor
to the
it.
Councilman Silva moved for the question, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and passed four to one with Councilman Miller dissenting.
The motion to delay consideration for two weeks to study the grad-
ing problem failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to authorize execution of the subdivision agreement and
acceptance of bonds and acceptance of map of Tract 3324.
Councilman Miller commented that the Council had spurned the environ-
mental impact study, however Mayor Taylor explained that this was
discussed at the Valley Planning Committee meeting and it was heard
for the first time by the Council this evening; he felt that it was
a very complicated and very important matter and is deserving of
discussion by the Council, but could not be done without some study,
and he asked Councilman Miller if he was well enough informed to
present it to the Council, if it was his intention to have it
adopted at this time.
Councilman Miller explained that the Environmental Quality Act has
been a state law since November 1970; environmental impact studies
have been required in the wording of this act since 1970, and until
now have been ignored. The fact that the state has not issued
guidelines is irrelevant, inasmuch as the requirement is in the
statute. What he had in mind is to decide what kind of environmental
impact report they should require, and they should not approve the
subdivision until they have such a report.
The Council did not feel they should continue approval of the tract
until the environmental impact study guidelines are ready as that
might take as much as a year. Mayor Taylor stated the motion to
continue had failed and there was a motion on the floor to accept
the map, and asked if there was any criticism of the map or the tract.
Councilman Miller questioned the bicycle paths, and Mr. Musso re-
minded him that this is a matter to be taken care of at the time
of the tentative map, and the final map is only to conform with the
tentative.
Councilman Miller also asked about the landscaped strip north of the
northern portion of the tract, and Mr. Musso stated it was termi-
nated at the point indicated according to the decision~ the Plan-
ning Commission and the Council.
Mr. Musso stated there had been discussion regarding the bike
and it was decided to go to the south side of Concannon Blvd.
Musso also stated it was his feeling the environmental impact
should come at the time of the tentative map rather than with
final.
trail
Mr.
study
the
Councilm.an Pritchard called for the question; the motion was second-
ed by Councilman Silva, and passed with Councilman Miller dissent-
ing.
The main motion then passed by a four to one vote with Councilman
Miller dissenting.
Mayor Taylor commented that many of the things Councilman Miller
raised, he was in agreement with, and felt the environmental impact
CM-24-318
October 4, 1971
statement should, in some way, be placed into
the subdivision process, but he felt the major
impact would apply to the General Plan. Mayor
Taylor felt they should consult with the City Attorney
regard and perhaps set theIDsue for a public hearing.
(Tract 3324
Acceptance)
in this
RESOLUTION NO. 119-71
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3324
RESOLUTION NO. 120-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3324
Mr. Mehran thanked the Council for acting on this subdivision
matter, and commented on the problem of reaching tentative agree-
ment, proceeding with the engineering work which must be done
and is costly, and stated that changes at this late time would
be difficult. Also discussed was the problem with knowing what
grading is to be done on a particular site at the time a tenta-
tive map is submitted. It was decided that the staff prepare
some guidelines for developers to show the type of grading associ-
ated with the tentative map they present.
The Public Works Director stated that the type of topography that
might be encountered in a subdivision would give the Council a
clue as to the possibility of grading problems, at which time it
might be proper to ask the developer to provide additional infor-
mation relative to grading. The responsibility and obligation
now falls on the staff at the time of the tentative filing to give
the Council an indication of anything unusual.
Mayor Taylor stated that the staff could consider this as direc-
tion with regard to future subdivisions.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard inquired as to the dead-
line for an issue on the April ballot, however
the City Clerk advised she could not answer
this without checking the timing. Councilman
Pritchard indicated he would like to discuss a
new city hall, and was advised that this is included in the
capital improvement budget and is to be discussed later.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(April Ballot)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated we are supposed to
have a conservation element in our General Plan
by 1972, and Mr. Musso advised that the Planning
Commission is working on this.
(EnVironmental
Impact Study)
Councilman Miller stated that no matter what mayor may not apply
to the subdivisions, the City is required by the Environmental
Quality Act to have an environmental impact study for the expan-
sion of the sewer treatment plant; in fact, any of the capital
improvements will require this study, and they may as well begin
now to prepare them.
Mayor Taylor stated with reference to the sewer treatment plant,
the study was required by the federal statute, assuming that
federal monies are to be used.
*
*
*
CM-24-319
October 4, 1971
(County Health Councilman Miller said there have been a number
Services) of services offered to citizens of Livermore
Valley by the County which are no longer pro-
vided, particularly the medical services at
Santa Rita, and now the people must go to Fremont. He outlined
the inconveniences and expense this could involve for low income
families; he felt we should request the County to return services
which had been previously offered at Santa Rita to our Valley.
The staff was instructed to obtain information in this regard.
*
*
*
(Lot Splitting) Councilman Miller stated that recently an article
appeared regarding lot splits in the Altamont area;
som~ by delay of the District Attorney's offic~
exceeded the statute of limitations; there is still one case where
the statute of limitation applies and he felt it was the duty of
the District Attorney to prosecute a flagrant law violator and
suggested that a letter be sent requesting the District Attorney
to prosecute illegal lot split cases, and made this motion, second-
ed by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. Parness suggested that the City Attorney check into this matter
and report back to the Council, and the City Manager was instructed
to pass this information on to the City Attorney for a report back
as soon as he returns from his vacation.
*
*
*
(Cultural Arts
Festival)
Councilman Miller invited everyone to attend the
Cultural Arts Festival which is to be held this
coming weekend, and also extended an invitation
to the Councilmen and their wives.
*
*
*
(Sunken Gardens Mayor Taylor stated there has been a lot of earth-
Grading) moving at the Sunken Gardens and hoped that they
are being carefully watched by the staff as many
of the citizens are apprehensive. Mr. Lee re-
plied that everything is alright so far, and the Council directed
the staff to obtain a time table from the contractor.
In this regard, Councilman Silva stated there is a dust problem
that the neighbors have complained about, and asked Mr. Lee to
check into this also.
*
*
*
(Elected
Mayor)
Councilman Beebe reminded the Council members that
they had expressed a desire to discuss the possi-
bility of having an elected mayor, and felt the
time was drawing close when they should hold this
discussion, and the Council concurred that it be discussed at the
meeting of November 22.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor read a press statement which stated,
in part, that at the City's request a personal
meeting was held between Mr. John G. Lowe, vice
president, Pacific Coast territory of Sears Roe-
buck, and Mr. Parness, Milt Codiroli, and Mayor Taylor, for the
purpose of inquiring as to the status of current plans of the com-
pany in acquiring and developing industrial property in the City.
Mr. Lowe stated, emphatically, that Sears was in the process of
finalizing the purchase of about 200 acres of industrial property
(Industrial
Development -
Sears
CM-24-320
October 4, 1971
in Livermore, and the company had every inten- (Sears)
tion of developing the land for industrial pur-
poses, and it is not true that the planned
development has been considered for cancellation, transfer to
other sites or consolidation with other company improvements
elsewhere. The time of actual occupancy could not be revealed
now, but when plans are completed a full detailed report will
be made available to the community.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25
p.m. to discuss appointments to the Beautification Committee
and the Airport Advisory Committee.
APPROVE
* ~ *
~ L May~
cJ~ ;: ~ r~l'<~--ld-c-l,--
n qi ty Clerk
L:ilfermore, Callfornla
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of October 12, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 12,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:20 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
Mr. Gib Marguth, 1152 Farmington Way prAented
a petition on behalf of the residents in the
area, signed by 135 citizens, requesting the
City Council to install traffic control lights
at the intersection of Concannon Blvd. and
Holmes Street. Concern was expressed that the
street design at this intersection is hazardous both
and egress, and to the safety of the school children
reach Mendenhall School.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (seated later)
*
*
*
.
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle-
giance.
*
*
*
"
I,
I'
I
*
*
*
(
~ I~.
ROLL CALL
~\.''''''i
11 ,..i.\ , '
, ~t...
" i',' ~.....
. ':~, "
PLEDGE 6F :f:; ,
ALLEGIANCE
f
".~"'!,"
I"~ . .,'
M
/J.3.
l
.
.
.-: "
O~EN FOR_
t'Request for Signal-
Holmes st. and
Concannon Blvd.)
as to ingress
crossing to
CM-24-321
October 12, 1971
(Traffic
Signal)
Mr. Marguth further requested that the staff be
directed to submit a report of the traffic pattern
to the Council at the earliest possible time.
Scott Piper, 1276 Westbrook Place, stated the people in his area
are concerned about the children crossing at this intersection
and felt there should be a traffic light there.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote, the staff was requested to report to the Coun-
cil on the intersection.
*
*
*
SPECIAL ITEM Mrs. Marge Alderson presented to the Council two
purchase awards from the 1971 Cultural Arts Fes-
tival. The two paintings were selected by the
jury process just prior to the Festival and will hang in the Civic
Center as a part of the City's permanent collection. Mrs. Alder-
son thanked the Council for their support and reported a most
successful festival.
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.
Annual Civic
Award
Regional
Water Quality
Control Dist.
Hearing
Appeal by City
(Greenview
Racquet Club)
Sidewalk
Claims
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
An invitation was received announcing the pre-
sentation of the annual civic award on October
19, by the Fraternal Order of Eagles to H. J.
Callaghan, a long time resident of Livermore.
J{ESOLUTION NO. 121-71
" ...
A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO H. J. CALLAGHAN
"
f~ -~
*
*
*
A notice has been received of hearing before the
Regional Water Quality Control Board on Tuesday,
October 26, Alameda County Public Works Building,
regarding the waste discharge requirements for
Valley Community Services District.
,
,
, t
.~\
" oil<! J
*
*
*
The City has submitted an appeal to one of the
conditions, particularly the inclusion of a
swimming pool and public sewer system on a septic
tank for this installation. The appeal will Qe
heard on November 4 at 10:30 a.m., before t~
Board of Supervisors. ~ ' .
* * * /'I?'J
' ...
I
The following resolutions were "',o.p.ed rega~
sidewalk claims: ~
, , .
RESOLUTION NO ."~122-TI .,
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CL~~K NOT TO FILE
CERTAIN CLAIMS ALLEGING TRE~ DAMAGE (Group IV)
.
-
,',
RESOLUTION NO. '123-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN CLAIMS
ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF (Group IV)
CM-24-322
*
*
*
The following resolution was adopted denying
claim for personal injury.
October 12, 1971
Claim for Personal
Injury
RESOLUTION NO. 124-71
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF ANNA SOLOMON
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 125-71
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBER TO
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Appointments
(Beautification
and Airport Comm.)
All other appointments were removed from the Consent Calendar
for later discussion.
'I,
*
*
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meet-
ing of September 21 were acknowledged for
filing.
Minutes-Beautifi-
cation Committee
*
*
'I,
An appeal has been filed by the California PROPOSED BUSINESS
Music Merchants Association, Inc., to change LICENSE FEE CHANGE
the method of charging a business license fee
from the current flat fee rate to a percentage
of the gross method. The Chamber of Commerce has also asked to
consider the matter and recommends that small coin vending
machines be reduced from $30.00 per unit to $20.00 per unit.
The Chamber also suggests that non-music devices be reduced from
the $40.00 to $30.00.
The City Manager concurred in the above recommendation and re-
ported a discussion with a representative of the Music Merchants
Association, who stated this would be agreeable to them.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Silva,
the Council voted unanimously to continue the matter of the pro-
posed fee change for non-music devices for further information
and to approve the recommendation for the reduced rate for coin
operated amusement devices.
*
*
'I,
A favorable report has been received from
Local Agency Formation Commission and the
Planning Commission on the proposed annexa-
tion of Industrial Annex No.6. It is
recommended that the proposed annexation be set for public hearing,
and on the motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Silva, and by unanimous vote the following resolution was adopted.
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
ANNEX NO. 6
RESOLUTION NO. 126-71
A RESOLUTION GIVING NOTICE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE'S
INITIATION ON CITY'S MOTION OF ANNEXATION UNDER THE
UNINHABITED ANNEXATION ACT OF APPROXIMATELY 151 ACRES
OF LAND, REFERRED TO HEREINAFTER AS THE "INDUSTRIAL
ANNEX NO.6", TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
of,
*
The Planning Director explained that under the APPEAL RE GRANT OF
appeal provisions the Council could consider EXTENSION PUD #3
setting a public hearing at which time everyone
would be legally notified, or the appeal could
be rejected this evening. The matter being
CM-24-323
October 12, 1971
appealed is a one year extension of the PUD; this is the main
change the Planning Commission made - there were some minor changes -
essentially there was a one year extension on the permit. For the
most part the single family area - K & B, has been developed as single
family; the area to the north is not developed. The property in ques-
tion is the multiple area which is under development at the present
time on a building permit that was taken out some two months ago.
The permit provided a commencement date of 1963 for the entire develop-
ment, the completion for single family is to be at the time all the
subdivision improvements are in and accepted by the City which has
been done; the commercial and multiple require approval for occupancy.
The Planning Commission extended the permit for another year and a
public hearing was not held as it is not generally required unless
the permit has been dormant for some period of time.
Councilman Pritchard asked exactly what was being appealed, and Mr.
Musso advised that one of the property owners had appealed the ex-
tension. In answer to Mayor Taylor's inquiry as to the basis of the
appeal, the appellant, Mrs. Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, stated
she was not a protestor in that sense of the word, but felt it was
her duty as a taxpayer to be ever vigilant and she has been watching
the development very carefully as they were very unhappy about the
density. Mrs. Raison thanked the council for their help in obtaining
a park in the area, even though it is small. She stated that she had
hesitated to appear before the Council, but did not feel that the
developer had lived up to the requirements and recalled Councilman
Silva, at the time he was Mayor, telling the developer not to come
back for another extension. Mrs. Raison quoted from Mr. Anthony
Varni's letter of September 14, which indicated that foundations
would be poured and ready for framing on or before September 30,
1971, and the Planning Commission with some discussion and assurances
by the attorney for the developer, voted for the extension on September 21
to extend further requests as indicated in the agenda. Mrs. Raison re-
ferred to PUD No.3, Item 5 and presented some pictures taken on Sep-
tember 30 which show that the foundations were not in, and are still
not in, and in her mind they have not kept their part of the PUD.
Mrs. Raison asked why they have not done so, and why they have delayed -
perhaps the country living which they advertise might not be so apparent
if there are apartments built; could it be that the developer plans
something other than apartments such as condominiums or townhouses.
Mrs. Raison indicated that Mr. Varni's letter of September 14 states
that the Monmouth Land company "have entered into extensive negotiations
with a proposed purchaser of the apartment project once it is completed,
and these negotiations have resulted in a contract under which the units
will be conveyed to one owner and be used as an apartment house project
immediately upon the completion of construction". Mrs. Raison stated
at the time they appeared before the Council it was claimed there was
such a need for apartments but nothing has happened until August, and
since the company is big enough, why haven't the apartments been built;
why are they trying to sell to someone else. ~
Mayor Taylor asked what the basis was for the extension, and Mr. Musso
replied simply for the reason the development had not been comp1et~;
if they had met all the conditions of the permit, the extension wou1d
not have been necessary. Mayor Taylor asked what the status is and if
the developer intends to complete the development.
Mr. Anthony Varni, representing Kaufman and Broad, stated they had
better be ready to proceed as they have already spent $155,000 for
building permits for the apartment houses; the foundations will be
completed within the next ten days. It was expected that they would
be completed on September 30, but after the extension was granted they
did not feel there was a big need; the apartment has been sold to a
Texas investor as Kaufman and Broad do not retain ownership after an
apartment complex is built; it is done for an investment; it will
definitely be an apartment house, not a condominium.
CM-24-324
October 12, 1971
Jack Phillips inquired if this was the area in which townhouses
were requested but denied, but Mayor Taylor stated that an ap-
plication was received for townhouses before the City had an
ordinance governing townhouse developments. It was rejected
on the basis of poor design, and the developer then stated
that he would build an apartment house. Mr. Phillips felt
that the citizens were misguided into believing that town-
house density would be higher when in fact it is lower than
apartment houses, according to Councilman Silva.
Mayor Taylor summarized that the PUD was up for renewal ap-
proximately one year ago; work had been commenced before any
East Avenue improvements were made and at that time it was
decided to approve the pun. It was controversial and some
substantial changes were made but it was approved a year ago,
and the landowner has proceeded, and he felt the reason the
point has been raised is because there was a completion date
of October 1, but the Planning Commission granted the exten-
sion before that date, and it is felt that is the last chance
the City has to change direction, this is the reason for the
appeal.
Mr. Lewis stated that the language in the permit is clear
with reference to completion; it is a general rule that where
a property owner has taken out a building permit and expended
money, the zone should not change. In view of the fact that
the underlying zoning clearly contains this language, it is
good for the landowner to request an extension inasmuch as
his underlying zoning was to expire October 1. Mr. Lewis
gave his opinion with reference to what the courts would
consider in a case such as this.
Councilman Miller asked the City Attorney if substantial com-
pletion is required for the terms of a contract to be upheld,
is it reasonable to say that if foundations have not even been
poured, is this a substantial step in issuing of occupancy
permits in a completed apartment house.
Mr. Lewis replied as to the multiple area, it has not been
completed in terms of the permit, and presumed this is the
reason for the request for extension.
Mayor Taylor asked if the Council could take action any time
a development is not completed by a certain date. Mr. Lewis
replied they have that power. Mr. Lewis continued that the
Wagoner portion has expired and the developer is not asking for
continuation of that portion. The situation in this regard is
that it reverts to the underlying zoning and in order to build
anything other than what would be allowed by the underlying
zoning, they would have to apply for a new permit. They are
asking for an extension of the front portion - the commercial
and multiple. Mr. Lewis stated that the date of appeal was
prior to the expiration date; administratively that has been
considered a timely request for continuance, and even though
the final action may not have occurred until after the date
of expiration, the Council has said that was proper in itself.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission extended the
entire permit and did not allow the back portion to expire.
.
Councilman Miller read the relevant portion involved in the
question - A.5 of the permit in which the expiration date was
October 1, stressing that completion for the multiple was re-
quired by October 1, 1971, and he did not feel the development
was even near completion, as the forms are only on a part of
the area involved, there is nothing on the other portion. He
CM-24-325
October 12, 1971
felt that this was essentially a contract and the developers have
failed to live up to the agreement; almost all of the public testi-
mony the last time was in opposition to high density multiple and
in favor of RG-10; the Council allowed it to remain as it was, but
the point is that they now have the opportunity to reconsider some-
thing more consistent with the General Plan. Councilman Miller
continued that this permit has continued for nine years, and there
have been many special privileges, in his opinion, associated with
the permit such as the inclusion of three hundred 6000 sq ft lots,
four years after the City abandoned that size lots. He felt the
issue was the general plan and density, and consideration should
now be for RG-10 zoning. He felt that the money spent for permits
could be refunded as they have not kept the terms of the contract,
and did not feel it would be unreasonable to rezone the whole area
RG-10.
Councilman Silva stated he did make the remark to Mr. Varni that he
not come back, but not for the reason stated that the density was
too high, but because he did not want to go through another evening
such as they were now doing. If they uphold the appeal, and revert
the property to the original zoning, he would, if an identical pro-
posal came before him, vote for it, so he saw no reason to uphold
the appeal; therefore he supported the action of the Planning
Commission and made a motion that PUD No. 3 be extended for one
year and deny the appeal. This motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Councilman Beebe stated that Mrs. Raison had made her point, that
being that the developer has not lived up to the agreement, but
K&B were not the original developers nine years ago. He felt that
we should vote on the motion, so moved, seconded by Councilman Silva.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the motion, however, as a
point of order, a vote was taken on the motion to the question, and
the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor stated that the time for the City to decide what they
would or would not have in the area was almost a year ago; the
Planning Commission considered only the question of whether the
developer intended to go ahead. If not, then they should consider
changing direction, but it is obvious to the Planning Commission
that the developer intended to proceed as planned. They may be
able to find a loophole, inasmuch as the foundations are not com-
plete, and require the developer to tear out the pipe, and the forms
and public works improvements, but in his opinion the people would
think that to be wasteful. He was sure in his mind that it is the
intention of the developer to build apartments with a density of
14.6. He felt that it was too late to pull the rug out from under
the developer, and would reluctantly vote for the motion.
Councilman Pritchard seconded the Mayor's comments, and agreed that
it was too late now as the extension has already been granted. No
one was arguing about the completion; likewise what would they put
there at this time. With reference to the general plan, he asked
the Planning Director about the overall density, to which Mr. Musso
replied it was 4.5 per acre according to the general plan. The
plan has recently been amended to 4 d.u./acre.
Councilman Miller stated that times have changed, the general plan
has changed, and density has changed. Four point zero d.u./acre
is the density that should be there now. The time to decide is
each time as things change. They cannot live with decisions made
ten years ago.
CM-24-326
j~~LY-- 'i~~. J.~t 7,L f5~~:C"'fa;;y~~
[CJ1Y,,'.// cr.-<-<.T to' ~ / /TIc.J.L-. -" ,4 t" .
--'i?L<--<~ ,~~..,(/. ~ >.f~. .-PL." (/~<.~,
October ~~~~::N SILVA:::: M:~~:~:~ ~
Councilman Miller continued that the amendment he would like
was that RG-10 zoning be placed on the piece of property that
has not been commenced and that a condition be put in the per-
mit, and recorded that this will not be divided as condominiums.
Councilman Beebe commented that the urgency interim ordinance
should take care of the provision with regard to condominiums.
A vote was then taken on the main motion and passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Silva
of,
*
of,
After a brief recess the meeting reconvened with all present.
'I,
'I,
*
APOSTOLIC
FAITH TEMPLE
APPEAL
The Conditional Use Permit application of the
Apostolic Faith Temple, denied by the Planning
Commission and appealed to the City Council,
was continued from the meeting of September 20
so further information could be obtained from the staff on the
question of the applicant's use.
Mr. Musso reviewed the original recommendations of the Planning
Commission. The application was denied based on two main points:
first, the question of the effect on the development of the ad-
jacent property and, next, the ability to develop the adjacent
property. Since it is a long, narrow strip, it was felt that
the activity associated with the church would affect the adjacent
property. The most favorable location for the building and park-
ing was never resolved because the application was denied. The
next question that was discussed was the effect of traffic on
the adjacent properties. The Planning Commission discussed the
possibility of closing the Dogwood entry completely, except for
emergency access. The possibility of using it only for entry,
or exit only, was also considered. Again that was not resolved
because the application was denied.
Mr. Lewis affirmed his previous advice that it would be impro-
per to deny the use on the basis that the other r.arce1s would
be landlocked. As long as the lot is "buildable " he felt that
excluded the problem of the other lots. However, as in any
conditional use, the Council does have the prerogative to re-
view whether it is proper for the neighborhood.
Mr. Jan Schuyler, attorney for the applicant, made these points:
(1) His client will meet all reasonable requirements placed on
it by the City of Livermore; (2) They will, if it is a require-
ment, dedicate a strip of property on Dogwood to the City in
order to relieve traffic congestion and agree to maintain that
strip; (3) If it is felt that there may be an access problem
to neighboring lots, his client is willing to agree that
neighboring lots may use his access to gain access to their
lots.
Councilman Miller offered a motion that the application for a
conditional use permit be denied because the narrow lot makes
it incompatible and detrimental to adjoining property.
Councilman Pritchard asked why it would be detrimental and
Councilman Miller replied that he felt the church would be too
close.
Councilman Miller's motion died for lack of a second.
CM-24-327
October 12, 1971
Councilman Silva said that he wanted to take a really close look
a~ the plot plan, the layout of the proposed construction, loca-
t1on, access, etc. If the applicant is willing to bend over back-
wards for this application, he felt the Council should look at the
application and see what he proposes; whether traffic is really a
problem.
Mayor Taylor said that he thought that the main point as far as
the effect on adjacent property, was setback and asked if there
were any other considerations. It was determined that the CUPs
are normally subject to design review. The subject of traffic
congestion was raised by Councilman Pritchard who pointed out that
all churches in residential areas raise congestion problems. If
churches ~rea11owe~ in residential areas, traffic congestion can't
be taken 1nto cons1deration. Mayor Taylor said that we should make
sure that, when church~s are in a residential area, they should have
ac:ess to a street des1gned to handle more traffic than ordinary
ne1ghborhood streets. He believed the access to Olivina Avenue should
be satisfactory. Mayor Taylor said that the Planning Commission had
originally denied the application on the basis of the landlocked
parcels; however, since the City Attorney stated that was not a
consideration, Mayor Taylor could see no reason to deny the use.
Mr. Musso presented a sketch of the proposed use and stated there
was adequate parking for the size of the assembly room. Mayor
Taylor asked if the 10 ft setback could be increased. Mr. Musso
said that it could if it was a requirement of the CUP. Mr. Musso
suggested that the building be relocated toward 01ivina Avenue and
away from the homes. The question was raised as to which would be
more disturbing to the neighbors....the noise associated with ingress
and egress to the parking lot, or the building itself. Mayor Taylor
inquired, if the property were to be used for residential use, what
would the setback be? Mr. Musso replied 5 ft.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the conditional use permit be
granted subject to site plan approval and any conditions that the
staff may wish to recommend. Councilman Silva seconded the motion.
Mr. Musso read the conditions that the staff had imposed previously.
Conditions imposed by Council were: setbacks (want to see site plan
first); no windows on the easterly side; heavy screen planting where
lot is close to neighbors; and that we accept the offer of a dedicated
strip which they guarantee to maintain with emergency access (later
dropped).
James Latham, 484 Meadowlark, said that he believed that the Planning
Commission denial was not based on the so-called landlocked lots but
on the principle that the land as a whole could not be developed in an
orderly fashion. He also discussed the site plan: what is worse, the
building (whatever the setback) or cars within 5 ft of a backyard
fence. So, regardless of where you place the church on this lot, you
are going to have noise and pollution problems for the adjacent land
owners. He believed that the orderly development of the City of Liver-
more should also be a consideration.
Mrs. Bruce Page, 468 Meadowlark, stated that she was very much against
the church only being 10 ft away from her fence, her last bedroom is
16 ft from the fence. She has 4 children and likes to use her back-
yard but feels that she will not be able to with the church. She
also mentioned that there are 15 kids in the neighborhood and all
bedrooms face the back.
.
/
Mr. Marion Ste1ts of 547 Nightingale said that he believed the dis-
cussion had indicated that this was a very difficult lot to put a
church on. This problem could be alleviated if the lot were a dif-
ferent shape, even if it were the same size. He did not believe
that there would be any solution that would be truly satisfactory
to both the church and the neighbors. He wondered if the application
CM-24-328
October 12, 1971
was for a CUP for a home business, would it be granted. He
believed these conditions would be completely unacceptable
for a home business. So we are then in a matter of whether
a church should be allowed to inflict itself on the neighbor-
hood on this small a lot just because it is a church.
Jan Schuyler, attorney for the applicant, pointed out that
the property already has a high board fence on the right.
Parking is provided completely in excess of the needs of the
property. At the present time there would not be more than
six cars using the lot, yet 30 spaces are provided. He did
not believe the question of orderly planning of the whole
area is really at issue here, since a single family dwelling
would have been approved which would have been even closer
to the abutting property than the church. They have provided
that there will be no windows in the design of the building
so that it will be virtually soundproof. The question of
whether a business would be approved is not relevant; the
particularly relevant question is the question of religious
freedom.
Don King, 439 Oriole, said that when the Planning Commission
first studied this program they worked directly with Mr.
Hill and came up with a variety of site plans. In his
opinion, Mr. Hill received an excess amount of consideration
due to the religious aspects involved. But even then, the
Planning Commission could find no value, and so voted. As
stated before, the location and layout are limited and meet
only the minimum requirements. A precedent of poor planning
does not give one an inherent right to do it again. As a
potential neighbor to the church, he opposes it because it
is not compatible with the neighborhood. He believes it will
adversely effect property values and restrict other home
development in the area. He pointed out that they had pre-
sented a petition opposing the church with 50 signatures. He
felt that a 20 member, do-it-yourself, church on a dead end
alley would not be welcome in the area and asked that the
appeal be denied.
Reverend Hill, 346 Robert Way, feels that the neighbors did
not object to the church itself, but rather, wanted a mini-
park. Since the church is a property owner, he felt that
their right is just as important as the right of the neighbors.
Rev. Hill said that they are willing to move the building on
the lot, and that they will not object to anything that is
reasonable. Rev. Hill also made the point that he is a builder
and will see that the job is done right.
Councilman Silva brought up the subject of providing an ease-
ment on the church property to the landlocked parcels. He
was advised that such could not be required but that the
church could offer the easement. If accepted, we then have
an obligation to maintain it, according to Mr. Lewis. The
matter of the easement was dropped. Councilman Silva pointed
out that according to our ordinance churches are allowed under
CUPs in our residential areas. No matter where the church is
placed, there would be opposition.
Councilman Miller stated that the point raised by the neighbors
and the Planning Commission is that this particular lot is just
not suited for a church because it was too close to the neighbors.
Mayor Taylor called for the question and the motion passed
4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting.
The site plan, when ready, is to be placed on the Consent
Calendar for the City Council.
*
*
*
CM-24-329
October 12, 1971
Mr. Musso explained that the matter has been pending
for a period of time. The main issues were the pos-
sibility of amending the rear yard and site coverage
requirements on the property. The Planning Commission
considered many alternatives relative to the lot cover-
age requirement which is probably the major issue. Final conclusion
was that there should be a 25% coverage, which may be increased to
35% two years from date of final inspection by the City Building
Department. The other major proposal was to average setbacks with
10 ft minimum and an average of 25 ft. In side yards, in some cases,
a minimum of 10 ft is allowed, total 24 ft. Their feeling was that
the side yard and the rear yard could be comparable and still have
a relationship of one house to another. More important was the actual
amount of rear yard that is available for use and that is why the 25
ft average was proposed. Also proposed: a requirement that at least
one side yard be graded and maintained in a manner so as not to pre-
clude access to the back yard; eliminating off-street parking in RS
zones is also proposed.
ZONING
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
RS DISTRICT
Further discussion disclosed that backing houses could each have a
10 ft setback with a total of 20 feet between bedrooms as is now the
case in some side yards. Even though the average has been increased,
people are still being put very close together. It gives variety for
design of the houses and prevents the little square box.
Councilman Silva said that he would rather see a minimum of 15 ft.
He felt that the important things are the side, front and rear yard
setbacks and not the 25% site coverage. With a flexible setback in
the front and rear yards (15 ft/35ft), it might produce 25% site
coverage. The additional setback for two story houses would remain
the same. He proposes a flexible front and back yard setback with
30% site coverage which would also increase side yard setback.
Councilman Beebe said that he felt that the 25% coverage for a single
family dwelling on a 6500 sq ft lot was about right but that it was
restrictive on a two story house.
Councilman Pritchard moved to accept the Planning Commission's re-
commendation for a change in the RS ordinance; seconded by Council-
man Miller. I
In response to a question from Councilman Beebe, Mayor Taylor said
that he felt the Council might consider giving at least partial
credit for the second story (like half) in the RS4 zone. The
ordinance as written will just not permit two story homes.
A discussion followed as to who had developed under RS and Mr. Musso
said that generally he believed all developers had some experience.
Councilman Silva asked for an amendment disregarding 25% floor area
coverage and substituting 30% site coverage and having a total of
50 ft setback divided between the front and back with a minimum of
15 in either; seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Following discussion, Mayor Taylor called for the question and the
proposed amendment failed 4 to 1 with Councilman Silva in favor.
Mrs. Charlene Kehret, 1256 Marguerite Street, read aloud the letter
dated 6 October 1971 from the League of Women Voters of the Livermore-
Amador Valley to the City Council regarding the RS ordinance urging
that the present ordinance be used to provide imaginative and creative
housing.
Councilman Silva offered another amendment to change the 25% to site
coverage from floor coverage; seconded by Councilman Beebe. After
discussion, the question was called for and the amendment failed 3 to
2 with Councilman Silva and Beebe in favor.
CM-24-330
October 12, 1971
Councilman
on wording
ordinance.
Councilman
Beebe later made a motion for a staff recommendation
so as to provide a variety of housing in the RS
Motion seconded by Councilman Silva. Passed 3-2,
Miller and Mayor Taylor dissenting.
*
-k
'I,
George Musso gave an oral report on the three
agency study (Livermore, P1easanton, Alameda
County). The intent was to reconcile the
differences between the sign ordinances as
they relate to highway-oriented signs. The
County Planning Commission treats signs more
restrictively as they come in proximity to
the freeway. The City of P1easanton, except in certain zones,
has no special requirements for signs in proximity to the
freeway. The City of Livermore becomes less restrictive on
signing as the signs approach the freeway. During these
meetings it became apparent that the other two jurisdictions
were satisfied with their ordinances as they existed. The
County Planning Director is to write a letter summarizing the
situation but this has not been received as yet. The Livermore
Planning Commission is now recommending that no change be made
in the sign ordinance as it relates to signs in proximity to
the freeway.
ZONING
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
RE FREEWAY
ORIENTED
SIGNS
Councilman Beebe made a suggestion that the zoning ordinance,
Section 21.76(g) 7, be amended as follows: any sign that is
less than 50 ft from the freeway may be 64 sq ft; any sign
that is between 50 and 500 ft from the freeway may be up to
175 sq ft depending on the square footage of the building,
50,000 sq ft of building being the minimum requirement for
eligibility for the larger sign.
Councilman Miller made a motion to table the discussion to
check the square footage of the Holiday Inn, motion to table
failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Miller asked Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard their
objections to the sign at the Holiday Inn. Councilman Beebe
said that the sign cannot be seen; Councilman Pritchard
replied that the 64 sq ft pole sign is ineffective for what
they are trying to accomplish. Some discussion followed as
to whether the color of the sign was a factor in its visi-
bility. The suggestion was made that the signs might be
keyed to assessed valuation. Mr. Lewis commented that the
assessed valuation of many buildings is not known until the
March following when it is put on the tax rolls.
A motion was made that a hearing be set for 8 November on
possible amendment to the ordinance re freeway-oriented
signs and the motion passed 3-2, Miller and Taylor dissenting.
,,-
*
*
this matter
A report has been received from the Planning
Commission regarding a proposed General Plan
amendment for the Livermore Trai1way System.
It was unanimously agreed that a hearing on
would be set for 1 November.
LIVERMORE
TRAILWAY
SYSTEM
,,-
..J..
"
'I,
A rezoning application has been received
from Dan Enos asking for permission to change
the zoning on the property located at 603 Enos
Way from RL-6 to RG-16. A report was also sub-
mitted. Unanimously agreed that a public hearing would be set
for 1 November.
REZ ONING
ENOS
PROPERTY
'I,
of,
'I,
CM-24-331
October 12, 1971
PLANNING
COMMISS ION
MINUTES
POLICE
OFFICER
EMPLOYMENT
Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of
September 21 and an excerpt of action taken at
the meeting of October 5 were noted for filing.
of,
'I,
*
Mr. Parness reminded the Council that the 1971-72
fiscal budget allows for the addition of two police
officers as of January 1, 1972. This date was
selected because the budget would not permit a full
fiscal year employment. Mr. Parness then presented a report from
the Police Chief detailing how these officers could be hired on
November 1 without any extra expense to the City. The manpower
shortage in the Police Department due to community growth, train-
ing, sick leave, vacations and comp time was also detailed.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the Council authorize
the employment to the two police officers effective November 1;
seconded by Councilman Beebe-passed unanimously.
of,
of,
*
"J" STREET Jack Phillips, 551 North P, said that he did not
BEAUTIFICATION believe that the J Street beautification project
was worthwhile. He said that there is another
"beauty spot" on the same block, the cost a year ago was $5,000
and he believes there is a limit to what the taxpayers can put
out. He suggested that the Beautification Committee be disbanded
and urged the Council not to appoint any more members. Discussion
followed about other recommendations of Ribera and Sue. Mayor
Taylor said that he would be in favor if he felt that it would
help the City, keep the downtown area from dying, and bring a
return. Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the matter had
been referred to the voters as part of a package and had failed.
Moved by Councilman Silva that the matter be referred to the
Chamber of Commerce for the opinion of other businessmen and to
the City Manager for preparation of cost estimatesr Seconded by
Councilman Beebe. Motion passed 3-2 with Council en Pritchard
and Miller dissenting. -.ii. ~~~ "-
of, * 'I, eL.LA n, ({' . ~~
;i:;j2))~k cdZ.:i...
George Musso reported that the Board or Supervisors
has reversed the recommendation of the County Planning
Commission relative to the rezoning of the Redmond
property located adjacent to the Civic Center site
and requested for commercial zoning. Suggestion was
made and agreement reached that a letter of thanks
be sent to the Board of Supervisors and a separate one to Supervisor
Murphy.
REDMOND
PROPERTY
(CO. REFERRAL
SO. LIVERMORE
AVENUE)
URGENCY
ORDINANCE
NO. 759
'I,
*
*
Mr. Lewis asked that Urgency Ordinance 759, title
only, be read and discussion followed regarding the
ordinance. Mr. Lewis said that we cannot, under the
law, prohibit the subdivision of air space. All we
apply regulations to the basic lot itself which is the
the ordinance.
can do is
intent of
CM-24- 332
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE PROVIDING, AS
AN URGENCY MEASURE, FOR THE INTERIM PROHIBITION OF
SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL USES IN CERTAIN
MUL TIPLE ZONES UNLESS SUCH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 21.90 OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED.
.
October 12, 1971
Moved by Councilman Miller that we accept it, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, passed4-1, Councilman Silva dissenting.
Mr. Lewis went on to explain that the intent was to set out
the condominium as a single family use. Mayor Taylor said
that he had no objection to the division of present apart-
ments into condominiums since it is an existing building and
whether the person who lives in it owns it or rents it did
not seem pertinent. He voted for this because he felt the
intent was to prevent future land use in conflict with con-
templated zoning.
*
'I,
*
BOARD OF
CONTROL
MTC
Mr. Parness reported that Chairman Bort of
the Metropolitan Transportion Committee has
finally relented and agreed that our request
for representation on the MTC Board of Control
was reasonable. But, rather than just add members to the Board,
he is recommending that the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
be amended whereby we become a signatory. This will mean that
we will have to contribute something to the study. The amount
suggested for contribution from P1easanton and Livermore is
$1,800 each in services for a one year period. This amounts
to a very nominal $150 per month for us to realize since our
staff will be active participants in the study. Mr. Bort's
argument is, and Mr. Parness subscribes to it, that this way
we will be full-fledged members of this Board of Control team
which is so important in this major undertaking, a 1/2 million
dollar study. Councilman Pritchard emphasized the reasoning
for this is merely to protect our interests in whatever these
people might do which will end up taking our tax dollars. City
Council unanimously agreed to this in-kind services arrangement.
'I,
*
*
REQUEST FOR
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
Councilman Pritchard mentioned that there are
many small children going back and forth to
the store at the corner of Las Flores and
Bluebell. He asked for consideration of a
painted crosswalk plus posted speed limit since, hopefully,
there will be more commercial enterprise there which will
increase the traffic.
'I,
'I,
'I,
Councilman Silva initiated a discussion re-
garding parallel signs. He would like to
encourage the construction of businesses
downtown having a setback of 15 to 20 ft with a nice land-
scaped area. However, with a setback, you really can't see
the sign until you are right on it. He suggested that if
we would allow a sign to be placed perpendicularly, it might
encourage more of the businesses downtown to set back. It
was agreed that the Council would consider this and discuss
it at a later meeting.
PARALLEL
SIGNS
*
7(
*
AB 1057
REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT
included in a
Councilman Silva made the point that the
League of California Cities feels very
strongly about AB 1057 and asked that a
copy of our previous correspondence be
forthcoming agenda.
.J~
"
*
,'\
CM-24~J33
October 12, 1971
CIVIC
CENTER
GRADING
Councilman Miller said that he had more than one
complaint about the amount of fill being removed
from the civic center site. This amount is re-
ported to be substantially in excess of the amount
of grading that was agreed on. It was pointed out that this matter
had been brought up previously and the staff was instructed to check
on the situation.
Mr. Lee said that he had been in touch with the Division of Highways
and they are approaching the 120,000 yards of rock they were authorized
to remove. He reminqed the Council that there was a provision that
the Highway Department could take out an additional 70,000 yards if
they replaced it with suitable material. A discussion followed as
to what would be a suitable replacement; something that would grow
things, contain less rock than the material there, drain well, etc.
Mr. Lee stated that he had written a letter instructing the Highway
Department not to take any more material after the 120,000 yards until
we had a formal amendment to the agreement. No reply has been received
as yet.
*
*
*
DEVELOPERS Councilman Miller commented on an article in a
DONATING recent issue of Business Week magazine ~e1ating to
SCHOOLS developers donating schools, not only sites, but
schools. Apparently San Die~o has something in one
of their ordinances which says if there aren t any schools available,
no subdivision.
*
*
*
SOUTH BAY Mayor Taylor reported that he attended the South Bay
DISCHARGERS Dischargers briefing for a very preliminary look at
the way the report is going. The final report is due
in February. The interesting point is that all the alternatives they
quoted showed no pipe line export of sewage from the Valley. The
final report may be different but that has very large implications to
our future.
*
*
*
COST/
BENEFIT
DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Taylor discussed the report presented at the
League of California Cities meeting by the City
Attorney of Ra10 Alto and a number of other people.
They thought that any city with large amounts of
land yet to be developed should look at it on a cost/benefit basis.
In regard to the land north of Livermore, perhaps we should get
somebody to look at development of that large area or some portion
of it from the point of view of how it will, or will not, benefit
the City economically. After considerable discussion, it was agreed
that Mr. Parness should inquire as to the cost of the study done for
Palo Alto and ask for a copy of the study.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. for
an Executive Session regarding Committee appointments.
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
Cit Clerk
California
CM-24-334
Regular Meeting of October 18, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 18,
1971, 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
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Alle-
giance.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Gordon Smith, 5262 Irene Way, complained about
the portable school buildings which are being
built in the City, and felt these were being
set up with no regard to zoning ordinances. It
is understood that these were temporary buildings
but Mr. Smith stated that many times temporary buildings remain
for years and felt they were a detriment to the surrounding homes.
He wanted to know what the City planned to do about this problem,
and presented to the Council several pictures of the portable
schools which are now in existence, and others which are being
erected. It was Mr. Smith's feeling that there should be public
hearings and that plans should be submitted by the schools before
they are allowed to place the portables, and felt that the City
should have some control over this type of development and asked
that this be taken into account.
OPEN FORUM
(Portable School
Buildings)
Mayor Taylor stated that he would ask the Planning Director for
a report in this regard.
Councilman Silva asked the City Attorney if it was true, according
to State law, that the City had no jurisdiction in these matters,
however Mr. Lewis stated that was not quite true; in some circum-
stances the School District could override anything the City might
have to say, and felt it was a good idea for the Planning Director
to submit a report, and also contact the School District for a re-
port with regard to their plans.
*
*
*
Roger Anderson, 4354 Guilford Avenue, referred
to a newspaper article concerning an effort in
Danville to curb petty thievery. A local civic
group suggests the purchase of marking tools so
that readily portable, high value items, could be marked with an
individual's driver's license number which would immediately iden-
tify the item. He stated there was an article about such an oper-
ation in the east, and in addition, there were decals indicating
that the items in the home were marked for easy identification.
He suggested that possibly a similar thing could be done in Liver-
more and it would be relatively inexpensive and explained how it
could be done. The Council concurred it would be worth investi-
gating.
*
*
*
The 1970 Uniform Building Code has been review-
ed by the Board of Appeals, and notification
given to all interested parties, and Mayor Taylor
opered the public hearing at this time, however,
(Suggestion for
Curbing Thefts)
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ADOPTION UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE
CM-24-335
October 18, 1971
(Public Hearing
and Ordinance
Uniform Bldg
Code)
there were no comments, and on motion of Council-
man Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the read-
ing of the ordinance was waived, and the ordinance amending Ch. 6
of the Municipal Code of the Uniform Building Code was adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 760
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 6, RELATING
TO BUILDINGS IN GENERAL, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE,
1959, BY REPEALING THE ADOPTION OF THE 1967 EDITION OF
THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, TOGETHER WITH ALL INDEXES
AND APPENDIXES THERETO, AND ADOPTING THE UNIFORM BUILD-
ING CODE, 1970 EDITION, INCLUDING STANDARDS AND THE
1971 SUPPLEMENT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODES, TOGETHER
WITH AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS THERETO, AS SPECIFIED IN
THIS ORDINANCE.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication re AB 1735 was received from Sena-
tor Clark L. Bradley, on the subject of railroad
right-of-way in an assessment district. Council-
man Miller remarked in this regard that Senator
Bradley regularly opposes everything the City requests, and suggest-
ed that perhaps a communication should be directed to the Assembly
and Senate people involved in reapportionment, asking for assignment
to a more responsible senator in another district, however the other
Council members were not in complete agreement, and Mayor Taylor
stated that they have already taken a stand that the Valley be re-
presented by a single senator.
Communication
re AB 1735
Mr. Parness explained that there may be some underlying factors
that prompted the Bill being introduced and did indicate that
there may be some problems in the future if the Bill is adopted
because there is inference that a specific benefit must be indicated
that a railroad might accrue, however it cannot be determined what
the need is for the Bill. Mr. Parness did state that utility pro-
perty has always been assessed at a higher amount.
Agricultural
Preserve
Withdrawal
(Flynn)
Acceptance of
Tract 2927
(Granada Sales)
Departmental
Reports
CM-24-336
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard asked that the item regarding
a communication concerning a request to withdraw
certain property from an agricultural preserve
(Flynn) be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for
later discussion.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 127-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT 2927 (Granada Sales, Inc.)
*
*
*
The following departmental reports were received:
Airport - activity and financial - September
Civil Defense - quarterly - July/September
Fire Department - September
Golf Course - September
Library - quarterly - JUly/September
Police and Pound Departments - September
Water Reclamation Plant - September
October 18, 19TI
Councilman Silva stated that with regard to the (Civil Defense Rpt)
Civil Defense report, he noted that volunteers
were dropping out as they felt it was a waste
of time to participate because the equipment was so old, and
felt it would be appropriate to investigate the cost of new equip-
ment. A report will be prepared for discussion at the study
session for capital improvements.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 128-71
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3342
RESOLUTION NO. 129-71
Resolutions re
Tract 3342
(Hofmann Company)
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION
OF TRACT 3342
RESOLUTION NO. 130-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED
The quitclaim deed is required by the title company and has re-
ference to the Murdell Lane alignment recently deeded to the City
and made necessary by the County's insistence that Murdell Lane
be shifted to the west. The alignment agreed upon is rededicated
as a part of the subdivision map.
With regard to Resolution No. 128-71, Councilman Miller indicated
he would vote in opposition of this item due to the impending
water shortage if the three were not together.
Barry Scherman, a representative of Hofmann Company, asked Council-
man Miller his reasons for this remark, and Councilman Miller re-
plied that he did not feel they should approve final maps for the
reason he stated, inasmuch as there is an implication that they
would be allowed to build, and they may not be allowed to build,
and he felt they should be made aware of this possibility.
*
*
*
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
October 5 were acknowledged for filing.
Minutes -
Planning Commission
*
*
*
One hundred fifteen claims, dated October 15, Warrants and Payroll
in the amount of $119,119.73, and two hundred
thirty-eight payroll warrants in the amount of
$56,785.69, dated October 8, 1971 were ordered as approved by
the Finance Director, for a total of $175,905.42.
Councilman Beebe abstained from Warrant 831 and Councilman Silva
from Warrant No. 789 for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously, to
approve the items on the Consent Calendar with
the exception of Item 2.2 which had been removed.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
Robert Allen 223 Donner Avenue, commented on
the Airport Activity Report, and asked if the
total number of operations could be included,
however Mr. Parness advised that we do not have the staff to do
this, and the status report is taken by FAA once a year by their
staff.
Comments re Airport
and Golf Course Rpts,
CM-24-337
October 18, 1971
(Golf Course
Report)
Welcome to
Girl Scouts
COMMUNICATION
Central Labor
Council
REQUEST RE
HALLOWEEN
COMMUNICATION
RE REDISTRICT-
ING
Mr. Allen also commented on the Golf Course report,
stating that it appears that the deficit is in-
creasing, and suggested that the City pursue the
possibility of leasing this facility.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor extended a welcome to members of
Girl Scout Troop No. 833, who were visitors at
the meeting.
* * *
A communication was received from the Central Labor
Council of Alameda County requesting an opportunity
to address the Council re League of California
Cities. They have since asked that this item be
continued until November 8, and after some discus-
sion by the Council the item was continued until
that date.
*
*
*
A request has been received from UNICEF Committee
Chairman requesting the City to retain October 31
as the traditional Holloween day instead of a change
from Sunday to Saturday. It was the consensus of
the Council to make no change.
*
*
*
A communication was received from Supervisor Murphy
with a request for submission of any comments the
City may wish to make regarding the redistricting
of the County and the First District area.
Mayor Taylor commented that the Valley Planning Commission received
a similar letter and agreed unanimously to support Supervisor Murphy.
His district, as proposed, contains about 26,000 more people than
the other districts, and in the interest of fair representation
Mayor Taylor felt they should support his position.
Mr. Parness explained that, essentially, what Senator Murphy is
suggesting is that the half of Union City that is now contained in
the First District be removed and reassigned from his district.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and approved unanimously, to support Senator Murphy, and also that
redistricting be done every five years instead of ten.
Mayor Taylor had planned to attend the meeting of the Board of
Supervisors on behalf of the Valley Planning Commission and stated
he would also represent the Council.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that this matter had been
postponed from the meeting of October 13, to allow
time to obtain more information about the effect
of a reduction in the rate that had been recommended
by him on the coin operated amusement devices. The
California Music Merchants Association had asked
that this be considered by the City Council as they were not aware
of the new City ordinance which rather substantially increased the
rates on the machines. The rates are set at $40.00 for pinball ma-
chines and pool tables and $30.00 on all other types of amusement
devices. As a result of a survey it was determined that the major-
ity of cities did base the rate on a flat fee rather than on gross
receipts, however that our rates were much higher. It was suggested
that a flat rate be assessed at $30.00, and the question was whether
REPORT RE
BUS INESS
LICENSE FEE
AMENDMENT
CM-24-338
October 18, 1971
or not there should be a $10.00 reduction pro- (Business License
portionately or that all devices and games be Fee Amendment)
reduced to the common base of $30.00. In accord-
ance with the Council's instructions, it has been
found that the difference of revenue would be only $95.00 if the
business license fee is reduced $10.00 on each of the two plans
rather than a flat $20.00 a year for all. It is recommended that
a flat rate be used.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
that the staff recommendation be adopted.
Councilman Milley commented that our rates are comparable to
other cities, and since we cannot raise any of the business
license rates, we should not lower them until next year; there
have been public hearings on the business license fees, and at
the budget session they argued over items of $100, so he felt
the rate should be retained for this year.
A vote was taken on the motion and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a confirmation
was necessary regarding action taken by the
Council many months ago upon their approval
of extending the water line on East Avenue
from Mitra Street easterly to serve the pro-
perties along Research Drive. The contractual
obligation was assumed by Mr. Ed Hutka from the original developer,
and in negotiating the settlement it was agreed that he would pay
the full cost for an 8-inch line extension along the full property
frontage of East Avenue, but in return he asked for a benefit dis-
trict to be formed which would cause a reimbursement to him of
50% of his cost over ten years for properties on the north side
of East Avenue whenever they chose to hook up. The staff recom-
mendation is for the adoption of a resolution establishing a bene-
fit district.
REPORT RE EAST
AVENUE WATER
BENEFIT DISTRICT
(Hutka)
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and approved unanimously to establish a benefit district
as recommended.
RESOLUTION NO. 131-71
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EAST AVENUE
WATER LINE EXTENSION BENEFIT DISTRICT.
*
*
*
A report from the Public Works Director re
Olivina Avenue tree status was due at this
time, however the attorney representing the
Hagemann property owners asked that the matter
be continued until December 6.
REPORT RE OLIVINA
AVE TREE STATUS
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous vote, the matter was continued until the meeting
of December 6.
*
*
*
A decision as to the possible location of a
small park site was held in abeyance pending
a decision on the application of the Apostolic
Faith Temple, which had been decided, and Coun-
cilman Miller felt that the City should acquire
available for a park, and since there are trees
site, felt that at least a portion of that site
REPORT RE PARK
SITE ACQUISITION
one of the sites
on the Dogwood
should be acquired.
CM-24-339
October 18, 1971
(Park Sites) Mayor Taylor felt that the issue was the policy of
the Council regarding the acquisition of small
park sites, especially since LARPD has indicated
they are not interested in acquiring or maintaining such parks.
He was concerned that if money is spent for maintenance, it would
mean less money would be available for acquisition of park land
in the future.
Councilman Miller stated they should acquire the land and he did
not feel this would be a burden since the people in the area had
indicated the desire to maintain the park. Perhaps some future
Recreation Board will decide differently. If the City loses the
chance to acquire the property, it is gone forever, and there about
six such sites in the older part of town which might be necessary
since there is no property available for large sites.
Mayor Taylor suggested that this matter be discussed once more with
the Park District inasmuch as they have been discussing park de-
velopment and a fee for park development which would have to be
assessed by the City.
Councilman Beebe stated parks should be handled differently in
the northern part of town as there are not many parcels available,
but felt they should not get involved in setting up a park district;
they should only acquire the land, but not maintain it.
Councilman Pritchard suggested that Councilmen Beebe and Miller
discuss this issue with the Park District during their pending
meeting.
Councilman Silva stated that inasmuch as the City would like to
acquire as much open space as possible, which was the reason for
the park fund, that they should acquire the land now, and felt they
should ask the church group if they are interested in selling their
portion.
Councilman Miller stated they should also ask the Planning Director
for a map and report of properties available and suitable for
smaller parks.
It was the decision of the Council to discuss this matter again
the early part of November, when they had all the facts, especially
since the church was awaiting a decision.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
LOCAL WATER
CONSUMER NEEDS
(Zone 7)
Mayor Taylor summarized a report from the .Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis-
trict regarding local water consumer needs. The
District explained their plans for Project 2, and
they wished to be advised of any policy change in
land use plans inasmuch as the City would be in
partnership with the Board in any proposal that may be presented
to the voters next year.
John Long, one of the directors of Zone 7, commented that they had
received the Council's request that the election date be advanced,
and advised they were attempting to reassess the project, part of
which would be to ask both Livermore and Pleasanton for their future
growth plans so they could plan their water facility expansion.
Councilman Silva stated it was his understanding that Project 2
was for a five year period, however if the rate of growth continues
as it has in the past, the Project would only handle the tentative
maps that have been approved, and asked if their reason for wanting
a more definite growth projection was to make Project 2 a ten or
fifteen year program, to which Mr. Long replied that the statement
was a partial answer to their question, and asked if there were
approved maps that would indeed use up the capacity of Project 2.
CM-24-340
October 18, 1971
Mayor Taylor felt that the City should furnish
Zone 7 with the present status of the City as
far as presently approved permits, tentative
maps, etc., however, the general plan remains
unchanged. There has been no policy set regarding
(Water Consumer
Needs-Zone 7)
growth as yet.
Mr. Long agreed that the Zone should wait until the City has
formed a policy before they can set up a policy.
Councilman Beebe felt that the engineering department should be
able to prepare some figures in this regard, and Mayor Taylor
asked that Mr. Lee take this as direction, in conjunction with
the Planning Department.
Councilman Millei' stated some of the data has already been obtained
according to the water report furnished by Mr. Lee. He felt that
the other aspects of the general plan must wait for some policy
decisions - one of the guiding factors would be the result of
the Air Pollution Control District with regard to holding capacity.
Councilman Miller asked Mr. Long what their upper limit is, to
which he replied it was 48,000 acre feet, however they had not
reached their capacity as yet.
Mr. Long stated that the Board would like a policy decision from
the Council, or some comment that there is none. They would like
information for a 5-year period and, in addition, any other com-
ments and the total projected growth.
Mayor Taylor stated they would have to defer the total projected
growth rate until later as this should be accurate so the project
can be as economical as possible.
Mr. Long stated it would not be prudent to plan for an expansion
that provides for a larger population than there will be, simply
because the expenditure would be larger than the electorate would
approve.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the bond issue which failed would
have carried the Valley until 1976 as planned, and Mr. Long stated
that based on the figures available at that time, the project, as
proposed, would have been sufficient until 1976.
Councilman Pritchard referred to Director Becker's letter which
requested some input as to how the financing of this project
should be handled.
..-cu' .
Robert wa~, 236 Donner Avenue, felt that the Council should
consider the financing before they consider the plans for expansion
as he did not feel the present population should subsidize a build-
er, PG&E or the water company so anyone else could build.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that after the Zone 7
bond issue failed, the Zone held a public hearing at which time
the American Taxpayers Union #115 made a proposal, which he pre-
sented, that growth should pay its own way since no one in Liver-
more would have benefited by Project 2. This proposal was that
an assessment district be formed and that property that did not
want to develop be left essentially agricultural. Their approach
was to have a voluntary assessment district of property owners who
would benefit from a development. Mayor Taylor advised that
assessment district financing has been investigated by the staff
and it will be considered.
Councilman Pritchard felt it was fair to assume that most people
in the City would not consider any type of water plant expansion
to finance growth; he felt a general obligation bond for expan-
sion of the treatment plant would not have a good chance of passing,
but rather some type of assessment district, revenue bonds or other
type of arrangement whereby new people coming in would be paying
for the treatment plant necessary to handle their needs. He felt
they should give Zone 7 an opinion in this regard at this time.
CM-24-341
October 18, 1971
(Water Consumer
Needs-Zone 7)
possible water
Mayor Taylor stated that the next item on the agenda
is a communication from the Planning Commission re-
lative to the water demand study prepared by the
Public Works Director, which report deals with a
connection fee to finance any future expansion.
Councilman Beebe inquired as to how they would get the County area
and City of Pleasanton to go along if they should adopt a water
connection fee so that Livermore would not be paying for expansion
elsewhere in the Valley.
Mr. Lee stated it would be handled very much like the storm drain-
age fee which was Zone wide; this plan was adopted cooperatively
by the City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore and the Board of Super-
visors; a water connection fee could be done the same way. Zone 7
has also discussed this issue with their Board, and it is his under-
standing that the Board does favor such a fee, however he does not
know what stand Pleasanton might take, but felt they would be agree-
able to such an idea.
Mr. Lewis added that the City could act as an agent for the District;
could collect a fee with the building permit and pay it to the Dis-
trict; they are the levying authority, the City is the collector
for them in the storm drainage matter.
Councilman Beebe felt that this should be one of the priorities
to set up such an arrangement; because if they did adopt a fee,
future growth would pay for itself, and people would be more apt
to vote for a revenue bond issue rather than facing this every year.
Mayor Taylor stated, that as a point of order, they should discuss
the items on the agenda as they are presented; they should discuss
whether or not the fee should be adopted as a policy matter, but
not until that item is presented, and asked that the letter from
Zone 7 be disposed of first, and asked for any additional comments
on the letter.
Councilman Miller commented that he wished to agree with Councilman
Pritchard that no general obligation bond issue would pass in the
City of Livermore to provide water for someone else, as he felt
this was the source of the majority of opposition in the City when
Project 2 failed. He felt that there must be some other mechanism,
and the water connection fee would only be a part of it because in
order to build the plant, the public may have to raise the money;
then the next expansion would be paid for from the connection fee.
He felt Zone 7 would have to pay particular attention to equitable
means for financing the treatment plant and an assessment district
would be one method of accomplishing that end.
Councilman Pritchard felt that the three items on the agenda in
regard to water were so entwined that rather than discuss them
separately they should be discussed concurrently. In regard to
what had been stated by Councilman Miller, he asked for the City
Attorney's opinion on the possibility of revenue bonds for expansion.
Mr. Lewis stated he was not familiar enough with the Zone7 Act to
advise whether or not they are authorized to issue revenue bonds;
according to what he has read they do not have that present author-
ity, but it is one that the legislature could grant them. He felt
that along with the connection fee there could be consideration
given to legislation in order to authorize and issue revenue bonds.
Mayor Taylor thought it might be wise for a subcommittee of the
Council to meet with the Zone 7 Board to discuss financial mea-
sures, and suggested that perhaps he and the vice mayor meet
with them to see what is going on, and in due course, they could
then reply to the letter from the Board.
*
*
*
CM-24-342
October IS, 1971
A letter from the Planning Commission has been
received agreeing that the growth rate should
be corrected to coincide with the figures given.
The Public Works Director thought perhaps he
could introduce his report and discuss that as a part of this
subject. Mr. Lee went on to say that it was clear to everyone
that the water supply would be depleted about 1972; he felt the
Zone 7 bond election was a recognition of this. If the issue
had passed, there would have been additional water so that there
would have been no problems, but as a result of the failure of
that bond election the Council requested the staff to look into
the effect this would have on the City's water supply - the study
of supply vs. demand and to consider various methods of coping
with the problem and methods of augmenting the supply. Mr. Lee
posted a graph which showed a summation of the findings of the
study, and explained the sources of water and demand for a 7-day
maximum designed period during the past years and the projected
demand for designed periods up through 1975, stating the graph
indicates where demand catches up with supply before the summer
of 1972, at which time there would be a deficiency of about 3 MG
during a 7-day peak period; in 1973 an II MG deficiency at a peak
period. The total amount of storage in the City is about 11 MG;
including the City's and California Water.
COMMUNICATION RE
WATER DEMAND STUDY
Mr. Lee continued that if the water demand continues as projected
this would deplete all of the storage during this peak period and
some type of rationing would have to be initiated at that time
which he has outlined in his report as follows:
Step 1. A statement by the City Council asking citizens to be
frugal with the use of water.
Step 2. Limit lawn and garden irrigation during stipulated times
of the day with the period of time being extended as
necessary until all of the high demand hours are in-
cluded between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Step 3. Continue to restrict irrigation between selected hours
of the day and allow even-numbered houses to water only
on even-numbered days and odd-numbered houses to water
only on odd-numbered days.
Step 4. Continue to restrict irrigation between selected hours
of the day and allow even-numbered houses to irrigate
only on stipulated days of the week and odd-numbered
houses to irrigate only on selected days of the week.
The allowable days would be reduced as required.
Step 5. Prohibit all irrigation or use of water for cooling.
Mr. Lee stated if they were to attempt to take care of the deficit
of water in 1973 by rationing, it would require Step 2.
Mr. Lee stated that the Planning Commission had questioned the
percentage of increase of building in the City; they noted that
in the second quarter of this year the percent of increase was
at an annual rate of about 13% or 14%; the last quarter was quite
high also; this could be due to a trend, or the developers may
have taken out more permits because of a pending moratorium on
building. Mr. Lee further advised that if the increase was at
the rate of 13%, the City would almost need equal in 1972 to the
demand projected for 1973, as the deficiency would occur in 1972
instead of 1973; in 1973 the deficiencies would be as those pro-
jected in 1974 - it would move the critical problem up one year.
The 1971 demand experience was based on 1970 records and in check-
ing with Zone 7, it was found to be very close to their records.
Zone 7 plant has a rate capacity of T~ MG and peak of 9 MG. Dur-
ing a peak period this summer there were 7 days when the plant
exceeded the T~ MG but the highest was S~ MG, and the demand was
CM-24-343
October 18, 1971
(Water Demand
Study)
never pushed to the limit of the plant. He felt
the curve as shown was pretty reasonable, and the
issuance of building permits should be watched to
determine if a steeper curve or more shallow curve
is necessary.
Mr. Lee stated there are four options as outlined in his report:
1) approval of Project 2 plan or some modification of it which,
in his opinion is the best solution assuming the connection fee
was adopted and placed into effect immediately; 2) some temporary
level of rationing; 3) develop new sources of water by drilling of
additional wells, but this would be expensive, degrade the quality
of water and degrade the underground aquifers; 4) a building mora-
torium, however this does not get to the problem. Mr. Lee felt that
a connection fee was vital to the future program of providing water
for the Valley.
Councilman Beebe asked if Project 2 election were held in the spring,
when would the expansion go into effect, and was advised about one
and a half years based on conversations with Zone 7 staff and per-
haps in a shorter priod of time; they could put in some additions
to the facilities to provide additional water to Livermore. However,
Mr. Lee later clarified himself to say that it would be before the
summer of 1973 and explained that it would be another deficiency
rather than what he had indicated earlier. In reply to Councilman
Pritchard's question if there were alternatives that would provide
more water in the summer of 1972 than the 89.6 MG than we are now
getting, Mr. Lee stated if you knew you had only a definite small
amount to cope with, it could be taken care of, but to outline a
program whereby you develop wells to take care of the deficit to
a certain period, would be a difficult, or perhaps an impossible
task.
Mr. Long stated it would not be possible to have a revenue bond
election by April; their enabling act did not permit this and they
have requested the state legislature to introduce legislation so
they would be permitted to issue revenue bonds and in all proba-
bility next November would be the earliest time they could expect
to hold an election; they could hold a general bond election in
April if they felt they had an adequate plan, but did not feel they
could come successfully before the voters with the same Project 2.
Councilman Silva inquired when construction could be completed if
the bond election passed in 1972, and was advised it would be the
fall of 1973.
Dr. Mandeville addressed the Council stating he had a position paper
to offer and a constructive solution to the water problem and pre-
sented the Council with some very informative maps. As an histori-
cal review he stated the Chamber of Commerce in consort with Dublin,
San Ramon and Pleasanton Chambers have been concerned about the
shortage and have been studying the problem jointly for four a half
months. Dr. Mandeville stated that an election could not be held
until November 1972; further, there was a parallel study started
in the local Chamber, seeking solutions as the Chamber felt strongly
that water rationing was a poor solution and inexcusable to the
citizens and a moratorium on building was equally odious to the
Chamber and business community as a whole and obviously leads to
a cessation of the immediate as well as long range growth, both of
commercial, industrial and residential growth, in addition to the
loss of jobs.
The Chamber of Commerce, following their study, are submitting to
the Council a formal recommendation to solve the interim water short-
age. The maps delineate existing wells that can be explored for
quality, quantity and, in their opinion for a modest investment,
two or three of them can be secured to hook into the present system
to carry us over the present extreme, on the assumption that Zone 7
will win the election in November 1972.
CM-24-344
October 18, 1971
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, on behalf of (Water Demand Study)
the American Taxpayers Union, stated the graph
makes a very vivid picture that without any
growth, if there were a freeze on housing, there would be no need
for an increased water supply. He felt if there were a freeze on
housing to protect the existing water supply, obviously there
could be a price on housing which would allow growth to pay for
itself and this is what they would like.
Harry Kerr, vice president of California Water Service, spoke to
Mr. Lee's report, which they are in agreement with and back his
conclusions based on the statistical data. With regard to Mr.
Allen's remark, if there were no more growth, no further additional
water supply would be necessary, Mr. Kerr stated that was not cor-
rect because there are so many houses under construction today,
we are well into the 1972 water users. He referred to Mr. Lee's
report with reference to accelerated growth, and stated that
California Water Service was running 600 to 700 new connections
in recent years; in the twelve months ending September 30, there
were 821 new service connections, and the building permits re-
ferred to in the report will result in a further acceleration as
they become actual water users. The acceleration has increased
over what it has been the last few years. He felt the conclusions
Mr. Lee has drawn, based on projected use, are reasonably accurate
and do not overstate the problem; he felt some form of restricted
water use would appear indicated for the next two years - a minor
amount in 1972, which might be handled by simply appealing to
the public to be conservative, but 1973 is another matter. Mr.
Kerr stated that they were familiar with some of the wells as
shown on the map presented by Dr. Mandeville, and they have pro-
blems - one is the quality they deliver as one of the wells is
very hard; some of the easterly wells are high in boran and could
result in some bad effects on vegetation; however, they would ex-
amine each one in detail, especially the ones contiguous to the
system, to see what possibilities they hold. Some are agricul-
tural wells, and do not have what is called a sanitary seal. Mr.
Kerr also questioned Mr. Long's statement with regard to comple-
tion date if bond election succeeds as he felt it could not be
as soon as indicated, and felt Project 2 could not be ready before
1974.
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Kerr if rationing was inevitable,
and Mr. Kerr replied that even with a moratorium on bUilding, it
would be too late to effect 1972, however the weather could have
some bearing on this, and he felt if the public would be requested
to be a little careful with the use of water, that would probably
take care of the small deficiency; however 1973 would be another
story.
Councilman Miller stated the figures given were based on the lower
curve; if there is an accelerated number of connections according
to the building permits, would we not be in the 1973 position in
1972. Mr. Kerr stated that the figure he had mentioned was about
125 greater than they have been running in calendar years prior
to that time, but he could not say whether they would reach the
1973 figure in 1972. In their view, the most important thing is
that there be a long term project for increase in water supply;
Project 2 is necessary no matter what happens to provide adequate
service to the buildings underway now. The deficiency in 1972 is
only a projection.
Councilman Beebe asked if Project 2 contemplated expanding the
existing plant, and Mr. Kerr answered that it did not contemplate
expanding the existing plant because the engineering staff of
Zone 7 presented their view to Zone 7 Board, who approved the re-
commendation, that new treatment facilities be built on South Bay
Aqueduct and below Del Valle Dam so that any outage that could
happen at Patterson Pass now would not effect the new treatment
facilities; they would have the storage of Del Valle Dam behind
CM-24-345
October 18, 1971
them and the regular South Bay Aqueduct instead of
the facility that is there now as it is subject to
interruption. Councilman Beebe felt this was not
pointed out too well to the voters in the last elec-
tion, and Mr. Kerr remarked that the last election of the Board
was set up in a great hurry and perhaps there was insufficient time
to explain fully. Project 2 cannot be financed by a connection fee
as the money must be in a capital sum to meet the existing pro-
blem, but beyond that, if it is necessary to expand those facili-
ties, a fund would have been built up through a connection fee and
growth would have paid for that.
(Water Demand
Study)
Councilman Silva stated that in the Chamber report reference was
made to two wells that were capped ten years ago when LRL obtained
water from the Hetch Hetchy project and asked if it was treated or
untreated, and Mr. Kerr stated it was San Francisco water and is
untreated, but it is not available to this area; it was available
to the government of the United States in an emergency. As far as
the wells, they are the ones he had previously referred to as being
high in boron content.
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
Dr. Mandeville stated that the Chamber's position is that of offer-
ing an interim temporary solution from wells presently available.
They are not questioning the quality of the wells, and want to make
it clear that the input from the wells would only be used during
peak shortage periods, but not to be used as a continuous input in
the present system. Dr. Mandeville asked Mr. Kerr to correct him
if he was wrong in saying that these wells could be adapted for
use and chlorinating units put into them to bring them up to health
standards. They are advocating a temporary solution for a critical
peak period and the wells would be shut down when they are not in
demand.
Councilman Silva stated the important information they should have
is how many units it will take to arrive at Step 3, and how long
it will take, rather than be concerned about the growth rate, and
asked Mr. Lee if he had any idea.
Mr. Lee explained his projected figures stating that about 3600 units
would cause a deficit to be taken care of by Step 3 rationing.
Councilman Silva then asked the City Attorney what the courts would
consider to be serious water shortages, and if they should adopt a
moratorium on building based on Step 2, would the courts uphold it.
Mr. Lewis stated he had not observed any decision in a court spe-
cifically dealing with a water shortage that justifies the exercise
of police power, but in general terms, whether the problem is water,
sewage or whatever, you can say the courts will uphold the judgment
of the legislative body, assuming reasonable facts are there to
support the decision. An emergency exists whenever life or pro-
perty are effected. It is up to the Council to weigh the serious-
ness of the problem, but if the Council determines there is a threat,
and other means are not reasonably available to prevent that
threat to life or property, exercise of the police emergency power
is fully justified and will be supported. If it is felt that ra-
tioning would satisfy the problem, this would be an acceptable
solution; then exercise the power to achieve that rationing. How-
ever, if it is felt that this would not satisfactorily solve the
problem and even during rationing there would still be a threat,
that would justify more stringent exercise of police power. He
could not say, specifically, how many permits or at what consump-
tion of water the Council could exercise this power, but could say
the courts would give them considerable leeway in their judgment.
CM-24-346
Councilman Silva asked if they did issue a mor-
atorium, could a builder put in his own water
system, and Mr. Lewis stated he thought he could
as the ordinance, by its own terms, would take
into consideration a developer who could furnish a
of water, but a question would be if they have the
into an underground basin and place a surcharge on
October IS, 1971
(Water Demand
Study)
private source
right to go
it.
Mr. Kerr stated the quota with Zone 7 is a matter of what each
contractor with Zone 7 has agreed to limit his extraction from
the underground. As to the time it can be taken, the desirable
time is at the periods of peak use, then use Zone 7 when there
aren't these heavy calls. As far as right to underground water,
this is separate and apart from Zone 7, which is a matter of
agreement by contract. A pumper from the underground, by pump-
ing for a period of time, establishes a right to that amount of
water and there is a formula used for this calculation. Mr.
Kerr stated there are two things which could prevent a developer
from putting down a well in the tract: I) his land would have
to be so situated, and 2) other pumpers who are still using the
well which might be affected by it.
Mr. Lewis asked if a developer would have to first gain permis-
sion from the State, however Mr. Kerr stated that it must be
approved by the Alameda County Health Department; if he is
acting as a public utility, he must secure certification from
the PUC to provide public utility service, but that has no bear-
ing on the question of whether or not he can drill a well.
Mr. Lee stated that the agreements the City and California Water
have with Zone 7 provide that if Zone 7 cannot furnish, or fails
to furnish all the water that is needed, the independent quota
would be automatically increased.
Mayor Taylor stated there are two subjects that should be dis-
cussed in order: I) if the Council is to accept, as a City
policy, whether they intended to allow the City to reach Step
2, and 2) whether or not they should adopt as a policy, institu-
tion of a water connection fee to take care of, as far as possible,
the cost incurred by a new house.
Councilman Miller made a motion to direct the staff to prepare
a water connection fee ordinance in cooperation with Zone 7 if
necessary; Councilman Beebe suggested this be a cooperative
effort with Pleasanton and the County also, and seconded the
motion.
The City Manager suggested that the recommendation be directed
to Zone 7 as they are the jurisdictional entity, and they, in
turn, would come to the Council for a financial agreement, con-
currence or whatever it might be.
Councilman Miller asked Mr. Lewis if the City could prepare their
own ordinance for water connection fees, that could be used in
conjunction with Zone 7, to build a water treatment plant inde-
pendently of the rest of Zone 7, and Mr. Lewis replied that he
did not know enough about the method Zone 7 would use to form
districts. The water we supply is limited to the extent that if
we supply water we could adopt some kind of fee for a system our-
selves, but that does not answer the question. The City is not
filtering the water, and water connection fees to build a filtra-
tion plant would be unjustified, but if we had some type of con-
tract there is some feasibility.
Councilman Miller withdrew his motion and Councilman Beebe his
second, and Councilman Miller made another motion to instruct the
staff to prepare an ordinance or recommendations to Zone 7, and
work with other jurisdictions, whichever will accomplish the
water connection fee; the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe
and passed unanimously.
CM-24-347
October 18, 1971
(Water Demand
study)
Mayor Taylor felt the Council was responsible for
establishing some level of minimum service for
the people in the City and setting a policy that
they would not allow the possibility of going be-
yond some condition.
Councilman Pritchard asked the Public Works Director for a clari-
fication with regard to the gallons of water per day deficit and
this was calculated to be about 100 gallons per residence per day
during a peak period, which would be 8% to 10% per person, however,
Mr. Lee stated that during a peak period most of the water consump-
tion was for irrigation and it would not be necessary to curtail
any household use.
Councilman Pritchard stated the point he was trying to make was
that regardless of what is done, the City is faced with Step 2,
and Mayor Taylor stated this would be in the summer of 1972 or 1973,
dependent upon the growth rate.
Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Lee what happens to the City's standby system
for fire protection if there should be a drop in the water pres-
sure in the mains for any period of time, and Mr. Lee stated this
did not anticipate any drop in pressure or storage; the rationing
would go into effect so as not to ~eplete, but maintain the levels
of pressure and storage.
Councilman Miller stated there is no guarantee that water rationing
can work, survive or be enforced, and should there be a big fire,
the reserve would be gone.
Councilman Beebe agreed, but stated he would rather explore the
possibility of hooking into wells, and have a committee composed
of representatives from the City, California Water Co. and the
Chamber to look into this possibility.
Councilman Silva made a motion to instruct the staff to prepare an
ordinance to establish the power to limit number of permits, de-
pending upon what step the Council wished to follow as far as water
rationing, and the ordinance should include something to the effect
that even though the Council could have a moratorium on permits,
they could allow light commercial and manufacturing water consum-
ers to connect to water supply. Councilman Silva continued that
they could place the limit at "X" amount of building permits, or
Step 3, whichever occurs first, because if there are 3600 permits
issued and water shortage does not occur to cause Step 3, the or-
dinance should state they may allow more permits.
Mayor Taylor clarified the motion by stating the Council would
set a number of building permits, when they arrive at that number
there will be no more issued. The number will be based on essen-
tially facts they will have updated from time to time. If all
building permits are carried out to completion, assuming they will
be completed as soon as they are issued, they would want to insti-
tute a moratorium at that point in order not to go beyond Step 3.
Mr. Lewis stated it would seem important that the moratorium if
it has to go into effect, not affect permits connected with public
health, such as doctor's buildings, addition to the hospital, etc.,
as well as schools and Vila Gulf.
Mr. Lee stated it could be handled in two ways; on a first come
first serve basis; or secondly, in order of the chronological de-
velopment of the tract, i.e. the tracts that are now final would
have the first priority, in order of the date of the filing of the
tracts; tentatives that are in progress would have priority if
they were filed.
Mr. Taylor stated how the priority of building permits would be set
up is one matter; the other is the policy which the Council wishes
to adopt, but he felt the intent of the motion made by Councilman
Silva was clear.
CM-24-348
October 18, 1971
Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion.
(Water Demand
Study)
Mayor Taylor stated they should set the maximum
rationing step.
Councilman Miller commented that, in his opinion, it would be
incredible to impose severe rationing on the citizens of Liver-
more when it is not necessary; it is hard to police and enforce
and unreasonable interference with individual rights to impose
rationing any further than Step I. Water must be reserved for
public facilities. Councilman Miller felt that by issuing build-
ing permits to the extent that is being suggested will wipe away
all chance of doing this without severe water rationing and throw
away any opportunity to have commerce and industry. He felt the
limit should be Step 1, and the number of building permits should
be limited right now.
Councilman Miller offered an amendment to the motion to limit
the number of building permits to be issued to zero.
Mayor Taylor agreed that Step 3 would be intolerable, and un-
acceptable to adopt a step to that degree; he felt Step 2 was
also unacceptable. At present there is no bond issue proposed;
even though the legislation is proposed to allow a revenue bond
election, which in his mind would depend upon institution of a
connection fee, it would not be until November of 1972. It is
not certain the bond issue will pass and he did not feel it would
unless the water connection fee is instituted by that time in a
clear cut system. Mayor Taylor did not feel that zero permits
should be set, but that if a developer is almost finished with a
tract, he should be allowed to complete it in an orderly way.
Councilman Miller stated if there was to be an orderly moratorium
and it is not imposed now, the application for building permits
will not be orderly; secondly, the implication of Mr. Kerr1s
statements that we will be at Step I in 1972, based on what we have
now must be considered. If they do as suggested by Mr. Lewis,
and accept commercial industrial users on a case-by-case basis,
they could remain in the Step 1, which is reasonable and leaves
the City some option for the public facilities which must be
alJ.owed water.
Mayor Taylor stated he would second the motion to amend if Coun-
cilman Miller would specify "residential building permits"; then
the only other permit that would be denied would be a very large
industrial water user. Also, as far as parks, if you are ration-
ing water for the public safety, welfare and health; you really
do not consider development of a water system for parks at the
same time you have a moratorium.
Councilman Miller stated the intent of his amendment was to restrict
residential building permits, and that commercial and industrial
building permits be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Councilman Silva stated the amendment was based on Step 1; that
Step 2 meant limiting lawn and garden irrigation during stipulated
times of the day, with the maximum demand hours eventually between
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. which is fairly restrictive, and asked
if there was an alternative step.
Mr. Lee suggested a limit on odd numbered houses to odd numbered
days and allow watering from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p,m., and extend
the time as it became necessary; this would be a combination be-
tween Step 2 and Step 3 - the percentage of rationing would be
based upon the restriction imposed.
Mr. Kerr stated a result could be obtained, automatically, by
imposing any certain set of conditions - it should be a flexible
arrangement to gain the results necessary.
CM-24-349
October 18, 1971
(Water Demand
Study)
Mayor Taylor felt they should have a report from
the staff and Cal Water on the proposal submitted
by the Chamber of Commerce.
Councilman Miller stated that with regard to the question of the
wells raised by the Chamber, if the water is of decent quality
and the wells are put together by a group of developers, and it
alleviates the problem so Step I is not exceeded, he would be
willing to relax the restrictions.
Councilman Beebe felt the Council was premature in making a motion
as they needed more information. By halting the growth immediately,
the Council would show no concern for the hundreds of people who
make a living in the building industry; on the other hand, he did
not wish to see an influx; he felt Mr. Lee's suggestion to give
priority by tracts would control that to some extent and he was
not prepared to vote for either motion until they had more infor-
mation; he felt there were other alternatives.
Councilman Miller stated he would like to make an addition to his
amendment because setting the building permits equal to zero with
a case-by-case basis for commercial does not say when this condi-
tion would be lifted, which condition would be when there is a
water treatment plant ready to operate.
Mayor Taylor stated he did not agree with this suggestion as there
are a number of alternatives and the Chamberreport gave no engin-
eering data; he was not agreeable to the addition to the amendment.
Mayor Taylor stated they should set a policy first for what level
they would get for the people; it is a technical matter to describe
the various alternatives; developing wells is one, which he did
not wish to rule out.
Councilman Silva mentioned several instances of what would happen
if a moratorium was passed tonight, and how many people might be
laid off work because of it - people in the building industry,
lumber yards, gravel companies, and in effect, most of the businesses
would be affected. Councilman Beebe also commented along this line,
and felt we needed more facts.
Councilman Miller said any decision made by a public body could
help or hurt people - some would be hurt by a freeze, but he felt
the majority would be hurt by water rationing, and specifically
mentioned fire protection.
Mr. Lee stated that all steps took fire protection into considera-
tion and provided that there would be no degrading of the fire
fighting capability; rationing would be imposed so as not to deplete
the storage or reduce the pressure.
/
Mayor Taylor stated he was worried about having the necessary
capacity for the Junior College, industrial users, etc., as we
have a very unbalanced community; even talk of a moratorium is
going to slow down possible commercial development, but it is only
temporary.
Councilman Pritchard stated if Mayor Taylor felt as he just stated,
he hoped Ne would not vote for the amendment which he had seconded
until they have more information at hand. They all agree they have
an extremely critical problem, that something should be done im-
mediately, but he felt the motion to amend had a tendency to make
a cleavage in the Council; by taking a vote on the amendment will
have a tendency to emotionalize the subject, have a tendency to
be divisive and destroy any solution the Council may come up with.
For that reason he made a motion to table the amendment until there
is more information; this motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
COUNCILMEN PRESENT.
CM-24-350
October 18, 1971
After some discussion on the motion, Councilman
Pritchard withdrew his motion to table the amend-
ment.
(Water Demand
Study)
Mr. Kerr stated he wanted to make it clear it was their intention
to study with the City staff and Chamber committee, the alterna-
tives they suggested to see that they are thoroughly evaluated.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, stated he was disappointed
that this matter had been allowed to accrue for over a year; last
November when the election failed, these deliberations should have
commenced at that time. The business about people being hurt at
this point in time must be taken into consideration. He did feel
the home building industry had long overdrawn its account in the
Valley; you cannot count the number of people who have had to
leave because of increased taxes; people are getting hurt both
ways and he felt it was unfair to cite specific instances.
Milt Codoroli, president of the Chamber of Commerce, stated there
was no such thing as an orderly moratorium; the Chamber has attempt-
ed to make a study of what can be done to correct the problem; he
did not feel rationing is vital to the degree that has been dis-
cussed, only inconvenient. A bond issue will not be passed, or any
revenue measure until people experience some rationing. He felt
the last bond issue failed because no one was seriously affected.
The Chamber would like to have the Council make a thorough study
of the situation and attempt to come up with an alternative solu-
tion, before they declare a moratorium. He felt this would be a
mistake, and it would hurt more than it would help; whether they
cut off building permits tonite and open them up 90 days from now
or cut them off 90 days from now will make no difference; the
difference will be that they will have more time to study the
situation, get the facts and then make the decision.
Dr. Donald Rocco, Livermore dentist, echoed Mr. Hoenig's opinion
that some action should have been taken before; the Council should
have worked harder to remedy the situation that they knew existed.
He wished the Council would ask the staff why they did not meet
with Zone 7 to come up with some solution. He felt the Council
should reassess their position; they had asked what the businessmen
did for the community; he was now asking what the Council intended
to do for the businessmen. A building moratorium would not do
them any good, nor the citizens of Livermore; people who come here
for commerce of business rely on the population. He did feel it
was time to make a decision, whether it be right or wrong. To a
question posed by Councilman Pritchard as to whether he had a
solution, Dr. Rocco replied he had not, but felt there should be
some restriction, and not a moratorium declaring no more building.
Mayor Taylor stated that about fifteen months ago Councilman Silva
asked the staff that a report be prepared as to when we might be
faced with rationing; some of tlE Councilmen met wit h the Zone 7
Board after failure of the last bond election; the staff meets
regularly with the Zone 7 people as well as the California Water
staff. There are certain decisions the Council must make in the
interest of the community; they are acting in the interest of
public safety and welfare.
Earl Mason, Associated Professions, stated any action taken would
have a very severe effect on all of the community. Having worked
with the Chamber committee and met with Zone 7 and other agencies
on this problem, he felt the Council was rushing into something
without the benefit of all of the facts; he did not feel that
action should be taken this evening; they should take a little
more time for the benefit of the community, to get all the input.
Their decision is aimed, not at finding a solution, but cutting
off everything right now; the Council has the obligation to provide
water and if Zone 7 was unable to pass a bond election, it was
stated by the Zone 7 representative that Cal Water and the City
so have the right to take care of the water needs even if it means
CM-24-351
October 18, 1971
(Water Demand
Study)
drilling more wells. The aim of the committee
was to look for the most economical way to solve
this interim problem, and the suggestion was to
review the existing wells. He did not feel the
Council was looking for an interim solution.
Councilman Silva felt Mr. Mason had not understood his motion,
and explained it further to him; however Mr. Mason stated he under-
stood his motion clearly and felt it was a reasonable solution
to the problem, but allow time to review the other alternatives.
Mr. Mason further stated the Chamber was willing to cooperate in
any way they can to help the City and the staff to find a solution.
Mayor Taylor stated if they had an immediate and temporary mora-
torium he felt it would be lifted as soon as solution for provid-
ing water is found. He did not feel there would be much incentive
for developers to finance an interim temporary water supply unless
there is a permanent solution. It would not be in the public in-
terest to put money in a new well, when it could somehow be put
into permanent treatment facilities. This is a technical matter,
and the staff has been instructed to report back on it.
A called vote was then taken on the amendment which failed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
The Council again discussed the restrictive hours, and Councilman
Silva stated he did not care for restrictive hours, but preferred
every other day watering, with no restriction in hours; regardless
of the step that is selected, he wanted assurance they would main-
tain fire protection; also reserve water for future industry and
commercial.
Councilman Miller stated it was inconceivable that the Council im-
pose water rationing on the community, but from the implication
of the motion this is what will happen; secondly, if they intended
to impose water rationing before a decision is made, there is a
period in which it would be possible for developers to stockpile
building permits; he felt this would be unfair before they make
the decision. The options for issuing permits was discussed as
mentioned earlier in the meeting, and Mr. Lee felt there would be
no problem in the next thirty days.
Councilman Beebe suggested that no permits be issued for the next
two week period while the ordinance is finalizedcrthat no more than
fifteen per week be issued on the basis of the last five year aver-
age construction by the variousoontractors in the City. The City
Manager was asked if he had any suggestions in this regard, and
Mr. Parness stated he did not, but did feel it was an appropriate
matter of concern regarding the issuance of permits as there may
be some who might take advantage, and saw no reason why the Council
could not adopt a motion instructing the staff not to accept any
permits until the ordinance is drafted and they will make every
effort to have this for the Council in one week; in the meantime,
the staff will attempt to give the Council a reasonable recommen-
dation for future issuance of permits.
Councilman Beebe moved the motion as suggested; it was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard. Councilman Silva asked, if the motion
could be amended to state that they allow one permit per builder,
the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and approved
unanimously as amended.
The clerk repeated the motion before the called vote was taken:
To instruct the staff to prepare an ordinance that would give the
power to limit permits (with no number given); establish the steps
(no number) and allow light commercial and industrial water users;
CM-24-352
to preserve fire protection standards for the
City and establish a formula for issuance of
permits. The motion passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
October 18, 1971
(Water Demand
Study)
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, the reading
of the ordinance was waived (title read only),
and the ordinance amending Section 12.25 (g)
(I) and (2) relating to license tax was intro-
duced.
*
*
*
A communication was received notifying the City
re a hearing to consider request of Eugene W.
Flynn to withdraw certain property from an agri-
cultural preserve. This matter had been removed
from the Consent Calendar.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE BUSINESS LICENSE
FEES, Sec. 12.25
COMMUNICATION RE
AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE (Flynn)
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard that the Council go on
record as opposed to the removal of this property from the agri-
cultural preserve; seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mr. Lewis explained that he had talked to the attorney represent-
ing the Flynn parties, who had asked that he explain the facts in
the case to the Council. Mr. Lewis stated that under option to
Dr. Carnazz 0, the real es tate agent, not being cognizant of the
option, requested that the property be put into agricultural pre-
serve. Dr. Carn~ID states it is an impairment of the option and
has threatened Flynn with legal action to recover what he feels
has been damage to the property because it was in a preserve.
If it is taken out of preserve and option is not excercised within
the time required, it is the intent of Mr. Flynn to replace the
property in agricultural preserve.
Mayor Taylor felt the Council should represent the City's position
with regard to withdrawal from a preserve; they are not sitting
in judgment in the case, inasmuch as withdrawal from a preserve,
according to the law the preserve was set up under, should only
be done if the public interest is involved.
After some discussion regarding the matter, Councilman Silva
made a motion to table the matter for a period of one week, se-
conded by Councilman Beebe, however the Council was advised that
the next meeting would not be until the evening of the 26th, the
date of the hearing before the Board of Supervisors; therefore,
the motion for tabling was withdrawn.
The motion then passed by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
*
*
*
The City Attorney advised that there is to be
a hearing on AB 1032 on October 19, covering
some proposed amendments, and the possibilities
of the amendments were discussed.
*
*
*
MAT~ERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (AB 1032)
CM-24-353
October 18, 1971
MTC Study
The City Manager asked that a member of the Council
be appointed to represent the City on the MTC
Transit Study, and the selection is to be made
later.
*
*
*
Mr. Parness stated that a hearing is to be held
before the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and the City of Livermore is on the agenda for
the staff to present to the Board a draft of stan-
dards that we have been waiting for many months
on the new treatment plant design; this must be issued before we
can proceed with the engineering design of the plant. The stand-
ards have been reviewed by the design engineers, Brown and Caldwell,
and a response must be sent with the Council's concurrence. The
most important part of the response which has been prepared has
to do with one part of the standard: the disallow by the City of
the Las Positas Channel for the discharge of any effluent except
if it is discharged as a part of our reclamation process. We
oppose that very strongly as it is felt it should be modified
considerably and this point will be discussed with the staff and
the Board on the 28th by Mr. Lee and Brown and Caldwell. Mr.
Parness read the letter that has been prepared, and a motion was
made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, that the
recommendation as read, be presented to the Board, and passed un-
animously.
Hearing -
Water Quality
Control Board
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Airport
Expansion)
(Tippler's
Tax~
,
(Chamber of
Commerce)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to have
a discussion set on the agenda in the near future
regarding the airport expansion. Mr. Parness ad-
vised there are expansion plans included in the
capital improvements budget which will be ready
for distribution soon.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated we have taken a position
on the Tippler's tax, and felt that something more
should be done regarding this legislation, and
felt that the City Attorney might make some con-
tacts when he appears in Sacramento on Tuesday.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to the budget session
at which time they discussed justification of the
subsidy to the Chamber, and felt that whatever the
Council may decide next spring, the Chamber should
be notified formally that the Council would like to reconsider the
terms of the contract with them, and the staff was instructed to
make this notification. No notification was given to them last
year which was one of the points of contention.
*
*
*
(AB 1057) Councilman Silva stated that with regard to AB 1057
Regional Government, he would like to change his
position to oppose it unless all officials are
from the presently elected body, and perhaps have a study session
on the whole bill as he did not understand how the bill came about
when they have ABAG. Councilman Miller felt ABAG was totally in-
effectual, however Councilman Pritchard stated that he, at one
time, was opposed to ABAG, but has since found that ABAG's posi-
tion is an association of Bay Area governments, as it states,
which is dedicated to local control over jurisdictions, whereas
the Knox Bill would do the opposite. Councilman Silva stated he
would like to have this on a future agenda for discussion.
* * *
CM-24-354
October 18, 1971
Mayor Taylor stated there is an effort by the
government to institute a limitation on taxing
power of the City as a tax reform idea, and the
League of California Cities urges all City offi-
cials to communicate with their senators and assemblymen
opposition to any concept or expenditure in this, and so
seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
(Oppose Certain
Tax Reform)
urging
moved;
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the l,ouncil, the meeting was adjourned at
12:50 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
* * *
~ 2.-:::C+
ATTEST
,', , ,/; (
. ' \/.ct.... /, / (".
City Clerk
~ive~more, California
*
*
*
Re2U1ar Meetin2 of October 26, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on October 26, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambersl 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at ~:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre-
siding.
PRESENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor ROLL CALL
Taylor
Councilman Silva
ABSENT:
.
.
.
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present
in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
.
.
.
The minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1971 were
approved as amended, on motion of Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, by unanimous vote.
MINUTES
.
.
*
The Mayor invited anyone in the audience to speak on
any matter not on the agenda; howeve~ there were no
comments.
OPEN FORUM
.
*
.
Public Hearing on a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to provide for the adoption of future width lines/spe-
cial bUilding lines on: Stanley Boulevard from
E1 Caminito to Isabel Avenue; Vasco Road between US 580
and Dalton Avenue; First street, between Maple Street and
US 580.
PUBLIC
HEARING re
AMENDMENT
(FWL-SPBL)
The Planning Director explained that the important thing to under-
stand about; the establishment of Future Width Lines and a Special
Building Line is that this is not a condemnation of property, State
law allows the City to adopt special setback lines prior to the
CM-24-355
October 26, 1971
(Public Hearing) zoning process and the only purpose for establish-
ing a future width line is to establish a point
from which the building setback line can be measured. The future
width line is recommended by the City Engineer, is adopted, and the
Special Building Line is measured from that point; then any structure
being built prior to the widening of the street is located according
to that Future Width Line.
Mr. Musso further stated that the Stanley Boulevard widening has
been completed and can be dropped;'the Vasco Road widening is very
simple, but the First Street widening is complicated because it is an
unequal widening, and there is some question relative to City partici-
pation in the unequal widening. Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing
at this time.
W. L. Bernard, 438 Robert Way, asked if Stanley Boulevard was now
complete.
Daniel Lee advised Mr. Bernard that since the Future Width Lines Amend-
ment on Stanley Boulevard was initiated, a final tract has been adopted
in the area, and the City now has the needed right-of-way. If the
Council drops this from the list of streets on which future widths are
to be established, it is not being considered.
Mr. Bernard asked if he could have documentation to that effect inasmuch,
according to Mayor Taylor's explanation, Mr. Bernard had been worried
that some of his property may be condemned in the future, and he was
assured that the street widening of Stanley Boulevard is now complete.
A letter has been received from Mr. Keith Fraser, objecting to the Future
Width Lines on First Street as suggested.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to continue the public hearing until November 1 and to instruct the
staff to delete the Stanley Boulevard Future wiAth Lines, and the motion
passed unanimously.
.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE REZONING
(Properties
Adjacent Hosk.r
Lane)
A rezoning proposal was initiated by the Planning
Commission for possible zoning change from RL-6
District to RS District, or other RL Districts for
seven (7) parcels located adjacent to Hosker Lane,
north of First Street.
Councilman Miller asked for permission to abstain from discussion
on this property as he is a property owner within 300 feet; Mayor
Taylor also abstained as his home is within 300 feet of this property.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to remove this item for later discussion, pending Councilman
Silva's arrival.
Councilman Silva was seated at this time.
Vice Mayor Pritchard then took the chair for this hearing.
The Planning Director explained that the Planning Commission had
initiated the rezoning as a result of an application tor a variance
to split one lot, years ago, and the matter has been continued from
time to time to see if some provision could be made for improving
Hosker Lane as a street, and improving the water and sewage to
accomm04a.te the subdivision of the properties; the matter was
tabled and brought back a few months ago at which time the Planning
Commission and staff attempted to bring Hosker Lane to a higher
standard to accommodate the higher number of dwelling units,
finally the Planning Commission, with the testimony of the property
CM-24-356
,.-'~.-
October 26, 19?1
owners that they were not interested in improving (Public Hearing)
the street, concluded that the variance for the
Thibault property for one unit should be granted and
not allowing the other two units. The Planning Commission initia-
ted rezoning to recognize the fact that the street was not going
to be improved, and to, in effect, maintain the status quo as one
unit per half acre. The recommendation of the Planning Commission
is to rezone the property to RS-2.
Mayor pro tempore Pritchard opened the public hearing at this time.
Ruth Graham, resident of Hosker Lane, stated her complete agreement
with the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter, and
hoped the Council would concur.
Denise Thibault, one of the property owners, stated they had made
application to split a half acre lot into three lots; she had
written a letter to the .Council opposing the rezoning, copy of
which was included in the agenda. Mrs. Thibault referred to the
map and pointed out the area which is now zoned RL-6 and that
which is industrial, and stated the Planning Commission is pro-
posing to zone the seven parcels into half acre lots, which she did
not feel was economically feasible and thought it was discriminatory
zoning as the property is now zoned RL-6. They had asked to be able
to use their property the same as other people with this zoning.
The method the City originally intended to use as properties wanted
to build and develop would be to enter into agreement with the City
to participate in an improvement district at such time as over half
of the people in the area had agreed to do so. She felt when there
are half of the people ready to develop their property, an assess-
ment district can be formed and the improvements installed properly
since no one property could afford the entire cost.
Mr. Musso explained that the application for splitting the parcel
had to be done unde a variance because the lots do not have front-
age on a public street. The Planning Commission was not adverse
to allowing the subdivision; it was only the question of the street
improvements, as no one was able or willing to install them, although
an assessment district had been proposed and they had discussed a
benefit district with Mrs. Thibault, there was no interest in street
improvements. The main reason the Planning Commission proposed
this rezoning is to recognize the nature of the area. If it changes
with the street being improved, possib17 it can be subdivided with
RS-2 zoning, the properties remain as they are. The Planning
Commission has said Mrs. Thibault can build one house and no
street improvements will be required.
Councilman Beebe inquired if the property owners decided on a
benefit district, would it still be done under RS-2 if the zoning
were changed.
Mr. Musso replied that there would be no incentive for them to
form a district under RS-2, but it would be with the promise of
a higher zoning. Mr. Musso remarked that possibly nineteen houses
could be built in the area; from the estimated number of units that
can be built would support the project for street improvement.
Mrs. Thibault stated under RS-2 there could only be seven houses;
however, Mr. Musso stated if the property owners agreed to improve
the street, under the planned density for the area, about nineteen
units can be built under RS-4 or RS-5.
The letter from Fred Carroll,of 3338 First Street, objecting to
any rezoning of the area was acknowledged.
Mrs. Anona Carlin, of Hosker Lane, stated she would prefer that
there not be any more houses built in the area.
CM-24-357
October 26, 1971
(Public Hearing)
Councilman Silva made a motion that the pub-
lic hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman
Beebe and approved unanimously.
The Council discussed the street frontage and the development
of the lots, and street improvements.
Councilman Silva felt the staff recommendation for RS-5 zoning
was the correct zoning as there could be two or three units,
as a cluster type unit, could be built; perhaps with this zon-
ing the whole area could be developed under a joint venture.
Councilman Silva made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation,
to rezone the property from RL-6 to RS-5, and refer the matter
back to the Planning Commission for report, seconded b,y Council-
man Beebe, and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Silva, Beebe and Pritchard
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Mayor Taylor returned to preside at this time.
*
.
*
PUBLIC HEARING
HE UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES
The public hearing re the proposed under-
ground utility district on Second Street
from South Livermore Avenue to South "N"
street and certain areas of South t1tL" and
South ")1ft Streets was scheduled for this
time. Mayor Taylor suggested this hearing also be continued,
and declared the hearing open at this time.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to continue the pUblic
hearing, seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously.
The hearing was continued until November I.
. . .
Mayor Taylor explained that at the last meet-
ing the Council had discussed a report from
the Public Works Director on the water supply
and consumption situation, and it was the
unanimous opinion of the Council at that
t1Jle that something must be done, however,
there was not a general consensus on what to do, so a one week
hold on building permits was instituted for the purpose of pre-
venting a run on building permits.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCES HE
RESIDENTIAL
BLDG ACTIVITY
The City Manager furnished the Council with a detailed report;
also, several letters were received, inclUding one from Jerry
Jones! of 1120 Madison Avenue, recommending a moratorium on
build Dg permits until a number of services can be provided.
Councilman Miller stated the report did not include the service
connections for Vila Gulf of which there are 47, as these were
a pre-existing commitment, and suggested that these should be
reserved along with the commercial and industrial permits.
Mayor Taylor explained for the benetit of the audience exactly
what the City is faced with regarding the water supply and
consumption as predictedL which preceded the steps which the
Council is now taking. The only matter now under discussion
is w~t level of rationing they are willing to accept, the
number of building permits that should be issued and at what
point in time they should draw the line.
The Public Works Director explained more fully the predicted
deficiency based on the growth rate, and explained the steps
of rationing suggested to overcome the deficiency during the
peak demand periods. Mr. Lee also explained the percentage
in the rate of growth, pointing out how the rate of growth
would affect the curve as shown on the chart.
CM-24-358
October 26~ 1971
Councilman Silva asked Mr. Lee how long the
period of rationing would last~ as he had
understood it would only be during peak de-
mand times~ and Mr. Lee advised it would be
from June through September which is considered the peak demand
period. However~ Mr. Lee felt we should inform the public in
advance of the problem and establish the rationing deemed neces-
sary along the lines as outlined in his report. The rationing
could be established with notice in the paper at times when it
is not a problem, so that the peak demand period is not reached
without any education or preparation of the public. There may
be days of high temperatures when rationing is not needed~ but
they should be prepared and rationing should be established in
advance to avoid a shortage. The actual period of time could be
as low as twenty days, depending on the temperatures. Rationing
should~ perhaps~ be in effect during the whole summer, but re-
lieve the public of the necessity during times of low demand.
They must determine what experience we are having with the con-
servation of water; the actual demand on the system and act
accordingly at the time.
(Residential
Building Activity)
As suggested by Councilman Beebe, Mr. Lee explained more fully
how the rate of deficiencies might be stepped up because of an
increase in the growth rate, and the deficiency predicted for
1973 might actually be experienced in 1972.
Councilman Miller commented that due to the increased growth rate
during the last quarter~ there will definitely be some mild ra-
tioning during 1972, corresponding to Step 1 of the rationing~
asking people to be frugal with water.
Councilman Pritchard stated something should be clarified inasmuch
as we are not talking about a water shortage~ as Zone 7 is only
using a third of the water that is available to them, but rather
a shortage of facilities. Also~ he did not like the term "ration-
ing" used~ but would prefer judicious use of water. The idea in
general is not less water for customers, simply a regulation of
the time the water can be used, and this was water for irrigation
purposes only, and as pointed out by Mr. Lee this might be for
twenty days during the summer~ two ten day periods or perhaps three
seven day periods. What is being considered is somewhere between
Step 2 and Step 3 which would entail not watering lawns every
other day during whichever period is specified. Councilman Prit-
chard stated this possibility was discussed last week rather than
limiting the hours.
Councilman Miller stated there is still one problem-unless you
are proposing to levy a fine~ you cannot guarantee that everyone
will abide by the water regulation rules inasmuch as if the people
do not abide by the regulations, there will be~ in fact, lower
water pressure and we will then have a fire protection hazard.
Councilman Pritchard felt that Councilman Miller did not have
enough faith in the citizens of the community~ and Councilman Silva
stated he had enough faith, that if rationing is necessary~ the
public would abide by the regulations.
Councilman Miller~ however~ stated he was only speaking to the
facts presented to them by the representative from California Water
Services Company who spoke to the same issue last week, stating
that people's habits are very hard to change. If the Council is
willing to provide repressive regulations upon the people by im-
posing water rationing~ that is fine~ but there is a fire protec-
tion risk in doing so.
Councilman Silva stated there is not fire protection risk and this
was discussed last week, however~ Councilman Miller insisted that
water rationing is impossible to police and enforce.
CM-24-359
October 26, 1971
(Residential Councilman Beebe stated an instance of water ra-
Bldg. Activity) tioning in another City, stating that when the
public was informed of the problem, their cooper-
ation was wholehearted, and he felt the citizens
of this community were also reliable and if water rationing is
necessary we will have the same cooperation.
Mayor Taylor commented that if the people realize that means are
being sought to solve the problem and realize they are not going
to pay for facilities to support growth, they might go along with
water rationing. It is not a question of whether people will accept
water rationing, but rather whether or not we force it upon them.
We are not discussing whether or not to ask the people if they
would like to ration water, but rather telling them there is only
so much water. Unlike many of the communities in the Valley, this
is something f~seeable; many of them found themselves with a short-
age without prior knowledge. The question is what is to be done to
solve the long range problem, also what is to be done in the interim.
Mayor Taylor continued that the Zone 7 Board has not yet set a date
for an election; in fact, have not decided what the project will be.
However, there is talk of an election in November 1972, so it will
be after the summer of 1974 before water will be obtainable from
any expanded facility, and to continue until that time, allowing the
City to grow, without taking some steps would not be very responsible
as the bond issue may fail and they may have to resort to some other
method. The water is there, and the Councilmen are discussing tem-
porary measures, but they must seek a solution at this time. Mayor
Taylor felt the people would support an equitable financing measure
and the Council has suggested that a connection fee be charged and
the Zone 7 Directors are unofficially in agreement. He felt cer-
tain a bond issue would fail unless there is an established fee in
advance so that the people understand they are not subsidizing a
development.
Councilman Beebe agreed, saying the philosophy of a connection fee
is to expand water treatment and forever remove the possibility of
a shortage of water; this is what it has done for sewers, flood
control and other facilities. They will soon reach the point where
a fee will be necessary for future development; they cannot go
through bond issues which are subject to failure every year because
water is so vital.
Councilman Pritchard remarked he had not meant toov e r simplify the
problem; indeed a problem does exist. Two extreme positions were
presented to him over the weekend - one group stating there would
be an extreme drought, and the other feeling the problem is non-
existent, neither of which positions will solve the problem. If
the City discontinues issuance of permits immediately, there will
still be the possibility of water restriction this next summer; if
they perm~t uncontrolled growth, without the guarantee of a water
supply, they will surely have to severely limit the time or times
the citizens can use the water. It is obvious that at this time
they must protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens
of this community; it is not entirely our problem as the City is
not in the business of providing wholesale water, but it is the
problem of Zone 7, another public body, which is responsible to
the public. Until such time as Zone 7 can, in some manner finance
and build expanded water facilities, which facilities the citizens
of this Valley do not wish to pay for without some form of "pay as
you go" arrangement, indeed, growth paying for itself, Councilman
Pritchard did not feel that the Council, or the City of Livermore,
could any longer tolerate growth that will burden our already
overburdened cost of public services. By assuming a 13% growth
rate in July of 1973, there will be 3000 additional water connec-
tion permits, which will possibly cause us to limit our irrigation
for certain peak periods that year. By weighing this against the
specter of immediate cessation of building permits in the community,
CM-24-36o
October 26, 1971
and the possibility of laying off some 500 to
1000 people who are earning their livelihood
in the building trades in Livermore, he can
only assume the very slight inconvenience of not being able to
water his lawn during certain periods during the summer, he can
easily see which way he would lean. There are approximately
3300 units pending from the tentative maps and final maps and
those with public improvements built in, and by supposing these
units will be built by the summer of 1973, predicting a 13%
growth rate - 500 of those 3300 do not belong to tracts but to
individuals, and another 724 are units zoned for multiple in
various areas, possibly will not be completed, so there is the
possibility there will be no more than 2300 units built in the
next two years because of economics. Rather than talk about
building permits, Councilman Pritchard suggested that the Coun-
cil allow permits on those parcels of land that are in tentative
maps or progressed further, and this evening the Council adopt
an emergency ordinance stopping all tentative tract maps and not
accepting any more tentative tract ma~s until the water problem
is solved, and that the City adopt a ~500 water connection fee
and hold the funds until such time as Zone 7 can determine what
kind of connection fee is reasonable to build whatever facilities
are needed.
(Residential Bldg.
Activity)
The Council discussed the suggestions offered by Councilman
Pritchard, and Councilman Silva stated he had thought of some-
thing along this line, but in talking to the City Attorney,
found there are many legal ramifications regarding all of these
proposals - the main one being on tentative maps as we cannot,
by law, deny the actual tentative map.
Mr. Lewis added that there are legal problems relative to the
tentative maps as that is simply a process for the division of
land and does not pertain to the building of structures. From
a legal standpoint the building of houses is separated from the
tentative and final map stage, but he felt the Council has the
power to prohibit the issuance of building permits and it could
be adopted as a policy or a matter of law by saying that build-
ing permits for legal lots created after a certain date will not
be issued.
Mayor Taylor commented with regard to the fee which he felt must
be assessed, since Zone 7 has this power and while they are dis-
cussing the matter, the developers would apply for permits imme-
diately to avoid payment of this $500 fee. He did not feel we
should grant permits until we have the fee established; when the
fee is established and determined to be equitable, they could
then allow a reasonable number of permits to be issued.
Councilman Beebe stated he would not like to see applications
for permits withheld inasmuch as it would affect the welfare of
many in the community, and was favorable to the adoption of an
emergency $500 fee to be collected by the City, and when Zone 7
reaches an agreement, our amount could be adjusted to their figure;
in the meantime, if there is a run on permits, this would safe-
guard the future water supply.
Councilman Silva asked Chairman Becker if he could give an esti-
mated time this water connection fee might be resolved, and Mr.
Robert Becker advised that they do have some figures but they
have not been reviewed by the Zone 7 Board of Directors - this
is a preliminary study done by the staff and so in no way should
it be construed to be an official recommendation by the Board
of Directors of Zone 7. In giving the figures he felt he should
elaborate a little about what he was about to say as there may
be some confusion as to what the figures actually mean. Mr.
Becker stated that if they were to finance all future water pro-
jects and put the burden of cost of those projects on people
CM-24-361
October 26, 1971
(Residential coming into the Valley, the initial estimates may
Bldg. Activity) be something like $725 per connection fee If in
fact they had a Project 2 bond issue approved to
take care of the growth they are committed to,
which is what Project 2 would have done, a figure like $400 per
house would assure them enough money to build additional facilities
in the future that may be necessary. One thing many people over-
look in terms of having new growth in the Valley pay their way
is the fact that the system they are now operating is not owned;
there is a debt of approximately $6 million which the people are
paying off. As new people come in they are helping to payoff the
debt for the current system, and also for committed expenditures
for water we receive by contract from the aqueduct. The fixed
cost at the present time is $215,000 per year so that the people
who move into the Valley are picking up part of that bill also.
He stated we should not overlook the fact that the people coming
into the Valley, when you speak of hook-up fees, are helping us
to pay for the water service we are presently using, which is an
unpaid for asset. The thinking of the Board at this time is they
feel there is no one single system or method of paying for water
facilities in the future; they have discussed revenue bonds to pay
for new facilities strictly out of revenue from water but found
that to be impractical in that the wholesale cost of water would
rise substantially. Mr. Becker stated he wished to correct a mis-
conception along this line - they recently raised water rates by
30%. All of their customers, including the City of Livermore and
Cal Water Company, automatically raised their rates 30%; this was
not justified on the basis of the cost of increased cost of whole-
sale water. If they used the hookup fee and attempted to have the
ability to use the tax base in a general obligation bond they think
it would be an equitable approach. There seems to be general agree-
ment on the Board that the overall approaches have to be used,
rather than one specific way to finance future water systems for
the Valley.
Mr. Becker stated the Board of Directors of Zone 7 will probably
attempt to institute a hookup fee somewhere between $200 and $4DO
Valleywide; will attempt to investigate the possibility of increas-
ing the cost of wholesale water and pursuade the public entities
not to pass this increase on to the customers because it is not
fair; they should pass on the cost of the wholesale water, but not
add a similar percentage, plus some amount that would come out of
the general obligation capability. The staff is working on this
matter now, but they are trying to determine what will happen to
the growth situation in the VCSD and in Livermore and are attempt-
ing to make reasonable proximations and a compromise figure is to
be ready at the next Board meeting at which time the Board may be
able to act sometime early in December. The other thing they must
resolve completely is the exact scope of what Project 2 should be.
Mr. Becker stated there are other alternatives which the Council
has not discussed, and mentioned some of the facility expansions
which are possible as there are some capabilities of increasing
the water capacity of the present plant, it had been increased
once before by changing the filter bed; there could be development
of storage facilities which would be more expensive. The other
thing that the people of the City of Livermore should realize is
that the tax rate under Zone 7 has gone down for the last two years
which is an unusual thing for a taxing group. They could tax at
a rate of 501, but they have been taxing at a rate of 431. As the
City is able to sell more water, the tax rate will be lower in
Zone 7, rather than higher - they need customers and ability to
distribute water rather than ability to stop building future facil-
ities. They are committed by contract to buy 46,000 acre feet of
water by 1geO and they are presently buying at the rate of 12,000
acre feet per year. The more water they are able to distribute and
sell, the cheaper the water bill will be.
Councilman Beebe asked if there are ways and means found to increase
the water capacity with the water connection fees, would it obviate
the necessity of extreme water rationing in 1974 as indicated or
CM-24-362
October 26, 1971
would it naturally improve the situation, and
Mr. Becker stated it would alleviate it, but
again there may be some misconceptions in this
area. The Council had discussed an unusual rate
of growth last year, higher than anticipated; actually the water
consumption was very low as water consumption was only increased
by 3%, so the number of houses is not directly proportionate to
the amount of water that is used in anyone year. Long, extended
high-temperature days have a much greater effect than anything
else, and he felt it reasonable to say that water rationing of
some kind can be anticipated depending on the temperature; he
would hate to predict there would be extreme rationing in 1974 -
there may be some.
(Residential Bldg.
Activity)
Mayor Taylor stated that with respect to timing, he would prefer
not resuming the issuance of building permits until they have set-
tled the fee - perhaps for a period of sixty days, and the City
Attorney was asked for advice with regard to immediate adoption
of a water connection fee.
Mr. Lewis stated he felt we had authority to adopt a water connec-
tion fee in regard to the City's water department, but has not
found the specific authority for an immediate fee. He was con-
cerned about the legality of the fee without a decided purpose
for the fee inasmuch as it must be reasonable in the sense it has
to have an object. If an alternative plan is developed, such as
a construction of a facility of our own which would take raw
water in whatever amount for so much, he could see enacting a
fee to pay for that as the water would be available to the City,
generally, to supplement Zone 7, but we do not have that. There
is the possibility of Zone 7 adopting their own fee and he did
not know how our fee, if we could adopt it, would fit into that.
Mr. Lewis did not feel the fee could be adopted tonight with the
information they have. He hoped there was a way to prevent the
issuance of building permits for such a period of time to allow
Zone 7 to see what alternatives they have, even for projects
strictly for the City of Livermore. The Zone District Act pro-
vides that they can provide for a fee in various areas and it
may be they could adopt a fee just for the City of Livermore
which would amortize some needed improvement that would be avail-
able for our water system - the filtration and treatment of more
water for the City which is a possible alternative; this does not
go to what the Council is asking about in regard to a City fee,
but it is an alternative. Mr. Lewis stated he would appreciate
another week to develop what can or cannot be done in this re-
gard, during which time they could possibly delay the issuance
of building permits to see what they come up with, and they may
be able to delay the issuance of permits for sixty days, but did
not feel that much time was necessary.
Mayor Taylor recalled park dedication fees which had been collect-
ed, under protest in some cases, which the building industry
fought at great length. Some of those fees were tied up until
the recent court decision, and the same thing might happen with
the water connection fee and funds might be collected for a
nebulous purpose. Fees may have to be returned at some later
date, whereas, if they waited for sixty days, it may be done
legally by the proper agency and also apply elsewhere in the Valley.
Councilman Pritchard asked how many permits had been issued and
the construction not completed, and Herbert Street, Chief Build-
ing Inspector, replied he did not know exactly, but generally
within two or three weeks after permits are issued, the buildings
are commenced, but thought there might be forty or fifty. Mr.
Street did state there was much building that probably will not
be completed for three or four months.
Councilman Silva stated after hearing testimony from a Chairman
of the Zone 7 Board, who stated, in his opinion, there would
CM-24-363
October 26, 1971
(Residential probably be no severe rationing in 1974, and
Bldg. Activity) tying this into the Mayor's statement that
Project 2 probably will be passed if we
have a water connection fee, and hopefully, Zone 7 will have
their bond issue in November 1972. When it does pass, it
should be constructed in 1974, which should still give them
some leeway. Councilman Silva made a motion to table the
urgency ordinance, restricting residential building activity
in the community at this time, and because of this discussion
did not anticipate there would be numerous requests for building
permits. Councilman Beebe seconded the motion for debating
purposes, and when Mayor Taylor asked if he agreed with the
motion, Councilman Beebe replied he agreed with the statements
made by Mr. Becker of Zone 7; also, he had discussed the issue
with the staff and they confirmed these statements as there
are some reasonable expansions that can be accomplished, and
for this reason had seconded the motion.
Councilman Silva stated he had also received additional infor-
mation regarding the expansion of the plant, which is another
alternative that had not been discussed last week.
Councilman Miller made a motion to allow debate on the motion
to table, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion
passed unanimously.
Councilman Silva made a motion that they hear from the citizens
in the audience prior to the Council debate, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, and passed with Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
dissenting.
Mayor Taylor asked those who wished to speak to limit their
remarks to one minute, and asked those who had already spoken
not to repeat their point of view in the interest of time.
Robert Becker stated he felt he had been misquoted as the question
was whether we anticipated severe rationing by 1974; he felt we
would have some difficult water days by 1974 if nothing is done
and wished to make this clear.
He would describe severe as being no water when a faucet is
turned on. He did not wish to be quoted as saying there is no
problem; there is a problem, unless action is taken as he had
outlined, there will be some restraint placed on the use of
water in this Valley.
Barry Scherman, representative of Hofmann Company, stated they
as developers realize there is a problem at hand; unfortunately
they were not aware of this at the time they received a letter
from Cal Water stating they would service the subdivision;
nothing was mentioned about the possiblility of water rationing,
and with this in mind they filed the final subdivision map and
have proceeded to sell homes. With reference to a rush on
building permits, since a permit is good for 60 days, it would
preclude taking out 300 permits at one time as it would be
impossible to start that many houses in 60 days. Three thousand
permits in the community would leave approximately 2,000 unsold
homes as the demand is not that great; developers will only
build to the demand, and the rash of building permits will not
come about, and he hoped this would be considered in the debate.
Diane Carpluk, 1117 Roxanne Street, speaking as a homeowner,
teacher and a member and officer of the Livermore Education
Association, stated even though water is a problem, it is not
the only problem as education is a far bigger problem, and for
this reason there should be no more growth.
CM-24-364
October 26, 1971
Janet Read, 475 Malibu Court, mentioned that
the new people coming into the community would
help pay our debt, but stated while they are
helping to pay for this debt, they are also using the water; she
did not favor water rationing of any kind but was definitely in
favor of a moratorium on building permits until the problem is
solved. Mrs. Read mentioned the school situation and the tax
increase which she felt merely subsidized the developers. She
had worked very hard for the tax increase and for the bond issue
which failed because as far as children were concerned she was
willing to support growth although she did not believe in it
herself. She would refuse to pay another penny, as far as water
rationing is concerned, to subsidize another developer.
(Residential
Bldg. Activity)
Don Helsper, 4729 Zinnia Court, felt the Council should figure
what is best for people, and not ask the people to give up a
little bit, to subsidize growth.
Gene Morgan, 4276 Emory Way, concurred with Councilman Silva on
the suggestion that we resume the present situation with the
suggestions of doing something later when the legal standpoint
is made clear. He would disagree with a remark we have a "crummy"
education system in Livermore because by experience with four of
his own children, felt it was a marvelous system. He has lived
in Livermore for 26 years and accepted most of the people who have
come in since that time but felt it unfair to attempt to place a
corridor around Livermore; he concurred we must have planning
and growth that is somewhat controlled; he saw nothing wrong
with the proposed connection fee and felt there was a way to do
this; we must solve the problem which he felt the Council was
attempting to do but did not feel the problem would be solved
by eliminating growth.
Joe Ramos, 664 Murdell Lane, felt a reasonable period of time,
such as 60 days, would not do any great harm to the building
industry and it would give Zone 7 time to take some action and
the Council time to find out what Zone 7 plans to do and sugges-
ted that the moratorium on building be continued for 60 days.
Tom Murphy, Associated Homebuilders of Greater East Bay, 1157
Murdell Lane, stated when they learned of the problem the first
thing they did was to come to the City Manager and volunteer
their services to get involved and attempt to assist in working
out the problem. Mr. Murphy remarked that a freeze of another
60 days would put them in the rainy season and made the follow-
ing suggestions: 1) lift the freeze, 2) implement a committee
with builders, citizens and Zone 7 to analyze the problem.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, Secretary of the American
Taxpayers Union, Local #115, stated with regard to residential
growth, water rationing and the interim freeze on building
permits, the Union p~9~z~e~;__tAa~~rowth pay for itself, and
explained there are ~aJre~ln which it has not, one being
water and the other schools. Others have said either stop growth,
or face water rationing, but they feel neither is necessary; pro-
viding water and schools is not a function of the City government,
but because of the Council's control over development and build-
ing permits, City government is a practical focus for "growth
pay-for-itself" concept; therefore, they urge the Council to:
1) price public facilities either to serve proposed developments
without curtailing use by present citizens; 2) assess that cost
fairly against new residential; 3) as an interim measure, condi-
tion issuance of tract building permits on deposits of $1,000 per
dwelling unit. This deposit would let building resume, charges
to the deposited sum would be for the specific facilities to serve
new tract homes.
Milt Codiroli, president of the Chamber of Commerce, stated his
feeling that we had a real problem but also thought it was one
that could be solved in the best of interest of everyone. He
CM-24-365
October 26, 1971
(Residential agreed children were very important; there was no
Bldg. Activity) dissension as to what the citizens want - good
schools, adequate water supply, jobs for the citi-
zens, but they are going back and forth on the
water problem. If they do solve the problem this evening by some
miracle, ten years from now there will be another problem with wat-
er as it is not possible to solve the problem forever. No one
would disagree the community needs everything - the best of schools,
all the water we can use, but we also need jobs. By placing the
charts on the wall, it would indicate that the Council is giving
the people a choice - the opportunity for employment to be able
to feed the children or water rationing; obviously the number one
thing is food for the children. Livermore is a good place to live;
it can be improved; they all want the same thing - cutting growth
off will hurt the community more than help it; a moratorium may be
necessary at some future time, but it should not be now. They are
attempting to make a judgment based on facts they do not have;
they have many projections; they should wait until Zone 7 furnishes
a solution. It is not fair to the citizens employed in building
and related trades to stop growth.
Gloria Taylor, 585 So. L street, appreciated the fact the Chamber
was concerned about jobs, but stated they did nothing when there
were layoffs at the Lab. She requested the Council oppose Council-
man Silva's motion and proceed to freeze the building permits until
the water problem is solved as well as the air pollution problem and
school problem.
Jim McCutchen, 2215 Hampton Rd., stated if they stop all builders,
they have stopped the City; it will immediately place 300 workers
out of a job; there will be a chain reaction; everyone will be
affected. The only way tax money is brought into a city is by
bringing in industry; if the City takes the stand to stop building
for sixty days, this will scare industry and start unemployment.
Industry does not need Livermore, it needs a City that cooperates;
one that is growing; one where employees can live and work. If
the developers are cut off, and their employees, the town will go
straight down, and the taxes straight up and schools straight out
the door.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Street, stated he had listened to a lot
of talk about unemployment in the building industry and asked if
it was the intention to continue building in order for temporary
employees to come in and work, and bring in their families. Mr.
Highet mentioned the fact that he and the people in Springtown all
have a $200 bond on their homes to pay for water, and asked why
it was felt to be unfair for new homes to pay their way in the
same manner.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated there are various states who
have gone through the same problem, and their solution to these
problems are exactly those that have been put forth before - let
growth pay for itself. Numerous areas in the east have done this
with schools, water and sewage in an endeavor to maintain the tax
rate of people who are currently in the area, who have seen it go
up. The states have endeavored to relieve the burden of the tax-
payer through a lottery and saw no reason why the State of Calif-
ornia could not follow suit and institute a state lottery for
schools and public facilities.
John Woodruff, 1010 Lisbon Avenue, stated that the need for ser-
vices due to the growth rate is proceeding at a great rate, while
the services ability is remaining at a constant rate, and as long
as the rates are not constant the capacity to provide services to
new growth is becoming smaller and will have to be made up in
dollars. He did not feel the citizens should subsidize speculative
business ventures.
CM-24-366
October 26, 1971
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, agreed we had a
water problem, and now we have everyone in
favor of a fee to solve it; it is unfortunate
people who do not want rationing are being
foisted on the issue of unemployment. The Council has had school
legislation in Sacramento to help alleviate the school problem,
which the homebuilders association fought. Bond issues fail be-
cause there is a lack of public confidence in performance. If
the Council is sincere about growth paying for itself, steps
should be taken now to institute a fee or a moratorium until a
fee can be instituted.
(Residential Bldg.
Activity)
Balazs Rozsnyai, 1526 Roselli Drive, felt that the exhibit clearly
indicates there is a critical water shortage and proposed that the
Council should adopt some legal method of imposing a water connec-
tion fee and issue building permits after that, but not before.
Lynn Cleland, 420 Jackson Avenue, stated it was clear Zone 7 could
not come in with any other statement but that there is no serious
water problem, because to do so would be to admit failure on their
part. The implication has been that if the builders are curtailed
the City will collapse, because that is the basis of our whole
structur.e. On the other hand there seems to be a contradiction
because if they agree building is not paying for itself, to con-
tinue building is not going to improve the situation. He was
sympathetic with employees of the building trades, but pointed
out the Council did not offer help to those laid off at the Lab
or Sandia so why should we be charitable to the developers who
might have to layoff a few people. If we plan to subsidize
builders to keep employment of building personnel, they should
subsidize other places for the same reason. He hoped the Council
was not so naive as to believe the plan of the developers which
is simply to push growth until there is a water shortage, then
you are sure the citizens will vote for a water bond; the same
holds true regarding overcrowded schools in order to pass a school
bond election. The developers have never gone out of their way
to help the City unless it helped their pocketbook.
Dr. David Mandeville, 1252 DePaul Way, stated the Chamber was in
sympathy with the problems facing the Council with regard to the
water shortage possibility, and offered their assistance to a
solution. It is their contention that discussions of rationing
and moratoriums are grossly improper, and requested that the Coun-
cil turn to a more positive approach as the problem is not total
water shortage, but transient peak periods of good quality water
shortage. He requested that positive steps be taken to supply
this particular need, financed by a water connection fee. Conse-
quences of a building moratorium would lead to a blight on the
City and cessation of any balanced growth. He felt the Council
should direct the City staff to develop additional sources funded
through growth.
Dan Steinberg, 4174 Pomona Way, stated people had talked about
the unemployment, but felt the importance of the issue had been
"watered" and felt it was an excuse to say that slowing growth
will scare off industry. Three years ago he had addressed the
Council and predicted growth just as the Council has allowed it
to grow; it will continue the same way and will go from crisis
to crisis; he has not seen any so-called planned growth and control-
led growth is the real issue. With the present motion on the
table, there is no solution, simply another political expediency.
He did not feel there was any interest on the part of the Council
or an adequate effort to look at the problems of water rationing,
schools and pollution. He pleaded with the Council to control
growth.
Earl Mason, Civil Engineer, stated he would like to present for
the information of the public some comments and a chart which he
had prepared in working with the Chamber of Commerce on a water
committee which has worked with all the communities in the Valley
for the last six months attempting to solve the water problem.
CM-24-367
October 26, 1971
(Residential Mr. Mason explained the figures on the chart which
Bldg. Activity) he stated was similar to that prepared by the Pub-
lic Works Director, and that by watering on al-
ternate days during a peak demand period, there
could be a savings of water of 30%. The point he wished to make
is that there would be adequate water, with adequate fire protec-
tion to meet the needs of the people simply by watering every
other day. Further, there is no immediate emergency, but there
is an adequate supply even through the summer of 1975 with the
growth projection as shown on the chart; they feel if a water
connection fee is initiated to provide for growth, there will be
a way to provide water in a reasonable time.
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED BACK
TO ORDER WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT.
Bob Schaeffer, 785 Wall Street, felt all the discussion boils down
to the fact that growth should pay for itself.
Tony Oates, 1034 Innsbruck Street, did not feel that the layoff
of people in the building trade would hurt the people of Livermore
as most of them reside elsewhere. He would suggest that we do not
curtail development completely, nor let it run wild, perhaps allow
up to thirty lots per month until Zone7 decides on the water con-
nection fee.
Thomas Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, felt we should have growth, but it
should be controlled, so there would be a pleasant community in
the future. He felt the developers should pay more to the City,
so that the taxpayers will not be required to pay.
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Lane, stated he had not seen figures
presented on how water rationing every other day would help; it
would not effect him one bit as he did all of his watering only
one day a week. There are people who water every day and he ques-
tioned how water rationing would alleviate the problem, and did
not know if anyone had made a serious engineering study in this
respect.
George Michlin, 429 Lorren Court, stated he has lived here fifteen
years and has seen many inconsistencies, and felt the water sit-
uation had been exaggerated.
Mark Sims, 1087 Innsbruck Street, stated every person who has
spoken in favor of water rationing or continued growth is either
a local business man or member of the Chamber of Commerce or an
employee of an affected industry. Every person who is opposed to
water rationing and wants some control placed on growth is a
local citizen. He felt the situation divides itself very clearly -
do what is best for the building industry and the Chamber or what
is best for the majority of the people. He felt a moratorium or
limit on building permits is a good idea because of poor planning
in the past.
Jack Leudeman, 2166 Westbrook Lane, stated he worked for a developer
but was not representing one, and has just purchased his third home
in Livermore in the past eight years, and prefers to live here,
and asked that the Council consider the people who work for the
developers, as they are also citizens.
Mayor Taylor closed the discussion to the public at this time to
consider the motion on the floor to lift the moratorium.
Councilman Silva commented the motion is correct as stated but
it was not his intent to have the moratorium lifted indefinitely,
rather to wait until the summer of 1972, when, hopefully, Zone 7
will initiate a water connection fee which will solve many problems
for planned expansion and they could experience what the shortage
might be in 1973 and 1974 more accurately by going through the
summer of 1972. There is some apprehension that builders will rush
CM-24-368
October 26, 1971
in for permits, however he did not feel this
would happen as they build on the basis of
supply and demand and the demand is not that
great, but to eliminate any such unforeseen
development the Council could adopt a policy to
issue permits based on the normal rate of last year.
(Residential Bldg.
Activity)
Councilman Miller warned that every permit issued before a water
connection fee is adopted, is a water connection fee not collected,
and felt it was not reasonable to wait sixty days, as suggested
by the Mayor until Zone 7 sets up the connection fee. Councilman
Miller questioned why some members of the Council were interested
in imposing water rationing. There has been testimony from the
staff and Cal Water to the effect there will be some rationing
next summer - even the Chamber used the threat of water rationing
when they were supporting Project 2 bond issue. If they allow
building permits to proceed they will go beyond Step 1 rationing
and wanted to know what the public interest was in water ration-
ing as it seemed as though Councilmen Pritchard, Beebe and Silva
feel it is to allow growth to continue and he did not understand
why it was essential to allow growth to continue in spite of the
arguments that had been presented which leaves the implication
that people would be laid off work permanently, and he did not feel
.this was correct as the houses will be built elsewhere. He re-
ferred to a newspaper article which was obviously incorrect regard-
ing to the economic loss of the community; if this was the basis
for the Councilmen considering water rationing, they should reflect
about the source of the figures.
Councilman Pritchard questioned who would be harmed by watering
every other day, to which Councilman Miller replied everyone would
be inconvenienced. Many people have indicated that they now
water every other day and if this is the only restriction, there
would be no gain. He asked what is the equity and what are the
benefits of imposing water rationing vs. the disadvantages.
Councilman Silva replied it boils down to what each is willing to
sacrifice regarding water rationing. He would be willing to have
water rationing if it would keep one man employed in the CblnffiUnity.
Councilman Miller stated many retired persons have been forced
to leave the community due to the high taxes, and the reason was
due to growth, but he did not feel Councilman Silva was concerned
about these people moving out because of high taxes. He was not
willing to have water rationed so the schools in Livermore become
more crowded, or air quality worse. He felt many issues were
involved other than water rationing as pointed out by the public
testimony all involving growth.
Councilman Silva did not agree they could have a moratorium on
growth because of the water problem and throw the other things
in as an afterthought. They had legally attempted to stop a
development because there were no schools available, but were
unable to do so.
Mayor Taylor felt he would speak against the motion as it was
simply that business should be as usual with a few conditioning
phrases. Two years ago they foresaw the problem with regard to
schools and invited the homebuilders to meet to discuss the pro-
blem. All stated they understood the problem and asked how they
could help, and the City suggested they put their lobby to work
in Sacramento to attempt a solution and they agreed it was a good
idea. The City sponsored a bill to help acquire school sites,
and it was killed last week in the senate principally because of
the homebuilders lobby. He could understand the reason as it
raises the fee to the builders; if there is not cooperation from
the builders, it will not be forthcoming. Mayor Taylor mentioned
the park dedication fee which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
CM-24-369
October 26, 1971
(Residential Both instances indicate the homebuilding industry
Bldg. Activity) operates on a different incentive which is mainly
to minimize their cost. If they relax and allow
building to continue they will just get talk and
he felt the moratorium should continue until the water connection
fee is determined, which could be substantial, and during the in-
terim they may see some evidence of the homebuilding industry's
lobby in order to have an equitable fee established. Mayor Tay-
lor felt the water use predictions were accurate, but felt the
moratorium should remain in effect at least another sixty days
or sometime in the future there will be an abrupt halt.
Councilman Pritchard agreed that something must be done as there
is a problem and the motion to table would, in fact, mean they would
do nothing. He asked if he could amend the motion, but was advised
he could not. Councilman Pritchard then read the rules of the Coun-
cil on the motion to table and stated they had violated the rules
as they have debated for more than an hour. The Council discussed
the matter of order with regard to the motion; however by vote of
the Council they had voted to debate.
The question was called and a vote taken on the motion to table
which failed 4 to 1 with all opposed except Councilman Silva, and
the matter was taken from the table.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to have the subject deferred until
next Monday at which time they could adopt a legal connection fee
in lieu of a fee at this time. Councilman Pritchard asked if
Councilman Beebe meant a continuance of the building permit freeze
until that time and he replied it should continue until the next
meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and
passed unanimously.
Councilman Pritchard moved adoption of the proposed urgency ordi-
nance with the insertion of the number not to exceed 3383 residen-
tial dwelling units (the number in the tract maps) and to add that,
"No more than 50% in subdivisions of over four (4) lots now under
tentative or final tract maps shall be developed in the 12-month
period following the date of July 1, 1971."
The Council discussed the above motion at some length, mainly the
number of units to be allowed.
A motion was made to call the question by Councilman Silva, se-
conded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed by unanimous vote.
The Mayor then called for the vote on the urgency ordinance which
was as follows:
AYES: ~ Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
The ordinance was not introduced since an urgency ordinance re-
quires a 4/5 vote.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Silva, to set a 30-day freeze as an urgency ordinance on building
permits until such time as an ordinance can be introduced and
passed (generally as above stated in the urgency ordinance) and
this motion was then discussed and eventually withdrawn by Council-
man Pritchard. It was then made by Councilman Miller, seconded by
Mayor Taylor, and it failed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
ABSENT: None
Discussion was held as to the possibility of allowing 300 building
permits, to the end of the fiscal year, pro-rated to the developers
CM-24-370
according to their final tracts and unplotted
lots within the City, with an amendment to
allow 800 lots; motions made and withdrawn by
Councilman Miller.
October 26, 1971
(Residential Bldg.
Activity)
Councilman Silva made a motion to introduce an ordinance allowing
100 units per month (or 800 for the balance of the fiscal year),
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
This motion was discussed briefly, and prior to the vote, Council-
man Miller expressed his belief that it was inconceivable that
the Council would force water rationing on the citizens of Liver-
more for the benefit of a small minority of businessmen, some of
whom cut down trees and bulldoze down hills. Their present view
is uncaring of the majority of present and future residents, re-
sulting in water rationing and severe classroom shortage.
Introduction of the ordinance then received the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard proposed that the Council
adopt a policy of not accepting any tentative
tract maps until the developer presents the
Council with a letter from the School District
saying that the schools have been provided for,
and the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
The matter was discussed by the Council, with the City Attorney,
upon request for comment, indicating he would do the best he
could if the legality of the action taken was questioned.
POLICY RE CLASS-
ROOMS PROVIDED
STATEMENT ON
TENTATIVE MAPS
The Mayor indicated that the City had taken steps through the
legislature and, at some time, Council must take action, and
called for the vote which was unanimous.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, all
unresolved items were continued until the next
regular meeting, with the exception of two pub-
lic hearing matters as follows:
CONTINUE ALL
UNRESOLVED ITEMS
Rezoning application submitted from Belmeda C. Haera from RL-6
District to CP District of property located on the north side of
East Avenue between Hayes Avenue and Nielsen Lane - set for
November 15.
Proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Section 8.00 - RG District
which was set for November 15.
*
*
*
As a part of the approval of Tract 2932, Hof-
mann Company, one more quitclaim is necessary,
that being the area formerly in lot form in an
adjacent tract, now to be part of the extension
of Pearl Street. It is necessary that the quitclaim be recorded
in proper order as the map and other documents are processed.
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION
OF QUITCLAIM DEED
RESOLUTION NO. 132-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous vote, the above resolution was adopted.
CM-24-371
October 26, 1971
AUTHORIZE
SOLICITATION
OF BIDS FOR
SIDEWALK
REPAIRS
SUGGESTIONS
FOR PORTOLA
AVE. FREEWAY
ENTRANCE
the westerly
may be better
ADJOURNMENT
As directed by the Council, bids are now ready
to be solicited for the repair of sidewalks.
Authorization is necessary to advertise for bids,
and such was granted, on motion of Councilman
Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva made three suggestions to
alleviate the danger existing at the new Portola
Avenue entry to the freeway, and asked that they
be forwarded to the Highway Department: 1) the
no right turn sign is set too far back and cannot
be seen; 2) the easterly lane runs parallel to
merging lane for some time, and a wooden barrier
seen; 3) reduce the freeway speed in that area.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:55 a.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of November 1, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 1, 1971
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Taylor presid-
ing.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT:
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of October 18, 1971
were approved as submitted, on motion of Council-
man Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Alfred Goldberg, Vice Chairman of the Sister City
Committee, reported on the visit this past summer
by a delegation from Livermore, consisting of Don
Nolte, representing the City, and his wife and
son; himself, wife and son, representing the Sister City Com-
mittee; Dr. and Mrs. Robert H. Bartlett and Mrs. H. Snider and
daughter, members of the Sister City Committee. Mr. Goldberg
stated the main purpose of the visit was to meet with the Sister
SPECIAL ITEM
( Si ster City
Visit)
CM-24-372
November lj 1971
City committee to discuss problems and ideas of
mutual interest and formulate plans to continue
and enrich the program. Both committees agreed
it was important to expand the exchange program to areas other than
those involving students; as a resultj Quezaltenango suggested an
exchange of a City employee or hospital employee; an exchange in
some field of art might also be useful. 'The Livermore committee
suggested the possibility of a short term teacher exchange during
a vacation period. The Quezaltenango Committee is anxious for
members of the committee to be present at the dedication of the
Livermore P ark in Quezal tenango next September. There \'1ill be
members of their committee visiting Livermore in November or
December.
(Sister City
Visit)
Mr. Donald Nolte added that he had met and visited with the
Librarian and the City of Livermore presented Quezaltenango with
a volume of Norman Rockwell IS drawings and received in returnj
some books in Spanishj stating there would be more exchanges in
the future of cultural material. Mr. Nolte thanked the Council
on behalf of himself and his wife and son for the opportunity of
visiting our Sister City.
*
*
*
Don Helsperj 4729 Zinnia Courtj referred to the
discussion relating to water rationing last week
which was not on the agenda this eveningj and
stated that two points were overlooked: 1) can the City legally
limit utilities by willfully exceeding the capacity; 2) can the
City exceed the existing capacity of those utilities. Last week
it was stated that the City was not in the businss of supplying
water; this is truej most of the water supplied comes from
California Water and they are under the jurisdiction and control
of PUC. Therefore, he believed the City could not tell the
citizens how much water they can use. He felt if the Councilj
with prior knowledge, exceeds the capacity of existing utilities
or tried to limit the use, the Council would be willfully comrnit-
ong an illegal act.
OPEN FORUM
(Water Rationing)
-l(-
*
-l(-
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Lane, brought to the Council's
attention a state law which he felt the Council may
unknowingly be violatingj and read a paragraph from
the Public Resources Codej Division 13, Environmental
Quality, Chapter 4, having to do with the conservation
element of the general plan, which makes it necessary to
make an environmental impact report on projects which may have a
significant effect on the environment. He did not feel that the
Council had prepared such an impact report on any of the develop-
ments approved since 1970, since the law went into effect, and
questioned if the 800 building permits they are about to approve
are in developments that may have been approved during the year,
not in accordance with the law he was referring to.
(Environ-
mental
Impact
Study)
Mayor Taylor stated that they have discussed the law and that
they all have copies. The City Attorney is also studying it
and they have instructed the Planning Department to draw up an
environmental element as part of the general plan but as yet,
do not have clear guidelines as to the requirements.
Councilman Miller felt that the point raised by Mr. Brown was a
good one and perhaps the validity of these approvals, lacking the
environmental impact report, is open to some question.
Mayor Taylor felt that they should refer that question to the
Attorney if the Council is, in factj in violation of the Act.
Lewis stated that he very much doubted that, but would have a
report prepared on this subject for next week.
City
Mr.
*
*
-l(-
CM-24-373
November 1, 1971
Dan Steinberg, 4174 Pomona Way, thanked the City
Council for their action the week before in setting
a criterion for living quality in Livermore in
speaking about the proposed policy regarding
schools and would like to see the momentum continued in the future
in setting other criteria relating to the quality of living, and in
particular, a point that was brought up several years ago by former
Councilman Uthe, that growth planning should be in some way hitched
to an air quality index. He felt that it would be impossible for
Livermore to do anything along this line alone but perhaps they
could work with Pleasanton.
(Comment Re
Schools -
Air Pollution)
Mayor Taylor referred to a special meeting the Council had at which
time a presentation was given by a member of the Bay Area Air Pollu-
tion Control District staff, and at the conclusion of that meeting
our staff was instructed to obtain whatever data available to start
a specific study with regard to the Valley.
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING
(Rezoningj 603
Enos Way, Dan
Enos)
the engineer
tions of the
An application was submitted by Dan Enos to permit
a change from RL-6 District to RG-16 District for
the property located at 603 Enos Way. A letter was
received from the attorney representing the applicant
asking for a two week postponement on this matter, as
had not been able to complete the study on the ramifica-
Planning Commission's decision.
Mayor Taylor opened the hearing at this time to be continued until
November 22, and asked anyone who might wish to testify to wait until
that time, if possible.
Norman Smith, 675 Enos Way, protested continuance of the rezoning re-
quest inasmuch as the neighbors were present and ready to testify,
and did not feel the request for postponement was valid.
The Council discussed whether or not the hearing should be postponedj
the objection for postponement made by Mr. Smith and whether or not
a policy change should be made in this regard.
Craig Lighty, 2643 Kelly Street, felt if there was to be a postponement,
there should not be arguments against the project at this time and was
in agreement with the points made objecting to the postponements.
Burke Critchfield, representing the applicant, felt the owner of the
property had certain rights when he makes an application for rezoning
inasmuch as it is his property that is at stake. They had done their
utmost to work with the staff and Planning Commission to work out the
problem, as it involves an unusual shaped piece of property. They had
attempted to contact every home in tre area to explain their plans and
have a petition signed by 50 families agreeing to it, and only two who
did not - Mr. Smith and Mr. Lighty. The application was for the rezon-
ing of 3t acres, and the Planning Commission at their meeting stated
that they would give a rezoning on two acres if they would donate the
other It acre for a parkj however, their plan was for the whole parcel.
Mr. Critchfield stated that his client did not care for a continuance
any more than those who opposed it, as it was expensive for him to
have a continuance.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
continue the public hearing until November 22, and passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director explained that the proposed
RE GENERAL PLAN General Plan amendment regarding the Livermore
Ar1ENDr~NT Trailway System is not an instant trailway system
Trailway System that will be adopted and completed within a year -
like the rest of the plan it is a 1950 to 1980 pro-
ject, and the development of the plan began many years ago. As
CM-24-374
November 1, 1971
proposed, the plan need not be a luxury type of develop- (Public
ment, but can be anything from an unimproved easement Hearing)
to something like the l",uezaltenango Parkvvay; it is not
a comprehensive bike trail system, but there has been some dis-
cussion about a neighborhood system of trails similar to the
pedestrian walks; the plan is not an integrated bike and street
system. The proposal is not a new concept, but at the time the
Quezaltenango Parkway was proposed, the llanning Commission was
asked to explore the possibilities of a comprehensive trailway
system. A great many people have contributed ideas and are in
agreement as to how the system is to be developed. The plan
not only defines where the trails are to be but also their func-
tion and indicates the location and use of the trails. Mr.
Musso showed a few slides, commencing with the 1959 plan when
there was the Arroyo Mocho and Collier Canyon Parkway area as the
major portion of the plan; in 1965 the plan was expanded to include
the Arroyo Del Valle and the Isabel Avenue Parkway alignment and now
there was the composite of trepast general plan and now the precise
plans for the various neighborhoods which have been developed over
the years as well as new contributions by the Plnning staff and
others to whom it was referred.
The plan proposes that the City develop a series of horse trails to
cross the City or to travel north and south of the City. The
nucleus of the trail system is Robertson Park. The bike system
is geared to transportation as well as recreation and both of these
were developed as a series of origins and destinations. As far as
pedestrians are concerned, it was concluded that this aspect needed
no particular study, as pedestrians would be allowed to proceed any-
where within the public right-of-way and parks and roadways. The
first link: of the traih!ay system is almost complete at the present
time as you can go from Almond Avenue Park to Robertson Park areas,
crossing streets but for the most part, traveling off public side-
walks, very often in a parklike setting.
Mr. Musso explained, in some detail, the plans for a portion of the
areas, and concluded that at the Planning Commission meeting there
were no comments or additions to the plans and adopted the plan and
recommends adoption by the City Council.
Councilman Beebe asked if it was the intent that most of the trail-
ways be kept in their natural setting, and Mr. Musso replied that
some will be and some will not; in many cases it will only be a
sign on a street.
Mayor Taylor opened the hearing at this time for comments from the
audience.
Mrs. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, had spoken before the
Planning Commission giving her personal enthusiasm for the plan
and spoke as a regional representative for the California Roadside
Council, giving her support to the plan. The California Roadside
Council stated that they had been actively working to support two
bikeway bills before the legislature, SB-265 and SB-I100, both of
which seem likely to succeed; but meanwhile, local plans like the
one in Livermore seem most promising.
Mrs. Tracy stated that SE-2~is entitled, Bicycle Recreation and
Safety Act, which requires the inclusion of bicycle paths and routes
in local plans and subdivisions. She felt we had the golden oppor-
tunity to establish an excellent system as outlined by the Planning
staff for the Council's consideration.
Ed Sitzberger, employee of the Director's Office of the Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory, on the planning staff, stated they had taken
a poll recently and 900 people answered the questionnaire, of which
L~L~3 stated that they are frequent bicycle riders to work, and
read some of the comments which v!ere included on the questionnaire -
all in favor of the bikeways. Mr. Sitzberger stated that the nmnber
CM-21.j.-3T5
November 1, 1971
(Public Hearing) of people would be doubled if the bike way was
Trailways improved. 190 children are currently riding
bicycles to the recreational facilities at the
Lab - this too would be doubled. There would be overwhelming
support and he would urge the adoption of the plan; also, it
would be appreciated if some interim solutions could be worked
out, for safety.
Roger Everett, 572 Hazel street, representing Sandia, stated
that they had also taken a poll and received a response from 424
out of '746 ViTho live in Livermore; 108 indicated that they now ride
a bicycle to work. He read some of the comments, the majority of
which dealt with the problem of safety ~ both from the cyclist and
driver's viewpoint and most felt that the bik~ways should be away
from the roadways because of safety and smog problems. Most did
not want to see the general public taxed for the bikeways, but
rather the tax should be on the bicycles.
Michael McCracken, representing the Livermore Area Recreation and
Park District, commended the staff and Planning Commission; the
District has reviewed the plan and had made suggestions, many of
which were incorporated. The District believes the City should
continue to be responsible for the implementation of bikeways along
streets and in residential areas; a great deal of that is done in
dealing with the developer and the City is experienced here, and
the District does not want to get involved in that aspect. As far
as the arroyos, the District would like to work cooperatively with
the City and have parks along the arroyos, and perhaps have some
sort of agreement on how the arroyos should be developed and main-
tained. If the plan is adopted, it would become a part of the
Recreation District's master plan.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, mentioned the motor bikes in the
arroyos and asked if the trails would accommodate motor scooters
or if they would be barred; he felt this is a decision that should
be made, but also, there should be some provision made.
Mayor Taylor commented that much of the motorcycle operation is
quite illegal; there have been many complaints and the staff has
been instructed to investigate. He agreed that there were very
few legitimate places for those youngsters to ride and did not
know what is to be provided for them, but did not think the parkway
plan involves motorized vehicle planning.
Mr. Musso added that it was discussed but not made a part of the
plan; the Planning Commission generally has the idea that someone
should delegate an area where this activity could be conducted away
from the City, but there had been no decision made.
Mrs. Candice Simonen, 692 Jefferson, speaking as a representative
of Livermore Bikeways Committee, a recently formed citizens group
in Livermore working to make bicycling safe and more convenient,
fully endorsed the trailway system to the general plan. She felt
that the proposed plan could be considered a phase of a master plan
for a more extensive bike~'Vay system which would incorporate the
establishment of bike routes on City streets by marking bike lanes.
Their committee had also gathered information on the current bicycle
use in Livermore; school children are the major users and they had
counted a total of 2,b30 bicycles parked at the City schools; East
Avenue is the most used route and they had counted on one day, L~67
bicycles in less than a 2-hour period. They feel that another route
that could have great potential benefit is the one to Shadow Cliff
regional park, and it would be desirable to have a safe route for
children to this park. The City Council was officially urged to
encourage the use of bicycles in Livermore by making the riding of
bicycles safer and more convenient, and it was felt that the adop-
tion of the proposed plan would be a step in that direction.
Janet Read, 475 Malibu Court, stated that much of the parkway will
be along private property and wondered how much effort the City had
CM-24-376
November l~ 1971
made to acquire some of the property for parks.
Also~ one of the slides had indicated water near
Robertson Park~ but the owner is having fill brought
in and wondered if this property could be purchased~ as it would
make a nice recreation area with the water in it. She also ques-
tioned the cementing of the arroyos which had been discussed some
time ago, and wondered if it would interfere with the trailway
system.
PUBLIC HEARING
(Trailways)
Mr. Musso replied that the final design of each of these segments
had not been discussed in detail; in areas where the channel must
be fully developed, the trailway would be the maintenance road~
but there has not been given much thought as to which of these
would be natural and which would be improved channels.
Mr. Lee commented that he had recently completed an arroyo study
which is a follow-up to this study, and recommends standards for
development of the arroyos for parkways. There is nothing in the
report that recommends lined channels; there is no thought of
concrete lining.
Councilman Miller stated that even though they are not concrete
lined, they are trapezoidal, graded channels.
Mr. Lee stated that it is not necessarily so, as in the report,
they show what a standard trapezoidal cross section would be,
but they also show how that can be modified to retain a natural
appearance.
There followed some discussion as to the width of the arroyos,
channel flow, and who would take the responsibility for the
widening.
Leon Smith, 846 Caliente Avenue, stated that the Council should
approve of the trailway plan; the plan should be flexible enough
to permlt improvement and additions. To maintain the citizens'
interest, they should be informed of the exact locations by
perhaps preparing a map of the trailway system.
Mr. Musso stated that there were many people interested in horse
trails in the early stages of the study; they did make a survey
and counted something like 1,500 horGes in the area; also, gave
a tremendous amount of support for developing the system - offer
of money to buy signs and equipment; also, the possibility that
they would improve the trails and also police the trails during
periods of heavy use.
Gordon Smith, 5262 Irene Way, stated that there has been discussion
regarding the bike trail along East Avenue, however, the report
is conspicuous in not mentioning East Avenue, and asked what is
being done.
Mr. Musso stated that it is essentially complete along the area
fronting Wagoner Farms; th::r'e is agreement with the next tVIO
properties towards the Lab to Similarly install the park trail,
and the only problem there will be the portion in the County.
If the plan is adopted~ the City will have to undertake the
connection of the two.
James Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, stated that it would be nice
to have the bike trail separated from the roadway. In observing
the children along 2ast Avenue, he felt that they were not aware
of where they should cross. A route should be considered to the
shopping and center of town.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to close the public hearing; motion
seconded by Councilman Silva and passed unanimOUSly.
Councilman Beebe questioned Mr. McCracken as to whether it was
the intent of the Recreation District to maintain the trailways
Cf/!- 24- 3 1'1
November 1, 1971
PUBLIC HEARING
(Trailways)
if the City does acquire them, and Mr. McCracken
stated that they would maintain the trailways
along parks.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the lOth Amendment to the
general plan - the Livermore Trailway System as part of our open
space element; motion seconded by Councilman Silva and passed
unanimously.
Mayor Taylor commented that this was only a very general plan and
that there will be discussion regarding implementation, particularly
how they acquire the various properties, but it is important to make
it a part of the general plan because state assistance might be
available, contingent on the City having a valid general plan.
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding width lines and
special building lines along Vasco Road, be-
tween US 500 and Dalton Avenue; First Street,
between Maple street and US 580, was continued
from last week. Stanley Blvd. was deleted, as
this had been completed previously.
The Public '('orks Director explained the future width lines which
were being considered along First street, between Maple street and
US 580, a portion of which was unequal, between Maple Street and
Portola "'wenue, and made necessary due to the development on the
north side. In 1961 the Council adopted the policy that the extra
widening would be taken from the south side, and this policy has
been followed since that time. This provides for an ultimate width
of 104 ft. as a standard for major streets. Mr. Lee pointed out
that there are places where the future width lines go through build-
ings that now exist, as this is implemented some years in the future,
it might require some acquisition by the City.
20 AMENDriIENT RE
FUTURE WIDTH
LINES-SPECIAL BLDG
LINES (Vasco Road
First Street)
Mr. Lee went on to explain that the future width lines on Vasco
Avenue in the City limits, and stated that outside the City limits
the County will establish the lines. A portion of the road in the
Bevilacqua tract was developed at the standard 88 ft.; now with the
standard 110 ft. to conform with the County standard the extra widen-
ing will be from the east side.
Mayor Taylor opened tnepublic hearing at this time to receive comments
from tneaudience; however, none were voiced. A letter had been re-
ceived from the law offices of Varni, Fraser, Hartwell & Van Blois,
representing certain property owners located on the west side of
First Street near the intersection of Scott Street, regarding the
City policy on widening.
Mr. Musso explained one of the big issues at the Planning Commission
discussion was the question of the City policy on widening and the
policy has been that when there is an eccentric widening, the City
will participate in the improvement land acquisition to the extent
of the inequality of the unequal widening. There are two conflicting
policies - one, that we could not track down, except it happened at
a study session, about the City involved in the full cost of the
inequity; the other on a map that has a lesser participation. He
felt that it would be a good idea for the Council to restate their
position to the extent of the inequity the City will pay for whether
it be the full inequity or a portion of it.
Mr. Lee stated that where the City requires street widening and
street improvements as a condition of development, and where the
widening is unequal from each side, it is the City Council's policy
that the City will pay for one-half of the right-of-way and street
improvements within the portion of the excess widening. (The differ-
ence between the larger widening on one side and the smaller widening
on the other side.)
CM-24-378
Hr. Musso stated that the people Hho testified
felt the City should participate in the full cost
of unequal widening and all of the pavement for the
unequal widening.
November 1, 1971
(Vasco Road
First ,street)
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe to close the public hearing,
seconded by Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the future building lines
and special building lines as described, together with the policy
as outlined by the Public Works Director; motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Silva stated that if the tracks are relocated, the
widening of the street would be unnecessary; therefore, he felt
that it may be undue expense to the City and the property owners
to widen it.
I'ir. Lee explained that there may not be much occurring in that
area, so there may not be too much unnecessary improvements
constructed, in case First Street should be relocated. On the
other hand, if it is not protected and development occurs and
there are no plans for rerouting First street, the street would
be protected.
Councilman Silva also questioned as to Hhether it would be less
expensive to have the widening on the south side as planned, and
TITr. Lee felt that it vJOuld be.
A vote was then taken on the motion which passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding Zoning Ordinance
~nendment or Section 3.00 as it relates to the
development of land to be subdivided by condominium
was continued from the meeting of October 26.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZO AI/[2::JDII[ENT
SEC. 3.00
The Planning Director explained that this matter was initiated
after the adoption of the townhouse ordinance; there was concern
expressed by some members of the Planning Commission and some
Councilmen that a recent attempt to subdivide apartment houses
by means of condominium Hould circumvent the ordinance. It was
concluded that when the townhouse ordinance was adopted that
townhouses being single family in nature even though its form
is multiple family, that they have additional requirements
beyond that of apartment houses such as lower density, greater
parl{ing requirements. On this assumption the Planning Commission
initiated, at the direction of the Council, an ordinance amend-
ment with a recommendation for adoption. The Council did adopt
an emergency interim ordinance until such time as the public
hearing was held and decision on the final ordinance.
The Planning Commission recommendation is that an apartment
house divided by condominium methods would be considered a single
family dwelling and, therefore, must conform to the townhouse re-
quirements of the Zoning ordinance.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at this time and asked for
any comments on the proposed ordinance, however, none Here voiced
and Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to close the public hearing; motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Beebe questioned a paragraph referring to any apartment
house built after the date of adoption of the townhouse ordinance
which cannot be divided by condominium; those created before that
time could be.
CM- 2L~- 379
November 1, 1971
(Public Hearing) Mayor Taylor stated what he had in mind when
the ordinance was originally proposed - to
prevent a subdivider from building a townhouse development (refer
ing to a definition by design) which should be covered by the townhouse
ordinance, by just calling it one lot, building an apartment build-
ing and later subdividing it by condominium. The intent was to
prevent something like this from happening. However, the proposed
ordinance completely prohibits any condominiwn type development
unless it is a townhouse, and he felt that was an undue intrusion
of government, and felt it was proper to allow a condominium
development instead of an apartment development; they might want
to require certain additional amenities if it is known there will
be a large number of bedrooms, but to prohibit it is wrong.
Councilman Miller stated that his reason for supporting the urgency
ordinance was for the reason someone could build a townhouse with a
higher density; call it an apartment house and then subdivide it as
a condominium thereby evading our townhouse ordinance. The same
amenities and open space density consideration should be applicable
to a condominium in the up-and-down form as to a condominium one-on
top of the other form. Properties designed for single family use,
for sale to individuals, should satisfy the townhouse ordinance.
Mayor Taylor commented that the townhouse ordinance is mainly con-
cerned with the aspect of design. It would be ludicrous to build
an apartment type development to conform to a townhouse ordinance
which was designed only for detached, one house on a lot, townhouse
type design, and he did not feel that the ordinance before them
would apply.
Councilman Silva stated his agreement with Mayor Taylor and that is
the reason he voted against the ordinance. Even though it might be
stated this is a single family unit, he felt the individual living
there has the right to own it; therefore, he did not feel that the
ordinance was proper. Councilman Silva made a motion to table the
ordinance if that is what would kill the ordinance, and asked the
City Attorney for advice.
Mr. Lewis explained that if after the hearing it is decided that
they do not wish to make any permanent regulations in this area
or modify what there was before, in the form of an existing urgency
ordinance, he felt it falls because of its own weight. In other
words, it terminates as of the time the Council decides to take no
action or some different action.
Councilman Silva made a motion that no action be taken on the ordi-
nance as proposed; Councilman Beebe seconded the motion, as he would
prefer that the cutoff date be clarified.
Councilman Miller offered that since there is a question of cutoff
dates, that the discussion be continued until Councilman Pritchard
returns and to resolve whether they would allow condominiums without
regulation or allow them with regulations.
Councilman Miller moved to table the item until the next regular
meeting, however, the motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Taylor felt an ordinance was needed to cover condominium
development, but it must be more extensive and there should be
design standards.
Mr. Musso stated that the issue was to prepare an ordinance that
would keep a development to be developed like a townhouse; then
subdivided by condominium. Both townhouses that have been built
have b en done under RG regulations; they are just apartment houses.
The on y reason they are treated differently is that there was a
varian e granted to subdivide them.
CM-24- 80
November 1, 1971
Mr. Lewis questioned the intent of the discussion (Public Hearing)
as there is a legal action pending, and he must
have some direction; if the Council meant they are concerned about
evasions of the tmmhouse ordinance vlhich is essentially RG-10 type
of development; that is vtl ere it is designed to exist and that
apartment houses to be constructed in 14 and 16 Zone, are not the
kind of things the Council is concerned about at this point in
time.
Mayor Taylor explained that the reason he proposed the urgency
ordinance was for the reason stated by Mr. Lewis and in addition,
there has been raised the question that there should be standards
to regulate condominiwn developments; he felt that this should be
covered under a second ordinance.
Mr. Lewis questioned if it was the intent of the Council for the
staff to look toward some regulation that identifies the time of
the issuance, review of the plans, as to what the future intent
of the developer is for the disposition of the building - if he
intends to make it available for sale.
Councilman Silva stated that part of his motion would be to direct
the staff to prepare a study for condominium developments.
T.'lr. r.1usso asked if it VJas the Council's intent to take any action
regarding the freeze on existing apartments, however, the maker
of the motion indicated he did not.
Councilman Beebe stated that he was not concerned about the
different zones as long as the developers do not intend to sub-
divide by condominiunl, after the cutoff date of the adoption of
the townhouse ordinance. If there is an indication the units are
to be sold as condominiums, it should be developed under the town-
house ordinance specifications.
Councilman Miller felt that he and Councilman Beebe were both
looking for some type of regulations; the major issues in the
townhouse ordinance were open space, density and family composi-
tion for single family uses.
Councilman Silva moved the question, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
A vote was taken on the motion and passed 3-1 with Councilman
Miller dissenting. The matter was referred to the Planning
Commission for initiative of a Zoning ordinance amendment
regarding condominium regulations.
*
*
*
The public hearing on the proposed underground district,
Second Street, from So. Livermore Avenue to South N
Street, and certain areas of South L and South M Street,
was continued from the meeting of October 26.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES
The Public Works Director explained the exact locations of the
proposed underground district as defined on the map; further
the plans for the undergrounding. The completion date is
scheduled for September 1, 1972; no construction will commence
until after the holidays so there will be no interference with
commercial activities. In conjunction with this project, the
City will be placing new street lighting vuth underground power
service to the fixtures. The matter has been referred to the
Beautification Committee for study of the type of fixtures that
would be most suitable for this area and within a month or two
there should be a recon~endation from them. Mr. Lee stated that
the district provides that the property owners abutting the various
places designated, who presently obtain their power or other
utility services within the district, will have to provide their
own service from the street into the building.
CM-24-331
November 1, 1971
PUBLIC HEARING
(Underground
utilities)
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing for com-
ments at this time.
Milton Codiroli expressed concern regarding the
cost, and asked if there were any figures available on the connec-
tions from the street, and Mr. Lee stated that it varies considerably.
If they are presently taking their service close to the street
the fee could be as low as $100 or $125 to make a reconnection;
on the other hand if they are taking the service toward the back
of the building and the panel box must be relocated, it could
exceed that amount substantially. Mr. Codiroli also asked about
the length of time for completion and Mr. Lee explained this in
detail, stating there would be as little disruption as possible;
most of the street work has been done so that there will only be
cutting of the sidewalks and installing the pole boxes and duct
work.
Councilman Beebe stated that due to his affiliation with one of
the utilities he would abstain from discussion and voting on this
subject.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the public hearing be closed,
seconded by Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously, to direct
the staff to prepare a resolution for the undergrounding district
to be presented next week.
*
.)(-
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Appointments
Library Board
Airport Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 133-71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE
LIBRARY BOARD
(Clifford C. Marcussen)
RESOLUTION NO. 134-71
APPOINTMENT OF r1E~ffiER TO THE LIBRARY BOARD
(James V. Dimmick)
RESOLUTION NO. 135-71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(William B. Bennett)
*
.)(-
*
Report re
Airport Lane
Use Commission
The Airport Land Use Commission has finally
established the boundaries of their planning
area of influence for the Livermore Municipal
Airport, as recommended by our City, and a
report was received from the County Planning
copy of this
Department.
*
*
*
Communication re
Park & Recreation
Measure
(Assemblyman Z'Berg)
A communication was received from
Assemblyman Z'Berg regarding the park
and recreation measure soon to reach the
Governor, soliciting support. It was the
Council's decision to strongly support the
to our legislature.
measure by resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 136-71
RESOLUTION REQUESTING GOVERNOR TO SIGN AB-3066
BONDS FOR PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES.
*
*
*
CM-24-382
November l~ 1971
The building report for the month of September was
acknowledged.
*
*
*
Minutes were received from tre Beautification Com-
mittee meeting of October 5~ and the Housing
Authority Board of September 28.
-J(-
*
-:f
A communication has been received from the County
of Alameda regarding Health Care Services Agency~ in
response to an inquiry from our City.
Building Report
(September)
Minutes
(Various)
Comrnunication
re Iieal th Care
Services
Councilman Miller remarked that the report indicates that teachers
no longer must have the TB X-ray~ except in the instance of nursery
school teachers~ of which there are approximately 100 in the city;
many of whom are of low income~ and asked if a letter CD uld be
directed to the County asking that they send out a unit~ perhaps
in September~ to Santa Rita to perfo~ this function.
Mayor Taylor stated with reference to the citizen's advisory
board mentioned in the letter that they ask if it would be
appropriate that they name a member of this board from Livermore~
and felt if it is allowed the Council should appoint someone.
-:f
*
-)(-
The City Manager reported on the FAA lease for the
control tower stating that the lease is for a site
easterly of the Airport administration building.
There is to be no consideration for the occupancy of
this plot; the term of the Ie ase is tVlenty years and the City has
the obligation of extending lighting controls to the tower. The
cost of the tower erection and eventual manning is entirely borne
by the Federal Government. It is recomwended that a resolution be
adopted authorizing execution of the lease.
RESOLUTION NO. 137-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTIOIJ OF AN AGREErv1ENT
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman rltiller~ seconded by Councilman
Sil va~ and by unanimous vote ~ the Consent Calendar i/vas
approved as amended.
*
*
*
After a brief recess the meeting resumed 'wi th all Council-
men present. except Councilman Pritchard.
*
*
*
The Reeder Development Corporation has asked for a
continuance on the consideration of the tentative
map of Tract 3043. Mayor Taylor stated that since
there is a 40-day period under the law in which the
Council must act on a tentative map~ if the applicant
\'/ill agree to add seven days to the time limi t~ perhaps
could continue the matter.
Report re FAA
Lease-Control
Tower
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
RECESS
TENTATIVE MAP
Tract 3043
Reeder Dev.
Corporation
the Council
On rnotion of Councilman Silva~ seconded by Councilman Beebe~ and
by unanimous vote~ the matter was continued until November 8.
*
*
*
CM-2L~-3G3
November 1" 1971
Ken Mercer" manager of the local branch of the
Pacific Telephone Company" referred to a bro-
chure included in the agenda in which the
telephone company recommended that the existing
southern Alameda County directory be separated into two directo-
nes. The company feels it would be advantageous to the people
in the area as the directory would be reduced to only 212 pages.
There would also be a reduction in advertising rates of about
jO%. The Dublin areas are primary to the Contra Costa telephone
book" but there was a community interest between them and the
people of this Valley so they will be cross-listed in this area
as well as the Sunol residents. If a directory for the other
side of the hill is desired" there will be a post card included
on the back page of the directory" to mail and a directory will
be delivered.
REPORT RE
TELEPHONE
DIRECTORY
It is the company's intention to file this matter with the PUC
on Friday" November 5" 1971; there are two ways of filing - one
is by public hearing and the other by ex parte which eliminates
the public hearing if all of the cities within the area affected
will adopt a resolution agreeing with the directory separation.
On motion of Councilman Silva to support the presentation just
made; seconded by Councilman Beebe" and by unanimous vote" the
following resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 138-71
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH PACIFIC TELEPHONE COMPANY'S
PROPOSAL TO SEPARATE EXISTING TELEPHOl,ffi DIRECTORIES
*
.x-
*
As directed by the Council" the City Attorney
reported with regard to the City assessing a
separate water connection fee" stated the
examination of the available statutes in case
law in California indicates the City does not have that authority
and he has so advised them in a written report. The City may
legally assess a water connection fee to be applicable within
the confines of that area served by the City water service" but
that area only. Mr. Lewis stated that certain questions came up
during his examination: for example" we cannot collect a fee as
part of the water system and give it away and we cannot make a
loan to another public agency; these are prohibited by the Con-
stitution; we cannot collect a fee in advance of somebody else
collecting the fee or enacting the authority for them.
REPORT RE
WATER CONNECTION
FEE ASSESSMENT
Mayor Taylor stated that would mean if there is to be a fee
established" it must be established by Zone 7" either Valleywide
or in a township" or the City of Livermore" to which Mr. Lewis
agreed.
Councilman Beebe questioned ,vhat time table can be set for action"
and Mayor Taylor stated that the earliest that Zone 7 could act
would be at their next meeting" but there has been no time schedule
set.
Mr. Parness stated that he could not see the reason for the delay
unless it is stipulated by state statute that they cannot intro-
duce a law other than at a regular meeting. He saw no reason
vlhy the Board cannot undertake introduction of such a matter
right away" especially as it has to do with the financial welfare
of our City unless they may need time for composition of the fee"
in which we could be of help.
CM-24-384
November 1", 19'(1
Councilman Silva felt that we should urge Zone
7 to call an emergenc~l meeting and if t[le law
does not permit this", perhaps they could at least
have a study session. Mayor Taylor agreed as he was against re-
sumption of issuing building permits until the fee is established.
lIe did not feel it Vlould be responsible to issue building permits",
Imovdng that ever-<J one issued means a $500 loss to the public and
a delay in affecting a permanent solution; also if there are a large
number of people opposed to the fee", there would be pressure on
Zone 7 to delay; urgent action is necessary.
(Water Connection
Fee Assessment)
Councilman Beebe made a motion that
to immediately contact Zone 7 staff
from them - even an interim fee", or
back to the Council by next Monday.
motion and it passed unanimously.
the City Manager be instructed
to request a quick decision
permanent fee", and have this
Councilman Silva seconded the
Councilman Silva asked if it was possible to release some building
permits with a stipulation that in 90 days there would be a water
connection fee charged prior to issuance of a final inspection.
r'lr. Lewis stated that he did not thinl\: this could be done", and
explained his reasons", and added that possibly people coming in
for permits might be vlarned", if the Council should decide to
release them", that ~one 7 may enact a fee and arrangement should
be made so that it can be handled without too much hardship between
buyer and seller.
Councilman Miller stated that one of the problems in that instance
might be that the sale would be completed before the fee was
established.
Milt Codiroli asked Mr. Lewis if it would be legal if the builders
would offer voluntarily to place an amount into escrow account"'
pending Zone 7 decision", and Mr. Lewis replied that he thought
they had the power to make a gift to the District. The District
Act states that the District has this right. Mr. Codiroli stated
that the Chamber could contact all the builders in Livermore and
have them agree to a realistic figure for the interim period", and
asked if the Council would consider this offer.
Mayor Taylor asked if this would be in the form of a contract"'
however", Mr. Lewis advised that it could not be a contract"' it
would be a gift only.
I.lr. Codiroli stated that assuming the Ci ty planned to implore
Zone 7 to move as quickly as possible", what if the Chamber also
moved as quickly as possible so that one week from today either
Zone 7 has a solution", or the Chamber appears with the builders
in Livermore who have agreed to a gift, in a certain amount"' when
applying for building permits. Rather than wait a week and have
nothing, perhaps they could both proceed and have something settled.
IiII'. Codiroli asked if there vere some relatively firm figures which
could be used.
Mayor Taylor asked the Council if they would agree to continue
the building freeze for another week until they see what the
Chamber and Zone 7 can 'work out and a motion Vias made by Council-
man Silva", seconded by Councilman Miller", to continue the hold on
the building permits for one more week, passed unanimously.
Anthony Varni asked if the staff could consider tying this fee
to the occupancy permit"' and legally indicating which lot received
a building permit during the time of question as to what Zone 7
intends to do", and ~layor Taylor replied that the City Attorney
would possibly take this into account.
CM-24-33:..i
November 1, 1971
(Water Connection
Fee Assessment)
Councilman Miller asked if this decision
had any effect on the ordinance proposed
for regulating the use of water and sus-
pending the issuance of building permits. Councilman MJller
referred to the City Attorney's memo in which he pointed out
that the law states that the water service companies are not
to extend service to further customers to the detriment of
existing established customers.
Councilman Silva made a motion to continue the second reading
of the ordinance with regard to regulations of water and issu-
ance of building permits~ The motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Attorney referred to the report
in the newspaper with reference to the
determination in the Amador Valley Investors
case - i.e. the suit against the City be-
cause of the discharge of our sewage
effluent commencing in April of 1967, ordering the City to pay
damages in the sum of $93,000, plus 7% interest thereon from
January 1, 1968, for a total of approximately $111,000. The
judge issued a memorandum opinion which, upon examination, leaves
doubt as to the exact basis on which he held the City liable:
to wit, whether it was negligence or inverse condemnation, and
makes a difference as to which it is. Our insurance carrier
advises that we have insurance if it is in negligence, but if
it is in inverse condemnation, the carrier indicates they do
not intend to pay. Mr. Lewis explained what the next steps are
in the proceedings, and felt the judge would conclude inverse
condemnation; in that event, he recommended the City appeal any
judgment entered in this case, and advised the cost would be
$3,000 to $5,000 and added that there is such chance of success
it must be pursued to a logical conclusion. It is important to
know what the law is in this field; it is a new case - a case of
first impression in California and of vital interest not only to
the City, but to many sanitary districts and cities who must
utilize inland waterways for the transportation of sewer affluent.
There are two main points to make - first, that the Court was
incorrect in its conclusion that a particular section of the
state law was not applicable: to wit: that we have the right
to discharge sewer affluent into a natural stream so long as it
does no damage; the second is based on the statute of limitations.
REPORT RE
JUDGE SABRAW
(Amador Valley
Investors CEi.Se)
Mr. Lewis stated that it is his recommendation to appeal, and he
would ask authorization of the Council to employ Counsel to do
so at the necessary time. Another part is to commence an action
against the insurance company in declaratory relief, based on the
wording of our insurance policy, which in effect, states that
they insure us against any damage caused by the City. We have
to establish in court that this kind of damaging is within the
contract with the insurance company, and they are bound to defend
any claim, if one results.
Pending all of this we have the possibility of paying the court's
judgment if we lose, and where would we get this amount. The
Council might get some recommendation from the City Manager as
to where such funds might be obtained and whether it would be
proper to impound them; the interest will continue to grow
during the appeal period.
CM-24-386
Councilman Miller made a motion to authorize the
City Attorney to take the steps which he has
recommended; motion was seconded by Councilman
Silva, and passed unanimously.
November 1, 1971
(Amador Valley
Investors Case)
The City Manager was directed to prepare a recommendation for
raising the money.
*
*
*
A report was submi tted by the Public vJorl{s Director
regarding sanitary sewer connection fee adjustment.
It was recommended that any action on the matter be
deferred until the meeting of November 8, for study
and additional discussion of the matter.
REPORT RE
SANIT ARY SEvJER
CONNECTION FEE
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote, the matter was deferred lliltil the next meeting.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that with regard to the
bus feeder line study, it would be appropriate to
attempt to arrange a joint study session with the
other public entities involved. The City Council
asked that the City Manager arrange to have the meeting on December 9.
*
*
*
A report and ordinance draft was presented to the
Council from the Design Review Study Committee which
essentially recommended that the Council proceed as
originally intended and appoint a Design Review
Committee which would begin to establish criteria,
and serve as an advisory committee to the staff.
REPORT RE BUS
FEEDER LINE
STUDY
REPORT RE
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
REVIEW STUDY
CO MIVII TTEE
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman r~ller,
and approved unanimously to refer the report back to tre Planning
Commission for preparation of an ordinance
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported, regarding school
portable site locations, at the direction of the
Council, due to a complaint voiced by a concerned
citizen. Mr. Musso stated that the portable site
locations had not been a problem heretofore as they had been treated
as a temporary use or as an accessory building to the principal use
of the school; full improvements have not been required as they would
have been under a nonnal school situation, i.e. public works improve-
ments, off-street parking, etc. He felt that the reason there were
problems at this time is the fact that the portables were not erected
in conformance with the ordinance as the setbacks were measured from
the sidewalk rather that the front property line; people along
Florence Way are concerned inasmuch as this has obstructed their view
up and down the street. The changing circumstances in the school
district point up the problem that maybe portables should not be
considered a temporary use, and perhaps offstreet parking should be
required even though it may be an additional expense. The School
District agreed that the City should probably exercise more control
over the portable locations, and the plans will be referred to the
City at an earlier time to allow this.
REPORT RE SCHOOL
PORTABLE SITE
LOCATION
f1ayor Taylor asked if the School District mut comply with the City's
requirements, and Hr. Musso stated that under the law they are under
state aid, they do not need to conform to the building code; in any
case, they do not have to conform to local zoning ordinances if the
Board out votes the City.
CM-24-387
November 1, 1971
(Amador Valley
Investors Case)
Gordon Smith, 5262 Irene Way, asked if there
is a distinction between actually being on state
aid and not being on state aid, as he did not
believe we were on state aid, and asked Mr. Lewis if this would
make a difference in any type of ruling. The money being used
for lease purchase comes from our locally generated School District
taxes. He asked then, if this would have any effect on the over-
ride of the state authority over local city ordinances, and if the
city would ask the school authorities to submit plans for inspec-
tion.
Mayor Taylor stated that the school has agreed to submit plans
on portable locatiomto the City.
In answer to Mr. Smith's question as to how this would be handled,
Mr. Musso replied that it would be submitted to the Planning
Department; they would issue a permit and set up the usual site
plan procedure.
PARCEL MAP 778
(Leslie J. and
Amy E. Iverson)
*
*
*
A parcel map, Number 778 has been submitted
by Leslie J. and Amy E. Iverson, for approval
of property located on the south side of Olivina
Avenue, between Albatross and Bernal Avenues.
The Planning Commission recommends approval. A motion was made by
Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, approving the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and passed unanimously.
MINUTES
PLANNING
COMMISSION
*
*
*
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
October 19, were noted for filing.
ORDINANCE RE
AMENDMENT
CITY CODE
SEC. 12.25 (g),
( 1) and (2 )
*
*
*
ORDIN~~CE NO. 761
AN ORDINANCE ArllilIDING SECTION 12.25, RELATING
TO LICENSE TAX - FLAT RATE, OF CHAPTER 12,
RELATING TO LICENSES, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY
CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and b,' the
following vote, the above ordinance was passed.
AYES:
COUNCILMEN Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMAN Miller
COUNCILMAN Pritchard
Mayor Taylor stated that his
of the ordinance is the fact
was absent, had favored it.
should be higher.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
20 AMENDMENT
SEC. 20.18
(School Facilities
Tentative Maps)
only reason for voting in favor
that Councilman Pritchard, who
Mayor Taylor felt the amounts
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, the ordinance amending
Section 20.18 regarding information to be
shown on tentative maps regarding availability
of school facilities, was introduced.
Councilman Miller felt that this matter is a
public health, welfare and safety measure and
since there will be a tract map before the Council next week, felt
it was an urgency measure and should be an urgency ordinance.
CM-24-388
November l~ 1971
Mr. Lewis advised that he could not establish the
facts that might make it an urgency ordinance.
One problem he felt to be more controlling is
since it is put in~ in anticipation of litigation on this point~ he
would not like to have to contest whether the ordinance was valid or
invalid on the basis of the urgency statement, which would take away
from the main case and make it just another issue to try.
(School FacilitieE
Tentati ve f/[aps)
The ordinance was introduced by unanimous vote (Councilman Pritchard
absent) .
*
*
*
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission has~ and
will continue to have~ multiple zoning applications and
posed a question~ in light of the amortization and
moratorium~ as to whether or not the Council wished
to pass down to the Planning Commission~ some direction
relative to rezonings~ inasmuch as they were concerned with the
number of multiples which had already been approved. Since the
Planning Commission meets tomorrow~ it vlOuld be foolish in one
area~ to worry about new subdivisions and then approve multiple
zonings that could far exceed any dwelling units approved by sub-
division. The City has commitments by zoning~ creation of lots~
subdivisions for a given number of units, and he wondered whether
they should commit further dwelling units or approve new tentative
or final maps.
MATTERS INITI-
ATED BY STAFF
(Policy re
Permits)
The Council discussed this matter and Councilman Miller felt that
this was a reasonable question because of the water situation.
Mr. Lewis stated that if they were talking about areas already under
development and have to consider~ on a rezoning~ whether or not it
is because of the relationship of that property to an adjacent
property and whether that property owner is entitled to have his
property rezoned, it would be arbitrary and unreasonable to deny
that rezoning in view of the use of surrounding property~ if the
Council is talking about proper land use. If they are talking
about the extension of an area now predominantly RL-G to some
rnultiple classification~ that would be a different matter entirely.
This again would have to do with the general plan.
Mayor Taylor stated that there are several reasons why they would
refuse a rezoning - one is that it might be premature; normally
the zoning is the question of land use. He agreed it would be
foolish since they are faced with the problems of providing service
of schools and water~ to continue to rezone large parcels of land.
Councilman Silva suggested that the Planning Commission initiate
this question and funnel it through the City Attorney~ back to the
Council.
-l(-
*
*
Mr. Lewis had been asked to check into lot splitting
and he had talked to the District Attorney and was
advised they did not prosecute~ the violation was
outlawed by the statute of limitation. In addition to that~ there
was the problem that the County counsel had had a difficult time
deciding whether or not there was a violation and made no positive
recommendation to the Board other than to change the ordinance
they had at the existing time.
Lot Splitting
(Carnazzo)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported on the grading contract for the
Civic Center site which is now almost complete~ and
the contractor is ready to replace that amount of
yardage with an equitable type of ground covering
and an agreement has been worked out by the staff. The
and contractual terms have been agreed to and the staff
(Grading at
Civic Center
Site)
specifications
has looked at
CT'I-24- 389
November 1, 1971
(Grading at
Civic Center
Site)
with the terms
the materials which the contractor proposes to
import and they are acceptable, and are now
asking permission to enter into this agreement,
subject to some type of surety for compliance
of the agreement being made.
The Council discussed the type of soil being replaced, and the
grading in the vicinity of the barn.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to proceed with the staff recommendation, obtain the
performance bond, and have the soil replaced, and the motion
passed unanimously.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Commendation -
Livermore High
School)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva stated that there was
much jubilation when Livermore High School
defeated Amador, and felt that the defeat
warranted a resolution commending them for
their fine efforts, and made a motion to
this effect, seconded by Councilman ftlller
unanimously.
and passed
(Hazardous
Intersection -
Portola Avenue)
*
*
*
Councilman f~ller asked that the staff
attempt to get a reduction of the speed
limit at Portola Avenue and US 580 inter-
section, as it is very hazardous. Councilman
Silva stated that the speed limit cannot be reduced to less
than 55 MPH.
(Speed Limit
Portola Avenue
School)
for better marked
observed that the
(Signal Lights -
East Avenue)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that people in his
area have asked for better traffic enforcement
around Portola Avenue School, as the speed
limits are not observed. They have also asked
crosswalks. Mr. Parness stated that he had
children do not use the crosswalks.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller questioned when the traffic
lights would be installed at East Avenue and
Mitra Avenue and at East Avenue and Vasco Road;
this has been discussed with the County, and hopefully, it will be
installed in the coming year, but he would contact the County for
present status on this. Councilman Silva suggested the list on
the time schedule for installation of traffic signals be published
in the paper.
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-390
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
APPROVE ~
L~
MaYOr)
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of November 8, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 8,
1971, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Ave.
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. with Mayor Taylor
presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Miller,
Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
Councilman Silva
*
ok
1(
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those pre-
sent in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
1(
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of November 1, 1971
were approved as submitted, on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote.
MINUTES
*
oJ.
"
oJ.
"
Steve Martin, Business Representative of Employees
Local 390, spoke in their behalf asking the City
Council to sever relations with the League of Calif-
ornia Cities. He felt that the League's activities
in Sacramento led them to treat the other cities in
the State unfairly. To give an example, he listed one of the bills
that was introduced that the League opposed: AB-486 which was de-
signed to improve Workmen's Compensation benefits. While the League
opposed this bill, they approved of AB-1617 which dealt with a 5%
tax being imposed on drinks sold on the premises which he felt was
being unfair to the middle-class wage earner and the hotel and
restaurant business, which are already feeling the burden of the
recession. AB-844, a bill for collective bargaining for public
employees, was also denounced by the League. SB-8l5, an anti-worker
bill that would limit the number and kinds of industrial accidents
that would be covered by Workmen's Compensation, was one that the
League favored while they were in opposition to AB-84l which
allowed an employee to choose a doctor in case of an industrial
accident. Last of all, he stated that the League was in opposi-
tion to a state minimum wage bill which would raise the wage
minimum from $1.65 to $2.00 per hour. He urged the Council to
sever relations with the League, which in his estimation, is
prohibiting progressive legislation in Sacramento.
SPECIAL ITEM
Sever Link -
League Calif.
Cities
Councilman Beebe stated that he would like to have more informa-
tion from the employees or representatives when something like
this comes up. He stated that the main communication of the
Council is directly from the League.
Mr. Martin asked if there would be action taken at a later date,
and Mayor Taylor stated that he felt the League generally was a
great benefit to the citizens of this town and others in combat-
ing the forces of lobbying in Sacramento and that withdrawing
our support without much deliberation would be unreasonable.
He agreed with Councilman Beebe that if the union would make
their position known on legislative matters, the Council
could consider it.
Councilman Miller was in agreement with the Mayor as far as
withdrawing support from the League. He felt that the Council
should contact the League and ask them to stop initiating
Workmen's Compensation bills which are not helpful to union
CM-24-39l
November 8, 1971
(Special Item) employees. He stated that he felt the League
should not be in opposition to some of these bills
and that Workmen's Compensation is quite important to those injured
in industrial accidents and needs the League's support.
Councilman Pritchard felt that the League is not interested primarily
in helping the union and the Council does not always agree with what
the League intends to do, but if they have information early enough
and if the Council feels that it is detrimental or unconstitutional,
they will be able to take action to oppose a bill at the League level.
He stated that even if they do not always agree with the League, it
is the best means available to the citizens and Council for help.
Mr. Martin stated that they will keep in touch with the Council,
advising of their recommendations, though they were sorry that the
Council did not intend to sever relations with the League.
*
')'(
"I,
OPEN FORUM
(Public Trans-
portation -
Bus Service
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, reported that
he was very disappointed in the response to the.
commuter bus service to Oakland. He feels that the
public should show greater response or it would be
futile to introduce a municipal bus service to
cities outside of Livermore. He commended the press on their out-
standing job of advertising the bus service to Oakland and hopes
that the community will support it.
Mayor Taylor thanked Mr. Allen for his efforts to promote the bus
service and announced that at the regular meeting of the Valley
Planning Committee of December 9, in the Municipal Court Chambers,
there will be a Valley Transportation Study presented to the Council,
and invited the public and anyone interested to attend the meeting.
(Comments re
Schools)
Diane Carpluk, 1117 Roxanne Street, in behalf of
the Livermore Education Association, stated that
they are happy that before a contractor can build,
he must have a letter from the District stating that there are
enough classrooms. She felt that even though the Council has never
made an assessment on the construction of schools, their ventilation,
heating, lighting, and health facilities, which are all inadequate,
that they might evaluate the minimal landscaping of parks in the
tract areas, many are unsafe for children to use due to the debris
that is dumped there. The School District is not giving the City
Council problems, as one of the Council members indicated, the
schools are willing to cooperate with the Council, but would like
them to be aware of the potential danger in handing out building
permits for more construction of houses and apartments. She
mentioned that in her estimation judging from her experience in
different school districts, that Livermore has very good, hard-
working teachers and the taxpayers are going to be paying more
for less if the schools continue to be overcrowded.
Councilman Silva was. seated here.
*
"I,
*
PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT RE
SIGNS
The Planning Director stated that this ordinance was
regarding freeway oriented signs, signs in proximity
to the freeway advertising freeway oriented uses.
The prime example of this decision being the Holiday
Inn. The issue at hand is freestanding signs, which
under the present ordinance are 64 sq. ft. for a freestanding sign
for freeway use. They would be allowed to put a sign on their build-
ing as large as 200 sq. ft., but they cannot have a sign this large
that is freestanding. He stated that one of the Council members
would have to make a recommendation for a change.
CM-24-392
November 8, 1971
(Zoning Ordin-
ance Amendment
re Signs)
Councilman Silva stated that Councilman Beebe
had made a recommendation for change but that
the Council had decided to wait until the public
hearing.
In addition, for informational purposes, the Planning Department
advised that Commissioner Nelson had made a suggestion that signs
be increased as the distance from the freeway is increased.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing at this time.
Keith Fraser, representing the Holiday Inn, stated that the
company had reviewed Commissioner Nelson's proposal and feel it
is a satisfactory amendment that would allow them sufficient
sign to satisfy the innkeeper. He felt that this item specifi-
cally related to their application for a larger sign, and would
like a decision as soon as possible, and expressed favor of the
proposal.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, had previously suggested and
again proposed that a tie be made between the size of a sign
and the valuation of the property so that property that pro-
duces a large amount of tax revenue should be entitled to a
larger sign.
Councilman Beebe advised Mr. Allen that the City Attorney had
stated this was an unconstitutional method; therefore it was
necessary to again consider only the square footage.
Mr. Lewis clarified this remarking that, at the time Mr. Allen
suggested that the sign be based on the assessed value, he had
pointed out it was not possible to determine the assessed value
for a considerable period of time, perhaps as long as a year,
which might cause problems. He did not feel there should be
relationship between value of property and a sign.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and passed unanimously to close the public hearing.
Councilman Beebe made a motion for a proposed amendment to the
sign ordinance by adopting in part Commissioner Nelson's for-
mula to allow 64 sq. ft. at less than 50 ft., with no minimum
floor area; and 175 sq. ft. at 50 ft. to 500 ft. with 25,000
sq. ft. floor area; motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller called the Council's attention to the pictures
of the Holiday Inn, stating that the sign was ridiculous because
of design and not size, and asked everyone to consider the size,
design, before they make a decision, inasmuch as a larger sign
could be placed on the building and still satisfy the ordinance.
There followed a discussion regarding freeway oriented signs and
Councilman Silva made a proposal that they allow freestanding
signs based on square footage of floor area. Assuming that the
Holiday Inn is 60,000 square feet, and if they are allowed 2 sq.
ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space, they would be allowed
120 sq. ft. of free-standing sign with 50 ft. setback from the
freeway.
After considerable discussion regarding freestanding signs, a
called vote was taken and the motion passed 3 to 2 with
Councilmen Silva and Miller dissenting.
Mr. Lewis advised since the action was contrary to the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission, it should be referred
back for review and comment.
*
oJ.
"
oJ.
"
CM-24-393
November 8, 1971
Mrs. Irvin Heald, 2633 Holmes Street, addressed the
Council and stated her concern regarding the proposed
unequal widening of Holmes Street below Alden Lane.
The Public Works Director, Daniel Lee, was requested to prepare and
submit a report on this subject for the Council's consideration at a
later meeting, and it was suggested that Mrs. Heald be informed of the
meeting.
HOLMES ST.
WIDENING
*
7C
7C
TENTATIVE MAP Consideration of tentative map of Tract 3043 -
TRACT 3043 Reeder Development Company was postponed at the
(Reeder Dev. Co.)request of the developer from the last meeting to
this time, however, a second request has been received
for extension of time until the meeting of November 15.
The Council discussed late requests for postponements and concurred
that requests should not be made for a continuation later than Thurs-
day. It should be made a policy of the Council that this is the
cutoff time and items will not be continued after that time, depend-
ing on the circumstances.
Councilman Pritchard, after bringing up a point about the completion
of Springtown Blvd. due to the heavy traffic on Bluebell Drive and
the fact that the Council should have this in mind, made a motion to
continue the discussion on this item until next week. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed unanimously.
Mrs. Stroud, 5218 Iris Way, stated they may not be able to come to
the next meeting when this matter is to be discussed and asked with the
area north of 580 how many dwelling units are now allowed because if
Larkspur Drive is to be the street to be completed, it would bring
all of the traffic to funnel in front of the Center at Springtown.
She asked if the Council would take this into consideration before
making a decision.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, spoke to the fact that there are no
schools north of US 580, and felt that before any more development is
allowed in that area there should be something done with regard to the
school situation.
7C
7C
7C
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report re Airport
Ground Rental
Lease (Norman
Marciel)
negotiated for a
The area underlying the easterly approach zone to
the airport, owned by the City and consisting of
eight acres, is to be farmed by a private party.
This is the same tenant that farms the balance of
the abutting undeveloped area. A lease has been
term of two years at a rate of $14 per acre per year.
.,'(
*
*
Report re State
Freeway Direc-
tional Signs
A report was submitted by the Public Works Director
regarding State freeway directional signs proposed
for installation along US 580, east and west of
Livermore.
7C
*
7C
Resignation
R. J. Hoffman
(Board of Appeals)
letter of thanks
of service.
A communication was received from R. J. Hoffman
containing his resignation from the Board of Ap-
peals. On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Silva, and by unanimous vote, a
is to be written to Mr. Hoffman for his many years
7C
7C
*
CM-24-394
November 8, 1971
Street Name
Change
making the
CONSENT CALENDAR (con't)
A street name was listed on a final tract map,
Tract 3324, as being "Way" instead of "Road". It
is recommended that a resolution be adopted
necessary change.
RESOLUTION NO. 139-71
A RESOLUTION CHANGING STREET NAME (Jaffa Way)
Denial of
Claim
(Kay Parra)
;'(
"I(
-k
As requested by our insurance carrier, a resolu-
tion is to be adopted denying the claim of Kay
Parra for personal injuries.
RESOLUTION NO. 140-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF LATE CLAIM
OF KAY PARRA AND DENIAL THEREOF
Underground
District
Boundaries
work.
*
-k
*
A public hearing was held regarding the Under-
ground District and the next step in the pro-
cedure is to establish the boundaries and set
the final date for completion of the proposed
RESOLUTION NO. 141-71
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND DISTRICT
ON SECOND STREET GENERALLY BETWEEN SOUTH LIVERMORE
AVENUE AND SOUTH N STREET
Livermore
Trailway
System
-1(
-1(
-1(
RESOLUTION NO. 142-71
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE
INCLUSION OF "LIVERMORE TRAILWAY SYSTEM" AS A
PART OF THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
The above resolution was prepared as directed at the close of
the public hearing on November 1.
Beautification
Committee
Members
-1(
-1(
*
RESOLUTION NO. 143-71
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
(Marjorie Leider and Walt Davies)
There will be a short executive session with regard to appoint-
ments to the Beautification Committee after the regular meeting.
MINUTES
Beautifica-
tion Committee
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
-1(
.L
"
-1(
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meeting
of October 19 were acknowledged for filing.
-1(
-1(
-1(
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, the items on the Consent
Calendar were approved.
-1(
*
-1(
CM-24-395
November 8, 1971
COMMUNICATION
RE CITY FLAG
Mr. Walt Griffith, Chairman of the Community Affairs
Committee, reported that a flag contest for the City
of Livermore was held in March and the award went to
a Mrs. Linda Smelly. Since this time they have contacted a number of
flag companies for estimates to make a flag for the City, and the
estimates are as follows: $60 for a hand drawn flag, and the Para-
mont Flag Company in San Francisco would make a screen flag, cloth-
on-cloth, with a 10-year-life expectancy, and by giving the City a
30% discount, is asking $105.80, which includes a pole, spear, tassel,
complete. The City Council was asked to make a final decision as to
what they wanted to do regarding this matter.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to appropriate $105.80 to continue the
program to a completion, seconded by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Silva stated he knows someone who will make a flag for the
City for $75. He also stated that he didn't care for the colors and
he felt the Council never officially adopted the winning flag.
Mr. Griffith stated that the award had been made with a picture of
Mayor Taylor and the winner in the newspaper stating that it was to
be the City flag. The orange and white colors for the flag were
chosen because of the Sister City Program.
A vote was taken on the motion and passed 4-1 with Councilman Silva
dissenting.
*
7(
~'(
REPORT RE SEWER
CONNECTION FEE
STUDY
The Public Works Director reported that the Council
had asked that a study be made to determine the pro-
per sewer connection fee that would cover the planned
expansion of the water reclamation plant along with
any aid the City will be receiving from the 1970 Clean Water Bond Act.
His estimation for a sewer connection fee which should handle costs
through 1990, including major transmission lines, expansion, and
repairs, would be $485 per single family unit with the following re-
commended changes: 1) change Section 18.02 (Municipal Code) Exhibit E
of the submitted report to increase the fee to $485 per single family
unit, and 2) consider mobile homes equal to single family units thus
charging them the same fee. One of the problems not covered by the
sewer connection fee is the modification, reconstruction, and repair
of the old collector system and felt that this should be compensated
for in monthly service charges. In the past they have not had suf-
ficient funds to take care of the repairs to the pre-existing system.
Mayor Taylor tried to clarify what the Public Works Director had said
by stating that essentially the Public Works Department wants a fee
that will make the sewer system self-supporting. Mr.Lee was asked if
he is counting on receiving additional federal grants to cover expenses,
to which Mr. Lee stated that was not taken into consideration as one
cannot count on future grants. The staff's opinion is that the fee they
have recommended will take care of costs, without any additional federal
aid, even with a population expansion.
Councilman Pritchard made a move to accept Mr. Lee's report and go on
to Item 4.4 which is the first reading and vote to introduce a Munici-
pal Code amendment to revise the sewer connection fee, seconded by
Councilman Miller, approved unanimously.
City Attorney, Mr. Lewis asked for a delay of the first reading so
that they could prepare the ordinance and present it for introduc-
tion, perhaps by the end of November, after the freeze is lifted.
At this time Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the reading of
the ordinance be waived and the title be read only, and that a
second reading take place on December 6, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, passed unanimously.
7(
"i(
-;'(
CM-24-396
November 8, 1971
REPORT RE
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
1970
same as the
Councilman Pritchard commented that there were no
teeth in the Act regarding local entities, and
suggested that an amendment be made, or a new law
established by a lobby through the proper channels,
to require local entities to do essentially the
state divisions are required to do now.
City Attorney, Mr. Lewis, stated that all local projects, City
and County, must be compatible with the conservation element of
the general plan, conservation development, natural resources, and
wildlife, and that since federal funds are involved, he feels that
the State will require a report from the City on each project.
We can make a local determination, but the State has guidelines
to which the City must adhere.
Councilman Miller felt that it is nonetheless a very important
Act that deals with the environment and is of statewide concern,
i.e., the maintenance of a quality environment. He expressed
concern for the smog problem and stated that according to the Act
the City should insure long term protection of the environment
and that this should be the guiding criterion for making public
decisions, and that it is up to the Council to be on guard as
far as what they approve, because cumulative small actions
can add up to create major problems with the environment. The
City should take steps to rehabilitate poor environmental con-
ditions, such as smog, which has already exceeded federal
standards. He recommended maintaining a freeze on building
permits until the smog level reached a level as set up by
federal standards.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Council had instructed the staff to
work with the Air Pollution Control District and obtain a pre-
diction as to what the smog situation will be in the future, and
to work with the District in taking the necessary steps to al-
leviate the situation.
Councilman Silva stated that in order to have a building freeze
because of smog conditions they would have to have the legal
facts to substantiate this kind of action, and at this time, they
do not have. They are currently in contact with the Bay Area Air
Pollution committee in the hopes of gathering all the facts per-
taining to the smog level in Livermore.
PLANNING
COMMISS ION
MEETING
SUMMARY
*
oJ.
"
7(
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or
questions regarding the Planning Commission meet-
ing of November 2, and as he received no response
he asked that they go on to the next item for
discussion.
oJ.
"
~'.
"
7(
The ordinance regulating residential building per-
mits was introduced at the meeting of November 1,
and Mayor Taylor asked the City Attorney to explain
the ordinance to the audience which, in essence,
was a series of findings in regard to the water solution, Rrovides
that the City Council may establish rules and regulations for
the use and consumption of water for domestic irrigation purposes
within the City, and limits building permits for residential
dwelling units. Mr. Lewis stated that Councilman pritchard's
motion was to insert a provision that required a limitation of
800 permits by not later than July 1, 1972 to be issued at 100
units per month, but that this regulation not apply to persons
who had less than five lots. The ordinance defines light water
users, and deals with applications for commercial and industrial
permits, lists exceptions such as churches, schools, hospitals
ORDINANCE RE
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING
CM-24-397
November 8, 1971
(Ordinance re
Residential
Building)
low cost housing, offices of doctors, dentists and
other uses connected with health, safety and wel-
fare. The ordinance as voted upon was not an ur-
gency ordinance, although all Councilmen felt some
action had to be taken, and there were three votes
in favor of the ordinance as introduced.
Mayor Taylor advised the audience that there was another related
matter to be discussed regarding the temporary freeze on the issu-
ance of building permits, however Mr. Lewis advised that was not
a part of this ordinance. Mayor Taylor stated that the action re-
garding the freeze was for a one week period and unless action was
taken tonight, it would expire.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to discuss the matter of the freeze first, passed 3 to 2 with Coun-
cilmen Silva and Miller dissenting.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that building permits be issued to
those applicants who signed an agreement as outlined in the Associ-
ated Home Builders' letter of November 3, 1971, and comply entirely
with the contents of the letter, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. William Leonard, representing the Association of Home Builders
of Greater East Bay, spoke regarding the letter which he stated was
a draft, and while the philosophies contained in that letter were
willingness to support, there were two major changes. The letter
was not officially mailed to the Council, but simply distributed to
them for discussion. Mr. Leonard stated there has been discussion
with the residential construction industry, which is a major sup-
plier of jobs, and he has concurrence from the following firms:
Livermore Properties, Hofmann Company, H. C. Elliott, Sunset Homes,
Kaufman & Broad, Wayne Reeder Corp., Casa Pacific, Dublin Construc-
tion, Duc & Elliott, McGah-Peterson, Presley Development. He felt
this was a 99% representation of the active homebuilders in Liver-
more and they agree to abide by the following proposition: that
the members of the construction industry will agree to pay a fee
in an effort to show the constructive good faith of the residential
community concerned with the problem and in an effort to get over
this urgency water problem with Zone 7 of $500 in an interest bear-
ing escrow, at the time of issuance of a permit, and to be turned
over to Zone 7, if and when they adopt a water connection fee, say 75
days. If this period should go on and on, if by the time a house is
ready for occupancy, and there has been no fee established by Zone 7,
the escrow would be incomplete because of this action and would be
returned to the person making the deposit as there would be no need
for it in that aspect. They would be prepared to come back in sixty
days to review this proposal. Mr. Leonard stated that the term
"gift" is withdrawn and "interest bearing escrow'! is substituted;
the time element is related to the occupancy. The rationale for
the City is that it insures that there is no rush to obtain build-
ing permits; that there are no new residences constructed without
the payment of the fee and at the same time, they feel that they
are representing the majority of the voters. They feel the proposal
is reasonable, accomplishes the objective, and will put some people
back to work, and they urge the Council to consider it and allow the
moratorium to expire, and at the same time vote to adopt the ordi-
nance, as just described, that would take its normal course to deal
with the water problems as they occur.
Mayor Taylor questioned Mr. Leonard about the document, asking if
it was in the form of a letter of intent, or a binding contract.
Mr. Leonard stated they are speaking of a policy; also a letter of
intent that would open up an escrow that would be interest bearing
and relate to each and every building permit.
Councilman Miller felt it was clear that there was no protection to
the City in this proposal especially since not all of the contractors
and builders have agreed to the terms; secondly, if for any reason
Zone 7 delays any more than 75 days, the water connection fee would
be lost.
CM-24-398
November 8, 1971
Councilman Silva asked the reason for the 75-day
stipulation, and Mr. Leonard stated they felt
this was a reasonable period for Zone 7 to take
some action. Councilman Silva felt this issue
should be negotiated further.
(Ordinance re
Residential Bldg.)
Mayor Taylor added that if at the end of 75 days it is definitely
established that Zone 7 is not going to establish a fee, then it
becomes clear that there is no solution in site for the pending
water shortage; he did not feel a general obligation bond issue
would pass without a fee that is understandable and acceptable.
Mr. Leonard suggested perhaps he could come before the Council in
sixty days, but if the urgency ordinance is adopted in the mean-
time, it would mean that there would be no residential units con-
structed without the possibility of a fee and at the same time get
the freeze off.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to amend his motion that the interest
bearing escrow was agreeable, but suggested the time at six months,
and review in four months time.
Mayor Taylor asked what builders were not included in the list, or
if it was substantially complete, and the question was also asked
if they could deny permits if the developers did not contribute.
Mr. Lewis stated they could not, and he still viewed the money as
a gift; they cannot require a deposit as a condition of the build-
ing permit and as commendable as it may be that a very large per-
centage of the building industry is supporting this idea, there are
some who are not signatories who would not voluntarily go along with
it. If they did not want to pay, the City would be required to
issue a building permit.
Councilman Silva asked if the builder should sell his interest in
Livermore to someone else, would that person be liable for this
agreement.
Mr. Lewis advised this is what Mr. Leonard was referring to: by
depositing the money at the time of the issuance of the building
permit, regardless of what happens to the lot, the escrow is open
and that escrow cannot be revoked for 75 days; therefore, he
would have to answer that a transfer of lot would not affect the
escrow.
Councilman Miller questioned if there was a transfer of subdivi-
sion and someone came in for a building permit, to which Mr. Lewis
replied that that was a different thing, and Councilman Miller
said then that the person who is not now a signatory to this agree-
ment can come in for his building permit and there is no way to
stop that. In fact, it would be transferred to a dummy corpora-
tion; there is no protection to the City.
Mr. Lewis questioned Mr. Leonard regarding the 75 days, and Mr.
Leonard advised it would run with each building permit.
Mr. Lewis also asked Mr. Leonard if the appropriate agency took
action by adopting an ordinance or a resolution within 75 days,
if he would consider that the action he was looking for, to which
he replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Taylor asked what if, within the 75 days, Zone 7 states they
are not going to establish a fee. They may be in the process of
doing so, but if they do not, there is a 75-day deadline after
which a number of people stand to gain a sizeable amount of money,
and if he were a builder with a lot of money in that escrow, he
would lobby before the Board, to get past that 75-day period, to
get his money back. He felt the intent is that if there is not
to be a fee established, the builders want their money back. He
felt the intent was in good faith but was worried about the time
element.
CM-24-399
November 8, 1971
Councilman Silva stated it was his intent, and
thought it was that of the other members of the
Council also, that if Zone 7 does not come up with
a fee, regardless of the days, that the City would
find some way to construct some kind of facility
to treat water to supply the future development of the City, and
the only place to get this money is from the water connectron fee.
If Zone 7 does not adopt, or does not want a water connection fee,
he would want it in order to build the treatment facility so there
will be further development in the City. If they return the money
after 75 days, it will be necessary to have another moratorium as
there would be no money to build the facility.
(Ordinance re
Residential
Building)
Mr. Leonard stated he agreed with Councilman Silva, and felt the
other builders did also, and felt it could be appropriately worded
in the escrow to provide this assurance.
Councilman Silva added the words, flthat the money would remain for
the use of the City of Livermore to provide further treatment facil-
ities if Zone 7 does notff.
Mr. Leonard stated he could not speak for all the developers without
discussing this with them, and when asked if this answer would be
forthcoming this evening, Mr. Leonard stated it would be.
Councilman Pritchard agreed that any type of agreement that would
give the money back to the people who put it in would serve no pu~-
pose and regardless of the intentions of the parties involved,
Zone 7 Flood Control District is a political entity over which the
City has no control; they may not come up with any fee.
Councilman Silva pointed out that Bevilacqua is not included in the
signatories and could come up with a number of permits.
Councilman Beebe referred to his motion and asked the City Attorney
if it could be worded to state that permits would be granted, start-
ing tomorrow, to those who have signed and agreed to the contents
of the letter, however Mr. Lewis did not feel this would be binding,
or could be legally enforced.
Councilman Silva was worried about Bevilacqua coming in for permits,
and Mr. Lewis again advised this must be considered as a gift, and
since he was not a signatory to the agreement, they have no obliga-
tion to make the gift, nor could we insist upon it.
Mayor Taylor reminded the City Attorney that no mention was made
of ffgiftfl in the statement, and Mr. Lewis replied this may have some
significance to the Home Builders' Association.
Councilman Beebe questioned if a suit were filed for non-issuance
of building permits, if the builder could claim damages, and Mr.
Lewis advised they could, and further explained what might happen.
Mayor Taylor felt the Council's concern had to do with the 75-day
period, as there may be a delay with Zone 7 regarding the fee, and
since it was the Council's intent to use the money collected to
solve the water problem one way or the other, suggested that the
group of builders meet and attempt to resolve that question.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he had talked with Mr. Herb Street,
Chief Building Inspector, and felt he might have a solution to the
immediate problem of the freeze, and Mr. Street was asked to ex-
plain this.
Mr. Street stated it was possible to issue a permit for a portion
of a structure, for instance the foundation, without any assurance
that a permit for the remainder of the structure would be issued,
and this was included in the Building Code. It was not put there
for this intent, but it could be a solution for getting people back
CM-24-4oo
November 8, 1971
to work, and getting work done on the ground
before the rains come. It would be an addi-
tional expense to the builders in that there
would be two permits, which would increase the
cost about $15.00 per house for permits.
(Ordinance re
Residential Bldg.)
The Council still voiced concern regarding the builders who were
not signatories, and Mr. Leonard suggested that with regard to
Bevilacqua, the tract is in Springtown with City water, and he
felt the City could pass an ordinance to protect their own water
system. Mr. Leonard stated they are suggesting an ordinance appli-
cable to everyone, and the reasons for tying it to the occupancy
was this would not be correctable until Zone 7 had passed their fee.
Councilman Miller reminded Mr. Leonard that the City Attorney had
already advised that the Council cannot adopt an ordinance of
this nature and then give the money to Zone 7.
This matter was continued for a period to allow the builders time
to adjourn and discuss their proposal.
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.
RECESS
* * *
ORDINANCE NO. 762
ORDINANCE RE SCHOOL
FACILITIES ON
TENTATIVE MAPS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20.18, RELATING TO
INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN ON TENTATIVE MAPS, OF CHAPTER
20, RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS, THE AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE
FOR AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF A STATEMENT FROM THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT RE AVAILABILITY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
by unanimous vote the reading of the ordinance was waived, and
the above ordinance was adopted.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote the first
reading of the ordinance was waived (title read
only), and the ordinance establishing special
building lines and future width lines on First
Street and Vasco Road was introduced.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE FUTURE WIDTH &
SPECIAL BLDG. LINES
*
*
*
Discussion regarding the proposed ordinance
regulating residential building permits was
resumed at this time. Councilman Pritchard
referred to the original and amended motion
which had set the number of permits to be
issued for the fiscal year and felt, after reflecting on this issue,
that no date should be set inasmuch as the Council did not know if
and when the water situation will be solved or whether they will
have enough water, but would still like to set up a cutoff point.
Councilman Pritchard listed the lots in various categories, adding
up to 2086, plus 125 for Vila Gulf, much of which he did not feel
would be built on. If they would use the future of 2211, and
specifically say permits will be issued on these lots on which im-
provements are in or under construction and, except for miscellan-
eous lots and multiples, they are effectively talking about 800
lots; he felt there was no need for a time limit.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
REGULATING RESIDEN-
TIAL BUILDING
CM-24-401
November 8, 1971
(Ordinance re
Residential
Building)
The Council discussed this proposal and whether or
not the legality would be upheld, and after advice
from the City Attorney, Councilman Pritchard moved
the first reading of the ordinance; drop the date
of June 30 and substitute the words, "until such
time as expert testimony before this Council shows there is no long-
er a threat to water shortage or water rationing", and instead of
the figure 800, add the figure 2211, and explicitly imply that
these lots are lots of record on which public improvements have
been commenced or been completed.
Mr. Parness suggested that they state, "and individual privately
owned lots of record and those contained within finally improved
tract maps, only up to building permits for 2211 dwelling units".
Mayor Taylor suggested that the matter be tabled until they deter-
mine the issue of the freeze, and Councilman Pritchard made a mo-
tion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously, to
table the matter.
Mr. Leonard stated his thanks to the Council for allowing the build-
ers time to reach a decision which is: 1) That the interest bear-
ing escrow would extend until June 30, 1972. In the event that
Zone 7 did not adopt a plan, including financial plan and fee for
lots, that the funds would revert to the City to extend and improve
their water purification system for the City itself; 2) They con-
sidered the rationing system and as part of this proposal, because
of the problems being solved, asked that the Council table the
rationing ordinance until that time.
It was felt that rationing would be extremely cumbersome, regardless
of how equitable. They have done a fairly detailed survey, and feel
if sales continue at the same level, there will be about 1100 units
built between now and June 30, 1972. They felt the time aspect would
give everyone the opportunity to reevaluate the water problem, and
if by this date there was nothing resolved, that would be the time
to reinstitute the rationing.
Councilman Pritchard advised Mr. Leonard that he had amended the
800 figure to 2211 in a motion and taken the date out.
Mr. Leonard felt the disadvantage to this would be that it eliminates
new residential planning for the City because of the tentative aspect,
there would be no new tentative maps.
Mr. Lewis did not feel it would operate in this manner and the City
could condition tentative maps by the requirement that the final
be conditioned upon there being an adequate water supply to serve
the subdivision on a full 12-month basis, or something to that effect.
Mr. Lewis felt that we should approve the tentatives, but make sure
the finals were not going to be allowed if at that time there was
no prospect of water.
Councilman Silva explained the proposed ordinance as being flexible,
and felt regardless of what numbers were used, if they have a water
shortage, th~would freeze all building permits; if they do not have
a water shortage, they will continue approving tentative and final
maps. The ordinance only states there might be a problem and it
may be necessary to freeze permits.
Barry Scherman stated he did not understand the ordinance in that
way, but rather there are 2211 approved lots that public improve-
ments are either in or going in; a map in a tentative stage now,
the City will final but with the condition that no buildings can
be built until such time as there is testimony that the water supply
is adequate. Presumably the fee is to take care of that; presum-
ably if they can service 2211 units, it should make no difference
where they are.
Councilman Silva stated the fee might not take care of it, and Mr.
Scherman stated he saw no reason it should be limited to improved
CM-24-402
November 8, 1971
lots, but rather a set number of lots, because
some of the improved lots may never be built on.
(Ordinance re
Residential Bldg.)
David Madis, on behalf of Mr. Elliott, stated he has only a tenta-
tive map, and this would stop his entire development. He would
have no permits, yet he is one of the major builders, and did not
feel this was fair.
Councilman Pritchard stated by his proposal he wanted to be fair
to the individual lot owner and those who have multiple lots.
If this is not acceptable, they have only one other alternative,
and that is to cut off all building permits immediately and wait
until the water problem is worked out.
Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Leonard if their proposal was conditioned
on eliminating any restrictions as to issuance of building permits,
and Mr. Leonard replied that was correct, and they would be willing
to review the situation in three or four months. They estimate
about 1100 units would be built between now and June 30, which
would mean $400,000 into an escrow account that would revert to
the City to solve a water problem or turn it over to Zone 7. He
did not feel what the City was asking ~as reasonable, and felt
the detailed review and discussion on the water rationing should
be withheld until June 30, as they felt a solution would be worked
out prior to that time.
Councilman Beebe felt their proposal put the Council on a spot,
because if they continue to allow homes to be built without limit,
then they would be in Phase I or II of water rationing, and they
had hoped to level out the building and still curtail the influx
of people.
Mr. Leonard suggested April 1 as a date to return before the Coun-
cil to review the water rationing system which he felt to be
reasonable; at that time they could review the progress made with
Zone 7.
Councilman Silva stated the Zone 7 election cannot be held until
November 1972, and nothing would be done with the funds in escrow
until the outcome of Project 2, as there may not be sufficient
funds to expand local facilities.
Mayor Taylor stated the risk that the builders would take in pay-
ing the fee is that Zone 7 may not establish the fee, although he
felt certain they would. When they are faced with a limited water
solution, he felt the Council would be reluctant not to set re-
strictions.
Councilman Pritchard added that he felt his proposal was equitable
and explained the problems more in detail. If the $500 fee is to
be conditioned to no restrictions, the Council will be forced to
the only alternative left and explained the way he arrived at the
2211 figure as follows:
Lots in final maps where public improvements completed
Lots where public improvements are under construction
Inactive final tract lots with improvements in
Miscellaneous lots throughout the City
Multiple lots (these are units)
397
405
60
500
724
201)6
125
2211
d.u.
Vila Gulf public housing to be included
Mr. Lewis clarified the term "inactive" to mean tracts on which
there has been a substantial amount of building but now there are
lots here and there that remain and there is no mass building
program going on.
CM-24-403
November 8, 1971
(Ordinance re
Residential
Building)
Mr. Leonard stated his understanding, but develop-
ers who are active in their program and willing
to come up with the money are being treated in
another level, and they cannot operate on a sit-
uation where they do not have tentatives in process.
Mr. Scherman stated that his company has a tentative map that was
before the Council some months ago, and Mr. Elliott has one that
is about ready to file in final form. There is a lot of expense
in filing a final map and if you don't know whether or not you
will get building permits, there would be no point in filing the
final map; therefore, he felt the critical thing is the number of
units and not the location. If there is to be equality, Mr. Elliott
has built more homes than they have, but they have no final map;
the Hofmann Company would have 95 lots, and that would be the end
of their building program. In reply to Councilman Pritchard's ques-
tion as to what he would have the Council do, Mr. Scherman replied
a number should be set and when that number is reached, then they
wouM review the situation at that time.
Mr. Ed Tocci, representing Windsor Equities (Bevilacqua) stated
that his firm would become a signatory to the agreement for the
$500 fee.
Councilman
cussed one
Council if
be able to
Silva did not feel that the two matters should be dis-
in conjunction with the other and Mr. Leonard asked the
they would agree to a short caucus, the builders might
reach a decision, and the Council concurred.
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.
Mr. Leonard stated the builders had agreed to separate the two
issues; therefore, they were offering unconditionally the offer
as previously described - an interest bearing escrow that would
run until June 30, 1972 at $500 per residential unit, and they
would assume that an apartment would have the same ratio in other
fees which would be slightly less than the $500; further that on
or before June 30, 1972, if Zone 7 adopted a fee, it would be
turned over to Zone 7. If the fee adopted is less than $500 it
would be returned; if not, on June 30, 1972 it would revert en-
tirely to the City to be used for a water treatment facility to
serve the citizens of Livermore. If the fee is more, it would be
paid.
Councilman Beebe referred to the motion he had made, and changed
it at this time to correspond with the newest agreement, or to
accept the offer of the Associated Home Builders, with the list
of signatories to be submitted tomorrow; this motion was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller stated there were many loopholes and even though
all of the major developers have signed, there still is no way to
cover the transfers, and felt the City is not covered completely.
He did not see how this would cover the possibility of major sales
of property and the buyer is not a signatory.
Councilman Silva asked to speak to Councilman Miller's remarks and
said that once in awhile the Council has to make a "gentlemen's
agreement" between gentlemen, and he would assume that there would
not be the problems which were referred to. If there should be
problems, he would be the first to ask for an emergency meeting
and freeze all permits.
Councilman Pritchard added his feeling that he did not think any
developer who would buy up individual lots to build on them; it
just won't happen.
Mayor Taylor stated you had to approach matters of this kind with
a bit of judgment; they are acting as though they hold all the cards
CM-24-404
November 8~ 1971
in absolute power and although it has not been
discussed~ if they should continue a freeze on
permits for very long~ they would be faced
shortly with a court order to show cause and be
involved in legal action; the result would be that building be
allowed to continue perhaps before they have a fee and the loswr
would be everybody~ especially the public. That is a real alter-
native they should consider. He felt if they did not accept the
offer and allow the escrow account to be established~ they may
wind up with nothing at all.
(Ordinance re
Residential Bldg.)
Councilman Miller stated they might accept a gentlemen's agreement~
but having observed developments in the City the past fifteen years~
one thing he has learned as a public official is that it is very
important to have everything down on paper~ carefully researched
before anything else. The second thing is while it is true if they
continue the freeze there might be a court order against the City;
there is expert testimony that water rationing is upon us next
summer even if we stop building now~ and if there is a question
of which comes first the public interest or freeze~ then you go
to court and fight for public interest. He did not think it was
essential to accept something in which there are loopholes because
we might get a court order; he felt that to be unreasonable.
Dan Steinberg~ 4174 Pomona Way~ stated if Zone 7 is going to be
meeting in forty-eight hours~ he saw little reason why the Coun-
cil could not wait. He felt that the builders had enough power
to get Zone 7 to institute a temporary $500 escrow account. If
they could not, he felt there was no meaning to what had been done
tonight; they are not even willing to go that far~ then what good
is all the effort. The building industry will not collapse in
forty-eight hours; Zone 7 should be the ones to institute the fee.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P street~ felt the Council could set a fee
for water, and stated there mayor may not be a lawsuit.
A vote was then taken on the motion and passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Mayor Taylor asked for a motion to bring the ordinance motion
from the table~ and a motion was made by Councilman Pritchard,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, to bring the motion regarding build-
ing permits from the table, and passed unanimously.
The proposed ordinance regarding building permits was to be set
again for the first reading, deleting the date and adding words
as suggested, and Mayor Taylor asked if discussion on this matter
could be continued since the hour was late.
Councilman Silva felt there would be no testimony from Mr. Leonard,
and reiterated that the number inserted could be changed by this
Council at any time depending on the circumstances regarding the
water shortage, and he did not think there would be any more expert
testimony for several months regarding the water shortage.
Mr. Leonard stated he had a slight change in philosophy which he
felt would accommodate the urgent aspect of those with approved
tentatives and at the same time have this reserve factor which
Councilman Pritchard plugged in and that they agreed with~ and
that is if they reduce the number to 1500 on a first come first
serve basis, excluding the approved tentatives, this would put
into reserve some 700 units for the odd lots that were set aside
and after this come up for detailed review.
CM-24-405
November 8, 1971
(Ordinance re
Residential
Building)
Councilman Pritchard stated that the number of 2211
contemplated the people not building on the indivi-
dual lots and multiples right away, but if desired,
they can. Just as stated by Councilman Silva, this
does not preclude the Council from amending the
ordinance at any time by changing the figure.
Councilman Miller stated there are several issues which have been
involved in the discussion on the ordinance of limiting building
permits: one was the water connection fee on which the Council
adopted a resolution; another the pending water shortage which he
felt was being underestimated; and if they allow the freeze to be
lifted tonight, they would be in violation of the state statute,
and he asked that this be discussed.
Councilman Pritchard stated they had been speaking of variables right
along - perhaps the problem had been underestimated; on the other
han~ it may have been overestimated. The fact that water rationing
by watering lawns every other day will not help the problem is con-
tradictory to the expert testimony they have had. It is a new ques-
tion whether alternate watering days is a detriment to existing
customers or not and probably something only a court could decide.
~ouncilman Miller stated that even the Chamber of Commerce said
there would be water rationing, and since expert testimony says we
will have it, to say we are not seems rather strange. When you have
variables, he would expect that most people would agree the conser-
vative thing would be to assume the worst and try to take care of it.
Since testimony indicates there will be water rationing, he felt
this is to the detriment of the existing users and we have an obli-
gation to stop the issuance of permits. The lines on water ration-
ing are well drawn between the 90% of the citizens who do their liv-
ing in the City and the 10% of the businessmen who make their living
from the City. The City should grow, but in the right way and at
the right time.
Councilman Silva moved for the question, seconded by Councilman
Beebe.
Mayor Taylor was against the motion inasmuch as he felt they had
not had enough debate to vote. He agreed with Councilman Miller
on many of the sentiments stated, and felt he was accurate when he
spoke of the people's feelings.
Councilman Silva interrupted by stating they had moved for the ques-
tion, so Mayor Taylor stated he wanted a few minutes to talk, and
asked for a vote of those in favor of shutting off debate and vot-
ing now, which failed 3 to 2 with Councilmen Silva and Beebe in
favor.
Mayor Taylor continued by saying he did not feel it necessary to
absolutely shut off permits, however he felt the number in the or-
dinance is far too large, and since he was conservative and wanted
to see some "light at the end of the tunnel", would vote against
the motion on the floor. When asked by Councilman Pritchard if he
wished to amend the motion, Mayor Taylor stated that they have issued
800 to 1000 permits per year in the past, and felt from July to
July they should consider no more than 1000 dwelling units, of
which 698 have already been issued, and offered this as a proposed
amendment. The amendment was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Beebe commented that there is a problem and there are
methods of solving the problem and people have been instructed to
investigate the ways and means of doing this; he felt they should
be given the opportunity to come up with a solution before they
take any serious action to curtail permits.
The amendment was voted on and failed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
CM-24-406
November 8, 1971
Mark Sims stated they have listened to the de-
velopers and there has been a dearth of comment
from private citizens, and he felt there is a
terrible imbalance. Mr. Sims stated that Coun-
cilman Miller very definitely speaks for the people of Livermore
just as surely as other gentlemen on the Council speak for other
interests. He felt the choice was very clear whether they do what
is best for a vested interest group or what is best for the citi-
zens of Livermore. He felt there should be a limit to building
permits due to the water situation and the schools.
(Ordinance re
Residential Bldg.)
Dr. Donald Rocco stated he felt exactly the opposite of the pre-
vious speaker and thought the City Council had acted very positively
and commended the Council. He did not feel Livermore could prosper
and grow as it should with a negative attitude and disagreed that
Councilman Miller spoke for all the people.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, seconded Dr. Rocco's remarks and
complimented the City Council as he felt they have acted responsibly
and created a source of revenue which will help to provide the
needed services.
H. C. Elliott commented that he appreciated hearing two such diverse
viewpoints as it is a democratic way to perform. He disli~ed
rhetoric, or things based on rhetoric phrases, and from his own
viewpoint commented regarding the water shortage, and felt that
the Council would not be justified in denying tentative maps that
are almost ready for final approval. He advised the Council that
he did appreciate the Council's action in lifting the freeze. He
felt that perhaps the Council should set a quota for building per-
mits, but did not think they would accomplish anything by stopping
growth.
Ken Sprague, 1032 Aberdeen, commented that the Mayor's proposal
to allow 1000 permits would be equitable and felt a compromise
could be worked out regarding the apportionment.
The City Clerk reread the motion on the floor, and by the follow-
ing vote the ordinance was introduced.
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard asked that a Zoning Ordi-
nance amendment be considered regarding fences
in the 5-ft. setback. He felt this variance
could be granted by the Zoning Administrator,
however after some discussion regarding this
matter, it was suggested it be deferred.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL (Z.O.
Amendment re Fences)
*
*
*
Mayor Ta~or suggested that due to the serious Portola Ave., US580
traffic accidents at the intersection of Portola Intersection
Avenue and US 580 they should ask that it be
closed until the freeway is completed. Mr. Lee
advised that Airway Blvd. interchange would be completed and they
are asking that traffic be diverted there, and would discuss this
proposal also.
* * *
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 1:20
a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
ATTEST
CM-24-407
Regular Meeting of November 15, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 15, 1971,
in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Taylor pre-
siding.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of November 1, 1971,
were approved as submitted, on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, with a
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Irwin Broverman, 1154 Florence Road, addressed the
Council, speaking on behalf of prospective home
buyers in Livermore; he felt that they have a
right to be better informed as to the problems in
Livermore and prospective plans for the City. He
feels that they should be presented with a fact sheet indicating
the immediate situation in Livermore, such as the school problems,
smog, and Zone 7 conditions. He stated that the brochure available
to people at this time is misleading and that one should be aware
of the number of days the smog exceeds federal standards and that
there may be a water shortage in Livermore in the future. He felt
that there should be a rating as to how Livermore compares with
other cities in the immediate vicinity and Bay Area; therefore, he
urged the Council to adopt a Truth in Advertising ordinance whereas
the facts could be presented to anyone wishing to live in Livermore.
OPEN FORUM
(Statement re
City)
The Mayor commented that the School District does, at this time,
have plans to compile a fact sheet for anyone interested in obtain-
ing one, and that real estate agents are required to present cer-
tain facts to the public when they sell or rent a house, such as
liens on the property or what public works are to be done, but
the Council has no authority to require a builder or real estate
agent to present a fact sheet to citizens of the public; they may
ask that they do so, but cannot enforce it. He also stated that
he would like to discuss the matter later, as some good points
were brought out.
Mr. Broverman again came forward to state that the consumer has a
legal right, through federal law, to protection and that the City
could one day be held liable if a person's health was jeopardized
because he was not aware, for instance, that the City had a smog
problem.
The City Attorney was asked to look into the matter further, par-
ticularly the utility system and future outlook, and whether or
not federal law pre-empts in consumer protection.
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME
*
*
*
CM-24-408
November 15, 1971
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, requested that (Public Hearing
the Council have a public hearing on the proposed re BUdget)
budget, held at a meeting other than a meeting
in which the Council adopts a budget. He suggest-
ed that a public hearing be held to discuss the City Manager's
budget message and that within a month a copy of this message
be made available to the public through the Livermore library.
The Mayor asked that the City Manager comment on the budget issue,
to which Mr. Parness replied that the budget message report per-
tains primarily to major issues dealing with departmental pro-
grams and projects and that there was little point in having a
discussion over the budget message without having the budget
document at hand.
Mr. Faltings again expressed his thoughts by explaining that he
felt a citizen should have the same opportunity to address the
Council as does the Chamber of Commerce or any other organiza-
tion; stating that last year upon addressing the Council, he was
asked to put his ideas or recommendations in writing - to which
he received no response. He feels that the public does not have
adequate opportunity to express themselves concerning the budget.
He concluded by stating that he would like the Council to take a
week after the preliminary budget hearing to digest some of the
thoughts of the public, and then adopt a budget.
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that the property
in question was bordered on one side by multiple
zoning, by a gasoline station, and on the third
side by single family residential; Mrs. Belmeda
Haera has applied for commercial zoning of her
property located on the north side of East Avenue between Hayes
Avenue and Nielsen Lane. Mr. Musso stated that the Commission
had to decide whether or not commercial zoning would be setting
a precedent for further commercial zoning on East Avenue, and
they also had to take into consideration the design of the shopping
center complex in the area. It was decided that to zone the pro-
perty in question commercial would not be an extreme departure from
any City policy on allowing more commercial zoning in the neighbor-
ing area of a shopping center. He also mentioned that at the time
the Haeras bought the property, a service station was not intended
to be built there, but in fact, a street was to be installed;
however the County had jurisdiction over the property and decided
to allow a gasoline station. In weighing the possibilities, the
Planning Commission came up with a decision to change the property
to commercial zoning, CP - Professional Office.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING HAERA
PROPERTY (East Ave.)
Mayor Taylor asked the Planning Director if that was the recom-
mendation of the staff, to which Mr. Musso replied that it was
not; the staff felt that multiple zoning would be more appropriate.
Harry West, 1126 Tulane Court, expressed his opposition to the
recommended rezoning by mentioning that to put the area into
more commercial zoning would be a mistake because the shopping
center already in existence is not developing very well, and more
shopping areas would hurt the development even more. He felt
that if the Haera property was rezoned that the property owners
across the street and other owners in the area would not hesitate
to request that their land also be rezoned. He felt that East
Avenue is already too congested and that to have more commercial
zoning on the street will only add to the problem.
Mrs. Brannon, 1124 Tulane Court, objected to the rezoning applica-
tion on the basis that they had moved to the area because it was
away from downtown shopping and her children have to cross East
Avenue to attend school, which she feels is busy enough without
having commercial business on East Avenue.
CM-24-409
November 15, 1971
(Rezoning Mrs. Belmeda Haera addressed the Council in de-
Haera Property) fense of her application explaining that they
were opposed to the gasoline station coming into
their area because when they bought their home
they were promised that a street would be built on the west; they
had designed their own home and had planned to stay there. However,
due to the fumes that come into their rooms while the station
tanks have to be filled, which are so obnoxious that they are
forced to close their windows, they have applied for rezoning;
they feel that the house is no longer desirable for residential
occupancy. The reason they have asked for commercial zoning for
professional offices is due to the fact that the offices will not
be occupied during the hours the trucks come in to fill the tanks.
There being no further comments on the issue,motion was made by Coun-
cilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard~ to close the pub-
lic hearing.
Councilman Silva stated he would like to consider an enlarged area
before coming to a decision on this application; therefore, he felt
that the public hearing should not be closed, but the Mayor men-
tioned that that would constitute opening a new hearing, and that
this one could be closed at this time.
The Council voted unanimously at this time to close the public
hearing.
Councilman Miller felt that the Council had two alternatives in
alleviating the problem: 1) to regulate operations of the gas sta-
tion in regard to the filling of the tanks, or 2) to rezone, as
requested, and in his opinion it was up to the Council to try to
maintain residential zoning along East Avenue and asked that the
Council deny the application to rezone.
Mr. Lewis mentioned that they could adopt regulations, as part of
an ordinance, to control service station activities in residential
areas and to confine noisy or objectionable fume conditions to
hours that the stations are(open.
Mayor Taylor stated that he opposed expanding the area and that
the application was made on the basis that the area was unsuitable
as a residential area because of the gas station, and that the
station had created a hardship to the owners of the home.
Councilman Silva did not agree with the Mayor and expressed himself
by stating that he felt he could not come up with a decision with-
out discussing the whole area - that to consider parcels one at a
time is too time consuming and leaves other property owners in
doubt as to what is going to be done. Councilman Silva made the
motion that they expand the area for consideration, but the motion
died for lack of a second.
Councilman Pritchard felt that this property was a unique situation,
in that few properties border a gasoline station with a hose 15 ft.
from a window; therefore a precedent would not necessarily be set
if this property was rezoned. He also felt that gas fumes would
be as obnoxious during the day, at any given time, as well as during
the night, so to impose regulations would not solve the problem
either.
Councilman Beebe stated that CP Zoning would be much better than
CO Zoning, as there would be relatively little traffic in the even-
ing or early morning when East Avenue is typically congested, and
Mayor Taylor also agreed.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission
recommendation to rezone the subject property to CP District on
the grounds that the rezoning is: 1) in conformance with the
general plan, 2) that it will not be detrimental to use of adjacent
CM-24-410
property, 3) will allow uses compatible with
adjacent land uses.
November 15, 1971
(Rezoning - Haera
Property)
By the following called vote, the application as submitted
was approved:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Silva
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has considered possible
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, particularly
Section 8.00 RG (Suburban Multiple Residential)
District (8.70 through 8.88~ as it relates to
"Non-street Frontage Yards, I "Dwellings per Building," and
"Maximum Building Height".
PUBLIC HEARING RE
SEC. 8.00, RG
DISTRICT
The Planning Director explained the setbacks as set forth in the
reports that the Council had before them, mentioning that they
followed FHA requirements where applicable. He stated that they
were trying to get away from the flat 50-ft. requirement so as
to make requirements more flexible for individual situations.
At this time the Mayor asked if there was anyone else present
that would like to testify on this proposed amendment, however
none came forward.
Councilman Pritchard moved to close the public hearing, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, passed by unanimous vote.
Councilman Beebe moved that the Council adopt the Planning Com-
mission's recommendation, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller felt that a two-story building should not be
closer than 125 feet from adjacent property, and the Planning
Director stated that if there is too great a setback that there
may be problems of recreational activity or a noisy parking lot
located in this area, and that the Council has no control as to
what can be done with the area between the property line and the
building.
The motion received a 4 to 1 vote with Councilman Miller dissenting.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The letter from Associated Home Builders was
removed from the Consent Calendar for later
discussion.
*
*
*
The communication from the Pleasanton Chamber
of Commerce regarding the withdrawal from BART
was removed from the Consent Calendar at the
request of Councilman Pritchard.
* * *
A communication was received from the County of
Alameda Board of Supervisors informing the City
that the hearing regarding the Conditional Use
Permit for the Greenview Tennis Club has been
continued to Thursday, December 2, 1971.
*
*
*
COMMUNI CAT 10 NS
(Associated Home
Builders)
(Pleasanton Chamber
of Commerce)
(Greenview Tennis
Club Hearing)
CM-24-411
November 15, 1971
(Communications-
Oakland Typographical
Union No. 36)
A communication was received from the Oak-
land Typographical Union No. 36 notifying
the City that they have adopted a resolu-
tion opposing the League of California
Cities misuse of taxpayers' money.
*
*
*
Report re
Property
Marking
Councilman Miller requested that the report from
the Police Chief regarding property marking pro-
gram be removed from the Consent Calendar for
later discussion.
*
*
*
Report re Civic A report was received from the Fire Chief advising
Donation that fourteen local civic organizations have
jointly contributed a sum of $245.36 for the
purchase of a manikin to be used by our Fire
Department for first aid training purposes. It is recommended
that a motion be adopted receiving this donation with gratitude
to the various organizations.
*
*
*
Report re
Claim Settle-
ment
(Bridge
Structure)
A report was received from the City Manager regard-
ing the claim settlement for vehicular damage
caused to the bridge structure at Arroyo Road
and Mocho Creek. A settlement in the amount of
$2300 was suggested and approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 145-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RELEASE AND
ACCEPTING PAYMENT OF DAMAGES (Roberta A. Rodrigues)
*
*
*
Several cities, together with Alameda County, are
participating in a computerized traffic record
system that will lend assistance to our staff by
providing a wealth of technical data on traffic
engineering needs. The original estimate for our
participating share was $2500 but the current amount is now set
at $1600 for the year. It is recommended a resolution be adopted
authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Traffic
Records
System
RESOLUTION NO. 144-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COOPERATIVE CONSOLIDATED TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM DATED
FEBRUARY 24, 1970 AMONG ALL INCORPORATED CITIES AND
TOWNS OF THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA.
*
*
*
Report re
Sewer Service
Charge
Agreement
A report was received from the Planning Director
requesting a sanitary sewer connection agreement
for property located at 5085 Southfront Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 146-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AN AGREEMENT (E. R. Griffin)
*
*
*
CM-24-412
November 15, 1971
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Departmental
Reports
Airport - financial and activity - October
Municipal Court - August and September
Police and Pound Departments - October
Water Reclamation Plant - October
Golf Course - October
*
*
*
Minutes of the meeting of October 21 of the
Board of Appeals were acknowledged.
Minutes-Board of
Appeals
*
*
*
Ninety-three claims in the amount of
$118,191.12 and two hundred thirty-five pay-
roll warrants in the amount of $56,099.85,
dated November 11 were ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained
from Warrant 1015 for his usual reason.
* * *
Payroll and Claims
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote
the items on the Consent Calendar were ap-
proved with the exception of those that were
removed for later discussion.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
The City Attorney briefly stated that a letter
had been submitted by Mr. David S. Madis regard-
ing condominium development of a lot on Murrie-
ta Boulevard.
REPORT RE
CONDOMINIUM
(David S. Madis)
Mr. Madis, on behalf of his client stated that he is requesting
a letter from the City for the State Department of Real Estate,
which states that they have met the City's legal requirements.
They are not dividing the land for sale, but wish to sell air
space. The land and structures will be transferred to a non-
profit ownership which will become the property of all the resi-
dents in the unit. There is no division of the land, they meet
all engineering requirements, all City requirements and the City
has been named the beneficiary which allows the City to insure
that maintenance will be provided in the event the Home Owners
Association elects them to do so. He also stated that the lot
has already been approved by the Council and the units are com-
plete. They have not violated any City Code, and the unit has
been inspected by the City and now what he needs is a letter
in order to market condominium units.
Councilman Miller stated that if there were 25 dwellings to the
acre, they are already in violation of the City ordinance.
Mr. Madis was of the opinion that it was a little late for the
Council to question as to whether there were violations involved;
as they had approved the building permit, checked the specifica-
tions, and the zoning and that at that time they were not in
violation of any City Code, and now someone wants to question
the density, etc. He felt that they should be able to rely on
building permits issued.
Councilman Miller stated the permit was issued for an apartment
and the Council does not have to give permission for condominium-
type sales; particularly if this would be in violation of any
ordinance, and the Council is not obligated to give the letter
Mr. Madis requests. Councilman Miller also feels that they are
trying to get around the City's density requirements of the
Townhouse Ordinance which went into effect July 28, 1971.
CM-24-413
November 15, 1971
(Report re
Condominium)
The City Attorney suggested that the Planning De-
partment have a look at the site to see what they
could determine in this matter.
Mayor Taylor stated that the property in question, as a matter of
fact, is or is not in violation of an ordinance and suggested
that the matter be discussed in another week.
The Planning Director suggested that they may be in compliance
with other requirements but may be in violation of the subdivision
ordinance, because a map has not been filed.
Mayor Taylor reminded the Council and staff that the Townhouse
Ordinance does not cover the condominium-type design, which is
one-on-top of another. He stated that it was expressly deleted
because it confused the issue and that the staff and the Planning
Commission had been instructed to draw up a Condominium Ordinance,
which is under way at this time, to establish design features of
condominiums.
Councilman Pritchard asked the City Attorney whether the property
was a subdivision or not, to which the City Attorney said that the
section regarding condominiums is contradictory and he really could
not make a determination without further study.
At this time Mayor Taylor agreed with the City Attorney's earlier
suggestion to let the staff study the issue and discuss the matter
later; he then asked for a motion, which was made by Councilman
Silva and seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated that a high density situation exists with
this particular building and for this reason it should remain as
an apartment, for which the permit was taken out in the beginning.
After considerable discussion, Councilman Miller made a motion to
reintroduce the Urgency Condominium Ordinance, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard for the purpose of discussion.
Mr. Lewis explained that the urgency ordinance adopted some weeks
earlier was to prevent the subdivision by condominium, which is
effective for ninety days unless terminated to prevent conversion
of a building in any of the zones unless the developers comply with
the provisions of the townhouse ordinance.
Mayor Taylor asked the Planning Director how long it would be before
the condominium ordinance is ready, and Mr. Musso replied about
six weeks after the public hearing.
Councilman Beebe made an amendment to the motion that the ordi-
nance would apply to building permits taken out after the townhouse
ordinance went into effect, however there was no second to the mo-
tion to amend.
The Council discussed whether the ordinance was being introduced
to apply also to the property before them for consideration.
David Madis spoke of condominium units in which the density must
be 1000 d.u./acre; they are some of the finest buildings, and pro-
perty has increased in value; some people love to live in that type
of dwelling, people like to live differently. It is easy for the
Council to set standards in a tyrannical manner and impose their
concept for good housing on others. The condominium ordinance
says you can divide your air space under the civil code, provides
a type of estate, a type of ownership of real property, and if it
conforms to local ordinances a person has that right. Their only
reason for appearing is because the State says a condominium is
a subdivision; a condominium does not involve the subdivision of
any real property, and if they are compelled to file a subdivision
map, all they will file is a property outline, showing the peri-
meter of the property with the appropriate property description.
CM-24-414
November 15, 1971
They could do this and forty days later they
would appear before the Council and they would
be compelled to approve it, but feel it is a
waste of time. All they want is a letter stat-
ing they do not violate any ordinances of the City; then the
State Department of Real Estate will give them a report for pub-
lic display.
(Condominium
Urgency Ordinance)
Mayor Taylor advised Mr. Madis that the item regarding the letter
has been continued until next meeting, and the Council has before
them another matter. It is not an attempt to prevent condominiums,
but to delay the subdivision by condominium until there is an
ordinance regulating them.
A called vote was then taken on the motion for the interim ordi-
nance which failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
Mayor Taylor asked that the ordinance be given priority on the
Planning Commission agenda.
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL RECESS
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that this sub-
division in the former Proud Homes-Weisel De-
velopment and the map is a part of the Planned
Unit Development permit that runs until 1972,
so the Reeder Development Corporation has a
valid preliminary map that is a part of the PUD
and conforms specifically to that map. The main issue involved
with the subdivision is the off-tract requirements. The map was
to be modified to include the park site as part of the subdivision.
The horticultural report is to be done by the developer, made avail-
able to the homeowner and made a part of the state subdivision
report. There is no indication that such a report exists. The
Livermore Trailways System to be incorporated in the subdivision
was applicable, however they did not feel it was necessary to
put a trailway in this area so it is not a problem.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3043
(Reeder Development
Corporation)
The Public Works Director explained a few of the special engineer-
ing considerations, one of which was to require a waterline to
connect the northeast corner of the tract on the future alignment
of Hartford Road to the line from the Dalton Reservoir which will
give a loop waterline to serve the entire area. This was a pro-
vision of the second unit that it would be required on the third
unit. Another consideration was that access shall be by way of
Springtown Blvd. and there would be an extension of a two lane
road along the west line of the tract, turning on future Galloway
Street, turning and tying into the tract. There is the provision
for one-half of the future bridge on the crossing of the Arroyo
Las Positas, which would be bonded for, to provide that the access
be constructed after 300 homes have been completed in the tracts,
or not later than three years from the date of the subdivision
agreement; in addition there would be a requirement that the bridge
on Larkspur Drive be extended across the Arroyo. Mr. Lee explained
that although Reeder Development Corporation has only a small
piece of their property south of the Arroyo, they are being required
to build the bridge, and a bond be provided at this time for its
completion, and to be completed at such time as there is any de-
velopment or before five years have elapsed.
CM-24-4l5
November 15, 1971
(Tentative Map Mayor Taylor stated it was his understanding
Tract 3043) that at the time the subdivision map is accepted,
the completed public works including Springtown
Blvd. is to be bonded for, and asked when it would
be built, and Mr. Lee replied the engineering considerations in-
dicate it will be completed concurrent with completion of 300 homes
in the three units. Mr. Lee stated that the Reeder Development
Corporation has presented some alternate ideas, one being the
possibility of constructing Larkspur Drive in lieu of Springtown
Blvd., which would provide an access to the tract.
Mr. Musso stated that there have been 1300 units developed which
are using Bluebell Drive. Also, it had been suggested that this
matter regarding this area be referred to the School District for
their comment relative to schools, and they have replied that stu-
dents would be bussed to Green, Portola, Junction Avenue and Liver-
more High School, which would necessitate double sessions at these
schools. The Board of Education will consider a policy statement
at their meeting on November 16, that schools will be adequate
when students to be generated can be housed in single sessions,
and states that existing facilities do not meet this criteria in
relation to Tract 3043.
Mayor Taylor did not see how we could postpone the construction of
Springtown Blvd. any longer inasmuch as there has been a contract
in existence for the development of this street after so many units
were built.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the Planning Commission's
recommendations - Item 3, "that the second access be improved
before the first unit of development or else there be a cash bond
for those public works improvements."
The City Attorney advised the Council of a court case with regard
to bonds, etc., and stated there is to be a change made in the
subdivision agreement to provide the alternative that if the im-
provements have not been commenced that the subdivider agrees to
revert the property to acreage at his cost, based on a decision of
the court. Mr. Lewis further stated that if public improvements
have not been commenced the only alternative, under law, is to re-
quire the subdivider to revert the property to acreage.
Mr. Lee stated this change has been included in the subdivision
agreement, but rather than a bond in this case, felt another pro-
vision could be put into the agreement saying that no homes will
be occupied in this unit until the second access is provided.
Mr. Lewis stated if you condition it on some condition of occupancy
the houses are subject to vandalism and problems for the commun-
ity and the police.
Councilman Silva asked to have the terms of the last agreement
explained, and Mr. Musso advised that the original permit issued
in 1967 had the provision that initial development would be for the
extension of Bluebell Drive, and after one year, upon the comple-
tion of 100 dwelling units, the City reserved the right to require
a second street; said access shall be by the construction of Larks-
pur Drive or Springtown Blvd. to connect with the streets in the
subdivision; then with unit 2, when they exceeded 100 units, there
was a delay in this improvement and with unit 3 another delay. In
reply to a question by Councilman Silva, Mr. Musso advised this
tentative was a part of units 3 and 4.
The Council concurred they could reasonably require commencement
of Springtown Blvd.
Councilman Miller changed his motion with regard to Item 3 of the
Planning Commission's recommendation to read: "Second access (ex-
tension of Springtown Boulevard from Galloway to existing Spring-
town Boulevard to the south) be commenced before the first residen-
CM-24-416
November 15, 1971
tial building permit is issued and completed
before the first occupancy permit is issued."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
(Tentative Map
Tract 3043)
Councilman Silva asked why we prefer Springtown Blvd. to Larkspur
Drive and this was discussed, together with the possibility of
forming a benefit district.
Jim Nachazel, Civil Engineer, 4616 East La Palma, Anaheim, re-
ferred to the Planning Commission's letter to the City Council,
and stated that the first three items were tied into the first
development of about 25 lots, and requested that the Council not
tie these items into the first unit of development. As far as
Item 7, they have already entered into an agreement with the
Public Works Department and are in the process of paving Bluebell
Drive. Item 5, regarding a horticultural report they favor, and
would like this to be the sum total of what is covered in the
engineering considerations and use this wording rather than those
in the engineering considerations. There is also a requirement
that fencing be constructed on all school and park site boundaries
and they ask that this requirement be eliminated.
Mr. Nachazel continued that with regard to the access they own
one acre on the south side of the channel and the balance of the
land is owned by others; in addition, all of the land to the west
that would be in the permit issued is owned by other agencies.
They own only a small portion of the undeveloped land and prac-
tically no land south of the channel that would either have
Springtown Blvd. or Larkspur Drive, so as far as the improvements
it would seem the logical time to require them would be when that
land is developed. If the requirements on their proposed map
are so unreasonable as to prevent them from developing and the
total cost of improvements make the proposed lots unrealistic,
they will not be able to develop. If Larkspur Drive is extended
from Springtown northerly to their tract, it would relieve the
traffic on Bluebell Drive. If they are required to develop
Springtown Blvd., they will not be able to develop the area.
Springtown Blvd. was not a requirement of the previously approved
tentative map. As far as the third unit, 3043, the access was
going to be by the improvement of Hartford Avenue, and it was
with Tract 3044 that the Council was reserving the right to re-
quire the completion of Springtown Blvd. or Larkspur Drive.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the Reeder Development Corporation
purchased the property in question from the Weisel Corporation,
and was advised that they had. Mr. Pritchard asked if they were
not aware of the agreements the former owner had with the City,
and was advised they had the conditions of approval of the tenta-
tives that were previously approved and they would be happy to
meet all the conditions.
Mr. Musso explained that those tentatives have expired, and the
tentative map before them includes portions of Tracts 3043 and
3044, but they do not own all the land that had been included
in the other maps. Mr. Musso also mentioned the fence that Mr.
Nachazel referred to which involved 100 feet of fence.
Mayor Taylor felt the new property owner faced a dilemma; the
City must have an access, and development may be premature and may
have to wait until intervening property develops.
Howard Pabst, representing Springtown Association, stated they
are not against development of the tracts because the more homes
they have the sooner they will have a shopping center; they are
concerned with the traffic on Bluebell Drive, and they do not
care whether the Council approves the extension of Larkspur Dr.
or Springtown Blvd. As a retired engineer he could see the
problem the developer would have if they attempted to complete
Springtown Blvd.
CM-24-417
November 15, 1971
(Tentative Map
Tract 3043)
The Council discussed the portion of Springtown
Blvd. to Larkspur Dr. which the developer bonded
for; the type of bond and whether or not immediate
action could be commenced since the time period
has expired.
Councilman Silva indicated that he would rather the City maintain
Larkspur Drive than Springtown Blvd. and made a motion to amend
the main motion that the second access requirement be Larkspur
Drive rather than Springtown Blvd., seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that while it was true Larkspur Drive
would take much of the traffic, eventually Hartman Road will deve-
lop and they need a major street as traffic from the Greenville
North area will come down Hartman Road, turn south through this
tract and then either go on Bluebell Drive or Larkspur Drive.
The Council discussed the configuration of the tract, and the de-
lay already encountered in having Springtown Blvd. completed and
future development in the area in small tracts which might further
delay completion as each ownership would feel it to be too great
a burden for the size of the tract. As a result of the discussion
Councilman Silva withdrew his motion, and Councilman Beebe agreed
to withdraw the second.
Mayor Taylor called for the question, and the original motion was
voted on and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller made a motion that Larkspur bridge be required
across the Arroyo Las Positas and commenced before the first resi-
dential building permit is issued and completed before the first
occupancy permit is issued.
Mr. Lee stated his recommendation was that the Larkspur bridge be
required across the Arroyo at such time as any development occurs
on their property, or development occurs adjacent to this property
and be bonded for initially with this property, or not later than
five years. Since they own the property on both sides there is
no other time we can make the requirement, but he did not feel it
necessary to require it immediately and be stubbed out going nowhere.
Mr. Lewis stated there are sections that allow a benefit district
for the construction of bridges for reimbursement of the subdivider
of the other portion of the property benefited by the bridge.
Councilman Miller stated they have a PUD that expires at a different
time than the tentative map, and made a motion to place a condition
that the tentative is valid only as long as the PUD is valid, as
Condition 8. The motion was seconded by Councilman Silva.
Mr. Lewis explained that one of the conditions in every tract map
situation is that the final, when filed, must comply with the zon-
ing on the property so if the PUD expires and it reverts to its
underlying zoning, the final when filed (the developer has 18
months in which to file) if it does not comply with the underlying
zoning at that time, it could be disapp~oved, however it is an
awkward situation and one which the City tries to avoid.
Mr. Lewis stated what the Council is trying to say to the developer
is that the PUD must be extended; if not, he will have a problem
with his final map.
A vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimously.
Councilman Beebe moved approval of the tentative with all condi-
tions as noted and voted on, and that there be the provision for
the proper water supply before any issuance of building permits
in the engineering report. Motion was seconded by Councilman Silva.
CM-24-418
November 15, 1971
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to amend the (Tentative Map
main motion to set as Condition 9 that the letter Tract 3043)
be obtained from the School District stating the
requirements of our newly enacted ordinance before
the final map approval. Motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and approved unanimously. The main motion was then approved un-
animously.
*
*
*
A report was received from the Planning Corrunis-
sion with regard to the removal of trees within
tentative map of Tract 3333, advising that it is
no longer possible for the developer to submit
a final map in conformance with the approved ten-
tative inasmuch as the trees have been removed, and recorrunending
that the Council advise the developer of this discrepancy, re-
quiring either submittal of a new tentative map or an alternate
proposal to make restitution for the loss of the trees.
REPORT RE REMOVAL
OF TREES TR. 3333
(H.C. Elliott)
Mr. H. C. Elliott stated he was not at the Planning Corrunission
meeting and would like an opportunity to defend himself and ex-
plained the location of the two large oak trees which were on
the border of the subdivision and the proposed park dedication;
he had ordered them to be saved, however the designer of the sub-
division was never aware of how serious the matter was and there
was a complete misunderstanding when the clearing instructions were
given. The engineering firm has offered to make restitution in
the form of landscaping, tree planting or whatever, and they are
willing to do whatever is required, however he would suggest re-
placement with other types of trees.
Mr. Musso stated that this does not involve only the two oak
trees; the condition was that the two or three groves of trees
were to be removed only with the permission of the City Engineer.
It was the consensus of the Council that there should be a recom-
mendation from the staff regarding landscaping to replace the
trees, and the City Attorney added that the Beautification Com-
mittee is reviewing an ordinance regarding heritage trees that
will take care of future cases.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector regarding the traffic signal at Holmes
Street and Concannon Boulevard, and this item
was deferred for discussion with the Capital
Improvements Budget.
*
*
*
The following bids were received for the side-
walk repair project:
Anderson & Guerrero
G. M. Labrucherie & Assoc.
$53,247.61
77,289.85
REPORT RE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL-HOLMES ST.
& CONCANNON BLVD.
REPORT RE BIDS
(Sidewalk Repair)
Mr. Lee advised that the one bid is acceptable, but cost figures
will be sent to the property owners with a letter of explanation
as to their options, and the matter will be referred back to the
Council late in December to award the bid for the repairs not com-
pleted by owners.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector regarding Portola Avenue-US 580 inter-
section, and a motion was made by Councilman
REPORT RE PORTOLA
AVE. , US 580
Intersection
CM-24-4l9
November 15, 1971
(Portola Ave.
Closing)
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, that
in conjunction with the state, Portola Avenue be
closed as soon as the other access road is ready
for traffic, and the motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
ISSUANCE OF
BUILDING
PERMITS
A proposed ordinance regarding regulation of use
of water and regulating the issuance of building
permits for new residential and certain manufac-
turing and commercial buildings had been discussed
in detail for several weeks.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to amend the figure on page 2 of
the proposed ordinance from 2211 to 1500, to be allotted at no
more than 225 permits issued in anyone calendar quarter, and
moved that the ordinance be introduced by title only and waive
the first reading. This would mean that Item I would not be per-
tinent and should be removed. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Pritchard.
David Madis stated that last week many of the builders were present
and had an opportunity to participate in the discussion and he
felt it was not fair for them not to be given the opportunity to
be heard if the Council is to make a change. Mr. Madis again pre-
sented his arguments in opposition of the figures, as he felt
from all indications there would not be the accelerated building
program as had been the past year.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that the wording in the
ordinance was awkward and suggested several changes.
A vote was then taken on the amended motion and failed by the
following:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller offered the motion that the number be 1100, with
150 per quarter allotted; motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor.
Robert Allen stated by cutting off the amount of building permits,
the Council was also cutting off the source of revenue to provide
water which would solve the problem, however Councilman Miller
stated that no amount of water connection fees will add enough
money to build a water treatment plant if there is water rationing.
A vote was taken and the motion failed by the following:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Beebe stated the ordinance should be resolved and
made a motion to go back to the original ordinance, however the
motion failed for lack of a second.
Since it was not possible for the Council to reach a compromise
on the terms of the ordinance, Mayor Taylor made a motion to con-
tinue the matter for one week, seconded by Councilman Miller,
however the motion failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Mayor Taylor made a motion that the number be set at 1100, but not
refer to the rate; the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller
for further debate.
CM-24-420
November 15, 1971
Councilman Miller reminded the Council that
they should not extend permits beyond the
water supply.
(Proposed Ordinance
Bldg. Permits)
Dr. Donald Rocco suggested that since they have a number of 2200
they have agreed upon, perhaps by regulating this amount, they
could reach a decision.
Mayor Taylor made a motion to continue the matter for one week,
seconded by Councilman Miller; however the motion failed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Since the Council could reach no deci~ion, Mayor Taylor asked for
a motion for adjournment, which was made by Councilman Beebe, se-
conded by Councilman Silva, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
1:20 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of November 22, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 22,
1971, 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
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
minutes of the meeting of November 8, 1971,
were approved as submitted.
MINUTES
*
*
*
CM-24-421
November 22, 1971
The Crane Ridge 4-H Club has raised some money and
wishes to make a donation to the City to aid in the
completion of bike, hiking and horse trails around
the City, and the Mayor invited their representative
to come forward. The representative stated that
the money had been raised through efforts such as bake sales, and
presented a check to Mayor Taylor in the amount of $200 with a re-
quest that special attention be given to the Robertson Park area
in regard to the development of a horseman's rest area.
SPECIAL ITEM
4- H Club
Donation
Mayor Taylor, on behalf of the City, thanked the 4-H Club and men-
tioned that their motivation and hard work was a very good example
to our society.
Councilman Miller suggested that LARPD be contacted in reference to
the request for special consideration of the Robertson Park area.
*
*
*
Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, stated that he noticed
that the letter from the school district regarding
school housing had been placed on the Consent Calen-
dar and he had hoped that it would appear as a dis-
cussion topic rather than on the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Day requested the item to be withdrawn from the calendar and
made a discussion item at a later date, to which the Mayor replied
that it would be.
OPEN FORUM
School
Housing
Size of
Signs
*
*
*
Robert AllenJ223 Donner Avenue, stated that his
earlier suggestion relating the size of signs
to the evaluation of the property, which at that
time was supposedly unconstitutional and difficult
to determine, pointed out that a similar situation is on the agenda
for this meeting, whereby the City is linking the lease of City
property to requiring a structure of at least $200,000 in construc-
tion value. Using the former example, he said that he wished to
repeat his suggestion on the basis that it would be a constitution-
al determinant and a good criterion for the size of signs to be
directly related to the value of the building. He felt that in a
commercial district it would raise the assessed valuation of the
district, and asked the Council to consider his suggestion.
Councilman Miller stated that signs in the business district are
already proportional to the size of the building and that the Sign
Ordinance already allows larger signs for larger buildings.
Mr. Allen clarified his statement by saying that he felt value of
a building was perhaps more important than the size of the build-
ing; a building that a lot of effort, energy and money has been put
into to make it attractive, should receive consideration for a
larger sign.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION
(Industrial
Annex No.6)
*
*
*
The Mayor opened the public hearing and invited
anyone present wishing to give testimony regarding
the proposed annexation, !1Industrial Annex No. 6!1
of US 580, Greenville Road, south of the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks, to address the Council,
to which there was no response. The City Clerk
also reported that no written protests were received.
At the request of the City Clerk the Mayor clarified that the hear-
ing was for the express purpose of registering protests.
Antone Thomas, 5757 South Front Road, stated that though the area
is relatively uninhabited and there are not enough people to support
CM-24-422
November 22, 1971
his protest, however he would like to state his
opposition to incorporating the South Front Road
area into the City and City Zoning. To this the
Mayor replied that he would welcome him to the City.
(Industrial Annex
No.6)
At this time Mayor Taylor asked for a motion to close the public
hearing. Councilman Miller moved to close the hearing, seconded
by Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously.
The Mayor stated that a resolution was in order, and the City
Attorney read the title. Councilman Pritchard made a motion to
accept the resolution, seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 147-71
RESOLUTION FINDING AND DECLARING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST
HAS NOT BEEN MADE AT THE PROTEST HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO
SECTION 35313 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ON "INDUSTRIAL ANNEX NO. 6".
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to introduce the ordinance and
to waive the first reading (title read only) for annexing Indus-
trial Annex No.6 to the City of Livermore. The motion was second-
ed by Councilman Beebe and received a unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor stated that the hearing was a con-
tinuation of an application submitted by Dan
Enos, to change the zoning from RL-6 to RG-16
District for the property located at 603 Enos
Way, and asked the Planning Director to describe
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING ENOS WAY
the property.
The Planning Director explained the area location and its relation-
ship to adjacent properties and stated that after considerable
discussion the Planning Commission recommends 10 d.u./acre density
or 35 dwelling units at 16 per acre on approximately two acres,
with the remainder becoming an E District.
Burke Critchfield, Attorney representing the applicants, Barbara
and Dan Enos, addressed the Council and stated that the property
in question had been in the Enos family for some time and that
at one time it was zoned multiple. The zoning was changed and taxes
have increased on the property and there are only a few tennants
and horses on the property at this time. Because of the shape of
the property and the neighborhood, single family zoning is imprac-
tical. An engineering firm has prepared drawings and different
proposals for development. The single family residents to the
north were contacted and all but two approved of the plan that some
type of multiple would be established - they also signed a peti-
tion agreeing to the proposal. One of the persons in protest of
multiple zoning lives on the corner, and to satisfy his complaints
they have proposed that an open area be maintained adjacent to this
property for parking or some other use. No building will be closer
than 150 feet, to insure privacy of the single family residences.
The hearing had been continued from a September hearing to an early
October hearing at the request of the Planning Commission who
wanted to review the matter with the Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District as it was felt some of the land might be used
for a small park. The Park District, however, felt that a small
park of this type would not be practical and that on Junction Ave-
nue there was a small park already in existence and two parks in
close proximity would not be reasonable. At the time of the second
hearing in October~ the applicants agreed to reduce the request
from RG-16 to RG-14 and possible RG-12. They had been advised that
it would be impractical to develop the area for less than 40 units
for the entire three plus acres. A resolution was adopted to
CM-24-423
November 22, 1971
rezone the southern two acres to RG-16 and the
remaining 1-1/4 acres would be left for open
space and the matter was set for public hearing
before the Council. A continuance was then re-
quested so they could decide whether to accept RG-16 for the two
acres, or to consider an overall lower density zoning. The appli-
cants and attorney talked to the homeowners again and the owners
do not want the 1-1/4 acres to be left open as this would invite
noisy vehicles and motorcycles and bicycle trails being made through
the area, or an area that would not be provided with landscaping.
The attorney asked that it be re-examined and that they be allowed
a reasonable number of units with 150 ft. between the single family
residences and the multiples. The attorney has in his possession
a petition agreeing to the proposals, which represents over 70 par-
cels of land and states that the request is not unreasonable; some
felt that it would even upgrade the value of their property. The
attorney asked that the Council give their request reasonable con-
sideration. Mr. Critchfield then gave the additional petitions to
the Council to review, along with their plans, and stated his
feeling that in view of the fact that it was once zoned multiple,
the Council should take this into consideration, and the entire
parcel be zoned for multiple with a restriction to the northern
portion so that no units will be placed in that area. If there
was a real need for a trailway through this property, the owners
would be willing to negotiate with the staff for the benefit of
the community and the owners. He concluded by saying that 36 to 40
units would best suit their plans and needs.
(Public Hearing
Dan Enos)
Norman Smith, 675 Enos Way, said that he had come to the first
hearing to protest the rezoning, but since, has decided to try to
work out a compromise. His main concern is that the whole parcel
will be zoned multiple and he stated he would protest this type
of zoning, but if one acre to the north remains open, or with E
District zoning, he would not be in opposition. He stated that
there is one parcel of land directly adjacent to him and adjoining
the property in question, and he is sure if the Enos property is
zoned multiple, that the person holding that one parcel of land
will ask for the same zoning, and then he will be immediately ad-
jacent to multiples.
Mayor Taylor stated that after the Council discusses this issue
further and comes up with a decision, he would have another chance
to address the Council, in protest, if he chooses.
Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, stated her opposition to
letting the City take over a portion of the Enos property for a
park or another purpose. She urged the Council to let the owners
of the land have the zoning they request. She stated that she is
next to an apartment and that it has never posed a problem; in
fact, she has acquired some very good friends from the apartment
and knows of no reason another apartment should not be built in
the area.
Ken Holloway, 2648 Kelly,stated that he has no objection to the
land in question being used properly and feels that there needs
to be some kind of buffer between multiples, should they be granted,
and single family dwellings; he gave a suggestion that trees could
be used for the purpose, and that in his estimation, an acre would
be asking too much. He felt that even 100 feet of buffer would be
adequate. He stated that he would appreciate seeing the old build-
ings removed and new modern apartments going up in their place.
Richard Davies, 2967 Kennedy, stated that he had not planned to
address the Council, but wanted to add his support to what Mr.
Holloway had stated. He, also, was of the opinion that 1.4 acres
should not be taken from the owner to be used as a park or another
use by the City.
There being no other testimony, a motion was made by Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously,
to close the public hearing.
CM-24-424
November 22, 1971
Councilman Miller stated that a few considera-
tions should be made before a decision is
made: 1) whether higher density would be rea-
sonable due to water and school problems, and
2) whether or not there is a public need for multiples in that
area at this time, and going to higher density may violate the
idea of the general plan. The multiples would bring about the
generation of more children in the area and a need for a park.
He indicated that there is a possibility that the City will not
get the water connection fee if it is zoned multiple because
there is no subdivision map required, and all the builder has to
do is apply for a building permit. His suggestion would be to zone
the area RS-5 District in order to avoid a higher density.
(Public Hearing -
Dan Enos)
The question of buffering was discussed by the Council and whether
or not that portion could be zoned to "Ell District to preserve it.
Mr. Lewis advised there could be a condition, or perhaps a dona-
tion of interest in the land to the City to restrict the surface
use of the property.
Mr. Musso explained the only thing necessary is that the zoning
conform to the ordinance which provides setbacks close to 75 feet.
Mr. Critchfield stated they are willing to agree that if a rea-
sonable solution can be made that any approval by the Council
could be made next meeting and he would meet with the City Attorney
to insure that this guarantee would be there. They would be willing
to adjust the application so the Council would only rezone a smaller
portion, so that the northern portion will be in park, open space
or whatever is agreed upon.
Councilman Beebe stated that he felt it is not the Council's pre-
rogative to decide whether or not the City needs another apartment
or townhouse or residentials in the area; he stated that that was
part of free enterprise and that if there are too many vacancies,
builders will stop building apartments and if there are no vacan-
cies, builders will build more. As far as the problems of water,
he stated that the Council had discussions as to rezoning, not in
the older sections, but for annexing new areas into the community
and problems regarding heavy zoning in these new areas.
Councilman Silva pointed out that a zoning of RG-10 would be com-
parable to RL-6 zone as far as tax structure.
Councilman Pritchard stated he would be interested in the arrangement
which would be worked out between the applicant and the City At-
torney, and made a motion that the issue be continued for two
weeks. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication from the Livermore Valley Uni-
fied School District Board regarding school
housing was removed from the Consent Calendar
for later discussion.
Communication re
School Housing
*
*
*
A letter was received from the League of Women
Voters commending the City Council for their
initiation of action to help solve the future
growth problems of our Community.
Communication
Commending City
*
*
*
CM-24-425
November 22, 1971
Communication
re Park Develop-
ment Requirement
Report re
Regional Water
Quality Control
Monitoring
Requirements
Resolutions
re Sidewalk
Claims
Minutes
Housing
Authority
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
A communication was received from the Livermore
Area Recreation and Park District, together with
a resolution urging the City to enact a park de-
velopment requirement and recommending that a
joint meeting be held to discuss this item.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar
for later discussion.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Direct-
or regarding Regional Water Quality Control Board
monitoring requirements. Mr. Parness advised that
more time was required for consideration of the
addendums, and he asked that this item be continued,
and it was removed from the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 148-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK NOT TO FILE CERTAIN
CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE.
RESOLUTION NO. 149-71
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE CERTAIN
CLAIMS ALLEGING TREE DAMAGE AND DENIAL THEREOF.
*
*
*
Minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of October
19 were acknowledged for filing.
*
*
*
One hundred and nine claims in the amount of
$118,356.62 and two hundred fifty payroll warrants
in the amount of $56,161.22, dated November 19, 1971,
were ordered paid as approved by the Finance Director.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval, the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
A communication from David~~adis regarding condominium
development - Lot 7, Tract 274~ Murrieta Blvd.,
had been discussed at the meeting of November 15,
and continued until this time pending receipt of
a staff report. The Planning Director, Chief Build-
ing Inspector and Public Works Director each sub-
mitted a report regarding the proposed development being in con-
formance with the ordinance. Mr. Musso explained that the subject
plans, according to these reports, indicate that they are in conform-
ance to the City Zoning Ordinance. The question is whether or not
a subdivision is required, and he presented the approved map for
Unit 1, stating that a condominium map is more than just property
boundaries. It is location of buildings, questions of park dedi-
cation, and the requirement of the homeowners association to main-
tain a common open space. If the Council concludes that condominium
is not a subdivision, then they will not allow the right to claim
park dedication. There is more involved than just this unit as in
this case the park dedication has been collected, but what of the
next one.
COMMUNICATION
RE CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT
(Tr. 2745)
CM-24-426
November 22, 1971
David Madis, representing the subdivider, stated
that the building is shown on the map and it has
been built, and the state Code provides that the
condominium must be approved when the building is
already located on the property; the fees are
collected as though it was one parcel and not on
the basis of the number of units.
(Condominium
Development
Tract 2745)
Mr. Lewis stated that if the location of the building is shown on
the map, the only issue is whether or not it is the same parcel
for which building permits were issued.
Mr. Madis went on to say that since they have complied with all
regulations and the ordinance, it would be a waste of time to
submit a map, as everything is built and they are only dividing
the air space. However, they would withdraw their request for a
letter and submit a map.
Councilman Miller pointed out that there are still some public
works improvements that have not been completed, which are long
overdue, and felt any approval of the subdivision map should re-
quire a cash bond or some guarantee that those public works im-
provements are put in.
Mr. Madis advised that the improvements will be done according
to the requirements of the law.
Councilman Miller stated one more thing is that in Unit 3 they
had discussed dedication of land which was to come in a density
trade, and now wondered how this was to be resolved, and felt
the staff should review that item as the tentative map is con-
sidered.
Concilman Miller stated his feelings that this condominium was
built specifically to evade the townhouse ordinance and again
suggested that the interim ordinance be introduced regarding sub-
division by condominium. He felt if the ordinance is reintro-
duced, the approval of the subject condominium would be withheld
until a decision is made as to whether it is to be an apartment,
as indicated by the building permit which was issued, or a con-
dominium. Councilman Miller made a motion to reintroduce the
interim ordinance, however the motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Taylor explained the purpose for the introduction of the
first interim ordinance was to prevent some large developer from
building a townhouse development that the Council had previously
disapproved by using the method of building it under RG zoning,
then subdividing the property, using the technique of condominium.
The townhouse ordinance was designed the way it is principally
because of the way attached garages and internal streets perturbed
the design of the development; whether one family unit is above
another or not, is beside the point.
Councilman Miller stated that the question of the possibility of
evasion of the condominium ordinance was originally raised by him;
the whole thrust of public testimony has been density and family
composition and that is the major issue.
*
*
*
A report had been submitted by the Police Chief
regarding a property marking program, and this
item had been continued from the meeting of
November 15.
OPERATION IDENTI-
FICATION (Property
Marking Program)
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Silva to appropriate $200 to implement the program as outlined.
CM-24-427
November 22, 1971
(Operation
Identification)
Councilman Miller stated that in many communities,
various service organizations and insurance agen-
cies have sponsored the program, and he felt we
should explore this possibility.
The Council felt after some discussion that the small investment
would be worthwhile, and the motion was approved unanimously.
COMMUNICATION
RE BART
*
*
*
A communication received from the Pleasanton Chamber
of Commerce was postponed from the meeting of No-
vember 15, at the request of Councilman Silva, who
stated that he would like to have the staff inves-
tigate the possibility of withdrawing from BART.
Mr. Lewis stated that we cannot withdraw as the District Act is
very clear that only a County may withdraw and only up until the
time that bonds are issued, so as he understands the Act, there is
no way out. The only way would be to have the District Act amended,
however there are so many cases that have been decided by Courts as
to what happens when an area withdraws, and it is subject to a
bonded indebtedness, there is no question that we would still be
subject to pay the taxes.
COMMUNICATION
RE FREEZE
(Associated
Home Builders)
*
*
*
The communication from the Associated Home Builders
of the Greater East Bay, Inc., regarding the lift-
ing of the freeze was continued from the meeting
of November 15 at which time Mr. Leonard stated he
would have a letter for the Council's approval re-
garding the escrow account.
Councilman Miller asked who had signed the agreement, and was ad-
vised that all subdivision firms have paid the fee, but there are
three single building permits that were issued and have not paid,
and these cannot be mandatorily made to pay it. Councilman Miller
stated there was to be an agreement from all the developers, and
felt the method being used was very unbusinesslike and unfair to
those who have signed the agreement, and to the City, if they do
not collect from those who do not pay. He felt there should be more
than just an escrow agreement, and we should not continue the pro-
gram unless we have signed letters from all of the developers.
Mr. Leonard stated that some of the developers have said they would
not be building, others have no recorded lots, but those who are
actively building, with the exception of a couple that are in
transition,have already signed.
Mayor Taylor stated that he did not feel the Council could do any
more in this regard, and he did feel there was a certainty that
Zone 7 would institute a fee for almost $500. We can only do what
is best for the public, and Councilman Beebe concurred it was the
best solution under the circumstances.
REPORT RE
HOLMES STREET
WIDENING
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported with regard to
the widening of Holmes Street, south of Alden Lane,
stating that when the Tract on the east side of
Holmes Street was approved, the City required 19
feet, but subsequently, the standard has been
changed for major streets from 88 feet to 104 feet, and now to ob-
tain the standard width, it will require a further acquisition of
35 feet on the westerly side. There are three homeowners on the
west side and they are aware of this matter and have appealed for
some other course of action rather than the uneven widening. If
CM-24-428
November 22, 1971
there was equal widening, it would require 27
feet instead of the 35 feet off the west side,
but would also require that we obtain addition-
al right-of-way from 17 filed lots on the east
side of the street. He stated that letters have been submitted
by the homeowners requesting that land be taken from the existing
17 lots on the east side for equal widening, in order to be fair
to all concerned. Mr. Lee advised that the cost would be approxi-
mately $13,600 for the uneven widening and $30,900 for even widen-
ing, and recommended the option of uneven widening.
(Holmes Street
Widening)
Councilman Silva stated for the sake of discussion he would make
a motion to adopt the Public Works Director's recommendation for
unequal widening, and Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion.
Ervin Heald, 2633 Holmes Street, representing the home owners on
the west side of Holmes Street, stated that at the time the homes
were built, the last one being in January of 1970, the County
plans made it known that there would be a 19-foot easement on the
property, but since, it has been changed to a 35-foot easement,
of which they were not notified. He stated that if unequal widen-
ing takes place that one of the home owners will not be able to
back out of his drive into the street because there is a six foot
drop so the approach will have to be changed. Alden Lane Nursery
will lose one-half of one of their buildings in order for the road
to pass through.
Mr. Lee stated that no matter what the decision is, Alden Lane
Nursery will be affected the same in either case, as there is
uneven widening north of Alden Lane, and during the transition,
part of the structure mentioned will be in the way.
Mr. Heald also stated that if their property was to be annexed
into the City, which he feels is inevitable, widening will occur.
The Mayor assured him this is not necessarily so; annexation does
not mean automatic widening; there will be no change to their pro-
perty unless it is developed or sold and widening may not even
take place for some time.
Masud Mehran stated his sympathy with the homeowners to the east
side of Holmes Street. He stated this problem has resulted from
the City changing the standards from 88 to 104 ft. width to the
road. Development of the 17 lots to the east has commenced and
if even widening is required, the lots will not meet minimum
standards as the houses proposed for the lots will not fit on
smaller lots; also, grading, concrete and underground wiring is
committed and cannot be changed. The subdivision agreement is
in effect and he cannot make changes now. If the land had not
been recorded there would be no problem, but it is too late now.
He is willing to cooperate with the City and will be glad to
change the land south of the tract already set up. He suggested
that either the Council accept the recommendation of the Public
Works Director for unequal widening, or leave Holmes Street at
88 feet,as it is, all the way to First Street, and start the
widening south of the area now being considered.
Mr. Lee stated that the 88-foot width of Holmes Street is already
too narrow and inadequate and there is a need to widen where they
can.
Candice Simonen, 692 Jefferson, requested that the trees that are
along Alden Lane Nursery be saved, as suggested by Mr. Mehran.
The City Attorney suggested that if the Council is to consider
equal widening that they have an appraisal of the west and east
side and find out what the cost will be in actuality, but they
may not be able to do anything anyway if what Mr. Mehran has said
is true, because the damage to the lots may be substantial. He
stated an appraisal would probably cost from $500 to $1000.
CM-24-429
November 22, 1971
(Holmes st.
Widening)
REPORT RE
AIRWAY BLVD.
INDUSTRIAL
LEASE
REPORT RE
DIRECTLY
ELECTED MAYOR
Mayor Taylor asked for a vote on the motion of
Councilman Silva to adopt the recommendation
for unequal widening, and the motion passed
with a 3-2 vote with Councilmen Beebe and Miller
opposed.
*
*
*
The Mayor asked for the report from the City Mana-
ger regarding the lease of property at Airway Blvd.,
in which the lease requires that a second industrial
structure be erected within eighteen months, to
which the lending institution is in opposition.
The City Manager stated that regrettably the report
will have to be postponed.
*
*
*
~he Mayor asked if there is any discussion as to
the report regarding directly elected mayors in
the State and the statutes involved.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he felt it was up
to the community to decide whether or not a mayor
should be directly elected.
Councilman Silva felt that most people would want to vote for a
mayor directly, but they should know all the facts and probably
would not bother with reading material on the subject, such as the
report the Councilmen received, and stated that the Council should
make the decision.
Councilman Miller wanted to know what all the advantages and disad-
vantages of a directly elected mayor are, and what advantage it
would be to the people to have a direct vote. He also pointed out
that the procedure for a directly elected mayor could not be reversed
if it did not work out favorably, to which the City Attorney agreed,
as far as to say that there is no law that covers the problem at
this time; there has not been a case on it as yet, but Councilman
Miller's observation is probably correct.
Mayor Taylor stated that with the present system, it places an ob-
ligation on the Mayor to conduct Council meetings fairly, and to
represent the citizens to their best interest, or the Council will
remove him and get another spokesman. On the other hand, an elected
Mayor could conduct business as he pleases with no particular
regard to the Council and their wishes or to the people. It is
a matter of debate; however, the majority of the Council is more
or less representing the City.
Councilman Silva stated that having been a mayor, he found it to
be a very time consuming job. Probably the only advantage to hav-
ing an elected mayor, would be that if there was a substantial
salary involved whereby he could devote the major portion of his
time to City business, that would be fine.
Councilman Miller agreed and stated the point that was made in
favor of an elected mayor is that you would get a qualified man
who would be willing to take the job, but you would have to pay
him a high salary if you want the job done right, because if you
do not pay a man to do the work full time, you will essentially
have a part time mayor which is no different from the system we
now have. To get someone to spend a fair amount of time as a
part time mayor, without appropriate compensation, you will have
restricted the job to a special class of people as it would exclude
those who work for salaries, as they could not devote the necessary
time to the job.
Councilman Beebe felt that the situation was magnified by Council-
man Miller as it is known that the mayor now puts in more time than
CM-24-430
November 22~ 1971
(Directly Elected
Mayor)
the Councilmen for various functions, and he
gives this time. The only difference would be
that an elected mayor, according to the feel-
ing of the people, would be that he would have more say. He
felt an elected mayor could serve the needs of the City in the
same way as our present mayor, as he did not think there would
be any more work.
Councilman Pritchard stated-the question was not whether or not
the mayor would be full or part time~ but whether or not the
people shall elect a mayor.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to submit the question of an
elected mayor to the electorate at the next general municipal
election and that the ballot shall read essentially as the word-
ing in the provision of paragraph 34901 of the Government Code;
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Silva made a motion to table, seconded by Councilman
Miller, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe
Councilman Pritchard stated his feeling that the Councilmen who
favored the motion were running contrary to the will of the people.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to remove the motion from the
table~ seconded by Councilman Beebe~ however the motion failed
3-2.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard made a motion~ during the
above discussion, that the meeting adjourn at
midnight~ seconded by Councilman Silva, and it
passed 4-1 with Councilman Miller dissenting
by stating they should stay until their business
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT.
*
*
*
MOTION FOR
ADJOURNMENT
reached completion.
RECESS
Delinquencies have accrued for the payment of
assessments against properties in certain parts
of the Springtown and Greenville North sectors
for indebtedness in these two separate districts.
The amount of the delinquency for the Northern
Sanitary Sewer District is $131~993 and for the
Northern Water District $33,453. Unless payment
is received~ foreclosure proceedings can be en-
acted against subject properties. Our bond counsel in this matter
has recommended that foreclosure proceedings be undertaken by the
City to recover these delinquencies~ however~ this action should
be preceded by a final notice sent to each of the owners of this
intent, requesting voluntary payment of the delinquent amounts
within 30 days. For those properties that have not satisfied their
debt it is recommended that the Council authorize foreclosure pro-
ceedings and that private counsel be retained for this purpose,
the cost of which can be assigned to the subject property owners.
REPORT RE FORE-
CLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
(Northern Sanitary
Sewer District
and Northern Water
District)
The City Attorney stated that even though it was felt this was
substantially cleared some time ago~ it is again a pressing matter,
and it is recommended that the Council authorize the notices as
requested and then to immediately proceed with the foreclosures.
If thirty days notice is given, thereafter with employment of
CM-24-431
November 22, 1971
(Foreclosure
Proceedings)
counsel, he would expect proceedings to be com-
menced in Superior Court to foreclose on all the
delinquent properties and that such action be
moved as fast as possible. It is hoped that if
the Council authorizes the action, the people will take the first
notice seriously as there would not be extensions of time given.
Councilman Miller moved to adopt the recommendation of the staff,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously.
REPORT RE
CUP FEES
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director
regarding the revised fee for a Conditional Use
Permit in which he advised that although the $200
fee for an initial application appears to be ap-
propriate, the costs for a CUP renewal were much less and, there-
fore, he recommended that this fee be set at $100.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to accept the staff recommendation for an amendment of the fee and
to prepare an ordinance.
SUMMARY OF
ACTION
PLANNING
COMMISSION
ORDINANCE RE
USE OF WATER
AND ISSUANCE
OF BLDG
PERMITS
AYES:
NOES:
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of November 16 was acknowledged.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that the ordinance regu-
lating the use of water and the issuance of build-
ing permits and the letter from the School Board
were related and suggested that the letter be dis-
cussed first, and made a motion to this effect,
seconded by Mayor Taylor, however the motion failed
by the following vote:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Mayor Taylor explained that the ordinance had been discussed at
the previous meeting but after several attempts to amend failed,
the meeting had adjourned without action taken. He stated that
there had been lengthy discussion on the subject of building per-
mits and would hope that there would not be too much repeat dis-
cussion and arguments, and asked before discussion commenced if
there were any motions from the floor.
Councilman Silva stated that he would like to mention one of Coun-
cilman Pritchard's proposals, but he did not wish to make a motion.
He stated that he felt Councilman Pritchard's motion to insert a
provision in the ordinance that would require a limitation of 800
building permits at the rate of 100 per month, and not to apply
to persons who had less than 5 lots, was a fine and logical solu-
tion to the issuance of permits. Councilman Silva made a motion
to reintroduce the ordinance, deleting the number of permits
issued and listing lots only, and with a few other minor changes.
Councilman Pritchard asked if there was a way the Council could
differentiate between single family and multiple permits issued,
to which the City Attorney stated that one permit is issued per
building, not per unit, and to this Councilman Pritchard related
that it might be best if the restrictions were set up to incorpor-
ate units rather than individual buildings.
The City Manager felt that to keep track of units, or limit the
building of units, would not be practical because the problem
CM-24-432
November 22, 1971
would snowball. At the beginning of the second
quarter people would be standing in line to re-
ceive permits that they could not obtain during
the first quarter because of the limitation, and
on and on. He felt the allotment system would
serve no real purpose.
(Ordinance re Use
of Water and
Issuance of Bldg.
Permits)
Councilman Silva suggested that a report be received each month in
order to evaluate whether a problem is being created, and then
adopt a freeze if necessary, during the summer months when there
may be a water shortage; if no problem is apparent, they will wait
for a report for the next month and evaluate the situation for
that period.
At this time Councilman Pritchard seconded the motion made by Coun-
cilman Silva, stating that he agreed that maybe a monthly review,
in regard to Zone 7, might be the right step to avoid a complete
cutoff.
Councilman Miller stated that it was already too late, and that
there is going to be water rationing this summer. They have al-
ready received reports indicating that there are too many homes,
and to continue issuing building permits would be wrong. The
problem is already in existence with the number of permits issued.
Mr. Leonard suggested that if the water crisis develops that
(1) the present filtering system can be improved to generate more
water use for a moderate cost (paid for through connection fees);
(2) Mr. Elliott will grant the use of a well that is now under
test and the quality of the water is pure, to the City at no cost.
He feels that there is water available and requested the Council
to consider that it would be logical and fair to amend the ordi-
nance to include tentative maps already approved, and that in fact,
it would be more economical to the City to de-aerate water.
Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, asked that the Council evaluate
what Mr. Leonard had said in regard to the economics involved,
as it might be erroneous.
Mr. Luther Curry, from the Carpenters Union in Hayward, stated
that he feels the public has not been honestly informed as to what
the problem really is. He stated the public feels there is a
shortage of water, but in essence, the problem is really the facil-
ities to get the water to Livermore. He feels that a building
freeze will have a large impact on the City and that it is up to
the Council to avoid creating the problem. He feels that if the
public is properly informed that they will support any bond to
correct the problem and that he is sure organized labor would
support a water bond also, to keep industry moving.
Paul Shelton, representing the Carpenters Union in Hayward and
the Executive Board of Building Trades of Alameda County, stated
that they would like to offer their help to the Valley, and he
wanted to mention that there are 2,000 workers in the Valley who
would be affected if a freeze were imposed, and the amount of money
lost would be $600,000 a week; therefore, this would be very damag-
ing to the economy of the City and the Valley. He included Plea-
santon and Dublin as part of the water crisis area.
Councilman Miller commented that if there is no rationing on build-
ing permits that the Council is acting irresponsibly to the majority
of the citizens involved.
The City Manager asked that the motion be clarified - lots of
record will be allowed permits for residential building as of
November 8.
The Mayor asked for a roll call vote, and the motion failed by
the following:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard and Silva
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Taylor
CM-24-433
November 22, 1971
ORDINANCE RE
Z.O. AMENDMENT
(Future Width
Lines-Special
Bldg. Lines)
ORDINANCE NO. 763
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 20.71, RELATING TO
FUTURE WIDTH LINES, AND SUBSECTION 20.72, RELATING
TO SPECIAL BUILDING LINES, OF SECTION 20.00, RELAT-
ING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442,
AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the follow-
ing called vote, the above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
None
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
(RS District,
Sec. 31. 00)
Mayor Taylor asked for a motion regarding Zoning
Ordinance amendment re RS District and other related
sections, and Councilman Pritchard moved to waive
the first reading, except by title only, and intro-
duce the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Silva stated that he would like to move an amendment
to the proposed ordinance to increase front yard setbacks from
15 feet to 20 feet, seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mayor Taylor stated that the intent is to impose new minimums on
lots that have not been created in the past, and for the ordinance
to pertain to new lots, not to affect lots already recorded.
The motion to amend received a unanimous vote.
Councilman Silva made a motion to amend the ordinance to allow
split level or 2-story homes in Rs-4 Zones, 50% or 1/2 of the se-
cond floor, square footage for expansion on the lot. Councilman
Beebe stated that he would second the motion for discussion only.
He questioned the fact that a tract might become a monotonous single
story tract if footage is not given to split level of 2-story homes,
because the lots would not be big enough to accommodate larger
homes. He was advised that the size of the lots is set up now
to include a small house or a split level or two story, for the
standard subdivision lots.
Masud Mehran addressed the Council, stating that he felt the or-
dinance should be amended to increase the size of the lot coverage
from 25% to 30% in Rs-4 only. He stated that by approving smaller
lots the City is influencing the builder to build the smaller
homes which give the City less tax revenue, and bring lower income
families into the area.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, stated he had lived on a
60 ft. x 100 ft. lot with a small house and that as his family in-
creased he had to move because he was not allowed to build a
larger house on the lot, and he feels that the 35% expansion pro-
vision of the ordinance is wonderful in that it allows one to stay
in the neighborhood of his choice and build on to his house, rather
than move because a larger house is necessary. Mr. Hoenig stated
he would like the Council to retain the 25% developable floor area
(35%) after two years from date of final inspection, in order to
preserve a stable neighborhood.
Councilman Miller stated you cannot get a modest cost house~~
-a-laIgel lot; that tiLe CO.!lt i.!l too gIeat for tLe_p'e:r1'1011 ~!LO ca1d )
0111;)' affold a lJ1ode.!lt CO.!lt L011'le~~<,<.-,~%~~&~~~ti' !
~h~-d.jev~.~~)~~~'~~b
Counci~an Silva made a motion to amend the ordinance to read t1rat .
there will be no more than 50% of the homes built as two-story, in
a subdivision, but the motion died for lack of a second.
CM-24-434
The Mayor asked for a roll call vote to the
amendment - Rs-4 Zone allowing two-story or
split-level 50% of the second floor square
footage for development, however the motion
failed 3-2:
November 22, 1971
(Proposed Ordinance
re RS District)
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
The Mayor asked for a roll call vote to the main motion regarding
introduction of the ordinance with the amendment to increase front
yard setbacks to 20 feet, and the motion passed 4-2 with Council-
man Silva dissenting.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Mayor Taylor to continue
the meeting for fifteen minutes in order that
a citizen might be heard; he had appeared for
the open forum and waited to speak on an item
that had been removed from the Consent Calendar. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Miller, but received a negative vote from
the other Councilmen.
MOTION TO CONTINUE
MEETING
Councilman Silva made the motion that the meeting be continued
for five minutes, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and received a
unanimous vote.
Mr. James Day thanked the Council and left the meeting without
addressing them on any subject.
* * *
The City Manager asked that the Council author-
ize $1800 in the Police Department budget for
law enforcement investigation purposes. A mo-
tion was made by Councilman Pritchard seconded
by Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously,
to accept the City Manager's recommendation.
*
*
*
The City Manager asked that three Councilmen
meet at noon, Monday, November 29, to adopt
the annexation ordinance since time is im-
portant in this case so that the matter may
be processed to completion prior to December 31.
*
*
*
There being no further business, the Council
adjourned until noon, Monday, November 29,
1971, at City Hall.
*
[:.~ ~*
rrayo 'l. . I' /7
\~~
/l Y Clerk
e~ore, California
APPROVE ~~
ATTEST
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Police
Dept. Budget)
(Ordinance re
Industrial Annex
No.6)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-24-435
Adjourned Regular Meeting of November 29, 1971
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on
November 29, 1971, in the City Hall, 2250 First Street. The
meeting was called to order at 12:05 p.m.
*
*
*
RO LL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Silva
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
INDUSTRIAL
ANNEX NO. 6
The Council discussed the proposed annexation,
and the possibility of its development in the
future as a residential area, in which case no
annexation fees would be collectible since annex-
ation agreements have not been signed. At the
close of the discussion, on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Miller, the ordinance was adopted by unanimous vote
(Councilman Silva absent).
ORDINANCE NO. 764
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED
TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS "INDUSTRIAL ANNEX No.6" TO THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE.
As a result of the discussion regarding annexation fees, it was
decided to request the staff to attempt, in the future, to obtain
annexation agreements regardless of the uses proposed or plan pre-
sented at the time annexation is requested.
*
*
*
SALLY,
PROPERTY
SALE
The City Manager reported that the Sally property
was to be sold on November 30, and it was the
final consensus that there were too many unknown
factors present about which the Council had no
knowledge; therefore, no attempt would be made to
purchase any of the property.
*
*
*
AIRWAY BLVD.
Mayor Taylor expressed concern regarding the
possible flooding of Airway Blvd. during times
of storm and the recently opened overpass which
uses Airway Blvd. for access to our City.
The City Manager stated that a report on this matter would be
forthcoming shortly, and no further action was taken.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting
then adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
APPROVE
ATTEST
CM-24-436
Regular Meeting of December 6, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 6,
1971, 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, Silva, Miller and
Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard (seated later)
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote,
the minutes of the meeting of November 15,
were approved as submitted and the minutes
of the meeting of November 22 as amended.
*
*
*
The Mayor invited anyone in the audience to
speak on any matter not on the agenda, however
there were no comments voiced.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
A report was submitted by the City Manager with
regard to the environmental impact of a rapid
transit corridor and freeway joint use along
the present approximate routing of US 580 and
Rte 238 (Castro Valley to US 680). It is re-
commended that a motion be made referring consideration of this
matter to the Valley Planning Committee with a request that the
group compose a recommended position.
*
*
*
Report re State
Environmental
Statement re US 580
A communication was received from the Mayer De-
velopment Company regarding a mobile home park
south of Las Positas Road. It is recommended
that a motion be adopted informing the applicant
that such a disclosure on land use, officially,
must await a usual formal planning application and hearings.
However, since this proposed use is contrary to the General
Plan, approval for a mobile home park seems unlikely.
*
*
*
A memorandum was received from the Chief Build-
ing Inspector indicating the total number of
residential units permitted November 19 through
November 24, 1971.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of the Beautifica-
tion Committee meeting of November 2, 1971
were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Communication re
Mobile Home Park
Development
Report re Residen-
tial Bldg. Permits
Minutes-Beautifica-
tion Committee
CM-24-437
December 6, 1971
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the items on
the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
REPORT FROM
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
(Moratorium)
A letter was received from the School District,
forecasting enrollment. The letter stated that
the schools cannot house more than 14,000 children
and they will reach that quota by the fall of 1972
inasmuch as they need only 873 more children to
enroll to reach this figure.
The Mayor stated, in summarizing, that the School District is asking
the Council to consider the adverse effects to our educational sys-
tem by approving tentative tract maps and issuing building permits
for tracts already approved.
The City Attorney summarized his written letter to the Council and
related that where the public's health, safety and welfare are
threatened the police power can be exercised to provide adequate
protection. However, he felt that it would be difficult to con-
vince the courts that the children in Livermore are not receiving
as good an education as other school districts, by comparison.
In conclusion, he stated that it is a factual matter for the Council
to decide whether or not police power should be exercised and
whether evidence should be submitted to the court. It was his
opinion that the limitation of building permits is not a reasonable
way to solve the school problem.
Councilman Silva stated that he felt the subject was very important
and that the letter received from the City Attorney was very good
and it should be read to those present in the audience, and made
available to anyone wishing to read it.
Mayor Taylor read the letter, dated December 2, 1971, submitted by
the City Attorney, and stated that copies would be available to
anyone who would like to go over the letter.
Mayor Silva made a motion to send a copy of the letter to the School
District, seconded by Councilman Beebe, which after considerable
discussion was considered as a directive to the staff.
Councilman Miller stated that the Council has, in the past, asked
the School District to propose something specific to support a
building moratorium and that the Council now has some grounds for
a court case, even though it may not be exactly what the Council
would like for a case. Their figures support grounds for a case -
14,000 pupil enrollment will exhaust the planned additions and
money for classroom space. He also mentioned that there have been
many building permits issued this year, twice as many as last year,
and the structures are not yet occupied or completed in construction,
and as of December 3, the number of permits that are out (not yet
started, just started, or completed but not occupied) amount to
282 multiples, 663 single family, and 45 more building permits are
in the mill. By computing the 1.1 student per residential unit,
the City will have 217 students in excess of the space available
at that time, and if the Council stops issuing permits tonight,
14 classes will be on double sessions; if they do not stop issuance
of permits now, there will be an enormous amount of classes on
double session. Some consideration should be made despite the
letter from the City Attorney. Councilman Miller stated, in his
opinion, it is worth taking the risk to protect the public by tak-
ing the matter to the courts, letting them decide what is legal.
If the Council does nothing they are perpetuating the problem of
overcrowding. He felt that the public has the right to protect
their children's educational future and that they are tired of over-
crowded schools as well as the other problems of Livermore.
CM-24-438
December 6, 1971
The Mayor commented that he had received reports (School District re
indicating that with the lots that have been Moratorium)
approved for classrooms and the portables being
use, the District will be 15 classrooms short in
the fall of 1972, which would mean 30 double sessions, for 450
pupils, and even though his figures did not agree precisely with
what Councilman Miller had reported, Livermore will still be
about one school short of student space needed.
Walter Griffith, 1650 Elm Street, stated that the citizens are
feeling the strains of the building boom which is causing increased
demands on sewage facilities, water supplies, and the school system
as well as creating higher taxes, and smog problems. He feels
that the Council, the citizens of Livermore, neighboring cities,
the developers, and the County and State Governments have to co-
operate to solve these problems. He would like to see regulated
growth to curb the crowded school conditions, and would like to
see the District self-supporting as the sewer connection and water
connection fees have enabled these two facilities to be.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, commented that he is sure the School
Board understands the Council's directive regarding new tract maps.
He stated that the Board has consulted with attorneys on this matter
and it is their understanding the courts will decide in favor of
what the elected officials deem as good for the District. He felt
that to compare Livermore's school system with medium standard
schools is not necessary - Livermore can maintain higher standards
and it is up to the people to decide what these standards will be.
He stated that this issue has become a political football tossed
between the Council and the School Board, and the citizens are
not going to tolerate it much longer. He asked that the Council
consider taking the risk, as Councibnan Miller stated, and resolve
this problem.
Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, stated that he had served on the
School Board and was in agreement with remarks made by Mr. Hoenig.
He added that he felt Mayor Taylor's analysis was incorrect and
that the City is in trouble long before the lots of record are
counted.
William Leonard, representing the Associated Home Builders of
Greater East Bay, stated that the 1.1 factor varies, depending
on the type of building being constructed and that an adequate
determination of the facts should be evaluated. Education is
of statewide concern, regardless of a localcommunity's wishes
and that the door cannot be closed to others in terms of educa-
tional system. He stated that the builders would like to work
out some long range solutions with the City and mentioned that
portables could be leased for $30,000 a year that would house
450 students, and with a budget of $12 million, this type of
solution might be feasible. He also commented that he is in
favor of the motion to send a copy of the City Attorney's letter
to the School Board.
Everett Martin, 1122 Innsbruck, stated that his son is on double
sessions and that he would like to have less children in his
crowded school and would like to be able to go to school for a
full day. Mr. Martin asked the Council if they are willing to do
something for his son and his education.
Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison, asked why the builders do not vol-
untarily provide the buildings for the children to go to school
as is done in San Diego, which would permit a full days attendance
rather than the double sessions.
Councilman Beebe stated there is no reason why Livermore cannot
adopt the same policy; Sacramento is using that same method for
housing students, because it was faced with the same problems as
Livermore and San Diego.
CM-24-439
December 6, 1971
(School District
re Moratorium)
Don England, 408 Olivina Avenue, asked why indus-
try is not permitted to build in Livermore to help
pay taxes for schools and water.
The Mayor stated, on behalf of the Council, that the Council has
tried to encourage industry to come to Livermore, but for various
reasons industry chooses other areas. He mentioned that Sears
has purchased a 150-acre tract to build on, and they also have an
application for an industrial park near the airport. The Mayor
agreed that industry would help pay taxes for schools and is in
hopes with these new possibilities, the City is on the way toward
getting some of these companies to build in Livermore.
Councilman Miller stated that no matter what differences of opinion
the Council may have on other issues, they are unanimous in agree-
ing that the City needs some way of expanding its tax base and
they have tried their best to acquire industry for the City. He
mentioned that water rationing will not aid in getting industry to
come to Livermore because it is a PUC directive that residential
uses obtain water before any other kind.
Councilman Beebe thought perhaps the Council should initiate a
meeting with the School District and Associated Builders in an
attempt to arrive at a solution regarding the school housing.
Councilman Silva asked Mr. Day exactly how much actual classroom
time is lost by double sessions, and Mr. Day replied that there are
many factors involved, and that the time could vary from 15 minutes
to one hour per day; however Councilman Miller stated his daughter
lost one day a week.
James Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, stated it was not only the class-
room time lost, but also when the children go later in the day,
they are more tired and do not learn as well; teachers favor hav-
ing the slower learners start earlier in the morning. Mr. Tracy
also spoke of the busing in the school district in attempting to
average out class size to the maximum allowable. He felt that
although double sessions may not affect a child's health now, it
does affect their welfare in the amount of learning and his future
earning power, which would later affect his health, and the health
and welfare of the community.
Mrs. Smedeberg, 555 Teal Court, stated it was her understanding there
has been some discussion of placing the school system on a twelve
month basis, and Councilman Beebe advised her that this has been
under consideration since September, and it was his understanding
that the School District intended to put at least one of the schools
on the 12-month system next summer, and later possibly expand to
more schools.
Mayor Taylor stated that the School Board has considered this for
some time, but it takes special permission from the State to com-
mence the program, and asked Mr. Day if he knew more about the sit-
uation, to which Mr. Day replied it is intended that Rincon School
will be the target school for opening next fall on the 12-month
basis, and a committee is investigating the problems and financing
issue. Mr. Day stated that since he had been on the Board at the
time of most of the discussions, he would like to review for the
Council what double sessions mean to the district and what solutions
have been considered. He stated that for every 500 homes that
bring children into the community, it will take about $16 million
worth of market valued industry to produce a school for that, and
the Council should keep this in mind. There are double sessions
only at the elementary school levels; there are other problems at
the high school level, as they cannot be termed double sessions,
but there is overcrowding. Double sessions reduce a student's ed-
ucation time, cause discrimination in the assignments of optimum
learning time, administrative work load, upset the community balance,
CM-24-440
unbalance teacher loads; there is the problem
of bussing and complicated transportation pro-
blems; it disrupts the family life, and affects
other agencies of government; overloads existing
structures with regard to health facilities.
December 6, 1971
(School District
re Moratorium)
Mr. Day stated there are short term solutions such as maximum
utilization of the existing facilities by using multi-purpose,
music and special rooms, etc.; differentiated class sizes, use
of summer as full school time, larger class size across the board
with the forfeit of a bonus, so-called bonus apportionment; you
can lease and rent facilities which the District is doing; you
can use donated or lease rented housing type structures, which
they have investigated and found to be unfeasible as it is diffi-
cult to get approval from the State; they can purchase portables;
require builders to build schools and homes which they did and
had no response; by gifts and requests they can have people donate
buildings to the District. The long term solution would be to
have legislation enacted to modify the state's school building
aid laws; limit the growth rate and population density by local
ordinance or zoning restriction, both at the city and county level;
and the third thing would be positive consideration in increase
of assessed valuation without adding students. The District has
investigated all of these possibilities; they have all been effected
or in the process or have been termed to be not valid for the
community.
Councilman Miller introduced an urgency ordinance to halt the
issuance of building permits until the present outstanding per-
mits are complete~ew space becomes available in schools above
existing permits ~ new permits may be issued not to exceed the
ava~lable space basea on 1.1 children per dwell;j,ng unit. The
motlon was seconded by Mayor Taylor. ~'~~ .
Councilman Miller felt it would do no gOO~ have a joint meeting
with the developers and the School District, and that a building
freeze should be first introduced, then perhaps later something
could be worked out; he was not opposed to the meeting with the
District and the developers, but from past experience it has been
a waste of time.
Mayor Taylor stated he was more hopeful with regard to the response
from the developers as they had responded wholeheartedly with re-
gard to the water situation, and he would like to hold meetings
with them. Mayor Taylor stated this is an extremely serious matter,
more so than the water issue in many ways, and something must be
done, and regardless of the outcome of the motion, he suggested
a meeting with the representatives of the building industry this
week.
Councilman Beebe proposed an amendment to the motion by having
the Mayor appoint a committee of the City staff and to ask the
School District and builders to participate, and suspend the
effective date of the proposed ordinance for thirty days, however
the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Silva felt that a moratorium on building permits would
cause litigation, and asked the City Attorney about the cost, and
time involved.
Mr. Lewis, based on presumptions, explained the procedure which
would possibly be taken by the courts, making the costs approxi-
mately $5000to $7000, if there is an appeal.
Mayor Taylor explained that it would take a four-fifths vote
for an urgency ordinance to be adopted.
Councilman Silva stated if the motion passes, and they are success-
ful in their negotiations for temporary school housing, it will
remain as such for the next ten or twenty years, however Mayor
Taylor felt there were other means of providing schools.
CM-24-441
December 6, 1971
(School Dis-
trict re
Moratorium)
Councilman Silva felt he must go along with the
City Attorney's opinion regarding building per-
mits, and Mayor Taylor agreed, but he felt our
situation was quite desperate.
Mr. Lewis stated it was clear his examination of those factors
which might be influential to a court, is a matter of opinion;
he did not wish to say there were not arguments in favor of this.
It is possible that the courts might agree that the Council has
a very valid argument in favor of stopping permits, and may up-
hold it, but felt the chances were against that.
The Mayor suggested that someone consider the amendment offered
by Councilman Beebe, however Councilman Miller felt that to post-
pone for thirty days would only compound the problem, and asked
for a roll call vote first. He felt we stand a better chance on
this type of issue on appeal rather than in the lower courts, and
that it was worth the risk as it is based on police powers. He
did not feel that the freeze would have any bearing on whether or
not an industry would locate in Livermore.
The motion failed to pass by the following called vote:
AYES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
Councilman Miller introduced the same motion, but not as an ur-
gency ordinance; motion was seconded by Mayor Taylor.
The intent of the ordinance was discussed and it was determined
that when the problem becomes mitigated that affirmative action
will be taken by the Council to appeal the ordinance, which is the
case of the water ordinance.
The motion failed to pass by the following called vote:
AYES: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
Councilman Beebe then made a motion to immediately set up a com-
mittee and within 30 days consider adoption of an ordinance again;
Councilman Miller seconded the motion, but commented that it was
futile to get a resolution in thirty days, but anything they try
is helpful. The motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A FIVE MINUTE RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
ALL PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD.
*
*
*
The Mayor asked the Public Works Director to give
a brief review of the property in question. Mr.
Lee stated that the Hagemann property is located
at the west end of Olivina Avenue and on this pro-
perty there are from seven to nine trees interfer-
ing with the widening of Olivina Avenue. The staff
had concluded that the trees were from 20-35 years old, but the
owner has had a study made on the trees and has found that they
are much older - somewhere in the area of 100 years old. Mr. Lee
made the suggestion that there be an island around the trees with
one lane of traffic going in one direction, and the other lane
going the opposite direction; if this is done the street will be
14 feet closer to the Hagemann house and it will result in the re-
moval of one building on the property. An alternate plan would be
to leave Olivina narrower at that point, and not widen it at all.
Also a design could restrict parking and place the bike lane through
the trees and the sidewalk on the top of the bank.
WIDENING
OLIVINA AVE.
(Hagemann
Property)
CM-24-442
Mayor Taylor stated that to let the street re-
main narrow would be a great hazard and that
motorists would drive too fast through a re-
stricted area.
December 6, 1971
(Widening of
Olivina Avenue)
Mr. Parness stated that the applicant, Mr. Hagemann, had not
seen or heard the alternative, and he would like to have his
opinion.
Burke Critchfield, attorney representing the applicant, stated
they had not had a chance to review the alternatives or discuss
them with the staff and they would like to have time to make a
decision, and asked that comments be withheld at this time. The
attorney stated that at the time the property was sold the tract
map showed a jog in Olivina and upon expiration of that map, another
was submitted, and that job was taken out. The jog was to permit
a sidewalk to remain outside of the trees, and this was what the
Hagemanns had anticipated. The attorney recommended continuance
of the matter.
Councilman Beebe moved for continuance of thirty days, seconded
by Councilman Silva and received a unanimous response.
*
*
*
The property under discussion is located at
the intersection of Isabel Avenue and U.S.5S0,
composed of approximately 35 acres, and the
owners wish to put in full public works im-
provements but would like the Council to ap-
prove their request for the utilization of
assessment district means of financing for
these public works improvements.
REPORT RE INDUSTRIAL
SUBDIVISION IMPROVE-
MENTS FINANCING
(Isabel Ave. &
U.S. 580 Area)
Councilman Beebe made a motion to approve the use of either of
the two Acts (19ll or 19l5) for the purpose of public works im-
provements, seconded by Councilman Silva, and passed with a unan-
imous vote.
*
*
*
The Mayor stated that the Council had received
a report from the Livermore Community Recycl-
ing Center - that they are contemplating build-
ing a can crusher but have no place to store it
nor power to run it. It is the staff recommendation for the City
to purchase a steel shed at the expense of approximately $275 and
approve provision of electric power.
REPORT RE RECYCLING
CENTER
Councilman Beebe moved to accept the staff recommendation to pur-
chase a shed for the Center and to provide electric power, seconded
by Councilman Miller and voted upon unanimously.
*
*
*
The Mayor reported that a communication was re-
ceived from LARPD, requesting that the Council
institute a positive requirement that would
provide for initial development of park land, and
also requested a joint meeting and study session
with the Council.
COMMUNICATION RE
PARK LAND DEVELOP-
MENT (LARPD)
Councilman Silva stated that if the City is to obtain park land
and the development fees, possibly, they should develop the park
rather than refer it to the Park District, and he would like some
discussion on the matter prior to the meeting with the Park District.
Councilman Silva stated that land is dedicated to the City which,
in turn, is given to the Park District to maintain and operate.
CM-24-443
December 6, 1971
(Park Land
Development)
If the City manages the park land, taxes will have
to be raised to operate under the same budget that
the Park District utilizes because the Park District
operates on a 50i budget.
Councilman Miller stated that it might be advantageous to work
out a reasonable contract with the LARPD for handling park re-
quirements.
Mayor Taylor mentioned that he has no complaints with the way the
Park District has handled the development and operation of the parks
we now have. He asked that a date be suggested to meet with the
Park District for discussion. It was tentatively decided to meet
with the Park District on Wednesday, January 19.
APPEAL RE
VARIANCE
(2152 Second
Street)
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that an application
had been received from Associated Professions, Inc.
(Earl Ising, applicant) to permit the construction
of a building without required parking at 2152 Se-
cond Street. The applicant is asking for a variance
to the requirement for offstreet parking to develop
the rear portion of the lot; access to the lot is through a 5-foot
strip, which is not satisfactory to allow vehicular access. The
staff felt that some offstreet parking could be worked out to aid
development of the property by provision of an easement or some
other method. The Planning Commission has denied the variance pe-
tition.
Councilman Silva stated that he would like to abstain as the appli-
cant is a customer of his.
The Mayor stated that in summarizing, the applicant must provide
an easement or some way to get to the parking area, work out park-
ing facilities with adjoining property owners, or provide parking
in another area to the extent of 600 square feet, and that the
Planning Commission has denied the variance petition.
Councilman Miller moved to support the recommendation of the Plan-
ning Commission for denial of the variance petition, seconded by
Mayor Taylor, and passed with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilman Miller, Mayor Taylor
Councilman Beebe
Councilman Pritchard
Councilman Silva
Randall Schlientz, Architect for Associated Professions, Inc.,
stated that this particular development is unique in that the area
is not accessible, that it is landlocked and that the development
of the property is not going to present a great burden to the
parking availability in this area. He felt that it would not
be a very large variance for the Council to accept as it would
only be for three or four parking spaces.
Mayor Taylor stated that three or four parking spaces sound small,
but there are already parking problems in this area; some of the
owners have asked that the one-hour parking limit be enforced.
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME
CITY COUNCIL
REFERRAL RE
SIGNS
CM-24-444
*
*
*
A report has been received from the Planning De-
partment regarding freestanding signs and those
which are freeway oriented. This proposed ordinance
change was the subject of a public hearing before
both bodies and referred back to the Planning
Commission at the close of the Council's hear-
ing for their comment to the Council's decision
as follows:
December 6, 1971
(City Council
Referral re Signs)
64 sq. ft. at less than 50 ft., with no minimum floor area
175 sq. ft. at 50 ft. to 500 ft. with 25,000 sq. ft. floor area
The Planning Director reported that the Planning Commission feels
that the ordinance should be upheld in its present form and that
if the Council does proceed with an amendment that a more gradual
scale be provided. Mr. Musso stated that they could probably come
up with suggestions for a scale and was so directed.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the staff be instructed to
draw up an ordinance based on the amendment that he formerly pro-
posed, j..e. 64 sq. ft. up to 50 ft. from the edge of the freeway;
50 ft. and over, 175 sq. ft for a 50,000 sq. ft. building.
Mayor Taylor made a motion to amend the 175 sq. ft. for a 50,000 sq.
ft. building, to 120 sq. ft., seconded by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Miller suggested that Councilman Beebe's alternative
and Mayor Taylor's proposed amendment, and Councilman Silva's
alternative be drafted in the form of an ordinance for review and
comparison. This was agreed upon and the matter continued until
next meeting.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the Planning Comission is unan-
imously on record to have the ordinance left as is. He felt if the
ordinance is changed they may be taking a backward step.
*
*
*
At the meeting of October 26, a public hearing
was held on the proposed rezoning of the area
adjacent to Hosker Lane, north of First Street.
This matter was concluded with the decision to
rezone the property to RS-5 District, which was contrary to that
recommended by the Planning Commission; therefore, the matter was
referred back to the Commission for review and report.
PROPOSED REZONING
RE HO SKER LANE
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor both stated their conflict of
interest on this matter and abstained from discussion and vote,
and Vice Mayor Pritchard took the chair.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission considered the
referral and reaffirmed their original recommendation for RS-2
zoning.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to rezone the property from RL-6
to RS-5, introduce the ordinance, and read it by title only;
motion was seconded by Councilman Silva, and by the following vote,
the ordinance was introduced:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
A rezoning application was submitted by Bess
M. Oyler, for the property located at 433
Junction Avenue from RL-5-0 to RM District.
A rezoning application was submitted by Assoc~-
ated Professions, Inc. for the property located
at Portola Avenue and First Street from Rs-4 to
CN, RG-16 and E Districts.
REZONING
APPLICATIONS
(433 Junction Ave.)
(Portola & First St:.)
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous vote, both matters were set for hearing on Jan. 3.
CM-24-44S
December 6, 1971
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MINUTES
Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of
November 2 and 16, 1971 were noted for filing.
*
*
*
A hearing is to be held on December 13 by the
special committee of ABAG to consider reactions
from different sources on their current regional
airport study (RASS Program) and particularly to
solicit the view of interested local jurisdictions.
An official position statement has been drafted for our City and
reviewed by our Airport Advisory Committee. It is recommended
that this statement be approved for delivery to the forthcoming
ABAG hearing.
REPORT RE
ABAG HEARING
(Airport Study)
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, and
by unanimous vote, the recommendation was approved.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
CAPITAL IM-
PROVEMENT
BUDGET
The budget document has been compiled and is ready
for an early study session meeting of the Council
and staff to review its contents. The study ses-
sion meeting was set for 6:30 p.m., December 16,
at the fire station.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
REGULATION OF
WATER & ISSUANCE
OF BLDG. PERMITS
The second reading of the ordinance regulating
the use of water and issuance of building per-
mits had been discussed by the Council twice
previously, however, it failed to receive a
majority vote. The Mayor explained the various
compromises which had been proposed and failed.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Silva, to adopt the ordinance as proposed and waive the second
reading (with the number of lots of record set at 2211).
Councilman Miller commented there are two closely related issues -
schools and water - both of which involve a severe detriment to
the majority of the citizens of Livermore. There was some question
about the legality of adopting a building freeze because of the
schools by some of the Council members, however there is no such
"legal hangup" with respect to water, and it would be possible,
by instituting the building freeze, to protect both the school
system and the public from water rationing. Councilman Miller
made a motion to amend the ordinance appropriately to replace the
number 2211 by zero. Mayor Taylor seconded the motion, but the
amendment failed by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller made another motion to appropriately amend so
the total number approved since July 1, 1971 not exceed 1200.
Mayor Taylor asked Councilman Miller if he would change the number
to 1250, he would second the motion and Councilman Miller agreed
to the change. The amendment failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the ordinance by having
the number of 2211, but not more than 50 permits per month until
July 1, 1972, however Mayor Taylor advised that the numbers were
not mutually consistent and Councilman Miller withdrew the motion.
CM-24-446
December 6, 1971
The main
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
motion failed by the following called
(Proposed Ordinance
re Regulation of
Water & Issuance
of Bldg. Permits)
Councilmen Pritchard and Silva
Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Taylor
The Council discussed the problem of water rationing, and since
there seemed to be no compromise with regard to the proposed ordi-
nance a motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Council-
man Beebe to table the ordinance, however the motion failed by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Silva
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Pritchard stated his reason for not favoring tabling
the motion was that he could not understand why Councilman Miller
feels that 2100 is an unlimited number.
Councilman Miller replied to this by stating the other members
of the Council were forcing water rationing because there is no
limit until after next summer.
Mayor Taylor felt that it is important to place on record, for
the building industry, that there will be no more building per-
mits after a certain number, because to have no ordinance what-
soever, would be to allow matters to go l1to potl1 faster; he did
not think that was very responsible.
Councilman Silva made a motion to introduce the ordinance with
no numbers indicated, but to just allow lots of record; the motion
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Taylor
The City Attorney stated that this would put the ordinance back
to the first reading because there was a change of substance, and
Mr. Musso added that the figure 2211 was based on an estimate
and l1lots of recordl1 is a very specific number.
(See further action later in the meeting)
*
*
*
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 765 RE RS DISTRICT,
SEC. 31.00 re YARDS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED, OF THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO ZONING, AS FOLLOWS: THE A-
MENDMENT OF SECTION 5.00, RELATING TO RS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 5.26 (USES PERMITTED) ,
5.42 a,b,c, and e( (MINIMUM YARDS),5.43 (MAXIMUM DEVELOPABLE
FLOOR AREA), 5.44 (FLOOR AREA), ADDING 5.59 (COMPUTATION -
NUMBER OF PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS AREA), AND DE-
LETING SUBSECTION 5.67 (OFF-STREET PARKING); THE AMENDMENT
OF SECTION 20.00, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, BY THE
AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTIONS 20.50 AIm 20.51 (ACCESSORY BUILD-
INGS);THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 31.00,RELATING TO DEFINITIONS,
BY THE AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF l1YARD,FRONTl1, l1YARD,REARf',
l1YARD,SIDEl1, AND THE ADDITION OF DEFINITIONS OF l1YARD,STREET
FRONTAGEl1 AND l1YARD,NON-STREET FRONTAGEl1.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by the following vote, the second reading of the ordinance
was waived (title read only), and the above ordinance was adopted.
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva
CM-24-447
December 6, 1971
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
SANITARY
SEWER
CONNECTION
FEES
With regard to the ordinance regarding connection
charges for sanitary sewers, Councilman Miller
asked how restricted we are by Phase II.
Mr. Lewis explained we would proceed with the first
reading as there were some changes made, and the
ordinance would become effective after the second
reading and thirty days plus approval by the
federal government as we have written to the Internal Revenue
Service asking approval to institute the charges. Mr. Lewis ex-
plained the change in the formula which necessitated the ordinance
going back to the first reading.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous vote of the Council, the reading of the ordinance
was waived (title read only) and the ordinance was introduced.
URGENCY
ORDINANCE RE
DOG LICENSES
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated briefly that the term,
"poundmaster" is being changed to "Animal Control
Director", and that the fee will be changed from
$3.00 to $4.00; except the fee for spayed females
shall be $2.00. Also, the recording system will
be changed to require the Animal Control Director to establish an
accounting system regulated by the Finance Director.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
by unanimous vote, the reading of the Ordinance was waived (title
read only), and the following ordinance was adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 766
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.11, RELATING TO THE
OFFICE OF POUNDMASTER, AND SECTION 4.22, RELATING TO
THE SUMS COLLECTED, AND REPEALING SECTION 4.20, RE-
LATING TO THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSITION OF LICENSE
FEES, OF ARTICLE II, RELATING TO POUNDMASTER GENER-
ALLY: AMENDING SECTION 4.23, RELATING TO THE CITY POUND,
AND SUBSECTION (a) OF SECTION 4.29, RELATING TO FINES
AND CHARGES FOR IMPOUNDED DOGS, OF ARTICLE III, RE-
LATING TO IMPOUNDING: AMENDING SECTION 4.32,RELATING
TO DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE, SECTION 4.34, RELATING TO
DOG LICENSE REQUIRED, SECTION 4.35, RELATING TO PRO-.
CUREMENT OF LICENSE TAGS AND CERTIFICATES, SECTION
4.36, RELATING TO RABIES TREATMENT BEFORE LICENSE
ISSUED, SECTION 4.37, RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF TAGS
AND CERTIFICATES, SECTION 4.38, RELATING TO ANNUAL
LICENSE FEE, SECTION 4.44, RELATING TO LICENSE FEE
RECORDS AND AFFIXING TAG, AND SECTION 4.45, RELATING
TO DUPLICATE TAGS, ALL OF ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO
DOGS GENERALLY: AND AMENDING SECTION 4.51, RELATING
TO ANNUAL LICENSE FEE AND RENEWAL, OF ARTICLE V, RE-
LATING TO KENNELS AND PET SHOPS:ALL OF SAID SECTIONS
AND ARTICLES BEING A PART OF CHAPTER 4, RELATING TO
ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
ORDINANCE RE
REZONING NO.
SIDE EAST AVE
(Haera)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by the following vote,
the reading of the ordinance was waived (title
read only) and the ordinance rezoning the pro-
perty on the north side of East Avenue from
RL-6 to CP was introduced:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Councilman Silva
CM-24-448
*
*
*
December 6, 1971
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Abatement
Proceedings re Sign~
The City Attorney commented that there have
been citation hearings against billboard own-
ers that have been contested as to our sign
ordinance and he is asking the District Attor-
ney to stop the prosecutions. The City Attor-
ney plans to submit a report to the Council and requests the
Council's authority to commence abatement proceedings in Superior
Court, in the near future, to remove these signs.
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that he has an employ-
ment contract, which the Mayor has already agreed
to, with the federal government under the Emer-
gency Employment Act Monies and would like to
have a resolution adopted authorizing the Mayor
to sign the contract.
RESOLUTION NO. 150-71
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT
(Contract re Federal
Government Emergency
Act Monies)
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote, the above resolution was adopted.
*
*
*
The City Manager stated that he has received a
letter from the School District asking that the
storage fee for portables located on Irene Way,
in the amount of $397 be waived, and the Council
decided to discuss the matter next week.
*
*
*
(School District
Portables Storage
Fee)
The City Manager reported that SB 565 has (SB-565)
passed through both houses of legislature,
which will raise the in lieu fees on cars from 2% to 2.65%. It
is an important measure for local revenue needs which may be
vetoed by the Governor. The City Manager asked the Council for
permission to write to the Governor asking that he give the matter
favorable consideration. Since there were no objections, the
Mayor stated that the City Manager could consider it to be a
direction of the Council.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a resolution was
received from VCSD, urging the General Services
Administration to allow them to receive 25 acres
in the surplus area of Camp Parks for recreation
purposes. Since there were no objections it was
considered an action approved by the Council.
RESOLuTION NO. 151-71
(VCSD RESOLUTION
re Camp Parks)
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT'S
APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR PARCEL A-4,
SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES
BETWEEN U.S. HIGHWAY 50 AND OLD DUBLIN ROAD FOR PARK AND
RECREATION PURPOSES.
*
*
*
CM-24-449
December 6, 1971
FURTHER ACTION
RE ORDINANCE
REGULATING WATER
& ISSUANCE OF
BLDG. PERMITS
reading of the
AYES:
NOES:
*r~.fd7/
(C/l-;;;'1'~) ~
Councilman Beebe announced that he wished to
change his vote on the proposed ordinance re-
garding regulation of water and issuance of
building permits, from "Aye" to "No". He then
made a motion to change "lots of record" to a
total of 1500~t effeotive date of ordinane~
which was seconded by Mayor Taylor, and passed
by the following vote, which waived the first
ordinance (title read only), and introduced same.
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Silva and Miller
Councilman Silva stated that he felt there will be a lot of pro-
blems in deciding who should receive the 1500 permits, to which
the City Manager replied that it would be on a first come, first
serve basis.
(Sidewalks on
Hillcrest Ave.)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva brought up the problem that there
are houses on Hillcrest Avenue that do not have
sidewalks and a citizen of Livermore had asked
that he bring up the subject at the Council meeting.
Mr. Lee reported that the reason there has not been a sidewalk in
the area mentioned is because there is not sufficient right-of-way
width to permit a sidewalk to be put in, but they have plans to
do something about it.
(Regional
Shopping
Centers)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva mentioned that the Valley has
two proposed sites for regional shopping centers,
which happen to be at the other end of the Valley,
and he would like the Planning Commission to
suggest possible sites for regional shopping
before they are used for some other purpose. Councilman Silva
made a motion to so instruct the Planning Commission to investi-
gate sites for regional shopping, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and passed unanimously.
(Illegal Signs
Lounsbury Junk
Yard)
(Smog Free
Cars)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller pointed out that Mr. Lounsbury
had been given an extension and asked that the
City Attorney look into the matter. He mentioned,
also, that there were a number of illegal signs
in Livermore and felt that they should be abated.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller then stated that he had made a
suggestion, about two years ago, that City cars
be converted to liquified gas to help eliminate
smog conditions, and wanted to know what has been
done regarding the matter. The City Manager reported that there
had been a County study, but there has been no follow up as far
as implementing it; Councilman Miller was welcome to see the re-
port. He had expected the County to make some move after complet-
ing the study.
(Truth in
Advertising)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked what had been done regard-
ing the request of a Mr. Broverman to insure con-
sumer protection through "truth in advertising"
on which the City Attorney had been asked to
check the legal aspects. The City Attorney stated that he has
come up with a conclusion but is not prepared to specify details
at this time.
CM-24-450
*
*
*
The Mayor asked that the Council authorize him
to correspond, on behalf of the City, inviting
the officials of Quezaltenango to be present
for the Quezaltenango Parkway dedication, to
which the Council agreed.
December 6, 1971
(Dedication of
Quezaltenango Pkwy)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe commented that he would like
the staff to be instructed to pursue the ex-
pansion of the plant at Zone 7.
(Zone 7 Plant
Expansion)
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
12:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
APPROVE
0/
L~~~
May; r
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of December 13, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 13, 1971,
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:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Silva, Miller and Mayor ~aylor ROLL CALI
Councilman Pritchard (seated later)
-l(-
*
*
Mayor Taylor led the Council members and those present
in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
*
*
-l(-
The minutes of the meeting of December 6, 1971, were
approved as amended, on motion of Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Silva and by unanimous vote.
MINUTES
*
*
*
Kathy Diaz, 476 Tyler Avenue, asked why the lights on
First Street begin to flash at 10:00 p.m. when the
traffic is still quite heavy.
OPEN FORUM
(1st street
Signal Light)
Mr. Lee explained that the lights are controlled by the main highways,
and it has been the conclusion of the Division of Highways and the
traffic staff that the volume of traffic by 10:00 p.m. has been at a
minimum in the past, and predominant traffic is in the east and west
direction.
CM-24-451
December 13, 1971
Mayor Taylor suggested that perhaps the traffic flow should be
checked out and that if the lights were left on the various phases
until 11:00 p.m. the problem might be alleviated.
*
*
*
(Traffic at
4th & Holmes
Streets)
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, asked if a traffic
survey could also be made at Fourth and Holmes
Streets, more specifically the left hand turn
from Fourth to south on Holmes Street. Mr. Lee
advised that this intersection was not fully actuated and there are
some problems and the staff will check into this further.
*
*
*
William J. Herlihy, of the Pleasanton Park and
Recreation Commission, displayed a map of the
surrounding area which indicated the portion
they had earmarked for open space. Mr. Herlihy
stated that one of the concerns is the projected
population in the Valley, and the question is how to accommodate the
people in terms of quality of living and adequate space. Livermore
and Pleasanton are well able to supply open space and park facilities
within their tax dollars. The question is how to provide open space
and felt it was reasonable to consider having large open areas around
and near metropolitan areas. They have considered Pleasanton Ridge,
which is private property consisting of about 20,000 acres. They
are proposing that the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore purchase
the property at appraised marlcet value; if the land is used for liveli-
hood, give the landowner grazing rights at a nominal fee; if he lives
there, give him lifetime estates to his property of five or ten acres
so that the land would be a workable thing and in order that his life
style would not be changed; just acquire the land for open space for
future generations. The project, as proposed, cannot be handled by
the community, however, it needs Federal support in terms of monies,
study, and staff. One of the things presented by President Nixon was
a concern for this type of thing and they are urging, by letter to
our local representatives and Senator Cranston, the administration to
follow through with President Nixon's ideas and have an urban park
policy, and they asked the Council to lend their support in urging the
administration, also. Mr. Herlihy feels that their concept merits
consideration of the Council and hopes to have a committee meeting of
those interested in participating in a study program. He asked that
the Council support the concept by a recommendation or a motion.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Establishment of
Large Open Space
Land Projects)
A motion was made by Councilman r~ller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to endorse the concept in principle and endorse the notion of begin-
ning a study to investigate the feasibility of such a project.
Councilman Silva asked why the area couldn't be expanded, and Mr.
Herlihy replied that he had hoped that Livermore people would par-
ticipate in the committee work and do the extension. He felt that
the area would become larger as the other cities put their input in the
plan.
Councilman Silva asked that the motion be amended to increase the area
to include lands adjacent to Livermore, the motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, mentioned a proposal which had
been presented previously regarding open space for the whole Bay
Area, and one of the key elements of the proposal was that the
level land suitable for development would be developed at a higher
density to have more intensive use of the Valley floor and in exchange
there would be no use for the area proposed for open space. Also
it had been suggested that the land that would be taken off of the
tax rolls, perhaps the Federal Government would be interested in a
swap which would put Camp Parks back onto the tax rolls.
CM-24-452
December 13, 1971
Councilman Miller stated the former proposal was for open space but
did not provide for higher density.
A vote was taken on the motion and approved unanimously.
Mr. Musso stated that the idea of using Camp Parks as a trade for
open space was posed to the GSA by the Valley Planning Committee
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report was submitted by the Chief Building
Inspector regarding building permits issued from
December 2 through December 8, 1971.
Report re
Building
Permits
Councilman Miller commented in this regard stating that with the
amount of homes to be constructed it will cause the schools to
have 32 double sessions after their completion.
Ray Faltings, 1018 Via Granada, stated that he had read an article
which stated there are 45 permits from which there has been no
contribution towards the water activity and he questioned whether
these homes will be allowed to be built and occupied.
Councilman Beebe stated that this is the reason Zone 7 should final-
ize their decision on a regular fund; however Councilman Miller
commented that a better way would be to discontinue issuing permits
until the problem is resolved.
There followed some discussion about the unpaid fees in some instances
and Mr. Parness advised that some developers just refused to pay.
In reply to a question concerning a decision by Zone 7, Mr. Parness
stated that a draft of the ordinance is to be presented to the Board
of Directors on Wednesday, December 15.
*
*
*
A letter of resignation from the Board of Appeals
was submitted by Raymond F. Fish, due to his moving
to Oregon.
*
*
*
Resignation
from Board of
Appeals
(Ray Fish)
The City Manager reported that the School District
has appealed for a waiver of the water storage fee
in the amount of $397, associated with the Arroyo
Seco portable buildings. The City Attorney recom-
mends that no provision exists for the waiver of this
fee. In addition, it would seem inappropriate since without payment
this fee would have to be borne by others. It is recommended that
the appeal be denied.
*
*
*
The Planning Department reports that the landscaping
design for the triangle improvements at the inter-
section of First Street and Portola Avenue has been
completed, the estimated cost of this work being
$3,000. It is recommended that a motion be adopted
authori~ing this project.
*
*
*
A resolution has been adopted by the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors to establish an advisory
committee to set of a "911 Emergency System".
recommended that a motion be adopted appointing
City Manager as representative to this advisory
Report re
School District
Water Storage
Fee Waiver
Report re
First Street &
Portola Avenue
Landscaping
Improvements
Report re "911"
Emergency
System
It is
the
committee.
*
*
*
CM-24-453
December 13, 1971
Resolutions
Denying Claims
Beautification
Committee
Payroll and
Claims
December 3,
approved by
Warrant No.
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
Report re
Festival '71
(CAC)
RESOLUTION NO. 152-71
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM
OF WILLIAM E. LAWRENCE
RESOLUTION NO. 153-71
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF
FLORA SILVA
*
*
*
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meet-
ing of November 16 were acknowledged for
filing.
*
*
*
Two hundred forty-two claims dated December 9,
1971, in the amount of $122,972.92 and two
hundred twenty-nine payroll warrants dated
in the amount of $58,435.00 were ordered paid as
the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from
1279 for his usual reasons.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
Mrs. Margaret Alderson, Chairman of the Livermore
Cultural Arts Council, presented some slides that
were taken at the Festival, and thanked the Council
for their support. Mrs. Alderson stated that the
crowds of people in attendance estimated between eight and nine
thousand and due to the success of the food sales and art sales the
Festival has made enough money to take care of the operating expen-
ses for next year and they will not have to ask for City support.
She expressed hope that the City will continue to give support in
the form of providing the two purchase award paintings to be hung
in the future Civic Center. Mrs. Alderson introduced Mrs. Adele
Pence, the new chairman for the festival next year.
The Mayor, in turn, thanked Mrs. Alderson and the Council for their
contribution to the community and wished the new chairman luck in the
next festival.
Report re
Arroyo Mocho
Property
Development
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the owner of the property
at the southwest corner of East Stanley and Murrieta
Boulevard wishes permission to install permanent
improvements on the Mocho Channel, such as a concrete
wall, which would allow him access to more property
with the fill and would permit the utilization of between l~ and 2
acres~f property that would be put into private professional and
office type use. Mr. Parness advised that he had discussed the
matter with Zone 7 and they have some hesitation about it as it will
require a great deal of engineering considerations on their part as
to the effect of the improvements on the water flow of the channel.
They are also concerned about the loss of the tree growth and wish
to protect it as much as possible.
CM-24-454
December 13, 1~7l
Mr. Parness stated his reason for reporting this
is because of the Council's hope to eventually
implement the Arroyo parlnvay and before pri va te
utilization is made of this property, he felt it important for the
Council to decide \vhether or not the staff should investigate the
feasibility of its acquisition, the first step of which would be to
determine its value.
(Report - Arroyo
y,Iocbo)
Mr. Musso stated that he did not believe this property would ever
become a part of the trailway system, but rather the trail would be
put through the channel bottom and under the bridge.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to have the property appraised and passed after the following
comments:
Robert Allen stated it \vas his understanding that this property was
all zoned commercial in order to provide money to finance the improve-
ment of Murrieta Boulevard.
Mayor Taylor stated that the improvements of the channel have always
been a requirement of Zone 7.
Mr. Musso stated a site plan approval permit has been requested and
he will approve it as soon as he receives a report from Zone 7
regarding the channel alignment.
*
*
-x-
An application submitted by Dan Enos for rezoning on
Enos Way was heard before the Council on November 1,
and 22, at which time the hearing was closed, and
continued to this meeting. One of the problems was the
proper public access through the property.
Report re
Enos Rezoning
need to assure
Mr. Lewis stated that he had met with the attorney representing tbe
applicant, and they have agreed that a floating easement would be
proper to restrict the future use of that property. He explained that
a floating easement was a l5-foot pathway for pedestrian and equestrian
use, running laterally across the property from the street to the
school, but in no particularly described place, within the most north-
erly 150 feet of the property. A floating easement is generally
recognized by title people and attorneys as being a considerable
hindrance to building; it has to be cleared off before they could
build and, since the easement would be in our favor, it protects the
City since we would have to consent and relinquish our easement.
Also, since we don't know what will happen 50 or 75 years from now,
there will be no legal problems; if necessary, we can relinquish it,
if not, we will keep it. We do not want title to the whole 150 foot
area, as it would become tax exempt.
Mayor Taylor summarized the Planning Commission's recommendation to
zone the southerly two acres to RG-16 and the remaining northerly area
to E District with the idea that the Park and Recreation District would
take over the portion as a park. The Park District, however, replied
they did not wish to accept a small portion as a park. The Council
must now decide wbat zoning should be applied to the property. The
Planning Commission has recommended RG-lO, or 32 dwelling ~n~ ts~~v/
Councilman Silva said he would make a motion that the ~~~yL<-t1:,c66<h
acres be zoned RG-lG, but wondered about the northerly section, and
Mayor Taylor stated he would suggest that the whole piece be zoned to
a particular density.
Councilman Miller stated that the property is now zoned RL-6 and
what is being suggested is doubling the density. The problem the
applicant faces is the proper development of their property, but tbat
can be done under cluster at RS-5 which maintains the same density and
leaves flexibility without doubling the density. Councilman Miller
made a motion to rezone the property to RS-5, however the motion faile~
for lack of a second.
CI\I-24-455
December 13, 1971
(Report re
Enos Rezoning)
Councilman Miller further stated it is hard to show
there is a need for multiple, but there is a need
for cluster housing.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the easement from the
property owner for the 150 foot floating easement and to zone the
property to RG-12; motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
The Council discussed the zoning further with reference to the
number of units that could be built in the various zoning categor-
ies, in addition to the easement and the site plan.
Maria Smith, 675 Enos Way, stated it sounded as though this was a
public hearing, and it was her understanding that a report was to
be presented on the negotiations between the City l~ttorney and the
attorney for the applicant. The Mayor advised that the public hear-
ing had been closed, but stated she could speak on the matter. Mrs.
Smith requested that the City Council deny the request to rezone to
multiple for the following reasons: 1) traffic, 2) home owners would
be penalized if apartments are too close to homes, 3) there are
already too many units zoned multiple, but not yet built, 4) water
rationing, and 5) apartments add to the population growth.
Reference was made to a piece of property between Enos property and
the Smith property. Mrs. Smith felt that if the Enos property was
zoned for multiple, the property adjacent to her home would also be
zoned multiple; however, Mayor Taylor stated that the City had denied
multiple zoning on that property once before and did not feel they
would reconsider that again, as it is their intention to leave a
buffer strip to protect the single family properties.
Mayor Taylor stated that the Enos property is surrounded by apart-
ments on the south and on the west and many of the people who had
previously testified were anxious to have something done with the
property other than leaving it an undeveloped piece of land. Also,
the Planning Commission found that it was consistent with the general
plan and recommended a higher density.
The motion failed by the following roll called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard
Councilmen Silva, Miller and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Silva then made a motion to rezone the property to RG-lO
with the floating easement, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and passed
by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Silva and Mayor Taylor
Councilman Miller
Burke Critchfield, Attorney for the applicant, thanked the Council.
He also urged the Council to be very cautious regarding the endorse-
ment of the open space plan unless they have representation from
this City on the committee; also give consideration to the property
owners who are in the path of the plan, and he mentioned that Mr.
Apperson is still a client of his and he will not settle for much
less than two million ($2,000,000.00) dollars.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
NORTHERN CALIF.
OPEN GOLF
TOURNAMENT
The City Manager reported that an application has
been received from our golf pro for permission to
conduct the 1972 Northern California Open Golf
Tournament at our Las Posita~ Golf Course. This
tournament is to be held over a four day span in
August, including two week end days. The two basic problems involved
are - no green fees are paid by the participants and the course would
CM-24-4S6
December 13, 1971
have to be closed for public play durinG this four
day ceriod. Cancellation of public use of the
facility is a matter to be weighed since it would
represent a loss of revenue approximating $3,500.00; however, in
compensation the PGA makes a $1,000 donation, but more importantly,
local community expenditures would approximate $225,000. In addition,
publicity value of this event would be inestimable. The Greens
Conunittee has discussed this matter in detail anrl .ioins in recommend-
ing that the City Council grant its approval for this event.
(Golf Course
'l'ournmnent)
The Council discussed the matter in some detail, and Councilman Silva
stated he agreed with the concept, and hoped a sponsor can be found.
He made a motion to endorse the recommendation, seconded by Councilman
Miller.
Councilman Pritchard expressed his concern that the City would be left
with a deficit, even with the $1,000 donation, as he felt this tourna-
ment was not a big one and would not draw big name pros and he felt
that there would not be a lot of advantages to the City.
Councilman Silva felt that Councilman Pritchard had brought up a lot
of good points and felt, if there was a loss, it should be looked
upon as an advertising fee and felt our returns will be much greater
in the years to come because of the tournament; Couneilman Beebe
agreed that it would be a better way of advertising than the Dews
media.
Mayor Taylor felt if someone would sponsor the tournament, it would be
an outstanding business deal for the City; if all it would cost is the
four days of public play and roughly $1,500 loss, it would be well
worth it.
Councilman Miller stated this was not an unreasonable advertising
expense and would support the motion.
Ha:T 11'81 tings agreed with Councilman Pritchard and if there is only a
loss of $1,500, that is one thing, but questioned other figures and
stated that we have a moral obligation to break even on the golf
course and an obligation to the taxpayers. Mr. Faltings was assured
that the City was not involved in the various expenditures listed.
The motion passed 4 to 1 with Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
*
*
*
The Public Vlorks Director has recently completed an
Arroyo Parkway Study I'Jhich addresses itself to several
Questions which were asked by the City Council and
Planning Commission. The Planning Cornmission has
studied this and adopted it, essentially, with reservations on the
flow figures and proposEB that it be implemented as a general plan
revision, and Mr. Musso advised that it will be used pending its
formal adoption. The Public \'lorks Direc tor explained that the
Planning Commission had 8sked that the study be made to determine
i'Jhat factors c ontri bute to the flows in the arroy-os through the
planning area of the City and to consider some methods that might
be used to reduce the ultimate flows, and by doing so to save some
of the natural qualities such as the trees, brush and meandering
effects of the streams. In addition, the City Council asked that
some standards be established for the arroyo parkways. Mr. Lee
stated they had investigated methods that might reduce the flows
in the arroyo, such as impounding reservoirs upstream, density
control in the tributary areas and diversion of the storm '.'laters,
2nd the Arroyo Mocho was used as an example. First, they investiga-
ted the impounding reservoir on the Arro:,ro I/locho, but felt the cost
was completely out of line and he explained the reasons for his
thinking. As far as density control, in the developable area vJhere
there is less than 1 slope, there would be a saving of about 7%
if the density was reduced from 3 to 1, and would save about 3% in
the right-of-way width which is needed, but is not a significant
REPORT RE
ARROYO P ARKVJAY
S'rUDY
CM-24-457
December 13, 1971
amount and not a very useful way of reducing the
flow. Third, they considered the diversion of
storm water through a channel to the Arroyo Del
Valle, which would allow a diversion of about LtO%; however, again
the savings was not very promising. The balance of the report
deals with standards concluding that they could not reduce the
flow economically just for this purpose. What was considered in
the study of the standards was to carry the ultimate storm flow
and include space adjacent to and around the channels on both
sides or in the middle to recreate the natural stream appearance,
as a considerable portion of the natural growth would have to be
removed to accommodate ultimate flow. Mr. Lee displayed several
drawings, one showing an exaggerated vertical scale of a typical
arroyo parkway and another showing it to proper scale and explained
the storm flows and how they would be confined to the various areas
and one of the areas he referred to was the "freeboard" zone, which
is an extra safety that must be included because in unusual situa-
tions there may be flooding in the parkway although normally this
would not occur. Mr. Lee stated if 850 feet were to be developed
on either side and excess land contributed rather than parks, this
would provide enough land to widen the channel; also, if they
devoted monies for improvements in the arroyo parkway area rather
than the normal improvements in a park there VJould be more credits
than there would be estimated expenses for the minimal type of
development in the arroyo parlnJaY. He stated that taking all the
major arroyos through our planning areas, it was determined that
what he called the "contributing zone" would comprise 15;6 of the
planning area and would absorb 15% of our park effort in the commu-
nity to provide the parkways.
(Arroyo Park-
way Study)
Mayor Taylor asked if trees could be planted in the Ilfreeboard zone II
and pathways installed, and just accept the fact that maybe every
100 years it would flood, and Mr. Lee stated that was true, but
there could be other factors that might cause flooding in that zone;
however, there could be mounding in the area. Mayor Taylor also
asked if the Flood Control District would approve the plan, and Mr.
Lee advised that the plan had been referred to Zone 7 and he did
expect them to adopt the plan.
Councilman Miller stated it was surprising that a reduction in density
has so little effect. He also commented that these could not be
called natural channels, but rather they will be sculptured, and in
time there may be some trees growing in them; the attractiveness of
the arroyos now will not be reflected in these designs, but it is
better than cementing them over. He felt that the idea for provid-
ing for the parkways through park dedication was unwise, as the people
living within 850 feet of the arroyos also need neighborhood park
facilities. He thought it would be better to use storm drain monies
for providing the extra width in the arroyos, and another source of
money could be the park tax.
Councilman Beebe thought perhaps some of the money for the development
of the reservoirs could be derived from storm drainage fees.
Mayor Taylor stated that the financing for the implementation of the
plan could be taken up later, as they should be careful in consider-
ing parl{ dedication money for this purpose. He shared the concern
about the natural appearance of the arroyos; however, you cannot
handle flood waters unless the channel is shaped properly.
Mr. Lee stated that normally most of the arroyos are inadequate, as
nature provides them that vJay, and they are designed to flood
occasionally. When there is development, they are inadequate.
Councilman }liller stated this implies there are areas which are sub-
ject to flooding, and if so, they are flood plains. If this is the
case, there exists a flood plain zoning so you don't have to develop
in flood plains, then why do we not have flood ~lain zoning to take
care of the situation.
CM-24-458
Mr. Lee stated that would have to include the
entire Valley, and explained what might happen
in the event of flooding.
December 13, 1971
(Arroyo Parkway
Study)
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation for preliminary approval of the Arroyo Park-
way Study, subject to later consideration of financing. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Miller, and passed unanimously.
Robert Allen asked if we are forming a Livermore Flood Control
District, and if RO, perhaps we should withdraw from the Alameda
County Flood Control District. He also commented that it was
almost inconceivable to him that there could not be impounding
reservoirs upstream on the Arroyo Mocho at a reasonable cost.
Mr. Lee explained the volume of water and what would be necessary
to reduce the peak flow, stating the cost could not be justified.
*
*
*
At the direction of the City Council the Plan-
ning Commission reviewed the matter of swimming
pools within front yard areas, and recommended
no further restrictions.
SWIMMING POOLS IN
FRONT YARDS
Councilman Miller stated the issue was the distance between the
fence and the swimming pool. There was a lot of concern during
the public hearing for a child scaling the fence and falling off
the top directly into the water. It was his understanding that
the Planning Commission did not consider this aspect, and he felt
that this matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission
and this one point taken into account in the ordinance.
After some discussion, the matter was referred back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration of this setback.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission submitted a resolution
with regard to location of professional offices
in certain zones and, more specifically, veter-
inary hospitals.
RESOLUTION RE
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
Councilman Pritchard commented on one item with regard to the
disposal of animals by incineration, and advised that the incin-
eration methods used by veterinarians now are fully approved by
the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, and he did not feel
the need for this restriction, and suggested that the staff ask
the BAAPCD for comments in this regard.
*
*
*
Summary of action taken at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of December 7 was noted for filing.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to waive
the first reading and adopt the ordinance,
with the comment that he was concerned about
the method of distributing the permits, but
felt that a compromise is necessary to have
an effective ordinance. The motion was se-
conded by Councilman Beebe.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
BY PLANNING COMM.
ORDINANCE RE REGU-
LATION OF USE OF
WATER & ISSUANCE OF
BUILDING PERMITS
Mayor Taylor stated that since there have been many hours of
discussion and he felt the arguments were clear, if there were
to be any comments, he asked that they be brief.
CM-24-459
December 13, 1971
(Ordinance re
Bldg. Permits)
Councilman Miller commented that we have already
lost $6500 in water connection fees not collected,
and since this may continue, he felt we should
wait until Zone 7 makes the fee legal.
Mayor Taylor felt that it was important to adopt some type of
limitation so the building industry is aware of the Council's
position; however, he did feel the number specified was too large.
By the following called vote the ordinance was adopted.
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
Councilmen Silva and Miller
Robert Allen presented a copy of the ordinance with some changes
he had made and suggested perhaps the Council might want to change
the wording slightly.
ORDINANCE NO. 767
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF USE
OF WATER AND REGULATING THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMITS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND CERTAIN MANUFAC-
TURING AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
SANITARY SEWER
CONNECTION FEES
The City Attorney advised there had been a few
minor changes made in the ordinance which sub-
stantially changed the substance; therefore,
the ordinance must go back to the first reading.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the first reading of the
ordinance was waived, (title read only) the ordinance amending
Section 18.2, relating to connection charges generally, of Article
I, relating to general provisions, of Chapter 18, relating to
sewers was introduced.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
REZONING HOSKER
LANE AREA
With regard to the rezoning of the Hosker Lane
area, Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor stated
their conflict of interest in the matter, and
Vice Mayor Pritchard was asked to take the chair.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Silva, the
reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following vote,
the ordinance rezoning the H~sker Lane area from RL-6 to RS-5 Dis-
trict was adopted.
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
ORDINANCE NO. 768
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE
REZONING NO.
SIDE EAST AVE.
(Haera)
ORDINANCE NO. 769
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
CM-24-460
December 13, 1971
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the foregoing ordinance re-
zoning the Haera property on the north side of
East Avenue from RL-6 to CP District was adopted
by the following vote.
(Ordinance Rezoning
No. Side East Ave.)
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilman Silva
*
*
*
Iilr. Musso advised that he had attended the hearing on
the Kaiser matter and that the public hearing was
continued until January 18, in Pleasanton, for public
testimony.
MA'rTERS
nUTIATED BY
STAFF
(Kaiser)
*
*
*
Mr. Lee reported regarding the sidewalks in the vicinity
of Hillcrest and East Avenue and displayed a drawing
indicating two lots adjacent to the Interfaith Housing
that do not have sidewalks. He advised there is a problem with the
right-of-way which projects into the street and there is some question
as to whether the City can require these sidewalks under the state
statutes. He suggested that we proceed with the posting of the area
and if possible have them installed. If there is a problem, the only
thing would be to acquire the additional rights-of-way to accomplish
this.
(Sidewalks)
( t/dL~, &A1 ('[~ )
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to post the lots and proceed with the processing, and
passed unanimously.
Mr. Lee stated that with regard to the other area in the vicinity,
just west of Hillcrest Avenue, the City has been in the process of
acquiring the rights-of-way, and the matter may be resolved soon.
*
*
~~
IVlr. Parness advised that the &1'1001 District has (VJaiver of
applied for waiver of the sewer connection fees for Fees ..:2?~N'c.--
several relocatable and several school class addi tions, l!.:>Z-7~:t1 7"A2'.-li
the total connection fees in the aggregate amount to $11,826." is~
waiver has traditionally been granted with tbe exception of requiring
payment of a token fee on the base rate per structure.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
waive the fees as recommended, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Crosswinds
Restaurant
( Interpreta.-
tion of Sign
OrdinClnce)
Mr. Parness stated it was necessary that he have the
Council's interpretation of the sign ordinance in
regard to the golf course restaurant.
I'llr. Ivlusso explained that under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
there are three considerations, one of which, in the first month, is
fairly extensive signing for tregrand opening. As far as permanent
signing, it is in the ID Zone, and in that zone there is allowed a 100
square foot wall sign, plus 12 square feet for each additional use, or
they are allowed to have the 64 square foot non-electrical 8 feet high
freestanding sign. One thing that requires interpretation is v;hether
or not this would normally be allowed as a freeway related sign if it
were within 500 feet of the freeway. The question is whether or not
the golf course would constitute the site for the restaurant and,
therefore, be within 500 feet of the freeway, to allow them to have a
freeway related sign of 64 square feet within 50 feet of the freeway.
It is possible that a temporary sign might be provided until there is
an integrated sign program at some later time.
CI,I- 2.l~- L~6l
December 13, 1971
(Sign Ordinance) Councilman Miller felt it was not unreasonable
to interpret the ordinance that the site extends
to the freeway and made a motion that they be allowed a 64 square
foot freestanding sign on this basis, but with the understanding
that when the City considers an integrated siGn program the signs
would be done in one consistent way. Councilman Pritchard seconded
the motion.
Councilman Silva felt it was an undue ha~dship on the applicant to
invest in a freestanding sign that might only be temporary.
Councilman Pritchard felt it was not a matter of the Council allow-
ing the sign, the ordinance states they are entitled to one on the
premises and that is the golf course. Councilman Pritchard there-
fore withdrew his motion.
Mayor Taylor stated the entire Council agreed on the idea of inter-
preting the golf course as the site and allowing a 64 square foot
freestanding sign properly located. He would like the owners to
understand that the City may sometime in the future consider an
integrated sign program.
Mr. Parness felt it would be fair to advise the occupant that the
Council does want to have the City's sign changed to bring it into
conformance and perhaps we could discuss with them the consolida-
tion of the two at an apnrooriate time.
*
*
*
(Parallel Signs) Councilman Silva stated that parallel signs are
still a concern to him and illustrated several
examples of parallel signs, stating these businesses do not have a
fair advantage in these instances, as do businesses with trilon
signs or those that have buildings strategically located to allow
signing such as the State Savings and Joan. Councilman Silva made
a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard to refer the examples
illustrated to the Planning Commission for consideration and
possible amendment of the sign ordinance.
Councilman ~liller disagreed with the arguments presented by Council-
man Silva in favor of a change in the sign ordinance, but did agree
that commercial corner properties do have an advantage and because
they are corner lots they have a much higher market value.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Silva
Councilman Miller and Mayor Taylor
*
*
*
School
Housing
Councilman Miller stated the newspaper reported the figures
given by the School Board; it is important for people to
recognize that it costs $2,300 per house to provide for
schools which the community has to subsidize, and he suggested that
whatever is worked out with the developers regarding schools should
approximate that figure.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor reminded the Council that on Tuesday, December 21, the
subcommittee of the Council is to meet with the School District
representatives and the Builders, and he and Councilman Beebe would
attend.
*
*
*
AD JOURNr1ENT There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to
an adjourned meeting on Thursday, December 16, 1971, at 6:30 p.m.
at the Rincon Fire Station, 951 Rincon Avenue, for a budget session
to study the capital improvements budget.
*
*
-l(-
CM-24-462
APPROVE_~ (or~
~,~
~Clerk ~
Live e, Callfornla
December 13, 1971
(Adjournment)
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of December 20, 1971
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 20, 1971
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.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Pritchard, Silva, Miller
and Mayor Taylor
ABSENT: Councilman Beebe (Vacation-Excused)
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 13, 1971, MINUTES
were approved as amended, on motion of Council-
man Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Silva and
by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
The motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, CORRECTIONS TO
seconded by Councilman Miller, to correct the MINUTES (Dec. 6)
minutes of December 6 to reflect that the count-
ing of building permits issued is to be commenced
on November 8, 1971, as requested by Councilman Beebe. The motion
received a unanimous response.
*
*
*
The Mayor invited anyone in the audience wish-
ing to speak on any subject not listed on the
agenda, to address the Council; there was no
response.
OPEN FORUM
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report was received from the Chief Building
Inspector indicating the number of permits
issued from December 9 through 15, 1971, to be
three permits issued during this time.
Report re Building
Permits
Councilman Miller commented that none of the three have paid the
water connection fees, and that the number of permits issued has
nearly doubled since last year.
*
*
*
CM-24-463
December 20, 1971
Communication
from Livermore
Bikeways Assn.
A copy of a letter was received from the Livermore
Bikeways Association addressed to the Alameda
County Director of Public Works regarding the num-
ber of people that ride bicycles who travel on
East Avenue.
The Planning Director asked that the Council note that a joint
meeting is to be held with Mr. Lee, Livermore Laboratory represen-
tatives, bicycle riders and him to discuss the problems of travel-
ing East Avenue on bicycle, sometime after the first of the year.
Communication
of News Facts
re Taxes
Report re
Tree Donation
*
*
*
A report of News Facts was received from the Alameda
County Taxpayers Association regarding taxes, and
giving side-by-side comparisons of the Watson and
Jarvis Amendments, which are attempts to limit the
tax rate, and which would radically change the tax
structure.
*
*
*
The City Manager reports that Mr. and Mrs. Joseph
Tinney have donated a sum of money for the purpose
of purchasing a number of small trees or one large
tree to be planted in a city park area and dedicated
in memory of Mr. John Boggs, a recent traffic fatal-
ity in Livermore.
Our Park and Tree Superintendent has recommended that the funds be
used for the purchase of one Liquidamber, approximately 10 ft. in
height, in a 15 gallon size for placement in Centennial Park. It
is further suggested that the widow, Mrs. Judy Boggs, be notified
that this tree placement is made in memorial to her late husband.
Report re
1970-71 Capital
Improvements
Departmental
Reports
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE RE
FINANCIAL
SUPPORT
through funds
CM-24-464
*
*
*
A report was received from the Director of Public
Works regarding acceptance of 1970-71 Capital Im-
provements Projects. Work has been completed on
several capital improvement projects and they are
recommended for formal acceptance by the City.
*
*
*
Departmental Reports were received as follows:
Airport - activity and financial - November
Building Activity - October and November
Fire Department - October and November
Golf Course - November
Municipal Court - October
Police and Pound Departments - November
Water Reclamation Plant - November
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Silva, and by unanimous vote~ the
Consent Calendar was approved.
*
*
*
Mr. Parness~ the City Manager~ explained that the
Chamber of Commerce receives an annual allotment
to take care of their administrative overhead and
the Council considers projects determining whether
or not they should receive financial support. The
Christmas decorations are paid for by the City
accrued from a surcharge on business license fees.
December 20, 1971
The Chamber of Commerce is requesting that a
flat fee be given them equivalent to 10% of
the annual business license fee accruals which
would cover all projects as well as Christmas
decorations.
(Chamber of Commerce
Financial Support)
Mr. Milt Codiroli stepped forward to answer any questions the
Council might have regarding the request, stating that the Chamber
of Commerce will organize their affairs in order that they will
not have to receive monies from the City to aid in any project.
He estimated that the business license fees will be approximately
$90,000 which will give the Chamber $9,000 with which to work,
as they wish to be self-sufficient.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the recommendation of
the City Manager to give the Chamber of Commerce 10% of the busi-
ness license fee accruals, seconded by Councilman Silva
The City Attorney stated that it would be advantageous to require
the Chamber to submit a letter listing the expenditures and certi-
fying expenses on advertising the City.
Councilman Miller pointed out that tax money collected is public
money and to use this as overhead is a gift. Also, groups paying
property tax would be able to request 10% of the money for their
organization's use. He felt that since the Chamber of Commerce
is a private organization, it is an unreasonable gift of the tax-
payers' money to support their operations. He also commented
that those who do not wish to pay for City Christmas decorations
should not have to be included, and if the business community
wishes to use Christmas decorations, they should raise money for
this purpose.
Councilman Miller suggested that the matter be tabled until after
elections, and made a motion to that effect, but the motion died
for lack of a second.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner, questioned whether the business license
fee is based on a new structure and wanted to know if the Chamber
would receive much more than $9,000 a year after the City obtains
a Finance Director. He stated that the Finance Director is in
charge of business license fees and that Livermore has been with-
out a Director for over a month and felt that the $90,000 estimate
might be out of line. He stated his concern for this estimate
becoming appreciably higher in the future and since it is public
funds, perhaps a little more control should be maintained.
Mayor Taylor added that he felt the Chamber of Commerce does a
great service to the community and that the money for the Christmas
decorations has been quite proper, but it might be unwise for the
Council to allow the Chamber a flat percentage with which to con-
duct business.
Mayor Taylor made a motion to table the matter until January 10,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and received a 3-1 response
with Councilman Silva stating that he was undecided.
Earl Mason stated that there were two ordinances - 1) the basic
business license tax, and 2) a tax override ordinance that added
10% to the business license tax for the purpose of providing
Christmas decorations at the wishes of the businessmen; therefore,
this 10% belongs to the merchants and is not part of the general
fund and not public money. He wanted to clarify that this is the
10% the Chamber is asking for and that they are willing to pro-
vide the City the same services and pay their expenses out of
their own money, not public funds of City money.
*
*
*
CM-24-465
December 20, 1971
The Planning Director explained that the shopping
center has been a problem and a controversial issue
since it was zoned or issued a Planned Unit Develop-
ment permit around 1956 or 1957. He stated that
recently there has been a request to eliminate the
PD permit and for multiple residential zoning; the
PD permit was eliminated but the request for rezoning was denied.
Mr. Musso pointed out the commercial zoning line on a map and stated
that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the original
application, subject to a reduction of units and additional setback,
and that they attain ownership of a triangular piece of land which
is part of the tract. All other conditions are outlined in recom-
mendations to the City Council dated December 17, 1971 and the staff
report dated December 7, 1971. Mr. Musso also mentioned that CN
zoning can be used for any use with a Conditional Use Permit. He
reported, also, that at the public hearing the residents of Inter-
faith Housing Development and the tenant of the Louis Store support-
ed the application; those in opposition were the property owner of
Louis Store, the Belz ownership and other property owners in the area.
.
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
(Interfaith
Housing)
Mayor Taylor felt that the Council had enough evidence before them
in order to come to a decision without holding another public hearing.
The City Attorney stated that it was not necessary to hold another
public hearing unless the Council would like to take public testi-
mony or hear from the public and since there is no time limit it
is up to the Council.
Councilman Miller felt that whether another public hearing is held
or not, the property owners, applicants and anyone wishing to speak
on the matter should have a chance to do so.
Mayor Taylor stated that unless a motion is made to set a date for
a formal public hearing that they would continue with other matters
on the agenda. He then asked if there was a motion.
Councilman Miller stated that he would like to hear from the public
before a motion is made.
Jack Phillips requested that a formal hearing be set and that a
full Council be present before he presented his testimony.
Paul Weiss, 6852 Mines Road, President of Interfaith Housing, asked
that the Council give approval for 26 units so they could commence
processing with BUD for the additional triangular piece of property,
which they feel can be done. He expressed the need of the community
to supply housing for people that have lived here for years but do
not have means to support themselves on their small pensions in a
community that has grown as fast as Livermore, since most of the
housing is located in modern commercial developments. Mr. Weiss
explained that they would like to maintain limited access to the
property to keep unwanted salesmen and a number of visitors from
parking there, but the Fire Department needs ample room to get their
trucks to any of the units. They have taken care of this require-
ment by installing rolled curbs, which the trucks can cross if
necessary, and if California Way is opened they may put up a barrier
made of rubber that the trucks can cross. However, they prefer to
have one access only.
Councilman Silva stated that the triangular parcel (east of the pro-
perty in question, adjacent to Hayes Ave.) as well as the other
parcel of land adjacent to the area in question (a 50xlOO ft. par-
cel east of Hillcrest Avenue) should be purchased in order to
eliminate two parcels of land remaining undeveloped.
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street stated that the density for the
property is 17 per acre and the average overall density will be
20 per acre. He feels that special privileges have been given to
CM-24-466
December 20, 1971
vested interests, and stated that this property
requested multiple zoning twice before and was
turned down, and this time it was approved. He
also commented that the Planning Commission de-
signated that this approval is non-transferable. He feels that
Interfaith Housing has received special privileges in this case.
He stated that the parcel, which is a little over three acres,
is too small for the type of development proposed, and that it
should be located in an area that can be expanded.
(CUP-Interfaith
Housing)
Arthur Belz, 1201 Oaks, San Leandro, owner of the undeveloped
piece of property in the shopping center stated that he had given
Lincoln Lumber Company a 50-year land lease on the property, but
Lincoln Lumber went broke in Roseville and the property was never
developed. He stated that it was no fault of the City that Lin-
coln had to cease operations. In his opinion, the property should
remain commercial, as the boundaries are defined and planned for
this purpose, and they would like to be able to attract substantial
tennants. He stated that to reduce the center to less than six
acres would make it economically unfeasible.
Gene Dupzyk, 4179 stanford Way, stated that he did not know how
the Council could deny the RG-16 Zoning that Lincoln requested on
two occasions and than allow RL-6 to be zoned CN to try to promote
the property development. He felt that this was possibly the rea-
son Lincoln Lumber let the land be sold at a tax sale and that
Lincoln has cause for a suit, should this application be approved
giving the zoning Lincoln requested to a different interest. In
his opinion he could not see how the Council could, in good faith
to the owners and residents, change the zoning of this property
for Interfaith Housing.
Harold Wiesner, 883 Adams Avenue, stated that he does business with
Louis store and uses the drug store for prescriptions, and would
like the area to remain a viable shopping center. He feels that
the acquisition of the triangular piece of land should remain a
contingent part of the agreement or ruling of the Council. He
stated that Interfaith Housing has been in touch with the owner
of the triangular piece of land asking what price the owner wants
for the property. However the owner has not decided on a figure,
and Mr. Weisner feels that this is being unreasonable, as this
could hold up the project of Interfaith Housing. The assessment
on the property is approximately $3,500, which he feels the Inter-
faith Housing could probably afford, but the owner has to come up
with a price. He would like to see the housing development go
ahead with the building with the stipulation that they would pur-
chase the property if the limits are within their capability.
Mr. Weiss explained briefly that Interfaith Housing is a non-profit
corporation comprised of various churches in the Valley as corpor-
ate members, with a Board of Trustees to operate the corporation.
It is a permanent entity established for the purpose of supplying
the need for this type of housing in Livermore.
Jack Phillips added that if he was not mistaken, the Planning
Director approved this for the exact same reasons he had opposed
it earlier.
Councilman Silva stated that he felt this is a special privilege
but that there are times that special consideration is given to
fill a gap in community needs, i.e., housing for the elderly. He
feels very strongly that the two remaining parcels should be pur-
chased either by Interfaith Housing or the adjacent property owners,
or they will become weed patches.
Councilman Pritchard stated that if Interfaith Housing does not
purchase the two remaining p8rcels of land that the owner will soon
be asking the Council for a variance for these two parcels.
CM-24-467
December 20, 1971
(CUP-Interfaith Councilman Miller stated that the Council is in
Housing) no way obligated to grant the owner of the parcels
a variance and asked Councilman Pritchard why he
felt the Council is required to grant a variance.
Councilman Miller felt that when a man buys property for $2,300 and
knows the conditions at the time of sale, they are not required to
allow a variance on his property.
Some discussion followed regarding required setbacks as stated in
the zoning ordinance.
Mayor Taylor stated that this is a unique case and that he would
hate to see approval tied to the acquisition of the two remaining
parcels. He mentioned that this land was divided into different
ownerships and the City has done all they could in trying to preserve
the shopping center by renewing permits; also, the land could have
been purchased by the joint owners to provide a viable shopping cen-
ter. Instead, the land was divided into three ownerships, and he
felt that the Council has no obligation to try to put together these
three pieces in order to provide a viable shopping center.
Councilman Silva restated his motion to agree with the Planning Com-
mission's recommendation and approve the CUP, subject to all condi-
tions as outlined with the exception that the triangular parcel
(along Hayes Street) be acquired by adjacent property owners; the
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously.
The City Attorney commented that according to the Zoning Ordinance,
Sec. 28.51 (c) certain findings have to be made that there will be
no adverse affects on the abutting property, and asked if the motion
was directed toward the construction of these units, i.e. no con-
struction will be allowed unless someone purchases the triangular
piece of land, to which Councilman Silva answered that that was the
intent.
Councilman Miller expressed his concern for the density problem in
this area, stating that he was opposed to apartments of the usual
nature in this area and will continue to do so, and that a lot of
others are concerned with higher density in this area. He stated
that he is presuming the Council, when they approved the first Inter-
faith application, made it clear that this would not be a prece-
dent for multiples of the usual kind. He stated that there are
equities on both sides making it hard to make a decision, and men-
tioned that if a CUP is approved that it is easier to control acti-
vities on the property than if a rezoning takes place. He agreed
that the City has an obligation to house lower income people and that
the Interfaith Housing Project is a bona fide locally administered
lower income project that the City needs.
*
*
*
RECESS
After a 2 minute recess, the meeting resumed with
all members present except Councilman Beebe.
*
*
*
Mayor Taylor briefly reported that a report had
been received from the Planning Commission re-
commending that property located in the easterly
extreme of the City bounded on the north by Inter-
state 580, on the east by Greenville Rd. and on
the south by the Southern Pacific tracks be rezoned from U (Un-
classified) District to Zoning Districts provided by the Zoning
Ordinance.
ZONING DISTRICTS
(Greenville Rd
& US 580)
AMENDMENT RE
DESIGN REVIEW
A recommendation has also been received regarding
possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance (Sec.
22.00 and other appropriate sections) to provide a
Design Review procedure.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote, the two above items were set for public hearing
on January 10, 1972.
CM-24-468
December 20~ 1971
A report was received regarding the regulation
of sanitary land fill operations and the sto-
rage of garbage~ refuse and waste within cer-
tain areas within the City. It was decided
that this may more properly be made a part of
the munj6ipal code and the City Attorney was directed to prepare
the amending ordinance for later discussion by the Council.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of December 7 and
the summary of action taken at the meeting of
December 14 by the Planning Commission were
acknowledged for filing.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director
re freeway sign ordinance amendment. A motion
was made by Councilman Miller to continue the
matter until January 3 when they have a full
Council; motion was seconded by Councilman Prit-
chard~ and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
REGULATIONS RE
LAND FILL AND
REFUSE STORAGE
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT (Freeway
Signs)
The City Manager reported that the City Attor- REPORT RE SEWER
ney advises that sufficient funds be deposited DISCHARGE LITIGATION
by the City with the court involving a recent
lower court decision against the City~ the
amount approximating $113~OOO. In so doing~ the interest rate
accrual set at 7% would be prevented during the appeal process.
The funds would merely be kept in trust for the City in the event
of favorable appeal decision and would be reimbursed to us~ toge-
ther with the interest they have earned during their trust stay
in court. It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing
this fund deposit.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard~ seconded by Councilman
Silva~ and passed unanimously~ to authorize the court deposit of
funds regarding sewer discharge litigation.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 770
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION l8.2~ RELATING TO
CONNECTION CHARGES GENERALLY~ OF ARTICLE IA RE-
LATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS~ OF CHAPTER Ib~ RE-
LATING TO SEWERS~ OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE~ 1959.
ORDINANCE RE CHARGES
FOR SANITARY SEWER
CONNECTIONS
On motion of Councilman Pritchard~ seconded by Councilman Miller~
the reading of the ordinance was waived~ and by the following vote~
the above ordinance was passed.
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard~ Silva~ Miller and Mayor Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that the
Council had approved additional excavation of
the Civic Center site by removing material and
replacing it with top soil~ backed by a bond
to guarantee that the work would be done. Be-
cause of the delay on the freeway project~ this material
be removed for awhile - there are 70~000 yards that must
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Grading-
Civic Center Site)
will not
be hauled
CM-24-469
December 20, 1971
(Grading-Civic
Center Site)
away plus a stockpile of boulders. They are ask-
ing for a delay to which Mr. Lee is suggesting
they be given a 150 day delay to complete all the
work, provided they obtain a bond insuring that
the work will be done within 150 days.
Councilman Miller stated that he has received a number of complaints
about the noise and dust from the area, and feels that 150 days is
excessive.
Mayor Taylor stated that he could sympathize with the residents
who complained to him also, about the noise and dust, however the
material cannot be removed until they have a place in which to put
it, and about the only alternative would be to ask them to move
it to another location and then to the freeway, but felt it was
unrealistic to shorten the 150 day delay time in hopes that the
freeway project will be accelerated.
Mr. Lee stated that they have been very cooperative in that when
complaints were received regarding dust, trucks kept the area water-
ed down, and that they did not begin work until after 6:00 a.m.
and stopped working before 6:00 p.m.
The Mayor stated that if no objections were raised, it would be
considered Council approval to allow the 150 day extension. The
Council also directed that the work commence at 7:00 a.m. rather
than 6:00 a.m. which is to be included in the contract.
The City Attorney suggested the Mayor should be authorized to exe-
cute this agreement. Councilman Miller made a motion to authorize
the Mayor to execute any modified agreement regarding the excava-
tion, seconded by Councilman Silva, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
(Sidewalk
Repair Bids)
The City Manager reported that bids for the side-
walk repair have to be awarded; that there are
370 sidewalks remaining to be done, and that the
work will commence January 15.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
following resolution was passed by unanimous vote:
RESOLUTION NO. 154-71
RESOLUTION AWARDING BID
Mayor Taylor asked the CitJ Attorney to furnisll a report regarding
the method of payment for sidewalk repair to be given at the next
Council meeting as people have been asking if they can make pay-
ments on the installment plan.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Trailer
Storage)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated that a number of people
have approached him regarding parking trailers in
front yards, and asked that this item be scheduled
on the agenda for the next meeting.
The Mayor stated that there are too many people interested in the
subject to discuss the issue next week, and asked for a report as
to the status of the situation.
Councilman Silva suggested that the item appear on tbe agenda on
January 24, which met with no opposition from the Council, and the
Mayor asked that they receive material related to the item a week
early.
*
*
*
CM-24-470
,
I
December 20, 1971
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the Mayor, on behalf of the Coun-
cil and the staff, wished everyone a Merry
Christmas and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE ~.. L;a~
j .1 (' / /
ATTEST ' )~~----
. "-C-i ty Clerk
ve~more, California
CM-24-471