HomeMy Public PortalAboutCC MINS 1970
December 22, 1969
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Commendation
Councilman Miller, the City Council adopted
a resolution commending P. IHchael Uthe for his participation in
the Valley Planning Comnittee. The motion was adopted unanimously
with Councilman Uthe abstaining.
RESOLUTION NO. 208-62
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING COUNCI1J:.1A2~ P. IGCHAEL UTEE
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting adjourned at 12:00
midnight to an executive session to discuss the
:::~::~~
ATTEST ol~i::! -
L '. ore, California
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of January 5, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
January 51 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. ~he meeting was called to order at 8:02 p.m.
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Uthe
and Mayor Marguth
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
Councilman Taylor
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the City Council
and those present in the audience in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
Mr. Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, referred to OPEN FORUM
a report re progress, prevention and control
of air pollution which is the second report (Air Pollution)
of the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare to the Congress of the United states, dated January 1969,
and pointed out three things: 1) the report indicates an inverse
relationship between air pollutant concentration and property
values; 2) through the Air Quality Act of 1967 there is a
mechanism through the Air Pollution Control Com~ission for
intrastate hearings on abatement procedures possible to local
governments; 3) a planning procedure for emergency abatement.
*
*
*
CM-22-24l
January 5, 1970
COUNCILMAN TAYLOR was seated during the above comments.
*
*
*
The Planning Director outlined the original
application submitted by Dan Christopolous
for rezoning of property from RG-16 and
RL-6 to CB for the purpose of building an
automobile service station at the corner of
Murrieta Blvd. and Holmes Street and stated that the Planning
Commission, in reviewing this application, initiated action for
the expansion of the area of consideration to include: "Holmes
Court," rezoning from RL-6 to RG; property at 1208 and 1229
Fourth Street, rezoning from RL 5-0 to Residential Districts
provided by the Zoning Ordinance; "Centennial Park," rezoning
from RL 5-0 to E District; "Hansen Park," rezoning from CO to E
District. The expanded area would then be in line with present
ownerships.
PUBLIC HEARING
SW Corner
Murrieta Blvd.
and Holmes St.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recom-
mended denial of the Christopolous application and that the
RG-16 (Residential) District remain as existing. Rezoning would
be inappropriate in this area, and the use would destroy the
integrity of the area as a rather stable residential use area.
The Planning Commission was also concerned with the precedent
which might be set as far as the other corners involved. The
Planning Commission further recommended that "Holmes Court" be
rezoned to RG-10 to recognize the existing and planned use of the
area which is higher density residential; the Marguerite/Holmes st.
corner property, which is a duplex, to RL-6 to make it compatible
to the remaining zoning in the area; "Centennial Park" to E District
and "Hansen Park" to E District.
Mayor Marguth acknowledged a letter received from Keith Fraser,
attorney for the applicant (Christopolous), which requested that
the rezoning be tabled, and asked the City Attorney if it would be
possible to table this one portion as requested and act upon the
others, and was advised by Mr. Lewis that this would be possible.
The Council discussed the request for continuance, and it was their
decision to proceed with the public hearing.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Eugene Hale, 1170 Glenwood Street, voiced his objection to a
service station.
Mr. Howard Schmalley, 1259 Marguerite, stated he was opposed to a
service station and felt that the residential area had been under
pressure from business for some time in various ways and needed
protection. He did favor the other rezoning as outlined.
There being no other comments, on motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, by unanimous approval, the public hearing was
closed.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and passed unanimously, to adopt the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Prior to the vote, Councilman Uthe stated that it would be proper
to grant one continuance to any applicant whatsoever; however, in
terms of the land use planned for this area he was firmly opposed
to a service station on this corner but did feel that they should
have granted the one continuance, and Mayor Marguth concurred with
this statement.
*
*
*
CM-22-242
January 5, 1970
The Planning Director generally outlined the
property recently annexed to the City which
is partially bisected by Murrieta Blvd. and
presently used in part for an automobile
service station, which use had been con-
sidered to be appropriate along with other
uses such as commercial office. The Planning Commission concluded
that the automobile service station site be zoned CO-H (Commercial
Office-Highway Combining) and that the remainder of the area be
zoned CO (Commercial Office) District.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE ASSIGNNENT
ZONING CATEGORY
(S tanley Blvd.
Annex No.4)
The Mayor opened the public hearing on the assignment of a zoning
category to the recently annexed area known as Stanley Boulevard
Annex No.4.
Mr. Dave Edwards, owner of the property, stated he would like to
have CO-H District zoning for the entire property which had been
anticipated when the annexation was entered into, inasmuch as
a restaurant and possibly a motel was planned for the area, and
the CO zoning would not permit this use except under a Conditional
Use Permit. Mr. Edwards stated he did not feel that the area
could be developed as an office complex as the shape did not lend
itself to office use.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Councilman
Silva, seconded by Councilman Hiller, and approved unanimously
to close the public hearing.
Mr. Musso explained that at the time the assessment district
was discussed, it was requested that a plan be developed that
would support the cost of an assessment district, and a list of
uses was set up that had no bearing on zoning, such as service
stations, restaurant, motels, lodge halls, some type of amuse-
ment uses, or a church.
The Council discussed the CO and CO-H Zoning Districts and the
control contained therein; the fact that the justification for
the assessment district was the service stations which are now
constructed. Councilman ~ilva made a motion to rezone the
. entire area to CO-Hi however, the motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Taylor stated the City could not possibly have an
infinite variety of zoning categories and felt it was to their
best interest to rezone to the CO category, and made a motion
to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, seconded by
Councilman Hiller, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCILMEN Miller, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
COUNCILMAN Silva
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Manager reported that our bond
attorney has prepared a new ti~e schedule
for our LDC Project and the formation of the
Assessment District associated therewith.
This is the first step in these proceedings which is the cancel-
lation of the previous actions taken last~ring, and a resolution
was prepared rescinding the action.
Downtown Develop-
ment Assessment
District
RESOLUTION NO. 1-70
RESOLUTION RESCINDING ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON APRIL 7, 1969, IN DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERHORE, ALAHEDA COUNTY, CALIFOFNIA
*
*
*
CM-22-243
January 5, 1970
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
Written communications were received from the
following:
Cities of Los Angeles, Richmond, and Sacramento in reply to the
City Council's request re ability to qualify for allocation of grade
separation funds.
Housing Authority advising term of Warren W. D:tvison as Commissioner
of Housing Authority expires on January 26, 1970.
Charles J. Conrad, Chairman, American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, re participation in bicentennial celebration.
Beautification Committee re services of City's Landscape Architect
for landscape master planning at certain schools. This letter was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion as an agenda item
at the next meeting.
*
*
*
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Exempt business license applications were received
from the following:
Children's Home Society, Toyland Chapter - sale
of tickets for movie day.
Livermore-Pleasanton B.P.O.E. 2117 - solicit
money January 9 to 26 - Gatti-Charles Circus -
proceeds for Cerebral Palsey Program.
*
*
*
Minutes -
Planning
Commission
Minutes were received from the Planning Commission
for the meeting of December 16, 1969.
*
*
*
Payroll and
Claims
One Hundred ninety-nine claims and two hundred
twenty payroll claims, dated December 30, 1969,
in the amount of $193,241.90 were presented to
the Council and ordered paid as approved by the
City Manager. Councilman Silva abstained from
voting on Warrants 5978 and 5843 for the usual
reason.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, and passed unanimously,
approving the items on the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
TRAFFIC VOLUME
STUDY ALTERNATE
PLANS FOR
PUD #3 ~lEND-
MENT
Public Works Director Daniel Lee submitted a
report re the traffic volume stUdy, in accordance
with the Council's instructions, which presented
three alternate street patterns which are being
considered as part of the modification of
PUD No.3 as follows: 1) elimination of Martha
Street or Norma Street extension; 2) extension of the Norma Street
over to Charlotte Way; 3) extension of Martha Street southeasterly
to Charlotte Way.
Mr. Lee explained the traffic study which was made, based on the
information in the Traffic Engineering Handbook for the Institute
of Traffic ~ngineers, and stated that the conclusions were a
summation of the study and did not include a recommendation as to
which street should be the choice. There are many other considera-
tions to be taken into account as to the proper solution. From
the standpoint of traffic volumes which are normally considered to
CM-22-244
be acceptable within residential areas, either
Plan A, B, or C would be satisfactory accord-
ing to engineering standards.
January 5, 1970
(Traffic Volume
Study Alternate
Plans for PUD #3
Amendment-cont'd)
Councilman Uthe concluded that the issue is
that this is an approved PUD which has been under way for many
years and untouchable because it is a PUD and demonstrated the
difficulty of using a PUD in zoning type matters. The people
expected Norma Way to go through when they purchased their homes,
and he felt that the City should proceed with the original PUD,
with the recommended changes submitted by the Planning Dept.,
which are the closing of Roslyn and realignment of Charlotte Way
and the moving of the shopping center, and multiple development.
Councilman Hiller stated that the issue really before the Council
was only whether or not to close Norma Way; Mayor Marguth stated
the issue was traffic circulation; and Councilman Uthe stated
the question was whether the neighborhood wishes to have a 50 ft.
landscaped buffer between the single family homes and the
multiple or do they want a series of duplexes with 5Q ft. back-
yards and a street as a buffer. 1811 M(~~~ )
r ( Jz;C1.!,::.J::-, .
Mr. Musso explained that the proposal before the Council was the
street alignment, 6.78 acres of commercial area and one-story
multi-family housing on the north side of Norma Way.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission
that the extension of Norma Way between Martha and Charlotte Way
be carried through. The intent of the motion was discussed, and
the motion was reworded to state that the Planning Commission's
recommendation to retain the original extension of Norma Way to
Charlotte be adopted and to delete Roslyn Street.
Mr. Anthony Varni, representing the applicant, Kaufman & Broad,
Inc. asked to confirm one point which resulted somewhat in the
last amendment of the PUD which was that the street alignment
was their attempt to conform with the conditions placed on the
extension of the PUD, which were that the convalescent hospital
and professional offices be removed from the front of the
development. This is their reason for appearing before the
Planning Commission and Council. They will take the plan back
to the Planning Commission, based on this ruling now that the
streets are laid out and commercial is somewhat indicated on
the east end of the property, and hope they will be able to bring
it back to the Council so that by spring they can begin to build
on the property. In other words, they are not trying to revise
the map, but are trying to comply with the conditions of the
extension.
Dr. Joseph Plumer, 5271 Irene Way, thanked the Council for
upholding the homeowners in keeping Norma vJay open. Dr. Plumer
also stated his view that ecology was more important than profit
and the developer has an obligation to close the school/park/play-
ground gap which will exist as a result of their proposed develop-
ment of multiple dwellings.
Pat Gildea, 5333 Sandra Way, submitted a statement which in
effect states support by the residents in the area for the
continuance of Norma Way through to Charlotte as originally
shown on the PUD, and this was signed by about 150 residents.
Hr. Husso asked the Council if they were amending the PUD or
only commenting on the Planning Commission's findings. There
followed a discussion regarding the action referred to the
Council, and Councilman Miller stated that the motion was designed
only to resolve the question of the streets and to allow the
Planning Commission to continue with their discussion on the
amendments, and then ultimately the Co~~cil would see all of the
CM-22-245
January 5, 1970
(Traffic Volume
Study Alternate
Plans for
PUD #3 Amend-
ment - Cont'd)
amendments as recommended by the Planning
Commission at which time they would make
their final decision.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission
had completed their study, and it was now up
to the Council to approve one of the exhibits as submitted.
Councilman Silva stated if there was not a motion on the floor
he would approve what was recommended by the Planning Commission
and asked the Planning Director to restate the recommendation.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission recommended amendment
of Planned Unit Development Permit No.3 in conformance with
Staff proposal X-2.
Councilman Silva made a motion to amend the main motion to include
the Planning Commission's amendment to PUD No.3 as per Plan X-2.
However, Mayor Marguth ruled that the amendment substantially
changed the intent of the motion, and therefore disallowed the
motion. Mayor Marguth stated he was not concerned except with the
Planning Director's interpretation of the action required of the
Council.
Mr. Musso stated that the action required was to accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation to amend the Planned Unit Development
Permit No.3, or the other alternative was to give it a preliminary
approval and send it back to the Planning Commission.
The City Attorney stated he did not see the relevancy of other
matters after the motion is voted upon. If the Council would consider
it like a zoning, they could then send it back to the Planning
Commission with a comment; if they consider it in some other light,
then they should have further consideration as to the specifics as
to what is involved in this plan as not much had been presented in
this regard.
Mr. Varni stated that in the interim between the Planning Commission
and this meeting with the Council they agreed to the extension of
Norma Way and would rather have it approved as the Planning Commis-
sion approved it; then they would come back with a site plan review.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission acted in response to
Mr. Varni's letter, which was in response to the Council's condition
that he amend the PUD, and the recommendation given was a very
positive recom~endation on the part of the Planning Commission for
Exhibit X-2.
Councilman Miller commented that the reason he wanted to send it back
with the question of Norma Way resolved was to not freeze the rest
of the Planning Department's discussion with the applicant.
Mayor Marguth stated that if the action in the eyes of the Director
of Planning can best be resolved by the Council moving away from
this particular direction of discussion back to consideration of the
proposed realignment of the entire PUD, then it would be in order to
withdraw the motion and to discuss an entirely different motion and
enter into a presentation of what is proposed for the area regarding
development and related matters. Further, it is his interpretation
that by the adoption of the motion on the floor, the Council is con-
curring with the general traffic plan in the area, and they are
concurring basically with the realignment or the reorganization in
the area which the Planning Commission has approved in Exhibit X-2.
He is not of the opinion that the Council has to act on a specific
amendment and asked to be corrected if he was wrong on that point.
Mr. Musso advised that this is what was requested by Mr. Varni and
was what the Commission recommended--a change in alignment.
Councilman Taylor stated he felt they should proceed with the
general discussion re commercial and multi-family residential
CM-22-246
Councilman Miller withdrew his motion and
Councilman Uthe withdrew his second in
order to discuss the issue further.
January 5, 1970
(Traffic Volume
Study iUternate
Plans for
FUD #3 Amend-
ment - Cont'd)
realignment, and felt that the motion should
be amended or restated.
Councilman Uthe made a motion to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation and amend the PUD, seconded by Councilman Silva.
Councilman Uthe commented that by the ti'ne they have finished
discussing the amendment, they might want to change the location
of the shopping center, and Mr. Musso replied that they had
considered every angle, and generally the commercial is in
conformance with the CN zoning regulations and the multi-family
would be in conformance with the RG zoning regulations. The
only change is in eliminating the convalescent hospital and
commercial office area.
Councilman Hiller questioned the setbacks and asked if it was
possible to impose some larger setbacks than 15 feet and was
advised by Hr. Musso that it was inappropriate at this time.
Mayor Marguth asked the staff if there were questions on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the intent of which
is to discontinue the proposed use for the convalescent hospital
and medical center, to relocate the shopping center to the corner
of Charlotte and East Avenue, and to continue the RG-16 zon1ng.
Mr. Musso added that all townhouse types of development could
not be readily accommodated on this site without some further
amendment.
The Council discussed the relocation of the shopping center in
relation to adjacent property, landscaping as a buffer, use of
masonry wall, or both. Mr. Lewis advised that the developer
had implied they were contemplating bringing in specifics regard-
ing development of the property; if the landscaping was an issue,
it would be proper to continue the matter and ask that the design
be presented by the developer, and the Council could designate
what is desired.
Dr. Plumer commented that the property owners were not interested
in the small shopping center proposed, but they were concerned
about the large number of units planned for the area and the
little amount of open space.
Councilman Hiller made a motion to amend the main motion to approve
Exhibit X-2 to include provisions within the amended permit to
allow review of buffering between the CN, the RM to the north,
and RS-5 to the east, and subject to revision of setbacks in
the duplex area north of Norma Way, and the motion for amendment
was seconded by Councilman Uthe.
There followed a discussion relative to special setbacks; whether
change in amount of setbacks would be considered a zoning change;
and whether setbacks could be changed in a PUD. Councilman
Hiller commented that the existence of PUD permits is a mechanism
whereby the developers can get around the other provisions of
the zoning ordinance, and he felt they are a disadvantage to the
City. Also, he felt when there is an opi'ortunity to buffer
single family residential, the City should take advantage of that
opportunity, and this could have been resolved if the permit had
not been extended.
Mayor Marguth called for the vote to amend the main motion and
repeated the motion; Councilman Miller stated it might be wise
to split the amendment to the motion into two parts. Councilman
Uthe suggested that the one amendment be for landscape and design
review for the CN District.
CM-22-247
January 5, 1970
(Traffic Volume
Study Alternate
Plans for
PUD #3 Amend-
ment - Cont'd)
A vote was then taken on the first amendment to
provide for the possibility for increased setback
on Norma Way, and the motion failed 4 to 1 with
Councilman Miller favoring the motion.
A vote was then taken on the second motion to
amend to provide as a condition of the permit that design review on
the separation between the RM to the north and the RS-5 to the east
be included, to be reviewed by the Staff and the Commission as a
condition of the permit, and this amendment passed by unanimous
vote.
The main motion as amended is to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation of the Proposal X-2 with the singular provision that an
additional factor be included in the amended permit to allow for
review by the City of the buffering between the RM to the north and
the RS-5 to the east. The motion passed unanimously after the
following discussion.
Mr. Kenneth Bandtell, 1352 Kathy Court, stated that he was opposed
to the deletion of Roslyn Way, mainly because there is no other
access to Wagoner Farms other than East Avenue. When and if
Charlotte Way becomes a collector street, then it would be another
ball game. If the street is abandoned and the developer sells to
another developer and it is decided to change the plan, they have
given up a street, and felt this should be carefully considered.
Mayor Marguth advised that Roslyn Way is not a dedicated street and
the property owner has the right to put a barrier there if they
choose, and was advised by Mr. Lee that there is a barrier now, and
the Fire Chief is also concerned about the access to the tract and
is interested in being able to get into the tract by way of Roslyn
prior to the time the collector street is put in, which will be soon.
Mr. Musso commented that with Charlotte Way installed, Roslyn Way
would provide no real function for major traffic in the area. The
Council asked the Staff if it was reasonable to request that Roslyn
be left as a fire truck access until Charlotte Way is completed,
and was advised that had been done. Mr. Varni stated that the City
had requested them to put up the barrier inasmuch as there was a
certain amount of danger in using a street that is not a dedicated
street.
Councilman Hiller questioned whether there could be public cul-de-sacs
or some kind of public streets to serve the proposed multiple dwell-
ing units. If the PUD is approved, then the Council has completely
foreclosed themselves from requiring public streets in this area
later, and was advised by Mr. Musso that this was in the design area
and we would have no control if they come back with a conforming plan.
The City Attorney advised that if it is contemplated that a sub-
division map will not be filed, then there should be a condition in
the permit in regard to streets and their conveyance to the City if
they are going to be public streets, but this will not be known
until we get more information from the developer.
Dr. Plumer asked whether the Council feels that the decision to
place 320 townhouses in a 20-acre lot is immutable, and asked if
the Council had no conscience or feeling for the school board or
the children in the area with no playground, and what recourse the
private citizens had to get the Council to look at the situation
as a whole and not as something they are anxious to have developed
as it was a mistake in the first place to put it out so far.
Mayor Harguth advised Dr. Plumer that they had no choice in the
matter at this time as the permit had been extended until September.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the main motion that the
City may require construction and dedication of a public street
CM-22-248
January 5, 1970
within the RG-16 zone in the area, however,
the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Uthe stated that usually the
Council does not want streets in an RG-16
zone as the City does not want to pay for
the service costs, but wants to protect the location of the
drives so that the public safety on the streets in the area is
not handicapped and to make sure that the buildings conform to
the fire code so that fire and police protection can readily
be given to the residents of the property, and by these require-
ments the plan has a detailed design review. If the plan does
not meet the required standards, the permit will not be granted.
(Traffic Volume
Study Alternate
Plans for
PUD #3 Amend-
mend - Cont'd)
Councilman Niller asked if what Councilman Uthe stated about
public streets was true and the City does have authority to
require public streets and drives within an RG-16 area on the
grounds of traffic safety on the periphery, then there is no
need for his motion.
He was advised that we could require that it meet certain
standards but could not require that it be a dedicated street.
Hayor Harguth summarized the issue by stating that the City
does control driveways and has public safety factors that can
be taken into consideration in the approval of the design.
Planning Commissioner Glen Coffey suggested that the Council
require a design review of the RG area by the Staff before the
permit is issued, and Mr. Lewis stated that the original motion
was much to that effect.
Mayor Narguth summarized the action taken on the PUD permit,
and Mr. Varni stated the applicant's agreement to the action.
*
*
*
AFTEE A SHORT RECESS THE HEETING WAS CALLED BACK TO ORDER 1.^1I TH
ALL PRESENT.
*
*
*
The City Attorney briefly reported on the
status of the Lounsbury property and its use.
Mr. Lounsbury was found guilty on two counts
of violation of a County Ordinance requiring a permit to run a
junk yard and violation of the zoning ordinance which did not
permit a junk yard in that particular location. The judge
suspended sentence so long as Mr. Lounsbury commenced an
application to secure a valid permit to operate within 90 days.
If he did not select that option, he had another option to
commence not later than the 90 days to clear up the property
and remove the violations. According to the judgment roll,
Hr. Lounsbury has one year from the date of the trial (which
was in September) in order to perform, and until that one year
is up he will be within his rights as long as he makes an effort
to continue the removal.
LOUNSBURY
LAND USE
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has submitted for
the Council's information a suggested
recommendation for the operating agency
of the Del Valle Reservoir requesting the
prohibition of engine powered boats. A further concern was also
expressed regarding the possibility of smog generated by vehicles
en route to the reservoir and its effect on adjacent vineyards
as well as possible pollution of the water, erosion of banks,
and the incompatibility of power boating with other activities
DISCUSSION RE
DEL VALLE
RESERVOIR USE
CH-22-249
January 5, 1970
(Discussion re
Del Valle
Reservoir Use-
Cont'd)
conducted in the park reservoir facility. The
Commission also stated their awareness of the
fact that legal jurisdiction of the facility
does not rest with the City; however, the area
is within the Livermore Planning Area and for
that reason should be of concern to the City.
The Council discussed the recommendation and also the conern they
have with the access to the sit~; concern with the recent news-
paper articles which listed a 2% increase in smog without taking
into account other factors which might apply and other conclusions
which might be reached; the possibility of opposition to any
development of the lake; and the question of access to the lake
other than at the extreme southern end as now contemplated.
Mr. Michael MacCracken, 818 Mayview Way, an interested citizen and
chairman of the Del Valle Committee (which has been working for
a quiet lake), expressed some concern with the environmental
problems, how noise would affect the recreation use, and stated
his feeling that since the area is within the General Plan of the
Cit~ the City and its citizens should take a stand on the issue of
use of the lake. M~ MacCracken indicated some further concern
regarding off-road vehicles intruding on the enjoyment of others,
water pollution resulting from power boating, and urged the use of
electric motors only.
Dr. Don Watson, 987 Via Seville, of the Clean Air Coordinating
Committee expressed concern with the smog aspects and what the
Council can do about it and commended the Council for telling the
State what to do in many regards, but felt something could be done
here. He advised that on January 14 there will be a public debate
with representatives from Standard Oil, PG&E, and General Motors
to tell what they are doing about the problem. Dr. Watson stated
as far as lake usage is concerned, this community will have to pay
the price. There is a law that all water resource lakes will have
to be developed for reC1'eation; so the lake will be a tourist
attraction, and we will have to consider a very limited opening
to the public so it is not a question of power boats.
Fred Rienecker, 2075 Buena Vista Avenue, stated this was an issue
of power boats and offshore vehicles versus the environment.
Dr. Plumer commented about the cigarette smokers and potential
dangers of smoking, especially in theatres, which he felt to be
even a bigger issue than the smog problem.
Councilman Taylor is to prepare a proposal for next week's agenda
stating a suggested policy of the City Council for possible adoption.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has expressed its
concern with the use of motorized scooters,
trail bikes, motorcycles, and similar vehicles
on public landS, particularly lands owned by the
City and park areas which are undeveloped and
unsupervised. Many of these vehicles are operated on private lands
without permission of the land owner and are frequently being
operated by children or other unlicensed operators, often to the
detriment of adjacent property owners. The Commission suggests
an ordinance be passed or some other method be employed to
prohibit or regulate this type of activity, and also to recommend
to the Recreation District that attempts be made to find suitable
areas where this activity can be conducted.
MOTORIZED
VEHICLES ON
PRIVATE
PROPERTY
Mr. Milo Nordyke, 2143 Chateau Way, and Richard Mallon, 4664 Almond
Circle, complained of cycles in Robertson Park and Almond Avenue
Park respectively, indicating the hazard of using such vehicles
where children could be playing and horses using the trails, in
CM-22-250
January 5, 1970
addition to the noise of such vehicles.
}ir. Arnold Kirkewoog also complained of the
same problem in the Sunken G~rdens.
Mr. Chuck Kent, 480 Kent Court, and Mr.
Jerry Bohan, Pleasanton, expressed their problem in having no
place especially set aside for riding their vehicles.
(l-'Iotorized
Vehicles on
Private
Property-Cont'd)
Councilman Uthe made a motion to endorse the Planning Commission's
report, requesting the staff to investigate the methods by
which motorized cycles can be regulated within the City and to
prepare appropriate ordinances where necessary and to convey
the feeling of the people who testified before the City Council
and the Planning Commission that there is a need for controlled
areas for these bikes. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Taylor and passed unanimously. The need for a controlled area
should then be referred to LARPD, and the group of cyclists
which is preparing such a bike area should contact LARPD and
possibly they could work in conjunction with the District.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained the various
riding trails planned for the area, and the
parkways which include some riding trails as
well as hiking and biking trails. It was decided to proceed
with the installation of the horse trail on Ouezaltenango
Parkway, and the bids will be solicited.
QUEZALTENANGO
PARKWAY DESIGN
Councilman Uthe made a suggestion to install the trail system
as designed as it will not be used for horses right now as
there is no connection at the other end. Then the trail will
be there if the City needs that traffic pattern for horses.
It can always be converted back to turf at a later date.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has submitted for
the Council's information a copy of the
water service area which the Cdlifornia
Water Serice Company has submitted to the
PUC to show two proposed extensions of their service area. One
of the areas overlaps the City area; however, it is anticipated
that City water would not be available here due to delays in
the extension of Zone 7 water lines to the west. No action was
recommended and the report was filed.
CALIFORNIA
WATER SERVICE
A.BEA
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 699
AN ORDINANCE AHENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY A}1END-
ING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO IDNING
ORDINANCE RE
ZONING NE CORNER
HOLlvlES ST. AND
CONCANNON BLVD.
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the follow-
ing vote, the above ordinance rezoning the northeast corner of
Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard from RL-7 (Low tensity
Residential) to Rs-4 (Residential) District was passed.
AYES: COUNCILMEN Miller, Uthe, and Taylor
NOES: COUNCILMAN Silva and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
CM-22-25l
January 5, 1970
ORDINANCE RE
SEC. 23A.12
UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES
ORDINANCE NO. 700
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23A.12, RELATING
TO RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPERTY OWNERS, OF
CHAPTER 23A, RELATING TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES,
OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only), and
by the following vote, the above ordinance was passed:
AYES: COUNCILMEN Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe, and Mayor Marguth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCIL
(Townhouses)
(Design Review
Ordinance)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor stated that townhouse develop-
ment is the coming thing and felt the RS ordinance
was designed to encourage cluster development and
the RG allows for apartments, and asked if the
City needed to do anything regarding townhouse
proposals as he did not feel they fit into either
zoning category, and after some discussion it was
decided to discuss this further at a later date.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that about a year ago
the Council instructed the staff, Planning
Commission, and Beautification Committee to draw
up a design review ordinance and was advised that this would be
coming up in the near future.
(Appeal re
Sign)
*
*
*
The County Planning Commission had approved a
billboard for Kaufman and Broad, and Councilman
Miller suggested that the action be appealed to
the Board of Supervisors. The argument is that this is a finger
in the City, and all the developers should be treated equally and
not allow a special privilege to one. The City Clerk was instructed
to prepare a formal appeal with regard to the matter.
(Smoking in
Theatres)
was instructed to
places.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that it had been suggested
that smoking should be prohibited in theatres and
felt it would be a good idea, and the City Attorney
check into the laws governing smoking in public
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1 a.m.,
to a short executive session to discuss nominees
to the Planning Commission.
ATTEST
CM-22-252
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of January 12, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
January 12, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor,
Uthe, and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT: None
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Uthe, and by unanimous vote, the
minutes of December 22, 1969, were approved as
amended.
MINUTES
*
*
*
The Mayor invited any person in the audience
to address the City Council on any subject
not on the agenda; however, no comments were
voiced.
OPEN FORUM
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Investment Committee, consisting of the
Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, Finance
Director and City Treasurer, has met to
review the status of the investment of inactive
funds. Interest earnings totaled $70,560.00. The report
generally explained the investment policy regarding the deposits
(bank time deposits and treasury bills). Because of the change
in rates paid by investment in treasury bills, it was unanimously
concluded that $275,000 would be transferred to federal bills
and the remaining $150,000 should remain in equal time accounts
in the three local banking. institutions in accordance with the
policy of the Investment Committee.
(Report re
Investment
Committee)
Councilman Miller suggested that $15,000 be placed in time
deposits in each bank with the balance to be invested in treasury
bills. The City Manager explained, generally, the philosophy
of the committee in making its recommendation, and it was decided
that no change be made at this time; however, a further report
was requested to be made in thirty days.
*
*
*
A request has been received from the Livermore
Rodeo Association for permission to use the
Civic Center site for a carnival during the
annual rodeo celebration on June 13 and 14. It
that permission be granted subject to the usual
property use as follows:
(Rodeo
Carnival)
was recommended
conditions for
2.
Public liability insurance to be filed with the City
prior to the date of the show in the amounts of
$100/$200,000 bodily injury and $10,000 property
damage, naming the City as additional insured;
Upon vacancy, the grounds and facilities shall be left
in at least as good condition as when occupied; and
No structures, off-street parking of vehicles, or any
form of use shall be permitted within fifty (50) feet
of the improved grounds of the public library. Further,
the dirt roadway extending fro~ So. Livermore Ave. to
the library off-street parking lot adjoining Pacific
Avenue shall remain unobstructed.
1.
3.
*
*
*
Ct1-22-253
January 12, 1970
(Livermore
Development
Assessment
District)
The Bond Counsel has advised that certain pre-
liminary action be taken in the formation of the
Assessment District as follows:
1. Boundary Map - filed
2. Resolution approving boundary map
3. Resolution of Preliminary Determination
4. Resolution appointing Special Bond Counsel
and authorizing execution of agreement
5. Resolution Directing Preparation of Debt
Limit Report
6. Resolution requesting Jurisdiction of the
County for making Improvements and Acquisi-
tions within the Unincorporated Area of the
Livermore Development District.
(Mr. Ness, present at the meeting, advised that the resolution of
preliminary determination was not ready for passage.)
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, urged the Council to defer any action
on the Livermore Development Commission Flan. As an experienced
railway engineer he has worked in the Engineering Department on
three railroads and is aware of the problems that come from rail-
road relocations and feels that a shallow cut would be better than
the design which has been proposed. On behalf of the American Tax-
payers Union, he mentioned that BART holds the key to LDC, and
without BART, LDC is a white elephant; further, to gate all major
railroad crossings not now protected with automatic crossing gates
costs roughly $25,000 per crossing and would provide almost the same
safety as grade separations at one-fortieth of the cost. Existing
commercial frontage on P Street and Livermore Avenue and First Street
would not be destroyed as they would be within the LDC plan. If
BART comes, the picture changes because there would be no streets
that cross BART at grade and grade separation would be essential.
Mr. Allen urged the Council to demand a BART engineering study to
determine if the LDC project would be compatible with the BART line
now or later as the savings would be tremendous.
RESOLUTION NO. 2-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 1-70
RESOLUTION APPOINTING SPECIAL BOND
COUNSEL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 4-70
RESOLUTION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF INVESTIGATION
REPORT, LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 5-70
RESOLUTION REQUESTING JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITIONS
AND/OR LEVYING ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
*
*
*
CM-22-254
Mrs. Valerie Raymond, president of the League
of Women Voters, wished to remind the Council
that the League did mean to suggest a jointly
appointed committee to evaluate park planning
in their communication.
*
*
*
An application for exempt business license
was approved for the Latin Organization for
Betterment for a dinner, fiesta, and various
other fund raising activities during 1970.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Silva, and by unanimous approval,
the items listed on the Consent Calendar
were passed.
*
*
*
The Beautification Committee has requested
that the City's Landscape Designer, Mr. Fred
Starlel, be utilized for landscape master
planning at certain schools within the
District. Mr. Parness requested that this
matter be referred to the staff for investigation
January 12, 1970
(Communication
League of
Women Voters)
(Exempt
Business
License)
(Approval
of Consent
Calendar)
REPORT RE
BEAUTIFICATION
COMMITTEE
PROPOSAL
and later report.
The Council discussed the legal ramifications and indicated their
favor if the technical issues can be worked out with the School
District, and the matter was referred to the staff for report
as suggested.
*
*
*
At a prior time the Beautification Committee
had suggested that two triangles at 5th and
6th Streets, adjacent to East Avenue, be
reconstructed and expanded incorporating a
one-way street pattern, and this suggestion
was referred to the Planning Commission for
report.
The Planning Commission now suggests that further closures be
made, namely 5th Street west of East Avenue and 7th Street at
Livermore Avenue, which would tend to discourage through
traffic on these neighborhood streets, keeping the traffic on
the major streets as planned. Four suggestions were made as
follows: (1) prepare a packet, showing the circulation plan,
the beautification~an, and a brief explanation of the
advantages of revising circulation; submitting this to the
residents and property owners within the immediate area, advis-
ing that a demonstration closure would be put into effect for
a period of time after which a public hearing would be held;
(2) publicity explaining the project and advising of the
demonstration closure and subsequent hearing; (3) place the
closure into effect and advising through signs at the closure
that the demonstration is in effect and a public hearing will
be held at a later time; and (4) conduct the hearing to obtain
reaction to the project. In this way the City will have done
as much as is reasonable.
REFERRAL RE
TRIANGLES AT
5th AND 6th
STREETS
consideration and
Discussion followed on the suggestions; whether or not the
extended closure program should include 5th Street west of
East Avenue and 7th street; how traffic would be affected in
front of the high school. Mr. R. M. Callaghan, representing
Miss May Nissen and Mr. Elwin Mulqueeney, whose residences
CM-22-255
January 12, 1970
(Referral re
Triangles at
5th and 6th
Streets-cont'd)
face on the area of McLeod Street, proposed for
closure, protested because his clients would not
have access to their property.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to authorize the staff to conduct studies
for the temporary closure of 5th and 6th Streets at East Avenue,
making the suggested explanation re temporary closure to the
owners (excluding 5th Street west of East Avenue and 7th Street).
Dr. Joseph Plumer, with reference to the above, suggested that
5th Street be left open but to realign the street to eliminate the
jog; block 6th Street at East Avenue and make it like a court with
the entrance from McLeod Street, leaving McLeod Street open be-
cause coming from downtown it has the police station and high
school. If it is the plan to prevent traffic cutting off East
Avenue down to 7th street and then making a right turn on Livermore
Avenue, then prohibit a right turn at 7th Street and Livermore Ave.
and to keep traffic off 5th and 7th Streets there are stop signs
at So. Livermore and South L, and there could be stop signs at
every intersecting street along there so people will not lose time.
Dr. Plumer was~ed to submit his plan to the Planning Department
for their review.
Mr. Christopher Gatrousis, 5179 Diane Lane, pointed out that the
Beautification Committee met with many of the residents adjacent
to 5th and 6th Streets, and the plan that was presented was the
same one that the motion was concerned with at this time, the
complete closure of the streets. He explained that even with Mr.
Lee's advice as far as traffic engineering, there was 100% opposi-
tion to the plan, and the plan for one-way streets was proposed
solely to reach some compromise with the people. Even if there is
a temporary closure without public hearing, he felt there would be
opposition and the plan will be defeated.
Mayor Marguth made a motion to continue the matter for two weeks
to give the property owners an opportunity to see the map, and this
was seconded by Councilman Uthe, and the motion passed 4 to 1 with
Councilman Miller dissenting.
*
*
*
REPORTS FROM
THE MAYOR
(Mayors'
Conference)
Propane
Vehicles
The Mayor reported that the City of Pleasanton
and the City of Livermore made a proposal at the
Mayors' Conference to consolidate the thirteen
cities and the County in a program to establish
a centralized servicing and maintenance garage
for propane vehicles.
Roy Renner and Tod Crawford have begun preparation of a technical
report re the advantages and when the program might be implemented,
which will be submitted to the City Council and other cities by
January 21st, and that it be reviewed and considered for support
of a county wide program.
*
*
*
Re Counties
in BAAPCD
District,
each City
they join
There are three counties within the air basin--
Napa, Sonoma, and Solano County which do not
belong to the Bay Area Air Pollution Control
and it was suggested that a resolution be forwarded to
in those counties and to the three Boards, urging that
the District.
On motion of Mayor Marguth, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and by
unanimous approval, the following resolution was introduced:
CM-22-256
RESOLUTION NO. 6-70
A RESOLUTION RECO~wlliNDING THE INCLUSION OF THE
COUNTIES OF NAPA, SOLANO AND SONOMA WITHIN THE
BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
January 12, 1970
(Re Counties in
BAAPCD - cont'd)
*
*
*
We do not presently have an ordinance, and
there is no conflict with the BAAPCDistrict
regulations. The Fire Chiefs will be receiv-
ing the new regulations shortly and the City Attorney was directed
to draft an ordinance for future introduction regarding this
subject.
(Backyard
Burning)
*
*
*
The Mayor reported on regional concern re
the deferment of the southern crossing of the
Bay and its effect on BART.
(Deferment of
Southern Bay
Crossing)
A resolution was suggested which would outline the justifications
for delay for further study. A motion was made by Mayor Marguth,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and passed unanimously, to
introduce the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 7-70
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DELAY IN THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF THE NEW BRIDGE ACROSS SAN FRANCISCO BAY,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE SOUTHERN CROSSING
*
*
*
The Mayor questioned the City Manager in
regard to the NAB program, and the City
Manager replied that the City does have a
youth hiring program which coincides with the school's summer
program, and it will be followed again this year as it has been
in effect for many years.
(Youth Hiring
Program)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor read his proposed policy
resolution for use of the Del Valle Reservoir.
The Council discussed the resolution gener-
ally: traffic to the lake, possibility of a
phased development; the possibility of restrictions on power
boating. The resolution was introduced by Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Mayor Marguth. An amendment was suggested by
Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Miller, as follows:
"If some level of power boating is permitted, that it be
restricted such that quiet uses of the reservoir area can be
insured." The amendment failed by the following vote:
POLICY RE
DEL VALLE
RESERVOIR
AYES:
Councilmen Miller and Uthe
NOES:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT: None
The main motion then received the following vote, and the
resolution was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
Councilmen Miller and Uthe
ABSENT: None
CM-22-257
January 12, 1970
Del Valle
Reservoir
(Cont'd)
RESOLUTION NO. 8-70
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS BE PLACED
ON THE USE OF DEL VALLE RESERVOIR TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC
AND AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS.
Dr. Plumer commented that the Council did not want to support a
quiet lake or a powerboat lake, and suggested that he be allowed
to place an article in the paper with a coupon to be sent to the
City Council, asking the people to vote llyesll or "noll to the pro-
posal, llDo you want a quiet lake, or do you want it wide open to
power boats?ll He felt this might influence the Council to take
definite steps. Mayor Marguth suggested that the coupons be forwarded
to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. However, Dr.
Plumer reminded the Mayor that it was the Council who was making
the resolution, and he wanted the Council to make the decision as a
matter of public record.
*
*
*
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
The Planning Commission has recommended approval
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a freestand-
ing sign at 2341 Third Street, and on motion of
Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the Council voted
unanimously to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as
outlined in Resolution No. 1-70.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained the request for ex-
tension of the tentative maps for Tracts 3043 and
3044 (Proud Homes) which have been in effect for
almost a year and a half and advised that the State
law allows extension as does the City ordinance.
Mr. Musso also advised that there are no circumstances that have
changed with regard to the property but there is one change relative
to the setback of a pedestrian walk, and the Planning Commission
does recommend approval of the tentative maps.
TENTATIVE
MAPS
(Tracts 3043
and 3044)
The Public Works Director, Mr. Lee, advised that the engineering
considerations as amended are not of any significance, but do re-
flect the latest design criteria for streets. He did point out one
area with regard to planting in Tracts 2923 and 3032 based on a
horticulturist's report, and stated that the City would provide a
greater amount of inspection in the hope that there will be better
results, but it may be necessary for the developer to import top
soil, and suggested that the Council consider adding conditions in
the engineering considerations which would say, in effect, that if
the planting was not satisfactory in the second unit, the developer
would import top soil and do what is necessary for safer tree plant-
ing as would be needed and other work as recommended by an accepted
authority.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to add to the Engineering Report, the commentary relative to the
soil preparation just presented by the City Engineer.
The Council discussed the planting problem and to what extent the
City would accept the responsibility and whether or not the developer
should be required to bring in top soil. Mr. Musso stated that the
Planning Commission did not feel that this was a permanent solution
of the problem, but Mr. Lee stated it would be permanent if there
were eight inches of top soil placed.
The City Attorney advised that the City Engineer recognizes that it
is not the City's subdivision, but if there are problems we hear
about them. The City Engineer, as a matter of law, should avoid any
responsibility for the specifications, as we do not want to prescribe
what is necessary to cure the soil, as it is the subdivider's respon-
sibility, and he has a legal obligation to the buyer.
CM- 22- 253
A vote was then taken on the motion and passed
unanimously.
January 12, 1970
(Tracts 3043/3044
Continued)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller to accept the request of
Proud Homes for extension of the tentative maps for Tracts 3043
and 3044, with the Engineering Conditions as amended according
to the discussion of the City Engineer re soils and with the
proviso that if the Truth in Subdivisions ordinance is adopted
that this be included in the subdivider's tentative map. This
motion was seconded by Councilman Silva.
Before the vote was taken, Councilman Taylor questioned the plans
for the drainage ditch which is to be down the center of a major
street and to which Mr. Lee agreed, and stated perhaps the City
should consider participation in undergrounding the ditch through
that particular section, and the problems of undergrounding by
means of conduit were discussed. Also discussed was the PUD in
conjunction with the tentative tract maps; the fact that the PUD
had been discussed in detail; after which time Councilman Miller
withdrew his motion, and Councilman Silva withdrew the second.
Councilman Miller then made a motion to approve the extension of
the tentative maps for a period of sixty days to work out the
details of the chain link fence on either side of the drainage
ditch, if there is a solution, and the balance of the motion as
stated above with reference to the Engineering Conditions and
truth in subdivisions, and this motion was seconded by Councilman
Taylor and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has expressed its con-
cern regarding promises made by local subdivid-
ers which have not been fulfilled. Public fa-
cilities have been listed as future installations and, in some
cases, have not been installed (schools, parks and shopping centers);
also cited was the construction of patios in conjunction with model
homes which may not be possible on the lot of a potential buyer.
The Planning Commission concluded that the City Council be requested
to prepare an ordinance requiring full disclosure of facts relat-
ing to particular subdivisions or other development which might
be a document submitted to home purchasers or through the use of
signs located on future public facility sites. This ordinance
would supplement the present state laws prohibiting misleading
advertising.
TRUTH IN SUB-
DIVISIONS
The Council discussed this recommendation, generally, and referred
the matter to the City Manager's office for implementation.
*
*
*
A recommendation has been received from the
Planning Commission re Zoning Ordinance amend-
ment to Section 21.82-c re circus, carnival,
bazaars and other temporary uses, and on motion
of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and by unanimous approval, this proposed
amendment was set for hearing on February 2.
*
*
*
Minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of
January 6, 1970, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO
SEC. 21. 82
MINUTES - PLANNING
COMMISSION
CM-22-259
January 12, 1970
PROPOSED ZO
AMENDMENT
(Stanley Blvd.
Annex No.4)
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Council -
man Miller, the reading of the ordinance was waived,
(title read only) and by the following vote, the
ordinance rezoning the property known as Stanley
Boulevard Annex No. 4 from Unclassified to CO
(Commercial Office) and CO-H (Commercial Office-
Highway Combining) Districts was introduced:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor
Marguth
NOES: Councilman Silva
ABSENT: None
* * *
PROPOSED ZO On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
AMENDMENT RE man Silva, the reading of the ordinance was
MURRIETA BLVD (title read only) and by the following vote
AND HOLMES ST. ordinance rezoning Holmes Court, Centennial
HOLMES COURT, Hansen Park was introduced:
CENTENNIAL PARK
AND HANSEN PARK
AYES:
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
FALLOUT SHEL-
TER REGULATION
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Meeting
with LARPD)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Street Trees-
East Avenue)
(Flood Plain
Zoning)
CM-22-260
Council-
waived
the
Park and
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
Onmotion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title
read only), and by the following vote the ordinance
re fallout shelter regulations being placed as a
separate article in Chapter 6, in the Municipal Code
was introduced:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
Mr. Parness suggested that the Council set a date
for a meeting with the Livermore Area Recreation and
Park District, and the 19th of February was decided
upon.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor brought up the matter of planting
trees along East Avenue, which is undeveloped on the
one side and in the County on the other side, but
suggested a possible agreement to have these trees
planted now, and Mr. Lee advised that Mr. Wente is
interested in the trees being planted, and the
Public Works Department is in the process of drawing
up maps for his review.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that it is a recognized
practice to adopt flood plain zoning, and felt this
could be considered for major channels in the Arroyo
Mocho and Del Valle, and the matter was referred to
the Staff for consideration.
January 12, 1970
Councilman Miller reminded the Council that he
had asked about traffic enforcement at First
and Holmes street with respect to trucks, and
asked if a report was forthcoming. Mr. Parness advised that he
had discussed the matter with the Police Department who had assured
him that they have been watchful of the matter, but claim it is
not a bad problem, having clocked the vehicles.
(Enforcement
of Traffic)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to a letter from the
League of California Cities re the conflict of
interest law, and suggested that the Council
consider for adoption a part of the ordinance
adopted by San Jose with regard to ownership of real estate, and
that it read, "disclosure of the ownership of real property in
either Livermore planning area, or perhaps the Livermore-Amador
Valley", because if someone is the owner of a large piece of
subdividable land, it should be of knowledge to the voters.
After some discussion the Council's decision was to refer the
matter to the staff for consideration.
Conflict of
Interest
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth advised that Councilman Taylor
had agreed to serve as the Council's representa-
tive to the Valley Planning Committee.
Valley Planning
Committee
Appointment
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth stated that it is his opinion, a Air Pollution
part of the visible pollution is caused by the
aggregate plants and introduced a motion to notify the BAAPCD
that there is a possible pollutant situation occurring in our
Valley by at least two of the plants and ask them to investigate
this to see if it is necessary to cite or revise their standards.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
to a brief executive session to discuss appoint-
ments to the Planning Commission, Housing Authority
and Beautification Committee.
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
CM-22-26l
Regular Meeting of January 19, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, January 19,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN Taylor, Uthe, and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN Miller and Silva
(Councilman Miller on vacation)
*
*
*
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of
January 5 were approved as amended and the minutes
of January 12 were approved as submitted.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
Dr. Joseph Plumer referred to the Smog Air Pollution
debate which was held on the 14th of January, and
stated there was erroneous information given about
lead and toxicity as a result of lead in gasoline.
He suggested that the Council adopt a more meaningful
resolution than the one referring to the aggregate
companies, and although he was in favor of a ban against backyard
burning, they cannot clamp down on big industrial people. Dr.
Plumer mentioned the various levels of pollutants, and stated that
sulphur was the highest content and was over the allowable level,
and referred to Contra Costa which has the oil refineries and yet
refuse to do anything. When the control district was established,
they did not have the necessary paraphernalia to do their own findings
and relied on the corporations to submit data to them, and as a con-
sequence, they feel they have to protect these huge multi-million
dollar corporations. He suggested that the Council and the other Bay
Area cities tell the Control District that they are functioning for
one purpose only, and that is for the public good, and they have no
right to protect big industry and big agriculture and commission them
to control pollution in the district.
(Smog Air
Pollution)
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
REPORT RE
LIVERMORE
DEVELOPMENT
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
The City Manager submitted a report advising that
the assessment district law under which the proposed
project is to be initiated requires the preparation
of an elaborate engineering and assessment report
known as the Special Assessment Investigation,
Limitation Majority Protest Act of 1931. This
requirement, merely another technical step in the proceeding, is
usually precluded by a waiver authorized in the petition which is
executed by 60% of the area owners of a District or in the absence
of 15% of a postal return of the area ownership of a District.
Neither of these processes has been used by us due to the size of
our program and the critical nature of the time schedule.
Therefore, this report must be prepared by law and a hearing held
on its contents. The hearing, however, will be set at the same
time and place as the major hearing on the formation of the district,
and in essence, constitutes a formality according to a report from
our financial consultant firm.
It is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing preparation
of the Division 4 report for inclusion in the cost tabulation of
this program.
CM-22-262
January 19, 1970
Mr. Terry Rossow, 786 Catalina Drive, asked
if the engineering report being considered
is to be in addition to or instead of the
intended post card protest survey which had
been mentioned previously, and was advised
by Mr. Parness that the engineering report
contemplated here was in substitution for the post card survey
which cannot be done now due to the critical nature of the
timing plan, and this affects the application, the PUC, the
award of monies therefrom, railroad grant, etc. As early as
1958 and as late as October 1969, it had been anticipated to
have the post card survey done, but because of the lapse due
to myriad of issues, it is not possible; but since it cannot
be done, the Division 4 report will have to be done. Much of
the information that will be gathered for this report will be
usable in the final assessment engineering plans.
(Report re
Livermore
Development
Assessment
District)
Mr. Parness further explained that this will not substitute
anything for the public hearing; as a matter of fact, it calls
for a second public hearing which will be held concurrently
on the same night. This law provision was adopted in the
beginning of the depression years to inform property ownerships
and potential buyers what the indebtedness of particular pieces
of property was. In most assessment districts this process
is waived during the petition process, and then if you don't
have a petition, as in this case, post cards are mailed to all
property owners asking if they want a Division 4 report prepared.
In the absence of 15% response which says "yes, we do want it,"
the Council is not obligatec to have it prepared, so the next
step is held which is the usual protest hearing. Now, the
Division 4 report is going to be prepared and will be offered,
and the hearing will be held on the same night as the regular
hearing for protest on the formation of the District so two
notices will be sent--one, the District 4 report, and second,
the notice on the regular public hearing.
Mr. Rossow still questioned the method of protest to be used,
and was advised that this could be done by post card or letter
at or prior to the public hearing for which notices will be
sent.
*
*
*
Robert Allen, 223 Donner, commented on the
artist's rendering of a train on an overpass
on the cover of the brochure outlining the
assessment district plan, stating that it looks
like a passenger train, or possibly a BART train, and if so,
the whole proposition of the Livermore Plan is being sold as
a fraud. Mr. Allen then read a letter from the American
Taxpayers Union to the Board of Supervisors in which an
objection was made to the County's grant of jurisdiction to
the City to include the proposed Portola Avenue Annex No. 4 in
the assessment district, and further, that the City refuses to
recognize competent testimony contrary to its own preconceived
notions.
PROTEST RE
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
*
*
*
An informational copy of a communication
sent by the Alameda County Highway Advisory
Committee to the California Highway Commis-
sion and Public Works Department was
acknowledged.
COMMUNICATION
RE SOUTHERN
CROSSING BAY
BRIDGE
*
*
*
CM-22-263
January 19, 1970
LIBRARY BOARD
APPOINTMENTS
(Arthur Henry
and Kay Honodel)
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORTS
EXEMPT
BUSINESS
LICENSE
PAYROLL AND
CLAIMS
APPROVAL
OF CONSENT
CALENDAR
REPORT RE
ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT
(Shell Ser-
vice Station)
RESOLUTION NO.1O-70
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE LIBRARY BOARD
(Kay Honodel)
RESOLUTION NO. 9-70
REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE LIBRARY BOARD
(Arthur L. Henry)
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Airport - activity and financial - December
Building Inspection Department - December
Civil Defense - quarterly, October to December
Golf Course - December
Justice Court - October and November
Library - December
Police Department - December
Water Reclamation Plant - December
*
*
*
Application for exempt business license was
received from Twin Valley YMCA - dance on
January 24, Dania Hall.
*
*
*
Seventy-three claims and two hundred thirty-nine
payroll warrants in the amount of $157,241.52,
dated January 14, 1970, were presented to the
Council and ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded
by Councilman Uthe, and approved unanimously to
adopt the items on the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
The Director of Planning explained that this was
the Shell Service Station located at the northwest
corner of Portola Avenue and Murrieta Boulevard
for which the applicant has a permit from the
County to construct a service station. The City of
Livermore has acquired the right-of-way on Murrieta
Blvd., fronting on the easterly side of the station, and the company
has come to the City for an encroachment permit to gain access to
Murrieta Blvd. from that side. The question was posed as to what
requirements the City should place, if any, on the issuance of the
encroachment permit.
Councilman Uthe stated that some months ago after the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to oppose the location of the two
stations at this particular intersection, and after the City
Council voted unanimously to oppose the two stations, that the
County approved the location and installation of the stations with
septic tanks to avoid our requirements for a sewage connection
permit. He advised that he and the Mayor met with Mr. Perry of
Shell Oil Company to discuss the feelings of the Council on this
CM-22-264
January 19, 1970
matter, and they made it very clear that
the Council was concerned with inverse
zoning by the County in ~ich the County
plans uses in our Planning area and then
turns them over to the City for service,
and the City has no control on what the liabilities might be or
what the land use might be, and all other attendant problems.
Councilman Uthe stated that he had advised Mr. Perry that he
would oppose any development of the corner to the best of his
ability in any legal way he could find, and now with the request
for an encroachment permit, he personally would vote against it
in accordance with his statement.
(Report re
Encroachment
Permit-Shell
Sere Station)
Councilman Silva stated that he would abstain from discussion
as he had previously abstained inasmuch as there was a Standard
Station across the street from this Shell station.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve the staff recommenda-
tion if Shell Oil Company will go along with the City's require-
ments for design and site plan approval, which would mean there
would be a station similar to the one on Murrieta and Stanley
Boulevards.
Mr. Lee explained that the applicant is not Shell Oil Company,
technically; however, Shell Oil is processing the request, and
they could not be present and have requested that the Council
delay their decision until next week.
The Council discussed the location and felt it was poor land use
by planning to allow a station at this corner, and Councilman
Taylor withdrew his motion, and the Council decided to continue
the matter for one week, at which time they would also discuss
annexation and a possible sewer connection.
*
*
*
A memorandum has been received from the REPORT RE
Police Chief re the conflict in the closing POOL HALLS
hours of the establishments whose primary
function is not a pool or billiards parlor and the closing hours
of the billiard facilities, and felt it would be appropriate to
revise the ordinance so that the hours would coincide.
Hr. Parness explained that this was an old ordinance and was
intended for discipline of the younger men, and since there are
curfews now, he felt it would be appropriate to rescind this
regulation until such time, if ever, a problem arises on the
regulation of billiard tables.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe to adopt the staff recom-
mendation and repeal Sec. 17.7 of the Municipal Code. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor, and passed unanimously.
The City Attorney will prepare an ordinance for later adoption.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE No. 701
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442,
AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY
AMENDING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING
TO ZONING.
ORDINANCE RE-
ZONING MURRIETA
BLVD. & HOLMES ST.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
called vote the ordinance rezoning the southwest corner of
Murrieta Blvd. and Holmes Street, Holmes Court, properties at
1208 and 1229 Fourth Street, Centennial Park and Hansen Park was
passed:
CM-22-265
January 19, 1970
(Ordinance
No. 701)
AYES:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor
Marguth
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Miller
*
*
*
ORDINANCE
ZONING
STANLEY BLVD.
ANNEX NO. 4
ORDINANCE NO. 702
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 Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
vote, the ordinance zoning the recently annexed area known as Stanley
Boulevard Annex No. 4 was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
FALLOUT SHEL- ORDINANCE NO. 703
TER REGULATIONS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, RELATING TO BUILDINGS
IN GENERAL, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, BY THE
ADDITION THERETO OF ARTICLE IX, RELATING TO FALLOUT
SHELTERS.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Silva, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
called vote, the above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
AMENDMENT
SEC. 13.85
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Silva, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title
read only) and by the following vote the ordinance
amending Section 13.85 of Article VI, relating to mis-
cellaneous driving rules, of Chapter 13, relating to
motor vehicles and traffic was introduced:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
REPORT RE
SCHOOL CROSSING
SIGNALS
(Holmes st.)
The City Manager reported that the State Division
of Highways has agreed to modify the school crossing
electric warning signal on Holmes Street in accord-
ance with the proposal of the City. Mr. Parness
has recommended that a motion be adopted approving
the expenditure of $5,000 as a matching amount for state funds for
this work, the sum to be derived from gas tax apportionment.
This item had been removed from the consent calendar for discussion
at this time at the request of Councilman Uthe, who commented that
if you looked at the problem history and what is being proposed on
CM-22-266
January 19, 1970
the northerly extension of Holmes for the sign mov~Signals - Holmes
ing cost, he has a negative feeling in terms of street)
the value gained. He feels that the crossing is
now well protected from the high speed traffic coming from
Vallecitos Road.
Mayor Marguth questioned why PG&E refused to have the conductors
placed on the poles, and Mr. Lee advised that it was because of
the high voltage lines, and that at the higher elevations and
lower elevations they have Pacific Telephone lines, and it is
getting very crowded. It would save a considerable amount, but
although there have been discussions, they are quite firm on
their stand.
Councilman Taylor felt that the Council should make a further
request of PG&E because of the safety situation in the neighbor-
hood, to please reconsider in this case for a temporary use of
the poles until undergrounding facilities can be installed.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Mayor Marguth,
to direct the City Manager to communicate with PG&E and advise
them the Council is concerned about the safety in the area and
this may be a possible aid in reducing the traffic hazard, how-
ever the Council is also concerned about the excessive cost of
placing temporary facilities and we would like to have PG&E re-
consider their action, and the motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva stated that the meeting of the
Council with the Livermore Area Recreation and
Park District is scheduled for February 19, and
there is also a meeting of ABAG for that same
night, and wondered if one or the other could be
rescheduled. Mr. Parness suggested that perhaps
the Planning Director and two Planning Commissioners
the ABAG meeting.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(LARPD and ABAG
Meetings)
could attend
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
APPROVEA&z/ ~ ~~ild/!{
. ayo~
, . (L...L-L
ATTES
CH-22-267
Regular Meeting of January 26, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, January
26, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT: Councilman Miller (on vacation) and
Councilman Silva (due to illness)
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the members of the City Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Uthe, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of
January 19, 1970, were approved as submitted.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM Mr. Per Perry, representative of Shell Oil Company,
(Shell Sta- advised that the Shell station at Murrieta and
tion Dedication) Stanley Blvds. is completed satisfactorily enough
to sell products and is in business, but it is their
intent to have a formal dedication which has been
delayed due to inclement weather, and advised that the Council,
Planning Commission and staff would be invited to the dedication
ceremonies.
Mayor Marguth, on behalf of the City Council, expressed his thanks
to Mr. Perry for the efforts and cooperation of Shell Oil Company
in this service station site plan.
*
*
*
Railroad
Crossings
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, requested that the City
Council attempt to completely gate the remaining rail-
road crossings downtown in lieu of the LDC program.
Mr. Allen explained the costs involved as compared to
the grade separation structures proposed by the LDC
program.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Manager advised that a report is being pre-
Fee pared re a claim for deficient fee payment filed on
behalf of Dublin Properties alleging that an amount
of approximately $37,000 is due them. Mr. Parness
explained that this involves the collection of sewer
and storm drain credits that the City has made and
which is in a trust fund. It is claimed these are
payable to one source, but an agreement with the originator of the
project calls for the monies to be paid to another entity, so it
is a legal question. It is recommended that the matter be referred
back to the staff for processing and official denial of the claim.
Claim for
Deficient
Payment
(Dublin
Properties)
Mr. Lewis, City Attorney, explained that the probable outcome will
be denial of the claim with the request that the parties, of which
there are several claiming the same funds, either agree as to what
they should accept or the City will deposit the money in court and
let them argue about it, and the appropriate action would be to adopt
a resolution denying the claim.
CM-22-268
RESOLUTION NO. 11-70
A RESOLUTION DENYING CLAIM
OF DUBLIN PROPERTIES, INC.
*
*
*
January 26, 1970
(Claim - Dublin
Properties Cont1d)
U.S. 580 Utility
Crossings
The Public Works Director reports that the City
has asked the Division of Highways to include
underground casings to accommodate future util-
ity crossings of U.S. Highway 580 when it is upgraded to
freeway standards, and this agreement has been prepared.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-70
full
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Division of Highways)
*
*
*
Public Works Director Daniel J. Lee has sub-
mitted the Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage
Fee Adjustments and Credits as determined from
the December 1969 Engineering News-Record
llConstruction Cost Indexll, and has recommended that the fee ad-
justment resolutions be adopted to place the revised fees into
effect immediately.
Sanitary Sewer and
Storm Drainage
Fee Adjustments
RESOLUTION NO. 13-70
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF SANITARY
SEWER CONNECTION FEES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1970.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-70
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF
STORM DRAINAGE FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1970.
*
*
*
Public Works Director Daniel Lee submitted School Crossing-
three alternates for modifying the school cross- Holmes Street
ing signal on Holmes Street, and the Council
agreed to alternate (b) which would relocate
the northerly pole, leave the controls where they are, lower mast
arm and heads on both poles, replace signal heads with larger dia-
meter heads on both poles at a cost to the city of $1250, and the
matter was referred to the staff for a technical decision with
the Council approval for this alternate.
*
*
*
Public Works Director Daniel Lee reported that
there had been a delay in the completion of the
traffic signals at Murrieta and Stanley Blvds.
as a result of control equipment delivery, but
that the signals should be functional by February 9, 1970. How-
ever, should there be a delay in receiving the equipment, the
contractor indicates he will install flashing amber lights on
Stanley Blvd. and flashing red lights on Murrieta Blvd.
*
*
*
Minutes of the meeting of the Housing Authority
of December 16, 1969 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Traffic Signals at
Murrieta and
Stanley Blvds.
Minutes - Housing
Authority
CM-22-269
January 26, 1970
Exempt Busi-
ness Licenses
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
Applications for exempt business licenses were
approved for the following:
Sea Scot Ship 907 "Sea Turtle" - house number
painting project for 1970
Livermore-Amador Emergency Fund Center - sale of
used clothing and furniture during 1970
Cub Scout Pack 922 - project to raise funds for trip.
*
*
*
Seventy-four claims and two hundred twenty-six
payroll warrants in the amount of $131,043.46,
dated January 23, 1970, were presented to the
Council and ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and by unanimous approval, the items on the
Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
The matter of closure of Fifth, Sixth and McLeod
Streets was postponed from the meeting of January
12, to allow the property owners to review the design
plans. The Planning staff feels that the matter
should be continued for further study with the property owners and
recommends that the matter be continued for an additional period of
time.
REPORT RE
STREET
CLOSURES
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and by
unanimous approval, the matter was continued as recommended by the
staff and by agreement with Mr. Mulqueeny and Mr. Callaghan.
REPORT RE
STREET
LIGHTING
(Vicinity
Rincon Ave.
School)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor requested that the matter re street
lighting adjacent to Rincon Avenue School be placed
on the agenda and that the Public Works Director re-
port on this subject.
Mr. Lee displayed a map of the area and explained
that there are three lights to be placed, and to
provide underground wiring to steel poles and in-
stallation of lights at this location would cost $1167. There are
other ways that the lights could be placed: one would be on wooden
poles, in which case PG&E would stand the entire cost. They would
make the investment of putting in the poles and running the wire
overhead to be served with electricity, placement of the lights and
the City would pay so much per month for maintenance. This would
not be desirable from an appearance standpoint. There is a modi-
fied system that is more or less in between, and that would be steel
poles which would be more modern looking with lights on them and
being served by overhead wiring which would cost about $535.
Councilman Uthe brought out the fact that the school was constructed
under state building fund program, not by the School District; the
plan checks were made by the state; the building inspections were
made by the state, not by the City staff and we have no control over
the design or construction, and he felt the state building fund
would be the proper source of funds. However, Mr. Lee stated that
plans for this school were reviewed by the staff, and the City was
in error in not requiring lights.
CM-22-270
January 26, 1970
Mr. Parness recommended that the City Council
authorize the installation of permanent elec-
trolier poles and fixtures, and that we do make
an appeal to the state Department of Education for the
oversight and ask for reimbursement to this extent.
(street Lighting
Continued)
inadvertent
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, and approved unanimously, to adopt the staff recommendation.
*
*
*
An application had been received from the Shell
Oil Company for an encroachment permit for
driveways along the Murrieta Boulevard frontage
for a proposed service station at the corner of
Portola Avenue and Murrieta Blvd. The use has
been approved by the County, and Councilman Taylor made a motion
to refer the matter to the staff with a recommendation that the
encroachment permit be issued subject to an annexation agreement,
sewer connection agreement and that the station be subject to
staff design review.
REPORT RE ENCROACH-
MENT PERMIT
(Shell Service
Station)
Mr. Musso pointed out that it should be determined whether or
not the station would be highway oriented with regard to the
freestanding sign.
Mr. Perry stated that Mr. Harry Elliott was building the station
on his own land, and he was only appearing as a technical advisor.
Mr. David Madis, representing Mr. Elliott, commented that they
felt the sewer connection to be an intelligent move, but also
believed they were entitled to an encroachment permit, and Mr.
Elliott would work with the staff as far as the design review is
concerned, but felt it was a matter of law and that the encroach-
ment permit should not be so conditioned.
Councilman Uthe stated that Mr. Madis had a valid point regarding
the law, and withdrew his second to the motion, and with the per-
mission of the originator of the motion, made a motion that the
encroachment permit be granted. Then if they wished to move to
a sewage connection agreement, then on that motion they could
add the requirement for design review.
Councilman Taylor stated that as far as the protection of the
people is concerned, the Council should insist that this station
abide by the same conditions that other stations in the City do.
However, after advice from the City Attorney, the alternate motion
made by Councilman Uthe to grant the encroachment permit was
seconded by Councilman Taylor, and approved unanimously.
A second motion was made by Councilman Uthe that the applicant be
requested to submit to a sewer connection agreement and to pro-
ceed with the normal design review procedure within the City of
Livermore, and this was seconded by Councilman Taylor and passed
unanimously.
Councilman Uthe made a motion as a matter of direction to the
staff that the station not be considered highway oriented due
to the traffic safety.
Councilman Taylor commented that he was in agreement with Council-
man Uthe, but asked for the staff recommendation in this regard.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission has adopted a
policy of 1500 feet from a freeway access ramp, which will be
adopted as part of the limitation to the sign ordinance. After
this discussion the motion died for lack of a second.
*
*
*
CM-22-271
January 26, 1970
The City Manager submitted a report regarding the
recommendation from the Beautification Committee
that the services of our staff landscape designer
be extended to the school district for the composi-
tion of landscape plans for at least five school
sites. Mr. Parness has agreed, reluctantly, to grant staff time,
as it is available, to work on these plans subject to the follow-
ing points: 1) these services are to be performed over a period
of time so that no interference would be made in any work assign-
ment on City projects; 2) services shall be restricted to the
location and variety of plant materials to be made at selected
school sites; 3) no plans or specifications re irrigation systems
shall be prepared; 4) the District will make available site plans
which will designate accurately property lines, buildings,
dimensions and other types of physical improvements; 5) the City
would reserve the right to cancel or discontinue these services
in the event press of City work so demanded; 6) no on-site super-
vision as to planting or placement of materials; 7) no responsibi-
lity will be assumed by the City, nor any of its officers or
employees as to liability that may incur as the result of the pro-
vision of landscape design services.
REPORT RE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT
SERVICES
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor
and approved unanimously to adopt the recommendation as stated in
the staff report.
*
*
*
Two weeks ago the Council took action to request
a delay in the southern crossing of the Bay; however,
last week a request was received from Assemblyman Carlos
Bee that the Council reconsider the action and to
examine the reason and advantages of the southern crossing. A
press release was submitted by Assemblyman Bee which indicated that
Fremont was the only City still opposed to the crossing. A letter
was received from the Division of Highways which indicated that a
delay of a southern crossing would result in an additional cost of
$85,000,000 and cost to commuters of $25,000,000.
REPORT RE
SOUTH BAY
CROSSING
Councilman Uthe stated that although he was opposed to the southern
crossing, that in view of the complexity of the matter that the
City withdraw its negative resolution and indicate to the Assembly
that the matter will be given further study.
On the other hand, Councilman Taylor stated he felt a delay was a
reasonable thing as it is hard to decide where the best interests
of the people of the East Bay lie , and would rather have the
resolution stand.
Mr. Parness expressed his opinion, stating that there are very strong
points of view being expressed by cities more affected by the pro-
ject than ours and would like to gather some data, but hoped that
the Council would tentatively rescind the resolution even though
it may wish to readopt an even more stongly worded resolution at
some future date but felt it should only be done based upon a very
close appraisal of all of the effecting factors.
After some discussion on the matter a motion was made by Council-
man Uthe to direct the staff to inform the proper legislative
committee that the City of Livermore is withdrawing their
resolution for further study and consideration, but the action is
not the action of rescinding the resolution, and in addition, the
Council requested that the City Manager obtain supplemental infor-
mation to either affirm the existing resolution or to rescind the
resolution. This motion was seconded by Mayor Marguth and passed
2 to 1 with Councilman Taylor dissenting.
*
*
*
CM-22-272
January 26, 1970
The Council had referred the possible pre-
zoning of the Dolan property which had been
proposed for annexation, and the Planning
Director stated it was the staff's conclusion
that there was a question of whether or not
there should be multiple residential or higher density residential
in the area between Rodeo Lane and Wente Ave.; it is not a
General Flan amendment, but a precise plan decision or zoning
decision. Also, the Planning Commission concluded that it is
not a General Plan amendment unless the entire area is viewed;
therefore, the Commission recommends that the General Plan Amend-
ment is inappropriate. 1he Planning Commission further recommends
that prezoning of the subject parcel not be considered because
to do so would be contrary to City policy, would set precedent
for similar prezonings, and could create many problems for the
City.
REPORTS FROM
PLANNING
C0l1MISS ION
(Dolan Property)
Mr. Musso advised that under state law the fOllowing alternatives
are open to the City Council and the applicant:
Accept the Planning Commission recommendations;
City Council can initiate the General Plan amendment,
or as is the custom, .
Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with
specific instructions to initiate a General Plan amend-
ment for the subject property;
Similarly the City Council could instruct the Planning
Commission to initiate rezoning of the portion of the
property within the City and prezoning of the portion
of the property within the County.
The City Attorney should be consulted as to whether or
not prezoning is allowed by local ordinances, notwith-
standing the allowance under the Government Code.
The property owner has the option of filing for a
rezoning of that portion of the property in the City
with the City and that portion of the property in the
County with the County.
Mr. Tex Spruiell, representing the applicant, stated that the
applicant did not come to any decision except to refer the matter
to the City Council, and stated his feeling that in order to
proceed further an application to the County would be made.
This in turn will be referred to the City for comment on a
specific request.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mr. Musso agreed that this was a very positive approach and
gives the City the advantage of being able to take definitive
action on a specific proposal rather than rezoning.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and approved unanimous~y, to adopt the Planning Commis-
sion's report.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the Plan-
ning Commission has considered the County
referral of the application of Martin,
Kirchgatter and Shell Oil Company for a
Conditional Use Permit and variance to per-
mit construction and use of site as a ser-
vice station at the southeast corner of
Vasco Road and Northfront Road. The staff and Planning Commis-
sion recommendation is to accept the proposal subject to a
sewer connection agreement with staff design review as a
condition.
(County Referral
re CUP and
Variance Appli-
cation - SE
Corner Vasco Rd.
& Northfront Rd.)
CM-22-273
January 26, 1970
(County Refer-
ral re CUP and
Variance Appli-
cation - SE
Corner Vasco
& Northfront--
continued)
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, to accept the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation.
Mr. Per Perry commented that Shell Oil has applied
to the County for a septic tank agreement with
the intent of utilizing existing septic tanks
from two houses that occupy the premises until
such time as a benefit district or other type sewer district is
formed and is available to the property.
There followed a discussion relative to sanitary sewer lines in the
area, and Mr. Lee explained the steps that had been taken toward
extending the sewer line into the area.
Councilman Taylor suggested that the staff send a letter to the
County strongly requesting that no further development be allowed
in the area without benefit of City sewer. The City is willing to
extend sewage and to help form a district, and this recommendation
was supported by Councilman Uthe. Councilman Taylor felt it should
also be pointed out that the sign height exceeds even County standards.
These suggestions were included asananendment to the main motion.
The staff was also directed to circularize the area in an effort to
form a benefit district and to advise the County of this also. The
motion was then voted on and passed unanimously.
(County
Referral Re
Rezoning -
Intersection
US 580 & El
Charro Road)
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the County had
referred an application for rezoning from A District
to C-l District to permit a retail business use on
the southeast quadrant of the interesection of U.S.
580 and El Charro Road. Mr. Musso stated that he
had advised the County that this was on the
periphery of the City's planning area and might
never be in our City. The Planning Commission was upholding the
County's highway interchange plan which proposed no commercial use
of this interchange, and it is the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion for denial of commercial zoning. The Alameda County Planning
Commission's recommendation to the Board was that the subject site
be zoned M-l (Industrial). Mr. Musso advised that the City Council
could either uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation or
comment on the Industrial use proposal.
Councilman Uthe made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation for denial, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and after
some discussion the motion passed unanimously.
Summary -
Meeting of
Planning
Commission
REPORT RE
PARK
ACQUISITION
ORDINANCE RE
REGULATIONS
FOR VEHICLES
WITHIN PARKS
SEC. 13.85
Cl'1-22-274
*
*
*
A summary of the Planning Commission's meeting
of January 20, 1970, was acknowledged.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director
summarizing the status of park acquisitions
through City, School District or LARPD acquisi-
tion and dedication by developers.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 704
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.85 OF ARTICLE VI,
RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS DRIVING RULES, OF CHAP-
TER 13, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the second reading of
the ordinance was waived, and by the follow-
ing vote the above ordinance was adopted.
January 26, 1970
(Ordinance re
Regulations
For Vehicles
Within Parks
Sec. 13.85 -
continued)
AYES: COUNCILMEN Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Harguth
NOES: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN Miller and Silva
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Uthe, the reading of the
ordinance was waived (title read only),
and by the following vote the ordinance
repealing Sec. 17.7 relating to business
hours re pool and billiard rooms was introduced:
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE TO
DELETE SECTION
17.7
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
COUNCILMEN Miller and Silva
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor reminded the Council and
staff that in view of the annexation of a
large piece of hillside property, it was
time that the hillside development ordi-
nance was discussed as it would aid the
developer in planning for the area.
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCIL
(Grading
Ordinance)
Mr. Musso advised that there were two different ordinances--
one, the grading ordinance, and the other, the hillside zoning
ordinance which took into consideration additional width and
depth requirements based on grade and height restrictions for
a downhill lot.
Mr. Parness suggested that these ordinances and the design review
ordinance be taken into consideration at an early study session.
Councilman Uthe felt it would not be appropriate to be involved
in debate on the grading ordinance at Council level until a
reconciliation can be made between the engineering staff and
FHA as they should be consistent because if the developer is under
FHA in some cases they could not comply with both. He felt it
was time that HUD did some good engineering in view of the
problems of hillside homes in Oakland and southern California.
*
*
*
Councilman Uthe stated that they should have
some type of permanent sign, perhaps of wood,
at all City entrances which state "Welcome to
Livermore Founded in 1869.11 If they moved away from the steel
utility sign to the softer, more residential appearing sign,
there would be no way of changin[ the population sign yearly.
(S igning of
Streets)
Councilman Taylor reminded the Council that a committee had been
appointed at the recommendation of Ribera and Sue to suggest
some type of structure to advertise the City at the entrances.
Councilman Uthe also asked if there was a program to replace
street signs and was advised by Mr. Lee that there was, and that
the signs would be larger, more legible, and more compatible
with neighborhoods.
It was the Council's decision to refer this matter to the staff.
*
*
*
CM-22-275
January 26, 1970
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
ATTEST
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.
*
*
*
ity Clerk
, ivermore, California
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of February 2, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, February 2,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
Question re
Previous
Minutes
Announcement
re Meetings
LDC Presenta-
tion
parking and
stated that
journing to
8:00 p.m.
CM-22-276
*
*
*
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, the minutes of January 26, 1970, were approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEN Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
None
Councilman Miller (on vacation) and
Councilman Silva (due to illness)
*
*
*
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, brought up a question con-
cerning previous minutes. Mayor Marguth stated Council
had ruled the minutes were not in error, only Mr.
Allen's interpretation. Mr. Allen also stated his
figures concerning gating of the railroad crossings were
not correct, but that the cost was approximately 1% of
the cost of the LDC program.
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth made an announcement regarding the
LDC presentation schedule. These presentations
will be held in the various neighborhoods - East
Avenue area, Springtown area (tentative), Rincon
School library, Joe Michell School - and will
concern overall plans, but especially beautification,
assessments in the downtown area. The City Manager
the Council meetings would be held at 7:00 p.m., ad-
various locations for presentations on the LDC at
February 2, 1970
Councilman Silva questioned the emphasis of the
meeting to be held in the Recreation Center on
February 9, and Mr. Parness pointed out that
this session will concern primarily the downtown
area itself. Councilman Silva asked if these meetings would be
considered as a part of the Council meetings, and Mr. Parness
explained that these were to be held for informative purposes
and the Council would be in attendance only to listen to pre-
sentations and perhaps answer questions, not as a part of the
Council meetings. Some discussion followed whether the Council
should be in attendance on a more formal basis or whether the
meetings should be considered as a part of Council meetings.
Mr. Parness said that the intent was to allow the Council to
hear the comments of the people and get their reactions to the
LDC. Mayor Marguth asked that consideration be given to this
matter during the week for discussion again. Mr. Parness stressed
that these meetings are not a part of the public hearing scheduled
for March 16, but are for discussion only, and protests will be
heard at the hearing on March 16 as a part of the district forma-
tion.
(LDC Presentations
Continued)
*
*
*
Mr. George Musso explained that this proposed
ordinance had been modified since the subject
was introduced in an effort to clarify the re-
gulations. One change that had been made was
the insertion of fllarge numbersfl to describe
the type of gathering concerned. The purpose of this ordinance
is to limit the type of uses, mainly circuses and carnivals, to
ten days within any six month period on anyone site.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ZO AMENDMENT OF
Sect ion 21. 00,
Sec. 21.82 (c)
Mayor Marguth then opened the public hearing on this zoning ordi-
nance amendment and Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, asked how many
people would be considered as fllarge numbers" in relation to this
ordinance. Mr. Musso pointed out that this is governed by the
circumstances, type of meeting, and site involved. It would not
include gatherings of people in individual homes for meetings for
religious purposes, but rather was meant to cover circus and car-
nival type of gatherings.
Mr. Lewis requested that under subsection fl(C)fl the wording be
changed to read, flsuch uses shall be conductedfl, making the word-
ing plural. -
There being no further comments, on motion of Councilman Silva,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the public
hearing was closed and the ordinance will be introduced later in
the meeting.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Manager advised that a new service
wishes to locate at the airport within the site
presently leased by Pacific Bridge Co.
(Courtesy Aviation). The temporary quarters would be a trailer
and the service is for aircraft radio repair; although the nature
of these quarters is not attractive, the type of service is. Our
Airport Committee recommends the temporary use be allowed.
Trailer Occupancy
Municipal Airport
RESOLUTION NO. 15-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF TRAILER ON PREMISES
LEASED BY FIXED BASE OPERATOR AT THE LIVERMORE MUNI-
CIPAL AIRPORT.
*
*
*
CM-22-277
February 2, 1970
Report re
Bicycle/Eques-
trian Pathway
The City Manager reported that the state has pre-
pared the cooperative agreement for construction
of a bicycle and equestrian pathway under the Arroyo
Las Positas Bridge in conjunction with the widening
and improvement of state Highway Route 580 which
calls for our contribution of $1,860 for this work. The staff re-
commendation is for adoption of a resolution authorizing execution
of an agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 16-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
*
*
*
Report re
TOPICS
Program
The City Manager reported that a new program, Traffic
Operations Program Increase Capacity and Safety, is
designed to financially assist cities in the populous
urban areas in relieving traffic problems, either
through studies or improvement projects, or perhaps both. An appor-
tionment has been calculated for our City for the current fiscal
year in the amount of $32,248, based upon a specific formula.
In order to qualify for this program it is necessary for our City
to concur in the designation of a IICoordinating Agentll, and the
engineering staffs of the various cities have concurred that the
logical one to assume this responsibility is the County.
There are no specific studies or projects currently in mind for the
use of these funds, but such a matter will receive the review of our
staff with an early report to the City Council. To qualify the
City must concur in a coordinating agent.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-70
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AS
COORDINATING AGENT FOR THE TOPICS PROGRAM.
*
*
*
Agreement re
Portola Ave.
Annex No. 4
An agreement has been signed by the property owner
for the annexation of Portola Avenue Annex No.4.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(PORTOLA AVENUE ANNEX NO.4)
*
*
*
Application of
Section 23 of
FHA to Livermore The Housing Authority Board has requested that
the City Council notify the County of our desire
to have the County Housing Authority jurisdic-
tion apply to our City with regard to Section 23 of the Federal
Housing Program. This program affords financial assistance to
local agencies in the way of lease subsidies for low income
lessees, and the law requires passage of a resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 19-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 23 OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF
1937, AS AMENDED, TO LOCALITY.
*
*
*
CM-22-278
February 2, 1970
The Director of Public Works submitted a Min-
eral Quality Report on the Reclamation Plant
effluent which had been prepared by Brown &
Caldwell, which shows that the City is meeting
the requirements as established by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, for the chloride increment and T.D.S.
increments. It is recommended that the report be transmitted to
the Regional Board.
Report re Mineral
Quality-Reclamation
Plant
*
*
*
A written communication was received from Assem-
blyman Pete Wilson in reply to a letter from Mr.
Parness re proposal submitted during interim
hearings on housing.
Written
Communications
A letter was received from the Department of Water Resources re
power boating on Del Valle Lake, advising that regulations are
established by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the items on the consent
calendar were approved unanimously.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
*
*
*
The City Manager presented a report regarding
the LDC off-street parking credit policy. Dur-
ing the detailed analysis by the Livermore De-
velopment Commission and City staff, one of the
questions was how to provide equity in applying assessment rates
to property now zoned for parking and already in such use. It
was felt that consideration should be given to property owners
who have had to bear the cost of off-street parking under zoning
laws of the City. In studying the problem there were three
approaches open: (1) complete exemption; (2) uniform assessment
without allowance for present off-street parking; or (3) some type
of credit granted to these properties. It was decided that some
type of credit should be worked out in the assessments against
these properties for the LDC program. The properties that do have
improved, public, non-restrictive off-street parking facilities
that wish to pledge them irrevocably throughout the term of this
assessment district, then only one-half of the applicable assess-
ment rate will be applied against such square footage. As an ex-
tension of this policy those properties that are later developed
will be under this same requirement.
REPORT RE LDC
OFF-STREET PARKING
CREDIT POLICY
Councilman Taylor stated he was not sure he understood paragraph
3.a and how the assessment would be computed. Mr. Parness ex-
plained that this section pertained to property which, at the
time of the formation of the assessment district, was undeveloped.
If at a later date the owner should apply for a building permit,
the off-street parking would be computed and assessed at one-
quarter of total assessment rate. The reason for this is that
once the assessment is made it cannot be changed, but credit will
be given for off-street parking provided on property which is now un-
developed.
Councilman Taylor asked Mr. Parness if this credit for off-street
parking has been taken into account in the present computations
of the proposed assessment rates, and was advised that it had been
taken into consideration.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to approve this policy to direct the staff to draft an ordinance
and the motion was approved unanimously.
CM-22-279
February 2, 1970
RECESS
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED BACK
TO ORDER WITH ALL PRESENT.
*
*
*
REPORT RE CUP
(Harry
Rosenberg)
A report was given by the Planning Director re-
garding a Conditional Use Permit submitted by Harry
Rosenberg to allow construction and use of a 150
bed convalescent hospital on a site bounded by
Portola Avenue, Pine Street, Junction and North
Livermore Avenues.
Mr. Musso reported that this property is now zoned RG (Suburban
Multiple Residential), and the request is for a conditional use in
this zone. The staff recommendation was for approval, subject to
certain conditions set forth in the report, however the Planning
Commission recommends denial.
Mr. Richard Callaghan, representing Harry Rosenberg, asked that
this matter be continued for two weeks in order that a revised plot
plan could be submitted. After discussion, Councilman Uthe made a
motion to accept the suggestion for a plot plan redesign and re-
ferral back to the Planning Commission, which was seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva.
Councilman Taylor questioned the traffic generated by such use. Mr.
Musso stated that it would be less intensive than a comparable number
of apartments. Councilman Taylor said he felt that this would be a
satisfactory use for this land as an RG-16 District presents problems.
It would be in the interest of the community to avoid increasing den-
sity, and this was a good stabilized use for the area.
Councilman Uthe stated that this is a major entrance to the City and
thus a focal point, and as such, the design, landscape and use of the
land is important.
Councilman Miller recalled that such a use had been denied recently,
and he thought the Council had decided that this type of use should
be located close to the hospital.
Councilman Silva stated that he agreed with Councilman Taylor, that
this use in this area relative to RG-16 was better because there are
no school or park problems. He felt the submitted plan was not right
for the site, but a new design would satisfy most of the Council's
questions. After discussion of design and use of the site, the motion made
by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Silva for plot plan re-
design and referral back to the Planning Commission was withdrawn.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva to approve the Conditional Use
Permit for a convalescent hospital on this site and referral back
to the Planning Commission for site plan approval and to get as
much design review as possible. The motion failed for lack of a
second.
Discussion followed concerning approval of this land use, but the
members of the Council felt that although, generally, they favored
the land use, no action should be taken until further design plans
were submitted by the applicant, working with the staff, for pre-
sentation to the Planning Commission. The majority of the Council
felt this land use would be appropriate if a better design was
presented with relation to the neighborhood, traffic, parking, etc.
Councilman Uthe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to
refer the redesign back to the Planning Commission for their review
and consideration.
Comments made by Christopher Gatrousis, 5179 Diane Lane, representing
theBeautification Committee, brought out that the Committee had
presented a proposal that the City consider feasibility of purchasing
CM-22-280
February 2, 1970
this land and extending the Portola Triangle
Park. The purpose of this proposal was that this
was a major City entrance and focal point, and
the committee felt this land could be included
in park land. Discussion by Council pointed out
posal had been considered, but the cost involved
pared with the amount of land involved.
(CUP-Rosenberg
Continued)
that this pro-
was large com-
The motion was then approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Silva, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
None
*
*
*
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
January 20, 1970, were presented and approved.
MINUTES - PLANNING
COMMISSION
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 705 ORDINANCE RE HOURS
POOLROOMS AND
BILLIARD ROOMS
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 17.7, RELATING
TO BUSINESS HOURS, OF CHAPTER 17, RELATING TO
POOL ROOMS AND BILLIARD ROOMS, OF THE LIVER-
MORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the
following vote the ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Silva, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
None
*
*
*
The City Attorney reported that the draft of
this ordinance, providing for amendment to the
municipal code requiring declaration of real
property holdings of candidates, City officers
and principal City employees, had been prepared
at the request of Councilman Miller. It is written to cover real
property owned by candidates, officials and employees within the
Township of Murray and defines ownership as far as those things
which are not most common, such as ownership in trusts, corpora-
tions, etc. to be based on the 3% rule. Mr. Lewis further stated
there is no limit as far as amount provided by the ordinance.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE DECLARATION OF
REAL PROPERTY
Discussion followed regarding preemption in this regard by the
State, but it was agreed that the City is at liberty to adopt an
ordinance of this type.
Councilman Uthe pointed out that there is nothing in the ordinance
relating to purchase of real estate by brokers who might have plans
to own property or commission earned by them in sale of such pro-
perty, nor is anything said about attorneys who receive fees for
representation. Mr. Lewis replied that this would be covered by
basic conflict of interest laws; the purpose of this ordinance is
to place in front of the public those things which might influence
those persons covered under the ordinance.
Mayor Marguth suggested that the effective date of the ordinance
be changed from April 15 to April 22, in order to coincide with
the seating of the new Council. The April 15th date would include
incumbents who are not running for office again and Mayor Marguth
felt this was unnecessary harassment.
CM-22-281
February 2, 1970
(Declaration of
Real Property Councilman Miller felt that the purpose of this ordi-
Continued) nance was for the office holders and candidates to
disclose their holdings which have a bearing on their
actions on the City Council; alteration of the date,
as long as office holders and candidates are covered, has no bearing.
Councilman Silva felt that this ordinance should exclude the princi-
pal residence of the office holder or candidate plus that of his
children and parents. A lot of time and work could be saved if
this were excluded. I
Councilman Miller stated his opinion that purity in election laws
and disclosure of assets laws restore confidence of the public in
government. It is important for the public to know those things
which influence public officials before election so that the voters
can come to an informed judgment as to who represents them.
Councilman Uthe felt that these laws do not work as intended since
corruption does not work through land ownership, but rather through
persons in public trust demanding cut in profits through rezoning,
tentative map approval, and so on. This type of law will not work since
it only covers land ownership. People should understand that this
will not make for pure government.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Mayor Marguth, to change
Section 2.56 (d) to exclude the principal residence of same. A motion
to amend was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Uthe,
to set a limit upon the size of the acreage at one acre, and this was
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Uthe
Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
None
The main motion to change Section 2.56 (d) was then passed by unan-
imous approval.
A motion was made by(councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to delete the words minor children] from the proposed ordinan~~.~ ..~._
and the motion carried unanimously. ~-l
Mr. Lewis explained that the term "beneficial interest" is generally
used to describe that property interest where you have the use and
benefit rights in the property and may not, in fact, just have legal
title. Options are not usually covered by this interpretation.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
change Section 2.56 (e), second line, to read "real property or term
option of greater than six (6) months..." The motion was approved
unanimously.
The members of the Council and Mr. Lewis discussed the interpretation
of Section 2.56 (b) and (c) relating to definition of City officer
and City employee. Mr. Lewis was directed to study this matter fur-
ther and to report to the Council next week as to which employees
would be included under this ordinance.
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following vote the
ordinance adding Article VI, relating to real property declaration,
to Chapter 2 of the Livermore City Code, 1959, was introduced.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
None
*
*
*
CM-22-282
,.,~
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Silva, the reading of the ordi-
nance amending Ordinance No. 442, subsection
21.82 (c) relating to assemblages of people
and automobiles, of Section 21, relating to
special provisions, was introduced by the
following vote:
February 2, 1970
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE SUBSECTION 21.82c
(Assemblages of
People and
Automobiles)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
None
*
*
*
Mr. Lewis reported on a communication received
from the City Attorney of Carmel, California,
concerning an attempt to have the Unruh Act de-
clared unconstitutional, null and void. The
letter was sent to various cities inquiring if
they would be interested in joining in the suite; or secondly, to
obtain a statement as to why any officer or commission member was
resigning because of this act. No action was taken by the Council.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Unruh Act)
Councilman Miller referred to the recent loss
of HEW funds for the school system. The Coun-
cil discussed any means of action open to them
regarding this matter. Mr. Parness was direct-
ed by the Council to send a telegram to the President,
restoration of 874 monies to the school fund.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva proposed that an invitation be
sent to the candidates for City Council to attend
an informational meeting with the City staff in
order to become aware of present and future plans
of the City and so that the staff might answer
questions regarding past or proposed actions.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(HEW School Funds)
urging
(Invitation to
Candidates -
Informational
Meeting)
Mr. Parness felt the invitation should come from the Council itself
and perhaps signed by the Mayor. Staff members would be available
to brief candidates and answer questions.
The Council directed Mr. Parness to prepare the letter of invitation
for the meeting to be held approximately one week after the end
of filing.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
10:10 p.m., to an executive session to consider
appointments to the Beautification Committee
and the Planning Commission, and further to
meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 9, 1970,
in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Liver-
more Aven~. j) I L
APPROVE (~ c()~~.
ATTEST
ADJOURNMENT
CM-22-283
Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 9, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on
Monday, February 9, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
Delinquent
Business
License
Request for
Subsidy -
Rodeo Parade
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
Councilman Uthe
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the City Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the minutes of
February 2, 1970, were approved as amended.
*
*
*
The Mayor invited any person in the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the agenda;
however, no comments were voiced.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report was presented to the Council by the City
Manager concerning the delinquent business license
for Import Car Sales. The staff recommendation was
to adopt a motion authorizing the filing of a small
claims action.
*
*
*
A request had been received from the Livermore Jaycees
for a grant of $1,000 as partial subsidy of the annual
rodeo parade. This procedure was approved last year
providing an equal amount would be granted by the
Rodeo Association.
I/f~
Councilman presented two points for discussion regarding this
matter. First, he felt that a complete financial report should be
given by the Rodeo Association as partial sponsor. This was not done
last year and should be enforced this year. Secondly, put on record
the justification for expenditure of public money for this parade.
Mayor Marguth pointed out that the parade is no longer put on by
the Rodeo Association; rather it is now being handled by the Jaycees.
It was decided by the Council to authorize $1,000 subsidy with an
equal amount from the Rodeo Association. This will be the first
year the Rodeo Parade will be run by the Jaycees.
The City Attorney advised that the legal justification for the use
of this money for the parade is that it does advertise the City.
Discussion by the Council followed which stressed that this parade
is a part of the City's heritage and an event looked forward to by
the whole City. Jaycees hope to make it a financial success.
Tract 2914
Acceptance of
Improvements
CM-22-284
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has advised that all of
the improvements in Tract 2914 have been installed
to City standards and are ready for acceptance by
the City for maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT 2914 (Jupiter Construction, Inc.)
*
*
*
Due to the resignation of Glen Coffey as a
member of the Planning Commission, the appoint-
ment of Gale K. Hovey was made to fill the
vacancy. The term will expire October 1, 1971.
February 9, 1970
(Tract 2914 Cont'd)
Planning Commission
Appointment
RESOLUTION NO. 26-70
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
*
*
*
Application for an exempt business license was
approved for the Teen Canteen - operation of
snack bar, Recreation Center, Eighth and H
Streets.
*
*
*
Exempt Business
License
One hundred eighteen claims and two hundred Payroll and
forty-two payroll warrants in the amount of Claims
$128,523.60, dated February 5, 1970, were
presented to the Council and ordered paid as
approved by the City Manager. Councilman Silva abstained from
voting on Warrant No. 6231, for the usual reason, and pointed
out the designation should not be in payment of gasoline but
for bitumals.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the items on the consent
calendar were approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mr. Edwin Ness, representing the Bond Counsel
for the Livermore Development Assessment Dis-
trict, appeared before the Council to describe
the procedures involved in the formation of the
district and to explain some of the assessment
information.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
SPECIAL ITEM -
LDC ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
A memorandum was sent to the City by the Bond Counsel setting
forth actions taken by the City Council to date and further
proceedings necessary to formation of the District. At the
meeting of January 12, 1970, the City Council directed the pre-
paration of the Debt Limit Report. Therefore, the action by
the Council should cover the filing of this report and setting
a Public Hearing on this report for 8:00 p.m., March 16, and
filing of the Engineer's report.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
the following resolution was adopted and approved by unanimous
vote:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-70
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF LEGISLATIVE
BODY UNDER "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION, LIMITATION
AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931
CM-22-285
February 9, 1970
(LDAD Cont'd) A summary of the Debt Limit report was given by
Mr. Harold Bare, of stone & Youngberg. This re-
port includes Exhibit "B", a map showing general
nature, location and extent of proposed improvements and a map
showing lands to be assessed to cover the cost thereof; 2) Ex-
hibit C, schedule showing the estimated cost of the proposed im-
provements and the estimated cost of the incidental cost of the
proceedings. Total estimated cost of the proJect is shown as
$6,649,142. less estimated contributions of $2,852,000 for a
total estimated amount to be assessed of $3,797,142; 3) Exhibit
D, schedule showing each parcel of land to be assessed, and show-
ing parcel number corresponding to number on map in Exhibit B,
and the assessed value shown on assessment roll of Alameda County
for fiscal year 1969-70. The total of said assessed value is
$21,602,362. The assessed value of the improvements on such par-
cels as shown on said assessment roll and the total of said such
assessed values and improvements is $31,828,400. The true value
of land only of such parcels calculated in accordance with the
provisions of said special limitation major protest Act of 1931
is $43,204,734.
Mr. Bare explained that under these proceedings the true value
of land is a very fictitious figure defined in the old provisions
of the state Code as being twice the assessed value, and is the
true value for these proceedings only and in no way relates to
actual market value.
Mr. Bare continued with his report stating that the principal sum
of all unpaid special assessments heretofore levied and all spe-
cial assessments required or proposed to be levied under any com-
pleted or pending assessment proceedings other than the instant
proceeding assessments is $919,945.35. These are assessments out-
standing with the Northern Sewer District and one or two street
projects, where there are still bonds out that have not been paid
off. The estimated amount of the assessment to be levied in the
instant proceedings upon such parcels to pay the cost and expenses
of the improvements total as mentioned above is $3,797,142.
The land to be acquired under these proceedings consists of the
various parcels, the exact location and detailed description of
which will be determined during the preparation of construction
drawings. Notice is hereby given that serial bonds to represent
unpaid assessments and bearing interest at the rate not to exceed
7% per annum will be issued in the manner and form provided for
in Division 10 of the streets and Highways Code of the state of
California, Improvement Bond Act of 1915, to represent unpaid
assessments, the last installment of which bonds shall mature in
not to exceed fourteen years on the 2nd day of July next succeeding
ten months from their date.
Mr. Bare stated that this was basically the Division 4 Report with
the resolutions necessary to be attached.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and approved unanimously, to adopt the report of stone & Youngberg
and setting the time and place of hearing thereon.
RESOLUTION NO. 21-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING REPORT UNDER THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
INVESTIGATION, LIMITATION AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931"
ON THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE,
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND FIXING TIME AND
PLACE OF HEARING THEREON.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and approved unanimously, to adopt the resolution of intention.
CM-22-286
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 22-70
February 9, 1970
(LDAD Continued)
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
AND THE ACQUISITIONS TO BE MADE IN LIVERMORE
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Ness explained that pursuant to that resolution, the Engineer
work of Mr. Daniel Lee is filing the Engineer's Estimate of Cost
and the Engineer's Report, which includes not only the cost estimate
but the plans and specifications for doing the work, the assess-
ment roll and the assessment diagram, and the next Council action
is to adopt that document, resolution and order preliminarily
adopting the Engineer's Report and setting the public hearing for
the same time and place as the debt limit report.
Motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and passed unanimously, to adopt the following resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 23-70
RESOLUTION AND ORDER PRELIMINARILY ADOPTING ENGINEER'S
REPORT, SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND CALLING FOR BIDS,
LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, CITY OF
LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller, and approved unanimously to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 24-70
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SCALE OF PREVAILING WAGE RATES
Mr. Ness explained that there were three notices being filed that
required no Council action - Notice of Hearing on Debt Limit Re-
port, Notice of Improvement which notifies the people of the hear-
ing on the Engineer's report, and Notice Inviting Sealed Bids.
Mr. Ness went on to explain further the procedure that would
follow the adoption of these resolutions, and stated that the
work would be bid in stages, the first of which involves the three
underpasses which bids will be received on March 6. There will
be a pre-bid conference on March 2, so that anyone who has taken
out plans and specifications can be informed about what is trans-
piring.
Mr. Parness explained that notices of assessment will be deposited
in the mail on Wednesday, which will be a dual notice in form -
one notice of debt limit report, which is a technical requirement
and the other will be calling attention of property owner to the
hearing required to be held by the Council, scheduled for March
16, at which time every property owner has the right to have sub-
mitted, in writing, a protest to the formation of the District.
Following that will be an informational brochure which, hopefully,
will explain just what is involved in the whole proceeding. In
the notice of assessment will be a special letter which has been
drafted, explaining simply what is contained in the official
notices, and these will be mailed the end of this week.
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, representing the American Taxpayers
Union No. 115, asked if there was a particular form on which pro-
tests are to be filed, and was advised that the preferred method
would be by post card, with the description of the property,
signature of the authorized owner and nature of protest.
Mr. Ness stressed it was very important that the property be
identified, and the notice that will be received will have the
assessor's parcel number as well as the amount of the assessment.
CM-22-287
February 9, 1970
(LDAD Cont'd.) Mr. Ness further stated he has never known a Coun-
cil to count all protests, as such, but according
to the law the protests must be in writing to de-
termine whether there is a majority protest.
Mayor Marguth explained that it has been the position of past
Councils that the recorded technical, verbally presented and veri-
fied protests did count.
Mr. Allen then inquired if a petition, bearing the parcel numbers
and signatures would be acceptable, and was advised by the Mayor
that this would have to be referred to the Council.
Mr. Ness explained that a written protest must also state the grounds
for protest (nature of assessment, the whole district or what they
are protesting). The assessment number should be shown as well as
the parcel number on the written protests. He thought a petition
would be acceptable if all of the requirements were met.
The Council discussed the rules that should be followed in filing
protests, and Mr. Parness urged that the Council not accept oral
protests.
In answer to a question posed by Councilman Silva regarding the
possible use of a form, Mr. Lewis explained that the law was very
explicit and since the parcel must be identified, as well as having
a signature of the owner, he did not feel that a form should be
prepared.
It was the decision of the Council that the procedure acceptable to
them would be that the assessment hearing protests would be in
written form and petition type tabulations as long as they adequately
describe the property, assessment roll number, the signature of the
property owner and the reason of protest. These protests must be
submitted to the City Clerk by March 16, 1970, at 8:00 p.m. according
to law.
SPECIAL
MEETING RE
LDC
*
*
*
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the Recrea-
tion Center for a presentation by the Livermore De-
velopment Commission, to reconvene at the Council
Chambers following the adjourned session.
*
*
*
THE COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:00 p.m. WITH ALL PRESENT EXCEPT
COUNCILMAN UTHE.
APPEAL FROM
DECISION OF
PLANNING
COMMISSION
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
(Damon
Canfield)
*
*
*
An appeal was submitted by Leonard and Joyce Grossman
from revocation of use permit to allow operation of
a nursery school at 306 No. Livermore Avenue and the
denial of variance to permit reduction of setback of
fence. This matter was continued at the request of
the applicant until March 2, 1970.
*
*
*
The Planning Director generally explained the appli-
cation for a Conditional Use Permit submitted by
Damon Canfield to permit rental of automobiles and
storage of same at 4186 East Avenue, stating that
the use has been established since July, 1968, as
a temporary use as it is not compatible with the
single family residential character of the neighborhood. It is a
particular use, of which there are several operating in conjunction
with another, and Mr. Musso stated the best place for the use would
CM-22-288
February 9, 1970
be somewhere near the Lawrence Radiation Lab, or (CUP-Canfield
perhaps at the airport. The Planning Commission Continued)
recommends approval for a six month period with the
intent of not extending the use further.
After some discussion relative to the location and improvements,
a motion was made by Councilman Silva, to adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation with no specific reference to the
fact that the use is to be terminated at the completion of the
extension which is to August 1, 1970. This motion was seconded
by Councilman Taylor, who stated that he agreed with the Planning
Commission that shopping centers should not be the location for
a permanent use of this type; that rental car services are used
primarily by industrial people in the city; and since we are
trying to encourage industrial growth, it is important to have
a car rental available. The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
Councilman Uthe
*
*
*
The Planning Commission had submitted the
Tentative Map of Tract 3186 - Montclair En-
terprises, located northeast of Alameda Drive
between Yolo Way and Mendocino Road for the
Council's consideration. The developer had
requested, in writing, a postponement of this
matter until March 23, and the Council agreed
to a continuance until that time.
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning
Commission's meeting of February 3, was dis-
cussed specifically with reference to the
Zoning Use Permit to allow a Day Nursery at
359 Jensen Street (Loris Ann Kenney).
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3186
(Montclair
Enterprises)
SUMMARY OF ACTION
(Planning
Commission)
Councilman Silva nlade a motion to appeal the Planning Commission's
action approving the use; however, the motion died for lack of
a second.
Councilman Miller questioned the approved extension of PUD No.2,
and asked how long the permit had been running and was advised
by the Planning Director that it was issued in 1962, and he ex-
plained that the only areas left to develop were some multiple
sites, the shopping center site and the Elks Club. It had been
reviewed in detail about four years ago by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Miller remarked that when permits come up for a renewal
they should have more than just a perfunctory look, particularly
one that has been in existence for nine years.
Mr. Musso stated that he had planned to request that the Planning
Commission develop a set of zoning regulations and sometime in
the next year rezone the property commercial, residential, or
whatever is decided upon and let this ruling terminate the tem-
porary permit.
*
*
*
The Planning Commissioner presented a report
regarding the pending major developments in
the community. Included in the report was
a map with the areas designated by color: yellow showed pre-
liminary development; red the approved development; and green,
the property now under development. Councilman Taylor noted that
LDC projections show the population doubling by 1980, and the
figures shown in this report certainly bear this out.
*
*
*
REPORT RE PENDING
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS
CM-22-289
February 9, 1970
ZONING
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
SEC. 21.82
ORDINANCE NO. 706
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 21.82 (c) THEREOF, RELATING TO
ASSEMBLAGES OF PEOPLE AND AUTOMOBILES, OF
SECTION 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following vote
the ordinance was passed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Silva and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Uthe
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
REAL PROPERTY
DECLARATION
The City Attorney advised that several changes had
been made in the ordinance as presented last week,
and for this reason the action tonight would have
to be considered as the first reading of this
ordinance. Mr. Lewis pointed out the changes that
had been made: under 2.56 (b) City officer was redefined; and under
2.59 a new section (2) was added to clarify what is required of
candidates.
Councilman Silva stated he felt that the ordinance should pertain
only to the office holder, his spouse and minor children, and that
the wording re parents and children over twenty-one should be deleted.
He felt that extending this ordinance to include parents and children
over twenty-one could be considered as infringement of their rights
as citizens. The Council considered the question of inheritance in
relation to possible action by office holders; and although there is
logic and possibility behind this idea that inheritance could in-
fluence office hOlders, the requirement could be considered excessive.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Maryor Marguth, to delete
the word "parents" and for the ordinance to read "his spouse and
minor children" in the appropriate sections. The motion to amend
failed by the folloWing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilman Uthe
In further discussion, Mayor Marguth stated he felt that this ordinance
as it stands is a disservice to many conscientious citizens who will
be forced to resign or who will be unable to accept appointments be-
cause they have accumulated wealth or holdings, and disclosure of
their holdings will put them in a position of potential public ridi-
cule and exposure. Many good citizens will be excluded from public
service. Mayor Marguth felt he could not support this ordinance.
Councilman Taylor expressed his regret that this might apply to some
of the people in the community; but the Unruh Act had been passed,
and he felt that the people in this community were interested mainly
in property held by public officers. This ordinance would encourage
the faith of the public in their government, and it would quiet
false rumors about hOldings of officers also.
Councilman Silva agreed that it would eliminate many good candidates,
and felt the conflict of interest law would be sufficient.
Mayor Marguth said he would comply with the Unruh Act since it is a
State law. However, he would make a public announcement that he
would not support this local ordinance.
CM-22-290
Councilman Niller reported many people had
expressed to him their endorsement of this
principle, as well as the one co vering
campaign contributions, and he felt it
would maintain confidence in City govern-
ment. There is a general desire for voters
to know as much as possible about those
representing them in government.
February 9, 1970
(Proposed
Ordinance re
Real Property
Declaration -
continued)
A lengthy discussion followed as to whether this ordinance would
increase the confidence of the people and accomplish better
government as opposed to objections by citizens who might be
asked to accept appointments or run for office.
Councilman Miller made a motion to include the Board of Appeals
under 2.56 (b) but the motion failed for lack of a second.
At the close of the discussion, on motion of Councilman l.1iller,
seconded by Councilman Taylor, the first reading was waived
(title read only) and the ordinance relative to real property
was introduced. This action rescinded the first reading of the
previous meeting and reintroduced the ordinance with the in-
corporated changes. The motion failed to gain a majority by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Hiller and Taylor
Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Uthe
This item is to be included on the agenda for a first reading at
the next regular meeting.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the proposed ordinance
concerning a Municipal Code amendment pro-
hibiting trespass on private property was
introduced and the first reading was waived;
however, prior to the vote on the motion
Councilman Miller said he had some reservations about this
ordinance and would like to have more legal background before
adoption. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, the matter was tabled for one week. The motion carried
unanimously. Mr. Lewis was instructed to study this matter and
to report back to the Council.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT
Mr. Lewis, City Attorney, discussed various
problems and situations which had arisen in
the State as a result of the passage of the
Unruh Act. Several acts have been introduced
to change the Unruh Act. AB 430, which is presently under con-
sideration, would require those officers covered to report all
assets over $1,000, but in so doing only have to state whether
that asset is worth more or less than $5,000.
*
..
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Unruh Act)
Mr. Parness stated the Housing Authority
required adoption of a resolution rather
than a motion as had been passed previously
authorizing execution of the cooperation
agreement between the City and the Housing Authority. On motion
of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the follow-
ing resolution was adopted and approved unanimously.
(Cooperation
Agreement -
Housing Authority)
CM-22-29l
February 9, 1970
(Cooperation
Agreement -
Housing'
Authority -
continued)
(S tudy
Session)
RESOLUTION NO. 27-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF LIVERMORE AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVERNORE
*
*
*
Mr. Parness suggested meeting on the 5th of
March for a study session to consider some pro-
posed ordinances, capital improvement projects,
and other matters.
Mr. Parness reminded the Council of their trip to Sacramento on the
11th of February fpr a meeting with the legislators.
(Study on Use
of Propane in
City Cars)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported progress on this matter was
rather slow, and there is very little available
in the way of technical data; however, contact has
been made with various organizations which are
supposed to have material available. A local committee has agreed
to help gather this data and setting criteria to use in a consolidated
test program county-wide. Cities in the county have been contacted
to gather information for use in this study, and it may be month or
so before a report can be made.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Mayor s '
Conference)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva reported on the Mayors' Conference
which he attended in absence of Mayor Marguth. The
resolution made by Piedmont mayor was unanimously
endorsed which requested the Attorney-General to
reconvene or call a new grand jury to investigate
the indictment of the 12 Alameda County deputies.
Councilman Silva reported there will be a vacancy on the BART Board
as Mayor Johnson of Berkeley is resigning. The four nominees were
discussed. Mayor Marguth will look into the matter further and try to
determine which nominee will serve the best interest of the community.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
ATTEST
CM-22-292
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
to an adjourned meeting at 12:00 nODn, February 11,
1970, in Sacramento, California, and thereafter
until 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 16, 1970, in
the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Ave.
Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 16, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was heB
on Monday, February 16, 1970, in the Justice Court Cham-
bers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called
to order at 7:10 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor,
Uthe and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the minutes of February 9,
1970, were approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and
Mayor Marguth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Uthe
* * *
The Mayor invited any person in the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the
agenda.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Signs at
Entrances to City)
Mr. Jay Walton of the Chamber of Commerce spoke
in reference to previous suggestions by the
Beautification Committee regarding welcome signs
at the entrances to the City. The Chamber of
Commerce has been maintaining two signs on First Street and
Portola Avenue for some time at a cost to them of $50 to $100 a
year, and would like to see these signs improved. They are very
interested in the suggestion of the Beautification Committee that
new entrance signs be adopted, and the Chamber would like to work
with the Beautification Committee along this line.
The staff was directed by the Council to take this matter under
advisement and to present a recommendation.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Bids for the Quezaltenango Parkway had been re-
ceived. This matter was referred back to the
staff for review and necessary changes inasmuch
as the bid price is substantially above the
budget allotment.
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Airport - activity, January
Airport - financial, January
Building Inspection Department - January
Golf Course - financial and activity - January
Fire Department - December
Police and Pound Department - January
Water Reclamation Plant - January
*
*
*
(Bids re
Quezaltenango
Parkway)
(Departmental
Reports)
CM-22-293
February 16, 1970
(Grade Separa- A copy of a communication from the City of Los
tion Allocation Angeles to the Public utilities Commission in-
City of Los dicated that they will not be able to qualify
Angeles) for their allocation of grade separation funds.
The City Manager was instructed to reply,
stating our gratification.
(Entrance
Signs to the
City)
(Exempt
Business
License)
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Beautification
Committee regarding proposal for artistically de-
signed signs at the entrances to the City and ex-
pressing approval.
*
*
*
Application for an exempt business license was
received from the Fraternal Order of Eagles for
their annual spring festival, May 6 - 10, 1970.
*
*
*
(Minutes - The Library Board minutes of September and November,
Library Board) 1969, meetings were acknowledged.
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
TENTATIVE
MAP - TRACT
3064
(Kaufman &
Broad)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Silva, the items on the consent calen-
dar were approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mr. Musso summarized the items involved in the request
by Kaufman and Broad for amendment to the tentative
map for Tract 3064 which is located north of East
Avenue within the area commonly referred to as Wagoner
Farms Annex. He stated that the main issue is one
of density. This tract had been originally approved
for 339 units; as it was resubmitted there were 367
lots. Since this map was last considered, the ownership has changed
and there are now three major owners of the property involved. Any
increase in the density of this area would in turn have to come from
the area to the north by terms of the permit. A chart was presented
showing the various alternatives as far as what has been approved,
proposed and developed. The Planning Commission recommends that the
existing public work requirements be maintained, that the approved
number of lots be maintained, that .the redesign be allowed, and that
the improvements on the school property not be required.
Mr. Lee, Public Works Director, added that full improvements on
Charlotte Way will be required to East Avenue and also the widening
of East Avenue between the old Wagoner Farms development and the
east line of the Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Musso further added that the recommended density as shown on
the chart is the density which is already approved.
The requirements placed on the tract originally were discussed by
the Council. In response to a question from Councilman Silva,
Mr. Lee stated that the first time the map for Tract 3064 was
approved by the Council, it was required that East Avenue improve-
ments be made after completion of 75 homes north of the Arroyo Seco.
The staff recommendation is the same as that made before, which is
that the improvement of East Avenue be made immediately and guaranteed
along with the approval of the map. The Council had delayed the
improvements until after the completion of the 75 homes since the
County was not ready to do anything at that time, but it seems that
CM-22-294
February 16, 1970
the County is now ready to procede with East
Avenue improvements. Councilman Uthe stated he
believed that only the undergrounding of the
telephone lines and installation of sidewalks
was the phase that was to be delayed until completion of 75
houses, but that they had to bring Charlotte Way through and
widen East Avenue and underground power lines with the start
of the next development as a part of approval. Mr. Musso in-
dicated that the East Avenue improvements including water lines,
curbs, gutters, and street improvements were to be installed at
the completion of 75 homes north of Arroyo Seco and further
improvements at completion of 150 homes, including the under-
grounding of communication lines, street lights, sidewalks,
etc. The staff is recommending that all of these be installed
immediately.
(Tract 3064
Continued)
Mayor Marguth suggested that approval be subject to the original
terms of the permit as stated or in conjunction with City and
County improvements on East Avenue, whichever is earlier.
In discussing the requirements that had been placed on the
approval of the development originally, the Council questioned
whether these conditions had been a part of the PUD or approval
of the tentative map and Mr. Musso stated that they were strictly
tied to the tentative map, not a part of the PUD. The request
presented by the developer now is for an amendment to the map
as it exists now.
Councilman Miller said he recalled that the requirements in-
cluded the sidewalks and fence by the school.
Mr. Lee pointed out on the map that the part of East Avenue
under consideration was 300 feet east of Mitra street easterly
to the east side of the PUD. Mayor Marguth said that this was
a fairly heavy investment and that if the Council is going to
ask the developer to put in these improvements it should be in
conjunction with the City improvements in the area or when a
certain level has been reached.
Councilman Miller said his feeling in the matter was that this
tract was eight or nine years old now, and he felt these improve-
ments should have been made as the rest of the tract went in
because of the traffic generated by the tract and supported the
staff's recommendation.
The County now plans to go ahead and widen East Avenue in the
vicinity of Mitra street, but would probably go ahead if they
knew Charlotte Way was going through presently.
Mr. Steenblik of R. M. Galloway & Associates, engineers for
this tract, pointed out that Kaufman & Broad had purchased this
property since the original map was filed. Each owner has its
own requirements and way of doing things, and this had necessi-
tated some revisions in lotting requirements. Kaufman & Broad
has accepted heavy financial responsibilities in regard to this
tract. They plan to build a good house in medium price range
with a cabana club, etc. and will be built under the Kay Homes
label. There are 628 units allocated for Tract 3064 and all
of the property in front. A plan for 202 townhouse units, 28
duplexes and 4e apartment units in the front leaves a total of
350 units for the back, and this total of 628 units can be
adjusted according to the number of units approved for the tract
front, leaving the remainder for the back portion. Therefore,
the applicant is asking that they be allowed to proceed with the
first two units of 66 dwelling units and cabana club and 63 lots
respectively.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and that
no additional lots be authorized.
CM-22-295
February 16, 1970
(Tract 3064
Continued)
There are 1291 units allocated for the entire area.
Of this number 243 are set aside for Garms and Wagoner,
420 have been built, and 628 are left for Tract 3064
and all of the front property. Mr. Anthony Varni,
attorney representing Kaufman & Broad, restated the applicant's in-
tention to let the 628 units allocated to the Tract 3064 and the
front of the property be flexible until the number of townhouses
is settled, and then use the rest of the units on Tract 3064. The
243 units will remain constant and the decision on Tract 3064 will
not affect this.
Councilman Uthe stated he was not aware of the proposed townhouse
development and would like to give the subject more study.
Mr. Varni requested that the applicant be allowed to go ahead with
the 129 units for Units 1 and 2 since this number of units is within
the allowed density. The RL-6 zoning would be used to which the
map conforms.
Councilman Uthe stated he would not mind going along with the appli-
cant as far as the 129 units is concerned but would like to give
more thought to the whole program.
Councilman Taylor said he would like a comment from the staff on
approving just part of the map. The Council has never approved
part of a map. Councilman Silva felt before approval can be given
the public works issue must be resolved. Councilman Miller pointed
out that the applicant can start on improvements as the map stands.
Councilman Uthe made a motion that the matter be tabled for two
hours and thirty minutes, which was seconded by Councilman Miller
and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
THE COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:45 p.m. WITH ALL PRESENT.
*
*
*
(Tract 3064
Continued)
After reconvening the Council discussed the request
of the applicant further. Councilman Miller pointed
out that one solution to the problem would be to
approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and there would
be no question about the applicant starting on the public works and
129 units. Secondly, the total of 1291 was based on commercial
that was released, some industrial that was rezoned and some land
set aside for churches which was not used for this purpose, which
increased the number to the 1291 total. However, the cabana club
is now being formed and these four lots should be subtracted from
the total, leaving 1287 which is the proper number of lots based on
this change in use. Councilman Miller further stated he would like
to resolve the ~roblem of the number of lots allowed first - which
would be the 1287 total. Tract 3064 has been discussed in detail
before, but the issue now before the Council is a request to increase
the density. Therefore, the motion to adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation would allow the applicant 338 lots, but the applicant
is asking for 350 lots, or a difference of 12 lots.
Councilman Taylor stated that this part of the PUD was supposed to
be developed under RL-6 standards, and this developer has submitted
a map which still meets RL-6 standards, which is a lot size stan-
dard - not a density standard and the additional lots are due to a
redesign by this developer. This area cannot be developed under
RL-6 standards, and at the same time have a set number of lots
allowed due to a previous design. How can both standards - RL-6 and
density - be used for determining the number of lots allowed?
Councilman Silva felt in this case the RL-6 standard has been set,
and if this rule is applied then the design can produce more or less
than previously planned.
CM-22-296
February 16, 1970
Councilman Miller said many original planning
and development permits give a certain number
of units to be developed under certain standards
of zoning. In this permit a certain number of
units were given to be developed under RL-6 standards for
single family units. There is a fixed number of units in
PUD. This is not a RL-6 subdivision; it is a part of the
which limits the number.
(Tract 3064
Continued)
the
the
PUD
Mr. Varni pointed out that what Kaufman and Broad is asking is
that the additional number of single family homes be deducted
from the number of townhouse units to be allowed.
Mayor Marguth summarized the allocation of units for the develop-
ment: 243 units reserved for the other developer; 420 already
built; which leaves a total of 628 aggregate for Kaufman & Broad
for single family and townhouse and multiple units. Of this 628
aggregate, 350 would go into the tract area and 278 into town-
house and duplex units.
Councilman Miller stated that 16 d.u./acre has been approved for
the multiple but not for townhouses. If townhouses are approved,
the density figures may have to be adjusted. If townhouses are
included, the permit would have to be amended. A change in the
number of children in the schools due to townhouses changes the
circumstances; and townhouses are not equal to multiples. This
implies a density transfer, and does not seem a rational way to go
in the matter.
Mayor Marguth felt that the Council should decide if at some
point in time they will be faced with a density transfer, and
Councilman Silva said that approval of the proposal would be
allowing a density transfer.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Council had not yet seen plans
for the townhouse units which might change the density concept,
and suggested a delay.
Councilman Silva said he felt that this is a point to be con-
sidered as townhouses might develop a density they would not be
happy with, but the applicant is asking for approval of 129
dwelling units tonight. This can be approved without making a
commitment for the remaining units.
Mayor Marguth felt that the majority of the Council was receptive
to RL-6 standards being applied; the thing that concerned him
was the part about !lor residue!l, or swapping density between
the tract and the front. If this means the number may go down,
this would be agreeable, but if it means this number would go
up, then this is a new problem.
Councilman Miller questioned if the Council intended to abandon
the PUD and regard this as a RL-6 subdivision. Mayor Marguth
restated that this was to be treated as RL-6, but if the Council
is to be equitable, the applicant has to be allowed an overall
density. They can apply RL-6 standards as long as the number
of units allowed is reasonable, but they must abide by the total
number of dwelling units stated as long as the 243 units set
aside for other developer is not changed.
Councilman Taylor felt the whole purpose of the PUD was to set
a certain number of units to be developed and to abide by that
overal density. Usually one part of the development is not con-
sidered by itself; the whole PUD is considered and the overall
density is set.
After further discussion, Pat Gildea, 5333 Sandra Way, questioned
the effect of approval of this Tract 3064 under RL-6 standards
CM-22-297
February 16, 1970
(Tract 3064
Continued)
on the portion belonging to the other developer. It
was explained that the other developer is already
zoned under RS zoning and, therefore, is subject to
the set density of 243.
The motion to approve the amendment to Tentative Map, Tract 3064,
with no increase in number of lots and that the water lines, curb,
gutter and street improvements be installed at completion of 75
homes with full improvements at completion of 150 homes failed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Miller
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor
to permit the developer to start on the 129 units (Units 1 and 2)
and that public works improvements be installed as recommended by
the Public Works Department along with commencement of the addition.
Councilman Uthe stated he was willing to look at the design for the
townhouses on the south part, but doubts that townhouses will fit
in there. This issue of 221 townhouses will have to be considered
when the design comes before the Planning Commission.
Councilman Silva asked if it was necessary to have the full improve-
ments or could undergrounding, lighting, etc. be delayed. The staff
recommends that street improvements be made immediately but the
Planning Commission recommendation restates the Council's decision
on the original approval that water lines, curb, gutter and street
improvements be installed at completion of 75 homes north of the
Arroyo Seco and that full improvements be installed at completion
of 150 homes.
Present county plans call for widening East Avenue at Mitra Street.
Completion of Charlotte Way as a collector street might be reason
for them to change their plans and widen or extend their work to
Charlotte Way.
The motion was changed to read, "as the Planning Commission recom-
mends or as the county develops the land fronting on Charlotte Way,
whichever is sooner".
Mr. Varni said he understood that the way things stand now is that
the bridge will be built, Charlotte Way constructed, and the canal
lined immediately with the approval of the first map. The applicant
is agreeable to working with the County and coordinating the work.
The traffic problem of egress and ingress to East Avenue was dis-
cussed in relation to Mitra and Charlotte Way. Then the motion was
restated as follows: "The Planning Commission recommendation for
public works improvements is accepted with one exception - that in
the event the County can be convinced to move their public works
to the east to coincide with Charlotte Way instead of Mitra Street,
then the developer will be required to jointly develop the area so
that the north side of East Avenue is developed in conjunction with
that project."
The motion was finally withdrawn by Councilman Uthe and the second
by Councilman Taylor.
A motion was then made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, to adopt the recommendation for development of Units 1
and 2 with the provision that the public works improvements on
East Avenue in the vicinity of Charlotte Way be developed as per
the recommendation of the City Engineer.
CM-22-298
February 16, 1970
,~.jAfter further discussion Councilman Miller
~amended the main motion to delay the under-
c:..::t .~':1grounding of the utili ties for one year,
~~ Owith possible extension of two years, or 150 homes, whichever
o b (Y) ~omes first. Second to amend the main motion was made by
.p S.p Councilman Taylor.
C) .\0
Q) Q) qj
~~~~:Mr. James Dickey, 1285 Lillian Street, said that as a resident
~he could state there was a traffic problem in entering or leav-
~ ~.~. ing East Avenue. As far as the undergrounding, he wondered why
~ ~ w. it was not done on East Avenue and the explanation was given
c: C).p that it is extremely expensive unless done in conjunction with
OQ).r!'-, th . t
.r!P c: ~ some 0 er proJec .
.p :SIJ
OC\J
S ~. The motion to amend the main motion was then approved unanimously,
Q) '2 ~ iG which would allow the undergrounding to be delayed. The main
~ qj ~'2 motion before the Council to authorize development of Units 1
~~ Q) and 2 with the modified engineering recommendations with the
$ W Q) ~ exception that the improvements on East Avenue will be installed
c:~~og except the undergrounding of utilities on East Avenue was passed
o ..s c: Q) by the following vot e:
.r! o--J.r! f..;
.p W
.r! f..; c: AYES'
W 0 ~ 0 .
o ~ o.r! NOES:
Q., w
~r-l f..; w ABSENT: None
o qj Q) .r! * *
w 5~ ~ C~ncilman Uthe made a motion that the remainder of Tract 3064
-f..; 8., g 8 be referred back to the Planning Commission and brought back
~ ~ OJ bO to the Council at such time as they have completed their inves-
~ ~ c: tigation of the townhouse development, and the motion was se-
.r! o.p.r! .
~ .p c: conded by Councllman Taylor.
?<: c:
c: C:.r! qj
qj O~r-l Councilman Miller stated that it seemed the Council had accepted
~j.p~ in principle the transfer of densities throughout these tentative
~~ 8~ maps. There is, however, some question on overall density. It
c: 0 .p might be several months before the matter of the townhouses and
g ~~ w development of the rest of the land, and he would like to see
;;? O'D qj the overall density set at 1288.
* T
(Tract 3064
Continued)
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
The motion to refer the remainder of Tract 3064 back to the
Planning Commission was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A motion by Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Silva, to authorize the staff to
proceed with the transfer of the right-of-way
of the Arroyo Seco to the County Zone 7 was
approved unanimously.
DEDICATION OF
ARROYO SECO
CHANNEL
(Tract 3064)
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meet-
ing of February 3, 1970, were acknowledged.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
*
*
*
The Public Works Director had prepared a re-
port on the City-County cooperative projects.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, second-
ed by Councilman Miller, to authorize the
staff to proceed and commence with right-of-way acquisition work
on East Avenue in cooperation with the County, and also on the
highway plans for Vasco Road for 110 ft. right-of-way.
REPORT RE CITY -
COUNTY COOPERATIVE
PROJECTS
The Council felt it would be a good idea to have a presentation
from the County concerning the width of Vasco Road and the re-
duction from a six-lane to four-lane road. Mr. Lee explained
that limited access treatment is being maintained along the
right-of-way which can increase its capacity.
CM-22-299
February 16, 1970
(City-County
Cooperative
Projects
Continued.)
The motion to proceed with the work in cooperation with
the County was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
FESTIVAL
OF ARTS
A report was presented by the Cultural Arts Council
regarding the proposal for a second annual Festival
of Arts.
Mr. Robert Selden, President of the Livermore Cultural Arts Council
commented that Livermore is a unique city as there is a great deal
of cultural interest in the community. Since this is a worthwhile
cultural community activity, it is hoped that the City will support
it. The budget set for the project is $3,070.
Councilman Uthe indicated he had received inquiries about putting
this project on a self-supporting basis without City support and
Mr. Selden said it was hoped the Festival would eventually be self-
supporting, but the Festival must first prove itself and become es-
tablished.
Upon questioning by Councilman Uthe concerning charging admission
fees for the Festival, Mrs. Doggett, 1318 North P, chairman of the
proposed Festival, felt that charging admissions would change the
nature of the festival. It is a cultural event in which the entire
community may participate. Approximately 5,000 attended last year,
and an admission charge would be detrimental for the attitude of
the Festival. Perhaps the Festival could be self-supporting later
through donations by businessmen and organizations.
Councilman Uthe suggested a charge of $5.00 for the first or preview
night, which has been budgeted for $1,000. The entry fees last year
paid for this part of the Festival and this could be done again.
Councilman Miller stated that the Festival was a way for the local
cultural groups to exhibit to the entire community that which they
do. Secondly, it is for the community to enjoy those things done
locally; it is a community event much like a parade. Councilman
Miller felt it deserved support because it creates community esprit
de corps. Thirdly, an event of this kind has much to do with the
cultural image of Livermore to the outside world.
Councilman Silva replied' that a parade serves 10 to 20 thousand people
and is subsidized for $1,000; the Festival serves 6500 people at
three times the cost and a slight charge would reduce the cost. The
Chamber of Commerce is the City's advertising agency, and only $5,000
is allocated to them for a whole year. This event will last only
two days and the allocation requested is over $3,000.
Councilman Taylor said community events such as this are advertised
widely by other communities, and an expenditure of this type can be
justified since this advertising attracts considerable attention.
Mayor Marguth said there is one major difference between this re-
quest and the subsidy for the parade - that is the City has a say
in how the parade is run. He would hate to see the City Council
involved in running the Festival, therefore, he would prefer that
a request be made for matching funds.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to authorize a subsidy to the Cultural Arts Festival for 1970, in
the amount of $2,100 with the assumption that the difference will
be made up by the Arts Council. The motion was passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Silva
None
CM-22-300
February 16, 1970
Bob Allen, 223 Donner, questioned if the new Council could overrule
this appropriation. Mayor Marguth pointed out that the new Council
will set the budget in May; the budget controls whatever is
expended.
Mayor Marguth said he was concerned about the Council getting into
the position of subsidizing artistic activities. Many people feel
that there are other activities which may be considered equally as
cultural and that this is not a meaningful cultural activity. He
felt that if this appropriation will be cut next year and the year
after until the Festival is self-supporting, then he would feel
better about supporting it.
Councilman Miller said he felt this was a reasonable expenditure
since this is an extremely important form of advertising for the
City. He felt that it should be subsidized on full scale.
Councilman Silva restated his feeling that a $.50 admission fee
should be charged.
*
*
*
The first reading, discussion and vote on the
proposed Municipal Code amendment prohibiting
trespass on private property was postponed for
one week in order that it might be discussed
earlier in the evening so that those wishing
to do so may comment.
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL
CODE AMENDMENT
(Trespass on
Private Property)
*
*
*
Councilman Uthe said that after study and
consideration of the proposed ordinance, he
could not see why the "parentsff clause should
be included. A motion was then made by
Councilman Uthe, seconded by Mayor Marguth, that the ordinance be
amended to exclude the word ffparentsff, and the motion was passed
by the following vote:
PROPOSED REAL
PROPERTY DECLARA-
TION ORDINANCE
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
None
Councilman Silva made a statement regarding the proposed ordinance.
He felt that this was a ridiculous ordinance; that it would be
used as a political tool to gain information about the real estate
holdings of a candidate to create suspicion or used against any
candidate in a Council race. The conflict of interest law covers
the situation and protects the electorate from dishonest officials.
This ordinance will not change the fact whether a man is dishonest
or not. He felt this ordinance should be discussed at a time when
the public would be present to express their feelings about the
ordinance, and Councilman Silva made a motion to continue the draft
ordinance until an informal public hearing could be made; however,
the motion was not seconded.
The City Attorney was asked to report on the situation in Sacramento.
He pointed out there is a bill, AB 51, which would suspend the
effective date of the Unruh Act for about two months so that there
could be action or amendment to the act. This bill is presently in
committee. There is another bill, AB 430, which would redraft the
provisions of the Unruh Act so that the person filing would be
required to report his interest in a business (stocks, bonds, etc.)
if it was over $1,000 but would only have to state whether it was
over or under $5,000. This bill would also rewrite the conflict of
interest laws but there would be little change in this respect--it
would just put it all in one act.
The City Attorney was asked by the Council to clarify Section 2.56(e).
The term beneficial interest essentially means the use of the pro-
perty or the right to control the property. Reversionary interest
is when someone holds the property and for some reason it can go
CM-22-301
February 16, 1970
(Proposed Real
Property
Ordinance)
back. Real property can be defined as land or any-
thing affixed to the land permanently, such as a
house or a tree.
Mayor Marguth suggested that it is not appropriate for children,
except minor children, to be covered by this ordinance. Councilman
Silva said he felt that if the ordinance is going to carry weight
it should cover children, parents, aunts and uncles, and those close
to the candidate. br(jJ/M:,~fluj
Councilman Miller~aid he realized this ordinance would not keep
a 1'1' lJ ~ crooks from government, but it will restore some
measure of confidence in government since the public will be aware
of property holdings.
Mr. Glen Coffey, 3557 Oregon Way, commented that the reason for
considering this ordinance was to serve the people of the community.
The Council had discussed it in some length and still had many
questions concerning the interpretation and effect of the ordinance.
Why not allow the people to express their feelings in a public
hearing.
Mr. Chester Fankhauser, 609 South P Street, commented on the need
for this ordinance. How interested is the public in knowing these
facts. This ordinance asks the candidate to prove he is an honest
man before he can run. The newspapers have been very influential
in finding out what is going on and keeping the public informed,
and Mr. Fankhauser questioned whether this is more to the advantage
of the potential office seeker. Statement at the time of filing is
fine, but this ordinance perhaps will threaten people out of civic
government. He asked if the Council had talked to businessmen of
the community and the members of the commissions and committees in-
volved to see how they feel.
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, said he felt the present Livermore
Plan is under a shadow because of possible conflict of interest from
ownership of some of the property affected and felt that disclosure
of interests should be made.
Mayor Marguth stated there was no conflict of interest in connection
with the Livermore Plan. The only property owned by persons in-
volved in working on the Livermore Plan is that of Dr. Shirley, and
this is public knowledge. Some members had even sold their property
in the best interest of the community so there would be no conflict
of interest. Mayor Marguth felt the next step, if this ordinance
is adopted, could be to require those appearing before the Council
to divulge their interests and background before speaking to the
Council.
Councilman Miller stated many people do support this ordinance, and
it will inspire confidence in government. In regard to the issue of
a public hearing, this matter had been continued for several weeks;
thus the people have had ample opportunity for open discussion and
there has not been a failure to allow public discussion. The business-
men are not the only people in the community, and others in the com-
munity are interested in this issue. There are candidates who are
running1s9 ~he proposed or~~nce i? not scaring every~ne w~y.
~ ~-t7~L l.€~~~ ~~-+ ( -. t-L
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by C6u cilman
Taylor, to introduce the ordinance requiring a real property
declaration as it stands with the deletion of the word "parents",
and to waive the first reading (title read only). The motion was
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and uthe
Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
None
*
*
*
CM-22-302
February 16, 1970
The City Manager reported that three bids
had been received for repair of the furnace
in the City Hall. The low bid is for
$1,790.00 for the replacement of the heat
exchanger. A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Silva, and approved unanimously, to authorize expenditure
of this amount for the repair of the furnace.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Furnace Repair)
*
*
*
The City Manager was directed to contact the
Recreation Board to see if the meeting with
the Recreation Board scheduled for February 20
could be moved to another date since there is a speaker appearing
in Livermore on that date on the subject of ecology, which the
Council members would like to attend.
(Meeting with
Recreation Board)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva made a motion to adopt a
resolution requesting the Attorney General
to reconvene the Grand Jury to allow testimony
by the 12 Santa Rita deputies. Discussion
followed regarding the legality of this
indictment action and whether it was due
process. Mayor Marguth stated that a trial in open courts might
be better and will make the public aware of problems in law enforce-
ment. Councilman Silva felt this might be detrimental to~~~~~(
enforcement forces. The motion was not seconded. The City AttorneYf
was directed to check into this matter for the next Council meeting.~
* * *
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Resolution re
Reconvening Grand
Jury)
There being no further business to come ADJOURNMENT
before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 1:15 a.m. to an adjourned meeting at 7:00 p.m.,
February 24, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers,
39 South Livermore Avenue.
ALA /~ ~/7
APPROVE 'Z/~~ .. . ~ .. ' " /
Mayo? \ :/
"'--.,.-"
ATTEsdt~~Qf;L-1~
I C -, Clerk
. ivermore, California
*
*
*
Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 24, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on
Tuesday, February 24, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers,
39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order
at 7:15 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and ROLL CALL
Uthe and Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
None
CM-22-303
February 24, 1970
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Council-
man Miller, the minutes of February 16, 1970, were
approved as amended by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
The Mayor invited any person in the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the agenda,
however there were no comments voiced.
*
*
*
PROPOSED
MUNICIPAL
AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE
(Trespass
Private
Property)
The City Attorney reported that he had talked to the
CODE City Attorney in San Rafael and the directors of the
Chamber of Commerce concerning this proposed trespass
ordinance. It is the recommendation of the Police
Chief and Mr. Lewis that the introduction of the ordi-
nance be delayed for sixty to ninety days, or until
such time as is necessary for the Supreme Court to
pass on the provisions of this type of ordinance.
The proposed ordinance is substantially the same as
that of San Rafael, and the City Attorney of San Rafael anticipates
that the litigation regarding their ordinance will be resolved in
sixty to ninety days, and it would be wise to postpone action until
a decision is reached by the State Supreme Court.
Mr. Larry Hall, 655 McLeod, said he was interested in hearing the
reasons and arguments why this ordinance is desirable. The question
in the courts is whether such an ordinance is unconstitutional. Mr.
Hall was concerned, generally, with the rather broad kind of ordinance
that has been introduced in trying to combat a particular kind of pro-
blem, and he felt this is a bad way to go in this instance.
Councilman Miller commented on the proposed ordinance as follows:
1) Origin of this ordinance comes from the desire of the Police De-
partment to help solve a problem of the merchants and businessmen of
the community who are having trouble with shoplifters and these pro-
blems must be solved;
2) Alternative is additional officers in the Police Department, and
the City must consider an increase in the Police Department to handle
this type of problem and suggested the hiring of an additional officer
with the idea of working on this problem.
3) This is more than a police problem - it is a juvenile problem.
We must look closer for reasons behind this trouble.
Councilman Silva stated the ordinance will be brought before the
Youth Committee for their comments, and the Council felt this would
be a good way to explore this problem.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
REAL PROPERTY
DECLARATION
ORDINANCE NO. 707
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW ARTICLE, ARTICLE VI, RELATING
TO REAL PROPERTY DECLARATION, TO CHAPTER 2, RELATING TO
ADMINISTRATION, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
CM-22-304
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Uthe, and by the following vote, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and
the foregoing ordinance was passed:
February 24, 1970
(Declaration of
Real Property
Continued)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Uthe
Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
None
In answer to a question by Councilman Uthe, regarding the respon-
sibility for an adult child under the ordinance, the City Attorney
indicated if the parent could not obtain the information from the
adult child, then he would not be held responsible to act further.
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth recommended that a resolution be
introduced directing the assessment engineers
to delete from the Livermore Plan beautifica-
tion and parking from the downtown area. There
are 187 single family dwellings in the downtown
area, and this deletion would substantially reduce their assessments.
This would be a recognition on the part of the Council that there
were substantial inequities in this area for assessments for single
family residences in the eyes of the individuals.
LIVERMORE DEVELOP-
MENT ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
Mayor Marguth made a motion, seconded by Councilman Silva, to in-
troduce a resolution to amend Resolution 22-70, Resolution of
Intention in Matter of Construction of Improvements and Acquisi-
tions to be Made, by deleting under work to be done and properties
to be acquired the items involving civic beautification and off-
street parking in Livermore Development Assessment District, City
of Livermore, Alameda County, California.
Councilman Taylor felt it should be made clear that adoption of
this resolution will not mean that assessments will be adjusted,
but that the project is being limited.
Councilman Miller urged that the Council retain the non-downtown
beautification in the assessment district. This portion of the
assessment would have a substantial affect on the appearance of
the City and would benefit all homeowners and would be a small
investment by homeowners towards improving our industrial image.
Councilman Silva felt the major concentration should be on the
underpasses and relocation of railroad tracks. The beautification
portion can be done later from general funds.
Councilman Taylor said that he felt many people objected to the
beautification assessment not on the amount of money involved, but
on the principle; beautification seems like a frill. Public re-
sistance would be lessened if this portion is deleted.
Councilman Miller stated the time that the City needs to increase
its industrial tax base is now - not in fifteen years. The park
tax is committed to acquisition of additional parks which we have
been unable to get because of lack of funds. We have too many
conflicting demands on our park revenue; the cost for beautifica-
tion of entrances is about $3.00~~'t0~ Ci!y~~W~s~ ~~ ahead, and
this expenditure is worth its cost:f<J~n~TltEr7g~lned. He felt
that eliminating non-downtown beautification portion would be
IIpenny-wise and pound foolishll.
Councilman Uthe said he was very sorry to see this happen to the
Livermore Plan because the downtown area would become a slum area
when the merchants moved out.
Councilman Silva said it seemed from the response of downtown
landowners that they are against the parking. He felt that the
CM-22-305
February 24, 1970
(LDAD CONT'D) Council should not gamble on the future of the
whole project for the benefits of the parking and
beautification.
At the close of the discussion, the motion to delete the beauti-
fication and parking from the assessment district was approved
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 28-70
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 22-70
BY DELETING FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE
AND PROPERTIES TO BE ACQUIRED, THE ITEMS INVOLVING
CIVIC BEAUTIFICATION AND OFF-STREET PARKING IN
LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, CITY OF
LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
*
*
*
THE COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:50 p.m. WITH MAYOR MARGUTH NOT
IN ATTENDANCE, AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE SILVA PRESIDING.
Report re
Bay Area
Sewage Dis-
posal Study
Committee
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report was received from the City Manager regard-
ing the formation of the Bay Area Sewage Disposal
Study Committee to study all aspects related to
consolidated sewage effluent disposal. Livermore has
been asked to participate, and it was recommended
that a motion be adopted appointing the Public Works
Director as City representative to this Committee.
Councilman Uthe said he felt that Mr. Lee should proceed also with a
study of controlling our own effluent as this might be more satis-
factory and cheaper than participating in a group effort.
Holmes Street
School Cross-
ing Light
Relocation
Portola
Avenue
Annex No.4
Minutes -
Housing
Authority
CM-22-306
*
*
*
Informal bids have been solicited for the Holmes
Street School crossing light relocation. The low
bid price is $1,960, submitted by Ed Hutka Electric.
The State is committed to pay 50% of this cost. It
is recommended that a motion be adopted authorizing
this work and the execution of the agreement.
*
*
*
A report from the City Clerk regarding results of
the election held on February 17, for the annexa-
tion of Portola Avenue Annex No. 4 was acknowledged.
The results of the vote for annexation were:
yes - 10; no - 1, and were recorded by the following
resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 29-70
RESOLUTION DECLARING RESULTS OF VOTES AT THE
SPECIAL ELECTION HELD AND CONDUCTED WITHIN
THE AREA OF PORTOLA AVENUE ANNEX No.4.
*
*
*
Minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of January
20, 1970, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Ninety-three claims in the amount of $69,247.78
dated February 17, 1970, were presented to the
City Council and ordered paid as approved by
the City Manager.
*
*
*
An exempt business license application was
approved for the American Association of Uni-
versity Women - book sale, proceeds for
Scholarship Fund.
*
*
*
February 24, 1970
Payroll and Claims
Exempt Business
License
Mr. Kennedy, in the absence of the City Manager, Grazing Lease
reported on the bids received for a grazing for City's Land
lease at the City's former refuse disposal site.
The lease is cancelable upon six months' notice
in the event it is to be considered for sale, and the term of
the lease is for five years. The lease was awarded to Vargas Bros.
who submitted the high bid for $6,888.70.
*
*
*
MAYOR MARGUTH RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL MEETING AT THIS TIME
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the items on the consent
calendar were approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and Uthe
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
Approval of Consent
Calendar
The Public Works Director reported that this
matter had been referred back to the staff
from a previous Council meeting so that talks
could be held with property owners. Council-
man Silva and Mr. Lee had met with the property
owners and with several persons individually for discussion of
the proposal. Some modifications have been made, and the property
owners now seem satisfied with the plan. The design was described
for the Council by Mr. Lee and one property owner expressed con-
cern over entrance into her driveway.
EAST AVENUE, 5th &
6th STREET
INTERSECTION
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, to
refer this matter back to the staff to resolve the final details
and the one question re access and proceed with the design of
the area and prepare for bids, and the motion was passed unani-
mously.
*
*
*
Mr. Kennedy reviewed the bids received on
City's public liability coverage. Two bids
were received from the dozen or so which
were sent out and one of these is unaccept-
able from the financial responsibility standpoint. The other
proposal submitted does not meet the specifications as outlined
by our insurance consultant in two areas in particular; it ex-
cludes admissions and errors, which is an expanded false arrest
type policy (we have false arrest coverage with another company
at present, but the coverage is not as good).
REPORT RE
INSURANCE BIDS
CM-22-307
February 24, 1970
(Insurance
Bids Cont'd)
There are three options: 1) accept the proposal
Mr. Morgan has presently submitted and work with
him to improve coverage; 2) reject all bids and
put out bids again, which would put Mr. Morgan at
a dimdvantage since others would know his present bid; or 3) re-
ject all bids and negotiate with other brokers. The City must have
coverage by March 1, and the staff recommendation is to accept Mr.
Morgan's proposal and negotiate improvements in the proposal.
The price has increased considerably from the present rate of
$13,000 to roughly $23,000.
Mr. Gene Morgan, present carrier and proposed recipient of the bid,
stated his position, if awarded the bid, would be to attempt to se-
cure the additional coverages requested. All of the proposed cover-
age is probably not available; would stand by his quote on cover~ge
as stated in bid; cannot guarantee all of the coverage at any prlce
but would do his best to secure the other coverage. He would have
to be designated as the exclusive agent for the City if he worked
on securing this additional coverage.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Uthe,
to accept the bid from the present agent, Morgan Insurance Co.,
and to direct the staff to proceed with the necessary steps to
secure the supplemental insurance, and the motion was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
CUP -
CHRISTOPHER
LAND CO.
The Public Works Director reported that the proposal
by the applicant, Christopher Land Company, is to
locate a cabana club on four lots. The Planning
Commission recommends approval of the use including
several variances: 1) to allow the swimming pool
to be located within 50 feet of the property line since it is ad-
jacent to a park; 2) to fence the required frontage yard; and
3) to allow parking in the required 20 foot frontage yard to be
fenced in such a manner as to provide screening, subject to design
review. There are several conditions to approval regarding sound
and hours of operation and the membership would be restricted by
the number of parking spaces. Public works improvements will be
installed along with approval of Tract 3064.
Discussion followed concerning the manner in which parking require-
ments are determined. The ratio is based on the number of member
families.
The cabana club will be owned by a homeowners association. The
Council discussed how membership would be limited. It was felt
that the City should have some control over this matter, and Mr.
Musso stated that the permit was revocable for cause. If member-
ship exceeded the limit, this could be considered as non conformance
to the terms of the permit.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and by
unanimous approval, the Conditional Use Permit for construction and
use of a cabana club on a site on Lots 67-70, Tract 3064, at a max-
imum membership of 360 families was approved subject to the condi-
tion that the City Attorney, upon the decision of his office, should
have the prerogative to determine that the number of families has
not exceeded 360.
Councilman Miller expressed concern over depth of landscaping in
the front and felt increasing the planter area would improve the
appearance and also stated the thought that the building itself
should be designed to fit in with the area. The motion by Council-
man Miller, seconded by Councilman Uthe, that a condition of approval
be that the structure be included in the design review was passed
unanimously.
CM-22-308
February 24, 1970
The Council discussed briefly one of the actions
taken by the Planning Commission regarding de-
nial of the request of Harry Rosenberg for var-
iance to allow reduction of the number of park-
ing spaces in conjunction with the convalescent
hospital. A motion by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, to stay this action until the Council has time to review
the matter, was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Councilman Silva, and by the following vote,
the ordinance for annexation of Portola Ave-
nue Annex No. 4 was introduced and the first
reading of the ordinance waived:
SUMMARY OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION (Appeal -
CUP-Rosenberg)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE -
PORTOLA AVENUE
ANNEX NO. 4
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
None
*
*
*
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar
for consideration at this time.
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AUDIT
Mr. Jay Walton, Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, pointed out
that the submission of this audit is not in accordance with the
terms of their agreement, but is presented in order that dealings
with the City may be open. Several items on the audit were ex-
plained in detail.
Councilman Miller questioned why the public money expended was not
identified and itemized in detail for examination by the public
and stated his feeling that wherever public money is concerned,
the audit should so indicate. Discussion followed by the Council
regarding the form of the audit which had been approved by the
Council previously. Mr. Walton said that this form had been
adopted to avoid some of the problems encountered in previous years
because it is difficult to allocate exactly which of the overhead
expenses are expended from public monies. Mr. Kennedy, City
Finance Director, was directed by the Council to meet with Mr.
Walton and to go over the audit to determine where the City's
allocation had been spent, and report back to the Council.
*
*
*
The City Clerk asked if any of the Councilmen
would be attending the Environmental Quality
Study Council hearing on March 7, 1970, at the
st. Charles Borromeo Church, 1315 Lomitas Ave-
nue. Councilman Uthe indicated he would be
attending.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor asked if any progress had
been made concerning reasonable facilities
for the Bus Depot. At present it seems there
are no plans for improved facilities, but it
is hoped that in the future better facilities
will be available.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller extended an invitation to
the Council to attend a dinner and reception
to be held on February 28 for Assemblyman
John Knox. He thought members of the Council
might be interested in meeting Assemblyman Knox
and perhaps discussing some matters with him.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Environmental
Quality Study
Council)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Bus Depot)
(Invitation -
Assemblyman
John Knox)
CM-22-309
February 24, 1970
(Public Councilman Miller pointed out the Council had been
Transportation)discussing public transportation for almost two
years, and he would appreciate a staff report on
the matter. The staff was directed to bring a
report before the Council at the next meeting.
*
*
*
(Restaurant
Health Code)
Councilman Miller said he had received a report con-
cerning one of the local eating establishments and
felt that a restaurant code should be adopted and
enforced.
Mr. Lewis reported that the County Health Officer had been contacted
and this matter discussed. One of the problems is that it is a
rather lengthy ordinance, and due to other pressures on the staff's
time it has not been possible to prepare this ordinance; however,
it will be presented shortly.
*
*
*
(ABAG- Funds
Available for
Law Enforce-
ment)
Councilman Miller asked that the staff be instructed
to see if there is some way the City can make use
of some of the safe streets funds available from
ABAG for our law enforcement forces.
*
*
*
(Resolution
re Reconvening
Grand Jury)
The motion had been made by Councilman Silva to
adopt a resolution requesting the Attorney General
to reconvene the Grand Jury to allow testimony by
the twelve Santa Rita deputies, and seconded by
Councilman Taylor and the matter continued from
the previous meeting of the Council.
The City Attorney reported that basically the law says that once
the Grand Jury has issued the indictment, they do not have juris-
diction to go back into the matter. The United States Attorney has
the power, theoretically, to ask the Court to quash the indictments
if he feels it would serve justice to do so. The proceedings of
the Federal GrandJury are not the same as the Grand Jury of the
State of California since federal proceedings do not require that
a transcript of the proceedings be kept as to witnesses called and
their testimony. If the resolution is to have any effect, it
should be directed to the U.S. Attorney General asking whether or
not a fair hearing was given, and its effect on law enforcement.
Secondly, we might ask the Attorney General to examine the federal
procedures to make sure that there are additional measures by which
these officers could have been given further protection.
After discussion the motion was changed to adopt a resolution
urging the Attorney General, or such other appropriate agents,
that the Council is concerned for due process. This change was
acceptable to Councilman Silva as maker of the original motion
and Councilman Taylor, as second.
Councilman Miller stated he would be in favor of a resolution re-
questing improvement of the Federal Grand Jury procedures but not
pertaining to a specific case. A request for an overall change in
Federal Grand Jury procedures would be alright, but he was not in
favor of a request for a specific case in which the indictments
were already made.
Councilman Silva said he had not been aware of the due process in
Federal Grand Juries; in this particular case it seems that due
process is being applied, but he felt an injustice was done in not
hearing the testimony of all of the twelve deputies who were in-
dicted.
CM-22-310
February 24, 1970
Councilman Miller pointed out that the same
process that was used in this case as was
applied in the case of the Black Panthers.
The Grand Jury presented both indictments
and there must have been some just cause for the indictments in
both cases. If there is some question about the fairness regard-
ing the way indictments are brought about, then a resolution which
asks for a change in Federal Grand Jury procedure would be in order.
I /I JI :1 ~'l./ .1. j rf.).......Lj; ~ ;I
tJ..V-vi.-eA.--t. -?-"'--"-z-~ <L <---t:. -v~ v '\. ~?:e C~ L Z{ U~-
Mcrj10r H3.rgut-h indicated he felt that the purpose in considering
this matter was to show moral support for the law enforcement
agencies of this nation.
(Reconvening
Grand Jury Cont'd.)
Councilman Uthe felt that the reason for adopting this resolution
is to make sure justice is applied to all.
The motion for adoption of the resolution as stated by the City
Attorney was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
None
RESOLUTION NO. 30-70
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES TO INVESTIGATE FEDERAL GRAND
JURY PROCEDURES.
*
*
*
Councilman Uthe asked about the possibility
that our subsidy to the Allen Ambulance Ser-
vice being paid for under the federal govern-
ment highway safety program.
(Highway Safety
Program)
*
*
*
Councilman Uthe reported that by the minutes of (Zone 7 Board)
the Zone 7 Board meeting, they are ready to in-
itiate hearing on the design of the Del Valle
storage system and water purification plant. He would like to
urge that the design be worked into the natural beauty of the
area and Mr. Lee was asked to convey to the Board the Council's
feelings on this matter.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20
a.m. to an adjourned regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.,
Monday, March 2, 1970, at the Justice Court Chambers,
39 South Li ermore Avenue~
./ ... r;J /1/l
APPROVED .. / '- // J%
a or _ // 'l
~~
.t Clerk
California
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST
*
*
*
CM-22-311
Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 2, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
March 2, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Ave~ue. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Southern
Bay Crossing)
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The Mayor led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller, the minutes of February 24, 1970, were approved
as amended by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
NOES:
None
*
*
*
Mr. Ed Royce, 842 South Livermore Avenue, spoke re-
garding SCAT (Southern Crossing Action Team), an in-
formal organization of conservation, made up of home-
owners and other groups whose objective is to achieve
a temporary or permanent halt in the construction of
the southern crossing of the San Francisco Bay.
Mr. Royce said this organization feels that construction of the
southern crossing will commit us to the automobile as the principal
means of transportation in the areamu Livermore is directly con-
cerned because of the air pollution from the Bay Area. The estimates
of BART usage upon completion are very conservative, and it is felt
that a five year delay in construction of the crossing will give BART
a chance to prove itself and determine if the southern crossing is
necessary.
Mr. Royce asked the Council to study the material he had and to con-
sider support of measures now in the legislature for delay of con-
struction.
(Livermore
Development
District)
*
*
*
Mr. Lawrence H. Hayes, Jr., 2340 Fifth Street, spoke
regarding the legality of the Council's Resolution
of Intent last week to delete two items from the
Livermore Development Assessment District. He asked
what must be done so that the Council is legally
bound to delete those two items from the Plan.
Mayor Marguth replied that he had discussed this matter with the
City Attorney and the Bond Counsel and the official action cannot
be taken until the public hearing. The procedure that must be
followed in an assessment district is that any change in the dis-
trict cannot be made until the end of the hearing when the final
resolution will be made and adopted. The Council is morally and
ethically bound by its Resolution of Intention to delete the two
items.
Councilman Miller stated that essentially the action of the Council
of the previous week was to give the Council's word that the beauti-
fication and downtown parking would be deleted.
CM-22-312
March 2, 1970
Mr. Jack Phillips, 551 No. P street, asked for (Protests LDAD)
a clarification of the method of protest. He
had understood that the protests must be pre-
sented to the City Clerk by 8:00 p.m. March 16, but many thought
that they would be able to protest during the public hearing.
Mayor Marguth stated that, in this case, protests must be presented
before the hearing.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication from the Bay Area Air Pollu-
tion Control District regarding emissions from
the rock and gravel plants located in the Liver-
more-Amador Valley was acknowledged.
*
*
*
The information and communication from Clarence
L. Hoenig, dated February 19, 1970, regarding
the school problems in Livermore District was
acknowledged, and the matter will be discussed
in a study session by the Council.
*
*
*
A communication from the Livermore Chamber of
Commerce regarding the recent Community Congress
had been received by the Council. This item was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
at a study session of the Council.
*
*
*
A communication from Senator Alan Cranston re-
garding the President's veto of the Labor-Hew
Appropriations Bill and full funding of PL
874 programs in the substitute legislation was
received by the Council.
*
*
*
The following resolution was introduced to
authorize execution of a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement for a bus study with the
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, City
of Pleasanton, County of Alameda and the San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
Bay Area Air
Pollution Control
District
School Problems
Chamber of Commerce
(Community Progress)
Re HEW Appropriation
and PL-874 Funds
Agreement - BART
District
RESOLUTION NO. 31-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement)
*
*
*
An exempt business license application was
approved for the Valley Trail Riders and 4-H
Clubs to conduct a competition on May 16.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Silva, the items on the consent
calendar were approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Exempt Business
License
Approval of Consent
Calendar
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and Uthe and Mayor Marguth
None
None
*
*
*
CM-22-313
March 2, 1970
APPEAL RE
DENIAL BY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
(Grossman)
Mrs. Leonard Grossman, 1048 Bucknell Court, has
submitted an appeal to the denial by the Planning
Commission to permit reduction of setback of fence
and revocation of existing use permlt for opera-
tion of a nursery school at 306 North Livermore Ave.
Mr. George Musso reported on the matter of the variance of the set-
back for the fence at the property involved. The fence has been
completed with a setback of thirteen feet instead of the required
fifteen feet. A discussion followed concerning the sequence of
events relating to the construction and consequent notification
that the fence did not meet requirements. The matter now before
the Council is whether to grant a variance in the height or setback
of the fence.
Councilman Miller made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's
recommendation and to deny the request for variance, which would
require that the fence be removed. There was no second to this motion.
Councilman Uthe then made a motion that the variance be granted,
seconded by Councilman Silva. After further consideration, an amend-
ment to the motion stating that the fence be constructed of wire
mesh so that vision would not be obstructed was made by Councilman
Silva, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated he felt there were no grounds for variance
in this instance. Notice was sent as provided by the City and pre-
cedent will be set by the circumstances in this case involving con-
struction without a permit. There may be cases in the future of
deliberate construction without a permit and then a request for a
variance to allow the construction.
Councilman Uthe felt that denial of the variance would then force
closure of the school since it would not meet State licensing re-
quirements and this would be a hardship on the parents of the
children attending. Further, the neighborhood where this school
is located is widely varied in use and site development. This is
an extremely complex issue as to whether the fence is conforming
or not in relation to the area.
Councilman Miller commented that he did not feel the school would
have to close as they would have sixty days to move the fence.
At the close of the discussion the motion to grant the variance
was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
None
*
*
*
KAUFMAN AND
BROAD - PUD
NO. 3
(Amendment)
The recommendation from the Planning Commission
regarding amendment to Planned Unit Development
No. 3 of Kaufman and Broad will be considered
and a public hearing was set for March 23, 1970.
*
*
*
TRACT 3195
KAUFMAN & BROAD The consideration of the recommendation from the
Planning Commission regarding Tract 3195 (Kaufman &
Broad) was postponed until the hearing on March 23,
at the applicant's request.
*
*
*
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 p.m. to ATTEND AN LDC MEETING. THE
COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:30 p.m. WITH MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
SILVA PRESIDING IN THE ABSENCE OF MAYOR MARGUTH.
CM-22-314
March 2, 1970
The second reading and vote regarding the ordi-
nance for annexation of Portola Avenue Annex No.
4, was continued for one week on motion of
Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Uthe,
and by unanimous approval.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE PORTOLA AVENUE
ANNEX NO. 4
*
*
*
The applicant's request for a Conditional Use
Permit to build a 140-bed convalescent hospi-
tal had been referred back to the Planning
Commission by the Council with instructions to
review the site plan. The applicants had prepared a new site plan
which the Planning Commission had reviewed and now makes its re-
commendation regarding this plan if the application for the con-
valescent hospital is approved. In addition, the applicant has
submitted a request for variance as to off-street parking and
setbacks. The site plan as now presented to the Council has in-
cluded a small court and fountain which would give some considera-
tion to visual approach and landscaping.
REPORT RE CUP
(Rosenberg)
In the matter of off-street parking a workable plan has been de-
vised to provide one space of off-street parking for each two
beds, but it does necessitate encroachment into the required
street frontage yard. This plan would provide for a landscaped
strip, then a center wall treatment with landscaping on both
sides and breaks in the wall so it is not a barrier.
In summary, Mr. Musso said this original proposal maintained the
required parking, allowing parking to be in the setback area with
the described wall treatment; otherwise, it is in conformance
with the ordinance.
Councilman Uthe asked Mr. Musso about the reduction in required
parking. Mr. Musso stated that a review of our ordinance was
in progress; parking requirements in accordance with our present
orinances are probably on the high side in comparison with other
cities and for this particular use.
Mr. Earl Mason, representing the applicant Harry Rosenberg, pre-
sented another site plan which had been prepared. The only differ-
ence is perhaps a better use of the land; the lower tip has been
rearranged and 13 parking spaces deleted and included as land-
scaping, leaving a total of 57 parking spaces. Mr. Mason said a
review of ordinances in other communities showed a variation in
parking needs; a convalescent hospital does not need as much park-
ing as a general hospital and the average formula for computing
parking requirements in other locations for this use provides one
parking space for each three beds. He stated his client would be
agreeable to either of the two plans.
Councilman Miller asked the applicant about reducing the size,
or number of beds, and thus reducing the required number of park-
ing spaces. Mr. Musso indicated the density for this use was
computed so that it is comparable to a residential use; the pre-
sent zoning is RG-16, which allows for multiple use and a density
of 70 per acre. This site has 2.02 acres; therefore the maximum
allowable of 142 beds had been computed according to the zone.
*
*
*
MAYOR MARGUTH RETURNED TO THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. MAYOR PRO
TEMPORE SILVA SUMMARIZED THE PRESENTATION OF THE MATTER UNDER
DISCUSSION.
*
*
*
Mr. Mason stated that the reason for the arrangement of the plan
he was presenting was to provide more landscaping and less paved
CM-22-315
March 2, 1970
(CUP
Rosenberg
Continued)
area. If the Council desired the additional park-
ing (70 spaces), the applicant is willing to go
ahead on that basis also.
Councilman Taylor said that it would be a shame to
require the area to be paved if it is not really needed for parking
since landscaping would be more attractive.
Councilman Miller stated the Council still has not made a decision
as to whether there should be a convalescent hospital at this loca-
tion as the Planning Commission had originally denied the application.
The Council then discussed briefly its previous consideration re-
lating to this use at this location. This matter had been referred
back to the Planning Commission for presentation of a design before
the Council considered approval of the use and construction of a
convalescent hospital on the site. A motion was made by Councilman
Uthe, seconded by Mayor Marguth, to grant the Conditional Use Per-
mit subject to the conditions relating to design and site plan set
forth by the Council.
Councilman Taylor stated that the property is presently zoned for
multiple dwellings, 16 per acre; it is adjacent to a park area on
a heavily traveled street with a school close by. He felt this use
was better for the community than development as multiple dwellings.
Councilman Miller stated he would like to have all the conditions
of the permit set forth in writing regarding nature of landscaping
and design review, etc. before vote on the CUP. Mr. Musso then
stated the usual or standard conditions, but Councilman Miller said
he would like to have them written out as they would be approved
and suggested continuance for one week. The applicant was asked
if he needed total approval at this time and ~r. Mason said one week's
continuance would be agreeable.
By the following vote the Conditional Use Permit subject to these
conditions relating to design and site plan was approved:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
None
Councilman Uthe stated he thought it extremely important that the
building be broken as shown on both of the site plans at the corner
of Portola and North Livermore Avenue. The break in the building
line makes it look like two buildings and should be retained. He
also said he would like to have the report on the study for parking
requirements in the City.
Councilman Miller stated that the Planning Commission made a number
of comments relating to the size of the structure and that it was
incompatible to the site, and Councilman Miller added he thought it
was incompatible to the location at the entrance of the City, and
next to a park. His feeling was that the size of the building as
well as the number of parking spaces should be reduced.
Councilman Uthe commented that the percentage of landscaping to
the total area was approximately 37%, which is high; the site is
an odd shaped parcel and asked if there was a possibility of the
building being built as a two-story structure.
Mr. Randall Schlientz, representing the architect for the applicant,
said he did not feel that a two-story structure would be practical,
but that additional breaks could be put into the design.
A motion was made by Mayor Marguth, seconded by Councilman Uthe,
that the plan presented in the staff proposal be approved with the
required number of parking spaces as provided by the ordinance,
CM-22-316
March 2, 1970
and direct that the design review include the
possibilities of further breaks in the struc-
ture on Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue,
and in the event the Planning Commission re-
duces the parking requirements for this type of use that this
applicant be allowed to develop under the revised ordinance.
During the following discussion, Councilman Miller stated he
thought the number of units should be reduced to 114, and this
would solve the design and parking problems. Councilman Taylor
stated the ordinance provides a maximum number of units to be
allowed, but unless there is a reason for lowering the number of
units approved, such as a design which is incompatible, the lower
number of units should not be arbitrarily set. Councilman Taylor
then made an amendment to the main motion, seconded by Mayor Mar-
guth, to set a maximum number of beds allowable at 140, and this
motion to amend was approved unanimously.
(CUP - Rosenberg
Continued)
Councilman Uthe pointed out that this site is located at one of the
most important intersections of the City, and this is an opportunity
to avoid construction of concrete walls, provide a 37 to 40% land-
scaped environment, and have a low congestion and low noise type
of use.
The motion to approve the plan in the staff proposal with the
conditions set forth was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
None
On motion of Mayor Marguth, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and by
unanimous approval, the appeal to variance for off-street parking
and street frontage yard was tabled.
*
*
*
AT THIS TIME MAYOR MARGUTH RESUMED THE CHAIR
*
*
*
The Matter of a resolution authorizing execu-
tion of a sewer connection agreement for the
Shell Service Station to be constructed at
the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and
Murrieta Boulevard was removed from the Con-
sent Calendar. At the request of Councilman Miller,
Director was asked to present the exhibits which are
of the agreement relating to design.
SEWER CONNECTION
AGREEMENT
(H. C. Elliott)
the Planning
to be a part
Councilman Silva stated he would abstain from discussion on this
matter.
The Planning Director reported that during the design review of
the site plan for the construction of this service station the
landscaping was increased as much as possible. The plan is a
basic Shell design with an adobe or similar type masonary wall
and the roof is to be dark; the lighting is to be a low level
mushroom type around the site and entries.
Councilman Taylor commented that this design was not comparable
with the recently constructed Shell station at Murrieta and
St~nley Boulevards. He was concerned that this would represent
an approved station design coming from the design review committee,
and he would be alarmed if a station of this design was built in
the City. The Council was especially concerned over the sign and
supporting structure.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, to approve the design with the exception of the chimney
CM-22-317
March 2, 1970
(Agreement -
H.C. Elliott
Continued)
structure, and to express regret that the design
is not the same quality as that at other Shell loca-
tions in the City.
In the discussion the Council members expressed their
disappointment that this design just outside the City limits was not
as attractive as the one built within the City limits. They had
hoped to have the same quality station constructed at this site.
The motion to approve the design was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Silva
RESOLUTION NO. 32-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Sewer Connection - H. C. Elliott)
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF Councilman Taylor spoke regarding the decision re-
(Mayors cently of United Concrete Pipe Corporation to leave
Conference) Livermore. He felt that some other method should be
used to attract industry; we cannot just sit back and
wait for inquiries. We need some expert consulting
advice to tell us how to get industry for Livermore. The work of
the Chamber must be supplemented.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and
by unanimous approval, the staff was directed to present a proposal
for supplemental effort to actively recruit the type of industry
needed in this community.
The Council discussed the problem, and it was pointed out that
prospects do come into the City and are welcomed by various agencies
but there has been little success in locating these industries in
Livermore. There are some disadvantages to overcome.
*
*
*
CANDIDATES -
CITY COUNCIL
...-.
Councilman Miller pointed out to candidates and
their managers that the ordinance covering disclo-
sure of campaign contributions includes committees
which aid in the election of the candidate.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
to an executive session for consideration of appoint-
ments, and then to an adjourned meeting on March 9,
1970, at 9:30 p.m.
APPROVE_A/~r ff)ur~
Mayor
ATTEST ~... 1 (n .
C" Y
Liver re
CM-22-318
* * *
---and covers testimonial dinners which raise money for the
candidates and citizen's committees which endorse candidates
since they aid in the election of candidates. Since these
committees aid in the election they must disclose the
source of their income. ~~e~
0~.:L
Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 9, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was
held on Monday, March 9, 1970, in the Justice Court
Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was
called to order at 9:42 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva and Taylor ROLL CALL
Councilman Uthe (due to illness) and .
Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Silva led the members of the PLEDGE OF
Council and those present in the audience in the ALLEGIANCE
Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by MINUTES:
Councilman Miller, the minutes of March 2, 1970,
were approved as amended by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Silva
None
Councilman Uthe and Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
Stuart Smith, 2222 2nd street, a representative OPEN FORUM
of the Clean Air Coordinating Committee, report-
ed that the committee would like to offer an
alternative to a ban on building by asking the City Council to
back a Valley-wide plan to implement a transfer of densities.
Under such a plan if builders wish to construct multiple type
dwellings or cluster housing then they would dedicate some land
outside the immediate downtown area, and the density on this land
would be reduced to one per acre so there would be open space
around the City. He hoped the City Council would spearhead this
plan and offer it to other communities in the Valley.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Polling Places -
RESOLUTION NO. 33-70 General Municipal
Election
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICERS, CONSOLIDATION
OF PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, HOURS TO BE OPEN AND
FIXING COMPENSATION OF ELECTION OFFICERS.
The above resolution is in connection with the General Municipal
Election to be held April 14, 1970, in the City of Livermore.
*
*
*
The following resolution is in connection with
the annual weed abatement program and was in-
troduced; all parcels will be posted, and a
notice mailed setting a hearing on April 21 to
hear objections to the notice to abate weeds,
rubbish, etc.
Weed Abatement
Program
CM-22-319
March 9, 1970
(Weed
Abatement)
Grazing Lease
Vargas Bros.
Portola Ave.
Assessment
District -
1966-2
Improvements-
Tract 2725
Report from
City Manager-
AB 479
CM-22-320
RESOLUTION NO. 34-70
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.
*
*
*
A grazing lease has been placed for bid with the
result that Vargas Brothers was the successful
bidder. The following resolution was introduced
authorizing execution of the lease agreement for
the old garbage disposal site.
RESOLUTION NO. 35-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Vargas Bros. - Grazing Lease)
*
*
*
The Portola Avenue Assessment District, 1966-2, was
formed for the purpose of installing a wall along
Portola Avenue. The work has been completed and
$963.38 remains as surplus funds. The following
resolution is introduced to approve the Engineer's
final recapitulation of cost, declaring a surplus
and directing its distribution.
RESOLUTION<NO. 36-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING ENGINEER'S FINAL RECAPITULATION
OF COSTS, DECLARING A SURPLUS AND DIRECTING ITS
DISTRIBUTION, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1966-2, PORTOLA
AVENUE, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
*
*
*
The Public Works Director submitted a report re-
garding Tract 2725 improvements.
RESOLUTION NO. 37-70
RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS
FOR TRACT 2725, CITY OF LIVERMORE
*
*
*
The City Manager submitted a report regarding AB 479.
This bill is to be heard by the Assembly this week
and requires the annexation of Napa, Sonoma and
Solano Counties to the Bay Area Air Pollution Con-
trol District.
Dr. Donald Watson of the Clean Air Coordinating
Committee stated the committee had been asked to
testify on this matter on Thursday and urged the
Council to support this bill. It was the decision
of the Council to direct a letter to the legislative
committee urging support for the passage of AB 479
to be delivered by Dr. Watson who will be attending
the hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 39-70
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE INCLUSION OF THE
COUNTIES OF NAPA, SOLANO AND SONOMA WITHIN THE
BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.
*
*
*
March 9, 1970
(AB 479 Continued)
A notice to consider an appeal of the City from
the decision of the Alameda County Planning
Commission on the application for a Conditional
Use Permit, as provided in the Zoning Ordinance
of Alameda County has been received and the date
set for March 17, 1970. Southern Pacific Transportation Company
has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to locate two directional
tract signs at Stanley Blvd. and Murrieta Blvd. Planning Director
George Musso and Councilman Miller are to be present at the hear-
ing and Supervisor Murphy is to be contacted regarding the hearing.
*
*
*
A letter from the Benk of America regarding the
arson at its Isla-Vista branch was acknowledged.
*
*
*
Notice of Hearing -
Appeal CUP
So. Pacific
Communication -
Bank of America
A letter was received from the Board of Educa-
tion, County of Alameda, regarding installation
of Community Antenna TV franchise. The Board has
adopted a resolution urging communities to consider requests
installation of cable systems and educational merits of such
ities when granting or amending existing CATV franchises.
*
*
*
An exempt business license application was ap-
proved for the L.D.S. Church Relief Society,
950 Mocho Street, to hold a bazaar on March 14.
*
*
*
CATV - Franchise
for
facil-
Exempt Business
License
One hundred ten claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims
$27,951.29, dated March 2, two hundred payroll
warrants dated February 20, in the amount of
$68,183.82, and two hundred forty-four payroll warrants dated
March 5, in the amount of $69,996.64 were presented to the Council
and ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the items on the consent
calendar were approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva and Taylor
None
Councilman Uthe and Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that Jupiter Con-
struction, Inc. was requesting a subdivision
of Parcel C, of Tract 3073, formerly approved
as a multiple residential lot, located west of
Arroyo Road, south of Arroyo Mocho, and within
Planned Unit Development No. 22.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
AMENDMENT TRACT
3073 - Jupiter
Construction
The developer now wants to develop this parcel as a typical sub-
division with lots less than 6,000 sq. ft. to permit tandem
CM-22-321
March 9, 1970
(Amendment
Tr. 3073
Continued)
dwellings, or two houses with zero lot line on ad-
jacent lots. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of the requested amendment. The only dis-
tinguishing characteristic is the twenty foot
dedicated, landscaped strip along Arroyo Road. A
dedication in this area is for access to Arroyo Road and the
Arroyo Mocho parkway.
second
future
Planning Works Director Daniel Lee pointed out that this dedicated
landscaped strip will be an asset to Arroyo Road although there will
be increased maintenance cost to the City and will be the first ex-
tensive planted area along a major street. The plantings will be
those requiring minimum maintenance, and automatic sprinklers will
be installed.
Councilman Miller pointed out that in looking over Exhibit "B", he
did not see that Rs-4 standards are to be applied as a condition to
this development and it was decided this should be included on the
planning development permit.
Mr. Musso stated that the overall density of the development is to
be 4 d.u./acre. There were 133 units originally approved, but this
amendment would reduce the number to 98.
Mr. Masud Mehran, president of Sunset Homes, Inc., stated that this
Tract 3073 was approved under PUD No. 22 which is valid and in force,
and thLs proposal is under RS zoning ordinance without variances. The
design presented has met the approval of the Planning Department,
Planning Commission and the FHA. Some of the advantages of this pro-
posal are as follows: 1) It does not increase the density; 2) Pro-
vides beautification of Arroyo Road; 3) Introduces a unique type of
housing; 4) Provides housing for people of modest income; 5) Provides
good traffic flow; 6) Provides good access from subject area to Mocho
Park; 7) Subject area is only two blocks from Sunset East Park;
8) The subdivision widens Arroyo Road to maximum of 88 feet; 9) Exten-
sion of sewer line to Arroyo Road; 10) Hope to encourage other de-
velopers to come up with innovative design; 11) It is being developed
under PUD and has all the advantages of a PUD type development and
12) Development is guaranteed as Sunset is owner, developer, and
sales agent for Garden Villas.
In regard to the park access on the westerly line, the access was
included in the original planning, but there seemed to be disadvan-
tages such as concentration of traffic flow to park to that point and
possibility of the strip becoming a collecting area for trash.
Councilman Miller said he was happy to see the park completed and
appreciated the loan so that it could be developed now. The motion
to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve
the amendment of the tentative map for Tract 3073 was made by Coun-
cilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor and approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Mayor pro tempore Silva
None
Councilman Uthe and Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE
(Roscoe Brown)
The application of Roscoe I. Brown for Variance to
allow as a building site a lot with reduction of
the required five'acres to 0.57 and reduction of
median lot width from the required 300 feet to
154 feet, at 1339 Vasco Road, was referred from the
County Planning Commission. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval, subject to conditions in the staff report and its trans-
mittal to the County Planning Commission was approved by the follow-
ing vote:
CM-22-322
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Silva
None
Councilman Uthe and Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
The summary of the action taken by the Plan-
ning Commission at its meeting of March 3,
1970, was acknowledged.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings
of February 17 and February 24, 1970, were ac-
knowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
The conditions for approval of the Conditional
Use Permit for construction of a convalescent
hospital at Portola Avenue and Livermore Ave-
nue were reviewed by the Council.
March 9, 1970
(Variance - Brown
Continued)
SUMMARY - PLANNING
COMMISSION
MINUTES - PLANNING
COMMISSION
REVIEW - CUP
CONDITIONS
(Rosenberg)
Councilman Miller said he felt that the building elevation and
landscape design should be "subject to design review" rather than
"subject to the final approval of the City Director of Planning."
(Item A.8) and as further listed in Resolution No. 3-70.
*
*
*
*
MAYOR MARGUTH RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL MEETING AT THIS TIME.
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that since there is so much landscaping
involved in this design, the landscaping should be large enough
to be attractive and to grow to maturity in reasonable time.
Mr. Mason, representing the applicant, asked if the applicant
comes in with a parking plan with less paved area but still 70
spaces, which is acceptable to the design review committee, would
this be agreeable. Mr. Musso said this would be under condition
A.7. Discussion followed relative to the required chain link
fence next to the City park area. Mr. Mason said the applicant
wished to have this fence lower and unscreened in order that visi-
bility will not be obscured. It was decided that the applicant
should sub~ a request for variance in the height of the fence
at a later time if desired.
The conditions of approval were acceptable to the Council.
MAYOR MARGUTH RESUMED THE CHAIR AT THIS TIME.
*
*
*
The City Attorney reported he had received a
letter from the Legislative Council in regard
to the bill amending the subdivision map act,
as proposed by our City for submittal and in-
troduction by Assemblyman Carlos Bee. Mr. Lewis
will convey the Council's approval.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that an application
had been received from the Livermore Jaycees
who wish to sponsor a fly-in and air show at
the airport on May 3, from approximately 8:00
The purpose of the show is to display for the
MATTERS INITIATED
BY THE STAFF
(Subdivision Map Act)
(Jaycees Sponsor-
ship-Air Show)
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
public some antique
CM-22-323
March 9, 1970
(Air Show
Continued)
aircraft and flying demonstrations and competitions.
The Airport Advisory Committee has reviewed this
matter and adopted a motion recommending approval
of the permit. Approval would be subject to the
following conditions: 1) Insurance coverage in an adequate amount
as a rider on the City's policy will be obtained and the cost borne
by the Jaycees; 2) Necessary crowd control and safety precautions
satisfactory to federal, state and local requirements be provided;
3) Payment made to City to cover necessary material and personnel
cost; 4) Return grounds to former condition in connection with
cleanup and maintenance and 5) Any other requirements considered
necessary by the Airport Superintendent.
Mr. Noel Shirley of the Jaycees reported that it is anticipated the
type and size of the crowd will be about the same as the Centennial
Air Show.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
application, with the stated conditions, was approved by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Uthe
(Population
Estimate -
State Dept. of
Finance)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness requested that a resolution be adopted
by the Council authorizing execution of an agree-
ment with the State Department of Finance for the
conduct of a special census which will provide a
count by June. The cost is approximately $340.00.
RESOLUTION NO. 38-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
RE POPULATION ESTIMATE
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
above resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Uthe
Report re
Construction
Bid - LDAD
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported on behalf of DeLeuw, Cather
and Company, the consulting engineer, that six
bids were received on March 6 for the construction
work in the proposed Livermore Plan. These bids
have been reviewed by the City staff and the
engineers,and the low bidder is Gordon Ball, Inc., in an amount of
$1,948,969. Receipt of this report was acknowledged by the Council.
In the event the assessment District is formed, it is recommended
that the bid be awarded to this firm.
MATTERS INITI-
ATED BY COUNCIL
(Traffic
Signal-4th
and Holmes st)
Environmental
Quality Study
Council
CM-22-324
*
*
*
Councilman
complaints
and Holmes
matter.
Taylor stated that he had received some
regardirgthe left turn signal at 4th
Streets and asked for a report on this
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor spoke regarding the Environmental
Quality Study Council held on March 7, stating that
it was a rather high level discussion and felt it
was a productive affair for the Valley. On motion
March 9, 1970
of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Silva, the Council directed that a letter of
commendation and thanks be addressed to the
Chamber of Commerce and the Council for En-
vironmental Affairs for conducting this hearing in Livermore
allowing the testimony to be submitted in this location, and
motion was approved by the following vote:
(Environmental
Quality Study
Council, Cont'd)
and
the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman uthe
*
*
*
Councilman Miller indicated a meeting should (LARPD Meeting)
be set with LARPD soon to discuss plans and
possibility of joint committee. Mr. Parness was directed to try
to set a meeting between the 24th and 26th of March.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked if there is any way
the Council can take action regarding the
switching and maintenance of the railroad
tracks. Mr. Parness stated that the railroad
companies can be requested to look into the matter.
(RR Track
Maintenance)
*
*
*
The study session set for March 5, was cancelled, (Study Session)
and Councilman Miller felt another date should
be set. The Council will consider this matter
and whether or not to wait until after the new
Council is seated to hold the study session.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva read a statement to the Council
concerning the recent meeting of the Environmen-
tal Quality Study Council held on March 7. He
spoke in reference to statements made at the
meeting by an elected official of the City of
Livermore, calling for a mortorium on residential development and
re-routing of major freeway through traffic as a means of combat-
ing air pollution in the Valley. These statements gained national
publicity which Councilman Silva felt would retard industrial de-
velopment in Livermore for several years. Industry will not locate
in an area where its employees cannot find homes, and industrial
growth is needed and sought after by the City. Secondly, one com-
munity cannot condemn people for using the freeway system provided
for travel through the Valley. He felt the real problem was the
internal combustion engine and efforts should be directed to
elimination of this source of pollution. Councilman Silva further
stated the Council must be for progress and against any emotional
moratorium at any time and urged the Council to adopt a policy
statement as a community that welcomes controlled growth and that
we do not support a moratorium on residential development. Coun-
cilman Uthe had read the policy statement and supports this poli-
cy, but was not present due to illness, stated Councilman Silva.
(Statement -
Environmental
Quality Study
Council Meeting)
On motion by Councilman Silva, seconded by Mayor Marguth, the
Council was asked to adopt a policy statement to this effect.
Mayor Marguth said that it was his understanding that a moratorium
had not been called for at the meeting, and the statements made
nationally were misleading and action by the Council would not
offset what had already been said.
Councilman Miller pointed out that what had been said was that
the Valley has the worst smog problem in Northern California;
CM-22-325
March 9, 1970
(Environmental
Meeting
Continued)
this is a fact and he felt he could not lie about
it. As a Councilman he felt he should look after
the interests of his constituents. They have nothing
to gain by an increase in smog and he had suggested
that the Study Council consider a temporary morator-
ium on construction in this Valley and the possibility of trying to
discourage traffic on the freeways as a means of controlling pollu-
tion since these are the only sources over which we have control
and which represent the fastest rising components in smog. The
average pollution level is 20% over the State minimum standard and
people in Livermore should not have to suffer from this increase
in smog. Councilman Miller further stated he could not encourage
construction when it could result in a decline of values of exist-
ing properties. Contamination from car pollution will take ten
years to control and protection is needed now; whatever it takes
to protect his constituents now, he is willing to do. Growth is
not necessarily progress in today's world, nor is unlimited build-
ing of freeways considered progress. A stand should be taken to
try to stop pollution which is a severe problem.
It is irresponsible to waive off as without value the 70,000 people
who live in the Valley for the benefits from encouraging another
1,000 to 2,000 families to enter the Valley each year. Planned
growth depends on who the City Council is and to which pressures
they succumb. Local people will suffer more from growth than those
who would be affected by a moratorium would suffer. He felt that
this resolution should be put aside.
Councilman Silva stated he did recognize that we have a smog problem,
but he did not feel that a moratorium on building is the right action.
Mayor Marguth summarized the intention of the resolution as recog-
nizing the Council's desire for controlled growth and a planned
community and stating that the Council has never taken action
calling for a moratorium. Planned growth is outlined by the General
Plan and past action of the Council.
Councilman Taylor stated that a resolution indicating that the Coun-
cil has never considered a moratorium on building would be agreeable,
but of course it cannot speak for future Councils. Livermore's
problem is that it has had 10% per year growth and no industrial
or commercial development to keep up with the residential growth.
We do not need, at the moment, to encourage residential growth.
Mr. Earl Mason, president of the Chamber of Commerce, pointed out
that the Chamber sponsored the meeting with the sole purpose of
finding a practical solution to the smog problem. We need commer-
cial and industrial growth, and calling attention to the smog
problem will not accomplish this. Better monitoring of smog is
needed so that practical answers can be worked out. Shopping centers
will not come until the City is larger, and this is one of the pur-
poses of LDC. Mr. Mason stated that in a conversation he had with
the chairman of the Study Council, the chairman said he preferred
a density around the core of the City and reserve open spaces around
the City. It is contradictory to work for the LDC program and on
the other hand to point up the smog problem. He, too, felt that
emission control of cars would reduce the problem considerably
before too long and this part of the federal and state program should
be backed for control along this line as quickly as possible.
Mayor Marguth pointed out one of the reasons for the meeting was
to let people know that we have a problem and are working on solu-
tions. It is extremely important that radical solutions are brought
to the attention of the public in order to focus their attention on
the problem. He indicated to Councilman Miller that no one on the
Council was censuring his action as a citizen to speak out; the
important thing is that the community not get a bad image.
Councilman Miller restated his concern over the meaning of controlled
or planned growth. Nothing has been said about the rate at which
CM-22-326
March 9, 1970
this growth will be obtained; some want rapid
growth now to the extent of the General Plan.
At present there is unbalanced growth as the
residential area grows without an increase in commercial and in-
dustrial growth. A balanced community is a good idea, but in the
past years efforts to increase industrial, as well as commercial
to some degree, have failed. There are really only two ways to
make a significant difference in smog level. A building mora-
torium is not radical, and is being used in some places now because
of pollution. These proposals for reducing smog are temporary
solutions and hit at the short run problems to protect the public.
He urged that a resolution of this kind not be passed.
(Environmental
Council Cont'd)
In answer to Councilman Miller's statements about setting a growth
rate, Mayor Marguth pointed out that in 1966 and 1967 the Council
had given considerable study to determining a reasonable growth
rate and had asked the school board for a rate in connection with
school growth and had been unable to obtain a definite answer.
Mayor Marguth then suggested to Councilman Miller that after elec-
tion of the new Council that this matter be brought up again and
the same question asked again.
After further discussion the resolution was restated that the
Livermore City Council has supported the balanced community con-
cept and the Livermore City Council has never considered a mora-
torium on growth.
Councilman Taylor stated that as far as he knew Councilman Miller
had not asked for a moratorium, and he felt this discussion was
misleading without a moratorium ever having been proposed. He
felt that what had been said at the meeting by Councilman Miller
as a private citizen should be separated from the statements of
the Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 40-70
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A BALANCED COMMUNITY CONCEPT
The above resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Uthe
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth reported that the revised assess-
ment factors for the Livermore Plan are almost
identical with those originally calculated.
For the residential property the rate is .01115
per square foot rather than .0115, and the base factor for the
core area is .136 per square foot instead of .119. A courtesy
notice will be sent out as quickly as possible.
LDC Assessment
Rates
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST l
CM-22-327
LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Transcript of meetings of March 16 and March 17, 1970
in separate binder.
Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 21, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to
order by Councilman Uthe at 10:05 A.M., on Saturday, March 21,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue,
with Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Uthe in attendance, Mayor
Marguth and Councilman Silva absent. The meeting was then ad-
journed to the Livermore High School Auditorium for further
discussion concerning the Livermore Development Assessment
District.
*
*
*
The meeting of the City Council was again called to order at
10:20 a.m. at the Livermore High School to discuss the testi-
mony taken on Monday and Tuesday evenings, March 16 and 17, and
to attempt to evaluate the equities and inequities which were
brought out in that testimony. The first step this date was to
discuss the testimony received relative to the inequities brought
to the Council's attention and then the Council would move to a
discussion of the overall project.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor, Uthe ROLL CALL
and Mayor Marguth
ABSEN'l' :
None
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth presented a transmittal from the LDC which listed
several items in which they believed there should be realignment
of the zones of benefit. The testimony received during the pub-
lic hearing substantiated the recommendation from the LDC.
The first item was regarding the Madeira Way Madeira Way
area, and the recommendation is as follows:
Several properties along the north side of
Madeira Way presently are included in Track Relocation Zone No.6;
it is proposed that these properties be removed from this zone due
to their lack of benefit from this improvement.
The Mayor explained that there are approximately 11 homes included
in this area which were originally included in the T-6 Zone be-
cause of the relocation of the Southern Pacific tracks further to
the north to align with the Western Pacific tracks, and it was
the opinion of the assessment engineers that there was equity for
the eleven parcels beginning at School Street and moving to the
east. Closer to the middle of the block on Madeira, the tracks
were essentially in the same location as before so the rest of
the homes were not included in the T-6 Zone. All of Madeira Way
was considered B-1 Zone in the Beautification portion of the plan,
since heavy screening was to be placed along all of the tracks
in that area.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and by unanimous approval, the Council accepted the recommendation
to delete this portion of Madeira Way from the Track Relocation
Zone No.6.
Testimony had been heard from the owner of the
Livermore Car Wash, questioning the benefit to
that property. There are six lots which pre-
sently have frontage on east First Street, but will not have front-
age on the proposed realigned First Street, and it is recommended
that this property be changed from Track Relocation Zone of Bene-
fit No. 1 to Zone 4, which carries a 25% factor for track relocation.
Livermore Car Wash
(2891 First st.)
Councilman Silva stated he agreed with this recommendation since
the state highway will be removed and the property will not have
CM-22-329
March 21, 1970
(Car Wash) direct access to the state highway when the plan j_s
implemented. Councilman Silva suggested the possibility
that the property might even be removed from the Zone 4
benefit district as there would be approximately 100 feet between
this property and the realigned First street, and in order for the
owners to have access to First street they would have to purchase
this frontage.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to accept the recommendation to change the zone of benefit from T-l
to T-4.
Councilman Silva made an amendment to the motion to change the zone of
benefit to T-5, which would be an approximate reduction of 2i per square
foot, but the motion was not seconded.
The motion to accept the recommendation to change the zone of benefit
to T-4 was approved unanimously.
Glenwood
,Court
One of the residents had spoken for the neighborhood in
the area of Glenwood Court and stated that the residents
were in opposition to the plan because they felt that their
single family residential area would not benefit to the
extent of the rest of the area since their homes were recently constructed,
high quality houses and they intended to remain so for many years.
In connection with this area, Mayor Marguth pointed out that there is
a further recommendation for creation of a T-7 Zone of benefit to ex-
tend down to P street on the east, 4th street on the south, and half-
way through the block on 2nd street.
Councilman Miller said he felt that since this area is not commercial
and probably never will be, that the area be removed from the track
relocation assessment. Councilman Silva felt that since the tracks
would be moved away from the area that they would benefit from the re-
location to some degree. Councilman Taylor stated that to his know-
ledge this area is not considered for commercial usage under the Gen-
eral Plan and would remain residential; therefore, he agreed with
Councilman Miller.
Mayor Marguth explained that the Glenwood Court area is zoned RL-6
(Residential) which involves eleven lots and north of the corner lot
the area is zoned CP (Professional Office).
Councilman Taylor said he would question deleting the vacant lot front-
ing on Holmes Street as he felt it unlikely that a single family home
would be constructed fronting on Holmes Street across from a commercial
area. He suggested that the boundary be drawn to include only the
present single family construction.
Mayor Marguth felt it would not be equitable to single out anyone
property. Councilman Silva felt separating the lots on Holmes would
be pre-zoning of the area.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that on Madeira Way the value is increased
because it becomes quieter from the track relocation without the idea
of the area ever being zoned commercial, while the area fronting on
Holmes is being charged for part of the track relocation simply because
it will promote commercial activity.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Uthe, to delete
the area west of Holmes within the recommended T-7 zone from the re-
location assessment. A motion to amend the main motion was made by
Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, that those two lots
fronting on Holmes street should be left in the track relocation zone.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilman Silva, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
The main motion to delete the proposed area to be assigned a zero assess-
ment for track relocation was carried unanimously.
ON-22-330
March 21, 1970
.~
Property in the area of Lillian and Broadmoor
streets have the back of their lots encumbered
by a 100 ft. wide PG&E easement. Although this
property can be used by the property owners, it
is restricted for structural placement and in
view of this it is concluded that an equitable resolution would be
to apply only a 50% assessment against that portion of this pro-
perty under the PG&E easement.
Lillian street and
Broadmoor st.
Mayor Marguth stated that a transmittal had been received from the
property owners on Lillian street indicating they were not protest-
ing their entire properties, but were protesting the assessment on
this PG&E easement. The recommendation is that the property bear
a 50% assessment in view of the fact that the property is available
for limited use by the owners.
Councilman Miller made a motion to accept the proposal of the pro-
perty owners that there be no assessment on the PG&E easement area
in Wagoner Farms and Greenville North and this easement area be
deleted from the general underpass zone, and the motion was seconded
by Mayor Marguth.
Councilman Uthe stated that the recommendation of the LDC implies
that the land is about one-half usable. Mayor Marguth then read
the transmittal statement received from the homeowners in the
area stating that they do not receive benefit from this area.
The motion to exclude from the city-wide assessment for underpass
construction the PG&E easement areas in Wagoner Farms and Greenville
North was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Silva
During the discussion Councilman Silva expressed his feeling that
since the easement area is under the name of the property owner
and can be used by him for some uses, that the property owner does
benefit from the easement and should be assessed at 50% of the ori-
ginal assessment for this portion of land.
Mayor Marguth read the recommendation from the
LDC. The Valley Memorial Hospital is presently
located in Track Relocation Zone No. 3 and be-
cause the nature of this institution is valley-
wide and a substantial portion of their holdings is being devoted
to parking and landscaping, a change in zone was thought appro-
priate. The hospital general plan anticipates that their frontage
may be devoted to private but allied commercial use in time. For
this reason it is proposed that the front 100 feet in depth be
classified in the TR-3 Zone of benefit and the balance in TR-6 Zone.
Valley Memorial
Hospi tal
Mayor Marguth stated the approximate reduction in the estimated
amount of assessment is $8,000. The front 100 feet would be in
the TR-3 Zone, which is 50% benefit, and the balance in TR-6,
which is 10% benefit.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to change the zones of benefit for Valley Memorial Hospital and
that the front approximate 100 feet be left in TR-3 and the rest
placed in TR-6.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to amend the main motion by
directing the assessment engineers to delete the rear portion of
the property, which will be in perpetual use as a hospital, from
the potential zone of benefit and reduce it to zero benefit, and
it was seconded by Councilman Miller. After further discussion
regarding the benefits to be derived by the hospital under its
general plan from the track relocation zones, Councilman Miller
withdrew his second from the motion to amend.
CM-22-331
... .L
March 21, 1970
(Hospital
Continued)
Councilman Miller then made an alternate motion to
amend the main motion to accept the recommendation
that the first 100 feet be in TR-3 Zone and that
all property behind that line be excluded from the
track relocation for a zero assessment. He felt this land would be
in public use and no commercial benefit would be derived. However,
there was no second made for the alternate motion to amend.
At the close of the discussion, the main motion to place the front
100 feet in TR-3 and the rest in TR-6 was approved unanimously.
Mayor Marguth read the following recommendation of
the LDC: Although only six zones of benefit pre-
sently exist for proposed application in track re-
location, further thoughts are that some of the
properties inclusive in TR-6 Zone of benefit will
derive a lesser amount of benefit due to their location and the
effects of the improvement. Generally, this pertains to the land
between 3rd and 4th streets, westerly of P street (including the
Glenwood area and the hospital which have already been considered)
and also some land that is in a similar category, located in the east
portion of the central business district that is between 3rd and 4~
streets and McLeod and Wood streets. It is suggested that this new
zone of benefit be applied to this area, that being TR-7, which would
have an assessment rate of approximately one-half of Zone TR-6, or a
5% assessment, and the rate per square foot would be approximately
.0075/square foot.
TRACK
RELOCATION
ZONE NO. 7
Mayor Marguth stated that the area located in the east portion of
the central business district has not been defined and this area
must be considered and a recommendation made by the Council as to
the boundaries.
Mayor Marguth asked that the Council first consider that area clearly
defined on the revised map between 3rd and 4th streets, westerly of
P street. There had been testimony from persons in this area rela-
tive to their benefit. This area is presently single family residen-
tial zoning, and the recommendation for TR-7 is based upon that zoning.
In answer to a question by Councilman Uthe, Mayor Marguth explained
that action earlier in the evening had removed the Glenwood Court
area, of that area west of Holmes street, from the Track Relocation
Zone of Benefit and assigned this area a zero assessment. The area
east of Holmes street was not affected by this action. Councilman
Silva commented that the reason for this was that the homes in Glen-
wood Court are newer and will be residential for the term of the
assessment. Councilman Miller pointed out that these two sections
are also separated by a state highway.
Councilman Taylor felt it was reasonable to redefine these zones of
benefit; the ideal situation would be to have twenty zones of bene-
fit, but that would be too complicated. In this particular case as
we get closer to the outer edge of this district, there are some
clear cases where there are inequities and creation of an additional
zone, TR-7, with half the assessment rate of TR-6, is a reasonable
thing.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Silva,
to introduce the creation of a 7th zone of benefit and that the
Council move to discussion of the areas within the track relocation
that would be considered for redesignation as TR-7; the motion was
approved unanimously.
Mayor Marguth asked the Council if there were any recommendations
regarding the boundaries of that portion designated on the map in
the westerly portion of the City as TR-7. Councilman Taylor stated
that he felt the zone as indicated on the map regarding this area
was equitable as drawn. The present zoning as indicated by the staff
is RL-5-0 (5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). Mayor Marguth reminded
the Council that wherever changes in assessments are made, assess-
ments in other zones will have to be adjusted upward to compensate
for the decrease in these area~.
CM-22-332
March 21, 1970
A motion was made by Councilman Silva to adopt (TR-7 Cont'd.)
Zone TR-7 for the area east of Holmes, south
half way through the block on 2nd and 3rd Streets, over to P street
and down the north side of 4th Street, and this was seconded by
Councilman Uthe; the motion carried unanimously.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED FOR A BRIEF RECESS AND RECONVENED AT
11:30 a.m. WITH ALL PRESENT.
Mayor Marguth stated that there was a recommendation for a change
from TR-6 to TR-7 Zone of Benefit, one part of which had been con-
sidered and asked if there was any other area of TR-6 that the
Council would like to consider for TR-7.
Councilman Taylor asked if it was possible to get a recommendation
from the assessment consultant in that area.
Mayor Marguth suggested that the Council take into consideration
the testimony that has been offered and discuss whether or not
there is a reduced benefit for that area relative to another area
within the TR-6 Zone and consider it from that point of view.
Councilman Miller stated that there is a staff recommendation as
to what the area should be.
Mr. Leon Horst of the Planning Department explained that the
staff had recommended that the area east of McLeod Street south
of one-half of the block between 2nd and 3rd Streets up to the
extension of Church Street over to Wood Street be reduced down
to TR-7, which includes the area of the classrooms of st. Michael's
School. Mayor Marguth asked Mr. Horst what the general nature of
that area is, and Mr. Horst explained it was generally single family,
residential area with a few duplexes; it is planned to be a multiple
family residential area in the General Plan.
Councilman Taylor stated that he thought the properties fronting
Livermore Avenue should remain in the TR-6 Zone as they are in
rather heavy commercial use. He was advised that the recommenda-
tion is for McLeod Street and that the block including the Post
Office and the commercial between 3rd and 4th Streets is in TR-6.
Councilman Miller stated that the change seemed reasonable to
him, and made a motion to adopt the area as stated as TR-7, and
the motion was seconded by Councilman Uthe, and the Mayor asked
for discussion on the motion, if any. More specifically the mo-
tion was to include the area between McLeod, Church, Wood and
4th Streets and half way between the block on 2nd and 3rd Streets
and change that from TR-6 to TR-7 Zone of benefit.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that on the east end of this zone,
even though there is some commercial use, there are some proper-
ties that could be either multiple or commercial, nevertheless
in that area the railroad is actually being diverted away from
them and being replaced by the state highway and he believes it
is reasonable to downgrade the benefit in the area. The vote was
then taken on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mayor Marguth stated there were other areas that were mentioned
during the public hearing and protested and asked if any of the
Councilmen wished to raise any areas for discussion at this time.
Councilman Miller stated there was some testimony EL RANCHO DRIVE
raised by the people who lived on El Rancho Drive
and who argued that because the railroad tracks
were being moved toward them instead of away from them, they would
not receive a benefit, but instead a disadvantage from the track
relocation. That circumstance seemed to him legitimate grounds
CM-22-333
March 21, 1970
(El Rancho
Continued)
for protest and he suggested that even though these residents
are not in any of the track relocation districts (and that is
not an issue), they are in the underpass district
from which they will receive a benefit; that
people on El Rancho, and any other single family residences not
in a commercial zone similar to them, should have their underpass
assessment reduced by half.
Mayor Marguth restated the motion made by Councilman Miller which
was to reduce the underpass assessment by half for those proper-
ties such as on El Rancho Drive, who will receive a benefit, but
not a benefit in proportion to the rest of the community, and
asked if there were any others.
~
Councilman Silva remarked that there were some all the way through
town.
Councilman Miller, however explained that most of the places where
the railroad tracks go through now are commercial, and in those
instances, there is a distinct benefit to be gained from the moving
of the railroad tracks because of the commercial nature, but it is
the residential ones who have the disadvantage of having extra train
tracks; there may be some apartments on the east end of town, but
there aren't too many that are in this area.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Marguth.
Councilman Taylor asked how many houses were involved on El Rancho,
and it was determined by actual count that there were 26 single
family homes all about the same distance from the track, and in-
cluding the multiples, there were about 35 to 40 altogether which
includes some on Ventura Avenue also.
Councilman Taylor stated that you had to be a little careful as
the rest of the people would have to pick up this cost. He pointed
out that some of the houses on Ventura Avenue were further away
than houses on the opposite side of El Rancho Drive.
Councilman Miller stated that he would propose to draw a line along
the frontage of El Rancho, parallel to the tracks, and wherever that
line crosses the property, the ones to the south of it would be
given one-half assessment, and the ones to the north would pay the
full amount.
Mayor Marguth asked if he meant that a line would be drawn down the
middle of the street, parallel to the tracks, and Councilman Miller
stated that he would draw the line across the front of the houses
because it is the houses, and the distance of the houses from the
tracks that is important and not the middle of the street, and as
far as Ventura Avenue, it comes at an angle.
Councilman Uthe questioned the approximate amount of assessment
involved and was advised that it would be about $2500 to $3000.
Councilman Silva stated he did not know the actual asse.ssment there,
but using $50.00 as an example, if they removed that assessment,
he felt the people would still protest the tracks relocating in
that area; even if they gave them $50.00, he was sure they would
still protest. By reducing the benefits, he did not see any bear-
ing on the issue. They are part of the City, they will be using
the underpasses, and he is paying his assessment for this and that
is what most of the people are paying their assessment for - not
the fact that the tracks are close or far from him. ~~
Mayor Marguth stated that the testimony given at the public hearing
was directed more at railroad safety (referring to photographs sub-
mitted to the Council for consideration) and the increase of the
noise in the area and suggested that the Council might take action
CM-22-334
to address the photographs to the Western Pacific
Railroad and to indicate that the Council was con-
cerned about this type of situation within the
City and would like to know what their plans and
improvements are for improving the railroad track
maintenance in the area.
March 21, 1970
(El Rancho Dr.
Continued)
Councilman Miller stated that they are already in the process of
submitting a letter to the PUC about track maintenance because of
the testimony raised by the people on El Rancho Drive.
Councilman Silva added that the people in the area are also con-
cerned about where the Southern Pacific tracks were being relocated;
whether south or north of the existing Western Pacific tracks and
he felt sure it was south of the existing tracks which would be
further away from the homes on El Rancho Drive.
Councilman Taylor stated they were not really talking about a case
where these people have less benefit from the underpasses, but
were talking about sort of a payment for severence damages or some-
thing along that line, but talking about doing it a different way;
as far as the people along El Rancho Drive are concerned, they
would benefit much more from a serious commitment by the City to
heavily screen the railroad track with plantings and so forth,
which will produce a real reduction in noise and annoyance a lot
more than $30. or so in assessments. He felt the City should infor-
mally make a commitment to screen that area.
Mayor Marguttlrr.entioned that it was his understanding the Beautifi-
cation Committee had a recommendation in their budget for screen-
ing those areas regardless of whether or not the tracks are re-
located. Mayor Marguth stated further that the real issue with
the people in that area is the question of maintenance of the track,
and the second important factor is noise; they do benefit to the
same extent from the underpasses as the adjoining properties through-
out the City.
Mayor Marguth asked for a vote on the motion at this time; however,
the motion failed to obtain a majority, with Councilman Miller only
in favor.
Mayor Marguth asked if there was any other item that the Council
wished to bring to the floor relative to equity in the distribution
of benefits, and Councilman Silva stated that a representative of
the American Red Cross had contacted him regarding some property
they had just purchased at 373 North L Street. They are not pro-
testing the plan, but they feel they should be exempt since they
are a public service agency. The dollar amount is $106.86, but
if it is a public service, the hospital is and we can even assume
the churches are, so where do we draw the line? Councilman Silva
stated he did not know how he felt on this, and asked for some dis-
cussion on the matter.
Mayor Marguth stated he would like to reserve this item, along
with another discussion relative to the exemption or reduction of
assessments on church properties, when quasi public uses are dis-
cussed.
Councilman Taylor brought up the large Recreation Center in Spring-
town that is operated just like a public facility, and felt they
should discuss the pros and cons of possibly exempting that.
Councilman Silva stated if they did that they would have to include
the cabana clubs around town.
Mayor Marguth stated there was a difference in that the Recreation
Center is available for use by all organizations in the City,
and asked for the Council's feeling on this issue.
CM-22-335
March 21, 1970
Recreation
Center
Councilman Uthe stated that the Recreation Center
is a part of the Springtown Homeowners Association
and the property is owned by them as a community
project, and therefore should be assessed in bene-
fit as their single family home properties are
assessed.
Councilman Miller stated that this facility is not available freely
to the public. It was constructed originally to aid sales in Spring-
town, much as the cabana club in Granada area and the proposed swim-
ming pool in Wagoner Farms, and it could be sold at any time for
other use, such as residential, highrise, commercial, etc.
Mayor Marguth felt that the question is one of equity; it is a place
of recreation open to Springtown residents and felt there is merit
in reducing the assessment or exempting it from the district. Mayor
Marguth felt that as far as the cabana clubs are concerned, they re-
quire a paid membership and are not open to the public.
Councilman Silva said that if a fee is charged for use of the re-
creation center, other than cleanup, then a profit is made; he felt
it is not a public facility.
A member of the audience told the Council that the center was owned
by the two tracts in Springtown, and that it was available for use
only by members.
Councilman Taylor stated that the recreation center should not be
exempt since it is not open to general use by the public.
Mayor Marguth asked the Council if there were any other areas for
consideration for change of zone of benefit or exemption.
During the testimony a question was posed regarding
assessments on church properties relative to the ben-
efit derived by churches from the assessment district.
Mayor Marguth stated that in attempting to consider
use of church property there is no long term limitation as to what
a church property can be used for; one church building was recently
sold to a nursery school and used in this way for a profit making
use. Similarly, the area around the churches in the core of the City
would stand to be in a position for a higher use at some time in the
future. It would also seem that such properties as the Penticostal
College would be available, possibly at some point in time for zoning
to a higher use. But then there are several churches which have re-
cently purchased property, constructed new facilities in the suburbs
of the City, and these churches are planned as religious facilities
for at least the length of this assessment period. There is some
justification for the Council to consider a change in the benefit
distribution for religious properties.
Church
Properties
Councilman Silva said this would be difficult to do. Some churches
might fail during this period, and it would be hard to tell which
ones would be sold and which ones would remain in church use.
Councilman Uthe said he agreed with Councilman Silva; he did not
see how it could be worked out in an equitable manner.
Councilman Taylor stated that he had known churches, which in order
to grown and expand, had to buy adjacent properties at commercial
value and thus take them off the tax roll. Church exemption from
property tax is a different matter. Zone 7 tax was applied because
it was argued that churches benefited and these taxes have to be
paid. This is different in that this assessment is to make it easier
to get back and forth across the City and he did not see an equitable
way to exempt these properties.
CM-22-336
March 21, 1970
Mayor Marguth asked the Council to consider Chestnut street
the area north of the Western Pacific tracks
that is in TR-5 Zone. The original purpose
for putting this area in TR-5 was that it is adjacent to the rail-
road track and an area where there is commercial use now. TR-5
is a 15% factor rather than 10% for TR-6 or 25% for TR-4. There
are a few residences in that area; four on K street, three on the
corner of L and Chestnut streets; four on Chestnut street between
Nand M streets, and five on the corner of M and Chestnut streets,
and some on Livermore Avenue between Chestnut and Oak streets.
Councilman Miller said he thought that most of these were zoned
commercial, but it was pointed out that the area to the west of
L street is zoned commercial and the northern half is zoned
multiple and the area to the south is commercial.
Councilman Miller felt that those areas zoned multiple do benefit
since it is advantageous for multiple to be close to commercial
zoning. It is good planning sense to have multiple around the
core of the City to be close to shopping and conveniences. There
is a benefit here as to relocation of the tracks, so the assess-
ment should be retained.
Mayor Marguth stated that the question is whether this should re-
main in TR-5 or be put in TR-4 or another zone of benefit. It
does bear a relative constant zone of benefit throughout.
There was comment from the audience as to why the Council did not
take a vote on the Plan as a whole and whether all this discussion
was necessary. Mayor Marguth pointed out that it was necessary to
follow through on the discussion.
Councilman Taylor said that the north half of the two blocks
pointed out on the map are residential now, but there will be an
underpass constructed which will certainly change the use to the
west. He said he would expect the entire area to ultimately be-
come commercial.
Mayor Marguth said that the area to the east of the Livermore
Avenue extension, however, will be cut off by an underpass which
will extend almost to Chestnut street. The frontage will not be
maintained on Livermore Avenue.
Councilman Miller said he did not see any reason to increase the
amount of the assessment. The area will still be north of the
tracks.
Councilman Silva felt that the properties losing their frontage
presented another problem; otherwise he agreed with Councilmen
Miller and Taylor. Those properties without frontage will be
compensated.
THE COUNCIL RECESSED FOR LUNCH AT 12:30 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT
1:47 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE.
Councilman Uthe stated that during the recess Mr. Roger Anderson
had requested that the procedure being followed be clarified for
those present. The Council is following to the letter of the
law and the requirements placed by the state of California. The
Bond Counsel Mr. Ness, is present for the primary purpose of seeing
that the Council follows the legally prescribed course of action
and uses lawful procedures. Further, he stated that he was sure
those present wished to hear debate on the Plan as a whole, but
certain procedural steps have to be followed. The Council is not
delaying the matter.
Mayor Marguth stated that each of the recommended changes in zones
of benefit based on inequities had now been discussed, and asked
if there were any other items to be discussed before the Council
discussed the Plan in general.
CM-22-337
March 21, 1970
Hospital
Area
Councilman Uthe said he would like to discuss the
area in the vicinity of the hospital in the TR-3
Zone. Many of the people in the area are concerned
that they were included in a major street assess-
ment district for Murrieta Blvd. and are now being asked to pay for
a railroad relocation. They feel this is a lack of equity, having
to pay twice for public works improvements which benefit the whole
project.
Mayor Marguth stated that the matter concerned equity for the area
along Stanley Blvd., west of Fenton Street, which is in Zone TR-3.
Councilman Uthe pointed out they had been assessed heavily for con-
struction of Murrieta Blvd., and the TR-3 Zone is a 50% of the es-
timated square footage cost for the track relocation project, or
approximately .07/sq. ft. plus the Ii for a total of .08/sq. ft.
assessment. It must be determined if there is sufficient benefit
for the property fronting on Stanley Blvd. from the relocation of
the Southern Pacific tracks for the property to increase in benefit.
Councilman Uthe stated he was not recommending that they be removed
from the zone, butthat they might be given a credit for the cost on
the street.
Mayor Marguth felt that if this was done, then credit also would
have to be given to the railroads and the P Street shopping center
for the Railroad Avenue construction. On the Murrieta Assessment
District the City as a whole participated in that project at a rate
higher than it normally would participate simply in order to make
the project one that could go and be of benefit to the general com-
munity. The property in this area should derive substantial benefit
from the relocation of the tract and the underpass since the inter-
section will become of totally different character. The environment
of the area north of Stanley Blvd. will also become substantially
different in nature, therefore enhancing the property. Generally,
the Murrieta Assessment District included all of the area shown in
TR-3 on the map over to the hospital and including much of the TR-6
Zone south of the hospital. Mayor Marguth stated he felt there was
justification for the TR-3 assessment for this area.
Councilman Silva said perhaps there should be some adjustment for
the back half of the property, which probably will relate to another
street in the future and thought the Council should discuss changing
the back half of the property to TR-4 rather than TR-3 since it ad-
joins property assessed under TR-6. This is quite a change in assess-
ment rate. Future development probably would not go all the way back
to the line of the present TR-3 Zone.
Mayor Marguth felt that if the property was sold for development
that the entire parcel would be sold and not divided.
Councilman Silva stated that if, in the future a street bisected
the property, the property facing the new street would not be re-
lated to the railroad to the same extent as the property on Murrieta
Blvd. Under the General Plan this property is shown as a block
without any street commitment.
Mayor Marguth indicated that this was similar to the property on
~ast First Street where the entire parcel was changed to TR-4 Zone.
In this case the property cannot be split in the middle, and the
basic argument is whether or not this should be considered as an
entire parcel.
Councilman Silva felt that if half the property was owned by another
part, it would probably be assigned to the TR-4 Zone; but this is
presumed to be one ownership.
Councilman Taylor stated that the property fronting on Stanley Blvd.
will benefit because of development of the entire area as commercial,
and his understanding was that the Council was considering an inter-
mediate zoning for that property between the portion fronting on
Stanley Blvd. and that designated as TR-6.
CM-22-338
March 21, 1970
Mr. Ness pointed out that running a zone line in any particular
place did not change property descriptions or make physical changes
in the property. In other words, if a zone line runs through part
of a piece of property, that piece of property's assessment will
change due to the change in zone line, but there will not be two
separate assessments - only the dollar amount will change. So the
lines should be drawn where it is considered best.
In explanation, Mayor Marguth stated that if the property were
split so that halfway through the property the zone was changed
from TR-3 to TR-4, there would be a dollar amount calculated -
it would not be assessed at so much a foot in front and so much
a foot in back - it would be per the ownership.
Mr. Ness replied that you would arrive at the amount of the assess-
ment by calculating how much property there was in front at a
certain dollar rate and how much there is in back at a certain
dollar rate. However this assessment rate is figured, the assess-
ment for the parcel is "X" dollars and the owner would receive a
bill for that amount. If the property is later divided and part
of it sold, then the assessment split will be figured according
to the zone lines.
Councilman Taylor felt that the zone lines should not have to be
drawn along property boundaries and that most of these properties
will change hands and it does not make sense to put the boundaries
crosswise and split pieces. The main thing is to determine if this
project will benefit those properties fronting on Stanley Blvd. to
the extent shown by the map. Properties fronting on Murrieta Blvd.
are in a different category - they will be used differently since
they front on a different street and he stated that he had heard
no real argument yet on this area to substantiate a change.
Councilman Miller agreed with Councilman Taylor and did not see
any reason for a substantial change. As far as making a change
due to the fact that some of the property was in another assessment
district for Murrieta Blvd. is not reason to change the zone of
benefit on that property. The people in the previous assessment
district were in that district because of their proximity to
Murrieta Blvd. and the creation of the Murrieta Assessment District
makes their property more valuable and they do not lose anything.
Their properties do not become any less valuable due to moving the
railroad tracks, in fact they become more valuable. Councilman
Miller did not see any reason to change the zone.
Mayor Marguth asked then if there were any other areas the members
of the Council wished to discuss. As there were none, the Mayor
asked that the Council move into discussion at this time of the
general benefit to the community proposed by the construction of
the underpasses, particularly for the city-wide assessment, and
the relocation of the tracts in regard to the benefit derived by
the adjacent properties with the structured zones of benefit now
defined.
Councilman Taylor asked that the Mayor be more General Benefits
specific; if he meant the discussion to pertain
to the equity of the city-wide assessment district.
Mayor Marguth stated that the question now was whether or not there
is city-wide benefit from the construction of the underpasses -
the project cost that is to be assessed against the entire acreage
of the City as described by the zones and the benefit to that zone
must be discussed to understand the action to be taken by the
Council. In the testimony before the Council, there was testimony
relative to the fire and police protection to the property of the
community; there was testimony relative to the possible financial
benefit to the community in the long term. The Mayor then asked
if there was any comment on these items.
CM-22-339
March 21, 1970
Councilman Silva stated he agreed with the Fire Chief and Police
Chief that this will increase our fire and police protection. He
felt that from the traffic engineer's viewpoint the traffic circu-
lation will be tremendously improved; with the track relocation the
underpasses will open up commercial areas which will increase the
tax base in the City, which in turn will reduce taxes for homeowners
and will increase sales tax revenue throughout the City.
Councilman Miller wished to expand on the traffic circulation matter.
Personally, he was stopped by a train at least once every two weeks,
but the point made in the testimony is that the train traffic can
be expected to increase and certainly the auto traffic in the City
will increase strongly in the next ten to fifteen years and some
sort of grade separation will be essential, or every time a train
goes by the traffic will be backed up to Highway 50. There are
20,000 cars a day on First Street now and 40,000 can be expected
in five to ten years.
Councilman Taylor spoke regarding the underpasses, stating that
comments heard at the time that left turn lanes were installed on
First Street were that there were about 18,000 cars per day on First
Street and there are about 25,000 cars per day on Highway 580. Look-
ing at the Murrieta-Stanley Blvd. interchange, today there are just
a few feet between the tracks and the street. Murrieta Blvd. will
be the main entrance to the City of Livermore as the off-ramp from
Highway 580, for which bids have been solicited, will turn into
Murrieta Blvd. and Portola Avenue made a dead end. It is designed
to carry heavy traffic and that Southern Pacific crossing near
Stanley Blvd. is going to be extremely hazardous. An underpass
will have to be made there sooner or later. If the underpass is in-
stalled without moving the track, it will sever access to both com-
mercial properties on the south side of Stanley Blvd.; namely, it
will cut off the two new gas stations and the City will have to pay
severance damages. If there were an overpass the roadway has to be
28 ft. over the track and the overpass would extend past the stations.
It seems that the need for the underpass at this point is great, and
the benefit for the City will increase in the future.
Councilman Taylor continued that the other important crossing is at
First Street (Rte. 84). If a crossing is made there, it will be
at an oblique angle and there will be substantial benefit to have
a crossing at this location. The backup from train crossings with
traffic in excess of 18,000 cars builds up rather fast and as traffic
increases, it will be an even greater problem. There are substantial
benefits from those two crossings; there will eventually have to be
an overpass built at this point at an oblique angle and considerable
cost to the City, probably as much as the four crossings now proposed.
As far as the other two crossings, Councilman Taylor said that even
now they are very heavily used and traffic will not decrease.
Mayor Marguth spoke regarding the proposed construction of an inter-
change at Portola Avenue so that the City would have safe ingress
and egress into the freeway toward Oakland and San Francisco. North
Livermore Avenue is going to be one of the principle arteries of
the community and the State Division of Highways and the County have
designated that street as the major interchange into the City of
Livermore. As a result it would direct traffic into this City down
Livermore Avenue, and the traffic on Livermore Avenue will increase
substantially with the opening of that interchange. In regard to
the P Street separation, there is already a rather substantial
hazard in the area of Railroad Avenue and the P Street intersection; it
is not inconceivable because of the congestion in that area, and
particularly if there is additional commercial development, without
track relocation and without underpasses, that there would be the
day when people would be backed up across the tracks in both direc-
tions at a time when trains could be entering the City. For these
reasons this underpass is as justified as the other underpass loca-
tions proposed in the plan.
Mayor Marguth then asked for discussion relative to the benefit to
the track relocation.
CM-22-340
March 21, 1970
Councilman Silva stated he had mentioned the increased sales tax
revenue and increasing our tax base, and the only other point is
the additional shopping which could be available and which the
city desperately needs. The shopping cannot be brought in if
we do not have the large acreage to accommodate it, and this
acreage cannot be made available without relocating the tracks.
It can be outside our community, as in Carlton Square area
where it was hoped a major Payless outlet would be located, but
which went to Dublin instead.
Councilman Uthe wished to add one additional factor which all are
well aware of. For the past two years there have been many reports
on this project; it has been analyzed by many people - some within
the City and some without, some with a great deal of expertise
in these matters going back many years, commercial people, plan
use planners, beautification experts. Many of these reports are
in the Public Library for the public to read. Also, there was a
City Council docket placed there every week and this is on file
there. He wished to indicate that one of the major reasons for
moving the railroads is to reduce the costs of the grade separa-
tion facilities; it cuts the number that you would have to con-
struct by a number of two, and this is several million dollars.
Mayor Marguth stated there was testimony submitted relative to
the benefit that would be derived, and there was one property
owner that testified that he did not feel his property would
benefit to the extent of his assessment. He wanted to add that
this Council has, during the past few years, been continually
harrassing the Assessor to determine what was being assessed in
the core of the City, relative to the equity of the other property
owners in this community. The Council has had reports about the
assessment rates within the core of the City which indicated that
the property between the tracks was grossly under assessed because
the Assessor did not believe it was available for the highest
and best use. The estimates by the experts are that the increase
in the assessed value through that area would add to our tax rolls
something in excess of $1,000,000 per year in real property tax.
The simple fact that it is grossly under assessed is a reflection
on the environment in the core of our City. He was not precisely
certain of the numbers, but believed that there are areas within
the core of our City which are assessed at less per square foot
than his own single family residence. He felt quite certain that
the properties within that area have a much higher value and a
much higher potential use than his single family residence. In
addition to the comment relative to the fact that by the reloca-
tion of the tracks, the City can, through a very complicated
formula established by the PUC and the railroads, qualify for
financial support in the construction of the underpasses and
simultaneously reduce the gross cost to the community in the
construction of those underpasses, coupled with the potential
increase in assessed value, regardless of whether or not another
building is built in this City, and with the prospect that the
properties within that area are bearing an assessment in propor-
tion to their benefit, it seems only realistic that those properties
will, in due time, develop into a higher use. At such time, the
result will be increased assessed value within the community and
better sales tax revenues to the community. He was convinced
that if only the argument based on assessed values and sales tax
revenues to the community was used, it would be out of line some-
what; although there may be a higher amount of income to the
community, to the schools, etc., by intensive development of the
area, it is only a matter of time before that property is developed.
The big question then would be if the project does not proceed,
and the pressure is on, - and we know the pressure is on because
the market experts have told us we are deficient by at least
200,000 square feet in 1966 for commercial shopping - we can be
confident that will be strip commercial development along Rail-
road Avenue. The congestion on P Street and Railroad Avenue
was mentioned a few minutes ago, and what we see today will be
CM-22-341
March 21, 1970
insignificant to what will be seen in the near future. It is
extremely important to this community, at this point in time, to
take the progressive step of relocating these tracks, construct-
ing the necessary underpasses, seeing that the S street extension
to Railroad Avenue from Stanley Blvd. is completed, seeing that
the climate within this community becomes one for progress and
convenience for both traffic and safety, and that it becomes one
that is desirable in the eyes of the investment community. This
project brings that kind of benefit to the area within the track
relocation zone.
Councilman Silva stated he felt the City was at a crossroads and
this issue is more than just underpasses and track relocation. We
are either going forward with progress and strive for a balanced
community with the industrial and commercial that is wanted to
offset the other side of the scale which is residential, or if this
assessment district fails, then he believed another assessment dis-
trict should be formed to install hitching posts for the town be-
cause this community will die along with many people at Murrieta
Blvd. crossing. He would hate to have this on his back.
Mayor Marguth felt one of the aspects that the community as a whole
does not appreciate is the fact that elected officials, regardless
of what body they sit on, must be oriented with the realities of
operating a government and that it has been in the past years more
and more brought to the Council's attention that we are in compe-
tition with our neighbors to the west for quality growth. There
was testimony submitted in a most eloquent manner - one which he
would try to equal, when a person from out of this community spoke
to the real issues facing this Council on this assessment district
proceedings, and it is along the lines stated by Councilman Silva.
The Council has a clear choice within this community to either
accept our responsibilities as a citizenry and as a city and a
community to proceed in a positive manner toward a total community;
or if we relinquish that responsibility and do not take those steps
toward a total city, we will not be in a position to compete or to
sell this community to quality people and businesses that want to
locate here. The City of Pleasanton has atremendous asset - Castle-
wood. This asset has attracted industry to Pleasanton. Dublin
has a tremendous asset - it is at an intersection between two free-
ways and is an unincorporated area and the people in that section
do not have a voice as to what transpires in that community. As
a result of not having a voice, things can and do happen in the
Dublin area. He would argue that the City of Livermore is in an
extremely strong position today to become not only the best city
in this Valley but the one with the best opportunity to attract
industry and commerce. To excuse ourselves from the responsibili-
ties of making this a good community by saying that schools come
first or parks come first, or my pocketbook comes first, is turning
our backs on our responsibility, and our responsibility is to see
that this is a good place for people to live today and also one that
ten years from now will have a viability and identity of its own.
The issue is extremely clear: this City must either accept its
responsibility as a City and make an effort to become the number
one city in this Valley, or it will relinquish that role to one of
the smaller cities to the west. He was not looking forward to the
day when his corporation is located within a City that is not pro-
gressive or making the best use of the total efforts of the community.
He would ask the Council to consider in the resolution of this issue
the long term benefit and to have courage as City Councilmen to
face the issue, and the threats and the accusations and the criti-
cism that have been launched against them, and keep in mind that
the issue is not whether the Councilmen are to be liked, or elected,
re-elected or recalled - whatever the accusation or threats - but
that the issue is that they have the responsibility in this City
and must act upon this in line with the Constitutional process of
the State of California and the United States. He urged that the
Council consider these thoughts when the final resolution is decided.
CM-22-342
_/t._
March 21, 1970
Mayor Marguth asked if there were other questions relative to
benefit to the community with regard to the spread of the zones
of benefit and to the boundaries of the zone.
Mayor Marguth then told the Council that they Bids Received
must proceed to a discussion of the bids which
were received to determine if there are any
ways which might appreciate further savings. The bids received
are good bids within the specifications, but there might be other
items which might be considered within the overall bid of the
147 odd items that the Council might change to effect additional
reductions.
Mr. Barton told the Council the total amount of all the bid items
submitted was $1,982,504. Since then it has been called to their
attention that of the buildings which were shown on the plans to
be moved, there are certain selected buildings which can stay in
place. There was a certain amount of fencing in the contract for
which bids were received, and after discussion with the railroads,
one of the railroads prefers that a certain length of fence not
be built. There are also three or four other small items which
can be eliminated. The total savings on these items would be on
the order of $26,000; however the most significant feature, after
discussion with the representative of the contractor the previous
week, is that the plans we have call for a certain sequence of
stage construction. They call for train traffic to be carried
on temporary tracks in one area and then shifted over to another
area, which is very complex and makes it somewhat difficult for
the contractor to perform his obligation. The contractor asked
if there was any way whereby this stage construction could be re-
vised and he suggested specifically that it might be possible for
Western Pacific trains to operate on the Southern Pacific tracks
during construction only. This would be for only a few months,
and if this could be done there would be a very substantial saving
in cost and time required for construction. The savings he men-
tioned were far greater than the ones visualized by DeLeuw Cather,
as designer of the job. This matter has been subsequently dis-
cussed with each of the two railroads, and the present indication
is that they would be willing to give it sympathetic consideration
and there is a good chance now that these savings mentioned could
be put into effect although there is no positive guarantee on them.
Mayor Marguth asked Mr. Barton if he meant that, in reviewing the
bids based on the testimony received, there are some properties
which would not have to be displaced and other small items that
there could be a savings of about $26,000. These could be ab-
sorbed in the process of readjusting the bid.
Mr. Barton replied that the contract states that the contractor
is to be paid only for that specific work that he does. For
instance, if the contract includes moving Building l'A" and the
contractor has bid a certain price for that work but does not
perform it, then he is not paid for that particular item of work.
Of if the bid calls for 400 feet of fencing and he builds only
200 feet, then he gets paid for 200 feet. The bid items are all
clearly established, and savings would accrue from ordinary ad-
ministration of the contract.
Mayor Marguth questioned Mr. Barton about the point raised regard-
ing usage of the track, and asked if this was something that had
been considered before.
Mr. Barton stated that it had been considered before, but at that
time they did not feel it would be of the magnitude the contractor
has given. There definitely would be a reduction in time required.
The problem now is that the contractor can build only half of each
underpass at anyone time. He has to make space available to re-
route tracks; specifically, the trains are now operating on the
Western Pacific; they must stay on those tracks until such time
as a parallel structure is available to them where the Southern
Pacific is operating; then you transfer them over, and only at
CM-22-343
March 21, 1970
that time can the Southern Pacific half of the underpass be built.
It is a sequence of stages and means that a piledriver would come
in and work on one side of the underpass and then leave to return
in three or four months to drive the piles for the other side of
the underpass. By relocating the tracks in the manner the con-
tractor has suggested all of this work could be done at once. It
is this simplification that would achieve these savings.
Councilman Taylor said that if he understood what Mr. Barton was
saying, the trains would all be moved to the Southern Pacific tracks;
then the contractor is free to take out all of the tracks and build
the underpass at one time. He asked what Mr. Barton meant by sub-
stantial savings.
Mr. Barton replied it was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Councilman Miller stated it was his understanding that the rail-
roads had consistently refused to run both trains on one set of
tracks, but Mr. Barton was saying that they might do this for a
very short period of time. He asked Mr. Barton if they had ever
done this anywhere in the Valley.
Mr. Barton replied that this is a fairly common procedure. Whenever
there is a train derailment or a washout or slide or too much snow,
there is a standard operating procedure that the railroad operates
its trains over the other railroad. There was a bridge that burned
down up at the Altamont Pass area at the beginning of the year, and
for a short time the Western Pacific ran over the Southern Pacific
line from Stockton to just east of Livermore.
Councilman Taylor said that the railroad would consider running on
one track for a short time although they refuse for all the reasons
talked about to do it for an extended period. They would not do it
forever but they might do it for six months.
Mr. Barton said that this was right. The exact length of time that
this would be permissible would have to be negotiated.
Councilman Taylor asked then whether the main savings would then
accrue to the cost of the underpasses since they would become
cheaper to construct. It would have to be apportioned somehow to
savings of the underpass job and savings to the railroad relocation.
Mr. Barton replied that this was essentially correct although some
of the savings should be allocated to the cost of track relocation,
most of it would be allocated to the underpasses.
Councilman Silva asked how long it would take to get a firm commit-
ment from the railroad and/or the contractor, if it would delay
the project, how much time did the Council have to adopt a resolu-
tion and if a resolution could be adopted today?
Mayor Marguth said that if there is an opportunity to use the tracks
for the time it takes to build the underpasses and the savings in
cost, they should take as much time as necessary to get the engineers
to go back and convince the railroad that this is the right thing
and see about an extension from the contractor on the time of his
bid.
Mr. Barton said he could not really say how long it would take to
do this. Matters of this nature have to be submitted to the public
project engineers of the two railroads and to their management.
Management is really interested in knowing if the project is going
ahead or not before they make the final commitment on this type of
an operational procedure. This was his offhand reaction and this
would be his impression.
Councilman Taylor stated that they were talking about savings of
several hundred thousand dollars, mostly to be credited to the under-
pass construction. It is obviously too important to just ignore.
There is a responsibility to the public to make sure this job is
CM-22-344
March 21, 1970
done in the most economical way. Every home-
owner in Livermore will immediately benefit
from reduced assessment for the underpasses,
and this must be carried to the point where the City can get a
decision. He asked if this meant that the people would have to
be re-noticed, more engineering done? Clearly the railroad would
have to give their agreement.
Savings in
Construction Costs
Councilman Silva said that Mr. Barton had just stated that the
railroad would probably not give a firm commitment until they
know the district is going to be formed and a resolution made.
There is a large amount of dollars involved, which might change
some votes on the matter.
Mr. Barton said that at some point in time the Council has to
approve or disapprove the formal cost estimate as established
for the entire project, which was a part of the resolutions in-
troduced. The total cost estimate includes rights-of-way, legal
services, and contingencies. It should be possible to explore
this matter with the railroads and get their preliminary indica-
tion; from that it might be in order to change the cost estimate
shown in that particular resolution.
Mayor Marguth asked Mr. Ness if there were any resolutions which
might be introduced. The Council would not want to proceed if
there could be a reduction in the time. There were 365 working
days of construction. He asked Mr. Barton how much time would
be saved.
Mr. Barton replied the time for construction could be reduced by
40% to 50%.
Mayor Marguth stated the prospect of having the inconvenience for
a much shorter time, as well as the cost reduced, was a substantial
reason to proceed. He asked Mr. Ness if there were any resolutions
which might be adopted to show good faith to the railroads in
asking for their cooperation in this matter.
Mr. Ness said he could not imagine that the railroad would not
consider this and come to a tentative decision at the request of
the City Council for an opinion whether they would be willing to
share the same line for the construction period. Something certain-
ly should be able to be worked out to indicate the feelings of
the City Council, having had nine hours of public hearings and
four or five hours of deliberation. It was inconceivable, he
said, that if the construction time could be reduced by 40% that
there would not be substantial savings. It should translate
into considerable dollars of savings.
Mayor Marguth said that at present they are working for an August
15th PUC date. He asked if there was a possibility that they
could get an extension on the bid for some 90 days. The bids have
to be accepted or rejected within 45 days; with this new informa-
tion, if the proceedings were to continue, would the contractor
consider giving an extension.
Mr. Zelles said this would be up to the contractor. Mr. Ness
felt it was very reasonable because the contractor never contem-
plated he would go to work before fall at the earliest. Because
of the circumstances here, he might well be interested in extend-
ing the time limit.
Mayor Marguth asked if this phase of the project were deleted
could the bids be evaluated and could it be determined if this
contractor would still be the same low bidder, or would it be
necessary to resolicit bids.
Mr. Barton said the changes in stage construction are items which
would have to be handled through a change order negotiated with
the contractor prior to execution of the contract; however, to
readvertise would not be in the best interest of the City due to
CM-22-345
March 21, 1970
the increase in cost sure to follow. It takes time and money to
put one of these bids together. Bids might come in as much as
$100,000 higher based on the same specific work shown. This should
be negotiated with the contractor based on the bids now on hand.
Mayor Marguth asked Mr. Barton if it was possible to renegotiate
the price prior to awarding the bid. The reason for this ques-
tion was that Mr. Zelles' firm would be required to re-notice
based on this change and the next step for the Council, in the event
they proceeded with the project at this time, would be to notice
those properties with a higher assessment. This would have to be
done anyway, and Mayor Marguth wondered if it would be possible to
get an indication of the change order before the actual bids are let.
Mr. Barton felt that this certainly could be negotiated; however,
he did not know if the individual bid prices would be changed prior
to execution of the contract. This involved matters covered in
the state's contract act and the provisions regarding public contracts.
They could negotiate with the contractor and the railroad and get an
indication of what kind of arrangement could be made and then after-
ward have it executed.
Councilman Silva asked about the length of time involved. Due to
the upcoming election, time was of the essence since this Council
started the project, and if a matter of weeks was involved, he wanted
to know if a resolution could be made now or not. The Council will
be changed and it would not be binding on the new Council.
Mr. Ness did not see that the railroads would be that hard-nosed
about sitting down to discuss the possibility of sharing the track
for the construction period. He thought that if the City Council
adopted a resolution, which could be done today, which indicated
that the hearings were held and the project has been considered and
they think it has merit and should go forward, it can be put in such
a fashion that the railroads will respond to the request from the
City Council to consider this matter. It has considerable implica-
tion on the cost of the project, and he could not imagine the rail-
road sitting by saying they would not do anything until it is iron-
clad. As a matter of fact we have the contract going with the
railroads and we are just as interested in getting those contracts
from them as in getting the district.
Councilman Taylor said his question was similar to Councilman Silva's.
They must get the consent of the railroads but what they are really
talking about here is some sort of continuance for some period of
time until the new costs are figured. Whether it would be necessary
to notice people or not would have to be as required by law. But
if the question is a delay so that the new Council resolves this
project, since it might be sixty to ninety days to iron matters out,
it should be considered far enough in the future so that the new
Council has time to go through all the myriad of details that the
project implies. The new Council cannot digest everything in one
week and then vote.
Councilman Silva felt there would have to be a deadline to meet the
August 15th date. There should be a pad in there in case something
comes up that they were not aware of at this point.
Mayor Marguth asked Mr. Ness what would be the proper procedure.
The Council would like to introduce a resolution expressing the
Council's position that there is benefit as outlined in the present
plan. The Council would like to recommend that the project proceed,
but that in light of the information which came to light only after
the bids were received, they would like to have the opportunity to
examine the possibility of reducing the cost and the time of con-
struction, and proceed in time for the August 15th PUC date, and
wondered if a ninety day delay would be sufficient to make all the
findings.
Mr. Ness stated he would think so. He thought it might be well to
continue the matter until some stated time, perhaps Monday night or
CM-22-346
March 21, 1970
the following Monday night, at which time resolution could be
introduced which might satisfy the railroads, and at that point
continue the matter for approximately 90 days or until the 1st
of June, or something similar to that which would give the
Council an opportunity meanwhile to work out the problems with
the railroad, and give the stone and Youngberg people a chance to
digest the other actions taken this morning to see what the effects
are on the assessments and so on, and that still brings the matter
two and a half months prior to August 15th, the earliest time
the City could get any work from the PUC anyway, so that would be
his suggestion.
Mayor Marguth asked if there were any comments from the Council.
Councilman Silva stated he did not see any alternatives.
Councilman Taylor stated if they were going to continue this matter,
they should do it today; if they were going to resolve the matter
in ninety days, they should do it today and not leave the commun-
ity hanging for a week or two. Councilman Taylor stated that he
guessed they should consider a resolution to postpone the resolu-
tion of this project, or postpone the decision to some date in
the future.
Councilman Silva stated that Mr. Ness was saying that they should
make a motion continuing it to Monday at which time he would have
a resolution prepared with the intent of the Council, which today
if he made a motion, it would be that they go ahead with the pro-
ject, and he would instruct Mr. Ness to have this in the resolution.
If we are not going ahead with the project, why adopt one for the
railroads. Councilman Silva further stated this is what they
should vote on today and the community will not be waiting in the
wings for their decision and they will know what this Council has
to say.
Mayor Marguth stated that a motion would be in order to instruct
the staff and the Bond Counsel to prepare a resolution based upon
the ability to obtain agreement from the railroads and the con-
tractor (Gordon Ball, Inc.), and to instruct the Engineering and
Legal Counsel for the City Council on this assessment proceeding
to make the necessary contacts and to prepare the necessary legal
resolutions for the City Council to set a public hearing on the
first Monday in June to reconsider this matter.
Councilman Silva interrupted to say not to consider it, but to
adopt the final resolution for the forming of the Assessment
District.
Mayor Marguth continued that whatever Mr. Ness and the legal
people decide should be done.
Mr. Ness stated that is what he meant and they should stay away
from the statement of a public hearing because the next public
hearing that is held in this district there will have to be notice
to at least some people - those people whose assessments have in-
creased, and this hearing could be held in June - either the latter
part of June or the first part of July, whatever it happens to be.
He suggested putting it over until Monday or a week from Monday,
trying to give them a few minutes running room, more than they
consistently have. He further stated he could have a resolution
Monday night for consideration by the Council which would put the
matter over until June, and which he thought would contain suffi-
cient statements to be of interest to the railroad.
Mayor Marguth stated that he felt putting it over until the week
from Monday would probably be in order.
Mr. Ness stated that he would certainly appreciate it.
CM-22-347
March 21, 1970
Councilman Taylor stated that one of the implications of putting
this thing over until June is pretty obvious - that the new Council
would make a decision on it. He continued that the obvious thing
that comes to mind is that it has been talked about to have some
kind of an advisory election on this whole plan and if they are
going to put it over until June, it might be in order to consider
having an advisory election on this plan in the June Primaries.
Mayor Marguth asked if there were any comments on this suggestion.
Councilman Miller stated that he would agree with Councilman Taylor
in that he thought it would be reasonable for the Council to set an
election, say for the June Primary, and to expect all the candidates
to abide by the will of the people as there is no way to require it.
Those who refuse to abide by the will of the people are not repre-
sentatives either and he guessed would not be useful - those who
will not agree to an advisory election and to accept the will of
the people would not be representative. He said it makes this a pub-
lic issue rather than a campaign issue.
Councilman Uthe stated he would endorse the suggestion of Mr. Miller
and Mr. Taylor for an advisory election.
A comment was made in the audience which was not audible at this
point.
Councilman Silva stated he wanted to say one thing - that by law
they did not have to hold an advisory election and the new Council
should have the opportunity to make that determination themselves;
it might delay the project a little longer, but if they feel they
have to go to the people-not the property owners, but the registered
voters in this community which is an entirely different group of
people - then it should be their decision, not the Council's. He
further stated that some candidates are running on the basis that
this should be put to the people; some others are not, and he did
not think that the Council is obligated to bind the candidates to
that election. It is unfair to the candidates that are not running
on this platform.
Mayor Marguth added to this statement that the proceedings or pro-
cess that one goes through to form an assessment district is one
which is described by law and one that is described in a manner that
is very clear to the people who participate in the bidding, the
design and all legal aspects of an assessment district formation.
This Council selected the assessment district procedure because it
was possible through this process to develop zones of benefit
which did contain equity, as he thought they have heard testimony
to that effect and have made alterations within the boundaries in
order to make this a reality. He further stated that to say they
are going to go through the procedure of an assessment district
where you can use one set of rules to gain maximum benefits for
the public, and then turn around and tell the public that you are
going to abide by another set of rules, he did not think was pro-
per under the constitutional processes of the state of California
and the United States. He suggested that if the next City Council
desires to make revisions to the Plan, or if they decide to proceed
with a plebiscite of any kind, that would be their prerogative; but
he, for one, would not be a part to circumventing the law that
exists under which the Council has been operating in this particular
procedure. Beyond that, Mayor Marguth stated he did not think it
would be proper for this Council to bind any candidate for office
on any issue. For them to state that all candidates must abide by
the will of the people on this issue is not proper because the con-
stitutional processes say that the Councilmen must make the decisions.
It is the responsibility of the people to see that the individuals
who are elected to office will look at the details, will look at
the facts and will determine what is best for this community. It
is an extremely complicated process and for them to say they will
set an advisory election, he believed would be improper.
CM-22-348
March 21, 1970
Councilman Silva stated, going one step further, he heard rumors
that if this did happen; if this particular Council asked for an
advisory election for themselves, they might be liable. Further,
he knew the City Attorney might squirm by his saying this, but they
might be liable for a law suit by the successful bidder on the job,
Gordon Ball, Inc., and maybe a few of the other people who are
involved, because they, in turn, have the opportunity to either
approve or disapprove. He did not think they were "chickening
out" in putting it to the people, but they changed their mind
and they are going to let the people vote on it now. Maybe if
that vote does not come out the way the Council likes it, they
would find some other method and that is putting this Council in
jeopardy as far as law suits go.
Councilman Taylor stated it was not necessary for this Council to
set an election date; they could recommend, or not recommend an
advisory election. He thought that an advisory election - "yes"
or II no II, II shall we have an advisory election in this communi ty"
is certainly going to come out when the new Council convenes.
He felt certain of that, so it was not necessary to set a date now
for an advisory election as he supposed that a new Council could
stop that. He asked what the earliest time would be that they
could have an election if the new Council sets it, and was ad-
vised by Mayor Marguth that fifty-four days after they take their
seats on the Council, they could have an election if they chose.
Councilman Taylor asked where, in time, that would put them.
Councilman Silva stated that he thought it would be too late
for the Primaries in June, and Mayor Marguth agreed that it would
be too late for the Primaries, unless they took action before.
He then asked why, since they were specific details, they could
not look to the experts for advice in time for this Council to
make a decision on this particular point. He suggested that they
not move to setting a date for an advisory election at this time;
that the timing would permit them to have a report from Mr. Ness
and the attorney would have time to look into these factors before
they would bring this subject up again a week from Monday night.
Councilman Taylor said in any case, he thought they should resolve
the point this Council intends. Because of the new information
that has been brought out, the new way of doing the job is going
to substantially change the cost and for that reason they should
resolve they are going to postpone the decision of forming the
district until some time several weeks, at least, after the new
Council takes office without being specific at all. He thought
since the community is waiting to see what is going to happen;
he could not see delaying it another week.
Mayor Marguth agreed, but stated that Mr. Ness had to prepare a
formal resolution.
Councilman Taylor stated he understood that part of it.
Mayor Marguth stated that this Council could make a resolution
today that would clearly indicate where it would like to proceed
in the next step; he thought that would be in order.
Mr. Barton stated that he did not want to be guilty of exaggerat-
ing the effect of the savings resulting from the changes in hand-
ling traffic during construction because it must be remembered
that whatever money is saved, this project is being financed 50% from
matching money from the State and 10% matching money from the
railroads, so although they save $100,000, the reduction in the
amount of money to be spread within the assessment district is
only $30,000 or $45,000 or something in that order. It looked to
him that savings that do appear possible would probably be of
the order of magnitude of reducing assessments - again if this
was excessive, on the order of perhaps 5%, so it is not perhaps
CM-22-349
March 21, 1970
as big an issue as some people might be led to believe.
Mayor Marguth stated there was a significant factor and that is
the time during which the community is inconvenienced by the pro-
ject, and that is rather a substantial reduction in time.
Councilman Silva made a motion that the matter be continued until
a week from Monday at which time Mr. Ness will have a resolution
ready to adopt and the resolution will state that their intent is
to proceed with the assessment district - the intent of this Council.
Mayor Marguth stated that that was not a binding resolution.
Councilman Silva stated they had to show the railroad something.
Mr. Ness stated intent was all.
Mayor Marguth stated they had to show them intent, yes.
Councilman Uthe asked if they had not already passed that motion.
Councilman Silva asked Mr. Ness if this was not the motion he
wanted, and Mr. Ness replied that it was.
Mayor Marguth restated that the motion by Councilman Silva was to
instruct the Bond Counsel to prepare for the City Council a resolu-
tion stating the intentions of this City Council to obtain supple-
mental support from the railroads and relief from the successful
low bidder on the project as far as time of the issuance of the
contract is concerned and the possible renegotiation of the amount
to be awarded to the successful bidder, and asked if there was a
second to the motion.
Councilman Uthe seconded the motion, and Mayor Marguth asked if
there was any discussion on the motion.
Councilman Taylor stated he thought there was liable to be a mis-
understanding; he thought what Councilman Silva intended was to
actually take a vote on whether they are going to form this district -
"yes" or "no"; whether they would do it today; if they could or not.
Now, he did not think some of them understood it this way; they had
talked about telling the railroads that they intend to proceed with
the hearing and so forth; they have done that over the last year
many times - their intention to proceed with the district, but
they are not saving, take all values into account and vote on the
district - "yes II.
Mayor Marguth explained that was not the intent of the resolution.
The intent of the resolution is to tell the railroads that they
are proceeding through the normal processes of an assessment district
and that the matter is to be put over until these other issues
are resolved.
Councilman Taylor stated he thought they should be very clear -
that what they are really doing is postponing the decision. He
continued that he just wanted to get the intent clear that they
are going to postpone the decision on this assessment district
until some time after the election.
Mayor Marguth replied that that was correct.
Councilman Taylor stated that what they are asking Mr. Ness to do
is to just draw up a resolution to tell the railroad that this
Council is serious about this district; they have not abandoned
it, so that they could go ahead and spend the necessary time to
look into this new way of doing things.
Mayor Marguth replied that the statement was correct.
CM-22-350
March 21, 1970
Councilman uthe corrected the statement to say they are not aban-
doning the district today; they are moving for a postponement
for ninety days.
Councilman Taylor said it was going to be difficult to get this
clear.
Mayor Marguth said it is difficult to get a lot of things clear.
Councilman Silva said that he was willing to officially state
his feeling on the district tOday.
Mayor Marguth stated that he would prefer that no one on this
Council, or any candidate, express their precise position on
this issue if it has to go before public hearing. He would not
entertain any vote on the proceedings except to instruct the
staff and the Council to continue with the proceedings in a
normal manner - in a routine manner in light of the new informa-
tion they have, and that the decision will be made ninety days
from now. It makes little difference whether this Council acts
upon it or whether the next Council acts upon it; they are bound
by the procedures of the constitution on how they will act on
this issue and they will act in their best judgment. He did not
think it would be proper for them to vote on this issue.
Mayor Marguth stated that the motion had been made by Councilman
Silva, seconded by Councilman Uthe to direct the Bond Counsel to
prepare the necessary resolution.
Councilman Taylor asked if they had to follow this with a resolu-
tion stating that they intend to put over the resolution of form-
ing this district until sometime after the election, and it should
beclearly stated in the resolution because people will misunderstand.
Mayor Marguth stated he would assume that they would set a specific
date based upon a timely schedule for the consultants to move on
this matter.
Councilman Miller stated that he thought that two things were
fairly clear to the community - one is that this Council is very
different in opinion and they often do not agree on all issues
and sometimes these disagreements are quite strong. It is also
clear that all of them support, in principle, the Livermore Plan.
All the Councilmen - all five of them - with widely different
opinions on all sorts of issues, support the idea of the Livermore
Plan. In his personal judgment, and he could not speak for every-
body because they have not actually made a decision, but from
their decisions in the past, and their personal judgments, they
think the Plan is a good idea for the public. It is an improve-
ment in shopping, the economic advantages of broadening the tax
base, the traffic circulation and all the rest. So, speaking for
himself, he felt that it is in his personal judgment the right
thing to do. Now every public official has two roles which, in
fact, are sort of conflicting sometimes. They have to make their
decisions on the basis of their judgment, but they also have to
represent their constituents, and sometimes their personal judg-
ment and what seems to be the wishes of their constituents, con-
flict and this is why it seemed to him that they have spoken
obliquely to one of the principal problems that is before them;
namely, there is substantial protest to the district. He per-
sonally thinks there are many people who have legitimate grounds
for protest; there are some that have based their protest on mis-
understanding; there are some who have based their protests on
distortions of what the project is all about, by other people.
But the point is that there is a fair amount of opposition;
exactly how much depends on who you talk to; but there is no
question that there is substantial opposition to the Plan, and in
this circumstance, it seems advisable to him to try to get a
representative expression from the public on this project aside
from the aspect of the property protest. He stated he thought to
CM-22-351
March 21, 1970
avoid what really can be a false campaign issue, because there is no
guarantee that those elected will do what they say they will do,
including those who say they are opposed, they could indeed recom-
ment an advisory election and he felt they should and that it
should be a part of putting over their decision. If the candi-
dates will agree to abide by the wishes of the public, as he
thought all honest ones would, it seemed to him that this now
becomes a question that the public can decide rather than hav-
ing something strange happen after the election is over. Further,
he would like to see them include in the motion a setting of a
date for a public resolution in the matter.
Mayor Marguth stated that they had a motion before them directing
the Bond Counsel to proceed with a resolution of their intent, and
that it is the intent of the Council to postpone the proceedings
for a period of approximately ninety days - sometime around the
first week in June, and to direct the staff and the professional
counsel to attempt to obtain agreements from the bidder and the
railroads relative to the changes they had discussed today, and
it is the intention, as expressed in the motion, that this will be
brought to them a week from Monday for Council action, and that
by this action today, and he wanted to make it very clear if the
Council adopted this motion, that this matter is postponed until
after approximately ninety days. He then asked if there was any-
more discussion on the motion.
Councilman Taylor moved an amendment to the motion to set an ad-
visory election for the June Primary on this issue.
Councilman Miller seconded the motion.
Mayor Marguth stated that the motion to amend and the second, he
did not feel, were legitimate amendments to the main motion as re-
lative to the intent to proceed on the project, but would entertain
it as a separate motion after the vote is taken on this issue.
Councilman Miller stated that in his opinion the two are actually
connected, but Councilman Silva stated in his opinion they are not.
Mayor Marguth stated that the chair has ruled, unless there is a
majority of the Council who disagree with the chair, they will put
it over as a separate item for discussion, and he asked the Council-
man if they did agree to put it over, to which they did agree.
The main motion made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
uthe was then voted on unanimously.
Mayor Marguth then asked Mr. Ness if he would proceed for them in
this manner for a week from Monday.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that they set a date for an advisory
election as early as possible on this issue. He suggested setting
the date of the June Primaries to save the City money in having a
special election.
Councilman Miller seconded the motion and stated that he felt the
two motions were still slightly connected, and that his "aye" vote
on the previous motion is still at the same time a reflection of
his opinion that this should be involved with an advisory vote.
Mayor Marguth asked for any discussion on the motion.
Councilman Silva stated there was in the audience one individual
who owns numerous acres in this community and he believed her to
be a native daughter of Livermore, but presently lives outside of
the City limits; she cannot vote in this advisory election, and he
felt this to be a gross injustice; there are a number of individuals
who have the same problems. He did not feel the same way about a
syndicate who might be located in New York or elsewhere, but there
are old time Livermore people who no longer live within the City
limits, and he stated he opposed this motion for that reason.
CM-22-352
I
March 21, 1970
Another reason is the fact that this Council has no right
whatsoever to tie a new Council to an election. This election,
if desired by the new Council, could be sometime in July; let
that be their decision; they will have to make the decision on
this very important Plan - the Livermore Assessment Plan - it
is going to be their decision; not ours (referring to the
present Council) and they should have the right to determine
whether they want an advisory election to make this decision
or not. If there were two seats up for election, rather than
three, he would not say this, but they do have three seats
open.
Mayor Marguth stated that, in addition to this, he believed it
would be appropriate for each of the new Councilmen, after they
are seated,to understand the procedures that they must go through
in the formation of an assessment district, and at that time to
make a decision, whether in their own minds, an advisory elec-
tion is advisable, or legal, and for this Council to determine
that it is, is to prejudge their interpretation of the assessment
proceedings. He would prefer the new Council, if they wish an
advisory election, call it themselves.
Councilman Silva said the word itself, 11 advisory" means they want
to be advised; that should be their decision, not this Council's.
Mayor Marguth asked Councilman Uthe if he would like to comment
or just vote, or recess until next Thursday.
Councilman Uthe suggested they vote after a short recess.
AFTER A THREE MINUTE RECESS THE COUNCIL RECONVENED WITH ALL PRESENT.
Mayor Marguth stated there was a motion and a second to call for
an advisory election to be concurrent with the June 6th Primary
by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller, and asked
if there was any other discussion on the motion. There being none,
he asked for a vote, and the motion failed to gain a majority by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilmen Uthe, Silva and Mayor Marguth
None
Mayor Marguth reported on the protests and findings at this time,
stating there is not a majority protest. The total area compris-
ing the assessment district is 233,847 square feet. As of the
time for the final submission of protests, the total area repre-
sented by such protests was 106,766 square feet. This figure
represents an amount slightly in excess of 45.6% of the property
within the assessment district. He asked Mr. Ness if this was
the necessary statement to make at this time and was told that
it was.
Mayor Marguth asked the Council if there were any other matters
they would like to discuss at this time. There being none, he
stated he felt the staff and the Counsel are properly instructed
on the action they would like to have take place.
*
*
*
The meeting
3:45
ADJOURNMENT
ATTES
Clerk
e,-California
CM-22-353
I
/?7D
PAge 35'1-
NoT t..{seD
Regular Meeting of March 23, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, March
23, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m.
*
*
-l(-
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and ROLL CALL
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT: Councilman Silva (excused because of illness)
*
*
*
Laura Logsdon and Kay Tracy of Troup 176 of
the Girl Scouts who were working on a project,
Challenge of Active Citizenship, reported that
"National Earth Day" is set by the President
for April 22, and in conjunction with this they explained their
idea for a "Bike-in" as a fight on pollution. On motion of
Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and by unanimous
approval, a proclamation was entered, proclaiming April 22, as
"Bike-in Day", and urging everyone in the community to follow
the leadership of the young people in the community, and on
that day to walk or bicycle rather than drive their cars.
*
*
*
The tentative map of Tract 3186 was before the
Council for consideration, however a written
request was received from Mr. David Madis,
attorney for the developer H. C. Elliott, Inc.
for a sixty day postponement of the matter.
SPECIAL
PROCLAMATION
(Bike-in Day)
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3186
(H.C. Elliott)
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
by unanimous approval, the request for a sixty day postponement
was approved.
*
*
*
At this time Councilman Uthe asked that a reso-
lution be adopted by the City Council terminat-
ing all further action with respect to the
Livermore Development Assessment District. As
a part of this resolution Councilman Uthe asked that it include
the provisions that all property owners in this City be notified,
if it passes, that this resolution officially drops the program.
Also, the provision that the PUC of the State of California,
Department of Highways, railroads and all outside property inter-
ests be also notified.
LIVERMORE DEVELOP-
MENT ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
Councilman Uthe continued that the reasons for his motion are three:
1. That this Council, by law, cannot implement the program even
if it wished to.
2. The plan, as found through the public hearings and from the
discussion the past Saturday, needs some major revisions, one of
which involves the particular reason why the Council cannot imple-
ment the plan at this time - a major change in the revision of work,
3. The plan has highly divided the City and presently lacks the
overwhelming support which it really does deserve.
Councilman Uthe further stated that, in his personal oplnlon, it
is now time to look to the citizens and try again to rebuild a
CM-22-355
/-
March 23, 1970
(LDAD Cont'd) support in the government which is elected by the
citizens. It is time to take the hostility, the
anxiety, the desire for anarchy, the hatred away
from many of the citizens and attempt to convince them that their
government is really worthy of support; that it has worked very
hard and the governments before his time worked as hard, as well.
This is no time to blow up the town; no time to critically divide
it. The nation is in serious trouble and major cities like Liver-
more is becoming, are also in major trouble with internal division.
We must do whatever we can at this time to heal those wounds and
to bring back a new democratic consensus of due process by law.
This motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and the Mayor
asked for any comments on the motion.
Councilman Taylor stated there was one point: At the meeting of
March 21, the Council had discussed the possibility of a City-wide
election in order that the people might express their opinion on
this matter, and asked to raise that point at this time to see if
there is any support among the three Councilmen for such an election.
Councilman Taylor further stated that he did agree with Councilman
Uthe's reasoning and the philosophy behind the motion as the Council
cannot leave the plan in, essentially, a suspended state with the
public not knowing what is going to happen. He felt they should
have either an advisory election, as he had suggested on Saturday,
or terminate all consideration.
Mayor Marguth asked the Council if there was any comment on the
alternative for an advisory election.
Councilman Uthe stated that he had voted against an advisory elec-
tion at the meeting on Saturday, and if a motion is introduced
this evening, and it is seconded, he would vote against it again.
The reason being that the plan is very complex, involves many, many
factors, and in addition, it is imperfect and as a result, it would
take a citizen of this community hours of time to even understand
the major aspects and most of the citizens do not have the time nor
the interest to involve themselves that deeply into the issue, but
it is easy to pick out flaws in the plan because any public works
improvements program is imperfect; they are all defective; they
always have been and they have been in the history of mankind, so
therefore, he feels that the plan would be misunderstood. It would
be knocked about by the electorate or would be knocked about because
they find some defect in it which would not be substantial, but in
their minds may be, and for this reason he could not support an
advisory election, as he did not think it would get a fair chance.
Councilman Miller stated that he did support an advisory election
on Saturday, in principle; it is a thing that one could do, but
it is clear from analyzing the evidence before them that no matter
which way the election went, the City would still be divided; there
is not a clear cut majority either way; there are many people opposed
but there is a substantial number who are in favor; it does not heal
the split in the City that Councilman Uthe is talking about. At
this time he would follow Councilman Uthe's original suggestion
and motion.
Mayor Marguth remarked that the motion as introduced, he felt is
a reasonably sound approach to the problem; it is a realistic
approach. It is very difficult to ask the community to wait in
suspense until this thing can be resolved at some point downstream;
it is also unfair to the candidates seeking office in the City to
have one single issue, although important as it is, dominating the
debate that takes place in this community. It is extremely impor-
tant that the Council candidates, in the next month before the
election, debate the multitude of issues that face this community;
the multitude of issues that must be answered by solid leadership
within the community; so in spirit, Mayor Marguth stated that he
supported the intent of the motion, however, as the Council's
CM-22-356
March 23, 1970
liaison to the Livermore Development Commission, (LDAD Continued)
having worked for thousands of hours with the
citizen group in the community to bring the issue
to the point it is today, fully recognizing that this Council
cannot complete that action, but to act as a representative of
that group and to act as a voice that the protests we have re-
ceived, although "yes" or "no" in nature, in many instances was
a qualified protest based upon the deletion of certain aspects
of the program. Mayor Marguth further stated that he did not take
this action of the City Council as a repudiation of the plan in
any way, or a renunciation in any way, of the plan that was brought
before the Councilor before the community, and furthermore, he
did not take the motion as one that was intended to say to the
community that nothing constructive can happen in this area; but
rather would accept the motion as he assumed it would carry by
the majority; accept it on behalf of the LDC and those many people
who have worked the many thousands of hours of citizen's effort;
thank the staff for their dedicated efforts in attempting to bring
this to a conclusion in a reasonable manner.
Mayor Marguth continued that the citizens who have worked so long
and hard on the project would understand the Council's action if
the Council does choose to adopt the resolution presented. In
his voting against the motion, it is his way of saying to these
people, "thank you for your efforts", and lit hank you for your
diligence in the community and keep up the good work", and he
felt that is the intent of the Council and would take this position.
City Manager William Parness stated that, as a matter of technical
order, there is probably a resolution that will have to be pre-
pared by the Bond Counsel - a formal resolution that will termi-
nate the proceedings, and would take the action as an approval
of that resolution which will be prepared.
A vote was then taken on the resolution, which passed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Uthe
Mayor Marguth
Councilman Silva
RESOLUTION NO. 41-70
RESOLUTION ABANDONING PROCEEDINGS FOR FORMATION OF
THE LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, CITY
OF LIVERMORE, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
*
*
*
Councilman Uthe at this time stated that he was
aware of the fact that Councilman Silva might
have been informed of the above action taken
although he did not talk to him personally, and
imagined that Councilman Silva felt very badly,
which may be the main reason for his absence. Further, there is
this public hearing before the Council, which he felt is far less
important than what has just happened, and made a motion that the
public hearing be continued for one week in order that Councilman
Silva might be present for debate on the subject.
PUBLIC HEARING
(Kaufman & Broad)
PUD No. 3
It was felt that the discussion was important in that it was the
first on townhouses and Councilman Silva would continue on the
Council and would have part in the final decision.
Mayor Marguth stated that even though Councilman Silva was absent,
it was incumbent upon them to open the public hearing since there
were a number of people present and therefore did not recognize
the motion of Councilman Uthe.
CM-22-357
March 23, 1970
(Kaufman & Broad
Continued) Mr. John Barker, of Associated Professions, repre-
senting Kaufman and Broad, stated they would like
to concur with Councilman Uthe's request and would
like, also, in the interest of all concerned to have the Council
receive as much testimony as they were willing to, perhaps with-
out taking direct action, and postponing that until Councilman
Silva was present. However, Mayor Marguth stated that if they did
take testimony, Councilman Silva would not be able to act upon
anything except the testimony he takes.
It was the Council's decision to continue the hearing for one week
on motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by Mayor Marguth and by unan-
imous approval, with the concurrence of the applicant.
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED BACK TO ORDER WITH ALL
PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN SILVA.
*
*
*
Mr. Val Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth Way, stated he under-
stood there had been another legal move on the Louns-
bury Wrecking Yard, and Mr. Lewis, City Attorney,
explained that this had been checked about a month
ago; there was a prosecution and Mr. Lounsbury was
found guilty of violating two provisions of the
County Ordinance; one, operating without the proper permit and the
judge gave him one year either to get the permit or to terminate
the use and he is still within that year's permit.
OPEN FORUM
(Lounsbury
Wrecking
Yard)
(Parking-
4th and
Maple sts.)
Mr. Yoakum requested that the diagonal parking at
4th and Maple Streets be checked as it is quite a
problem. He felt that there is a parking lot which
is half empty that could be used and the diagonal
parking eliminated and asked that there be some
action taken.
Mr. Lee agreed that there is a traffic problem and he was requested
to look into the steps necessary to implement a change in the park-
ing in the area.
TRACTS 3064
and 3196
(Christopher
Land Co.)
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The matter of executing the subdivision agreements,
accepting bonds and tract maps for Tracts 3064 and
3196, of the Christopher Land Company, were on the
agenda; however, City Manager William Parness sug-
gested that these items be removed and continued
for one week. After some discussion, a motion was
made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor to con-
tinue this matter for one week or until the map comes back in
correct form, and also the resolution authorizing execution of
deed to channel to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conser-
vation District, which was suggested for continuance; however, the
motion failed to obtain a majority by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Councilman Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Silva
A motion was then made by Mayor Marguth, seconded by Councilman
Uthe that Item "J" re the deed to the channel be continued for one
w~ek, and passed unanimously.
Mayor Marguth suggested that Item "I" be removed from the consent
calendar and put at the end of the agenda for a brief discussion to
see if there is a simple problem involved in having the contested
CM-22-358
March 23, 1970
lots become conforming with the standards.
Councilman Uthe seconded the motion by amending
it to say that there should not be more than
fifteen minutes spent on the item. If they do, it is too complex
to handle at this time without staff review. The motion then
passed by the following vote:
(Tracts 3064 and
3196 Continued)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Miller
Councilman Silva
*
*
*
Departmental reports were presented to the
Council as follows:
(Departmental
Reports)
Airport Activity and Financial - February
Building Department - February
Fire Department - January
Golf Course - February
Justice Court - December, 1969 and January, 1970
Police Department - February
Water Reclamation Plant - February
*
*
*
A written request was received from the Livermore (Circus - Jaycees)
Jaycees to conduct a circus at the City's commu-
nity park-civic center site on June 18.
The recommendation was to adopt a motion approving this request
subject to the following:
1) Public liability and property damage insurance, in amounts
adequate to satisfy the City Attorney, be posted indemnifying the
city, its officers and employees.
2) Adequate provision be made for the policing of the grounds, as
deemed necessary by the Police Chief, with costs to be borne by
the applicant.
3) Grounds are to be returned to their original condition with
all imported debris to be removed at the conclusion of the use.
*
*
*
A written communication was received from the
Economic Opportunity Programs of the County of
Alameda re support of a merger of Southern
Alameda County and the Oakland-Berkeley CAMPS
committees into a single CAMPS committee for
the entire County.
A letter was received from Thomas H. Willoughby (AB-479)
on behalf of John Knox acknowledging the Council's
telegram supporting passage of AB-479.
WRITTEN COMMUNICA-
TIONS (CAMPS)
*
*
*
Minutes were received and acknowledged from
the following:
MINUTES (Various)
Library Board meetings of January and February
Housing Authority meeting of February 17
Planning Commission meeting of March 3
*
*
*
Summary of Planning Commission's action taken
at the meeting of March 17 was acknowledged.
SUMMARY
(Planning Commission
CM-22-359
March 23, 1970
(License for
Walkway)
The School District has requested a walkway for
school children across Jackson Avenue parksite
from East Avenue to the Jackson Avenue School.
The staff recommendation is to adopt a resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 42-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT-
LICENSE FOR WALKWAY)
*
*
*
(Establishment
of Municipal
Court -
Murray Township)
RESOLUTION NO. 43-70
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALAMEDA COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A MUNICIPAL COURT FOR MURRAY TOWNSHIP
The Board of Supervisors is shortly discussing the establishment
of a municipal court for Murray Township and the City Council
wished to urge the Board to do so by the above resolution.
*
*
*
~ayroll and
Claims)
Ninety-six claims, dated March 12, 1970, in the
amount of $51,219.38 were presented to the Council
and ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and passed unanimously, to
approve the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
INTERFAITH A report was received from the City Manager re
HOUSING waiver of fees for the Interfaith Housing, Inc.
project for housing for the elderly. Mr. Parness
explained the applicable fees and the request of the applicant
for waiver of some of the City fees, such as annexation fee, park
fee and half of the sewer fee, which totals about $10,000. Mr.
Parness stated that there was some justification for the argument
as presented by this group as it is comparable to a public service
type of enterprise, and indicated it was reasonable to consider a
reduction of the sewer connection fee and that there was no annexa-
tion or park fee.
Councilman Uthe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor to
accept the recommendation of the Interfaith Housing, Inc., and
thereby they will be paying only one-half of the sewer connection
fee.
Councilman Miller questioned why there was no annexation agreement
in regard to this matter and was advised by the City Attorney that
the property was annexed prior to the advent of formalized con-
tracts dating back to 1957, at which time it was a policy to have
an informal agreement between all parties.
Mr. Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, asked the Council if they
had lowered the sewer connection fee at Springtown when it was
built, and was advised that it had not been lowered, but that
quasi public buildings are given a reduction, generally. Mr.
Phillips then asked about Villa Gulf, and was advised that it was
already hooked up, and would fall under the same category. Mr.
Phillips stated he was opposed to the lowering of fees as there
are people in Springtown with fixed incomes, and since the fee was
not lowered for Springtown, it should not be lowered for this
CM-22-360
March 23, 1970
project as he felt they could pay the $10,000.
(Interfaith Housing
Continued)
A vote was then taken on the motion and
passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A written communication was received from
stuart J. Smith, re a proposed density transfer
agreement, and Mayor Marguth suggested that
since Councilman Silva is working with Mr. Musso
on an ordinance in the area of density transfers
that this matter be continued until Councilman Silva is present
or until the staff is ready to discuss it in a formal matter.
COMMUNICATION RE
DENSITY TRANSFER
AGREEMENT
Councilman Miller commented that the idea was good and was simi-
lar to those which had been proposed off and on for some time
by other members of the Council.
Mr. Musso was asked about the progress along this line and advised
that they have been outlining such a program for the City, but
not inter-city as yet.
Councilman Uthe commented that he could not accept the recommenda-
tion by Mr. Smith with respect to the interjurisdictional contract
agreement and he felt the program should be started with our own
planning area, and perhaps limit the density transfer to a general
plan area of Livermore.
Councilman Taylor also commented on the issue stating that in
looking at the whole Valley and the problem of open space, the
problem of inter-city density transfers is not the real issue;
the problem is transfers between the City and the County as the
large portion of open space is in the County.
It was the decision of the Council to postpone further discussion
on this matter until Councilman Silva was present.
*
*
*
The discussion on Tracts 3064 and 3196 was post-
poned until this time.
TRACTS 3064/3196
(Christopher Land
Company)
Mayor Marguth referred to a redrawn map and
questioned the Planning Director with reference to the lot lines
which Mr. Musso explained, stating that some lots in one of the
cul-de-sacs do not have a proper front footage.
Councilman Miller urged the Council that they follow a policy
adopted some time ago and not accept things for final decision
on a new map handed to them that night, as he felt it was unwise
to approve the map without seeing the actual drawing. He cited
an example, and asked that the matter be continued for one week
so that the drawings can be prepared, and Councilman Miller made
a motion to that effect, however the motion died for lack of a
second.
Councilman Taylor questioned the Planning Director as to when he
saw the maps and if he would have questions about accepting lots
with the irregular lot lines. There followed some discussion
relative to lot lines.
Mr. Joseph Steenblik, representing R. M. Galloway & Assoc., Inc.,
indicated there was an honest oversight on their part and on the
part of the staff. He stated that the lots were laid out just
prior to his going to work for this firm, which was four months
ago, and just today it came to his attention.
CM-22-361
March 23, 1970
(Tracts 3064
and 3196
Continued)
Mayor Marguth stated that the question before the
Council is whether it wishes to grant a variance
on either the redrawing of the lines or grant a
variance to reduce requirements on backyards in
particular.
Councilman Miller made a motion to continue the matter for one
week to refer it back to the staff, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and it passed unanimously.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Insurance
Coverage)
*
*
*
The City Manager advised the Council that a decision
had just been reached and it was important that it
be decided by the Council tonight involving the
City's public liability insurance coverage. There
is a rider in effect with one of the companies that
extends only until the 1st of April. The staff
consulted with the insurance consultants that were
used in appraising the present coverage in company with the present
agent, and Mr. Parness went on to explain the different coverages
offered by the bidders. In summary, the features in the coverage
offered by Pacific Indemnity are much greater and can be obtained
for $8300 over the low bid of Safco Insurance, and this is the
recommended course of action by the present agent and the insurance
consultants.
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to accept the City Manager's recommendation.
Councilman Miller felt that the matter should be continued for one
week to allow time to read the documents involved in the matter;
however, the insurance agent, Mr. Morgan, advised the Council that
the rider actually expired last week, but due to the nature of the
business at hand at the time, the period was extended to the 1st
of April.
Councilman Miller then requested a recess to study the documents
presented to the Council on this matter.
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED BACK TO ORDER WITH ALL
PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN SILVA.
At this time a vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
AIRPORT RULES The City Attorney submitted a written report to-
AND REGULATIONS gether with the Rules and Regulations for the
Municipal Airport and recommended adoption by
the City Council. On motion of Councilman Uthe,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous,
approval, the following resolution was adopted.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Junk Cars)
CM-22-362
RESOLUTION NO. 44-70
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor stated that at the Vasco Road
overpass on Highway 580 there are some wrecked cars
that some of the residents are complaining about,
and felt this should be investigated.
*
*
*
March 23, 1970
Councilman Taylor stated that they had discussed (Help for School
what could be done as a City to help the School District)
District; they had been asked by the School Dis-
trict for help and had received several legal
opinions on what could or could not be done. As a result of this,
the City Attorney had worked on a bill, trying to get it passed,
and since the Council had not taken any action on this, proposed
that AB-1271 be endorsed by the City. The bill had been checked
by the Legislative Counsel, who had found that similar bills have
been found to be constitutional in at least three states. The
bill would give cities authority to require a subdivider to dedi-
cate a portion of land to the school district for the purpose of
schools, and also to provide funds for the construction of tem-
porary school facilities, if necessary, all of which as a condi-
tion of the final subdivision map. He felt that submitting a
bill like this to the Legislature is the proper way to go about
getting permanent relief from the school land problem.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to formally endorse at this time
AB-1271 to be introduced by Assemblyman Carlos Bee, relating to
the dedication of school sites and also possible provisions for
providing temporary facilities as conditions of a map. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Uthe, and following some discussion,
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 45-70
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AB 1271 RELATING TO
THE DEDICATION OF LAND FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.
Councilman Taylor suggested that copies of the resolution be for-
warded to the School District so they could take appropriate action
to see that it gets the support from the other school districts.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37
p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
ATTEST C
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of March 30, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, March
30, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor,
Uthe and Mayor Marguth
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
CM-22-363
March 30, 1970
OPEN FORUM
The Mayor invited any person in the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the agenda;
however, there were no comments voiced.
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING
RE AMENDMENT
TO PUD NO. 3
(Kaufman &
Broad) ~.
.:[1" 3 /'1~
The public hearing regarding the application for
amendment to Planned Unit Development No. 3 (Kaufman
and Broad) had been continued from the previous
Council meeting at the concurrence of the applicant
and with the approval of the Council.
Mr. Musso explained that the application of Kaufman &
Broad for amendment of PUD No. 3 is to allow reduction and elimina-
tion of required lot frontage on dedicated streets; elimination of
required side yard setback; reduction of distance between dwelling
groups to a minimum of 12~ feet; lot splitting and sale of indivi-
dual lots. The circumstances relative to the tentative map are
that this is a subdivision of townhouses, or attached single family
dwellings, to be erected on lots which do not have frontage on the
streets which have common driveways and common open space. This
tentative map differs from those which are routinely considered and
the other aspect is whether or not the community wishes this type
of development; and if so, what are the characteristics of this type
of development, and what type of standards are to be used for eval-
uating and approving townhouse developments.
In the case of this development the standards considered at the be-
ginning are RG-16 zoning regulations which allow construction of
multiple residential units or apartments at 16 d.u./acre. Under
present regulations the developer can build multiple dwellings in
accordance with RG-16 requirements; the closest development at
present under these requirements is the apartments on Murrieta Blvd.
The Planning Commission in considering the proposal did not, however,
consider these to be similar to a multiple residential development,
but that by virtue of their subdivision to be more single family in
character. RG regulations state that a single family lot has to be
6500 sq. ft. in area. However, the Commission was willing to reduce
the lot size and more or less combine the RG and RS type of zoning
for the townhouses. There are several characteristics of this type
of development which were considered by the Planning Commission.
In regard to density it was felt that 16 d.u./acre w~s too high
for single family development. This type of development has more
bedrooms and would thus accommodate more people; there is more area
devoted to the automobile; and therefore there would be a reduction
in the amount of open space. After consideration the Planning Com-
mission concluded that a 10 d.u./acre townhouse development had the
same yield in numbers of people and children as a 16 d.u./acre apart-
ment house development. The Planning Commission had at a previous
meeting tentatively approved a specified number of units (180) and
directed the staff to prepare a cluster housing portion of the RS
ordinance. Originally, in the RS ordinance it was believed that
all townhouses would have frontage on the street but they have
since been constructed without frontage on the street. Thus, much
area is devoted to the automobile as shown on the tentative map.
The plan, as resubmitted to the Planning Commission, did not have
the specified number of units and the Planning Commission then re-
commended that 10 d.u./ acre should be the maximum and recommended
denial of the plan. Densities in other areas for this type of de-
velopment range from 8 to 10, 12 or perhaps 14 d.u./acre but seldom
past this in density.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the Planning Commission did not dwell on
the subdivision map; rather they were concerned with the PUD permit.
The acreage involved is approximately 15 acres which would be 150
units under the 10 d.u./acre asopposed to the 193 requested by the
applicant.
CM-22-364
March 30, 1970
//-
In response to a question by Councilman Silva,
Mr. Musso pointed out that consideration of
10 d.u./acre for this type of development is
generally based on the concept that the number
of bedrooms determines the holding capacity and child yield of the
area. Relative to parking, Mr. Musso explained that a 3-1 off-
street parking provision had been included in the ordinance draft.
In the proposed townhouse development there were 627 spaces pro-
vided including street parking.
(Public Hearing
PUD No.3 Cont'd.)
Councilman Silva asked if this were developed as RG-16 regular
apartments, what would the open space acreage be. Mr. Musso re-
plied there would be more open space due to the automobiles
involved since the townhouse development requires more parking
and access area. In apartment house developments there is central
parking with one driveway.
Mr. Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, stated he would like to ask the
Council to deny this and every other request for dwelling unit
construction at least for a period of time. His reasoning was
based on the impoverished and overcrowded school system and if
San Francisco has denied permits because of the lack of sewers;
Livermore can do the same for schools. For every home built,
including townhouses, the district accrues a net loss of $200 to
$400; for every home built and filled in our school district,
3 to 3.4 children more go on double sessions. Mr. Day stated we
have, by desire or default, a bedroom community and the school
district is impoverished partly because of this circumstance and
the lack of a tax base and partly because of the fact the federal
government does not pay taxes to our community. There are now
nearly 3,000 dwelling units being developed; 2,700 more approved;
and 2,400 in planning. Can this community really absorb 8,000
more dwelling units without more industry? The people of this
community do not owe any allegiance to growth at any price. His
personal preference, and as he understood it, that of some of the
Council, is balanced growth. The question is whether we are now
balanced. If not, when does the community become balanced. His
request was that this action be deferred until some solution can
be found for the school system.
Mr. John Barker, Associated Professions, representing Kaufman &
Broad, stated this particular proposal was submitted to the Plann-
ing Commission in December, 1969, and contains a number of facets,
in addition to townhouses. There will be three acres of RG-16,
2.2 acres of duplexes, 6-acre shopping center (7 acres total com-
mercial) as opposed to PUD. A great deal of attention has been
devoted to the townhouse block, perhaps to the exclusion of other
points. There could be 289 apartment units which could be con-
structed in this tract if townhouses are not permitted; therefore,
advantages to this proposal are: 1) Density with townhouses would
be 12.7/acre rather than 16/acre for RG-16; 2) Construction of
Charlotte Way, a collector street, would be guaranteed by approval
of this map and Norma Way would also be constructed and would assist
the traffic circulation in the whole area; 3) There would be a
pedestrian-bicycle and landscaped trail which would run about a
half mile, twenty feet wide. The duplexes would be a good transi-
tion between the Sandra Way houses and the townhouses as proposed
on the map, and a neighborhood shopping center would be provided.
The construction of townhouses would provide a home for people of
modest incomes and in the proposed plan there are four acres of
common green through the center of the development. This is just
slightly less in area than Kathy Way park, which is to provide
recreation area for about 450 homes. In addition, there would be
a recreation building and a pool included on the common green.
The profiles run by Kaufman & Broad relative to the number of
children in townhouses indicates .6 school age child per townhouse
which is verified and substantiated by other developers and other
agencies. By direct comparison, the City's General Plan indicates
.6 school age child per RG unit. The townhouse development would
be stated; the manner in which these are built is similar to a
CM-22-365
March 30, 1970
(Public Hear-
ing, PUD No. 3
Continued)
single home where construction occurs as they
are sold. The basic difference between town-
houses and apartments is that townhouses are
sold individually and~artments are rented.
Mayor Marguth announced that letters of protest had been received
from Carlton M. Furnberg suggesting that such development not ex-
ceed ten per acre; Mr. Albert J. Oliver in opposition to the PUD;
Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Neau in opposition to the amendment, and a
petition signed by nine families in the Wagoner Farms area in
opposition.
Mr. Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, spoke generally on the
problems of the health and safety of children on East Avenue,
and expressed concern regarding an increased child load. The
Police Department is concerned about the access of this area on
East Avenue and patrolling this area, and the Council has these
grounds to hold this development in abeyance until a school can
be located in the area.
Mr. Harry Galles, 5339 Sandra Way, agreed that the school overload
problem would get worse. If it is possible to shut off development,
the Council should follow this course; however, if it is not legal-
ly possible at this time, the Council has the obligation to provide
young families with housing they can afford. Problems of growth
and traffic are less in townhouse developments than apartments
since it is a phased program. If the development cannot be ar-
rested, then at least serious consideration should be given to a
townhouse type of development as apartments just provide more
housing for transient type of housing.
Mr. Gordon Smith, 5256 Irene Way, expressed his opposition to the
development of the townhouses at the higher density. One of the
points which should be considered is the total number of bedrooms
to be generated by the development. The plans state two to four
bedrooms, but does not given an average for the development. On
the proposed 12.8 units per acre, the Planning Department has told
him that a low density for low cost apartment housing, such as
Villa Gulf, was 8.4 units per acre. The plan being presented for
low cost housing is 50% higher in density than Villa Gulf. This
is an experimental plan, the open concept, and he questioned the
noise level to be generated in this type of development.
Mr. S. L. Smith, 5351 Sandra Way, stated he preferred the townhouse
development rather than going back to the PUD No. 3 for high den-
sityapartments. Other than this, the main objective has been
fulfilled which was to improve the traffic circulation by extend-
ing Sandra Way and by extending Charlotte Way as soon as possible
to East Avenue. He would prefer the townhouses rather than apart-
ments with transient residents and immediate construction.
Mr. Thomas Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, spoke in opposition to the
townhouses and the apartments since the school system is in dire
need of more financial assistance. Builders are continually put-
ting in more tracts; people living here are going to have to pay
the development burden. The Council should deny both the apart-
ments and townhouses.
Mrs. Bernard Shore, 1446 Lillian, stated she was not in favor of
either apartments or townhouses, but she did oppose the townhouses
strongly and felt that there was not access to the open space for
many of the children in the apartments. If the low cost housing
is a real issue, it should be explored to see if the townhouses
are a good buy. There is no need in the town immediately for this
housing as most of the industries are cutting back. There were
many houses advertised for sale in the paper, and there is no need
for more housing. We should consider only our own immediate needs.
Mr. Rollin Harding, 1451 Lillian Street, asked that the Council
not approve this amendment. He did not disapprove of townhouses
per se; however, his argument was against the density.
CM-22-366
March 30, 1970
Mr. Darrell Davis, 5360 Sandra Way, stated he
favored the townhouses over apartments if he was
faced with the choice.
(Public Hearing
PUD No.3 Cont'd)
Mr. Denny Frischknecht, 5150 Norma Way, had submitted a letter
in oppostion to this proposal as he lives directly across from
the area under discussion, and the Council was considering a
variance on setback from the street. His property, and that of
his neighbors, had been bought with the understanding that gar-
den apartments with proper setback and proper parking spaces
would be built there. It appeared that the builder was not
going to provide proper parking or setbacks, and it was danger-
ous to consider parking on the street as a part of this plan.
Mrs. Lee Heaton, 1392 Kathy Court, said she was against increas-
ing the density for the following reasons: 1) there is no park
at present; approximately thirty children live on her block,
and these children play in the street and present a safety pro-
blem; 2) construction began two years ago on a house next door
to her home and this and other homes in the area are for sale
but have not been sold; there is no housing shortage, otherwise
these homes would have been sold; 3) parking space is a problem,
and increasing the number of units would contribute further to
this problem; and 4) there will be no school in the immediate
future.
Mr. Anthony Varni, attorney representing the developer, felt
that there were some basic misconceptions on the part of the
public. On the question of setbacks, some felt that the set-
backs would be less for the townhouses than for the~artments,
but actually the setbacks would be the same. It was also stated
the parking would be a greater problem with the townhouses, but
the parking ratio is higher for the apartments (l~ spaces per
unit) than for the townhouses ( spaces per unit). The density
is not being increased because PUD No.3 has been allocated a
specified number of units, and this request for amendment does
not exceed that number. The requested number of 193 units is
the same as that approved in 1961. The City has requested that
some developer try cluster housing, and this is the first devel-
opment to do so. Kaufman & Broad is one of the first companies
to try cluster housing in the United States. The Federal Hous-
ing Administration has set up basic guidelines on density; 14
units per acre is acceptable and projects have been approved
and financed at this density. The project under consideration
has a density of 12.7 units per acre and is approved by the FHA
for their financing. This 193-unit development would have its
own homeowner association and its own conditions and restrictions
that apply to none of the other units in the development. One
of these conditions is that all exterior maintenance such as
painting, roof repair, landscaping, gardening, watering, of
all common areas are handled by the homeowners association.
The payments on this housing would be such that a young family
can live there, but the area will be adequately maintained.
This is a new form of housing which planners have asked for for
many years. It will not hurt the surrounding R-l area if it
has adequate interior landscaping to service its own people
and adequate parking to service its people, if the units are
adequately maintained. Apartments could have been built before
this time since it is already approved, but they want to build
this new form of housing as they are doing in many other cities.
It should be discussed on its merits, and he felt it should be
approved.
On motion by Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Silva, and
by unanimous approval, the public hearing on the request for
amendment to PUD No. 3 was closed.
Councilman Uthe asked if this was an FHA 235 program, and Mr.
O'Brien of Kaufman & Broad explained that an FHA 235 program
CM-22-367
March 30, 1970
(Public Hear-
ing, PUD No. 3
Continued)
is an interest rate subsidy program which allows
homeownership and allows the people to purchase
the homes at 1%. He stated there have been no
applications on this project under that program.
Councilman Taylor asked what the density of other Kaufman & Broad
townhouse developments is and Mr. O'Brien stated that in the town-
house development now being sold in San Jose the density is 14
units per acre; in the proposed development in Milpitas it will
run around 12.5 to 12.8; in Union City it has been approved at
14 units to the acre; in Foster City, 10 units per acre.
In answer to a question by Councilman Silva, he further stated
that the price range of the units in Foster is $24,500 to $32,000
and the price range in Livermore will be $15,000 to $20,000.
Councilman Uthe wished to discuss a few facts regarding the back-
ground of this development to close the community gap. The land
is presently zoned for multiple at 16 d.u./acre. This develop-
ment was approved before the tenure of the present Council, but
it is a matter of law that this fifteen acres is zoned at 16.d.u.
per acre. This acreage has been controlled over the years through
a PUD which has gone through several ownerships and is now frac-
tionated into several other ownerships. Every time it has been
divided, some of the cost burden is transferred and it is most
probable that the cost of improvements along East Avenue will have
to be borne by this particular property, thus yield becomes im-
portant to support these improvements, especially the utility costs.
It is not a public housing project as stated to the Council; it is
a privately owned situation caused by development of an additional
social responsibility by the FHA, who perhaps think some of the
disturbance in the cities could be reduced if people owned property
rather than renting. If the balanced community concept is going
to be continued, approximately $40,000 worth of cash market value
must be placed under every unit built in the City. Typically, this
is spread in the balanced community between the commercial, indus-
trial and residential properties. Very often it is assumed that
the commercial and industrial support half the value and the family
home supports the other half. At present we do not have a balanced
community. An apartment dwelling unit is typically appraised by
the assessor in the range of $8,000 to $10,000 per unit and the
townhouses will come in about $18,000 to $20,000 per unit after the
family moves. Thus, the unit value per family for these townhouses
is about a factor of 2 per dwelling unit greater than that for
apartments. In discussing the school tax base then the number of
children in these units to be educated must be figured into the
economic cash market value of the property itself. One of the
questions to be considered is whether this kind of development
will bring in excessive numbers of children for the schools or not.
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCILMEN
PRESENT.
Mayor Marguth stated that this was the first townhouse proposal to
be considered by the Council and it would set some precedents in
the way these projects are treated in the future. It is important
that this matter be debated completely in order that the feelings
of the Council can be made known.
Councilman Miller stated that although this is the first townhouse
proposal to be considered by the Council, the same general concept
was proposed several years ago at a density of 10 - 14 units to
the acre and was roundly turned down as the result of widespread
protest of people in the area. This area is controlled by a Planned
Unit Development permit which cannot be changed without consent of
Council and the developer; therefore, the Council is not legally
bound to approve anything with respect to time or requirements;
there is the option of refusing to amend.
Councilman Taylor stated he had looked at the development and felt
it was very good and was what had been hoped for for a long time _
CM-22-368
March 30, 1970
cluster type housing with open space. This
type of development has not been seen before;
those seen were lower densities. The appli-
cation reviewed by the Council a number of
months ago from McKeon Company (easterly of this development on
the north side of East Avenue) was for homes in the $14,000 to
$15,000 range and were designed at a lower density and seemed
like a good design but were turned down because of the traffic
load on East Avenue. The logical way to house people at higher
densities is to group the parking together in a common facility
so that less space is taken for parking. The basic problem
facing Kaufman & Broad in this development is that the property
was purchased at a price consistent with RG-16 development and
is high priced land and is probably the reason for the high den-
sity planned.
(Public Hearing
PUD No.3 Cont1d)
The developer usually wants to tie the cost to the land fronting
the PUD, and the cost of utilities along East Avenue should be
spread over the whole development because it is a considerable
amount.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to deny the request for amendment to the PUD.
Mayor Marguth stated he felt there was a great deal of similarity
between this plan and the one presented by McKeon mthat the den-
sity is almost equal. The biggest argument against the McKeon
plan was that it was a leap-frog development since there would
be another strip of East Avenue without sufficient widening and
traffic control; secondly, if the four acre open space in this
design were distributed among the units, it would be quite com-
parable to the McKeon plan. There was inadequate parking pro-
vided for in the McKeon plan. Actually in Kaufman & Broad's
plan there is a great deal of green area or open space. There-
fore, he felt the plan before the Council was at least equal,
if not superior, to the McKeon plan.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the improvement costs should
be distributed over the whole area, not just a portion, and he
felt the density is too high with not enough space for children
to playas there would be more children in these units than in
apartments. Although the number of units is smaller, the differ-
ence is likely to be transferred to Tract 3064 for single family
residences and the net effect would be to increase the number of
children for the schools. Townhouses at a lower density might
be considered reasonable and cluster housing has been proposed
as a way to provide lower priced housing by concentrating the
housing so that public works improvements are cheaper to install
and leaving the rest as open space. He felt the request was for
a major change in the use and, therefore, a change in the over-
all density of the PUD permit should be considered. The general
density of the area is over the density in the General Plan, and
it seems the overall density of the PUD permit could be cut back
to be consistent with the General Plan. Financing has become
available for townhouses, and this is the reason for the push in
this direction and is not a reason for the City to change its
ordinances or to adopt higher densities.
Councilman Miller further pointed out this PUD permit has been
in existence for nine years and should have never been renewed.
It is a dangerous precedent to look at townhouses or cluster
housing with this high density when the original concept was for
four or less units per acre and use of cluster housing to reduce
the cost. They had not been considering 12 - 14 units per acre
with no compensating open space, but rather 6 to 8 units per
acre with compensating open space, to make an overall density of
four to the acre. To go back to higher density for single family
dwellings would be a backward step after years of effort to re-
duce this density.
CM-22-369
March 30, 1970
Councilman Silva stated that in regard to the trans-
fer of density from this section to Tract 3064, the
developer could not possibly get the balance of
approximately 100 units in Tract 3064. Allowing the
townhouses could not be considered a breach of faith
with residents of the area since it had been pointed out the set-
backs would be the same. Concerning the number of children in the
townhouse units versus apartments, if this concept is to be a basis
for the Council's decision then the RS ordinance would have to be
changed to the number of bedrooms per acre. It would help the school
tax base to have townhouses as pointed out earlier by Councilman
Uthe. The City does need housing for modest income families and
Councilman Silva questioned whether it would be possible to set a
maximum price if the townhouses were approved, but the City Attor-
ney said he did not believe this could be done.
(Public Hear-
ing, PUD No. 3
Continued)
Councilman Uthe stated that it is a known fact people have to have
housing and the cost of housing in California is increasing at twice
the rate or 29% in the last five years. This means more and more
people are being denied the opportunity to house their families in
safe, clean surroundings. There will have to be innovations in
housing during the next few years and townhouses have been designed
to meet part of this need, but the necessary community services must
be provided or else additional problems are created. Most planners
believe that townhouses should be designed for 9 to 10 units per
acre, but with an overall density of 2 d.u./acre. About half the
people in the City cannot qualify for housing and he suggested that
perhaps they should consider an experimental portion of around 40
units to find out some facts about this type of development.
Councilman Taylor felt additional problems might arise if part of
the acreage was developed as townhouses and the rest as apartments
since there would not be continuous open space.
Councilman Uthe referred to the Mountain View development, which
the Council had viewed, where 48 units of garden homes had been built
surrounded by an RG-19 zone.
Mr. Musso commented on the student yield in the area. It is planned
that two schools will be built in the Wagoner Farms area and these
schools are based on a typical single family student yield. Apart-
ments would decrease the school problem and the townhouses, assum-
ing a little lower child yield, would not reduce the problem. The
Planning Commission had planned for adequate schools in the area
over a long term period.
Mayor Marguth stated that from comments he had heard from residents
of the area these people had bought their homes because the area
was somewhat removed and an attractive area. If a halt in construc-
tionshould be called, there would be no schools in that area because
there would be an inadequate number of children to justify the
schools and there will be no shopping in that area until there are
approximately 4,000 to 5,000 people in that area. Parks and access
to East Avenue for this area must have an economic base in order
for these to be provided, and economic justification is not present
in this area at this time. Home ownership would be better for the
area than rental units and the rejection of this amendment to the
PUD is another step in an effort to lower the density and retard
growth which is a disservice to the people already living in the area.
This area has been started and growth should be allowed to proceed
until all services can be provided and he felt that denial of the
amendment would be unfair to the people presently residing in the
area.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Uthe
Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
None
M~ 1ei/cr .3I1S
No. 3vfwas
l)- oK, .
\II. ~lgl~o
l'jJY,J\,,\ ~
A .~r-/~_
19L ';'~1J}/'
GJvi
The motion to deny the request for amendment to PUD
carried by the following vote:
CM-22-370
Mr. O'Brien of Kaufman & Broad stated that
from the applicant's standpoint, they would now
have to proceed with apartments. The townhouses
had been planned in the price range of $15,000
to $20,000, but with just 180 units they could not
do this economically speaking.
March 30, 1970
(Public Hearing
PUD No.3 Cont'd)
Councilman Miller stated that if the intent of the applicant was
to build townhouses, then they could cluster housing on the
lower priced land in Tract 3064, and maintain the density of
4 d.u./acre.
Mr. O'Brien stated that landscaping cost is equal to that of
pavement, and there would not be any savings in cluster housing
on Tract 3064. Savings in townhouse developments are in the cost
of the land. The action of the Council made it necessary for the
developer to build the apartments. There is no cost savings in
building cluster housing at 4 d.u./acre when there is the same
land cost as single family.
*
*
*
CCNSENT CALENDAR
A letter of resignation was received from Mr.
R. W. Taylor as a member of the Beautification
Committee, and the Council expressed graditude
for his service on this committee.
*
*
*
A letter had been received from the Communica-
tions Service Center regarding the bus study
participation authorized by the City Council
on March 2, 1970.
Resignation from
Beautification
Committee -
(R.W. Taylor)
Communication -
Service Center
Bus Study
The City Manager stated the bus study would be done by BART,
AC Transit, and the three public jurisdictions in the Valley.
A joint powers agreement has been executed and a Board of Direc-
tors, of which the City is a part, will administer the terms of
the contract. DeLeuw, Cather Company has been selected as the
consultant for the survey. There is no way that a low income
representation can be made on the study as requested in the letter;
the study will be carried out under auspices of the Board of Direc-
tors with about 90% of the funding from federal funds.
Councilman Taylor said that he felt these people just wanted to
be sure their views and problems were considered in relation to
the bus study. Councilman Taylor was asked by the Council to
contact the Communications Service Center Program Director, Mrs.
Bianchi, and inform her that the Center contact Mr. Parness and
work through him as the City's representative in this study.
It was also suggested that the Springtown Association be con-
tacted as source of input for this program.
*
*
*
A letter of appreciation regarding the effort
made by the City Council toward restoration
of PL 874 funds for the Livermore Unified School
District was received from Mr. Rundstrom, District
Superintendent.
*
*
*
PL 874 Funds -
School District
A report was received from the Public Works
Director regarding the Quezaltenango Park-
way bid solicitation. It was pointed out
that there is still space for a horse trail in the plans, but
it is not planned to be developed at this time. Bids will be
received on a modified plan for this project.
Quezaltenango
Parkway Bid
CM-22-371
March 30, 1970
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
TRACT 3064
and 3196
(Christopher
Land Co.)
REQUEST RE
ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT
One Hundred ninety-nine claims in the amount of
$53,444.03 and two hundred thirty payroll warrants
in the amount of $70,098.71, dated March 25, 1970
were presented to the Council and ordered paid as
approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Silva, and by unanimous approval, the items
on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
Consideration of Tracts 3064 and 3196 of the Chris-
topher Land Company was postponed from the previous
meeting of the Council. On motion of Councilman
Miller, seconded by Councilman Uthe, and by unani-
mous approval, the following resolutions were adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 46-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT
AND BONDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3064
RESOLUTION NO. 47-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3064
RESOLUTION NO. 48-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT
AND BONDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3196
RESOLUTION NO. 49-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3196
RESOLUTION NO. 50-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT DEED
(Christopher Land Company)
*
*
*
A request had been made by Mr. Michael Murphy for
an encroachment permit to place a newsstand, chained
to a public pole, on First Street. The Department
of Public Works had denied the request, and Mr.
Murphy is appealing to the Council.
Mr. Murphy explained that he had contacted many merchants in town
regarding carrying the newspaper and had been refused and he wished
to have a newspaper rack in a public place. In answer to a question
by Councilman Silva, Mr. Murphy stated the paper he wished to sell
was The Weekly People, the official organ of the Socialist Labor
Party.
Councilman Miller stated he could see a reason for wanting a place
to sell papers not offered elsewhere in the City. To allow one
newsstand for other papers might be reasonable.
Mr. Lee indicated the problem is finding a location for the news-
stand. If a permit is issued for a location in front of a business
(for a controversial publication) it might be associated with the
business and owners would object. He said he did not know of a
place within the public right-of-way where this could be done.
CM-22-372
Mayor Marguth felt it would not be appropriate
for the Council to set up an area for distribu-
tion of news media not accepted by regular
merchandising facilities.
March 30, 1970
(Encroachment
Permit Cont'd)
Comments were made that there seemed to be two newsstands on
public right-of-way by Gardella's business establishment and
the. Donut Wheel on First street. If the merchants will not
sell the newspaper, then there is no way for the paper to be
made available to the public. This allows the merchants to
decide which papers will be offered for sale. The Canteen is
a location where the most papers are sold, and Mr. Murphy felt
a location downtown near the Canteen, but not necessarily iden-
tified with it, would be proper.
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., stated there was a problem in
getting minority views across; however, the public right-of-way
is not a proper place to conduct private business.
Councilman Silva stated he felt that no one should be allowed to
operate on public property for a profit. If this request were
allowed, then anyone could make a similar request. A motion was
made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Uthe, to deny
the request.
Mr. Murphy stated that the City ordinance provided that permits
may be issued to allow the placement of signs on public right-of-
way. He wished to know the reason for the denial of his request
and also under what conditions a permit could be issued for
placement of the stand.
It was pointed out to the Council that there is an encroachment
ordinance which allows encroachment in the public right-of-way.
It is used to allow tract signs or temporary signs of another
nature.
Mayor Marguth suggested that the Council table any action on
this matter until a survey is made of what action other cities
take in such matters. The motion to table the question of the
encroachment application for sixty days and direct the staff to
investigate what is done in other cities and report back to the
Council was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Miller, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
Councilmen Silva and Uthe
*
*
*
A request was made by Compla Corp. to postpone
consideration of their appeal of denial by the
Planning Commission for Variance. On motion of
Councilman Uthe, seconded by Councilman Silva,
and by unanimous approval, the matter was con-
tinued for a period of thirty days until May 4,
*
*
*
COMPLA CORP.
APPEAL OF DENIAL
OF VARIANCE
1970.
Councilman Taylor stated that at the time the
annexation fee increase was approved, the staff
had been directed to revise the fee structure.
There had been an article in the Oakland Tri-
bune outlining the bill sponsored by the
Associated Homebuilders, introduced in the Assembly by Edwin Zeberg.
The bill would have all fees paid by the City and the City being
repaid by bonds, and the bonds retired by gas tax and sales tax
monies. The argument for this method was that the new people
moving in would pay sales tax, etc. and would ultimately pay for
the fees. This could be referred to as inverse tax reform. He
felt it was an attempt to unload the cost of home construction
on someone else and urged that the Council immediately contact
the League of California Cities regarding this matter.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Fee Structure)
CM-22-373
March 30, 1970
(Fees Cont'd) On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Coun-
cilman Uthe, the League of California Cities will
be requested to study the content of the proposed
legislation and comment on it, and after further discussion re-
garding the effect of such legislation on Livermore, the motion
was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
(RE RR Crossing Councilman Miller stated he felt the Council
on Trevarno Rd) should schedule a discussion regarding the rail-
road crossing on Trevarno Road where an accident
recently occurred. The staff was asked to advise if it was appro-
priate for the Council to discuss the matter; if so, to set the
matter for discussion at a later time.
(Interchange
Portola Ave.
& u.s. 580)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor asked about the status of the work
on the interchange at Portola Avenue and U.S. 580.
Mr. Lee advised that the design is completed and it
was probably out to bid.
*
*
*
(Intersection Re the street markings at the intersection of 4th
4th & L sts.) and.L Streets, Councilman Silva inquired as to the
right turn markings which seem to inconvenience
motorists wishing to proceed north/south, if a
motorist is making a left turn onto 4th Street. The Public Works
Director was requested to submit a report on this matter.
(Signs in
Service
Stations)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva also indicated complaints made
to him regarding nonconforming signs in service
stations. It was suggested that possibly the staff
could present the reasons for the ordinance and
outline what is permissible under the ordinance to
service station owners. The staff also reports that a listing of
nonconforming signs had been compiled for presentation to the
District Attorney soon. After discussion it was decided that the
staff should proceed with their previous action.
(Training of
Police
Officers)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva said a suggestion had been made to
him that a training schedule for police officers
be initiated and he then gave a listing of the
college credits earned by our police officers as
well as special training seminars and institutes
It was stated that ~t seemed that the City's police
above average in the amount of special training received.
attended.
force was
State Environ-
mental Study
Council)
*
*
*
Councilman Silva stated that there was a great deal
of testimony taken at the recent State Environmental
Study Council meeting and that additional testimony
will be taken from various groups. He felt the
Council should adopt a policy statement to be for-
warded to the Study Council to be included in the report. The
total report is due in February, 1971, but before this phase is
completed, he would like to have a statement included.
Mr. Parness was directed to find out the date of the completion
of the Livermore phase of the report so that the Council could take
action at a later date.
CM-22-374
*
*
*
March 30, 1970
(Policy Adopted re
Liaison with
Planning Commi s sUn )
Councilman Silva indicated that in reviewing the
minutes of the Planning Commission he noted that
Councilman Miller had urged certain action to
the Planning Commission regarding freestanding
signs in Industrial Districts. As a citizen
Councilman Miller had a right to speak, but Councilman Silva
not feel it was in order for one Councilman to appear before
Commission urging certain action by the Commission.
did
the
Councilman Miller stated that he did realize he was out of order
and had apologized to the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Councilman Uthe felt it should be a policy of the City Council
that members, unless personally involved, refrain from commentary
unless requested to do so. A motion was made by Councilman Uthe,
seconded by Councilman Miller, to adopt a policy that the Council
will use the staff as the single source of liaison between the
Council and Commission unless specific request is transmitted by
the Planning Commission or if the matter is one relative as a
citizen. The motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth presented a letter of resignation
from the Planning Commission from Gale K. Hovey,
who stated that due to his inability to give
sufficient time to the Commission he felt he
should resign.
*
*
*
(Resignation From
Planning Commission
Gale Hovey)
Mayor Marguth said that as a result of the action (Termination of
of the Council the previous week the Livermore LDC Assessment
Development Assessment District had been termi- District)
nated. There was a specific instruction to
notify the properties within the community through the mail, but
this has not been accomplished due to the heavy workload by those
in charge of this action. Mr. Parness stated that the work could
probably be done by the end of the next week at a cost of appro-
ximately $1,000. The Bond Attorney had advised that this action
was not necessary. Mr. Parness felt that this noticing would
not serve any purpose and felt it unnecessary.
Discussion followed regarding noticing through the newspapers,
and whether this would be adequate for landowners living outside
the Valley area.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Uthe, and approved unanimously, to accept the recommendation of
the City Manager and notice property owners through the news
media rather than individual mailed notices.
*
*
*
Mayor Marguth stated that the staff had been
directed some time before to prepare a long
term capital improvement budget. This pro-
posal is now ready, and Mayor Marguth suggested
this report be held for study as soon as possible
by the new Council.
* * *
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned to an
executive session at 11:30 p.m.
" /
(Long Term Capital
Improvement BUdget)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-22-375
Regular Meeting of April 6, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, April
6, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
Councilman Silva
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Marguth led the members of Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
MINUTES On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, and by unanimous approval, the minutes
of March 23, 1970 were approved as submitted.
>1t- <------:> COUNCILMAN SILVA HAD BEEN SEATED DURING THIS TIME
*
*
*
Lawrence Hayes, 2340 Fifth Street, stated that he had
discussed a parking problem on South N Street with
Councilman Taylor and Mr. Lee, that existed between
the United California Bank and G. E. Daily, as he
felt the perpendicular parking to the curb creates
a traffic hazard. In addition, G. E. Daily parks new cars there to
show to customers, which he felt was in violation of a City ordinance.
OPEN FORUM
(Parking
Problem)
Mayor Marguth explained that this had been discussed previously,
and the Council had decided not to do anything at that time because
there had just been a traffic improvement on First Street which
restricted Mr. Daily's ability to do business in that area, however,
the staff had been instructed to check into the matter, as there is
a problem on South M Street north of First Street also.
*
*
*
Wallace Davis, 1842-E Railroad Avenue, referred to
an incident which took place the night of March 28,
1970, where three white men in a truck picked a
fight with him, and when he reported it to the
Police Department, he was told to go home. He stated that the
police officer was very apathetic; and they were not here to serve
a black person and he has discussed this with other black people
and they feel the same way that the police will not serve them as
citizens; that they come last. He had come before the Council to
tell them how he felt and how other black people in the community
felt, so the next time he or any of his friends are jumped, they
will not go to the police station because they cannot get any
protection.
Complaint re
Police Dept.
Mayor Marguth suggested that Mr. Davis come in and talk to the City
Manager sometime during the week, and asked Mr. Parness to check
with Chief Michelis, so that if such a situation exists it can be
corrected.
Councilman Uthe further explained to Mr. Davis, that the way to
correct such a situation is to start by talking to the City Manager,
and then, if there is no satisfaction, come before the City Council
again at any time.
*
*
*
CM-22-376
* ~
(!I-.<.h<<~t~.<^-- ~ {.u~ '-/ ~~#;tz.R
?t{ ~ '~U2 "
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 6, 1970
Communication
(Alameda County
Admission Day)
A communication was received from the Alameda
County Admission Day Committee re celebration
to be held on September 8-9 and requesting
donation of funds. It has been customary to refer this
to the Chamber of Commerce for any possible action.
*
*
*
request
A report was received from the Public Works
Director with reference to U.S. 580 Freeway
construction. The Highway Department plans
to call for bids in May of this year, with
bid opening approximately six weeks after the
call for bids. Mr. Lee explained that this included all the
interchanges between Vasco and Tassajara Roads - the one on
North Livermore, where Las Positas Road connects to 580,
Portola Avenue Interchange and the Airport Interchange, which
should all be nearly completed in a year and a half.
*
*
*
The Division of Highways was contacted and we
are informed that warning signs will be posted
on the freeway approaches to the intersection
within three weeks; also, additional warning
signs will be placed on the Portola Street
entrance to the intersection.
*
*
*
REPORTS
(Public Works -
Interchanges)
(Warning Signs -
Portola Avenue)
The City has a leasehold interest in the City
dump properties by virtue of an agreement with
William Ralph. Mr. Ralph has granted an ease-
ment for a slight change in alignment in the PG&E power lines on
the property and since the City has an interest, the approval of
the City is necessary. It is recommended the City Council author-
ize the execution of this document.
*
*
*
The following persons were appointed to serve
on the Beautification Committee: Mrs. James
Hadley, Robert A. Rumberger, Robert Schaefer,
and Gary Drummond.
(PG&E Power Line
Easement)
(Appointment to
Beautification
Committee)
RESOLUTION NO. 51-70
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has reported re a
revised agreement between the City of Liver-
more and the Division of Highways. This agree-
ment redescribes State Routes 84 and 580 within
the City limits; provides additional funds to reimburse the City
for approved lighting participation by the State; provides for
City to furnish replacement, marbelite traffic signal standards
on Rt. 84. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a reso-
lution authorizing execution.
RESOLUTION NO. 52-70
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE
OF STATE HIGHWAY IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
*
*
Agreement with
Division of Highways
(Maintenance)
CM-22-377
April 6, 1970
Annexation
Agreement
(Arroyo Road
Annex No.2)
An agreement has been executed by the singular
owner of this area, M. R. Mehran. The terms and
conditions are in accordance with the latest City
policy. The area comprises approximately 140 acres.
Councilman Miller stated that inasmuch as the annexation agreement
was not in the agenda folder, it was his desire to read the text
before it was approved even though the City Clerk advised that
rarely were agreements included in the agenda folders.
Councilman Taylor also questioned why the agreement had not been
signed before this time and Mr. Parness explained that it was not
signed simply because of the reluctance of the owner in view of the
LDC plan, although the property was exempt, but there were words
in the agreement that did cover that eventuality.
Mr. Parness further explained that this was an abreviated form of
an annexation proceedings and the public hearing is obviated by
virtue of it being a singular ownership, and the annexation is
accomplished by approval of the annexation.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor to
delay this item for one week to allow time to examine the contract.
Councilman Miller further stated that the City is a municipal cor-
poration; and the Councilmen are officers, and he felt it is only
businesslike to examine the contract, and one week delay should not
be too hard on anyone concerned especially since the contract itself
was delayed by the property owner for his own purposes.
Mr. Masud Mehran, the owner of the property in question, addressed
the Council, stating it is true that the Councilmen are the offi-
cers; executing the contracts, however, they are equivalent to
the members of the Board of Directors of a corporation and Mr.
Parness is the president, having authority to execute contracts.
Further, annexations in the past have been examined by the City
Manager, and although it was a large annexation, was not as large
as some of the others annexed by his company. He did not feel
the size had anything to do with the importance of it, and listed
the steps involved in the procedure to date.
On July 21, 1969 the City Council asked the City Manager to investi-
gate the possibility of other property owners wishing to join with
this annexation, and he was asked to report back to the Council on
August 4, 1969. He did report and stated there were some 32 pro-
perty owners and they were not interested.
On August 4, 1969 Arroyo Road Annex No. 2 was presented and on
motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller and
passed unanimously as recommended by the City Manager to be sent
to LAFCO and the Planning Commission for report and Mr. Miller
stated at that time that the applicant should be aware of higher
annexation fees being studied.
On November 11, 1969 the Council set the annexation fee at $250
per dwelling unit for an interim period.
On December 22, 1969, a new annexation agreement was drawn up by
the City which was different than what was previously drawn up
because of the new annexation fees, and because of the LDC and
other matters that the City, and in this case, the president of
his corporation saw fit to do.
On February 9, 1970 the agreement was sent to their attorney, who
at the time was on vacation, and this took a little while.
On March 26, 1970 they requested execution of the new annexation
agreement by the City, and since that time the City Clerk has
arranged for the meeting.
CM-22-378
April 6, 1970
Mr. Mehran stated that, contrary to what the
City Manager had stated, they did not wait to
see what would happen to LDC because whatever
happened they had to accept one way or the other. It was just
coincidental that the LDC came up during the negotiation period;
further, it just happens that the presentation of the agreement
is toward the end of the term of this Council. The annexation
is a tough one and will be very difficult for them to live with,
but every time they purchase property in Livermore they request
annexation to the City because it is purchased for development
rather than speculation. There is no benefit to him as an
applicant, other than it can become a part of the City and it
can be programmed and designed.
(Arroyo Road
Annex No. 2 -Cont'd)
After some further discussion by the Council the vote was taken
on the motion and failed to gain a majority by the following,
and remained on the Consent Calendar as submitted:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilmen Silva, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
RESOLUTION NO. 53-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(ARROYO ROAD ANNEX NO.2)
RESOLUTION NO. 54-70
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED
llARROYO ROAD ANNEX NO. 2"
TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE PURSUANT TO THE
llANNEXATION OF UNINHABITED TERRITORY ACT
OF 193911 AND SECTION 35015 OF THE GOVERN-
MENT CODE.
*
*
*
Minutes were received from the Library Board
of the meeting of March 26, 1970
MINUTES
*
*
*
Exempt business licenses were approved for the
following:
Exempt Business
Licenses
Livermore Jaycee's - sale of refreshments at air show to be
held on May 3
Kiwanis Club - Pancake breakfast - June 13 and 14
Livermore National Little League - various fund raising projects
during the year
Children's Home Society - Toyland Chapter - various fund
raising activities
Livermore Rodeo Association - dance, rodeo, and carnival
during June 11 - 14.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Uthe, seconded
by Councilman Silva to approve the items on
the consent calendar and passed by the follow-
ing vote:
Approval of
Consent Calendar
AYES: Councilmen Silva, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
NOES: Councilmen Miller and Taylor
*
*
*
CM-22-379
April 6, 1970
The Planning Director explained briefly that
with reference to the appeal from denial of a
Variance application to permit encroachment of
existing structure in the required front yard
setback at 763 El Caminito, it was an encroach-
ment that occurred without the benefit of a
building permit and the structure was constructed
and later picked up by the City Building Dept.
The applicant made application for variance which was considered
not only on the merit of whether or not the Variance should be
granted but also whether or not the ordinance was proper and
should be changed, and after several months concluded that the
ordinance was correct and the setback should be maintained and
then acted on denial of the variance. The structure is a masonry
grill work extending about ten feet wide and four feet from the
house, just below the roof.
REPORT RE
APPEAL
(Denial of
Variance -
763 El Caminito
John Mixon)
The Council discussed the matter after which a motion was made by
Councilman Miller to table the matter and that no action be taken
against or in favor of the violation until a draft of the ordinance
regulating setbacks is presented to the Council from the Planning
Commission; then the Planning Commission and Council will act to
see if the new ordinance make the structure conforming. It may be
that this installation can be one of the examples used in formulat-
ing the policy. The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor, who
commented he had noticed a lot of front yards lately, and there
are many varied and attractive treatments of front yards - noneof
which are the same as when the developer built the house, and he
felt it made it a very attractive City, and urged that the Planning
Commission very carefully consider the ordinance.
After further discussion on the matter, a vote was taken on the
motion and it passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller, Taylor, Uthe and Mayor Marguth
Councilman Silva
Councilman Silva commented that we should not take into considera-
tion aesthetics alone in this matter.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a regulation
Little League baseball field is proposed for
construction on the Rincon Avenue School site.
Most of the materials have been contributed, but
there are some costs that will have to be borne
by the Little League Committee, and a request has been received
for a contribution from the City in the amount of $1,000.
REPORT RE
LITTLE LEAGUE
FIELD
Mr. Smith, representing the Little League Committee explained the
land acquisition, and introduced Mr. Ted Graver and Mr. Ernie
Alfred, co-chairmen of the ball diamond.
Mr. Graver of 1273 Juniper Street, stated he wanted to give the
Council an opportunity to participate in this worthwhile project
as there has been no official ball park here for the past eleven
years, and the boys have had to travel to other communities for
Little League play. Their goal is to be independent and not have
to go to the Recreation District; however, the Recreation District
has provided the water line to the park, but no capital to work
with. Mr. Graver listed all the things they needed, however in
the course of discussion it was brought out that this would be
for the National Little League only, and Councilman Silva stated
they would then feel obligated to donate a like amount to the other
League in the City.
Mayor Marguth asked why the only place in town they were able to
build a Little League ball diamond is on school property, and of
what benefit it is to the School District to have it on school
property.
CM-22-380
April 6, 1970
Mr. Graver replied there were two benefits -
the School District is also in financial diffi-
culty, and they will develop the property on the
back side of the school; also it will do something
beautification of the City, and the school will be
use the ball diamond.
(Little League Field
for the
able to
Councilman Taylor suggested that since the LARPD District and
the City work on an equal basis on parks, and since this is a
worthwhile project that the City might help by offering services
and perhaps donate up to $500, which is half of the request,
and that LARPD consider the same amount.
Mayor Marguth stated he would prefer to authorize the City Manager
to work with the people, and allow an appropriation of up to
$1000 including in kind services, such as staff assistance, trees,
shrubs, etc.
Councilman Silva made a motion, seconded by Mayor Marguth, to
contribute $1000 or in kind services, and Mr. Parness suggested
that this be subject to resolving all legal entanglements, if
any, that there might be.
Councilman Uthe stated he could not support such a motion because
so many times the City Council is criticized for overstepping
the bounds of government, and felt this is a field of organized
recreation which is not the responsibility of the City Council
by way of an agreement they have with the Recreation District.
Councilman Uthe suggested they endorse the program, but call a
meeting with LARPD to determine who is going to pay for it or
what part of it. If LARPD chooses not to, at least have them
present if the Council decides to contribute to the program,
and Councilman Miller supported the argument presented by
Councilman Uthe.
Mr. Joe Bradshaw, representative of District 57 of Little League,
stated the Recreation Department built four diamonds at Junction
Avenue, three at Sonoma Avenue and four at Michell School, which
are baseball diamonds to be used in lieu of having Little League
diamonds, and he felt the Recreation Department had done a lot,
but he favored having a joint meeting with LARPD and wished to
attend to state their views.
A vote was then taken on the motion to contribute $1000 cash or
in kind services, with the City Attorney and staff handling the
details so there are no problems, and the motion passed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
Councilmen Uthe and Miller
*
*
*
Public Works Director Daniel Lee submitted a
report in reply to a problem presented by the
Council re the north-south traffic on L Street,
explaining the inconvenience to those proceed-
ing north on L Street having to wait for some-
one making a left-hand turn. He stated the abutting properties
would be inconvenienced if the curbs were painted red and parking
eliminated, and he did not feel that the traffic warranted a
change at present.
REPORT RE INTER-
SECTION (4th and
So. L Streets)
Councilman Silva made a motion to request the staff to submit
a minimum red zone arrangement, so there is not a f1right turn
onlyf1 in the right hand lane and to inform the property owners
at the time the Council discusses it. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Marguth, and after some discussion carried unanimously.
CM-22-381
April 6, 1970
REPORT RE
EAST AVENUE
WATER LINE
EXTENSION
the waterline
a well in the
The City Manager submitted a report re the provlslon
of water services to the industrial tract near Vasco
Road. Some time ago the Council instructed the
staff to study the feasibility of extending the
water transmission line easterly from the Wagoner
Farms development along East Avenue to connect with
on Research Drive, which is presently connected to
vicinity.
Recent subdivisions in Wagoner Farms development will provide im-
provements on East Avenue including the water main construction to
the east boundary of the development and the developer has agreed
to extend the offsite waterline to Research Drive as part of the
improvements for his tract with City reimbursement for the exact
amount of his expense. This should be substantially less than the
cost if the project was done independently and is estimated to be
$15,050 of which approximately $3360 will be the responsibility of
the Research Industrial Park Developer and $11,690 will be at the
City's expense.
It is recommended that the Council authorize the installation of
the waterline extension under the conditions outlined.
Councilman Uthe asked what happened to the public sewer on private
property, and Mr. Parness felt it was just a matter of the property
gaining service, as it is technically not our sewer.
Mr. Lewis stated it was a problem that will have to be resolved,
but probably not tonight; it is a separate problem and involves
separate utilities.
Mr. Parness stated that this waterline matter may resolve the sewer
line problem. Councilman Uthe stated that Mr. Bobson was before the
Council at one time when the issue was discussed, and the possibility
of a trade was mentioned, wherein he would grant to the City the
dedication of the sewer line with all the easements and the City
would participate in the waterline extension, and asked if there was
this possibility.
Mr. Parness explained that he had a succeeding interest that has
worked very closely with the City on the waterline frontage, which
has all been resolved, and we are contracted with that party to do
this, and this installation will be to their satisfaction. When
it is all in Mr. Bobson will be completely satisfied, and the ease-
ment of the sewer line matter may be cleared up. In the interin it
is not a problem of the City.
Mayor Marguth stated that his company is a lessee on this property
and for that reason he would abstain from voting on the issue. Mr.
Lewis advised Mayor Marguth that he was just a lessee on a portion
of the premises which is located on a larger parcel, so his interest
would be rather remote.
A motion was made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Uthe,
to authorize the City's financial participation in the project as
recommended by the staff, and the motion carried 4 to 0 with Mayor
Marguth abstaining.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX NO. 4
Mr. Parness reported re Portola Avenue Annex No.4,
stating that this matter has grown to be a very im-
portant project for the staff, and asked the Council
to recall the many obstacles and concern relative to
this property, which comprises about 400 acres. At
the time the application was made to the City for annexation it was
represented to the City that all of the property was under one
ownership or was in the process of coming under one ownership, and
the balance of the properties were very favorably inclined to having
it annexed to the City because they were seeking development as well,
so the City proceeded with all the annexation matters. About this
CM-22-382
April 6, 1970
time there was much counter discussion with
the Council and back with the clients on new
annexation policies and contract terms, etc.,
and finally the agreement was executed and
the staff proceeded with other matters related to this and the
agreement was executed and eventually the ordinance drafted,
presented to the Council and had its first reading. Upon re-
searching the property and the annexation agreements and their
coverage, the staff found that the coverage of those agreements
only pertains to the one area (owned by a trustee - Wells Fargo
Bank). Mr. Parness stated that this was inadvertency on the
part of the City and also on the part of the representative of
the original applicant, Wells Fargo Trust Company and the eastern
property ownerships. They assumed it was known to the staff,
and the staff assumed it was all tied together under contractual
terms. Over the past several weeks the staff has diligently been
seeking the execution of the remaining balance of the annexation
agreements. The owner of one portion is about to submit planning
matters for consideration, and they have been told that there
should not be a delay as they are about to ask for a hearing on
the zoning of the land once the annexation has been condluded.
The only thing yet remaining is the second reading of the ordi-
nance and certification of it by the state.
(Portola Avenue
Annex No.4 Cont'd)
Mr. Parness advised there were several courses of action the
Council could take - one would be to deny the passage of the
ordinance, which he did not feel would be appropriate; another
would be to delay the passage and the second reading to allow
the staff time to get the agreements in, which should be within
the next ten days. The other course, which the City Attorney
advises is a process, but new to him, is a de-annexation pro-
cedure whereby the entire piece can proceed in the event the
Council elects so to do later, and with the approval of LAFCO,
a portion of this can be annexed.
Mr. Parness continued that it is the staff's recommendation
that they be allowed to proceed with all due dispatch and attempt
to get the properties contained within an agreement at the earliest
possible time.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller to accept the City Manager's
recommendation and to allow time to proceed to get the necessary
contractual agreements, which was seconded by Councilman Uthe
and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Report was submitted by the Planning Commission
on the proposed zoning ordinance amendments re
signs. A public hearing will be set for May 11.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS RE SIGNS
(Section 21. 70)
*
*
*
Mr. George Musso prepared a memo for the Council
regarding the enforcement, or lack of enforce-
ment, of the ordinance regarding political signs.
He stated there had been many violations, inad-
vertent on the part of the candidates, by pro-
perty owners. The City personnel are removing those signs placed
on public property, but do not have the time available to remove
all violations from private property.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Enforcement of
Ordinance re Signs)
Councilman Silva said he felt that the sign ordinance should be
amended regarding political signs as under the present ordinance
a property owner can only have one sign, yet there are three
Council positions.
Councilman Taylor agreed with Councilman Silva since these signs
remain for only about thirty days. He felt that anything which
CM-22-383
April 6, 1970
(Signs Cont'd) makes the public aware of the political processes is
beneficial and the ordinance should allow the number
of signs appropriate to the positions open in any
election.
The City Attorney stated there had been much controversy when the
sign ordinance was adopted in 1966. Since that time other cities
have adopted similar ordinances as the trend is to try to reasonably
control the number of signs. The staff was directed to prepare a
draft recommendation for revision of the ordinance regarding politi-
cal signs.
*
*
*
(Street Lights The Director of Public Works reported that the street
Rincon School) lights in front of Rincon School will be up in one
to three weeks. PG&E is working on this matter and
it should be completed within that time span.
(Transcript
of LDC
Hearings)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported to the Council that a portion of
the transcription of the proceedings at the LDC hear-
ings had been completed by the court reporter present
at the hearings. If the remainder of the transcrip-
tion was not done by him, the work would have to be
completed by City personnel and the transcription
can be done by the reporter for a maximum of $350.00. The City
Clerk stated that it was necessary to have a written record of the
proceedings for inclusion in the minutes.
Councilman Uthe suggested that since a court reporter had been present
at the meetings, that he be allowed to proceed with the transcription
so that the testimony and proceedings would be legal and binding in
a court of law. Councilman Uthe made a motion to authorize the staff
to have the court reporter complete the transcription and to authorize
the expenditure of a maximum of $350.00 for this work. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Marguth and approved unanimously.
Councilman Taylor felt it should be pointed out that all plans for
the Livermore Development Assessment District had been dropped and
legal action was taken to terminate the plan.
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCIL
(Exempt
Business
License -
Rodeo Ass'n.)
*
*
*
Referring to an exempt business license that was in-
cluded in the consent calendar, Councilman Miller
stated that inasmuch as the Rodeo Association acti-
vities accrue revenue above operating costs, and
the proceeds are for use by the association, this
item should be discussed.
In answer to a question by Councilman Silva, Mr.
Parness stated that the cost of a license for the
carnival portion of the activities would be about $100 per day.
Councilman Silva felt this would reduce the profit of the Rodeo
Association by a like amount, and the Rodeo's funds are not expended
for personal enjoyment of members.
After some discussion the Council felt that it was not necessary
for the Rodeo Association to apply for a business license and the
exempt permit was granted.
(Planning
Commission
Appointments)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor said he wished to discuss the
manner in which appointments are presently made to
the Planning Commission. He suggested that the
Council initiate a new procedure whereby the vacancy
be declared open and interviews conducted so that the selection pro-
cess would be more open to the public, and the names of interested
CM-22-384
April 6, 1970
(Appointments
Continued)
people could be submitted to the City Clerk.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to discontinue
discussion on Planning Commission appointments
and to recommend to the next Council that the
process be through solicitation of applicants and the interview
process, and the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Silva stated he suggested the interview of potential
applicants about two years ago, but that after trying this pro-
cedure he had felt it was not successful. It would be embarrass-
ing to the Council and applicants to discuss qualifications of
applicants before the public.
Mayor Marguth was opposed also to interviewing applicants publicly
and then making a selection. Under the present system any appli-
cant can talk personally to the Councilmen, and he felt this was
better.
Councilman Uthe felt that this had been tried unsuccessfully many
times before. He felt it would never work, but in each political
campaign it is brought up and he was not opposed to trying it again.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Uthe
NOES: Councilman Silva and Mayor Marguth
*
*
*
It was the decision of the Council not to have
a meeting on Monday, April 20, 1970. There will
be a meeting on Tuesday, April 21, for canvass
of the returns of the municipal election and
seating of the newly elected councilmen.
*
*
*
Councilman Silva stated that he
the new Del Valle Parksite and
directional signs are needed.
directed to request the County
place signs for this purpose.
had visited
felt that
The staff was
and State to
*
*
*
The item relating to Larkspur Drive as a
second access to the Proud Homes development
was removed from the consent calendar for dis-
cussion at this time.
(Council Meeting -
April 20)
(Del Valle Park)
Larkspur Drive
Access to Proud
Home s
Mr. Musso explained that the original application provided that
after the first 100 units had been constructed the Council re-
served the right to require access through either Springtown
Blvd. or Larkspur Drive.
Mr. Lee reported that Unit 1, the first subdivision, has been
built and completed; the second subdivision is bonded and the
public works improvements are being completed now. The second
access on Larkspur Drive is not included; however, an access
for a paved two-lane road to Hartford Drive is being constructed
with the second unit. A condition of the third and fourth
~entative tract maps is that a second access be required, either
through Larkspur Drive or Springtown Blvd. This, in effect,
altered the conditions of the PUD, which stated that after 100
homes the access through Larkspur Drive would have to be built.
At this time the second access is not bonded and the third and
fourth tentative tracts have expired. There is no way now that
the access can be required until they decide to begin further
development.
CM-22-38S
April 6, 1970
Mayor Marguth said he did not want any access from
the subdivision to the back road except for tem-
porary construction purposes as North Livermore
Avenue is not designed to carry the traffic from
this subdivision. Mr. Lee stated he did not feel
this subdivision would overtax Hartford Road or Livermore Avenue,
but would be a good second access.
(Access to
Proud Homes
Continued)
The staff was directed to research the matter and prior discussion
by the Council in order to clarify previous action on this matter.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that he felt the three
businessmen on the Council, who had prevented his
reading of a contract under discussion the previous
week, had done him a disservice by their refusing
his request for a businesslike look at the contract involved. On
previous occasions when they had begrudged his requests to look
over contracts under discussion, he had found errors, failure to
collect interest and an undisclosed four-year extension of the
Wagoner Farms PUD permit which resulted in a park in the area.
(Reading of
contracts)
Councilman Miller said he believed this was an extremely discour-
teous action by three members of the Council in preventing one
Councilman from carrying out his duty as an elected official.
Councilman Silva stated that after receiving his agenda, Council-
man Miller had an opportunity to contact the staff for a copy of
the contract. The Council must rely to a certain extent on the
staff.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
APPROVE
City Clerk
Llvermore, California
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of April 13, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, April
13, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Miller, Silva, Taylor and
Mayor Marguth
ABSENT:
Councilman Uthe
*
*
*
CM-22-386
April 13, 1970
Pat Palmeri, 958 El Rancho Drive, stated she
had read in the paper where the Council had
declared April 22nd as bicycle day at the
request of the Girl Scouts and in conjunction with "Earth Day.
She felt that this was too good an idea to be commemorated once
a year and suggested that there be either a weekly or monthly
bicycle day in Livermore, and she had discussed this with Dr.
Watson who said he would help to promote such an idea.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
OPEN FORUM
(Bicycle Day)
Report re PUD No.14
(Proud Homes)
Public Works Director Daniel J. Lee submitted
a detailed report on Proud Homes PUD No. 14
and the Larkspur Drive extension as directed
by the City Council. This report listed dates
that various actions were taken relative to the PUD and included
excerpts of prior Council minutes, which last action by the
Council on January 12, 1970, indicates an extension of time for
sixty days granted for Tracts 3043 and 3044, which time has sub-
sequently expired.
*
*
*
A resolution was received from the Environmental
Quality Study Council which indicated that at a
public hearing held on March 7, 1970, it was
determined that the Livermore-Amador Valley has
the most serious air pollution problem in the
Bay Area. A portion of the air pollution originates in the
Counties of Napa, Solano and Sonoma, and they would urge that
appropriate legislative action be taken to enable the Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District to exercise its powers in these
other counties.
*
*
*
Environmental
Quality Study
Council
Resolutions were received from the Board of
Supervisors re boundary description and intent
to establish one judicial district comprising the
present Livermore and Pleasanton Judicial Dis-
trict except any portion which is within the corporate limits
of the City of Pleasanton as the Murray Municipal Court District.
*
*
*
Resolution re
Murray Municipal
Court District
RESOLUTION NO. 55-70 Canvass of Votes
General Municipal
Election
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CITY CLERK TO CANVASS
VOTES CAST AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD AND CONDUCTED APRIL 14, 1970
*
*
*
Although there is a policy of the City Council
to limit the service to two terms of the mem-
bers of the Housing Authority, the Council
felt this was an extraordinary situation, and
asked Mr. Davison to serve at least until such
time as the new housing project is underway.
RESOLUTION NO. 56-70
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
(Warren Davison)
*
*
*
Appointment -
Housing Authority
Member
CM-22-387
April13, 1970
Report re
1969-70
Fiscal Audit
Exempt Busi-
ness
Licenses
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
In accordance with the annual practice a copy of
the audit of the City's financial affairs for the
1968-69 fiscal year which had been prepared by
an independent certified public accountant was
submitted to the Council for filing.
*
*
*
Exempt business licenses were approved for the
following:
American Field Service - dinner on April 28
Beth Emek Sisterhood - bazaar - May 7, Dania Hall
C.S.E.A. - California School Employees' Assn.
scholarship breakfast for high school students
Cub Scout Pack 930 - carnival on April 25
Eden Colts Jr. Mounted Drill Team, Inc. - sale of
hot dogs and cokes at Livermore Arena on April 25-26
*
*
*
One hundred thirty-six claims in the amount of
$103,596.78 and two hundred thirty-nine payroll
warrants in the amount of $70,197.42, dated April
8, 1970, were presented to the Council and ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Council-
man Miller, the items on the consent calendar were
approved unanimously. ,Councilman Silva abstained
from voting on Warrant No. 6871 for the usual reasons.
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that three proposals had
been considered as outlined in the report from the
Landscape Designer. Mrs. Margaret Tracy, reporting
for the Beautification Committee, stated that the
Committee has been looking for a type of sign with a community identity
to be located within the City limits. The signs could be located on
east First Street by the Los Positas Arroyo and on Holmes Street
south of Concannon Blvd. in the triangle where the road curves. A
third area, suggested was the triangle at Portola Avenue and the in-
terchange with Highway 580 on the northwest side of town when this
area becomes available.
CITY ENTRY
SIGNS
Mrs. Tracy stated that the design which was approved unanimously
by the Beautification Committee was submitted by Randy Schlientz,
representing the Chamber of Commerce. The design includes a circu-
lar wall six feet high, 42 feet long, with a pole structure and
trellis arrangement of treated green stained telephone poles, 19,
20 and 21 feet high and a circular fountain with a wall two feet
high and 20 feet in diameter. Cost estimates could approximate
$1,000 for the pole structure and trellis, $1,000 for the wall of
slump stone, $3,000 to $4,000 for the fountain, plus landscaping
and contingencies for each unit. The vertical poles would have a
place for service signs, a communitywide effort involving the ser-
vice clubs might aid in financing these structures. The Beautifi-
cation Committee was submitting the design concept for approval by
the City Council and also budget consideration.
Mr. Parness said he thought the design was attractive, but recommended
that the matter be referred to the staff for study and consideration
of all aspects, particularly landscaping and financing, so that all
these matters can be considered by the Council in making their de-
cision.
CM-22-388
Councilman Silva asked if the Chamber of Com-
merce would be willing to participate in this
project, and it was stated the Chamber would
probably be able to participate to some degree.
April 13, 1970
(City Entry Signs
Continued)
Mrs. Tracy said that one suggestion to reduce the cost at present
would be to feature seasonal flowers in the circular portion
with the fountain built at a later date.
Councilman Miller stated that a portion of the budget is set
aside for beautification matters. If the City were to propose
matching funds with the service clubs, the cost would be rela-
tively small. Perhaps one sign could be constructed each of the
next three years, and they would be an asset for the City entrances.
The staff was directed to consider the different possibilities
of financing the project and present a schedule for construction
of the signs.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that Tract
2726 is located in the Sunset development area.
A delay of one year is requested in the comple-
tion of the public works improvements. The
delay would not adversely affect the City and it
that the delay be granted.
TRACT 2726
(Sunset Development
Company)
was recommended
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the staff recommenda-
tion to allow a one year delay in the completion of the public
works improvements, and the motion was seconded by Councilman
Taylor and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that Windsor
Equity, Inc. has asked for placement of three
directional tract signs north of Highway 580.
In accordance with the Council's policy regard-
ing directional tract signs, they are to be located only at
intersections of major streets. At the present time there are
no such intersections north of the highway; considering the
peculiar conditions that exist in that area, he felt that it
would be reasonable to allow an encroachment permit for signs
at the northwest corner of Vasco Road and Crestmont Ave., north-
east corner of Heather Lane and Bluebell Drive, and the northeast
corner of Ivy Way and Springtown Blvd. In view of the Council's
policy of a one year limit on sign permits, it would be reason-
able to allow this request for a one year permit inasmuch as
Windsor Equity is now building in the area.
SIGN VARIANCE
(Windsor Equity)
Councilman Silva made a motion to accept the recommendation of
the Public Works Director to allow the signs at the designated
sites under a one year permit, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that for several
months the staff had been preparing a variety
of projects associated with public works con-
tained in the 1969-70 budget, including streets,
some nominal channelization projects, traffic
signalization, and storm drains. These projects are now ready
for solicitation of competitive bidding. They constitute an
expenditure of $700,000 which will be financed from special
purpose funds and contained within the present year's budget.
Mr. Parness stated that this expenditure would not consume the
total gas tax appropriation or amount available for the current
fiscal year.
PUBLIC WORKS
IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
CM-22-389
April 13, 1970
(Public Works
Improvements
Program
Continued)
Councilman Silva asked what effect a one month
delay in approval by the Council would have as
he felt the new Council should consider this
expenditure. Mr. Parness stated that it would
cause a month's loss in the construction season
and costs are escalating. The program was approved
by the present Council last summer.
Mr. Lee stated that it is late in the season for bidding work,
better bids would be attracted the earlier they are called for and
a delay of a month might be quite serious. It might be mid-summer
before the contractor could get to work.
Mr. Lewis stated that bids are worded in such a way that any or all
may be rejected, and each item is handled on an individual basis.
The new Council could delete any project they felt was excessive.
Mr. Lee commented on Item B-b, the intersection at S Street and
Holmes street. So far the design of the island has not been worked
out with the adjacent property owners, and approval was requested
with the provision that the matter will be further reviewed by the
Council as to the layout of the island.
Councilman Taylor questioned the design for the intersection of 4th
and Madeira Way, and Mr. Lee displayed the proposed plan for the
intersection, indicating that the school district does not yet have
the funds for public works improvements in the area, but they will
dedicate the additional right-of-way needed. Curbs and gutters will
be installed as part of the project and the sidewalk area graded,
but the school district is not presently financially able to pay
for the sidewalks. This project also includes reconstruction of
4th Street.
Mr. Lee also reported that an island is proposed at the intersection
of South Livermore Avenue and the library property, which will elim-
inate some of the confusion at this point.
The cost given for the intersection of Hillcrest-East Avenue includes
the traffic signals as well as the construction of the island and
acquisition of right-of-way to widen the street.
Councilman Taylor also questioned the reason for resurfacing El
Caminito since it is fairly new. It was pointed out that this street
was originally designated as a collector street, and the truck traffic
to new subdivisions in the area was very heavy. A load limit has
been placed on the street but there has been some damage.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Silva, and
by unanimous vote the staff report was accepted and the staff directed
to proceed with the bid solicitation.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
SOUTH BAY
SEWAGE
DISCHARGE
COMMITTEE
A report had been submitted by the City Manager re-
garding the South Bay Sewage Discharge Committee.
In summary, Mr. Parness stated that the essence of
the report prepared by the Engineers and Public Works
Directors of the jurisdictions involved is the result
of an indictment on the part of the Regional Water
Control Board directed to the cities located in the
South Bay; however, it is conceivable that in time our City may
become contributary to a master sewage interceptor system servicing
the south bay area and our City; therefore, it is logical for our
City to take part in the initial planning of this program. Nothing
in this report or the resolution would allege that we are assuming
any liability or responsibility that is primarily directed to the
other cities involved. Our responsibilities to the State plan have
been satisfied; however, the day may come when there may have to be
another master system designed and used by us.
CM-22-390
April 13, 1970
Councilman Silva stated that the Valley Planning
Committee has discussed this and will study it
in greater detail at a later date and felt the
City should wait to see what their recommendation
(South Bay Sewage
Continued)
is.
Mr. Parness stated that the Regional Water Pollution Control
Board insists on a statement from the South Bay Study Committee
at its meeting on April 23.
Councilman Silva and Taylor expressed reluctance to endorse any
action in connection with this Committee. Mayor Marguth said
he felt the City of Livermore had a lot to contribute through
its staff to the study, and secondly, the City of Livermore,
by participating in the study will be totally aware of the
activities and may provide some leadership for a sound program.
Mayor Marguth made a motion to accept the recommendation and
adopt the resolution as presented, however this motion did not
receive a second.
Mr. Lee explained that the City had been urged by Mr. Walsh,
coordinator for the South Bay study, to participate; reluctance
to do so might be misinterpreted by the Regional Board as lack
of interest in the program. One of the things this study will
do is ask the Board to get more information before making its
decisions and requirements for the involved jurisdictions.
Councilman Miller stated he could not support the resolution
particularly because of the item on page 7, regarding punitive
action. He felt that if there is a water pollution problem and
the studies have not been finished, then pollution should be
stopped until they are complete and solutions found, and he
could not agree with the policy statement. To provide adequate
sewage will cost many millions of dollars. The time to stop
pollution is now, and then talk about how to solve it.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to adopt the proposed resolution
but to delete paragraph 5, page 7; the motion was seconded by
Councilman Miller. After further discussion, Councilman Silva
made a motion to amend the main motion by retaining the first
sentence in paragraph 5, as part of the resolution, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, and the motion to amend was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Uthe
The main motion, as amended was then approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Silva, Taylor and Mayor Marguth
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSENT: Councilman Uthe
RESOLUTION NO. 57-70
RESOLUTION ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING STATEMENT OF
POSITION OF SOUTH BAY SEWAGE DISCHARGERS TO THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
*
*
*
A report on AB 1271 by the City Attorney had
been submitted to the Council. Mayor Marguth
stated the Council would prefer that Mr. Lewis
work with Assemblyman Bee and the Department of
Education in Drafting amendments which would
overcome objections.
REPORT RE AB 1271
(Providing School
Sites)
CM-22-391
April 13, 1970
(AB 1271 Cont'd)
REPORTS FROM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
(CUP-Intermark
Investing)
(Rezoning -
T.J. Green)
(Re zoning -
Sunset Dev. Co.)
SUMMARY -
PLANNING
COMMISSION
ACTION
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCIL
(Mobilehome
Parks)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-22-392
L-
Mr. Lewis said he planned to appear, along with
other members of the community who can provide
testimony, before the Local Government Committee.
A re-draft will be made of the section criticized
by the Department of Education.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and approved unanimously, public
hearings were set for the following matters:
Intermark Investing Co. has applied for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow mobilehome park on the north
side of U.S. 580, easterly of Las Flores Road. A
public hearing on this matter was set for May 11.
A request for rezoning from RS-5 to RG-12 District
for a site located at 5682 East Avenue, just easter-
ly of the Wagoner Farms area, has been made by
T. J. Green. Public hearing was set for May 4, 1970.
A rezoning request from Rs-4 to RG-16 District for
the area on the northeast corner of Concannon Blvd.
and Holmes Street has been made by Sunset Develop-
ment Company. Public hearing was set for May 11.
*
*
*
The summary of Planning Commission action of its
meeting of April 7, 1970, was acknowledged by the
Council.
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN UTHE ARRIVED AT THIS TIME
*
*
*
Councilman Silva felt that mobilehome parks should
be designated in some manner in our planning area,
possibly in certain areas known prior to applications
for such use. After discussion the Council decided
to include this item in the study session agenda
for the new Council.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. until
7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21, 1970.
APPROVE
ATTEST
Regular Adjourned Meeting of April 21~ 1970
A regular adjourned meeting of the City Council was held on
Tuesday~ April 21~ 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers~ 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
* -* *
PRESENT: Councilmen rfJi 11 e r , Silva~ Taylor, Uthe ROLL CALL
and IVlayor Marguth
ABSENT: None
-l(- * ~(,
The Mayor led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
PLEDG:2 OF
ALLEGIAITCE
*
*
-)(-
On motion of Councilman Miller~ seconded by
Councilman Silva~ the minutes of the meetin~of
March 16~ 17~ 21 and 30~ 1970~ were approved as
submitted.
f/]INUTES
*
*
-l(-
The City Clerk reported on the canvass of votes~
both absentee ballots and the precinct votes~
as indicated on the copy of the resolution
presented to each Councilman.
CArN ASS OF VOTES
(Municipal
Election)
The resolution of canvass was then introduced by Councilman Uthe~
seconded by Councilman Silva~ and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 58-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CAr-.TVASS OF VOTES AT THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF APRIL l~~ 1970
WHEREAS, a general municipal election was held and con-
ducted in the City of Livermore, on Tuesday~ the 14th day of April~
1970~ as required by law; and
WHEREAS~ by Resolution No. 55-70 the City Clerk was ordered
to canvass the results of said election and certify the same to
this Council; and
WHEREAS~ it appears that notice of said election was duly
and legally given, that voting precincts were properly established~
that election ofrjeers ..ere appointed and election supplies fur-
nished~ and that in all respects s2id election was held and con-
ducted 2nd the votes cast thereat received and canvassed~ and the
returns thereof, made and declared in time, form and manner GiS
required by the general laws of the state of California governing
election in General Law Cities; and
WHEREAS~ the Council of said City of Livermore met at the
Council Chambers thereof on Tuesday~ the 21st day of April, 1970~
to receive the canvass of the returns of said election from the
City Clerk and install the newly elected officers~ and having can-
vassed said returns~ the Council finds that the number of votes
cast~ the names of the persons voted for and other matters required
by law~ to be as hereinafter stated.
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND DECLARED
AS FOLLOWS:
That said regular general municipal election was held and
conducted in the City of Livermore~ on Tuesday~ the 14th day of
CM-23-1
April 21, 1970
April, 1970, in time, form and manner as required by law; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED, that there
were sixteen (16) voting precincts established for the purpose of
holding said election, consisting of a consolidation of the regular
election precincts established for holding the last general State
and County election as follows:
Consolidated voting precinct "A" comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30180, 30181.
Consolidated voting precinct I1BI1, comprising State and
County precinct numbered Livermore 30182.
Consolidated voting precinct 'lCI1, comprlslng State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30150, 30170.
Consolidated voting precinct I1D", comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30160, 30190, 30191.
Consolidated voting precinct I1EI1, comprising State and
County precincts numbered 30140, 30200.
Consolidated voting precinct I1FI1, comprlslng State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30110, 30130.
Consolidated voting precinct "G'l, comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30100, 30120.
Consolidated voting precinct I1HI1, comprising State and
County precinct numbered Livermore 30030.
Consolidated voting precinct "I 11, comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30060, 30090, 30091.
Consolidated voting precinct I1JI1, c ompri sing State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30040, 30050.
Consolidated voting precinct ilK 11 , comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30070, 30080.
Consolidated voting precinct liLli, comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30210, 30230, 30220.
Consolidated voting precinct "MI1, comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30270, 30250, 30240.
Consolidated voting precinct "NI1 , comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30260, 30271, 30280.
Consolidated voting precinct "0", comprising State and
County precinct numbered Livermore 30272.
Consolidated voting precinct "pl1, comprising State and
County precincts numbered Livermore 30010, 30011, 30020.
That the whole number of votes cast in said City of Livermore
was 7,989; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED, that the
names of the persons voted for, the offices for which they were
voted, together with the whole number of votes which they received
in the entire Cit~ of Livermore, are as shown on the attached,
marked Exhibit I1A'.
CM-23-2
I
STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST
AT THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION
HELD
APRIL 14
, 19-1Q.
IN
CITY OF LIVERMORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(When the City Clerk makes the Official Canvass, he must
fill out Certificate on back page.)
EXHiBIT HAl'
1
STATEMENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AT THE
FOR THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNCILMAN ONLY
~
-4-
en
~
z: ~, ::r:
u 01 f:i1, f:i1 0
..... H r:q ~ E-i
8: :>-J f:i1 ~ P
L&. c::r; f:i1 f:i1 ~
Q E-i r:q P .
..... r:q. c::r; .
.... '1' ::r: r::l
~ f:i1i c::r; I i ~ ~ f:i1
-' f:i1 H f:i1 H H
C r::l H ~ ::r: H ~
IE):>-J u ::r: U H U
.... H f:i1 0 ~ H c::r;
SONOMA AVE. SCHOOL A 534!1 25;~1 ~ ~ . 1:S 6:
374 ALICE WAY B 246 114, . 104 j 23 .127. 95 36
JOE MICHELL SCHOOL C 470 227. 221 29 222 182 43
MENDENHALL SCHOOL D 702 379, , 299 I 54 .370. ..255 . 44
310 SOUTH S STREET E560..gS.6~ ...2.48.. .17.. .~69. ...211 39.._
FIFTH STREET SCHOOL F 479 125. , 321; 20 . 90. , 269. I 45.
RECREATION CENTER G 433 150, 275; 23. 1114. ',205 36
1396 JULIET COURT H 424 266 119 14 256. 140 30 .
840 JENSEN STREET '644 326. 269, 33 1309, . 233 , 42'1
JACKSON AYE. SGHQQLH._.J_5l-1~29l...____...208-l___~J_4_~__---2B.8~_____.l41. _ m.._33+_.___
3866 PESTANA WAY K 483 191, 241 30 . 175, .185 65,.
JUNCTION AVE. SCHOOL L 607 257. .265, 28 .237, 232 , 78
1695 ELM STREET M 521 181 ,233, 49 . 160 i ,208, 99
MARYLIN AVE. SCHOOL N 487 143, .200 38 145, .,148. : 132 '
533 DOVEBWAX .._.__. ___. _____. _._ _. _'!.___ 25SJ 2 J--f-- ___ _11L__~e__.1.3.S ---.-.:-:tQ:I,-..----L.?..9-lr- ____.
1389 BLUEBELL DR. P 534 181 246 47 ,190: 230 ! 84
ELECTION
PRECINCTS
U2
~
H
~
f:i1
I-:J
U)
P-.
H
H
H
H
::r:
P-.
TOTALS
Q
R
S
T
.. --- ---.----....--------+---------. --_...........--._-----~._._.._--+-----+---~--_.....
A 7989 3515, 3630, 476
!
B
C
D
E
99 48,
I
50:
6
, 42
36.
12
ABSENTEES
I
--~--------
.._----4.___...__~-----_-.----_---.-..-.. -.
f390;
i '
$056.
Ii
.'
:904
.,
.'. .--'-.+.------r-~--.,--._--.----
I
F
G
H
,
J
-+--.-------- ----- .-.---.---.-.--.--..----- -------..,-.-.-...-
K
L
M
N
o
.-. ------- ----- ----~.._--_.-------- P...-." __.- __.__.____......_. ._______..___..._._.__.__ ___---...-. ___._.___-___.__________
P
Q
R
S
T
.--;- ~-- --<rc,,- ..-;-~. -r -. -t-.. --,.- --.. -r--. -.
.
GENERAL MUNICIPAL
1
ELECTION HELD
APRIL
14 , 19 70
r::1
p::;
;r;
u
E-J
H
p::;
p.,
.
<e:
E-J
p::;
I::il
p::j
o
p::;
U)
p::;
~
E-J
~
p::;
E-J
U)
~
<e:
H
H
H
H
:Sl
I
971
34,
63,
115,
.. lOT
51,
54,
71,
108
-'1-6>-.
73.
98,
83,
72;
___~__53~
I
95,
12;
_.n_ __ ._"_
~
o
U) Ul
<e: p.,
~ ~
o 0
::r:: ::r::
E-J E-J
.
~
s
~
o.
r::1.
I
901
57.
67.
93.
_90;
66i
601
51!
59:
. --__._62
90.
105.
128~
166,
4'
._.__.~~
122,
15~
D
E
__ .~.__________ ,. ~~___.._ .___ ___.. ._.. __.........__. ....._._.._. ._.m'__ _.___ ___+. _
F
G
H
A .227
s 83
c 209
D262
_E_ ..259-+
F 335 I
G 281
H 149
, 285
...._~~Ei6 .,
K 277
L 321
M285
N 276 ,
0' 4:
__mOo -------.".1.t
p 317 ;
Q
R 40
s
T . . .
.,..._.____.___.__.._.____.._______ _.._+-___ __.___._._______.+-______.._ _._ n__._ ~__..___ ___-______________________-____._______________..____-+__________u_ ___.._____..__ -j'-' ___.,_ _____._.
A 3886; 1262, 1366j 735;
s
c
J
,.._ __'..________ ,.___ '0 _
K
L
M
N
~------ .
o
p
Q
R
- S
T
.
::r::
~
I::il
p::;
p::;
~I
55!
31.
29,
77:
..41.
30,
28,
,
33.
64
I
I -I 1 =i
I ,
I
! i
. I
I
I
-,
--...---.-5.5.--.--.. t-.----.--.---.-L ....---.....--. ~.--.
39.
47.
54;
! .
79. i
....-...-31-r-.---- ,----.____..
37.
5:
-_.~._._-~-----_.---._-_." - .--.
0'-----. __ '.,.___.., .__,___~.__ ._.______ ......._.. .__ .'__ .__________________4--__ .___
. ;- .=. ~--...~- t.-...........-.. .-. -1''' .-
.--. ..-.-. T -..
-1
I
1
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS
OF ELECTION RETURNS
State of California, }
County of....m....AL.A.."ME.DA..................m......................... ss.
I) .................__..................PQ.EQ.~.HX.....<J...!.....H.OC..K...............m................................................................................ City C ler k
of said City, do hereby certify that, in purs~tance of the provisions of
Section 22932.5 of the Elections Code and of the resoltttion of the
governing body of said City, heretofore adopted and entered upon
the minutes of said governing body, I did canvass the returns of the
vote cast in said City) at the........m.............mmm............................mm........................................
...............q~.NJ~BA.J,..J1VNJ.C.J;pA.J,.................._..........................................Election held on
....mm..A..P.BJ..J,m....lgmmm....m, 19....7.0., for elective pztblic offices, and/or for
and against each measure submitted to the vote of the voters, and that
the Statement of the Vote Cast, to which this certificate is attached,
shows the whole number of votes cast in said City, and the whole num-
ber of votes cast for each candidate and/or for and against each meas-
ure in said City and in each of the respective precincts therein, and
that the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for
each candidate and/or for and against each meas~tre are full, trvte and
correct.
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this...m.2Qthm...............day of
....m............A..P.BJ.~......m.............., 19....7.9..
(SEAL)
'i ff ' "'
i ;
\ --. i/ . .. ('"/
.......~~:t.!.~........,..... ....,.... ~::C..~<(;'."-m...' City Clerk.
.. ,.'.. ,--._--~P
. !
( '/
By ......m......m......:.......................mm....m..mm.................m.m......, Deputy.
(The above certificate is to be used only when the governing body has ordered the City Clerk to make the official canvass.)
I
1'170
NO PAJe
~?> -3 oR :J..3-1f
April 21, 1970
BE IT FURTlmR RESOLVED, DETERriIIlJED AND
DECLARED, that at the said general municipal
election held in said City on Tuesday, the 14th
day of April, 1970, the following persons were
elected to the respective offices for the terms stated and until
their successors are duly elected and qualified, as follows:
(Canvass of
Votes - Municipal
Election cont'd)
CLYDE E. TAYLOR was elected Councilman for the full term
of four years;
CECIL A. BEEBE was elected Councilman for the full term
of four years;
ROBERT A. PRITCHARD was elected Councilman for the full
term of four years.
BE IT F1JRTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED, that the
Clerk shall enter on the records of this Council a statement of
the result of the said election, showing:
1. The vI h ole number of votes C8.st in the City of Livermore;
2. The names of the persons voted for;
3. For \'Jhat office each person vIas voted;
11-. The number of votes given at each precinct to each
person; and
5. The number of votes given in the City to each person.
BE IT FURTlillR RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the
City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of such
persons elected a certificate of election, signed by her and duly
authenticated; she shall also impose the constitutional oath of
office, whereupon they shall be inducted into their respective
offices to which they have been elected.
*
*
1(-
Councilman Uthe stated that several months
ago when he announced publicly that he would
not run for reelection, he made a complete
statement, which he did not wish to repeat at
this time, but in leaving office after six years
of very hard wo~{ he wished to express his gratitude to the staff
for assisting the Ccuncil over the years, and thanked his fellow
Councilmen and the previous Council for the respect shovm to 11im,
their patience, and the press for providing a communication
channel between this government and the people of the City, and
finally all who have followed wl1at he h:::s attempted to do over
the years and Wll0 helve continued to respect and support him.
cm!Jr'IEIJTS BY
THE COU:;CIL
(Councilman
Uthe)
Mayor Marguth stated he wished to echo much (Mayor Marcuth)
the same comments made by Councilman Uthe, adding
that ~__ .c~r years on the Council had beeD years with meaning for
him and the rest of the Council. He stated it had been a pleasure
working with the professional staff of the City, the people who
carry out the policies that the Council sets, especially projects
Hl1ich have been cLLrected to them of IJllich some have been very
difficult. He expressed his appreciation for the relationship he
had had wi th Manuel r.1edeiros, r!Jilo ::ordy1ce and Bob Patterson the
first two years he served on the Council as he felt the lcnmvledge
he gained from these men was very beneficial. Further, it had
been a pleasure vror1dng vvi th the Planning Commi ssioners and the
other commi ttees and then being proud IIi th the resu.l ts shovm
through their efforts. He appreciated the efforts of the press,
and he had learned to accept the press for what they arc, and
feels the press has learned to accept him for what he is, and he
thought the community is in good shape as far as the communication
media is concerned with the two newspapers and radio statiorl.
n
CM-23-5
April 21, 1970
(Comments -
Mayor Mar~uth
continued)
ADJOURNI~NT
CERTIFICATES
Mayor Marguth also thanked the other members of
the Council, his family, and the people who have
supported him. He congratulated the community
on their selection of the new Councilmen, and
offered his help in the future, but pointed out
that once the Councilmen take their chai~s, the
decisions are up to them.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Uthe, seconded by
Mayor Marguth, and by unanimous vote of the
Council, the meeting was then adjourned sine die.
*
*
*
The City Clerk then delivered certificates to
the newly elected Councilmen, who had previously
taken the oath of office at the time their
nomination papers were filed.
* * *
ROLL CALL The City Clerk called the meeting to order and
took roll call:
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Silva,
I~ller and Pritchard
ABSENT: None
* * *
NOMINATIONS
OF MAYOR
The City Clerk asked for nominations for the
office of Mayor at this time.
Councilman Taylor nominated Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman
Miller. No further nominations were received, and Councilman Silva
was selected as Mayor by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Silva and Miller
NOES:
Councilman Pritchard
Mayor Silva accepted the nomination, then asked for nominations for
Vice-Mayor, and Councilman Taylor nominated Councilman Miller. The
nomination was seconded by Mayor Silva, and passed 3 to 2 with
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard dissenting.
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCIL
(Comments -
Councilman Beebe)
(Planning
Commission
Applications)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe expressed his thanks to the
community for electing him to the Council, and
promised to do his utmost to serve the community
well, and with the fine spirit of going ahead in
achieving a fine, well knit community.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor stated that he wished to remind
the new Council that it had been announced they
would entertain nominations for the Planning
Commission, and he thought perhaps this Council
might affirm the position that they would take applications for
the job of Planning Commissioner. Councilman Taylor made a motion
that this Council establish the policy of filling Planning Commis-
sion vacancies by asking for applications from any member of the
community (by letter) giving background and reasons why they want
to serve. The manner in which this position is filled should be
decided at the next meeting as to whether the interview should be
public or private. This motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
CM-23-6
The motion was amended by Councilman Taylor,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard~ that the
interviews should be public, but the selection
should be done in executive session.
April 21~ 1970
(Planning
Commission
Applications -
continued)
Councilman Miller brought out the fact that if there should be
forty applicants, public interviews \10uld be a very time consuming
affair; after some discussion, the motion including the amendment~
was passed unanimously.
*
*
-l(-
(Expressions of
Thanks and
Welcome)
Councilman Taylor expressed his thanks to all
the people who supported him and his family~
and Councilman Pritchard echoed the statements
made by both the former Councilmen, and thanked
the people of Livermore, and especially his family~ for being
elected to the Council.
Councilman Miller expressed his welcome to the newly seated
Councilmen.
Mayor Silva read a resolution commending former Mayor Marguth~ and
introduced it for adoption by the Council. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller~ and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 59-70
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING COUNCI1I'1AN GILBERT R. MARGUTH, JR.
FOR FOUR YEARS DEDICATED SERVICE TO T}ill CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
*
.;(-
Mr. Ken Carlson~ President of Livermore Toast- Presentation
masters~ presented the former mayor, Gilbert of Award
Marguth, a plaque in appreciation for his
contribution in being in their first forum in the Livermore
Valley and excellence in communications.
*
.;(-
*
Mayor Silva read a resolution commending
Councilman P. Michael Uthe~ and introduced it
for adoption by the Council. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Miller~ and passed
unanimously.
(Recognition of
Service - Council-
man Uthe)
RESOLUTION NO. 60-70
RESOLUTION RECOGl'TIZING COUNCILMMJ P. rnCHAEL UTHE
FOR FOUR YEARS DEDICATED SERVICE TO 'rHE CITY OF LIVERr,lORE
*
*
*
The students of Livermore High School challenged
the members of the Council to a bike race at
noon on April, 22 in observance of Earth Day.
-*
*
*
There being no further business to
the councilnthe meetin adjourned
/1 ,,+ *
~,Irtl
come before
at 8: 05 P .rl].
*
APPROVE
ATTEs'r
CHALLENGE TO
BIKE RACE
AD J OURI\Jr;1E NT
CM-23-7
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, April 27,
Regular Meeting of April 27, 1970
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(School Educa-
tion Study)
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Miller, Pritchard,
Taylor and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the minutes of April 6 and 13,
1970, were approved as amended by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller, Taylor and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
*
*
*
Mrs. Valerie Raymond, President of the League of
Women Voters, addressed the Council and reported
some of the results of their education study as it
affects planning and school growth. The education
stud~ concluded in mid-February, pointed out the responsibility of
the school district, citizens of the district, and the City. It was
decided that the school district had the prime responsibility for
planning and financing; the citizens have the responsibility of
becoming informed and communicating with the Board and voting respon-
s~bly; the City has the responsibility for requiring the cooperation
of developers in providing school sites and/or temporary facilities
upon the request of the school district. The City should also require
developers to provide accurate information concerning the availability
of schools in the area. As a result of the failure of the last two
bond issues, the League feels that proposed legislation contained
in AB 1271 is a necessary step and would like to join with other
interested citizens in endorsing this legislation.
(Sidewalk -
4th Street)
*
*
*
Mr. Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, spoke regard-
ing the lack of a sidewalk on 4th Street north of
Livermore High School and also to the east of the
football field. He was advised that the City and the School Dis-
trict are presently working on the problem and hope to have a solu-
tion soon.
(Commendation
re Participa-
tion in VPC)
*
*
*
Mr. Don Watson, 987 Via Seville, of the Clean Air
Coordinating Committee, stated that the committee
is interested in other environmental problems as
well as clean air; these are regional problems.
The Valley Planning Committee could be an effective agency in solv-
ing these problems, and the communities to the west of us are now
beginning to take a greater interest in solving these problems.
He commended the City of Livermore, the staff and elected repre-
sentatives, for their participation in the Valley Planning Committee.
PUBLIC HEAR-
ING - WEED
ABATEMENT
CM-23-8
*
*
*
A public hearing was held to receive any objec-
tions to the proposed removal of weeds, rubbish,
or dirt upon any property posted in accordance
April 27, 1970
with the Council's resolution No. 34-70.
Following this hearing the properties that
have been posted must be cleaned within 60
days or until the City's contractor appears
to conduct the work, whichever event is last
(Public Hearing-
Weed Abatement
continued)
to occur.
There were no major objections voiced. Councilman Miller made a
motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to close the public hearing,
and the motion was approved unanimously. A resolution on this
matter is included for approval under the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Silva explained the Consent Calendar procedure for the
benefit of the new Councilmen, and asked if there were any changes
they might wish to make; however, it was agreed that the procedure
remain the same.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 61-70
(Weed Abatement)
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND DIRECTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO CAUSE
SAID PUBLIC NUISANCE TO BE ABATED
*
*
*
Departmental reports were presented to the
Council as follows:
(Departmental
Reports)
Airport - Activity and Financial - March
Building Department - March
Civil Defense - January and March
Fire Department - February and March
Golf Course - March
Justice Court - February and March
Library - January through March
Police and Pound Departments - March
Planning Department and Commission - Year of 1969
Water Reclamation Plant - March
The Airport and Golf Course financial reports were removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion later in the meeting at the
request of Councilman Pritchard.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that a
further study has been made to determine if
the electronic detecting equipment would
function if a left turn lane was provided on
South L Street, and having found that it would, a modification to
provide a left turn lane in addition to a through lane is recom-
mended. Property owners adjacent to the restricted parking zones
have been contacted and agree with the proposed changes.
(Report re Traffic
Control 4th & So.
L Streets)
*
*
*
The traffic signal and interconnecting system
project at the intersection of Holmes Street
and First Street has been completed and the
California Division of Highways has accepted
the project and concurred in maintaining the traffic signals per
agreement executed by the City Council. The Public Works Director
recommends a motion be adopted authorizing filing of Notice of
Completion.
(Report re Holmes
and First st.
Traffic Signals)
*
*
*
CM-23-9
April 27, 1970
Written
Communications
(Chamber of
Commerce)
A letter was received from the Livermore Chamber
of Commerce expressing best wishes to the new
Council and requesting a joint meeting of the
Council and Chamber Board to discuss matters of
mutual interest re economical and industrial de-
velopment in particular.
Mr. Jay Walton of the Chamber spoke in this regard at the request
of Councilman Miller who questioned the advisability of such a
meeting. because there is a matter of principal involved in having
extra meetings with private groups and there are other such groups
that might have mutual interests. They do have extra meetings with
other public bodies which are officially organized bodies, and he
suggested that perhaps the meeting be set with the Chamber as a
study session or a regular agenda item.
Councilman Taylor suggested that any proposal the Chamber might have
could be submitted to the City staff for analysis so they would
have the benefit of the staff's comments before the meeting, and
felt the meeting should be formal enough to have a written agenda.
Also it should be understood that no decisions could be made at such
a meeting.
The City Manager was instructed to work out some mutually agreeable
date with the Chamber for a study session.
Jaycee
Invitation
Public
Meeting
(School
District)
Re Indictments
Deputy
Sheriffs
MINUTES
(Various)
Exempt Busi-
ness Licenses
CM-23-10
*
*
*
An invitation was received from the Livermore Jaycees
for Council participation in the Rodeo Parade to be
held on June 13th.
*
*
*
The formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Guidance
and Counseling was authorized by the Livermore Board
of Education to review critically present guidance
and counseling practices in the school system. A
public meeting will be held on Saturday, May 9 to
discuss this subject and the Council members are
invited to attend.
*
*
*
A reply was received from the U.S. Department of
Justice concerning the indictments returned against
deputy sheriffs of the Alameda County Sheriff's
Department.
*
*
*
Minutes of the meeting of the Housing Authority
of March 10 were received and acknowledged.
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meetings
of November 6, December 4, January 8, February 4
and February 26 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Exempt business license applications were received
from the following:
Livermore Babe Ruth League - various fund raising
activities during the summer to support this program
Girl Scout Troop No. 900 - pancake breakfast May 7
Student Education Loan Fund - membership drive and
hole-in-one tourney
Granada Supporters Club - raise funds for
building an athletic complex at Granada High
School
April 27, 1970
(Exempt Licenses
Cont inued)
American Cancer Society - house to house campaign April 30
to May 4, 1970
Alameda County 99's - sale of ice cream at air show
*
*
*
Seventy-nine claims in the amount of $67,835.03, Payroll and Claims
dated April 16, 1970; one hundred thirty-four
claims in the amount of $18,960.91 and two hun-
dred and eight payroll warrants, in the amount of $69,512.14,
dated April 23, 1970 were presented to the Council and ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager.
Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrants 7008, 7051 and 7150
inasmuch as he is indirectly involved in sales to the City by
his company.
Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrants 6999, 7030 and
7142, inasmuch as he does own some stock in the company for which
he works.
Mr. Lewis advised that their interests were remote but suggested
that perhaps they should refrain from voting on these items.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded Approval of
by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously, Consent Calendar
to approve the items on the consent calendar,
with removal of the airport and golf course reports for later
discussion and the noted abstensions.
*
*
*
Mr. Chris Gatrousis of the Beautification Com-
mittee spoke regarding a request for variance
to allow permanent Christmas tree sales stands
at 37 South Livermore Avenue. The Beautification
Committee recommended denial of the request for variance as the
site is in the downtown area in a strategic location and its
appearance helps to set the tone of the downtown area. Allowance
of this use would be inequitable as it is not allowed throughout
the City. A variance has already been granted by the Planning
Commission, but the Beautification Committee felt a closer look
should be taken at this in order to establish future policy.
Actually the report was submitted to the Council in error; it
should have been addressed to the Planning Commission with a
copy to the Council.
*
*
*
A request as to the possibility of a change in
the no-access agreement for property located
at the corner of Enos Way and Portola Avenue
has been received from Violet Houser. This
matter was continued for one week at the request
of the applicant as she was unable to attend the
meeting.
*
*
*
A letter was received from Art Hilliker Realty
Company of Pleasanton inquiring whether the
Council would be receptive to the location of
a mobile home park in Livermore. Mr. Hilliker
stated he had a client wishing to develop such
a park.
SITE CLEARANCE-
(37 So. Livermore
Avenue)
RE NO-ACCESS
AGREEMENT
(Violet Houser)
MOBILE HOME PARKS
(Art Hilliker
Realty Co.)
CM-23-11
April 27, 1970
(Mobilehome
Parks Cont'd)
REPORT RE
STREET NAME
CHANG E
(California
Way to Hayes
Court)
The Council will include discussion of the location
of mobile home parks in the City at a future study
session. The staff was directed to inform Mr. Hilli-
ker that it will be a study session item in the near
future.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission submitted a report recommending
renaming California Way between the proposed housing
project (Interfaith Housing for the Elderly) and Hayes
Avenue to Hayes Court. The reason for the change is
that California Way is broken in two sections which
causes confusion and difficulty in locating the
street.
Mr. Don Phillips, 4175 California Way, recommended that the name be
changed to California Court rather than Hayes Court, but was advised
that this would still be confusing.
After some discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Beebe, second-
ed by Councilman Pritchard, to adopt a resolution changing the name
of California Way, westerly from Hayes Street, to Hayes Court, and
the motion was approved unanimously.
REPORT RE
CUP (First
Western Bank)
RESOLUTION NO. 64-70
RESOLUTION CHANGING STREET NAME (California Way
to Hayes Court)
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Commission
regarding a Conditional Use Permit application by
First Western Bank to allow a freestanding sign.
Mr. Howard Friedman of Heath and Company, representing the appli-
cant, requested a continuance for one week due to illness of the
representative who was to attend the Council meeting. The Council
continued the matter for one week on motion of Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous approval.
RE PARCEL MAP
TRACT 3064
(Christopher
Land Co.)
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that Christopher Land
Company was requesting division of a parcel into
four lots (Parcel Map No. 597), located on the north
side of East Avenue and east side of Mitra Street.
The submission of the parcel map is the second step of the minor
subdivision since the extension of Charlotte Way to East Avenue as
required by the City had created division into four lots and under
the minor subdivision ordinance the map must be refiled. The Plan-
ning Commission recommends approval as submitted with some amendments
brought about by the need to correct this map to the subdivision map.
Also, an additional ten-foot recreational easement along East Avenue
frontage for a bicycle pathway has been required.
Councilman Pritchard questioned whether there was a recreational
easement westerly of this area and whether it would continue easterly,
and was advised it would run to Jackson Avenue park.
Councilman Beebe asked if ten feet is exceedingly wide for a bicycle
path and Mr. Musso replied that the bicycle path and sidewalk would
be combined but not necessarily all paved, and the Recreation District
has specified that bicycle paths should be no less than seven feet wide.
Councilman Taylor stated the Planning Commission and Council had
adopted a policy that there shall be a system of trails somehow
without being too specific, and Mr. Musso explained that tentative
CM-23-12
plans have been drawn up for these trails
throughout the City, and the plans are pretty
well defined in this area along the north side
of East Avenue to extend north through the park.
April 27, 1970
(Christopher Land
Co. )
Mayor Silva questioned the City Attorney with reference to changes
on the parcel map, and Mr. Lewis explained the Subdivision Map Act,
stating in certain cases where you do not have a subdivision, you
can require improvements if a local ordinance provides for them
and the local ordinance does provide for street improvements.
Mr. Lee added that the improvements of streets within the boun-
daries of this parcel map would normally be required in conjunc-
tion with a tract map. The developer has not filed Tract 3064,
and the improvements in the parcel map are being required as
part of that tract. It is recommended that the parcel map be
approved with the condition that the improvements be provided
along with Tract 3064.
Mr. Anthony Varni of Haley, Schenone, Tucker, Birchfield and
Smith, representing the Christopher Land Company, advised the
Council that the developer was required to build 1500 feet of
Charlotte Way, and he explained the improvements made by the
applicant on Tract 3064 as a condition of the approved map and
he felt it is a closed matter. They had presented plans for a
townhouse development which because of the cluster development,
included a bicycle trail, but it was subsequently denied. They
are now asking to build apartments and have filed the parcel map
to satisfy a technicality. The parcel map is approved by the
staff, and the staff did not recommend the condition of a bicycle
trail; they have complied with the staff's conditions, and the
condition of a bicycle trail was merely added by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Varni referred to a map and explained the
bicycle trail proposed which is a run of about 1600 feet on a
ten-foot easement where there is already a ten foot sidewalk
which is approved by the staff as designed. At the time the
bicycle trail was discussed for the townhouse development the
sidewalk area was reduced. Now there is a full sidewalk, and
he felt to request a full bicycle trail in addition to that is
not a reasonable condition. He especially did not feel that it
should be a condition of Tract 3064 because such is not before
the Council tonight and he did not think it could be legally
called back.
The Council discussed the improvements and the necessary bonds
for these improvements; the conditions of the subdivision map
with reference to the parcel map; and bicycle trails, and Coun-
cilman Pritchard made a motion to delete the condition placed
by the Planning Commission for a bicycle trail, and the motion
was seconded by Mayor Silva to allow further discussion of the
matter.
The Council discussed the possibility of having the bicycle trail
on the south side of East Avenue as it was felt this would be the
best place. It was pointed out by Mr. Varni that plans have
already been made by the County for widening of East Avenue,
and it was suggested that the staff might contact the County
for a possible agreement with them for a bicycle trail, however
Mr. Musso stated it would be some time before the south side of
the street is developed.
Mr. John Barker, with Associated Professions, Inc., pointed out
that the developer had been attempting to resolve the matter
since November, and they were not agreeable to further delay.
The possibility of a compromise was discussed which would reduce
the width of the sidewalk, as it was felt to be in the public
interest to have a bicycle path along East Avenue.
Mayor Silva then asked to withdraw his second to the motion, and
Councilman Pritchard withdrew his motion to delete the condition
for the bicycle path.
CM-23-13
April 27, 1970
(Christopher There followed a discussion as to the width of
Land Co. Contd) the sidewalk, bicycle trail and landscaped area;
whether or not to separate the two, or if they
could be separated by other means. It was de-
termined that there was a ten foot sidewalk along a portion of the area
and a fence which could be considered for separating the two at
this point.
Councilman Miller then made a motion to provide, as a condition
to approving the parcel map, a 5-foot sidewalk, and a 10-foot
bicycle path with appropriate landscaping of two feet to separate
the two, and the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
After more discussion relative to width of sidewalk and trail,
setbacks and density, landscaping and the possibility of using a
hedge, Councilman Miller amended his motion that a maximum of twenty
feet should be set aside for public works improvements (for dedi-
cation and easement) and in the public works part only five feet
be sidewalk. The five feet of sidewalk can still remain a condi-
tion of Tract 3064 and the rest will be a condition of the parcel
map, and they cannot proceed upon the parcel map until the other.
conditions are worked out, and he asked Mr. Lewis if that is cor-
rect and if the City is protected here.
Mr. Lewis read the following from Section 11535 of the Business
and Professions Code: liThe governing body may require dedication
or an offer of dedication by separate instrument for street open-
ing or widening easements. If dedications or offers of dedications
are required, such dedications shall be completed prior to filing
of the parcel map. An offer of dedication shall be in such terms
as to be binding on the owner, his heirs, assigns or successors in
interest, and shall continue until the governing body accepts or
rejects such offer. II
Mr. Lewis added, further, that the section also allows the govern-
ing body to require the improvements of public or private streets,
highways, and easements as may be necessary for local traffic,
drainage and sanitary needs on subdivisions of four or less parcels
and our local ordinance relating to said subdivision does so provide.
A vote was then taken on the motion to amend which was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, and it passed unanimously.
The vote was taken on the main motion to include the amendment and
the statement made by Mr. Lewis and it passed unanimously.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of
Parcel No. 597, subject to the conditions noted within the Planning
and Public Works Department reports as modified to require the pub-
lic works improvements as part of Tract 3064 and to include an addi-
tional 10 foot easement for a bike trail along East Avenue as out-
lined above, and the motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY STUDY
COMMITTEE
A resolution regarding the Environmental Quality
Study Committee was prepared by the Planning Com-
mission. After discussion, the Council continued
this item for one week and requested that copies
of the State's resolution and the former Council's
Resolution No. 8-70 be included in their agendas.
*
*
*
MINUTES
(Planning
Commission)
The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of
April 7 and 21, 1970, were accepted.
*
*
*
CM-23-14
April 27, 1970
Mayor Silva read a report from the Police Chief
regarding removal and disposal of junk vehicles
located in various parts of the City. The Po-
lice Chief stated there are about twenty-five
abandoned vehicles which constitute a nuisance to the City. Pre-
sently the City has no means for removal of the vehicles as the
various towing firms within the City have declined to handle the
removal. The proposal submitted by the Livermore Auto Salvage,
Inc., to remove unwanted junk vehicles without charge to the
City was recommended for acceptance by Chief Michelis.
REPORT RE JUNK
VEHICLES
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the following resolution was adopted by unanimous approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 62-70
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING LIVERMORE AUTO SALVAGE, INC.
AS CITY AGENT AND FRANCHISEE FOR THE TOWING OF
ABANDONED AUTOMOBILES.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the State Disas- REPORT RE AB 560
ter Office is asking for support by the City of
Livermore for AB 560 which clarifies and defines
provisions for the California Disaster Act. This bill does try
to change the implication of the existing law from one of a war
caused disaster act to one which would apply to any disaster in
the state. The name of the California Disaster Office would be
changed to Office of Emergency Services and is in accordance
with a parallel trend of the federal government. The experts in
this afield have r~viewed this proposal carefully a~d, certif~ th,se _ j
chanoes as es sentlal. -'" e '~:>I.4-,,-,<-~ilec.~~'7~"-.~/7~/
/':. ,I ~f c1-....k..x.ry A -<-~~ (1-(;,,")(..(_<_,,(;_ - ~:tj/
Councilman Taylor stated his concern was whether passage of this {~eG~
act would give the governor more power Mr. Parness stated that
this new bill does give the governor full police power during a
"state of emergency" rather than during a IIstate of extreme em-
ergency" as stated previously. He said this was a redefinition
of terminology, and would allow the governor to act in instances
where he could not act previously.
Councilman Beebe said he felt the intent of the law was to
provide better protection for the citizens in case emergencies
should arise and Mr. Parness stated that this was the first re-
vision of this bill for over twenty-five years and felt the
revisions were necessary.
Councilman Miller stated that the one million dollar disaster fund
had been removed from the original draft of the act by the gover-
nor's office and felt this money for mutual aid should be in-
cluded in the act and he felt the resolution should be amended
to include this provision.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to adopt a resolution in support of AB 560 and recommending in-
clusion of the disaster fund be made at a later date. The motion
passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
None
RESOLUTION NO. 63-70
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE PROCLAIMING ITS
ENDORSEMENT OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA
DISASTER ACT CONTAINED IN ASSEMBLY BILL 560.
*
*
*
CM-23-15
April 27, 1970
The City Manager stated that copies of the Capital
Improvement Budget had been distributed to members
of the Council for review and study. It represents
the financial planning program for a six-year period,
including the current fiscal year, for capital im-
provements. This document is presented to the Council
the hope that the Council will meet soon with the staff in order
it can be discussed in detail and supporting information and
presented.
REPORT RE
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET
with
that
data
Mr. Parness suggested a tour of the City facilities by the Council
in connection with consideration of this budget. After discussion
the Council decided to set the meeting for some time in May, with
a tour at 5:00 p.m., then dinner and meeting for discussion of the
budget at the Rincon Avenue fire station.
REPORT RE
AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVES
*
*
*
Mr. Lewis, the City Attorney, explained that the law
requires that any property applying for agricultural
preserve status, situated within one mile of any in-
corporated City bounds, must notify that City so any
comments may be made to the Board of Supervisors at
the appropriate hearing. These notices have not been processed
formally in the past but rather the staff has reviewed each one.
Mr. Musso stated the main concern is that these preserves are not a
part of the industrial area or planned residential growth, and pointed
out the agricultural preserves on the map in relation to the City.
Mayor Silva suggested that the staff continue handling this matter
as they have been doing except that the Council be informed as to
which lands are included in the preserves on a quarterly basis.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
RE REPEAL OF
SECTIONS
18.21 - .56
*
*
*
An ordinance repealing Sections 18.21 through 18.56
of the Livermore City Code is proposed as these
sections are no longer necessary due to the adoption
of the uniform plumbing code and inadvertently not
repealed at that time.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only)
and by the following vote the ordinance repealing these sections
was introduced:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
None
AIRPORT-
GOLF COURSE
REPORTS
*
*
*
The airport and golf course financial reports had
been removed from the Consent Calendar and Councilman
Pritchard asked for clarification of the airport
profit and loss statement regarding operational ex-
penses. This was done by Mr. Parness. Councilman
Pritchard also inquired about some items on the financial report
of the golf course. Mr. Parness explained that even though the
revenue was up, the net loss shown was due, in part, to additional
operating expenses and installation of one time improvements.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(FAA WAIVER)
CM-23-16
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated the airport manager has re-
quested that the Mayor be authorized to execute a
waiver required by the FAA in regard to temporary
tower operation for the air show to be held. It
waives responsibility in operation of the tower and
Mr. Parness explained that this was a new requirement.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the Mayor was authorized
to execute the waiver as required, and the
motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe referred to a previous dis-
cussion regarding the invitation from the
Chamber of Commerce for a joint meeting with
the Council. He stated he felt this was a
courtesy move and stated citizens of the com-
munity had expressed to him their desire to
see more cooperation between the Council and the
merce so that a better development of commercial
might be worked out. He felt more could be done
together.
*
*
*
April 27, 1970
(FAA Waiver Cont'd)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Meeting with
Chamber of Commerce'
I
Chamber of Com-
and industrial
if all worked
(Traffic Signal -
First st. and
Livermore Ave.)
Councilman Taylor stated that at night the sig-
nal at First Street and Livermore Ave. is changed
to a blinking signal with red on Livermore Ave.
and yellow on First Street. He felt it present-
ed an extremely hazardous situation on a state
highway. Mr. Lee stated this had been checked on previous occasions
and the accident rate had been found to be low since people are
cautious at this intersection due to the blind corner. Traffic
did not warrant a change at this time.
Councilman Taylor said he believed part of East
Avenue was maintained by the County and he had
received complaints from bicycle riders about
rocks being swept to the side which presents a hazard.
that the right of way did need sweeping and asked that
matter be checked.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(Condition of
East Avenue)
He f e 1 t
this
(Agenda Folders)
Councilman Pritchard suggested that an agenda
folder be placed at the podium or somewhere in
the room for reference by the public. After discussion it was
decided that a folder would be made available at the Council
Chamber for public reference. He also suggested that copies
of the agenda be placed at the rear entrance.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated he had noticed there (Trash Cans -
were no trash cans on First Street. M~ Parness First Street)
explained that there had been small trash cans
attached to the poles, but there was a problem
in keeping containers available as they became damaged. It was
suggested that trash cans in other parts of the City also might
be considered and this matter was referred to the Beautification
Committee.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard said he hoped that in ap-
proving future shopping centers some provision
could be made for public restrooms. The staff
was directed to check into this matter and pre-
sent a recommendation to the Council.
*
*
*
(Public Restrooms -
Shopping Centers)
A request was received from the Alameda County (Proclamation)
Bar Association asking that May 1st be declared
l1Law Day",and a proclamation was issued by the Mayor.
CM-23-17
April 27, 1970
(LARPD - A letter was received by the Council re the appro-
Little League) priation to the Little League, and they listed
the monies they have spent for Little League
facilities in the community. It had been reported
that the Council had criticized the Recreation District, and the
City Manager was directed to write a letter to the Recreation Dis-
trict stating that the Council had in no way intended to criticize
the Recreation District.
(Planning
Commission
Applications)
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
Several applications were received for the office of
Planning Commissioner, and it was decided that May
11, should be the deadline for receiving the appli-
cations and interviews would be scheduled after
that time.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 to an
executive session to discuss appointments to the
Youth Committee.
ATTEST
*
APPROVE
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of May 4, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, May 4,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES:
OPEN FORUM
CM-23-18
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and
Miller
ABSENT:
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
Mayor Pro Tempore Miller led the members of the
Council and those present in the audience in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the minutes of April 21, were approved
as submitted and the minutes of April 27, were
approved as amended.
*
*
*
The Mayor Pro Tempore invited any person in the
audience to address the Council on any subject not
on the agenda; however, there were no comments voiced.
*
*
*
MAYOR SILVA WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME.
May 4, 1970
An application has been made by T. J. Green for
rezoning from RS-5 (Residential) to RG-12 (Sub-
urban Multiple Residential) District of a site
located at 5682 East Avenue. The Planning Di-
rector discussed the area involved, stating it
would be possible to develop this area in a subdivision manner;
however, it was felt by the Planning Commission that it would be
more feasible to develop the site as multiple residential. Many
uses have been considered for this site in the past and at the
last consideration, it was zoned RS-5. After studying the request
the Planning Commission and staff concurred that this property
should be rezoned as RG-IO.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING
(T. J. Green)
Councilman Taylor asked Mr. Musso whether the map presented showed
more than the parcel under consideration, and whether approval of
rezoning for this piece would be,in effect, approval of rezoning
for the entire piece. Mr. Musso stated that this was correct,
but that no request for rezoning had been received yet for the
adjoining property. Councilman Taylor questioned whether it
would be logical for the adjoining property to be developed as
RS-5 if it is bounded on one side by multiple and the other side
by industrial, and Mr. Musso was asked why the Planning Commission
did not consider enlarging the area of consideration to include
this piece of property to which he replied that it had not been
brought to their attention at the time of the application.
Mr. Ken Bandtel, 1352 Kathy Court, stated that as a resident of
Wagoner Farms area he felt that there was enough density in this
area with 1200 projected units, and recommended that some other
use be considered for this parcel.
Mr. Thomas J. Green, the applicant, stated that his contention
was that the proposed rezoning would not increase the density
in population or land coverage, and referred to a comparison of
RS-5 zoning and RG-12 in a statement prepared by his staff. His
plans call for 125 units, which is between RG-IO and RG-12 zon-
ing, and he stated his willingness to stipulate a maximum of
125 units if that would be acceptable to the Council. The state-
ment he referred to showed the social, economic and total envi-
ronment aspects of the two zonings and their affect on the im-
mediate neighborhood as well as the community at large. Mr.
Green estimated a 10% lower estimate of population in his proposed
125 units as compared with the 60 single family units permitted
under present RG-5 zoning. He also stated his comparison showed
that there would be a 95% reduction in the number of school age
children. The tax revenue from existing zoning would yield
approximately $18,000 to the school district and the proposed
zoning would yield approximately $27,000. Mr. Green also stated
that a survey of the existing apartment units in the City support-
ed his comparison.
The applicant also stated comparison figures for parks, open area,
traffic ingress and egress, traffic load in relation to smog,
sewer load, and utility use for the two zoning uses.
Councilman Pritchard asked the applicant if he planned to actively
seek people with children for the apartment units, and Mr. Green
replied that he would not as the policy would be not to permit
children.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and approved unanimously to close the public hearing.
Councilman Taylor asked Mr. Musso if the figures given by the
applicant (density factor for multiple of 1.7 per unit and an
average of five school age children in the 125 units) could be
supported.
CM-23-19
May 4, 1970
(Public Hear-
ing - Green,
Continued)
tables used by
be wrong.
Mr. Musso stated the numbers used to determine the
family characteristics of multiple and single family
uses were based on Castro Valley figures and were
correct. The breakdown between RL and RM could be
in error, RG-IO had been used in calculating the
the Planning Department as the break and this could
Councilman Miller stated it was possible for the number of children
to change in the future and there is no guarantee that granting of
zoning would keep the number of children at a low level.
The Council discussed various ways for computing the number of chil-
dren for the apartment units.
Councilman Pritchard stated that there is never a guarantee in regard
to zoning. Mayor Silva pointed out that zoning is done according to
units per acre, not number of children per acre and stated he realized
there is a school problem, but he felt that the Council's decision
could not be based on estimates of number of children per unit.
Councilman Taylor said he felt development under RS-5 would probably
be townhouses or duplexes, in part, and single family on the remain-
der. It would be very dense if developed as single family; in any
case development would include multiple dwellings of some kind.
Councilman Miller stated that at the time it was zoned RS-5 the
planning was to allow cluster housing so it could be developed in
a reasonable way at five to the acre.
Councilman Beebe felt this parcel would develop along the lines of
Wagoner Farms with apartments and commercial as a buffer zone toward
the industrial area.
Councilman Taylor felt this zoning was a problem due to the effect
it may have on the surrounding areas. He felt this proposal would
generate less school age children and produce more tax revenue than
the proposed RS-5 zoning.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for RG-10 zoning,
subject to the following conditions.
1. Provision of a recreation easement along East Avenue for the pro-
posed bicycle trail at a width to be determined by the staff prior
to ordinance adoption:
2. Provision of a parkway along the northerly boundary of the parcel
in conjunction with development of the Arroyo Seco channel;
3. Park dedication per City Ordinances and policies;
4. Assurance of the extension of Susan Lane across the applicant's
property so that in event of development of adjoining property it
will connect with East Avenue;
5. Widening and installation of public works improvements for East
Avenue.
Councilman Miller stated that this zoning violates the General Plan
and does not satisfy any criteria set up for multiple. Density has
been increased from RL-7 to RS-5 and now RG-IO and this increase is
unwarranted. Any need for multiple units is already provided for
under present zoning in several areas, townhouses or cluster housing
could be built under the 5 d.u./acre zoning and he saw no need to
change this zoning. The area to the east will probably be developed
under RG-IO also, and approval of this zoning is, in fact, approval
for the adjoining property.
CM-23-20
May 4, 1970
Councilman Taylor pointed out that General Plan
density is for the whole planning area, not for
an individual piece of property. He stated he
was opposed to an increase in density unless there
is a good reason for it. Application of General Plan density
criteria for multiple is not right from a specific zoning point
of view.
(Public Hearing -
Green, Cont'd.)
The motion to adopt RG-IO zoning with the subject conditions was
approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Public Works Director reported that an agree- Report re Agreement
ment with Alameda County had been reached for with Alameda County
the performance of certain street construction
and maintenance work on certain roads within
the City when such is requested by the City. The particular work
involved is the traffic signal maintenance for the unit installed
at Murrieta and Stanley Boulevards. The staff recommendation is
to adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 65-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(Alameda County - Street and Highway Maintenance,
Repair, and Improvement)
*
*
*
From time to time the City wishes to place
equipment on poles owned by PG&E. Inthe past
a special permit would have to be processed
through the Company for such a contact. An
agreement has been prepared to have a general II Pole Contact II
Agreement and it is recommended for adoption by the City Council.
Report re Pole
Contact Agreement
(PG&E)
RESOLUTION NO. 66-70
RESOLUTION DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
(Pole Contact Agreement)
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has advised that the
developer, Jupiter Construction Co., has com-
pleted the map and plans of Tract 3073 and has
executed the Subdivision Agreement in accordance with the conditions
of the tentative tract approval. The staff recommendation is that
the City Council approve the Subdivision Agreement and allow the
tract map and plans to be filed.
TRACT 3073
(Jupiter Constr. COI
RESOLUTION NO. 67-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3073
RESOLUTION NO. 68-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 3073
CM-23-21
May 4, 1970
~ract 3073
Continued)
The City Manager reported to the Council that a notice
was received today from the County asking that Arroyo
Road be widened to 110 feet. This tentative tract
map was filed in March, 1969, with the stated width
of Arroyo Road as 88 feet down to Vancouver Way and then a transition
to 104 feet past Concannon Blvd. This notice has been discussed with
Mr. Mehran and he does not wish to change the plans now as the con-
tracts have been signed: the bonds posted; the tract map executed
and ready for filing. Mr. Parness did not feel this change was ap-
propriate at this date.
Mr. Lee stated that this area was planned over a year ago with the
width of 88 feet and widening to 104 feet as a part of the consider-
ation of this tract, the Council had decided to widen the right of
way just south of Vancouver Way.
*
*
*
Written A letter was received from Richard O. Clark, former
Communications member of the Local Agency Formation Commission,
(Suggestions) containing suggestions for improved service to
various areas of the County through the Commission.
(Re smog,
bike trails)
Exempt Busi-
ness License
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
CUP-First
Western Bank
*
*
*
Three letters were received from members of Brownie
Troop No. 32 re some suggestions on smog, bike trails
and pollution.
*
*
*
Exempt business license applications were approved
for the following:
Girl Scout Troop 176 - hot dog sale May 9
Livermore Art Association - outdoor art show
on May 23-24
*
*
*
Eighty claims, dated April 30, in the amount of
$23,175.45 were presented to the Council and ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of c:Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the items
on the Consent Calendar were approved including the
resolutions. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting
on Resolution No. 66-70 and also Warrant No. 7167.
Councilman Silva abstained from voting on Warrant
No. 7229.
*
*
*
An application was submitted by First Western Bank
to allow one double-face freestanding sign on a
site located at Granada Shopping Center, and this
matter was continued from the previous meeting at
the request of the applicant. In error the staff notified the
applicant that this was continued until May 11; therefore, this
matter was continued until that date.
CM-23-22
*
*
*
A request has been made by Mrs. Violet Houser
for a change in the no access agreement for
property located at the corner of Enos Way and
Portola Avenue. This matter was continued from
the last meeting at the request of the applicant.
May 4~ 1970
RE NO ACCESS
AGREEMENT (Houser)
The Planning Director explained that this agreement grew out of
a rezoning and that there is backing lot treatment starting at
Portola Avenue and down Enos Way. The Planning Commission had
recommended, and the Council had concurred~ that there should be
no access to the property from Enos Way and that the backing lot
treatment should be continued and Mrs. Houser had signed the
agreement to install the wall.
Councilman Taylor said from a planning point of view it would be
better to have a multiple housing unit face on Enos Way than
Portola Avenue, which is a major street with a great deal of
traffic. He felt it was more logical to have the fence along
Portola Avenue and access along Enos Way.
Mr. Musso indicated that one of the main issues of the rezoning
in the area in 1965 from single family to multiple was the matter
of access and frontage. The property owners in the area did not
wish to have the apartments front on Enos Way because of parking
and traffic.
Councilman Miller said he recalled that this was the most hotly
contested rezoning he could remember. All of the property owners
were unanimously opposed to multiple zoning in the area~ and
were very bitter about it; in fact, he still receives requests to
zone this area back to single family. This agreement was a con-
dition of the rezoning to multiple to protect the adjoining pro-
perty ownersl interests and the construction of this wall was a
way to help protect them.
Mr. Lee felt there should be no access to Portola Avenue because
of traffic and perhaps the six foot fence would not be necessary
as some other method could be used to control access.
Mrs. Houser, the applicant, said she did not see why it could
not be changed to some other type of fencing as the school and
other properties do not have a brick wall.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to set a public hearing, with adjoining properties being notified,
regarding the fence for the subject property, and the motion was
approved unanimously. The hearing was set for May 25.
*
*
*
An appeal has been submitted by Harold W. Braden APPEAL OF PLANNING
from the Planning Commission's denial of variance COMMISSION DENIAL
to allow relocation of a fence. OF VARIANCE (Braden)
Mr. Musso stated this was a request to modify the requirements
for the location of a 6-foot fence on a corner lot. The staff
and Planning Commission concurred that, due to the unusual shape,
there could be grounds for variance. The extension of the set-
back line of adjacent lots and City policy for setback of a cul-
de-sac lot were used to determine the setback line for this lot.
A variance was granted by the Planning Commission on this basis,
however this variance was not as much as that requested by the
applicant. Mr. Braden wanted six additional feet and is appeal-
ing the decision of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Braden, 517 Covington Way, stated he had surveyed several
properties with fences which he felt were more hazardous or a
hindrance to adjacent properties. He also had a waiver from
his neighbor that the requested fence would be no hindrance.
CM-23-23
May 4, 1970
(Appeal -
Braden)
Fences which do not conform to present requirements
often were built under old ordinances or no ordinance
requirements. Mr. Musso stated that in the past two
years many requests had been made for setback var-
iances for irregular lots, and some agreement has been worked out
with the property owner along the same lines as those applied in
Mr. Braden's case.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to deny the appeal and to approve
the Planning Commission's recommendation to grant variance to allow
reduction of side yard from 15 to 10 feet; the motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
APPEAL RE
VARIANCE OF
ZONING
ORDINANCE
(Compla)
An appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of
an application for a variance to permit reduction
of various regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to
permit subdivision of a proposed 52 unit townhouse
development on a site located at the southwest cor-
ner of Murrieta Boulevard and Pine street has been
submitted by Compla Corporation (H. C. Elliott, Inc.)
and upon the applicant's request set for discussion
at this time.
Mr. Musso stated the plan being presented is for property zoned RG-16
and the proposal is for subdivision into single family lots in clus-
ter form. In order to do this the developer is applying for a variance.
The plan submitted conforms to the RG-16 zoning regulations; the
issue is the request for subdivision to permit single family resi-
dential and thereby puts different zoning requirements into effect,
and is the reason it is before the Council for a variance. As far
as the Planning Commission is concerned this unit is strictly the
difference between a single family subdivision and the needs of the
subdivision and a multiple family development; the difference being
essentially the number of bedrooms and the percent of land devoted
to the automobile. Townhouse development is geared to not as much
family as single family residential, but larger than typical apart-
ment family. The other problem the Commission saw was more space
is devoted to driveways and access than on comparable multiple. On
multiple the driveways and parking are centralized and not spread
throughout the site. The final conclusion was if someone wants to
subdivide and sell single family lots, they are willing to forget
the Rs-4 requirements, and in the RG zone, if they want to build
single family to conform to the Rs-4 requirements, they are willing
to grant the variance to that; however, the Commission felt there
should be a lesser density because of the higher concentration and
several Commissioners came up with a formula that amounted to about
10 d.u./acre. Since this application was in excess of the 10 d.u./
acre, they denied the variance.
There followed a discussion relative to the density comparison after
which time, Mr. David Madis, representing the applicant, stated that
the Planning Commission is seeing this as single family residential,
and it is not; it is the same type of project as an apartment complex.
The only difference between this and RG-16 is that they plan to sell
the homeowner his own piece of property: he will hold fee title,
will gain the tax advantages, and can take pride in home ownership.
When they say this is a question of comparison to Rs-4, they are
misstating that question. He further stated that the Planning
Commission did not like the density, they don't want the development;
they don't want RG-16; and they disagree with how the property is to
be used. They are saying they want to reduce the density by some
18 units below what it would be under RG-16 and felt that would more
than compensate for any additional paving.
Mr. Bob Hayes, president of Compla Corporation, planners for the
development, ran briefly through several slides showing the basic
approach to the environment they were looking to as far as open
space, in particular. He commented that parking is not related to
CM-23-24
May 4, 1970
single family or multi-family, in his opinion,
but how you relate the automobile to the par-
ticular resident. He, too, stressed that their
plan is not similar to a single family project,
but to a multi-family project. The most important aspect of the
entire development is that it combines the advantages of home
ownership with the advantage of a totally secured kind of project.
He indicated that the approach was different from Kaufman & Broad
as each unit has a one-car garage. The other big difference is
that the private areas are located adjacent to the private common
areas.
(Appeal re Variance
Compla Corp.)
Councilman Taylor questioned how they arrived at the parking space
requirement which was explained. When Councilman Taylor questioned
whether or not the garage might be used for other than parking,
he was advised by Mr. Hayes that there could be deed restrictions
in this regard. Councilman Taylor stated he did not feel the
parking requirement was reasonable because when the Kaufman &
Broad representatives talked to the Council, they talked about
parking requirements being less, but they were always where pub-
lic transportation was available, and was advised that if 3 to 1
parking were provided, it would be filled and garages would be
converted, so they could put in a restriction.
Mayor Silva asked if the parking restriction could be placed as
a condition, and was advised by Mr. Musso that it is a variance
and is very common for a deed restriction to be set forth as a
requirement, however, whether or not they could keep them from
parking a boat in their own garage is another thing and is not
too reasonable, so they could do so and park their car on the
public street, which a deed restriction could not cover.
Councilman Taylor felt that no justification had been stated that
adequate parking has been provided for in the plans, however Mr.
Madis stated they have increased the parking by a percentage of
.5 over the multi-family residential and felt this would be ade-
qute; they would be willing to meet the 2 to 1 parking on site
if the Council felt this should be done. Mr. Hayes stated that
the homeowners association would handle any complaints re parking,
and he felt the Council was anticipating problems that would not
exist.
Councilman Miller stated if there is not enough room for more
parking in the plans, the answer is that the density is too high,
which was a point made by the Planning Commission. As far as
parking on a public street, this is not for the convenience of
the homeowner, but rather for visitors, and there have been a
number of complaints in apartment areas that parking standards
are not high enough because there are so many cars parked on
public streets.
Councilman Beebe asked if there was a density transfer involved
to come out with 4.2 d.u./acre, and Mr. Musso stated there was
actually a little density transfer, and the justification for
this zoning was the fact that Mr. Elliott had built two major
streets and a collector street, and when the density was computed,
it was found that the density was significantly lower than it
would have been in a normal subdivision, and also for several
other reasons which is not an issue here. Councilman Beebe
stated he liked the idea of the units being owned by individuals,
and it also met the price needs that the City is in need of for
young married couples.
Councilman Pritchard stated that previous Councils have been cry-
ing for something like this for a long time, talking about town-
house type developments to meet these needs; and secondly, there
are a lot of people who would like the benefit of home ownership,
but do not want to do a lot of gardening or repair work and he
felt we should start somewhere, and this would be a good place to
start to see how townhouses would go in Livermore.
CM-23-25
May 4, 1970
(Compla Corp. Councilman Miller agreed that the cost of housing
-Variance) was a common argument, but the same can be made
for townhouses and cluster development at substan-
tially lower density, and it was the intent of the
Council to encourage cluster housing but not at 16 d.u./acre with
no compensating open space. Further, the community has tried for
twenty years to upgrade the standards for single family housing,
and he felt this was a step backwards, and would transform apart-
ments which have fewer children into an intermediate form of single
family housing which has more children, and asked where the children
would go to school as this particular area cannot handle the chil-
dren already there and felt it would worsen the present school
crisis. Councilman Miller stated there were petitions in opposi-
tion to the development because of this reason and the effect on
their properties.
Mr. Ira Dawson, 909 Norfolk Road, voiced his protest to the develop-
ment, as he felt it was being situated in the middle of $25,000 to
$30,000 homes.
Mr. Madis stated they were discussing private ownership vs. corporate
ownership. He pointed out there would be an increase of value on
property, and this would be for young couples who cannot afford to
buy a single family home , and this would be for older couples who
want to get away and not have a yard to worry about.
Mr. Al Richards, 651 Brookfield Drive, asked if there were any figures
concerning the impact of the children between the two different de-
velopments, and was advised that from figures given it would be lower
than .7 and it would be only a guess as to how many children there
would be.
Councilman Taylor again brought up the fact that the density was
too great, parking not adequate, and although it is a good design,
he would not wish to have many developments like this in the City
and this proposal might set a standard, and would oppose it.
Mayor Silva stated he thought of the development as a low density
multiple in an area where people can purchase a living unit at a
proposed cost of $17,500, which they cannot do anywhere else in the
City, and felt the Council is obligated to the citizens of Livermore
to provide the full range of housing, and if they deny this town-
house on the basis that density is too much, then they are saying
they do not want townhouses in Livermore.
Councilman Miller stated there was a house selling for $19,500
in this same development, and they are proposing here more than
three times the density with a reduction of only $2,000, so ques-
tioned the advantage, and felt the argument for low cost housing
is a fallacious one~ second, it has been shown that you can take
land zoned 4 d.u./acre and cluster the housing and still leave the
extra open space available to the people.
Councilman Miller made a motion to continue the matter for two
weeks, seconded by Councilman Taylor. His suggestion for the
continuance was to get together with the Planning Commission for
a joint discussion as they have studied townhouse development in
detail.
Councilman Beebe stated if they could build a house in this price
bracket, why haven't they been built since people need homes in
this price range, and Councilman Pritchard stated he felt there
was a philosophical difference between him and the Planning Com-
mission, on this issue. Councilman Taylor stated this was not a
question of low income housing vs. not low income housing in this
particular development.
Mr. Musso explained the Planning Commission had concluded as a re-
sult of recent applications, there should be a new ordinance to
cover this type of development and they have prepared a draft,
but have not acted on it as they want to look at some townhouse
developments to see if they fit.
CM-23-26
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue
and failed by the following vote:
May 4, 1970
(Compla Corp. -
Variance)
.-.
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller then made a motion, which he believed would be
futile, but believed they have a basic responsibility for the
interaction of their approvals and what the City does with the
schools, and a responsibility for maintaining standards for the
single family of the City and a major responsibility for not in-
creasing the density of children who will need schools and other
facilities and these responsibilities to protect the present
citizens override the desire of the developer to get the best
possible financing, and moved to deny the appeal by supporting
the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial for the
reasons listed, however the motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Silva made a motion to approve the variance mentioned in
Item 1 of the Planning staff's report to reduce the frontage
yard from 20 ft. to 0 feet to allow dwelling units on individual
lots to have a zero front yard, but it should not allow encroach-
ments on Pine Street or Murrieta Blvd. Item 2 is to reduce the
side yard for 2-story from 50 ft. to 15 ft. There appears to be
no need for this variance adjacent to existing single family
dwellings to the south and east where I-story units are proposed.
Staff recommendation is for denial based on plan and because of
necessity to preserve the setback between single family detached
homes and the greater mass of a multiple or attached structure.
Items 3 through 8 are necessary to allow this type of develop-
ment. The parking should be two per unit on site which has been
agreed to by the applicant, and also to require restrictions re-
garding boats, campers and trailers by deed restriction. The
motion is to include the findings and all conditions to approval
as recommended by the Planning Staff.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard and passed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Mr. Musso stated that the applicant did not agree with all condi-
tions, and Mayor Silva stated that if they did not agree, then
they would have to continue the matter. At this time the appli-
cant stated they could work out the conditions with the Planning
Department; however, Mr. Madis stated there was only the one
condition they had not agreed to and that was in regard to park-
ing, and it was agreed at this time that there would be two
spaces to each unit, one of which is to be covered.
*
*
*
A THREE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED. ALL COUNCILMEN WERE PRESENT
WHEN THE MEETING RESUMED.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported to the Coun-
cil on a request from Humble Oil Company for
confirmation from the City that two driveway
accesses will be allowed along Murrieta Blvd.
Mr. Lee explained that Humble Oil has plans to realign their
station at the corner of Portola Ave. and Pine Street and prior
to completing this transaction they want to know if they can
also have access to Murrieta Blvd. Past action of the Council
has allowed driveway access to the Shell Station on the opposite
corner. Humble Oil has enough frontage to meet the criteria for
ACCESS ON MURRIETA
BLVD. - HUMBLE OIL
CM-23-27
May 4, 1970
(Access -
Humble Oil)
two driveways and discussion followed regarding
the effect on traffic conditions. Mr. Lewis
pointed out that access could be denied if it
were determined access created a dangerous situation.
Councilman Taylor felt there should be only one driveway. Council-
man Miller then made a motion to allow an amendment to the sewer
connection agreement to allow one access, however, he withdrew
his motion and the matter was continued for one week, and Mr. Lee
was directed to present a site plan when the matter is considered
further.
RESOLUTION
DEL VALLE
meeting so
more fully
*
*
*
Consideration of the Planning Commission's resolu-
tion endorsing the state Environmental Quality Study
Council's resolution regarding the Del Valle Reser-
voir development was continued from the previous
that the Council could study the State's resolution
before taking any action.
Mayor Silva made a motion that this proposal be referred to the
Valley Planning Committee for a decision which could be considered
for endorsement by the Council. After discussion of such action,
Councilman Taylor seconded the motion, and it was approved unani-
mously.
Dr. Donald Watson, 987 Via Seville, pointed out that the resolution
being considered is, in effect, a directive in the first part and
policy in the second part. He did not feel it was appropriate for
the City to take any stand at this time.
Mr. Parness was directed to see that copies of the resolutions
were in the hands of the Valley Planning Committee.
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX. NO. 4
REZONING
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX NO. 4
*
*
*
Mr. Parness asked that consideration of the rezoning
of Portola Avenue Annex No. 4 be continued until
June 22, so that the majority property owner can be
present at the hearing. On motion of Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the rezoning
was continued until June 22, and the motion was
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported that annexation agreement for
82 acres of undeveloped land in this annex area
is unsigned at this time. It is necessary that
there be no further delay in the signing of these
agreements and Mr. Parness asked that the Council allow two more
weeks for these agreements to be signed, and if such is not com-
pleted by that time, it will be necessary for the ordinance of
annexation to be read for the second time which will effectuate the
proceedings; then de-annexation proceedings would have to be insti-
gated for those properties not signed.
This procedure was agreeable to the Council, and the matter was
continued until May 18.
WATER RECLA-
MATION PLANT
DIKE
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has recommended to the
Council that a motion be adopted to transmit an
application to the California State Department of
Aeronautics for state funds to relocate the dike
at the east end of the runway at the municipal airport. Mr. Lee
stated that the state requrres about eighteen months lead time in
allocating funds; this project is mainly a safety item.
CM-23-28
May 4, 1970
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, se-
conded by Councilman Beebe, to accept the
recommendation of the Public Works Director
that an application requesting these funds be
submitted to the California state Department of
Aeronautics and the motion passed unanimously.
(Water Reclamation
Plant Dike)
*
*
*
The Public Works Director reported that two
bids had been received for the modified con-
struction of Quezaltenango Parkway. The
bids received are as follows:
QUEZALTENANGO
PARKWAY BID
Engineer's Estimate
$31,365.75
29,896.66
31,768.76
G. M. Labrucherie & Assoc.
Bleily & Collishaw, Inc.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
the bid was awarded to the low bidder, G. M. Labrucherie &
Assoc., Inc. for the construction of the Quezaltenango Parkway.
*
*
*
A letter has been received from the Sister City SISTER CITY
Committee regarding a 1970 visitation to Quezal- VISITATION
tenango, Guatemala. Mr. Lee stated the committee
would like to have a visitation by a member of the committee
and, most importantly, by a member of the Council. This visit
needs to be yearly to keep interest and to see that the program
moves ahead. Therefore, the committee asks that $700 be budgeted
for this project.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the expenditure of $700 for a visitation to our Sister City was
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A joint powers agreement has been executed by
the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, VCSD
and Alameda County for formation of a Board of
Governors to administer the transit study con-
tract. It is recommended that the City Manager
be appointed to represent the City on this Board.
APPOINTMENT -
BUS STUDY
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
pnd by unanimous approval, the City Manager was appointed in
this capacity.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 708 MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 18.20 THROUGH (Repeal Sec. 18.20 -
18.56, INCLUSIVE, RELATING TO REGULATIONS CON- 18.56)
CERNING DRAINS AND LATERAL SEWERS OF CHAPTER 18,
RELATING TO SEWERS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and by unanimous vote of the Council, the second reading of the
ordinance was ~!aived, and by the following vote the above Ordinance
was passed:
AYES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller, Pritchard and
Mayor Silva
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
None
CM-23-29
May 4, 1970
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Trailer
Parks)
(Townhouses)
(Transfer
of Density)
(Service
Station
Signs)
Councilman Beebe said he would like to hAve the
staff study whether deed restrictions can be
required as to age limits for residents of trailer
parks, and whether in lieu payment can be required
to make up loss of revenue in case there are children.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe recommended that the Council meet
soon with the Planning Commission in regard to town-
house concept, and in particular, the price range
of townhouses selling in other Bay area cities and
the density at which they are allowed.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe asked what was being done in regard
to the transfer of density question. He was informed
that Mayor Silva and Mr. Musso are working on an
ordinance in this regard.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated he had received more complaints
about the temporary price signs which are being used
by some of the stations. Mr. Musso informed him that
most of these temporary signs will begin to be abated
May 1st; now it will be a matter of enforcement.
*
*
*
(Committee Mayor Silva stated it had been suggested to him that
re Restaurant a committee be formed to try to locate someone to
at Golf Course)operate a restaurant to be located at the Golf Course.
This committee would be advisory to the City Manager
and the suggestion was agreed upon.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(AB 1271)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-30
*
*
*
The City Attorney, Mr. Lewis, expressed his thanks
to Councilman Miller and to Assemblyman Carlos Bee
and others who worked for passage of AB 1271.
Councilman Miller suggested that the City write to
Assemblyman Bee and Assemblyman Knox, expressing
appreciation for their help and courtesies while in
Sacramento.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m.
to an executive session to discuss the employees'
union propos for ncreases.
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of May 11, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
May 11, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at
8:00 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Dr. John Shirley, president of the Board of
the Y.M.C.A. introduced Mr. David Knapp, who
presented a brief slide report showing the
basis of their beginning here in trying to
arrive at some solutions to the problems of the Valley youth.
The Y.M.C.A. is headquartered in a house at 4th and J streets,
which has been cleaned and painted by sixty to seventy Junior
High and High School students, and with the help of some of
the parents, and it is planned to have open house this Sunday.
It is also planned to go ahead with the same idea in Pleasanton.
The slides also showed many of the trips made by Y.M.C.A. groups.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Y.M.C.A. )
*
*
*
Mr. Glen Otey, 471 Ontario Drive, spoke rela-
tive to the Council's concern for open space,
and stated that Granada High School, Mendenhall
School, Max Baer Park and Emma Smith School are
rapidly deteriorating into motorcycle rinks. Proper action is
not being taken to abate this nuisance and it is a danger to
the children. He asked the Council to give some emphasis to
enforcing the law.
OPEN FORUM
(Motorcycles)
Mayor Silva stated there was an ordinance prohibiting such use,
and Mr. Lewis urged that the police be contacted whenever there
is someone riding motorcycles in the school grounds so they can
be cited.
*
*
*
Mr. Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, stated he had (AB 1271)
testified in Sacramento in regard to AB 1271
and thanked the Council for their support of the bill and Mr.
Lewis for his representation in this matter. However, the
bill did not get out of the committee; it was opposed by the
developers and the State Board of Education. He stated Liver-
more has grown at the rate of 570 houses per year and at the
end of April there were 155 new building permits allowed,
which indicates that this will be another average year.
Mr. Hoenig told the Council that the School District has
about a $11 million debt which is being retired on .80/$100
tax. At present 44% of this money goes for interest; he had
asked the assembly if this was any way to build a community
of schools since so much of the tax paying dollar is going
for interest. The School District is absolutely dependent
upon the State school building program since we are limited
to 10% of our local assessment and bonds. The State is not
providing money and it is not expected to be able to do so.
He stated there were three actions brought out at the hearings
which the Council could take:
1. Local developers should be called upon to support AB 1271
or present acceptable solution to the problem;
2. During the hearing it was learned that some of the local
developers have been using misleading advertising in regard
CM-23-31
May 11, 1970
(AB 1271)
to the schools in Livermore. Home buyers are not
aware of the school situation. This form of ad-
vertising should be stopped or else the business
license suspended.
3. other communities have called a halt to building until schools
can be built. It was brought out at the hearing that if the local
government was really concerned, the same could be done. A solu-
tion must be found.
(AB 1460)
(Schools)
(Campaign
Disclosure)
*
*
*
Celia Baker, 541 Bell Avenue, asked the Council to
support AB 1460 so that Californians will not be
required to fight in undeclared foreign wars. She
stated that the same bill was passed in Massachusetts
and signed by the Governor.
*
*
*
Lucien Maccario, 1320 Anza Way, said he had read in
the papers about the applications to build apartment
houses and asked where the additional children would
go to school. His boy would be in double sessions
for two years. He felt schools should be built before
the houses.
*
*
*
Ernest Plechaty, 482 Pomona Court asked that Council-
man Beebe refrain from voting on any item until he
complied with the spirit and intent of City Ordinance
No. 696, which is the campaign funds disclosure ordi-
nance. Mr. Plechaty stated the spirit and intent of the ordinance is
clear and stated that if elected officials do not comply with the
laws, then how can children and young adults respect the laws.
The City Attorney stated that the ordinance and State law both re-
quire that each candidate file a statement of campaign income and
expenditures. Mr. Lewis stated that to his knowledge Mr. Beebe had
done this. Further, if Mr. Plechaty was concerned about a committee
which had supported Mr. Beebe, a statement from a committee is not
required to be filed until thirty-five days after an election; there-
fore, as a matter of law Mr. Beebe is not required to refrain from
voting. Mr. Plechaty replied that he was more concerned with the
spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, and he felt
certain parts of the ordinance should be rewritten, particularly a
definition of "committeef1. Mr. Lewis was directed to look into
this matter and report to the Council.
(Park
Dedication)
*
*
*
Mr. Masud Mehran stated the dedication of the park
in Sunset East to the City is now completed. The
park has been improved and is being used; the final
loan payment by Sunset Homes has been made to the
title company and the last payment of $10,000 will be sent to LARPD,
making a total of $25,000, interest free loan for a period of four
years.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
CM-23-32
*
*
*
The three scheduled public hearings were continued
until later in the meeting in order that the Council
could consider the items on the Consent Calendar at
this time.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the minutes of the meeting
of May 4, 1970, were approved as presented.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A written communication was received from Mr.
Robert S. Allen, stating suggestions for im-
provement of railroad locations and crossings.
*
*
*
May 11, 1970
MINUTES
Communications
(Railroads)
A communication from the Concerned Parent Group (School Housing)
on school housing problems was received and this
item was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector recommending that the improvements to
Kathy Way, adjacent to Kathy Way Park, be
accepted by the City and that the cash bond be
released.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license
was approved for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints to sell snow cones and punch
on June 13.
*
*
*
Report re
Kathy Way
Improvements
Exempt Business
License
Seventy-four claims in the amount of $52,134.14 Payroll and Claims
and two hundred forty-nine payroll warrants in
the amount of $70,508.11, dated May 7, were pre-
sented to the Council and ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, the items on the Con-
sent Calendar were approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent Calendar
Mr. Alan Dishman, 1131 Innsbruck, spoke to the
communication received from the Concerned Par-
ent Group, regarding the critical lack of
school space, which has a detrimental effect on
the children of this community. According to the Livermore School
District, the District will be short twenty-five classrooms as
of September, which means fifty classes will be on double sessions.
The earliest possible date to acquire portable classrooms would
be November if the July 21st tax election passes as orders must
be placed by June 1st to have delivery in time for the opening
of school. The Concerned Parents Group plans to ask each build-
er in the City for help since he is a part of the community and
has a responsibility to help solve this problem. The City Council
was requested to again discuss the problem with the builders and
to investigate the possibilities suggested by Assemblyman John
Knox and other Assemblymen at the hearing on AB 1271. The
Assemblymen at that time suggested that the City may deny building
permit requests temporarily until the School District can assure
schools will be available. Therefore, the group asked that the
master plan be adhered to so that this problem can be avoided.
SCHOOL HOUSING
PROBLEM
CM-23-33
May 11, 1970
(School
Housing)
The City Attorney told the group and the Council
that the City is limited in regard to its action
on subdivision maps. At the time Assemblyman Knox
made his remarks, Mr. Lewis stated that he was
under the impression that there was nothing in this line the City
could do. On February 9, 1970, Mr. George Murphy of the Legislative
Council informed Mr. Lewis that except for Section 11525.2, there
was no way through the Subdivision Map Act that school dedication
could be required of a subdivider. This opinion was based on sev-
eral cases.
Mr. Lewis explained that Section 11525.2 allows agencies such as
cities, to draft ordinances allowing the reservation of school sites
for a period of time and then to demand that such site be sold to
school districts, but this applies to subdivisions of 400 lots or
more. Mr. Lewis further stated he did not believe the Council has
the power to deny a subdivision map on these grounds.
LaVerne Cave, 1055 Laguna street, felt the people of Livermore could
be creative in solving this problem and stated that the schools need
$175,000 to have the space to eliminate double sessions. The Con-
cerned Parents Group was asking that the Council meet with the de-
velopers and the school district to work out some way to finance
this amount to eliminate double sessions by June 1. Mrs. Cave read
some endorsements from various PTA groups. She spoke in regard to
the Emma C. Smith School which consists of eleven portables on un-
developed park land for five years, yet new homes are being built
in great numbers. Developers should not be allowed to ruin the
whole educational system in Livermore.
Celia Baker, 541 Bell Avenue, spoke about conditions at Emma C.
Smith School in particular. She suggested that a sign be erected
at the model homes and entrances to the City stating that there is
no room in the schools for home buyers' children. She felt that
the Chamber of Commerce booklet contained false information about
the schools.
Bartel Spinella, 953 Florence Road, felt .that this problem was
affecting the total development of Livermore. Three companies have
looked at Livermore recently as a potential site for building and
developing, but have made negative comments about Livermore and the
school system. This situation has existed for many years and he
felt the priorities of the town have been diverted to other things
for too long a time; the City should begin thinking about its children.
Kenneth Bandtel, 1352 Kathy Court, felt we have arrived at the point
where some action should be taken to stir matters up so that this
problem can be solved.
Mr. Bob Allen, 223 Donner Ave., said he had made a proposal some
time ago suggesting that a study be made of assessment district
financing for schools in new areas which would relieve the burden
of general obligation bonds. He felt this was a method of financing
worth studying.
Mayor Silva said he felt a number of good suggestions had been made
and another meeting with the developers should be planned to try
to resolve this problem.
Councilman Taylor stated the City has been informed that it cannot
contribute money. The question is whether the developers can loan
the money and the meeting should be set up with this objective.
Councilman Miller indicated that similar requests had been made for
the last five years. He did not feel local government has to let
this happen to the community; local government has the responsibility
to protect the people. At the previous meeting the developers had
promised to support a legislative measure, but did not do so when
AB 1271 was presented. There are possibilities that the City can
CM-23-34
May 11, 1970
use its police powers which allows the City to do (School Housing)
things for the health, welfare and safety of the
people. If the developers cannot help solve the
problem, then building permits could be withheld. He felt that
something should be done even if it requires a court action.
The Council felt that a meeting should be held within the next
week or so with the developers and the School District.
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS, THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO
ORDER WITH ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning of the northeast
corner of Holmes Street and Concannon Blvd.
from Rs-4 (Residential) to RG-16 (Suburban
Multiple Residential) District was received
from M. R. Mehran and is the subject of a
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING NE CORNER
HOLMES ST. AND
CONCANNON BLVD.
The Planning Director reported to the Council that this was a
14-acre parcel and the Planning Commission recommended denial
by a 2-1 vote for the following reasons:
1. Rezoning does not constitute a density transfer;
2. Rezoning would result in increase in density over the 4.2
in the General Plan;
3. It would conflict with the intent of the original zoning of
the property under which maximum density is not allowed to
exceed 4 d.u./acre and existing development will preserve
and protect the residential character of the area.
Mr. Musso stated that the General Plan indicates 4.4 d.u./acre
about the time it was annexed and subsequently the subject pro-
perty was zoned at RL-7 with 4.2. d.u./acre density. The pro-
blem is deciding whether density should be based on overall
density or just that portion of the Hansen Ranch area. The old
Granada area was developed at 4.8 d.u./acre and with the multiples
increased to 5.3, the Hansen Ranch area as presently developed
and approved is 3.9 d.u./acre. That is the main acreage involved;
it is RL-7 and is under a PUD.
Councilman Taylor questioned the overall density as it is now
and if the present application were approved" a.n.d was advised ~.. -/0'
it would be 4.4 d. u. /acre. /' v, ..()/~/ . -- 4--)!? !cr;J6
l ~ ,(:lJfD.-.-,/Y(..I. ;i-ff-.. ~ .{. <J.u~...t_, . 1 .. J
,) U J)../. ?1:.J . .~ I
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing at this time, and Mr. i!..t...t:.;5~'t'.
Burke Critchfield, representing the applicant, stated that last q
September he represented his client and attended the joint meet-
ing and offered his help and assistance in attempting to solve
the problem that the community faces relative to the school sit-
uation, and felt that the problem cannot be laid only to the
developers as there are many causes for it. They are anxious
to meet and help solve the school problem as it hurts their
development as well as the City, and he wished to reaffirm
their interest and concern.
Mr. Critchfield continued that last summer they had come before
the Planning Commission with a plan, including a service station,
racquet club, and some multiple and after the hearing withdrew
their application and had submitted a new design and proposal
for multiples with a density transfer. There are a number of
acres on the corner that would be for a park, swimming pool,
tennis courts and a putting green - over three acres which would
CM-23-35
May 11, 1970
be maintained by the owner/applicant. Their posi-
tion in asking for multiples is based partly on
the staff report (five points) and they feel they
qualify under three - one of which is a need, as
the demand for single family homes has decreased.
They can ask for a restriction of either young families without
children or older families with no children in order not to create
more problems as far as schools are concerned. The multiples would
act as a buffer from the shopping center, and the third reason is
density transfer and he explained their reasoning along this line.
(Public Hear-
ing, Holmes
and Concannon)
Mr. Lee Syracuse, 1206 College Ave., Berkeley city planner, had
recommended the change of zoning because it would not be spot zon-
ing as the site faces a shopping center and Holmes Street is a
major motor artery and city planners prefer that multi-family de-
velopments have access to a major street. All internal roads and
parking areas are owned and maintained by the developer. If de-
veloped as now zoned there would be public streets which would have
to be maintained by the City. The proposed development will be an
"adults only" development thus freeing the city of Livermore from
the burden of school age children, and Livermore will gain in tax
dollars.
Mr. Archer Futch, 1252 Westbrook Place, was not present at the
Planning Commission meeting and asked to be able to state his views
at this time, and indicated that he had come up with a density of
4.7 in his calculations. He stated that design has never been a
negative factor, however, with regard to this application he was
concerned with the violation of two planning principles. First,
the proposal does violate the general plan which proposed this area
to be low density residential of 4.2 d.u./acre and if density trans-
fer is allowed, then the general planned density, averaged over
PUD No.6, is still violated. In looking at the map one observes
that the applicant does not want to include Old Granada in the cal-
culations, although from a planning viewpoint it is irrelevant who
filed the old subdivision map in Old Granada, and it should be
pointed out that Sunset Homes built the majority of houses in this
area. The second planning principle violated is that of allowing
density transfers from previously developed maps in which the max-
imum density allowed was not obtained. One reason for zoning is
to protect the investment of citizens in the community in which
they have purchased homes. To allow this procedure could allow
multiples in an undesirable area for which they have not been planned.
The right for density transfer from previously developed tracts
has been denied other developers. If the present development re-
sults in standard apartment buildings, then there would not be an
increase in the school age population, however a week ago a variance
was granted without a public hearing at Council level to allow con-
struction of townhouses on land previously zoned for multiples,
which action significantly increased the number of school age chil-
dren from this subdivision and a similar action could increase the
number of school age children in the Sunset area. Considering the
air pollution and other environment problems in the Valley, together
with the serious school problem, he did not feel the citizens of
this community desire developments which increase the general planned
density as proposed in this application.
Mr. E. A. Quarterman, 2284 Evans street, mentioned the fact that
he was an early planner in New York when all planning details were
based on professional engineering. He had maintained anaccredited
weather station for the Livermore Valley under the Department of
Commerce between 1959 and 1967, and has noted a progressive deter-
ioration of atmosphere in the Valley, and gave facts and figures
relative to cars producing smog. He felt allowance of more apart-
ments in the area would add to the smog producing conditions and
be detrimental; renters would commute to their jobs and thus add
to the smog; therefore, he requested denial of the application.
CM-23-36
May 11, 1970
Mr. Lucien Maccario questioned whether people
living in the apartments would be forced to
move when they had children. Upon question
of the Council, Mr. Lewis stated enforcement
of I1no childrenl1 rule would depend upon the
terms of the lease.
(Public Hearing,
Holmes and
Concannon)
James Baumgartner, 1565 DeLeon, voiced strong opposition to the
rezoning request. He felt most homeowners in the Sunset East
area were opposed to such development. People who had bought
homes in this area had done so with assurance from the developer
that it would be an area of prestige with single family dwellings.
They had also been told that adequate schools were available,
which certainly was not true. Approval would aggravate serious
problems faced in this area in regard to schools, density and smog.
James Liptac, 1154 Innsbruck, told the Council that, in effect,
they were being asked to change the law in Livermore since zon-
ing ordinances may be considered as law. When the Council makes
its decision on this issue, they will have the opportunity to
take a stand against increased density. Voting against the change
in zoning would be the Council's chance to help solve the problem
of inadequate schools.
Pat Sherry, 1746 Serenidad, did not think single family homes
would have fewer children than apartments. The apartment com-
plex as designed would provide good facilities such as a swim-
ming pool and tennis courts and would provide a tax base for
all of Livermore, which would aid the school system.
Mayor Silva stated that a letter had been received from Mr. and
Mrs. David A. Garliepp, 1111 Cataline Drive, expressing their
approval of the rezoning.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to close the public hearing, and approved unanimously.
Mayor Silva felt the question before the Council was strictly
one of density transfer, and the Council should discuss this
question in order to formulate policy.
Councilman Taylor questioned the various calculations for density
in the area. Mr. Musso pointed out that Mr. Critchfield's figures
probably included the school sites, which are not ordinarily
counted. Mr. Futch's figures probably did not include the park
sites, which mayor may not be counted in the density.
Councilman Taylor felt that in most cases there is a planning
reason, in addition to density transfer, for granting multiple
zoning. He said he was not against the designed plan as he felt
the apartments would be one of the best designed complexes in
the area; however, he found no justification for increase in
density by rezoning.
Councilman Pritchard felt it imperative that the Council consider
the whole area in density transfer, which would mean in this
case that Old Granada would be considered.
Mayor Silva felt different planning units had been established
throughout the City; the type of units constructed were not his
main consideration, but he thought the density must be maintained,
and rezoning this area to RG-IO would increase the overall density.
Councilman Beebe stated that he was also against increasing
overall density. A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to accept the Planning Commission's recom-
mendation for denial of the application for rezoning to RG-16,
for the following reasons:
1. The proposed rezoning does not constitute a density transfer
within the intent and spirit of the llRSf1 Zoning District regulations.
CM-23-37
~~(/~1~ .R ~~(!A--L > ?: ~~ ~i:.r~ c;t4~.<It-4/ .
1i,f", .4! M~~,i .
c~~ r ~ '
"(J
~' May 11, 1970
~. ~(PUbliC Hear- 2. The proposed rezoning would result in increase
~ ~nd Concannon) this area by the Livermore General Plan.
~r '3. The proposed rezoning is in conflict with the intent of the
~ I original zoning of this property wherein the maximum density in
f'X ~ each stage of ffRS" development shall not exceed the specified den-
, ~Sity, in this case 4.2 d.u./acre.
'l ~4. The existing zoning will allow development which will preserve
~ ~and protect the residential character of the area.
~ ~ AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
~. 1 N?ES: None
J.~
~ S AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS RESUMED WITH ALL PRESENT
~ ~ ~
~ '13
i ibaUBLIC
~ ~HEARING-
~ CUP FOR
. ~ 1,}:~OBILEHOME
'<" ~ARK
~ "j.~ (Intermark
~~~Investing,Inc)
*
*
*
An application has been submitted by Intermark Invest-
ing, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow con-
struction and use of a mobilehome park on property
located on the north side of Interstate 580, easterly
of Las Flores and southerly of Bluebell Drive.
Mr. Musso stated that the existing zoning is RG-IO,
and a mobilehome park is allowed under this zoning
through a CUP. The factors to be considered in this
request are proper location of property in respect to traffic, adverse
effect on abutting property, and whether the site is suitable for
the use requested. The Planning Commission has recommended denial
of the use; however, their recommendation was supplemented with some
explanation.
The design of the mobilehome park was to provide access to Las Flores
and a second access by a street to be constructed from Bluebell
southward connecting with Southfront Road. The Planning Commission
also considered the results of a study on the tax structure compar-
ing single family, multiple family and mobilehome use. This study
was presented to the Council and shows that the City comes out favor-
ably, tax-wise, with mobilehome parks. Assuming fewer children in
mobilehome parks, the school district is not adversely affected;
however, another significant factor is whether people without chil-
dren should be free from school taxes. Mobilehome parks do not pay
their proportionate share of school taxes although they do pay con-
siderable taxes in other areas and mobilehomes are not allowed to
be counted as dwelling units in applying for school aid. The Plan-
ning Commission felt mobilehomes should not be allowed until some
of the laws are amended and changes made in school administration.
The public hearing did reveal some opposition to this proposal, and
this is one of the reasons it was recommended for public hearing
before the City Council.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at this time, and Mr. Nat Doud,
1035 Marigold Road, representing a group from Springtown which
supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial stated
that, in general, the feeling is that the site is not adequate for
the proposed use: the site does not relate to proper use of streets;
there will be an adverse effect on the abutting property; the pro-
posed use will be incompatible with the General Plan for develop-
ment of land north of U.S. 580.
Mr. Floyd Hadley, 1534 Bluebell Drive, indicated that a high class
(5-star) mobilehome park could be an asset; anything other than a
5-star adult park would be objectionable. A good park would be
desirable for several reasons: it could help the golf course;
there is need for more members for the association; and it would
give Livermore more buying power and taxes.
CM-23-38
May 11, 1970
Mr. Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock, stated the appli-
cant was not concerned with the betterment of the
Springtown area and did not try to beautify
their property and asked for denial of the permit.
Mr. Fred McLean, 1545 Bluebell Drive, felt a 5-star adult park
would be a credit; he had lived in such a development and knew
it was a fine development. He explained that a 5-star park was
a high standard development that had its own recreation area
and there were strict specifications for the type of mobilehomes
allowed and facilities required.
(Public Hearing-
Mobilehome Park)
Mr. Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, asked for denial since the
park would not help any part of Springtown.
David Madis, attorney representing the applicant, stated that
an application had been made and zoning granted for this pro-
perty for RG-IO. It was known at that time there was an escrow
open with Mobile Americana, builders of seven 5-star mobilehome
parks, and the intent was to go ahead with this property so
they could build a mobilehome park, and now the Council is
questioning whether or not they even want a mobilehome park.
He felt that their purpose has been very apparent the whole
time and that is why this particular piece of property on this
particular location was planned out and rezoned. They will,
hopefully, have a 5-star adult mobilehome park, but cannot, by
law limit it to no children. Other questions that have been
asked as far as street circulation is concerned, on behalf of
his client, they will accept any reasonable proposal. The
piece of property is completely compatible as surrounding land
use is not single family residential. Mr. Madis continued that
it is essential, if Springtown is ever going to develop and
have shopping centers, there must be additional population
in that area, and growth such as the motel and the mobilehome
park will help to raise the interest of persons running com-
mercial businesses to go to the Springtown area to serve that
area, Greenville North and the trailer park development. Density
will be 8.32 d.u./acre although, under the RG-IO they would
be allowed 10 d.u./acre. He felt it was a reasonable location
for this type of development, and the community needs all types
of housing.
Mr. Ron Countryman, Intermark Investing, Inc., spoke to the
density transfer brought up earlier and stated that they had
transferred density from 4.2 to 2.7 on 112 acres of undeveloped
land to amply provide for this zoning. He further stated that
the plan has been before four design reviews and this was the
result through the planning department, and felt it conformed
to the master plan and with the original zoning request as
granted.
Mr. Kenneth Bandtel, stated he had heard many presentations
and they are much the same, and although we cannot stop develop-
ment, a decision should be made on behalf of Livermore and its
problems rather than on behalf of the benefit of someone else.
Mayor Silva stated he felt the Council has always made the de-
cision on what is best for all the citizens in Livermore and
not for the applicant, to which Mr. Bandtel replied that wasnot
his intention to make it seem otherwise.
Mr. Earl Kerr asked what the 5-star meant and was advised that
to qualify, the trailer had to be at least ten feet wide.
Mrs. Celia Baker questioned if eight units per acre were not
high, and was advised that they could build apartments at ten
d.u./acre as it is zoned for such, but they are applying for
a conditional use permit for the mobilehome park at 8 d.u./acre.
The City Clerk advised that there is on record a letter from
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Stroud of 5218 Iris Way protesting the application.
CM-23-39
May 11, 1970
(Public Hear-
ing, Mobile-
home Park)
There being no further comments at this time, a
motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, and passed unanimously to
close the public hearing.
Councilman Pritchard questioned Mr. Countryman with reference to
the design as it had been suggested that a curvilinear design be
considered, and Mr. Countryman stated that it was due to the topo-
graphy of the site, which was perfectly flat, and it is necessary
to have a drop for proper drainage and sewage, so it was not used.
Councilman Taylor reminded the Council they were not discussing
design, but rather the use, and Mayor Silva replied if the use
were allowed, then it would be necessary to go into design.
Councilman Miller commented that it was his feeling, and the Plan-
ning Commission has pointed out in the past that mobilehomes are
planned to (1) get around the building code, and (2) get out of pay-
ing taxes. Mobilehomes cannot be used for computing tax for school
purposes as you do not count the foundations; if there are children
you have a tax loss to the city and he cited instances of other
cities who have experienced this type development. Councilman Miller
stated that this tax loss was due to the state laws and until they
are changed, they should not consider mobilehome parks, and made
a motion to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for de-
nial for the reasons stated in their resolution, and the motion
was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Mayor Silva stated he felt there is a need for mobilehomes regard-
less of the tax situation as it has been pointed out they do bring
in taxes and whether it is the same as an apartment complex, he
was not sure, but that if the trailer is purchased in the city,
the city benefits from the sales taxes which are considerably more
than the sale of automobiles; the property pays a property tax;
there is in lieu registration fees which revert back to the city,
so they do more or less pay their own way. There are a number of
people in the community who are first class citizens living in
mobilehome parks - not transients; they are employed in the city
and there is a definite need for mobilehomes. There are areas in
the city that should be set aside for mobilehomes and. the Council
agreed to a study session, so that when they receive these appli-
cations, they do not waste everyones time and then say the area is
not compatible as they are allowed in an RG area with a conditional
use permit. He felt the area is right for a mobilehome park if
the conditions are placed upon it agreeable to the applicant.
Councilman Beebe stated he would like to see more information on
mobilehome parks, particularly the impact of mobilehome parks and
and whether or not they are harmful to the tax structure of a
city. If they are, he would like to see some ways to guarantee
that this would be made up somehow. Without this information,
he did not feel he could vote intelligently on the present issue.
Councilman Taylor stated he had discussed the tax problem with a
developer who was entertaining the development of mobilehome parks
and the problem is that mobilehomes are regulated by the vehicle
code because they have wheels, but he felt this was a farce because
they really are not moved and you cannot move your own into a
trailerpark. He suggested that the wheels be left off, and proposed
that this be a condition.
Councilman Pritchard asked for a point of law from the City Attor-
ney, and referred to a statement which had been made that under a
conditional use permit children could be excluded from a mobile-
home park, to which Mr. Lewis replied he thought it was probable
under the terms of the city ordinance, if this were questioned,
that a court would say the uses should relate to the development
of the property and therefore would conclude it would be very ques-
tionable as to whether or not we could include in the CUP whether
children were permitted or not.
CM-23-40
The motion was then voted on and passed by the
following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
The Mayor opened the public hearing re zoning
ordinance amendments pertaining to signs, in
particular freestanding signs and signs in
Industrial Districts.
May 11, 1970
(Pub lic Hearing-
Mobilehome Park)
PUBLIC HEARING RE
SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and passed unanimously to continue the public hearing
for one week.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that the appli-
cation was for a freestanding sign in the
Granada Shopping Center exclusive of those
already in the center. The applicant contends
that the building cannot be seen from the street, however the
Planning Commission felt it would be unreasonable to have a free-
standing sign for every use in the shopping center that may not
be relatively visible in all directions, and their recommendation
is for denial as findings cannot be made for granting a freestand-
ing sign.
CUP - FIRST WESTERN
BANK (Freestanding
Sign)
Mr. Dale Turner, representing First Western Bank, explained that
there was to have been someone from the Heath Sign Company at the
meeting, and asked for a continuance.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe to continue the matter for one week, and the motion passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Clerk advised that since the City
Manager was not present, Mr. Fraser, attorney
for the company asked that the matter be
continued for one week.
REPORT RE PORTOLA
AVENUE ANNEX NO. 4
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and passed unanimously to continue the matter until May 18.
*
*
*
A report was to have been given by the City
Manager re aircraft fuel rate increase, and
because of his absence, and the fact that
Mr. McElroy, a representative of one of the flying clubs, had
contacted Mayor Silva and was not aware of the discussion re
the increase, it was suggested that the matter be continued
for one week. Councilman Miller asked if the Airport Advisory
Committee had taken formal action on the price increase and was
advised by Mr. Lee that no official action had been taken.
REPORT RE AIRCRAFT
FUEL RATE INCREASE
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Silva,
and passed unanimously to continue this item for one week.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has initiated rezoning
of an area recently annexed and known as Arroyo
Road Annex No.2. The Planning Commission has
also initiated amendment of Section 21.00 of
the Zoning Ordinance re Special Provisions, and
REPORT FROM PLANNING
COMMISSION RE
REZONING AND AMEND-
MENT SEC. 21. 40
CM-23-41
May 11, 1970
(Planning
Commission
Reports)
in particular Section 21.40 re Off-street Parking.
It is recommended that these matters be set for
public hearing.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
and by unanimous approval, the public hearings on both matters
were set for public hearing on June 1.
REPORT RE
INCREASE IN
PARK DEDICATION
FEES
*
*
*
The Planning Director and Planning Commission have
submitted a report of their meetings re the present
inappropriateness of the park dedication fee, and
based on their findings have recommended that,
pending a reevaluation of park standards, the City
take certain action.
Councilman Miller made a motion to refer the report to the staff
for consideration toward preparing an oridnance and set a hearing
for the following week to amend the subdivision ordinance to in-
clude changes in the amount of park dedication and possible consi-
deration of the development fee.
The City Clerk advised that the City Manager had reported that the
Recreation District has specifically asked for a meeting to discuss
this item and others as well and tentatively suggested the 19th,
20th, 22nd or 26th of May.
The Council discussed whether or not to have a meeting before or
after the meeting with the Recreation District, and the majority
of the Council felt they would rather have a meeting with the Re-
creation Board before setting the date for a public hearing, and
Councilman Miller, therefore withdrew his motion. A letter re-
ceived from the League of Women Voters with reference to the park
dedication fee was distributed to the Council at this time.
The Council agreed to a meeting with the Recreation Board on the
19th of May to discuss the park dedication fee changes as proposed.
MINUTES
(Planning
Commission)
REPORT RE
SERVICE
STATION ACCESS
(Humble Oil Co)
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of
May 5th were noted and filed.
*
*
*
A report was to have been given by the Public Works
Director re the Humble Oil Company service station
access along Murrieta Blvd. The City Clerk had
received a request from the representative of Humble
Oil asking that the matter be postponed.
Mayor Silva stated he thought this matter should be left to the
staff for a decision as to the number of accesses. Councilman
Taylor stated his agreement, however the staff raised the question
that the Council should amend the sewer connection agreement, and
felt it might be involved and design review may enter into the
discussion.
Mr. Lee advised that the matter could come back to the Council,
and the matter was referred to the staff for the decision re the
access, after which time it would come before the Council for
design review.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
REZONING
(T.J. Green)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, the reading of the ordinance was
waived (title read only), and by the following vote
the ordinance rezoning a site located at 5682 East
Avenue to RG-IO was introduced and filed:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
AYES:
NOES:
CM-23-42
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the reading of the ordinance
was waived (title read only), and by the follow-
ing vote the ordinance revising Section 13.50b
relating to angle parking was introduced and
filed:
May 11, 1970
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE REVISION OF
SEC. 13.50b
(Angle Parking)
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
The City Clerk advised that there had been four-
teen applications received for the position of
Planning Commissioner, stating that one appli-
cation was from a person not residing in the
City, which is one of the requirements, and
was asked by the Mayor to write to the appli-
cant and so advise him.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Applications for
Planning Commis-
sioner)
The Council discussed the time of interviews for the applicants,
and whether or not the interviews should be public or private;
it was decided that the Council would adjourn to a meeting at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on May 18th, at which time
they will be served a lunch, and the interviews will commence
at 6:30 p.m., and the Council meeting was set for 8:30 p.m.
Mayor Silva indicated that time was of the essence inasmuch as
one of the Planning Commissioners had asked for a two month leave
of absence which had been granted, and a Commissioner must be
appointed before the end of the month.
*
*
*
The Community Services Center has written a
letter to the Housing Authority Board asking
that when the architect designs the facility
some consideration be given to space which
might be used for tenant services of some kind. After some dis-
cussion it was the consensus of the Council they should advise
the Housing Authority Board that the City was not allocating space
for any organization, but that this had been suggested, and the
architect might take this into consideration among other uses in
designing the Vila Gulf Housing Project.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Housing Authority)
Councilman Miller stated that he had read an
item about GSA transferring land at Parks in
a land trade, and felt development of Parks
AFB is not needed and suggested that a letter be sent to GSA that
the land be left as vitally needed open space in the Valley.
However, Councilman Taylor stated that some of this land is under
the City of Pleasanton's jurisdiction, and it has been suggested
that the matter be referred to the Valley Planning Committee.
Councilman Miller stated Pleasanton has already sent a letter
and suggested that the Council support their stand.
(Transfer of Land
at Parks AFB)
Mayor Silva suggested that the Council representative to the
Valley Planning Committee should have the authority to decide a
matter such as this. Councilman Taylor suggested a letter be
sent to the chairman of the Valley Planning Committee that the
item be placed on their agenda.
*
*
*
There being
the Council
to an execu
to the You
ATTEST
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-43
Regular Meeting of May 18, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, May 18,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:45 P.M., after conducting pub-
lic interviews for the position of Planning Commissioner beginning
at 6:00 p.m. * * *
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
SPECIAL ITEM
(Safety Award)
(Insurance
Refund)
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller,
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, the minutes of May 11, 1970, were
approved as amended.
*
*
*
The East Bay Chapter of the National Safety Council
presented a "No Accident Award" to the employees of
the Water Reclamation Plant. Also a notice has been
received that a dividend from the State Compensation
Insurance in the amount of $11,634.72 has been earned
for the employee safety record for the years ending
June 1, 1967 and June 1, 1969.
Mayor Silva asked that a letter be sent to the employees of the
Water Reclamation Plant expressing the Council's approval and thanks
for their safety record, and a general notice re the dividend be
placed in the employees paper.
*
*
*
Mr. Ernest Plechaty, 482 Pomona Court, stated he had
discussed the filing of a financial statement by a
group endorsing the candidacy of Councilman Beebe,
with Councilman Beebe, who had stated that he had re-
quested the committee to comply even though he had not
sought their endorsement. Mr. Plechaty urged that
Ordinance 696 be amended so that an elected official is not needlessly
burdened in obtaining the necessary financial disclosure of this type
of committee.
OPEN FORUM
(Filing of
Campaign
Statement)
(Complaint
re Cats)
*
*
*
Mr. Ray Hughes, 765 Falcon Way, expressed a complaint
about the numerous cats in the City. He felt an or-
dinance should be passed to license cats in the same
manner as dogs.
The City Attorney explained that the City does not presently have an
ordinance prohibiting cats or requiring that they be licensed.
Mr. Parness stated licensing was for public health and to record
ownership. Licensing of cats has never been done successfully. The
staff was directed to report on this matter to the Council in the
near future.
(Wrecked
Vehicles)
CM-23-44
*
*
*
Mr. Hughes also stated a complaint about wrecked
cars about the City, and felt visitors to the City
would consider it as a junk yard. Mayor Silva told
Mr. Hughes that action had been taken regarding re-
garding removal of wrecked autos.
*
*
*
May 18, 1970
Mrs. Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue,
spoke regarding the designation of May 15, as
a memorial day for those policemen slain in
recent years. She felt the policemen needed the support of the
citizens as they were protecting us and our property; therefore,
she felt they should have the right to fly the flag at half-mast
in honor of their dead.
(Police Memorial
Day)
Mr. Parness reported on the policy regarding the flying of the
flag. In this particular matter flag protocol was involved
which is dictated by statute and policy of the Nation and policy
adopted by the Council previously (APO No. 23A). This policy
stated the flag should be flown in observance of all national
holidays, and at half staff when national figures were deceased
or when such was proclaimed by the President.
A situation had arisen in 1967 when testimony was heard from
several groups and private citizens in regard to the manner in
which the flag should be flown. This matter had been studied
in depth at that time. Two recognized authorities in this re-
gard are the Encyclopedia Britanica Library Research Service
and United States Flag publication. Mr. Parness read a portion
from these sources concerning half-masting of the flag and also
read APO No. 23A.
The City did not receive any notice or directive in regard to
designation of May 15 as Police Memorial Day. After checking
with other governmental agencies and in the absence of the
Mayor, Mr. Parness stated he had followed the City policy in
this matter.
Discussion followed regarding lowering the flag in honor of
local citizens and specific instances. It was suggested that
a City flag be designed to use in such situations.
Evelyn Prudhon, 3891 Santa Clara Way, spoke in regard to the
honoring of a citizen or former citizen who gives his life in
service.
Mr. Paul Tull, 2243, Linden Street, felt that observance of
Peace Officers Memorial Day indicated that the flag should have
been flown at half-mast.
The Council asked Mr. Parness to find out why the flag was not
lowered at the State Capitol in memorial and to obtain a copy
of the resolution proclaiming the memorial day.
*
*
*
Mr. Jack Phillips, 551 North P street, felt that (Schools)
if the school board gained the confidence of the
citizens, the school bonds would be approved.
Suggestion of a moratorium by the Council on building only
caused the City to lose industry and commercial development.
*
*
*
Celia Baker, 541 Bell Avenue, asked if the Coun- (AB 1460)
cil had made any decision in regard to AB 1460.
The Mayor personally felt that the Council should not enter into
a debate on a controversial national issue, and the majority of
the Council did not feel they should act on this matter; there-
fore, no action was taken.
*
*
*
M~. Don Thomas, 746 Meadowlark, spoke as a re- (Presentation)
presentative of the San Francisco Electric Club.
He wished to publicly and personally commend Mr. Gilbert Marguth
for the presentation made to his organization on "Local Government-
1970-The Problems and the Challenge", as he felt it was good pub-
lic relations for Livermore. Mr. Thomas offered his services if
a committee is formed to research industrial growth.
CM-23-45
May 18, 1970
(Valley
Ecology
center)
Mrs. Eve Reeser, 843 No. M street, wished to re-
affirm the invitation given to the Council to
attend a meeting for the organization of the Valley
Ecology Center.
*
*
*
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
ZO AMENDMENT
(Sec. 21.70)
The public hearing on the Planning Commission's
recommendation re Zoning Ordinance amendment to
Section 21.70, particularly Sections 21.72, 21.75
and 21.76, relating to freestanding signs and signs
in Industrial Districts, was continued from the
meeting of May 11th.
The Planning Director explained the proposed changes, advising that
with reference to the freestanding signs, it was just making legal
what has been done in the past.
There being no comments voiced from the audience, a motion was
made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
approved unanimously to close the public hearing.
Councilman Beebe suggested that perhaps the proposed revision should
be referred to the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce
for their review, and Mr. Musso advised that he thought it had been
referred to them some time ago, and it had also been reviewed by the
Beautification Committee.
Councilman Miller commented that the change proposed for the Indus-
trial District is less restrictive than the original ordinance and
is probably the reason there have been no objections from the Indus-
trial Committee.
Mayor Silva disagreed with Councilman Miller's interpretation in-
asmuch as he had authored that portion of the section which was
being deleted, particularly with reference to Sec. 21.75 I. There
followed a discussion relative to the industrial signs.
Councilman Taylor stated that one problem with the industrial sign-
ing was there were no examples to see at the time the ordinance was
written, but the Planning Commission has looked at industrial sign
requirements in other areas. The Council should keep in mind that
loosening restrictions might cause someone to hesitate to make an
investment. He did not feel the ordinance was restrictive, and
thought the Council should concur with the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Councilman Beebe stated that perhaps they could stand a little
more advice on industrial signs as there is no point in putting up
artificial obstacles to defeat the purpose of industry coming into
the City.
Councilman Miller agreed they do not want to put up any obstacles;
however, this ordinance was suggested by former Councilman Uthe,
who was extremely interested in industry as there have been indus-
trial prospects who ask for protection against visual clutter.
Councilman Miller stated that if you choose the best standards to
start with, it is easy to relax, but if you begin with poor standards,
it is hard to upgrade them.
Mr. Musso added that previously open land use was not entitled to
any sign, and now it was allowed 32 sq. ft. The Council discussed
the maximum size of signs and whether 100 sq. ft. was sufficient.
The Council also discussed whether a CUP procedure or a request for
variance should be followed to allow industries to request more sign-
ing. Mr. Musso explained the Planning Commission's action in this
regard.
CM-23-46
May 18, 1970
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, to adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation for adoption of the
proposed amendments to Section 21.70 of the Zon-
ing Ordinance, particularly Sections 21.72, 21.75
(Public Hearing
re Signs Cont'd)
and 21.76.
Councilman Miller felt that the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion to amend Section 21.75- I, item 8 "Ill District should be
changed to 64 sq. ft. rather than 50 sq. ft. He made a motion
to this effect but there was no second and the motion failed.
Councilman Miller then made a suggestion that Section 21.72,
A.l be changed to read, "a height not greater than four (4)
feet" rather than five (5) feet, but there was no support for
this change. Councilman Miller further expressed his thinking
that in Sec. 21.72 A.7 (b) the height be changed to four (4)
feet rather than eight (8) feet. He stated this would be more
in line with former Councilman Uthe's ideas. Under Section 21.76-G
8 and 9, Councilman Miller made a motion that Section 9 should
read "a height of not more than six (6) feet" in place of eight
(8) feet as this would fit in more with the planning behind the
sign ordinance to eliminate clutter and very high signs. This
change would automatically change Section 8. The Council dis-
cussed this proposed change at length but there was no second.
Mayor Silva made a motion to amend the main motion by allowing
a Conditional Use Permit under Section 21.75-1 for signs over
100 feet. Councilman Beebe seconded the motion to amend, however
the motion failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
The motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation
was then passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The traffic signal project at East Stanley Blvd.
and Murrieta Blvd. has been completed, and it
is recommended that the project be accepted for
City maintenance and notice of completion re-
corded by the following resolution:
Resolution Accepting
Signals at Stanley
& Murrieta Blvds.
RESOLUTION NO. 70-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS TO RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION RE
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT EAST STANLEY AND MURRIETA
BOULEVARDS.
*
*
*
A copy of a letter has been received from Mr.
A. R. Taylor, 135 Vista Street, addressed to
the Board of Supervisors in regard to the junk
yard on Portola Avenue. Charges have been made against
who has been directed to obtain the required permits by
of the year or else he must abate the use at that time.
Junk Yard -
Portola Avenue
the owner
the end
Mr. Ebert Lounsbury of 1747 Portola Avenue, addressed the Council
later in the evening with respect to this letter, attesting to
the fact that he was conducting a dismantling business in front
CM-23-47
May 18, 1970
(Junk Yard)
of his property, and stated this was not so, that
he found cars abandoned in front of his place, and
he calls one or the other of the tow companies who subsequently
remove the vehicle. If any dismantling is done in front of his
property, he immediately has people cited for arrest, and he is
innocent of the charges stated by Mr. Taylor. He further stated
that his wrecking yard is in the status of being eliminated as of
next October and that the property is up for sale.
Mr. Parness was asked to advise Mr. A. R. Taylor of the statement
made by Mr. Lounsbury, and felt that he probably had the property
lines incorrect.
Minutes
Departmental
Reports
Report Re
Tract 3195
*
*
*
The Minutes of the Beautification Committee dated
April 16, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
The following departmental reports were submitted
to the Council:
Airport - activity and financial - April
Building Department - April
Golf Course - April
Planning Department - March and April
Police Department - April
Water Reclamation Plant - April
*
*
*
The tentative map of Tract 3195 was set for hearing
in conjunction with the amendment of PUD No. 3
(Kaufman & Broad) on March 30. In reviewing the
minutes it becomes apparent that the Council intended
to deny the tract map but no action was taken to that effect. It is,
therefore, recommended that the Clerk be authorized to amend the
minutes to reflect the intent of the City Council and the applicant
is being informed of the correction of the minutes.
Public Works
Projects
*
*
*
A report from the Public Works Director has been
submitted to the Council, at the Council's request,
in regard to public works projects under County
jurisdiction. These projects include the Mendenhall
Road resurfacing, preservation of aesthetic qualities along the
Arroyo Del Valle, and rocks and gravel along East Avenue.
Councilman Miller pointed out that Paul Lanferman's reply regarding
the Arroyo Del Valle did not answer our questions and suggested that
he be contacted again.
Recognition
Employee
Organization
CM-23-48
*
*
*
Official recognition should be granted to the follow-
ing employee organizations for the purpose of declaring
them a bargaining unit for their respective memberships
in the process of negotiating wages and fringe bene-
fits with the City:
Livermore Employees' Relations Board
Livermore Police Association
Livermore Firemen's Association
The only group that hai been off~cially recognized pre-
viously is Local No. 1675, American Federation of state,
County & Municipal Employees
The following applications were approved for
exempt business licenses:
May 18, 1970
Exempt Business
Licenses
Philippine-American Organization - dance May 30
Chamber of Commerce - sale of coke at antique car show May 24
Girl Scout Troop Nos. 176 and 838 - sale of food during Rodeo parade
*
*
*
Sixty-nine claims in the amount of $60,029.90,
dated May 14, 1970, were presented to the Coun-
cil and ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from voting
7378 for the usual reason. Councilman Pritchard
cussion and explanation on warrant No. 7371, and
that this was for the Civic Award Dinner.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, the consent calendar,
including the resolution, was approved unani-
mously.
*
*
*
Consideration of the application of First
Western Bank for a Conditional Use Permit for
a freestanding sign had been continued from
previous meetings.
Payroll & Claims
on warrant No.
asked for dis-
was informed
Approval of
Consent Calendar
CUP- First
Western Bank
Mr. Musso explained that this sign would be located on Holmes
Street just south of the service station; the business will front
on Catalina Way and the applicant feels it will not be readily
visible from Holmes Street. As the sign does not meet require-
ments, a CUP has been requested and the Planning Commission re-
commends denial since they felt that erection of the sign at
this location was not justified.
Mr. Howard Freidman of Los Angeles, representing First Western
Bank, stated that Holmes Street is a major thoroughfare; since
the bank will face on Catalina and Barcelona, people will have
difficulty locating the bank. The sign proposed will be 17 sq.
ft. with interior lighting. Mr. Freidman stated banks do not
advertise as do other stores, and since it will be located at
the rear of the shopping center, will not be visible from a
major street.
Councilman Miller pointed out to the applicant that present
ordinances allow a temporary 30-day sign for grand openings to
point out the location.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and approved unanimously to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation for denial of the permit.
*
*
*
A Conditional Use Permit application for an
addition to the service station at 2620 First
Street has been made by Douglas Oil Company.
CUP - Douglas
Oil Co.
Mr. Musso explained that the addition would add about 50% to the
existing structure. The Planning Commission recommends approval.,
subject to installation of retaining walls to remedy some grade
problems and to keep the area to the north debris free. Non-
conforming signs now on the premises will be removed.
CM-23-49
May 18, 1970
(Douglas Oil)
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, to approve the Conditional Use Permit
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Com-
mission.
Councilman Miller made a motion to amend the main motion with refer-
ence to A.2 of the Planning Commission's resolution by changing
this item to read "Non-conforming signs shall be made conforming
to the Sign Ordinance before issuance of a building permit." Coun-
cilman Pritchard seconded the motion to amend. After discussion
of the possible effect of such a requirement, the motion and second
to amend were withdrawn.
The motion for approval of the Conditional Use Permit was then passed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
REPORT-
MAGAZINE
RACK LOCATION
The City Manager asked that consideration of the re-
quest of the applicant for permission to locate a
newspaper rack in the sidewalk area along First Street
be continued for one week due to illness of the applicant.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
AVIATION FUEL
PRICE INCREASE
The consideration of the fuel price increase was con-
tinued from the previous meeting.
Mr. Parness stated the matter had been discussed in
depth with the Airport Advisory Committee who unani-
mously recommend adoption of the increase.
Mayor Silva advised that a letter had been submitted to Mr. Harry
Perl, Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee, from representatives
of the Flying Particles, Livermore Valley Airman's Association and
Courtesy Aviation, and copies sent to the Council regarding this
matter.
Mr. Jim McElroy, 1345 Wagoner Drive, one of the signatories of the
letter stated that after the Airport Committee meeting today, they
do not choose to oppose the increase, but commented re the operating
costs of the airport, and the procedure adopted by the staff in ask-
ing for the rate increase, and felt the users should be brought into
the recommendation as soon as possible and given information neces-
sary to make a decision.
Mr. Parness stated that the users are given notice of the Airport
Committee meetings, and they do have some people in attendance at
these meetings. Mr. Parness further stated there is a forthcoming
recommendation for other rate increases at the airport facility,
which will be discussed with the users in attendance in two weeks,
and they will have advance information the same as the Airport Com-
mittee.
Councilman Beebe asked Mr. Parness if he could work out some plan
to get the airport on a self-supporting basis so it would not be
a drain on the taxpayers. Mr. Parness asked if he meant that the
City should try to consider indirect effects on the airport through
abutting land use - increased appreciation of land values, and stated
that, hopefully, something will be done in that regard in the next
few years as that is the only way it can be a paying operation.
Mayor Silva stated that the rate should be based on competition
rather than on profit or loss, and in this case the fuel price re-
commendation is approximately average. He suggested that rather
than the 47.7 for cn;87 octane and 52.7 for 100/130 octane as re-
commended, they should raise the figure .3i to round out the figure
to 48i and 53i which would be slightly above the average and made a
motion to that effect.
CM-23-50
May 18, 1970
Mr. Jim Brians, Airport Supervisor, advised that (Fuel Increase)
the recommendation was made prior to the .7i
price increase, and the average now is 48i and
53i. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. Councilman
Taylor felt that since the Airport Advisory Committee had approved
the price increase at 47.7i and 52.7i, it should not be raised
without another meeting.
Councilman Pritchard mentioned that the taxpayers were subsidizing
the golf course, which is purely recreational, and airport is
also recreational and a benefit to the businesses in the community,
and felt there was a difference in this instance.
A vote was then taken on the motion which passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Pritchard
Mr. Parness asked if the Council would consider delegating to
the staff the right to use the same comparative airports, at
least annually, to ascertain the current rate being charged and
adjust rates accordingly, in order not to have to come before
the Council again.
Mayor Silva was agreeable to the suggestion, for the staff to
set the price to within li of the average.
Mr. McElroy was strongly opposed to an automatic increase and
felt it should be based on what is being charged to operate the
airport.
After some discussion it was decided to accept the recommendation
of the City Manager with reference to future rate adjustments.
*
*
*
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED BACK TO ORDER
WITH ALL PRESENT.
*
*
*
At the City Council meeting of May 4, a status
report was made as to Portola Avenue Annex No.
4. At that time two remaining ownerships sub-
ject to the execution of agreements had not done so, and the
Council concurred in allowing a two week term for the agreements
to be executed, and if such had not been accomplished, the staff
was authorized to proceed with de-annexation steps. Notice has
been received that one ownership has agreed to execute the docu-
ments, and Mr. Parness explained at this time the 82 acres re-
maining under multiple ownership, which has still not been con-
firmed by an agreement. In reply to a question posed by Council-
man Pritchard relative to zoning, Mr. Parness explained that the
annexation matter is completely distinct and separate and should
be divorced from the idea of land use as it is not related to
the aspect of City membership. The land cannot be developed
until it is annexed and he had discussed this point with one of
the owners. It must be annexed to have development potential,
and to discuss the possible zoning prior to this administrative
legislative act is very improper. The only thing deficient is
just that an agreement has not been signed by the owners, and
it is Council policy that everybody do so, and the main point
of the agreement is the matter of the annexation fee.
REPORT RE PORTOLA
AVE. ANNEX NO. 4
Councilman Beebe asked about the Coast properties, and if any
zoning had been promised them or implied. Mr. Musso stated that
the General Plan only is implied.
CM-23-51
May 18, 1970
(Portola Ave. Mr. Keith Fraser, attorney, representing all of the
Annex No.4) owners of the 82 acres, stated he agreed to every-
thing stated by Mr. Parness, except the zoning on
the Coast properties which was thoroughly discussed
at the Planning Commission level and would be coming before the
Council on June 22, and was delayed only because of this 82-acre
parcel. He explained the discussions that had been held and their
only concern was some highway commercial and some multiple and he
stipulated that RS-3 Zoning was agreeable to them.
Mr. Fraser went on to explain that about three years ago Mason and
Associates came to his client with the idea they would develop the
Coast properties and the 82 acres all in one package, and the owners
of the 82 acres agreed, and that when the plans were completed they
would come before the City Council and ask for annexation. In the
meantime several things happened - one was the Livermore Develop-
ment Assessment District, and in the Coast annexation agreement
there was specific language that they would not oppose the LDC, and
the owners of this parcel were not aware of this arrangement, and
when finally informed of the proposed assessment amount (since they
are living in all parts of the U.S.) they balked a bit and the one
time agreement to enter into the annexation differed, and it was
realized that no agreements had ever been signed. Also, one engineer-
ing company developed the plan for the whole parcel and with regard
to the 82 acres they suggested RS-3, and the owners of the subject
parcel were not consulted as to its topography; the land is very
steep on one side.
The owners would like to annex, but they have held the property ten
years and would like to sell it for development, and did not agree
that the property fits into an RS-3 plan. The owners are not ob-
jecting to the annexation fees, but would like consideration on
the zoning. He felt the owners would sign the agreement if they
were given some favorable intentions from the Council that the pro-
perty could be zoned Rs-4.
Councilman Taylor stated it did not make sense to say that the
topography is too steep and then to ask for higher density, and
pointed out that none of the new pieces of property have been zoned
higher than RS-3.
Mr. Musso stated that the Planning Commission did not consider the
plan of Mason and Associates, but went according to the General Plan.
Councilman Miller made a motion to proceed with the annexation and
delay for one week the de-annexation proceedings, and the motion
was seconded by Councilman Taylor and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A report from the Planning Commission and comments
from the Building Inspector regarding the proposed
change in the Uniform Building Code in respect to
signs were submitted to the Council. The Planning
Commission recommends placing an eight (8) year
limit on all sign permits by amendment of the Uniform Building Code.
The Chief Building Inspector recommends that such limitation not
be in the Code, but in the Zoning Ordinance. After discussion of
the manner in which to handle the time limitation on signs, the matter
was referred to the City Manager for study and report and continued
for one week on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor and approved unanimously.
REPORT RE
PROPOSED
CHANGE IN
SIGN CODE
*
*
*
REPORT RE
FIELD TRIP
ON CLUSTER
HOUSING
A report from the Planning Director regarding the
field trip to study and observe cluster housing
in the surrounding cities was acknowledged by the
Council.
*
*
*
CM-23-52
May 18, 1970
ORDINANCE RE
ORDINANCE NO. 709 PORTOLA AVENUE
ANNEX NO. 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE APPROVING
THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE OF CERTAIN
INHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS PORTOLA AVENUE
ANNEX No.4.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only)
and the above ordinance was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 710
ORDINANCE RE ANGLE
PARKING (Sec. 13.50)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.50, RELATING TO
ANGLE PARKING, OF DIVISION 1 OF ARTICLE V, RELATING
TO STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING, OF CHAPTER 13,
RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, OF THE
LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, TO PROVIDE, WHEN ANGLE
PARKING, THAT THE FRONT RIGHT WHEEL SHALL BE WITH-
IN 18 INCHES OF THE CURB.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived and by
the following vote, the above ordinance was passed.
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 711 ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
(T. J. Green)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442 OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING, BY AMENDING
SECTION 3.00 THEREOF, RELATING TO ZONING DISTRICT MAPS.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived and the above
ordinance was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSENT: None
*
*
*
The City Manager suggested that the Council
meet with the Recreation District on May 26,
at 8:00 p.m. A discussion of park prior-
ities, means of financing park development,
and park dedication is on the agenda.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Joint
Meeting re Parks)
*
*
*
A special report has been prepared by the
Chamber of Commerce in regard to industrial
development. The City Manager informed the
Council that he would also have a statement on this
presentation shortly. The Council decided to set a
hour before the Council meeting prior to the budget
discussion of both proposals.
REPORT BY CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
subject for
meeting an
session for
CM-23-53
May 18, 1970
MATTERS Councilman Pritchard questioned the action of
INITIATED Commissioner Futch in appearing before the City
BY COUNCIL Council to speak on a subject under consideration
(Planning by the Council. Members of the Council felt Plan-
Commissioners ning Commissioners could appear as private citizens
Appearance but would prefer that their comments as members of
Before Council)the Commission should be made privately to the mem-
bers of the Council, or in writing.
*
*
*
(Request for
Support)
Mayor Silva stated he had a letter from the Suicide
Prevention of Alameda County Committee asking for
support for continued funding in the budget. Mr.
Parness was asked to check into this matter.
*
*
*
(Proclamations)Mayor Silva asked for direction from the Council in
regard to making Proclamations. The Council felt
this should be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
come before the
at 12:35 a.m.,
Planning Com-
APPROVE
ATTEST
Mayor
~cLL
LiverC' e,~fornia
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of May 25, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, May 25,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller,
and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the minutes
of the meeting of May 18, 1970, were approved as
submitted.
*
*
*
CM-23-54
May 25, 1970
Mr. Thomas F. Holler, Managing Director of the
East Bay Chapter National Safety Council, per-
sonally presented a "No Accident Award" to the
employees of the City of Livermore, and congra-
tulated the employees for their fine record for the period
January to December 1969, in having no lost time injuries.
felt it should be pointed out to the taxpayers in the City
this means a savings in tax dollars to them.
OPEN FORUM
(Safety Award)
from
He
that
Mayor Silva accepted the award plaque in behalf of the City
and the employees.
*
*
*
A request has been made by the owner of property
located at the southwest corner of Enos Way and
Portola Avenue to relax the requirements of a
"no-access agreement". The agreement prohibits
access to Enos Way and requires certain public
works improvements, including a brick fence, to
be constructed along the easterly line of the
property.
PUBLIC HEARING
RE NO-ACCESS
AGREEMENT
(Houser)
Mr. Musso explained that the fence was required as a prerequisite
to zoning the property to RG-16 and its purpose was to isolate
the residential area from the activity resulting from the multiple
use. He stated that the reason for no-access on Enos Way was that
the traffic from this property would present a hazard to school
children walking in this area.
Mr. Lee stated that the policy of the City has been to limit access
on major streets unless widening is provided for ingress. From
the public works standpoint, he felt no-access with a low ornamen-
tal fence would be best on Portola and to allow access on Enos Way.
Mr. Lewis, the City Attorney, explained that the agreement was
rather like a bargaining process; the owner had given up this
access in exchange for the zoning.
The property is in two lots but has been considered as one parcel
for this agreement. If the inside lot were sold separately, it
would have no access to either street.
Mr. Joseph Podrasky, 2636 Kennedy Street, protested the application
because of the school crossing at the corner of Enos Way and
Kelly Street. The PTA and Portola Educators and Parents Society
had, with the cooperation of the church property, put in 125 feet
of concrete 10 feet wide for a place for the children to cross
safely. At the time of the tax assessment for the fence, the
people in the area had been told that a like fence and like side-
walk would be built on Enos Way. Mr. Podrasky told the Council
that six out of the seven property owners contacted on the eastern
portion of the area signed the petition, which he presented,
opposing access on Enos Way.
Mr. Norman Smith, 675 Enos Way, recommended denial of this appli-
cation. When this property had come before the Planning Commission
for rezoning, the church, school and property owners had asked for
denial. The Planning Commission had denied the rezoning to mul-
tiple, but it had been granted by the Council after appeal to them,
with the provision that the fence be constructed and no access be
allowed. He felt the removal of these restrictions was against
the purposes of the rezoning action. Mr. Smith felt it would
present a hazard to children in the area.
Mr. Larry McGrew, 778 Wimbleton Drive, representing the Parents
and Educators Society of Portola School, recommended denial of
the request on the basis of the traffic from access on Enos Way
CM-23-55
May 25, 1970
(Public
Hearing -
Houser)
presenting a hazard to the school children. The
proposed change would increase traffic at the time
that children were going to and from school and he
urged that the zoning and present restrictions be
retained.
Mrs. Marilyn McGrew, 778 Wimbleton Drive, added that kindergarten
children attend Portola Avenue School, and it would be a hazard.to
them.
Mr. Ed Horton, 3877 Santa Clara Way, Associate Minister from st.
Bartholomew's Episcopal Church, told the Council that five years
ago when this property was petitioned for rezoning, the church was
in opposition to rezoning, but had withdrawn their objections dur-
ing the hearings on the basis that the restrictions for no-access
and fencing would be enforced.
Mr. Raymond Ferrario, 781 Maude Avenue, San Leandro, stated he had
received a notice as a property owner within 300 feet and asked if
it meant that he was required to build a fence. It was pointed
out to Mr. Ferrario that he had misunderstood the content of the
notice and that his property was not involved. As far as he under-
stood the situation, he felt he would be against the change. Mr.
Ferrario had also submitted a written protest.
Mrs. Violet Houser, the applicant, stated she had observed East
Avenue and Junction Avenue traffic and the traffic in and out of
property facing on East Avenue, including schools, and although
the traffic was heavy, there was no fencing required. She said all
types of vehicles traveled Enos Way and could not see why her pro-
perty should not have access.
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. McGrew what route his children took
in walking to and from school, and he replied that they went through
the church property as Portola Avenue is unimproved in this area
and there is no place for children to walk.
There being no further comments, on motion of Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the public
hearing was closed.
Councilman Beebe asked the applicant if her main reason for the re-
quest was to obtain ingress and egress to Enos Way or the cost of
the fence. Mrs. Houser replied that if apartments were constructed
on the property, cars would have access in only one direction and
the change would make it easier to enter and leave the property.
Councilman Taylor felt there was no planning reason for making this
change and made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, to accept
the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the request
to change the no-access agreement, and the motion was approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Report re An information report from the Alameda County Health
Alameda County Department in regard to a septic tank permit denial
Health Dept.) on Buena Vista Avenue was acknowledged.
*
*
*
(Resolution-
City of
Hayward)
A resolution from the City of Hayward regarding abate-
ment of the pollution from jet aircraft was acknowledged.
*
*
*
CM-23-56
The following applications were approved for
exempt business licenses:
May 25, 1970
(Exempt Business
License)
LDS Church Youth Groups for sale of flags, snow cones, and other
fund raising projects
Livermore Junior Womens Club for various fund raising activities
during 1970
*
*
*
An agreement has been prepared providing for
the transmission of treated effluent from our
water reclamation plant to the Junior College
District Livermore campus. This is to be done
by a system to be provided by the college and
the water will be used for irrigation purposes
and standby fire support needs. The term of the
agreement is for 18 years with a provision for 500,000 gallons
per day at no charge. The supply is conditioned upon availability
with first priority being given to the City's needs.
(Resolution re
Agreement with
So. County Joint
Junior College
District)
It is recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing execu-
tion of the agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 71-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
*
*
*
A report was submitted in regard to overtime pay-
ment for public works inspection. When contrac-
tors request the services of an inspector during
overtime hours or on weekends, it has been the
practice to require the contractor to reimburse
the City an amount equivalent to one and one-half times the em-
ployee's pay rate. The City Attorney advises that this policy
should be approved by the City Council, and it is recommended
that a motion be adopted approving this.
*
*
*
(Report re Overtime
Payment for Public
Works Inspection)
The Valley Planning Committee has urged each (BART Transit Plan)
public jurisdiction to contact BART and insist
that the District make a planning study for
future BART rail alignment and station locations in conjunction
with the special study for the Valley for a proposed bus feeder
system. The City Manager recommends that a motion be adopted for
transmittal to the BART Board of Directors insisting that a traffic
planning study be undertaken at the earliest possible time. Mayor
Silva suggested that a definite date be requested.
Mr. Parness was asked to include Mr. Robert Allen's suggestion
that exploration be made to use the right of way of the San Ramon
branch of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company between
Dublin and Walnut Creek in his communication with BART.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of
April 21, were acknowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, the Consent Calendar, including
the resolution, was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
(Minutes)
Approval of
Consent Calendar
CM-23-57
May 25, 1970
PROPOSITIONS
2,3,4, and 5
Mrs. Valerie Raymond, president of the League of
Women Voters, asked that the Council endorse Pro-
positions 2, 3, 4 and 5 which will be on the June
2nd, ballot. A motion was made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Taylor, to endorse these
propositions.
Mr. Bob Allen, 223 Donner Ave., asked that the Council decline en-
dorsement of these issues for the following reasons:
1. The City Council is a board of directors of a municipal corpor-
ation, the City of Livermore. Its function is to govern the cor-
poration and manage its properties efficiently. Endorsement of
irrelevant ballot issues is outside the scope of the Council's
authority.
2. The state Constitution is law; its language has been settled
over a long period of time and its meaning decided by the courts.
Changing the language of the constitution on the scale of these
amendments would force a long period of litigation to define what
these words mean. Until then the rights of many citizens would be
uncertain.
Mr. Allen asked that the Council leave this matter to the voters
in that it has no bearing on the conduct of local affairs, however
Mrs. Raymond disagreed that these issues do not apply to local govern-
ment.
The City Attorney stated he endorsed these revisions, and Councilman
Beebe stated that at the League of California Cities' meeting in
Los Angeles, which he had attended, it was pointed out that these
propositions were worthy and should be considered.
The motion for endorsement was voted on at this time and approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
BEAUTIFICATION A letter requesting that high school student re-
COMMITTEE presentation on the Beautification Committee be
considered was presented to the Council. Mr.
Gatrousis of the Beautification Committee said they wanted a repre-
sentative from each high school who had influence and communication
with the rest of the students. Mayor Silva felt that the representa-
tion could come from the Youth Committee, and Mr. Gatrousis was
asked to meet with the Youth Council to explain the duties of the
Beautification Committee.
A motion was made by Mayor Silva, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and approved unanimously to select one member from each high school
from the Youth Committee to work with the Beautification Committee.
*
*
*
ENCROACHMENT A request for an encroachment permit has been made
PERMIT APPEAL by Michael Murphy to place a newsstand on public
(Newsstand) right of way.
Mr. Herb Steiner, regional director for the Socialist Labor Party,
said the paper they wished to sell is the Weekly People. This paper
is available in other cities and, as a minority party, this is one
method that its views can be placed before the public.
Mayor Silva pointed out that the issue was not what paper is to be
sold, but a permit for encroachment on the public right of way.
Mr. Lewis cited a case and stated that at this date the City does
not have a power, unless there is a specific statute authorizing it,
CM-23-58
May 25, 1970
to allow a lease or permit use of sidewalk for (Newsstand Cont'd)
newsstands, fruit stands or other commercial
enterprises. The fact that a newspaper is involved and the fact
that a newspaper is protected under many situations from restric-
tions by the First Amendment does not seem to apply in this case,
citing the latest case of 465 South 52nd St. Corp. vs. ManIon,
Pennsylvania, and the court reached a decision to that effect.
It may be that in the future the rule will be changing and there
may be peculiar circumstances where the newspaper does not have any
exposure whatsoever, the courts would find that it had to be
allowed, but he advised at this time it was not his understanding
of the law as it exists in California, so the Council is under no
duty to allow the newsstand as an encroachment.
Mayor Silva stated it has been pointed out there might be a few
violations of this kind in our City, and asked Mr. Parness to have
someone check on this.
Mr. Lewis pointed out if we are allowing some newsstands, tactically,
tacitly or otherwise and if we discriminate, that is an entirely
different problem to which Mayor Silva replied it was not being
allowed, but it has been happening.
Councilman Taylor asked the attorney if he meant we were under no
obligation to allow such an encroachment unless we pass an enabling
ordinance, and Mr. Lewis replied that ordinarily our powers come
to us from the state and the general rule is that you must be
authorized to allow encroachments of a commercial nature on a
public right of way, but was not sure that in California it is a
hard and fast rule, but it is a general rule. If it were allowed,
he did not feel there would be any repercussions from a legal
standpoint.
Mayor Silva stated that as he saw it, the Council would have to
enact some type of ordinance that would allow private business
tocperate on public land, and Mr. Lewis again cited the case,
which indicates the City ordinarily has to be authorized by a
higher statute to allow an encroachment, and we are not so author-
ized, but he did not believe that prevents the Council from doing
so. In other cities there are newsstands in public rights of way.
If the Council would pass a resolution setting forth places where
they may be permitted, it would not be improper, but we do not
have to.
Councilman Taylor felt the real question was whether or not they
want to allow this newspaper, and felt possibly a public bulletin
board might be more appropriate and it would be a good idea to
get a report from the staff of a possible location where it would
not intrude on pedestrian traffic, and Councilman Miller stated
it is not unreasonable to have a place in the City where minority
newspapers could be made available, and felt some location for
such a newsstand might be found.
Councilman Beebe stated he would not like to see a precedent set,
especially since we are making every effort towards beautification
of the City, and made a motion to deny the encroachment permit,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. stu Smith, 1141 Concannon Blvd., pointed out that Michael Murphy
has been trying for some time to get one of the local businessmen
on the main street to carry the newspaper; however, they are not
broadminded enough to allow this particular newspaper to be sold
at their newsstands, and he felt the Council would be showing a
better spirit if they were more broadminded than the businessmen,
and he felt everyone has a right to be heard and since Mr. Murphy
has been turned down by every businessman in town, felt the City
Council should step in and allow the minority voice to be heard,
and urged that Councilman Beebe and Councilman Pritchard reconsider
their stand.
CM-23-59
May 25, 1970
(Newsstands)
Cont'd
Councilman Beebe stated he had not made the motion
on the basis of this one applicant, but on the pre-
cedent that might be set, and did not feel the side-
walk should be cluttered up in this manner.
Mr. Steiner brought up the fact that the paper is a non-profit paper;
not a commercial project and all the work is done voluntarily. He
did not feel that the matter of City beautification is as important
as the liberwof allowing minority, unpopular organizations to pre-
sent their point of view. If they had manpower and finances, they
would do the same as other newspapers. He felt if the Council could
pass an ordinance to deny, they could also pass an ordinance to grant.
He hoped even if the Council was denying the encroachment at this
time, they would reconsider at sometime in the future, so they could
reach the citizens of Livermore as they are everywhere else in Cali-
fornia.
Mr. Bob Several, 2046 Park Street, stated that the precedent the
Council was setting was worse as it is a precedent against the First
Amendment and is more dangerous, and he felt it was vital that the
socialist paper have an outlet in Livermore.
Mayor Silva answered the charge by stating it was not the newspaper,
but the encroachment.
Mr. Dan Cook, 2287 Palm Street, stated he appreciated the concern
of the Council in dealing with circulation problems of the Indepen-
dent, Herald and Tribune, but felt they were dealing here with a
different sort of newspaper, and in an area that is very directly
concerned with the First Amendment, and urged the Council to consider
the case of the Socialist Party newspaper as a separate case from
that of the Oakland Tribune, which is a general circulation newspaper,
and the local newspapers, and stated they were on very touchy grounds
when you consider government enforcing a system whereby freedom of
the press is denied to any particular group, whether it be the John
Birch Society's right to distribute Human Events in the public
library or the right of the Socialist Labor Party to distribute their
newspaper on the public street, and would seriously ask the City
Council to reconsider the decision to deny the freedom of the press
to the Socialist Party.
Mayor Silva stated that they were not denying freedom of the press
as this newspaper or any newspaper may operate in the City as may
any other business.
Mr. Robert Allen stated that the "Human Events" has no connection
with the John Birch Society.
Michael Murphy, 2289 Chestnut Street, stated that the "Weekly People"
newspaper is distributed free of charge when they have the time,
but what they want is the same treatment as the other local news-
papers; he felt it was a First Amendment issue; they are willing to
distribute the newspaper free, but what they need is a place where
the First Amendment is recognized. He asked on what specifics an
encroachment permit is granted as there is an ordinance and certain
encroachments are allowed, and all they want is to put a stand on
the street.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to amend the main motion to have
the staff report on where a facility might be located so it
would not bother traffic for the public sale of newspapers. The
amendment was seconded by Councilman Miller; however, it failed
to pass by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard and Mayor Silva
CM-23-60
May 25, 1970
Mr. Dan Cook stated that in the interest of (Newsstand Cont'd)
beautification it would be very simple to deny
the encroachment, but it would be very petty and unthinking of
the Council to do such a thing as the issue at stake is much more
important than one square foot of city sidewalk.
A vote was then taken on the main motion to deny the encroachment,
and it passed by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
*
*
*
An appeal was submitted by Winston A. Wong
from the denial of the Planning Commission
for variance to permit encroachment for a
structure into required non-street frontage
yard at 1553 DeLeon Way.
APPEAL RE DENIAL
OF VARIANCE
(Winston Wong)
Mr. Musso explained what was involved and illustrated by a drawing
circumstances under which there may be encroachment in the yard,
and stated that the Planning Commission could not make findings
to warrant the variance and therefore denied the application.
Mr. Musso also read a letter of objection from Mr. and Mrs. Johansen,
a neighbor immediately behind the property in question, stating
it did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Winston Wong, 1553 DeLeon Way, addressed the Council and pre-
sented drawings indicating the property lines, the dwelling, and
the proposed structure, and also showed photographs of the back
of the house. He explained in detail the reason for the proposed
structure and felt that the design of the house was such that it
warranted special consideration as there were exceptional circum-
stances. He felt that the house did meet zoning ordinances as it
stood today, and if this was the reason for the objection by Mr.
Johanson, he felt the reason to be invalid.
Mr. Wong stated that his reason for appeal to the City Council was
that he felt he did not bring out some of the facts too clearly
when he presented his case to the Planning Commission, and proceeded
to explain in detail the lot and his plans for the construction of
the lattice type patio roof structure as proposed. Mr. Wong
explained his drawings, stating there would be nothing to support
the rafters if he proceeded as suggested by the Planning Commission
according to the zoning ordinance. He also cited government codes
with reference to the protest and the Council's decision in the
matter as far as precedence.
Councilman Pritchard stated that Mr. Wong's point was very well
taken and that the Zoning Ordinance cannot possibly foresee all
the possibilities and on occasion there will have to be variance
granted. Councilman Pritchard also referred to Commissioner
Millard's remarks in the minutes of the Planning Commission which
state in part that there "existed square ordinances which did not
match round lots." He explained he had visited the applicant's
home, looked at the patio area and felt that exceptional circum-
stances do exist. Further, "he hoped, eventually, the City could
get away from the little briCk by briCk, board by board planning
of people's yards for them."
Councilman Miller commented that although cities have power to
grant variances, they have to make a series of findings and one
thing is not the orientation of the house on the lot; he felt one
thing that has happened is that the lot is inadequate for the
size of the house, and this is one of the serious disadvantages
of the RL zoning ordinance which is one of the reasons for trying
to obtain better zoning. Further, he felt the problem was
CM-23-61
May 25, 1970
partially the fault of the City for not having
adequate setbacks, and largely the fault of the
developer for squeezing the houses on the back of
the lot, making it too small to put anything in
them, and he felt the findings of the Planning
Commission were proper in this circumstance. Councilman Miller
questioned why the Building Inspection Department did not catch
the setback at 1547 DeLeon which Mr. Wong brought out, and Mr.
Musso pointed out it was an error, in part, of the staff and under
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance variance is not necessary in
that case, and he asked Mr. Herb street, Building Inspector, to
explain the setback in the house next door to Mr. Wong's.
(Variance
Appeal -
Wong)
Mr. street stated that that house was permitted on an approved
plot plan on specific elevation and when the foundation was poured
it met all zoning ordinance requirements; then after the building
was framed, the developer changed the elevation which would extend
the roof out to the garden area in front part of the house and
this was done without submittal of a revised elevation. It was
only after the building was complete that it was found the pilaster
supporting the roof area was 4 ft. instead of 7 ft.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to grant the variance, however
it died for lack of a second.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to support the Planning Commission's
recommendation to deny the application for variance, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard
A motion was then made by Councilman Taylor to allow a variance
that posts may be placed within 5 feet of the property line, se-
conded by Councilman Miller and passed unanimously.
COUNTY
REFERRAL RE
QUARRY PERMIT
(Dagnino Rd)
*
*
*
A County referral has been received re the applica-
tion of the Estate of Peter J. Dagnino for a Quarry
Permit to permit removal of rock, sand and other
earth material and the processing of rock on a site
located on the north end of Dagnino Road, approxi-
mately 3t miles north of the City limits.
The Planning Director briefly explained the area and stated this
is a renewal of a use that has been operating in the area. The
staff would recommend an additional five years and that the quarry
not be expanded. Mr. Musso informed the Council that the County
staff recommends a bond for restoration of the roads in the vicin-
ity after the permit expires as a condition of approval.
Councilman Miller made a motion to accept the recommendation of
the Planning Commission for approval subject to the conditions
noted in the staff report and also the condition that a bond be
posted for restoration of the roads after the permit expires; the
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved unanimously.
SUMMARY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Commis-
sion's meeting of May 19 was acknowledged. Coun-
cilman Miller asked for an explanation of the
summary regarding a request for variance of park-
ing requirements at 2087 Third Street.
Mr. Musso explained that this involved a request for a variance to
allow temporary use of a residence in a commercial area for a real
estate office. The principal concern was off-street parking.
CM-23-62
The appointment to the Planning Commission to
fill the unexpired term of Gale Hovey had not
been made at this time. Mayor Silva stated
that, hopefully, this decision would be made
at the executive session following the meeting.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED
BACK TO ORDER WITH ALL PRESENT.
*
*
*
At the City Council meeting of May 18 a one
week extension was granted on the commencement
of de-annexation proceedings for that portion
of the annexed area which had not been con-
summated by an annexation agreement.
May 25, 1970
APPOINTMENT TO
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECESS
PORTOLA AVENUE
DE-ANNEXATION
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to adopt the following resolution authorizing de-annexation
of the Bellman et al property from Portola Avenue Annex No.4,
and the motion was approved unanimously:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-70
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE DE-ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS PORTOLA AVENUE DE-
ANNEXATION FROM THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
*
*
The Director of Public Works informed the
Council that eight bids had been received for
the 1969-1970 Capital Improvement Projects as
follows:
Oliver De Silva, Inc.
Gallagher & Burke
Independent Construction Co.
McGuire & Hester
A. Teichert & Son
Les MacDonald Constr. Co.
Redgwick Construction
Silva Brothers
$ 465,711.31
467,206.15
471,676.60
481,291.60
487,031.35
489,884.15
504,270.74
517,560.56
557,108.80
Engineer's Estimate
REPORT RE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECTS 1969-70
The low bid was substantially below the Engineer's estimate and
it was recommended that the low bid submitted by Oliver de Silva
be accepted for this work.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, that the bid be awarded to Oliver de Silva for the
1969-1970 Capital Improvement Projects, and it was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
Consideration of tentative map of Tract 3186 was
continued until June 22 at the request of the
applicant.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated there was one point he wished
to discuss in relation to the proposed ordinance
amendment (Section 21.70) concerning freestand-
ing signs and signs in Industrial Districts. The
TRACT 3186
(H.C. Elliott)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT (Sec.21.70
CM-23-63
May 25, 1970
(Amendment to
Sec. 21. 70)
mum of 32 sq.
Use Permit.
ordinance will allow a freestanding sign with a
maximum of 32 sq. ft. with no method to increase
this maximum. Mayor Silva felt the ordinance
should be amended so that a sign over this maxi-
ft. could be allowed through use of a Conditional
Councilman Miller felt that this could be accomplished by existing
provisions (Sec. 21.76 (k) ) and that this amendment was unnecessary.
Mayor Silva said without this amendment the ordinance would allow
a freestanding sign, with no sign on the building front or it
would be possible to use t~_s~. ft;~rovision to erect a
building sign. ~n,'1 ... it ~tl!l.!; t <<~-Re felt this would cause
more building signs to be used rather t~rikfreestanding signs.
Councilman Beebe felt that if this were done, conditions would have
to be set out for this section of the ordinance.
Mr. Musso was instructed to discuss with the Planning Commission
their feeling in regard to conditions to be included under Section
21.70 to allow freestanding signs over 32 sq. ft. to a maximum of
64 sq. ft. through a CUP.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the ordinance amending Section
21.70 of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly, Sections 21.72, 21.75
and 21.76, relating to freestanding signs and signs in Industrial
Districts was introduced and the title read only.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Meetings)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Preservation
of Open Space)
(Traffic
Signal)
(Encroach-
ments)
(School-
Builder
Meeting)
CM-23-64
*
*
*
The City Manager called the Council's attention to
their meeting with the Livermore Area Recreation and
Park District and also the tour of the City's facil-
ities to begin at 5:00 p.m., May 27.
The preliminary budget meeting was set for June 24.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor requested that Mr. Musso obtain a
copy of the Orange County Report on Project 21,
regarding preservation of open spaces. Also, he
asked that Mr. Musso contact the County Planner to
obtain information about the Planning Committee in
San Diego.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Lee about the north
and south traffic lights on L Street and 4th Street.
He said it had been called to his attention that
children were rushed in crossing.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt that the staff should check
into all encroachments on public property around
the City.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked if a date had been set for
a meeting with the School District and builders in
regard to housing. Mr. Parness said there was not
yet a date set but he had met with the school staff
to draft an agenda for the meeting. Councilman
Miller urged that this meeting be held as soon as
possible.
May 25, 1970
Councilman Miller spoke about the interest in (Ecology)
the environment and ecology of the area. One
item of interest is the idea of re-cycling which will become more
and more important. He felt the City should take some steps in
this direction; for example, providing receptacles for aluminum
cans, glass and paper, and suggested the staff look into this
idea and how to collect and dispose of this material. The staff
could work with the Ecology Center in this matter.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Taylor
that it be stated that the City is willing to cooperate with any
group desiring help in this direction, re-cycling specifically,
with the understanding that City money or major staff time is
not committed; the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva read a letter from the U. S. Dept.
of Commerce confirming their preliminary popu-
lation for Livermore as 35,519.
(PopUlation
Census)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated there were two suggested
drafts of the resolution supporting the Bal-
anced Community Concept as adopted by the
Council. One was drawn up by the City
Attorney and the other by Councilman Miller.
(Resolution -
Balanced Community
Concept)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller to adopt his draft of the
resolution, but failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Mayor Silva, to
adopt the resolution drafted by the City Attorney, and it was
passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman Taylor and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe
(This matter clarifies the content of Resolution No. 40-70,
passed on March 9, 1970).
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated that in conjunction with the (Setbacks)
discussion held with regard to the variance ap-
plication of Mr. Wong, the real problem was due,
as Councilman Miller had stated, to the fact that the RL ordinance
allowed for too small a yard, however he felt in the new RS Zoning
Ordinance, the rear yard setbacks were still not sufficient.
Mr. Musso replied that the same thing could occur regardless of
either ordinance, and Mayor Silva suggested that the setbacks
for rear and side yards be considered for revision, and also
the percent of site coverage, and with the Council's approval,
directed the Planning Commission to study those three specific
items.
Councilman Pritchard inquired if the people are provided with any
kind of synopsis, when buying a home, of what can or cannot be
done with the side yards. Mr. Musso advised that they are given
a notice when they purchase a new home that they should check
with the Building Department if they plan to construct a patio,
build a fence, etc.
Mr. Lewis advised that State law provides for the adoption of
local ordinances in local subdivision, where a house is sold
CM-23-65
May 25, 1970
(Setbacks)
more than two years after filing of the subdivision
map that requires the seller to give the buyer in-
formation re zoning laws, and what can or cannot be
done, and in fact, an ordinance has been drafted
along these lines.
Councilman Miller also suggested that the Planning Commission
might consider along with backyards and extra structures something
similar to the provision for floor area coverage, which is 25%
of initial floor area coverage, but after two years the owner can
extend to 30%.
*
*
*
PROCLAMATION Mayor Silva stated that on Friday, he issued a pro-
clamation naming the 23rd of May through the 14th
of June as Rodeo Days in Livermore and felt the
Council should join in the celebration by wearing the appropriate
attire the next two Council meetings, and hoped the staff would
join in as a sign of community spirit. ~
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. to an
executive session to discuss the appointment of a
Planning Commissioner; thence to a meeting with the Livermore Area
Recreation and Park District at 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, 1970;
thence to a meeting on Wednesday, May 27, 1970, to tour the City
facilities at 5:00 p.m., dinner at 7:40 p.m. and a meeting at
8:30 p.m. at the Fire Station to study the capital improvements
budget.
ATTEST ~.
California
APPROVE
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of June 1, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, June 1,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Employee
Union
Negotiations)
Mr. Larry DeAngelo, representing the American Feder-
ation of State and County Employees Union, Local 1675,
addressed the Council in regard to negotiations under
CM-23-66
June 1, 1970
way with the City as to wages, hours and work- (Union Negotiations)
ing conditions. He read a letter which had
been sent to the Alameda County Central Labor
Council, requesting strike sanction and reasons for this request.
Mr. DeAngelo stated that the union was willing to meet with the
City Manager again, but that out of eight proposals, agreement
has been reached on only one. The president of the local chap-
ter had stated that if an agreement is not reached by Thursday
evening the employees will strike on Friday of this week.
Mayor Silva stated that the Council would meet in executive
session after the regular meeting to discuss this matter with
the City Manager.
*
*
*
Celia Baker, 541 Bell Avenue, inquired if the (School Housing)
Council had met witp the developers yet in re-
gard to the school housing problem. Mayor Silva stated that a
proposed agenda had been sent to the School Board and they were
awaiting a reply.
*
*
*
Mr. stu Smith, 1141 Concannon Blvd., reported (Newspaper)
that he had purchased copies of the Berkeley
Barb and sold them on First Street with profit
being donated to the local peace center. A complimentary copy
was also presented to the Mayor.
*
*
*
Dennis Moore, 1312 Kathy Court, spoke in regard
to a proposed road change by Alameda County per-
taining to the railroad underpass on Greenville
Road. He stated he had opposed this road change
at the recent Board of Supervisors' meeting, and Supervisor Murphy
had recommended that the County Road Commission check into safety
conditions of the proposed change. The Board also wished to know
the City of Livermore's view.
(Underpass -
Greenville Road)
Director of Public Works Daniel Lee stated that he received a
communication from the County Public Works Director requesting
the City's opinion and he had replied that from a technical
standpoint it was acceptable; other than this it was in the
hands of the County.
Mr. Moore stated that the Board of Supervisors would meet this
Wednesday to consider this matter and he hoped that the City of
Livermore would make a recommendation by that time. Mayor Silva
suggested that the Board of Supervisors be requested to continue
this matter for one week, if possible, and Mr. Moore's proposal
was referred to the staff for further report.
*
*
*
William Hayden, 140 Lee Avenue, commented that
he had been told by one of the Council members
that he did not understand the principle of
government and law and what could and could not
be done; he felt this was an arbitrary opinion. He felt that
there was a great deal of government by negative thinking, i.e.,
a general plan that could never be varied or changed. In several
recent meetings the term 110ur view of Livermorel1 had been used
in response to requests for changes. Mr. Hayden questioned who
decided what 110ur view of Livermorel1 was or should be, and also
(Comments re
Council Decisions)
CM-23-67
June 1, 1970
(Council
Decisions)
questioned recent decisions of the Council to en-
dorse or not endorse certain issues. He felt the
community would be happier and the Council would
be more respected if the Council listened to the
views of the people.
Mayor Silva said he wished to answer
it would have to be at another time.
communication, but town meeting type
held.
Mr. Hayden's questions but
Perhaps there was a lack of
of Council meetings were not
Edward A. Quarterman, 2282 Evans, supported the orderly way in which
the meetings were held. The town had outgrown the town meeting
method of carrying out City business.
James H. Baumgartner, 1565 DeLeon Way, stated he was a resident
and the Council acted in his behalf, too, and he felt that they
were acting in the City's interest.
*
*
*
Planning Director George Musso reported that the
property under consideration was 140 acres located
between Holmes Street and Arroyo Road, southerly
of easterly extension of Alden Lane, recently annexed
to the City. The General Plan indicates this area
to be developed at 1.5 d.u./acre and a school (K-6)
and park are indicated for location somewhere in
this area. The property has been annexed and is now before the
Council for rezoning. The Planning Commission felt that extension
of urban zoning at this time was premature and, therefore, recom-
mends zoning to A-20 (Agricultural) until services are extended
to this area and assurance that parks and schools can be provided.
Substantial land has been approved for development not only for
this developer but for the whole City. The developer had not made
any request as to zoning.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZONING
(Arroyo Road
Annex No.2)
Mr. Quarterman, 2283 Evans, felt that the discussion at the Plan-
ning Commission meeting had brought out valid reasons for zoning
this area as agricultural and felt that the Council should accept
their decision.
Mr. Baumgartner, 1565 DeLeon Way, told the Council that decisions
such as this one on zoning had far reaching implications on the
citizens of Livermore and urged the Council to uphold the Planning
Commission's report by rejecting the request. He felt there must
be growth controlled zoning in order to keep from worsening our
school crises. The developer already has a substantial number of
dwelling units approved, and residential zoning should be delayed.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the public hearing was closed by unanimous vote.
Councilman Taylor stated that it was a routine matter for the Plan-
ning Commission to request zoning after property is annexed. He
expressed regret that some of the testimony was centered on Mr.
Mehran as he had not made any application for residential zoning
of this land. The land had been annexed by the City with the under-
standing that it would not remain agricultural indefinitely. The
Planning Commission's recommendation for A-20 (Agricultural) Dis-
trict is reasonable.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for
zoning of Arroyo Road Annex No.2 as A-20 (Agricultural), and the
motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CM-23-68
June 1, 1970
The Planning Director stated that the Planning PUBLIC HEARING RE
Commission initiated the proposed changes in ZO AMENDMENT
the Zoning Ordinance, Section 21.00 (Special (Sec. 21.00 and
Provisions), particularly Section 21.40 (Off- Sec. 21.40)
Street Parking) primarily because of parking
requirement changes necessitated by the Liver-
more Development Commission program, and also, it was obvious to
the staff that the ordinance was becoming obsolete. The major
change is to reevaluate the definitions; the off-street parking
requirements were clarified; the lack of standards for parking
called for additions to the ordinance; landscaping was added as
a requirement for parking lots in certain instances.
Councilman Taylor asked if there was any change in the ratio of
parking spaces required for commercial. Mr. Musso stated that
the only substantial change was for second story buildings, which
was reduced to two. In the I (Industrial) area the proposed
change would require that the business be ca~able of maintaining
the one (1) space for each one and a half (12) employee ratio
for parking.
Councilman Beebe questioned Section 21.44 - 7 (a) regarding the
requirement for one parking stall to be located on the rear of
the lot. Mr. Musso explained that this is in regard to townhouses
which front on the street and would require rear access via an
easement.
Councilman Miller felt that perhaps parking requirements are too
low for multiples due to the number of boats and trailers. Also,
the parking space for shopping centers such as I1pl1 Street might
be increased.
Larry Bakken 765 Lido Drive, asked if these standards were original
to Livermore or whether they are uniform standards from the League
of California Cities. He was advised that other reports and ordi-
nances had been studied, and for the most part parking standards
in other cities are the same, but have been modified for our use.
Al Deutschman, 1131 Innsbruck Street, asked if he had a two-story
commercial building with approximately ten offices, under the new
plan how much parking would be required. Mr. Musso explained
that the requirements were based on square footage, and the ground
in relationship to the building, rather than on the use.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and approved unanimously to close the public hearing.
The provisions for the off-street parking were discussed by the
Council and the following suggestions were offered: that the
second story be considered the same as the first story; that
some provision be written into the ordinance so when the parking
lot borders on public sidewalk, there be some kind of landscaped
strip for separation; the requirements should be based on the
maximum usage a building might be used for; Sec. 21.45 (h)(2)
Drives or easements having a length of less than one hundred (100)
feet may have a width reduced to twelve (12) feet, should be
deleted. Under Sec. 21.46 (d) Traffic Controls: Directional signs
shall be provided as may be required. The words I1by the Cityl1
should be added to this sentence. Under Sec. 21.46 (g) 3. I1Subject
to the approval of the City Engineerl1 should be added to this
standard. Under Sec. 21.46 (g) 6. The shade trees shall be of a
variety l1approved by the Cityl1.
Under Sec. 21.46 (g) 7. Specify that if landscaped areas and
shade trees are not maintained by the property owner, that there
be some provision forcing the property owner to maintain the
landscaping, and the Planning Department was asked to check into
some means whereby this could be adequately stated.
CM-23-69
June 1, 1970
(Public
Hearing -
ZO Amendment)
The Planning Department was asked to reconsider only
one space for each sleeping unit of motor hotels
under Sec. 21.46 (g) 8.
A motion was then made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and approved unanimously to refer the draft of the off-
street parking ordinance back to the Planning Commission with the
noted changes.
Appointment to
Planning
Commission
Del Valle
Reservoir
Zoning of
Portola Ave.
Annex No. 4
Right of Way
Route 84
Freeway
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 73-70
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(John C. Nelson)
John Nelson was appointed as a member of the Planning
Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resig-
nation of Gale Hovey.
*
*
*
A resolution pertaining to development of the Del
Valle Reservoir Area of the Board of Directors of
the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District was
acknowledged.
*
*
*
The public hearing on zoning of Portola Avenue
Annex No.4 had been set for June 22. The owners
of the property have requested that the hearing on
this matter be extended until July 27 due to their
business schedule.
*
*
*
A letter from the Division of Highways advised that
acquisition of right of way for Route 85 Freeway
from Carlton Square Development would be made soon
and that the City would be advised when the acqui-
sition of this parcel is completed.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Planning Director in
regard to sign abatement procedure for non-conform-
ing signs. The bulk of the signs are to be made
conforming as of May 1, 1970. The Planning Depart-
ment is ready to move ahead with the abatement program, the first
targets being the blinking, flashing and rotating signs which are
approximately twenty in number. Then abatement would proceed to
freestanding signs, projecting signs and signs in excess of allow-
able square footage.
Sign
Abatement
California
Water Service
Area
but California
west of Isabel
*
*
*
A report from the Director of Public Works stated
that the California Water Service area was extended
beyond the boundary which was in accordance with
plans for service by the City of Livermore. The
City believed the boundary to be at Isabel Avenue,
Water Service area has been extended about 1200 feet
Avenue.
A formal complaint to the Public utilities Commission must be filed
to have the matter reconsidered. It is recommended that such action
be taken.
CM-23-70
*
*
*
June 1, 1970
Sunset Development Company posted bonds for
the public works improvements for Tract 2613.
These facilities have been installed and
accepted by the City; therefore, it is recommended that the bonds
be released.
Tract 2613
(Sunset Development)
RESOLUTION NO. 74-70
RESOLUTION RELEASING BONDS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS
IMPROVEMENTS IN TRACT 2613 (Sunset Development Co.)
*
*
*
The Public Works Director has advised that the
Holmes Street school crossing flashing lights
modification project between the City and the
State has been completed by the contractor.
The work has been inspected and accepted by the California Division
of Highways, and it is recommended that the project be accepted by
the City.
Holmes St. School
Crossing Light
Modification
*
*
*
A report from the Director of Planning regard-
ing subdivision map status was submitted to the
Council.
Subdivision Map
Status
*
*
*
Sixty-five claims in the amount of $34,819.47 Payroll and Claims
and two hundred twenty-four payroll warrants
in the amount of $70,241.27, dated May 28, 1970, were presented to
the Council and ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrant No. 7414 for his usual
reasons.
* * *
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, the Consent Calendar,
including the resolutions was approved
unanimously.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
*
*
*
A notice has been received from the City of
Fremont inquiring as to our interest in a
land use plan to be composed for the Niles
Canyon Area. It was the Council's decision to extend moral support,
without being specifically involved, in keeping this a park area,
and the City Manager was directed to send a letter expressing the
feelings of the Council.
REPORT RE NILES
CANYON AREA
*
*
*
Due to a recent event that caused some
controversy and confusion as to the display
of the United States Flag, a modification of the
current City policy has been drafted, and this was read by
Mayor as follows:
POLICY RE DISPLAY
OF FLAG
the
1. (f) I1With the prior approval of the Mayor, or in his absence
with the prior approval of the City Manager, upon the
death of any former or contemporary civic leader, or
any person who as a member of the armed forces of the
United States is killed in the performance of military
duties providing such person has next of kin residing
in the City of Livermore; for any special event or
observance which is to be universally recognized by
local governmental jurisdictions."
CM-23-71
June 1, 1970
(Policy re
Flags cont'd)
Councilman Pritchard suggested that in the reVlSlon
that the Vice Mayor be added in the first line after
flprior approval of the Mayorfl.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard to adopt the regulations
concerning the display of the flag with the above mentioned changes
to be the policy of the Council. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Beebe and passed unanimously.
Mr. Lewis stated that he understood the directive to be in com-
pliance with protocol established by the United states. He knew
of no situation, however; where the federal government or even
the state government has interferred with the City for not observ-
ing that protocol strictly.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
AMENDMENT OF
SEC. 21.70
*
*
*
The ordinance re the Zoning Ordinance amendment of
Section 21.70 relating to freestanding signs and
signs in Industrial Districts has not been drafted,
and a motion was made by Councilman Pritchard,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and approved un-
animously that this item be continued for one week.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated that during the
recent campaign the possibility of having an
elected mayor was put forth, and he had discussed
this matter with the City Attorney who advised
that this could be done under General Law by
designating one of the Council seats as the
flMayor's seat" and putting this issue to a vote. Councilman
Pritchard questioned whether the Council could take unilateral action
or if it had to be put to a referendum to the people, and asked that
this be given some consideration.
MATTERS
INITIATED
COUNCIL
(Elected
Mayor)
BY
Mayor Silva stated that all Council members had thought about this
subject and felt it would be appropriate to instruct the staff to
submit a report of all the ramifications of having an elected mayor;
the City Attorney is to make a report as soon as possible.
(Telephone
Rates)
Areawide calls
*
*
*
Councilman Miller brought up the question of tele-
phone rates, and the limited service which the
people in the Valley receive. He felt it would be
useful to request PUC to consider having some Bay
included in our exchange.
Mr. Parness stated that Mr. William Struthers, former Pleasanton
City Attorney, studied this matter several years ago, and it was
suggested that the City Manager contact Mr. Struthers and ask that
he provide the City with the background information.
(Parks Air
Force Base as
National
Cemetery)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated he had received a letter
from Congressman Miller, referring to the use of
Parks Air Force Base as a National Cemetery, and
mentioned that this had been discussed by the Coun-
cil previously as there would be advantages, such
as open space. The delay on this decision seems to be in the House
Committee on Veteran's affairs, and Councilman Miller felt a letter
or resolution could be sent to this Committee to use Parks Air Force
Base as a National Cemetery, and they could work through Congress-
man Miller's office.
Councilman Taylor stated that the Valley Planning Committee had re-
ceived a communication stating that the federal government has a
CM-23-72
June 1, 1970
policy to establish no additional national cem- (National Cemetery)
eteries and the problem of burial would be taken
care of by existing national cemeteries and then use private cem-
eteries, and felt a copy of this communication should be acquired
for distribution to the Council, which will be done, and it was
also suggested that the VFW and the American Legion be contacted
relative to this subject.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked about the possibility of
scheduling a meeting for the discussion of in-
creasing the park dedication fee, and it was the
decision of the Council that the discussion would
be placed on the agenda for the meeting of June 8.
(Park Dedication
Fee Increase)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva referred to a communication received (UN Day Celebration)
from the United Nations Association who have
asked that in conjunction with their 25th Anni-
versary the 24th of October be proclaimed United Nations Day and
an outstanding citizen of the community be appointed to serve as
UN Chairman for 1970.
Councilman Pritchard stated that Mrs. Baker had asked the Council
to discuss a bill pending before the state Legislature, and the
majority of the Council had felt that it should not be discussed,
and wondered if perhaps this is out of their jurisdiction, also
under the same argument, as the United Nations is not the City
Council's business.
This point was discussed by the Council and it was stated by the
Mayor, that it is the Council's prerogative to decide what they
should or should not discuss, and it was decided that they would
attempt to find an interested person to act as chairman of the
committee.
*
*
*
Councilmen Don Miller and Cecil Beebe were ap-
pointed to represent the Council with the Re-
creation District, and they were asked to ad-
vise the District of the meeting next week to
discuss park dedication. Then a meeting will
be set with the Recreation Department.
(Appointments to
LARPD Committee)
*
*
*
Jay Walton has accepted a position with the
Chamber of Commerce in Concora after serving
the community for a number of years. On mo-
tion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, the following resolution
was passed by unanimous vote:
COMMENDATION -
Jay Walton
RESOLUTION NO. 75-70
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING JAY LINDSAY WALTON,
MANAGER - CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1964 - 1970.
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
the Council,
p . m . to an e
union's
APPROVE
ATTEST
c-L
CM-23-73
Regular Meeting of June 8, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, June
8, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:01 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 25, 1970, were
approved as submitted and the minutes of the meet-
ing of June 1, 1970, were approved as amended, on
motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, and by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Sign
Abatement)
Mr. Glen Coffey, vice president of the Chamber of
Commerce, requested the Council to consider a
90-day moratorium on its sign abatement program.
Some of the notices have already been sent out
and he stated that the Chamber did not realize
there was as much concern and misunderstanding in the community
about the abatement of these signs, and the Chamber would like an
opportunity to have a meeting with the various members to discuss
the ordinance with them.
Mr. George Musso, Planning Director, stated that at the time the
1969 business licenses were mailed, notices were enclosed outlining
the ordinance, stating they would be advised when amortization of
their particular sign would occur.
The Council discussed the suggestion for a 90-day moratorium, and
a motion was made by Councilman Beebe to grant a 90-day extension
from this date for the notices which have been sent, and this was
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, however after more discussion
the motion and second were withdrawn.
Mr. Musso stated that he would be happy to prepare a list of the
businesses affected, for the Chamber to use in contacting people
for a meeting to explain the sign ordinance and abatement proce-
dure which will follow. The meeting is scheduled for July, and
the staff has agreed to not actively pursue the notices during
this period, but would go ahead at a very slow rate to enable them
to send the notices out, by groups, as was their intention, the
first group being the rotating and blinking signs, then the signs
projecting over the public right of way and the freestanding signs.
*
*
*
(Sewer Service Mr. Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, asked when
Charge) the public hearing on protests of sewer service
charges will be held and was advised that perhaps
at the budget hearing, the 1st meeting in July,
however after some discussion on the matter and advice from the
City Attorney, it was stated that notice of hearing will be for-
mally set at a later time.
*
*
*
SPECIAL ITEM
(Industrial
Development
Proposal)
A report was submitted from the Chamber of Commerce
on the establishment of an industrial development
department, and an alternate proposal had been
drafted by the City Manager.
CM-23-74
I
June 8, 1970
Mr. Bill Bozzini, Chairman of the Industrial
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke
with reference to the proposal they had pre-
sented suggesting a full time industrial man-
ager, the expense to be under the auspices of
the City and control between the City and the Chamber; there would
be a Board of Directors to set policy to oversee and direct this
person; however, the day-to-day activity would be controlled by
the Chamber.
(Industrial Develop-
ment Proposal
Continued)
Mr. Bozzini stated that the proposal submitted by the City Manager
was not along the same line as the Chamber's thinking, and he
outlined the duties proposed for the industrial manager. He would
be expected to work full time on nothing else but industrial de-
velopment for the City of Livermore; he would work with govern-
ment agencies, private firms and industries whose decisions and
actions affect industrial development; and his additional duties
would be to develop and maintain statistical material, reflecting
the existing and potential industrial situations and business
climate in Livermore; assist in solving problems dealing with
plant locations; evaluate the type and kind of industry most im-
portant; develop plan of action to promote industrial growth, in-
cluding promotional and advertising campaigns; personal contact
with developers, industrialists and landowners. He will also be
expected to assist prospects in obtaining the necessary permits.
Mr. Bozzini further stated that in a long run their proposal would
be cheaper than that proposed by Mr. Parness, and in answer to a
question posed by Councilman Taylor relative to the difference
in the proposals, he stated that it would not be possible to ac-
complish their goal, if the man had to spend time with other things
in the City government; also the person would have to be actively
soliciting and contacting prospects, and under the City government,
this would not be possible.
Mayor Silva questioned Mr. Bozzini as to the percentage of county
contribution that could be expected as it was his understanding
there would be some amount, and he was asked to determine what that
amount would be. It was stated that no specific amount is granted
for this type of program.
Mr. Parness was then asked to present his proposal for the benefit
of the audience, which he did and stated that he felt there was
some misuRderstanding on the part of Mr. Bozzini as to the intent
of having the position established under City auspices, and it was
not necessarily to have it diluted by other city affairs, but
rather to related efforts. Mr. Parness also made reference to a
system he would like to see implemented in the City, called a
Community Development Department, which would consist of functions
of City government which are associated such as Parks and Trees,
Building Inspection, Planning, Housing and Industrial and Com-
mercial Development which he felt were all related and inter-
related. Mr. Parness stated he did not feel there was any dif-
ference in his suggestion from that suggested by the Chamber,
except where he sits and who he reports to and explained a de-
partmental chart which accompanied his proposal, indicating it
was a theoretical structure, which eventually he hoped the City
would institute.
Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, stated that the City and
Chamber both tended toward a salaried staff approach and suggested
that perhaps they could do better by setting up a contingency -
a finder's fee to industrial brokers and real estate development
firms which would not be payable until we had successfully at-
tracted an industry, and felt a study should be made for approaching
industrial development in that manner.
CM-23-75
I
June 8, 1970
(Industrial
Development
Proposal
Continued)
Councilman Taylor stated that every piece of in-
dustrial property is registered with industrial
realtors, but it is not satisfactory to sit back
and wait for industry to come in, and Councilman
Beebe added that the Chamber did have an indus-
trial realtor on a retainer basis, but his fee
was $125 per day devoted to working with a client, and the fee was
just too high, so the Chamber had to drop the program, and the
neighboring cities have found that a professional person employed
full time was a better way.
Mr. David Madis, 1054 Canton Avenue, stated this was his first op-
portunity to appear before the Council just as a concerned and
interested citizen and commented as a professional attorney re
people's thinking of the City of Livermore, stating that no matter
where he went Livermore has a bad reputation; i.e. it has a lIhellll
of a City Council, it is over regulated, with no opportunity for
the businessman, no low cost housing, and the Planning Commission
will not approve anything and there are too many restrictions. The
reputation must be changed or all talk about attracting new industry
is nothing more than talk. The first thing to be done, is have some-
one make an impartial survey of what the opinion of the City of
Livermore is in the entire Bay Area, because there has been talk
from this town, from responsible people, who should be leaders in
the community in developing this community, who said 1I1et's put a
moratorium on growthll, and you must change that before you can start
talking about bringing in industry. Mr. Madis stated he was for
the Chamber's proposal because if it has a taint of the City of
Livermore on it, they will not touch it. Mr. Madis further stated
that he did not think the staff is bad or that Livermore is neces-
sarily too restrictive, but the reputation is so widespread, that
it must be overcome before industry can be attracted.
Mr. Jack Dorman, 1033 Murdell Lane, concurred with the plan of
the Chamber, if it is feasible.
Councilman Miller commented that Mr. Madis, in his professional
capacity, is a spokesman for the realtors and developers who com-
plain bitterly because the Council attempts to improve standards
in the City of Livermore for the people who live here, and every
candidate for public office has run on a ticket of trying to attract
good industry to the City. For twenty years Livermore has had a
reputation of being run by the developers and realtors.
Zoning restrictions now being enforced are for the benefit of
those who live or will live here and were adopted under strong
pressure from the citizenry. These are naturally objected to by
developers who build their houses, take their profits and leave,
leaving us with the smog and school problems. ~
Mr. Earl Mason, president of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that
as businessmen, the Chamber wants to help the community and their
proposal does not particularly help the Chamber, so they do not
want it considered a subsidy to the Chamber. Their main purpose
is to urge people to proceed with some sort of industrial manage-
ment even though it means a small tax increase, because you have
to spend money to make money.
Mayor Silva read a letter received from Alice Pitts, member of the
American Taxpayers Union, in opposition to either proposal for an
industrial manager which might mean a tax increase. Mayor Silva
stated that between now and the budget session, at which time a
decision would be reached, the Council would study the proposals
and the testimony presented this evening.
Mr. Bozzini pointed out that the time to act was now because in-
quiries regarding industrial development have doubled the past year.
*
*
*
CM-23-76
3K W.- tf/( ~~jl t:1jd~
Councilman Taylor questioned'Mr. Madis as to what business had
made comments about Livermore being a difficult place to do
business because of restrictions. Mr. Madis replied that the
comments he had heard were made by mortgage brokerage firm.
Councilman Taylor stated that most people involved in residential
housing do feel that Livermore is more restrictive than most
communities and he thought that this was true; but he had never
heard an industrialist make comments about Livermore being too
restrictive. He felt that the housing industry and other
industry must be separated.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A Corporation Quitclaim Deed has been presented
to the Council wherein the City of Livermore
does quitclaim to Transamerica Title Insurance
Co. all right, title and interest in and to cer-
tain temporary construction easement in Tract
2932 (Hofmann Co.)
RESOLUTION NO. 76-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF A CORPORATION QUITCLAIM DEED
*
*
*
Agreements have been reached with several pro-
perty owners included in the Portola Avenue
Annex No.4, and the following resolution was
presented for completion of the agreements:
June 8, 1970
(Resolution re
Execution of
Quitclaim Deed)
(Agreement re
Portola Ave.
Annex No.4)
RESOLUTION NO. 77-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(JUdson, Hangaris, Stratos, et al)
*
*
*
A copy of a communication from Supervisor Murphy
to Mr. A. R. Taylor re Lounsbury's Dismantlers,
was received and Councilman Miller suggested
that a letter be sent to Supervisor Murphy
thanking him for his interest in the matter.
*
*
*
A communication was received from Alameda County
Mayors' Conference, together with a statement of
Policy on Air Pollution Control. This item was
discussed, and Mayor Silva advised that at the
Mayors' Conference this policy was adopted and
the Mayor of Livermore voted for the policy,
which was forwarded to the appropriate State
Legislators.
Written Communicatior
(re LounSbury's
Dismantlers)
(re Statement of
Policy on Air
Pollution Control)
It was suggested that copies of this policy and the resolution
passed by the City Council relative to balanced community concept
be sent to our representatives, the Senate, State Environmental
Control Council and local Air Pollution Study Committee.
*
*
*
Minutes of the May 14 meeting of the Beautifica- (Minutes)
tion Committee were received.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license
was received from the Livermore Jaycees for a
dance on June 13.
*
*
*
(Exempt Business
License)
Eight-four claims in the amount of $37,082.01, (Payroll and Claims)
dated June 4 were presented to the Council and
ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrant No. 7524, and Coun-
cilman Beebe from Warrant No. 7541 for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
CM-23-77
June 8, 1970
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the consent calendar, including the
resolutions, were approved.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
GREENVILLE RD
UNDERPASS
(Reconstruction
Proposal)
Public Works Director Daniel Lee explained the
proposed construction which is in the vicinity
of the Western Pacific Railroad tracks and Green-
ville Road. The work is being proposed by the
County and they have asked the Board of Super-
visors for permission to solicit bids, and the
Board has, in turn, asked the County, what the
cost would be for a wider underpass in lieu of a relocation of
the route, and also asked that the matter be referred to the
City Engineer for his comments, which are that it will be an
improvement in safety because you will be able to see it as you
approach the underpass; also, that the underpass is narrower than
standard and speeds might have to be restricted, but the "S" curve
is an advantage.
Mr. Dennis Moore, a property owner in the vicinity of the proposed
construction, had been before the Board of Supervisors with his
alternate proposal, and the Board had agreed to a one week post-
ponement to afford the City Council time to consider the matter.
Mr. Moore explained that the object of the realignment was to
get a better sight through the underpass which it would do,
however this would increase the speed limit, and even though
signs would be posted, people would not believe them. Mr. Moore
proposed that since the future right of way is to be ultimately
110 feet, that the "S" curve be modified so that eventually it can
be incorporated into this 110 ft. width, and when a wider underpass
is built, there would still be a straight road.
Mr. Richard Doty, 24 Apian Court, Danville, an industrial and
commercial realtor, sympathized with a previous speaker, however
stated he had appeared before many City Councils and complimented
the Council on their attitude, and on the Public Works Department.
Mr. Doty continued that his firm represents California Metalurgical
Industries, and they will be expanding, and the proposed project
will affect the frontage of their property, and he endorsed Mr.
Moore's findings re safety and did not feel that the County's proposal
would improve the safety and they would be acquiring more land
than is necessary which would probably be abandoned later; also
their proposal will leave an island which would be of no value to
anyone, and asked that a resolution be adopted, endorsing Mr.
Moore's proposal.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Council recommend to the County
they adopt a proposal similar to Mr. Moore's; however Mayor Silva
asked Mr. Lee to comment on Mr. Moore's proposal, and Mr. Lee stated
he could not support it as it would be only a temporary measure and
not add to the safety of the situation. He felt that the County's
proposal was good and they have attempted to do a good job and he
would hate to oppose it.
Mr. Doty stated that Supervisor Murphy had taken a personal interest
in the project and did want the opinion of the City Engineer, and
he felt that this section would be annexed to the City much sooner
than the County expected.
Mr. Lee stated that if the City opposed the project, the County
will do nothing at that underpass, and when it comes into the City,
it will be the City's problem.
Councilman Miller stated that it will be a long time before there
is money available for a wider underpass, and made a motion to
adopt Mr. Moore's proposal as first choice, and secondly to go to
the County's proposal. This motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, however the motion failed to pass by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Miller and Pritchard
NOES: Councilman Taylor and Mayor Silva
ABSTAIN: Councilman Beebe
CM-23-78
June 8, 1970
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED
BACK TO ORDER WITH ALL PRESENT.
RECESS
*
*
*
Planning Director George Musso explained the
present park standards, stating that the
General Plan is divided into planning units,
and within these units, depending upon the
number of families, there will be one or more
schools and one or more parks; about 700, K-6
children attend one school and for every K-6 school a park is
proposed either in conjunction with, attached to or separate from
the school. In a small neighborhood where only one K-6 school is
proposed, there is proposed a community park. At the other end
of the scale, you may end up with four or five schools and several
parks, and perhaps a high school. Generally, each of the units
will have three or four schools and three or four neighborhood
parks and one large community park.
REPORT RE PARK
DEDICATION
(Modification
Standards)
of
Mr. Musso further stated that the Planning Commission has dis-
cussed the inappropriateness of the park dedication fee and
presented their findings to the Council and based on these find-
ings, it is recommended that, pending a reevaluation of park
standards, the City take the following action:
1. Increase the Park Dedication fee from one to two acres per
100 d.u., thereby providing one community/neighborhood park and
two neighborhood parks for each 1800 families, a land area total
of 36 acres, to meet the standards of the Livermore General Plan.
This translates to two acres per 100 d.u.
2. Using a base of $10,000 per improved acre, the price frequently
paid by the Livermore School District for school sites, that the
new dollar base be computed for fee in lieu of land.
3. That the City consider, at a later date, a study to reevaluate
park standards and consider an additional fee for initial improve-
ment of the site (grading, turf, sprinkler system, etc.)
4. Attempts to be made to find means by which the Park Dedication
requirement be expanded to include all residential development
(for example, multiple and mobilehomes) by the inclusion of appro-
priate clauses in annexation agreements, conditional use permits,
and other appropriate means.
Mr. Mike MacCracken, 818 Mayview Way, stated that he had done some
research on the standards of parks and presented the members of
the Council with some drawings indicating the need for parks in
some areas, and spoke relative to a survey which had been taken
indicating that 55% of the people were willing to pay an additional
tax for parks and 64% were willing to have undeveloped parks lie
idle. His point was that park land should be acquired and there
should be a regular way of getting land for parks independent of
the growth of the town, and he felt the dedication should be in-
creased, and there should be a fee to at least pay for the initial
grading, some trees, a sprinkler system and some play equipment.
Mrs. Janet Read, 475 Malibu Court, commented on why the fees should
be increased and stated she was one of the 64% who stated they
would rather have their children play on land being preserved
for parks in the future, even though it is undeveloped. Her
reason being that we need adequate open space, and we must have
parks if we are to grow into a gracious community because as the
City grows and houses are built, other amenities must be provided.
CM-23-79
June 8, 1970
(Park Dedica- Mr. Jack Phillips stated he was not in favor of the
tion Continued) proposed 2 acres for every 100 homes, but rather
that one acre of developed park land be dedicated
per 100 d.u., so that a park would be available for
people moving into new homes such as was done in Sunset East, and
this would free funds to develop community parks.
Mrs. Margaret Tracy, representing the League of Women Voters,
stated that the City paid for the Sunset East Park, but the money
was loaned to LARPD for development. Mrs. Tracy further stated
that the Leauge supported implementation of City standards for
parks as adopted in 1964, because according to the City, LARPD,
County and State standards, we are deficient in parks. She urged
adoption of the proposed modification of park dedication standards.
Mr. David Madis stated that they are talking about something that
is going to cost a lot of money, and he felt most landowners felt
the park dedication should be increased, but it should done with
the understanding they are raising someones cost to have a home
when we are in a critical period of a housing shortage in the United
States. He further stated that he was not representing any developer,
but proposed that the City Council study with the developers, builders
and landowners how increased park dedication can be made an integral
part of a balancing of community interests. The developers know
the City must have parks, and it must be attractive, and must meet
the requirements the people have talked about this evening, but it
should be balanced, and in balancing this, the City should look to-
ward new concepts in housing developments, and he felt the City
Council should meet the developer half way.
Mayor Silva pointed out that they were having a meeting, and this
item was on the agenda, and yet no developers were present to dis-
cuss the matter, and he did not feel they should set up a special
meeting with them. Mr. Madis replied that developers and their
representatives have attended many meetings in the past, but have
gone away because they were not listened to.
Councilman Beebe stated that there are questions in his mind with
regard to what load they will be putting on taxpayers in the future.
He agreed that the City needed more open space, but wondered how
the City would maintain more parks and felt this should be discussed
with the Recreation District.
Mr. MacCracken stated he had made some calculations and for three
acres per 100 d.u., it would cost the homeowner from $5.00 to
$7.00 per month.
Councilman Taylor agreed with Councilman Beebe, but felt a policy
should be established; then work out how it could be implemented.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to adopt the recommendation of
the Planning Commission with the exception that the $10,000 figure
be resolved by the staff; that no reference be made to an additional
fee and that the staff in preparing an ordinance have a fee per
acre in mind for in-lieu dedication in those cases where it is
impractical to dedicate land. This motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard who agreed with the comments made by Councilman
Taylor in that during the campaign one of the main concerns of
the people was parks, and he felt it would be to the best interest
of the community to acquire this land now, and work the details
out later.
Councilman Miller stated he would echo the remarks made by Councilmen
Taylor and Pritchard as they had just re-echoed comments made by
him during his campaign, and commented that the park dedication being
discussed was for the new areas, and the rest of the community
which has not had the full extent of parks they should have, t~~...~~~.
land acquisition should come from the tax rate. Further, the/~~-
question about increase in dedication is not relevant to theAdevelop-
ment as standards are~greater than two acres per hundred; if the
~
CM-23-80
I
June 8, 1970
standards are greater than two, somehow they
should have acquired or be acquiring this land.
and the problem io whether to set it by dcdi
cation or by purchaoc, but the point i3 they....
chould livo up to their ~tandardg, For M~ Madis' information, he
stated that the developers do not lose density in increased park
dedication. For the record, Councilman Miller pointed out that
the problem in applying a dedication, they must satisfy the con-
ditions of AB 1150 in that "park area must be for purposes of
the subdivision", and referred to the general plan and the various
types of parks called for, stating that neighborhood and community
parks should be acquired by park dedication and agreed that ~ j . .L
should be doubled. ~~r~
A/tJ:
Mr. Lewis stated that ABl150 in the Subdivision Act, there is a ~
provision that relates generally to the number of provisions
that seem to swing around to the use of the property for purposes
of the subdivision, relating the subdivision to the use of the
property which says that when the Council accepts a subdivision
map containing dedication, it must indicate when that property
will be developed. This indicates the intent of the legislature
which is that this property not be left in its undeveloped state
and there must be some indication that it not be left vacant too
long.
(Park Dedication
Continued)
Mayor Silva asked what would constitute development and if there
was a subdivision abutting an arroyo then that arroyo could not
be dedicated if it was not developed, and Mr. Lewis replied that
it would be up to the Council to generally determine, from the
facts presented in regard to a specific piece of land, whether
it is related to the subdivision or intended primarily for use of
the whole area. If the arroyo is part of the trail system, that
would be a good indication it would be for use of the whole City
as it is completing a plan that was not subdivision oriented.
Mayor Silva stated that he agreed with all the statements made,
but he felt standards should be adopted that would be right for
Livermore, and believed the dedication should be increased,
however not for a neighborhood park. He asked the Council if
it was their intention to apply the additional acreage to neigh-
borhood parks, as he would rather that the additional acreage
go into a community park or to purchase land along the arroyo
if the subdivision abuts the arroyo. Comments made by other
Council members indicated they would be governed by the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
A vote was then taken on the motion and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
Mr. George Musso, Planning Director, explained
the application for a Conditional Use Permit
to allow a cocktail lounge at 4082 East Avenue
within the Lincoln Shopping Center, which is
similar to one submitted previously. He stated that other permits
have been allowed in the various shopping centers, but in conjunc-
tion with a restaurant, and this was just for a cocktail lounge,
and the Planning Commission upheld their past action that the
ordinance was designed for purposes of excluding what was being
proposed and under a CUP, additional findings could not be made
that would warrant the approval and adopted a resolution recom-
mending that the application be denied after a public hearing
had been held.
CUP re Cocktail
Lounge (Kirk Ward)
Col. Carroll Peeke, 4291 Amherst Way, appearing on behalf of a
group of neighbors in the vicinity of Lincoln Shopping Center,
stated they are opposed to having a bar in this primarily resi-
dential area.
CM-23-81
1
~ lSince the Recreation District has the same greater than two
acres per hundred standards, this land is supposed to be de-
veloped by them no matter how it is acquired. It is not their
problem whether we, the City, get it by dedication or by pur-
chase. " c:O-~ ~jA .
ar~t"- .
J
1>
\
June 8, 1970
(CUP - Ward
Continued)
I
After discussion of the subject application, a
motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard to accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation for denial of the CUP to allow a
cocktail lounge, and passed unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION
RE VARIOUS
Z .0. AMENDMENTS
(Sec. 21.90,
20.60 & 20.34)
SUMMARY
(Planning
Commission)
*
*
*
Recommendations were received regarding various
Zoning Ordinance amendments for Section 21.90 -
Cluster Development; Sec. 20.60 - Accessory Struc-
tures and Uses; and Sec. 20.34 - Various regula-
tions re street frontages, projection into street
and non-street frontages. It was the Council's
decision to set a joint study session with the
Planning Commission for July 28, 1970, to dis-
cuss these amendments.
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of June 2 was acknowledged.
*
*
*
An ordinance re Zoning Ordinance amendments of
Section 21.70, freestanding signs and signs in
Industrial Districts had been introduced previously
after certain changes were made in the draft and
referred back to the Planning Commission to be
written into the final draft. After some discussion, a motion
was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only)
and by the following vote, the ordinance was passed:
ORDINANCE RE
Z.O. AMENDMENT
(Sec. 21.70)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
None
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
Z . 0 . AMEND-
MENT
(Arroyo Road
Annex No.2)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ORDINANCE NO. 712
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS
21.72, 21.72A, 21.75D, 21.75-1 2, 21.75-1 8, 21.75G,
AND REPEALING SUBSECTION 21.72H, ALL RELATING TO
SIGN REGULATIONS.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor, the reading of the ordinance was
waived (title read only), and by the following
vote the ordinance rezoning that property located
between Holmes Street and Arroyo Road, southerly
of easterly extension of Alden Lane, commonly
known as Arroyo Road Annex No. 2 from Unclassified
to A-20 (Agricultural) District was introduced:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
None
CM-23-82
*
*
*
Mr. Donald Bradley, Administrative Assistant,
stated the Council had been asked to endorse
a Suicide Prevention Bureau, and he was asked
to obtain more information on the matter, and
reported on it at this time. It was the con-
sensus of the Council that they should endorse
the project, and Mr. Bradley was asked to transmit
a letter to that effect.
*
*
*
June 8, 1970
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Suicide Prevention
Bureau)
(Jr. College
Meeting)
Mr. Bradley also reported he had attended a
meeting on May 27 re the Junior College, which
he stated was a briefing to all communities on
the status of the Junior College District in an attempt to solicit
opinions from members of the community regarding their feeling on
various ways of financing they had to face, mainly the long term
bonds or tax override, and the third choice would be putting those
choices on ballot for voters to decide. He felt the newspapers
did a good job in covering the meeting, and there was no real
feeling from the community at this point and no direction given
to the board on either proposal.
*
*
*
Mr. George Musso stated that the City's reputa- (Statement re
tion was perpetuated again by statements that Zoning Issues)
the City never approves anything, and commented
that 80% to 90% of everything presented to the City is approved,
more or less routinely, and no one hears about it until the
buiMing is completed, and the only ones that come before the
Council are contrary to the ordinance, zoning and the General Plan.
Councilman Miller commented that the criticism has come primarily
from home builders. Further discussion by the Council indicated
that other cities are also considered IIhard nosedll, and Council-
man Beebe stated it was a two-way street and felt that a compro-
mise could be reached, which would improve relations.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe suggested that the draft of
the ordinance re Sec. 21.40 (Off-Street Parking)
which was discussed at the June 1st meeting and
referred back to the Planning Commission with
certain suggested changes, also be given to the
Chamber of Commerce. They should be advised
when the hearing is to be held and asked for
their comment and participation.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 11:30
p.m.
APPROVE
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Proposed Ordinance
re Off-Street
Parking)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-83
Regular Meeting of June 15, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, June
15, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Apology)
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Taylor
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of June 8, 1970, were
approved as amended on motion of Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Mrs. Betty Smith, of the Pet Palace, 2047 First st.
spoke regarding a statement made about her estab-
lishment by one of the Councilmen which had been
printed in the paper. Mayor Silva apologized to
her publicly for using the name of her business
establishment in a discussion at the recent study
session of the Council.
*
*
*
(Complaint- Ira Doss, 909 Norfolk Road, made a complaint re-
Truck Parking) garding trucks parking on Pine Street near Murrieta
Boulevard and in front of his house. The City
Attorney explained that there are limitations on
parking; they can be towed away after 72 hours parking. The park-
ing of trucks can be prohibited, but it would require signs and
markings. Also, more stringent restrictions are possible and could
be considered by the Council. Mr. Lewis was asked to report to
the Council regarding possible action in this matter.
(Authorization
Mayor's
Signature)
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Because of the change in the Mayor's office, a
resolution authorizing signatures for signing
checks and the method thereof is required.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-70
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
(Agreement-
Sewer Connec-
tion -
Pahlmeyer)
CM-23-84
*
*
*
A sewer connection agreement has been signed for
the service station at Portola Avenue and First
Street and the following resolution authorizing
the execution of this agreement is required.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(SEWER CONNECTION)
*
*
*
June 15, 1970
(Intention to
Abandon King Avenue)
The Housing Authority has found by a title
search that King Avenue, the thoroughfare ex-
tending north from East Avenue into the Vila
Gulf Housing property, is a restricted ease-
ment for public street purposes. It has been closed for public
use for a number of months. The new housing plan calls for street
access to be afforded from the extension of Rose street and Leahy
Way and the Housing Authority has requested that the City vacate
its easement so as to clear the title. The following resolution
is the first step in the vacation proceedings.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CLOSE UP
AND ABANDON ALL OF KING AVENUE IN THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE, AS SAID AVENUE IS PARTICULARLY DE-
SCRIBED IN THIS RESOLUTION.
*
*
*
Minutes of the Beautification Committee meetings
of May 28 and June 4, 1970 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
(Minutes -
Beautification
Committee)
Ninety-one claims in the amount of $188,036.27 (Payroll and Claims)
and Three Hundred Seventeen payroll warrants in
the amount of $98,182.94, dated June 11 were
presented to the Council and ordered paid as approved by the City
Manager. Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrant No. 7617
and Councilman Beebe from Warrant No. 7602 for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the consent calendar, including the
resolutions, were approved. Mayor Silva abstained
Resolution No. 79-70.
* * *
(Approval of
Consent Calendar)
from voting on
State Savings and Loan Association has applied
for a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding
sign at 999 East Stanley Boulevard. The Plan-
ning Director explained that Conditional Use
Permit for a freestanding isgn is allowable if
the Commission can find that the sign, which would be ordinarily
allowed on the front of the building, is not reasonably visible
to the public. If a situation exists such as a setback a great
distance from the street, then a freestanding sign could be
allowed for identification of the business. The Planning Com-
mission recommends that the application be denied as they did
not find that a freestanding sign would be necessary for proper
identification of the business. The Council can approve or deny
the application or set the matter for public hearing.
CUP - Freestanding
Sign (State Savings
& Loan Ass'n.)
Mr. David Madis, from the law firm of Miller, Critchfield, Eaton
and Madis, told the Council that the applicant was not asking for
a true freestanding sign. Within thirty days construction would
begin on a $250,000 building with a total investment of a half
million dollars which will be an asset to the City. State Savings
and Loan need some kind of sign for identification for their tem-
porary quarters so that those with loans in the area already may
be serviced. The sign would be for temporary use only until com-
pletion of the permanent structure.
Mr. Hodgkins, vice-president of State Savings and Loan from Stockton,
said his company was proud of what they do and are very sensitive
CM-23-85
June 15, 1970
to the feelings of the communities which they
enter. The trailer now in use had been used
successfully in three other locations as temporary
quarters. The approach is to locate the trailer,
obtain a manager, and to transfer loans to the
area for servicing and make the public aware of the business be-
fore the new building is ready. A sign is needed to identify the
location. The proposed location for the sign is on that area
which will be sidewalk leading to the permanent building, and
therefore, will not be left there permanently. The company would
not build a $250,000 building and leave a sign there which would
detract from it. There will be a fence along the street similar
to those around the subdivisions and Mr. Hodgkins said they were
conservative and used the best design and construction for their
establishments.
(CUP - state
Sav. & Loan
Continued)
Councilman Miller stated that Section 21.74 (e) of the Sign Ordi-
nance states that all signs shall be parallel to and project not
more than two feet from the side of the building to which they
are affixed; he pointed out that the proposed sign would not be
parallel to the building.
Mr. Musso pointed out there is no CUP procedure to allow perpen-
dicular signs and that this is why the matter is before the Council.
Councilman Beebe stated he felt the buisness was badly in need of
a sign as he had been by the location several times and the trailer
did look like a construction trailer.
Councilman Miller stated he had looked at the situation and wished
to make a suggestion. His proposal was to place the sign on a pole
parallel to the trailer instead of perpendicular. Parallel place-
ment would make the sign more visible to people coming down Stanley
Blvd., but would not help for people going west on Stanley Blvd.,
so perhaps a sign could be placed under the canopy which would be
visible for people going west. Then there would be two exposures,
two signs, visible from both directions, and the sign ordinance
would be preserved.
Mr. Madis felt a sign under the awning would be difficult to see,
and also they preferred not to have two signs. One sign would have
an uncluttered appearance; they were trying to keep a clean, neat
substantial appearance for the location.
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Musso to clarify possible courses
of action by the Council in regard to the sign. It was pointed out
that the sign could be against the trailer at a 90 degree angle
which would require a variance; or it could be away from the trailer
on a pole through approval of a CUP with conditions set by the Coun-
cil. A CUP can be granted on the grounds that the sign as allowed
by the ordinance would not be visible from the street.
Councilman Miller stated that the point of the discussion was that
signs are to be parallel to the street, not perpendicular. Fur-
ther, that as soon as construction is started, people will notice
the building and will see the sign. Actually construction would
attract attention.
Councilman Pritchard felt that since there is extensive construction
in the area the business should be identified. He felt that if
there is not a basis for granting a CUP, then he would suggest a
variance as this is clearly a situation where nothing was provided
in the sign ordinance.
Mr. Lewis, City Attorney, stated that at the time the sign ordinance
was drawn up, the Council decided that variances should not be given.
If it is felt that this situation should be covered in the ordinance,
then the ordinance would have to be amended.
CM-23-86
Mayor Silva suggested that a sign be placed on
each end of the trailer. Mr. Hodgkins said
the corner had a greater arc or curve than most,
and it is impossible for a driver coming down
Stanley Blvd. to see a sign on the end of the
trailer.
June 15, 1970
(CUP - State
Sav. & Loan
Continued)
Mayor Silva then suggested a sign parallel to Fenton and one
parallel to Stanley Blvd. Mr. Bottarini, of Ad-Art, stated he
felt that the proposal made on behalf of the applicant was in
accordance with the desire for an attractive sign. He felt two
separate signs would not be as attractive.
Councilman Miller made a motion that a freestanding sign be
allowed within the canopy area (which would be in addition to
a sign up against the building on the Stanley Blvd. side as
allowed under the ordinance). There was no second to the motion.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to grant the temporary use of
the freestanding sign on the findings that the allowable sign
would be ineffective for its purpose to coincide with the use
of the trailer. This motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe,
but the motion failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilman Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Taylor
Mayor Silva made a motion to allow two freestanding signs no higher
than the trailer parallel to Stanley Blvd. and Fenton Avenue with
signs to be removed at completion of construction. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard. The signs would have to
be a minimum of five feet from the sidewalk to comply with pre-
sent ordinaces. After further discussion, Councilman Pritchard
withdrew his second.
Councilman Miller made a motion to allow two signs - one flush
against the building and, secondly, a freestanding sign in front
of the canopy supports parallel to Fenton Avenue for temporary
use. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and was
approved unanimously.
*
*
*
An application has been made by Home Savings
and Loan Association for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow continued use of the existing
revolving roof sign at 275 South K Street.
CUP - Home Savings
& Loan Association
Mr. Musso stated that the ordinance clearly states that it must be
determined if the sign is architecturally and integrally a part
of the building. If the Council determines that it is, then the
sign can be allowed; otherwise the permit should be denied. The
sign has been in existence for a number of years. The question
of visibility is not under consideration - only the design of
the structure.
Mr. Mike Allen, Home Savings and Loan Association, showed the
Council the architect's original drawing prepared several years
ago. He explained to the Council that Home Savings and Loan merged
with Guarantee Savings and Loan Association and were required by
the State Department of Savings and Loan to change their identifi-
cation. The sign meets the Loan Commissioner's requirements as
designed. According to the Planning staff's report there are unused
allowable sign areas but that they did not intend to use these
sign areas and wished to continue the use of the sign structure
already in use at time of purchase of the building. Their archi-
tects and those who originally designed and constructed the building
CM-23-87
June 15, 1970
(CUp - Home
Sav. & Loan
Continued)
felt that the sign is an integral and architectur-
ally acceptable part of the building. Mr. Allen
pointed out that the sign no longer rotates elec-
trically.
Mr. Musso explained that the criteria for deciding if the sign is
integrally and architecturally a part of the building is whether
that portion of the building to which the sign is affixed is there
just for the purpose of signing or is it a part of the structure.
Discussion followed regarding the design of the building in ques-
tion and whether the columns supporting the sign were necessary
to support the building itself.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to deny the Conditional Use Permit for continued use of the sign.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Beebe
Councilman Taylor
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, stated that in his oplnlon the
sign ordinance was not worth the paper it was written on and felt
it contained many injustices and inequities. He felt this sign
should be allowed temporarily until the ordinance could be rewritten.
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the majority of businesses
had complied with the ordinance and it would be unfair to them to
amend it now.
Councilman Miller stated that the sign ordinance was passed after
numerous public hearings over a period of two years. The object
of the sign ordinance is to make Livermore an attractive place to
live in and to help the businessmen in spending less money for
signs. There is a distinct improvement in the appearance of the
downtown area. He felt that the majority of the people approved
of the ordinance, and this was supported by the results of the
recent Chamber of Commerce survey.
TRAILER
STORAGE
RESIDENTIAL
AREAS
PUD No. 15
(Carlton
Development Co~
*
*
*
The Planning Director informed the Council that
consideration of trailer storage in residential
areas has been suggested as a study session item
for a meeting of the Commission and the Council.
It was the decision of the Council to continue
this item under the study session set for July 28.
*
*
*
A request for extension of Planned Unit Develop-
ment permit No. 15 has been made by the Carlton
Development Company. The property involved is
located south of Stanley Blvd. and east of
Isabel Avenue. A motion was made by Councilman
seconded by Councilman Miller, to set this matter for a
hearing on June 29, and the motion was approved unanimously.
Beebe,
public
TENTATIVE MAP
(Tract 3064)
CM-23-88
*
*
*
No action was required regarding possible amend-
ment of design and assessment of density for
tentative map, Tract 3064, as this matter was
tabled by the Planning Commission until further
tract maps are submitted by the developer.
*
*
*
June 15, 1970
The Planning Commission recommended possible
resolutions for submittal to the League of
California Cities at its annual conference
this fall in San Diego. Councilman Miller
suggested asking for a resolution for endorsement of AB 1271.
motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
by unanimous approval, the following items will be submitted to
the League of California Cities for possible resolutions:
RESOLUTIONS-LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
On
1. Be it resolved that necessary steps be taken with the State
Board of Education to allow mobilehome l1pads" to be counted
as vacant dwellings for purposes of house count in establish-
ing need for State Aid in School Housing.
2. Be it resolved that legislation be introduced allowing juris-
dictions the right to assess fees for school housing.
3. Be it resolved that legislation be introduced to provide that
mobilehomes be taxed as real property after a minimum period
of location within a mobilehome park.
4. Be it resolved that the League of California Cities endorses
proposed legislation AB 1271 which would allow cities to ask
for dedication of land for schools by developers.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission's meet-
ing of June 2 were acknowledged.
MINUTES
*
*
*
The City Manager submitted a report regarding
the consolidated study by seven public juris-
dictions, including Livermore and the Valley
Community Services District, of South Bay sewage
discharge: As a result of this study a proposal
has been made for conduct of a study, to be performed by a consultant,
concerning alternate solutions for disposal of South Bay waste
water. The estimate of cost for this work is $250,000; costs are
appropriated based upon the plant capacity of each discharger for
dry weather flow in 1980 and on this basis Livermore's portion is
$10,000. It is recommended that the City participate, but that
participation be subject to the inclusion of the scope of work
insert prepared by us into the major study.
COOPERATIVE AGREE-
MENT SO. BAY SEWER
DISCHARGE
Mayor Silva felt that if we do contribute we are saying that we
will go along with whatever is proposed. He felt it might cost
the taxpayers less if the treatment plant is extended. It might
be best to disengage ourselves now.
Mr. Daniel Lee, Public Works Director, stated that the idea of
this study in the South Bay is to consider special problems in
the South Bay, such as the flushing problem. It has been urged
by several agencies involved that we do go along with this study.
He felt this study would consider our Valley independently, and
he felt we would suffer bad public relations if we did not parti-
cipate. This study should resolve many questions as to causes of
discharge problems as well as solutions.
Mr. Parness pointed out that inclusion of a statement of scope
of work to be carried out should be a requirement for our parti-
cipation in this study. Approval should be provisional upon this
scope of work being included.
Discussion followed relating to the advisability of participation
in this study as well as effect of not joining in the study.
CM-23-89
June 15, 1970
(Cooperative
Agreement -
So. Bay Sewer
Discharge
Continued)
Mr. Lee felt that if we do request a detailed
scope of work it probably would not be accepted.
This study is to be creative in the sense that
it cannot be defined or limited at this time.
Mr. Parness pointed out that his intention was
that when the contract is eventually drafted
for execution by a consultant that it contain
these provisions which have been drafted with particular refer-
ence to our Valley.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to adopt the City Manager's recommendation for par-
ticipation in this study. The motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
TRACT 2946 The City Manager stated that reports had been
PARK DEDICATION made by the City Attorney and the Planning Di-
rector regarding the park dedication in Tract
2946, by H. C. Elliott. He pointed out this
matter involves recalculation of the amount of land and fees paid
in regard to park dedication on Tract 2946, in the north section
of the City. The essence of these reports is that the City should
reimburse the developer in the amount of $840, which is equiva-
lent to about .12 acres that has been over-dedicated and also to
authorize the release of bonds posted.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to issue a monetary credit in the amount of $840 to H. C.
Elliott and that the surety bond be released; the motion was
approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated the City should recognize Mr. Elliott as
being the first to dedicate park land to the City. Also, Coun-
cilman Miller pointed out that Mr. Elliott was the largest con-
tributor to the Hansen Park fountain, but was never given recog-
nition for this.
ZONING
ORDINANCE
Arroyo Annex
No. 2
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 713
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 Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived, and by the
following vote, the above ordinance was adopted:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
Councilman Taylor
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Upgrading
Substandard
Housing)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller spoke regarding the possibility
of assigning deficiency points, which had been
suggested by Chief Building Inspector Herb Street
some time ago, for deterioration and thereby in-
creasing assessed valuation of properties. This
could upgrade substandard housing, and would re-
quire legislation to be effective. This proposal
was discussed by the Council and it was suggested
that Mr. Street furnish a written report on his proposal. Mr.
Street advised that he had done some research on this matter and
CM-23-90
,
sent it to some of the legislators for comment
and did receive some encouraging comments,
however, although they all thought it to be a
good idea nobody wanted to do anything about it.
*
*
*
June 15, 1970
(Upgrading Sub-
standard Housing)
(Re Jackson
Avenue Park)
Councilman Miller stated that the City has pur-
chased Jackson Avenue Park, but it is not clear
to him that we have given formal notice to the
Recreation District and suggested that formal
notice be given. Also, the staff is to furnish LARPD with a list
each July 1st what parks the City expects to acquire by dedication
or otherwise in the next fiscal year, and Councilman Miller suggest-
ed that this be prepared so they will know what their problems
will be and what parks we have.
Mr. Parness advised that the Recreation District had been given
formal notice with regard to Jackson Avenue Park and it is covered
by the master lease the City has with them.
*
*
*
(Lines on Fourth
street)
Councilman Miller stated it has been suggested
that lines be drawn on Fourth street to indicate
all four lanes, which would perhaps be safer.
However, Mr. Lee stated there is a problem with
width as the street is only 56 feet wide and four 12-foot
would not allow enough space for parking on either side.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva suggested that a letter be drafted
commending the Jaycees for their efforts in
arranging for the parade, which he thought was
one of the finest ever.
*
*
*
lanes
(Parade)
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
to an executive session to discuss the union
proposals.
*/I *
d,-,L,
APPROVE
/ ;j MaY~or ," /J
ATTEST c.tP'Lk.zz:$t IS u~--#.--F-
ty k -
Liv orEt/ California
*
*
*
CM-23-91
Regular Meeting of June 22, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, June
22, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of June 15, 1970 were
approved as submitted on motion of Councilman
Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Taylor
*
*
*
Al Richards, 651 Brookfield Drive, asked what could
be done about an odor from the Water Reclamation
Plant. He had inquired by phone about this problem
and was informed that it was broken. The Public
Works Director stated they did have problems with
the sludge disposal; this was an area that was
reaching capacity and proposals to enlarge this portion would be
made shortly. The digesters had been out of commission for a few
days recently but this was being corrected.
OPEN FORUM
(Water
Reclamation
Plant)
Mr. Richards also asked about cleaning the street in his block as
there was much dirt and debris and Mr. Lee was asked to check into
this matter.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental Departmental reports were presented as follows:
Reports
Airport - activity and financial - May
Building Inspection - May
Fire Department - April
Golf Course - May
Justice Court - April
Police Department - May
Water Reclamation Plant - May
*
*
*
Tract 3129 -
Hofmann Co.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3129.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 82-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF
TRACT 3129
CM-23-92
June 22, 1970
In answer to questions by the Council, the staff (Tract 3129 Cont'd)
pointed out that this agreement did include park
dedication for this tract located south of Stanley
Boulevard, east of Isabel Avenue, containing 90 lots.
*
*
*
Report re County
Gas Tax Apportionment
The City must submit an application by August
1 for appropriation of funds under the Aid-to-
Cities Program (Mayor's Formula) for improve-
ments of city streets of more than local im-
portance. It is requested by the Director of Public Works that
the reconstruction of Second Street from Holmes Street to South
Livermore Avenue be partially financed under this fund. Total
estimated construction cost is $147,620.
*
*
*
The City Manager has received a report from
the State Department of Finance which indicates
37,300 for our census as of March 1, 1970. This
estimate is somewhat higher than the preliminary
by the Federal Bureau of the Census. Additional
being sought re a possible course of action upon
final federal census count.
*
*
*
state Census
count reported
information is
receipt of the
The City Manager reported that the owner of
nine acres adjoining Jackson Avenue Park on
the easterly side has inquired if the City is
interested in purchasing the property. The
purchase price would be at the same rate as the original purchase
of the park property. It was recommended that the purchase of the
property be declined.
*
*
*
Jackson Avenue
Park Addition
The Beautification Committee recommends purchase
of twenty exposed aggregate litter containers
for downtown Livermore from the Fast Project
Company at a price of $83.72 per container.
The City Manager recommends that this matter be
referred to his office for a review of the liner quality and that
consideration of this expenditure be disucssed during the budget
session.
*
*
*
Notification from the Clerk, Board of Supervi-
sors advises that July 2 has been set for the
appeal hearing to consider certain sign appli-
cations granted by the County Planning Commis-
sion. This item was removed from the consent
calendar for later discussion.
*
*
*
A State Legislative Joint Committee on Seismic
Safety has been formed to study the problem of
earthquakes and to review existing laws such
as building and Civil Defense. The City Manager
has been asked to serve on this committee.
*
*
*
Beautification
Committee Report
re Trash Cans
Appeal to Board
of Supervisors re
Signs
Seismic Safety
Committee Appointment
CM-23-93
June 22, 1970
Eminent Domain
Proceedings -
East Ave. &
Stanley Blvd.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNA-
TION OF A PERMANENT FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE EASEMENT AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY, PLUS CURB RETURN, ON, OVER AND ACROSS
CERTAIN LAND FOR THE WIDENING OF THE NORTHERLY SIDE
OF EAST AVENUE, A PUBLIC STREET, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF HILL-
CREST AVENUE AND RUNNING THENCE EASTERLY 345.36 FT.+
PARALLEL TO SAID EAST AVENUE.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF
A PERMANENT TEN FOOT WIDE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON,
OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS CERTAIN LANDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE OF A STORM DRAIN PIPELINE ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF EAST STANLEY BOULEVARD COMMENCING AT A POINT APPROXI-
MATELY 300 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ISABEL AVENUE
WITH THE SAID EAST STANLEY BLVD. FOR A DISTANCE OF 109 FT +.
It is recommended that the above resolutions be adopted in order that
rights of way can be obtained for East Stanley Boulevard widening
just east of Isabel Avenue and East Avenue at the intersection of
Hillcrest Avenue. In each of these projects a property owner has
insisted that condemnation be initiated by the City.
*
*
*
Waiver of
Claims
(Tr. 2694 &
Tr. 2925)
RESOLUTION NO. 85-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH G & F L HOMES, INC.
The above resolution authorizing execution of an agreement for
waiver of claims by G & F L Homes, Inc. regarding Tracts 2694 and
2925 is recommended for adoption. A dispute between two developers
has arisen over reimbursement of credits from oversizing the storm
drain. It is almost certain that litigation will result as to pay-
ment of these credits which are held by the City. G & F L Homes
has agreed to release the City from any liability for partial pay-
ment of these credits to the other developer if the City will wa~€
the technical defense in this matter. If court action comes ~
the City will admit it has the money and will pay it to one of the~~
developers because it was paid in by them. This agreement will ~
clear the way prior to court action so that the funds may be de-
posited.
*
*
*
A report was made by the City Attorney regarding the
procedure for setting the sewer service charge. Mr.
Lewis stated that the procedure is in accordance
with the Health and Safety Code which states that
the City can use the County tax roll to collect the
charge. The City can annually determine whether or not the ser-
vice charge should be placed on the County roll. The Council can
change the rate or the manner in which it is collected; however,
we are concerned now with the choice of billing sewer service
charges ourselves or placing them on the tax roll.
Sewer Service
Charge
Procedure
Mr. Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, protested having the charge
put on the tax roll as a separate charge. He felt it should be
a part of the tax rate. Mr. Lewis stated the Council had two ways
to collect the charge: It could be a service charge (not a tax)
or the general tax rate can be increased to pay for the sewer tax
plan. This will be discussed further during the budget session.
*
*
*
CM-23-94
Discussion of the
regarding parking
areas was delayed
and this item was
report from the City Attorney
of trucks in residential
until later in the meeting
removed from the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
Minutes of the Housing Authority meeting of
May 19 were acknowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
An application was received for an exempt busi-
ness license from Girl Scout Troop No. 176 for
the sale of ice cream at the dog show.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote,
the items on the consent calendar, including
the resolutions, were approved.
*
*
*
At the request of the developer, H. C. Elliott,
consideration of tentative map of Tract 3186
was continued until the second week of July.
*
*
*
June 22, 1970
Parking of Trucks
in Residential Areas
Minutes
Exempt Business
License
Approval of Consent
Calendar
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3186
(H.C. Elliott)
An appeal was submitted by Graham Nissen on be-
half of the American Red Cross from denial of a
variance application by the Planning Commission.
Planning Director George Musso stated that the
application was for a variance to allow setbacks
to be reduced to zero on two sides of the proposed addition to the
professional office building. This is a CP Zone which requires a
five foot setback on a non-street frontage yard. The Planning
Commission voted two-two for denial.
APPEAL OF DENIAL
OF VARIANCE
(American Red Cross)
Mr. Barrie Engle, attorney for Mr. Nissen, on behalf of the Red
Cross, said he felt the Council could not ignore the fact that
this is an enterprise for the welfare of the community in general.
They were attempting to make the best use of the funds of this
organization through use of space and design. He explained the
proposed plan and emphasized that this was designed to conserve
the funds of the Red Cross. Adequate parking was planned under
the present zoning.
Councilman Taylor asked if it would be possible to build this
building five feet from the north property line; in other words,
eliminate five feet of the building in the back, and build a
conforming addition as it seems with a minor adjustment, the
building could be made conforming. However, Mr. Engle stated
that in order to make the building conforming, it would require
a five foot setback from the rear as well as from the side, and
the loss of space would be such that in order to make it up,
they would also lose parking space and there would be a maintenance
problem and he explained other problems that would be encountered
with the wider setback.
There is an existing garage on the property and Mr. Engle stated
that it could be eliminated if the Council felt it would be appro-
priate. He also stated that if the existing garage were eliminated
as a condition to the variance, they could get by with a three foot
setback to the present building line from the property line, but
still maintain the zero setback at the rear property line which is
essential to them for their purposes.
CM-23-95
June 22, 1970
(Variance -
Red Cross
Continued)
Councilman Miller felt that the setbacks were not really
relevant as the cost would be essentially the same
depending on the square footage of the building and
could not understand the argument that it was essen-
tial to go all the way back to the property line
from a cost standpoint.
Councilman Taylor felt it would mean a change in the "CP" Zone
as there might be the same argument for any "CP" application in
the future.
Councilman Pritchard stated that according to the meetings the past
two weeks, it appeared that variances are never to be granted and
if this is the case, they box themselves into the corners. This is
an instance where a need is felt to go to the zero lot line, and
since they are already nonconforming on part of the building, it
is hardnosed to say they are not going to grant any variances.
Mayor Silva explained that this was not the intent of Councilman
Taylor's comment, but if it is felt there should be a zero building
line in the CP Zone, then the ordinance should be changed, and if
the majority of the Council agrees, then it will be changed, but
each application for variance should be taken on its own merit.
Mayor Silva asked the Planning Director how old the existing build-
ing was and Mr. Musso advised that there is a condition in the
ordinance that specifically, in a CP Zone, when you convert a pre-
existing building to CP use, they are exempt from setbacks, but any
addition or new building must conform to setbacks. In reply to
what the future use for this area might be, Mr. Musso stated that
it is ffCp and that to fill a need for professional offices, before
the hospital complex and because they thought it might not be a
long term activity, they allowed a multiple residential use - basi-
cally multiple and professional office. The idea was that if there
no longer were a need for professional, then the use could become
multiple.
Councilman Miller stated there had been a consistent and strong
policy of the City not to allow this area to become strictly com-
mercial. He asked that the findings necessary for allowance of a
variance be summarized.
Mr. Lewis read the provisions which stated that variance of zoning
ordinance shall be granted only when because of special circumstances
applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, lo-
cation or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning deprives
such property of the privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under idential zoning classification. The local body,
or Council, can impose such conditions as will prevent the granting
of a special privilege.
Councilman Taylor stated he saw no problem with the setback to the
rear of the property line except for precedence setting and felt
he could justify the side setback, but not the back. If the side
setback were reduced to three feet, it would give the applicant
two more feet and would conform with existing construction.
Mr. Engle, on behalf of the applicant, felt the Council could use
as a basis for granting the variance to the back property line,
the overriding public welfare benefits to be secured by granting
this variance. The welfare of the citizens are best served by
the application of funds in the manner proposed.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
that the variance be granted on the north side to allow a three
foot setback to allow the building to line up with the present
construction and that the use be approved. The motion was approved
unanimously.
CM-23-96
June 22, 1970
Mr. Engle stated that there was a storm drain- (Variance-Red Cross
age fee of $294.00, building fee of $90.00, and Continued)
a sewer connection fee of $283.00 assessed against
the construction, and he asked for waiver of these
fees in this case because of the welfare purposes of the use. After
discussion relating to whether or not to waive the fees, the matter
was referred to the staff for report as to which fees can be
legally waived and precedence in this matter for later discussion
and action.
*
*
*
Mr. Musso stated this was an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a use not nor-
mally allowed in the CP District. The applica-
tion is for a real estate office to be located
at 1519 Portola Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended that
the application be approved subject to the following conditions;
CUP APPLICATION
(LeRoy P. stuart)
1. Permit to include signs appurtenant to use in accordance with
regulations applicable thereto at time of issuance of a sign
permit.
2. Permit to be granted for a period ending June 30, 1971.
Mr. Musso stated that one person attended the public hearing of
the Planning Commission.
Discussion followed as to previous uses of this location and
zoning and use of the surrounding area. Councilman Taylor stated
that the building exists on a small lot probably not suited for
multiple. If the application is approved the applicant should
understand that City restrictions will be applied since it is in
a residential area. The other alternative is that the building
remain vacant.
Councilman Miller felt that perhaps the property should be re-
zoned to multiple as this is the surrounding use.
Mr. stuart, the applicant, stated there is an existing mortgage
on the building and property of $15,000 which would make it diffi-
cult to tear the building down to build multiple. His type of
business would have little traffic as compared to other uses.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to approve the application for a
Conditional Use Permit with the conditions noted by the Planning
Commission. The motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
None
*
*
*
An application for rezoning has been submitted
by Sacramento Savings and Loan Association for
property located easterly of Murrieta Blvd.,
southerly of Olivina Avenue from RL-6 (Low
Density Residential) to RG-IO (Suburban Multiple
Residential) District. In addition the Planning
Commission has initiated expansion of the area
of consideration to include additional areas for
matter was set for hearing on July 20, 1970.
REZONING East of
Murrieta Blvd.,
So. of Olivina Ave.
(Sacramento Sav.
& Loan Association)
rezoning. The
Councilman Beebe requested that the staff prepare cost estimates
for the public works improvements on the east and west side of
Murrieta Blvd. Councilman Miller asked that the staff examine an
alternative for a five acre park on the east side of Murrieta Blvd.
which could be acquired by condemnation as an alternate to density
transfer.
CM-23-97
June 22, 1970
COUNTY REFERRAL
RE REZONING
(Bergman)
The Planning Commission has considered the re-
ferral from Alameda County Planning Commission of
the application of Vern E. Bergman for rezoning
from A (Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial)
District a site located between Central Avenue
and Northfront Road (5940 Northfront Road). The applicant wishes
to operate a trailer and boat storage area.
The Planning Director stated that commercial use has already been
approved for a service station at the Vasco-Northfront Road inter-
section and this application is for zoning of property to the south
for storage area. The Planning Commission felt that CH (Highway
Commercial) would be appropriate zoning for this area and also the
requested use would be a proper use under this zoning.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, that
the recommendation to the County be as follows:
1. Denial of C-2 Zoning on basis that many uses permitted under
C-2 are not of type envisioned by City for this area which is
proposed to be primarily auto and highway oriented.
2. Zoning to CH (Highway Commercial) District.
3. No objection by the City to specific use under CH zoning pro-
vided that there is proper treatment given to minimizing any
detrimental visual effects.
Roy J. Van Scoy, 919 Central Avenue, gave a brief review of the
zoning and use of this property over the past ten years. He told
the Council that at present there are 94 acres zoned commercial in
the area which he felt was adequate for this type of operation and
that variances tend to become permanent. Livermore's General Plan
indicates the area as being zoned residential. Mr. Van Scoy asked
that the Council recommend to the County that the C-2 Zoning be
denied and objection stated to the presently applicable variance
being extended past 1970.
William Busick, 671 W. Bth street, Hayward, stated a meeting had
been held to discuss where the line should be drawn for highway
oriented businesses to be located and there are additional adjoining
properties that were just as entitled to commercial zoning as the
Bergman property on the same grounds. If Bergman is granted this
zoning, the other properties should be, too, since they abut on the
frontage road. The area under consideration was set aside for low
density single family dwellings in the County and City plans. Mr.
Busick asked that the request be denied.
Jim English, 1065 Central Avenue, was opposed to zoning to C-2
since it would increase traffic on Central Avenue.
Mr. Musso explained that the staff felt the back half of the pro-
perty should not be zoned commercial and that Central Avenue should
remain residential.
A motion to amend the main motion by adding the following points
was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor:
Point 2 be changed to read "Zoning to CH ~Highway Commercial)
District as indicated on the attached map', and the addition of
Point 4. Central Avenue remain residential and encroachment into
area be denied.
Councilman Pritchard felt that the property owners had a valid
reason for denying commercial zoning in this area and suggested
deletion of points 2 and 3. After further discussion, the motion
to amend the main motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
CM-23-98
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard
The main motion, as amended, for recommendation
to the County for CH zoning was approved by the
following vote:
June 22, 1970
(County Referral
Bergman, Cont'd.)
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of June 16 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
MINUTES
A report was made by the City Manager regarding
Alameda County Mayors' Conference legislative
matters. A number of bills are pending before
the Conference on matters pertaining to local
government, and the Council was requested to consider these
measures so that recommendations can be made. Mr. Parness dis-
cussed each of the measures briefly and gave his recommendation
as follows:
AB 1562
ACA 38
AB 729
AB 641
SB1293-4
SB 941
SB476
AB 1456
AB 908
AB 1310
SB 601
AB 363
AB 2345
- no recommendation
- opposition
- no recommendation
- opposition
- support
- support
-support
- support
-support
-opposition
-opposition
-opposition
-no recommendation
REPORT RE MAYORS'
CONFERENCE
(Legislative Bills)
The Council requested that the City Manager report in more detail
on ACA 38, AB 1456 and AB 908 at the next Council meeting. Mayor
Silva felt that some bill regarding air pollution should be in-
cluded at the Mayors' Conference. AB 1271 involving the schools
and also AB 1204 were suggested for inclusion and consideration
by the Conference, but the Council felt~~~e did not deal directly
wi th local government matters. /lel;l.o 1- ~\/I 1.,/
~-c. /f':t>
*
*
*
The City Attorney reported that AB 1411 pro- REPORT RE AB 1411
vides for a portion of City taxes to be set
aside for development costs for moderate or
low income housing. The League of California Cities is opposed
to the bill and Mr. Lewis was asked to write the League and
Assemblyman Z'berg expressing the City's opposition to this bill
also.
*
*
*
Draft X-2 of a proposed ordinance to establish
a Design Review Committee and Staff Review
Board and making design and review a condition
precedent to construction in certain instances
was adopted by the Planning Commission on Janu-
ary 20, 1970. The Council has received a request from the Chamber
of Commerce to delay action on this matter for thirty to sixty days
in order to give the Chamber members time to analyze this draft.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE
Councilman Miller stated that this proposal had been under consi-
deration for a year and a half, and Chamber members had been in-
volved in working out the draft of the proposed ordinance; therefore,
he did not feel further delay was reasonable since there had been
adequate time for study.
Mayor Silva stated he had questioned the president of the Chamber
as to the reason for further study by its members and was informed
there were seven new directors.
CM-23-99
June 22, 1970
(Proposed
Design
Review
Ordinance)
Councilman Taylor felt this matter had been under
discussion for a long time and that there was no
need for further delay or a need for a public hear-
ing.
Councilman Beebe pointed out this was an important decision and
felt a delay of 30-60 days would not be unreasonable. Further,
he stated that the more he studied the proposal the more he wonder-
ed if the ordinance was right; it might cripple initiative.
Councilman Pritchard stated that he had not studied the proposal
enough and needed more time himself to look at the proposed ordi-
nance. He felt that Chamber members would be the ones affected
and they needed to understand the proposal and agree with its
provisions.
At the close of the discussion the Council set the matter for a
public hearing on August 3.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
AMENDING
CITY CODE
(Preparation
of Food)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the proposed ordinance amending the
Livermore City Code by adding a new chapter regarding
the preparation and distribution of food was intro-
duced and the first reading of the ordinance was
waived (title read only) by the following vote:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
None
None
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
(Building
Records)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the proposed ordinance amending the Liver-
more City Code by adding Article 7 to Chapter VI,
relating to the report of residential building re-
cords, was introduced and the first reading of the
ordinance was waived (title read only) by unanimous
vote.
In conjunction with the proposed ordinance, Mr. Lewis had suggested
a policy statement regarding approval of tentative and final maps
stating that, as a part of the approval, maps containing proposed
sites for schools and parks should contain a statement as to whether
or not the site has been acquired by the responsible public agency
and whether or not funds are presently available for the construc-
tion of buildings or other facilities on the site.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to adopt the policy statement regarding the approval of tentative
and final maps, and the motion was approved by unanimous vote.
The City Attorney also suggested a new paragraph to be inserted
in the Subdivision Agreement which would prohibit contractors
from supplying information to the public re future sites for
schools, parks, libraries or other public facilities, shopping
centers or recreation facilities unless full disclosure was made
re acquisition and construction commitments.
Councilman Miller suggested the addition of a third paragraph to
the two prepared by the City Attorney for inclusion in the subdi-
vision agreement as follows: "If any public agency prepares a
statement about acquisition, time scale construction or develop-
ment, the contractor, his agents or employees, shall hand each
prospective buyer a copy and shall prominently display such in-
formation in each sales office and model home.ll
CM-23-100
The City Attorney was requested to study the
proposed additional paragraph for report to
the Council at the next Council meeting.
June 22, 1970
(Building Records
Continued)
Herb street, Chief Building Inspector, stated there was a need
in the area of existing housing for provisions regarding updating
housing and keeping out substandard building. He felt there should
be provisions whereby buyers could be made aware that certain
buildings were substandard and that they were subject to inspec-
tion. A report will be made at a later time for possible ordinance
amendments.
*
*
*
Notification of an appeal hearing to consider
sign applications granted by the County Plan-
ning Commission has been received for July 2
at 11:30 a.m. This item was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion at this time.
APPEAL TO BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS RE SIGNS
The signs under discussion are directional tract signs which are
usually approved for a period of two years by allowance of a
variance by the County. Mr. Musso explained the proposed loca-
tions of the signs and also the way in which these matters are
appealed.
Mr. Parness was requested to direct a letter to the Board of
Supervisors stating our desire to eliminate such signs and re-
questing their cooperation.
*
*
*
Consideration of the regulation of the parking
of trucks in residential areas was removed from
the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
The City Attorney had prepared a report as to
existing regulations and what action could be
taken in this regard.
PARKING OF TRUCKS
IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS
Councilman Miller felt that the restriction on parking between
2 a.m. and 6 a.m. should be enforced.
Mr. Lee stated that trucks park in so many different locations
that there is a problem in signing the areas and stated that they
were receiving many complaints about large trucks parking near
residential areas.
After some discussion it was the decision of the Council to
enforce the 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. restriction for 3-axle vehicles.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard inquired about the possi-
bility of requesting the pound master to work
later in the evening since people violate the
leash laws about 10 to 11 p.m.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Pound Master)
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned to an
executive session to consider the wage proposals for City personnel
and then to an adjourned regular meeting on Wednesday, June 24,
at 10 a.m. at the Rincon Fire Station, 951 Rincon Ave., for a
budget study session; then to an adjourned regular meeting on
Monday, June 9, at 8 p.m. in he Justice Court Chambers, 39
South Liver r Avenue. )
APPROVE
r
ATTEST c;d)~
CM-23-101
Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 29, 1970
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
June 29, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Mayor
pro tempore Miller.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and
Miller
ABSENT:
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of June 22, 1970 were
approved as amended on motion of Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous
vote.
MAYOR SILVA WAS SEATED DURING THE DISCUSSION REGARD-
ING THE MINUTES.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, stated he was unable to
attend the all day budget session, but he wished to
(BUdget) protest the budget. His protest was based mainly on
the point that the Council had not looked into possible
fee schedule revisions thoroughly enough. He cited
one particular inequity in business license fees, i.e. for general
contractors, which is a flat fee per year and not based on gross re-
ceipts, and also stated his feeling that a better look should be
taken at the park dedication fee. The City is approaching the limit
on the tax rate now and could be in serious trouble if something is
not done soon.
Mayor Silva stated the Council had considered the budget in depth
and had taken two cents off the proposed tax increase. The staff
had been instructed to report on the fee schedules, hopefully, be-
fore the public hearing on July 13th. The business license fees
are quite involved and the staff has been working on this for six
months. If any of the other fees can be increased, they will be
increased in order to reduce the tax rate.
(Zoning-
Springtown
Pro Shop)
*
*
*
Mr. Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, inquired about
the Springtown Pro Shop, which is operating in a
residential zone. He wished to know if this piece
of property was zoned commercial or residential.
The Planning staff was requested to investigate the matter and
contact Mr. Highet.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
EXTENSION
PUD NO. 15
(Carlton
Development)
*
*
*
Leon Horst of the Planning staff explained that Planned
Unit Development No. 15 is situated on a 57-acre par-
cel on the southeast corner of Isabel Avenue and
Stanley Boulevard. The parcel involves about 10
acres of shopping, 6 acres of multiple family, a
10-acre school site, and 5 acres of park. The per-
mit was recommended for extension by the Planning
Commission to a date of March 2, 1971. In this ex-
tension there were three additions to the PUD recommended:
1) more specific landscaping requirements for the shopping center
and the whole permit; 2) zoning ordinance requirement of 50% min-
imum development in the initial stage for any commercial develop-
ment; and 3) conformance with zoning ordinance regulations in effect
at date of issuance of permit.
CM-23-102
June 29, 1970
Discussion followed regarding the possibility (PUD No. 15
of requiring that the school site be reserved for Extension Cont'd.)
this purpose. Mr. Lewis stated that if this
site is shown on the PUD and is a part of the
density calculations, the City might be able to take the position
that this school site be reserved.
Mr. Overaa, President of Carlton Development Corporation, stated
that they could hold property for a school site for a reasonable
time, but not indefinitely. Councilman Pritchard asked if one
year after the last house would be agreeable for holding the
school site, but Mr. Overaa said he felt it was too long.
Councilman Taylor felt that tracts could not be approved without
assurance of school sites. Councilman Beebe felt that reservation
of a school site was most important.
Clarence Hoenig stated that perhaps this land could be held in
escrow; additional houses without schools would put the school
district in even worse shape.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
the public hearing was continued until July 13, by unanimous
approval.
Councilman Miller suggested several changes in the wording of
the PUD as follows:
1. Amend Section A.9 to read, "at date of extension of permit
and no grounds for variance shall be found because of the
existence of this permit prior to the date of extension."
2. Add Section D.4: "All construction shall be subject to
design review. II
3. Add Section D.5: fiNo building permit for a gas station be
approved until 100% of the foundations of the shopping center
are poured." After discussion the percentage was changed to
50%.
4. Include the two acres per hundred for park dedication require-
ment in accordance with recent action by the Council. Mr.
Lewis explained that the proposed ordinance regarding park
dedication requirements will not go into effect until 30 days
after the second reading which will probably mean it will be
about two months before the ordinance is effective. The
Council continued this proposed amendment until the 13th of
July.
5. Add to Section G the wording, "and be subject to design review."
On motion of Councilman Miller Section A.9 was amended as stated
above; Sections D.4 and D.5 were added as stated; and Section G
was amended. Councilman Taylor seconded this motion.
A motion was then made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Miller, to table this matter until the public hearing is
closed, and the motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Overaa of Carlton Development Co. was asked to report on the
status of the location of Payless in this area and he told the
Council that Payless had decided to go into the Dublin-San Ramon
area, but that they were working with other companies in regard
to locating in this shopping center.
*
*
*
CM-23-103
June 29, 1970
PUBLIC HEARING
RE ABANDONMENT
OF KING AVE.
The Housing Authority has requested that action
be taken to abandon King Avenue in order to clear
title to this property so that the building program
may proceed.
Dr. David Mandeville, one of the Housing Commissioners, stated that
abandonment was requested for this street which had existed mainly
on paper for over four years; land titles must be cleared for work
to go ahead on the project.
Mr. Lewis, City Attorney, has recommended the abandonment procedure.
This procedure is recommended by the title company in order to insure
the title; and they must be reasonably sure that title will go to the
Housing Authority. Mr. Lewis stated that the City is not reserving
utility easements in this abandonment as we have been informed there
are no utility lines in this area. Dr. Mandeville stated their ar-
chitects had recommended that several auxiliary utilities be provided
and probably one of them will be through the abandoned street.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. Resolution No. 86-70
ordering the closing up and abandoning of King Avenue was approved
under the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
Abandonment
King Avenue
RESOLUTION NO. 86-70
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CLOSING UP AND ABANDONING OF
ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF KING AVENUE IN THE CITY OF LIVER-
MORE, AS SAID PORTIONS ARE DESCRIBED, IN RESOLUTION NO.
80-70, PASSED AND ADOPTED ON JUNE 15, 1970, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
*
*
Authorization RESOLUTION NO. 87-70
for Transfer
of Funds RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TRANSFER OF FUNDS
The above resolution authorizes the annual accounting transfer of
funds in accordance with the current fiscal budget.
*
*
*
TOPICS TOPICS is a federally funded program to encourage traffic
improvements in cities. Monies have been prorated to the
participating cities based on populations, street mileage,
accident statistics and vehicle registration. Livermore's apportion-
ments for fiscal years 1969-70 and 1970-71 are $32,248 and $33,649
respectively.
The City of Livermore has already agreed to have the County Public
Works Department as a coordinating agent, and it is recommended that
the Council adopt a resolution for transmittal to the Division of
Highways stating our intentions to do the following: 1) Agency de-
sires to accumulate funds and combine them with another fiscal year's
apportionment for use by that Agency in financing a more substantive
program; and 2) Agency desires to assign funds to another agency
within an urban area using cooperative agreement procedures.
A second resolution should be adopted to approve our participation in
the "Alameda County TOPICS Fund Group", which will pool the TOPICS
monies for purposes of prorating the TOPICS funds to each city along
with the Mayor's Formula monies.
CM-23-104
RESOLUTION NO. 88-70
June 29, 1970
(TOPICS Continued)
RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF LIVERMORE'S INTENTION
RE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PROGRAM TO INCREASE SAFETY
AND-CAPACITY.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN
THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TOPICS FUND GROUP.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that in accordance
with the Division of Highway's usual practice
a few small parcels have been improved in the
street area appurtenant to the Vasco Road inter-
change and are being relinquished by the State
to the City for maintenance purposes.
*
*
*
Report re Div. of
Highways Right-of-
Way Relinquishment
A communication has been received from Congress- Camp Parks -
man George P. Miller in regard to our inquiry National Cemetery
as to establishment of a National Cemetery at
Camp Parks. After discussion the Council direct-
ed the City Manager to write to the local Veterans' organizations
asking them to join in support of this matter.
*
*
*
The report from the City Manager in regard to
pending air pollution legislation was removed
from the Consent Calendar for further discus-
sion.
*
*
*
A communication from the Livermore Jaycees ex-
pressing appreciation for use of City equip-
ment during the rodeo parade was acknowledged.
*
*
*
Report re Air
Pollution Legislatior
Jaycees re Rodeo
Parade
One hundred eighteen claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims
$101,880.56 and one hundred forty-six payroll
warrants in the amount of $71,657.59, dated
June 23, 1970 were presented to the Council
and ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license
was received from the Groupo Guadalupano for
a dance on July 11.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the Consent Calendar, including the
resolutions, were approved.
*
*
*
Exempt Business
License
Approval of
Consent Calendar
CM- 23-105
June 29, 1970
proposed at
val subject
Tentative Map of Tract 3206, submitted by H. C.
Elliott, Inc. for property located at the south-
west corner of Murrieta Blvd. and Pine street, is
essentially the same as development approved by
variance on May 14, 1970. This map shows the divi-
sion of the land into parcels for development as
that time. The Planning Commission recommended appro-
to the conditions recommended by the staff as amended:
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3206
(H.C. Elliott
Compla Corp.)
a. Delete the reference to the "Masonry" fence, leaving design
to be subject to design review approval.
b. Allow a 5-foot sidewalk along Murrieta Blvd.
c. Allow a 5-foot landscaped strip along Murrieta Blvd. between
sidewalk and property line, to be perpetually maintained through
establishment of a maintenance assessment district or other
method satisfactory to the City for purposes of securing revenues
for such purpose.
d. Drainage to be away from fence or to the front of the lot sub-
ject to approval by the City Engineer.
e. Standard park dedication statement be included as required by
Ordinance.
f. Common open areas be maintained, perpetually, by Home Owners
Association or as indicated in (c) above.
Councilman Taylor raised a question regarding parking requirements,
and Mr. Horst of the Planning staff stated that the parking require-
ments of two spaces per unit was a condition of the variance which
had been granted.
Councilman Pritchard commented on the fact that on the original
architect's drawing there seemed to be more open space than the
tentative map shows. The applicant stated that the additional
parking which was required under the variance had been provided by
using some of the open space and deleting two units.
Councilman Miller felt an examination of the tract map indicated
not enough common area and very high density, and stated there is
inadequate open space and this is a poor subdivision for the City
of Livermore. He did not believe public safety standards could be
relaxed just because of the cost to the builder and felt a condi-
tion regarding fire lanes should be added. Councilman Miller made
a motion to deny the tentative map of Tract 3206, but the motion
failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Taylor felt the design was worse because of the reduced
open space and the parking was still insufficient in his opinion.
He did not like the design as presented in the tentative tract map.
He stated that rectangular design is probably the most economical
land use and design for such a small piece of land, but the design
would be more attractive if the units were placed in another manner.
Mayor Silva pointed out that the land had been zoned RG-16 and that
the townhouse development at 13 d.u./acre did reduce the density.
Perhaps the design is not the best, but it will serve as a starting
point in allowing townhouse developments.
Councilman Pritchard felt that there had to be a beginning in this
direction and that it can be used as a guideline for future pro-
posals.
Councilman Beebe stated this would provide housing for middle and
low income groups and the Council owed it to the citizens to pro-
vide housing for all. He did feel it was an improvement over
apartment house zoning.
CM-23-106
Discussion followed concerning the proposed re-
quirement for fire lanes to be provided; these
requirements had been deleted because it was
felt that these lanes would become easy access
for motorcycles and other vehicles.
June 29, 1970
(Tentative Map
Tract 3206 Cont'd.)
Councilman Miller felt the density was entirely too high, and
even though the variance had been approved, the Council still
had the authority to do something about the design.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve ten-
tative map of Tract 3206. The motion was approved by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
*
*
*
Mr. Horst of the Planning staff reported that
the Mobil Oil Company had requested that the
sewer connectio~ agreement be amended to de-
lete the canopy from the proposed site plan.
This is the only change in the agreement and
has been agreed to by the Design Review Committee.
question is located on First Street and Southfront
REPORT RE SEWER
CONNECTION AMEND-
MENT (Mobil Oil Co.)
The site in
Road.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
accept this amendment for deletion of the canopy, and the motion
was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Attorney prepared a report on the
request by the American Red Cross for waiver
of fees required by the City. Mr. Lewis stated
there is no provision for waiver of the build-
ing permit fee of $120 in the Uniform Building
Code; the sewer connection charge of $283 may be waived or reduced
by the City Council; and the storm drain charges of $297, under
Chapter 18A of the City Code, has no provision for waiver of fees.
REPORT RE FEE
WAIVER REQUEST
(American Red Cross)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Mayor Silva,
to waive one-half of the sewer connection fee.
After further discussion regarding Council policy in the matter
of fees for charitable organizations, the motion on the floor
was withdrawn and Councilman Miller restated the motion so as
to waive the sewer connection fee at the same ratio allowed the
Elderly Housing Project. This motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Taylor
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that he had been re-
quested to look into the matter of phone ser-
vice charges and the possibility of broader
toll free service some weeks ago. The Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company has recently
been issued an order from the PUC in this regard.
REPORT RE
TELEPHONE TOLL
RATES
Mr. Ken Mercer of the Telephone Company stated that in order for
the plans described to be put into effect, new facilities would
have to be engineered and installed. At this time he could not
give a time schedule but would do so when possible.
CM-23-107
June 29, 1970
(Telephone In general, the individual subscriber could elect
Rates Cont'd.) which, if any, of the toll plans he wished to have.
Councilman Taylor asked whether the toll free area could be ex-
panded and Mr. Mercer replied that this would have to go before
the PUC for decision as to which areas should be included and
studies of the use in Livermore of various exchanges. Such expan-
sion would have to be charged to all users, not just those desir-
ing such extended service for which they would pay.
REPORT RE
SIGN PERMIT
TIME LIMITATION
*
*
*
The City Manager had submitted a report regarding
the sign permit time limitation. The Planning
Commission had recommended an amendment to Ordi-
nance 684 (Uniform Building Code, Volume V, Signs)
by inserting an 8-year limit on all parmits. The
Chief Building Inspector had recommended that this provision should
be included in the Zoning Ordinance. The matter was referred to
the City Manager for resolution. The recommendation, therefore,
is that the amendment be made to the Zoning Ordinance, Section
21.76 (h).
ORDINANCE
AMENDING
LIVERMORE CITY
OODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 9A
(Distribution
of Food)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959,
BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 9A,
RELATING TO THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD.
PROPOSED ZO
AMENDMENT
(Sec. 21.76(h)
ORDINANCE
AMENDING
CITY CODE
(Residential
Building
Records.)
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, and by unanimous vote, the ordi-
nance amending Section 21.76 (h) re signs of the
Zoning Ordinance was introduced and the first
reading of the ordinance was waived (title read
only).
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the follow-
ing ordinance was passed and the second reading
was waived.
ORDINANCE NO. 714
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the follow-
ing ordinance was passed and the second reading
waived:
ORDINANCE NO. 715
AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE VII, RELATING TO REPORT
OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RECORDS, TO CHAPTER 6, RELAT-
ING TO BUILDINGS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
RECOMMENDATION
RE PENDING
BILLS
*
*
*
The City Manager was requested at the previous
Council meeting to report in more detail regarding
ACA 38, AB 1456, and AB 908, which are bills pend-
ing before the legislature.
ACA 38 is a constitutional amendment on the diversion of gas tax
monies. This is a proposed amendment to Section 26 which limits
CM-23-108
June 29, 1970
the gas tax accumulation for highway construction. (Legislative Bills
This amendment would add two new provisions which Continued)
would allow expenditures for public transit sys-
tems excluding operating costs and allow costs in-
curred in the control of environmental pollution caused by motor
vehicles. AB 729 is the companion measure on the implementation
of ACA 38 provisions. AB 729 makes the transit system expendi-
tures a local option. Neither of these bills changes the amount
of money which is apportioned to the cities. It does, however,
divert the li that the state now gets for freeway construction.
This bill is widely supported by many groups including the League
of California Cities. The Council discussed the possible effect
this diversion of funds would have on the City of Livermore.
The City Manager recommended approval, and after discussion,
the majority of the Council expressed their approval of this
proposed legislation.
The City Manager reported that AB 1456 is not a bond issue;
rather it is a direct dole from the state from funds accumulated
from their resources. It is a $250,000,000 program for a 5-year
period to be used in conjunction with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Presently 30% of construction funds may come from
federal funds, and this bill would add 50% for a possible total
of 80% for expansion of sewer treatment facilities. Livermore
might qualify for such funds. The Council recommended approval
of this bill.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated that mcre than one hundred
measures regarding air pollution were before
the legislature and the sub-committee on air
pollution supports about seventeen of these.
PENDING LEGISLATION
RE AIR POLLUTION
Councilman Taylor suggested that the local committee on smog
and air pollution study these measures and make recommendations
in order that the City's recommendations may be presented to
the Mayor's Conference.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported to the Council that
Home Savings and Loan Association had offered
a sun dial for placement at the front of the
old library building in Carnegie Park. The
City Manager was requested to write a letter
of appreciation and acceptance of this gift.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Gift - Home Savings
and Loan Ass'n.)
Councilman Pritchard stated he had received
complaints from merchants regarding their
assessment for the public parking lot. Some
feel they are not getting their share of the
parking as many cars are being parked all
day. The staff was asked to report re consideration of a
limit on the parking, and that the merchants be contacted
determine their wishes.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Parking Lot)
time
to
Councilman Miller stated he had received a Proclamation
request for a proclamation for the Bi-Cen-
tennial Trail Ride which will pass through
Livermore on Friday. The staff was requested to prepare a pro-
clamation which the Vice-Mayor will present to the leaders of
the trail drive upon their arrival in Livermore.
*
*
*
CM-23-109
June 29, 1970
(Ice Cream
Wagons)
Councilman Miller stated he had received some com-
plaints regarding the noisy ice cream wagons in
the City. He inquired about their compliance with
City ordinance. Mr. Musso was requested to check
into this matter for study and report back to the
Council.
*
*
*
(Subdivision
Agreement)
Councilman Miller requested that the wording he
suggested and gave to Mr. Lewis for inclusion in
in the Subdivision Agreement be presented for the
Council's consideration at the July 13th meeting.
*
*
*
(Proposed Park
Fund Resolution
Policy)
Councilman Miller pointed out that at the budget
session the Council talked about resolutions re-
garding the policy on various funds, in particu-
lar the park fund and presented a resolution
draft in regard to the park fund which stated
that it is the intent of the City to use the money from the park
fund for the acquisition of park land and for permanent capital
facilities directly associated with parks and beautification spots.
Median strips are not parks or beautification spots.
Councilman Miller felt that a policy statement should be made in
order to guide what is done in this regard. It has been the policy
to finance some of the work on median strips from this money during
the last two years.
Mayor Silva felt that if financing for median strips comes from the
general fund then the general fund rate would have to be increased.
Discussion followed on financing of parks, acquisition, development
and how this should be handled. The City Manager indicated he
thought it best to say that the funds from the 19i tax be reserved
for park acquisition; then an additional fund would have to be
established for beautification and upkeep of parks and boulevards,
if the need arises.
Councilman Miller said he was concerned about the acquisition of
open space for the future; money from the park fund should go for
acquisition of land and some capital improvements and not used
for other purposes.
Councilman Miller made a motion that it is the intention of the
City that money obtained from park dedication and the money from
the dollar equivalent of the 19i park tax shall be used for the
acquisition of park land and open space and permanent capital facil-
ities directly associated with parks and beautification spots; for
the purposes of this policy median strips are not beautification
spots.
Mayor Silva felt that the policy should remain as it is for at
least another year. Councilman Beebe stated he did not wish to
be tied down with policy as he wished to be able to follow the
wishes and direction of the people in the next few yea1s.", l
~( ~1-ac ~t:.fu~)'(/
The motion for the change in the park fund policy passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: Councilman Beebe antl Mayor Silva
* * *
Capital Councilman Miller stated that in regard to the ques-
Improvements tion of the annexation fee, this should be used for
capital improvements which are necessitated by new
people moving into the area. At present this money
CM-23-110
is eventually transferred into the general fund
and is not set aside for new civic buildings
but is being used for other purposes. He wish-
ed to offer a resolution stating that one-half
the annexation fee be set aside for long term
capital improvements.
June 29, 1970
(Capital Improve-
ments Continued)
Councilman Beebe felt that before he could make a decision he
would like to have a report from the staff as to the amount in-
volved and how it will affect the general tax rate.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the Council had already direct-
ed a general fee study so that all fees can be adjusted and corrected
and then the annexation fee can be adjusted accordingly.
It was suggested that the prior annexation fee and business license
license studies recently prepared be given to the new Councilmen
so that they can study this matter.
The Council delayed action on Councilman Miller's proposed reso-
lution.
*
*
*
There being no further
the Council, the
11:10 p.m.
APPROVE
before
at
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of July 13, 1970
ADJOURNMENT
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
July 13, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore
Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:06. p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and
Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of J~ne 29, 1970,
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Dr. H. R. Stafford, representing the Proud Coun-
try Homeowners Association, stated that the home-
owners had many problems. One of these was in
connection with two courts, Shire Court and Roan
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Proud Country
Complaint)
CM-23-111
July 13, 1970
(Complaint
Continued)
Court, which are off Buckskin Way. These courts
end in a cul-de-sac which were to be fenced be-
cause there is a very steep drainage ditch which is
a hazard to the residents of the area. Dr. Stafford
requested that something be done in regard to fencing this area.
Secondly, the open land to the west of Proud Country has turned into
a dumping area. Several members of the community have reported this
to the police but so far no one has been apprehended.
Mr. John Lewis, the City Attorney, stated that there are a number
of unresolved public works items in this area as the builder is in
bankruptcy. If there is a danger to property or life, the City
would have to proceed against the trustees. The City Manager and
staff were requested to look into this matter for later report to
the Council.
*
*
*
(Golf Course) Mr. Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Street, spoke in regard
to the City's golf course which has been operating
at a loss and being supported by the City and which
apparently would continue to be operated at a loss for a number of
years to come. He suggested that the same action be taken as that
being taken by East Bay Regional Park District for the Tilden Golf
Course. When Livermores golf course loses money, it costs the tax-
payers; its annual operation should be self-supporting. Therefore,
he proposed that the operation be turned over to a private firm which
would pay an annual rental fee to the City and which would also con-
duct the course at a profit.
*
*
*
The public hearing was opened in order that inquiries
or protests on the budget for the 1970-71 fiscal year
might be presented. The following persons appeared
before the Council: Robert Allen, 223 Donner, said
he had tried to compare the salaries for some of the
City's top officials with other comparable cities in the Bay Area.
He cited one city with a population of 103,000, assessed valuation
of $235,000,000 where the City Manager received a salary of $26,000;
another city which is more comparable with a population of 27,800,
assessed valuation of $58,000,000, the City Manager received $22,000.
Our City Manager received $25,000. This same City ~aid its Public
Works Director $18,732 while we paid approximately $2,000 more. The
salary for the Police Chief was about the same as ours; the Fire
Chief was paid less; the Director of Planning received about $2,000
less. He recommended that pay increases be withheld from top City
officials pending a study of comparable cities made by a group of
disinterested citizens.
PUBLIC HEARING
1970-71
Budget
Mayor Silva stated that the Council had made a salary survey of twelve
other cities; the salaries paid by Livermore must be competitive.
Councilman Taylor stated the Council had spent considerable time
studying the salaries paid by other cities.
James McElroy, 1345 Wagoner Drive, spoke in regard to the proposed
raise in charges at the airport. He wished to point out that the
airport users have never asked for a subsidy but asked that they be
given a voice in how the airport is financed and operated as 80% of
the revenue is derived from individual users. Sometimes services
are imposed upon the users which they do not want or request as in
the case of the construction of the terminal building. A crash truck
is also included on the current budget which has not been requested
by the users. A report has been prepared for the Council by the
staff to justify the rate increases. Mr. McElroy stated that a small
airport cannot charge the same prices as large ones such as Oakland
as they cannot offer the same services; Livermore is still a small
airport and cannot offer the same services as larger ones.
CM-23-112
July 13, 1970
Mayor Silva stated that the prices must be kept
competitive with other airports. Councilman
Beebe suggested that the airport advisory com-
mittee might be enlarged so that members of the
airport association might have more voice in the
matters pertaining to the airport.
Mrs. Susan Steinberg, 4174 Pomona Way, expressed appreciation to
the Council for passing a resolution to the effect that the park
tax will be dedicated to park acquisition alone. Maintenance and
care of the median strips and beautification spots should come
from the maintenance budget but not from park acquisition funds.
This year about one-third of the money paid as park tax will go
for maintenance rather than park acquisition. She felt this was
a misuse of the park tax and hoped the Council would make a pub-
lic statement to the effect that when new money does come into
the City from the proposed revised business license fee schedule
that the raid on park tax will be wiped out and money will go
back into park acquisition funds.
(Public Hearing
Budget Continued)
Mayor Silva pointed out that replenishing the park fund monies would
necessitate an increase in the tax rate over the proposed 10~i
to 17~i.
Councilman Miller felt that any excess revenue collected should
be put into the park fund to replenish that spent for maintenance
during the last two years.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the Council has no idea how
much additional revenue will come in. The City is operating on
a narrow operating reserve and any additional income should be
used for operating reserve.
stu Smith, 1141 Concannon Blvd., raised the question of adequate
explanation and indication in the budget as to where the funds
are obtained and where they are spent. He felt the budget should
be stated in such a manner that it indicates clearly the intent
of the City Council in respect to certain funds. He requested
that next year the budget delineate the inter-fund transfers;
secondly, he requested that any increase in revenues due to fees
go first to park acquisition funds and then to surplus.
Mayor Silva stated that Councilman Miller will be working with
the Finance Director during the coming year and that the format
for the budget will probably be changed.
Waldo Magnuson, 1073 Miranda Way, spoke in regard to the airport
portion of the budget. He felt the Council should reflect the
desires of the people they represent by providing the City staff
with direction and guidance and must also see that the City is
run in a proper manner, which includes a study of the budget. He
felt there existed some misunderstanding between the Council, the
staff and the users in regard to the financial operation of the
airport. The staff is telling the Council that the airport is
losing money and will continue to lose money unless the rates are
increased. He felt that the overall input from the airport has
been on the credit side. The users are being forced to help sub-
sidize an airport far greater than he needs or desires through
improvements which have no relation to flying use of the field.
He felt that if he pays for something he should have a voice in
how that money is spent. He suggested that the Council approve
the airport budget with two deletions: the purchase of crash
rescue truck delayed until a substantial need is proven, and no
tie-down hangar rate increases.
Mr. Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, spoke regarding the subsidy
of the Chamber of Commerce and the Cultural Arts Council and
CM-23-113
July 13, 1970
(Public Hearing
BUdget)
wished to know whether the Chamber had presented
a statement where these funds were spent and if
these expenditures were audited by the staff.
Mayor Silva explained that the yearly allocation is apportioned to
the administrative expenses for the Chamber and other allocations
are made for special projects after consideration by the Council.
Mr. Johnson asked why the Cultural Arts Council, which is a private
organization, was allocated funds for the Festival of Arts. Coun-
cilman Taylor stated this group had been requested to hold such a
festival in connection with the Centennial celebration. He felt
this type of activity should be encouraged, but the Cultural Arts
Council was unable in their estimation to conduct the festival again
this year without support. This could become an annual event which
would be self-supporting. Councilman Miller stated the Festival is
local in some ways but it also has areawide and statewide signifi-
cance and is a type of promotion for the City of Livermore. It is
also a projection of a cultural image for the City.
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden, stated that the problem of the subsidy for
the Cultural Arts Council would be solved by charging admission.
He proposed that the Festival subsidy be withdrawn and that Coun-
cilman Miller withdraw his support for the subsidy. He also objected
to the support of the Chamber of Commerce as he felt they had failed
to provide a useful service to the City. Also, he objected to the
cost of beautification of the City as he felt this cost should be
borne by those who rake in the profits rather than the general public.
Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, expressed her feeling that the City
has a good, honest Council and City staff. Negative thinking does
not help the City. The programs such as the rodeo, the beautifica-
tion projects, and the cultural arts activities help advertise the
City in a good light.
Gloria Taylor, 585 So. L street, objected to the Chamber of Commerce
being given funds as long as they work as a political lobby.
Barbara Magnuson, 1073 Miranda Way, spoke in regard to the airport
stating she did not feel transient aircraft expected the airport to
have crash equipment as had been stated. In regard to the hangar
fee increase, the comparison with fees charged by other cities was
made with cities that offer higher services while it should have
used many of the other airports in the area which are more comparable.
The proposed 50% raise in airport fees could hurt the airport. The
Airport Advisory Committee heard comments about the fees from users,
but it has been frustrating to deal with them or the Council.
The City Manager pointed out that accounting procedures indicate
there will be a deficiency without an increase in fees.
Henri Riordan, 914 Via Granada, spoke regarding the beautification
program. He referred to the lslands built on Holmes Street which
he did not feel added to the safety of the street. Beautification
was fine if it is done in the right way. He felt the holes in the
street should be fixed and the street swept in front of his home.
Mrs. Robert Heath, 2988 Kennedy Street, was opposed to taxpayers
of the City subsidizing any private group or organization, such as
Chamber of Commerce or Cultural Arts Council. She stated she was
also opposed to the spending of taxes for such items as beautifica-
tion program, the golf course, indiscriminate spending for the
LDC, luncheons and cocktails for City officials; also, she was op-
posed to the increase in salary for the City Manager and staff.
She asked that members of the Council reconsider their vote to sub-
sidize any private organization, and requested that Councilman
Miller, as an active member of the Cultural Arts Council, abstain
from voting.
The City Attorney pointed out that the Cultural Arts Council is a
quasi-public group formed at the request of the City Council and
Councilman Miller is the Council's representative to that group.
CM-23-114
July 13, 1970
Paul Boucher, 642 Hanover st., spoke regarding
the landing of several small jet aircraft at
the airport recently.
(Public Hearing-
BUdget)
Mr. Brians, Airport Superintendent, stated that the craft referred
to was a small four engine jet stream plane with a high decibel
rating. The plane had been requested to make a higher approach
and effort was being made to work out this problem. Mr. Brians
stated that the goal of the airport staff is to run the airport
in between the delicate area of making a profit and having a loss.
Airport management has responsibility to taxpayers, tenants, and
the general public. If profit from the airport is used to increase
its efficiency, the result will eventually be reduced user fees.
Taxpayers have an interest in how the airport is run. Expansion
and improvement must continue for it to remain a first class airport.
James McDonnel, 4023 Hanover, stated he was an airport user and
as one felt he should pay its fair share, but how can the City
brag about its airport and not be willing to pay for part of
it, such as parking and beautification.
John Kerekes, 649 Hanover st., felt that Mayor Silva should not
have called a previous speaker out of order for using the name
of a staff member.
William Hayden, 140 Lee Avenue, stated that houses should not
have been built so close to the new airport since problems do
arise from noise. People demand more and more services, such
as beautification; there is a lack of understanding of govern-
ment and its problems and there is not a ready solution. He
hoped that understanding will develop even though there may not
be agreement.
Paul Weiss, 6852 Mines Road, stated that 23 months ago the rates
for tie down at the airport were $10.00; presently they are $18.00.
There is 19~i per gallon markup on gas; every plane at the airport
pays in-lieu taxes - one-third to the City, one-third to the County
and one-third to the local school district. He felt the budget
should be balanced in other ways than a 50% increase now.
Kenneth Layton, president of the Livermore Valley Airmens Associa-
tion, told the Council that the two representatives which had spoken
to the Council are duly appointed representatives of the Association.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and approved unanimously, to close the public hearing.
A letter from the League of Women Voters in regard to the budget
was also acknowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS RESUMED WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD.
*
*
*
The hearing regarding the application of Carlton
Development Co. for extension of P1ID No. 15 was
continued from the June 29th meeting. This is
in regard to a 57-acre parcel on the southeast
corner of Isabel Avenue and Stanley Blvd.
CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING RE PUD
No. 15 (Carlton
Development Co.)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe to remove from the table the motion for amendment of the
Planned Unit Development which had been tabled at the previous
meeting, and approved unanimously.
CM-23-115
July 13, 1970
(PUD No. 15) Discussion followed on the proposed amendments.
The City Attorney spoke in regard to the park
dedication requirements. He stated that after
an examination of the annexation agreement for Stanley Boulevard
Annex No.1, it did not, in his opinion, contain any provision
which would conflict with a requirement for reservation of a park
site in the PUD. He read a provision which he had prepared for
reservation of a school site for a period of time until all single
family lots have been improved, or until August 1, 1975, whichever
date is later. This PUD permit includes planned park and school
sites which are an integral part of the development, and these
sites could be reserved for that time.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
amend the main motion on the floor by adding this provision re-
garding reservation of a school site to Item E.l of the PUD.
In regard to Item 4 of the proposed amendments regarding park de-
dication Councilman Miller suggested that the following wording
be used in E.2: "Except that two acres per hundred dwelling units
shall be dedicated one acre in land as shown on the map and the
remainder in fees.~ The City Attorney suggested that the park site,
as shown on Exhibit B-1, indicate a site which shall be dedicated
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the City's park dedication
ordinance.
Mr. Lewis stated that he could not support the requirement of fees
for part of the park dedication requirements; dedication or reser-
vation of a parksite could be supported in his understanding.
Councilman Miller said one alternative would be to redesign the
development in order to meet the dedication requirements and thus
eliminate some of the dwelling units; or the design could remain
the same and collect some fees; or finally let the PUD lapse.
Barry Scherman, representing Carlton Development, asked what would
happen to the tentative map which has been approved if the PUD ex-
pires. Mr. Lewis explained that if the PUD expires, then the ten-
tative map is not valid as it would then be inconsistent with the
zoning.
Mr. Scherman discussed the 5.3 acre park requirement in relation
to this PUD inasmuch as he felt there was some inconsistency. On
one hand the PUD is being considered separately and certain con-
ditions are being placed on this PUD for parks which,in fact, relate
to the original overall PUD.
Councilman Taylor felt that the problem is caused by the recent
City policy which requires two acres per hundred for park dedica-
tion. Part of this park then has to serve other areas.
Mr. Scherman said his point was that when the PUD was considered
it was considered as a separate entity - not a part of the other
development. A density transfer had been requested, but denied
as this was considered as an isolated PUD. Therefore, he thought
this reasoning should apply to the park site.
The main motion and the motion for amendment of the main motion were
tabled by motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and approved unanimously.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to continue the public hearing until the return of Councilman Prit-
chard, and the motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
BUDGET ITEMS
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to remove Item (a) resolu-
tion adopting fiscal budget, 1970-71, Item (d)
CM-23-116
July 13, 1970
airport rate adjustments and Item (1) golf course (Budget Items)
fee adjustments from the Consent Calendar for de-
ferment and consideration upon Councilman Prit-
chard's return. After further discussion, Councilman Miller
withdrew his second to this motion; therefore, the motion died for
lack of a second.
A motion was then made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Miller, to remove Item (a) resolution adopting fiscal budget,
1970-71, Item (b) resolution adopting salary ranges for 1970-71
fiscal year, Item (d) airport rate adjustments, and Item (1) golf
course fee adjustments from the Consent Calendar for immediate
discussion and vote, and the motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that the budget as presented at
the preliminary budget session be approved as presented covering
Items (a), (b), (d) and (1) and the motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller.
Mayor Silva stated that about sixteen hours had been spent by the
Council disucssing the budget; this evening the public hearing
brought out the fact that the number of users at the airport were
dissatisfied with the increases, and he had advised that the in-
creases were based on the other airports and not on the fact that
the airport was making a profit or operating in the red. Mayor
Silva further briefly summarized the events leading up to this
time, and stated his willingness to approve the budget as presented
based on the fact that the majority of the Council agreed on it.
Councilman Miller stated his agreement of the Mayor's statement
and even though he did not agree to some of the items, and in
particular the Chamber of Commerce subsidy due to the fact they
had no accounting, and would like to see more money returned to
the park fund. He further stated it was a very tight budget and
there are many things they should be doing, which they are not
going to be able to do as a result of attempting to keep as tight
a control as possible over city expenses; secondly, he felt,
hopefully, the City was in the process of a major step toward
tax reform, through making growth pay its own way instead of being
subsidized by the general taxpayers, which may help in the future
to reduce the burden on the property tax.
Councilman Beebe stated that he had asked for cuts in many sections
of the budget on which he had been overruled, and agreed with
Councilman Miller that they had ended up with a pretty tight
budget as they did not want to cut anywhere where services were
offered for the safety of the public and safety of property, and
this was where personnel were added. He felt that the only pos-
sible cuts had been made and, hopefully, it can be cut further
by increased costs in some departments, and he thought perhaps
assessed valuations might be increased which might possibly re-
duce the tax rate further.
Councilman Taylor stated there was much mentioned regarding sub-
sidy of the Chamber of Commerce and his position was one of being
practical and he felt that what the money was being spent for this
year was worthwhile as the City has no effort to recruit industry
except through the Chamber. The Council voted to appoint a com-
mittee to consider what should be done on industrial recruitment
as there had been two proposals submitted - one by the Chamber
and one by the City staff. In the meantime, it would be bad to
pull the rug out from under the Chamber when they are the only
"arm" in industrial recruitment, and the reason the taxes are so
high, basically, is lack of industrial base. He stated there are
fewer policemen, firemen, library employees per capita than most
other cities in the Bay Area, and felt that the City Manager had
presented them with a very responsible budget.
CM-23-117
July 13, 1970
(Budget Items) Mr. stu Smith requested the City Council to express
their intent with regard to park acquisition fund
concurrently with approving the budget, i.e. if any
increase in revenue comes about as a result of assessed
valuation or increase in other fees, that the park acquisition fund
be paid first from the increases and that the increases then go to
increase the surplus so the cash flow problem will not be quite so
severe.
Mayor Silva stated that he would rather not make such a decision
until the City has any additional revenue estimates in hand which
would not be until some time in August.
A vote was then taken on the motion approving the budget items and
passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Beebe (He believed the vote should not be taken
without the full Council present)
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
RESOLUTION NO. 90-70
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. 111-69.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1970-71 FISCAL BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 92-70
A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING RATES AT
THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.
Report re
Finances -
Chamber of
Commerce
Report re
Permit Fee
Adjustments
Claim for
Injury
(Hunt)
CM-23-118
RESOLUTION NO. 93-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RATES AT THE
LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A report submitted by the Chamber of Commerce was
questioned by Councilman Miller inasmuch as it was
not according to fiscal year basis, and asked that
the report be resubmitted.
*
*
*
A report from the City Manager re permit fee adjust-
ments was removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion later. (Postponed to meeting of July 20)
*
*
*
A claim was filed against the City by Morris C.
Hunt on behalf of Marsha and Sheldon Hunt, minors,
as a result of an accident which occurred March
25, 1970, in which the two persons were injured.
The claim is being denied upon instruction from the
City Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-70
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF MORRIS C. HUNT
ON BEHALF OF MARSHA A. HUNT AND SHELDON HUNT,
MINORS, FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
*
*
*
The East Bay Regional Park District wishes to
locate two directional signs in our City that
are of their type design, 18" x 3011. Our or-
dinance restricts this type sign to 15" x 30".
The City staff recommends that a motion be
adopted authorizing these sign placements.
*
*
*
A "Peace Fair" march on August 8th has been set
which would originate within our City and end
at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, with the
route being along East Avenue. The City Mana-
ger has reported that under existing law there
is no legal means of preventing the march, however
partment is meeting with representatives and plans
affair closely to afford needed traffic control.
*
*
*
A copy of a communication from the Bay Area Ra-
pid Transit District's General Manager re trans-
portation study was received by the Council.
*
*
*
Applications for exempt business licenses were
received from the following:
July 13, 1970
Report re Direc-
tional Signs
Report re Peace
Fair March on
August
the Police De-
to monitor the
Communication - Bay
Area Rapid Transit
Exempt Business
Licenses
Livermore Jr. Rodeo Association - show on July 26 and concessions
Muscular Dystrophy Association - money solicitation during 1970-71
*
*
*
Ninety-two claims in the amount of $35,179.97 Payroll and Claims
and two hundred seventy-nine payroll warrants
in the amount of $72,889.71 dated June 30, 1970
were presented to the Council and ordered paid as approved by the
City Manager. Mayor Silva abstained from voting on warrants No.
7830 and No. 7776 for his usual reasons.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor and by unanimous vote, the items
on the consent calendar were approved.
*
*
*
An application had been received by the Planning
Commission for a Conditional Use Permit to per-
mit construction and use of a 43-bed convales-
cent hospital on the northeast corner of First
Street and Hosker Lane.
Approval of Consent
Calendar
REPORTS FROM
PLANNING COMMISSION
(CUp - Roberts)
The Planning Director explained that this was the property where
there was a rezoning several months ago, and advised that there
was no opposition to the use as it is a permitted use, and the only
issue appeared to be the question of Hosker Lane improvement, and
this was made a condition for approval and the site plan was
acceptable to the applicant, Planning Commission, staff as there
were no unusual conditions.
After some discussion relative to the circulation, the Council
approved the Conditional Use Permit, stating they felt it to be
an excellent use of the area, as recommended by the Planning Com-
mission in their Resolution No. 16-70, with one added condition
that the circulation plan be subject to staff approval, by motion
of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe and by unanimous
approval.
CM-23-119
July 13, 1970
(CUP-Roberts) Jim Pearson, 4254 Davis Way, representing the applicant,
who had been present earlier in the meeting, advised
that the applicant would like to have the decision
of the Planning Commission carried through.
CUP re Auto
storage
(G & H Garage)
*
*
*
An application was submitted to the Planning Com-
mission to permit automobile storage and tow service
in conjunction with existing auto repair garage at
2322 First street.
Planning Director George Musso explained that this was an extension
of the use that has been in operation for a number of years; the
conditions are essentially the same as previously, however there
has been more attention given to maintenance and fire hazards caused
by the dismantled cars, and the Planning Commission recommendation
is for approval.
In reply to a question from Councilman Miller re previous complaints
by the staff, Mr. Musso stated that there was a hassle to keep the
parking of the vehicles under control, and it will need to be policed.
Councilman Miller suggested that the permit be granted for a two
year period rather than three years, and a motion was made by Coun-
cilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and approved unanimously,
to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the
CUP as stated in their Resolution No. 17-70, with one amendment to
grant the permit for the period ending July 31, 1972.
Zoning Ord.
Amendment-
Sec. 8.00 re
Bldg Height
Limits
County
Referral
Zone Change
(Gibbons)
*
*
*
A zoning ordinance amendment of Section 8.00 RG
District as it relates to building height limits
has been initiated by the Planning Commission.
It is recommended that a date be set for the public
hearing, and it was set for August 10.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission had considered the County
referral of the application of B. J. & V. S. Gibbons
for change of zone (956th Zoning Unit) from A to
M-l (Light Industrial) to permit research and de-
velopment operation on a site located east of Green-
ville Road, west of the Western Pacific Railroad.
Mr. Musso explained that this was contrary to the City's general
plan, however, the staff has recommended approval, and the Planning
Commission did adopt the staff report for transmittal to the County
recommending conditional approval as noted within the staff report,
including the statement that the City would be favorable to an ex-
tension of a sewer line and grant a sewer connection for individual
use.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and approved unanimously, that a recommendation for approval be
forwarded to the County as suggested by the Planning Commission.
County
Referral
CUP and Variance
(Mobil Oil Co.)
CM-23-120
*
*
*
The Planning Commission considered the referral
from the County Planning Commission of the appli-
cation of Mobil Oil Company for Conditional Use
permit and Variance to permit construction and
use of a service station with freestanding sign
on a site located at the intersection of Inter-
state 580, Greenville and Altamont Pass Roads.
July 13, 1970
The Council discussed the sewer line issue and
the possibility of forming a benefit district
for extension of a line on the south side of
U. S. 580.
(CUP and Variance
Mobile Oil Co.)
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the requests
with the following statements included: a) that the City would
be favorable to annexation of the subject property; b) that the
City would be favorable to extending sewer service to the pro-
perty; c) that the City recommends approval of the proposed use
and variance provided such approval would require connection to
the City's sewer.
Councilman Taylor made a motion approving the Planning Commission's
recommendation and further stating it is the City's intention that
the County require the applicant, as a condition of the permit,
to join any benefit district or assessment district which will
bring a sanitary sewer line to Laughlin Road. This motion was
seconded by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Com-
mission's meeting of July 7 was acknowledged.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
*
*
*
Mr. Musso reported that consideration of the
tentative map of Tract 3186 (H.C. Elliott) had
been continued to allow time for the School
District to acquire the site.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3186
(H.C.Elliott)
Mr. David Madis, of Critchfiad, Miller, Eaton and Madis, repre-
senting H. C. Elliott, Inc., advised that repeated continuances
were requested of the Council so that they could consider the
possibility of the School District buying the site which they
still believe to be necessary, and they have explored a number
of possibilities and to mutual regret no solution has been found.
Now the applicant is asking the Council to consider the tentative
map and approve the subdivision, as his client feels he has gone as
far as possible in holding the site as the costs are about $1000
a month to hold the property. They feel if the people wish the
property as a school or park site that they purchase it.
Councilman Taylor asked where the children would go to school,
to which Mr. Madis replied, it was the responsibility of the
School District and the people who voted the bond issue down,
and Councilman Taylor stated it was clearly against the public
interest to allow subdivision of the site to which Mr. Madis
replied that the City could condemn the site and hold it for
a park as this would not be taxed if the City owned the property
and if it was so much in the public interest.
Councilman Beebe asked the City Attorney if there is any way the
requirements of a PUD, as discussed earlier, can be applied to
a tract.
Mr. Lewis replied that this was the final approval of a tentative
map; if the tentative map is faulty in some way, that is one
thing; if it does not comply with the zoning on the property
that is another, but he suspected denial when other things are
in compliance would leave a very difficult situation.
Mayor Silva stated that speaking to the tract map he did not
like long cul-de-sacs and neither did the Fire Chief, and would
like to see that change. Mr. John Barker of Associated Pro-
fessions stated that they had agreed to make a change at the
Planning Commission meeting to eliminate Lot 18 to allow the
CM-23-121
July 13, 1970
(Tract 3186
Continued)
street to go through to Del Norte Drive and elimi-
nate the cul-de-sac. Mr. Musso stated that there
were already houses on that street, however, Mr.
Barker replied that there were no houses constructed
as yet. Mr. Musso stated that the Fire Chief had investigated the
area and his report indicated construction of dwellings might pre-
clude the possibility of the developer complying with the recommen-
dation for a second ingress and egress.
Mayor Silva stated that this was the developer's problem; if the City
requires that the street be so located then it is up to the developer
to see that it is constructed.
Mr. Madis stated that the City can only require that the developer
submit a design for the property, but cannot require them to elimi-
nate or buy other property to provide that ingress and egress.
Mayor Silva replied that the map was not acceptable to him unless
changes were made in the circulation.
Mr. Madis said that as indicated they would put through a street.
Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, stated he lived in the immediate area
being discussed and that when he bought his home the representative
of Elliott specifically stated that there would be a school on the
site being discussed. He did not say it was dedicated but indicated
there would definitely be a school there, just as there would be a
park. There is a map in Elliott's sales office which shows a school
on the site and other people in the area had been led to believe the
same thing.
Bruce Jamieson, Director of Finance for the Livermore School District,
stated that this was the only school site available and did .not know
what would be done for the children in the area if this site is lost.
If homes are built, the School District might have to come back and
condemn the homes on this site, which would cost the taxpayers a great
deal more. There is to be a tax election shortly and from this money
it might be possible to buy this land. It is the District's problem
to buy the land and they would ask the Council to do everything possible
to protect the site until it can be purchased by the School District.
Councilman Miller stated that the developer has been using the existence
of the site for a school as a selling tool; now they choose to place a
tract map on it which, he thought, was a serious misrepresentation.
Perhaps the Council should call this matter to the attention of the
State Real Estate Commission. AB 1271, which had been before the
Legislature during the last session, proposed mechanisms for reserving
and dedication of school sites but this legislation had been bitterly
opposed by the developers.
Councilman Miller made a motion that this tract map be denied for the
reasons that the tract was unacceptable in design as the proposed sub-
division would necessitate renegotiation for increased park dedication,
redesign of enlarged park site so as not to encroach into subject
proposed single family residential subdivision and/or relocation of
park site, north or west, to serve the population of the area and pri-
marily the lack of a second access as the Fire Department and the
F.H.A. had pointed out for fire safety. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Beebe.
Mr. Madis specifically requested that the Council indicate in each
and every particular what part of any design the Council disagreed
with and how the Council wanted the map submitted that would comply
with their requirements, since under State law the Council must
state what, in particular, is denied and the Council cannot leave
the applicant in a position where they can do nothing with the land.
CM-23-122
Mr. Musso stated that it was due to the lack of
a second access. Mr. Lewis stated the motion
was reasonably clear on this point.
July 13, 1970
(Tract 3186
Elliott, Cont'd)
Mayor Silva said he would also like to have this reviewed again
by the Fire Chief, and Mr. Musso pointed out if the map was re-
submitted then he would be requested to take another look. Mayor
Silva stated that in the report the Fire Chief only recommended
a second access but did not say where; if the Fire Chief does
not agree they should not be tied to the proposed second access.
Mr. Lewis recommended that the Planning Director be directed to
make such necessary findings based on the Council's recommenda-
tions as indicated by Mayor Silva in regard to the second access.
At the request of Councilman Taylor, Mr. Musso pointed out possible
pedestrian access to the school site. As far as the discussion
on the second access the Planning Commission had accepted Lot 18
for the extension.
The motion for denial was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
Councilman Pritchard
(NOTE: The City Attorney requested that the findings be made by
the staff within 7 days, based on the foregoing and pursuant to
the requirements of Section 11552, Business and Professions Code)
Councilman Miller stated that concerned individuals should con-
tact Mr. Lewis regarding statements made by the developer regard-
ing the proposed school site and such misrepresentation concern-
ing location of a school in order for this information to be sent
to the California Real Estate Commission, Assemblyman Knox and
the members of his committee on local government as backup mater-
ial for AB 1271. Also, it should be sent to Senator Bradley and
Assemblyman Bee for their information.
Councilman Taylor stated he presumed that H. C. Elliott no longer
in any of their advertisement or sales office showed this site
in any way as a possible school and representative of Elliott
replied that it was not.
Residents of the area were asked to write in this regard as indi-
viduals.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that at the Plan-
ning Commission meeting the Commissioners had
reached a 2-2 vote in the matter of the request
of Christopher Land Company for extension of
the completion date on residential and commercial portions of
PUD No. 3 of the property for periods of 18 and 36 months res-
pectively. The Commission's vote was not on approval, but pri-
marily the issue whether zoning regulations should be changed
on the forward or rear part of the property. Therefore, no vote
for transmittal to the Council could be given.
APPEAL RE PUD NO. 3
(Christopher Land
Company)
Mr. Musso explained that two commissioners felt that density
should be reduced in the forward portion and the rear residential
left alone; the other two commissioners felt the regulations
should be changed on the rear residential and the forward multiple
unchanged.
Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, stated she and other residents
of Wagoner Farms had been at the Planning Commission and Council
CM-23-123
July 13, 1970
(Appeal PUD
No.3 Contd.)
meetings. She read from an article from the paper
regarding funds contributed to certain candidates by
Dennis O'Brien, employed by Kaufman & Broad. She
felt that in view of this certain members might want
to abstain from voting on this issue to avoid conflict
of interest.
Mayor Silva stated he did not feel that the Councilmen could be
influenced by business contacts, developers, friends, or relatives
in such a way as to dictate their votes and Mr. Lewis indicated
that as long as the campaign contributions were disclosed there
was no problem on the vote.
Mrs. Bernard Shore, 1446 Lillian Street, felt there should be a pub-
lic hearing since so much time had elapsed since the area was first
developed. The developer knew of the time limit and it was through
his own action that he had to ask for an extension of time.
Councilman Miller pointed out that this was not an amendment for
an application had not been filed for an amendment nor a fee paid.
Mr. Lewis said that a fee was not usually required for an extension
of time. Mr. Varni, attorney for the applicant, requested an exten-
sion of 18 months in a letter dated May 19, 1970. Thereafter, it
was referred to the Planning Commission under provisions of the Planned
Unit Development ordinance which allowed the Planning Commission to
grant an extension of time to the developer if they found that he
was making progress. It was then continued and at this point the
matter has followed the City's selected procedure, and there is little
value in starting the matter over as an amendment. The ordinance
makes an exception for three kinds of amendment which do not require
formal procedure and it also states that the Planning Commission can
grant an extension upon application. Mr. Lewis stated this was the
type of amendment that must be governed by the 42-day period, but
there is nothing else in the ordinance in regard to intent.
The majority of the Council felt that there was no point in sending
this back to the Planning Commission and discussed possible dates
for holding a public hearing on this matter; due to vacations of
Councilmen there was difficulty in setting a date for the hearing
when they could all be present. The public hearing was tentatively
set for the lOth of August with a definite decision to be made at
the meeting of July 20, 1970.
*
*
*
SEWER
CONNECTION
AGREEMENT
(Shell)
Mayor Silva pointed out there is a Standard Station
located across the street from the Shell Service Sta-
tion for which sewer connection agreement is being
considered; therefore, he felt to avoid conflict of
interest he should abstain in this matter. Mayor
pro tempore Miller took charge of the meeting.
A sewer connection agreement was authorized by the Council for the
Shell Service Station located at Portola Avenue and Murrieta Blvd.
but the applicant was opposed to certain conditions proposed and
proceeded to build the station using a septic tank.
Mr. David Madis, representing H. C. Elliott, stated that in the near
future an application will be presented for rezoning of a small
piece of property adjacent to this property, which is in the County.
This property should ultimately be in the City and, therefore, they
wish to now pay the fees and connect to the City sewers as provided
in the signed agreement.
Mr. Musso stated the design review was approved as submitted with
the exception of the planter in front of the restrooms and the colors.
CM-23-124
July 13, 1970
Mr. Madis stated there seemed to be some diffi-
culty in working out the details between the
representatives of Shell and Elliott and the
City staff, and Mr. Musso stated that the staff
negotiated the agreement in the first place and the site plan
and suggested it be referred back to the staff as he felt any
problems could be worked out; then if there are other questions,
they could return to the Council next week, and the Council agreed
to this course of action.
(Sewer Connection-
Shell Continued)
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the Beautification REPORT RE BEAUTI-
Committee had presented a draft of a statement FICATION COMMITTEE
as to structure, duties and responsibilities of REORGANIZATION
their group. Mr. Parness stated that the Com-
mittee felt it is important to gather as many
participants as possible although he felt that eleven members is
unduly excessive and a 2-year term is inconsistent with other
boards and commissions.
The Council discussed the term of office for the committee mem-
bers, and the number of members and Mr. Chris Gatrousis, Chairman
of the Committee explained their reasons for their preference,
after which the Council agreed to accept the statement, but with
the condition that the members reside in the City. However, if
any member does not live in Livermore at present, he will be re-
tained until his term of office is up. In addition, with regard
to street trees and landscaping standards, the wording was changed
to llrecommend landscaping standardsll rather than lldevelopll and
another provision was added that ex officio members do not vote.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and approved unanimously to approve the statement as amend-
ed by the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-70
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 716 ORDINANCE RE Z.O.
AMENDMENT (8-year
Sign Limit)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 21.76 H, RELATING TO
PERMITS FOR SIGNS, OF SECTION 21.00 RELATING TO
SPECIAL PROVISIONS, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO ZONING.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and by the following vote, the second reading of the ordinance
was waived, and the ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Marguth
None
Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
Mayor Silva issued a proclamation that August
11 to 18 be proclaimed Law and Morality Week,
and that July 21, be proclaimed Veteran's Ad-
ministration Day.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Proclamations)
*
*
*
CM-23-125
July 13, 1970
(Communication
re Go-Cart)
(Police
Commendation)
(Commendation
Letter to
Jim Smith)
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
ATTEST
Mayor Silva read a letter received from a twelve
year old boy asking where he could ride his go-
cart, and the City Manager was requested to refer
the matter to the Recreation District.
*
*
*
A letter was received from Sigfried Snyder commend-
ing the Police Department and the City for their
services.
*
*
*
The Mayor read a proposed letter to Jim Smith of
722 Grace street, commending him for his many years
of active participation and assistance with the
Little League.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the me adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of July 20, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, July 20,
1970, in the Justice Court ChambersA 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at b:lO p.m.
ROLL CALL
OPEN FORUM
(Landscaping
School Site)
(H.C. Elliott
School Site)
CM-23-126
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
Former Mayor Gilbert R. Marguth, 1152 Farmington
Way, addressing the Council as President of the
Mendenhall PTA, thanked the City for the help
given in the landscaping project at Mendenhall
School. He reported that some fifty trees have
been planted, and the people in the area are
working hard to improve the appearance of the
school site.
*
*
*
Mr. Marguth also spoke in regard to the situation
relating to the H. C. Elliott proposed school site.
He stated that he felt the School District was
striving to do their job properly and responsibly
to find the funds to obtain the school site; Mr.
Elliott in the economic period such as we are now
July 20, 1970
experiencing is justified in proceeding with
filing the map and bringing the matter to a
head; and the City is right in denying the map
on the grounds stated. Although each of the parties involved
have equity in their position, there should be a better way to
proceed than with a court suit. Mr. Marguth stated he had con-
tacted Mr. Elliott, Mr. Jamieson and Mrs. Taylor of the School
Board about this problem and believed that with the efforts of
all the parties involved they can come to a solution of the ac-
quisition of the school site. He urged that the people of the
community work to support tax elections and the School Board.
(Elliott School
Site)
Mr. H. C. Elliott, Alamo, stated that last week his attorney had
filed a suit against the City to force action on the issue of
the proposed acquisition of the ten acres of land set aside for
a primary school in his subdivision. Mr. Elliott pointed out
that houses on all of the lots on the land purchased by him from
the City several years ago have been constructed and sales should
be completed within two to three months. There are approximately
250 families who have purchased homes and will be looking for a
school for their children. Rincon School is already crowded and
another school is needed. As a result of conversations with var-
ious people, he suggested that this site might be leased to the
school district and trailer type classrooms used; hopefully
children could be in school there by this September. Mr. Madis
had been instructed to withdraw the suit against the City so that
there would be time to work on plans for the school site. The
school bond election in November might or might not pass and the
situation could go on indefinitely. His proposed plan had not been
tried in this area; another suggestion was that there are six houses
immediately behind the school site that are not presently sold and
these could be leased to the district for classrooms.
Mr. Jamieson, of the School District, stated he had been checking
into the legality of carrying out some of the suggestions which had
been made. It would be quite involved, but there was the possibi-
lity something could be worked out. One fact that must always be
recognized is that any monies for leasing buildings must come from
the operating budget, and the operating budget is limited. There
are other sites coming up for consideration. He told the Council
that everything would be done to solve this problem as soon as
possible.
Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, representing a group of homeowners
in the Elliott tract, wished to thank Mr. Elliott and Mr. Jamieson
for their efforts in regard to the school site.
*
*
*
stu Smith, 1141 Concannon Blvd., stated he was
associated with the Clean Air Coordinating
Committee; the Council had indicated that it
was also interested in the pollution of the Valley. Along this line
he suggested that the City formulate some plan, perhaps in conjunc-
tion with one of the ecology groups, to provide containers through-
out the City for collection of those items such as cans and papers
which can be recycled. Money received for these items could be
used to defray the cost of collection.
(Collection of
Items for Recycling)
A report has been drafted by one of the groups in the City in this
regard, and the City Manager reported it was scheduled for presenta-
tion to the Council at the next meeting. The Mayor instructed that
a copy be sent Mr. Smith.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning of property located
easterly of Murrieta Blvd., southerly of
Olivina Avenue, has been made by Sacramento
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING
(Sacramento Savings)
CM-23-127
July 20, 1970
(Sacramento
Savings Contd)
Savings and Loan Association. In addition, an area
immediately adjacent is recommended for inclusion
and consideration of rezoning by the Planning Com-
mission.
Rev. Ray Neal, pastor of the Bethany Baptist Church, stated that
the church's property is a part of the area of consideration.
They had no objections; in regard to the zoning change for their
property they preferred the educational zoning.
A request had been received from Sacramento Savings and Loan Asso-
ciation for continuance of this matter for one week until July 27,
since their representatives were unable to attend due to business
reasons.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the public hearing was continued for one week until July 27 by
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental
Reports
Departmental reports were presented as follows:
Airport - activity and financial - June
Building Department - June
Civil Defense - quarterly, April - June
Fire Department - May
Golf Course - June
Justice Court - May and June
Library - quarterly, April-June
Planning Department - May
Police and Pound Departments - June
Water Reclamation Plant - June
*
*
*
A report was presented by the Planning Director re-
garding the fencing of the channel in the Proud Homes
area which was considered as a hazard by some of the
residents of the area. Mr. Musso said that the fenc-
ing was open at the bridge and at the end of both
cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sac to the north is about 200 feet from the
channel, but the other one at the end of Roan Court is very close to
the channel and has steep sides since it has not been graded. Mr.
Lee, the Public Works Director, stated that the City did not require
fencing at this point, and if one is put up now, the City would have
to build it. The fence would have to be temporary and might be built
from wire and posts on hand. Mr. Lee said there is additional grad-
ing which will have to be done by the developer in connection with
the second unit, but grading by the City at the present time would
not be appropriate or relieve the situation which is the responsi-
bilty of the developer. The Public Works Director was directed to
fence this area, which is approximately 60 feet.
Fencing of
Channel -
Proud Homes
*
*
*
Claim for
Aircraft
Damage
(Frank Dalton)
Some slight damage was sustained by an aircraft dur-
ing the recent air show, in the amount of $445.21.
The recommendation is that the claim be denied.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-70
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CLAIM OF FRANK H. DALTON
CM-23-128
July 20, 1970
So. County Jr.
College Assessment
District
A report from the City Manager was submitted in
regard to the South County Junior College Assess-
ment District. Valid petitions have been re-
ceived for the formation of this District, which
involves 660 acres of property mainly north of
U.S. 580 on each side of Collier Canyon Road. Sixty-four percent
of the area has petitioned. The District provides for sewage and
water line extension north of U.S. 580.
The following actions were taken and resolutions adopted: File
petitions, boundary map and certificate of Engineer of Work re
percentage of signatures.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 98-70
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND ACQUISITION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITION OF
REAL PROPERTY AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 70-1, SOUTH COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE, CITY
OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-70
RESOLUTION APPOINTING SPECIAL BOND COUNSEL AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 100-70
RESOLUTION REQUESTING JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA IN CONNECTION
WITH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 70-1, SOUTH COUNTY
JUNIOR COLLEGE, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 101-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT (Municipal Code Corp.)
Municipal Code
Printing Contract
This two year contract is for printing of municipal code changes
by Municipal Code Corporation, Tallahassee, Florida.
*
*
*
A request has been received from the Sunset De-
velopment Company for a one year extension of
the agreement for installation of the public
works improvements for Tract 2927 which is lo-
cated west of Holmes Street, south of Concannon
Boulevard, north of Alden Lane. These improve-
ments were to have been installed by August 11,
recommended that this extension be granted.
*
*
*
The following applications for exempt business
licenses have been received:
Tract 2927 -
Extension of
Agreement
(Sunset Develop.
Co. )
1970. It is
Exempt Business
Licenses
Livermore Softball Association - sale of soft drinks during games
Livermore Atomic Soccer Mothers - various fund raising activities
during 1970
CM-23-129
July 20, 1970
(Exempt
Licenses Contd)
Pawn Shop - dances and fund raising activities at
2020 Fifth street.
In accordance with past policy the City Council denied the applica-
tion of the United Pentacostal Church of Hayward for the sale of
homemade candy as this is not a local institution.
Minutes
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
SEWER
CONNECTION
(Shell Oil)
*
*
*
The Planning Commission minutes of July 7th were
acknowledged.
*
*
*
One hundred fourteen claims in the amount of
$239,015.07, dated July 15, 1970, were presented
to the Council and ordered paid as approved by the
City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, the Consent Calendar was approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Beebe
* * *
Attorney David Madis addressed the Council relative
to the status of the sewer connection for the Shell
Service Station at the corner of Murrieta Blvd. and
Portola Avenue. Mayor Silva abstained from this con-
tinued discussion of this matter, with Mayor pro
tempore Miller presiding. Mr. Madis hoped that all issues in connec-
tion with the City's approval of sewer connection agreement could be
resolved so a leech field would not have to be built. The applicant
had agreed with one of the conditions of the staff to provide screen-
ing for the rest rooms; the sign will be taken off the pylon atop
the building and some type of brick work will be built so that it
appears to be a false chimney. They would also agree to have'a sign
on the corner facing toward the main thoroughfare which would include
the smog control sign, the signs given by the State and the pricing
signs, which would be in one unified structure. Shell still feels
that they must have some identification for their station on the
canopies and agreement has not been reached on this one point.
Mr. Madis stated the proposed sign on the corner would not be the
same as the one for the station on Murrieta Blvd. Shell is adamant
about the signs on the canopies for identification.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that this ~ation location is in the
County, and Shell probably feels this is as far as they will go.
He did not feel that their building of a leech field would be to the
best interest of the City so the City would have to agree to the
canopy signs.
Councilman Miller suggested that the Shell sign be put on the corner
and the other signs be under the canopy or on the pumps.
Mr. Madis said Shell's position is that the sign on the corner is
not important but feel they must have canopy identification signs.
Councilman Pritchard felt that this was poor foresight on the part
of Shell since they might want to locate another station in Liver-
more in the future.
CM-23-130
July 20, 1970
(Sewer Connection -
Shell Cont'd.)
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, that the sewer connection
agreement with Shell Oil Company be signed with
the conditions as negotiated by the staff includ-
ing a canopy sign of reasonable size, details to be worked out
by the staff. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmen Taylor and Pritchard
Councilman Miller
Councilman Beebe
Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller asked Mr. Madis to transmit the feelings of the
Council to Shell in regard to the signs and their refusal to
accept the conditions from the City.
Councilman Taylor stated that anyone who comes before the Council
has equal rights and should not be intimidated by threats or hold-
ing grudges.
*
*
*
A report from the City Manager was submitted re-
garding the fee adjustment study.
FEE ADJUSTMENT
STUDY
Mayor Silva stated that he felt the fees should be adjusted
annually. Discussion should take into consideration all the fees
proposed except those which had recently been reviewed, i.e. the
annexation fee and storm drainage and sewer connection and water
storage fees which were revised last January, and the annexation
and park fees which were revised last November.
The Council agreed that only those fees which had not been revised
in the last year would be included. In the study, each fee
should be studied separately with a time and motion study for each,
and the study will be based on the method outlined in the report
that each fee should cover actual expenditure by the City.
The City Manager felt that it would take two or three weeks to
complete the study. Discussion followed whether interim fee
increase should be set until the study is finished and the fees
are determined. It was decided that any action would be delayed
for a month until the report and study were completed.
*
*
*
The City Clerk was requested by the Council to
schedule the hearing on the Design Review Ordi-
nance August 17th from a prior decision to
schedule this matter on August 3. The hearing
on the request for extension of time on PUD No.
3 by the Christopher Land Company was also set
for August 17th. The Council will not have a
meeting on the 5th Monday of August.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor requested that the matter of
possible revisions to the Airport Advisory Com-
mittee be placed on the agenda at a reasonably
early date.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Schedule
of Meetings)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Airport)
Councilman Pritchard inquired how soon the in- (Elected Mayor)
formation would be available regarding an elect-
ed mayor. The City Manager reported that replies
had been received from five to the twenty cities from which infor-
mation had been requested. As soon as the other replies were re-
ceived, the information would be given to the Council.
CM-23-131
July 20, 1970
(Health Spa) Councilman Miller noted that the Planning Commission
had approved a health spa for a neighborhood shop-
ping center. He felt consideration should be given
as to what uses were appropriate for neighborhood
shopping centers and whether the separation between shopping cen-
ters be increased to two miles.
The Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission had
adopted a resolution approving this use in this zone on the basis
that it was a personal services use.
Councilman Miller stated that the neighborhood shopping center is
for the use of the people in that area. A 3000 ft. health spa is
not designed for the use of the people in that area but to attract
customers from allover the City. There is some question whether
several major commercial centers are being created allover the
City.
Councilman Taylor said there were uses that disrupted the downtown
area and should be located in neighborhood centers.
Councilman Pritchard did not feel they should discuss whether it is
competitive; this should be up to the businessman and the shopping
center. The Council should not address themselves to this question.
Councilman Miller felt the shopping in the City should be better
arranged so that the people of the town will shop here, rather
than going to another City.
Mr. Musso stated there are many uses not allowed in shopping centers
under present zoning. There had been a problem in the Rincon center
several years ago as it was becoming more commercial than retail.
*
*
*
(Design
Review
Ordinance)
Mayor Silva stated that a communication from the Cham-
ber of Commerce recommended that a joint committee
be formed to study the design review ordinance and
work out an alternate approach.
Councilman Taylor said he would like to see a list of the specific
reasons that the Chamber was opposed to the ordinance. Any committee
formed to draft a new ordinance should consist of more than members
of the City and the Chamber.
Councilman Miller pointed out a committee was formed a year and a
half ago which included representatives of the Council. Before a
new committee is constituted, specific objections should be made.
Councilman Pritchard felt there was a difference in opinion even
within the Council.
Mayor Silva pointed out that the public hearing set for August 17
will present the opportunity to hear from all citizens, and a de-
cision can be made at that time whether to adopt the ordinance or
refer it back to the committee.
Earl Mason of the Chamber of Commerce stated that it was the feeling
of the members at this time that there should not be an ordinance.
The Board of Directors felt that if this were discussed before the
public hearing with the Council and staff, many points could be
worked out.
Mayor Silva suggested that the Chamber contact the individual
members of the Council.
CM-23-132
Mayor Silva referred to an article he had re-
ceived regarding hitchhikers and State law
referring to this problem. He suggested that
this matter be referred to the Police Department
and the City Attorney.
July 20, 1970
(Hitchhikers)
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
10:05 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
~~
ATTEST
Ltk (I'
lerk
California
I
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of July 27, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
July 27, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermdre Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of July 13, 1970,
were approved as presented on motion of Coun-
cilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller,
with Councilman Pritchard abstaining.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of July 20, 1970, were approved as
presented on motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, with Councilman Beebe abstaining.
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, wished to OPEN FORUM
protest the collecting of a sewer service
charge. He did not feel the present method
was fair and that the charge should be based on the assessed
valuation of homes. He pointed out to the Council that when
they had voted on this matter two years ago it was supposed to
be for one year only, yet this was two years later and they were
not changing the sewer charge. They were not acting in accordance
with the wishes of the people.
*
*
*
CM-23-133
July 27, 1970
RECYCLER'S
REPORT
A report has been prepared by interested citizens
concerning the issue of recycling waste materials.
Mrs. Lois Hill, 824 Adams Avenue, stated that a number of citizens
concerned with pollution of this area felt that they could do some-
thing about the problem through a study of recycling efforts. Mrs.
Hill introduced the various people who aided in the preparation
and presentation of the report. Copies of the report will be avail-
able at the Ecology Center and perhaps at the library for public
information.
Mayor Silva stated he wished to send a copy of the report to the
San Francisco County Supervisor in charge of the waste disposal
section of ABAG as they are compiling a report on this matter also.
After discussion the staff was directed to look for positive ways
to implement the suggestions in the report for consideration by the
Council in two to three weeks. Councilman Pritchard pointed out
that there are groups in the City who are collecting papers and mak-
ing money from the project; it is possible that the City could also
do this.
*
*
'*
PUBLIC
HEARING
SEWER SERVICE
CHARGE
The purpose of this hearing is to consider protests
to the method of billing of the sewer service charge.
The current practice is to list this charge on the
annual tax bill posted by the County against all
residential properties.
Mrs. Robert Heath, 2988 Kennedy Street, protested the method of bill-
ing last year as she was doing again this year. In her opinion the
sewer tax would not have been necessary lf the former Council had
used the money from the old sewer system rather than expending it
for the golf course.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to close the public hearing and the motion was approved
unanimously.
At the request of Councilman Pritchard, the City Manager explained
that the present method is used simply due to economics. It costs
the City about $200 to bill the charge through the County as opposed
to $10,000 for the City to handle the billing directly. This differ-
ence is due to the cost of billing and collection for the numerous
residents.
The matter of adding this charge to the general tax rate was dis-
cussed in depth at the budget meeting.
At the close of the discussion, the following resolution was passed
on motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller, by
unanimous vote:
RESOLUTION NO. 102-70
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REPORT OF CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE SEWER SERVICE AND USE CHARGES
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING This public hearing is for the purpose of considering
WEED ABATEMENT protests as to the amount of assessment against in-
dividual parcels for weed and debris clearance. A
total of 319 separate parcels were cleared during
the past months. If this assessment is not paid by the lOth of
August, the amount will be placed on the tax bill.
CM-23-134
July 27, 1970
(Weed Abatement
Continued)
The public hearing was opened by the Mayor,
however no protests were voiced. On motion
of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, the public hearing was then closed by unanimous vote.
The resolution pertaining to this matter was voted upon under the
Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
Carlton Development Corporation has requested
that the hearing regarding their request for
extension of commencement date for PUD No. 15
be continued once again.
CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING PUD NO. 15
(Carlton Dev. Corp.)
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
that the hearing on the extension of commencement date for Planned
Unit Development No. 15 be continued until August 17th, and that
the commencement date be extended until August 24th. The motion
was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding the application of
Sacramento Savings and Loan Association for re-
zoning on the east and west sides of Murrieta
Blvd., southerly of Olivina Avenue, was con-
tinued from the previous meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING - REZONING
(Sacramento Savings
and Loan Ass'n.)
John Barker, Associated Professions, Inc., stated that the prin-
cipals of the Sacramento Savings and Loan Association were unable
to attend the meeting and wish to request that this hearing be
continued again.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to continue the hearing until August 24, and the motion passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
The rezoning under consideration involves 398
acres situated on the north and south side of
First Street in the vicinity of Trevarno Road
and was recently incorporated into the City as
Portola Avenue Annex No.4
PUBLIC HEARING RE
ZONING (Portola
Avenue Annex No.4)
Mayor Silva stated his residence abuts a portion of the area
under consideration for rezoning to Rs-4, and Councilman Miller
pointed out his residence is within 300 feet of the westerly
boundary of the area. Discussion followed regarding abstention
by Mayor Silva and Councilman Miller on this matter. The City
Attorney was not present to give an opinion, but it was generally
felt that abstention was not compulsory.
The Planning Director pointed out the area of consideration for
rezoning and discussed the proposed zoning plan which, in the
most part, conforms to the General Plan. Mr. Musso stated that
the proposed multiple residential between First Street and the
railroad tracks was the main area of concern at the Planning
Commission meeting. This area had been indicated for industrial
use for many years, to the west is a commercial area and to the
east and northeast is a continuation of industrial area. Zoning
this area to high density residential would not conform to the
General Plan.
Another major area of discussion was the former Coast Manufacturing
site and the area surrounding it in regard to parking and access
and its proximity to the Jackson Avenue park. The Planning Com-
mission also discussed leaving the entire area as industrial,
CM-23-135
July 27, 1970
but if this were done there would be a problem with
access. Under the old plan access to the industrial
area would be through Trevarno Lane; the remaining
area would have access from Hillcrest Avenue. If
all the property were industrial then this would make
access to an industrial area through a residential area. Mr. Musso
also stated he felt a zoning other than CH (Highway Commercial)
should be indicated for the area along First street where the ser-
vice stations are located.
(Portola Ave.
Annex No. 4 -
Continued)
In summary, the Planning Commission recommends RS-3 for the main
body of the hill area, RS-3 for the Coast Manufacturing ownership (former)
RS-4 for the area adjacent to Highway 580, CH for the strip where
the service stations are located, Rs-4 for the triangles along
Portola Avenue and First street, ID (Industrial Development and
Administration District) for the area between First street and
Western Pacific land, ID for the Coast Manufacturing site, and Rs-4
for the remainder of the residential area south of the plant site.
Mr. John Barker, Associated PrOfessions, Inc., representing the
owners of the majority of the land, felt the master plan they pre-
sented was good land use. One difference had arisen in the dis-
cussion before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
was agreeable to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning for the
triangle bounded by First street and Portola Avenue as well as the
RG-16 zoning adjacent, but at the close of the discussion the staff
had recommended that this area be zoned Rs-4. Evidently Mr. Musso
felt Rs-4 zoning was a good holding classification for interim zon-
ing, but the owners' position is unique in that they only own the
land - they are not builders or developers. It is probable that it
will be two to five years before the property is developed. A PUD
cannot be granted for this length of time under present policy;
therefore, rezoning is necessary. The owners felt that the ID zone
was inappropriate now or in the future. They wanted a good develop-
ment of the land. There will be expensive homes built in the hill
area with one-acre lots and it would be erroneous to have an indus-
trial area adjacent to this type of residential use. There are al-
ready hundreds of acres zoned for light industrial which is more
than adequate for the need. The City has an obligation to plan
for people as well as industry. With the RG-16 included, an overall
density has been computed at 4.7 for the area.
Mr. Joe Sladky, 1073 Xavier Way, plant manager of the Hexcel plant,
presented a photo taken of the overall area, and stated he would
restrict his comments to the area south of the tracks. Hexcel's
position is that the area south of the railroad tracks must be zoned
industrial. There are 49.5 acres involved which have been zoned
industrial for many years. The Hexcel Livermore Plant must have
some type of buffer, either a boulevard, park, commercial zoning,
school or agricultural as Hexcel's operation creates noise and
conditions unacceptable to residential zoning. Hexcel recommended
that the zoning remain as indicated on the General Plan. The pro-
perty should be kept industrial until a firm plan can be proposed
which is acceptable to the entire neighborhood.
Mayor Silva noted a letter had been received from the Hexcel Corpor-
ation signed by Mr. Robert L. Wick, Secretary, expressing the same
opinions.
Mr. Sladky felt an acceptable plan could be worked out, but Rs-4
is not the answer for the land south of the tracks.
Mr. Barker informed the Council that Mr. George Stubblebine, who had
been handling the disposition of this property south of the tracks
for the owners, was in the audience in order to ascertain the Coun-
cil's action in this matter. Mr. Barker pointed out there are
presently twelve homes in the area, and these homes will also be
affected by the industrial plant constructed adjacent to them. He
suggested that perhaps the RG-16 could be included north of the track.
CM-23-136
Mr. Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, felt only in-
dustrial could be located between the tracks
and a major street.
July 27, 1970
(PH-Portola Ave.
Annex No.4
Continued)
Mayor Silva stated that letters had been received from Ralph B.
Pahlmeyer stating RG/CN zoning was satisfactory and Mr. and Mrs.
George Nichols, 4173 Colgate Way, requesting single family homes.
The Council then discussed possible zoning for the area along
the highway which is presently indicated at 1.5 d.u./acre in the
General Plan. Rs-4 zoning would be higher density, and Councilman
Miller felt that Rs-4 zoning should be abandoned and lower density
set for new annexations.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to zone that area shown on the map
as buff colored, excluding the hatched area, (Judson property)
as A-20 (Agricultural), and to refer the hatched area back to
the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Councilman
Miller and passed unanimously.
The Council then considered the area north of Portola and First
Street, including a school and a park, and shown on the map as
RS-3.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to rezone the area north of Portola Avenue and First Street to
RS-3, and the motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller
Councilman Taylor felt that the triangle bounded by Portola and
the state highway was a logical place for commercial use. This
could be zoned Rs-4 with a clear statement from the Council that
a shopping center is expected to be developed in this area. Mr.
Musso stated that once the area is zoned they have no control
over it. Councilman Pritchard stated there is a service station
already at the tip of the triangle and he could not see any use
other than commercial.
Councilman Taylor suggested zoning the tip of the triangle as PD
(Planned Development) District.
Mr. Barker agreed that the triangle was a good location for a
shopping center, but it could not be self-supporting now. PD
zoning would not really commit the property as a site for a shopping
center.
Councilman Taylor felt that a resolution statement could be made
by the Council that this triangle be developed as a shopping cen-
ter, but since part of the land could be sold individually there
could be problems with commercial zoning.
Councilman Miller felt the disadvantage of the CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) zoning is that the property can be broken up and the
advantage of the CN zoning is that it can be reviewed each year.
Therefore a PD zoning which would expire each year and states
that this will be CN zoning could give the City more control over
the six acres.
Mr. Barker pointed out the present service station is not owned
by his clients and they would need at least six acres for a com-
mercial center.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
that the balance of the triangle (six acres excluding the service
station site) be zoned PD, and the motion passed unanimously.
{~ ~-P~ ~ ~rtv;ch .~~~ ~x CCV4?UJ'zr-~~
aJ;~.. -CJ"-'" "12 c/'} J . . :- "'L77'\ ~.,1 ~ l' CM...::- 9)3-1371
--"'-"-L- t1::. ~~. /)/-2~ /.J./ 4~ ~~ ~~ O-~(}~
7.-^c~.--4~ " - .' .'. J ,-
r ., r~ @,-.-L ~ r:"~Lkl?L~~c._I.:.~ ~ ~(] '--u~-~ -
..---dkr-~L I'?/ ^~ ?-O~ --tys,~~- ~~LL<-&~ ) ~&f J 6r
f I iU Cl??k L~A--
July 27, 1970
(PH-Portola
Ave. Annex
No.4, Contd)
George Gundlfinger, representing Ralph Pahlmeyer, owner
of the property where the service station is located,
inquired if that property would be zoned CN (Commer-
cial). Mayor Silva abstained from discussion in
regard to this point as the station is a Standard
operated station. Mr. Gundlfinger was assured that there was no
problem as the use is already approved and in existence, but the
property will be referred back to the Planning Commission for clar-
ification of a zoning category.
Mayor Silva returned to the chair at the close of this discussion.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the area between the tracks
and First Street, labeled as ID-H zoning on the map, be zoned ID-H
in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission;
the motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor. The owners had pro-
posed RG-16 for this area. Councilman Taylor felt that since this
area had been designated for light industrial for a number of years,
it should remain as industrial.
Councilman Beebe stated that this would be an ideal location for
CH (Highway Commercial) zoning for motels, etc. Councilman Miller
said he felt ID-H zoning gave the City more control over the use
than CH zoning.
Councilman Miller stated that the proposed 4.7 density is over the
General Plan, and he did not see any reason to increase the overall
density.
Mr. Barker inquired if the owners presented another plan with the
RG-16 in another location, with ID-H zoning for this area, and
sufficient open space dedicated to compensate for the RG-16, would
the Council be agreeable.
Councilman Miller pointed out that there was zero density for the
whole area for it was indicated as industrial by the General Plan.
There was no indicated density from which to subtract to allow the
multiple use.
Councilman Beebe stated he would like to see the area around the
existing plant, as well as the homes on Colgate Way, protected by
a buffer zone. Mr. Barker suggested that the area just within the
fenced area around Hexcel's plant be zoned ID to insure protection.
The Council felt that the Planning Commission should look into this
further.
Councilman Taylor pointed out the zonings indicated by the General
Plan and the density for this area. There is little residential
zoning and density presently indicated, and any revised plan presented
should maintain the density as indicated under the General Plan.
Mayor Silva agreed the density should be maintained as shown by the
General Plan.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Miller, that action on the rezoning of this property be continued
until the 19th or 26th of October, and the motion was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS, THE MEETING WAS RESUMED WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
CM-23-138
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 103-70
RESOLUTION CONFORMING ASSESSMENTS - WEED
ABATEMENT
~"
*
*
*
A letter has been received from the Springtown
Association in regard to speed and motorcycle
noise in that area. It was suggested by the
Police Chief that residents report violations
immediately in order that immediate investiga-
tion may be made.
*
*
*
Bids were received from the following companies
in the amount listed for an industrial tractor-
loader for the Golf Course Department:
July 27, 1970
Resolution - Weed
Abatement
Springtown Assoc.
re Traffic
Bids for Capital
Expenditure Items
Bidders
Hayward Tractor (Ford 35012-K)
International Harvester, Fremont
Hoyt & Buettner, Hayward
(John Deere JD-300)
Techel Tractor, Concord
(Massey Ferguson - MF-40-32-18)
Bid Plus Tax
"$ 6,034.77
(2444-D) 6,318.40
6,483.69
6,720.92
The highest bid by Techel Tractor of Concord is recommended for
acceptance because it is the only bid that offers a tractor which
meets the specifications, including the torque converter.
Bids were received on July 23, 1970, for the construction of
traffic signals and left turn lanes at the intersection of Hillcrest
and East Avenue. The bid for modifications of the traffic signal
at Fourth and Livermore Avenue is included.
Amount
39,741. 94
43,380.00
45,607.50
42,110.00
Bidder
Rosendin Electric, Inc.
Steiny & Mitchel, Inc.
R. Flatland Co.
$
Engineer's Estimate
It is recommended that the low bid by Rosedin Electric, Inc. be
accepted and the bid awarded to them.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Housing Authority meetings
of June 9 and 16 and the Minutes of the Beauti-
fication Committee meeting of June 11 were
acknowledged.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, the Consent Calendar, in-
cluding the resolution, was approved by
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
A report was made by the City Manager in re-
gard to the City's barn located at the former
rodeo grounds. It is in a bad state of disre-
pair and must be repaired to building standards
Minutes
(Housing Authority-
Beautification
Committee)
Approval of Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE CITY BARN
OCCUPANCY (CAC)
CM-23-139
July 27, 1970
(Barn Occupancy) before it can be used. An application has been
received from the Livermore Cultural Arts Coun-
cil requesting permission to use the structure
on a temporary basis, and that repairs will be
made by them at their expense.
Councilman Beebe felt that if any tax monies are spent on the
building at any time that it revert back to the City. It should
be a voluntary effort and no taxes can be spent on this building.
Under the proposal the management responsibility for this building
will be transferred to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park Dis-
trict for use by the LCAC. The lease would be for a period of two
years after which time vacancy might be required.
Councilman Miller felt that the Cultural Arts Council should be a
party to the agreement since they will be using the building and
financing the repairs.
Councilman Pritchard stated there were many people who objected to
the use of this building by the LCAC; perhaps the Council should
consider some other use, such as a collection point in connection
with the Ecology Center for papers, cans, bottles, etc.
Mrs. Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, said it seemed to be
a prevalent thing for the Cultural Arts Council to call on the City
Council for aid. They have already asked for a subsidy from the
City and now are requesting use of this building. If they have the
money for $3,000 in repairs, then why did they ask the Council for
$2,100 subsidy. She felt the Council should consider this request
and vote wisely on this matter.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., felt that if the barn was in such
disrepair then it should be demolished or some use found for it,
such as use by the Ecology Center. If it can be repaired, then
perhaps it could be utilized by the City rather than renting space
downtown. There is a large second floor at the Golf Course building
also which is not in use and perhaps could be used by this or other
groups. He did not feel the City should get involved with one par-
ticular group.
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle, felt that perhaps the City would make
money from the recycling efforts if this building is used for this
purpose.
Bob Seldon, 1066 Madison, president of the Cultural Arts Council,
said that the building had been proposed for razing, and that there
are a number of groups in the City which would like to use the
building and are interested in repairing the barn for use.
Councilman Taylor reminded the Council that when the situation was
first discussed the Council had been presented with an estimate
for razing the building but many people had felt there could be
some use for the building. He did not understand why anyone would
want the building torn down rather than put to use.
Mrs. Robert Heath, 2988 Kennedy Street, said she could not under-
stand why they would want to put their money into a building which
will be torn down. Rather the LCAC could have raised the money
for their Festival rather than putting it into repairs.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that the staff recommendation be
accepted, that management responsibility for the City barn be trans-
ferred to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District subject
to their approval and to the conditions that structural changes be
made, that this agreement is temporary in nature, and terminated
when City requests occupancy. This motion was seconded by Council-
man Miller and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
CM-23-140
The City Manager presented a report and his re-
commendations on the various special projects
presented by the Chamber of Commerce for inclu-
sion in the budget.
July 27, 1970
REPORT OF CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE SPECIAL
PROJECTS
Councilman Miller made a motion that Item 1 - Standard Industrial
Survey, Item 3 - Industrial Map, Item 5 - Presentation Folder and
Item 10 - Community Needs Survey, be approved and the remainder
of the projects deleted. There was no second to the motion.
The Council then considered each of the proposed eleven projects
individually.
Item 1 - Standard Industrial Survey
The Council was in agreement with this item.
$ 350.00
Item 2 - Industrial Brochure $ 1,500.00
Councilman Miller objected to this item as he felt industrial
realtors usually obtain this information for themselves; Mayor
Silva stated he thought the City needed this item; Councilman
Taylor said he felt each realtor operates for his own needs and
not for the City; Councilman Beebe said this tool had not been
tried before and perhaps this would aid in obtaining industry.
Mr. Parness replied that he had received requests for such infor-
mation on several occasions from industrial people he talked with.
Some cities are producing very good brochures because there is a
need for them. This item was approved with Councilman Miller
dissenting.
Item 3 - Industrial Map $ 1,100.00
It was pointed out that this expense is for the printing alone as
the actual preparation of the map and updating will be done by
the City engineering staff. This item was approved by the Council.
Item 4 - Property Owners Index $ 300.00
Councilman Miller felt this was an unwarranted expenditure as it
is out of date as soon as it is made. Mr. Mason explained that a
key to industrial properties would be made and printed as needed;
this would be a maximum expenditure. These tools have not been
available before, and it is hoped that these will aid in locating
industry in Livermore. Councilman Miller pointed out that this
work is done with tax money, not Chamber money. This item was
approved with Councilman Miller dissenting.
Item 5 - Presentation Folder $ 100.00
This item was approved for $100 in accordance with the City Mana-
ger's recommendation, rather than the $200 requested by the Chamber.
Item 6 - Photos of Industrial Sites
Councilman Miller stated there was already a
this expense should be provided by realtors.
3-2 to eliminate this expenditure.
Item 7 - Industrial Travel, Meetings, Etc. $ 600.00
The Chamber had requested $bOO for this item, but the City Manager
recommended reducing the amount to $600. Councilmen Miller and
Pritchard requested deletion of this item. Mr. Mason felt they
should be represented at industrial meetings just as the Council
is represented at City organizations. Councilman Miller stated
that realtors know there is land available in Livermore and repre-
sentation is not needed at local meetings. After discussion
this item was approved at $600 with the stipulation that it be used
for out-of-town travel upon approval by the City Manager, with
Councilman Miller dissenting in the vote.
$ 100.00
photo available, and
The Council voted
Item 8 - Industrial Tour $ 400.00
Mr. Mason stated it had been three years since an industrial tour
had been held. Mayor Silva stated he had heard comments from
realtors attending that they had revised their opinion of Liver-
more's desire for industry as a result of the tour. The Council
approved this item, with Councilmen Miller and Pritchard dissenting.
CM-23-141
July 27, 1970
(Chamber
Projects)
Item 9 - Miscellaneous $ 250.00
Mr. Mason explained that this was contingency item
in relation to promotion of industry. The Chamber
had requested $500, but upon recommendation of the
the Council approved this item for $250, with Coun-
and Pritchard dissenting.
City Manager,
cilmen Miller
Item 10 - Community Needs Survey $ 1,200.00
Mr. Mason explained that this item was presented as an alternative,
and felt that this was not needed this year. This item was deleted
by the Council with Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva dissent-
ing. It was suggested the survey could be carried out by the City.
Item 11 - Slide Presentation $ 1,000.00
This item was deleted by the Council by unanimous vote
*
*
*
CUP - SIGN Frank Lewis has requested a Conditional Use Permit
(Frank Lewis) to place a roof sign at 1593 First Street for Foster
Freeze. The Planning Commission concluded that the
sign could be considered architecturally a part of
the structure, but felt the parapet wall should be extended around
the roof. Approval is recommended upon the condition that the para-
pet wall be extended.
CouncLillEn MU~r made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, that
the Planning Commission recommendation for approval be accepted,
and the motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
In accordance with the suggestion given by the Coun-
cil, the City Manager conducted a survey among mer-
chants who were assessed for the lease of the public
off-street parking lot as a part of their business
license. The City Manager submitted the results of
the survey to the Council and recommended that lot usage continue
as at present. Mr. Parness stated that brief checks had shown that
there was 50% occupancy, but a more complete study of usage might
better indicate the needs for the parking lot. This matter was con-
tinued until a detailed report of actual usage can be prepared.
REPORT RE
OFF-STREET
PARKING
*
*
*
A Conditional Use Permit has been requested for a
real estate office at 476 No. L Street to be lo-
cated in a CP zone. This use was not included
under CP zoning by the Planning Commission at the
time the ordinance was drawn because of the nature
of the business. Allowance for this type of use
under a CUP at this time would set a precedent, and denial was
recommended.
CUP - Real
Estate Office
No. L Street
(Allied Brokers)
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, and
the motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
SUMMARY
The summary of action taken at the Planning Com-
mission meeting of June 21 was acknowledged by the
Council.
*
*
*
CM-23-142
Mr. Musso reported he had met with the Shell
representative in regard to the proposed sta-
tion at Portola Avenue to work out the details
of signing for the station. Shell had agreed
to eliminate the roof sign in exchange for erec-
tion of a permanently affixed decorative price sign.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe requested that the staff pre-
pare a report on the proposed taxes which would
result, as well as effect on City services, from
a proposed trailer park when such application
is received.
*
*
*
July 27, 1970
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Shell Station)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Trailer Parks)
Mayor Silva spoke in regard to the ABAG meeting ABAG Meeting
scheduled for July 30. Councilman Taylor was re-
quested to attend as Councilman Miller, the Coun-
cil's representative, would be unable to attend.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva reported he had received a complaint
that the driveway at the Gulf service Station in
Springtown was a safety hazard. Mr. Lee was re-
quested to take anotherillok at the safety aspects
and report his findings to the Council.
*
*
*
(Gulf Station -
Springtown)
Mayor Silva stated he had read that the units (Housing Authority)
being constructed by the Housing Authority
would cost about $24,000 each, not including
the cost of the land and felt this was extremely high. Concern
was expressed by all members of the Council that this cost was
too high and the Council discussed if there was any action they
could take in regard to the proposed plan, however no action was
taken.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 12:35
a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 28, 1970,
for a joint study session with the Planning
Commission, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39
South Livermore Avenue.
*
*
ATTEST
APPROVE
Li
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-143
Regular Meeting of August 3, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, August
3, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and
Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the members of the Council and those
present in the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner, gave a brief report
(Peace March) on 110peration Cleanupll, which was a petition drive
held within the City last winter. This petition,
in part, stated that Livermore citizens opposed the
use of public facilities for staging facilities or havens for marches
or protests. Although this petition referred in particular to
schools and college campuses, it could apply equally to any public
facilities. He indicated that 794 Livermore citizens had signed this
petition, with about 10% opposing it and 10% refusing to sign any
petition and urged that the City take a strong stand against the
use of ~ublic facilities as staging areas for the Peace March on
August bth.
Mayor Silva pointed out that the School District would have to handle
the situation as the property requested is school property, and all
the City can do is provide police to control any activity which may
take place.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Public Works Director submitted a report recom-
mending that there be restricted parking on First
Street east of Holmes Street and parallel parking
on Fourth Street. Mr. Lee stated that the adjacent
owners, Mobil Service Station and Import Car Sales,
had been contacted and Import Car Sales felt the llno parking" res-
triction would hurt their business. The matter had been discussed
with the owner and suggestions made that another driveway be added
to the car lot to provide parking for customers, but the owner felt
the cost would be too great. The parking change on Fourth Street
would involve st. Michael's Church; the pastor was away on vacation
but the assistant had been informed of the proposed change. There
would be approximately 22 parking spaces lost as a result of the
change to parallel parking. Councilman Beebe suggested that action
should be delayed until the pastor returned to ascertain if there
are objections to the change.
Parking Res-
trictions at
1st & 4th sts.
After further discussion the Council approved the recommendation
of the Public Works Director, but requested that the striping on
Fourth Street be delayed until the pastor returns and can be in-
formed of the change.
Val Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth Way, stated that he had brought the
traffic situation on Fourth Street to the attention of the Council
previously at which time he presented pictures of traffic backed
up on Fourth Street even though the church parking lot was only
partially filled.
*
*
*
CM-23-144
RESOLUTION NO. 104-70
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
August 3, 1970
Personnel Rules
and Regulations
This resolution is required due to the change in fringe benefits
award for employees whereby the City contributes an amount toward
dependent coverage for medical insurance; reference is also made
to the provision for llMemoranda of Agreementll.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 105-70
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING LOCAL OFFICIALS TO ACT
FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN OBTAINING FUNDS FOR
CIVIL DEFENSE.
RESOLUTION NO. 106-70
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE REGARDING
CIVIL DEFENSE SURPLUS PROPERTY; COMBINATION OF
SURPLUS PROPERTY OVER AND UNDER $2,500.00.
Resolutions -
Civil Defense
(Funds & Surplus
Property Acquisi-
tions)
These resolutions revise the signatures of authorized persons
for Civil Defense matters to delete the former Assistant Director.
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license
has been received from the Livermore-Amador
Mobilization for Peace (LAMP) peace fair -
August 8.
*
*
*
Exempt Business
License
One hundred seventeen claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims
$63,525.58 and two hundred forty payroll war-
rants in the amount of $77,800.97 dated July 30,
1970, were presented to the Council and ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager. Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrant
No. 7992 for the usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun- Approval of
cilman Taylor, the Consent Calendar was approved, Consent Calendar
as amended, by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
The Public Works Director submitted a report
in answer to a letter received from Mr. E. M.
Bobson relative to the sewer connection agree-
ment dated August 10, 1964, and the modifica-
tion dated October 18, 1965. Mr. Bobson is in
disagreement with the staff over two points involving
benefit district and the water line extension on East
which he has been billed.
REPORT RE LIVERMORE
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PARK
the sewer
Avenue for
Mr. Bobson and Mr. Ed Hutka, the parties involved, were present
. at the meeting. Mr. Bobson asked that this matter be continued
for one to two weeks in order that he could study the staff re-
port and outline his points of disagreement. It was also suggested
that Mr. Bobson contact the staff to discuss this matter so that
agreement could be reached before discussion by the Council.
*
*
*
CM-23-14S
August 3, 1970
REPORT RE
MOBILE HOME
PARK INQUIRY
The City Manager explained that this letter of in-
quiry regarding possible location of a mobile home
park in Livermore was presented to the Council to
ascertain their views before annexation proceedings
are begun. The owner of a small mobile park located
at 1348 South Livermore Avenue wishes to expand and improve his
land, including expansion of sewer and storm drains. He would like
some indication of the views of the Council before assuming these
costs and annexation fees. Mayor Silva stated that the Planning
Commission should consider this before the Council could act.
Mr. Richard Callaghan, representing Mr. Phillip Redmond, who is
the owner of the trailer court, stated the park is adjacent to the
City boundary. Mr. Redmond was asking for some assurance that he
could expand and ask for annexation and that this would subsequently
be considered as a suitable location for a mobile home park and
zoned as such.
Councilman Pritchard wished to point out that this park is in exis-
tence now and that the owner is attempting to upgrade his property;
this should be taken into consideration when the matter is considered
by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Beebe felt that this is an existing use and the owner
wants to upgrade his property which will certainly be considered
by the Planning Commission. Mayor Silva said this would reflect
in the minutes.
Councilman Taylor felt that the Commission's review should be without
prejudice and made a motion that this general area be reviewed by
the Planning Commission as to possible land use and the motion was
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
The Planning Director stated this matter had been before the Plan-
ning Commission previously, and they had felt this area should be
used for higher density residential use or commercial office related
to civic center.
The motion for referral to the Planning Commission was approved un-
animously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that in the original
memo the staff had noted difficulties in enforcing
the ordinance in regard to the storage of trailers,
camper tops, and similar equipment in residential
yards. They had recommended that either the ordi-
nance be enforced or be repealed. The Planning Commission has re-
commended that it be enforced and the Council should now decide
whether they want to enforce it, review it, change it, or repeal it.
REPORT RE
TRAILER
STORAGE
The Mayor stated that there had been a discussion of this matter by
the Planning Commission and the Council at the study session. The
policy set by the Council had been to enforce the ordinance upon
complaint and the discussion at the study session had centered around
the fact that the ordinance should be enforced in an overall manner,
not just on complaint, to be fair and just.
Mayor Silva stated that there should not be a policy to enforce or
not enforce an ordinance; if the ordinance is unfair it should be
repealed.
Councilman Pritchard stated he could not understand enforcing an
ordinance which is inequitable; presently this ordinance is inequi-
table. One type of vehicle is permitted while another is not.
CM-23-146
August 3, 1970
Councilman Beebe felt that the present policy
of enforcement upon complaint should be main-
tained.
(Trailer storage
Continued)
Councilman Taylor felt that the present policy was unfair; the
ordinance should be amended or abolished. Some control must be
exercised over what vehicles can be parked in front yards.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
that this matter be continued until August 24th, which was approved
unanimously.
Val Yoakum wished to add some comments to his letter which had
been given to the Council. He felt storage meant month-in, month-
out long term storage. He used his camper on the average of two
weekends per month and did not consider this storage.
Mayor Silva pointed out that a hearing on this matter about four
years ago had been held and the ordinance adopted over the protest
of 10% of the residents.
*
*
*
Intermark Investing Company has requested a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a mobile
home park on a site located between Bluebell
Drive and U. S. 580, east of Las Flores Road.
The Planning Director explained that under the
ordinance, a public hearing on this application is optional.
Councilman Miller had expressed his desire that a public hearing
be set.
CUP - Intermark
Investing Co.
(Mobile Home Park)
Councilman Taylor stated he did not see any reason for bringing
this application back before the Council as it appeared to be
unchanged unless the applicant seems to feel there has been a
change in public feeling in regard to mobilehome parks. If this
is the case, then this CUP should be reconsidered at a public
hearing. Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, that a public hearing be set for August 24.
Mayor Silva did not think a formal public hearing was necessary
as citizens were free to appear before the Council whether it is
a formal public hearing or not. Councilman Taylor stated that
surrounding residents should be notified and it should be a formal
public hearing. Councilman Pritchard pointed out there had been
a hearing at the Planning Commission level, but would go along
with Councilman Miller's previous request for a public hearing
out of courtesy for his wishes. Councilman Beebe said that in
this case a public hearing should be set even though it does in-
volve some cost on the part of the City as residents should be
given an opportunity to express their views.
Mr. Perry, 2332 Shetland Road, stated that a newspaper article
had indicated there would be a public hearing, and that was why
he and some other residents were present at the meeting. He had
a petition signed by 241 people, 75 from Springtown, opposed to
this permit. Mr. Perry asked if there was a definite plan sub-
mitted that this will be an adult community as well as a llfive
starll mobile home park.
Mayor Silva said his understanding was that the plan which has
been submitted is not the one the applicant wishes to have approved.
The use can be approved conditioned upon approval of the final
or amended plan.
Councilman Taylor stated that it had been pointed out by the City
Attorney previously that there was no legal basis for limiting
the park, or other housing, to adults only.
CM-23-147
August 3, 1970
(CUP-Intermark
Investing Co.)
Mr. Perry also inquired about the bond for the
completion of Larkspur and Bluebell Drive through
Proud Country, and asked when this work would be
done.
The Public Works Director replied that completion of this street
was required with completion of the third housing unit and so far
there are only two units. A bond would only be posted at that
time, but is not presently posted.
At the close of the discussion, the motion for a public hearing
to be set for August 24 regarding Intermark Investing Company's
application for a Conditional Use Permit was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that this was a
proposal for rezoning a site located at the inter-
section of Collier Canyon Road and U.S. 580 from
A (Agricultural) to General Commercial District.
The Planning Commission felt that this rezoning was
premature and that the General Commercial zoning
would not be appropriate for this area. Possible
uses other than single family, which is the use indicated on Liver-
more's general plan, were discussed. Mr. Musso felt there would
be more requests for commercial in this area in the near future.
COUNTY
REFERRAL RE
REZONING
(Continental
Pool Service)
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of
the rezoning, which was approved unanimously.
The Council discussed the suggestion that Mr. Musso present a de-
tailed plan of proposed uses for this whole general area to the
Board of Supervisors for their information and use in considering
applications for various uses.
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS-
(Jurisdiction
for Assessment
District)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness addressed the Council in regard to a
similar problem he faced when he appeared before
the Board of Supervisors hearing to request juris-
diction for formation of an assessment district
hearing relative to utility services for the pro-
posed Junior College. This matter will also come
before the Council in about a month and calls for
the extension of the utility lines up Collier Canyon and down to
the treatment plant. All of the area, about 640 acres, will be
in the proposed assessment district, and the Board of Supervisors
must grant jurisdiction for property not within the City to be in-
cluded in the district. One of the land owners (90.5 acres) has
already contacted Supervisor Murphy in regard to his assessment
in excess of $70,000. This landowner is concerned because his
acreage is quite hilly and has been proposed for 1.5 d.u./acre
density by the Planning Commission for a small portion and zero
density for the remainder. He cannot understand assuming an assess-
ment of $70,000 when on the other hand he is being told that he
cannot expect anything but very low density use for his land. Mr.
Parness felt more thought should be given by the Council and the
Planning Commission as to what can be done in this area and to
density transfers so that the land can be utilized.
Mr. Parness stated Supervisor Murphy was quite concerned about
the meeting and had expressed the hope that the Council would con-
sider density transfer and give some assurance that this landowner
could recover his assessment costs.
After discussion of ways of achieving equity for the owners in the
area of the assessment district, the Council agreed that the owner
CM-23-148
August 3, 1970
of the property must be compensated in some (Bd. of Supervisors)
manner for his high assessment and this could
be done by giving a higher density to that por-
tion along the road. The City Attorney pointed out that this
approach might aid in solving a legal problem in the formation
of the district.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission has considered referral
from the City Council for reconsideration of
possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of
Sec. 21.40 (Off-Street Parking).
PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Sec. 21. 40-
Off-Street Parking)
Mr. Musso outlined the changes proposed, includ-
ing those recommended by the Council and also one relative to
parking for upper stories. In the CB Zone (downtown) the 2 to 1
ratio is not feasible, so the requirement was left at 1-1; in
the CG Zone (between railroad tracks) there should be two square
feet for each square foot of first floor area and one square foot
for each square foot of second or subsequent floor area. Under
motels, hotels, etc., parking requirements for pertinent eating
and drinking places one additional space for every ten rooms was
added. The length of the required easement was reduced from 100
ft. to 50 ft. in depth. Under landscaping, page 9, the requirement
was added for a planter of five feet plus protection around it.
The City Attorney was instructed to prepare the ordinance as stated
in the draft presented for first reading and subsequent vote.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission minutes of the meeting
of July 21, 1970, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
California Water Service Company has made an
application for a rate increase by use of a
llstep ratell over several years. Discussion
followed concerning the proposed increases and
whether they were justified. Mr. Parness point-
ed out the areas the City now services and those
which are planned to be serviced in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REPORT RE CALIFORNIA
WATER SERVICE CO.
RATE INCREASE
Mr. Parness reported to the Council he had been contacted by one
of the other public customers of California Water Service to see
if Livermore was interested in joining financially in an effort
to retain the services of a specialist to look into the proposed
rate increase and possibly to challenge it. He was instructed
to obtain more information in this regard to see what it would
cost the City and what it would cover, and report back to the
Council for further consideration.
*
*
*
The City Manager submitted a report regarding
a directly elected mayor as requested by the
Council.
REPORT RE DIRECTLY
ELECTED MAYOR
Mayor Silva felt that this matter should be postponed until all
the Council was present. The election of mayor could not take
place until 1972, and perhaps new councilmen should serve longer
before making the decision to have such an election.
The City Attorney pointed out that two elections are involved -
one to put before the citizens the question of an elected mayor
CM-23-149
August 3, 1970
(Elected
Mayor)
at either a general municipal election (in April)
or a special election held sooner. The soonest an
elected mayor could be chosen would be at the en-
suing municipal election in April, 1972.
Councilman Taylor said he would like to delay decision until he
had the opportunity to talk to others at the League of California
Cities meeting in October.
Councilman Pritchard felt that this should be done as soon as pos-
sible. He did feel that more discussion was needed as many people
were confused as to what they would be voting on. Some felt that
voting on an elected mayor meant they were also voting for a char-
ter. This is not true as Livermore is a General Law City and these
differences should be discussed with the citizens.
Mayor Silva felt this matter should be postponed for one year in
order to investigate the question thoroughly and to inform the
voters and also to avoid the cost of a special election if nothing
can be done until 1972. If the matter can be resolved in November,
with the election in 1972, then he felt the Council should go ahead
with its decision.
Councilman Taylor felt this item might be buried on the general elec-
tion ballot in
serves. There
three in 1974.
be voted on in
November; the issue would not get the debate it de-
would only be one councilman running in 1972 with
He felt it would be better for the elected mayor to
1974.
Councilman Beebe pointed out most people indicated they wanted the
term to be set for two years, not four. Mayor Silva stated this
would put an extra burden in time and expense on anyone running for
mayor to run for election every two years.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that this matter be postponed for a
year and it was seconded by Mayor Silva. The motion failed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Taylor and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilman Miller
Discussion followed as to when the election on the question of a
directly elected mayor could be held; if not in November, then it
could be consolidated with the school election in April or at a
special election.
The City Attorney stated that his research indicated that the legis-
lature had delegated to the City Council the responsibility to make
the decisions as to whether or not it should be submitted to the
voters and that it is not subject to initiative or referendum.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, that
this matter be continued until August 17 when a full Council would be
present and the motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
STAFF
(Resolution-
Greeting to
Sister City)
The City Attorney had prepared a resolution for
presentation by Councilman Taylor during his visit
to Livermore's Sister City Quezaltenango which ex-
pressed greetings and salutations from the City
Council.
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the following resolution was approved
unanimously:
CM-23-150
August 3, 1970
RESOLUTION NO. 107-70 (Resolution Sister
City)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
SENDING ITS WARM GREETINGS AND SALUTATIONS TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE OP OUR SISTER CITY QUEZALTENANGO.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard told the Council that on
a recent visit in a home in the Kaufman & Broad
subdivision, he had noticed a very strong odor
from the Water Reclamation Plant. Mr. Lee re-
plied that he did not know that odors were
noticeable that far from the plant; however, it is a fact that our
sludge handling facilities are at a critical stage and subject to
problems. It was hoped to have a plan before the Council soon as
to how to proceed to take care of this problem. Mr. Lee was re-
quested by the Council to investigate and report back to the
Council.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL (Water
Treatment Plant)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor reported on the ABAG meeting (ABAG Meeting)
he had attended as the Council's representative.
The General Plan was overwhelmingly approved,
and designates the area around Livermore for
minimal development.
*
*
*
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of August 10, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
August 10, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:03 P.M.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and
Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
COUNCILMAN MILLER WAS SEATED AT THIS TIME
CM-23-151
August 10, 1970
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of July 27, 1970, were
approved as amended, and the minutes of the meeting
of August 3, 1970, were approved as presented on
motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and by unanimous approval.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Housing
Authority)
Mrs. Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, addressed
the Council on the proposed low cost housing project
to replace Vila Gulf, being built at a reported cost
of $24,000 per unit. She felt the Council should be
careful in regard to putting anything on the ballot
in regard to urban housing development and suggested that citizens
attend the meeting of the Housing Authority to be held on August 18
to voice their protests.
Mayor Silva stated that this matter had been discussed previously
and that this is out of the Council's jurisdiction. Councilman Miller
stated that a certain amount of federal tax money is appropriated
for housing, and this is a federal issue, not local. Mayor Silva
pointed out that the voters in Livermore had voted to participate
in this program. The Council, as well as others in the community,
have expressed concern over the high cost of the units.
*
*
*
(Golf Course) Paul Tull, 2243 Linden, stated that he recently in-
quired of the Council if it would be possible to rent
or lease the City Golf Course so that it would produce
income to the City rather than a loss. Mayor Silva
replied that the course was showing more income due to more play and
increased fees, and should be making money soon.
*
*
*
(Treatment
Plant)
Mr. Tull also suggested that the sludge material
from the Water Treatment Plant be sold as fertilizer
and a source of revenue. Mr. Lee replied that it
was being used in the City's parks now and removal
is not a problem.
*
*
*
Mr.Tull also spoke about an article in the Independent
and the Resolution of the Grand Jury regarding fin-
ancing or subsidizing of private projects. This
resolution states that any subsidy granted
for private projects not necessary to governmental
functions be put to a vote of the citizens. There-
fore, he maintained that the Cultural Arts and Chamber of Commerce
subsidies were covered by this resolution, and should be voted on
by the people. Upon questioning of Councilman Miller, Mr. Tull did
not feel this applied to the Rodeo Parade.
(Financing of
Private
Organizations)
The City Attorney pointed out that a resolution of the Grand Jury
is a recommendation and generally applies to County government.
Secondly, there are several sections in the government code which
provide for the use of public funds for promotion and advertising
of such projects which are felt to be worthwhile by the Council.
Thirdly, the resolution refers to capital projects which are normally
interpreted to mean improvement of bujldings, construction of build-
ings, and similar uses. Mr. Lewis felt that primarily they were
speaking about money derived from lease purchase agreements; there-
fore, he did not feel that the resolution was intended to apply to
such funds as mentioned by Mr. Tull.
*
*
*
CM-23-152
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, corrected a
previous statement that he had 794 signatures
on a petition for operation campus cleanup;
the correct figure is 695.
August 10, 1970
(Operation
Campus Cleanup)
"
"1\-
*
*
The Planning Director reported that several
years ago when the RG-IO, 12 and 14 Zoning
Districts were adopted, the building height
was limited to one story. It has been con-
cluded from more recent discussions, especially
in respect to townhouses, that more open space can be provided
if this is changed to allow two stories. The Planning Commission
recommends that RG-14 and RG-16 be allowed as two stories and
RG-IO and RG-12 be allowed as two stories except that second
story flats are prohibited. Also added was a provision for de-
velopment in excess of the height limit subject to a Conditional
Use Permit. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended a
fifty-foot setback for a two-story structure adjacent to single
family residential.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
SEC. 8.00 RG DIS-
TRICT ZO AMENDMENT
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to close the public hearing as no one wished to speak on
this item, and the motion was approved unanimously.
A motion was then made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation
for amendment of Section 8.00 RG (Suburban Multiple Residential)
District of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly Sections 8.82,
.83 and .84 to require non-street frontage yard for second-story
structures adjacent to single family residential be fifty (50)
feet and Sections 8.80, 8.88 and 8.89 regarding building heights.
The motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following resolutions are required by law
and constitute a formal request for the enlist-
ment of the annual assessment on the tax bill-
ing and its collection by the County on the
City's behalf:
Resolutions re
Assessment Districts
RESOLUTION NO. 108-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO
BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA (Northern Water Assessment District No. 1962-2)
RESOLUTION NO. 109-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO
BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA (Northern Sanitary Sewer Assessment District No. 1962-1)
RESOLUTION NO. 110-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO
BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA (Wagoner Farms Assessment District No. 1962-3)
RESOLUTION NO. 111-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO
BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA (Murrieta Boulevard Assessment District No. 1967-1)
CM-23-153
August 10, 1970
(Assessment RESOLUTION NO. 112-70
Districts
Continued) 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. 113-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEVY TO
BE PLACED ON THE TAX ROLL TO BE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA (Portola Avenue Assessment District No. 1966-2)
*
*
*
FAA re
Control
Tower
A communication has been received from the Federal
Aviation Administration regarding control tower site
facility at the Livermore Municipal Airport. The
City Manager reported that the facility should be in
service late summer of 1971.
*
*
*
Exempt
Business
License
An application for an exempt business license has
been received from Groupo Guadalupano - kermess on
August 23, st. Michael's School grounds.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Miller, the Consent Calendar was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Miller, Pritchard and
Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Taylor
*
*
*
REPORT RE
COUNTY HIGHWAY
ADVISORY COM-
MITTEE
MEETING
The City Manager reported that the Highway Advisory
Committee will meet on August 12 to finalize the list
of Projects for subsequent presentation to the Cal-
ifornia Highway Commission. Three of these projects
pertain directly to the City of Livermore:
1. Route 84 along existing alignment from Mission Boulevard to
Route 580 - continue a program for correction of deficiencies.
2. Route 84 freeway from Route 680 near Sunol to Route 580 - com-
pletion of freeway design and acquire rights-of-way.
3. Route 85 from Route 580 to Alameda County-Contra Costa County
Line - completion of route studies and route adoption.
Mr. Parness was asked to convey the endorsement of the Council to
the Committee in regard to these projects.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, the first reading of the ordinance
was waived (title read only) and by the following
vote the ordinance repealing Chapter 5, re Auto
Courts and Trailer Camps and repealing Div. 2 re
parking meters of Article V, re stopping, standing and parking and
enacting a new section prohibiting camping or parking certain vehicles
on public streets or highways, was introduced.
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Miller, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Taylor
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
(Trailers on
Public Streets)
CM-23-154
August 10, 1970
Mayor Silva stated that he had received a re-
quest that their consideration of the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment of Section 21.40
(Off-street Parking) be postponed for one week
in order that the Chamber of Commerce can con-
sider the ordinance at its forthcoming meeting.
This proposed ordinance was discussed on the previous Council meet-
ing of August 3, but no comments were made at that time by members
of the Chamber in this regard and they indicated they were not
aware the ordinance was to be discussed.
PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE AMEND-
MENT (Sec. 21. 40
Off-Street Parking)
Councilman Miller did not feel it was necessary to continue this
matter as the Chamber received agendas and had the same opportunity
to attend as other citizens.
Councilman Beebe said the Council had expressed a willingness to
listen to people and haste is not necessary in this case.
Councilman Miller said he was concerned that a private organiza-
tion was receiving ordinances for their review and he did not
feel that private groups should be given ordinances for review
before the Council takes action. The Chamber can make their
wishes known at the meetings or over the telephone as other mem-
bers of the community do.
Mayor Silva felt that any group could ask for a copy of any
ordinance or request a delay just as an individual could.
Councilman Pritchard felt granting the delay was a matter of
courtesy and would do the same for any group, and made a motion,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, to continue the first reading of
the ordinance regarding amendment of Section 21.40 (Off-Street
Parking) for one week.
Mr. Paul Tull, 2243 Linden, told the Council that they were not
allowed their request for continuance on the budget hearing in
order that Councilman Pritchard could be present. Mayor Silva
replied that Councilman Pritchard stated prior to his leaving
that his vote would be as he had already indicated.
The motion for continuance was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
Councilman Taylor
*
*
*
The City Attorney reminded the City Council
that the park dedication ordinance matter would
be heard in the District Court on August 11.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Park
Dedication Ordinanc~
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that an important (AB 2310)
piece of legislation that would be presented
soon was AB 2310 which would provide for the
establishment of a Bay Area Conservation and Development Agency.
This is the Knox proposal and would encompass the nine county
Bay Area region. The essence of the bill is that this agency
would be granted regional responsibilities for consideration of
such regional matters as transportation, parks and recreation,
solid waste disposal and general planning. The bill provides
for a forty member assembly, twenty of which are to be selected
by the cities and counties involved and the other twenty are to
be elected from districts. The method of selection for the
members is the reason for opposition by the League of California
Cities and the County Supervisors Association. The League urges
CM-23-155
August 10,
(AB 2310)
1970
that all representation be from directly elected
local officials to be selected by the local govern-
ing bodies such as the Council and other official
agencies. The method of financing allowed by this
bill was also discussed by Mr. Parness.
Councilman Pritchard felt this could be taken care of by existing
organizations and felt the Council should oppose the whole bill.
Councilman Miller pointed out this bill had been amended somewhat
from the original bill. As discussed previously, regional govern-
ment will eventually take place to control regional problems, such
as air pollution, which have to be handled regionally.
Mayor Silva stated he would like to see the Council support the
League's position in opposition of this bill.
Mr. Parness discussed reasons for having such an agency and stated
that we should have representation on bodies that address themselves
to regional problems; the whole idea of this agency is to consolidate
regional problems and programs into one body. It would take the
place of ABAG and many other bodies as well and consolidate them
into one master agency.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe that the Council go on record
as opposing the method of selecting representatives for the agency
to be created by AB 2310, but after further discussion the motion
was amended to state that the Council was in opposition to the pre-
sent composition of AB 2310 and in particular with regard to the method
of selection of the Assembly members; the amended motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller and approved unanimously.
(Proposed
Ordinance
Sec. 21. 40 )
(Future Budget
Sessions)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe asked for clarification of a section
on page 2 of the proposed ordinance regarding off-
street parking (Sec. 21.40). He stated the intent
of the study session on this proposed ordinance was
that off-street parking minimum was to be three (3)
spaces. Mr. Musso replied that this was the intent
of the section.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe stated his feeling that at the next
budget hearing one night should be set aside to hear
from the people in this regard without other items
on the agenda and further suggested that there be no
time limit for the speakers.
Councilman Miller felt that it is desirable to give people a chance
to speak but there has to be a time limit because the ideas given
become very repetitious, and all relative points can be stated in
the five-minute time limit.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the Council should be able to state
their views in five minutes also. If the Council can discuss an
item for an hour or more, then the public should have a chance to
give their views. He felt there should be unlimited time allowed
on subjects as important as the budget.
Mayor Silva felt that the time limit was necessary in order for the
Council to cover its agenda.
Councilman Miller pointed out that if a person has more to say than
can be stated in five minutes, it should be written and included in
the agendas. He did agree there should be a special session for
the budget, but the time limit should be observed.
CM-23-156
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, suggested that
one person be allowed to make a concise thorough
coverage of the subject;some of the repetition
would be eliminated.
August 10, 1970
(Time Limit
Speakers)
Mr. Paul Tull stated that repetition indicated that more people
are interested.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe inquired of the staff if it (November Ballot)
had been determined yet when the deadline is
for placement of an issue on the November
ballot. The City Manager stated that the County Clerk had indi-
cated the deadline would be September 3; however, the ballot
would be quite lengthy and it could not be state~ with assurance,
that a measure from the City would be allowed.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated he had had a complaint (Complaint - Weeds)
about weeds at 1826 Broadmoor, which was posted
but not removed. The City Clerk was instructed
to inform the Fire Prevention Bureau.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller reported that AB 1271 had been (AB-1271)
set for interim study in January. Chairman Knox
has suggested that the City should get support for
this measure from the League of California Cities and the School
District should get school groups interested.
The City Attorney stated he would be working on this matter with
the interim committee, and perhaps we should consider a formal
presentation or resolution on this matter.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe inquired if there had been any
complaints about difficulty in turning because
of the island recently located at Pacific Avenue
and South Livermore Avenue. Mr. Lee indicated he
this matter and it did not seem to be excessively
(Island-Pacific
& So. Livermore Ave)
had checked
difficult to turn.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva inquired when the improvements would
be put in on McLeod Street where the street had
been terminated at East Avenue. Mr. Lee stated
City personnel would be used for these projects
accomplished as soon as possible.
(McLeod Street
Improvements)
and it would be
*
*
*
Mayor Silva reported he had received a suggestion (Transfer of
that the meeting on the 17th or 24th be moved to Meeting)
Springtown because of expected large attendance
on the mobilehome park issue. The Council did not feel this
should be done as it would set a precedent for meetings in other
areas.
*
*
*
There being~. further
the council'ftJe meeti
APPROVE V~-o
to come before ADJOURNMENT
~urned at 9:30 p.m.
)
v-<......
ATTES
Ma~oJ
/ C(J~=-A-
ty Clerk
ore, California
CM-23-157
Regular Meeting of August 17, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, August
17, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes offue meeting of August 10 were approved
as presented on motion of Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, and by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSTAIN: Councilman Taylor
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Sign - State
Savings & Loan)
William Hayden, 140 Lee Avenue, referred to a re-
cent meeting at which the Council discussed signing
to be erected by State Savings and Loan on Murrieta
Blvd. The sign seemed to be in total and absolute
defiance of the instructions of the Council. He
felt this matter should be explained to the public.
The Planning Director stated that the final motion failed to in-
clude the intent of the Council that the sign not project above the
roof line.
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING
RE PUD NO. 3
(Kaufman & Broad)
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing on the
Kaufman & Broad request for an extension of Planned
Unit Development Permit No.3 for single family
residential development for 18 months and commer-
cial and multiple development for 36 months from
September 30, 1970.
Mr. Musso stated the main issue is the extension of time with some
minor issues to consider for change.
James Dickey, 1285 Lillian Street, stated he concurred with a re-
cent newspaper editorial which stated that this PUD should not be
extended due to the density and zoning should be in accordance with
present zoning requirements for RS rather than RL.
Anthony Varni, an attorney representing the applicant, asked that
Mr. Musso summarize the staff report and recommendations.
Mr. Musso said many of the changes proposed were minor, such as
adding new tract numbers, changing some of the dates, deleting
some of the extra words; inclusion of the recent increase in park
dedication requirements; deletion of some requirements which are no
longer pertinent; clarifying the method of computing the density of
total number of dwelling units.
Mr. Varni stated that they had reviewed the staff recommendations
and they were agreeable to the changes and other conditions set
forth by the staff, including the increase in park dedication.
The question at this time centers around the extension of time for
the PUD. The finding required for such extension is that the de-
velopment has progressed in a reasonable manner. To support this
finding Mr. Varni stated that the last extension on September 22,
1969, was granted on the condition that the front portion of the
CM-23-158
August 17, 1970
property be redesigned from a traffic study (PH - PUD No.3)
standpoint within 30 days. This study took
longer than 30 days and as a result the PUD
was revised as of January 5, 1970, by the Council, with Charlotte
Way being relocated, with Norma Way extended, and Martha Way
eliminated so that traffic could circulate better and avoid
traffic being directed through the established tract. Until
this study was completed and the PUD amended, work could not be
done on the site. Mr. Varni summarized the work that had been
done since January 5, 1970, and costs involved as follows:
1. Model home complex - $111,102
2. Cabana and swim club - $52,479
3. 38 homes under construction in Tract 3064 - $230,486 to date
4. Charlotte Way improvements - $416,241
5. Arroyo Seco Channel work - $129,759
Total of $931,067 expended since January 5, 1970.
As of this date there have been no homes for which sales have
been completed. There have been three tentative maps submitted
to the City on Tract 3064, two of which have been approved by
the Council and the third is on the agenda to be continued. The
applicant feels that everything has been done physically possible
to procede with the work in the last eight months. In addition,
work has been started on East Avenue on the installation of the
water line in conjunction with the City. Until the plans for
the apartment units are approved, grading cannot be done on
Charlotte Way. Kaufman & Broad have made every effort to com-
plete the work.
Carl Furnberg, 5315 Sandra Way, spoke against the request for
extension of PUD No.3. He suggested that any extension be
with the stipulation that the zoning be changed from RG-16 to
RG-12 on the multi-family area.
Virgie Shore, 1446 Lillian, did not feel that developers should
be allowed to think that any permit will be renewed automatically.
She felt this particular one should be denied because of traffic
problems and school conditions. The developer should be required
to bring forth new plans for this area.
Gordon Smith, 5262 Irene Way, stated that the improvements put
in by Kaufman & Broad were not done willingly but because they
were required and did not feel there were any advantages to re-
newing the permit. Other developers are required to abide by
1970 standards and this developer wants to cling to 1962 standards.
Mr. Smith did not feel the apartments should be allowed.
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, did not speak for or against
the extension request, but in reference to the RS ordinance.
He believed the RS ordinance stinks; the Council should review
this ordinance and change it. Mayor Silva pointed out the RS
ordinance has been referred to the Planning Commission for re-
view.
Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, agreed with Mr. Smith and Mrs.
Shore. She also showed the Council some pictures of Kaufman &
Broad's development in Foster City as an example of what can
happen. She felt the present RS ordinance was better than the
RL zoning, and the 300 apartments were very dense for the area.
Earl Mason, 5181 Diane Court, said he had purchased the first
home in the tract. The apartment and commercial zoning were
approved with the first permit for the area, and anyone purchas-
ing a home in the area could have found out from the City staff
that this was planned. A shopping center is needed, and the
development should continue at a proper pace. More homes might
CM-23-159
August 17, 1970
(PH-PUD No.3) aid in getting a school sooner. Expensive improve-
ments have been put in and Kaufman & Broad should
be allowed to go ahead.
Mr. Varni stated he had made an analysis of the 1962 and present
density allowable, and presented a chart showing previous densities.
In 1962 this development was initially approved with 12.6 acres of
commercial which has been reduced to 7.6 acres; 33.005 acres of
industrial, but as of this date no industrial; 857 single family
dwelling units with a density of 4.4 d.u./acre, which has been in-
creased to 985 units with a lower density 3.8 d.u./acre; 288 multiple
units with overall density of 12.8 per acre which has increased to
306 units with the lower density of 11.5 per acre. The park dedi-
cation initially required was 10 acres, but with the upgrading it
will be about 12.6. The initial development proposed 206 acres of
RL-6 which has not been reduced to 178 acres of RL-6, with the addi-
tion of RS-3 for 61 acres. The commercial and apartments were al-
ways proposed, but they have been upgraded and density reduced.
Mr. Musso responded that he had computed an overall density of
4.53 presently as compared to 4.8 for original plans.
Mayor Silva stated letters had been received from Mr. Roger N.
Everett, 572 Hazel Street; P. D. Gildea, 5333 Sandra Way; and S.L.
and Elizabeth Smith, 5351 Sandra Way, the latter being in favor of
the extension.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to close the public hearing, and the motion was approved
unanimously.
Councilman Beebe asked if there were any commitments made in Septem-
ber or January when the PUD was extended and amended by the Council.
Mayor Silva replied that at this time it was felt construction could
be begun in this one year period, but the applicant has not done
so at this time. The previous Council probably would have extended
it at that time for a longer period, but the applicant thought the
year was sufficient.
Councilman Miller pointed out this permit has been renewed several
times amid controversy to terminate the permit. There had been
comments all along that it was not guaranteed the permit would be
renewed. One of the issues involved had been the park dedication,
but at the present time this dedication has been agreed upon.
The Council discussed the projected density of 11.5 for the apart-
ments, and Mr. Varni pointed, out this included the duplexes already
built and the apartments to be constructed.
Councilman Pritchard asked if the applicant agreed to the conditions
given by the City staff for the extension, and Mr. Varni replied
they did.
Mayor Silva asked Mr. Varni if the one year would be sufficient.
Mr. Varni stated that one of the conditions is that the commercial
development begin in one year and they felt construction would be
commenced in one year, but would not be completed.
Mr. Musso explained that the condition regarding the additional park
dedication was actually a modification of the annexation agreement;
it did not apply to Kaufman & Broad as they did not own the land to
be dedicated. Mr. Varni stated that they would be paying for it
each time they took out a building permit.
The City Attorney stated that his interpretation of the condition
is that it pertained to land or fees. The proposed park is to the
rear of the area they are developing.
CM-23-160
Mayor Silva pointed out the applicant had agreed
to pay in lieu monies for the park dedication.
August 17, 1970
(PUD No.3 - PH)
Councilman Miller discussed the General Plan history for this
area. Presently, the density is 4.53 which is 2 d.u./acre over
the original General Plan density; the present density indicated
by the General Plan is 4.0 d.u./acre. The number of dwelling
units will be 1287 overall, but the General Plan indicates 1135
dwelling units. This permit applies to 8-year old standards
abandoned by the City in 1964. He felt the time had come to end
this permit; residents are opposed to extension of this permit.
The major issues involved in this permit are General Plan den-
sities and present residential zoning requirements. He felt
this permit should be allowed to expire, and then this area should
be rezoned RS-3 for single family and RG-IO for multiple, thus
reducing density to 4.2 d.u./acre.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the RS ordinance referred to
by Councilman Miller was passed by a previous Council and has
been submitted for study and possible changes. He did not be-
lieve this Council has to agree with previous Council decisions;
there are other opinions by residents of this area. The opinion
expressed by Councilman Miller that the majority of the residents
are against the development does not necessarily mean that is
fact. The Council does not necessarily have to go by the RS
ordinance as it is now.
Councilman Taylor stated that whether the RS ordinance is changed
or not does not affect the fact that if RS standards are required,
or whatever is required when the houses are built, will be those
met by the developer. Councilman Taylor voted against extension
of this permit last year because of general overall changes along
East Avenue, in particular when the piece across East Avenue
was planned for residential development. Now, however, the owner
of this property has placed the land under the Williamson Act
for agricultural use for a number of years. He believed RS stand-
ards should be applied to the permit as a condition of renewal.
As for the proposal to let the permit expire, Councilman Taylor
asked Mr. Varni what their plans would be in regard to construc-
tion of the apartments. Mr. Varni replied that economically
they needed to develop at RG-16, with half of the apartments to
be built now and half next year. If the permit expires on Sept.
30, they will have to stop the project and give the property back
to the prior landowner or else proceed with all the units now.
Councilman Taylor stated the streets have been redesigned for
the commercial and multiple development, and did not feel it to
be in the best interest of the City to force construction of
the apartment complex and have vacant apartments there. Matters
have gone too far with this PUD to let it expire and let it re-
vert to something like RS-5. However, he did feel that the
permit should be not allowed to be extended with RL standards.
He proposed that this change be made; he agreed with the Planning
Commission recommendation on other points.
Councilman Beebe said he had heard from several homeowners that
they wished to see this go back to the townhouse density rather
than apartments. Mr. Varni stated that it would involve too
much time and additional expense to revert to the townhouse pro-
posal. At the May meeting it was discussed and stated by the
previous Council, with Councilman Miller objecting, that in
approving Tract 3064 it was the intention of the Council to main-
tain the underlying zoning for at least the life of the tentative
map. He asked that the Council stand by that representation and
maintain the RL zoning. Model homes have been built at a cost
in excess of $100,000 to meet RL-6 zoning and a change in zoning
would require that new models be designed and built.
RS-23-161
August 17, 1970
(PH - PUD NO.3) Councilman Prichard felt it was to the best inter-
est of the people in Wagoner Farms to develop the
area so that parks, shopping center and schools
c8uld be built. Denial of the extension would be a disservice to
people of the area.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that there is a final map so the
models will apply to this development.
Councilman Beebe inquired if the change to RS zoning would change
the number of units since the lots would have to be larger. Mr.
Musso replied that the number of units lost by RS zoning require-
ments could be placed elsewhere, through use of zero lot lines or
cluster development.
Mr. Varni stated that maps have been approved for all but 43 lots
and this map is in the process of being prepared to comply with dis-
cussion of last May; that final maps must be on record by expiration
of tentative map.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that PUD No. 3 be extended for one
year allowing the same number of dwelling units recommended by the
Planning Commission but that the single family standards be changed
to RS-3 for the remainder of the development exclusive of the final
map discussed by Mr. Musso (Tract 3239). The motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller.
Mr. Musso pointed out that, in essence, this had already been done,
and Councilman Taylor stated that what he had in mind was to apply
RS-3 standards on all land on which a final map has not been sub-
mitted which allows construction of the apartment complex, commer-
cial complex as permitted by the previous Council and only allows
for change from RL to RS. He further stated they have only applied
that on many similar situations in other parts of town and the de-
veloper is being treated exactly like everyone else has been, and
so moved. Councilman Miller sec8nded the motion.
Councilman Pritchard called for the question, and the motion failed
by the fOllowing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Miller and Taylor
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller commented on the RS Zoning, stating that it was
adopted with overwhelming public support and the only opposition
that occurred was from real estate men, developers and their re-
presentatives and the Chamber of Cummerce, but citizens of Liver-
more overwhelmingly supported the RS Ordinance and he believed the
Council should be sympathetic to the wishes of the majority of the
public now as the Council was at that time. The object was to
avoid problems they would see next week because of trailers, lack
of yards, etc. He urged the Council to keep the reasons for an RS
Zoning Ordinance in mind as they consider future tracts.
Mayor Silva stated he was sure they would, but pointed out that
the statement regarding majority of the citizens overwhelmingly
in support of the RS Ordinance was only Councilman Miller's opinion
as that has never been established. As for the Chamber, he did
not know whether or not they supported it, but they, too, were
citizens of the community.
Councilman Pritchard objected to the inference that the other
three members of the Council were not acting in the best interest
of the citizens of this community.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to extend the PUD for the addi-
tional year with the conditions imposed by the staff, and this motion
was stated to mean, by Mayor Silva, that staff recommendation and
also Planning Commission recommendation outside of the standards
of RL and RS which was a 2-2 vote.
CM-23-162
Councilman Beebe questioned if the only differ-
4 ence in this motion and that made by Councilman
Taylor was the 39 lots, which was verified by
Mayor Silva in that the lots in question would be
RL standards. The motion was thereby seconded by
August 17, 1970
( PH- PUD No.3)
developed under
Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller offered some amendments to the motion for
approval of the Council: (1) that the permit make explicit
what the developers have agreed to, namely, the 2 acres per
hundred on the multiple and the rest of the single family in
this permit should be specifically worded so that there is no
misunderstanding; (2) do as they are doing in the Carlton area,
and that is to reserve a school site with the same kind of terms,
i.e., until the last house is built or until 1975 whichever comes
later so they can avoid the problems they have in the west part
of town.
The Council agreed to the the amendments, and they were seconded
by Councilman Pritchard.
Mr. Musso pointed out that the staff considered the school site
the last time they revised the map, and at that time they almost
suggested moving the school site onto one of the adjacent pro-
perties, either to themst or west, for design reasons mainly
and also the probability that this development would be com-
pleted before the second school is acquired.
Councilman Miller stated that the permit applied to all proper-
ties in this area and felt that something could be worked out
at the staff level so it could be equivalent to Carlton and not
cause the problems they had in the Elliott tract. However, Mr.
Musso stated they do not have an equivalent situation, but Coun-
cilman Miller insisted that before approval, they must have
some protection for a school site.
Mr. Varni stated that the School District has already purchased
the school site, but it was pointed out that the school site is
not on this property, but on the property in the back, and Mr.
Lewis, City Attorney, stated he would prefer that the other pro-
perty owner be present in regard to the condition suggested by
Councilman Miller.
Councilman Miller stated that, in fact, the extension of the
permit requires the concurrence of the other property owners,
to which Mr. Lewis replied they have amended permits in the past
without all of the property owners being present, but had stated
his preference in the matter.
Mr. Lewis further stated it is safer to have the property owners
represented and consenting to that kind of requirement and anti-
cipated they would be successful if they did amend the permit,
but would say this with a great deal of reservation because the
point of law is not very clear. In reply to Mayor Silva's
question of whether or not that portion could be amended at a
later date, Mr. Lewis stated it will obviously have to, as that
property is not developing and this permit is being extended for
one year, so as a practical matter, it will come before the
Council at some later date.
Mayor Silva stated he could not see tying these owners to the
whims of another owner, but Councilman Miller again ~ated his
concern about the school site, and asked the staff to find a
mechanism to do it. Mr. Musso stated that the rear of that
subdivision could be deleted and it would not make any difference
except the school site, because it is under RS-3 Zoning regula-
tions no matter how it is done - by zoning or planned unit de-
velopment.
CM-23-163
August 17, 1970
(PH-PUD No.3) Mayor Silva stated it would be done then at a later
date and asked Councilman Miller if he wished to
withdraw his amendment to the motion, however Coun-
cilman Miller stated he wished to have an explicit statement from
the staff that it is not necessary to reserve a school site in
this PUD.
Mr. Musso replied that the school site here is not the critical
situation they had on Elliott's property nor in Carlton as they
have two other alternatives - east or west, particularly west in
this case.
Councilman Miller stated that assuming this is correct, he would
abandon this point. Mr. Lewis pointed out that this was also zoned
RS-3 which creates a certain density pattern, and as long as a per-
mit is maintained, in the planned unit, the density will remain.
If the zoning reverts, the area which is presently RS-3, would
stand, but there would be open areas, and this must be understood.
In other words, there would be an area which would not be zoned,
which is presently under this permit, reserved for school and park.
Councilman Miller then continued that the other points are that
Charlotte Way be conditioned to be finished before occupancy of
the houses now under construction be provided as Mr. Varni said
they w8uld do, but it helps to have it in writing in the permit.
Councilman Taylor stated this was bonded for in the final map, how-
ever, Councilman Miller stated if you had to go through a bonding
company, it is two years before you get through the courts and you
still do not have a street, so therefore the condition of the permit
should condition Charlotte Way.
Mr. Varni suggested that to have a more definitive position, it
could be stated that they will have this done by October 1, 1970,
and would agree to this condition.
Councilman Pritchard agreed to the second on this motion.
Councilman Miller stated the other thing is to maintain the bicycle
trail which the Council approved on the front portion of this permit
in connection with the record of survey split.
Councilman Pritchard felt this was redundant, as this was already in,
however, after discussion this was included as the property could
be sold.
A vote was then taken on the amendments which were that two acres
per hundred units would be for park dedication either in land or
in lieu fees; that Charlotte Way would be completed as of October 1,
1970, and the maintenance of bicycle trails, and the motion passed
unanimously.
The main motion to approve the PUD for one year with the previous
amendments to be added to the permit was then voted on ?nd passed
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Pritchard, Beebe and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller and Taylor
Councilman Miller asked that before the actual signing of the permit
the Council be given a copy of the final text to examine.
Councilman Taylor stated that he may be voting on this for a differ-
ent reason than Councilman Miller, and as far as this developer,
stated he did not see any evidence he was trying to "pull a fast one"
as the streets are bonded for and development is progressing and
saw no reason to be so suspicious in this particular case.
CM-23-164
August 17, 1970
Councilman Pritchard stated he felt the five
Councilmen were all in agreement on the exten-
sion of the PUD, but the difference was on the
RS-3 and RL-6 and RG zoning.
( PH- PUD No.3)
*
*
*
The public hearing on the extension of the
commencement date to March 2, 1971 for Planned
Unit Development No. 15 (Carlton Development
Company) had been postponed from the original
date of June 29, July 13 and 27 to the present
PUBLIC HEARING RE
EXTENSION PUD #15
(Carlton Dev. Co.)
date.
Mayor Silva stated there was a motion on the table which he would
like to have taken off and read at this time, and the motion as
reflected on page CM-23-103 of the Council minutes was read by
Councilman Miller.
Councilman Miller further stated they had agreed to the condition
of a reservation for the school site in E.l -For Public Facilities,
as follows, "The school location set forth in Exhibit "B_1" indi-
cates an area, consisting of 10.0 acres, generally suitable for
the location of an elementary school and shall be reserved for
acquisition by the Livermore Unified School District until all
single-family lots in the subdivision have been improved by the
construction of a dwelling thereon and sold to purchasers, or
unt il August 1, 1975, whichever date later occurs II .
Councilman Miller further stated there was on condition still to
resolve which was the additional park dedication to coincide
with the City's policy which was two acres per hundred homes.
This required a change in the wording of E-2 to allow for the
addition of another 1.55 acre dedication or payment of fees in
lieu thereof whichever the Council should decide upon.
Mayor Silva stated there was a problem in that park dedication
and in lieu fees have to go with the same general area and he
could not see requiring this applicant to change his maps, and
all of his proposals and plans to accommodate 1.55 acres, so he
would be willing to take the in lieu fees, but felt the fees
could be used in the same general area also and asked if it could
legally apply. Mr. Lewis replied that the 5-acre parksite was
in the same planning unit and did not think there would be any
trouble in this regard, and the fees are going to be collected
in the same general area as existing sites, and should be applied
in the same planning unit according to the subdivision ordinance,
and there is another park where they could increase the acres by
the in lieu fees.
Councilman Miller stated there were two alternatives, either one
of which they could adopt; first, would be to take an acre and
a half out of the subdivision and transfer the six dwelling units
which were involved over to the multiple section so the developer
would not lose any density and add an acre and a half to this
5.3 acre park; second, is to take the in lieu fees and buy acreage
elsewhere in the general area.
Mr. Musso stated that this area does show a parksite larger than
this developer was required to dedicate, and there will be addi-
tional money accrued to purchase more land.
Councilman Miller stated that it was his intent that the new
standards would apply which would require another 1.55 acres.
Councilman Taylor stated that the only additional thing they were
imposing by this condition was reservation of the school site
and the new park dedication, and he agreed to second this change.
CM-23-165
August 17, 1970
(PH-Extension
PUD No. 15)
Mr. Lewis suggested it would be a wise precaution
to hear from the applicant on an extension condi-
tioned in this way.
Mayor Silva referred the matter to the Planning Director for any
comments at this time, and Mr. Musso stated there is no cause to
amend the design with the exception of the land; the whole develop-
ment is under a tentative map and the dates do correspond, and the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD permit to in-
clude the extension of the commencement date and completion date,
and the plan is essentially the same as has been existing.
Mayor Silva stated that the public hearing was officially opened
at this time.
Mr. Keith Fraser, representing Carlton Development Company, stated
that the Council will recall several years ago when he represented
the company after they tried for a regional shopping center and
came in with the 10-acre commercial site, it was their intention
at that time and their commitment to the people in the area that
they would provide not only a school site and park site, but try
to do a good job in trying to provide a first class 10-acre com-
mercial site. With the tight money and all the other arguments
that other developers have brought before the Council, they have
not been able to find a major tenant for the commercial site or
tenants for the rest of the commercial complex and, therefore, they
have been coming before the Council and asking for continuances,
which the Quncil has granted. They would like to have the permit
extended again, and that is why they have asked for the extension
and appeared before the Planning Commiss.ion. Mr. Fraser stated that
he would ask that the matter be continued for 60 days as he believed
the proposed corrections brought up by Councilman Miller at the
Council meeting several weeks ago have to be studied by his client.
If the park dedication ordinance is in effect and the Council is
requiring this of other developers prior to the adoption of the
ordinance, perhaps his client would go along with it, but as to
the condition for reservation of the school site, they felt it is
very unreasonable and unwise for the citizens of Carlton Square
Development as it puts the burden on the developer as well as doing
a disservice to the citizens in that area. In the first place the
reservation is improper, or illegal, and felt that the City Attorney
had advised that when they discussed the matter, he put reservations
on it. When the matter came up at the first public hearing this
evening, the City Attorney stated there were reservations about
the legalities. Mr. Fraser further stated that if the Council did
extend the permit for one year and reserve the school site for
five years or until the last house is built, it would mean that
the school district would realize they have a school site and if
money is tight they will buy the school site they need in other
developments because they will know they have this reserved until
the last house in Carlton is developed, and it could be eight to
ten years from now. He felt it would be longer before people get
a school on that site if the site is reserved and the School Dis-
trict realizes they do not have to acquire it in order to get it
right now.
The Council discussed the requested continuance, whether or not
it should be for this long a period of time, the possibility of
an eventual 10 month extension which would be, finally, the one
year time extension originally requested.
Councilman Pritchard asked that the City Attorney repeat his re-
servations about the legalities, and Mr. Lewis stated they are:
In imposing a condition of reservation or other conditions in a
PUD, without the consent of the party owning the land or subject
to the condition, felt it was cured in this case and the Council
and City much better protected if they take the position the ex-
tension is a matter of right, up to the City, and if the developer
wants the extension, he indicates his consent to the conditions
imposed by the Council. If it is felt that these are burdensome
CM-23-166
August 17, 1970
and improper, and it is the owner's right to
feel that way, then of course, he does not
have to consent, and the City does not have
to grant the extension. The procedure then
starts allover again, and the owner must come in and apply and
obtain new zoning, and this is the position the Council is in in
this particular case.
(PH-Extension
PUD No. 15)
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Lewis what his recommendation
would be to which he replied that if Mr. Fraser has to talk to
his client about their position, and it is a major decision,
he felt the Council would be reasonable in granting some time
to do so, whether it be 60 days or whatever the Council would set.
Mr. Fraser stated that if they were given a 60-day c8ntinuance,
they would agree to a 10-month extension. In reply to a question
as to the reason for a 60-day continuance, Mr. Fraser stated that
Mr. Overaa was ill, and had been ill at the previous meeting.
Councilman Miller stated he did not want t8 see a final appear
in 60 days and made a motion that the Council would agree to
extend the permit under the conditions they essentially agreed
upon subject to the consent of the applicant before the end of
30 days, whether Mr. Overaa is ill or not, as the attorney could
reach him to make decisions.
There followed some discussion with regard to the final map, and
Mr. Lewis stated that the law is that, ordinarily if a final is
filed within the period of time required by law, the period after
the approval of the tentative map, and it is in compliance with
the tentative, they have a right to file it. If the Council is
worried about the final coming in during the period of the exten-
sion, the extension can be conditioned that there shall be no
final map filed during this period of time.
Councilman Miller made a motion to condition the extension of
the permit to include the conditions as a motion to receive the
consent of the applicant within 60 days and a further condition
that no final map shall be submitted during this 60-day time
period.
Mayor Silva thought the motion would reflect they would allow a
continuance of the permit for a period of 60 days disregarding
the conditions of the motion.
Councilman Miller agreed, but added it was his intent that the
conditions of the motion they had agreed to be consented to by
the applicant within the 60 days.
Mr. Fraser stated he could not see how this could be done as that
is what they are requesting: that if they can work something
out, they can come back and talk to the Council about it.
Mr. Musso stated that the intent was to extend, as well as con-
tinue, the permit.
Mayor Silva asked for a second to the motion; however, Councilman
Taylor stated he did not understand the motion and stated that
the Council's intent is to allow the development to go ahead as
planned with the new park dedication and there is a concern ab8ut
the school site which is understandable; further, he did not want
to have the permit expire or to make it impossible to market the
commercial part of the property as it is in the best interest of
the City. If there is a conditional approval, it means that
everything stops for 60 days as far as trying to get a commercial
client is concerned.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that the item will be continued
for 60 days, the PUD has been extended for a like period, subject
CM-23-167
August 17, 1970
(PH- Extension
PUD #15)
to the condition that no final map be submitted
during this period, and this motion was seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, and the applicant consented
through Mr. Fraser to this continuance, and the
motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
RECESS
AFTER A SHORT RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED BACK TO
ORDER WITH ALL PRESENT.
*
*
*
A draft of a proposed ordinance regarding design re-
view was adopted by the Planning Commission on Jan-
uary 20, 1970, and was considered by the Council at
its meeting of June 22, 1970. The matter was set
for public hearing at that time. The earlier draft
has been revised to reflect the thinking of the Plan-
ning Commission, the City Attorney, the Planning Director, the ori-
ginal committee which compiled the draft, as well as the inputs of
the Chamber of Commerce and the Beautification Committee. The ordi-
nance essentially sets up a design review committee and a staff re-
view board to review various aspects of building modifications.
There is some disagreement as to whether there should be a staff
review board, consisting of employess of the City available at a
given place eight hours a day, which would be delegated certain
responsibilities in administering this ordinance, or whether all
the responsibilities should be in the hands of a design review com-
mittee. ~LJu tLE plo.i8i<3L8 <3f tLa 18Vi~l!lj :h:rlf't: th: j::c.l;E':;1"l '--lTirilJ
::;;;1;;6: :~~ '~ c~:'"~~; :~ ~ ~~~;~'::t~~:; ,:,; t:: e:;:?ihg ~'"
~; t.l~ ~t. 1 ~~1'\t. +:J.l~~~ T'l.'\rmi l"\g n:'l1'l'l1'l'li fl:'li anc:rR Afl 1'l'Ir.1'l'Ihr.rG<. ~tvc
~.
Earl Mason, president of the Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged the
time and effort spent on this proposed ordinance. The Chamber of
Commerce has studied the proposed ordinance in depth, and it is the
decision of the Board that it is not in the best interest of Liver-
more to have a design review ordinance. Four members of the Chamber
addressed the Council relative to their reasons for objecting to
this proposed ordinance.
PUBLIC HEAR-
ING PROPOSED
DESIGN REVIEW
ORDINANCE
Ed Hutka, 1019 Angelica, stated that even though there are some good
points that, overall, the ordinance would create a burden in trying
to get more industry since such detail has to be prepared about minor
aspects of the design and appearance of the buildings. This is an
area that would only create considerable expense to the City because
of time involved. Mr. Hutka did not believe the ordinance was the
best approach to industry.
Ralph Hoffman, 1657 Third Street, director of the Chamber, stated the
City already has ordinances and building codes for contractors and
builders to follow; it is not in the best interest of the City to
pass this ordinance. He believed that a directive could be given
to the City Manager by the Council with policies and standards so
that a builder could go to the Building Department and Planning Di-
rector with plans for inspection. The staff is capable of reviewing
plans and specifications if policy is set up; therefore, he did not
see the necessity for a design review committee.
Bill Bozzini, 562 Escondido Circle, chairman of the Industrial Com-
mittee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated he spoke as a voter, tax-
payer and citizen of Livermore. He said he was opposed to the
proposed ordinance as it is not necessary and would be a hindrance
to proposed growth in Livermore. There are many regulations at the
present time without adding to the list. Construction requires
financing, and finance institutions require design review before
granting funds. For the good of Livermore he asked that this ordi-
nance not be passed.
CM-23-168
August 17, 1970
Lloyd Vietmeier, 1550 DeSoto Way, stated a re-
cent survey of the Chamber indicated this pro-
posed ordinance was too restrictive and would
make the City blend into a sterile mass. He
believed that people should be allowed to express
design and use of their property, and was totally
the ordinance.
(Design Review
Ordinance)
themselves by
opposed to
Mr. Mason, in summary, stated the Chamber of Commerce does oppose
the proposed ordinance and requests that it be dropped and asks
that the Council instruct the staff to process the building per-
mits under the requirements of the present building ordinances and
that the present design review committee be dissolved. There
should be a check list drawn up so that builders and industry com-
ing into town would know what steps to follow and items of infor-
mation necessary to process a building permit. Also in the past
the Council and the Planning Commission have acted as design re-
view committees in some cases; some uses need to be reviewed
carefully, but all new construction should not be tied down with
a design review ordinance.
In response to Councilman Taylor's question as to specific objec-
tion of the present design review committee, Mr. Mason replied that
the policy they followed in review was not definitive as to guide-
lines and personal judgment had to be used. Present ordinances
control those items that need control.
Discussion followed regarding the manner in which design review
is made by the committee. It was suggested that general guidelines
would help the staff to work out the design review with applicants.
Mr. Mason stated that the only reason the Chamber ever felt that
a design review ordinance was needed Was to relieve the Council
and the Planning Commission of the work and time involved in de-
ciding on such matters as color or style of buildings.
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden Avenue, stated he agreed with the Chamber
that this ordinance is so ambiguous that it cannot be interpreted.
Mr. Tull read a statement written by Mr. Elba Leonard outlining
objections to various portions of the proposed ordinance.
Walter Davies, 791 McLeod Street, stated he owned a small business
in Livermore. He felt the basic issue involved and the intent of
the writers of the proposed ordinance was to make Livermore a more
pleasant place in which to live and work. The proposed ordinance
allows design review to become a proper and legal staff function.
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, did not feel a staff member
should be able to deny a permit on the basis of color, as in the
case of Kentucky Fried Chicken. He felt industry would locate
elsewhere rather than go through design review.
Katie Richardson, 510 Junction Avenue, spoke against additional
taxes and government control, and this ordinance would make fur-
ther inroads into individual private affairs. She felt it was
time the Council started to say no to some of these matters re-
lating to government control and taxes.
Lorraine Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, stated many cities have design
review boards and yet attract industries that are attractive.
She felt the town needed better businesses and attractive build-
ings, and indicated she favored design review ordinance.
Robert Schaefer, 785 Wall Street, felt new business comes for
one reason - profit - and design review would not keep them from
locating here. A nonresident franchise owner should not be allowed
to decide the Livermore image. He had inspected various fran-
chise restaurants in several cities, and the idea of abandoning
control was ridiculous.
CM-23-169
August 17, 1970
(Design Review
Ordinance)
Gordon Smith, 5262 Irene Way, told the Council he
did not know the details of the proposed ordinance
but felt the ordinance might be tried for a year
or so.
Dorothy Barnett, 474 Hillcrest, supported the design review ordi-
nance. Janet Read, 475 Malibu Court, also supported the ordinance
because the future of Livermore will be determined now. A simple
list of rules or regulations would not accomplish anything but a
committee could be a positive force. She felt businesses already
located here should be protected, and that the Chamber should not
lobby against or for any legislation as long as they receive tax
subsidy.
Chris Gatrousis, 5179 Diane Lane, chairman of the Beautification
Committee, told the Council he was representing the Committee which
had endorsed a similar design review ordinance. The Beautification
Committee still felt such an ordinance was needed; upgrading the
City will bring in industry and commerce.
Joe Sladky, 1073 Xavier Way, was concerned about the design control
of industrial areas under the proposed ordinance. He felt the de-
sign review committee was usable in commercial areas but not neces-
sarily so in industrial areas where certain work must be done outside
and appearance is not an important factor. He did not feel indus-
trial and commercial review should be grouped together.
Dean Davis, 708 Los Alamos, a member of the Board of the Chamber
of Commerce, felt it unfair that the Beautification Committee be
represented as being in favor of the ordinance as he personally
knew four members who felt the proposed ordinance was too restrictive.
He felt the restrictions were more than necessary and setting guide-
lines would serve in accomplishing necessary control.
Perry Harabadian, 4262 Drake Way, stated he was one of the original
members of the design review committee. He had hoped that this
type of ordinance would be workable, but as changes were made it
seemed more and more that such restrictions could not work. Also
he felt that residential should not be included.
Norman Warnow, realtor located in Pleasanton, felt developers, real-
tors, and the Chamber of Commerce had helped to build Livermore
and did not do it for themselves. After developers spend thousands
of dollars with engineers and architects to design a building or
area, they do not appreciate lay people on the Planning Commission
telling them the design is no good; this is one of the reasons
industry does not want to locate here.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to close the public hearing and it was approved unanimously.
A motion to continue the discussion on the design review ordinance
for one week was made by Councilman Beebe but was not seconded.
Councilman Pritchard concurred with Mrs. Read that the Chamber
should not lobby on pending legislation, but he had spent an evening
with the Beautification Committee during which they lobbied for
the ordinance. He pointed out there are several beautiful build-
ings which had been built without the design review ordinance.
There may be instances where design review would have aided but,
overall, it is not worth the time and effort.
Councilman Taylor stated he disagreed with several points in the
ordinance, and he appreciated many of the fears the Chamber had
expressed. He indicated his feeling that the ordinance should
have nothing to do with residential dwellings and that perhaps
multiples could also be eliminated. Councilman Taylor went on to
recall some of the reasons which brought about the design review
ordinance, and felt as a Councilman he would like to have some
CM-23-170
August 17, 1970
advice when a decision on design is necessary,
as many of the landowners are very concerned.
He did feel that the staff had done a good job,
and at least he felt they should continue with
the staff in their present design review capacity. There
be some guidelines established, possibly by a committee.
(Design Review
Ordinance)
should
Councilman Beebe commented that he understood thoroughly the
Chamber's position; he also sympathized with several of the
speakers that there must be some guidelines, and as a Council-
man did not wish to go through design review as it took too
much of their time. He felt it might be well to withhold the
ordinance and have some kind of committee to establish a guide
rule the staff could use. With regard to service stations, there
are several designs, depending upon the area, and he felt Livermore
was entitled to one of the better designs.
Councilman Miller stated that one of the reasons the ordinance had
its beginning was to get the Council out of design review and to
obtain the best design possible and attempt to upgrade the quality
of buildings in the City as a whole. The principle idea of the
ordinance was to have a committee of professionals to smooth the
way as it would have all the advantages of getting the job done.
Many cities have design review, particularly the high quality
and progressive cities, and they have worked very hard to upgrade
their community. Responsible, large commercial and industrial
developers use the motto, "Good appearance is good business";
they expect and insist on design review to protect them and their
property values. Councilman Miller continued it was regretable
that the people who should be the leaders of the business community
take such a shortsighted view. Chamber of Commerce in communities
such as Palm Springs and Monterey do not take such a view, but
support things like this which improve the quality of their com-
munity. The Council's attempts to upgrade the City get a very
negative view from the Chamber. There is an argument that this
ordinance is just another ordinance to increase regulations, but
it is a means to protect property value. Ordinances like these
are not anti-business as most progressive businesses appreciate
and ask for design review. Decisions the Council makes in times
like this affect what the City is going to be like in years to
come, and if they make decisions to upgrade the City now, we will
have a City people will point to like Carmel and Monterey. He
felt it could be done by just such an ordinance, and if they did
have professionals many fears of the Chamber would be allayed.
Councilman Pritchard stated that this Council and previous Councils
have been so busy protecting people's rights and values that the
people owning the property can no longer do anything.
Councilman Taylor commented that it was quite unfair to blame
the ills of the City on an "unprogressive'! Chamber, as he can
understand their fears, and his disagreement with them is in
observing some specific cases.
Councilman Miller stated he, too, appreciated some of the concerns
of the Chamber of Commerce and some of their objections he would
not accept in the present ordinance, but the blind opposition is
the thing that bothered him.
Earl Mason commented that they had asked for a study session on
this particular subject, but were turned down.
Mayor Silva made the statement that, in his opinion, what the
staff has been doing during the past year has been correct as
in all the applications reviewed there was only one appeal to
the Council and on that appeal they agreed with the staff, so he
was satisfied with the way they have been functioning. He did
not want a design review ordinance and would like to continue
with the present setup, but felt there should be some type of
CM-23-171
August 17, 1970
(Design Review policy, statement or ordinance to this effect. As
Ordinance) far as guidelines set up by a committee, he would
rather see the staff come up with some guidelines
they feel are necessary to continue functioning
as they have been. Mayor Silva summarized the concensus of the
Council as indicated by their comments and suggested a motion that
the Council approve the formation of a design review board com-
posed of the staff members as presently established, with the
guidelines to be formulated by a citizens committee made up of
three members selected by the Council in executive session, working
with the present staff members on these guidelines and the guide-
lines will be referred to the Council for final approval or some
sort of ordinance.
Councilman Taylor agreed with the wording of the motion and so
moved, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and the motion passed 4 to 1
with Councilman Pritchard dissenting.
'Laws re
Hitch-hiking
Concannon
Blvd Route
Study
Water Recla-
mation Plant
Expansion
Communication
re Arts
Festival
Resolution
re Petition
to BART
Report re
Quarry
Application
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The report from the City Attorney and Police Chief
re present laws regarding hitch-hiking was removed
from the consent calendar for discussion at a later
meeting.
*
*
*
A report from the Public Works Director re modifica-
tion of agreement with Alameda County concerning the
intersection of Mines Road and Livermore Avenue was
removed from the consent calendar for discussion at
the meeting of August 24.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the Public Works Director
re the water reclamation plant expansion plans.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Livermore Art
Association re its decision not to participate in
the Arts Festival. Mayor Silva requested that this
item be removed from the consent calendar for dis-
cussion at the next meeting and report from the
Council's representative, Councilman Miller.
*.
*
*
A copy of a resolution passed by the Board of Super-
visors re petition to the BART District to authorize
funds to study prospective rapid transit rail align-
ments and future public station locations as a part
of the Valley Study was received.
*
*
*
A report was received from the Planning Director
advising the Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing on September 3 to extend the permit for
quarry operations located at the northerly extension
of Dagnino Road. This quarry has been used inter-
mittently over the past several years. The estimated amount the
, quarry is expected to yield is approximately 50,000 yards per year.
The routing for hauls would be, by virtue of the County permit,
North Livermore Avenue to the proposed freeway interchange.
CM-23-172
*
*
*
A quitclaim was already made by the City, quit-
claiming a storm drain easement to Christopher
Land Co., however due to a minor technicality
in wording the Title Company requests a slight
change which is agreeable to the staff who re-
commend that a resolution be adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 114-70
August 17, 1970
Storm Drain
Easement (Christo-
pher Land Co.)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED
(Christopher Land Company)
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Airport - financial and activity - July
Building Department - July
Fire Department - June
Golf Course - July
Water Reclamation Plant - annual report for 1969
It was noted by Mayor Silva that a profit of $60.00
was reported by the Golf Course.
*
*
*
Seventy-eight claims in the amount of $21,880.51
and two hundred forty-nine payroll warrants in
the amount of $78,535.67, dated August 13, 1970
were received and ordered paid as approved by the
City Manager. Mayor Silva abstained from vote on
Warrant No. 8151, for his usual reasons.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote
of the Council, the Consent Calendar was
approved.
*
*
*
Departmental Reports
Payroll and Claims
Approval of
Consent Calendar
CUP-2660 3rd st.
(R.L.DeWitt)
A Conditional Use Permit to allow a conditional
commercial use within an existing structure
(automobile service establishment) at 2660
Third street has been requested by Richard L.
DeWitt. The Planning Commission recommended that the application
be approved subject to the conditions listed in their Resolution
No. 22-70. On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Council-
man Miller, the Planning Commission recommendation for approval
of the CUP was adopted by unanimous approval.
*
*
*
Mr. Musso explained that the request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of
an existing structure at 1931 First Street by
Mario Pedrozzi (Wahamaki & Corey) was princi-
pally for a tire sales and installation facility.
discussion whether this use should be approved for
CUP-1931 1st st.
(Mario Pedrozzi)
There was some
the area.
Councilman Miller made a motion to adopt the recommendation of
the Planning Commission for approval subject to the conditions
given in their Resolution No. 23-70 with the following amendments
to those conditions:
CM-23-173
August 17, 1970
(CUP-Pedrozzi) 1.
Item A.3 - (add) All presently non-conforming
signs to be removed llbefore issuance of a
building permit."
2.
Item A-13 (add) gasoline sales to uses not
approved.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
REZONING A-20
to PD (Associated
Professions)
A rezoning application from A-20 to PD District
has been submitted by Associated Professions,
Inc. for property located on the south side of
U.S. 580, easterly of Airway Boulevard. It is
anticipated that a PUD will also be requested
for this property; therefore, a public hearing was tentatively
scheduled for September 8 or whenever the PUD application is ready
for presentation to the Council.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3239
(Wagoner Farms)
STUDY COMMITTEE
RE CLUSTER DE-
VELOPMENT
ORDINANCE
*
*
*
A request has been made that consideration of
tentative map of Tract 3239 be continued until
August 24. A motion was made by Councilman Prit-
chard, seconded by Councilman Miller, to continue
this item until August 24, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A request has been made by the Planning Commission
for a study committee composed of two members of
the City Council and two from the Planning Commis-
sion to study the Cluster Development ordinance.
Several details regarding definition and proposed
requirements for townhouse and cluster housing
have not yet been worked out. Councilman Beebe and Taylor were
asked to meet with the Planning Commissioners at a mutually agree-
able time to aid in preparation of the proposed ordinance.
MINUTES
PLANNING
COMMISSION
REPORT RE
COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
AIRWAY BLVD.
REPORT RE
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET
REPORT RE
DIRECTLY
ELECTED
MAYOR
*
*
*
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August
11, 1970 were acknowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
Consideration of the report from the City Manager re
proposed commercial development for the Airway Boule-
vard property was continued until September 8, 1970.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the City Manager regarding
the capital improvement budget. This matter will be
discussed at the meeting of September 28, 1970.
*
*
*
A report from the City Manager regarding a directly
elected Mayor was submitted to the Council on August
3rd and continued to this date. Notice has been re-
ceived from the County Clerk's office that August 25,
is the final date for submittal of a request to con-
solidate a local item on the general election ballot
in November. In view of the shortness of time in which to discuss
this matter, the Council felt that this matter should be delayed
and not placed on the ballot at this time. Further discussion was
continued until November.
CM-23-174
*
*
*
August 17, 1970
A report has been prepared by the City Manager
regarding mobile home park comparison study in
anticipation of scheduled agenda items.
REPORT RE MOBILE
HOME PARK STUDY
Al Harrison, 4091 Colgate Way, spoke in regard to mobile home
parks. He felt opposition to mobile homes was due to their effect
on surrounding properties, transient character of residents, and
the smaller tax base from mobile homes. He did not feel that a
large number of housing units that do not pay their fair share to
community support should be allowed. He urged the Council to deny
all mobile home parks.
The City Attorney pointed out that decisions in such zoning matters
cannot be based on tax advantages or disadvantages as the sole
consideration.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, suggested extension of the City
Manager's report with a larger child factor and also use of Sun
Valley Mobile Estates (an existing mobile home park) as an ex-
ample of revenue generated to the City rather than the examples
used.
Councilman Miller suggested that other public jurisdictions such
as the LARPD, Zone 7 and Junior College District be contacted for
comments regarding the City Manager's report and how mobile home
parks will affect their respective districts.
Councilman Miller also felt that discussion on any application
regarding trailer parks should be continued until after the
Council has the opportunity to discuss this report and trailer
and mobile home parks in detail and can reach a decision as to
whether they should be allowed. Intermark's application for a
mobile home park is set for public hearing August 24.
Discussion followed as to whether mobile home parks should be
allowed; and if they are not allowed, on what basis could they
be denied.
The City Attorney stated there must be considerations other than
tax contributions used to determine if mobile home park applica-
tions are approved or denied.
Mayor Silva felt that denying or approving the use on the basis
of whether mobile homes pay their way was too restrictive and un-
democratic.
Councilman Taylor felt the tax question does have an important
bearing but other matters must be considered also before a deci-
sion can be reached to allow or deny mobile home parks.
Councilman Pritchard agreed with Mayor Silva that whether the
use pays its way or not cannot be the basis for denial or approval.
At the close of the discussion the Council decided that this re-
port and the general subject of mobile home parks would be dis-
cussed on August 24 at the beginning of the meeting prior to
the public hearing re the Intermark application.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
ORDINANCE NO. 717 TRAILERS ON PUBLIC
STREETS
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 5, RELATING TO
AUTO COURTS AND TRAILER CAMPS, OF THE LIVERMORE
CITY CODE, 1959, AND REPEALING DIVISION 2, RE-
LATING TO PARKING METERS, OF ARTICLE V, RELATING
TO STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING, OF CHAPTER 13,
RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, AND ENACT-
ING A NEW SECTION, SECTION 13.73, PROHIBITING CAMP-
ING OR PARKING CERTAIN VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREET
OR HIGHWAY.
CM-23-175
August 17, 1970
(Ordinance re
Trailers)
PROPOSED
ZO RE OFF-
STREET
PARKING
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, the second reading of the foregoing
ordinance was waived and by unanimous vote the
ordinance was adopted.
*
*
*
The first reading and vote regarding the Zoning
Ordinance amendment to Section 21.00 relating to
special provisions re off-street parking requirements,
parking lot standards, etc. was continued until
September 8 on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded
by Councilman Miller and by unanimous approval.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, and by the following vote, the proposed
zonin~ ordinance amendment to reflect changes in Sec-
tion b.OO RG Zoning District regarding height limita-
tions of buildings was introduced and the first read-
ing was waived (title read only):
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Taylor
PROPOSED ZO
AMENDMENT RE
BUILDING
HEIGHTS
(Sec. 8.00)
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
RENUMBERING
ARTICLES &
SECTIONS OF
CITY CODE
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-176
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and by unanimous vote, the proposed ordi-
nance regarding renumbering articles and sections of
the Livermore City Code was introduced and the first
reading was waived (title read only).
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 a.m.
APPROVE
*
ATTEST oI~~~~
C' erk--
Liverm e, allfornla
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of August 24, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
August 10, 1970 in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07
p.m. with Mayor Pro Tempore Miller presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard
and Miller
ABSENT:
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of August 17, 1970,
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
A member of the audience inquired about the un-
paved portion of the street near the curb of the
Shell Service station at Portola Avenue and
Murrieta Blvd. as he felt it was a hazard to
drivers. Mr. Lee was asked to check into the
matter with the County.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(street Paving)
Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock st., suggested that
once permits are denied, they should not be
considered again. Councilman Taylor stated
that permits are not usually reconsidered un-
less there is a substantial change in the circumstances
Mayor pro tempore Miller acknowledged the Council might
consider this point in the near future.
*
*
*
(Hearings on
Permits)
or permit.
want to
Hearing on an application submitted by Sacramen-
to Savings and Loan Association to rezone pro-
perties on the east and west side of Murrieta
Blvd., south of Olivina Avenue, has been con-
tinued from July 20 and 27, and a request has now
been received from the applicant for withdrawal of the entire
application. On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted the
request for withdrawal of the application for rezoning.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A request has been received from the League of
California Cities for designation of voting
delegate. It is recommended that the names of
the Mayor and Vice Mayor be sent to the League.
*
*
*
A status report has been submitted by the Direc-
tor of Public Works regarding tentative and
final subdivision maps. Mayor pro tempore
Miller suggested that the staff be directed to
carry out the suggested action in regard to
PUBLIC HEARING
(Sacramento Savings
and Loan Assn. ),
League of California
Cities
Status Report re
Subdivision Maps
CM-23-177
August 24, 1970
(Subdivision
Maps)
PUD Permit
No. 3
Resolutions
re Assessment
Dist. No. 70-1
MINUTES
various tracts. Councilman Taylor pointed out it
might not be in the best interest of the City that
bonds be called on some of the tracts. He felt that
it might be well for the staff to have a specific
plan of action regarding these tracts, and the staff
was directed to prepare one.
*
*
*
The text of the PUD Permit No. 3 was distributed to
the Council at their instruction. This item was
removed for discussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
The following resolutions in connection with the
formation of Assessment District No. 70-1, South
County Junior College, are to be adopted as the
next technical steps in the procedure.
RESOLUTION NO. 115-70
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION
OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
70-1, SOUTH COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE, CITY OF LIVER-
MORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 116-70
RESOLUTION DIRECTING FILING OF BOUNDARY MAP WITH
COUNTY RECORDER OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, ASSESSMENT DIS-
TRICT NO. 70-1, SOUTH COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE, CITY
OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
*
*
*
The minutes of the meetings of the Airport Committee
of August 10 and the Housing Authority of July 21
were acknowledged. The Council briefly discussed
the suggestion in the Airport Committee's minutes
that the Committee membership be enlarged.
*
*
*
Exempt Busi- Exempt business license applicatiorowere received
ness Licenses from the following:
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
CM-23-178
American Legion Auxiliary - various fund
raising activities during fiscal year
Alameda County Cowbelles - sale of food
during roping contest on September 12.
*
*
*
Seventy-three claims in the amount of $270,844.17
and two hundred forty-five payroll warrants in the
amount of $77,352.81 dated August 20, 1970, were
ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor, the Consent Calendar was approved by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
August 24, 1970
A cooperative engineering study between the
City and Alameda County is being made to es-
tablish the alignment of Concannon Blvd.
between the future Isabel Freeway Route 84 and the intersection
of Tesla Road. The Public Works Director explained that the
cooperative agreement for the Concannon Blvd. study stated that
the terminus of the route study on the east is the intersection
of Livermore Avenue and Mines Road, as indicated in Exhibit IlBIl!
The Planning Commission and the City Council have approved a
major street layout (Exhibit "A") which indicates a different
design of the Tesla-Concannon-Livermore Avenue intersection.
Therefore, it is necessary that modification of the agreement be
made to eliminate any reference to the intersection of Mines Road
with Livermore Avenue, and it is also recommended that the County
be requested to modify the route of Mines Road to accomplish the
street pattern as outlined in Exhibit "A".
CONCANNON BLVD.
MAJOR STREET PLAN
Mr. Lee stated that the Concannon and Wente Wineries are agreeable
to Exhibit "All layout as their vineyards are less affected by
this plan.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to accept the recommendation of the staff that this agreement be
modified and that the County Board of Supervisors be requested
to follow the street pattern as outlined in Exhibit "A". The
motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
Consideration of the report from the Planning
Commission re tentative map of Tract 3239, Kay
Builders, was postponed from the meeting of
August 17 so that the design could be studied.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3239
(Kay Builders)
The Planning Drrector stated that the proposed map conformed generally
to the approved Planning and Development Permit. The issue in-
volved here is that of the density. Recalling previous discussion
on the cabana club, four lots were deleted from residential use
for that use and now the developer wishes to put these four lots
back in. The decision of the Planning Commission was to allow
the four lots in lieu of the cabana club lots based on the assur-
ance of the developer that the homeowners would own an equal share
of the cabana club and site, thereby making it common open space.
Councilman Taylor stated that the cabana club is not public open
space - it is private, owned by a corporation. Present homeowners
do not own a part of the cabana club; he did not see any reason
to allow the builder four lots for the cabana club.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that it had been in the minutes
several times before that only that open space dedicated to the
City is allowed density credit. Especially in this case, it was
specific that they would not get those four lots in lieu of the
cabana club lots.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission had allowed the
four additional lots based on past action in other parts of the
City, such as Springtown and Greenville North, and looked upon
it as a common area. Mr. Musso read from the General Plan the
following: "Residential acres include streets, public park and
public recreation areas which have been acquired or dedicated
through direct contribution of the area; and similar public uses
and open space, and shall exclude schools; commercial areas; mini-
mum required stream channels; utility rights-of-way where not in
public or residential use; and quasi-public use and parks acquired
by the public through direct purchase."
CM-23-179
\
August 24, 1970
(Tract 3239) Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the use under
discussion was one excluded under quasi-public use;
therefore, Councilman Taylor's statement applied.
The original approval did not state the four lots for the cabana
club would be transferred; they could either be used for houses or
the club. The number of lots to be allowed was 1287, rather than
1291, if the cabana club was constructed on the four lots.
Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to hear from the applicant,
Kaufman & Broad, before making a decision. The matter was continued
until later in the evening as the applicant's representatives were
not yet present.
*
*
*
SPECIAL ITEM
MOBILE HOME
PARKS
A report was prepared by the staff concerning compar-
ative statistics for four types of land use, includ-
ing mobile home parks. The Council wished to discuss
this matter before considering the formal application
of Intermark Investing, Inc. for mobile home park use.
Finance Director James Kennedy discussed the report presented, in-
cluding a chart showing accruals to the City from four land uses:
single family units, multiple family units, neighborhood commercial
and mobile home parks. Essentially, the report is an attempt to in-
dicate some comparative figures as to cost and revenue from various
land uses under hypothetical conditions. The following were used in
the study: an average assessed value of $24,000 for a single family
home; a multiple development at the corner of East Avenue and Hill-
crest of 4.62 acres; a presently developed commercial area; the values
of the City's only mobile home park; and mobile home units of $11,000.
The study shows for the 4.62 acres a $630 loss to the community for
single family units; $600 loss for multiple units; about $1,000 net
gain for the commercial area; $928 gain for entire area from mobile
homes. Three reports from other areas have been received which sub-
stantiates the fact that these mobile home units do not lose money.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the value of the mobile home units
was that of a new unit, but it depreciates over half in five years.
After a few years the taxes from mobile home units decreases while
taxes on other units remain about the same. The lifetime of the mo-
bile home park must be considered. He did not feel it was right to
exempt mobile home owners from school tax; it would be disastrous
for Livermore to have a very large proportion of residents paying a
smaller proportion of taxes. Perhaps we do need some mobile home
parks so that people may choose to live in this manner.
Councilman Beebe stated there were mobile home units costing more
than $11,000, so he felt that the figure used in the study was not
too far out of range.
Councilman Pritchard did not feel you could use figures based on
all new mobile homes which would depreciate at the same rate; rather
many people buy new mobile homes every few years just as they would
new cars. In anyone mobile home park the units will not all be new
nor will they all depreciate accordingly as new homes will be moving
into the park all the time.
Councilman Taylor said the City of Livermore received $29.31 per
mobile home from the mobile home rebate, which is a third of the total
of $100. The City received an average of $100 in taxes from mobile
home owners.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said he felt mobile homes in the City of
Livermore, as they now exist, do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Even in the first year they pay only two-thirds of the amount that
the rest of taxpayers pay. A tax rate is created for one class of
residences, and others have to make up for this, which is inequitable.
CM-23-180
August 24, 1970
Councilman Pritchard pointed out that the figures (Mobile Home Parks)
being used were all arbitrary except for the in
leiu amount paid by mobile homes.
Councilman Taylor said that whether a mobile home park pays for
itself or not is irrelevant, but everyone should be aware of the
tax situation. Perhaps we do want to subsidize such a group as
low cost housing.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that if the tax laws were changed
so that equivalent taxes would be paid, then a limited number of
mobile homes.6Lould be aIlS/wed.
~:L &t:L;~/z-
MAYOR SILVA ARRIVED AT THIS TIME, HOWEVER DID NOT ASSUME THE
CHAIR UNTIL THE DISCUSSION ON THIS SUBJECT WAS COMPLETED.
Mayor Silva stated the basic problem is whether or not mobile
homes will be allowed in Livermore, and whether taxes can or cannot
be used as reason for denial or approval.
Mr. Lewis stated the problems are many. He had found one case
which pointed to the fact that taxes cannot be used as sole
reasons for denial of a Conditional Use Permit; this case was in
regard to a church and stated that if the church were denied on
the sole ground that it was non-taxable, this was an improper
ground for denial of that use. Also it is improper to consider
use solely on fact that the use will bring in taxes. The court
seemed to allow the consideration of tax matters in the broad
overall context of general planning, i.e., what effect will a
use have on the community overall.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that mobile home parks can be
prohibited in some states and not prohibited in others; California
law allows statutory authority to prohibit trailer courts.
Mayor Silva replied that Livermore does have an ordinance allowing
mobile home parks in certain zones with Conditional Use Permit.
If the City does not want mobile homes, then the ordinance should
be changed. He did not feel that the rules should be changed in
mid-stream; an application is already before them and the Council
should abide by the ordinance.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that according to his understanding
of CUP requirements the Council does not have to approve a Condi-
tional Use Permit or invent conditions to approve it.
Mayor Silva felt that in reference to the number assumed in the
study, they were a waste of time as they are all arbitrary.
Councilman Taylor did think it was irresponsible to ignore the
numbers even though they are arbitrary. There is the basic fact
that the State does not allow ad valorem property taxes. Large
numbers of mobile home units would upset the tax situation. Also,
in regard to schools, it was his understanding the State builds
schools on the basis of permanent house foundations and does not
count mobile homes;therefore, children from mobile homes are not
provided for.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said bills were introduced in the past
legislature to change tha taxation laws in regard to mobile homes
but they were not passed. There has been an increased demand for
mobile homes recently and pressure has increased for approval of
mobile home parks. The real issue is equity in taxation.
Melvin Harrison, 4194 Colgate Way, said mobile homes are not a
cheap way to live, but a different way. Stringent conditions
should be placed on the parks such as landscaping, recreation
area, good interior streets, boat and trailer storage, etc.
CM-23-181
August 24, 1970
(Mobile Home
Parks)
stuart Smith, 321 Virginia Drive, stated that the
reference to the case involving the church was not
applicable to mobile homes. The Councilmen should
ask themselves if they intend to set up a separate
tax class.
Russell Bunch, 5222.Peony Drive, stated it was erroneous that the
residents of Springtown welcome the prospect of a trailer park.
He felt it was detrimental to allow such a use.
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Drive, concurred with Mr. Harrison's con-
cern over too many trailer units; 2,000 would be far too many.
Livermore does need low cost housing, but too many would be detri-
mental. He pointed out that even though there may be fewer children
in the trailer parks, such areas repeatedly oppose any school issue.
Thomas Harris, 2260 Shetland Road, said that the cost of the trailer
added to the cost for renting a space in the trailer park totals
more than the cost of many homes and, therefore, cannot be considered
as low cost housing, yet the City does not get anything from the
mobile home units.
Chester Johnson, 1894 Montecito Circle, restated the fact that mobile
homes are not a cheap way to live. He said the owner of the land
pays taxes and the City must get some consideration from the land
and improvements.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Avenue, felt that this was a major policy
decision and would like to have the Council refer this matter to the
Planning Commission for more study. He felt the City Manager's re-
port was a good first step. One significant fact in the report is
that a $24,000 single family home does not pay its way. This one
fact alone should convince us that there should be no further resi-
dential growth. He also discussed other factors in the report. Mr.
Hoenig further stated that family type mobile homes in great numbers
are a cause for concern.
Sue Steinberg, 4174 Pomona Way, stated that trailers will pay less
in every case - schools, LARPD, Junior College, BART, etc. Such
mobile home parks will be a burden, not an asset.
Edwin Rundstrom, Superintendent of Schools, stated that trailer spaces
are not counted, but the State does pay basic aid on the educational
program.
David Madis, 1054 Canton Ave., said this issue goes beyond figures
to the idea of freedom of choice. The community must have balance,
and the report fails to take into consideration total community
cost as there is a difference in services required by the City.
With regard to a comment made in the audience that the public is
misinformed and have not been presented with the facts, Mayor pro
tempore Miller advised that the public is informed by legal publi-
cation in the local newspaper; and if the application requires a
public hearing everyone living within 300 feet of the affected area
is notified by mail of the hearing. On any matter other than a pub-
lic hearing, Mayor Silva added, the public must rely on newspaper
stories for additional information.
The comment was made that if the City is interested in low cost
housing - why trailers? Why not apartment bui~dings? Mayor pro
tempore Miller explained that at the present time there are 2500
units of apartments approved and zoned which are not being built,
and they are not being built right now because financing is diffi-
cult; on the other hand financing is easy for trailer parks and
that is why the pressure is on.
CM-23-182
August 24, 1970
Bob Schaeffer, 785 Wall Street, stated that he (Mobile Home Parks)
has seen many attractive mobile home parks, and
we can have attractive mobile home parks with
good control and planning. He did feel there was an inequity in
the way they are taxed, but the person who lives in a mobile home
pays all the tax rate it is worth and required. There is a legal
question of whether or not a mobile home park can be restricted
from this area because they do not pay their fair share of taxes.
He suggested the City restrict mobile home parks on the basis of
tax inequity and let the applicant make it a court test if he so
desires.
Mrs. Lorraine Raiason, 5244 Kathy Way, asked if the Council had
checked for possible collusion between the manufacturers of mobile
homes and developers, referring to an article in the Chronicle
which indicated it was a good tax dodge.
Mr. Johnson commented that the yards in the mobile home parks were
well kept while the yards you see along the freeways are very un-
kept. A statement was also made in the audience that we should
attempt to induce industry to come into Livermore and forget about
mobile home parks, and get industry to support the people here.
M~yor Silva stated he would like to have the matter of mobile home
parks set for a study session and it should be in conjunction
with his request to the Planning Commission regarding areas within
the City to be considered for mobile home parks as he felt a
study had already been made regarding proposed sites.
Councilman Beebe suggested that the study session be set at least
thirty days from now to allow them time to get more input. He
stated that San Leandro has recently approved a very deluxe mobile
home park in a purely industrial area and has reported it will
net as much revenue as the industrial use. He also pointed out
that Fremont did not permit mobile home parks up until now, but
are allowing them. They do have a mobile home park ordinance;
they also restrict the number of mobile homes to a percentage
of the existing residences. Councilman Beebe stated he would
like to have some correspondence from these cities in this regard.
Mr. Kennedy was requested to write to the cities mentioned for
pertinent information. Further discussion on this matter was
postponed until the middle of October.
*
*
*
(;zL5iIL 4--tft:/ ,AfC-' )
CUP-Intermark
Mobile Home Park
Planning Director George Musso explained that
the Conditional Use Permit application of
Intermark Investing, Inc. for a mobile home
park was previously considered, and there was
a slight misunderstanding when the application was accepted and
scheduled for public hearing. The Planning Commission was re-
quested to reconsider the original application, and at the pub-
lic hearing, to approve a mobile home park without any plan;
this was to be submitted later. However, this was not the appro-
priate procedure, and the Planning Commission agreed they would
accept the previously proposed plan with the understanding Intermark
would come back with a revised plan. Therefore, the plan before
the Council at this time is the previously considered plan ad-
jacent to highway 580, south of Bluebell Drive and east of Las
Flores Road. The property is presently landlocked on the north
by a row of multiple-zoned lots in another ownership; to the
west along Los Flores is another ownership, zoned multiple, and
on the east is vacant land. The Planning Commission has consis-
tently recommended that access be provided through to Las Flores,
and, incidentally, there is now an application for an apartment
house on that land to preclude that possibility; also that Blue-
bell Drive be extended to connect with Northfront Road, which
would provide frontage and Las Flores would provide access.
CM-23-183
August 24, 1970
(CUP-Intermark
Investing, Inc.)
Mr. Musso continued, saying there was no favorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission, and
the staff is not favorable to the design. The
Planning Commission recommendation is for denial.
Mayor Silva asked, if the apartment application is approved and
constructed, what would . happen to the access they would require for
the CUP, to which Mr. Musso replied that if the CUP were approved,
access could be made a condition to the approval.
In reply to a question by Councilman Taylor as to whether this was
exactly the same plan the Council turned down two months ago, Mr.
Musso stated that it was, however it was not turned down at that
time on the basis of design.
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing at this time. A petition with
308 signatures was presented to the Council, opposing the location
of mobile home parks in the vicinity of Proud Country and the Spring-
town areas. Letters were also received from the following: Mrs.
R. A. Diehl, 1188 Marigold Road; Charles H. and Mildred L. Driesbock,
5271 Iris Way; Walter R. Perry, 2332 Shetland Road and Mrs. Paul
Stroud, 5218 Iris Way.
Mrs. Stroud addressed the Council to protest the granting of a CUP
to Intermark Investment Co., stating that although she did not re-
present the people of Springtown, she knew that many of them agreed
with her reasons. She stated that the application had been denied
twice previously, and nothing had changed in the interval except
the increase of pressures upon the people in the area and the City
Council. Further, the pressures upon them stem from the involvement
between the Springtown Recreation Center and the Golf Course; however
there was no real cause for concern until Intermark took over. Also
Intermark has refused to reactivate the fountain, which Springtown
thought of as a landmark. These things leave them with little faith
in any promises made by Intermark.
Carlton Clark, 1492 Bluebell Drive, stated there was no harrassment
and felt that the raise in dues was justified.
Russell Bunch, 5222 Peony Drive, had made a statement previously
which was in regard to this public hearing.
Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock, stated that the original plan for develop-
ment of the land for which the permit is sought was for low density
residential, and the residents of the area were led to believe that
the area would not be developed for multi-family dwellings without
restrictions as to age limits; the type of dwellings proposed for
this land would be exempt from City, County and local school taxes.
For the past few elections, school bonds have been voted down by
the residents of Livermore due to the heavy tax load on property
owners, and he felt at the present time it would be unwise to grant
a permit for mobile home parks in this area, thereby increasing the
load on the schools and promoting a further tax load on the citizens
of Livermore for the purpose of a non-taxpaying development. He also
stated that the drawing submitted does not provide for an exit from
the mobile home park that would not be hazardous to traffic in both
directions. Inasmuch as Intermark is not a local firm, he did not
feel that they had the best interest of Livermore as its policy.
Mayor Silva reminded the audience that the property was zoned for
RG-IO, which means they can build ten apartment units per acre,
and the application before them is calling for eight mobile homes
per acre.
Ron Countryman, vice president of Intermark Investing Co., addressed
the Council, and in reply to a question of who they were, replied
that they are based in San Diego, and are and have been interested
in Springtown since 1962; they have invested over $l~ million in
Springtown and have paid taxes to the City and County of almost
CM-23-184
August 24, 1970
$340,000; they are not trying to make a lot of
money , but are hoping to get an investment
which they did not ask for 110ut of their hairll.
Mr. Countryman further stated they are not
unknown and they do know what is going on, but there seems to be
mass confusion regarding 2000 units being proposed in the Spring-
town area as he does not know of any. Their permit has come about
as the result of two and a half years of zoning requests, hearings,
and so forth. They have an agreement transferring density, involv-
ing the 150 acres they own in the Springtown area. As a result
of this density transfer that area has the lowest density of any
area north of the highway, that is in the City. Also, as a result
of the density transfer the sixteen acres which they own was zoned
RL-IO, which is a multi-family zoning allowing ten units per acre.
At the time of their initial request they stated they were not
planning apartment dwellings, but a mobile home park, which would
be an adult, 5-star park compatible to the Springtown area, with
a density of 8.32 d.u./acre which is a lesser density than that
allowed.
(Intermark Investing
CUP)
Mr. Countryman further stated they feel any development in that
area will be a benefit since there have been no shopping facili-
ties due to the fact there is not enough population to support major
shopping centers. They believe that the cost to the City of a
mobile home park is considerably less than single family dwellings.
The last time they appeared before the Council, the Council denied
the permit on the basis of a majority protest of the citizens of
the Springtown area. Within three days they had fourteen written
requests from Springtown residents to resubmit because the testi-
mony did not reflect the feeling of Springtown.
Clarence Hoenig stated that if the Council does allow a mobile
home park, Intermark's statement over the microphone does not
guarantee it will be a 5-star park, but perhaps it could be condi-
tioned with the requirements of a 5-star park.
Dewey King, 2991 Cabrillo Avenue, representing American Mobile Homes
Company, as regional construction manager stated that all the parks
they build are 5-star parks. The plan being presented is not one
they have developed, but if they do build it, it will be a 5-star
park and will be beautiful; the conditional use permit can require
that it be an adult park. Their parks are operated by a manager,
assistant manager and a strict set of rules.
Mr. David Madis presented the Council with a brochure from the
American Mobile Home Company which illustrated the quality and
type of mobile home the applicant proposes. All they are request-
ing is approval of the use, not the plan, and the Council can im-
pose all of the requirements to make this a 5-star adult mobile
home park as a part of the CUP. They do not have a plan for pre-
sentation yet, but they will follow all the steps for review
that are necessary.
Lily Hathaway, 2175 Roan Court, asked if the park can be restricted
to adults only. Mayor Silva said the City did not have the author-
ity to put this requirement into the permit.
Ted Mamaros, 2243 Shire Court, asked for denial of the application.
Earl McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, asked why the applicant wanted
to invest in Livermore since they were from San Diego. He was
opposed to the trailer park.
Mayor Silva pointed out that this company has paid over $300,000
in taxes in our community.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, stated the applicant did not have
a proper plan and requested denial of the application.
CM-23-185
August 24, 1970
(CUP-Intermark David Madis pointed out that Intermark did not buy
Investing,Inc.) the land for speculation, but took this property
from defaulting developers. He said the residents
of the area would be able to have 2 d.u./acre be-
cause the density was transferred to this small parcel, which is
away from their single family area. All Intermark is trying to do
is regain its investment.
Mr. Kerr stated that Intermark had taken out a permit to build a
clubhouse on the golf course, but the permit expired and they put
up a rusty Quonset hut which was later improved at the request of
the City.
stuart Smith, 321 Virginia Drive, felt there had been enough testi-
mony presented to warrant denial of the application. If the Council
could not do so at this time, they should delay the decision until
they have more information on mobile home parks before them.
Sue Walker, 1257 Higuera Court, said the main decision is whether
the community wants trailer parks. Once one is allowed, others will
have to be allowed. Schools should always be a part of decisions,
and the Council should make a decision on trailer courts as a whole
before deciding on Intermark's application.
Hugh Griffin, 2257 Shire Court, suggested the City contact San Diego
in regard to Intermark's reputation and record.
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Lane, requested that this decision be de-
ferred until a decision is reached on mobile home parks in general.
Russell Dicks, 4875 Primrose Lane, stated he was the resident of the
"sloppy clubhouse" referred to in previous testimony, and wished to
invite everyone to inspect it so they might see it is clean and
attractive.
Helen DeVore stated Intermark owns the property now, but it will be
developed by a man who has been a Livermore resident for eight years;
also there are apartments which by contract do not allow children.
G. R. Patton, 2252 Shetland Road, requested that the permit be denied
solely on the fact that they have no plan.
Glen Coffey, 3557 Oregon Way, asked that the Council make clear to
the audience that it is possible for the Council to grant the use
and require them to bring back a plan for this use.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Silva stated it was his feeling that the City has an ordinance;
if the c8nditions of the ordinance are met, the use should be allowed.
However, he felt he needed to see the plan before making a decision;
also the Council should see a definite plan.
Councilman Miller stated it was his personal policy to refuse to
consider an application until he had the maps and information before
him.
Councilman Beebe said he voted for this permit when it was before
the Council previously, and he still felt Livermore needed some
trailer units. However, he thought they should delay action for
thirty to sixty days in order to check with other cities so they will
have some definite facts on which to base their decisions.
Mayor Silva felt that this application perhaps should be approved so
the City would have some definite facts; it is for only 133 units,
which is a long way from the 2,000 anticipated units.
CM-23-186
Councilman Taylor agreed that any decision
should be delayed; he had voted against it
before and would probably do so again at this
time, unless he had a plan and more information
in general.
August 24, 1970
(CUP-Intermark
Investing,Inc.)
as to mobile homes
Councilman Pritchard inquired if a resolution of intention could
be made in this matter.
The City Attorney said that a resolution of intention is a moral
commitment or opinion to do what they state. It could be re-
tracte~ though, at a later date. The resolution would not be
legally binding.
Councilman Miller felt this might be considered as giving a vested
right, or promise, and might be cause for legal action by the
developer if it is later denied.
After further discussion along this line, Councilman Beebe made a
motion to delay decision until October 19, which was agreeable to
the applicant. The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor.
Councilman Miller felt there should be at least a week between the
study session and hearing. This application has been denied before,
and most of the people appearing before the Council had asked for
denial; therefore, he felt he would be for denial again.
The motion for continuance was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER WITH ALL
PRESENT.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated that the ordinance
under discussion is relative to the parking of
trailers, including boats, trailer coaches,
mobile homes, or anything that is towable, and prohibits parking
of this type of vehicle within the required side yard or front
yard, which is generally twenty feet. Some years ago the Council
instructed the staff to enforce the ordinance on complaint. There
has been a lot of trouble encountered in enforcing this ordinance
in this manner. One of the solutions to this problem is parking
in the side yard, but this is also against the ordinance and is
not approved by the Fire Department. Parking in the front yard
brings objections from the neighbors. It is the recommendation of
the staff and Planning Department that the ordinance either be
totally enforced or repealed.
TRAILER STORAGE
ORDINANCE
Mayor Silva expressed his opinion that the ordinance must either
be enforced or changed.
Gene Gutridge, 635 Andrews, moved here ten years ago. He has no
alternative other than putting his trailer in front of his house,
and he had counted seven such vehicles in his immediate neighbor-
hood but had not heard of any complaints. He did not feel this
ordinance was suited to Livermore.
Paul Howard, 975 Laguna Street, had moved to Livermore two years
ago and had looked for a home with access to the back yard for his
trailer. He felt that the ordinance was unjust to those with
trailers and boats.
Roberta Roads, 971 Ventura Avenue, said owners of trailers cannot
satisfy the City and the Fire Department; she was against the
ordinance.
CM-23-187
August 24, 1970
(Trailer
storage Ordi-
nance)
Another member of the audience pointed out that
there is no place to store trailers; people storing
trailers must be licensed and carry insurance.
People are being asked to get rid of their trailers
and boats because some people don't like them and
this is not democratic.
Barbara Combs, 833 Leland Court, stated recreation has become so
expensive that camping is one of few activities that a family can
enjoy together. There are many hazards other than boats in driveways.
Garner Massey, 1022 Elm street, now has a 25 foot motor home, cost-
ing $13,500 and did not wish to store it unprotected.
Ira Doss, 909 Norfolk Road, felt that all boats and trailers cheap-
ened the street and blocked the view and should be kept out of front
yards.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, asked that this testimony be considered
by the Council when the RS ordinance is discussed, in order that
more space can be provided for storage.
Russell Bunch, stated he could not afford two vehicles so his camper
was also his family car. He cited a city in Delaware which was con-
sidering a similar ordinance.
Ralph Bolling, 144 Martin Avenue, said there is inconvenience in
storing campers; it takes advance preparation to get ready for a trip,
and as long as there was no safety hazard, storage should be allowed.
Jack Phillips, 551 North P street, felt this was an unjust ordinance
and it should be repealed.
Carl Clarke, 1492 Bluebell Drive, said that Springtown residents had
been forced to move the trailers they had stored together and now
the City wanted to impose more restrictions on them.
Mrs. Lorraine McLean, 1785 Elm street, asked if it was legal if
the camper is left on the pickup, and illegal when it is removed,
because there are times they need the use of their pickup, and the
camper is removed and set back off the street. Since she had a
corner lot, she did have room to store it, but felt the requirements
to be unfair.
Mrs. Betty McMichael, 1574 Roselli Drive, stated she had read that
residents considered trailers very unsightly, although she thought
they were attractive; some of the neighbors don't like them, but they
also have things she does not like and felt that people should learn
to accept each others way of life.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, stated that with regard to a trailer
park at Springtown, at the time they moved in there were deed restric-
tions and promise from the developers it would be a compound. There
are still the deed restrictions, but the compound has never been
developed, and he felt they could get trailer compounds in the new
development tracts.
Don Holeman, 1190 Rincon Avenue, stated he had a corner lot, owned
a camper and felt he could meet the restrictions. It was his desire
to take his children out, and if he had to get rid of his camper,
the children would be in the street.
Bob Rose, 962 Via Seville, stated he enjoyed camping, and came to
Livermore and purchased a piece of property with the express purpose
of parking several trailers on it, but under this ordinance, it
appears to be illegal. He felt one of the real problems that has
been brought out is the fact that zoning regulations should require
proper setbacks so people could get access to their backyards.
CM-23-188
August 24, 1970
Councilman Pritchard felt that the ordinance was (Ordinance re
discriminatory because a motorized vehicle is Trailer storage)
not covered by the ordinance, and for this rea-
son he favored repealing the ordinance as there
is no way it can be made equitable. He further stated that
Hayward does not have an ordinance like this and he made a special
point of driving through some of the residential areas, and did
not notice that it was unnecessarily tacky or any worse than any
other city even though there were some trailers and campers in
some of the areas. He felt that some conclusion must be reached
on this subject.
Mr. Musso replied that Hayward may not have this particular ordi-
nance but they do have an ordinance provision that requires the
front yard to be free and clear of any obstructions and they use
this in the event of complaint.
Councilman Beebe stated the present ordinance, as written, will
take care of a special real poor condition in a neighborhood,
and if there is no ordinance there could be a horrible condition.
As it is now, if there are objections directed to a certain condi-
tion, that person will have to relocate his trailer, and he felt
this to be reasonable.
Mayor Silva stated the only way to enforce an ordinance was to
enforce it all the way, because if a complaint were made against
only one person in the neighborhood, another might be just as
guilty.
Councilman Taylor stated there could not be a law you enforce
only on complaint; if we want to teach the children of this country
respect for the law, they must see that it is enforced uniformly.
Most people purchase homes with this ordinance existing; many have
purchased corner lots if they were aware of the problem. He
did not feel it would be fair to abolish all restrictions at this
stage of the game, and was not prepared to abolish this ordinance,
but it might be modified. In the meantime the present ordinance
should be enforced.
Councilman Miller referred to comments made by people that they
have no room or no method of access to their backyards; that this
was the purpose of the RS ordinance which he and many other people
had spent ten years on to get it adopted precisely because of
problems of this nature. Many people want enforcement of the
trailer storage ordinance because they feel the trailers are
eyesores; also many people have boats and trailemwhich they are
unable to store. The last two times the Council considered this
matter the public favored enforcement of the restrictions; perhaps
the City has changed in the interim as most of the people present
in the audience feel there should not be these restrictions.
Councilman Miller further stated that if there are to be modifi-
cations to the ordinance there should be a formal public hearing.
He suggested that perhaps the papers could have a coupon poll
regarding the matter as he was in a quandary.
The Council further discussed whether the ordinance should be
repealed or enforced. The audience in attendance seemed to favor
repeal; however if it were repealed, there would then be pressure
from the people in favor of enforcement according to Mayor Silva,
who proposed that the issue be put to the vote of the people in
the community. Councilman Taylor agreed he would like to know
the answer from a poll, but stated there were as many laws to
protect the minority from the majority as the other way around,
and was not in favor of a vote, as it might amount to tyranny on
a few people, but if they do consider repeal of the ordinance,
there must be a public hearing.
Mr. Lewis advised it could be put to an advisory vote which would
not be binding; however, it would pose many difficulties to go
CM-23-189
_'____."._....,,__'__.,.____..M.~_____",..._,.____"'_..____'.,...._., ,..__,_....'m.'._._.._...._..,.~._ ..~..._._____~,_.,..._,__,__., ......
August 24, 1970
(Ordinance re
Trailer
storage)
against an advisory vote. The Council discussed the
pros and cons of having an election; whether it
should be put on the November ballot as August 25th
was the last day it could be submitted, or to wait
until the next municipal election in 1972, and
whether the ordinance should be enforced or repealed
in the interim.
Mr. Musso suggested that perhaps it would be best to refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing as
they could not wait for two years for a decision.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to refer the ordinance to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing to consider any possible
amendments, revision or repeal. Councilman Miller seconded the
motion and it passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Pritchard
Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva
Mr. Musso advised that the public hearing before the Planning Com-
mission would probably be set for sometime in October.
Letters were received from the following in regard to this matter:
Robert L. and Christine Malone, 1357 Saybrook Road; Mr. and Mrs.
Charles Prevo, 461 Harding Avenue; Mrs. Jeanne V. Tanghe, 739 Via
del Sol; Donald C. Stoner, 972 Coronado Way; Mr. and Mrs. Jerry
Gerich, 723 Hazel Street; Mrs. Linda Myers, 835 Lucille Street;
Mrs. Ruth Lichtig, 1123 Via Granada; Robert F. Schaefer, 785 Wall
Street; Kenneth W. Henry, 830 Mohawk Drive; Mrs. Earl Sliger,
1245 Aster Lane; Walter L. Weidman, 1160 Apache Street; Val C.
Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth Way.
*
*
*
TENTATIVE
MAP-TRACT
3239
The matter of the tentative map of Tract 3239 was con-
tinued from earlier this evening and the previous
discussion was summarized for the benefit of Mayor
Silva who arrived late.
Councilman Taylor stated it was his understanding that when the
PUD was extended and they discussed the four lots, they had de-
cided those lots would be deducted from the total number at the
time of extension.
Mr. Musso replied that it was extended with a specified number and
later they filed a tentative map; then they asked for modification
of the tentative map and later for the cabana club. He st~ted at
this point in time the policy is that the cabana club lots are not
to be counted - in other words they cannot replace them, and what
they are actually requesting is a change of that policy.
Councilman Beebe asked if the previous Council originally stated
that these four lots should not be counted and suggested, if the
minutes did reflect this, they should abide by that decision.
Dennis O'Brien of Kaufman & Broad stated he did remember the dis-
cussion regarding whether or not the four lots should be included
but did not honestly remember whether the conclusion was that they
were to be deducted. He did recall the total number of units
was set, but at the time the tentative map was discussed, Mr. Musso
went through the sequence of events and the tentative was approved
for 339 lots, and he thought approval was after the fact of the
discussion of the cabana club lots. Then they came back and put
the cabana lots in and now their position is they are not asking
for any more houses, units or lots - just for a parcel to be dedi-
cated as the cabana area. They will use four lots for this, but
they do not believe there is any change in the total number of
approved units.
CM-23-190
August 24, 1970
After some discussion the Council agreed they (Tract 3239)
would abide by what was reflected in the pre-
vious minutes with regard to the four lots in
question, and further discussion was postponed until the next
Council meeting, with the applicant's consent.
*
*
*
The Council had instructed that the text of PUD PERMIT NO. 3
PUD Permit No. 3 be furnished them for their
edification. This item had been removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time.
Councilman Miller stated he wished to bring up a couple of items
that would make this PUD No. 3 essentially the same as the Carlton
Development since the two are equivalent; first, with reference
to C-3 of the Permit, the words "at the time of dedication" should
be added to the sentence, llPublic works to be developed in accor-
dance with policyll; second, in D-3 add the sentence, llNo building
permit shall be issued until 50% of the foundations of the shop-
ping center are poured". Under D add 5, "That the Neighborhood
Shopping Center be subject to design review".
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve the text of the PUD
Permit No.3, as amended above, with the exception of the number
of dwelling units, and the motion was seconded by Councilman Miller
and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager presented a report regarding
the annual tax rate to be set for the City of
Livermore. The tentative rate discussed at
the budget hearing was $1.595. The City Manager
indicated that the rate could be lowered in anticipation of
creased fee revenue and higher assessed valuation to as low
$1. 555.
TAX RATE 1970-71
FISCAL YEAR
in-
as
Councilman Miller made a motion to set the tax rate for the 1970-71
fiscal year at $1.595, stating any funds over the budgeted amount
might be put into the park fund rather than the reserve.
Mr. Kennedy stated that the reserve fund was much lower than in
previous years. He also pointed out estimated fee revenue was
uncertain and perhaps the reserve should be higher.
Discussion followed regarding previous action and debate at the
budget hearings at which time the rate was tentatively set at
$1.595. Mayor Silva stated that the $1.595 rate was based on
an assessed valuation of $74,000,000 and since that time the
County Assessor has given us the amount as $75,082,031; there-
fore, he thought the rate should be decreased to $1.58.
Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
tax rate at $1.58 for the 1970-71 fiscal year, and
was approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 117-70
RESOLUTION FIXING TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR
* * *
Councilman Miller presented a report regarding
the respective positions of the Cultural Arts
Council and the Livermore Art Association. He
stated the Festival of Arts is an advertiSing medium to the outside
world and at the same time a showcase of local cultural groups.
A "showcas e II means that only a sampling of each group's work or
adtivities is included and there is not a major performance or
show of anyone. Thus, only a sampling of the Livermore Art
Association's work could be shown at the Festival, and according
to their by-laws everyone's work is shown or none are shown.
Secondly, the Festival is a juried art show and some LAA members
will enter this individually.
Councilman
to set the
the motion
1970-71
REPORT RE CAC - LAA
CM-23-191
August 24, 1970
ORDINANCE RE
RENUMBERING
(City Code)
ORDINANCE NO. 718
AN ORDINANCE RENUMBERING CERTAIN ARTICLES AND
SECTIONS OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, TO
CORRECT CERTAIN ERRORS AND DUPLICATIONS THEREIN
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
the second reading was waived, and the above ordinance was passed
by unanimous vote.
ORDINANCE RE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
(Sec. 8.80)
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 719
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.00, RELATING TO
RG ZONING DISTRICT, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY REPEALING
SECTIONS 8.80 THROUGH 8.84, RELATING TO LOT AND
LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND AMENDING SEC-
TIONS 8.88 and 8.89 THEREOF, RELATING TO HEIGHT
LIMITS.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
second reading was waived, and the above ordinance was passed by
unanimous vote.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Lease for
Storage of
EqUipment)
*
*
*
The Public Works Director stated that he had an
inquiry from the contractor for the State freeway
construction on U.S. 580 regarding leasing of pro-
perty for storage of some heavy equipment near the
airport. The staff was instructed to prepare a lease
including provisions for repair of any damage to
City streets.
*
*
*
(Zone 7) The City Attorney stated that Alameda County Flood
Control Water Conservation District has requested
that a recommendation be sent to the Governor re
the 50% vote issue as there is a bill reducing the two-thirds major-
ity required for passage to 50%. Undoubtedly, this will mean that
the bond issue (Zone 7) will be approved. The majority of the
Council favored sending such a recommendation.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Camp Parks)
Report on
Visit to
Sister City
Complaint re
School st.
CM-23-192
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe said he had been informed that the
California American Legion has approved a resolution
that Camp Parks become a national cemetery.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor requested that a special item be
included on the next Council agenda for a report on
the recent visit to the Sister City, Quezaltenango.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva said he had received complaints from
residents on School Street regarding littering,
trespassing and loitering by students, and the
staff was requested to send a letter to the School
District in this regard.
*
*
*
August 24, 1970
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at
2:00 a.m. to an executive session to discuss
appointments to the design review committee.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
*
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of September 8, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Tuesday,
September 8, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Mayor Silva led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of August 24, 1970,
were approved as amended on motion of Councilman
Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and by
unanimous approval.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
The Mayor invited any member of the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the
agenda, but there were no comments made.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor introduced Mr. Joe Medeiros,
chairman of the Sister City Committee, who
headed the delegation of ten in its recent
visit to Quezaltenango. Mr. Medeiros spoke
briefly about the Sister City program and then
described the delegation's visit. Several books were presented
to the delegation for Livermore's public library; the keys to
the City of Quezaltenango, a plaque commemorating the visitors,
a painting symbolizing Quezaltenango, and a plaque from the Town
Affiliation Association of the United States had been given to
the City of Livermore for display. A slide presentation of the
recent visit was shown by Mr. Medeiros.
SPECIAL ITEM
(Report on Visit to
Sister City)
CM-23-193
September 8, 1970
(Sister City
Visit)
Councilman Taylor expressed the hope that more chil-
dren from Livermore might be able to visit Quezalte-
nango in order to learn more about this country. He
stated the recent visit was a wonderful experience
and that people went out of their way to be nice to
them.
Mayor Silva expressed the hope that those residents of Livermore who
had visited Quezaltenango under sponsorship of the Sister City Com-
mittee would be honored with a certificate acknowledging their visit.
*
*
*
CONSENT
CALENDAR
(Bids for
Street Sweeper)
CONSENT CALENDAR
The 1970-71 budget provided for appropriation for a
new street sweeper, and permission is requested to
solicit bids for this item.
*
*
*
Resolution re
Portola Ave.
Deannexation
RESOLUTION NO. 118-70
A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN
UNINHABITED TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF LIVERMORE,
COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS "PORTOLA AVENUE DEANNEXATION"
AND GIVING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THEREON.
The above resolution initiates the exclusion of certain uninhabited
territory from the City of Livermore, commonly described as "Portola
Avenue Deannexation" and sets the date for public hearing.
*
*
*
Annexation
of "Inter-
chanO"e Annex"
<::>
RESOLUTION NO. 119-70
RESOLUTION REQUESTING LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION TO COMMENCE PRO-
CEEDINGS AUTHORIZING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESIGNATED HEREIN
AS "INTERCHANGE ANNEX".
The above resolution requests the Local Agency Formation Commission
to approve the annexation of territory known as "Interchange Annex",
which comprises a portion of the freeway at the intersection of
Highway 50 and First Street, together with a small portion of land
owned by Ralph Pahlmeyer. Annexation is necessary to prevent an
island from being created as a part of the Portola Avenue Deannexation.
*
*
*
Notice of RESOLUTION NO. 120-70
Completion
1969-70 Capital
Improvement RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR
Projects OF PUBLIC WORKS TO RECORD NOTICE OF COMPLETION RE
1969-70 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
*
*
*
Denial of
Claim
(James
Battershill)
RESOLUTION NO. 121-70
A RESOLUTION DENYING CLAIM OF JAMES BATTERSHILL
An adjacent property owner claims damages to his
property due to misrepresentation regarding con-
struction of a traffic island at S and Holmes Streets. The claim-
ant states that access to his single family dwelling is limited.
The City Engineer does not feel that the access is limited and there
is adequate turning space; therefore, denial of claim is recommended.
CM-23-194
September 8, 1970
A letter has been received from Thomas H. AB 1271
Willoughby, Committee Consultant of the Assembly
Committee on Local Government, stating that due
to limited time AB 1271, regarding school land dedication, may
not be included on the interim schedule of the committee. The
Council felt it would be useful to send a letter to the committee
and obtain support encouraging that the bill be put through for
interim study. Also, this matter should be presented to the
League of California Cities for inclusion on their agenda for
the meeting to be held in November.
RESOLUTION NO. 123-70
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUPPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION.
*
*
*
A letter has been received from the YMCA Ecology
Club regarding placement of litter recepticles
at various locations. As the Beautification
Committee is presently working on this matter,
it was suggested that this communication be given
to them. The staff was instructed to write to
the club, thanking them for their interest.
YMCA Ecology Club
Re Litter
Recepticles
*
*
*
Applications for exempt business licenses have
been received from the following:
Exempt Business
Licenses
American Association of University Women - various fund raising
activities to restore barn for LARPD
Livermore High School - various fund raising activities
Gamma Alpha Kappa - Beta Sigma Phi - sale of used books on
October 3 and Bazaar, Dec. 5, for charitable and service work
in aiding mentally retarded.
Springtown Women's Club - Rummage sale on Sept. 4 for upkeep of
Recreation Center in Springtown
Apostolic Faith Temple - candy sale to raise money to purchase
property
Livermore Jaycees - various fund ralslng activities to assist
with housing for elderly and Emergency Fund Center
*
*
*
One hundred forty claims in the amount of Payroll and Claims
$53,876.83, dated August 31 were ordered paid
as approved by the City Manager. Councilman Beebe abstained from
voting on Warrants No. 8329 and 8342 and Mayor Silva abstained on
Warrants No. 8295 and 8359 for the usual reasons.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, the Consent Calendar
was approved unanimously.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
The City Manager stated he had not had an oppor-
tunity to review the report re fee increases
which had been prepared by the staff in his ab-
sence, and due to its size and complexity, and
REPORT RE FEE
INCREASES
CM-23-195
September 8, 1970
(Report re Fees) because the staff would like to prepare summary
sheets, he assumed the Council would not be in
a position to conclude any findings, but rather
might wish to refer the matter to an early study session. Mr.
Parness pointed out there were two basic issues - one used to com-
pile the fee and the other a decision on the fee itself, which issues
the Council must resolve.
The members of the Council felt that it would be best to discuss this
matter as soon as possible; dates were discussed when all Councilmen
might be present. It was decided to include this item on the agenda
of September 21, although Councilman Pritchard will be absent on
this date, but will leave his ideas and impresffibns of the study of
the proposed fees with Mayor Silva in order that they may be given
at the meeting.
Councilman Miller pointed out that several of the proposed fees are
based on labor costs; therefore the fees should be sufficient to
cover costs over the next five years. He also pointed out that
public works inspection fees seem to be lower than those in other
surrounding communities.
Mayor Silva pointed out that previous decision of the Council was
to review the fees on an annual basis. The City Manager stated
that upgrading of the fees on an annual basis would be relatively
simple once a feasible system for arriving at the fees is set.
Councilman Miller felt that the factors attributed to development
costs by the various departments in the study were too low.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
PROPOSED
COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
A report was submitted by the City Manager regarding
proposed commercial development of the Airway Boule-
vard property. A 2.54 acre parcel, which will be
segregated from the balance of the property by the
proposed service road for U.S. 580 freeway, might be
leased for commercial development such as a service
station and restaurant-coffee shop use. If this proposal is agree-
able to the Council, the City Manager recommends that the necessary
steps be taken for solicitation of competitive bidding for such use.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that a hearing has been set by the
Planning Commission to consider possible uses and zoning of this
general area; therefore, he felt the matter should not be decided
until after the Planning Commission hearing.
Councilman Miller felt that the ground lease should stay in the
hands of the City, but the final decision on the use should be de-
layed until after the Planning Commission's discussion. After
further discussion the Council concurred that this matter should
be placed back on the agenda after the Planning Commission makes
its report.
Waldo Magnuson, 1073 Miranda Way, stated this will be one of the
major approaches to the City and perhaps a service station should
not be located here. Since this property was purchased with funds
from the old airport, the use should be reviewed and discussed by
the Airport Advisory Committee. Also, the FAA will have to advise
the City that any revenue from airport land will have to be used
for airport development and cannot go into the general fund. He
felt further that location of a service station-restaurant would
deter development of a restaurant in the golf course clubhouse.
The City Manager stated that if the funds derived from leasing this
land has to be used for airport development under FAA requirements,
then it will be so used. The proposed use will be a highway oriented
restaurant and would be an entirely distinctive use from that pro-
posed for the clubhouse.
CM-23-196
September 8, 1970
A report was submitted by the Public Works Di-
rector in regard to the old rodeo barn at the
Civic Center site. It was felt that the poss-
ible aesthetic conflicts which might be involved
in allowing the Cultural Arts Committee to use
the facility should be restated. The City Manager recommended
that this report be taken under consideration and filed as the
Council has already taken a course of action in this matter.
REPORT RE BARN
IMPROVEMENT
(Civic Center Site)
Discussion followed relative to negotiations with the prime
freeway contractor for excavation of fill from this site, and
whether the barn would interfere with this work. The Public
Works Director stated that leaving the barn would only have a
minor effect on the excavation work and final grading.
The City Attorney stated he was preparing the agreement with the
LARPD for use of this facility and it was his understanding that
a provision was to be included that the barn would be used by
the Cultural Arts Council. The CAC attorney wished to broaden
this to apply to Cultural Arts groups. This was agreeable to
the Council.
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCIL
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
Bids have been received on a 4-wheel scooter
for the Golf Course as follows:
REPORT RE GOLF
COURSE SCOOTER BIDS
Cushman
West Coaster
Cal Turf' (CONY)
$ 2,396.50
1,760.00
1,640.00
Due to the good experience with the existing Cushman Scooters and
since the West Coaster is unproven, it is recommended that the
Cushman bid be accepted.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to accept the recommendation for the acceptance of the bid
by Cushman for the scooter; the motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The Planning Director pointed out that the staff
report indicates the history in this matter, be-
ginning with the illegal erection of the sign.
Soon after the erection of the sign, the sign
ordinance was amended to allow this type of sign;
the sign area was increased but a setback was added as a require-
ment for all freestanding signs of this type. After the sign
ordinance was amended, the staff processed the pending variances.
The issue involved is the setback, not the size of the sign. The
Planning Commission has denied the request for variance to allow
encroachment into the setback. The sign should be located twenty
feet from the curb under the ordinance, but is located about ten
feet from the curb now.
APPEAL RE DENIAL
OF VARIANCE
(Drs. Sweedler)
Burke Critchfield, representing the applicant, stated that the
architect who designed the building made the assumption that the
sign ordinance was the same as in Lafayette; it was discovered
after erection of the sign that it was not allowed and that a sign
permit application had not been made. As soon as the applicants
found that the sign was not in accordance with the ordinance, they
talked to Mr. Musso who advised them to wait until the ordinance
was amended before taking action. Mr. Critchfield pointed out
CM-23-197
September 8, 1970
(Variance - possible locations for the sign on the property,
Drs. Sweedler) but stated the present one seemed most logical.
Councilman Taylor stated that if this sign is allowed in this zone,
then other establishments will want to place signs not allowed by
the ordinance.
The City Attorney was asked if undue hardship would be grounds for
variance, but he pointed out that erection of the sign by mistake
could not be considered as creating undue hardship.
Councilman Miller felt that if something is done in violation of
the law, such as the erection of a sign not conforming to the ordi-
nance, then that construction should be torn down before request
is made for variance.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that variance be granted for erec-
tion of this sign as far back as possible in the planter and placed
parallel to the street. He stated he did this reluctantly as the
sign would be in violation of the ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Councilman Pritchard.
Mark Eaton, 441 Jackson Avenue, said he had driven around the City
looking at signs, in particular those of the two new service sta-
tions on Murrieta and Stanley Blvd. He did not see the difference
in these signs and the sign being considered for variance.
Councilman Pritchard stated he was in agreement with Mr. Eaton's
viewpoint, but since he felt he was in the minority he was willing
to compromise and second the motion.
Mrs. Silia Baker, 541 Bell Ave., felt the law should be followed
in regard to the sign.
Councilman Miller did not feel it was possible to make the findings
for a variance for this sign; the sign was erected illegally and the
argument that the ~ign was erected by mistake is not sufficient. He
felt it was unfair for some to abide by the law the then have it
overturned by allowing this variance.
Councilman Beebe said he did not see being hardnosed about this
when signs for other adjacent medical buildings are allowed, even
though they mwbe in different zones.
The motion to allow a variance was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
ZO AMENDMENT
Sec. 20.60
and Sec. 20.34
Mr. Musso stated it was important that Section 20.60,
Accessory Structures and Uses, and Section 20.34,
street Frontages, of the Zoning Ordinance be amended
and these changes would clarify certain portions of
the ordinance.
This matter was set for public hearing on September 28.
*
*
*
ENFORCEMENT
Ch. 10 of
City Code
At its meeting of August 25, 1970, the Planning Com-
mission discussed Chapter 10 of the City Code, par-
ticularly the section relating to regulations re
garbage pickup and dumping. The City Manager stated
that the City departments would be instructed in
this regard.
*
*
*
CM-23-198
September 8, 1970
Tentative map of Tract 3239 was continued from
the previous meeting for clarification of the
number of lots to be allowed in Tract 3064, and
a report summarizing the events leading up to
the present in this regard was submitted to the
Council by the Planning Director.
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 3239
(Kaufman & Broad)
Mayor Silva stated he did not feel that a definite conclusion had
been reached previously with regard to these lots.
Councilman Miller, on the other hand, pointed out that definitive
statements were made throughout the minutes, as indicated in the
report, that the lots were not to be replaced. There was no
direct motion made on it, but there was a motion limiting the
number of lots in Tract 3064 which made the question of the fo~
lots specific. What actually happened was the Council decided
they would not settle the total number of lots between Tract 3064
and the front property (the multiple) so the motion failed. It
was not a denial of the four lots; because the four lots were out
because of the cabana club was a consistent pattern throughout the
whole discussion. The second thing was that the last action of
the Planning Commission was approval of the 199 lots and since
the Council did not reverse that, the total number of lots is 199,
which includes the cabana club so the four lots have already been
taken out.
Mayor Silva stated he did not recall the discussion to take the
four lots out or leave them in, but he did recall discussing the
number of units allowed in the whole PUD, which was 1291; then the
four lots came up for discussion and the matter was never resolved.
He felt this was mainly because you can have as many lots as per-
mitted in the RL-6, based on the number of apartment units, and
no number was set for Tract 3064.
Councilman Miller agreed, but stated that portion of Tract 3064
which includes the cabana club is set at 199 lots.
Mayor Silva did not recall this, and stated he thought the dis-
cussion was they could have as many lots as allowed under the RL-6
zoning based on how many units they had in front, and the overall
PUD was 1291.
Councilman Taylor commented that he did not remember the number
199, but felt Mayor Silva was correct in that there were a certain
number of lots they were discussing, but when the cabana club
appeared, they were talking about whether they should give credit
or not for that space and decided it was not a public facility,
but a private venture 8wned by the citizens owning adjacent homes
and the four lots should be subtracted from the total because
of the cabana club to make their decision consistent with policy.
Councilman Taylor further stated the report indicates there is
a difference of eleven lots over the last official action and
felt this was something new on the scene.
Mr. Musso explained that he had reviewed the official minutes and
found no definitive action where a formal motion was made regard-
ing the four lots. With regard to the additional lots, he felt
there was a mathematical error along the way - 199 was the number
specified for this development. As far as the total number of
lots, it should still come out to 1291 or 1287, depending on the
decision of the Council.
Councilman Taylor stated that since they do not allow a transfer
of lots for a private facility, suggested they allow 1287 and
subtract the four lots.
Mayor Silva stated he might agree with this, and it was a fine
argument, if they had not made some other decision prior to this.
If they have not made another prior decision, then it is a whole
new llball gamell and the present Council should make the determination,
CM-23-199
September 8, 1970
(Tract 3239) Councilman Miller felt it was resolved and the rea-
son there was no formal motion was because there was
no tract before them on which to make a final deci-
sion, and again pointed out that as shown in Mr.
Musso's report, everywhere in the minutes there was to be no credit
for these four cabana club lots. Councilman Miller again referred
to the paragraph in the report with regard to the definitive state-
ments that the four lots were not to be replaced.
Councilman Pritchard reminded him that the next paragraph indicates
that a motion made by him deleting the four lots from the number 1291
was denied, however Councilman Miller stated that the denial was
based on other factors, and explained the intent of the motion and
the reason for the denial.
Councilman Beebe reminded the Mayor that they had voted unanimously
to refer to the minutes of the previous Council's action on the matter,
and if the last paragraph of the Planning Director's report says that,
it would appear that the last action was that of June 2, 1969, where
199 lots were assigned to the last two units of this subdivision rather
than the 210, and if this is spelled out in the minutes, this is what
they had agreed to abide by; if it is not spelled out in the minutes,
the statement is not correct.
Mayor Silva agreed this was true; however the minutes were not clear
and that was the reason for the problem.
Mr. Musso read an excerpt from the letter of the Planning Commission
as follows: "At the conclusion of discussion, the Planning Commission
tabled any further action, pending submittal of an amended map or re-
view of a final map with instructions to the developer that 199 units
should be assigned to the remainder of tenta~ive Tract No. 3064."
This information was, in turn, transmitted to Mr. Varni by the City
Clerk, so the matter was just dropped, leaving it at that. Mr. Musso
stated that as far as Tract 3064, there was no change, and even
though there is a conflict in numbers, between 199 and 210, he felt
it is an error along the line that the developer should not get in-
volved in or be penalized for and did not know how it might have
happened.
Councilman Taylor stated that regardless of which figures are used,
the issue is whether to allow credit for the cabana club lots. The
map before them has 39 lots, four of which replace those occupied
by the cabana club in another tract. Therefore, they are talking
about 1291 lots with no cabana club or 1287 with the cabana club.
Mayor Silva questioned if this meant that if the applicant wanted
more cabana clubs lots would be subtracted for each one. Councilman
Miller said this would be the developer's choice - lots for houses
or cabana clubs.
Councilman Taylor stated that the developer could choose to build
houses or to build the cabana club, which expense would be considered
as a sales feature; this would be the developer's choice. At one
time the plan called for two churches, but these were eliminated
and replaced with lots. On the other hand, they chose to build the
cabana club on four lots rather than houses.
Dennis O'Brien, representing Kaufman & Broad, the applicant, stated
that the tentative map for Tract 3239 has 43 lots, approved by the
Planning Commission by a 4 to 1 vote. The subject of credit for
the four lots was debated at the meeting of the Planning Commission;
their majority conclusion was that the map should be approved with
the four lots included. There have been two final maps approved:
Tract 3064 for 70 lots; 3196 for 63 lots; 3222 for 167 lots and
3239 for 43 lots, for a total of 343 lots. Rather than using raw
land for the cabana club, they used these four lots. People are
looking for recreation and this is one of the reasons the cabana club
CM-23-200
September 8, 1970
was built. His understanding at the last meet- (Tract 3239)
ing was that this matter would be on the Consent
Calendar for approval of the lots according to
the number stated in previous minutes.
/--
Mr. Musso pointed out that the Planning Commission had taken action
on the four lots, but that the Council had not done so.
Mayor Silva added that the minutes do not reflect either 1291
or 1287 lots overall as a formal motion.
Mr. O'Brien stated there was no number given in a formal motion
but the various amendments had always added up to 1291 and previous
discussion, including Mr. Miller's motion, did not state the total
would be definitely reduced.
Councilman Miller stated that Mr. O'Brien should also remember
that during the discussion of the cabana club the Council agreed
that if the cabana club were included the total would be 1287.
The fact that there was no formal motion was because they were
not making a formal motion on that tract map at that time or on
the total number of units in the permit. All the discussion was
tied up with their townhouse proposal and the number of units in
Tract 3064. But the intent, in all the discussions, was that if
the developer puts in the cabana club, then four lots would be
subtracted. Subtracting these four lots satisfies existing City
policy adopted by the Council in their General Plan.
Mr. Musso said that the Planning Commission had approved the four
lots since the applicant stated this cabana club was for all the
area and, therefore, should be considered as open space.
Councilman Miller did not agree that this should be considered as
open space, and after further discussion read that portion of the
General Plan pertaining to such uses as the cabana club, which is
a quasi-public use and is, therefore, excluded in counting density.
Mayor Silva felt that the Council was concerned with providing
open space for public use, and it seemed this policy discouraged
open space.
The Council briefly discussed cabana clubs, their dedication and
use, and whether or not they should be used as open space and
are they to be considered as public facilities.
Mayor Silva stated that according to the policy given in the
General Plan the four lots should not be allowed for the cabana
club.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, asked how allowing the four lots
for the cabana club would change the size of the other lots since
they must be 6,000 sq. ft. under the RL-6 zoning; therefore, how
could this affect the open space.
Mr. Musso stated that RL-6 would not apply under this PUD permit.
Mr. O'Brien pointed out that the lots are 7500 sq. ft. so the
developer is not cramming lots to get the four additional ones.
In addition, 1291 dwelling units had been approved for the entire
development; the disposition of those units over the front and
back portion was never resolved. They are not asking for more
units than were approved.
Councilman Taylor said he realized Mr. O'Brien's argument that
1291 units had been approved, and the PUD had never been amended
to reflect the change when the cabana club was approved.
CM-23-201
September 8~ 1970
(Tract 3239)
Mayor Silva inquired if the four units could be deducted from the
apartment units to be built, but was advised that plans are already
in the hands of the building department.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that this final map of Tract 3239
be approved with 39 units, rather than 43; the motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller.
After further discussion, Councilman Taylor withdrew his motion and
Councilman Miller withdrew his second. Councilman Taylor then made
another motion to allow a total of 1287 units for this PUD, and it
was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
The City Attorney advised that the PUD permit was approved for 1291
units and amendment of the PUD was not before the Council; the
matter before them was to see that the tentative map agreed with
the PUD permit.
Councilman Miller stated that the permit indicated that the number
of units shall not exceed 1291, but does not say there must be 1291
units.
Mr. Musso read from the PUD permit as to how the 1291 units had been
calculated; the cabana club was approved subsequently.
Councilman Taylor felt that according to the City Attorney's state-
ment the Council could not do anything. There is a map before the
Council which conforms to the zoning and PUD and according to the
Council's thinking the four lots should be deducted from the total,
but the permit had not been changed.
The City Attorney explained that in order to exercise the choice of
subtracting the four lots from the tract map or the apartments approved,
then the permit would have to be amended and the applicant would have
to accept it. If the applicant does not agree, then the tract map
would have to be amended and this would make the tract map out of
agreement with the permit. On the face of the permit, to subtract
the four lots, an amendment of the permit would be required.
Councilman Taylor stated that it was just a gross oversight that the
PUD had not been amended, the map before them was in conformance
and there seemed to be no basis for denial.
Councilman Miller felt this matter should be studied by the City
Attorney to see if there is a way to comply with the intent of the
Council to delete these four lots. With the opinion of the City
Attorney before them, the Council could then make a decision.
The City Attorney stated he could review the matter, but felt that
his opinion, based on present knowledge, would remain the same.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to honor the previous records of the
Council when the PUD was extended and whereas the intent was for
1287 units, the PUD must therefore be amended, with the consent of
the applicant, to subtract four units from the apartments. The
applicant was not agreeable to amendment of the PUD.
Councilman Miller made a motion to postpone resolution of this
matter for one week to allow review by the City Attorney, seconded
by Councilman Taylor. The motion was subsequently withdrawn as
the applicant must consent to a continuance and did not agree to
a continuance.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to approve Tract 3239 as submitted. The motion passed by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
CM-23-202
September 8, 1970
Councilman Miller said that other members of (Tract 3239)
the Council always expressed their disapproval
when he raised questions and wished to read over
permits and make things explicit. In this case, the few extra
minutes it would have taken to read 8ver the permit would have
saved an hour and a half and kept this matter within the policy
of the General Plan.
Councilman Taylor said to assume that the Council would not have
been in these circumstances if they had only listened to Council-
man Miller was a gross assumption. Councilman Miller had not
presented any legal basis for any other action than the one taken
by the Council and there was no need to berate the Council for
their vote.
Councilman Pritchard replied that he did not think the present
Council had said anything about Councilman Miller's insistence
on checking over details, and further felt that the action taken
tonight was the only action they could take.
Councilman Taylor stated that Councilman Miller had served the
City by taking time to go over the permits in detail.
Councilman Beebe said ne felt it was grossly improper for one
Councilman to try to exert his influence over the opinion of all
the other Councilmen. Councilman Miller may not have intended
his remarks to sound this way but they have. He felt much of
this problem would be eliminated if the Council would go to the
system of having alternate study sessions and Council meetings.
*
*
*
A rezoning application has been submitted by
Associated Professions, Inc. for property lo-
cated on the south side of U.S. 580, easterly
of Airway Boulevard. Also, an application has
been submitted for a Planned Unit Development
Permit. Both matters were set for public hearing
*
*
*
REPORT RE REZONING
AND PUD PERMIT
(Assoc. Professions:
on November 2nd.
The Planning Director reported that an applica-
tion for a Conditional Use Permit has been sub-
mitted by Groth Bros. to allow an auto related
business in the CB-2 (Central Business) District
at 1962 First street. The Planning Commission recommends approval,
subject to conditions outlined in their Resolution No. 25-70. A
motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval
of the CUP. The motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CUP at 1962 First
street (Groth Bros.:
Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment
to Section 21.40, Off-Street Parking, was con-
tinued from the meeting of August 10, 1970,
at the request of the Chamber of Commerce so
they might review the ordinance and present
comments. A report and comments had been prepared by
and was referred to the Planning Commission for their
tion and report, with a copy of Mr. Musso's letter.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of August 25, 1970, were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Z 0 AMENDMENT
(Sec. 21.-40,
Off-Street Parking)
the Chamber,
considera-
MINUTES
(Planning Commissior
CM-23-203
September 8, 1970
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
(Amend Ch. 20
re Parks)
MATTERS
INITIATED
STAFF
(BART)
The City Manager requested that the first reading
and introduction of the proposed ordinance amend-
ing the Livermore City Code regarding the provision
for neighborhood parks in regard to standards and
design of Chapter 20 be continued for two weeks
until September 21.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that the BART Board of
Directors are meeting September 10 to consider a
policy statement. Also, he had attended a meeting
of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at
which time the BART representatives explained their
views. The conclusion of the action taken by the Chamber Board of
Directors was consistent with action taken by the Alameda County
Mayors' Conference last week. Essentially, the policy that the BART
Board is being asked to support is that they be allowed to join in
the planning exercise with other areas that are not incorporated
within BART now for a regional master plan of transportation;
secondly, that they reaffirm the policy of the Board that rail line
service be given first priority to areas such as eastern Contra Costa
County, Livermore-Pleasanton area and South San Francisco. He re-
commended the adoption of a resolution with the wording adopted by
the Alameda County Mayors' Conference.
BY
Councilman Miller stated that at the Mayors' Conference it was
discussed that San Mateo County was interested in being serviced
by BART, even though they have not been paying into BART over the
past years. Contra Costa County people are concerned that their
area would be delayed in obtaining service.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Miller,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to adopt the following resolution,
which was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 122-70
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING BARTD BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO REAFFIRM
AND ESTABLISH POLICY RE PLANNING AND LINE EXTENSION.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Study
Session)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe stated he would like to see some
serious consideration given to his proposal for a
study session every other week rather than a Coun-
cil meeting each week. Perhaps in this way some of
the pressure could be taken off and some of the pro-
blems would be solved.
The Council discussed the pros and cons of this proposal as well as
the suggestion that the agenda be prepared on Thursday rather than
Friday. Councilman Beebe felt this could be discussed at the League
of California Cities meeting with Council members from other cities.
(Trees on
U.S. 580)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller spoke in regard to the eucalyptus
trees recently removed along U.S. 580 and stated
action should have been taken to prevent their removal
years ago.
Councilman Taylor suggested a letter be written to the Department of
Highways that these trees be replaced with others which would be
growing. Mr. Lee said that landscaping was not included in the
present contract but would be done later.
CM-23-204
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated the Senior Citizens
were trying to fight a proposed telephone rate
increase, and he felt the City should support
them.
September 8, 1970
(Telephone Rate
Increase)
Mr. Parness stated it would be difficult to oppose such action
other than expressing a statement that the service is not satis-
factory and a rate increase is not, therefore, justified.
Councilman Miller felt the comments should be addressed to the
members of the PUC, not the staff; so it might be useful for
the City to send a letter objecting to the increase.
Councilman Taylor stated they cannot be against all increases.
The telephone representative was before the Council not too long
ago talking about services to other areas and they are going to
propose direct dialing service to the City on a trial basis if
it is subscribed to.
A representative of the telephone company present in the audience
stated before a letter is sent objecting to any increase, he felt
the telephone company should be given an opportunity to present
their reasons for requesting a rate increase.
The Council agreed to this, but after some discussion decided
not to write a letter or to have a report submitted and dropped
the matter.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 12:25
a.m. to an executive session to discuss an
appointment to the Planning Commission and an
appointment to a guideline committee for design
review.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
*
, /""Mayorl' /
\ ' . I
/ : ~ ,/ : -l ~ / l
IT1 \.-// <7 ' I 1(\ x / . ~ pI _
ATTES~;<- ~'.fL{ ./_---... \ ~_. i)'--C-C/l ------
/ Ci t..J[.., Clerk
~iver-more, California
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of September 14, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
September 14, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39
South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order
at 8:10 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Miller
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
CM-23-205
September 14, 1970
OPEN FORUM
Mr. William Bankert, 1838 Broadmoor street, stated
he was speaking on behalf of himself and some resi-
dents of Greenville North, regarding a rumor that
there is to be a low cost housing project in their
area and requested the Council's aid in obtaining
the facts about this matter.
(Low Cost
Housing)
The City Attorney stated he had talked with a local realtor who had
been taking deposits on homes to be built by the Bevilacqua Brothers
Co. on some lots in the Springtown area as well as some in Green-
ville area. The houses to be built are regular tract houses built
by Bevilacqua, and the prospective buyers would have support of the
payments through federal grants. In order to qualify a family would
have to have a monthly income of $500 but not more than $800.
In addition, Mr. Lewis said he had read in the paper a few days pre-
vious that this program would be discontinued and any deposits would
be refunded as federal funds are not available under this particular
program. However, they are continuing to investigate the possibility
of other federal support. It is, therefore, not a low cost housing
project as such, and does not concern the City as long as the houses
are built to specification and comply with lot standards.
Joe Urban, 1758 Broadmoor street, said the question in their minds
was whether people with low incomes would be able to maintain their
homes and yards in the same manner as others in the area.
Mr. Lewis replied that legally there is nothing that the City can do
to require a person to keep his premises up to a certain level. Only
such matters as weeds which are a hazard can be controlled. It must
just be assumed that the owners will keep up their property.
Councilman Beebe pointed out there is another builder in the com-
munity who is building under this Federal Grant 235 and the percentage
of homes built under this provision to the total is one to nine.
*
*
*
(Economy in
Local Govern-
ment)
Robert M. Wright, 3415 Pestana Way, addressed the
Council on the matter of economy in local government.
He stated several agencies maintain duplicate staff
and equipment for such activities as building and
ground maintenance. One particular example is the
mowing of one part of land by the School District and an adjacent
portion by the Recreation Department. He suggested that such acti-
vities be combined and that the City might take the lead in this.
Mr. Parness indicated a similar suggestion had been made by former
Mayor Marguth, and the various staffs met on several occasions to
study this problem, and they ran into legal and supervisory problems
as well as many other obstacles that had not been resolved. One re-
sult was that some articles have been purchased jointly, such as
capital equipment and grounds maintenance services and supplies. As
to the utilization of manpower, this seems to be almost an insur-
mountable problem. In reply to a question by Mr. Wright, Mr. Parness
stated that a savings calculation had not been made along this line.
Mr. Wright also asked if it were possible for agencies of local
government to contract with a non-profit or a profit corporation
for such services as grounds maintenance.
The City Attorney replied that it is possible with the qualification
that employees who have obtained civil service rights cannot be
denied employment by contracting with a private employer.
*
*
*
CM-23-206
September 14, 1970
Stuart Smith, 321 Virginia Drive, said that (Density)
some time ago he had written a letter to the
Council regarding combining the various local .
governmental agencies so that zoning and planning might come under
one agency in order that densities might be controlled throughout
the Valley. He asked about the disposition of his letter.
Planning Director George Musso said Mr. Smith's letter had been
mainly concerned with density transfer and the Planning Commis-
sion has requested that the present policy on this issue be re-
viewed and discussed and perhaps adopted as a part of the General
Plan.
Councilman Taylor stated that the County would not give up their
control to the City and as far as land use is concerned it seemed
hopeless that the City could obtain control. Mayor Silva stated
that the Valley Planning Committee is also working on this sugges-
tion.
*
..... *
*
Mr. George Frank, 5943 Singing Hills Avenue,
asked if there were any plans for a park to be
constructed or a shopping center to be located
in his area.
(Park-Shopping
Center)
Mr. Musso replied that at one time there was a shopping center
planned on Vasco Road, but there are probably not enough people
at this time to support a center. The School District has pur-
chased a site, and the park is under temporary development and
will be dedicated at some time in the future but does not have
to be done at this time.
Robert Silva, 5851 Crestmont Avenue, inquired why a park was not
required when Bevilacqua's permit was renewed. Mr. Musso stated
the permit was not renewed; the developer is allowed to finish
building on the lots already subdivided but cannot file any more
subdivision maps. There are seventy lots in the first unit and
the second tract which has not been built. The park is a part of
the annexation agreement, not of the permit.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Livermore-Pleasanton Rod and Gun Club, Inc.
has applied for a contract that would extend
domestic water service to their property lo-
cated on Dagnino Road. The contract would
provide service from the City's source of
supply at Raymond Road and Ames Street, a distance of about 1700
feet westerly for deposit of water from a 2-inch transmission line
into an on-site reservoir. All costs of installation will be
borne by the applicant and all connection fees and service charges
would be payable. The service can be terminated if incorporated
properties demand the supply under emergency conditions and a can-
cellation provision is stated with a 60-day notice.
Water Service -
Livermore Rod and
Gun Club, Inc.
Mr. Manuel Mingoia, 2325 Palm Avenue, representing the Club,
pointed out that the club is non-profit and used by its members
for recreation, but it is also used for training by public agencies
as stated in letters from the Sheriff's Department and the City
of Livermore. He, therefore, felt that in light of this public
use the City should allow consideration on the fee for the meter
installation of approximately $450. In addition, they are to be
required to pay a storage fee of about $150.
Mr. Parness stated he had informed Mr. Mingoia that to date the
City had not reduced fees for private organizations.
CM-23-207
September 14, 1970
(Water Service
Rod & Gun
Club)
Appointment-
Planning
Commission
Minutes
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
ZONE 7 -
PROJECT 2
The Public Works Director indicated he would work
with the organization to keep the costs to a mini-
mum as the $450 for the meter installation is only
an estimate. Mr. Lee also stated that if the fee
were reduced the cost would then have to be borne
by the water service users, which is only a small
percentage of the City residents.
RESOLUTION NO. 124-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
* * *
Councilman Pritchard requested that the item for
resolution of appointment to the Planning Commission
for Commissioner Futch be removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion later in the meeting. It
~as decided that it should be considered in an exe-
cutive session at the close of the regular meeting.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
September 1 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
Seventy-eight claims in the amount of $61,901.61
and two hundred fifty-four payroll warrants in the
amount of $78,049.24, dated September 10, 1970,
were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Councilman Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant
No. 8431 and Councilman Pritchard from No. 8425.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Pritchard, to approve the Consent Calendar;
the motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and
Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Miller
* * *
A report was submitted by the City Manager regarding
Zone 7 Project 2 proposal. Zone 7 is actively seek-
ing endorsement from local agencies for 'the passage
of the proposed general obligation bond issue to
appear on the November ballot.
The City Manager stated he had received a letter from California
Water Service requesting the City to join with them in distributing
a brochure to water customers in regard to the Zone 7 Project 2
proposal. Before the City's name can be included on the brochure,
the Council must approve it, and also matters regarding cost must
be resolved. California Water Service Co. will assume the cost of
printing and mailing.
Councilman Taylor said that it seemed there was no alternative to
supporting this plan; there must be provision made for a future
water supply for the Valley and no other plan has been presented.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Prit-
chard, to endorse the Zone 7 Project 2 and enter the name of the
City as a co-sponsor on the brochure.
Councilman Beebe felt that supplying water must be a joint Valley
effort and the project is necessary as a long term objective.
CM-23-208
The motion was passed by the following vote:
September 14, 1970
(Zone 7 - Proj. 2)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
None
Councilman Miller
Mayor Silva stated that Councilman Miller had previously stated
that he did not endorse the project.
*
*
*
At the City Council meeting of July 27, 1970,
an appeal was made by Mr. Ernest M. Bobson, de-
veloper of Livermore Research and Development
Park, that consideration be given to him for
the formation of a benefit district for the sanitary sewer line
servicing his acreage and also for the domestic water line front-
ing his property along East Avenue. The matter was referred to
the City Manager for resolution.
REPORT RE SEWER
SERVICE DISTRICT
(Ernest M. Bobson)
A report has been prepared by the City Manager outlining his re-
commendation for settlement and also listing a compromise pro-
posed by the applicant as follows:
Payment by Developer and
Water Line
Less Cash Deposit
Total
Contractee:
$ 2,161
994
"$ 1,167
Add:
Annexation Fee
TOTAL
$ 448
"$ 1,615
If such a cash payment is acceptable by the City, the developer
and contractee (Bobson and Hutka) are agreeable to waiving all
rights that may be accruable under the two benefit districts des-
cribed which represent an amount subject to their repayment of
$6,452 (benefit district total). Mr. Parness further indicated
that acceptance of this settlement should be made entirely sub-
ject to the receipt by the City, within a reasonable time, of
qualified easements for the sanitary sewer line servicing the
industrial park. If such is not done, it is further recommended
that the usual benefit district arrangement be established with
the cash payment requirements as quoted and the easements will
be attained through statutory means.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to accept the City Manager's recommendation for settle-
ment regarding the Bobson sewer/water line installation. The
motion was approved as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
None
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
The City Attorney stated that the Border Patrol
has again asked to rent two spaces at the air-
port; the agreement has been prepared for the
year September 1, 1970 throughAugust 31, 1971,
for $1,000 payable in installments. Mr. Lewis
further stated that the Border Patrol has requested that the period
covered by the contract be extended to cover two years if this is
agreeable to the Council.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Border
Patrol Rental)
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to approve the contract with the Border Patrol as stated
for a period of two years. The motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CM-23-209
September 14, 1970
The City Manager introduced the administrative intern
George Lambert, who has worked for the past three
and a half months on several projects. The two pro-
jects Mr. Lambert has investigated at length are
the Business License Ordinance and Industrial Develop-
ment brochure. Also, he has submitted a reevaluation on the City's
employee performance reports.
REPORT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERN
Mr. Lambert stated he had considered mainly the ability of the busi-
ness license fees to contribute to the City's total revenue. A
review of several other cities indicated that their license fees
contributed about 2% of the total revenue; the City of Livermore
has dropped in the last three years from about 1.79% to 1.57% which
is quite a decrease in the potential of the business license revenue.
The second phase of consideration regarding the business license
ordinance was whether it should be regulatory or revenue measure.
The League of California Cities suggests that there should be two
ordinances - one which is regulatory and the second for revenue.
The City's ordinance is not too well worded as far as showing this
distinction, and it should probably be reviewed.
The business license ordinance has not been keeping up with the times
in providing revenue since 1959. In 1960 the structure of the ordi-
nance was changed so that any business with gross receipts of more
than $500,000 would pay a set fee, which is now $250.80. This causes
the ordinance to be slow to reflect the growth rate of the City. Mr.
Lambert stated he felt the business license revenue should reflect
the City's business economic sector better than is shown by the pre-
sent structure. Livermore is in the bottom one-fifth of cities
according to the percentage of total current revenue of 1.57%. His
report indicates changes in the fee structure which would increase
this to about 2.6% and would place Livermore in the upper 50% bracket.
The amount of revenue produced through business licenses in 1959
compared with 1969 shows that revenue potential has dropped. The
ordinance was changed in 1962, he understood, due to the business
community's desire to limit the amount of revenue to a certain level.
He had looked into the possibility of using a different sort of
schedule, based on mills per dollar, which would compute a growth
factor into the business license ordinance. This would raise the
revenue at least 40% and perhaps 60%. The basic problem which would
have to be solved would be classification of businesses. Mr. Lambert
discussed classification of various types of businesses as well as
some businesses which are not presently taxed, such as public utili-
ties and mobile home parks.
Mr. Lambert concluded that the business license ordinance should be
changed to reflect a growth factor in the business license rate
schedule to provide a progressive type of ordinance.
*
*
*
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Greenville
Road Area)
Mayor Silva stated he had recently been contacted about
some property in the Greenville Road area east of the
City. The General Plan does not designate this area
in much detail in regard to density. He felt that
this area should be reviewed by the Planning Commis-
sion and included in the General Plan.
Councilman Taylor stated he felt that leap frog development should
be avoided, and perhaps this area should only be reviewed through
a General Plan review. Designating land a good distance away from
present development as residential might just encourage that land
to be prematurely developed as residential. We must be careful how
the General Plan is extended.
Mr. Musso stated this area was now designated as agricultural. The
Planning Commission was directed to look at this area in regard to
density.
CM-23-210
Mayor Silva issued a Proclamation designating
the week of September 20 through 26, 1970 as
Symphony Week.
September 14, 1970
PROCLAMATION
(Symphony Week)
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 10:10
p.m. to an executive session to consider a
Planning Commission appointment.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVE
*
ATTEST
., (~
<-( ,~ 0-~,''''2-
City Clerk
Livermore, California
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of September 21, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
September 21, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Pritchard
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by MINUTES
Councilman Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the
minutes of September 8th were approved as submitted. By the
same motion the minutes of September 14th were approved as sub-
mitted; however, Councilman Miller abstained from voting on
these minutes as he was not present at that meeting.
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 North P street, suggested OPEN FORUM
an ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of a
police officer. The City Attorney advised this type of ordinance
would not be of value and upheld by the courts as the use of
abusive statements would be vague and indefinite as to application
under the circumstances.
It was generally agreed that police officers should be respected
and the problem was not, in fact, very bad in Livermore as it is in
Berkeley or elsewhere.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication was received from Alan S. Hart,
District Engineer, Division of Highways, in
answer to the City's communication regarding
tree planting to replace those cleared near the
Communication re
Tree Planting
airport, explaining
CM-23-211
September 21, 1970
(Communication
re Tree Planting-
continued)
Report re Civil
Defense Opera-
tions Plan
Revision
what was involved in aligning highway inter-
change construction, and the ultimate decision
allowing the trees to be cut. Landscaping is
planned in the future.
*
*
*
A report submitted by the City Manager explained
that the Civil Defense Operations Plan had
been revised to reflect some minor changes in
personnel and organization, and is a require-
ment imposed by the Federal Office of Emergency
Planning so that qualification can be made by us for federal grants
under this program. The recommendation was for adoption of the
plan by resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 125-70
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER PLAN
Departmental
Reports
Exempt Business
Licenses
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE WASTE
RECYCLING
PROPOSAL
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received from the
following departments:
Airport - activity and financial - August
Building Department - August
Fire Department - July and August
Golf Course - August
Justice Court - July
Water Reclamation Plant - July and August
Police and Pound Departments - July and August
*
*
*
Exempt business license applications were received
from the following:
Alameda County Cow Belles - rummage sale on
November 14
ALSAC (Aiding Lukemia Stricken American Children) -
money solicitation during December, 1970, for
maintenance of st. Jude Children's Research
Hospital
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the
items on the Consent Calendar were approved.
*
*
*
City Manager William Parness explained that
several weeks ago a group of interested and con-
cerned citizens transmitted a report urging that
recycling of waste materials be practiced by our
community, and it was felt that something could be worked out in
this field; there is potential and one of the primary agencies that
would be involved is the Livermore Disposal Service. There are a
number of related items that must be resolved, and the staff would
like an opportunity to discuss these further, especially relative
to insurance and leadership, the source whereby the materials may
be deposited, potential revenue. Mr. Parness indicated that with
the subscription of the Council to the idea, and the staff working
with people interested in the subject, and the disposal service,
the plan can be put into operation.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to implement the City Manager's
CM-23-212
recommendation, seconded by Councilman Miller,
and it was approved unanimously, after several
speakers from the audience outlined their
projects.
Walter Ridgwell, 870 Seminole Drive, commented that he headed the
paper project presently underway and sponsored by the LDS Church.
They were shipping paper collected through newspaper drives to
the Garden State Paper Company in Pomona who are in the business
of recycling paper into newsprint as opposed to shredding it up as
other companies are doing. They started in June and have conducted
seven drives and are shipping 50 tons a month to Pomona and are
able to afford groups $7.50 a ton. A program is in operation with
facilities for handling in the way of equipment, drop boxes for
handling at various locations, and arrangements for insurance and
feel they are providing the need for Livermore. They have also
made contacts with various companies for the purchase of glass,
aluminum and tin and are interested in working with as many groups
as possible, and if they have the sanction of the City Council,
they would appreciate it.
September 21, 1970
(Report re Recycl-
ing Proposal)
Mayor Silva stated he had not heard of the efforts of the group
until now, and suggested that the Council include them in the
committee and work with the LDS group in a joint effort.
Lloyd Jansen, 516 Adelle Street, representing the YMCA Ecology Club,
advised they also had a recycling center once a month and would
like to be included on the committee.
*
*
*
A report re fee increases had been prepared REPORT RE FEE
by the staff and presented to the Council at SCHEDULES
the meeting of September 8th, and after some
discussion this item was continued until this time.
The City Manager explained that there are actually three topics to
be discussed with reference to fees: 1) Planning Fees, 2) Build-
ing Department fees - updating, correction and modification of
fees by virtue of recommendation that the Council will get having
to do with a change as proposed in the new code, and 3) Public
Works inspection fees in which an amendment is suggested. He did
feel that there was not a great deal of controversy but a great
deal of attention would be directed to the Planning fees as they
are more numerous and more attention has been centered on them as
to the factors that go into the formula.
Mr. Parness further explained that the staff recommendation for the
increase in fees was based upon thorough investigation of the actual
overhead and costs to arrive at a reasonable fee.
Councilman Miller stated that with reference
to the zoning use permit, the object of the
game is that fees should cover the cost of
handling the matters, and the ones with public hearings run between
$64 to $82 and average $70 to $75, and the recommendation was for
$50. He felt if the City is really going to bear the cost, the
fees should be $75 if there is a public hearing and $5.00 if there
is no public hearing. It was suggested that everyone be charged
$75.00 at the time of application, and if there is no public hearing
they be refunded $70.00.
(Zoning Use
Permits)
This point was discussed as it was brought out that the majority
of Zoning Use applications are routine in nature. Mr. Musso explain-
ed that the reason he suggested the $75.00 at the time of applica-
tion was that the decision for a public hearing rests with him some
time after the application is filed, and it would be easier to
require the larger amount at the time of application rather than
attempt to collect an additional amount at a later time.
CM-23-213
September 21, 1970
(Zoning Use
Permits)
Mr. Parness advised, on the other hand, that it
would be a costly administrative matter to
collect the higher amount and then be required
balance as it would cost $15.00 just to process
to reimburse the
the money.
Councilman Miller stated that the mechanism for collecting is
immaterial as long as the amount of the cost was collected.
The Council discussed the fact that since the Planning Director
would decide whether or not a public hearing would be necessary,
perhaps there could be a method of determining beforehand which
would require a hearing.
Mr. Musso was asked what zoning use permit would require a public
hearing, and he replied that a nursery school for over six children
would be one. The typical zoning use permit would be for a single
family home or a commercial occupancy, and in the past the business
license procedure and the building permit procedure ha~been used
with no charge.
Councilman Miller stated that according to the Planning Director's
memo there are three kinds of zoning use permits, and the first
two are rather routine and either associated with the building
permit or with the business license. Since there is some difficulty
in associating these with business licenses, it was suggested that
a new class of permit be created--Occupancy Permit rather than Zoning
Use Permit. Councilman Miller further stated that the Building
Department could handle the single family construction and occupancy
permits, and since service is required there should be a fee of
about $5.00. At present there are no fees being collected for
these. The third category would then require the $75.00 fee -- the
Zoning Use Permit on a formal basis for nursery schools, home
occupations, major changes of use of commercial buildings and for
occasional open land uses.
Councilman Miller stated that Councilman Pritchard was in agreement
with his suggestion.
Mr. Musso stated that rather than a public hearing the Planning Depart-
ment now has a procedure, used in some instances, whereby a notice
is sent to everyone within 300 feet advising that the Zoning Use
Permit is to be approved within a certain time, and they have the
opportunity to appeal his decision; if appealed, the application
would be referred to the Planning Commission or to the Council.
He suggested that on this type of procedure it should be the same
fee as for a public hearing.
Councilman Taylor suggested that perhaps they should set a fee of
$50.00 for Home Occupancy and $75.00 for all others, as he would
like to encourage home occupations, and $5.00 for a permit without
a hearing.
Although Councilman Miller did not agree with Councilman Taylor as
far as encouraging home occupations, he and other members of the
Council were in agreement on the fees he suggested.
As far as changing the Zoning Use Permit to Occupancy Permit, it
was the decision of the Council and the staff to discuss this in
more detail at a later time after further study by the staff.
(Variances) The next item in the fee study was Variances,
and Councilman Miller stated that this was
another category where substantially less than the cost was being
suggested, and the Planning Director's report indicated the reason
very often was that the Council feels themselves morally obligated
to grant a variance because a person has paid some money for the
application; however, Councilman Miller did not feel this Council
could be swayed.
CM-23-214
September 21, 1970
Councilman Miller continued that variances
are divided into two classes: 1) homeowners
who want to do something around their homes for which they gain no
economic return, and 2) commercial categories who obtain a return
on their investments, and suggested that variances having to do
with existing residences have a fee of $40.00 as suggested by the
staff and all commercial uses, including the developers and people
who want signs, pay the full fee of $100.00 for each building,
each lot, or each dwelling unit.
(Variances-cont'd)
Councilman Miller stated this was another item which Councilman
Pritchard agreed with regarding the proposed suggestion.
There followed a discussion reO"ardinO" "mass" variances (such as the
o 0
instance wherein a developer, because of the design of a particular
model home, wishes variances on many lots in order to make the
house fit the lot), which Councilman Miller stated should definitely
be discouraged. However, Councilman Beebe stated all he wanted to
see was that the City recovers its out-of-pocket costs only. New
home dwellers should not subsidize the existing ones anymore than
we should subsidize them.
Councilman Beebe felt it would be fair to arrive at a flat charge;
then if there are extenuating circumstances, an hourly charge for
staff time could be added over the flat charge.
After some discussion regarding the fee for variances, and especially
with reference to "mass" variances, as there did not seem to be
three votes, Councilman Miller suggested again that $40.00 and
$100.00 be charged as previously presented.
Mr. Lewis stated there was obviously a difference between the two
on the face of it; however, even though one is labeled residential
and one commercial, there is no difference in the requirements for
approval, and the cost to the City is no different between the
two. Therefore, in his opinion, it would be illegal to charge more
for commercial applications. It is not a revenue producing ordi-
nance per se; it is a regulatory ordinance and we are supposed to
charge overall and individually only what it costs to do the work.
Mr. Musso stated there is a difference between a home occupation
and other zoning use permits just in the procedure; the home
occupancy procedure essentially just involves a public hearing but
other uses involve a public hearing, evaluation of the plan,
conditions to approval, so it is a lot different.
Mr. Parness added that the recommended rates were not composed
lightly and were only done following a great deal of consideration
of the nature of the application in each of these types of cate-
gories. For the most part variances are~plied for by just John Q.
Citizen who wants to build a fence a little higher or keep a couple
of rabbits in his backyard. If at all possible, he would urge
consideration of a singular fee unless there is a clear distinction
as to how they should be applied.
Councilman Miller offered as a final counter argument the fact that
the City Attorney had mentioned it is hard to justify a distinction
between the two categories; yet they are already doing this in the
treatment of non-profit groups in sewer connection fees, water
storage fees as they have been asked to waive these fees in part
and which are cost basis fees which they have cut in half for the
benefit of hospitals, schools, etc.; he felt there was no difference
in principle.
However, Councilman Taylor stated that Councilman Miller was basing
distinction on ability to pay rather than cost to the staff for
processing the application and had not shown any difference in real
cost to the City.
CM-23-215
September 21, 1970
(Variances-cont'd) Mayor Silva added that the staff knew the
Council wanted permits to pay their own way
so they came up with certain figures, and after arriving at the cost
figure they made a further recommendation which may have ,been less
than the actual cost based on how many were processed per year;
further, if recommendation of these rates is accepted, which is
lower than the cost, the applications on an average will have paid
their own way. Mayor Silva asked the City Manager if this was not
what was intended.
Mr. Parness stated that the staff would like to believe that if
the figure of $40.00 was used for variances, it would come close to
doing just that. If, however, there were twenty applications
received and rather than being just the simple ones he had men-
tioned they were complicated for a commercial nature, they would
not cover the cost by about 50%.
The Council discussed whether or not the majority of the applica-
tions for variance were of a minor nature, and were advised by
Mr. Musso that in the past they have been.
Councilman Miller asked the City Attorney if there was anything in
the ordinances by which fees are charged which prohibits distinguish-
ing between two classes of variance.
Mr. Lewis replied there was not; it was a court rule based on
constitutional principles that you must have some valid distinction
when you apply different rules or regulations to groups.
Councilman Miller stated if there was no legal way to distinguish
between the two, then they should charge a flat $100 if the fee is
based on the cost to the City and not settle for half. He was
asked if he felt they should charge every applicant $100 even for
a patio cover, to which he replied if the Council was not willing
to accept an alternate and there was no legal way to do it, he felt
the full amount should be charged because it costs the taxpayers
money to do the work. The point he was trying to make is that they
should attempt to find an alternate way so they can distinguish
between the two types of variance.
Throughout the discussion Councilman Taylor stated they had no
basis for saying it cost the City more to process commercial appli-
cations than private applications, and unless they have that basis
they cannot charge a different fee based on ability to pay, and
stated he was definitely not for a $100 fee under any circumstances
for the class of private applications they have been referring to, and
unless evidence can be found that it costs more to process commercial
variance applications, the fee should not be higher.
Mr. Parness stated that in order not to leave any misimpressions,
Councilman Miller is right that the figures specify that, based on
what the Planning Staff has indicated, it costs about $100 to pro-
cess a variance; but his whole appeal is based on the fact that for
the most part the majority of variances are a vehicle used by the
average citizen, and it would be punitive in nature to assess that
much. He referred to Mr. Bradley's report which indicates that the
$40 would compensate the City for approximately one-half of the
time expended. In the event $40 is used, there will undoubtedly be
a loss to the City; that is the rationale that has been used, but
he can see no justification whatsoever for assessing a higher fee
for a commercial variance as opposed to a private one as either
one can be just as complicated and require just as much staff in-
vestigation as the other, or perhaps just the reverse.
Councilman Taylor stated that since the recommended increase in
fee is over a factor of three compared to the present fee, and
there is no justification as far as cost to the City between
commercial and residential type applications, he would go along with
the $40.00; Councilman Beebe and Mayor Silva were in accordance
CM-23-216
with this recommendation.
September 21, 1970
(Variances-cont1d)
Councilman Miller asked to amend the figure to $50.00; however, the
staff recommendation was accepted.
There was no discussion with regard to the (CUP Fee)
Conditional Use Permit fee as the Council agreed
with the staff recommendation for a flat fee of $200.00.
With reference to the fee for Rezoning, a flat (Rezoning Fee)
fee of $200.00 has been recommended. Councilman
Miller suggested that it had been proposed that a flat fee of $200.00
be set and in addition a fee of $1,000 per acre if the rezoning is
approved. This raised the question that it might be an incentive
to the Council to approve a rezoning application for the revenue,
and after further discussion which indicated the Council would not
endorse such a policy, a motion was made by Councilman Beebe to
approve the staff recommendation, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
and passed unanimously.
Councilman Miller stated Councilman Pritchard was agreeable one
way or the other on this point.
Councilman Miller mentioned that $150 had been
recommended as the fee for Tentative Tract
Maps; however, since costs will no doubt be
going up, he suggested that this fee be set at $175.00 as the cost
listed is $163.13.
(Tentative Tract
Map Fees)
Councilman Beebe suggested the figure of $160.00. Mayor Silva
felt they should accept the staff recommendation; however, Council-
man Taylor agreed to the figure of $160.00. Councilman Miller
indicated that Councilman Pritchard had not indicated a definite
amount for this fee.
A fee of $250 was recommended for a Planned Unit (PUD)
Development permit if the City is to recover costs
and the Planning Department relates that there is usually just as
much time spent for a PUD amendment as for the original PUD, and
the same fee would be appropriate, however the Planning Director
intends that in the future only a yes or no answer will be re-
quired for an extension.
Councilman Miller proposed that an extension is not a simple yes
or no, as the City Attorney has ruled that, in fact, an extension
is an amendment, and suggested that a fee of $250 be charged also
for an extension as there has always been a hassle as far as an exten-
sion is concerned. Councilman Miller stated that both he and
Councilman Pritchard are proposing the above.
Councilman Taylor agreed that there had been a tremendous amount
of staff time spent on PUD extensions and amendments, and suggest-
ed that $250 flat fee be set for the PUD, and $150 for each exten-
si8n.
With reference to the extension referred to by Councilman Miller,
Mr. Lewis commented that the recent extension was ruled as an
appeal for the purposes of the ordinance because they had to in-
tegrate all of the sections in view of the fact and what really
complicated the matter was the fact that the Planning Commission
did not make a recommendation within 60 days. For the purpose
of that particular situation it had to be treated as an appeal.
An ordinary appeal would not require the same type of handling
and could probably be handled by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Musso stated that 75% of the amendmenwand extensions had
consumed a great deal 8f time, but not as much as the original
application, and he felt a percentage of the amount of the
original PUD would be reasonable.
CM-23-217
September 21, 1970
(PUD)
Councilman Taylor suggested that there be a $250.00
flat fee and $150.00 fee for extension or amendment;
Councilman Beebe agreed this would be reasonable,
Silva also agreed to these figures.
and Mayor
(Site Plan
Approval)
Councilman Beebe made a motion to accept the recom-
mendation of the staff to charge a fee of $60.00
for a site plan approval, seconded by Mayor Silva,
and approved unanimously; also the staff recommendation for $5.00
on the appeal.
(Engineering
and Inspection)
The staff recommendation for map and plan checking
is a flat fee of $25 plus $10 an hour charge for
any engineering time spent; the Council were all in
agreement on this fee.
RECESS
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RECONVENED WITH ALL
PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILMAN PRITCHARD.
(Public Works
Inspection
Fee)
Councilman Miller commented that the proposed fee is
small, and most of the other cities have a higher fee,
Pleasant Hill being almost twice as high, and suggest-
ed the Council adopt their schedule.
The City Manager explained that the staff has attempted to approxi-
mate the actual amount of staff time and supporting services that
go into this type of service which indicates the total cost to be
about $72,000 a year and from this figure the amount assigned for
municipal public works projects must be deducted, which factor is
variable. They have looked at the building history and made investi-
gation of what the records show and $44,000 appears to be a reasonable
deduction. The total amount they come up with is a net, unrecovered
cost of $17,482 and not recoverable by virtue of present rates. With
the revised scale, C8st of providing service will be recovered.
Mayor Silva then asked Councilman Miller to explain his reasons for
suggesting a higher fee for inspections to which he replied that
other jurisdictions charge higher fees and he felt that as in the
case of the airport, we should be competitive, and that we should
go for the highest fee, such as that being charged by Pleasant Hill.
Councilman Miller indicated that Councilman Pritchard did not agree
with him on this fee, but felt we should charge as much as Walnut
Creek, which is 4% of construction cost, so he and Councilman Prit-
chard would suggest the 4%.
Mayor Silva said that it is his philosophy to be as close as possible
to the actual cost which would be that as recommended by the staff
which was on a graded basis.
Councilman Taylor commented on the fees charged by other cities
and felt that basing it all on one year's analysis might be dangerous
and suggested the fee might be a little higher than the recommended
one.
Councilman Beebe suggested that 3% be charged for construction over
$10,000, and 3.5% up to $10,000 as recommended.
The Council generally discussed these costs, the basis for the charges
and the philosophy behind the charges. It was also suggested by
Councilman Taylor that possibly an alternate schedule could be 3.5%
up to $75,000 and 3% over that figure.
Inasmuch as the Council could not come to a decision on this parti-
cular fee, it was agreed to wait until all Councilmen were present,
which would be October 5th.
(Building
Department)
Mr. Parness asked to introduce this particular sub-
ject because adjustment of these fees are self cared
for. The City has been practicing adjustments of
building evaluation which is allowable by the Building
CM-23-218
September 21, 1970
(Building
Department)
Code, even prior to the current administration.
Two factors are involved in the building inspec-
tion fee establishment; one is a rate and the
other is establishment of a value, and we have
the right to vary value, based on construction price index,
which is listed annually and the Building Department has availed
itself of that factor through recent years. The staff is suggest-
ing that the rate listed in the 1970 Code, which will soon be
recommended for adoption, be used prior to its adoption. Mr.
Parness further explained that the 1970 Code is a very comprehen-
sive document requiring much research and investigation by the
building industry of the City, the Board of Appeals, hearings,
etc., and the Building Inspector feels that this process, when
it is ready for introduction, may take about six months. However,
the rate and evaluation scale allowed by the Code can be introduced
now as a modification of the present ordinance and there should
be no debate at all as it is current. With reference to Plumb-
ing,Mechanical and Electrical permits, the same thing applies,
however the Electrical Code does not have a fee schedule according
to Mr. street.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to accept the City Manager's recom-
mendation on this matter, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and it
was approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller suggested that if the 1970 Code is based on
the 1969 cost of construction, the cost for 1971 should be anti-
cipated and the fees increased accordingly. Chief Building
Inspector Herb street advised the Council, that the increased
cost of construction is automatically figured in each year.
*
*
*
Planning Director George Musso advised that the
report re density transfers had appeared on the
agenda somewhat prematurely as it should have
gone to the Planning Commission before coming
to the Council, and asked that the matter be
tabled.
REPORT RE DENSITY
TRANSFERS
(Ci ty Policy)
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to table the matter, and this was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Com-
mission meeting of September 15th was acknow-
ledged by the Council.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
(Planning
Commission)
Councilman Miller asked to appeal Item 4.5 with reference to the
Variance requested by Livermore Properties (Daniel Gillice) to
allow time to go over the matter and it could be placed on the
Consent Calendar at the next meeting.
Councilman Miller also questioned the approved Variance requested
by Herbert H. Sihner increasing density.
Mr. Musso explained that he had discussed this matter with Herb
Sihner, who advised him the additional cost of having an odd num-
ber of units within a single building because they double up on
the plumbing. The Planning Commission had agreed that the ordi-
nance should be changed, and this was not an increase in density
but a change in the construction 8f the building.
*
*
*
A draft copy of the proposed park dedication or-
dinance had been presented to the Council and
Mr. Lewis advised there were some changes from
the text which had been discussed by the staff.
A revised copy of the ordinance will be furnished
_____.__ ..__ ""_...n._....._,......,___,.~..".._._.,..,.~_____.___,.,'-"-"'-.----.-'------"--.-.''''
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE PARK LAND
DEDICATION
to the CounciL
CM-23-219
September 21, 1970
(Park Land
Dedication)
The Council discussed land costs, whether or not
fees could be used for other park areas rather than
in the subdivision if in lieu fees were paid; other
parks away from schools rather than all school/park
combinations. It was brought out that if in lieu fees were paid,
these fees would have to be used for existing park improvements.
Councilman Miller felt that there should be something included in
the park dedication ordinance to ensure parks so people do not have
to wait years to get the park, as they have in several of the
subdivisions.
Mr. Lewis explained the problems involved in such a matter, stating
he did not have a solution at this time.
Various suggestions were offered with regard to requirements which
might be imposed on developers to ensure early park dedication and
development by somehow tying it in with the tract maps, or collect-
ing in lieu fees at the time the map is filed. However the state
subdivision map law is very specific with regard to these matters.
Mr. Lee, Public Works Director suggested that in addition to charg-
ing the fee, inclUding price of land and improvements, a schedule
of improvements or a pattern of development should be established
so at the time of issuance of the PUD or original tentative, it
could be required that this area with the park would have to be de-
veloped within the second, third or fourth unit.
Councilman Taylor asked then if they did not have to accept the
final map if it does not develop the portion of land they feel should
be developed.
Councilman Miller suggested that the staff consider some of the al-
ternatives - collecting the money, the possibility of obtaining the
land and what had been discussed and attempt to come up with some-
thing which would protect the people from what has happened in the
past.
It was suggested that this revised draft be furnished the Council
at the earliest possible time; perhaps incorporating the formula or
schedule for obtaining parks at an early date in the park dedication
ordinance.
*
*
*
The City Manager advised that a request has been sub-
mitted by the staff for installation of an irriga-
tion system in the mall on Las Flores Avenue in front
of the Holiday Inn. The mall has been dedicated to
the City and is technically part of the street.
When the staff discussed landscaping and site plan
with Holiday personnel, they imposed upon them an
elaborate irrigation system and assurance was given that we would
do whatever we could for improvement of the mall. Taking into con-
sideration the stringent nature of our budget and what we have en-
countered on beautification and the cost, when presented with a bill
for $350.00 just for irrigation features he hesitated to suggest
that it be approved unless the Council would authorize the expendi-
ture. He did not feel now was the appropriate time as there is
nothing on the other side of the street.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Landscape
strip)
Mayor Silva agreed we have a tight budget re beautification, but
that area is part of the image of Livermore and is an entrance to
the City, and felt that $350 plus maintenance would be a small
price to pay.
There was some concern voiced re cost of maintenance, however it
was the consensus of the Council to proceed with improvement of the
island.
CM-23-220
September 21, 1970
(Fill - Civic
Center Site)
Mr. Parness stated that the contractor for the
new freeway has been discussing with the City
Engineer the prospects of using material from
the community park-civic center site f8r con-
struction purposes on the freeway job. Although his needs are
more than we think we can afford, there is a good amount of ma-
terial that can be taken from the site by him which would accom-
plish his intended purpose and also that of the City, because
the rough grading on the property would be a sizeable amount of
money to pay eventually. Initially, the quantities are about
120,000 yards which amounts to about $35,000 to $40,000 in worth
of having the property graded for us. Material is probably
worth more than that to the contractor, so two good purposes
can be accomplished - first, by allowing contractor to use that
material for construction as it does meet state specifications;
secondly, we can get our property into approximately the topo-
graphy we eventually want it to be, which grading the staff is
quite elated about as there was no foreseeable way to finance
this project.
There was some discussion with regard to the top soil that is
now at the site, and Mr. Lee explained that it was not very
good, the top two feet did not meet the minimal quality for
the subbase, however, so the contractor will strip this and
leave it. Also, if he requires an additional 70,000 yards, he
has agreed to bring in a top soil that would meet the City's
specifications.
Mr. Parness also explained that the grading plan is finished
and the architects of the site have been contacted to inquire
if we can afford to have 180,000 yards removed without damaging
the overall effects of the plan.
The City Manager was authorized to negotiate with the contractor.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Sprinklers in
Center Strips)
Councilman Beebe commented that he had learned
in talking to a Councilman from Walnut Creek
that they are faced with a lawsuit because of
an accident due to sprinklers in the center
strips and now they have a policy to recess
the planting below the level of the curb and
flood it rather than use sprinklers, and suggested that possibly
this might be well to consider for our future center strips.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that Bevilacqua has
owed the City money for about five years, and
about two years ago we came to a settlement
and they were due to pay the City a year ago
in August, and he felt that the bonds should be
(Calling of Bonds-
Bevilacqua)
called.
Mr. Lewis advised that he has planned to meet with Mr. Fraser to
discuss this problem. In reply to a question from Councilman
Miller, with reference to the necessity for this meeting as it
was his understanding there would be an automatic call of the
bonds, Mr. Lewis replied that the ones he was referring to were
on undeveloped land and there is a question of which way they
can go and what is in the best interest of the City - to call
the bonds or revert the property to acreage, and start over again.
Mr. Lewis will report back to the Council the result of his dis-
cussion and the decision reached.
*
*
*
CM-23-221
September 21, 1970
(Possible
Amendment to
Annexation
Agreement)
(Zone 7
Bond Issue)
Councilman Miller stated they have agreed, in prin-
cipal, to double the park dedication as far as the
final wording of the ordinance, and we have the
same problem in our annexation policy, and felt the
annexation policy should be amended to reflect the
two acres per hundred, in the event the park dedi-
cation ordinance is not adopted.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked the Council to think about
what will be done if the Zone 7 bond issue failed and
water rationing was necessary. Mayor Silva stated
that before we talk about the the issue failing, the
Council should do its utmost to convince the citizens to vote for
the issue. Councilman Taylor felt that the government should pro-
vide water, and if there is an alternative, it should be presented.
After some discussion, it was decided they should wait for the re-
sults of the bond issue before discussing alternatives.
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Special Meeting of September 28, 1970
A special meeting of the City Council was called by the Mayor, and
held on September 28, 1970, at 7:45 p.m., in the City Hall, 2250 First
Street. The purpose of the meeting was to have an executive session
to discuss an appointment to the Planning Commission.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
The Council adjourned to an executive session and at the close of
the session the following resolution was adopted:
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-222
RESOLUTION NO. 126-70
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Archer H. Futch)
*
*
*
The
then adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
*
ATTES
Regular Meeting of September 28, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
September 28, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:20
p.m. by Mayor pro tempore Miller.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and
Pritchard
ABSENT: Mayor Silva (due to illness)
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded MINUTES
by Councilman Beebe, to approve the minutes of
the meeting of September 21, 1970, and passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
Mrs. Charles Honodel, 973 Coronado Way, spoke
as a parent and member of the school building
bond committee re the school bond issue which
will appear on the ballot in November. Mrs.
Honodel indicated the health of the school district and
the City is at stake, and urged endorsement of the bond
by the City Council as individuals and as a group.
OPEN FORUM
(School Bond
Issue)
that of
issue
Mayor pro tempore Miller introduced and moved the adoption of
a resolution whereby the City Council would endorse the school
bond election, which was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 127-70
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LIVERMORE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED TO
THE VOTERS AT THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION TO BE HELD AND CON-
DUCTED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 1970.
*
*
*
Val Yokum, 3832 Dartmouth, asked if the City has (Re Jackson Avenue
transferred deed of title to the property imme- Park Property)
diately south of Jackson Avenue School, between
the park and the school. If not, he wondered if
a hearing could be held at some future date to discuss the pros
and cons of selling this for private housing.
The City Manager advised that it had not been sold and before
any disposition is made, it would be only with the final approval
of the Council based on the final layout and design of the park
and any possible utilization for private purposes.
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that there are a
series of amendments which were brought about by
proposed changes and some rather llh8use cleaning"
type of amendments, i.e. things that were un-
clear and some changes due to policy over the
years. One of the changes is to take out any
reference to the street frontage width as there are several noted
in the present ordinance; however, they vary with each zone, so
it is proposed that frontage be governed by the zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
Z 0 AMENDMENT
(Sec. 20.60, 20.34,
20.44 and 20.45)
CM-23-223
September 28, 1970
(Public
Hearing ZO
Amendments)
There is no change in projection into street frontage
yard. Re the non-street frontage yard projection,
when there was a 5-foot side yard, the ordinance
allowed a projection of half of the width of the re-
quired yard (or 2~ feet); now we have many 11 and 14
foot side yards, so the Planning Commission proposes that there be
allowed projection into one-half of the non-street frontage yard
but not more than 5 feet.
Mr. Musso continued that under accessory structures, over the years
we have had a great deal of trouble with such structures as flag-
poles, bird baths, trellises, patios, porches, screens, and the
Planning Commission would propose that this type of structure be
not subject to a zoning ordinance if it is determined it is a struc-
ture and not a building - the difference being that a building is
something that can be occupied as shelter as opposed to a structure
which just exists. There is some clarification on fences; the ordi-
nance now prohibits hedges and the change would allow hedges as long
as they are not a sight obstruction. Also, trees and shrubs could
be abated under the revised ordinance if it is determined they are
a sight obstruction. The other major change is to allow fences to
project five feet beyond the setback. The Planning Commission agreed
to allow the fence to project five feet into the required street
frontage yard provided it does not occupy more than 75% of the front-
age and is not allowed until after one year from the date of the
issuance of the building permit, which would prevent developers from
putting in such a fence. There is also some clarification as to
the height of fences.
The Council discussed various points relative to providing back yard
access for trailers and boats.
Mayor pro tempore Miller opened the public hearing at this time.
There being no testimony, a motion was made by Councilman Pritchard,
seconded by Councilman Taylor, to close the public hearing, and it
was approved unanimously.
Mayor pro tempore Miller referred to Sec. 20.45(a) and suggested
that a height from the ground limit should be incorporated to insure
that the side yard access is not encroached. Councilman Taylor
mentioned an example such as solariums projecting into the side yard.
It was suggested that either the larger side yard, or at least ten
feet, be kept free of any structure.
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt that artifical grass and trees should
not be allowed under the landscaping provisions of the ordinance.
Mr. Musso stated that the wording in this section would be reviewed
and perhaps qualified.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to refer this ordinance back to the staff for review and
rewording of sections as discussed by the Council, and the motion
was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Communication
re Planning
Commission
Apointments
A written communication has been received from
Robert S. Allen, President of the American Tax-
payers' Union, suggesting that applications be
received and reviewed whenever vacancies arise due
to reappointments to the Planning Commission, rather
than making rote reappointments.
* * *
CM-23-224
A report from the City Manager regarding the
Concannon Blvd. route study contract modifi-
cation was removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion later.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Housing Authority meeting
of August 18 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
An application for a exempt business license
has been received from the First Baptist
Church, 2020 College Avenue, for the sale of
books.
*
*
*
September 28, 1970
Report re Concannon
Blvd. Route study
Minutes
Exempt Business
Licenses
One hundred fifty-five claims in the amount Payroll & Claims
of $19,191.80 and two hundred thirty-three
payroll warrants in the amount of $76,294.86, dated September 22,
1970, were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, to approve
the Consent Calendar; the motion was approved
by the following vote:
Approval of Consent
Calendar
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
A request has been received from the Livermore
Atomic Soccer Club to sponsor the Annual City
Tournament and for financial aid to purchase
trophies.
REQUEST FOR FINAN-
CIAL AID - ATOMIC
SOCCER CLUB
Councilman Taylor stated that he did not feel the City could sponsor
this event without, in effect, entering the recreation business.
It had been mentioned to him by an individual member of the Jaycees
that perhaps the Jaycees might take over this project and help pro-
vide the trophies.
Councilman Pritchard felt that there were several civic organizations
who might wish to help along this line.
Councilman Beebe concurred that the Council would subject themselves
to many such request if this one is honored.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve the City Manager's
recommendation for denial of this request and also that a letter be
sent to Mr. Maccario commending his efforts on behalf of the soccer
leagues and explaining the City's position. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Beebe and approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
An application for a Conditional Use Permit
to allow limited animal husbandry (raising
of rabbits) at 2371 College Avenue has been
CUP - 2371 College
(Michael C. Downey)
CM-23-225
September 28, 1970
(cup - Downey
continued)
made by Michael C. Downey. The Planning Commission
recommends approval subject to the conditions given
in Resolution No. 28-70.
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval of the CUP subject to the given conditions; the motion
was unanimously approved.
*
*
*
cuP - 1085
Murrieta Blvd.
(Daniel
Gillice)
An application for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow construction and use of a multiple family
residence in excess of two stories at 1085 Murrieta
Blvd. has been made by Daniel Gillice. The matter
was continued until later in the evening as the
applicant was not yet present.
*
*
*
PARCEL MAP
NO. 237
The Planning Director stated that Parcel Map
No. 237 is a record of survey involving the sub-
division of some property that does not have
frontage on Colgate Way and is a proposed addition to those lots
now fronting on Colgate Way. The intention is to take this parcel,
subdivide it, and then sell it to those homeowners fronting on
Colgate Way. The only potential problem is with Lot E on which the
water tank is located. The Planning Commission recommends approval
with the condition that if complications arise with regard to resale
of Lot E, that lot may be deleted from the parcel map. Also
approval is subject to the condition that the property would be sub-
ject to zoning and that the lots would be sold to adjacent properties
only, which will be worked out by deed restriction.
Councilman Taylor asked what provision could be made that at some
time in the future requests will not be made for construction of
another structure on these deep lots.
The City Attorney stated that such restrictions may be made through
declaration of restrictions on use of the property on the final
map or deed restrictions.
Councilman Taylor stated that the intent of the restrictions would
not be to restrict construction of a swimming pool or bath house
or similar use, but the construction of an additional dwelling unit.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, that the Planning Commission recommendation be approved sub-
ject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
Conformance to approved map entitled Exhibit "B"
That the City zone the subject property to a zoning
district compatible with the proposed subdivision
both with respect to use and regulations to use.
That assurance to the City be made that the new lots
being created are going to be sold to adjacent property
owners owning frontage on the street.
That in the event complications arise with regard to
resale of Lot E, said Lot E may be deleted from Parcel
Map No. 237.
No second dwelling unit may be constructed on these
lots, with the method for requiring such restrictions
to be worked out by the staff.
3.
4.
5.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Silva
*
*
*
CM-23-226
An appeal has been made regarding the Planning
Commission's denial of Variance to allow re-
duction of the required street frontage at a
site located west of Las Flores Road between
Interstate 580 and Bluebell Drive. The appli-
cant has requested that this matter be continued
he was unable to be present at the meeting.
September 28, 1970
APPEAL RE DENIAL
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
(Herbert Sihner)
for two weeks as
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the matter was continued until October 13, by unanimous approval.
*
*
*
The rezoning of the property on the south side
of Interstate 580, east and west of Airway Blvd.
is for City owned property and it is presently
zoned A-5.
REZONING SOUTH
SIDE INTERSTATE 580
Mr. Parness pointed out that the main problem relative to this re-
zoning is the design of the frontage road and stated he had some
alternate designs that the Council mi~ht wish to study. The approx-
imate design at this time creates a 2~ acre island, which will be
attractive for highway type uses but questionable for other uses.
The staff has investigated other possible designs and it might be
feasible to ask the State for amendment of the design if the
Council so desires. He discussed the various proposed designs and
the problems involved.
The City Attorney adivsed that the City would be able to obtain
better results from the State if additional right-of-way nego-
tiations with another property owner is not necessary.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman
that the City Manager be directed to negotiate a change
as shown on the proposed design as soon as possible and
State that the City is unhappy with the present route.
was approved unanimously.
Beebe,
in route
inform the
The motion
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to set a public hearing on the rezoning application for October
13; the motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A report from the City Manager presented a com-
parative inspection fee schedule for public
works inspections. Mr. Parness stated that
the suggested alternatives have been studied
and the major factor that fluctuates is the
amount of time devoted to municipal public works inspection duties.
Taking this estimate and the proposed increase in services into
account, he concurred with Councilman Taylor's suggestion that the
scale that has been in use by Pleasanton and Fremont would be a
reasonable one to adopt.
REPORT RE PUBLIC
WORKS INSPECTION
FEE AMENDMENT
Councilman Taylor felt that there is indeed justification for in-
crease in the fees as Pleasanton is considering raising its fee
to a straight 4%.
This matter was continued until the October 5th meeting so that
a full Council might be present.
*
*
*
Consideration of the Conditional Use Permit
application submitted by Daniel Gillice had
been continued from earlier in the meeting in
order that the applicant might be present.
CUP APPLICATION
(Daniel Gillice)
CM-23-227
September 28, 1970
(CUP - Gillice) Mayor pro tempore Miller asked the applicant if
it would be agreeable to continue this item for a
week in order that all the members of the Council
might have more time to study the proposal and Mayor Silva might
be present. It was suggested that Mayor Silva listen to the tape
for any testimony that might be presented. Mr. Gillice requested
that the Council hear the comments of the architect as it is diffi-
cult for him to be present.
Mr. Musso pointed out that first the Council should consider whether
the matter will be set for public hearing; if so, the testimony of
the architect will have to be repeated. At the Planning Commission's
hearing only one person testified in regard to the effect of the
proposal on his home in the Glenwood tract. After further discus-
sion the majority of the Council felt that a public hearing was
not necessary.
Mr. Gillice presented the site plan for his proposal and also pho-
tographs of similar buildings which have been constructed. He
stated that the proposed construction will complement the present
apartment buildings with a three story arch similar to the present
two story arches, as the height will be in excess of two stories.
The apartments are to be all on one floor; 102 will be one bedroom,
and the balance of the 154 will be two bedroom apartments.
The Council discussed the buffer landscaping, the ingress and egress,
parking facilities and the possibility of underground parking. Coun-
cilman Taylor stated they should have the density trade explained,
to which Mayor pro tempore Miller agreed inasmuch as this was the
reason for his appeal as originally there were less than one hundred
units approved for this complex; however, this portion of the dis-
cussion is to be continued for one week.
Mr. Musso explained that the Planning Commission and the staff tried
to keep the two matters separate inasmuch as the third story without
density transfer can be built if the developer so desires, and it
might be well to have a three story apartment building regardless
of any density transfer.
The Council asked the applicant questions concerning the project at
this time and Councilman Taylor pointed out that the Planning Com-
mission had voted for approval of the property 4 to 1, and the rea-
son for the dissenting vote was the design, but no objection to
the density. This is the first three story apartment proposed in
town; the first with elevators and Mr. Gillice went into more detail
with reference to the design and security aspe~ts.
Mr. Parness stated that the property owners along Anza Way had con-
tacted him with reference to obtaining the rear portion of their
lots from the surplus area along the channel, some of which has been
counted in this density transfer - about ten lots, involving about
35,000 square feet - and they have tried for many months to negotiate
purchase of this property from the applicant but have not been suc-
cessful as yet. Mr. Gillice indicated there were about eighteen
property owners along College Avenue and Anza Way interested in
obtaining parcels to add to their backyards, which would subtract
possibly as high as two acres from the actual total acres, and the
ownership of these parcels would be transferred to the individual
property owners before it is transferred to the City. He agreed
that none of the property sold in this manner would be subject to
density transfer; in fact, there would be a surplus of possible units
they would not use. They are proposing 154 units, but it may be
156 or 152, but they do have a method that was established for den-
sity transfer. Mr. Gillice also mentioned that it has been dis
covered that Zone 7, in their planning considerations, considered a
150 ft. channel instead of 200 ft. through the area which adds al-
most 5,000 feet by 50 ft, or 250,000 feet or 4~ acres which could
be added to the density transfer and he went ton to explain this
more in detail; however, it was agreed that this could also be dis-
cussed in more detail at the meeting of October 5th.
CM-23-228
September 28, 1970
The proposed ordinance re park policy for land
dedication was discussed at the meeting of
September 21st, and the Council had directed
the staff to consider some of the alternatives
and furnish them with a revised draft of the
ordinance.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
PARK POLICY FOR
LAND DEDICATION
Mr. Lewis pointed out some of the items which were included in
the draft: two acres of land, which are to be dedicated but
the subdivider would be required, in addition, pursuant to his
subdivision agreement, to provide frontage that would not be in-
cluded in the two acres; it also provides for certain conditions
that would require dedication at the time of the final map; it
would require fees to be paid at the time of the final map which
is different than what we presently have; it would provide a
method for the City to require, where there is a final map and
the land to be dedicated is not directly in the path of the
most immediate development of the subdivision, that the subdi-
vider would make easements available and install minimal improve-
ments so that the people could reach the areas of the park that
was dedicated; it would allow, in subdivisions of less than fifty
lots, the subdivider and the City to agree that land could be
dedicated (it would not be required, merely allow agreement be-
tween the two parties).
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that these items were all agreed
to by the Council at the last meeting.
In reply to a question by Councilman Pritchard with reference to
the fees and time of dedication, Mr. Lewis explained it is a major
change from the present policy, stating there are opposing argu-
ments that can be made - one that the City receives a certain
amount of security if we receive the dedication on the tract map
as there are minor costs that can be saved as the title company
guarantees all dedications if accomplished pursuant to the map;
on the other hand we may find that the finals are changed two or
three times before they are completely built up and dedication
at the time of the map would require new deeds, etc. if the sub-
division were changed in that way. These are considerations
which should be discussed.
Councilman Beebe brought up the fact that there may be a change
in ownership at the time of the tentative map which might cause
some confusion. Mr. Lewis replied that all the ordinance does is
set the land to be dedicated or fees to be paid so that the final
can be drawn which would be done as a matter of law. The settle-
ment is reached at the time of the final map. Councilman Beebe
stated that even after the final is adopted there have been cases
where the tract was not completed, and asked if something could
not be stated rather than approval of the final to have "or
acceptance of public works improvements".
This point was discussed, and it was explained that when the
final is approved, even though construction is not completed,
the dedicated land would be there, and we protect against pre-
mature development of the park by having in the policy that
development not be provided until two years or 500 houses which-
ever comes later.
Mr. Lewis explained a few of the advantages and disadvantages
that might occur due to the change in the time of dedication.
Mr. Lee explained with regard to public works improvements, that
oftentimes there is a tentative which encompasses quite a few
acres, then the developer files a final on only a portion of the
tentative, and if the park falls within that final map it should
be dedicated along with the tract. However, the park could be
quite remote from the first fifty lots at which time there would
be problems with access.
CM-23-229
September 28, 1970
(Park Land
Dedication)
Mayor pro tempore Miller reminded the Council that
this was one point they discussed and they had asked
the staff attempt to come up with some way to avoid
this situation, and it was decided that this would
be put aside and added as an amendment to the ordinance after it
was determined what the solution might be.
that
Councilman Taylor stated that the problem seemed to be that there
was no way to require dedication of a piece of land not in the tract.
If the tract encompasses the park site it definitely should be de-
dicated along with the tract and there was no problem here.
The Council discussed the problem of dedication of land not in the
tract, but required to satisfy requirements; the payment of fees
when permits are obtained rather than final map filing because of
the financing problems; if fees are paid sooner parks can be bought
sooner when the money is available; if the transfer of land had to
wait for acceptance of public works improvements it is just as diffi-
cult, many times, as trying to collect on bonds since legal action
is necessary; it is advantageous to buy land as soon as possible to
avoid escalation in costs.
Councilman Taylor indicated that he felt the ordinance as written
was reasonable and made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
that the park dedication ordinance be introduced as written, with
minor changes in the wording to be made by the City Attorney, and
the first reading of the ordinance was waived (title read only).
The motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
ZONING
ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
(Fees)
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, the ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 442 regarding fees for Use Permits, Variance,
Conditional Use Permits, Rezoning, PUD, Site Plan
Approval and Appeals and amending City Code regard-
ing fees for Tentative Tract Map and Extensions,
Engineering and Building Code Inspection was introduced and the
first reading waived (title read only) by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
The portion of the ordinance relating to Public Works Inspection
fees was continued until October 5th.
*
*
*
COMMENTS Mayor pro tempore Miller commented regarding the two
ordinances just introduced, stating that the park
dedication ordinance is an important forward step for
the City of Livermore accomplished by the Council to provide adequate
park land for the future; it is a reflection of the requests by the
public over the past years. Secondly, the ordinance regarding the
fees is a major step toward tax reform and toward lightening the
burden of the homeowners and property taxpayers. The first step
was the increase in annexation fees a year ago. This present ordi-
nance provides that services associated with growth are now being
financed in a large part by that growth rather than the taxpayer.
These two ordinances are an example of a progressive fiscal policy
by the Council.
Councilman Pritchard stated that these ordinances resulted from
unanimous action by members of the Council; they reflect the prin-
ciple that the City should be run in a businesslike manner.
Councilman Beebe said that now taxpayers could be assured that
growth is essentially paying for itself and that they are not sub-
sidizing growth.
CM-23-230
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated that the cost
to the City in approving construction is now
paying for itself; there are other on-going
costs which do not yet pay for themselves.
*
*
*
Discussion of the Capital Improvement Budget,
Fiscal Years 1970-1976, was continued for one
week due to the absence of the Mayor.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe inquired about the recent
striping done by the state on Holmes street
and the fact that the turnout lanes were
omitted on Anza Way and Elaine street. He
was informed that this matter had already
been brought to the attention of the State.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard felt that there should be
a liaison between the Council and the Valley
Ecology Center. The Council felt this would be
agreeable and Councilman Pritchard was requested
to explore this with the Center.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05
p.m.
ATTEST
*
APPROVE
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of October 5, 1970
September 28, 1970
(Comments)
SPECIAL STUDY ITEM-
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET 1970-76
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Striping, Holmes
Street)
(Valley Ecology
Center)
ADJOURNMENT
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
October, 5, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:15
p.m. by Mayor Silva.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, ROLL CALL
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Mayor Silva led the members of the Council
and those present in the audience in the
pledge of allegiance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
CM-23-231
October 5, 1970
MINUTES
The minutes of the special meeting and regular meet-
ing of September 28, 1970 were approved on motion
of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and by unanimous vote, with Mayor Silva abstaining
from voting on the regular meeting minutes due to
his absence.
*
*
*
Keith Fraser, representing the applicant in the matter
of the proposed Carlton shopping center (Planned Unit
Development No. 15), requested that this matter be
considered on October 13 rather than on October 19
as now scheduled. The permit will expire on the 19th and the County
has now requested that Murdell Lane be moved in such a way that the
shopping center as shown on the PUD will be divided. For this rea-
son planning and discussion should take place earlier than the 19th.
OPEN FORUM
(PUD No. 15)
The Planning Director explained that the County's plan to move Murdell
Lane creates a major redesign problem which has not been brought
about by either the developer or the City; it might take several
weeks to accomplish the redesign, including referral back to the
Planning Commission. The permit may have to be extended for 60-90
days in order to work out a new design for the shopping center.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the permit had been extended pre-
viously so that two other points, including the school site, could
be worked out. He felt these issues could be resolved on the 19th
and the redesign of the shopping center could be continued at that
time.
Mr. Fraser stated his client wished to discuss the redesign on the
13th of October, but that the school site reservation could not be
resolved by the 19th as his client considered this condition as un-
fair at this time.
Mayor Silva said the design had nothing to do with the school problem -
they were two separate issues. He felt the whole discussion should
be on the 19th. After further discussion, the Council stated they
would hear the matter of the redesign of the shopping center on the
13th of October, but asked Mr. Fraser to inform his client that the
Council did not think that the school site reservation could be con-
tinued unless there is a tie-in with the redesign problem.
*
*
*
(Airport
Boulevard)
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P Street, asked why Airport
Boulevard is designed with so many curves in the road.
Mr. Lee, the Public Works Director, explained that
this was due to the fact that the road was located
between the creek and the dike at the oxidation plant. However,
there is a redesign planned for Airport Boulevard which will be
straightened out and connect with Portola Avenue extension.
*
*
*
PUBLIC HEARING
RE DEANNEXATION
PORTOLA AVENUE
ANNEX No.4
Two property ownerships located on the north side
of First Street near U.S. 580 which were originally
contained within Portola Avenue Annex No.4 are
to be deannexed due to rejection of an annexation
agreement by these ownershi~s. The aggregate
acreage to be deannexed is bO acres.
Mr. Parness pointed out that the Local Agency Formation Commission
has required that annexation of the interchange be undertaken to
provide continuity with the Springtown area, but that they have ap-
proved the deannexation as requested.
CM-23-232
October 5, 1970
The City Attorney stated the proceedings had
been undertaken with the full cooperation of
the property owners, and the deannexation is
without prejudice and these property owners
have the right to ask for annexation at a later date. Therefore,
an ordinance for the deannexation must be adopted by the Council
which will be effective upon filing with the Secretary of state
and County Recorder, which will take about forty days.
(Deannexation
Portola Ave. No.4)
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing, but as there were no com-
ments voiced, a motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, to close the public hearing and it was approv-
ed unanimously.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to introduce the ordinance for deannexation of certain
properties in the Portola Avenue Annex No.4, containing approx-
imately eighty acres, and to waive the first reading (title read
only) and the motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A communication from the Fremont-Newark Com-
munity College District has been received con-
cerning the redistricting of Supervisorial
Districts and enclosing two resolutions which
they have adopted regarding size and membership
of the districts.
*
*
*
Fremont-Newark
Community College
District
A reply from the League of California Cities (AB 1271)
to the City Council's Resolution requesting
support of the League's Annual Conference for AB 1271, regarding
school land dedication has been received, stating that the matter
will be presented to the League's Planning Department. The City
Manager informed the Council that Mayor Reid of Pleasanton has
been asked to serve on the League's Resolutions Committee; this
legislation has been discussed with him and he has said he will
introduce the matter to the Committee himself if it is not other-
wise introduced.
*
*
*
The Planning Director presented a report re-
garding agricultural preserves inventory for
the area.
*
*
*
The Beautification Committee minutes of their
meetings of July 23 and September 3, 1970,
were acknowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
Tract 3073 is located on the west side of Arroyo
Road, south of the Arroyo Mocho and contains
106 lots. The following resolution is to be
adopted accepting the final improvements.
Report re Agricul-
tural Preserves
Minutes
Tract 3073 - Final
Acceptance (Sunset)
RESOLUTION NO. 128-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 3073
(Sunset Development Company)
*
*
*
CM-23-233
October 5, 1970
Exempt Business
Licenses
Applications for exempt business licenses have
been received from the following:
Kappa Gamma Chapter - Epsilon Sigma Alpha - sale
of cookbooks during the fiscal year
Our Savior's Lutheran Church Nursery School -
conduct of a nursery school at church on East
Avenue
*
*
*
Payroll and
Claims
Seventy claims in the amount of $69,804.30 dated
October 1, 1970, were ordered paid as approved by
the City Manager.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, the Consent Calendar was approved unani-
mously.
*
*
*
CUP AND
VARIANCE
APPLICATION
(Holiday Inn)
A Conditional Use Permit application to allow a free-
standing sign and request for variance to allow a
sign not in conformance with the ordinance have been
submitted by Holiday Inn.
Planning Director George Musso stated that the applicant is now
asking for a revised freestanding sign, which require,s a CUP plus a
Variance because the sign size is greater than permitted. The Plan-
ning Commission recommends denial of the CUP and denied the variance,
and both have been referred to the Council. Denial was based upon
the fact that the Zoning Ordinance recognizes highway orientation of
certain uses but the request is in excess of this regulation. Mr.
Musso stated the maximum allowable sign is 64 sq. ft.
Keith Fraser, representing the applicant, pointed out they were re-
questing a sign 30 feet in height, which is not an increase in height.
Mr. Fraser told the Council that both the assistant innkeeper and
innkeeper John Aulgur were present. Mr. Fraser recalled that in
December, 1968, when construction of the inn was considered, the
signing was discussed quite thoroughly. The Memphis office of Holi-
day Inn said they would agree to the Council's decision regarding
the sign, but stated that statistics from over the country showed
they needed the Holiday great sign to direct people to the motel.
The Council assured them there would be "food-lodging" signs placed
on the freeway and there would be good access to the Holiday Inn
site and the present sign was agreed upon at that time. He stated
instances where Holiday Inn has erected signs and subsequently noted
increases in business. Presently, the Holiday Inn in Livermore is
experiencing one of the lowest occupancy rates in northern California;
they feel this can be attributed to the lack of identification or
public image. Fifty percent of the employees originally hired have
been laid off and they have experienced problems. The applicant
feels that approval of the variance to permit erection of a larger
sign is necessary to direct people to the Inn. Mr. Fraser said
there is almost 300 ft. of allowable signing not used on the side
of the building. The present sign is difficult to see, especially
at night.
Mr. Aulgur, the innkeeper, stated they had had problems with occu-
pancy and had to layoff some of the personnel, who are local people.
He was of the opinion that helping Holiday Inn would also help the
City of Livermore.
CM-23-234
October 5, 1970
Mr. Bill Moore of Nelson Neon Company explained
that the signs seen in the Bay Area are the
llgreat" Holiday Inn signs which are 50 feet
high. The sign requested is called the "junior"
sign which is 30 feet high, and there is another one which is 40
feet high. All of the other Holiday Inns in the area have the
standard "great" sign. There is no question of the impact of
the visual image of the larger sign, and it does increase business.
(CUP and Variance -
Holiday Inn)
There followed a discussion of the various sign sizes used by the
Holiday Inn chain, those having 300-400 rooms in metropolitan areas,
and those, like the one in question, having less rooms and classi-
fied as roadside inns which must depend on advertising to attract
business; the fact that the state's "food-lodging'l signs may not
be as effective as Holiday Inn would desire, but they do exist;
also, there are a number of billboards on the approaches to Liver-
more advertising the facility.
In reply to a question with regard to the regulations for a marquee,
Mr. Musso advised they are allowed, however the message must re-
late to the use of the property, and they are speaking of adver-
tising events not necessarily taking place on the premises. They
would be allowed a reader-board, but it would have to conform to
size, and the text would have to relate to the use of the proper-
ty also.
Mayor Silva stated that Livermore does not have any convention
facilities and the Holiday Inn is the only place available and
he would be willing to bend a little by allowing some type of
marquee to advertise convention facilities and also community
events, but he had in mind the existing sign with a smaller read-
er board below it, but did not know if the Council would agree
with the suggestion.
Councilman Taylor stated there was some merit to what Mayor Silva
had stated; also, he was sympathetic to the management as he felt
they would not be asking for the sign if business was good. If
we permitted a sign five times larger than the County standards,
however, it would set a precedent, and should not be permitted
on the basis of business problems of the inn.
Councilman Pritchard did not feel Holiday Inn should be compared
to other local motels or to service stations, and felt that they
could grant a variance. Councilman Beebe agreed that it is not
the same as the service station, but since we are now beginning
to enforce the sign ordinance and causing many people to spend a
considerable amount to comply with it, it would be doing them a
disservice if we now allowed a sign completely in disregard of
the present sign ordinance. Councilman Beebe continued that if
the sign is not adequate, and he felt it was a poor sign as he
would not know where to turn off if he was not familiar with the
building, we should revise our highway oriented regulations, as
we cannot allow one and not others. Councilman Beebe asked if
it would be possible to add, perhaps a neon light, to the existing
sign on the side of the building inasmuch as they had not used all
of the square footage allowable, however he was advised it would
be a lot less attractive than to group it in one focal point, but
it might be the solution.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the intersection is temporary
and will be improved; also, there will be a turn at North Livermore
Avenue which would allow a turnaround without having to cross the
freeway, and they have zoned property along the north side of the
highway for highway oriented usage.
The Council discussed the various possibilities, and the applicant
was asked if he had any alternate suggestion to offer in order to
compromise, and Mr. Fraser proposed something between 64 and 270
square feet for identification.
CM-23-235
October 5, 1970
(CUP & Variance A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
Holiday Inn) by Councilman Miller, to adopt the recommendation
of the Planning Commission for denial of the CUP
and Variance based on reasons shown in their Reso-
lution No. 27-70, and staff report and the motion passed by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Councilman Miller commented that Interstate 580 is a scenic high-
way, and the important issue is one of precedence, and we must re-
duce sign clutter.
Councilman Pritchard felt the City Council was being hypocritical
as they have been talking about wanting business and industry and
by their actions are turning business away.
Councilman Beebe again stated the size of the sign as it is now is
ridiculous, and felt they should review the sign ordinance with re-
ference to highway oriented signs, as people are travelling at a
high rate of speed on the highways and strangers in the area would
not be able to see the sign.
Councilman Taylor spoke to Councilman Pritchard's remark, stating
that anyone could come in and ask for a larger sign if his business
is not good, but what about other property owners who will be de-
veloping? They will also request a larger sign than is permitted.
This does not mean they are against business, but rather protecting
business investments of his potential neighbors.
Mayor Silva agreed it would set a precedence as he would not be able
to deny other sign requests that might come up if he approved this
one.
*
*
*
REPORT RE
CUP and VARIANCE
(Daniel Gillice)
The application of Daniel Gillice for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow construction and use of a multi-
ple family residence in excess of two stories at
1085 Murrieta Blvd. and application for Variance
to allow increase in density at the same location
were postponed from the meeting of September 28th.
Planning Director George Musso explained there were two separate
issues involved - on~ the Variance for review on appeal of the City
Council; the other, the recommendation on the allowance of a three
story multiple apartment dwelling on the Murrieta Boulevard site.
The way the Planning Commission approved it is somewhat removed from
the request of the Variance. If the Variance were reversed and not
granted the applicant could still build a three story building and
there would be no problem; it is a simple criteria for the develop-
ment not tied to any plot plan on the CUP. The major issue surrounds
the variance which is the transfer of density from the Arroyo Mocho
site between Arroyo Road and Holmes Street along the channel to the
site on Murrieta Blvd. The major discussion on the transfer seemed
to center around the matter of design and whether it should be three
or four stories, but there did not seem to be any question that it
should be over two; also, the possibility of underground parking.
The Planning Commission recommends approval on the three story build-
ing; relative to the transfer of density, they concur that with the
dedication of this area they would be agreeable to transferring the
units allowed to the other site and the conditions for approval would
be the dedication of the park area previously designated, except
that allowed for the channel which was based on a formula approved
about a year ago.
Mr. Musso continued that there are some issues that have come up
since the Planning Commission discussion such as whether or not the
CM-23-236
October 5, 1970
property, after provisions are made for channel, (CUP & Variance
would serve any purpose as a parkway, and the Gillice)
Public Works Department, after some investigation,
suggests that the major area will be devoted to
carrying water.
The Council discussed the density by comparison with other develop-
ments and Councilman Taylor asked who would pay for the channel
improvements when it is required and the Council should know ex-
actly which property will be dedicated. Also, he did not know
how usable the land would be and for what purpose it could be used.
The question seemed to be that perhaps some of the land, if it is
sold to other property owners, might be in the way of a future
parkway.
Councilman Miller felt there were four questians which must be
resolved: 1) is the land to be dedicated to the City useful and
valuable enough to merit the variance; 2) which property belongs
to the City and which to Mr. Gillice - how much total property is
involved, how much channel will be required, how much park dedi-
cation, and who will pay for channel improvements; 3) on what
basis should the density transfer be madeooncerning property
that is required to be dedicated for public works and whether a
density credit should be given this area; 4) whether the site
plan for the other site would be acceptable after the transfer
of :;t=lJ ,~I?~C~ .is m;3-de.
, ~ ~6.hr~ .
The Pub lid Works/Director presented a map which indicated a plan
with minimum channel area, the area available for density trans-
fer, and an area which could be designed for trails, etc. even
if the lots are sold. Mr. Lee said that the improvement costs
for a minimum earth channel is approximately $65,000 and involves
excavation and energy dissipators at intervals. There would be
some reimbursement to the developer from Zone 7 from their storm
drainage fund. Upon question from the Council Mr. Lee stated
that normally the developer is required to improve the channel
when the adjacent area is developed.
Mr. Parness stated that this situation was like the required im-
provements on major streets; it is the City's current policy to
require abutting properties to widen and dedicate upon develop-
ment, and then eventually if there are some interim areas that
have not been treated this way and the Council decides to com-
plete the project, the government does the work. He felt that
if no development took place along this channel because it was
not feasible to develop it, then if in the future the whole
channel had to be developed because of upstream growth, undoubt-
edly some local governmental agency would have to bear the cost.
As it now stands, whoever develops this adjoining property would
have to pay for channel improvements.
Mr. Musso reported that a Planning Commission meeting with Zone 7
representatives had been held regarding the relation of this chan-
nel to our proposed parkway system. As a result of this meeting,
the Council will be asked to approach Zone 7 to see what alterna-
tives there are to improvement of the channel to handle the water.
Mr. Gillice, the applicant, addressed the Council regarding the
property to be dedicated. He asked the Council to consider what
the City recently paid for a piece of property on East Avenue,
and if park land were acquired in the area under consideration
the property would probably be even higher due to more extensive
development, so the proposed dedication of the land is quite val-
uable. The application had been based on previous applications
and previous decisions of the governing bodies; he was using the
decision by the Planning Commission and the Council on his pre-
vious application for units and park dedication on this land in
CM-23-237
October 5, 1970
(CUP & Variance
Gillice)
his present application. At that time he had not
been required to develop the channel, only to grade
it according to park department standards.
Councilman Taylor recalled that at the time of the previous appli-
cation it had not been clear what work would have to be done to
the channel and that, mainly, the work would consist of grading.
Zone 7 has always had its requirement that the channel must be able
to carry a certain amount of water. He waid that it had been under-
stood that the channel would be presented to the City in a usable
manner.
Mr. Gillice stated that they were making a reasonable compromise.
The need for an improved channel will not occur for fifteen years
or more. In the next twenty years the taxes from the proposed apart-
ment units will be in excess of the cost of the channel improvements.
In the present subdivision they had installed the streets, sewers,
installed the channel, and in addition paid channel fees to Zone 7.
The present units pay high taxes and to add an additional $65,000
cost would wipe out his development and he would have to withdraw
his application.
Councilman Miller said the taxes paid were for services to the apart-
ments and could not be considered toward the cost of the channel im-
provements.
Mayor Silva pointed out if the cost of the public works, including
the channel work, is more than the value of the open space to be de-
dicated, it is not to the advantage of the City to accept the open
space.
Councilman Taylor said that ultimately the City will have to be re-
sponsible for the channel if this plan is accepted, and the improve-
ments will be costly.
Mr. Lee did not know the exact amount of reimbursement which could
come from Zone 7, but felt it would be substantial. The possibility
of flooding if the channel is not graded and improved was discussed
and how soon the channel would have to be improved.
Councilman Taylor felt the idea of density transfer was good, but
this possible cost must be considered.
The applicant was agreeable to continuing this matter so that the
cost of the channel and related questions could be resolved at the
staff level and presented to the Council.
Mr. Gillice was requested to present a firm statement as to which
lots would be sold when the matter is considered again. Mr. Gillice
said he had been informed by Zone 7 that based on needs for this
channel it would only be required to have a 150 foot channel, not
200 feet. Mr. Lee replied that in his discussions with Zone 7 they
had not stated a definite width as it will have to be based on many
factors. The City's engineering staff had calculated an average
channel width of 204 feet.
Councilman Miller asked that the staff arrive at an exact acreage
for this property; also an indication of which properties will be
sold; how to effect park dedication on units which are transferred;
the annexation agreement requires a 200 ft. channel and dedication
to the City of that property so the land might not be in a position
to be sold to private property owners.
The matter was then continued until October 13th.
*
*
*
RECESS
After a brief recess the meeting was resumed with
all members present.
*
*
*
CM-23-238
Consideration of the proposed ordinance for the
amendment of the Municipal Code regarding public
works inspection fees was continued from the
meeting of September 28 due to Mayor Silva's
absence.
October 5, 1970
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT RE PUBLIC
WORKS INSPECTION
FEES
The City Manager explained the comparative inspection fee schedule
which had been prepared. He recommended that the fee scale be as
follows: 4% for $0 to $25M; 3.5% for $25M to $75M; and 3.0%
above $75M.
Councilman Miller added that he had calculated the revenue gained
from a straight 4% fee as $40,560. and made a motion that a 4%
fee schedule across the board be adopted, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard.
Mayor Silva stated he felt the philosophy which they had adopted
before going into the fee study was to raise revenue anticipated
for the services; therefore, he did not feel he could go along
with 4%.
Councilman Beebe felt that the City Manager's recommendation should
be accepted to only recover costs of services. If there are
variables, the personnel would just have to be adjusted.
Councilman Taylor said he might lean toward the straight 4% to
gain all possible revenue for the City, but felt the fees charged
must be reasonable and supportable; thus they should accept the
City Manager's proposal, which is adequate and protects the people
of Livermore.
The motion for a 4% fee schedule was voted on and defeated by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
NOES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
Councilman Taylor made a moti8n to accept the staff recommendation
for a fee schedule of 4% for $0 to $25M, 3.5% for $25M to $75M
and 3.0% above $75M; the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe,
and passed unanimously, and this was considered as the first read-
ing of the proposed ordinance regarding Municipal Code Amendment
re public works inspection fees.
* * * ORDINANCE RE CITY
CODE AND ZO AMEND-
ORDINANCE NO. 720 MENTS (Zoning,
Building, Permit
Fees)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 442 OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, RELATING TO ZONING AS
AMENDED, BY REPEALING SUBSECTIONS 22.70 THROUGH 22.78,
RELATING TO VARIOUS ZONING FEES, OF SECTION 22.00, RELAT-
ING TO RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCEDURES, AND ADDING SUBSEC-
TIONS 22.70 THROUGH 22.76, RELATING TO VARIOUS ZONING FEES,
TO SECTION 22.00, RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCEDURES;
AMENDING THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959, AS FOLLOWS: AMEND-
ING SECTION 6.2.5, RELATING TO PERMIT FEES, OF ARTICLE I,
RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND SECTION 6.41, RELATING
TO PERMIT FEES, OF ARTICLE VIII, RELATING TO THE MECHANICAL
CODE, BOTH OF CHAPTER 6, RELATING TO BUILDINGS: AMENDING *
CHAPTER 15, RELATING TO PLUMBING: AMENDING DIVISION 1, RE-
LATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF ARTICLE II, RELATING TO
TENTATIVE MAPS, BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 20.20.1 THERETO,
RELATING TO FEES, AND AMENDING SECTION 20.32, RELATING TO
FEES AND DEPOSITS, OF DIVISION 1, RELATING TO GENERAL RE-
QUIREMENTS, OF ARTICLE III, RELATING TO FINAL MAP, BOTH
SAID ARTICLES BEING OF CHAPTER 20, RELATING TO SUBDIVISONS.
*SECTION 15.6, RELATING TO COST OF PERMIT, OF
CM-23-239
October 5, 1970
(ZO AMENDING
FEES)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
POLICY FOR
PARK LAND
DEDICATION
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Council-
man Taylor, the second reading of the above ordinance
was waived, and the ordinance was passed by the
following vote:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard, Taylor, Miller and Mayor
Silva
None
None
*
*
*
The final draft of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance
was not completed, and it was the Council's decision
to delay the second reading and vote until such time
as the document was complete.
The City Attorney commented that the second reading
should not be delayed, but it had been called to his
attention that there may be ramifications of the payment of the park
fees concurrent with the approval of the final map, and suggested
that the City Engineer might be directed to consider what effect this
could have on the contractor's performance of the public works and
planning in the development as it could cause a problem if a developer
was trying to push too hard to get things going too fast.
After some discussion the Council decided to continue further deliber-
ation and second reading of the ordinance for one week.
SPECIAL STUDY
ITEM (Capital
Improvement
BUdget)
*
*
*
Due to the lateness of the hour, the discussion on
the Capital Improvement Budget for the fiscal years
1970-76 was continued to October 14 at 6:00 p.m. at
the Fire House.
*
*
*
MATTERS INI- ORDINANCE NO. 721
TIATED BY STAFF
(Urgency AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING
Ordinance re ORDINANCE NO. 442 OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED,
Political RELATING TO ZONING, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION E, RELATING
Signs) TO TEMPORARY SIGNS, OF SUBSECTION 21.72, RELATING TO
SIGNS, OF SECTION 21.00, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS,
TO ALLOW TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS.
The City Attorney presented an urgency ordinance clarifying the
number of llpoliticalll signs allowed when there are numerous candi-
dates and measures on the ballot such as will be the case at the
upcoming General Election in November.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, the
above ordinance was introduced and adopted (title read only) by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN Beebe, Taylor, Miller, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
(City Owned
Parcel at
Airport)
CM-23-240
*
*
*
The City Manager questioned the Council's wish re-
garding possible realignment of the road through City
owned property located just east of Airway Boulevard
and the interchange design. Mr. Parness said he had
contacted the State about the change in the inter-
change design and they are willing to make the change
October 5, 1970
if the City will pay the supplementary costs. (Airport Parcel)
The main problem is acquisition of the right
of way necessitated by the change in alignment.
Discussion followed regarding future use of the property in con-
nection with the proposed design. Mr. Parness was instructed to
proceed with negotiations and plans to initiate the change accord-
ing to the interchange design approved by the Council.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe suggested that signs for free-
way oriented businesses should be discussed and
it was decided that he and Councilman Pritchard
would meet with the Planning Director, inform-
ally, for some background material on this sub-
ject prior to any further action.
*
*
*
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Freeway Oriented
Signs)
(Resolution re Park
Dedication Fee
Councilman Miller suggested that the annexation
fee resolution should be changed to reflect the
changed park dedication requirements and made a
motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to intro-
duce the following resolution to amend the annexation
ment to include two acres per hundred dwelling units.
passed unanimously.
policy state-
The motion
RESOLUTION NO. 129-70
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 190-69
PROVIDING FOR INTERIM ANNEXATION FEES.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller discussed smog incidence in (Smog Report)
Livermore during the past year and a recent
newspaper article regarding the restriction of
activity in schools, etc., during periods of high smog level.
The staff was asked to contact the Bay Area Air Pollution Con-
trol District for a report on smog levels during the past year.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva pointed out that the Council had
passed a resolution adopting two year terms
for members of the Beautification Committee
recently. These terms should be staggered so
that part will serve one year terms in order
that not all the appointments will terminate
at one time.
*
*
*
(Beautification
Committee)
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council the meeting was adjourned at 12:30
a.m. to an executive session to discuss pending
litigation with Courtesy Aviation (Pacific Bridge).
APPROVE
i iliJ~:
Mayor
ATTEST
CM-23-241
Regular Meeting of October 13, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Tuesday, October
13, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:12 p.m. by Mayor Silva.
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 5, 1970,
having been delivered to all Councilmen, were approved
as amended on motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, and by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Muriel Doggett, Chairman of Festival 70, presented
the City Council with two paintings of Livermore
scenes, as part of the original proposal which con-
tains the purchase awards which were purchased for
$450: a third painting was raffled off to attempt to
raise part of that money back. This was done last year and the City
has those two paintings, and these are to be added to the City's col-
lection. Livermore scenes are the only paintings elligible for this
competition.
OPEN FORUM
(Presentation
of Paintings)
Mrs. Doggett commented that the Festival was a big success and there
were about 7,000 people in attendance over the weekend.
Mayor Silva stated that he had attended the Festival and felt it was
an enormous effort of the community - a successful effort, and he was
very impressed, and would like to see this an annual affair. A reso-
lution was introduced by Mayor Silva commending the chairman of the
committee and all workers for a job well done and requesting them to
begin preparation for a third festival. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Miller.
Councilman Taylor stated the resolution should be directed to the
Cultural Arts Council and the Festival Committee, and the resolution
was approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 130-70
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE CULTURAL ARTS COUNCIL
*
*
*
(Low Cost
Housing)
Clarence Hoenig addressed the Council on the subject
of low and moderate cost housing, stating that there
had been a notice of some discussion at the Council
level re low interest rate loans and since he has had
an interest in this, did write to Congressman Miller and had received
a reply which he proposed to pass on to the City Manager.
Mr. Hoenig explained that Section 235 of the Housing Act is a reality
and there are government funds available to provide low interest
loans to people who qualify. There were 60 applicants last lfear
and another 100 this year. The point he wanted to make was that he
felt this kind of housing is necessary in this community and is pre-
ferred over a housing project like Vila Gulf where we tend to put
people in an area rather than disperse them throughout the community.
He felt it was important that the Council and the community learn
about these applications. He explained that the builder applies
CM-23-242
October 13, 1970
for a certain number of units and can merchan- (Low Cost Housing)
dise them through any real estate office he
chooses. He had checked with the Livermore Housing Authority
and they know nothing about these applications; Region 7 Housing
Office does not have to contact them. He felt the Council should
correspond with the regional director, or have the Livermore Hous-
ing Authority do so, in order that qualified people in the com-
munity might apply for these loans.
After some discussion on this matter Mayor Silva asked Mr. Hoenig
if he had discussed this with the Housing Authority and was told
that he had talked with George Bunyard and given him all the
information and correspondence. Mayor Silva agreed that HUD should
be contacted and the information forwarded to the local Housing
Authority.
Roy Stuart stated that the people in the real estate profession
have been trying to obtain 235 money to make sales in the Liver-
more Valley, or for that matter throughout Alameda and Contra
Costa County. This year in July there was a certain amount
allocated for 235 money and it was used up in seven days. They
will probably reallocate more in sixty days, but there are back-
logs of applications from people trying to buy homes by the 235
plan, and the Valley does not have a representative which is
what is needed.
Mayor Silva asked the City Manager if there wasn't some type of
program through the County which had been investigated, to which
Mr. Parness replied they investigated however we do not qualify,
but we did annex to the County to have them serve as the low cost
housing authority in order to qualify for the program that Vila
Gulf is now applying for.
Mr. Hoenig explained that it is a matter of funds being available
as there have been applications approved for Livermore under the
235 program and the regional office states they make every effort
to distribute these equitably and Livermore is eligible for its
fair share.
*
*
*
Walter Magnussen, 1073 Miranda Way, stated that
about five months ago a group talked with the
City Council re expansion of the Airport Advisory
Committee. Since the Committee seems to be unable to
he would like the Council to do so and place the item
agenda in the near future.
(Airport Advisory
Committee)
take action,
on the
Mayor Silva stated he had inquired about the status of this matter
and was told that it would be forthcoming, and Mr. Lee advised
the committee is working on the report, which has been drafted,
but they are working on the details and it should be ready some-
time in November.
*
*
*
Dave Dickinson, 651 Wall Street, mentioned an (Waste Receptacles)
incident in trying to dispose of some trash,
and the lack of receptacles available, and
suggested that there should be more such receptacles along First
Street.
Mayor Silva stated that this is another item that has been re-
ferred to the City and it has been under study for several months
and we are presently awaiting a recommendation from the Beautifi-
cation Committee.
CM-23-243
October 13, 1970
Planning Director George Musso explained that the
property is located on the south side of Highway
50 bounded by the highway, the Hagemann property
on the east, airport facilities on the south and
the golf course on the west. This property did
not come into the City at the time the airport-
golf course property was annexed, but at a later date, and at the
time it came in for zoning, the City felt it was premature to in-
dicate any land use in the area. Since the airport-golf course is
located in the area, it is shown to be light industrial in the gen-
eral plan. The plan originally prepared by the Planning Department
indicates primarily highway commercial and industrial use in that
general area; later the plan prepared by Ratcliff, Slama, Cadwalader
suggested a similar type of treatment although less intensive, and
proposed that Airway Blvd. be maintained as a parkway type approach
to the airport-golf course and industrial uses also in the area.
Later the County, in 1968, prepared their interchange planning,
indicating the interchanges which would be commercial in nature.
The Vasco Road interchange has been partially zoned and two minor
commercial interchanges at Tassajara Road and First Street were
areas in which the City and/or County had made commitments by zoning.
The City at that point in time concurred with this report, noting
that they would implement the report at a point where we now are,
not specifying what this would consist of, however it was recognition
of commitments that had been made beyond what the County had recom-
mended. The Planning Commission, in considering this application,
did concur on the ID Zoning that was recommended, supported by the
general plan. The Planning Commission felt it should be maintained
in agricultural use thereby precluding anything but a parkway or
other type of activity; however, they recommended that the area of
consideration be zoned to ID District with the exception of the area
between the Frontage Road and the freeway and that this area be
maintained as agricultural.
PUBLIC HEARING
(Proposed Re-
zoning re
Airway Blvd)
The Mayor opened the public hearing at this time for the members of
the audience to voice their comments for or against the proposed re-
zoning.
Valerie Raymond, president of the League of Women Voters, stated
that in the Spring the League spoke before both the County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors in support of the County Planning
Staff's recommendation for a highway interchange policy which would
limit commercial development on Highway 580 in keeping with its de-
signation as a scenic route. At that time the City agreed with the
recommendation and they are at a loss to understand why the City
should be giving consideration to a plan in direct violation of the
County policy as the League does not feel it to be in the best in-
terest of the City.
Tom Murphy, owner of Don Pepe's Broiler, stated there is a golf
course complex restaurant for which the City is trying to obtain an
occupant with no bids or proposals made. He stated his feeling
that if a restaurant were allowed on the corner, no one would be
interested in completing the airport-golf course restaurant. Anyone
who locates on the highway would have a good operation and it would
be difficult not to make money, but why turn that over when, actually,
the golf course complex could be developed now; then at some future
time, that tenant, if he wished, could develop a restaurant on the
highway.
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, stated he would prefer light in-
dustrial instead of commercial zoning in the area. He also asked
about the status of the frontage road, and Mr. Parness advised that
the Division of Highways is waiting to hear what the property owner
is willing to do in granting rights-of-way and since this property
is in probate, it will be necessary to obtain a court order in the
event the Council still wishes to have the revision made. The State
is willing to make the change providing the City is willing to pay
the difference in cost.
CM-23-244
October 13, 1970
James McElroy, 1345 Wagoner Drive, representing
the local airmen at the airport, stated they
supported the industrial zoning as recommended,
and felt that commercial zoning, although it may
be inevitable, is premature at this time. Mr.
McElroy suggested that the staff investigate several leasing
agents, prepare a report to Council and have the City obtain
fessional services to develop the whole area.
(Public Hearing -
Airway Blvd.)
pro-
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and adopted unanimously, to close the public hearing.
Councilman Taylor stated that he generally concurred with the
arguments of the Planning Commission, except that they recommend
that the property north of the frontage road not be developed,
and the Council has already taken steps to move that road to make
the property more suitable for development. He felt it would be
wrong to put a gas station on that corner considering the Council's
history of protesting to the County on development of gas stations
at other places in the Valley. For the first time the County has
a plan, which the City concurred with, and here is an interchange
with no commitments yet. He concurred with ID zoning for the
whole piece as he felt it was appropriate.
Councilman Beebe stated it would be at least two years before
the site becomes usable due to the state's construction schedule
and expressed his desire to see a high type of industrial use in
this location, which he felt would give the same revenue as a
restaurant-service station complex. Perhaps we might elicit the
support of the local real estate agents to try to get industry
into the area as he felt it was an ideal spot.
Councilman Pritchard asked if it was the City's intention to keep
this property, and Councilman Miller replied that they had voted
to do so. This point was discussed, however, and whether it would
be in the best interest of the City to keep the property, to lease
or sell it, but it was agreed they did not want to be bound by
any particular option; whatever would bring the maximum revenue
to the City would be the best option.
Councilman Miller suggested that as pointed out it would be at
least a couple of years before the interchanges are completed
and they have plenty of time to consider this area. He suggested
that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation,
which is for the property north of Frontage Road to be left A-5
(Agricultural), and to reconsider rezoning after two years in
order to preclude the possibility of gas station, motel and res-
taurant, in violation of the Council's support of the County policy.
This suggestion was discussed, however was not supported, and
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve the Planning Commission's
recommendation with the exception that the entire piece be zoned
ID (Industrial), seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and it passed
unanimously.
Planning Director George Musso reminded the Council that the state
law requires if they do not concur with the Planning Commission's
recommendation, it should be referred back to the Commission for
report, and this referral was included in the motion.
Incidental to the matter discussed in the public hearing was a
letter from Caldwell-Banker for their possible retention in attrac-
tion of leasees for the property occupancy, and in this regard
Councilman Beebe stated that it was fine for an outside company
to have interest, however he felt the City had an obligation to
the local realtors and businessmen, and any listing should go to
them and there should not be an exclusive listing. The Council
discussed whether or not the listing should go to local firms,
an industrial specialist or whether they should attempt to handle
the leasing.
CM-23-245
October 13, 1970
(Airway
Boulevard)
The City Manager pointed out that he had recommended
that he be allowed to talk to Coldwell-Banker about
merchandising, but in view of the last action of the
Council, he felt it was clear that the Council in-
tends for the property to be used for ID type uses as
specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mayor Silva stated that service stations are allowed in ID under a
Conditional Use Permit and for that reason he felt they should de-
bate the issue.
Councilman Pritchard stated he had abstained from the foregoing con-
versation as far as the real estate aspects of the property are
concerned as there would be a conflict of interest, and he felt very
strongly on this point as his firm handles multiple listings.
Mr. Musso explained the uses listed under the ID zoning, and a
Conditional Use Permit would be required for any other use not
specifically permitted in this district.
Mayor Silva suggested that the Council make a statement or policy
as to what would or would not be favorable for this area. Mayor
Silva continued that with reference to service stations, he assumed
he adopted the County plan two years ago; in the meantime, the
County has zoned some property industrial on the sout~~~;dft.ofFallon
Road, and it was his understanding a service stationAl~th~
owner's property is interested in the site and would probably be ~~~
coming in for a CUP, and as there was a station there for years the~
want to relocate as they were displaced by the freeway. This Council
went on record for no commercial at Airway Blvd and he voted for
it, but has had second thoughts for a number of reasons, one of
which is financial, as service stations are very profitable to the
landowners and a service station at this location could reduce the
City's tax rate by 2i, which would amount to about $15,000 per year,
and he would be favorable to a CUP on a gas station-motel-restaurant
complex. He did not feel it should be denied on the basis of
aesthetics.
Councilman Miller pointed out this location is next to our best
looking facility - the golf course and airport. The Council had
supported the County plan to avoid strip commercial with service
stations at every corner' approval of this use might set a precedent
for destroying a scenic highway. He appreciated the possible reduc-
tion in the tax rate but the use might do more harm in the long term.
Mayor Silva stated that there is no place for anyone to purchase
gas or a hamburger close to our planned airport-golf course complex.
Councilman Miller replied that these services could be located on
the airport property.
Councilman Pritchard said there is no guarantee that allowance of
this use would, in fact, reduce the tax rate; secondly, the Council
is being asked to grant special privilege to certain property;
thirdly, he concurred that a restaurant at this location would pre-
clude the chance of a restaurant being located at the airport.
Councilman Beebe felt that a gas station is a compatible use with
the industrial area, but was not sure this is the best location.
Councilman Taylor felt it was hard to dispute the possibility of
income to the City, but he still strongly felt there were enough
gas stations. He was against the use at this time unless he had
evidence that it would look quite different from the ordinary design.
The consensus was that the Council was not opposed to the City Mana-
ger con~acting realty firms.about development o~ this property~fqr~ .0
uses whlch would be conformlng under the ID Zonlng ~ ~ .....a..... ~
~~;r- .
* * * l~
CM-23-246 ~
October 13, 1970
CONSENT CALENDAR
A license agreement has been prepared which
grants to the Livermore AreaRecreation and Park
District license to occupy the civic center
storage building to be used by the Livermore
Cultural Arts Council and various other related organizations.
Approval of the resolution authorizing execution of this agree-
ment was continued for one week in order that the Council might
study the agreement in detail.
Agreement for Civic
Center Storage Shed
(LARPD)
*
*
*
This tract is located on the southeast corner
of Pine Street and Murrieta Blvd. and contains
fifty lots.
Tract 3206
(H.C. Elliott,Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 131-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO TRACT 3206
RESOLUTION NO. 132-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION
OF TRACT 3206
*
*
*
The following applications have been received
for exempt business licenses:
Exempt Business
Licenses
Boy Scouth Troop 902 - sale of Christmas trees from
December 1 to 26, 1970
Seventh Day Adventist Church - solicitation of funds from
November 1 to December 31, 1970
(Councilman Pritchard abstained from voting on this item)
*
*
*
Eighty-two claims in the amount of $75,029.19 Payroll and Claims
and two hundred sixty-two payroll warrants in
the amount of $77,823.68, dated October 8, 1970,
were ordered paid as approved by the City Manager.
Mayor Silva abstained from voting on Warrant 8723
for the usual reason.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor, the Consent Calendar was approved
unanimously.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
An appeal from denial by the Planning Commission APPEAL RE VARIANCE
of Variance to permit a reduction of the required DENIAL( Sihner)
frontage yard for property east of Las Flores Rd.
between Interstate 580 and Bluebell Drive has been made by
Herbert Sihner.
The Planning Director reported that this property was the model
home complex for Proud Country and was approved some time ago
in this multiple zoned area, but was to be temporary in nature.
The developer now proposes to make these four houses permanent
and incorporate them in the multiple residential complex. There-
fore he is requesting a variance to allow one of the units to
CM-23-247
October 13, 1970
(Appeal
Sihner)
remain as it now exists. The present setback is 15
feet and the required setback is 30 feet. The Plan-
ning Commission denied the request for variance.
Councilman Pritchard moved that the variance be granted with the
following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The use be for single family residence only
Office building presently on the property to be removed
Landscaping is to be maintained and/or installed at the
staff's discretion
Variance shall be for a one year term.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor, and approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
REPORTS
PUD NO. 15
(Carlton De-
velopment Co.)
Formally the discussion re PUD No. 15 (Carlton
Development Co.) is set for continuance on October
19, however the Council conceded to discussing it
at this time.
Keith Fraser, representing the applicant, stated that the problem
dates back originally approximately two months re the corrections
for PUD No. 15 - namely increase in the park dedication and extend-
ing the permit subject to the condition that the school site be re-
served for five years or until the construction of all the dwellings
in the subdivision. His clients feel that if they have to come back
and redesign the whole unit, they will be subject to the new park
ordinance and are willing to go along with the condition, but they
are objecting to the fact that the Council is proposing to extend
the permit until March 1971 and yet are requiring reservation of
the school site for a period of five years. Mr. Fraser proposed
that some lesser school reservation be imposed as he believed the
blanket reservation beyond the permit to be illegal.
Mr. Fraser continued that his clients had agreed to develop the com-
mercial area, a school and a park and want to do this, but they have
not been able to get tenants. The problem they face at this time
is that the County has advised the City that there will be a change
in the alignment of Murdell Lane; it will be moved westerly and
located somewhere through the middle of the commercial center.
Mr. Lee advised that in order to accommodate left turn lanes off
Stanley Boulevard, the County has required that Murdell Lane be re-
located 800 feet east of the subdivision. He further explained the
history leading up to the changes on Stanley Blvd. and the subsequent
relocation of Murdell Lane, in which matter the City has no choice.
Mr. Musso stated there are some alternatives - one was to split the
center and allow part of it as retail and the other part as service,
which would be gas station, restaurant, etc., and there are other
suggestions which had been offered to the developer.
The Mayor questioned why the County did not advise the City of their
decision re Murdell Lane at the time the matter was referred to them,
and Mr. Lee explained that this decision came about when the design
was completed for Stanley Blvd. in this section, and he felt it was
due, in part, to the fact that the City did not stay with their
standards.
The Council generally discussed whether an actual time limit had
been set for the reservation of the school site, and ways and means
by which they could reserve the site.
CM-23-248
October 13, 1970
Mr. Fraser stated they feel they can have the
houses built in two years and feel two years is
a reasonable restriction, but to hold the school
site for five years would be like saying they
have just condemned a school site and the school district could
pay for it when they wanted to, and they could not do this. The
applicant would be willing to agree to a two year term, or until
all the units are constructed, whichever occurs first. They were
also asking for a nine month or one year extension in order to
have time to redesign the commercial area.
(PUD No. 15
Carlton Dev. Co.)
The various alternative actions open to the Council were discussed,
including expiration of the permit. Councilman Taylor stated that
a PD is involved with a design which has not been worked out due
to a change beyond the City's control, and he felt it reasonable
to wait until a PD is presented which is acceptable.
Jack Phillips, 551 No. P street, expressed his feeling that this
area should be all zoned commercial, with the exception of the
school and park sites, as this would be a good location for a
regional type shopping center.
The public hearing on this matter was continued until October
19, 1970.
*
*
*
Discussion regarding the request for a Condi-
tional Use Permit to allow construction and use
of a multi-family residence in excess of two
story hffight at 1085 Murrieta Blvd. and for a
Variance to allow density transfer was con-
tinued from the meeting of October 5. The staff was requested to
research certain information regarding this application before a
decision was made by the Council.
CUP RE MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCES
(1085 Murrieta Blvd.
Daniel Gillice)
Mr. Parness pointed out that the main issue remalnlng is the
treatment of the channel and the responsibility for the financing
of this work.
Councilman Taylor asked the Planning Director about the park dedi-
cation fees of $6639 for 62 dwelling units which are still payable.
These fees are to be paid at the time of acceptance of the public
works improvements by the City; the delay in acceptance of the
tract is due to the Murrieta Assessment District and the tract
could not be finalized until the assessment district is finalized.
There is no problem as to the amount: it has been accepted by
the applicant.
The applicant Mr. Gillice stated he had been in touch with Zone 7
about their reimbursement program in regard to development of the
channel. This program will begin some time after the latter part
of 1971 to those who have made application; there is a long wait-
ing list; however, and it was indicated to him that any reimburse-
ment would not take place before two to three years from the date
of application. The director of this department of Zone 7 is
willing to enter into an agreement with the applicant, Mr. Gillice,
and the City, which is satisfactory to all parties to secure the
installation of the channel when it is necessary. Mr. Gillice re-
quested that the Council rule on the density transfer subject to
working out an agreement to provide for a security agreement for
the installation of the channel when and if it is necessary. This
would allow work to proceed on the site.
Councilman Miller referred to questions he had raised previously
regarding the dedication of the channel and the density transfer.
CM-23-249
October 13, 1970
(CUP and Variance In regard to the value of the land and the amount
Gillice) of channel to be dedicated, the Public Works
Director replied there are 41.9 acres shown on
the County Assessor's map and out of this 16.5
acres would be used in the channel, leaving 25.4 acres to park
acreage, less the acreage Mr. Gillice plans to sell to adjacent
properties. Mr. Lee also pointed out that some of the lots which
Mr. Gillice has indicated to be sold along the channel are in an
area that will interfere with planning the park and necessary channel
area.
Councilman Miller referred to the annexation agreement which indi-
cates that all that property in the constricted part is to be dedi-
cated for the channel. Mr. Gillice stated that the constricted por-
tion is wider than 200 feet.
It was the Council's decision to have the staff look into the details
of the annexation agreement, channel improvements and width required
for channel and report back to the Council.
Councilman Miller pointed out that there has not been discussion re-
garding park dedication, which he believed should be two acres per
hundred and should be imposed, probably, as a condition of the var-
iance as the subdivision map act no longer applied.
Mayor Silva stated that the philosophy is that if the fifty units
were not transferred but constructed on the site there would be park
dedication and the Council must make a decision regarding the density
transfer and whether the philosophy will be adopted.
Councilman Taylor said that in this particular case an 85 unit de-
velopment has already been approved with park dedication to be made
on the whole parcel, not just that part being transferred.
Discussion followed as to requirements for dedication of land for
parks regarding multiples and Councilman Miller stated that land
already zoned multiple before the ordinance went into effect is
exempt; any portion zoned multiple after the date of the ordinance that
wasa part of a larger subdivision does have to dedicate, but if
it is not part of a subdivision it does not apply.
Mr. Musso indicated that the park dedication would be about .9 acre
in this case, which could be deducted from the density transfer.
The Council agreed that park dedication would be required on the
acreage density transfer. The Council agreed that park dedication
would be required on the acreage density transfer.
Councilman Miller felt the next question to be considered was what
the density transfer would be based upon, and based upon the 25.4
acres less the park dedication times three, the number of units
involved would be about 74 to be transferred, less any sold. The
design calls for 154 units, and 80 units could be built on the site
without a transfer; this would therefore be within the allowed units
as a result of the density transfer.
Discussion then followed regarding the site plan and the question
of three stories versus four. The majority of the Council felt that
three stories would be fine; also mentioned was the lack of open
space in the site plan and the possibility of inadequate parking;
however the City is getting the benefit of the transfer of density,
the ground coverage between the street and the units; there is bound
to be more asphalt and parking space because of the increased den-
sity in the alloted space.
Councilman Taylor stated he would like to see underground parking,
and Councilman Pritchard agreed, but it was not feasible, and he
stated he would like to see more parking, but felt it could not
be done without blacktopping the court, so he was willing to accept
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
CM-23-250
October 13, 1970
Councilman Miller commented that he did not agree
that the open space was similar to other apart-
ments; the density was too high and suggested
underground or semi-underground parking facilities
to satisfy the existing standards for open space.
(CUP-Variance,
Gillice)
Mr. Gillice stated if this was done it would remove all the green
area from the courtyards and patios on the ground floor as it
would all go into asphalt - the net result would be less green area.
Councilman Miller stated they should decide on the wording for
variances and Conditional Use Permits before they made a final
decision - they might agree in principle to what has been pre-
sented, but without approving anything specific until all the
details are worked out, and give the staff an opportunity to
reflect on the conditions, and have them draw up the necessary
documents. They may want to condition the Conditional Use Permit
if they cannot work it out on the Variance.
Mr. Musso explained that they had amended the Variance, but there
were no changes on the Conditional Use Permit, and he explained these.
Councilman Taylor made a motion with regard to the Conditional
Use Permit only, for approval of the Planning Commission's re-
commendation, and this was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
passed unanimously.
After some discussion with the applicant relative to the Variance
and how it would affect the project, Mr. Gillice stated he did
not have a project until the Variance was approved.
Councilman Miller made a motion that they direct the staff to
prepare the text of the Variance for Council approval in one
week, seconded by Councilman Pritchard and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A rezoning application has been submitted by
James Viso, Trustee for H. & R. Weisel, from
RS-3 to RG-IO District of property located on
the north side of Interstate 580, between Blue-
bell Drive and Central Avenue, and it is re-
commended that this matter be set for public hearing,
Council agreed that it should be set for hearing with
given permission to set the date when feasible.
REPORT RE REZONING
APPLICATION
(James Viso)
and the
the Clerk
*
*
*
Planning Director George Musso explained Par-
cel Map No. 643 to be a subdivision of one of
the multiple residential sites which was
created in the Wagoner Farms area of property
located on the north side of Norma Way between
Martha street and Charlotte Way. The Christopher Land Co. is
asking for a subdivision for multi-residential use. Mr. Musso
stated there will be no problem with the design on the lots, but
there are a few conditions relative to fencing to the rear where
there is no fence, and some public works improvement requirements.
REPORT RE PARCEL
MAP NO. 643
(Christopher Land)
Councilman Miller stated that this is an 8-1ot parcel map and
parcel maps are for four lots or less. The Council questioned
why a parcel map had been submitted rather than a subdivision
map. Mr. Musso explained that there is an exception and that
is a parcel map may be filed for more than four lots when the
public improvements are not required to be in. The difference
between a parcel and subdivision map is that on a parcel map,
once the tentative is approved the developer files the final and
it is presumed that all the improvements are in and they do not
have to go through the lengthy final map procedure.
CM-23-251
October 13, 1970
(Parcel Map
No. 643)
Councilman Miller reminded the Planning Director
that, in this case, all the public works improve-
ments are not in and there is no agreement to gua-
rantee the work, and the Council felt they should
opinion before making a decision.
have a legal
Mr. Earl Mason, representing the applicant, explained the procedure
for filing a parcel map, stating this had been done previously on
the other side of Norma Way. Originally, it was one lot of a sub-
division, then it was by parcel map or at one time done by record
of survey, explaining that when you have a recorded parcel you
can split it where you have legal boundaries already recorded,
without having to file a subdivision map. All it does is estab-
lish legal outlines for duplexes on this side of the PUD.
Mayor Silva stated the Council's main concern was other require-
ments that might be imposed if it was a subdivision map; however,
Mr. Musso stated there would be no additional requirements on this
particular map.
Councilman Miller again stressed the fact that they are not sure
about parcel maps vs. subdivision maps, and felt they should have
some advice from the City Attorney who was not present at this
meeting.
Mr. Mason stated this property was zoned in the PUD for duplexes;
in fact, the Council required that the duplexes be placed there,
where the owner had actually requested apartments and wanted to
delete this portion of the street. All the parcel map does is es-
tablish the legal boundaries for duplex lots.
Mr. Lee explained that the parcel map is pretty straightforward;
the problem is that there are two parcel maps, one on top of the
other which is a bit irregular, and there should have been a sub-
division tract map in the first instance.
Councilman Pritchard asked for a recommendation from the Director
of Planning, and Mr. Musso stated it was a proper parcel map and
could be approved. He felt that Councilman Miller and Mr. Lee
were talking on a matter of principle, in that it was irregular,
and he had felt they would come in with a subdivision map which
would have been the proper procedure, but as far as the parcel
map is concerned, everything is proper.
Councilman Taylor stated that there was no problem with reference
to the park dedication, and asked assurance from Mr. Lee with ref-
erence to the public works improvements, and Mr. Lee stated except
for minor items, the public works improvements are in.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve Parcel Map No. 643 as
recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and it passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilman Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
Planning Director George Musso explained the
County referral of a rezoning application sub-
mitted by Vern E. Bergman to reclassify from A
District to H-l District a site located at 5940
Northfront Road (Approximately two acres), which
had been presented to the Council once before.
At that time the Council agreed to one configuration, but did not
agree to the type of zoning requested, indicating it should be a
highway commercial zoning and perhaps trailer storage should be a
permitted use.
COUNTY
REFERRAL RE
REZONING
(Bergman-
5940 Northfront)
CM-23-252
October 13, 1970
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded (Rezoning -Bergman)
by Councilman Miller, to approve the Planning
Commission's recommendation for conditional
approval of Highway Commercial zoning, and it
was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by Mr. Musso on the
County referral re Conditional Use Permit appli-
cation submitted by K. R. Hilke and Robert Hol-
land to permit a wholesale nursery for cultiva-
tion of mushrooms at 2963 Rodeo Lane. Mr. Musso
explained that the Planning Commission felt that by the construction
of the buildings, etc., it is an industrial use rather than agri-
cultural and recommend denial.
COUNTY REFERRAL
RE CUP (2963 Rodeo
Lane - K.R. Hilke)
Mr. Roy stuart of stuart and Associates, representing the applicant
stated that there has been some question about the construction of
buildings on the property. There are only two buildings planned,
one approx. 200 x 50 by 14 feet high which is necessary to culti-
vate the mushrooms indoors. He explained there would be ten walls
to separate the various rooms and another 16 x 16 ft. building.
If this is classified as industrial, Mr. stuart continued, then
you would also have to classify a dairy farm, chicken ranch, even
the growing of wheat where they use silos, as industrial or any-
thing that purports to agricultural that uses outbuildings. He
stated that the County referred this to the City only because it
is near the City Limits; it is zoned R-l at present, and is ac-
tuallya part of a farm where there is a house and barns. The
property is contiguous to the rodeo grounds and vineyards.
The Council discussed whether or not the use would actually be
industrial or commercial, and what the General Plan is for this
particular area, and Councilman Taylor remarked that there was
not much possibility of someone developing the parcel adjacent
to this as a subdivision, unless it was multiple or a trailer
park. He felt in this case it was marginal in his mind and the only
drawback might be the property next door as the owner might con-
sider this industrial and use it as a grounds for requesting multiple.
On the other hand, he felt this use was better than single family
residential, and recommended approval, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and the motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Pritchard
Councilman Miller and Mayor Silva
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the Planning Com-
mission meeting of October 6 was presented to
the Council.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
BY PLANNING COMM.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE CHANGE~
ORDINANCE NO. 722 IN PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTION FEES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.5, RELATING TO
INSPECTION FEES FOR REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS,
OF CHAPTER 2, RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OF THE
LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
vote, the above ordinance was passed.
AYES:
COUNCILMEN Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Silva
NOES:
None
CM-23-253
October 13, 1970
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
PARK LAND
DEDICATION
Mayor Silva was absent when the proposed ordinance
re park land dedication was discussed and questioned
the portion relative to the areato be dedicated,
and it was explained that it was designed for the
protection of the City. Mayor Silva, however, did
not feel that the developer should be required to
dedicate land which was more valuable than the land in the subdivi-
sion. Mayor Silva also referred to a paragraph which indicated the
subdivider has the option of donating park property or in lieu fees,
and questioned if this should be so stated if the choice is the
City's.
Mayor Silva brought up one other point where dedication is required -
it shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the
map act; where fees are required the same shall be deposited with
the City prior to approval of final tract map. He felt that fees
should be required at the time of issuance of the building permit,
and Councilman Beebe agreed with this as he had tried to stress this
point previously.
Mr. Parness explained there are points on each side of the question,
but some of the problems encountered in the past indicated the build-
ers do not have the financing available at the time they submit their
tract map. They do have financing ready at the time they request a
building permit and are willing to pay the fees at this time. In
contrast, the builders might not come in for building permits for
five years and yet the City might still have the responsibility to
develop a park.
Mayor Silva felt if this requirement is put into effect, then the
annexation agreement should be changed to require the annexation
fees to be paid at the time of annexation. Councilman Pritchard
agreed that it might be unreasonable to require the builders to put
up money they might not have available.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that when a developer comes in with
a map he makes a serious commitment and p'arks should be guaranteed
as public works improvements are. The ordinance 8S written protects
the public and the only reason for requiring the fee at building
permit time is to make it easier for the develope~~.~~.h~r~t/.~:~/F . J
tll~ p1Lbli( CT/\.d/veL" r~
Councilman Miller felt there were good reasons to ask for payment
of fees at the time of the final map because this is the one time
when the developer is asking for something and is willing to pay.
The City would be properly protected. If the fees come in at one
time, the City can buy the property.
Mayor Silva made a motion to change Item 3, page 5, second sentence,
to read, llWhere fees are required the same shall be deposited with
the City after the approval of the final tract map on issuance of
building permit.ll
Councilman Pritchard pointed out it is much easier for a builder
to dedicate land than it is to pay park fees when he may not have
the money and seconded the motion. It was approved by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
In regard to dedication of land for parks, Mr. Parness stated it is
easier to get the property deeded without failure because it is
specified on the final tract map and there is no deed to be trans-
ferred; it is not as much a financial limitation as payment of fees.
The Council discussed that portion of the ordinance which concerned
credit for fees by reason of the annexation agreement. Councilman
CM-23-254
Miller explained that if property has been dedi-
cated as part of the annexation fee, then credit
is given for the parkland requirement.
October 13, 1970
(Park Land
Dedication)
Mayor Silva asked about that portion which states that at the
time of approval of the final map the City shall specify when
the development of the park or recreational facilities will begin.
Councilman Miller stated that a policy has been discussed which
goes along with the annexation agreement that it would be two
years or five hundred houses in the planning unit, whichever is
later. After discussion it was decided that development of the
park or recreational facilities would be at the sole option of
the City Council.
Councilman Miller felt that since payment of fees has been de-
ferred, the fees when paid should be at the rate applicable at
the time the building permit is issued. Therefore, he made a
motion to change Sec. 29.69.7, page 6, 4th line from the top to
read "and issuance of a building permit, the in-lieu fee shall be
based on the provisions of this Division in effect at the time
of the issuance of building permits." The motion was seconded
by Councilman Taylor and passed unanimously.
Due to the changes made in the text of the ordinance, a motion
was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Taylor, and
approved unanimously to reintroduce the ordinance amending Divi-
sion 5, relating to provision for neighborhood parks, and the
first reading waived.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
ORDINANCE NO. 723 llpORTOLA AVENUE
DEANNEXATIONf1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE EXCLUDING
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY COMMONLY DESCRIBED
AS II PORTOLA AVENUE DEANNEXATIONf1 FROM THE CITY
OF LIVERMORE.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the above ordinance was waived and the
ordinance was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Silva
NOES:
None
*
*
*
Mr. Parness reported he had spent most of the
day at the BART Administration Committee meet-
ing, which is the committee that designs policy
statements for adoption. He read a portion of
the statement which had been prepared and adopted by the committee
regarding future extension of BART service, and which indicates
the Livermore-Pleasanton area to be one of three areas to be given
first priority for rail extensions. The Board has directed the
staff to investigate cost of engineering for these three rail
extensions and that the acquisition of rights-of-way begin at
once and shall proceed to the extent that funds are available.
MATTERS INITIATED
(BART)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard referred to debate the
previous week by the Council at which time
Holiday Inn's request for a larger sign was
denied. He pointed out that the sign at the
City's golf course is over 100 feet in excess
Mr. Musso advised the City's sign was erected
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Signing)
of the City's ordinance.
in conformance with
CM-23-255
October 13, 1970
(Signing)
the old ordinance and Councilman Pritchard inquired
if it was planned to abate the sign as it does not
conform to our present ordinance. He felt that if
businesses were going to be denied variance for
larger signs, then the City should set the example and conform to
the sign ordinance.
The Council requested the staff to check into the matter and re-
port back to the Council re this sign.
Mayor Silva expressed his feeling that although he voted against
the Holiday Inn variance for a larger sign he did feel it was ridi-
culous to deny the request; but he felt he must do so or it would
have to be allowed for all other uses in the area. He wished to
explore an amendment to allow a larger sign based on units in a motel.
Councilman Pritchard stated he liked the City's sign at the golf
course and would hate to see it come down, but mentioned this to
make a point about signing in general.
(Parking of
Trucks at
Service
Stations)
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard inquired about the parking of
trucks at service stations and whether the use would
be abated.
Mr. Musso stated some of the stations were allowed
this use while others were not so zoned. It will take some time
to check into all such uses and abate those which are not allowed.
*
*
*
(Agenda Change) Councilman Pritchard stated he would like to see the
section of matters initiated by the Council moved to
the earlier part of the agenda. Others felt this
would delay matters on the agenda too long. As an alternative he
suggested that Councilman Beebe's suggestion regarding alternate
study sessions and Council meetings be considered. Discussion fol-
lowed regarding this idea, but no decision was reached.
(Request for
Text-PUD No. 15)
(Ecology)
(Arroyo
Parkways)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller asked that the text of the Carl-
ton permit be presented at the next meeting with
the changes as made by the Council included on
page 103 of the minutes.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt it would be interesting to
have the text of an address by former Councilman Mike
Uthe concerning ecology circulated.
*
*
*
A letter stating the recommendations of the Planning
Commission relative to the Arroyo Parkways were
brought to the attention of the Council. Mr. Musso
said this matter must be worked out with the staff
and the Council and thought the matter should be put on the agenda
at a later date. It was pointed out that before further commit-
ments are made to allow development adjacent to the arroyos a study
should be made.
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-256
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting adjourned at 1:35 a.m.
to an adjourned meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
October 14, 1970, at the Rincon Fire Station
to hear a presentation by the staff on Capi-
tal Improv ments Projects.
October 13, 1970
(Adjournment)
ATTEST
*
*
APPROVE
*
*
*
Regular Meeting Of October 19, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Monday,
October 19, 1970 in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South
Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called to order by
Mayor Silva at 8:08 p.m.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Mr. Walt Petry, 2332 Shetland Road, spoke re-
garding property adjacent to his home in Proud
Country. This property has been subdivided;
there are curbs but the streets are unpaved
and the area has been used to park, drag race, etc. He felt if the
lights were turned on it might help to eliminate these problems.
OPEN FORUM
(Proud Country)
Mr. Lee advised he would check into this matter and possibly barri-
cades could be erected until the developer begins construction.
*
*
*
Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, vice president
of the Livermore Improvement Association, intro-
duced to the Council this new organization which
desires to preserve the spacious residential
character of the City. It is open to all members of the City of
Livermore, and Mr. Johnson invited the Council to attend their
meeting on October 21st at Rincon School. He also read a peti-
tion which the organization had circulated regarding mobile homes,
signed by 678 people, and asked that the Council consider it in
conjunction with the report from the Planning Commission re Con-
ditional Use Permit of Intermark Investing, Inc. for a mobilehome
park.
(Livermore Improve-
ment Association)
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, advised the (Signs)
Council that he was supporting the school bond
issue, and because it was big news as far as he
was concerned, he had erected a 32 sq. ft. sign which is actually
four times oversize in direct violation of the sign ordinance which
he believed to be unfair. He also felt that an emergency sign
ordinance for political signs was unnecessary; he made it a point
that the City should take steps to repeal the ordinance or he would
take the matter to court.
CM-23-257
October 19, 1970
(Endorsement
School Bonds)
Robert Allen 223 Donner, suggested that in the future
when the Council considers something such as the en-
dorsement of the school bond, that it not be done
unless it is on the agenda as he felt it was an
erroneous decision.
*
*
*
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
RE PUD NO. 15
(Carlton Dev.
Company)
The hearing re PUD No. 15 (Carlton Development Co.)
property located generally at the southeast inter-
section of Stanley Boulevard and Isabel Avenue was
discussed at the meeting of October 13, but any
resolution had to be continued to this date since
the public hearing was thus set.
Mayor Silva asked if there was anyone in the audience who had signed
the petition re PUD No. 15, and Mr. Clyde Taylor, 628 Zircon Way,
president of the Carlton Square Community Association, advised he
had and he was asked to act as spokesman for the group.
Mayor Silva asked to have the petition clarified as he felt there
might be some misunderstanding as the petition was requesting that
the Council require the developer to complete all amenities as pro-
mised, i.e. the school, park and shopping center. Mayor Silva ad-
vised that the developer was present to request an extension of the
PUD to allow him to do this, but the petition indicates the associa-
tion is against the application of the developer.
Mr. Taylor explained that the association was against the application
being discussed by the Council, principally because they have not
been notified officially, and feel they should know first if action
is to be taken in their community.
Miss Dorothy Hock, City Clerk, advised that everyone was notified
approximately four months ago, and this was a continuation of that
public hearing, and Mayor Silva explained it would be a very difficult
task to advise all concerned each time.
Mr. Taylor explained since the association was not aware of what was
really being discussed that was probably the reason the petition was
not worded correctly.
Planning Director George Musso explained the issue involved in the
Planned Unit Development No. 15. In June a request for extension of
the PUD was received by the Planning Commission who recommended an
extension of the permit as designed with the residential development,
school, park and shopping center: there were some minor modifications
as far as regulations to the use. Subsequently, the County demanded
a change in alignment of Murdell Lane, which is presently the access
road to the major part of the Carlton Square Development. Mr. Musso
referred to the map stating that the County has requested that Mur-
dell Lane be moved 830 feet from the existing subdivision on Elvira
Street, and the change will necessitate a redesign of the development.
It will not affect the existence of a school or park in the area,
but it will affect the design of the shopping center.
Mr. Musso continued that subsequent to the request for realignment,
the Planning Department made up drawings of potential redesigns and
presented these to the developer for consideration. Mr. Musso ad-
vised that the redesign of the subdivision cannot be the issue at
this time as this would take several months, but the issue is whether
or not the permit is to be extended, and the primary C8ncern of
the Council are the conditions applicable to the school. Originally,
the permit stated that prior to final subdivision map, the School
District had the option of buying the school site. Now, we are talk-
ing about an alternative to extend right of the School District to
buy the school site for as long as five years or at time of comple-
tion of the subdivision, whichever is later.
CM-23-258
October 19, 1970
The Council discussed whether or not it would be (PUD No. 15)
possible to reserve the school site if the PUD
is not extended and the land reverted back to
its original zoning. If the zoning reverts to PD zoning the status
of the school would be the same; the school district would still
have to purchase the site to reserve it. No specific use would
be authorized under the PD zoning. If the PUD is extended, the
developer would have to come in with a tract map for approval if
they subdivide the land: if there is no subdivision but the land
is segregated into parcels then the Council would be presented a
parcel map for action: if neither of these is done and there is
a precise plan and design they could proceed without further ap-
proval according to PUD regulations. Thus, it is likely there
will have to be some further approval by the Council.
At this point the public hearing was opened by Mayor Silva.
Keith Fraser, representing Carlton Development Co., pointed out
that this request had been before the City for four months, and
the Planning Commission recommended the permit be extended until
March 1971 for commencement and one year for completion. The
issue during the past four months had centered around the addi-
tional park dedication and reservation for five years of the
school site. Mr. Fraser said the park dedication had been agreed
upon, and his client would put up sufficient security to agree
to complete Murdell Lane to its ultimate standards within three
years and was willing to reserve the school site for two years.
His client felt that reservation of the school site for five years
would be unfair: forcing reservation of the school site is like
the Council condemning the site without the school district having
to take any action. More would be done by the School District,
the developer and others if the period of reservation was shorteL
The matter of the shopping center would have to be resolved and
this would take some time and the extension was needed.
Courtney Minehard, 524 Leona Drive, asked what would happen to
the school site after the two year reservation period. He was
informed that a request could be submitted at that time for other
development. He felt the land for the school, park and shopping
center should be reserved for such uses in some way, and was ad-
vised this was what the Council was striving for.
Bud Bain, 469 Anna Maria, said he felt that most of the original
petitioners still desired the larger shopping center rather than
a smaller one.
Jack Phillips, 551 North P Street, restated his feeling that this
was the last chance for Livermore to have a regional type shopping
center. Also he felt the PUD should be extended for the same per-
iod of time as the school site reservation.
Clyde Taylor, 628 Zircon Way, read a petition asking that the
park, school and shopping center be provided in accordance with
statements made in the past by the developer to prospective home-
owners.
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler Ave. and Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol
Court supported the five year reservation period.
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
the public hearing was closed by unanimous vote.
Councilman Beebe suggested that the permit be extended until 1973
on condition that all of these streets and improvements be in
at that date and in this way try to achieve the park, school and
shopping center desired. However, Mr. Musso pointed out that
80 to 90% of the permits issued are never developed.
CM-23-259
--_.,~.,._...',...._.,...._"...-,,_.__._.,....-~.,._._---_.---....-,..<>'- .
October 19, 1970
(PUD NO. 15) Mr. Fraser stated again that the developer is will-
ing to agree to a two year reservation period for
the school site even though they are asking for
only a one year extension of the permit. Discussion followed re-
garding the period for reservation. Councilman Miller felt the
permit should be denied if the developer would not agree to the
five year period.
Councilman Taylor asked the City Attorney whether there is a way
the City can require the reservation of the school site outside of
executing the contract. Mr. Lewis said he did not view this permit
as a contract, but he had recommended to the Council that the pro-
visions for the school and the park be consented to by the developer.
If he did not, the safest legal course of action for the City was
to exercise the power to deny the permit.
Councilman Taylor said there is no alternate school site available
and for this reason it is so necessary. If this permit is allowed
to expire, the Council would have to consider other possible designs
for development and the one before them has been considered for
some time. He felt that expiration would only delay development
and that the offer of the developer was reasonable.
Councilman Pritchard stated he supported AB 1271; but so far it has
not been passed. The Council should support the law; asking the
developer to hold this land for five years would be asking him to
dedicate this land for that period, and he did not feel they could
legally do that.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve extension of PUD No. 15
as recommended by the Planning Commission, to March 2, 1971, for
commencement of development and completion by March 2, 1972~ that
the text of the extension to be included on the Consent Calendar
at the meeting of November 2, with the following provisions: school
reservation for two years from October 19, 1970 or until the last
house is built; assurance of construction of Murdell Lane in accord-
ance with County requirements by posting of bond and/or dedication
of right-of-way; the two to one park dedication; and agreement that
no maps will be filed in this PUD until the redesign of Murdell Lane
is completed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Councilman Miller noted that Item 6 (a) should read "all commercial
development", and that Item A.l will have to be revised as to date.
The motion was voted on and passed unanimously.
Mayor Silva explained the action taken to Mr. Taylor and the audience.
Mr. Taylor stated he understood the Council's position that they could
not force development of the school and shopping center, but felt
the developer should act in good faith.
* * *
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS
PRESENT.
*
*
*
CUP RE MOBILE
HOME PARK
(Intermark
Investing,Inc.)
At the City Council meeting of August 24, the pub-
lic hearing on the request for a Conditional Use
Permit by Intermark Investing, Inc. for a mobile
home park was held. At that time the public hearing
was closed, but a formal decision was postponed
to this date to allow additional staff research
and gathering of information from other cities in
regard to mobile home parks.
Mayor Silva stated that after serious consideration of figures re-
garding taxes paid by mobile homes, he had not been able to reach a
conclusion as each report was based on different catagories not
CM-23-260
Octobe 19, 1970
definitely supported. He felt mobile homes are
a necessary part of any balanced community; he
did not want wholesale approval but hoped the
percentage would be kept low; also, the density
of the land being requested for mobile homes should be
If mobile homes are allowed he wanted to have the best
for approval of the parks set forth.
(CUP-Intermark
Investing, Inc.)
considered.
conditions
Councilman Miller asked Mayor Silva if it could be proved that
mobile homes do not pay their share of taxes, would he change
his mind. Mayor Silva replied that taxes are based on valuation
of the home and not occupancy, and are not equal.
Councilman Taylor stated he felt there is a place in Livermore
for mobile home parks, but not for general housing. Mobile home
parks have a place because some people prefer this method of
living; it is a place for people with low incomes to live and
avoid the burden of today's high taxes. The most important factor
about mobile homes is that they do not pay property taxes but pay
in lieu vehicle tax; any mobile home park owner pays far less
property tax than for a single family home. If mobile home parkp
are allowed, he suggested no more than 4% be allowed. Also he
was opposed to allowing large mobile home parks in Livermore until
the tax structure is changed. At this time he did not think mobile
home parks should be allowed in Livermore.
Councilman Pritchard stated that taxes will never be equitable;
he did agree with the fact that some change in tax structure should
be made or that mobile homes be permanent and recognized as fac-
tory housing. He did feel there were places suitable for mobile
home parks, but that such permits should be limited and conditions
set forth.
Councilman Beebe spoke about comments made that many cities pro-
hibit trailer parks completely; yet the survey indicated all the
cities did accept trailer parks as such. He felt it would be a
calamity if mobile home parks were allowed without restrictions
in Livermore, but adult communities could be allowed without being
a drain on the community. He suggested 5%, including our existing
spaces, be allowed for mobile home parks, certified to be adult,
five star parks with long term bonds to guarantee this status.
The first occupants should be required to have trailers less than
one year old and homes that are sold to be removed from the pre-
mises and replaced by homes less than one year old. New mobile
home parks should be freeway oriented: if located in an industrial
zone, a time limit of twenty years should be set.
Councilman Miller stated that the underlying issues are cooper-
ation with other jurisdictions and the businesslike operation
of the City. He felt there were two reasons to deny mobile homes:
1) the foundations do not count for schools, and 2) they do not
pay their fair share of taxes. Either one of these reasons is
adequate to disallow mobile home parks. Councilman Miller be-
lieved it to be in the public interest to prohibit all trailer
parks in Livermore until the state laws are changed in regard to
taxes and until foundations are counted for schools, or until the
wheels are removed, and then the number should be limited to 3%.
Mayor Silva stated that the consensus of the Council seemed to
be that mobile home parks will be allowed in a small percentage
with highly restrictive conditions within the General Plan densities.
Mr. Lewis advised that if this was the consensus of the Council
they should agree soon on the percentage and guidelines to be
used in order that this could be included in the General Plan.
Some consideration should be given to areas in our Zoning Ordinance
where these permits will be granted.
CM-23-261
H....'O'..._.^.."_..,~.._.._,.....~..,..~~----_.__.._.._'.,~.._.-"....-
October 19, 1970
(CUP-Intermark After further discussion on the various points
Investing,Inc.) brought up by each of the Councilmen, and the
guidelines to be used, a motion was made by Coun-
cilman Miller to refer back to the Planning Com-
mission any new site plan submitted by Intermark, however the mo-
tion died for lack of a second.
David Madis, representing the applicant, said that the location is
one that has been recommended for a trailer park; it is presently
zoned for apartments at 10 d.u./acre; the applicant is requesting
a density of 8.2 d.u./acre with 138 trailer spaces on the property.
The primary access would be to Las Flores Road with secondary access
to be provided by them to the rear of the property. As to the
amenities located in the center of the plan, they wished to reserve
the right to modify this subject to staff approval and if there
should be major changes in the amenities, such changes would be re-
ferred to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Taylor questioned whether the site plan prepared by the
City and used as the basis for consideration would be feasible. Mr.
Madis stated that at the present time the applicant felt that, al-
though the costs would be higher, they were agreeable to work out
this design.
Mayor Silva felt that the application could not be approved without a
definite site plan, but the intent could be indicated conditioned upon
approval of a site plan, and asked for the City Attorney's opinion in
this matter.
Mr. Lewis suggested that if the Council thought the basic use was
permissible, then one of the conditions of the use permit could be
that the site plan be brought in for approval within a certain period
from the time of approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and if the
plan is not brought in within that time limit, the permit would be
void.
Councilman Miller stated the use had been denied twice and the Plan-
ning Commission recommended denial. In particular, pUblic testimony
was opposed to this use. He made a motion to adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation for denial, and this was seconded by
Councilman Taylor.
Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, expressed his oplnlon that a substan-
tial portion of the citizens did not want a trailer park.
Stephen Killiany, 888 Curlew Road, said that the facts were not clear
in this case and felt a decision should be delayed until a definite
delineation could be made.
Val Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth, asked if there could be a citizens
committee appointed to check the figures and make a report regarding
mobile homes before a decision is made.
Paul Perry, 2332 Shetland Road, spoke in regard to a petition which
had been signed by residents of Proud Country for denial of the awli-
cation. He did not wish to see taxes raised because of mobile homes.
Mrs. Paul Stroud, 5218 Iris Way, inquired about the staff recommen-
dation on this matter. Mr. Musso replied that the staff recommenda-
tion was that the Planning Commission take pUblic testimony; if it
is approved, the approval should be with conditions as noted, and
recommended a change in Exhibit "B". The Planning Commission, not
the staff, had recommended denial.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., stated that mobile homes would pay
more toward taxes and upkeep than public housing, and the community
has agreed to subsidize public housing.
Clarence Hoeing, 588 Tyler Avenue, was encouraged to hear comments
re density, general plan and quality desired and questioned if re-
strictions mentioned would be imposed if the mobile homes are approved.
CM-23-262
A vote was then taken and the motion for denial
of the application failed to pass by the follow-
ing vote:
October 19, 1970
(CUP-Intermark
Investing,Inc. )
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
After discussion regarding the best manner in which to show the
Council's intent and to include the conditions discussed re the
CUP, a motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe, to adopt a resolution of intent to allow a mobile home
park on this site, that the matter be referred back to the Plan-
ning Commission for site plan approval and to continue the appli-
cation of the CUP for approval of the site plan by the Planning
Commission within 180 days.
Ken Johnson, 556 Bristol Court, suggested that the Council require
that the wheels be taken off the mobile homes as a condition of
approval. The City Attorney advised that the State law pre-empts
the field of mobile homes in regard to construction, etc. If the
wheels are removed, it becomes a fixture; then they must conform
to the building code. The City Attorney was requested to explore
this point.
The motion to adopt a resolution of intent to allow a mobile home
park at this site was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
*
*
*
As requested by the Council at the meeting of
October 13, the text of the variance to per-
mit increase in density at 1085 Murrieta Blvd.
as requested by Daniel Gillice had been pre-
pared by the Planning Director and submitted
to the Council for approval at this time.
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
(1085 Murrieta Blvd.
Dan Gillice)
Mayor Silva asked the applicant Mr. Gillice if he had examined the
text of the variance as presented, and Mr. Gillice replied that he
had looked at it. When asked if he agreed with it, Mr. Gillice
stated it was still being studied. Mayor Silva asked if he wanted
to have this item continued, Mr. Gillice replied he generally
agreed but that he had asked that the Council approve the variance
subject to the agreement being worked out with the various agencies
such as Zone 7, the City and the applicant; whether or not he
agreed with every paragraph in that agreement can be determined
later.
Mr. Musso advised the agreement was not submitted for approval
at this time, only the variance which was approved tentatively
the week before subject to review of the text by the Council.
Mr. Lewis added that the draft included in the agenda packet was
just a preliminary draft for information purposes only at this time.
Councilman Miller spoke in regard to Exhibit "B" which shows the
area to be dedicated and the lots which Mr. Gillice proposes to
sell. The staff advised a formal Exhibit "B" map will be pre-
pared and attached to the contract in its final form. If the
draft of the variance as presented is approved, then the document
will be prepared in accordance with the variance. Councilman
Miller felt this could not be as it must first be decided if the
property remaining after lots are sold by Mr. Gillice is valuable
to the City as the trailway for the park could be lost, and he
pointed out on the map certain parcels which he felt should be
dedicated to the City.
CM-23-263
."'''",'~''''''+'"._'''.._'.'''_W__'______'____.'_'.'''_.__''.u ~
October 19, 1970
(Veriance -
Gillice)
The Public Works Director stated that the parcels do
project into the constricted part of the channel.
It is true that the channel does go outside of the
parcel that he can dedicate. He felt that the par-
cels indicated will interfere with the proper development of the
riding and bicycle paths and trails. Since the design has not yet
been worked out, it is not known what restrictions will be placed
on the design of the area. Discussion followed regarding wording
in the variance indicating which lots can be sold to protect the
channel design. Mr. Lee felt that if the variance were approved
with the condition that all the areas dedicated for channel purposes
be so indicated, then the City would be protected. When the design
is worked out, it can be determined which lots can be sold without
jeopardizing the design.
Mr. Lewis suggested that the property be required to be dedicated
within a certain time or prior to start of construction and the
area to be dedicated will be generally shown in Exhibit flBfl with
the exception of such properties as the Council may permit to be
sold prior to dedication.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to approve the variance with the
exception of Item A.4 the condition be added, If Prior to issuance
of a Building Permit the owner may be allowed to sell certain se-
lected properties which are not deemed to be essential to public
use of the dedicated portion, subject to staff approval. fl The
motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller felt resolution of which properties are to be sold
should be within 30, 60 to 90 day period. Councilman Taylor stated
that before this could be done, the whole design of the channel
would have to be made and this would take more than 60 to 90 days.
Councilman Miller raised the question of the formula to be used
for computing the units to be transferred; the formula should in-
clude the sales to be made. He suggested an algebraic formula.
The motion to approve the variance with the condition as stated
above was approved by the fOllowing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
*
*
*
CUP RE GOLF
COURSE AND
GOLF SHOP
(2)
Councilman Pritchard stated he lived within 300 feet
of one of the uses for which a Conditional Use Permit
application had been made; therefore, he abstained
from discussion on these items.
Planning Director George Musso explained that the matters before
the Council are renewal of the permit for the original clubhouse
site on Bluebell Drive, which was approved by the Planning Commis-
sion as it had been originally except for additional public works
requirements. The main issue was centered around the temporary
facility on Primrose Lane.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor, to
approve the Conditional Use Permit renewal for the proposed club
house and golf course on Bluebell Drive. The Planning Commission's
recommendation was for approval for a period of three years.
The motion for approval of the CUP to allow the clubhouse and golf
course passed by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
CM-23-264
October 19, 1970
Mr. Musso explained that a request for a Condi- (CUP-Golf Shop)
tional Use Permit has been made for a golf shop
at 4875 Primrose Lane. The use was in existence
at this location without knowledge of the staff until the Spring-
town Community Center was turned over to the residents of Spring-
town. A permit is now being requested. There have been some
complaints about the use and the Planning Commission concluded
that the use should not be extended for an indefinite time and
recommended a one year term.
The applicant stated the proposed clubhouse would probably be
built as soon as title is cleared to the land, which will be at
least six months.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, stated he had a list of the deed
restrictions on this property, which states that no lot shall
be used except for residential purposes.
Mr. Lewis, the City Attorney, advised that the Council could not
issue any permit that would affect the rights of the homeowners
association. If there is a commercial operation in a residence
in opposition or violation to this covenant, it can be enforced
legally regardless of any action by the City, but not through
the City.
Mrs. Esther Loomis, 4863 Primrose Lane, stated she lived next
door to the pro shop, and a one year extension would be agree-
able to her.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow
the golf shop (existing) for one year. Mayor Silva made a mo-
tion to amend the main motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
emphasize that the permit be extended for one year only. The
motion and amendment were approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Tpylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
A Conditional Use Permit application was sub-
mitted by Damon L. Canfield (Joe's Texaco) to
allow operation of an auto rental agency and
auto storage in a neighborhood shopping center
at 4186 East Avenue.
CUP-JOErs TEXACO
(4186 E. Ave.)
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote, the Council approved the recommendation of the
Planning Commission subject to all conditions as outlined in their
Resolution No. 29-70.
*
*
*
An application f~r rezoning has been submitted
by Josephine P. Tompkins for a site on the
southwest corner of Hillcrest Avenue and East
Avenue from RL-6 to RG-16 District.
REPORT RE REZONING
(SW Corner Hillcresi
and East Avenues)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and passed unanimously, to set the matter for public
hearing on November 9.
*
*
*
A report from the Planning Director re reevalua-
tion of arroyo parkways was continued for two
weeks.
REPORT RE REEVALUA-
TION ARROYO PARKWAY,
CM-23-265
. __~_.. .~,+.._" _>_.___._._^' _,_ . '.,.. ,__"_'O"__'~__ ..__.._.~._...."
October 19, 1970
PROPOSED ORDI-
NANCE RE LOT
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS,
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
AYES:
NOES:
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, and by the following vote, the reading
of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and
the ordinance amending subsections 20.34, 20.44,
20.45, 20.60, 20.61, 20.62~ 20.63, 20.64 and 20.65
of Section 20.00 re General Provisions and repeal-
ing Sec. 20.52 re frontages of Div. 1 of Article IV
re standards and design was introduced:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
PARK LAND ORDINANCE NO. 724
DEDICATION
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING DIVISION 5,
RELATING TO PROVISION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, OF ARTICLE
IV, RELATING TO STANDARDS AND DESIGN, OF CHAPTER 20, RELAT-
ING TO SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the followin~
vote the above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Tav10~
None
d by Coun-
econde as
Beebe, s dinance w
f councilman. a of the or ollowing
O motion 0 the readlno d by the f fees
n Miller, lY) an 8 4 re
ci~ma~ (title read o~mending sec:nt~oduced and
walve ordinance .city waS l
vote, the 8 re Electrl
f Chapter d Mayor
o M'ller an
filed: pritchard, l Silva
Taylor,
Beebe,
councilmen
.~~})t(~
~ b~l~WcE RE
FEES -
ELECTRICITY
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEN'r:
_v-..;lIlent re
None -~Sloeptember
None L _.~ vlllent - September
Llbrary - quarterly - July/September
Police and Pound Departments - September
Water Reclamation Plant - September
Mayor Silva pointed out that the Library Board has cancelled their
policy of charging fees to out of town residents for one year, and
he did not agree with the decision. This was discussed by the Coun-
cil and the City Manager was asked to check into the matter.
Mayor Silva, with the Council's concurrence, requested that the
Police Department add a cover letter to their report to highlight
the events of the month and quarter, and the staff was instructed
to request the department head to submit this cover letter.
Mr. Parness advised that the Police Report was a copy of that re-
quired by the State and FBI, and asked if the Council would pre-
fer just a one page summary. The Council agreed that the City
Manager should use his discretion in his request to the Police
Department for a report.
Surplus
Determination
(Camp Parks)
*
*
*
A communication was received from General Services
Administration with notice of surplus determination
of government property re portion of Camp Parks.
The Council discussed the possibility of obtaining a portion of
the parcel for use by the City of Livermore, however Mr. Parness
CM-23-266
stated the land was not in this township, and
felt the only thing we could request would be
use of the old airfield for a landing field for
public training purposes; other airports in the
vicinity subscribed to this idea.
October 19, 1970
(Camp Parks)
Councilman Taylor stated we should support the efforts of other
cities to obtain any land for park purposes to preserve open space.
Mayor Silva instructed the staff to explore the aspect of the
airfield as recommended by the City Manager, and the Council
approved the further recommendation of the City Manager that the
matter be referred to the Valley Planning Committee for S8me
action in the interest of the Valley.
*
*
*
Communication
From FOE re Annual
Civic Award
A communication was received from the Livermore
Aerie, Fraternal Order of Eagles, with an invi-
tation to the Council to attend the annual Civic
Award Presentation on October 27. Since the
members of the Council will be attending a con-
ference of the League of California Cities in San Diego at that
time, Councilman Pritchard suggested that letters be sent to
the Fraternal Order of Eagles and also Mr. Centoni, recipient
of the award.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and approved unanimously, adopting a resolution commending
Mr. Centoni.
RESOLUTION NO. 133-70
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING RAY CENTONI
*
*
*
COUNTY REFERRAL
(CUP-Wholesale
Nursery,Mushrooms,
2963 Rodeo Lane)
A County referral re Conditional Use Permit
application submitted by K. R. Hilke, et al
to permit a wholesale nursery for cultivation
of mushrooms at 2963 Rodeo Lane was acted upon
at the meeting of October 13, however Council-
man Taylor had requested that this action be
reconsidered at this meeting because he felt it was definitely
an industrial use, rather than agricultural, and asked for advice
from the City Attorney for reversing the decision on this matter.
Mr. Lewis advised it should be removed from the Consent Calendar,
revoke prior action, and the applicant notified.
Councilman Pritchard stated the applicant was not able to attend
the meeting and asked that the matter be continued inasmuch as
he had not been notified.
The Council discussed the continuation of this matter in order
to hear testimony from the applicant; however, this could not
be done as the item is on the a~enda for the County Planning
Commission meeting of October 2~, and there will not be a
City Council meeting on October 26.
There was discussion regarding procedure followed when county
referrals are received by the City, and it was pointed out
that the County, not the City, is responsible for holding any
public hearing and contacting the concerned parties in such cases;
consideration by the Council is advisory only.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to remove this item from the Consent Calendar, and to approve
the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial for
_,__.... ......,...' ....__.._.._._._~____._.___._..__.,_...,_.M_ ..__..~ __.. _.
CM-23-267
October 19, 1970
(cup the reasons outlined in the staff report.
2963 Rodeo Lane)
Councilman Pritchard felt that under the circum-
stances since the applicant was not present and
they would not have the opportunity to hear from the applicant be-
fore the meeting of the County Planning Commission on October 28,
the Council should consider giving no recommendation to the County.
However, the motion for denial was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Chamber of
Commerce
Report of
Expenditures
*
*
*
A report was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce
covering six month budgetary exgenditures for the
periods July thru December, 1968; January thru
June, 1969; and July thru December, 1969, in accord-
ancewith the request of the Council.
Mayor Silva suggested that the Chamber might also want to issue a
report of functions and projects which benefited the City in general.
Councilman Miller also commented briefly on the report of expendi-
tures.
Report re 1st
st. Off-Street
Parking Lot
*
*
*
Several weeks ago at the instruction of the City
Council a poll was conducted among the central busi-
ness district merchants regarding time parking limits
on the off-street parking lot located behind the
First Street stores. The Police and Public Works
Departments have investigated the parking lot usage within recent
weeks. A summary statement of the results was prepared, and the
recommendation was made that time limits should not be established
at this time as there are available stalls at most times of the day.
REPORT RE
STREET
SWEEPER BID
*
*
*
Sealed bids were received recently for the purchase
of street sweepers. The bidders failed to comply
with the request that a listing for price under each
bid category be made. The City Attorney advises
that fairness would best be served by rejecting the
bids and requesting their resubmission under a revised specifica-
tion and bid proposal which would delete the alternates and request
only a purchase price.
Bequest to
Library
*
*
*
The City Manager advised that a bequest in the amount
of $500 had been received from the late Mrs. Mayme R.
Krythe, mother of Mrs. Albert Kirschbaum, a local
resident. The money is to be pledged for the pur-
chase of children's books over a five year period. A motion of
formal acceptance was made and it was directed that a letter ex-
tending the City's gratitude be sent to Mrs. Kirschbaum.
*
*
*
Agreement
re Storage Shed RESOLUTION NO. 134-70
Civic Center Site
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(LARPD)
The above resolution authorizes execution of license agreement
with the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District for use of the
civic center storage building by the Livermore Cultural Arts Coun-
cil and various other related organizations.
CM-23-268
*
*
*
October 19, 1970
RESOLUTION NO. 135-70 Final Schedule of
Costs (Murrieta
RESOLUTION APPROVING ENGINEER'S FINAL SCHE- Blvd Assessment
DULE OF COSTS AND DECLARING DISTRIBUTION OF District)
FUNDS, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 67-1, MURRIETA
BOULEVARD, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY
The Murrieta Boulevard Assessment District cost allocation has
been finalized and the above resolution formalizes the distribu-
tion of expenses. A balance of $17,552 is available for reim-
bursement to the City in accordance with previous direction that
any surplus proceeds would inure to the benefit of the City.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 136-70
Allocation of
Wagoner Farms
Assessment District
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT
TO FILE AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT, SEGREGATING AND
APPORTIONING UNPAID INSTALLMENTS, ASSESSMENT
NUMBERS E-12 and 132 OF ASSESSMENTS ADOPTED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ON THE
18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1963, IN WAGONER FARMS
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-3, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The above resolution is in accordance with provisions of the
Streets and Highways Code which includes the filing of a report
by the Street Superintendent regarding allocation of Wagoner
Farms Assessment District. Recent division of land requires
reapportionment of assessments in this District. A hearing will
also be held by the Council on the report when it is prepared.
*
*
*
A report has been submitted by the City Attorney
regarding the decision of the District Court of
Appeals regarding Section 11546 of the Business
and Professions Code, which has been held to be,
on its face, constitutional except for subsection
opinion of the Court has been furnished for study
with the park land dedication ordinance.
Report re Park
Land Dedication
(g) . The
in connection
*
*
*
Sixty claims in the amount of $57,631.20, dated Payroll and Claims
October 15, 1970, were ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager. Councilman Silva abstained
from voting on Warrant No. 8820 and Councilman
Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 8809,
for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, to approve the items on
the Consent Calendar, and the motion was passed
unanimously.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
The City Manager reminded the Council of its
meeting on October 21 at 11:00 a.m. to further
discuss the Capital Improvement Budget.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Capital
Improvement Budget
*
*
*
CM-23-269
._,....._.._~_...,.".'_T~._..._.______~_,."___.._-~-~.--.---.--
October 19, 1970
(Business
License
Ordinance)
The City Manager stated that a great deal of mater-
ial has been prepared regarding the proposed changes
in the Business License Ordinance. There will be a
great deal of community interest in this item and
the Chamber of Commerce has listed it as a matter of
Mayor Silva suggested that this item be discussed by the
at a study session before it is included on the Council
This would allow the Council members to have ample time
the proposed ordinance, as would the Chamber of Commerce,
hearing is held.
study.
Council
agenda.
to study
before a
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCILMEN
(Proposed
Ordinance re
Trailers)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe suggested that each Council member
state his feelings and suggestions in regard to the
regulation of trailers so that a policy could be set.
Mr. Musso stated the Planning Commission had prepared
an ordinance pertaining to trailers some time ago, but
it had not been presented to the Council as yet.
Mayor Silva felt that the Council minutes would re-
flect the feelings of the Council to the Planning
Commission and aid the Commission in formulating an ordinance, and
the Council could do likewise.
(General Plan
Density)
(Ecology
Report)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe stated the present Council should
go on record in the near future supporting the
overall density of 3.5 gross or 2.8 net. Members of
the Council felt that discussions regarding various
issues which had been before the Council indicated
that they did support the density.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to the text of an ecology
speech given by former Councilman Uthe which has been
distributed to the members of the Council and stated
he felt they should ask Mr. Uthe to come before the
Council to give a summary of his statements.
Councilman Miller discussed some aspects of the report in regard to
future growth of Livermore and the Valley and emphasized the need to
look ahead and plan for the future.
*
*
*
(Violation of Councilman Miller referred to the City's ordinance
City Ordinance) prohibiting the cutting of trees within the public
right-of-way with a permit. He said a series of
trees had been cut down by Mr. Bill Struthers,
whereas the permit specifically required that they be left. Mr.
Lee advised that the site plan required that the trees be saved.
The staff was requested to check into the matter and report back
to the Council.
(Festival of
Arts)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-270
*
*
*
Mayor Silva commented on the recent Festival of
Arts and expressed his feelings that the Festival
had been a beneficial community event. He felt
it might be expanded to more than one event during
the year, and suggested a committee be named. The
Council felt this item should be considered again.
* * *
ATTEST
the
There bein~
Council th
APPROVE
October 19, 1970
Mr. Musso explained that a request for a Condi- (CUP-Golf Shop)
tional Use Permit has been made for a golf shop
at 4875 Primrose Lane. The use was in existence
at this location without knowledge of the staff until the Spring-
town Community Center was turned over to the residents of Spring-
town. A permit is now being requested. There have been some
complaints about the use and the Planning Commission concluded
that the use should not be extended for an indefinite time and
recommended a one year term.
The applicant stated the proposed clubhouse would probably be
built as soon as title is cleared to the land, which will be at
least six months.
Clyde Highet, 1317 Hibiscus Way, stated he had a list of the deed
restrictions on this property, which states that no lot shall
be used except for residential purposes.
Mr. Lewis, the City Attorney, advised that the Council could not
issue any permit that would affect the rights of the homeowners
association. If there is a commercial operation in a residence
in opposition or violation to this covenant, it can be enforced
legally regardless of any action by the City, but not through
the City.
Mrs. Esther Loomis, 4863 Primrose Lane, stated she lived next
door to the pro shop, and a one year extension would be agree-
able to her.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow
the golf shop (existing) for one year. Mayor Silva made a mo-
tion to amend the main motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to
emphasize that the permit be extended for one year only. The
motion and amendment were approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Tpylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Pritchard
*
*
*
A Conditional Use Permit application was sub-
mitted by Damon L. Canfield (Joe's Texaco) to
allow operation of an auto rental agency and
auto storage in a neighborhood shopping center
at 4186 East Avenue.
CUP-JOE'S TEXACO
(4186 E. Ave.)
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, and
by unanimous vote, the Council approved the recommendation of the
Planning Commission subject to all conditions as outlined in their
Resolution No. 29-70.
*
*
*
An application f~r rezoning has been submitted
by Josephine P. Tompkins for a site on the
southwest corner of Hillcrest Avenue and East
Avenue from RL-6 to RG-16 District.
REPORT RE REZONING
(SW Corner Hillcrest
and East Avenues)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, and passed unanimously, to set the matter for public
hearing on November 9.
*
*
*
A report from the Planning Director re reevalua-
tion of arroyo parkways was continued for two
weeks.
REPORT RE REEVALUA-
TION ARROYO PARKWAYS
CM-23-265
I
October 19, 1970
PROPOSED ORDI-
NANCE RE LOT
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS,
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, and by the following vote, the reading
of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and
the ordinance amending subsections 20.34, 20.44,
20.45, 20.60, 20.61, 20.62, 20.63, 20.64 and 20.65
of Section 20.00 re General Provisions and repeal-
ing Sec. 20.52 re frontages of Div. 1 of Article IV
re standards and design was introduced:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
PARK LAND ORDINANCE NO. 724
DEDICATION
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING DIVISION 5,
RELATING TO PROVISION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, OF ARTICLE
IV, RELATING TO STANDARDS AND DESIGN, OF CHAPTER 20, RELAT-
ING TO SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
vote the above ordinance was passed:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental
Reports
Departmental reports were received from the following:
Airport - activity and financial - September
Building Inspection - September
Civil Defense - quarterly - July/September
Golf Course - September
Finance Department - quarterly statement re
operating budget July/September
Fire Department - September
Library - quarterly - July/September
Police and Pound Departments - September
Water Reclamation Plant - September
Mayor Silva pointed out that the Library Board has cancelled their
policy of charging fees to out of town residents for one year, and
he did not agree with the decision. This was discussed by the Coun-
cil and the City Manager was asked to check into the matter.
Mayor Silva, with the Council's concurrence, requested that the
Police Department add a cover letter to their report to highlight
the events of the month and quarter, and the staff was instructed
to request the department head to submit this cover letter.
Mr. Parness advised that the Police Report was a copy of that re-
quired by the State and FBI, and asked if the Council would pre-
fer just a one page summary. The Council agreed that the City
Manager should use his discretion in his request to the Police
Department for a report.
*
*
*
Surplus
Determination
(Camp Parks)
A communication was received from General Services
Administration with notice of surplus determination
of government property re portion of Camp Parks.
The Council discussed the possibility of obtaining a portion of
the parcel for use by the City of Livermore, however Mr. Parness
CM-23-266
~'Yi~
) .'
~) /' /
'1:1 ~"'.
..;
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
FEES -
ELECTRICITY
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, the reading of the ordinance was
waived (title read only), and by the following
vote, the ordinance amending Sec. 8.4, re fees
of Chapter 8 re Electricity was introduced and
filed:
t
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor
Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I
October 19, 1970
PROPOSED ORDI-
NANCE RE LOT
FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS,
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, and by the following vote, the reading
of the ordinance was waived (title read only) and
the ordinance amending subsections 20.34, 20.44,
20.45, 20.60, 20.61, 20.62, 20.63, 20.64 and 20.65
of Section 20.00 re General Provisions and repeal-
ing Sec. 20.52 re frontages of Div. 1 of Article IV
re standards and design was introduced:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
PARK LAND ORDINANCE NO. 724
DEDICATION
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING DIVISION 5,
RELATING TO PROVISION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, OF ARTICLE
IV, RELATING TO STANDARDS AND DESIGN, OF CHAPTER 20, RELAT-
ING TO SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following
vote the above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Miller, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Departmental
Reports
Departmental reports were received from the following:
Airport - activity and financial - September
Building Inspection - September
Civil Defense - quarterly - July/September
Golf Course - September
Finance Department - quarterly statement re
operating budget July/September
Fire Department - September
Library - quarterly - July/September
Police and Pound Departments - September
Water Reclamation Plant - September
Mayor Silva pointed out that the Library Board has cancelled their
policy of charging fees to out of town residents for one year, and
he did not agree with the decision. This was discussed by the Coun-
cil and the City Manager was asked to check into the matter.
Mayor Silva, with the Council's concurrence, requested that the
Police Department add a cover letter to their report to highlight
the events of the month and quarter, and the staff was instructed
to request the department head to submit this cover letter.
Mr. Parness advised that the Police Report was a copy of that re-
quired by the State and FBI, and asked if the Council would pre-
fer just a one page summary. The Council agreed that the City
Manager should use his discretion in his request to the Police
Department for a report.
*
*
*
Surplus
Determination
(Camp Parks)
A communication was received from General Services
Administration with notice of surplus determination
of government property re portion of Camp Parks.
The Council discussed the possibility of obtaining a portion of
the parcel for use by the City of Livermore, however Mr. Parness
CM-23-266
\ '0J~
) t~
~') ~~~~ /
, -"
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE RE
FEES -
ELECTRICITY
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Coun-
cilman Miller, the reading of the ordinance was
waived (title read only), and by the following
vote, the ordinance amending Sec. 8.4, re fees
of Chapter 8 re Electricity was introduced and
filed:
AYES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor
Silva
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
None
stated the land was not in this township, and
felt the only thing we could request would be
use of the old airfield for a landing field for
public training purposes; other airports in the
vicinity subscribed to this idea.
October 19, 1970
(Camp Parks)
Councilman Taylor stated we should support the efforts of other
cities to obtain any land for park purposes to preserve open space.
Mayor Silva instructed the staff to explore the aspect of the
airfield as recommended by the City Manager, and the Council
approved the further recommendation of the City Manager that the
matter be referred to the Valley Planning Committee for some
action in the interest of the Valley.
*
*
*
A communication was received from the Livermore
Aerie, Fraternal Order of Eagles, with an invi-
tation to the Council to attend the annual Civic
Award Presentation on October 27. Since the
members of the Council will be attending a con-
ference of the League of California Cities in San Diego at that
time, Councilman Pritchard suggested that letters be sent to
the Fraternal Order of Eagles and also Mr. Centoni, recipient
of the award.
Communication
From FOE re Annual
Civic Award
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, and approved unanimously, adopting a resolution commending
Mr. Centoni.
RESOLUTION NO. 133-70
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING RAY CENTONI
*
*
*
A County referral re Conditional Use Permit
application submitted by K. R. Hilke, et al
to permit a wholesale nursery for cultivation
of mushrooms at 2963 Rodeo Lane was acted upon
at the meeting of October 13, however Council-
man Taylor had requested that this action be
reconsidered at this meeting because he felt it was definitely
an industrial use, rather than agricultural, and asked for advice
from the City Attorney for reversing the decision on this matter.
COUNTY REFERRAL
(CUP-Wholesale
Nursery,Mushrooms,
2963 Rodeo Lane)
Mr. Lewis advised it should be removed from the Consent Calendar,
revoke prior action, and the applicant notified.
Councilman Pritchard stated the applicant was not able to attend
the meeting and asked that the matter be continued inasmuch as
he had not been notified.
The Council discussed the continuation of this matter in order
to hear testimony from the applicant; however, this could not
be done as the item is on the agenda for the County Planning
Commission meeting of October 28, and there will not be a
City Council meeting on October 26.
There was discussion regarding procedure followed when county
referrals are received by the City, and it was pointed out
that the County, not the City, is responsible for holding any
public hearing and contacting the concerned parties in such cases;
consideration by the Council is advisory only.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to remove this item from the Consent Calendar, and to approve
the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial for
CM-23-267
October 19, 1970
(CUP the reasons outlined in the staff report.
2963 Rodeo Lane)
Councilman Pritchard felt that under the circum-
stances since the applicant was not present and
they would not have the opportunity to hear from the applicant be-
fore the meeting of the County Planning Commission on October 28,
the Council should consider giving no recommendation to the County.
However, the motion for denial was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
Chamber of
Commerce
Report of
Expenditures
*
*
*
A report was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce
covering six month budgetary eX2enditures for the
periods July thru December, 196~; January thru
June, 1969; and July thru December, 1969, in accord-
ancewith the request of the Council.
Mayor Silva suggested that the Chamber might also want to issue a
report of functions and projects which benefited the City in general.
Councilman Miller also commented briefly on the report of expendi-
tures.
*
*
*
Several weeks ago at the instruction of the City
Council a poll was conducted among the central busi-
ness district merchants regarding time parking limits
on the off-street parking lot located behind the
First Street stores. The Police and Public Works
Departments have investigated the parking lot usage within recent
weeks. A summary statement of the results was prepared, and the
recommendation was made that time limits should not be established
at this time as there are available stalls at most times of the day.
Report re 1st
st. Off-Street
Parking Lot
*
*
*
Sealed bids were received recently for the purchase
of street sweepers. The bidders failed to comply
with the request that a listing for price under each
bid category be made. The City Attorney advises
that fairness would best be served by rejecting the
bids and requesting their resubmission under a revised specifica-
tion and bid proposal which would delete the alternates and request
only a purchase price.
REPORT RE
STREET
SWEEPER BID
Bequest to
Library
*
*
*
The City Manager advised that a bequest in the amount
of $500 had been received from the late Mrs. Mayme R.
Krythe, mother of Mrs. Albert Kirschbaum, a local
resident. The money is to be pledged for the pur-
chase of children's books over a five year period. A motion of
formal acceptance was made and it was directed that a letter ex-
tending the City's gratitude be sent to Mrs. Kirschbaum.
*
*
*
Agreement
re Storage Shed RESOLUTION NO. 134-70
Civic Center Site
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(LARPD)
The above resolution authorizes execution of license agreement
with the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District for use of the
civic center storage building by the Livermore Cultural Arts Coun-
cil and various other related organizations.
CM-23-268
*
*
*
October 19, 1970
RESOLUTION NO. 135-70 Final Schedule of
Costs (Murrieta
RESOLUTION APPROVING ENGINEER'S FINAL SCHE- Blvd Assessment
DULE OF COSTS AND DECLARING DISTRIBUTION OF District)
FUNDS, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 67-1, MURRIETA
BOULEVARD, CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY
The Murrieta Boulevard Assessment District cost allocation has
been finalized and the above resolution formalizes the distribu-
tion of expenses. A balance of $17,552 is available for reim-
bursement to the City in accordance with previous direction that
any surplus proceeds would inure to the benefit of the City.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 136-70
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT
TO FILE AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT, SEGREGATING AND
APPORTIONING UNPAID INSTALLMENTS, ASSESSMENT
NUMBERS E-12 and 132 OF ASSESSMENTS ADOPTED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE ON THE
18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1963, IN WAGONER FARMS
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1962-3, CITY OF LIVERMORE,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Allocation of
Wagoner Farms
Assessment District
The above resolution is in accordance with provisions of the
Streets and Highways Code which includes the filing of a report
by the Street Superintendent regarding allocation of Wagoner
Farms Assessment District. Recent division of land requires
reapportionment of assessments in this District. A hearing will
also be held by the Council on the report when it is prepared.
*
*
*
A report has been submitted by the City Attorney
regarding the decision of the District Court of
Appeals regarding Section 11546 of the Business
and Professions Code, which has been held to be,
on its face, constitutional except for subsection
opinion of the Court has been furnished for study
with the park land dedication ordinance.
*
*
*
Report re Park
Land Dedication
(g ) . The
in connection
Sixty claims in the amount of $57,631.20, dated Payroll and Claims
October 15, 1970, were ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager. Councilman Silva abstained
from voting on Warrant No. 8820 and Councilman
Beebe abstained from voting on Warrant No. 8809,
for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, to approve the items on
the Consent Calendar, and the motion was passed
unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager reminded the Council of its
meeting on October 21 at 11:00 a.m. to further
discuss the Capital Improvement Budget.
*
*
*
Approval of
Consent Calendar
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Capital
Improvement BUdget)
CM-23-269
October 19, 1970
The City Manager stated that a great deal of mater-
ial has been prepared regarding the proposed changes
in the Business License Ordinance. There will be a
great deal of community interest in this item and
the Chamber of Commerce has listed it as a matter of
Mayor Silva suggested that this item be discussed by the
at a study session before it is included on the Council
This would allow the Council members to have ample time
the proposed ordinance, as would the Chamber of Commerce,
hearing is held.
(Business
License
Ordinance)
study.
Council
agenda.
to study
before a
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe suggested that each Council member
state his feelings and suggestions in regard to the
regulation of trailers so that a policy could be set.
Mr. Musso stated the Planning Commission had prepared
an ordinance pertaining to trailers some time ago, but
it had not been presented to the Council as yet.
Mayor Silva felt that the Council minutes would re-
flect the feelings of the Council to the Planning
Commission and aid the Commission in formulating an ordinance, and
the Council could do likewise.
MATTERS
INITIATED BY
COUNCILMEN
(Proposed
Ordinance re
Trailers)
(General Plan
Density)
(Ecology
Report)
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe stated the present Council should
go on record in the near future supporting the
overall density of 3.5 gross or 2.8 net. Members of
the Council felt that discussions regarding various
issues which had been before the Council indicated
that they did support the density.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller referred to the text of an ecology
speech given by former Councilman Uthe which has been
distributed to the members of the Council and stated
he felt they should ask Mr. Uthe to come before the
Council to give a summary of his statements.
Councilman Miller discussed some aspects of the report in regard to
future growth of Livermore and the Valley and emphasized the need to
look ahead and plan for the future.
*
*
*
(Violation of Councilman Miller referred to the City's ordinance
City Ordinance) prohibiting the cutting of trees within the public
right-of-way with a permit. He said a series of
trees had been cut down by Mr. Bill Struthers,
whereas the permit specifically required that they be left. Mr.
Lee advised that the site plan required that the trees be saved.
The staff was requested to check into the matter and report back
to the Council.
(Festival of
Arts)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-270
*
*
*
Mayor Silva commented on the recent Festival of
Arts and expressed his feelings that the Festival
had been a beneficial community event. He felt
it might be expanded to more than one event during
the year, and suggested a committee be named. The
Council felt this item should be considered again.
* * *
ATTEST
There beina
Council th
APPROVE
usiness to come before the
adj rned at 1:15 a.m.
,
Regular Meeting of November 2, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on
November 2, 1970, in the Justice Court Chambers,
39 South Livermore Avenue. The meeting was called
to order at 8:07 p.m. by Mayor Silva.
*
*
*
ABSENT:
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, ROLL CALL
Miller and Mayor Silva
None
*
*
*
Mayor Silva led the members of the Council and
those present in the audience in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
*
*
*
The minutes of the regular meeting of October
13 and October 19, 1970, having been delivered
to all Councilmen, were approved as amended on
motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard, and by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock, referred to a pre-
vious action by the Council in approving a
temporary use for a clubhouse by the Springtown
Golf Course, subject to an agreement with the
Springtown Association regarding their parking
lot. He inquired if there was a time limit
placed for this to be done.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
(Clubhouse -Parking,
Springtown Area)
Mr. Musso stated there was no requirement for use of the parking
lot; the clubhouse will require parking space, which can be
'obtained by receiving permission of the Springtown Association
to use their parking lot. If this is not done, there will not
be a permit issued. There was no time limit set.
Mr. Musso was instructed to check into the status of this matter
and to write to Intermark Investing, Inc., requesting that action
be taken within thirty to sixty days.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning of property located
generally south of U.S. 580, easterly of Isabel
Avenue (extended) and north and south of Las
Positas Road from Rs-4 and A Districts to PD
District has been made by Associated Professions.
Also an application for a Planned Unit Development
Permit to allow a mobilehome park, drive-in theatre, cemetery and
industrial area has been submitted by the applicant for this pro-
perty, which comprises a total of 211 acres.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REQUEST FOR REZONING
AND PUD (Associated
Professions)
Associated Professions has requested a continuance until November
16 as the applicant is unable to attend this meeting. Mayor Silva
inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to
speak on this matter and would be unable to attend on the 16th
to present testimony, but no one came forward.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to continue the public hearing on the subject property
until November 16, and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
CM-23-271
November 2, 1970
PUBLIC HEARING
RE ZONING OF
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX NO. 4
The public hearing regarding the assignment of
zoning categories to the recently annexed area
known as Portola Avenue Annex No. 4 had been con-
tinued and referred back to the Planning Commis-
sion for some additional study. Involved were
some changes proposed by the City Council to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and questions regarding de-
annexation. The Planning Commission, in consideration of the pro-
posed Planned Development District zoning for a triangle on Portola
Avenue and Scott Street, noted that the acreage is not sufficient
for that type of zoning as there is a 40-acre limitation for that
zoning. Other proposed changes were that the area zoned agricul-
tural on the north side of Las Positas Road be maintained as Rs-4
District zoning; that the commercial frontage on First Street be-
come ID-H rather than CH District, which is obsolete under present
ordinance; and that the property backing on Colgate Way be zoned
RL-6 District rather than Rs-4 in order to avoid a split zoning
assignment. The only other issue is whether the service station
at Portola Avenue and First Street should be zoned commercial or
left in Rs-4 zone; there is no zoning at present to accommodate the
station except the ID-H District, and the Planning Commission re-
commends that it be zoned Rs-4 until such time as the proposed
shopping center is zoned. This would not affect the service station
as authority has already been given through the sewer connection
agreement for remodeling of the station. The zoning as shown on
the map included in the agenda is the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Silva stated the intent of the Council in zoning that portion
as PD District was to give the Council some control over the develop-
ment. Discussion followed regarding effects of PD District zoning.
The Planning Director also displayed a map which had been prepared
by the applicant and pointed out differences in zonings as proposed
by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing, and also stated that he would
abstain from discussion relative to that portion proposed for Rs-4
District Zoning on the south side of First Street as his residence
is within 300 feet of that area.
~
John Barker, of Associated Professions, Inc., representing the appli-
cant, stated that this hearing had been continued from last July in
accordance with the request of the applicant. He stated that if PD
zoning could be assigned to the triangle on Portola Ave. through
issuance of a variance, his client would be happy to do so as they
did desire to have this zoning for this property. He would also like
to have a resolution of intent, if agreeable to the Council, to the
effect that it is good planning and good land use to have a shopping
center in that location, together with, perhaps, some apartments and
public park, as proposed by the staff for the triangle area. In
regard to the area south of the railroad tracks, the new proposal
by the applicant solves some of the original questions and problems.
The introduction of an east-west street, separating the existing
plants with additional screening and buffering would allow residential
lots to the south, blending into the existing residences on Colgate
Way, and his client would be agreeable to RL-6 or Rs-4 zoning for
this area. Zoning was not indicated on the map they had prepared
along Trevarno Road as they felt this should be indicated by the
Council. The ID-H zoning for the commercial area is agreeable to
his client and he proposed Rs-4 on the majority of the property
north of Portola rather than RS-3, but he hoped that a decision
could be reached on the other points before zoning for this area is
decided.
After further discussion the Council decided it would be best to
hear all the testimony before any decision was made on any portion
of the zoning.
CM-23-272
November 2, 1970
Mr. Barker continued that the map presented dif-
fered from their previous plan in that there is
no request for RG-16 zoning on the two areas
flanking Trevarno Road, and the request is for
substantially less residential density in the
area south of Portola Avenue and also on First street. He did
feel that it would be good planning and better use to have
4 d.u./acre on the 176-acre piece north of Portola Ave. and west
of First street. His client has employed the services of Mr.
Edward Schaffnit of Larry Smith and Company, marketing consult-
ants in San Francisco, who had studied the results of Rs-4 zon-
ing as compared to RS-3.
(Public Hearing -
Portola Ave.
Annex No.4)
Mr. Schaffnit indicated he had prepared an analysis of residen-
tial density as it affects land and housing prices and distri-
buted a copy of a memorandum to members of the Council. He
explained various factors used in determining that the total cost
for a residential development of three units per acre would be
approximately $3.6 million and the cost for four units per acre
would be $3.8 million. The cost per lot would be $7,272 for
three units and $5,720 for four units per acre. This land cost
is one of the major determining factors in housing costs. There-
fore, housing could be offered at $36,400 to $29,100 for 3.d.u./acre
density as compared to $28,600 to $22,900 for 4 d.u./acre density.
Everything else being equal, the higher density would allow hous-
ing to be offered at about $6,000 to $8,000 less. Mr. Schaffnit
referred to other tabulations in the memorandum regarding the re-
lationship of density to cost and stated that there were only 143
acres of land other than the subject property presently zoned
for the lower density.
Councilman Taylor questioned the figures that a house would cost
$6,000 to $8,000 less if built at the 4 d.u./acre density. Mr.
Schaftnett agreed that part of the rise in cost would be due
to the fact that a larger house would probably be built on the
larger lot, not the identical house as on the smaller lot.
Councilman Beebe pointed out the General Plan calls for lower
density in hilly acres; part of the hilly acreage could be dedi-
cated for park purposes and thus reduce the cost of improvements.
Mayor Silva felt that the report pointed out basically that an
identical house built on the larger lot would cost $1500 more
due to increased land cost, but it was the practice of the build-
ing trade to put larger homes on the larger lots and costs in-
creased accordingly.
Mr. Barker stated that this memorandum is an economic analysis
and should be considered on that basis. It is academic that
higher priced homes are built on higher priced lots. His client
is trying to avoid being locked in to building homes in the
higher priced range.
Councilman Taylor stated that land zoned at higher density costs
more than land zoned at lower density and the purchase price of
the land would vary proportionately to the type of zoning on that
land.
Councilman Miller commented that our General Plan has shown this
land zoned at 3 d.u./acre for some time and this was known when
the property was purchased. The high interest rate is the main
deterrent for people who want to buy lower priced homes.
The Planning Director pointed out that under density transfer
the developer is not required to dedicate the land to the City,
but can make larger lots or common open space.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, to close the public hearing, and approved unanimously.
CM-23-273
November 2, 1970
(PH-Portola Ave. Previous discussion and action taken by the Coun-
Annex No.4) cil regarding the zoning of this whole area were
reviewed. In particular, the Council reviewed
their thinking about the Portola Avenue/First
Street triangle zoning. The majority of the Coun-
cil felt that some multiple use would be good planning in conjunc-
tion with the proposed commercial use on six acres of the triangle.
Councilman Miller suggested that the portion recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission for Rs-4 zoning overall should include commercial
and if the developer chooses to take his allowable units under Rs-4
and make these into multiple units he would agree this was reasonable,
but he did not want multiple zoning without regard to the General
Plan density.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the Council was not setting a
figure for density, but the majority want to see a neighborhood
shopping center and multiple use for the triangle.
Councilman Miller stated that the Council had also expressed the
desire to keep the densities in the General Plan, but these were
incompatible with the proposed multiple zoning.
Mayor Silva felt each area should be taken on its own merit, and
the General Plan was just that - general guideline. It is logical
to have multiple in the area next to the shopping center.
Councilman Taylor felt the area should be planned properly and den-
sity cannot be taken from one side and included on the other portion.
The density for the multiple can come from any other portion of the
area, but the question is logical planning.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the triangle area bounded by
First Street and Portola Avenue be zoned Rs-4 until an application
is received, and then that portion which is not used for commercial
remain Rs-4. There was not a second to the motion.
Councilman Taylor made a motion to express the Council's intent to
develop a neighborhood shopping center and multiple use along the
lines of the plan presented previously for the triangle area bounded
by First Street and Portola Aveoue; the motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilman Miller
Councilman Taylor then made a motion that this property be zoned RS-4,
seconded by Councilman Beebe, and it was approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the property between First Street
and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks be zoned ID-H as recommended
by the Planning Commission; the motion was seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and passed by unanimous vote.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the property south of the
Southern Pacific tracks, south to the proposed residential tract be
zoned ID District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and
approved unanimously.
Mayor Silva abstained from discussion on the next item and Mayor pro
tempore Miller presided.
Councilman Beebe made a motion that the portion south of the
street shown by Associated Professions, Inc. on their map be
Rs-4, excluding the previously approved Parcel Map No. 637.
motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
proposed
zoned
The
Discussion followed regarding access of the proposed residential
area. Mr. Musso stated that the change is a modification based on
CM-23-274
November 2, 1970
street design. Some of this land requires access (PH-Portola Ave
to Hillcrest Avenue for industrial development. Annex No.4)
The Planning Commission recommendation is to con-
fine the industrial to what already exists and to
designate residential for the rest. The proposed street access
will have industrial on one side and residential on the other
with suitable buffering.
Councilman Miller discussed densities under the General Plan and
pointed out this area has been indicated as industrial which has
zero density. By considering the planning aspects rather than
the density count, the density is being increased over the General
Plan density. He wished to see this area remain at lower density,
and in no case should it exceed RS-3.
Councilman Pritchard stated that the remark made by Councilman
Miller would infer that if the Council zoned this Rs-4, they were
not concerned with density, and did not feel this was the case as
they were all concerned with density and have taken into consider-
ation the General Plan. Further, he was just as concerned, and
there are going to be exceptions to the General Plan now and
again, and he took exception to the implication the other members
of the Council are not concerned about density.
Councilman Taylor reiterated that this was a very complicated area
and Councilman Miller has implied they really should consider in-
dustrial behind all the houses on Colgate Way, and according to
the traffic pattern they are faced with, send industrial traffic
down Hillcrest Avenue. He did not feel that Councilman Miller
really wanted industrial in that area, but rather it was an ex-
cuse to drive home his point about density, and continued that
to zone this industrial only to make a point and force a very
bad plan in the area is not responsible.
Councilman Miller admitted that a portion of his discussion was
to drive home his point, but he would not have offered it as a
serious motion if he did not feel it could be developed as in-
dustrial, contrary to what the Council might believe, because
there is a street that will connect ultimately to First street.
He did not feel his action was irresponsible, but did feel it was
equally irresponsible to continue to override the density consi-
d erations of the General Plan no matter what excuse is used and
suggested that they continue the matter for one week and have the
Planning Director give them the calculation on what they are pro-
posing; if it is not a higher density than the general plan, he
would be willing to go along with the proposal for multiple on that
corner which he did not feel is justified.
Councilman Taylor stated he was aware of what the outcome would
be, however he advised Councilman Miller that he had agreed to
the zoning in the other area, for the most part, which he pointed
out, and now he was stating that since the other members of the
Council had rezoned the other areas, therefore they must zone
this particular parcel as ID, was not valid reasoning.
Councilman Miller stated he would be happy to zone the area north
of Portola Avenue to 2.5 d.u./acre and be happy to introduce that
motion, and had only agreed to RS-3 because he did not believe
the Council would consider multiple for the area being discussed,
and he would be willing to reconsider the overall densities they
had considered if the other members of the Council would wait
until the Planning Director figures what the proper density would
be for the General Plan.
Mr. Musso commented that relative to the property on the south
side of the industrial area behind Colgate Way, it is not a pro-
posed change in density; it is 4 d.u./acre. They are only taking
the General Plan and refining it on the basis of design, but it
is still 4 d.u./acre. They are not increasing density, but maybe
the number of units that will be in that neighborhood.
CM-23-275
November 2, 1970
(Public
Hearing re
Rezoning -
Portola Ave.
Annex No.4)
Councilman Miller made a motion to table the matter
for one week to have the densities calculated, how-
ever there was no second to the motion, and Council-
man Pritchard called for the question on the motion
on the floor, and Mayor pro tempore Miller restated
the motion which was to zone the property south of
the street indicated on the map to Rs-4, with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 637 to be RL-6 which was made by Coun-
cilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the vote was
as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Pritchard
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
Mayor Silva stated there was one more parcel - the properties in
the Springtown/First Street overpass area, which was recommended
for A-20 to the Planning Commission; however they recommended Rs-4,
with ID-H for the area adjacent to First Street.
Councilman Pritchard questioned why it was not left as A-20, rather
than being recommended for Rs-4, and Mr. Musso replied they felt it
was a feasible zoning; however, Councilman Taylor stated he did not
feel it should be residential at Rs-4, as the property is bounded
by the highway on one side, and he would prefer it remain as A-20.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor to zone the parcel south of
Highway 580, north of Portola to A-20 and the one section to ID-H
fronting on First Street as indicated on the Planning Commission's
map, and the motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and passed un-
animously.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the property they previously
agreed to be RS-3, north of Portola Avenue, be zoned at a density of
2.5 d.u./acre, however there was no second to this motion.
Report re
Bequest to
Fire Dept.
Report re
Airport
Advisory
Committee
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
A bequest has been made to the Livermore Fire Depart-
ment by virtue of the last will of Lennora Colldeweih
in the sum of $100. The recommendation of the City
Manager is that the bequest be accepted and used as
a part of the newly instituted Fire Department Public
Education Training Trailer fund, which would reflect
on improved fire protection and community safety.
*
*
*
In accordance with instructions of the City Council,
a proposed modification of the structure of the Air-
port Advisory Committee was adopted, and it was re-
ferred to the Council at this time for review and
consideration.
Also presented were letters from the Livermore Valley Airmen's Asso-
ciation, Flying Particles, Inc., recommending certain memberships
for appointment.
It is suggested that the recommendations be accepted and the staff
instructed to prepare a formalized resolution embooying the changes
in Committee function, membership and terms.
Report re
Meeting -
Transportation
CM-23-276
*
*
*
Report from the City Manager indicated that a special
meeting is scheduled for November 19, for presentation
of an interim report by the consultant retained by
the Board to jurisdictions officials in the Valley re
studies for the provision of bus services.
November 2, 1970
Some time ago the Beautification Committee re-
commended the acquisition of certain trash re-
ceptacles for the central business district.
The City Manager recommended the purchase of
ten units for a one year trial period, and if after that time
experience proves favorable, sums can be budgeted annually for
more locations.
Report re Trash Can
Receptacles
Janet Read, representing the Beautification Committee, questioned
the recommendation as there was quite a discount involved if they
purchased twenty, and Mr. Parness explained that the same dis-
count was offered for ten. Mrs. Read indicated that in compari-
son to what is needed in the City, she felt that twenty was a
very small number.
*
*
*
A report was received from the Public Works
Director advising that Tract 3028, consisting
of 183 lots, developed by Kaufman & Broad and
located south of Las Positas Blvd. and Curlew
Road, has been completed and is ready for
acceptance by the City for maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO. 137-70
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TRACT NO. 3028 (KAUFMAN & BROAD)
*
*
*
A report from the Public Works Director was re-
ceived recommending that a Notice of Completion
be filed for Project 69-30, Quezaltenango Park-
way.
Report re
Tract 3028
(Kaufman & Broad)
Report re
Quezaltenango
Parkway
Councilman Taylor expressed a wish to have a letter sent to
Quezaltenango, together with pictures of the parkway for their
information and Mr. Lee will do so.
*
*
*
Instructions were given to the staff at the
previous meeting to review the existing State
regulations for mobilehome parks concerning
building code provisions and the removal of
wheels, and the Chief Building Inspector pre-
sented this report to the Council.
*
*
*
A communication was received from Mrs. Pat
Childers re Festival of Arts recently held in
the City expressing her appreciation.
*
*
*
A fact sheet was received from the Alameda
County Taxpayers Association re various tax
rates and other pertinent information. Coun-
cilman Miller commented that Livermore was at
the lower end of the property tax scale.
*
*
*
A copy of the audit report re Housing Authority
for the 1969-70 fiscal year was submitted to the
Council.
*
*
*
Report re
Mobilehome Parks
Festival of Arts
News Facts re
Tax Rates
Audit Report -
Housing Authority
CM-23-277
November 2, 1970
Minutes -
Various
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
AUTOMOTIVE
BIDS
Minutes were received from the following:
Planning Commission - meetings of October 6 and 14
Housing Authority - September 22
Board of Appeals - October 8
*
*
*
Applications for exempt business licenses and/or
solicitors permits were approved for the following:
Livermore Playschool, Inc. - money solicitation,
rummage sale on November 21, sale of handmade
items at school.
Cub Scout Pack No. 925 - sale of candy during November
and December
st. Michael's School - pancake breakfast at Louis
Store parking lot on November 14
League of Women Voters - film festival on Nov. 14
*
*
*
Seventy-five claims in the amount of $90,760, and
two hundred thirty-one payroll warrants in the amount
of $76,701.38, dated October 29, 1970, were ordered
paid as approved by the City Manager.
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Council-
man Miller, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented
with the removal of Item 2.5 re PUD No. 15 for dis-
cussion later, and the motion passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager reported re the automotive bids which
were received on October 30 for the provision of
seven police patrol vehicles and in addition bids
were received for various trucks, however these were
still undergoing investigation because of the com-
plexity of the bids. Mr. Parness stated there was only a difference
of $87.00 with respect to one GM product and the Chrysler Dodge;
the staff has considered these bids and the fact that the GM product
would be subject to a delay occasioned by the labor dispute and be-
lieve the bid submitted by Livermore Dodge to be the most acceptable,
based upon a delivery date, and recommended that the bid be awarded
to Livermore Dodge for the police cars.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor to accept the staff recommendation. Councilman Miller ques-
tioned the striking difference in the trade-in value between Ford
and Chevrolet vs. Dodge, and Mr. Parness indicated that next year
it is hoped they would be able to auction the old cars, if the Council
would approve. The vote was taken on the motion and passed unanimously.
REPORT RE
CITY-LARPD
JOINT ACTION
RE PARKS
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the City Manager regarding
an agreement concerning joint City-LARPD acquisition
and development of parks. A joint committee from
each agency has been meeting over the past several
months on this subject and related matters.
Councilman Miller stated that LARPD has already adopted this agree-
ment even though there are some misgivings about certain portions.
CM-23-278
He felt the agreement is better than the one
used at present, and since it is only for a
term of one year he suggested that the City
approve the agreement at this time.
November 2, 1970
(Joint Action re
Parks)
The City Manager said he felt there was a need for certain modi-
fications of the agreement, but they are not consequential enough
to delay signing, if the Council wishes to adopt the agreement
now. Changes can be made at the end of the one year term of the
agreement. The Council indicated that there are several points
which need revision but they can be resolved in the next contract.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to approve the contract with LARPD, and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The owner of the property situated west of the
present westerly terminus of Railroad Avenue
wishes to extend Railroad Avenue westerly and
southerly to intersect East Stanley Boulevard
at Fenton street. This proposal is contrary to
the City's street plans for the area.
REPORT RE PROPOSED
RAILROAD AVENUE
EXTENSION
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to refer this matter to the staff for further study in
conjunction with the applicant so that a more acceptable proposal
can be found, and the motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A report from the Planning Commission regarding
Alameda County General Plan Element related to
Open Space was acknowledged.
*
*
*
REPORT RE OPEN SPACE
FROM ALAMEDA CTY
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, to waive the first reading
(title read only) of the proposed ordinance re
Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to Section
8.80 through 8.84 - Lot and Lot Development re-
quirements, and the ordinance was introduced with the amendment
that Section 8.82 - Maximum requirements be changed to read
fino limitfl. The motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ZO AMEND-
MENT (Sec. 8.80 -
Sec. 8.84)
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, to waive the first reading
(title read only) and to introduce the Zoning
Ordinance amendment to reflect changes regarding
lot frontage requirements, projections into non-
street frontage yards, and accessory structures
and uses . The motion passed unanimously. (A slight
made which necessitated return to first reading).
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, and by unanimous vote, the
following Ordinance was adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 725
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.4, RELATING TO
FEES, OF CHAPTER 8, RELATING TO ELECTRICITY,
OF THE LIVERMORE CITY CODE, 1959.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ZO AMEND-
MENT RE LOT
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
change was
ORDINANCE RE
ELECTRICITY FEE
SCHEDULE
CM-23-279
November 2, 1970
PUD NO. 15
(Carlton
Development
Company)
The Council had instructed that the text of this
permit extension be transmitted to them for review.
This matter was removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion at this time.
The City Manager reported that meetings had been held in the past
few days with the developer and his representatives primarily re-
garding the relocation of Murdell Lane. As a part of the PUD per-
mit the developer has agreed to the relocation and construction of
Murdell Lane and has accepted the obligation that this work will be
done. Mr. Parness said he felt more security should be obtained so
that it will be assured that the work will be done as the City has
obligated itself also. He had suggested that a separate contract
be drafted regarding financial arrangements between the City and
the developers and secured by an appropriate bond that this street
will be installed by the developer no later than October 1973. If
necessary, the PUD could refer to this agreement. Mr. Parness stated
he had been advised that the partners of Carlton Development Company
had not yet had the opportunity to review and consider this separate
contract; therefore, Mr. Parness requested that this matter be con-
tinued for one week.
Councilman Miller discussed instances wherein park land has been
due the City from previous PUD permits and is not a part of the sub-
division map. He felt the park land should be secured in the same
way as the street; the City should be protected by some means.
The City Attorney was requested to look into this point to assure
protection for the City in this permit and others.
Further consideration of the PUD No. 15 extension with Carlton De-
velopment Company was continued for one or two weeks.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Bus Study)
*
*
*
Mr. Parness discussed the forthcoming meeting of the
Valley Planning Committee meeting. The Valley Trans-
portation Board will hear a report on the bus service
study for the Valley.
*
*
*
(Camp Parks) Mr. Parness stated that at the request of the Council
to investigate possible use of Camp Parks surplus pro-
perty the only suggestion that might be made in this
regard is to consider it for airplane training purposes, but this
suggestion has been determined as not feasible.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Youth
Committee)
(Sidewalks-
Livermore
High School)
(Valley
Ecology
Committee)
CM-23-280
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe stated that he had a candidate to
submit for membership on the Youth Committee. Mayor
Silva urged other members to make some recommendations
so that this committee might begin functioning soon.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor stated that he felt the staff
should look into the possibility of putting in side-
walks on the north side of Livermore High School.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard referred to previous discussion
re appointment of a Council representative with the
Valley Ecology Center and requested appointment to
that position. On motion of Councilman Taylor, se-
conded by Councilman Beebe, and by the following
motion Councilman Pritchard was so appointed:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
Mayor Silva abstained from voting on the fore-
going motion as he stated that due to religious
principles regarding birth control he did not
wish to give official recognition to the Center.
*
*
*
November 2, 1970
(Valley Ecology
Committee)
Councilman Pritchard referred to a letter and (Proposition 18)
information from the office of Senator Randolph
Collier. This literature listed the City of
Livermore as being in opposition to Proposition 18. The Council
had supported the issue, and the Council felt Senator Collier
should be made aware of this error.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard advised that Council members (Blue Cross)
could participate in the Blue Cross Insurance
Plan available to City employees if the Council
wished to open this plan to Council members at
their own cost. He wished to participate if the Council was
agreeable.
Councilman Miller made a motion seconded by Councilman Beebe to
adopt a resolution to allow the City Councilmen to participate
in the Blue Cross Plans at no cost to the City with December 1
as the cutoff date. The motion was approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 138-70
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING BLUE CROSS COVERAGE
TO COUNCILMEN
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated the County Planning Com-
mission has approved the Conditional Use Permit
application submitted for a wholesale nursery for
cultivation of mushrooms at 2963 Rodeo Lane. The
Council had requested denial, and Councilman Mil-
ler felt an appeal should be made by the City.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Taylor, to appeal the decision of the County Planning
Commission, and the motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor, Miller and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Beebe and Pritchard
*
*
*
Councilman Miller pointed out that a city in
Maryland has banned the sale of non-returnable
bottles and cans in order to avoid disposal
problems. He felt the Council should consider
similar action. The City Attorney was requested
to look into this possibility in relation to
California Law.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva stated he had received a letter
from the Vineyard Merchants Association re-
garding the triangle on Pacific Avenue. Mr.
Lee advised that steps were being taken to
correct the difficulty in turning.
*
*
*
(Appeal re County
Approval of CUP -
Cultivation of
Mushrooms at
2963 Rodeo Lane)
(Non-returnable
Bottles and Cans)
(Island on
Livermore Ave.)
CM-23-281
November 2, 1970
(Airport Bldg.
Restaurant
Committee)
Mayor Silva requested that the City Manager dis-
cuss briefly the recent meeting of the Restaurant
Committee. Mr. Parness said he had been requested
by the Committee to prepare a simple sales brochure
listing facts regarding the building to be given
to various contractors. Mayor Silva clarified the fact that the
addition of space for the restaurant had cost the City only $10,000
which he considered a good investment.
(Community
Events)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva referred to his previous suggestion
that a committee be formed to discuss other community
efforts similar to Festival '70. Councilman Taylor
felt that a committee could at least list possible
efforts in this area. Councilman Miller mentioned several possible
events: In addition to the Art Festival, a Summerfest, Cinco de
Mayo Festival, and a City-wide Fourth of July picnic.
(Drug Abuse
Committee)
*
*
*
Mayor Silva proposed that the staff investigate various
existing community drug abuse committees to explore
whether it is feasible to have one in this community.
He expressed his desire that input from the Youth
Committee be considered on this proposal.
*
*
*
(Congratulations Mayor Silva said a request had been made to honor
Maren Madsen) a citizen of Livermore who has been in this com-
munity for over 80 years and is celebrating her
100th birthday on November 10. A motion was made
by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Beebe, to adopt a re-
solution of congratulations to Maren Madsen.
(AB-2180)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-282
RESOLUTION NO. 139-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LIVERMORE CONVEYING THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONGRATU-
LATIONS TO MAREN MADSEN ON THE OCCASION OF HER
100TH BIRTHDAY.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva said he would like to have copies of
AB-2180, which requires that cities plan for long
range protection of open space.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
to a meeting on November 4, at 11:30 a.m. at the
Rincon Fire Station to discuss the Capital Improve-
ment Budget.
APPROVE
ATTEST
Regular Meeting of November 9, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 9,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. with Mayor pro
tempore Miller presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT:
Councilmen
Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard
and Miller
.' ,\
l C JV --1J'--rf-e~..<:r}'cJj
ABSENT:
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
ROLL CALL
The minutes of the meeting of November 2, 1970, MINUTES
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Val Yoakum,3832 Dartmouth Way, spoke in regard
to a serious traffic problem at 4th and Holmes
Streets travelling westerly. He wished to call
attention to the left turn lane as he felt dri-
vers who were unfamiliar with the street could
find themselves in the flleft turn onlyfl lane
unintentionally.
OPEN FORUM
(Traffic at 4th
and Holmes Streets)
The Public Works Director said there were several problems which
had been encountered in designing this intersection, but that he
would investigate the intersection in regard to this complaint.
*
*
*
Jack Phillips, 551 North P street, inquired what (Sign)
action the City intended to take regarding his
oversize political sign.
Mayor pro tempore Miller said he was 40th on the list of reported
violators and his would be investigated in turn.
Mr. Phillips stated that he intended to erect an even larger
political sign to test the sign ordinance.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning of property located
at the southwest corner of Hillcrest and East
Avenues from RL-6 (Low Density Residential) Dis-
trict to RG-16 (Suburban Multiple Residential)
District has been made by Josephine P. Tompkins.
Mayor pro tempore Miller opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING SW CORNER
HILLCREST & EAST AVE
A letter was submitted from the firm of Miller, Critchfield &
Eaton requesting continuance of this public hearing for at least
sixty days as they stated they had requested of the Planning
Commission that further action be delayed in order that further
study of alternate proposals might be made.
Mr. Musso stated that at the completion of the Planning Commission
hearing the applicant had requested that this matter not be set
for hearing until the applicant could restudy the proposal, and
the matter had been inadvertently set for hearing.
Claude Smith, 1067 Xavier Way, asked that the City Council deny
this application for multiple units. He felt the Council should
consider the rezoning of the Tompkins land on the basis of all
CM-23-283
November 9, 1970
(Public Hearing
Rezoning-SW
Corner Hillcrest
and East Avenue)
open land on the south side of East Avenue; if
this parcel is zoned multiple then it is likely
the rest of the adjacent land would also be zoned
multiple.
Arnold Lang, 1064 Xavier Way, agreed with Mr. Smith, and stated he
had moved into this area because it was single family residences
with no multiple. Having lived in multiple units for ten years,
he felt the area would gradually deteriorate if multiples were
allowed.
Harry West, 1126 Tulane Court, felt that allowance of multiple would
lower the quality of living in the area; also that multiple should
not be allowed on any of the property along East Avenue.
Councilman Taylor felt that in light of past action a continuance
should be granted and if possible all those within 300 feet of the
area in question should be noticed again. A motion to continue the
public hearing on this application for rezoning until January 11,
1971, with formal notice to be made again, was made by Councilman
Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
Upon question by Mr. Smith, Mayor pro tempore Miller explained that
in the past five to seven years all requeswfor multiple had been
denied in this area. He stated past Councils had made their deci-
sions based on testimony by the developers and people of the area.
The motion for continuance was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
(Report re
Select Street
System)
(Report re
Encroachment
Permit)
~eport re
Contract
Modification-
Concannon Rte.
Study)
CM-23-284
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Director of Public Works submitted a report re-
questing certain revisions and modifications of the
City's Select Street System. As the City develops
and the overall street system changes, it is necessary
to revise the system. The following resolution is
to be adopted in order that these changes may be sub-
mitted to the State.
RESOLUTION NO. 140-70
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REPORT AND MAP RECOMMENDING
SELECT STREET SYSTEM ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS.
*
*
*
The YMCA has requested an encroachment permit to sell
Christmas trees from November 28, 1970, to December
26, 1970, on Q Street north of First Street. The
Director or Public Works recommends several conditions
to be included if this request is approved.
*
*
*
The City Manager reports that the County has insisted
that the current joint contract with the City be modi-
fied due to adjustment in the route alignment proposed
by the City. Any additional cost as a result of the
change must be sustained by the City. The following
resolution authorizing execution of the agreement is
submitted for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 141-70
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
(COUNTY OF ALAMEDA)
A report from the City Manager regarding the
Airport Advisory Committee was removed from
consideration as a part of the Consent Calendar
for discussion later in the meeting.
*
*
*
November 9, 1970
(Report re Airport
Advisory Committee)
The item regarding a report from the Bay Area (Report re BAAPCD)
Air Pollution Control District was removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion later in the
meeting.
*
*
*
It is necessary to formally abandon Roslyn Way
which is a stub street included as a part of a
former development plan and subdivision. The
following resolution also sets a public hearing
for the purpose of receiving any objections to
the proposed vacation of the street.
RESOLUTION NO. 142-70
(Abandonment of
Roslyn Way)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CLOSE UP AND ABANDON A PORTION
OF ROSLYN WAY IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS SAID PORTION IS
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THIS RESOLUTION.
*
*
*
An application has been received for an exempt
business license from the Twin Valley Associa-
tion for Retarded Children for the sale of
baked goods, book and boutique sale.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, for approval of the Consent
Calendar, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(Exempt Business
License
(Approval of
Consent Calendar)
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
*
*
*
The Planning Director explained that in connec-
tion with the City's desire to develop a parkway
system, primarily along the existing arroyos,
the Planning Commission felt they were not know-
ledgeable enough to make the necessary evaluations
as to the flood control needs and could not judge the capabilities
of the lands for parkway purposes. Therefore, they propose that
a study be made by the staff, Zone 7, and perhaps the City of
Pleasanton. Also it is their recommendation that no additional
lands should be committed until such needs are accessed.
REPORT RE-
EVALUATION OF
PARKWAYS
The Public Works Director stated that much of the necessary en-
gineering work has already been completed as the Zone 7 staff had
conducted a study establishing the flows on all the major arroyos
in the valley some time ago. He further pointed out that the
Planning Commission expressed interest in diversion of some of
this runoff, and this type of study could be made by Zone 7 as
it is within their area of responsibility. The City could pro-
ceed with the study of development of the arroyos as recreational
areas.
CM-23-285
November 9, 1970
(Re-evaluation
of Parkways)
Councilman Taylor said that he had never seen a
feasible design for the arroyo parkways and hoped
this could be settled soon.
Mr. Lee indicated that the City's landscape architect was already work-
ing on some designs and felt definite designs could be presented
within a reasonable time.
Mayor pro tempore Miller discussed several points in connection
with the proposed study and stated that after the engineering an-
swers are found it might be useful to have a joint meeting with
LARPD, the Planning Commission, the Council and perhaps representa-
tives of Zone 7 staff.
Councilman Beebe said he felt Mr. Lee understood what was needed
for the study, and made a motion to authorize the study by the City
staff re engineering aspects re runoff, etc., to answer questions
raised by Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Taylor and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Public works improvements in Tract 2619 have not been
commenced by the subdivider and the City Attorney
was asked to determine if reversion to acreage is
feasible or whether the City should proceed to re-
cover the cost of such improvements from the bonding
company and the subdivider so that they can be installed by the City.
It is understood that 38 lots have been sold by the subdivider,
therefore, reversion to acreage is impossible. It is recommended
that the City Attorney be authorized to make demand on the bonding
company and thereafter to file suit against the subdivider and bond-
ing company in the amount of the principal of the bonds. The esti-
mated cost of the improvements is in excess of ene-half million
dollars. It might be two years or more for the case to come to
trial if this remedy is pursued.
REPORT RE
TRACT 2619
(Bevilacqua)
Councilman Taylor discussed the possibility of recovering the cost
of the improvements and subsequent installation of the public works
improvements by the City. As a result the City would have streets
to maintain in an area without houses and questioned if the City
wished to do this.
The City Attorney stated he recognized this fact and had hoped the
land could revert to acreage, but filing suit will bring the matter
to some conclusion. Unless action is taken, the City may face addi-
tional problems.
The Public Works Director stated the bonds were issued in 1965 and
we might go beyond a reasonable time to collect the bond; then we
would face a situation with dedicated streets and we might eventually
be responsible for them.
Mr. Lewis stated that if the Council wished to consider the matter
for an additional week or two before taking action it would be
satisfactory. The attorney for Bevilacqua would probably wish to
talk to the Council in the event of serious consideration of re-
version to acreage.
Mayor pro tempore Miller inquired what steps had been taken to
also collect fees payable by Bevilacqua. Mr. Lewis stated that the
action being discussed would bring this to a head also. Mayor pro
tempore Miller suggested that several steps be taken: 1) call the
bonds, 2) start procedure to bring about reversion to acreage, 3)
bring suit for the remainder of $50,000 in fees due the City and
4) issue no building permits until Tract 2619 fees are paid and
other matters resolved.
Mr. Lewis stated that if the Council wishes to pursue both of those
things, Mr. Fraser, representing Bevilacqua, wanted to talk to the
CM-23-286
November 9, 1970
Council specifically about that before we take
any precise steps to contact the owners.
(Tract 2619 -
Bevilacqua)
Councilman Taylor suggested we take the first two
items having to do with Tract 2619 first, and agreed we should
file suit against the subdivider and bonding company for the
amount of the bonds and also initiate whatever procedure necessary
to revert the property to acreage, and made a motion to this
effect, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and the motion was
approved unanimously.
Mr. Lewis asked the Council if it would be agreeable to have Mr.
Fraser appear before them and it was stated that he did have the
right at any time.
Mayor pro tempore Miller referred back to the other items - money
previously owed by the developer on other tracts of approximately
$50,000, and Councilman Taylor asked the City Attorney how the
City would recover the money if we did not sue.
Mr. Lewis stated that provisions for this were included by an
amendment of the subdivision agreement for Tract 2619.
Councilman Taylor expressed his concern in starting a law suit
with all the expenses it might incur to the City, unless it is
the best thing to do.
Mr. Lewis stated we should get a complaint on file to start pro-
tecting ourselves on time; it will take time to bring matters
to the point of trial; it is both to the benefit of the City and
the developer to reach an agreement as there will be different
views and contentions and in a long run both parties may decide
that just collecting the money is not going to be the best thing.
Councilman Taylor stated since we do have an agreement with the
developer, he did not want the City to be accused of bad faith,
and Mayor pro tempore Miller agreed this was a good point.
With reference to bonding companies Mr. Lewis reported that the
City has filed a complaint and received service on some of the
parties on Ecco Land (Proud Homes) as the Council has been in-
terested in this for some time. The complaint has been prepared
for $125,000 in a basic amount and additional fees of $15,000.
Mayor pro tempore Miller brought up the last point - not issuing
building permits in that area until this matter has been resolved,
and Mr. Parness assured him building permits would not be issued
on any lot that is not on a dedicated public street with full
improvements.
Mayor pro tempore Miller then asked why occupancy permits were
issued, and Mr. Lee replied it is normal practice in all tracts
to issue building and occupancy permits prior to acceptance
of the improvements, and it is not a problem, ordinarily as the
City is protected by bonds. It is essential to do this because
the developer starts building as soon as he has enough streets
installed to start work on the homes.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE RG
ORDINANCE NO. 726 ZONING DISTRICT-
Section 8.00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.00 , RELATING
TO RG ZONING DISTRICT, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442,
AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY ADD-
ING SECTIONS 8.80 THROUGH 8.84, RELATING TO
LOT AND LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
CM-23-287
November 9, 1970
(Ordinance re
RG Zoning Di st.)
On motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the second reading of the
ordinance was waived, and by the following vote,
the foregoing ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
ORDINANCE
AMENDING
VARIOUS SEC-
TIONS RE LOT
FRONTAGE AND
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 727
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AMENDING SUB-
SECTIONS 20.34, 20.44, 20.45, 20.60, 20.61, 20.62,
20.63, 20.64, and 20.65 of SECTION 20.00( RELATING
TO GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF ORDINANCE NO. 442, OF THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ZONING.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, the
second reading of the ordinance was waived, and by the following vote,
the above ordinance was adopted:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
None
Mayor Silva
REPORT RE
AIRPORT
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
*
*
*
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion at this time, and Councilman Pritchard
asked why the two new members were appointed for one
year terms, and the City Manager stated this was pro-
posed by the Airport Advisory Committee and was
accepted by the Council at the last meeting.
Mr. Lewis stated that what it does is stagger the terms, and after
the original term, he would assume the new members would be subject
to reappointment if the Council wishes for the normal three year term.
After some discussion of the City Manager's report on this matter, a
motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe,
to adopt the resolution establishing the by-laws, duties and respon-
sibilities, and setting up the committee, and adopted unanimously.
REPORT RE
BAAPCD
RESOLUTION NO. 143-70
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND FIXING DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF SAID COMMITTEE.
*
*
*
A report has been received from the Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District regarding air pollution
in the Livermore area during the past year together
a listing of standards.
with
t1( ~J2/ J lHA-t
Mayor pro tempore Miller felt this report should be sent to our 10 1
Smog Committee. He commented that the number of adverse da~s wtJ~_
down from 121 to 105, which means that 3~ di1;y~~ month~/~e~neVchthy
days. This problem will increase with growth, and there is no guaran-
tee that technology will be able to solve it in time; this was a
serious health problem and should be taken more seriously. Until
the area falls below the state standards for adverse days the Council
should consider a slow down or moratorium on growth in the Valley
for the protection of the public health. Population brings cars and
cars bring smog.
CM-23-288
November 9, 1970
Councilman Pritchard said that there has been
growth and yet the number of adverse days has
decreased in the past year; there has been some
progress made.
(BAAPCD Report)
Councilman Taylor felt that technical interpretation would have
to come from the Smog Committee as this report is just a bare
report without too much interpretation. The state standard of .1
oxidant level is arbitrary itself; there is not enough data in
the report to act upon but it must be considered. He felt the
Committee should look at this report very closely.
Councilman Pritchard felt that the problem should be approached
from the standpoint of limiting the automobile, not the people.
Councilman Beebe said he did not share Mayor pro tempore Miller's
pessimism that technology could not solve the problem of pollution.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, sec8nded by Councilman Pritchard,
that the BAAPCD rep8rt be referred to the Smog Committee for
their study and comments, and it was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
With respect to a recent newspaper article con-
cerning the report on the crime rate of the Bay
Area, listing Livermore as having the lowest in-
cidence in the area, Councilman Beebe made a
motion that a commendation be given to Chief
Michelis and the Police Department for achieving these results.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor, and approved unan-
imously.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Local Crime)
Mayor pro tempore Miller commented on remarks in the article re-
lating to sociological aspects of the people living in a community
and the corresponding crime rate. Stability of population is a
factor in lower crime rate; anonymity in the larger cities is a
factor which leads to crime. This question of stability has to
do with identification with your City, your intention to stay in
the community, and interest in the community. These are the kind
of arguments and kind of issues involved in trailer courts, apart-
ments and areas of the City where there is neighbO~~r~~ie~
The comment was made that another issue that lends Go~~ab""Im ,,' Jz.
is to have lots adequate for adding on to a house as relates to ~.~ ~
the RS Zoning Ordinance and larger lots.
Councilman Taylor said that the implication of these statements
is that people who live in apartments and trailer courts are
more prone to c8mmit crimes and more prone to be second-class citi-
zens. He did not think that the direct conclusion can be made
that people in apartments and trailer courts tend to bring crime
tothe city. There are many other problems, such as unemployment
and the unemployable, other than anonymity that are the major
factors. He said that if he were one of those people living in
apartments, etc. he would resent the implication that he was a
second-class citizen, and he would be ashamed of the city if this
were the official point of view.
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated Councilman Taylor was at liberty
to draw any conclusions he chose, but these were not the conclu-
sions he had drawn from his beliefs on this matter; he did believe
there were differences in communities with transient populations
and populations which are not turned outward toward the community,
and cited the example of the City of Hayward.
Councilman Taylor said he agreed with Mayor pro tempore Miller up
to the point where he specifically mentioned apartments and
trailer courts; the discussion was about crime, not apartments
or trailer courts.
*
*
*
CM-23-289
November 9, 1970
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Center Strip)
Councilman Beebe inquired about recent construction
of homes around a cul-de-sac off Rincon Avenue with
a planted area in the middle and inquired if this
was to be maintained by the City.
Mr. Lee said this center area was due to an odd configuration of
the cul-de-sac which was elongated, and the center strip had been
planted. He said this is an unusual situation and it is hoped when
the homes are sold that it would be maintained by the buyers of
these homes.
(Valley-wide
Symposium)
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor spoke in regard to the Valley
Planning Committee's plan to have a symposium pri-
marily to gather information for the Committee by
testimony from people who have input regarding the
Valley. It has not been decided yet if there will be public testi-
mony, and a motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Coun-
cilman Pritchard and by unanimous approval that the Council agree
in principle with such a program.
(stop Sign)
ADJOURNMENT
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard stated several homeowners in
the first unit of Town Square felt a stop sign should
be installed on Cayuga at Algonquin Street to slow
traffic turning and to avoid the traffic turning from
Pine Street.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before the
Council the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
*
*
*
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of November 16, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 16, 1970,
in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
(This meeting was broadcast over Station KYTE to the point of recess.)
ROLL CALL
CM-23-290
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller
and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The minutes of the meeting of November 9, 1970,
were approved as amended on motion of Council-
man Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller, and
by the following vote:
November 16, 1970
MINUTES
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva, who was absent at the meeting of November 9
*
*
*
Reginald Wood, 148 El Caminito, addressed the
Council to inform them about the problem which
is expanding in the City re parking lots of
major shopping centers; in particular, the J. C.
Penny complex, P Street Thrifty-Alpha Beta, and the new Value
Giant, all of which create parking hazards and inconveniences.
The parking spaces are 900, narrow and too short and they take
m8re than one attempt to park in a stall because the narrow
aisles do not afford a generous enough turning radius for the
larger cars. All of these things add up to an angry and frus-
trated shopper which, he believed, the good business men would
admit was detrimental to good customer relations. It was his
understanding that an attempt is being made to revise the exist-
ing off-street parking ordinance, however the attempt has been
thwarted somewhat by the Chamber of Commerce representative,
Randy Schlientz, and he quoted comments re Sec. 2.45 of the
ordinance as made by Mr. Schlientz, and further stated he would
be happy to discuss the lot layout with any interested persons
at another time if so requested. Mr. Wood asked the Council to
influence a solution to stop the spreading of off-street parking
problems by revising the ordinance for the convenience of the
public.
OPEN FORUM
(Parking Lots)
Mayor Silva advised Mr. Wood that the off-street parking ordinance
would be before the Council soon, and they would welcome his com-
ments at that time, and Councilman Miller suggested that he talk
to the Planning Director and the Public Works Director in the
meantime.
*
*
*
Stuart Smith, 321 Virginia Drive, addressed the
Council and offered them an opportunity to con-
tribute to the defense fund of Angela Davis,
which fund is being sponsored by the Black Pan-
thers, and also offered his office for receipt
of any funds.
*
*
*
The public hearing was continued at the appli-
cant's request from the meeting of November 2nd,
for the property located generally south of us
580, easterly of Isabel Avenue and north and
south of Las Positas Road from Rs-4 and A-20
Districts to PD District, and an application
for a PUD permit, submitted by the same appli-
cant and on the same property, to allow a mo-
bilehome park, drive-in theatre, cemetery and
industrial area.
(Defense Fund -
Angela Davis)
CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING RE REZONING
AND PUD APPLICATION
(Associated
Professions, Inc.)
The Planning Director explained the rezoning, which was a routine,
procedural matter, and noted this property was annexed to the City,
zoned RL-7 and later, in conjunction with a review of all of the
zoning in the western portion of the City adjacent to Isabel Avenue,
it was rezoned to A District. The reason for the rezoning to the
Agricultural District was the Planning Commission's feeling that
CM-23-2g1
November 16, 1970
(Public Hearing
Associated
Professions)
because of its proximity to the Airport, a differ-
ent land use was advisable rather than residential.
The Planning Commission hesitated to recommend In-
dustrial Zoning primarily because of the quality of
the regulations we have, which are somewhat unres-
tricted, and the entire matter is under study.
Mr. Musso continued that the purpose of the Planned Unit Development
Permit is to establish Planned Development Zoning to allow the appro-
val of the PUD permit. The PD Zoning, in effect, is the same as
an Agricultural Zone which allows agricultural uses only and to
allow other uses, you have to go to a PUD permit, so this is submitted
concurrently with the rezoning. With regard to the rezoning the
Planning Commission felt that the zoning would be appropriate if the
Council intends to approve the PUD permit for the mobilehome park.
In effect, there is a neutral recommendation on behalf of the Plan-
ning Commission, and the issue of the mobilehome park is probably
the main issue, and the Planning Commission awaited their recommenda-
tion on this proposal, pending some resolution of the City Council
relative to whether or not the City intends to allow mobilehome parks,
and whether the City intends to allow them as a major land use. They
did recommend that this not be done because of the inequitable taxing
of mobilehome parks which has been previously discussed. With regard
to the mobilehome park at this location, the Planning Commission ~lt
that the residential use at this density was not in conformance with
the General Plan - that is 4 d.u./acre proposed on the portion that
is indicated residential; development is not in conformance with any
specific plans for that area; actually the only ones that have been
done are for two forms of single family residential use - one a low
density and the other an acreage density. The Planning Commission
felt that the area, because of its proximity to the airport is a
special area requiring a different land use plan than that proposed
by the applicant and that the non-residential use would be the most
favorable. There are some special problems in the area as to school
location, making residential use not desirable; the proximity of the
area suggests a higher and better use might be found, and the Plan-
ning Commission concluded that the principal question was that of
density and not that of mobilehome parks, and their primary recommen-
dation was based on density at this point in time. Mr. Musso men-
tioned there were two other things that have changed since the appli-
cation was originally filed: there is a reported change in ownership
which must be clarified before any permit is issued; and that is in
the area of the southern portion, not the area encompassing the
mobilehome park.
Councilman Pritchard stated that according to the master plan it says,
in part, "residential urban low of 4 d.u./acre", and questioned what
area this referred to.
Mr. Musso stated that converting from the General Plan to a specific
plan is difficult, but seemed about the lower one-third of the subject
property was indicated as residential use and the upper two-thirds
agricultural use, which all occurred in the original planning prior
to 1959, and he did not know the basis of that land use planning.
In reply to a question from Councilman Beebe, with regard to the
General Plan being updated, Mr. Musso stated it had been reviewed
from time to time, but no changes made since 1959, and it still in-
dicates one school, one park and a residential area.
Councilman Miller stated there was discussion at the Council level
re land uses, particularly about the rezoning which made this whole
area A-20. There was not a formal change in the Plan, but the re-
flection of alternate land uses was proposed by the Planning Commis-
sion and was considered by the Council and adopted by the Council
when they changed the zoning to A-20.
Mr. Musso stated they had not resolved the best land use of the area,
but a list of uses which might be considered.
CM-23-292
November 16, 1970
Councilman Miller said there was a list of uses
and residential was not among them, because
otherwise they would not have zoned it to A-20.
The decision at that time was alternate land
uses would be better and A-20 was the holding
zone before the decision was made, and Mr.
Musso agreed that this was so.
(Public Hearing -
Associated
Professions)
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing at this time to give the
audience an opportunity to speak for or against the application.
John Barker, with Associated Professions, representing the pro-
perty owners, stated they were fully aware that this was a com-
plex matter and would be a controversial issue before the Council
this evening, and in order to maintain some sense of continuity
would like to devote some time to the specific plan itself so
that the Council could become familiar with that.
Mr. Barker continued that the total proposal encompasses 211 acres
and consists of taking all the residential density within the
General Plan and putting it into the 106 acres for the mobilehome
park. They are not increasing the overall density in the area.
The General Plan has been discussed and indicates 4 d.u./acre to
a point and indicated his interpretation of the break between
the residential and the A-20 on the map, approximately along the
arroyo. The specific plan for the mobile home park is divided into
three neighborhoods: Neighborhood #3, which is north of the
arroyo, consists of about 203 spaces and is planned for a family
type park; Neighborhoods #1 and #2, containing the balance of
approximately 600 spaces, are planned for adults only by the de-
veloper. As amenities they plan to build two lagoons adjacent
to the arroyo suitable for sailboating or whatever; each of the
neighborhoods has its own recreatlon center, tennlS courts,
swimming pools and putting green~ arm there would be a community
center for the use of the total park; there would also be storage
areas.
Mr. Barker stated that Airway Boulevard is running through the
development and it is the only street they are proposing to be
a public street except for the widening of Frontage Road, and
this would be the only cost to the City from a maintenance point
of view as far as public works. In the southwesterly corner
they have proposed a one-half acre dedication to the City for a
fire station; if more land is needed, it can be obtained from
the land the City presently owns. Immediately north is planned
a convenience center (small convenience store, barber shop, beauty
salon and cleaners) and across the roadway would be the adminis-
tration building and behind that a service station on the corner
of the collector street. The overall density is 7.5, which he
felt is low by current standards. The cost would be $2.~ million
in improvements to the developer and the state is constructing
the frontage road to that point so there would be access to the
park. Another significant fact contained in the proposal would
be a dedication of 21 acres to the City for a public park. Mr.
Barker continued that, in essence, this could be one of the nicest
parks in the state, and felt it would be an asset, not only aes-
thetically, but from a utilitarian point of view - that is avail-
abili ty of mobilehomes for people who choose to live in them. They
also believe it would be self-supporting and would not have to be
subsidized by the balance of the community, and to substantiate
that point he asked Mr. Dan Spruiell, who has developed some num-
bers, to speak before the Council.
Dan Spruiell distributed some information to the members of the
Council and stated there have been some comments in the past that
mobilehome parks do not pay their way or contribute to the tax
dollar of a community, and listed and explained the development
fees that the City will charge to develop the park and the taxes
which will be charged as follows:
CM-23-293
November 16, 1970
(Public
Hearing- 106 Acre Mobile Home Park
Associated
Professions)
I. DEVELOPMENT FEES
a. Annexation fee, $350 per acre
b. City storm drain fee, $115 per Unit x 800
c. County storm drain fee, $65 per Unit x 800
d. City Sanitary Connection fee, $165 per Unit x
e. Public Works Inspection fee 1.5 Million @ 3%
f. Building Dept. fees 800 lots x $10
Sub-Total
II. TAXES
a. Personal property tax @ $18 per Unit
b. Sewer service tax, City of Livermore
75i per unit per month x 12 months
c. Sales tax to City of Livermore - Average
Mobile Home = $12,000x800= $9,600,000 x 1%
d. Property tax - Based on $4,800,000 market value;
assessed value = 25% of market value = 1,200,000
Property tax = $1,200,000 ~ 100 = 12,000
1. City tax = $1.58 x 12,000
2. School District tax = $6.00 x 12,000
3. County tax = $2.92 x 12,000
4. Bal. of tax = $2.035 x 12,000
e. II In lieu" tax - based on 2% of market value
of mobile home - $12,000 average value x 2% =
$240 per mobile home, distributed 1/3 each to:
1. City of Livermore, $80 x 800
2. Livermore School Dist., $80 x 800
3. County of Alameda, $80 x 800
Sub-Total
TOTAL
800
$ 37,100
92,000
52,000
132,000
45,000
8,000
-$366,100
14,400
7,200
96,000
18,960
72,000
35,040
24,420
64,000
64,000
64,000
$460,020
$826,120
Mr. Spruiell continued there would be a dedication of 21 acres for
parks and the value of that acreage at $15,000 per acre is $315,000.
He felt this park dedication was very important to the City, and
he explained that if any expansion is to go to the east on the master
plan, the City with tax money will have to purchase additional land
to make a clear zone with reference to the airport runway clear zone;
here they have a chance to obtain this land for nothing.
Earl Mason of Associated Professions, representing the owner, stated
there has been much said about the problem of schools as related to
mobilehomes and it has been discussed many times. In their previous
discussion with the Planning Commission in August of this year the
School District wrote a letter stating they were opposed to mobile-
homes in this area. They have met with the School District offi-
cials and they are basically saying they are opposed to any residen-
tial in this area based on the fact that at the time they looked
at the problem they did not know where they would find school sites
to take care of the children in the area. There has been a recent
study which the Planning Director furnished to the School District
in which he restudied the general area between Portola Avenue, the
railroad tracks on Stanley Boulevard and First Street. It includes
about six sections of the school area. In Area 8 and 9, (north of
Las Positas is 9 and the one the subject area is in and the one south
is Area 8) there has been planned sufficient school sites to handle
the area. In the study the total acreage as shown on the general
plan as being 4 d.u./acre is included, and as mentioned by Mr. Barker
their interpretation of the General Plan map it includes at least
two-thirds of the 200 acres, if not more, and in the total acreage
computation it includes a high percent of the subject area. Mr.
Mason referred to a map which indicated the land being previously
zoned to RL-7 at the time it was annexed in 1964, the entire parcel
all the way to Highway 580, which was at that time about 4.2 d.u./acre;
it remained at RL-7 until November, 1968, when it was zoned back to
A-20.
CM-23-294
November 16, 1970
Mr. Mason recalled working with the School Dis-
trict on several previous occasions and there
were school sites available to handle these RL-7
homes and the families that would be there. If
the RL-7 densities are used there would have been approximately
840 homes on this acreage and approximately 1300 school age chil-
dren. For the School District to write a letter now stating there
are not sufficient school sitesi Mr. Mason asked what they had in
the way of providing for them 42 years ago when it was zoned RL-7
and planned that way. There were sites available then and he
felt quite sure they were still available. In a recent letter
sent to the State, Mr. Musso asked for approval of additional
sites in Area 8 - a K-6 and K-7 and 8 school just south of Portola
Avenue. These sites have been shown as proposed sites for seven
or eight years.
(Public Hearing-
Associated
Professions)
Mr. Musso stated that approval was not requested; it was just an
informal inquiry, and the School District has not submitted them
yet. Mr. Mason asked Mr. Musso if he had not sent this to the
state for their consideration and Mr. Musso replied the School Dis-
trict had to do it, for it to be formal.
Mr. Mason continued that it was outside the flight pattern shown,
as far away as Area A, the Alameda Street school site which has
been approved by the State and School District. The point he wish-
ed to make was that this land was zoned at one time to handle as
many as 840 homes with as many as 1300 children. The proposal now
was for 800 mobile homes, which by their estimates and those of
Mr. Parness, and using the present mobile home park on Portola
Avenue, was 15 school age children for 159 units (approximately
one in ten) so projecting this percentage to the 800 units there
would be approximately 80 school age children. This is a lot
less than 1300 or even the numbers used recently with density of
4.0 d.u./acre. This would not be a losing proposition, however,
as there would be $72,000 a year from property taxes on the pads
and property improvements and land value; there is also the in-
lieu tax of $64,000, which will vary due to the variance in age
of the units in the park. In discussion with the School District
costs have been stated from $800 to $900 per year to educate one
child. If you divide an average of 850 into the $136,000 per year,
this will take care of the full cost of 160 children per year,
which is double the estimated number of 80 for this area. On a
residential basis an average home operates at a deficit as far as
covering cost of school children. They felt that this would be
a good use for the land in this area.
Mr. Barker stated it was important to keep the overall picture
in mind as to what they were talking about, which is really the
use of a piece of ground in the west part of town. Presently,
this area is undeveloped and not bringing any money into the
School District or revenue to the City. The taxes have and will
continue to rise, and the owner would like to do something con-
structive with the land. He felt that this was a good proposal
and would solve their problem. If the Council felt that at some
point in time in the future some other land use would be desirable,
then a mobile home park would be a good interim land use. If
the Isabel Avenue freeway is constructed at some time in the future,
then this would still be a good use. He wished to hear comments
on the land itself.
Harry Wilson, 926 CurlejNRd., representing the Livermore Civic
Improvement Association, wished to go on record as firmly opposing
this Planned Unit Development which they did not feel was in the
best interest of Livermore. Just as important they did not feel
it had the support of the majority of the Livermore residents.
Residents allover the City are disturbed over the recent decision
to allow the Intermark development. The majority of the people
which had been contacted were opposed to trailer parks strictly
CM-23-295
November 16, 1970
on an economic basis. The only question raised
during the circulation of their petition was that
of economics. Because of current unsettled bond
issues, further development of trailer parks in this
area would put undue economic burden on the people
as far as schools are concerned. To support this
claim, he presented the following petition: llWe the undersigned
residents of Livermore do hereby petition the Livermore City Council
not to approve mobile home parks until 1) mobile homes are taxed as
real property, and 20 mobile homes are counted for school state con-
struction aid." This petition was circulated and an excess of
1,000 signatures have been obtained. On the average, nine out of
ten people jumped at the chance to sign the petition. The associa-
tion felt this petition represented the majority thinking of the
City. The increased density brought about by this mobile home park
does not conform to the standards of the General Plan. The County
Planning Commission, in a letter to Mr. Musso, stated that the pro-
posal is not in accordance with County General Plan which indicates
low density residential (4.5 to 8.7 housing units per net residential
acre for the entire subdivision). The proposed density transfer does
not offer any guarantees to the City. A trailer park would detract
from the industrial development in that area and eventually adults
with children would be allowed in the trailer park. The Superinten-
dent of Schools stated in a letter to the Planning Department dated
August 25, 1970, that it was seriously doubted that the CAA would
approve any school site in Area 9 because of the proximity to the
airport. The Alameda Way site, which is significantly removed from
the airport, just barely received approval as a school site. Lack
of a school site in Area 9 would place an unsatisfactory burden on
the other schools.
(Public
Hearing -
Associated
Professions)
Designation of 15 acres as a proposed site for a drive-in theatre
would be incompatible with the rest of the area, and would detract
from the airport industrial complex potential. Quoting again from
the County Planning Commission's letter, Mr. Wilson read that a drive-
in theatre and light industrial area are not in accord with the
County General Plan.
The proposed industrial park would back up to existing residences
and lower the residential value of the immediate area. He reminded
the Council that there are presently over 600 acres zoned for indus-
try, 90% of which are still undeveloped.
In summary the Livermore Civic Association strongly recommends that
the Council disapprove this Planned Unit Development for the follow-
ing reasons:
1. The location and the large number of proposed mobile units will
seriously detract from the airport industrial area and further com-
promise the delicate tax base of this community. Present citizens
will be required to subsidize this proposal; this is unfair to the
Council's constituents.
2. The well received petitions indicate that the people of Liver-
more are concerned about tax inequities.
3. Indications are that adult type parks cannot be guaranteed and
our already overburdened School District cannot stand the weight of
instant housing.
Mr. Wilson presented the petition to the Council and the City Clerk.
Ernest Plechaty, 482 Pomona Court, stated that the City Council has
a serious responsibility in that this is a major population center
within the Livermore Unified School District. Although through their
actions they can only affect 13% of our total tax rate, the Liver-
more School District represents another 47% of the total taxes, so
the Council really affects 60% and further the taxes of people who
do not even live in Livermore, such as ranch lands within the Dis-
trict. Caution should be used. If the City Council would like to
subsidize somebody, they should think about the people living in
Springtown. The Council should try to help the people who live here,
stay here. Mr. Plechaty said he knew people in town who had had to
sell their property to pay taxes, and he felt it grossly unfair.
CM-23-296
,
November 16, 1970
Terry Rossow, 786 Catalina Drive, questioned
the phrase llsubsidization of the mobile home
ownersll. He asked how many of the supposedly
self-supporting homeowners in Livermore paid
school taxes on the streets in front of their
homes; how many pay taxes on their streets to pay for other people's
streets; how many pay school taxes on their parks for which they
paid for the land to be developed; how many paid taxes on their
parks to develop other people's parks? It has been said mobile
homes do not pay their fair share of school taxes, but how many
mobile homes have four, five or more school age children per resi-
dential unit? How many single family of homes pay their fair
share when they have this number of children.
(Public Hearing -
Associated
Professions, Inc. )
~
I j,.
~
~
t~
~,
Harold Enos, 484 Colusa Way, said that if groups of people are ','1' 'J'\'
going to be excluded en masse since they are not counted for mass
aid, then he would like to be excluded and he would send his ~
children to private school. He said he had been informed the "'1'3 ~._!,
average mobile home 24 ft. by 60 ft. trailer sells for $16,000. ",_~
His home cost about that to build, and his tax bill was $550 for
last year. The mobile homeowner pays $275 on a $16,000 invest-
ment during the first year only. It seems that when someone is \ ~
not carrying their full load, others have to carry the burden. ~ ~
He did not wish to deny someone a mode of living. He also spoke ~ ~
in regard to the park and future maintenance costs. He felt the <~j
proposal was a pig-in-a-poke. ,~ ~
steve Killiany, 888 Curlew Rd., stated that the first year costs ~~
are quite similar for a single family home and those presented ~~~
this evening. He did wish there could be some guarantee as far ~ j
as schools are concerned. Even at 1/2 child per unit for 200 ~"~
units, it is 3+ school rooms. If this plan is approved we should ~,~,
be sure we will get these schoolrooms. ~~ 1
Paul Brown, 731 Wimbleton Lane, questioned the $96,000 income ~.,
referred to in previous testimony on behalf of the applicant, and ~.~
inquired if this meant all mobile homes would be purchased in (
Livermore. He was informed that models would be set up from .v ~
which purchases would be made. He asked why the property was re- .~.~
zoned a few years ago, and Councilman Miller said it had to do t~
with the overall effect of the airport on the use of the propertx. ',,~
He felt it had been rezoned A-20 because of problems ,~ reSiden~j w
being close to the airport; other uses such as industrial seemed -
more beneficial.~ There are standards set up for regulating use C
of properties around airports. Mayor Silva pointed out there is ~-
a clear zone indicated with no homes proposed; others the FAA is
not concerned about. Mr. Brown felt the Council should consider
the hazards relative to construction around the airport.
Eldon Glover, 3579 Oregon Way, stated the plan laid out and the
revenue to be gained should be welcomed by the City and School
District.
Arthur Hansen, 583 Covington Way, said he lived in the Elliott
tract, and it was his understanding the School District did not
own the Alameda Drive School site. There is no guarantee that
the ~chool site will still be available. He did not feel there
was a real gain as in fees since the taxes decrease every year,
this could not be considered as gain. Councilman Taylor pointed
out that taxes on mobile homes decrease to less than half after
five years; after eighteen years they drop to 15% of value of the
first year. Mr. Hansen stated that industrial or residential
use does not have this type of depreciation.
Ken Bandtel, 1352 Kathy Court, said he could not see how this
proposal could be good for Livermore. It reduces to two basic
essentials: the tax base is not equitable, and they do not count
toward schools. He felt the Council has the duty to protect the
citizens. Growth should pay its way, and developers are pursuing
this path because of the profit.
CM-23-297
November 16, 1970
(Public Hearing-
Mobilehome Park,
Associated
Professions)
Councilman Beebe questioned Mr. Wilson about a
previous statement. Mr. Wilson stated the Liver-
more Civic Association objects to the industrial
use proposed in this proposal but supports con-
formity to General Plan which would require in-
dustrial around the airport.
Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Wilson if the Association had dis-
cussed what should be put in around this area. Mr. Wilson said no
official proposal had been reached. Personally, Mr. Wilson felt
the cemetery use is excellent but wondered if it is adequate for
projected population; the industrial area projected around the air-
port would be ideal, but a mobile home park located there would de-
tract from the attractiveness for industrial coming in. Mr. Wilson
referred to the Orange County Airport which has a fantastic develop-
ment of industrial around the airport and no residential except for
some there before development.
Councilman Beebe asked if the Association would be more receptive
to placing the cemetery along the houses on the east side to serve
as a sort of buffer, and Mr. Wilson said his personal observation
was this was the general feeling of people with whom he had talked.
Councilman Beebe made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to close the public hearing, and it was approved unanimously.
Mayor Silva stated a large amount of testimony had been received
and due to a lack of time, he wished to request continuance for a
period of one or two weeks. He hoped to keep the meeting from going
into the early morning hours, and whenever there were long public
hearings the debate should be deferred to another evening. Council-
man Pritchard made a motion for continuance for one week, seconded
by Councilman Beebe. Mr. Barker stated on behalf of the applicant
that the continuance was agreeable and expressed the desire to have
the item on next week's agenda.
Councilman Miller said one of the problems with continuance is that
those who are interested in this item have to come back again and
again; if a specific date is not set they are inconvenienced. Mayor
Silva said all those who had testified seemed to be aware of what
was going on and the newspapers kept people informed.
Councilman Taylor spoke against continuance. He said many misleading
facts had been presented, and wished to have the opportunity while
they were still fresh in mind to clarify them. In particular, he
believed the economic analysis was grossly misleading and the error
should be pointed out. In a couple of weeks he would forget some
of the things, and suggested a discussion of about 45 minutes, after
which the matter could be continued if necessary.
Mayor Silva felt that it was best not to have the meeting continue
after midnight because it was hard to conduct a responsible meeting
in the early morning hours. He agreed that some of the testimony
needed to be discussed in detail, but felt the City Clerk would in-
clude all the testimony and figures presented in the minutes so it
would be before the Council.
Councilman Miller felt that the final decision might have to be con-
tinued but there were details that needed to be discussed.
Mayor Silva asked which of the other items on the agenda the Council
members wished to continue if they went ahead with discussion on
this matter as he felt this would be necessary to avoid exceeding
a time limit of midnight.
Councilman Miller stated that trying to shut off debate on an issue
this important was a little bit outrageous; he felt that if two mem-
bers of the Council, which represented 40%, wished to discuss some
items they should be allowed at least 15 minutes to say a few words
about this matter.
CM-23-298
Mayor Silva stated he was not shutting off de-
bate as the matter would be continued to the
next meeting; then instead of 15 minutes they
might be able to have an hour.
November 16, 1970
(Public Hearing -
Mobile Home Park,
Associated
Professions)
The question was called for, and the motion for continuance of
one week was passed by the following vote, with the stipulation
that the full minutes of the testimony be included.
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS, THE MEETING RESUMED WITH
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECESS
A letter from the American Institute of Planners, (Metropolitan
California Chapter, regarding the apointments to Transportation
be made to the Metropolitan Transportation Com- Commission)
mission was acknowledged.
*
*
*
A report by the City Manager indicates that
the resolution adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors requests that the Mayor of each of
13 cities in Alameda County select one repre-
sentative to the Welfare Task Force Study.
This appointment will be made in an executive
session.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the City Manager re-
garding the investment of the surplus funds of
the City for the past five years; the total
amount of revenue accrued from this program has
exceeded $310,500.
(Report re Appoint-
mernrWelfare Task
Force Study
Committee)
(Investment of
Surplus Funds)
Councilman Miller stated that this investment program was a
credit to the City Administration and hoped that the newspapers
would report the amount of income so earned. He also inquired
about the money shown as being invested presently in time de-
posits and whether there would be a greater return if this money
were invested elsewhere. Mr. Parness explained that at the pre-
sent time deposits which are available exceed federal paper;
time deposits are earning an average of 6~ and federal paper 5~%,
which is the reverse situation of about a year ago. He explained
that these investments are reviewed weekly in order to assure
investment with the greatest return and also pointed out that
the City's commercial account is kept to a bare minimum in order
to afford as much as possible for investment purposes.
*
*
*
Departmental reports were received from the
following:
Airport - October - Activity and Financial
Building Inspection - October
Fire Department - October
Golf Course - October
Justice Court - August and September
Police Department - October
Water Reclamation Plant - October
(Departmental
Reports)
CM-23-299
November 16, 1970
~xempt
Business
Licenses)
(Payroll &
Claims)
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
PUD #15
(Extension-
Carlton Dev.)
Applications for exempt business licenses have
been received from the following:
Twin Valley YMCA - sale of Christmas trees and
other miscellaneous items from December 4 thru
December 23, 1970
Philippine American Association - dance Nov. 21
*
*
*
Ninety-seven claims in the amount of $64,984.01
and two hundred sixty-four payroll warrants in
the amount of $78,857.68, dated November 12, 1970,
were ordered paid as approved by the Finance Dir-
ector. Councilman Silva abstained from voting on
Warrant No. 8946 and Councilman Beebe on Warrant
No. 8991 for their usual reasons.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded
by Councilman Beebe to approve the Consent Calen-
dar, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
The City Manager explained that he had met with the
Planning Director and the principals involved on
the extension of PUD No. 15 (Carlton Development
Company) to work out the details of this permit ex-
tension. Initially, he reported they had announced
their intentions to let the PUD expire; however,
after discussion of the alternatives sought by the City, especially
in regard to the Murdell Lane relocation, they had reconsidered
the extension. Mr. Parness stated that he had not heard from the
applicant since these discussions.
Keith Fraser, representing Carlton Development Co., stated his
client had agreed to many additional conditions and the PUD as re-
written is satisfactory. His client does not like the condition
for a bond for Murdell Lane by 1973 and fee~it could be burdensome;
however, they will go along with it. Mr. Lee had informed him the
amount of the bond would be $33,500. Rather than specify the ease-
ment will be in a certain location, his client would take the County
requirements and the City requirements and try to work the street
in on the basis of a floating easement. He hoped that agreement to
these conditions and their performance by the extension date of
March, 1971, would prevent further hassle and delay when the de-
veloper comes in again in March, 1971. Councilman Miller felt
this was a reasonable statement and explained that the reason for
the March date is so that the permits will expire at the same time.
Mayor Silva inquired how the parksite will be guaranteed in the
event the property is sold to someone else. The City Manager felt
this could be taken care of through the supplemental contract neces-
sitated by the relocation of the road.
The Public Works Director suggested that it might be possible to
get an easement to the alignment that is established on the exhibit
with the clear understanding that the final dedication could be
subject to change and modification.
After further discussion, the Council directed the staff to in-
clude the supplemental contract wording on the Consent Calendar
when this contract has been resolved.
CM-23-300
*
*
*
November 16, 1970
A communication from Keith Fraser, representing
Bel-Mateo Theatres, has been received regarding
a proposal for a mobilehome park east of Vasco
Road, between Mesquite Way and East Avenue.
PROPOSAL FOR
MOBILEHOME PARK
(Bel-Mateo Theatres)
Mr. Fraser wished to know how the Council felt about this proposal
so they would know whether it would be advisable to go ahead with
the planning and engineering aspects.
Councilman Taylor stated this is industrial land and development
would have to be considered very carefully.
Mayor Silva felt mobilehome parks should be permitted based on
planning considerations only in certain recommended area. The
Planning Commission has been studying this subject but hes not
made a firm recommendation. He did not feel he could answer Mr.
Fraser until he had seen the Planning Commission's plans for lo-
cation of mobile home parks.
Councilman Miller said the past policy had been to go through
regular proceedings of annexation, with zoning to be discussed
after annexation.
Councilman Taylor said the City had never indicated any planning
for outside the City limits.
Mr. Fraser stated he had been present at the Planning Commission
meetings regarding locations for mobile home parks and at the
Council meeting when that plan was presented to the Council. He
thought one of the areas on the map was an area on the corner of
East Avenue.
The Council pointed out thqt such a map had not yet been presented
to the Council.
Councilman Taylor said he would be surprised if the Planning Com-
mission selected any sites in the County, which would amount to
pre-zoning.
Mayor Silva recalled that the City Attorney had previously stated
the General Plan should be amended to reflect possible locations
and Councilman Taylor stated his feeling that amending the General
Plan would mean policy, not designation of specific sites on a map.
Councilman Pritchard stated he had inquired of Mr. Musso the
possible location of a mobile home park in a designated area in
the County and had been informed that this was a staff suggestion;
the Planning Commission has made no decisions.
Councilman Taylor felt a great deal of specific study and planning
would have to be made if certain specific areas are designated
as sites and this is generally not done until a study is made of
the General Plan. He did not know if he wanted recommendations
from the Planning Commission indicating certain locations for
mobile homes for approval by the Council. The General Plan does
not necessarily include a map with specific locations, but it can
have descriptions in words.
Mayor Silva said that anywhere there is industrial or multiple
zoning indicated that this could be a potential mobile home site.
He would like to have the Council be more specific and have a
specific zone for mobile homes.
Councilman Taylor felt mobile homes could be allowed in certain
areas designated multiple or industrial with conditions outlined,
but not show any specific property on a map.
Mayor Silva said his purpose was to eliminate numerous mobile
home applications which will not be approved.
CM-23-301
November 16, 1970
(Mobile Homes
Bel-Mateo
Theatres)
The Planning Director explained that the Planning
Commission now has before it an ordinance that
would regulate mobile home parks; they are also
trying to develop some criteria for a basis for
locating mobile home parks. The only controversy
is whether to indicate sites; the Planning Commission is reluctant
to indicate sites for the reasons noted. There is also the possi-
bility of indicating areas where higher density would be allowed
through density transfer.
Mayor Silva told Mr. Fraser that the Council did not seem to be in
a position to reach any decision at this point. Perhaps after the
Planning Commission makes its report, some indication on this site
might be made.
Mr. Fraser reported to the Council that the Radiation Laboratory had
been contacted and there were no objections to the location of the
mobile home park adjacent to the Laboratory. He wished to know if
any of the Councilmen were opposed to this.
Councilman Taylor said he could not state he was against the use at
this location, but he was concerned about another leapfrog develop-
ment.
Councilman Miller felt the Council should follow the policy of many
years, which is to talk about this in detail after the annexation is
complete.
Councilman Beebe said he had made the statement at the time of the
Intermark application that he did see a need for a limited number of
mobile home units and suggested 5% limit. There is a small need for
some units in Livermore.
Councilman Pritchard felt mobile home parks should be located in indus-
trial rather than residential areas as mobile home parks in industrial
areas would be a good interim land use. The Council discussed the
effects of mobile home parks as interim use. Councilman Pritchard
further stated he would probably not want to limit the units if this
is considered a good use for the City.
Glenn Coffey, 3557 Oregon Way, stated he was at the Planning Commission
meeting on the previous Tuesday and the Commission did discuss possible
limit percentages; also they were fairly specific in that they did
not want to approve a map with specific locations. Another thing
that had been mentioned was that mobile home parks can be relocated
as is presently being done in San Jose. Location in an industrial
area depends on the planning for any specific location.
Thomas Raison, 5244 Kathy Way, felt this issue should go to the
Planning Commission.
Val Yoakum, 3832 Dartmouth, felt that a comparison should be made
between an apartment complex and a mobile home park to determine the
financial aspects of the two uses. He still felt a citizens committee
should be named to look into this.
No action was required as Mr. Fraser had just requested an indication
from the Council regarding this proposal.
*
*
*
REZONING
INITIATED
BY PLANNING
COMMISSION
Rezoning has been initiated by the Planning Commission
of the following sites from their present zoning
category to E (Education and Institutions) District:
Holm Well Site (U District); Emma C. Smith School
(A District); Mendenhall School (RL-6 District); El
Padro Park Site (RL-6 District).
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and
by unanimous approval, a public hearing has been set for December 7
to rezone the above sites.
CM-23-302
A Conditional Use Permit application has been
submitted by James McAtee to allow truck and
auto rental at 909 Bluebell Drive. The Plan-
ning Commission recommends approval for a
period of one year, renewable for an additional
year. The main basis for the approval was the
testimony that the rental business will provide
for the Springtown area.
November 16, 1970
CUP TO ALLOW TRUCK
& AUTO RENTAL
(909 Bluebell Dr.,
McAtee)
Norm McAtee, part owner of the Gulf Station, said they presently
had three trucks - one pickup, one 12 ft. and one 18 ft., which
were new, and he did not feel they were unsightly. Although
the area is zoned for a shopping center, there are not enough
people yet to support one. He stated they had many inquiries
from people traveling on the highway as well as people staying
at the Holiday Inn for car rentals. He presented a petition
from residents in the area who wanted the use to be permitted
as long as there is not an excessive number.
The Council discussed problems with parking which might be en-
countered, but Mr. McAtee felt there was ample space to handle
any vehicles which might be turned in at the station. He was
agreeable to limiting the vehicles to ten.
Councilman Miller said this station was in an area where zoning
did not permit trailer rental; the zoning ordinance provided
other areas designed for this use.
Mayor Silva felt there was a definite need for the use at this
location because of car breakdowns and inquiries for rentals at
Holiday Inn.
Councilman Taylor felt this case was quite different from the
car rental on East Avenue and made a motion to approve the CUP
with the conditions given in the Planning Commission's Resolu-
tion No. 32-70 except that the ten permitted vehicles may include
one pickup, one 12 ft. truck, and one 18 ft. truck. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Beebe and approved by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Mayor Silva
Councilmen Pritchard and Miller
*
*
*
On October 13 the Council held a public hear-
ing and proposed that the entire property lo-
cated on the east and west side of Airway
Boulevard, south of US 580, be rezoned to ID
(Industrial Development and Administration)
District contrary to the recommendation of
the Planning Commission. The matter was referred back to the
Commission for review and comment which is now presented to the
Council and which concurs with the City Council's proposal.
Introduction of an ordinance for this rezoning is indicated
later in the meeting.
*
*
*
REZONING OF AREA
EAST AND WEST OF
AIRWAY BLVD, SOUTH
OF US 580
The City Manager reported that AB-1856, which
establishes an Airport Land Use Commission,
was enacted during the last session of the
Legislature without our prior knowledge that
such a bill was to be introduced. Mr. Parness
said he had just today discussed this bill with the Airport Ad-
visory Committee who share his concern and adopted a motion for-
mally endorsing the recommendation that the Council would instruct
REPORT RE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION
CM-23-303
November 16, 1970
(Airport
Land Use
Commission)
that notices be distributed to the Mayors' Con-
ference and the appropriate airport managers com-
mittee, which has been assigned the responsibility
of selecting appointees to this new Commission,
and that secondly, the Council inform these groups
of the strong wish and desire that Livermore be assigned at least
one appointment to this Commission based upon the reason that Liv-
ermore is probably the only airport in the area that has abutting
land use yet to be precisely determined. He added another recom-
mendation, which might precede the other two, that the Council
urge a composite Airport Commission be formed rather than the dele-
gation of this responsibility to an assigned group such as the
County Planning Commission.
Mr. Parness stated that this law particularly refers to building
height regulations as it refers to airport properties. It allows
a lot of discretion to be given to the group as far as what land
uses will be permitted. The bigger cities will be firmly represent-
ed, but it is hoped that Livermore will be given one seat.
Several members of the Council felt that we should request more
than one seat on the Commission. Councilman Taylor stated that
the rationale for this request would be that the land use is al-
ready determined around the airports at Oakland and Hayward, and
made a motion that the Council adopt the City Manager's recommenda-
tions that we push for representatives from the municipalities on
the Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beebe and
approved unanimously.
Mr. Parness informed the Council that this item was on the Mayors'
Conference agenda for the meeting of December 2 and action must'
be taken at that time. The bill does not specify jurisdiction for
the Commission, and if the County Planning Commission was named
they might possibly have jurisdiction over City land.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
RE ZONING
AREA ADJACENT
AIRWAY BLVD.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Beebe, the ordinance regarding assignment of
zoning on the east and west sides of Airway Boulevard
to ID (Industrial Development and Administration)
District was introduced, the reading of the ordi-
nance was waived (title read only) by the following
vote:
Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
None
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
RE ZONING
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX No. 4
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Miller that all
residential properties in the Portola Avenue Annex
No. 4 be zoned to RS-3 (Suburban Residential) District,
but the motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, that the proposed ordinance re assignment
of zoning categories to Portola Avenue Annex No.4
as outlined on the designated map be introduced and the reading of
the ordinance waived.
The question was then brought up regarding the abstention during
discussion of the zoning of Portola Avenue Annex No. 4 by Mayor
Silva and Councilman Miller on certain portions of the property.
The City Attorney advised that they would also have to abstain from
voting on those portions of the proposed ordinance. The motion on
the floor was withdrawn.
CM-23-304
November 16, 1970
Mayor Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, that the proposed ordinance re assign-
ment of zoning categories to those properties
north of First Street to RS-3 District be intro-
duced and the reading of the ordinance waived.
The motion was passed by the following vote:
(Ordinance Zoning
Portola Ave.
Annex No.4)
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller
Mayor Silva made a motion, seconded by Councilman Beebe, that
the proposed ordinance re assignment of zoning categories to the
balance of the property as designated on the map, excluding that
property designated Rs-4 and RL-6 north of Colgate Way, be intro-
duced and the reading of the ordinance waived.
Councilman Miller referred to his comments included in the agenda
regarding holding capacity of the various proposed zoning plans.
He stated that all of the areas designated as residential would
have buffering problems; the lower the density the easier it is
to provide the buffers. His proposal to zone all of the residen-
tial to RS-3 would allow the holding capacity of the General Plan
to be maintained within three units. Discussion followed regard-
ing the densities and holding capacity designated by the General
Plan. Councilman Miller felt that the purpose of assignment of
densities and zoning is to maintain the holding capacity calcu-
lated for the General Plan.
Councilman Taylor thought the area should be divided into logical
neighborhoods when discussing holding capacity. There is no
communication between the two areas north and south of the rail-
road tracks and should not necessarily be considered together
in figuring holding capacity. Essentially, the increase in hold-
ing capacity is not due to increase of density but because some
land formerly considered for industrial has been considered for
residential. He stated his feeling the only change he might
consider was that portion abutting the Colgate Way property,
which is not included in the present motion.
The motion to introduce the ordinance to zone the balance of the
property as designated on the map, excluding that property de-
signated Rs-4 and RL-6 north of Colgate Way, and waive the first
reading was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor Silva withdrew from the chair as he abstained from discus-
sion and vote on that property north of Colgate Way, because his
residence is located in the area, and Mayor pro tempore Miller
presided over this discussion and motion.
Councilman Taylor felt that Councilman Miller's arguments about
holding capacity had nothing to do with this portion of the parcel
since it is in a completely different planning unit.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
that the property north of Colgate Way be zoned RS-3 rather than
Rs-4, except the property abutting the rear of Colgate Way which
will be zoned RL-6, and the motion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Miller
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
CM-23-305
November 16, 1970
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Agreement re
Grading-Civic
Center Site)
(Park
Dedication)
The Public Works Director reported that he had attend-
ed a meeting with the LARPD regarding the grading
work at the Civic Center site. The members of the
LARPD Board approved the agreement with the contrac-
tor with three additions: 1) that they be covered
by the insurance carrier, 2) mentioned in the llhold
harmless clausell of the agreement, and 3) the City
will be responsible for the maintenance of the
Sunken Gardens area during the term of this agreement.
*
*
*
The City Attorney asked that the City continue to
support Walnut Creek's stand in regard to an appeal
to the Supreme Court in their parkland dedication
case.
Councilman Miller made a motion that the Council continue to support
Walnut Creek in their stand with regard to an appeal to the Supreme
Court in their parkland dedication case, to resolve park dedication
law in favor of the cities. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Pritchard and approved unanimously.
(Annexation
Fees re
Mobile Home
Parks)
*
*
*
The City Manager inquired as to the Council's inten-
tion regarding a~sessment of annexation fees pertain-
ing to mobile home parks.
Discussion followed as to whether or not the annexa-
tion fee would be assessed on a per unit basis. Councilman Taylor
made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the annexation
fees be assessed on a per dwelling unit basis, regardless of type
of unit, and it was approved unanimously.
(Capital
Improvement
BUdget)
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Summer Youth
Program)
(Sign
Ordinance)
*
*
*
The City Manager reminded the Council of the study
session at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday at the Rincon Fire
Station to continue discussion on the Capital Im-
provement Budget.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor mentioned that it had been suggested
that local youth be given first consideration in the
City's summer hiring program and the City Manager
pointed out that all of the positions are filled
by local youth through interview and written applica-
tion which includes a short essay as to why they
desire the job.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard inquired if any action had been
taken regarding referral to the Planning Commission
for reconsideration of highway oriented sign ordinance.
After discussion it was decided this should be done through formal
action of the Council. Councilman Pritchard made a motion, seconded
by Councilman Beebe, that the Planning Commission be requested to
study that particular portion of the sign ordinance relating to
highway oriented signs, and the motion passed unanimously.
(SUpport of
Assemblyman
Knox)
CM-23-306
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt the Council should send a
letter of thanks to Assemblyman John Knox as it was
his Bill that got the three northern counties into
the Air Pollution Control District.
November 16, 1970
Mayor Silva referred to action by past Councils
whereby the City has contacted the railroads
regarding joint usage of tracks and suggested
to the present Council that the City request
the railroads to consider such joint usage, not
City but along other portions of their lines.
(Relocation of
Railroad Tracks)
only here in our
Mr. Parness pointed out that there have been changes in circum-
stances regarding relocation of the tracks and joint usage. One
major change is the removal of passenger train service over the
Southern Pacific system and other technological advances may make
such a proposal feasible.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, the
following resolution was passed by unanimous vote:
RESOLUTION NO. 144-70
A RESOLUTION URGING RAILROAD COMPANY
JOINT TRACK USAGE.
*
*
*
The Council decided not to hold a Council meet-
ing on the fifth Monday, which is November 30.
(Meeting Nov. 30)
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55
p.m. to an executive session to consider appoint-
ment to the Youth Council, the Welfare Task Force
Group, and the Community Affairs Committee.
ATTEST
*
APPROVE
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of November 23, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on November 23,
1970, in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. with Mayor Silva
presiding. (This meeting was broadcast over Station KYTE until
close of the hearing re Associated Profession's rezoning and
PUD applications).
* * *
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard, ROLL CALL
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT: None
* * *
CM-23-307
November 23, 1970
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of November 16, 1970,
were approved as amended on motion of Councilman
Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller, and by
unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Clarence Hoenig, 588 Tyler, stated that about a
month ago the LARPD gave a presentation at the Jack-
son Avenue School on some of the proposed designs
for Jackson Avenue community park and there was
general dissatisfaction expressed among those present
at the meeting concerning the traffic plan as presented. Pomona Way
is to be extended through the park and will become a collector street
and divide the park from the school site. They were also concerned
that the City plans to sell part of the land in order to pay for this
extension. A petition had been circulated asking that the traffic plan
be reconsidered; this petition bearing 100 signatures from residents
of the Jensen tract as well as Wagoner Farms was presented to the
Council.
OPEN FORUM
(Jackson Ave.
Park Site)
Mayor Silva said this matter had been discussed about one year ago
and the decision was made then on the plans for the park and exten-
sion of the street. He felt the people did not understand all the
facts and suggested that the staff have a meeting with residents of
the area to explain the situation more fully. If there is still dis-
agreement over the plans, a city-wide meeting would have to be held
as any change in the plans would mean that the balance of the commun-
ity would have to subsidize the construction of this street. The
staff was instructed to set up this meeting within two weeks and also
to contact the LARPD regarding abeyance in this matter. The City Man-
ager explained that the LARPD was awaiting a decision from the City
regarding Pomona Way before proceeding with the development work.
(Jail
Conditions)
(Air
Pollution
Standards)
(Granada
Little
League)
*
*
*
Earl Forrest, 765 Cardinal Way, spoke in regard to
jail conditions experieQced by his son who had re-
cently spent a night in the local jail. The staff
was directed to investigate this complaint and to
contact Mr. Forrest regarding the outcome.
*
*
*
Don Watson, 876 Via Seville, of the Clean Air Coordi-
nating Committee, stated that the Board of Air Re-
sources of the State were given new recommendations
for air quality standards by the Technical Advisory
Committee. He discussed these standards briefly.
*
*
*
Willard Lehman, 1379 Laguna Street, presented a
letter addressed to the City Council setting out the
program of the Granada Little League which calls for
construction of four Little League ballparks on pro-
perty at Mendenhall School. He explained various
donations of time, labor and money from people of the community,
and requested assistance from the Council.
The City Manager explained that a maximum credit of $1,000 had been
previously extended to the Livermore Little League in the form of
personnel time, materials or supplies obtained through the City's
purchasing outlets. No cash was extended.
Councilman Beebe made a motion to extend the same assistance (up
to an equal amount) to the Granada Little League as extended to the
Livermore Little League.
CM-23-308
November 23, 1970
Councilman Taylor stated that there had been (Little League)
opposition voiced before when aid was given to
the Livermore Little League as many felt the City
was not in the recreation business and taxes are
paid to the Recreation District for these purposes. He suggested
that this matter be postponed for further study and discussion with
the Recreation District. Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to table this discussion, but the motion
failed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Taylor and Miller
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
The previous motion for approval of expenditure was seconded byCouncll.
man fritcrnrdand passed unanimously.
Mayor Silva commented that matters such as this request for fin-
ancial support should be included as an item on the agenda so
that full information and facts are available before the Council
has to make a decision. Councilman Miller agreed with Mayor Silva
in this regard and also thought a policy should be set.
*
*
*
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden, presented a copy of the (Display of Flag)
Boy Scout Manual to the City Council from the
American Taxpayers Union as a reference for the manner in which
to display the flag. He referred to a recent incident regarding
the flag on November 11.
Councilman Miller explained that he had been contacted in the
absence of the Mayor and that he had discussed this matter with
the Chief of Police as the Police Department has the responsibility
for administration of the flag code and raising and lowering the
flag flown on the pole located at the intersection of First Street
and Livermore Ave. He felt the uproar over this incident was an
attack on the Police Department and he resented it. The Livermore
Flag Code was drawn up in cooperation with the Police Department
and the City Staff, and is based on the Flag Codes of the Encyclo-
pedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, the State Law and the
Flag Code of the American Legion. All of these agreed that it is
disrespectful to fly the flag in inclement weather, and the deci-
sion as to the state of weather is a decision made by the Police
Department; he fully supported the decision of the Police Depart-
ment in this matter.
*
*
*
Sue Steinberg, 4174 Pomona Way, commented on (Mobile Homes)
statements made recently in regard to mobile
homes. She felt that mobile home owners have
received much bad publicity when the situation has resulted from
state laws which have been passed regarding mobile homes. She
referred to inequities in taxes and school support which resulted
in other residents having to carry a greater burden. She asked
the Council to consider if they could in good conscience vote
for mobile home parks and thereby ask the present residents to
pay more than their share.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning from RS-3 District
to RG-10 District has been submitted by James
Viso, trustee for Hyman and Rena Weisel, for
property located on the north side of Interstate
580 between Bluebell Drive and Central Avenue.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING (No. of
Interstate 580)
The Planning Director explained that the matter before the Council
is for rezoning although there is also a proposal for a mobile home
park which may be submitted through request for a Conditional Use
CM-23-309
November 23, 1970
(Public Hearing
No. of Inter-
state 580)
Permit. The property contains approximately 40
acres and frontage on Highway 580 extends some
distance. It was a part of the original annexa-
tion by Marnel Development Company for the devel-
opment of Springtown; however, it was not a part
the original Springtown Planned Development Permit. The request
in conflict with the General Plan, which indicates the density
be 3 d.u./acre. The Planning Commission recommends denial.
of
is
to
The public hearing was opened at this time by Mayor Silva. The
applicant was not present at the meeting.
Mrs. Paul Stroud, 5218 Iris Way, protested the granting of the re-
zoning in view of the plan to develop a mobile home park. She re-
quested that Councilman Pritchard explain his statement, reported
in the newspaper, that he feels the majority of the Springtown resi-
dents favor mobile home parks and asked that he state the number of
those who favor mobile home parks. In a petition presented at a
prior time there were 148 signatures objecting to a mobile home park
in the Springtown or Proud Home area and a second petition included
70 signatures of Springtown residents objecting to mobile home parks
under present conditions. She challenged the statement that a major-
ity favored mobile home parks there.
Mayor Silva stated it was the policy of the Council that questions
be asked of the Council in general rather than directed to a specific
member. Mayor Silva said he makes decisions based on what he feels
is for the best interests of the majority of the citizens.
Councilman Pritchard replied many of the 70 signatures on the second
petition were also on the first peition; 148 does not seem to be a
majority of 700 residents. He further stated he understood that those
obtaining signatures on the peitions combed the area for two weeks;
he was basing his decision on what the majority of the people who had
talked to him had expressed. He was referring to those areas where
mobile home parks could be permitted.
Mrs. Stroud wished to correct Councilman Pritchard's statement regard-
ing the petitions. The first petition was circulated by some young
people at first but after the petitions were in her house, she con-
tacted those whom she felt wished to sign them.
Clarence Hoenig, 5e8 Tyler, stated he felt the citizens wanted the
General Plan to be respected as it stands and that there be no density
increase in this area. If a density transfer is considered, he re-
quested that the City obtain the deed to the land to guarantee it as
open space. He was against the requested rezoning.
Earl Kerr, 1654 Hollyhock, said he was opposed to the rezoning. There
would be more traffic on Bluebell Drive.
Harry Wilson, 926 Curlew Road, spoke against this rezoning because
it did not conform to the General Plan and further, if the intent
is to provide a mobile home park, he was against that use.
Paul Tull, 2243 Linden, said he was opposed to the rezoning and in-
crease in density as well as the proposed use. He stated each mobile
home unit permitted cost the City $264.00.
Kenneth Bandtel, 1352 Kathy Court, stated he lived in the Wagoner
Farms area, and the trend in density in this development as well as
others has been upward. He was against increase in density.
John Stroud, 31eO Kennedy Street, was against the increase in den-
sity which was, in fact, an increase in growth which compounded
problems of the City.
Harold Enos, 44 Colusa Way, opposed the density increase. He re-
ferred to the recent defeat of the water bonds as opposition to
growth for growth's sake.
CM-23-310
November 23, 1970
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, se-
conded by Councilman Taylor, to close the pub-
lic hearing and passed unanimously.
(P.H. Rezoning
No. of Interstate
580 - Viso)
Councilman Taylor felt this was a request for a density increase
which is unjustified. He made a motion that the recommendation of
the Planning Commission for denial of the application be approved;
the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard, who stated that
it had been the history of this Council not to increase the density.
The motion for denial of the application was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The public hearing regarding the application of
Associated Professions for rezoning and a Plann-
ed Unit Development Permit for property located
generally south of US 580, easterly of Isabel
Avenue (extended) and north and south of Las
Positas Road to allow a mobile home park, drive-
in theatre, cemetery and industrial area was
held at the previous Council meeting of November 16. The hearing
was closed at that time but the discussion was deferred until this
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING & PUD
PERMIT (South of
580-Assoc. Profes-
sions)
The Planning Director referred to a memo included in the agenda
with some additional discussion in regard to this application and
explained the plans shown on the memo.
Councilman Taylor discussed testimony by the applicant during the
hearing, especially a chart used by Mr. Spruiell in his presenta-
tion. He did not dispute the individual figures or how they were
calculated, but wished to point out that the development fees of
$826,000 are fees paid to cover costs incurred, and are not income
to the City. The annexation fee which would be paid is under the
old schedule and there would be rather heavy subsidization of the
development under the old schedule. Councilman Taylor then re-
ferred to the taxes shown on the chart. He pointed out that during
the first year the total taxes paid are $357,000, deducting the sales
tax according to his figures, which is equivalent to a tax rate of
$9.83 whereas other residents pay approximately $13.50. If the
1% sales tax is added, during the first year the tax paid into
the City is about equivalent to the $13.50 everybody else pays.
At the end of the first year, the tax rate drops to $9.83; at the
end of five years it drops to $6.20; at the end of nine years it
drops to $5.88. Included in these figures is the tax on the pro-
perty as well as the in lieu tax on trailers and the in lieu sche-
dule reflects very rapid depreciation. It is true that the pro-
perty owner has to pay $826,000 to get this development started,
but it is also true that from the viewpoint of an equivalent tax
base for the City it is not such a good deal for the City. Only
one-third of the in lieu tax goes to the School District; about
half of our regular tax goes to the School District.
Councilman Taylor also discussed comments made previously by Mr.
Earl Mason regarding the school housing situation in the area.
He questioned whether the School District had changed its posi-
tion regarding availability of school sites.
Mr. Bruce Jamieson of the School District staff stated the District
has not changed its position that there is only one school site
available, which is not sufficient for those children already in
the area; therefore, any type of additional housing would put an
extreme burden on the School District. Mayor Silva inquired if
it would be possible to have a school site dedicated in this area
to serve this neighborhood. Mr. Jamieson replied that they would
not be able to get approval of a site from the State due to the
proximity to the airport.
CM-23-311
November 23, 1970
(P.H.-South
of 580
Associated
Professions)
Councilman Taylor said that in his calculations the
property tax remained the same; if they increased,
the disparity would increase. He had assumed a
land value of $6,000, $12,000 in the trailer for a
total value of $18,000 which would be equal to the
lowest priced housing available in Livermore.
Councilman Pritchard asked Councilman Taylor if in his calculations
he had taken into consideration that the cost of some services,
such as street maintenance, would be reduced. He said the point
he wished to make is that the figures which had been presented are
not all the figures; all the facts and figures are not known and
may never be. Councilman Taylor said they should consider those
facts which are known, such as that no tax is paid to BART, LARPD
or the Jr. College District from the value of the mobilehome unit.
He was convinced a mobile home development is going to be a tax
liability to the City.
Mayor Silva stated he more or less agreed with Councilman Taylor's
figures but did wish to point out that sales tax from sales and re-
sales had not been included. Further, the people of the development
would be provided their own recreational facilities; the LARPD Board
has expressed approval of this development since they would not have
to bear the cost of maintenance of the facilities. He did not feel
that each application can be decided on the basis of taxes accrued
to the City, but decisions should be decided on planning aspects.
Councilman Beebe felt that as far as cities are concerned, trailers
will pay for themselves; as far as schools are concerned it is clear
that perhaps the units do not support them fully. He concurred with
the general philosophy as expressed in the staff report.
Councilman Pritchard stated that if taxes are to be made the criteria
for allowing development then only developments of homes of $35,000
would be allowed. Figures could be calculated to show that homes
under that amount do not pay their way either.
Councilman Taylor said the fact to keep in mind is that a substantial
part of the community would be paying less than half the rate of taxes
as the other people and this is not right.
Mayor Silva pointed out that everyone in the community subsidizes
everyone else in one way or another, such as those residents who do
not have children. He stated he was not for 800 mobile home units
in any location; he felt the application should be considered on its
planning merits.
Councilman Miller pointed out that the developers do not pay all of
the $826,000 mentioned; the in lieu taxes are paid by mobile home
owners. Secondly, he felt it was clear from the analysis made that
mobile homes do not pay their way. Third, factors such as street
maintenance cost, recreational facilities, etc. are the same as for
apartments which pay the full tax rate. In regard to the endorsement
by LARPD, they did not count the tax supported cost of their programs
for these people. Taxes are an issue in the community; taxes are
usually charged equitably, but mobile home parks would create a whole
class of tax inequity. When state laws are changed, then the issue
would be different.
Councilman Pritchard referred to earlier remarks that it is not the
owners of mobile homes who are trying to make a burden; the point
is that we cannot restrict people from a mode of living which is
desired. If the general public feels there is inequity, then they
should bring pressure to bear on the state legislature to change
the tax laws. He did not feel he could tell anyone they could not
come to live in Livermore.
Mr. Musso said the General Plan presently indicates a portion which
would be approximately half of the subject property as residential
at 4 d.u./acre and the other half as agricultural as of 1959. When
the airport was moved, there was concern expressed about residential
CM-23-312
November 23, 1970
land use in this area. In 1968 there was in-
creased concern about establishment of residen-
tial use in this area, and the Planning Commis-
sion initiated hearings at which time it was
concluded that better land use could be found
than the proposed residential. The only obvious answer was in-
dustrial; however, at that time it was felt industrial regulations
were such that the area should not be so zoned. Some of the uses
proposed were a cemetery, a semi-commercial agricultural use,
trucking or warehousing activity. Zoning regulations for this
area are still under study by the Planning Commission.
(P.H.- So. of 5dO
Associated
Professions)
Councilman Taylor pointed out that the residential zoning indi-
cated on the General Plan became obsolete when the airport traffic
patterns were established.
Councilman Miller recalled that the reason zoning other than A-20
was not given to this area is that the Planning Commission had
not recommended any use and it was decided to delay zoning.
Mr. Musso discussed the present industrial zoning regulations and
said they needed to be revised so that an industrial park area
such as Pleasanton is developing could be regulated in Livermore.
Mayor Silva asked the City Attorney if it would be possible to
adopt an emergency ordinance of some sort until a new ordinance
can be adopted or if industrial is permitted in this application
can it be controlled in some way.
The City Attorney said a "freeze" can be imposed until the plans
are ready but did not see any way through a special permit. If
it should be determined that it is suited for industrial, then
the Planning Department should establish special regulations for
industrial, then whatever action necessary to hold it could be
taken until those studies are done.
Councilman Miller discussed a proposal which had been drawn up by
former Councilman Uthe regarding industrial park development re-
gulations and zoning, which is similar to that used in other
cities and suggested that this could be adopted as an interim or-
dinance until study can be made further.
Councilman Beebe said that there were many fine points in the
proposal made by Councilman Uthe but there were some very res-
trictive points which would prohibit development. He asked the
Public Works Director how far a protective or clear zone should
be established around the airport. Mr. Lee said the main con-
cern was for extension of the runway and noise zones and indicated
the area on the map. If development is allowed in certain areas
on the fringe of the clear zone, perhaps an air easement should
be obtained in order to avoid any problems over noise. Mr. Lee
explained the design of the clear zone and its slope from the end
of the runway. Councilman Pritchard asked Mr. Lee if the homes
on the south which already exist would not, in fact, be closer
to the end of the runway than those in parts of the proposed de-
velopment on the north.
Mayor Silva stated this seemed to indicate that homes could be
allowed in the northerly 25% portion of the proposed area and
the balance given to other use.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the northern sixty acres
of this property be zoned PD and the balance as agricultural.
This would allow a mobile home park through a Conditional Use
Permit in that sixty acres. He felt that the Council was agreed
that the cemetery should not be allowed in this area so it could
be removed from the PD; a drive-in movie is equally out of the
question due to access. So all that is left is the 21-acre park
CM-23-313
November 23, 1970
(P.H.-So. of 5bO-
Associated
Professions)
and the sixty acres north of that and the City's
property. He explained that he would like to
see part of this area developed as a mobile home
park and the rest industrial.
Councilman Taylor felt if the Council wants the property industrial,
it should be zoned industrial; in the past a request for PD has been
for residential development. They should reach agreement on use,
and if different from the Planning Commission recommendation, it
should go back to the Commission with the Council's recommendations.
Councilman Pritchard was asked to withdraw his motion at this time,
and to consider making it later if he so desires, and Councilman
Pritchard agreed.
Mr. Musso stated that the Council could zone one part of it PD since
the public hearings had been held and such action could be taken.
Mr. Lee commented on the future alignment of Highway 84 which will
run along the westerly boundary of the property. It will be approxi-
mately 240 ft. at the lower end and continue up to the point at the
easterly boundary where the cloverleaf interchange with US 580 will
be located. He felt this area should remain A-20, but Mayor Silva
pointed out this could not be considered legally.
Councilman Taylor commented on the land use; the City is unbalanced
in that there is more residential area than can be supported by the
industrial. There seems to be a trend for industrial to locate by
freeways and around airports rather than railroads as in the past.
This land is at the interchange of two major freeways and has good
airport access; therefore, it is reasonable to consider it for in-
dustrial use. This could be a valuable piece of industrial property
for Livermore, and felt it should be considered for appropriate in-
dustrial zoning.
Councilman Beebe agreed that ultimately the majority of the land
should be well planned industrial development, but felt the freeway
construction was ten years away and the owner should not be expected
to hold this land until then. He felt a small portion on the northern
end could be used as an adult trailer park; the Council has the ob-
ligation to provide a balanced planned community and a small per-
centage of mobile homes should be allowed.
Councilman Miller said he supported Councilman Taylor's statements,
but wished to add that the previous Council saw the problem of resi-
dential in this whole area and this is the reason it was zoned to
A-20 at that time. The City must plan development for the overall
benefit. He referred to the school problem and the fact there is
no location available for school sites. Although the main objection
by others is to the location of trailers in this area, there is
also opposition to any residential development. There are better
uses than residential for this land.
Councilman Pritchard agreed the ideal usage of the land is industrial,
but it will be some time before this land can be developed as in-
dustrial and mobile homes would be a good interim use. He felt each
individual case should be taken on its own merits as far as numbers,
and he would go along with industrial zoning and give a resolution
of intent that a mobile home park will be allowed with the design
and number to be decided later.
Mayor Silva said that this property would probably have been zoned
75% industrial and northerly 25% Rs-4 in 1959 if they had known
the airport would be there. He proposed that this be done now,
and if mobile homes are desirable to allow them to be developed
at 4 d.u./acre or a density transfer with 8 d.u./acre. This would
involve about 44 acres and at b d.u./acre they would dedicate 22
acres to the City and 176 mobile homes could be developed in RG-8
area; when the cloverleaf is developed this would take away about 15 acres.
CM-23-314
November 23, 1970
Councilman Beebe suggested rezoning 30 acres to
RG-10 with density transfer. Mayor Silva point-
ed out that zoning to RG-e would give the appli-
cant some latitude and gives the City some open
space which could also serve as a buffer zone
with the airport.
Councilman Taylor felt that under Rs-4 the property could be sold
and anything would be allowable, not just mobile homes. It would
be better to zone it all industrial and allow a CUP for the mobile
homes; however, he was opposed to a mobile home park in the area.
(P.H.-Rezoning So.
of Interstate 5eO-
Associated
Professions)
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the entire area, including
the property south of Las Positas, be zoned rD; the motion was
seconded by Councilman Beebe.
Councilman Miller statedit was clear the intent of the motion was
to provide a certain number of mobile homes. He favored industrial
use with the appropriate regulations, but did not favor mobile
homes on this property. He felt it should be left as A-20.
John Barker commented that the application is for PD and the
intent then will be to enter into a binding PUD with the City.
He would like some clear definition from the Council as to
whether mobile homes will be allowed and how many rather than a
blanket ID zoning. The original application was for 800 mobile
home units; as a compromise he suggested 60 acres of mobile homes
at a density of 7.5; 40 less acres of industrial to the south and
perhaps to the east; dedication to the City of 21 acres for a
park; and the balance left as A-20.
The Council considered reopening the hearing for additional testi-
mony from those present, but it was determined that there was no
need unless the motion on the floor failed and discussion was
allowed on the alternate proposal of the applicant.
Councilman Taylor called for a vote on the motion before the
Council, seconded by Councilman Miller, and the motion to rezone
the property to ID was passed unanimously.
Mr. Musso pointed out that this matter must now go back to the
Planning Commission and a new public hearing regarding the CUP
will be required so the issue is not decided at this time.
Discussion followed as to how many mobile home units the Council
would consider. Mayor Silva said he would go 176 units as an
interim use until the freeway is constructed. Councilman Miller
and Taylor were against any units. Councilman Pritchard felt
the northerly 50 acres were suitable for mobile homes, which
might allow 400 units. Councilman Beebe felt 272 was the only
indication.
Councilman Miller, assuming the calculation mentioned in earlier
testimony of $264 subsidy for each mobile home unit as compared
with an equal price house, calculated that there would be an in-
crease of ei on the tax rate for these mobile homes. Councilman
Pritchard stated he could provide figures which would prove his
figures were wrong.
Mr. Barker inquired if, when the application is returned to the
Planning Commission, the applicant could still withdraw his request.
The City Attorney stated final action had not been taken as this
matter was continued; final zoning action will not take place
until the Council takes action after it is referred from the
Planning Commission.
The matter of rezoning to ID District was referred back to the
Planning Commission for review and comment.
*
*
*
CM-23-315
November 23, 1970
RECESS
Policy re
Mobile Home
Park Fees
Annexing
"Interchange
Annex"
Report re
Bus Transit
Consultant's
Report
After a brief recess the meeting was resumed with
all present.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Council indicated at its last meeting that it was
their intent to assess the same annexation fee for
mobile home units as for single family dwelling
units. The following resolution amends the policy
statement in this regard.
RESOLUTION NO. 146-70
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 129-70
AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 190~69 PROVIDING
FOR INTERIM ANNEXATION FEES.
*
*
*
A small annexation, mainly consisting of the freeway
intersection at First Street and US 5~0 was neces-
sitated by the dictate of the Local Agency Formation
Commission to make a small incorporated portion of
the Portola Avenue Annex No.4 contiguous to the
City north of US 580.
RESOLUTION NO. 145-70
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED "INTERCHANGE
ANNEX" TO THE CITY OF LIVERMORE PURSUANT TO THE
"ANNEXATION OF UNINHABITED TERRITORY ACT OF 1939"
AND SECTION 35015 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
*
*
*
The City of Livermore is participating with the pub-
lic jurisdictions in the Valley, AC Transit and
BART in a study concerning bus feeder line services
and a local bus system for the Valley communities.
A consultant firm retained for this purpose, De Leuw,
Cather & Co., presented its mid-term planning report
to the public at a meeting on November 19.
Councilman Taylor felt that since he was the only Councilman in
attendance at this meeting that this matter should be discussed
after the other Council members had a chance to read the report.
The staff was instructed to include this item on the agenda at a
later date, but not as a Consent Calendar item.
Exempt
Business
License
Payroll and
Claims
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
GM-23-316
*
*
*
An application for an exempt business license has
been received from the YMCA Amateur Radio Club to
paint house numbers on curbs.
*
*
*
Eighty-three claims in the amount of $15,~04.65,
dated November 19, 1970, were ordered paid as
approved by the City Manager. Mayor Silva abstained
from voting on Warrant No. 9075 for his usual reason.
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by
Councilman Miller, to approve the Consent Calendar,
and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
November 23, 1970
A Conditional Use Permit application has been
submitted by Douglas Oil Company for a free-
standing sign at 2620 First Street. Mr. Musso
explained that a freestanding sign can be allowed
under a CUP if the location of building adjacent
and the site plan is such that a sign located on the building
would not be visible. The Planning Commission did concur that
a freestanding sign should be allowed. A 30-ft. high sign was
proposed with the name, price and symbol, but the Planning Com-
mission did recommend the present standards of an 8-ft. high sign
of 16 sq. ft. incorporated into a planter, subject to design re-
view, with a setback of 5 feet.
CUP re Freestanding
Sign (Douglas Oil)
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval, subject to the conditions given in their Resolution
No. 33-70, which was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
An application for rezoning has been submitted
by Jerome Fahnhorst (Associated Professions,
agent) and an expanded area initiated by the
Planning Commission. The applicant's parcel
is located on the southeast intersection of
Park and North 0 Streets; the expanded parcels extend generally
south of Park street, from No. L to North S streets, north of
the Western Pacific Railroad tracks.
REZONING RE PARK
& NORTH 0 STREETS
(Fahnhorst)
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Miller, to set this rezoning for public hearing on December 14 and
passed unanimously.
Councilman Taylor said that many discussions have been held in
the past by the Planning Commission regarding the properties on
the north side, especially approaching Railroad Avenue. He re-
quested that the Planning Director gather some of these reports
for review by the Council.
*
*
*
The summary of Planning Commission action taken
on November 17 was noted by the Council.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
*
*
*
A report was made by the City Manager regarding REPORT RE
equipment bids received by the City. In accord- EQUIPMENT BIDS
ance with provisions of the current budget com-
petitive bids were solicited for furnishing
various public works vehicles. A report from the Public Works
Director includes a bid analysis and recommended vendor selection.
Bids were received on November 18, 1970, for a street sweeper as
follows:
Bidder Make Bid Tax Total Del.Days
Hlcher Machinery Murphy $21:580 $1,192.40 $22,(572.40 120
E. R. Bacon, San M-B 16,250 893.75 17,143.75 90
Leandro
Nixon-Egli, Mobil 15,(535 870.93 16,705.93 60
Hayward
1970-71 Budget $3,950
Equipment Replace-
ment Fund 13,150
$17,100
CM-23-317
November 23, 1970
(Equipment
Bids)
It is recommended that the bid be awarded to the
Nixon-Egli Company, Hayward, as the Mobil Sweeper
meets the specifications.
Bids received on various vehicles for the Public Works Department
and the recommendations are as follows:
1)
~-Ton Pickup with an electric utility body - the low bid by G.
E. Dailey in the amount of $3,409.99 is recommended.
l~-Ton truck chassis - low bid by Codiroli Ford in the amount
of $5,954.25 is recommended.
2)
3)
Aerial Lift - it is recommended that the bid be awarded to
utility Body in the amount of $12,576.03. (The bids received
on the "Sky-Worker" and 'fTel-E-Lect" were rejected as they did
not meet specifications.)
Utility Body for Water Service Truck - the low bid of $847.03
by Edward R. Bacon is recommended.
4)
5)
Dump Truck - the low bid was submitted by International Harves-
ter and the next lowest bid by G. E. Dailey in the amount of
$8,878.13, which is 2~% higher.
Awarding of the bid for the dump truck was held over as the Council
wished to consider further whether the bid should be given to the
local dealer since the two bids were very close. They discussed
sales tax which would be paid to the City from a local sale and
the service aspects.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to approve the Public Works Director's recommendations for these pur-
chases, with the exception of the dump truck; the motion was approved
unanimously.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE RE
REZONING AREA
ADJACENT TO
AIRWAY BLVD.
On motion of Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Miller, the second reading of the ordinance was waived
and by unanimous vote the ordinance rezoning the area
adjacent to Airway Blvd. to ID District was passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 728
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00
THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
*
*
*
ORDINANCES
RE ZONING OF
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX NO. 4
ORDINANCE NO. 729
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 Taylor, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
the second reading of the above ordinance zoning the properties on
the north side of First Street and Portola Avenue was waived and
the ordinance was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Miller
In regard to the ordinance for the zoning of the triangle area in-
cluding the service station bounded by Portola Avenue and First Street
CM-23-31e
November 23, 1970
as Rs-4, industrial adjacent to First street as
ID-H, and the industrial south of the railroad
tracks as ID District, Councilman Miller ques-
tioned the intention of the Council in regard to
that portion designated as Rs-4. It had been discussed that a
portion of this would be a shopping center and the remainder may
include apartments. He asked if the Council intended to zone this
for apartments later or to have the apartments come from density
transfer elsewhere. Mayor Silva replied that the number to be
assigned would be decided by the planning considerations. Council-
man Taylor said approval of the apartments would depend upon logi-
cal justification; the design when presented might not justify
density transfer at all. The Council discussed proposed density
of this area in relation to the number of apartments to be allowed,
but the majority felt this could not be decided at this time.
(Zoning of Portola
Avenue Annex No.4)
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Beebe, the
second reading of the following ordinance was waived and the ordi-
nance passed by unanimous vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 730
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMENDING SECTION 3.00
THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
Councilman Pritchard commented on the unusual action taken after
indicating Rs-4 zoning for that portion of the property generally
north of Colgate Way and then reversing its decision at the time
of the first reading of the ordinance by zoning it to RS-3. The
applicant was not present at the first reading and was under the
impression from previous discussion that the property would be
Rs-4. He felt that the Council should have delayed the introduc-
tion of the ordinance regarding this zoning so that the applicant
could have been notified. Discussion followed regarding the
Council's action.
Mayor pro tempore Miller presided over the discussion of this pro-
posed ordinance as Mayor Silva abstained due to owning property
(his residence) adjacent to the area under consideration.
The Council reviewed previous discussion regarding holding capacity
calculations.
Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded by Councilman Miller to
waive the second reading of the ordinance zoning that property
generally north of Colgate Way to RS-3 with the portion abutting
the rear of property facing Colgate Way to be zoned RL-6.
Mr. Barker of Associated Professions, representing the applicant,
said RS-3 is not necessarily compatible with RL-6. He referred
to two other additions in the City which actually were zoned at
4.2 d.u./acre but have actually been built at 3.7 and 3.9 d.u./acre.
The holding capacity of the City is a consideration as well as
for this area. The applicant considered the Council's action as
a breach of faith, and as his agent Mr. Barker stated he had to
concur with this feeling. There are 17 units concerned, and it
seems inconceivable that a logical and wise zoning decision would
be reversed on the basis of some numbers. He asked that the zoning
be returned to Rs-4.
Councilman Beebe felt that the applicant should have been notified
regarding any change in zoning, and Councilman Pritchard said he
felt there was a breach of faith.
The City Attorney advised that in the event of a tie vote, the
property would remain in the previous zoning. Whether or not the
rule of necessity would apply so that Mayor Silva could vote
would have to be studied further.
CM-23-319
November 23, 1970
(Ordinances
Rezoning
Portola Ave.
Annex No.4)
In regard to compatibility, Councilman Taylor felt
the RS-3 zoning was compatible; Rs-4 is usually
given to high density residential. Mr. Musso felt
the reason for the change in vote was strictly on
the question of compatibility.
The motion to waive the second reading of the ordinance resulted
in a tied vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
NOES: Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to waive the first reading of
the proposed ordinance zoning the area generally north of Colgate
Way as Rs-4 and RL-6, seconded by Councilman Beebe and the follow-
ing vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Pritchard and Beebe
NOES: Councilmen Taylor and Miller
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
The motion failed to pass, and the matter was referred to the City
Attorney for a recommendation concerning Mayor Silva's ability to
vote due to the rule of necessity to break the tie.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Park
Dedication
Suit)
(Municipal
Court)
(Metropolitan
Transportat~on
Commission)
*
*
*
The City Attorney informed the Council that an appeal
has been filed by Walnut Creek in the recent case of
the Associated Home Builders vs. Walnut Creek. A
brief has been written on the behalf' of forty-five
cities and counties urging the Supreme Court to hear
this case regarding park dedication.
*
*
*
Judge Joseph Schenone is to be sworn in as the first
judge of the new Municipal District on December 1
and the members of the Council have been asked to
attend.
*
*
*
The City Manager mentioned the Metropolitan Transpor-
tation Commission, which is about to be formed. The
Mayor, representing the City, will be called upon
to voice his views at the Mayors' Conference on
December 2. It will be a 19 member commission to
be divided between the present constitution of BART plus two other
counties; there are five counties which can appoint two members
each; the other four counties can appoint one each; and there will
be members from other agencies also. It is hoped that someone
from the Valley area can be appointed to this Commission. The City
Manager stressed the importance of this Commission to the City of
Livermore and Mayor Silva stated that in the executive session
following the meeting the Council should consider naming someone
to be considered for this appointment.
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Density re
General Plan)
CM-23-320
*
*
*
Councilman Beebe requested that when a land use plan
comes from the Planning Commission the staff should
include the density per acre and/or holding capacity
of the General Plan in their report.
*
*
*
November 23, 1970
Councilman Taylor spoke regarding the Regional
Water Quality Control Board's consideration of
the VCSD sewage plant expansion and the raising
of their standards which involves additional
costs. He felt the same standards will be applied to our City
and will affect our expansion plans, and questioned if the sewer
connection fee will cover this cost. The staff was requested
to include this possibility in their calculations and to report
to the Council their findings.
(Sewer Plant
Expansion
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard asked what procedure should (Leaf Pickup)
be followed regarding the pickup of leaves. The
City Manager said the practice was to pick up
those leaves in the street as the streets should
be kept clean.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller felt that the Assessor's Office
should be contacted in regard to reevaluating the
property around the airport as he felt it was not
assessed at an equitable amount.
(Assessment
Practices)
*
*
*
Councilman Miller recalled to the Council that
several weeks ago he had brought up the matter
of trees which were cut down at offices being
constructed by William Struthers. Mr. Lee said
he would have the figures ready for presentation
at the next meeting regarding replacement costs.
(Replacement
of Trees)
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before ADJOURNMENT
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45
a.m. to an executive session to consider appoint-
ments to the Airport Advisory Committee, the
Library Board and the Welfare Task Force.
*
*
*
APPROVE
~
Mayor
0dL
ity Clerk
rmore, California
ATTEST
*
*
*
CM-23-321
Regular Meeting of December 7, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 7, 1970,
in the Justice Court Chambers, 39 South Livermore Avenue. The meet-
ing was called to order at 8:08 p.m. with Mayor Silva presiding.
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
VACATION OF
ROSLYN WAY
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
Boy Scout Troop 999 was present at the meeting, and
the Senior Patrol Leader Kurt Wood led the members
of the Council and those in attendance in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Council meeting of November 23,
1970, were approved as submitted on motion of Coun-
cilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva invited any member of the audience to
address the Council on any subject not on the agenda,
but there were no comments voiced.
*
*
*
The Mayor opened the public hearing regarding the
vacation of Roslyn Way, which is a stub street filed
with Tract 2924, due to a change in development plans
for the area. There being no c~ents from the audi-
ence, a motion made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to close the public hearing,
was approved unanimously.
Councilman Miller commented that as a part of the Planned Unit De-
velopment it was agreed that abandonment of this street would be for
open space, and would not be included in calculation of density. He
felt this condition should be a part of this vacation agreement.
The Planning Director advised this street area was about 20' x 60',
and as the area involved was insignificant the Council did not add
this condition. The resolution of abandonment is included under the
Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZONING OF
SCHOOL AND PARK
SITES
*
*
*
The proposed rezoning of several school and park
sites is as follows:
Holm Well Site and adjacent dedicated park land in
Tract 3129 from U (Unclassified) and A-20 (Agricul-
tural) Districts to E (Education and Institutions)
District.
Emma C. Smith School Site from A-20 (Agricultural) to E (Education
and Institutions) District.
William Mendenhall School Site from RL-6 (Low Density Residential)
District to E (Education and Institutions) District.
El Padro Park Site from RL-6 (Low Density Residential) District to
E (Education and Institutions) District
CM-23-322
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing, but as
there were no comments a motion was made by
Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Taylor,
to close the public hearing which was approved
unanimously.
December 7, 1970
(Public Hearing
School and Park
Sites)
The staff was directed to prepare the ordinance for these rezonings
for consideration and vote at the next meeting.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
Notification has been received from the Alameda Zone 7, Project 2
County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dis-
trict, Zone 7, regarding the Board of Directors'
meeting on December 9 to receive statements from all persons de-
siring to do so regarding the method of financing for Project 2.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
later in the meeting.
*
*
*
Notification has been received from the Board
of Supervisors regarding the City's appeal from
the County Planning Commission's action grant-
ing a Conditional Use Permit for a wholesale
nursery for the cultivation of mushrooms at
2963 Rodeo Lane (Holland-Hilke). A hearing
before the Board is to be held on Tuesday,
December 15, 1970, at 10:30 a.m.
City's Appeal re
Granting of CUP by
County Planning Comm
(2963 Rodeo Lane)
Councilman Miller felt that someone from the City Staff should be
in attendance at the meeting. Councilman Pritchard stated he
understood that the sale of the property was being withdrawn.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the City Attorney re-
garding a review of claims filed against the
City. The following resolution authorizes the
City Attorney to review written claims against
the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 147-70
Review of Claims
Filed Against City
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW
WRITTEN CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY AND GIVE NOTICE
OF INSUFFICIENCIES, IF ANY, THEREIN AND INSTRUCT-
ING THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE OF REJECTION OF
CLAIMS IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION
913 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
*
*
*
The developer, H. C. Elliott, Inc., has request-
ed a refund of park fees paid for Tracts 3206,
3031 and 2915. A report was made by the City
Attorney in this regard. It is recommended that
a motion denying the refund be adopted.
*
*
*
A report from the Public Works Director regard-
ing the approval of a street tree precise plan
for the City was submitted.
Report re Park Fee
Protest Payment
(H.C.Elliott,Inc.)
Report re Street
Tree Plan
Councilman Miller stated he did not recall discussion re the assign-
ing of specific streci trees to be planted, and felt this matter
should be discussed by the Beautification Committee as to concept.
CM-23-323
December 7, 1970
(street Trees) The Public Works Director stated this plan was
worked out to provide consistency in appearance,
color and size of trees planted; the trees planted
along the streets should be limited to certain
varieties.
The Council discussed whether homeowners should be allowed to
choose which variety of tree to plant or whether a specific variety
should be assigned to certain areas. It was the decision of the
Council to request the Beautification Committee to consider this
plan for report to the Council, and the item was removed from the
Consent Calendar for action.
*
*
*
Abandonment
of Roslyn Way
RESOLUTION NO. 148-70
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CLOSING UP AND ABANDONING
OF A PORTION OF ROSLYN WAY IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE,
AS SAID PORTION IS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO.142-70,
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 2, 1970, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE.
*
*
*
Acceptance
of Bonds and
Approval of
Map-Tract 3222
(Christopher
Land Co.)
Tract 3222 is the final tract in the original
Tentative Map 3064, and contains 167 lots. The
following resolutions were adopted authorizing
execution of an agreement and acceptance of bonds
and approving the map of Tract 3222.
RESOLUTION NO. 149-70
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND BONDS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO TRACT 3222
RESOLUTION NO. 150-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION
OF TRACT 3222
*
*
*
MINUTES
(Various)
Minutes were received and acknowledged from the
following:
Beautification Committee - September 17, October 1,
October 15 and November 5, 1970
Housing Authority - October 20, 1970
*
*
*
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Exempt business licenses and/or solicitor's permit
applications were received from the following:
Livermore High School Future Farmers of America -
sale of gift packs during December
Lariettes, Inc. - dance
Boy Scouts - Troop 969 - sale of mistletoe during
December
*
*
*
CM-23-324
December 7, 1970
Ninety-five claims in the amount of $87,736.05 Payroll and Claims
and two hundred twenty-seven payroll warrants
in the amount of $78,532.22, dated December 2,
1970 were presented and ordered paid as approved
by the City Manager.
*
*
*
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 two items as indicated.
Approval of
Consent Calendar
*
*
*
The City Manager reported that a petition had
been filed by a number of merchants in the cen-
tral business district complaining about the
off-street parking practices and several courses
of action had been suggested.
Mr. Lee Gillette, of Lee Jewelers, 2187 First street, addressing
the Council, submitted an additional list of 19 names to be added
to the petition previously presented. He stated that the petition-
ers were in agreement with him about the congested conditions of
the off-street parking lots and the parking along First street and
the lateral streets, which they felt were not adequately patrolled
until the past thirty days. The merchants feel they are being
treated unfairly because the lot paid for by their assessment dis-
trict is being filled by municipal court employees, area recrea-
tion employees, persons involved in City businesses, and persons
involved in court cases including defendant, witnesses and jury
personnel. Mr. Gillette further stated that since the parking
facilities on street and parking lot are paid for by merchants
and they are being utilized by persons other than those patronizing
their shops, they recommend that the assessment district be dis-
solved or the City provide additional parking for all persons con-
cerned within the aforementioned groups; provide additional help
for the Police Department so that they can enforce the parking
regulations; provide additional parking on the block presently
occupied by Carnegie Park; revise the parking assessment district
to provide an equitable allocation of assessments based upon the
use of this lot and, therefore, include people not included in the
assessment district. If the conditions cannot be considered, the
persons in the district feel that they should discontinue payment
in the facility as it now exists, and asked why should private
merchants support a facility totally used by public bodies.
REPORT RE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT
PARKING
Mr. Gillette felt that if the streets were adequately patrolled,
there would not be too much of a problem. Also he presented pic-
tures - one taken of the lot on November 11th, which was a holiday,
and in contra~t oretaken the next working day. It was felt that
most of the spaces in the lot were taken by people involved in
court cases and wondered if the court being made a municipal court
would not compound the situation. He suggested that perhaps the
court should make arrangements for more spaces.
The Council discussed the problem presented by Mr. Gillette, and
the solutions suggested, and Mayor Silva felt they should instruct
the staff to investigate the possibility of forming a district on
the south side of First Street. Councilman Taylor commented that
the use of Carnegie Park land for parking would be rejected by
the people in Livermore, and the Council concurred.
Councilman Pritchard also suggested that the Municipal Court be
included in the district, and the staff will investigate this
possibility.
*
*
*
CM-23-325
December 7, 1970
REPORT RE
LIVERMORE
VAL~Y
TRANSIT BOARD
(Bus Study)
Councilman Taylor had suggested that the report from
the Livermore Valley Transit Board re the consultant
bus study be scheduled for discussion because four
different systems were presented in the survey and
the annual deficit ranged from $2 million to $400,000
to run a bus system in the Valley depending upon
which level of service was chosen. He stated that
it would be very hard to really expect a self-supporting bus system,
and felt the opportunity for a self-supporting system was grim, and
the people should have a chance to vote on it or decide if a subsi-
dized bus system would be desirable some day.
Mr. Parness explained that they had asked BART's assistance in a
feeder line service and in connection with that had asked them to
consider coupling that system with a local bus route system, and
that is what the consultant is working on and the final report will
be available in March.
Judy Weiss, 6852 Mines Road, spoke concerning the bus study in that
it was not offered in terms of the City's need but that of the Valley.
She stated she was hopeful of offering some type of busing service
in Livermore, and asked the Council for some suggestions along this
line. She felt there was a need for some type of bus service util-
izing mini buses, station wagons or other small vehicles and she
would be interested in working out such service as a private enter-
prise.
Councilman Miller said a public transportation system would cost
the people money but there were social and other benefits to be gained.
An effective system, for instance to the Radiation Laboratory, would
cut down on the smog production, and lower income residents and re-
sidents such as those in Springtown would also benefit.
Mr. Parness stated he had discussed this with Mrs. Weiss and asked
her to contact the PUC and the Police Department regarding regula-
tions for public transportation services.
Councilman Taylor told Mrs. Weiss that he did not feel the City was
ready to spend City money to organize a bus system or to purchase a
bus for this service at this time, but they would be open to a fran-
chise type of operation.
The Council pointed out much more information would be available in
March when the consultant's report is finalized.
*
*
*
REQUEST TO
APPEAR
BEFORE
COUNCIL
(James Viso)
A public hearing was held on November 23 regarding
Mr. James Visors application for rezoning. At the
close of the hearing the Council concurred with the
Planning Commission's recommendation for denial;
Mr. Viso was not present at this hearing. A request
has now been received from Mr. Viso asking for the
opportunity to appear before the Council in regard
to this matter as he states he did not receive the agenda notify-
ing him that this item was to be heard until the day after the meet-
ing. A report from the City Clerk indicates that he was notified
earlier that the hearing would be on this date.
After discussing the matter the Council requested that Mr. Viso
be informed that if he wished to make an oral or further written
presentation with regard to his application for rezoning, they
would be glad to listen to it. However, they wished to make it
clear that this should not be interpreted to reopen the public
hearing.
*
*
*
CM-23-326
December 7, 1970
A Conditional Use Permit application has been
submitted by Terrible Herbst Oil Company to
allow a freestanding ground sign at 1309
Portola Avenue.
CUP TO ALLOW
FREESTANDING SIGN
(Terrible Herbst
Oil Co.)
The Planning Director explained that this is an application for
a non-conforming use at a former Shell location. The property
is zoned RM, and the station would be allowed 16 sq. ft., but the
question is whether it can be freestanding. The proposed sign
would give the name of the company and include the price signing.
The Planning Commission recommends approval with the design to
be approved by the Design Review Board or Mr. Musso and that
there be a planter at the base of the sign; the sign would have
an 8-foot height and 15 sq. ft. area. Mr. Musso also explained
the signing which has been allowed at other stations.
Councilman Miller stated the major intent when the ordinance was
drawn up by the Planning Commission was to eliminate freestanding
signs. The only justification for a freestanding sign is lack
of visibility of the sign on the building.
Councilman Pritchard felt the proposed sign was clearly ~~.~
sign, and allowance of this sign would set precedence for allowinU
such signsJin the JjdowntQwn area., 11j'..#--/l/! J!
~w-e:tt'- b't.42<!A-u-L- k~r ,~~l.f~R: .
Councilman Taylor stated the general p~blic desire is to see the
price at a gas station before they drive in and price signs would
have to be allowed some way or other.
The City Attorney informed the Council that the Attorney General
has ruled that a gas station dispensing gasoline where trading
stamps are given must display the price of the commodity openly
and in full view.
Councilman Beebe pointed out there are other ways of displaying
the price without having a freestanding sign.
Councilman Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pritchard,
to deny the CUP application to allow a freestanding sign at
1309 Portola Avenue. The motion was passed unanimously based
on the fact there is adequate signing allowable.
*
*
*
The Planning Director stated the General Plan
and the Civic Center plan prepared by Ribera &
Sue indicated a higher density residential strip
along South Livermore Avenue. The area imme-
diately westerly and south of the proposed Civic
Center has been proposed for multiple type resi-
dential development, possibly a commercial office or expansion
of the Civic Center. The Planning Commission felt commitment
at this time for a specific use would be, in effect, prezoning
and felt the applicant should annex to the City, or else file
with the County for a recommendation from the City; therefore
they made no recommendation.
REQUEST TO EXPAND
EXISTING MOBILE
HOME PARK (1348 So.
Livermore Ave.)
After discussing the matter the Council directed the staff to
send a letter to the applicant stating the uses indicated for
this area by the General Plan and indicating the Council's con-
currence with the General r~~~ If the area is annexed, the
Ci ty might conside~A improv~:rthe existing use. W:U()~Cfli.!k.1J,
~wr * 'kd-vt~~~~f r
CM-23-327
December 7, 1970
REZONING SW
SIDE PORTOLA
AVENUE, NW OF
MURRIETA BLVD
(Black,Hansen
& Smallcomb)
PROPOSED
ZONING
ORDINANCE RE
PARKING AND
STORAGE OF
TRAILERS
A public hearing on the application of Black,
Hansen, and Smallcomb to rezone from RG-16 to
ID District a site on the southwest side of Portola
Avenue, 800 feet northwest of Murrieta Blvd. was
set for January 4, 1971.
*
*
*
A public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments relating to parking-storage of trailers
was set for either January 4 or 11. It was suggested
that an alternate meeting place be available in the
event the attendance was too large for the Court
Chambers.
In this connection the City Attorney was requested to explore the
possibility of including a preference vote or referendum on the
School Board election ballot.
RECESS
OFF-STREET
PARKING
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
*
*
*
AFTER A BRIEF RECESS THE MEETING RESUMED WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT.
*
*
*
Off-street parking lots and related matters were re-
ferred back to the Planning Commission on September
8, with a request that an ordinance be prepared.
The Planning Director pointed out that as a result
of the LDC proposal a review was made of the off-
street parking ordinance. The most significant change proposed is
in the commercial area with a 3-1 ratio in the neighborhood com-
mercial area; 1-1 in the CB District; 3-1 for 1st floor and 1-1
for subsequent floor area in the General Commercial Zone. In
general, the ordinance has been clarified and updated. Mr. Musso
explained parking requirements in the RG and RM zones and the
reason for the difference in requirements, and also that addition-
al parking was not required for CB zones as there is not much land
to be developed in this zone.
Councilman Beebe questioned the parking situation at the "p" Street
shopping center. Mr. Musso said he had written each of the tenants
in an attempt to have their employees park in the rear, but many
have refused. There have been many complaints about this situation.
At the time the center was planned it was suggested they use diago-
nal parking. The new Value Giant was another problem; they had
tried to work out better parking but had to use the perpendicular
parking as too many spaces are lost with diagonal parking.
Mayor Silva stated he would like to have the members of the Council
indicate the changes they wished to have made at this time, and
then anyone in the audience could speak on the matter after which
time, perhaps, the ordinance could be introduced.
Councilman Beebe mentioned that he had suggested that one-half
space be required to be set aside for trailers or boats, and the
Council agreed that under cluster dwellings there should be a change
to indicate a storage area which should be surfaced and screened.
Councilman Miller brought up the close to perpendicular spaces that
the architects recommend 10 ft. in width and the Planning Commission
has recommended 9~ ft., and felt we should have 10 ft.
Councilman Taylor stated that with regard to the parking lot layout
standards he would like assurance from the staff that the public
would not complain bitterly about them, and Mr. Musso stated he
could not guarantee they would not complain, but that the standards
will be improved.
CM-23-328
December 7, 1970
Councilman Pritchard mentioned that the Chamber
of Commerce had requested that redwood header
boards be specifically stated in the item on
landscaping rather than equivalent, however
after discussion regarding thi~ the Council felt this could
included under the word "equivalent", and made no change.
(Off-street Parking
Ordinance)
be
Councilman Pritchard also suggested that a five (5) gallon rather
than a fifteen (15) gallon tree be required in parking lots. The
Council discussed this in some detail inasmuch as Councilman Prit-
chard felt that it would not take too long for a five gallon size
tree to grow into a fifteen gallon size. Mr. Lee suggested that
the caliper (the size of the trunk) could be stated rather than
the can size if they wished a certain size tree. Mr. Musso sug-
gested that perhaps the ordinance could be changed to indicate
a l-inch caliper,S gallon can, 6 ft. height or equivalent, de-
pending on the type of tree. The Council agreed that they wanted
a fairly good size tree, and the staff was instructed to come up
with the proper wording for that section.
Randall Schlientz, Chairman Parking Ordinance Review Committee
of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that one of the points they
had brought up in their letter to the City Council were the
standards adopted by the Planning Commission. He presented the
Council with a copy of the Architectural Graphic Standards pub-
lished in June 1970, showing diagrams and listings of recommended
minimums and preferable dimensions for various parking patterns.
Mr. Schlientz spoke of the 900 parking which called for 8 ft. 6 in.
minimum with a 9 ft. preferable width and 19 ft. depth, and said
some parking lots have provided larger stalls, but at the option
of the developer. There are parking lots in town in which the
number of parking stalls would be significantly reduced if the
original suggested standards were adopted, and he was concerned
that they would be eliminating many parking spaces by forcing
people to use diagonal parking in lots that are not suitable
for that type of parking. Also, he was confused about the town,
patio and row house parking requirements of the proposed ordinance,
and asked for clarification as it was his understanding from the
discussion that a parking lot must be dedicated to the City,
and that a private parking lot cannot be provided on private
property.
It was explained that if there are private internal streets, there
could be a private parking lot. If the parking lots are conti-
guous with and adjacent to and actually part of public streets,
they should be dedicated as part of the public street, but it
does not preclude a townhouse development with internal parking lots.
Mr. Schlientz stated the other point he would like to make was
with regard to rest homes and sanitariums as they had recommended
one space for each four beds, which is rather on the high side
of the average required by other cities, and in checking conval-
escent hospitals, particularly, had found the parking lots are
not utilized to a great extent. The Council discussed parking
lot requirements at existing and planned convalescent homes in
the City. The Planning Commission recommends a 3-1 ratio in
the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Schlientz also referred to the requirements for multiples;
The Chamber recommends keeping the current standard of 1-1/2
spaces per unit in RG and 1-1/3 spaces in RM. The Planning Com-
mission agreed to wait until the staff report was presented to
determine what the use of the existing lots are; therefore, the
present standards were adequate.
Councilman Miller felt the standards must be upgraded to provide
more parking space for the increasing number of recreational ve-
hicles and cars in apartment units.
CM-23-329
December 7, 1970
(Off-Street
Parking
Ordinance)
Councilman Taylor said that much of the on-street
parking in front of apartments is being eliminated
and more off-street parking will need to be pro-
vided in the future.
The Council discussed Mr. Schlientz's comments that storage space
could be graveled rather than paved, and agreed that the storage
space should be either paved or surfaced in a manner approved by
the City.
Mr. Musso said it is proposed that the parking requirements be
increased in the RG zone by 1/2 space to a 2-1 ratio. The Council
agreed that the need for the additional parking would increase in
the future, but did not wish to delete from the landscaped area
any space for parking not needed at the present. It was suggested
by Mayor Silva that perhaps 1/2 space per unit could be landscaped
now, but reserved for future parking use. The City Attorney said
it could be required but did not know how it could be enforced.
After further discussion the Council agreed on a compromise of
1-3/4 spaces per unit.
Mr. Musso stated that present requirement for rest homes and con-
valescent hospitals is one space for every two beds, and additional
parking for the employees has been eliminated. The Council decided
that this requirement could be reduced to 1 space for each 3.5 beds.
The Council then discussed the width requirements for stalls for
various parking patterns. Councilman Miller proposed that the
standards shown in the draft of the proposed ordinance be changed
as follows: 450 - 8~', 500 - 8~', 606 - 9~f, 700 - 9~', 800 - 10',
and 900 - 10' as he felt the standards should be more than the
minimum requirement. Councilman Taylor felt the recommendation of
the Planning Commission should be accepted which was a requirement
of 8~f stalls for 450 and 500 angles and 9~' for 600 to 900 angles,
and the majority of the Council agreed to this recommendation.
Mayor Silva questioned why pedestrian walkways were not required,
and felt these should be included in major centers.
Councilman Taylor made a motion directing that an ordinance be
prepared, including the items discussed and agreed upon by the
Council during the discussion; the motion was seconded by Coun-
cilman Beebe and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COM-
MISSION
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
October 20, November 3 and 17, 1970, and summary
of action taken at the meeting of December 1, 1970,
were acknowledged by the Council.
*
*
*
Mayor pro tempore Miller presided during the discus-
RE sion of the proposed ordinance regarding zoning of
that portion of Portola Avenue Annex No. 4 generally
north of Colgate Way. At the previous meeting the
motion to waive the second reading of the ordinance
zoning this area as RS-3 and RL-6 had resulted in
a tie vote with Mayor Silva abstaining. Also a
motion to waive the first reading of the proposed ordinance, zon-
ing the area as Rs-4 and RL-6 failed to pass due to a tie vote,
with Mayor Silva abstaining.
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
ZONING
PORTOLA AVE.
ANNEX NO. 4
Councilman Pritchard stated he still felt strongly that the area
should be zoned Rs-4 in accordance with the first decision when
the applicant was present. Councilman Beebe also felt that they
should not have changed the zoning after the applicant was informed
it would be Rs-4 and without a further opportunity to speak in
regard to the RS-3 zoning action.
CM-23-330
Mayor pro tempore Miller stated the change in
the zoning to RS-3 from Rs-4 was based on hold-
ing capacity aspects and compatibility of the
area to adjacent property.
December 7, 1970
(Proposed Ordinance-
Portola Avenue
Annex No.4)
After further discussion, Councilman Taylor made a motion, seconded
by Councilman Pritchard, to waive the first reading of the ordi-
nance (title read only) zoning the area generally north of Colgate
Way as Rs-4 and RL-6 and by the following vote the ordinance was
introduced:
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, and Pritchard
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
*
*
*
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion.
ZONE 7, PROJECT 2
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MEETING
Mayor Silva stated he understood the Public
Works Director planned to attend the meeting
on December 9, 1970, and advised that the Chairman of the Zone No.
7 Board of Directors had requested that the Council be represented
at the meeting. Inasmuch as he was unable to attend himself, he
asked that one of the Councilmen attend, and Councilman Taylor
said he would like to attend if possible. Mayor Silva requested
that Councilman Taylor inform the Board that the Council had sup-
ported the ballot issue, but that he was attending at the request
of the Council to hear alternate proposals; if no feasible alter-
nate proposal is made which the Council could support, the Coun-
cil would back Project 2 or a similar project.
Councilman Miller stated he would attend the meeting, but he
~.' . speak;1a~~R.:-sJt- J this i.ssue.
./J;1I '. ~-c U' ~ . t!e14-c.Qe.JI:.,
* 0 * *
The City Manager inquired as to when the next
discussion regarding the Capital Improvement
meeting would be held. The Council decided to
hold it from IO:OO to 11:00 p.m. at the regu-
lar meeting on December 14.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor mentioned Senate Bill 395 by
Senator Larry Walsh which requires legislative
bodies to make the finding, when approving a
subdivision map, that the subdivision is not
premature.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY STAFF (Capital
Improvement BUdget)
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(SB 395)
The City Attorney stated this bill is presently in front of the
joint committees; there are thirty-three witnesses scheduled and
it seems to be bitterly contested. It requires a legislative body
of a city or county to not approve a subdivision unless they can
prove three findings: 1) the subdivision is economically feasible;
2) it conforms to the planned transportation and utility develop-
ments in the area; 3) it is in the public interest that the sub-
division is necessary at present, or will be in the next three
years, and such lands are not being subdivided prematurely nor
are being subdivided without due regard to open space or recrea-
tion lands.
For a subdivision to be economically feasible, it should be
determined that at least one-half of the lots will be developed
with structures within five years. The bill will have real value
to communities such as Livermore.
CM-23-331
December 7, 1970
(SB 395)
(League of
California
Cities)
(Library
Hours)
(Business
Licenses)
(Non-return-
able bottles)
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to send a telegram to Sen-
ator Walsh supporting SB 395 based on preliminary
study. The motion was approved unanimously.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that in response to a
request from the League of California Cities con-
cerning appointments to committees he would be
interested in serving on the Community Develop-
ment Committee. The staff was directed to trans-
mit Councilman Miller's name to the proper parties.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller pointed out that the library was
closed for four days, Thursday through Sunday, at
Thanksgiving time, and he had received numerous
complaints. He felt the Library Board should con-
sider expanding their service to Sunday.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated he had received many com-
plaints regarding inequities in business licenses.
Enforcement of the present ordinance should be
stressed as many evade this fee. The City Attorney
explained how such evasions are handled.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller stated that previously he had
brought up the possibility of banning the sale of
non-returnable bottles as several cities have acted
upon this idea, including Berkeley.
Mr. Lewis advised that he was checking with various cities in this
regard and would report to the Council as soon as he has information.
The City Manager advised that the recycling program will get
underway in January.
(Parking
Enforcement)
ADJOURNMENT
CM-23-332
*
*
*
Councilman Miller mentioned one of the automobile
dealers who continues to violate on-street parking
regulations and felt parking rules should be en-
forced and the staff was directed to check into
this matter.
*
*
*
There being no further business to come before
the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15
a.m. to an executive session to discuss litigation
and appointme s to v io s committees.
APPROVE
ATTEST
*
*
*
Regular Meeting of December 14, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December
14, 1970, in the Municipal Court Chambers, 39 South Liver-
more Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
with Mayor Silva presiding.
*
*
*
PRESENT: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor, Pritchard,
Miller and Mayor Silva
ROLL CALL
ABSENT:
None
*
*
*
The minutes of the Council meeting of December
7, 1970, were approved as amended on motion of
Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman Miller,
by unanimous vote.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
*
*
*
Mayor Silva invited any member of the audience
to address the Council on any subject not on
the agenda, but no comments were voiced.
OPEN FORUM
Councilman Taylor announced that the members of the Civics class
at Livermore High School and their instructor Mr. Bras were present
at the Council meeting.
*
*
*
An application has been submitted by Jerome
Fahnhorst for rezoning of the property located
at the southeast corner of North 0 and Park
Streets from RL-5-0 (Low Density Residential)
to RM (Medium Density Residential) District
and the Planning Commission initiated expan-
sion of the area of consideration to include properties generally
bounded by North S Street, Park Street, North L Street and the
Western Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
PUBLIC HEARING RE
REZONING SE CORNER
NO. 0 & PARK STREETS
(Fahnhorst)
The Planning Director pointed out that there are a large number
of duplexes to the west of the area of consideration; generally
commercial or residential along the south side of Chestnut to L
Street; on the north there are single family residences and du-
plexes; the area is a transition area between commercial and
residential. The Planning Commission enlarged the area of con-
sideration for this reason and also the fact that other applica-
tions have been made in this area; the Council had previously
instructed that the needs for increasing density in this area
be studied. In general, the report indicated that if this area
on the north side between North Livermore and Rincon Avenue were
to increase in density in a manner shown in the General Plan,
there would be a need for a park and another elementary school.
At the time the report was presented a plan was given showing an
elementary school encompassing four blocks and a park site and a
cost estimate was made. A restudy was directed, which has been
made and indicates that the General Plan density, which is multiple
to a point north of Chestnut Street, in this area can be accom-
modated by providing school expansion over by Portola Avenue for
a K-3 school. Generally, Area 8, 9, IO and 2 have adequate school
sites. New multiple in the area would create a need for enlarge-
ment of present facilities. The original staff proposal for the
area west of Ventura Avenua and El Rancho Drive was to recognize
the existing duplexes and change the zoning from RL-5-0 to RM.
There was some protest from neighbors, and the Planning Commission
recommended no change. In the area including the Shell Oil Co.
plant and California Water service facility, it is proposed that
CM-23-333
December 14, 1970
(Public Hearing the CO zoning would replace the present RM and CG
Fahnhorst) districts. The area south of Chestnut Street be-
tween Land P Streets was, in part, considered for
neighborhood commercial district and in part for
other commercial zoning; the Planning Commission rejected the pro-
posal for a neighborhood shopping center designation for Russell
Market-Value Giant area and also felt the CG zoning would allow
heavier commercial than desired and recommends Central Business
District zoning. North of Chestnut Street, the question centered
around whether the General Plan extended to Park Street or should
be limited to those properties fronting on Chestnut Street. The
Planning Commission felt that due to the commercial zoning for pro-
perties on the south side of Chestnut Street multiple would be appro-
priate to the middle of the block but that multiple zoning was not
warranted along P Street frontage or Park Street frontage; higher
density should be limited to the block between Park and Chestnut
streets. Testimony at the Planning Commission hearing was given
by the applicant and residents of EI Rancho Drive protesting change
of zoning in that area. One question that arose subsequent to the
Planning Commission action was relative to the Western Pacific team
track between Land N streets. This track would remain in perpetuity;
the only problem which might arise would be the construction of
warehousing and such construction would necessitate a Conditional
Use Permit.
Mr. Musso stated further that on the area on the south side of Park
Street the Planning Commission vote was 2-1, and it takes three
votes to make a recommendation on a rezoning.
Councilman Pritchard questioned why the Planning Commission recom-
mended multiple for only half the block; Mr. Musso pointed out that
it is normal to change the use in the middle of the block so that
commercial is not across from residential or apartments across the
street from single family residential. The customary procedure was
followed and the multiple zoning was indicated up to the middle of
the block. It is better to have multiple or commercial backing
residential rather than across from it because of the traffic and
parking.
Mayor Silva opened the public hearing at this time.
W. J. Armstrong, lo617 Altamont Road, stated he was the property
owner of 1913 Chestnut Street and requested a continuance in order
to be able to contact property owners in the area.
Mr. Per Perry, representative of Shell Oil Company, said he was re-
ceptive to a continuance until after the first of the year.
Mr. Randall Schlientz, Associated Professions, representing the
applicant, stated his client would be agreeable to a short con-
tinuance.
After further discussion the Council agreed to continue the matter
until the meeting of January 4, and gave Mr. Perry the opportunity
to address the Council as he might not be able to attend the meet-
ing of January 4.
Mr. Perry stated Shell Oil owns a three-acre parcel at the southwest
corner of Olivina and P Street. The portion occupied by the Shell
bulk plant is now zoned GC; the balance along P Street and fronting
Olivina Avenue is zoned RG. Shell was one of the first national
companies to invest in Livermore some 42 years ago; although this
parcel was somewhat removed from the downtown area at that time,
things have changed and the downtown core has shifted. He did not
appear at the Planning Commission hearing as he felt at that time
that Shell Oil would benefit greatly from the upgrading in zoning
since Shell has been trying to sell its property for some time, and
at the present time they have two good prospects to buy and develop
the property. Mr. Perry proposed that in consideration of the re-
zoning proposal that Shell's property zoning be left as it is now.
CM-23-334
Further it was his suggestion that the zoning
be left as it is or switch the proposed zonings
so that the residential portion abuts the Cal
Water property and the GC abuts P Street.
December 14, 1970
(Public Hearing
Fahnhorst)
A motion was made by Councilman Beebe, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to continue the hearing on this matter until January
4, and the motion was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Chamber of Commerce General Manager request-
ed in a written communication that the Chamber
be notified whenever there are vacancies on
various committees so that they might have the
opportunity to submit suggestions for such
appointments.
Communication re
Appointments to
Committees
Mayor Silva suggested that whenever appointments are to be made,
that it be announced at the Council meeting that such appointment
will be considered in executive session the following week. This
would allow any individual or group to submit names of those who
might be interested in serving on various committees. In this
regard Mayor Silva announced that one vacancy exists on the
Library Board and two on the Youth Committee.
*
*
*
A written communication was acknowledged from
Lawrence and Nelda Bacon regarding the school
situation in relation to growth.
*
*
*
Communication re
Schools
Communication from
Zone 7 re Flood
Plain Report
A communication has been received from Zone 7,
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conser-
vation District, regarding a proposed Flood
Plain Information Report. Councilman Miller
suggested that Zone 7 be requested to include the Arroyo Mocho
in this study if it is not already included, and the staff was
so instructed.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 151-70
Appointments
(Airport Comm.,
Mosquito Abatement,
Community Affairs)
APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE AIRPORT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(Wm. B. Bennett and John Kerekes)
RESOLUTION NO. 152-70
REAPPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY MOSQUITO
ABATEMENT DISTRICT
(Wm. A. Jenkins)
RESOLUTION NO. 153-70
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
*
*
*
CM-23-335
December 14, 1970
Exempt
Business
Licenses
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
PETITION RE
SUNKEN GARDEN
GRADING
An application for an exempt business and/or solici-
tor's permit has been made by the Glad Tidings Church
of God in Christ for money solicitation during December.
It is recommended that this permit be denied as the
activities and beneficiaries of this organization are
outside the City of Livermore.
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman
Miller, the Consent Calendar was approved by unani-
mous vote.
*
*
*
A report was submitted by the City Manager regarding
the petition filed by Mrs. Margo Kirkewoog, contain-
ing approximately 750 names, opposing the tree removal
during the grading of the sunken garden community
park area. The staff has met and discussed this matter
in detail with Mrs. Kirkewoog who has suggested that
a modification be made to the grading plan so that at least a part
of the stand may be retained. It is recommended that a motion be
adopted instructing the staff to consult with the landscape archi-
tect on the grading plan regarding a revision so that a portion of
these trees can be retained.
The Council expressed the hope that all the trees could be saved.
A motion was made by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman Miller,
to adopt the recommendation, and the motion was passed unanimously.
REQUEST FOR
CUP TO ALLOW
FREESTANDING
PRICE SIGNS
(Shell Oil)
*
*
*
A request for Conditional Use Permits to allow free-
standing price signs at 1737 First Street and 318 So.
Livermore Avenue has been made by Shell Oil Company.
The Planning Director stated that the issue is not
whether a price sign is allowed; price signs are
allowed for automobile service stations; the main
consideration is whether freestanding signs should be allowed. The-
ordinance allows approval of a freestanding sign if findings are
made that without the freestanding sign the station would be unable
to advertise visually. The issue in this case is not identifying
the business as both stations presently have a freestanding sign.
Shell's desire is to establish the price; this sign could go on the
building and the Planning Commission recommended denial.
Councilman Miller asked Mr. Musso if these price signs were erected
illegally. Mr. Musso stated there were price signs already erected
which would have been phased out at such time as the City notified
the company that they were to be abated. The signs under consider-
ation are replacements of semi-temporary price signs with new per-
manent structures. Shell did not have a sign permit or approval
for replacement.
Councilman Taylor asked what kind of price sign would be legal and
Mr. Musso said the same sign would be legal located against the
building and he also stated the same sign was approved for the sta-
tion at Portola Avenue and Murrieta Blvd. in lieu of the fin signs.
Councilman Taylor pointed out that a similar sign was denied last
week; he felt if a price sign on the building could serve the pur-
pose of stating the price to the public effectively he felt this
would be better; but elimination of price signs might eliminate com-
petition. He had reservations about denying the price signs, but
felt the Council had established a policy.
Councilman Taylor asked the staff for an interpretation of a ruling
that the price must be prominently displayed.
CM-23-336
I
December 14, 1970
The City Attorney advised that he felt the opin- (CUP-Freestanding
ion of the Attorney General meant that if the Sign - Shell Oil)
price is displayed on the pump in sufficient
size so that the public is aware of the price,
this would be satisfactory. This is in connection with the sale
of the product where trading stamps are given for the sale. In
applying the ruling, much would depend on how and in what manner
the stamp sign is displayed; the giving of stamps can be considered
a valid part of business and problems could arise if the City re-
stricted that form of business.
Councilman Pritchard made a motion to accept the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation to deny the freestanding signs at 1737 First
Street and 318 South Livermore Avenue. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller.
Mr. Per Perry, representing Shell Oil Company, reported that he
has the responsibility in respect to real estate matters and appli-
cations for permits, and seeing that Shell's operations within the
City are in accord with various permits. Mr. Wong, as associate,
had appeared before the Planning Commission on this matter. Mr.
Perry referred to a subsequent newspaper article stating that,
"Shell had taken the law into their own hands", and had implied that
Shell deliberately erected price signs in violation of the sign or-
dinance, and said they had not done so deliberately. Shell had
instituted a new program a few months ago and redesigned their
signs nation-wide to be more subdued in color and design. These
newly designed signs had been erected in replacement of existing
signs at these stations without prior notiflcation from the company.
He said that the former signs were at the station on May 1, and
to his knowledge they had not received notification of violation
and request for abatement of these signs. Mr. Perry said that
on his way into the City to attend the meeting he had noticed
several prominently displayed freestanding signs at Shell and
competitor's stations. He cited several instances where, due to
ordinances calling for abatement of price signs as in Fremont,
individual station owners had suffered a large loss in business
attributable to elimination of such signs. He concluded that
Shell had only intended to replace an existing sign with a more
pleasing and aesthetic sign.
Mayor Silva pointed out that the issue before the Council is
not price signs but freestanding signs; price signs are allowed
in the City but not freestanding ones. There is an abatement
program in progress which is being carried out by class desig-
nations. All non-conforming signs at service stations will be
abated after the first of the year and the stations will be
notified shortly. First notification was given two years ago.
Councilman Miller felt an illegal sign should not be allowed
but that a price sign in conformance with the ordinance should
be put on the building. Shell is aware of the fact that permits
are needed to erect signs and is knowledgeable of correct pro-
cedures.
The motion for denial was then voted on and passed unanimously.
After discussion, the Council directed the staff to take the
freestanding sign classification out of phase and to carry out
the abatement program within the next month.
*
*
*
An application for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a freestanding sign at 2020 Research Drive
has been made by Control Data Corporation. The
Planning Director explained that this is a sign
erected some time ago and approved as a temporary
use and then the Planning Commission was instructed
REQUEST FOR CUP-
FREESTANDING SIGN
(Control Data Corp.)
CM-23-337
December 14, 1970
(cuP - Sign
Control Data)
to review the signing in the industrial zone. They
recommended that the industrial zone be allowed to
have freestanding signs up to 32 sq. ft. with lar-
ger signs to be allowed under a CUP, and that
where the magnitude of the use warranted a larger sign such could
be granted. A request for a variance to permit increase in height
was withdrawn by the applicant. The Planning Commission recommends
that the additional area not be allowed and the Conditional Use
Permit be denied.
Mr. Musso explained that up to 32 sq. ft. is allowed with addition-
al signing on the building for additional uses within the building.
The footage of the freestanding sign now erected is 44 sq. ft.
Mayor Silva felt allowance of this CUP would be the same as chang-
ing the ordinance. Councilman Miller stated the ordinance has
recently been revised to allow a freestanding sign such as this
one but only up to 32 sq. ft.; and the applicant was asking for
too much signing. Councilman Taylor felt that the sign was too
large and could be replaced by smaller ones; the ordinance should
be followed. Councilman Beebe felt it should comply with the ordi-
nance.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Tay-
lor, to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial
of this CUP.
Randy Schlientz, Associated Professions, reported that at the time
the sign was erected Associated Professions was the one tenant in
the building and subleased the second floor from Control Data;
Control Data and Associated Professions are the only two allowed
signing. The building itself was designed before adoption of the
ordinance and was not designed to accommodate signs. Signs on the
building would be less attractive than the present signing and
difficult because of the design and orientation of the building
in relation to the site. Mr. Schlientz pointed out that to make
the present sign conforming Associated Professions would have to
remove its part of the sign and put a sign on the building; they
would rather have the freestanding sign.
Roger Markham of Control Data said this was his first trip to the
Livermore office and without the freestanding sign he would have
had difficulty in locating the building. Identification is needed
and they could not reduce their signing, but they did wish to
satisfy their tenant's needs for a sign and a sign on the building
would not be readily seen. They did have a large business in this
area with a large payroll and the magnitude of the business did
warrant .a larger sign.
The motion to deny the CUP was passed unanimously.
*
*
*
COUNTY
REFERRAL RE
CUP TO ALLOW
PRIVATE CLUB
(Arroyo Rd.)
An application to allow erection of a swim and
tennis club (private) on the east side of Arroyo
Road, south of the intersection of Bess Avenue
by a Conditional Use Permit has been referred to
the City by the County Planning Canmis sion.
The Planning Director stated that the proposal provides for park-
ing for 110 cars, a swimming pool, picnic area, clubhouse and
tennis courts. Approval is recommended subject to public works
improvements with an additional condition that a ten foot land-
scaped strip be installed on the periphery of the property. Mr~
Musso stated that the Health Department would have to approve the
swimming pool and decide whether or not sewer connection would
be required.
CM-23-338
Councilman Pritchard made a motion that the
Planning Commission's recommendation be accepted
and that approval be recommended to the County
Planning Commission, with the condition that
sewer connection be made when the existing sewer
line is within 600 feet. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Taylor and approved unanimously.
*
*
*
The minutes of the Planning Commission's meet-
ing of December 1 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 731
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE BY AMEND-
ING SECTION 3.00 THEREOF RELATING TO ZONING.
December 14, 1970
(CUP-Private Club,
Arroyo Road)
MINUTES OF PLANNING
COMMISSION
ORDINANCE RE ZONING
PORTION PORTO LA AVE.
ANNEX NO. 4
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Beebe, to waive the second reading of the above ordinance, and by
the following vote the ordinance was passed.
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Taylor
NOES: Councilman Miller
ABSTAIN: Mayor Silva
*
*
*
On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Beebe, the proposed ordinance zon-
ing various school and park sites to E (Educa-
tion and Institutions) District was introduced
and the first reading (title read only) waived.
The motion was passed by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
RE ZONING OF
SCHOOL & PARK SITES
Councilman Taylor referred to discussion during
the budget meetings concerning formation of a
City industrial committee, stating he felt now
was the time to appoint a five member committee
for the purpose of advising the City Council on
industrial development. The formation of this committee should
not be construed as taking away any of the Chamber's activities
in this respect; the Chamber should be represented on the committee
in some way. For example, the committee could advise how the City's
industrial budget should be expended, but the committee itself
would not have a large budget, at least initially. A motion was
made by Councilman Taylor that the Council appoint an Industrial
Development Committee of five members with the above-mentioned
purpose and the motion was seconded by Councilman Pritchard.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL (Industrilli
Advisory Comm.)
The Council discussed the makeup and responsibilities of such a
committee. It was felt that the committee would possibly include
non-Chamber and c~am er members.
~d tUL 'd
Councilman Taylor suggested ~o that the committee could advise
the Council on ~ matters/~~Uthe epcration of the:a-t-rport and
golf course O! LCYvi much money it ',lOuld bo I02;ico.l to .;ivo tho
Gh-e:m:bet' fot' 8: eet':ftd:ft j~b. lIc fclt the Council J;lc.<:,cic.cl"-&B-,-.ad-vi-&?fY
c.om.mittoo ro~pongiQ1Q 1;:Q it ~-~~<-...~/-x.t.( ~~. '/, ".~-:':~k.J
. IT{' P/>kd-C:c:;. ~~
Mayor Silva felt a City advisory committee's work might be t~peti-
tious with that done by the Chamber's industrial committee. Coun-
cilman Taylor said he assumed the City Manager would work as a
staff liaison with the committee.
CM-23-339
December 14, 1970
(Industrial
Advisory
Committee)
Councilman Miller asked Councilman Taylor if he felt
that the committee would be involved in such matters
as industrial zoning around the airport. He replied
that he did not think the duties should be defined
at this time. Councilman Taylor pointed out that
Council is not elected for its specific knowledge of industry,
they needed advice from a specialized source.
the
and
Councilman Beebe said he could see the need for such a committee
but not as an industrial solicitor. On the other hand, he felt a
close tie now existed between the members of the City staff and
the Chamber's industrial committee. He felt a City industrial
committee should be used for staff recommendations.
The City Attorney suggested that it might be well to keep in mind
that whenever a City committee or commission is formed, the committee
is operating under the Brown Act.
The motion for the formation of an Industrial Advisory Board was
passed by a unanimous vote.
Anyone interested in serving on the committee was requested to con-
tact one of the Councilmen or City Hall.
*
*
*
(Banning Sale
of Detergents)
Councilman Pritchard mentioned that several cities
in the East and possibly some on the West Coast have
banned the sale of detergents because the detergent
level of the well water was above normal levels.
He thought this was a problem, and requested that
the staff look into the possibility of banning the
sale of detergents.
The Public Works Director stated that it is the phosphates in de-
tergents that cause problems, especially where discharge is made
into lakes. If the whole country should ban the sale of detergents,
there are not enough fats to produce enough soap to replace deter-
gents. Not only that, most washing machines and dishwashers in the
City of Livermore would not be able to function without detergents.
During recent years soap manufacturers have switched to "soft"
detergents or those which are biologically degradeable. The industry,
if possible, will probably convert to the manufacture of detergents
without phosphates. The problem cannot be solved on the local level.
The City Manager said that there had been problems with the City's
discharge some time ago, and the Council at that time had considered
prohibiting the sale of detergents. The treatment process is now
within the bounds set up by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
of less than one part per million.
Mr. Lee further stated that we do not discharge into a body of water
and at the present time are not causing any pollution problems due
to detergents in the system.
Councilman Taylor said the Valley Planning Committee has a sub-
committee consisting of some members from Zone 7 and suggested that
this committee be requested to look into the matter. The Council
agreed that the Valley Planning Committee should be so requested,
and if they feel a problem exists the Council will consider further
action.
*
*
*
(Agenda
Packets)
Councilman Miller mentioned the distribution of
the weekly agenda packets, including one to the
Chamber of Commerce and stated he did not feel
the cost of sending a complete agenda to a private
group such as the Chamber could be justified; if one is sent to
the Chamber, then one should be sent to anyone else who requests one.
CM-23-340
December 14, 1970
A charge of approximately $5.00 per year is made (Agenda Packets)
for just the mailing of the agenda while the
Chamber receives the whole packet for no charge.
He felt the City should either charge for it or
quit sending it.
Mayor Silva said that the Chamber does not charge the City for use
of its conference room; he felt if the Chamber was willing to do-
nate the use of its conference room for City meetings the City
should be willing to send them an agenda packet.
After discussion of the subject the majority of the Council felt
that the Chamber of Commerce should continue receiving the agenda
packet so that they can be aware of what is coming before the Coun-
oil. Councilman Miller said he felt this was a subsidy to a
private group, and he hoped the same offer would be made to the
League of Women Voters.
Councilman Taylor said that if any large group could demonstrate
that they would make use of the packet one would be provided.
The City Clerk stated, for the City Council's information, that
the agenda packet provided for public use at the library has
been used by not more than five people during anyone week.
*
*
*
Mayor Silva inquired as to disposition of the
proposed trespass ordinance. The City Attorney
advised that the matter had been continued pend-
ing a decision on the San Rafael ordinance; a
memorandum regarding this decision was directed to the Council
from Mr. Lewis. Mayor Silva asked if the Chamber had received
a copy of the City Attorney's memorandum, and Mr. Lewis said it
a part of the November 9 packet, and they should have a copy.
(Proposed Ordinance
re Trespassing)
was
In this regard Mayor Silva said he was in a market and observed
several teenage boys standing around in the store for several min-
utes. He had asked the clerk why he did not ask the boys to leave,
but the clerk had said he could not, and added that the same group
of boys had been in the store on the previous night.
One of the teenage boys in the audience asked Mayor Silva if this
was any different from a group of housewives gathering for a con-
versation in the store. Mayor Silva said he felt it was since
the housewives would probably purchase goods from the store.
Councilman Miller said the issue is tied up with constitutional
rights and is a difficult one to legislate.
*
*
*
There being no further business from the agenda
to come before the Council, the meeting was re-
cessed at 10:40 p.m., and was called back to
order with all present for discussion on the Capital Budget. The
Council discussed the items listed for the 1970-71 year, and on
motion of Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman Miller, it
was approved by unanimous vote.
RECESS -
CAPITAL BUDGET
ADJOURNMENT
Further discussion was held on the balance of the proposed budget,
however no 0 mal a tio was taken, and the meeting adjourned at
12:15 a.m. 0 an ex cut e ?ession to discuss appointments.
APPROVE
ATTEST~'
CM-23-341
Regular Meeting of December 21, 1970
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on December 21,
1970, 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, Pritchard, Miller and
Mayor Silva
ABSENT:
Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
The minutes of December 14 were approved as amended
on motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Council-
man Pritchard, by unanimous vote.
*
*
*
OPEN FORUM
(Agenda
Packet at
Library)
James L. McElroy, 1345 Wagoner Drive, felt that citi-
zens are not always aware that a Council agenda
packet is placed for public use in the Library. He
requested that these agendas be left in the library
as a public file and that other documents such as
budgets be placed on file also.
The City Clerk pointed out that the past agendas do not necessarily
reflect action taken at the Council meetings and that this should
be understood by those referring to previous agendas.
It was the decision of the Council that this matter be referred
to Mr. Nolte for report concerning filing of the agendas at the
library for a recommended period of time.
*
*
*
(Tax Relief A written communication from Mr. W. J. Pender,
or Sweepstakes) 135 El Caminito, regarding a suggestion to ease
the tax burden to local citizens through use of
a lottery was included on the agenda as an item
under the Consent Calendar, but was removed for consideration at
this time as Mr. Pender requested the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Pender cited the need for tax relief of citizens, especially
those groups such as the recently unemployed and older citizens
with fixed incomes who are unable to pay taxes. He asked that the
Council pass a resolution requesting the State Legislature to give
the Council authority or permission to conduct a sweepstakes, or
legalize the operation and control of a sweepstakes - 2% of the
intake to go to the City Council, 8% to the schools and hospital,
90% to be awarded as prizes. An alternate suggestion was that a
questionnaire be submitted to the people asking for "yes" or "no"
to the sweepstakes idea.
The City Attorney was asked by Councilman Taylor if such lotteries
were legal in the State of California. Mr. Lewis said such a lot-
tery is specifically prohibited by law at the present time whether
conducted by the state, county, city or private citizen or church
in the State of California. There are some states which conduct
lotteries; this proposition was put before the State Legislation
some years ago, and it was quite an issue and the proposition was
defeated. If a state lottery were authorized, there could be some
method devised whereby the proceeds would be distributed to locali-
ties or other legislation could be proposed to ~ive a local option.
Mayor Silva felt this could be referred to the League of California
Cities as they would have more background. The Council directed
Mr. Lewis to contact the League in this regard.
Mr. Pender stated there is a difference between a lottery and a
sweepstakes, and in contacting others about this proposition a
sweepstakes should be stressed rather than lottery.
CM-23-342
December 21, 1970
Mel Baker, 907 Miranda Way, stated he had written (Growth Issue)
a letter on November 13 to Councilmen Taylor,
Pritchard and Beebe, requesting a list of sound
arguments to be submitted to the local papers relating to how
stopping the growth of Livermore would adversely affect the local
citizenry. He felt immediate investigative action is needed on
this problem as the quality of our life is being affected adversely
by growth. Livermore would not be a better place in which to live
by crowding more people into it.
Mayor Silva stated he felt this was a democratic form of government
where people could choose where they live, and he did not feel he
could tell others they could not live in the Valley because he was
here first; he felt the problem could not be solved on a local basis.
Each issue must be considered as it comes before the Council rather
than placing a morawrium on building.
Councilman Taylor said the question raised is of primary concern
to many citizens. The Valley Planning Committee is the logical
agency to look at growth and its effects; in April the Valley
Planning Committee will sponsor a Valley-wide symposium on environ-
mental problems in the Valley.
Councilman Pritchard stated that in reference to Mr. Baker's sug-
gestion that a law could be passed to stop growth; it might be
that the number of people living here already is too many and half
of them might be asked to leave. Laws just to stop growth will
not accomplish anything; what we must do is solve the problems con-
nected with growth.
Councilman Miller said there are problems which come from excessive
population - such as those of the schools, threat of water ration-
ing, smog - which are serious. Government should not be helpless.
Mr. Baker's letter had requested reasoning why stopping growth is
adverse. Only local jurisdictions can really do anything about
growth; in his opinion, in a democracy or republic the people
being governed and the government which governs by their consent
should be able to control their own destiny. Their destiny should
not be controlled by land speculators or developers, bankers, or
population pressure or state government. There should be local
control and he felt this should be discussed.
Mayor Silva felt the Council should wait until there was a full
Council present to see if they wished to include this item for
further discussion.
Councilman Taylor felt that this issue should not be discussed until
a report can be presented on how stopping growth can be effected
legally. Until such methods are determined, discussion by the
Council cannot result in effective action.
The Council discussed whether they could accomplish anything by
discussing this issue at length and the City Attorney was requested
to report on the legal ramifications of stopping growth within a
City's jurisdiction. After this report is received, if any Coun-
cilman wishes to debate the issue further, he may do so.
*
*
*
CONSENT CALENDAR
The letter from W. J. Pender regarding easing
the tax burden was discussed as an item under
the open forum.
Written Communicatio!
re Taxes
*
*
*
CM-23-343
December 21, 1970
Departmental
Reports
Minutes
Payroll and
Claims
Appointment
to Welfare
Task Force
Committee
Approval of
Consent
Calendar
REPORT RE
PROPOSED
SANITARY
LAND FILL
AT TERMINUS
CROAK RD.
Departmental reports were acknowledged from the
following:
Airport - activity and financial - November
Building Department activity - November
Fire Department - November
Golf Course - November
Justice Court - October and November
Police and Pound - November
Water Reclamation Plant - November
*
*
*
The Housing Authority minutes for the meeting of
November 24, 1970 were acknowledged.
*
*
*
One hundred eleven claims in the amount of $77,090.17
and two hundred fifty-nine payroll warrants in the
amount of $78,203.49, dated December IS, 1970, were
ordered paid as approved by the City Manager. Mayor
Silva abstained from voting on Warrant No. 9227 for the
usual reason.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. lS4-70
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING LIVERMORE MEMBER TO
WELFARE TASK FORCE STUDY COMMITTEE
(Marie Schweickert)
*
*
*
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by
Councilman Taylor, to approve the Consent Calendar,
and passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor
Silva
ABSENT: Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
The Planning Director reported that a proposal h~s been
submitted by the County Planning Staff for a sanitary
land fill project at the northerly terminus of Croak
Road. This project is being coordinated with the City
of Pleasanton, and a meeting has been set for December
29 for the various adjacent agencies. It is a proposal to
replace the present dump site of the City of Pleasanton.
Mr. Musso pointed out the location of the proposed site
on the map. The issue is whether the County should approve
disposal site in the Valley at this time; if this is the best
what conditions might be imposed on this site.
a second
site and
The City Manager stated the area comprises 160 acres; the topography
is such that if Croak Road is extended north the dump area will be
visible from the road. He also stated he was at present studying
a report prepared by ABAG on solid waste disposal; this report dis-
closes there is a very critical situation for various parts of the
Bay area regarding waste disposal; some of the larger cities are
reaching a desperate situation. This is a big regional issue and
has been and will be studied more in depth. As far as the staff is
aware, this proposal is not before any official agency for the issuance
of a permit, but it will be discussed by the County staff and they
wish inputs from the City.
CM-23-344
December 21, 1970
Mr. Parness pointed out that Livermore's present
and future needs for a number of years are taken
care of by the present facility so this proposal
does not have a direct relation to our needs.
(Land Fill -
Croak Road)
Mr. Bill Ralph, one of the partners of Livermore's present disposal
site, said the City had contracted for the site for forty years.
He showED. a map presented at the time the new site was prepared
and explained the anticipated need and acreage which would be re-
quired for waste disposal for the 40-year period. After the past
seven years of operation they are still operating on the first ten
acres. There is an anticipated life of 100 years for the needs
of the Valley. He anticipated that if another site was approved
and some of his business was lost, economics would force him to
raise his prices.
Ralph Laughlin, 2382 College Avenue, told the Council that the pro-
posed site is on property owned by his family and he felt he could
of personal knowledge dispute statements made by Mr. Parness and
Mr. Ralph. If the Council wished more technical knowledge, he
would be glad to provide this information.
Mayor Silva explained that this was a request from the County
for recommendation by the City, and the decision is made by the
County Board of Supervisors during the public hearing. Councilman
Taylor pointed out that the County asked for recommendation on
matters which might effect the City and be to the best interest
of the City. He felt that if the City Manager feels that the
present site is adequate for many years, they should instruct the
City Manager to attend the preliminary hearing and express that
this one site will take care of the Valley.
Councilman Miller stated that he felt we should get more informa-
tion from Mr. Laughlin in due course and we probably would as this
was only a preliminary hearing. He agreed with Councilman Taylor
in that at the moment we have enough, but he foresaw a dump for
people outside the Valley, and felt that even though this is a
preliminary hearing and we do not have all the facts, we do not
need another dump site at this time.
Mayor Silva stated he agreed with the statements made that another
site is not needed at this time with the evidence that has been
presented, and possibly the application before them is to take
care of refuse from another area outside the Valley and he was
definitely not for this.
Mr. Lee Amarel, Attorney representing Arthur Bailey, who is a
property owner adjacent to the proposed site on Doolan Road within
the planning area of the City, spoke also as a resident of the
Valley, stating they had all alluded to the problem that this
matter really brings up, and felt that the Valley Planning Committee
should act upon it at once. He further stated that the Council
should not be fooled because this is just a preliminary hearing,
because the application for a dump site at that location has been
filed and the only preliminary thing is that this is the day set
for the areas involved, and all the members of the staff of the
County, to make their report to the County Planning staff upon
which the County Planning staff will make their recommendation to
the Zoning Administrator and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors.
He cautioned that the Board of Supervisors had just amended their
ordinance to make it, in his opinion, easier to obtain a dump site.
Mr. Amarel further stated that at the hearing he had attempted to
convince the Board of Supervisors that prior to amending the ordi-
nance to change the law allowing garbage dumps that they should
have a study for the whole County and particularly for this Valley
as it is the only place left for the whole County to dump its
garbage and he was concerned about it; also a bad precendent would
be established by creating another garbage dump in this Valley
CM-23-345
December 21, 1970
(Land Fill
Croak Road)
which is not necessary to meet the needs of the
Valley and opens the door to sundry applications
for dumps everyplace in the Valley. He urged the
Council not to take the matter lightly and felt the
time to act is now.
Mr. Amarel explained the procedure of the changed County ordinance
which allows many uses, this one among them, without more action
than that of the Zoning Administrator whereas prior to the change,
these matters were processed through the Planning Commission. There
is also the option of appeal by the City if the application is granted.
Mr. R. M. Callaghan, 3690 Madeira Way, appeared as an individual
citizen and as the representative of several estates within the
area, stating that this is a serious problem as far as this valley
is concerned and should not be lightly considered without much study.
This proposal is at the end of Croak Road, and would depreciate pro-
perty value around the site. Mr. Callaghan further stated that
he represented other owners in the area whom he had not had an oppor-
tunity to contact, but he felt that they would be most unhappy to
have a dump site in their back yard. The Council has an opportunity
to prevent a dump site location for the entire Bay area use; they
should consider this matter very seriously.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that the Council instruct the City
Manager to present the City's views at the meeting of December 29
and to generally oppose the creation of another dump site, and this
was seconded by Councilman Miller.
Mayor Silva stated he also supported the motion although he realized
they did not have all the facts, but since it is a County Referral
and the meeting is December 29th, felt the general consensus was
that the disposal site is premature.
Councilman Pritchard stated that since they do not have all the facts
and felt it would be premature for the Council to take any action
whatsoever without all the facts; also by the statements of the prior
speakers the matter should be given the most careful consideration
and study.
Mayor Silva suggested that perhaps they could make the recommendation
based on the fact that they do not have all the necessary information
and ask for a continuance, and if the County does not see fit to con-
tinue the matter, then with the facts before the Council at this
time, they would not be in favor of approving the additional site.
Perhaps enough facts would be presented from testimony taken this
evening.
Evelyn Bankhead, stated she has 320 acres that adjoin the Laughlin
ranch, and wondered since most of the Laughlin ranch was in hills
and very little in canyons, just what portion was planned to be put
into a garbage dump as it would definitely affect her ranch. The
Planning Director indicated on a map the portion that would be used
for a dump site, and it was determined that it was right next to her
ranch.
Robert Allen, 223 Donner Ave., challenged the statement made by one
of the Councilmen that this was a quasi-public utility, as by the
same argument a grocery store or service station is a quasi-public
utility, and perhaps there should be only one, and saw no grounds
for denying the landowner the use of the land that he desired on
the basis it is being regulated as a public utility, when it really
is not.
Councilman Miller stated the City has control over the prices in the
same sense the state PUC has control over PG&E and others.
Mr. Laughlin commented he was not prepared to give all the facts, but
felt a lot of the statements made were made in a facetious manner re-
garding values of adjacent properties as only one side of the story
has been given.
CM-23-346
December 21, 1970
Mayor Silva restated the motion to instruct the
staff to attend the County hearing regarding the
refuse disposal site and to request a continuance
in order that the Council might obtain more data.
(Land Fill -
Croak Rd.)
Councilman Taylor stated this was not the original motion, however
he would accept this stated motion to request a continuance, and
in the event a continuance is not granted, with the facts before
the Council, they would request that the application be denied on
the basis that it is premature.
Councilman Pritchard stated he would prefer to have two motions,
because as the motion reads now, he would be unable to vote, as
he felt they were talking about two different things.
Councilman Taylor, after some discussion by the Council, indicated
that he wished the motion to remain as last stated, but later
withdrew the motion.
Mayor Silva made a motion to ask the County to continue the item
until such time as the Council could gain additional information,
seconded by Councilman Pritchard, and passed unanimously.
Councilman Taylor made a motion that in the event the matter is
not continued that the City take the position of opposing the site
for the various reasons presented by the City Manager, those being
that the citizens of the City of Livermore are faced with a pro-
bable rate increase if c8mpetitive sites are developed and the
site is premature, seconded by Councilman Miller.
Councilman Pritchard stated his negative vote on this motion might
be interpreted that he is in favor of another garbage dump in
Alameda County which is not his idea, and his only reason for
voting llnoll is that they have not had enough time for study and
cannot make a logical recommendation.
The vote was then taken on the motion and it passed 3 to 1 with
Councilman Pritchard dissenting. Councilman Beebe was absent.
*
*
*
The Planning Commission reports they have receivedREPORT RE REZONING
a rezoning application submitted by Howard E. NORTH SIDE MOCHO ST.
Johnson to rezone property located on the north (Howard Johnson)
side of Mocho Street from RS-S to RG District.
The Planning Commission initiated consideration
of possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Sec-
tion 20.00 - Sections 20.71 and 20.72 Future
Width Lines and Special Building Lines on Vasco
Road and East Avenue.
PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Future Width Lines-
Spec. Bldg. Lines)
The staff recommendation is to set the above two items for hearing
on January 11 or 18. A motion was made by Councilman Miller, se-
conded by Councilman Pritchard to set the matters for public hear-
ing on January 18, and passed unanimously.
*
*
*
A summary of action taken at the meeting of Dec- SUMMARY OF ACTION BY
ember lS, by the Planning Commission was received.PLANNING COMMISSION
(Appeal - Peterson)
Councilman Miller appealed the application of Val
Peterson for Variance to permit reduction of set-
back until he had more information.
Planning Director George Musso explained the application for
Variance was essentially an architectural feature of an existing
structure which was to be remodeled. The staff recommended denial
CM-23-347
December 21, 1970
(PC Summary -
Peterson)
for the usual reasons, but the Planning Commission
concluded that it was an architectural feature and,
therefore, the Variance was unnecessary, and he had
recommended that if it was to be allowed, that it
be done by Variance.
Councilman Miller asked that the matter be continued for two weeks,
and placed on the Consent Calendar.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE
RE REZONING
VARIOUS PARK
AND SCHOOL
SITES
ORDINANCE NO. 732
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 Miller, seconded by Councilman Prit-
chard, to waive the second reading, and by the following vote, the
above ordinance was passed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE
RE DATE
CHANGES OF
HOLIDAYS
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded
by Councilman Miller, to waive the first reading
(title read only) and by the following vote, the
ordinance amending the City Code, re official City
holidays, was introduced and filed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Taylor, Pritchard, Miller and Mayor Silva
None
Councilman Beebe
*
*
*
MATTERS
INITIATED
BY STAFF
(Bid on Truck)
The City Manager advised that Codiroli Ford has
advised they are not able to comply with their bid
award for the pickup truck as there was a transmis-
sion problem, and recommended that the Council adopt
a motion that the bid be awarded to Dailey Chevrolet.
A motion was made by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman
Pritchard, to accept the withdrawal of the bid of Codiroli Ford and
to accept the bid of G. E. Dailey for the same comparable type of
equipment, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Parness stated that with reference to the bid on the dump truck
the servicing would have to be made in Tracy, and therefore, re-
commended that the bid be awarded to G. E. Dailey Chevrolet.
A motion was made by Councilman Pritchard, seconded by Councilman
Taylor, and by unanimous approval, the bid for the dump truck was
awarded to G. E. Dailey Chevrolet.
*
*
*
(Vila Gulf) The City Manager advised that with regard to the pro-
gress of the Vila Gulf Project the Chairman of the
Board had reported they had become badly engulfed in
some rederal bureaucracy which is their main problem. Mr. Parness
explained that after the proposition was made to them about the so-
called turnkey type of installation that allegedly would be a signi-
ficant saving they reapplied to HUD. Although they had been informed
at the first go-around application that this type of project would
not qualify because Vila Gulf was owned by the applicant, this time
CM-23-348
December 21, 1970
they thought it would. As they were discussing (Vila Gulf)
revisions they had some officials visit at one
8f their meetings and at this session, after
going through many changes and transfers, they were informed there
was every liklihood that if they followed this route, they would
lose their grant and chances are it would not be extended to them.
They were advised by the BUD officials in attendance at the meet-
ing not to proceed this way, but rather go ahead under the original
application.
*
*
*
Councilman Taylor asked if there was some way to
keep the public informed with regard to public
works activities around the City because there
were so many inquiries about the different
projects.
MATTERS INITIATED
BY COUNCIL
(Public Works
Projects)
The Council discussed the problem, and Mr. Parness suggested that
perhaps a newsletter could be published quarterly which would keep
the public informed about the various construction projects. The
Council requested the staff to investigate the possibility of pub-
lishing such a newsletter.
A member of the audience suggested that possibly a suggestion box
could be initiated for comments from the citizens to the City.
Mr. Parness said such a procedure had been tried, but only four
comments were received in approximately eighteen months. Council-
man Taylor pointed out that the City staff and the Councilmen are
available for comments and questions from citizens. The Public
Works Director stated that people do call in every day inquiring
about various matters; each one is written up and answered.
*
*
*
Councilman Pritchard commented on the fact that
several times recently inquiries have been made
regarding zoning of property outside the City
limits. He requested that a report be made by
the staff, perhaps the City Attorney, regarding
perty prior to annexation.
(Report re
Prezoning)
prezoning of pro-
The City Attorney stated the procedure is set forth in the Govern-
ment Code and the Zoning and Planning Law. The reason there has
not been prezoning is due largely to Council policy, but there is
no question about the legality. Essentially, the same steps are
followed as those set forth if the property were in the City, but
it does not become effective until the area is annexed to the City.
Councilman Miller stated it was the policy of the City not to commit
itself on land use until annexation as a matter of protection to
the City.
Councilman Pritchard said he was not sure if this was a good policy
as often someone desires to develop land next to the City but does
not know if the intended use would be approved.
Mayor Silva agreed it was an item worthy of debate and suggested
that it be brought up again when a full Council is present.
*
*
*
Councilman Miller wished to clarify that he had (Growth Moratorium)
never advocated a permanent moratorium on growth
but had talked about a temporary moratorium be-
cause of smog and other problems.
*
*
*
CM-23-349
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:OS p.m. to
an executive session to discuss personnel problems.
*
*
*
APPROVE
({)~ 7:1- ~
u (u..
Mayor
ATTEST (~
City Clerk
..more, 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:oS 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-23-3S0
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 rezoning
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-23-35l
January 4, 1971
(Public
Hearing -
Black, Hansen
& Smallcomb)
CONTINUED
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
ZONING CHANGE
(No. L to No.
S st. between
Park and RR)
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 II 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 II, and the motion was approved unani-
mously.
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
RESOLUTION::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.
January 4, 1971
Appointment to
Airport Committee
RESOLUTION NO. 2-71
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 Save & 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 Planning}. ~OBILE HOME.PARKS
activities relative to mobile home parks. ~ f:t~~ U~>t""~~J.(. - t
~~ ~1L;t,;:l '"?A1LL 1'-4-~.f. dX-~' .
Mayor pro tempore Miller said this was a very com~icated issuet~~,
he was pleased to have this report and no action was required b~~c~~
the Council. (j
*
*
*
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 0"
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 modific8.tion 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 II, 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 "setbackll. 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 mannerll 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
80% 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 n8t 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 n8t 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 18.
(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.
~{)K: ~ ,(lAh-: Qf!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 11 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 II, 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~ He felt a c~a~e }n zonin~~. 1 "
to RM lS ,premature. ,,>4 t~ ~ Z~ c:&....;r~--C.4- ~nd I
. ~-<.-.-",-=- ~~ ;<!. it1 ;Q~-<--cz d-:..-n_?~ ~~?~>U-n~--<~ ~ ~-~-d.. -Pv#tl:
The motion for rezoning'" from RL-5 to RM was passed by the CY7< j, ! i ~
following vot e : ~k?-t../ ~1 .
~
(/ '-
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmen Beebe, Pritchard and Mayor Silva
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-S 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. ~Jt-~.~ .
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
~ffiWffiERS FOR APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION TO ACTFG MEMBERS
WITH APPROVED PROJECTS.
*
*
*
CM-23-368
January 11, 1971
A storm drain easement has been granted by Report re storm
P.G.& E. at a cost of $474 (25% of market Drain Easement
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.
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
OFF-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,SOO 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 lS, 1970 and January S, 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-23-37l
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
apPoiutmeufI; *
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
~1~~2r$;~~~~~~'
~oe" . * * *
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 thoughlthis area ~ad ~r~ned ~
from multiple to single fami~y. 8.c-.w;A>IU., ,.
~~~~~,/d.t>~fd:~'~ ~ k t-,~j4<-,"".-t-~ l',1.Lt; ~~~JJ
Mr. Musso explalned that the property is located on the east --7
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
relieve 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.
Report 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 ~otion from the table which~~
passed by the following vote{ ~~4~~-<-- ~~'-:.~{~~"_ i .'-'~<.~
l cy. ~ ~4/~d~~i..<>.. u:L / ~-
AYES: Councilmen Beebe, Taylor and Miller A.y-&<t L ( ~)
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 g8ing 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-23-38l
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 sh8rt-
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-DeV8r 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 !'Ten (10) dwellings per gross acre", 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 "Ten dwelling units per gross
acre", 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
Items 5 (b) and (c) were acceptable to the
applicant.
January 18, 1971
(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 "except. .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.ll 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 "two (2) spaces per dwelling unitll. Also,
he requested that the last portion of the condition from the
wording, 'TIn addition,.. II 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 "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
4..{;.' .;>',i-. : ...-!:f:'[J.>...cY'
. "p"" q"'"
there is a general disf~u;t :n government be-
cause politicians!allow deliberate law viola-
tors, who belong to the establishment Dccaoion-
~ 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~~QatMrJ_~utkaknew about building permits and put this
ooi~;up.{ta1'lyW~~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:
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.
REPORT RE
VALLEY
PLANNING
COMMITTEE
Councilman Miller stated he had been assigned the job of raising
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
January 18, 1971
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
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.
ATTEST
*
APPROVE
*
*
*
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
ROLL CALL
*
*
*
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.
MINUTES
*
*
*
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.
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 Attorney's 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 Save & 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..k /. )" IV
I, .;>J1tf,. i.\J.~~
l1~f"{" .
Councilman Taylor said that a three foot sigri..1 se bac~-\i required
might be hard to see, but he did not know on wha grounds 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 questioned 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
Mr. Musso suggested that the words "and lot" be
added in the fifth line of the second paragraph
after the word"mobile home".
January 25, 1971
(Mobile Home
Legislation)
Councilman Taylor made a motion to adopt the letter as presented
by the Planning Commission with the addition of the words "and lot"
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 18, 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:
"Although 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?"
Yes [=: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:
"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 80% 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 of the existing circumstances of 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
APPROVE
*
ATTEST
*
*
*
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 Chambers, 39 So. Livermore Avenue. The
meeting was called to order at 8:15 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-23-40l
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, llThe 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 I, 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. II 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 Miller's 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.
Appointment of
Dr. John Shirley
as Member of Airport
Land Use Comm.
*
*
*
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.
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 opinion 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 I, 19'a
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 ~ould 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
If yes If vote the ordinance will be enforced, and a majority of Ifnolf
votes will indicate that the ordinance will be .appealed. K / /l--h'1/7d..
A:. . - L ~~IC- I CLA<J'- et, '-"'
The City Clerk stated that the election will co~e than $5db
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 6lst 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. lS4, 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 $lSOO
for the annual rodeo parade. Financial participation
of the City in this event in an amount up to $lSOO
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-23-4l0
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-23-4ll
February 8, 1971
(Exempt
Business
Licenses)
(Payroll
& Claims)
APPROVAL OF
CONSENT
CALENDAR
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.
PUBLIC
HEARING RE
REZONING
(North side
Mocho St.-
Howard
Johnson)
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-23-4l3
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-23-4l5
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 "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.
Z 0 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
Z 0 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)
* * . tJ~' 1 ! r .. ~
I!lIec II kt'e/ ~ .
The City Manager stated ~~ere i~O 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
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.
(Revenue
Sharing)
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 arwecology
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-23-4l8
*
*
*
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 "cause"
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
)
,/..\. ,;',-r.
, \I" \.
*
" j
../1
r
*
ATTEST
+--
(
\.1.' -
~~
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~~~~ residential
to commercial office. ~~_
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 flwhen located in E, CP,
RG, RM Districtsfl. 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-23-42l
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 l2-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.
7t
*
*
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.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-71
Report re PUD No.lS
(Carlton Dev. Co.)
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,SOO to $S,OOO 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. Sec ond Street , Livermore to If LIf Street
2. If JIf Street, First to Third Street
3. If Kif Street, First to Third Street
4. If LIf 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.
"
~^.
*
*
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 lIplI 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 lIplI
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-I
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 lSO 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-S 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.
February 22, 1971
(Park Dedication)
house on them,
building lots,
Mayor Silva pointed out that the multiple had not been increased,
but in fact, it had been decreased.
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 happeD 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 harrm as multiple zoning is a financial consideration.
He did not feel there was justification for changing the zoning 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~\letlla 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
(20 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 the previous discussion cqn-
c7rning Mr. Mosu~e' s application & .~-Fi. ~C-W7t.v P'7t!'~~~~u ~ -rl~.. '
~~.d-......---~~ --4Z:~-v<--,-~p--rn~, . iJK~d-Oi::a-lJ
In regard to the wording of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Musso if
stated the Building Inspector suggested that in Item C) the words,
"residential dwelling" be changed to "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