Loading...
1966-03-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Councilman Bartley and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. Benjamin De Camp, Retired Rector of the Episcopal Diocese. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Bartley, La Croio, Jr,, McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held March 1, and of the special meeting held March 8, 1986, were approved as transcribed. � 2,' At this point, the President introduced Mr. Carl Payne, Principal of Porter School, and welcomed him and his group of students to the Council meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: � j. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, complimented the Council on its excellent questions and comments which were made at the special meeting held March 8, when Mr. E. Q. Foley, Chief Engineer, Bay Toll Crossings, made his presentation with regard to the proposed route of the southern ormooiog. Be felt the Council adequately refuted the arguments in favor of said second crossing route. 4‘/ Mr. Lawrence Patton, 1020 San Antonio Avenue, inquired if a letter had been written by the City to the District Engineer of the State Division of Highways concerning the question of a grade separa- tion at the intersection of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue. The President explained that such a letter had not been written because the Staff of the Engineering Department had been in the process of making a study of the traffic situation in this area and was almost ready to submit a report thereon. Mr. Patton also referred to the special meeting and the presentation made by Mr. Foley on behalf of the recommendation of the Bay Toll Crossings that the route be from India Basin to Alameda. 'He felt strongly that both sides of this question had not been equally presented to the citizens of Alameda and he offered to debate the question or appear before any organization or group to submit the story on behalf of Mr. Foley, HEARINGS: 5/ The matter was called up concerning the proposed vacation of an unimproved portion of Mecartney Road east of Camellia Drive - a strip only five feet wide by one hundred forty-four feet long - as set forth in Resolution of Intention No. 8916, adopted by the City Council at its meeting of February 15. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention in which this time and place was set for the Hearing on said quastion. Also, there was on file the Affidavit of Posting the Notices, as reqbired by the Streets and Highways Code, under which these proceedings were being held. Upon request, Mr. Hanna, City Engineer, reported on the situation and explained the advantages of abandoning this narrow strip from the public thoroug6fara. This would then allow the strip of prop- erty to revert to the adjoining subdivision. The City Attorney then stated the legal issue before the Council was whether said unimproved portion of this street as shown on City Engineer's Drawing 0o, 5880, Case No. 54, should be vacated and in this deliberation the Council should determine whether that portion of the street was unnecessary for present or prospective public street yurpoaea. Also, whether the public interest required its vaca- tion in the event there was no present or prospective street use. The President called upon any who wished to speak as a proponent in this matter. There was no response. He then inquired if there were any opponents to the queutioo. Again, there was no response. President Godfrey then declared the Hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Council. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation of the City Engineer be adopted and the unimproved portion of this street as specifically described in Resolution of Intention No. 6910 be vacated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The matter was referred to "Resolutions". h. The matter was then submitted with regard to an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny the application for a variance to allow certain construction on properties known as 1175 and 1183 Broadway. The Appeal was filed by Stahl-Wooldridge Construction Co. The Clerk stated that copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter was considered had been sent to the Councilmen for their information. Further, all interested parties had been notified of this time and place for said Hearing. Upon request, Mr. Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the history of this case. He pointed up the fact that this firm proposed to erect an eight-unit apartment dwelling on each of these adjoining lots. / Each parcel contained eleven thousand square feet, which was lot area deficiency of one thousand square feet for the contemplated structure. The Staff did not recommend the granting of this variance and the Planning Board could not make any finding of hardship in this case and, therefore, unanimously voted to deny the application. He referred to his explanatory memorandum of March 10, accompanied by a plot plan of the properties in question, which had been sent to the Councilmen for their clarification. City Attorney Cunningham stated the legal issue before the Council was whether or not the action of the Planning Board, under Section 11-161(b)(d) of the Alameda Municipal Code should be affirmed, modi- fied or reversed. The President invited any proponents to address the Council at this time. Mr. Charles Gustaveson, 1185 Broadway, emphasized that the neighbors were extremely anxious to have these two lots improved in order that the "eyesore" would be eliminated from the neighborhood. He submitted a request, signed by fifteen residents of the vicinity, which indicated that they had seen the plans of the proposed development and would like to have this type of structure built on this parcel. Mr. Robert Stahl, with offices at 550 Park Street, addressed the Council as the builder and developer of this large area. He assured the Council and all interested parties that he fully intended to con- struct the buildings as shown on the plans submitted, should the requested variance be granted. He distributed to the Councilmen certain photographs and copies of the plans for their information. Upon inquiry for opponents to the issue, there was no response. The President then declared the Hear- ing closed. Councilman McCall expressed his opinion that this area should surely be developed in order to get it on the tax rolls. He felt the City's approach was not realistic and did not give enough consideration to the desires of the citizens affected who, in this instance, were in support of the Appellant. Coun- cilman McCall said he believed the granting of this Appeal could be justified. Following considerable discussion of several aspects of the situation there appeared to be consensus against establishing a precedent in allowing such a great amount of lot area deficiency. Councilman Bartley then moved the action of the Planning Board be upheld and the Appeal be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None. v~ 7. Next called up was the matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny the application for a variance for certain construction on the property known as 818 Lincoln Avenue. The Appeal was filed by Geraldine L. and William F. Cody. The Clerk stated the interested parties had been notified that this was the time and place for said Hearing. Also, copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter was given consideration had been sent to the Councilmen for their information. The President called upon Mr. Johnson for his report on this case. Be referred to his memorandum of March 10 and the accompanying plot plan of the lot in question which had been sent to the Councilmen in explanation of the circumstances. Be pointed up the fact that this involved a.lot deficiency of five hundred forty-four square feet in view of the proposed construction of two additional living units at the rear of this property - making a total of four dwelling units thereon. He stated the Staff could not recommend the granting of the necessary variance and the Board could not make a find- ing of hardship. Therefore, the application was denied by a majority vote of the Board. Upon request, the City Attorney stated the legal issue before the Council was identical with that submitted in the previous Hearing. President Godfrey invited any proponents to address the Council at this time. Mr. Richard P. Schacht, Attorney, represented the Appellants and spoke at great length in their behalf. Be pointed up their need for the additional units - one, to house Mrs. Cody's mother and the other to provide income in view of the economic loss in the family due to an industrial accident suffered by Mr. Cody. They believed it would be to their advantage to be allowed to construct two small living units rather than one large apartment. He stressed the hardship involved in this case due to these several circumstances, and the fact that their contemplated construction would not be detrimental to anyone in the neighbor- hood since no yard areas were encroached upon and off-street parking was provided. The President then called for any opponents to the question and there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman Bartley expressed his opinion that, under the circumstances in this case, he thought the requested variance was juatified. Other members of the Council expressed their sympathy toward the Appellants but felt they should be consistent in their interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regulations. Councilman McCall reiterated his belief that the Zoning Ordinance was not being used flexibly enou86. There should be a more realistic approach to its interpretation. He felt a thorough study of the Zon- ing Ordinance and the Master Plan should be undertaken by the Council. Councilman La Croix then moved that the action of the Planning Board be upheld and the Appeal be denied. Councilman Rose seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen La Croix, Rose and President Godfrey, (3). Noes: Councilmen Bartley and McCall, (2). Absent: None. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 8., From Assistant City Manager and City Auditor, submitting their report on the Count of Money held February 16, 1966, which showed the sum of ¢6,172,999.90 in the City Treasury at that time. � ^� The report was noted and ordered filed. 9. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Ransome Company, low bidder, for the proj- ect of Widening and Resurfacing Atlantic Avenue from Main Street to Webster Street, for the total cost of $167,973,85. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be adopted; that the contract be awarded to the desig- nated company for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman McCall inquired if the possibility of obtaining some Federal Aid on this project had been investigated, in view of its great use by Naval Air Station employees and Naval personnel living adjacent to this thoroughfare. Mr. Waller explained the situation, pointing up the fact that to qualify for Federal Funds the City would have to adopt a Workable Program and this matter had already been thoroughly explored. J lO. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Morris Landy Motors, low bidder, for the replacement of three trucks in the Street Department, for the total cash sum of $7,932.84. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be followed; that contract be awarded to said firm for furnishing this equipment at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and car- ried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 11. Councilman Bartley introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provi- sion of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 9-148 Thereof, Reducing Period Within Which Impounded Dogs May be Redeemed from Five to Three Days." City Attorney Cunningham explained the proposed changes. The "week-end" being counted as part of the three-day limitation was questioned. After some discussion, it was the consensus that the amendment would exclude "Saturday, Sunday and Holidays" in this restriction. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: � � l2x The President stated he expected to receive very soon from the Golf Course Consultants their report and reconxnwndati000. It was important that the Council determine upon a course of action in the immediate future. Therefore, he suggested that the Council hold an adjourned regular meeting on Monday afternoon, March 21, at 4:30 o'clock. The principal purpose of said meeting, but not neces- sarily limited thereto, would be to discuss the Golf Course Architects' report. There being no objections, President Godfrey stated the meeting this evening would so adjourn. 13, Councilman Rose inquired if the Council wished to discuss or take a position or reaffirm its position on the matter of the Southern Crossing after the presentation at the special meeting of March 8. It was pointed out that the current City Council was on record as being in opposition to the Southern Crossing with a terminus in the City of Alameda. Councilman La Croix then moved that this City Council - after having had the recent presentation by the Chief Engineer for the California Toll Bridge Authority, Mr. E. R. Foley, on the proposed Southern Crossing with a terminus in Alameda - go on record as being completely opposed to such a bridge terminus. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen La Croix, Rose and President Godfrey, (3). Noes: Councilmen Bartley and McCall, (2). Absent: None. Mr. Johnson called the Council's attention to a meeting of the Alameda County Highway Advisory Com- mittee on March 30, at which time one of the agenda items for discussion was to be the proposed Shore- line Freeway, known as Route 61 of the State Highway System, which would run from the vicinity of Albany to the vicinity of Newark, via Alameda. As presently aligned, it would be on or adjacent to existing Shore Line Drive. Mr. Johnson was assured that this matter had been mentioned by Mr. Foley in his presentation at the special meeting of March 8. Further, it was noted that the City of Alameda was on record in opposi- tion to said Shoreline Freeway. President Godfrey referred to the matter of "additional transportation facilities" in connection with the proposed Southern Crossing and stated this was defined by law to mean those facilities which con- nect the termini of toll bridges to other areas within a radius of fifty miles. Be pointed out the law also sets forth that no such additional transportation facilities within said radius shall be constructed by the Authority until the City Council has approved the route of such facilities. He asked, therefore, that he be given permission by the Council to ask the City Attorney to submit the appropriate inquiry of the Toll Bridge Authority for its interpretation of the law in this respect. During the course of some discussion on the question, Mr. Cunningham recited in detail the procedure which could be followed to ascertain the pertinent information desired. It was agreed that the City Attorney would pursue the matter accordingly. 14. Councilman McCall referred to the matter of lot area deficiencies as had been brought out during the course of the Hearings on the two Appeals held earlier in the meeting. He said he would like to have the subject reviewed and a report submitted, following which it might be thought advisable to ask the Planning Board to give further study to this matter. RESOLUTIONS: 15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6923 Cancelling City Taxes on Property Acquired by the Alameda Unified School District for Public Purposes." (Expansion of Haight School) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6924 Finding and Determining the Certain Unimproved Portion of Mecartney Road East of Camellia Drive, Referred to in Resolution No. 6916, is Unnecessary for Present or Proapectino Street Purposes; Finding No Reservation of Easement Therein Necessary; Ordering the Vacation Thereof, and Directing Zity Clerk to Cause a Certified Copy of This Resolution to be Recorded." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6925 Authorizing Acceptance of Settlement Offer by General Electric Company, and Authorizing City Attorney to Compromise Litigation." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6926 Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction and Completion of Improvements in Subdivision Designated Tract 2833, Being the Easterly and Southerly Portion of Property Shown on Tentative Map of Tract 2822." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: 0one, Not Voting: Councilman Bartley, (1). Absent; None. 19. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6927 Approving Final Map of Subdivision Known as Tract 2833, Easterly and Southerly Portion of Property Shown on Approved Tentative- Map of Tract 2822, Submitted by Shore Line Properties, Inc., and Approving Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: 0oue, Not Voting: Councilman Bartley, (l), Absent: 0nnm, Councilman Bartley explained his abstention was because of his participation as a real estate agent in previous transactions concerning this property. ~/. 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6928 Requesting State Department of Finance to Prepare Special Census Estimate as of April 1, 1966, and Authorizing Execution of Agreement Between City and Said Department Therefor." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. FILING: 21. Financial Statement - Bureau of Electricity, as of January 31, 1966 - Verified by 8ackleman, 22. Agreement - Between Shore Line Properties, Inc., and City of Alameda - Relating to Tract 2833. 23. Agreement - Between State and City with regard to Special Census. BILLS: 24. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $37,789.45, was presented to the Council at this meeting. The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman McCall moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on March 15, 1966, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 25. At this point, President Godfrey asked if the Council would retire to the Conference Room for an executive session upon his declaration of a recess. This would be for the purpose of discussing prospective appointees to the several City Boards at the proper time. ~Y 2o. Prior to the recess, Councilman McCall referred to the very recent death of Dr. Palmer Fallgren, who had been active in coxm/unity life and had many friends throughout the City. Councilman McCall suggested the meeting should be adjourned in respect to the memory of Dr. Fallgren. President Godfrey then called up the audience for a moment of silence in observance of the passing of Dr. Full8ran, The Council then recessed to the Conference Room for its executive session. ADJOURNMENT: 27. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in adjourned regular meeting on Monday afternoon, March 21, 1988, in the Council Chamber, at 4:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,