Loading...
1964-02-18 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING FEBRUARY 18, 1964 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman La Croix and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. Robert 0. Adams, Curate, Christ Episcopal Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Freeman, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. Councilman Freeman requested that the verbatim transcription of the recording of that portion of the Council meeting of February 4, 1964, from "Unfinished Business" through "Resolutions" be, by reference, incorporated therein and made a part of the minutes of said meeting. There were no objections and it was so ordered. The minutes of the Council meeting of February 4, 1964, were then approved as transcribed and amended to include the addition. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2 From the League of California Cities, signed by Mr. Howard Gardner, Associate Director, request- ing the City to appoint a representative to serve on the International Municipal Cooperation Commit- tee for 1964. The President pointed out that the Council was well aware of the long -term interest and effort on the part of Councilman McCall in the work of the Sister -City Program. He stated that, if there were no objections, Councilman McCall would be appointed as the City Representative on this specified Commit- tee of the League for 1964. It was so ordered. 3.v/ From Norman C. Johnson, M. D., 2049 Central Avenue, concerning certain charges made against Mrs. Freeman in a recent newspaper article - and expressing his opinion thereon. Councilman Freeman commented that she appreciated the number of people who had written or telephoned to her expressing their "backing ". The letter was to be acknowledged and filed. 4.1 From Utah Construction & Mining Co., signed by Mr. H. L. McGinnis, Resident Engineer, South Shore Project, requesting acceptance by the City of certain public improvements in Tract No. 1898, South Shore Unit II, as set forth in its letter of February 13, 1964. Upon request, City Engineer Hanna stated he had followed this development very carefully and he was satisfied that the work had been completed as stated. Councilman McCall moved the request be granted and the improvements as indicated in the letter of February 13, 1964, with the recommendation of the City Engineer, be accepted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Freeman, (1). Absent: None. 5. From Mr. Fred P. Mercer, 2016 San Antonio Avenue, informing the Council of his disapproval of the variances and Use Permit granted to St. Joseph's Church by the City Planning Board recently. 6.j From Mrs. J. Oswald, 2015 San Antonio Avenue, submitting her complaints about the granting of the variances and the Use Permit to St. Joseph's Church at a recent meeting of the City Planning Board. It was developed that this matter had been checked into and the writers of the letters were not mak- ing appeals from the decision of the Board but were merely expressing their thinking on the actions taken. The Clerk was instructed to acknowledge the communications. 7. From Mrs. James Wiley, 1232 St. Charles Street, concerning certain charges made against Mrs. Freeman in a recent newspaper article - and expressing her opinion thereon. The letter was to be acknowledged. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 8:" Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, referred to the several traffic accidents which had occurred in the Posey Tubes and reiterated his opinion that they were the result of speeding because there was no motorcycle traffic officer patroling this area. He felt the City should complain to the State Division of Highways. Upon inquiry, Mr. Hanna replied that he was still working on the survey of this situation and expected to contact the State Division of Highways on the matter very shortly. HEARINGS: 9.I Continued from the Council meeting of January 21, 1964 - the matter was called up concerning Resolution No. 6519 with regard to the preliminary determination that public convenience and necessity required the improvement of Garden Road - under the Assessment District procedure. 10.`' Continued from the Council meeting of January 21, 1964 - the matter was called up concerning Resolution of Intention No. 6522 to order the improvement of Garden Road between County and Mecartney Roads - under the Assessment District procedure. The President stated that, upon recommendation of the City Attorney, both of these. Hearings would be continued to the Council meeting of March 17, 1964, in order to retain City jurisdiction in these matters, pending satisfactory completion of the improvements on Garden Road under private contract. There being no objections, such was the order. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 11. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending the reclassification of prop- erty at 2713 and 2717 Central Avenue, from "R -1 ", One- Family Residence District, to "R -2 ", Two- Family Residence District. The Hearing date on this matter was set for the next meeting of the City Council, to be held March 3, 1964. 12' From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Construct- ing Arch Culverts at Broadway and St. Margaret Court and at Peach and Fillmore Streets - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Rose moved the recommendation be approved; that the work on said project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and unanimously carried. 13. From the Recreation and Parks Commission, signed by Mr. Al Blanchard, Chairman, informing the Council that the Commission had re- examined its original recommendation and had given further study to the question of accepting a certain lot in Tract No. 2537 for development of a children's recrea- tion facility. This reconsideration of the subject was in compliance with the request made by the City Council at its meeting of February 4, 1964. It was stated that, after considerable discussion, it was the unanimous vote of the Commission to reaffirm its recommendation that the City accept the offer of the Developer for Lot 1, Block 4 of said Tract following its development in accordance with the offer of Shore Line Properties, Inc. A detailed estimation of the annual maintenance cost of the proposed "tot -lot" in the sum of $195., and a sketch of the contemplated development thereof, accompanied the letter. Councilman La Croix expressed his advocacy of such play or green areas in any development which might be- established within the City. He said he firmly believed the recommendation of the Recrea- tion and Parks Commission was a valid one and indicated a far - sighted look at what this development would be in the future. Therefore, he moved the recommendation of said Commission be approved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose. Speaking on the question, Councilman Rose referred to the sketch of the proposed park and pointed out there would be approximately fifty feet of plantings between the, play area and the adjoining house of Commander J. H. Steveley, 934 Court Street, who had expressed his opposition to such a "tot -lot" in this particular location. Councilman Rose said he felt that, with this amount of'dis- tance between the Steveley home and the playground installation, his objection to this site for such a, park had been removed. Councilman McCall emphasized his opposition to the acceptance of a lot in this Tract for a park because there would be no City supervision and City liability would result. Further, the property would then be taken off the tax rolls. He suggested that such a park should be the responsibility of a home owners association within the development. Councilman Freeman concurred with Councilman McCall with respect to this green area being dedicated by the Developer to a home owners group for its maintenance. President Godfrey expressed his agreement with Councilmen McCall and Freeman. He said he just could not feel there was any particular value in accepting this lot for said park improvement. Councilman La Croix said he felt the City, all too often, gave up the opportunity to have park facilities in the development of areas in the community. He could not see how it would adversely affect the residents in this Tract and thought it would enhance the development thereof. He believed the Council would be making a grave mistake if it did not accept this particular tiny -tot area for this Tract. Councilman La Croix asked the City Attorney if he deemed it advisable for the City to "own" a portion of this development so that it might better control the covenants and restrictions which had been imposed upon the Developer. Mr. Cunningham replied that he deemed it advisable but not necessary from the legal standpoint. He explained that, originally, the purpose of having the City own property there was to give it a right as a property owner to enforce any covenants which it thought might be violated. He stated the City, however; had since then written other restrictions which relieved the City, in his opinion, of the necessity of being a property owner, though he still believed it would be advisable. Considerable. discussion ensued between the Council and Mr. James Davis, Attorney, representing Shore Line Properties, Inc., in exploring other possible sites within the development for such a park - or even for just "open space ". Also, Commander Steveley once again stressed the inadvisability of establishing a park at this location due to its proximity to Krusi Park and the fact that he felt there would be so few children in -the Tract itself. Mr. Daniel J. Rourke, 1803 San Antonio Avenue, member of the Recreation and Parks Commission, reviewed the history of this proposal of a site for a children's recreational facility. He pointed up the Commission's position in its unanimous choice of this location in looking forward to future developments to the east of this Tract. The question was then put, and the motion lost on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen La Croix and Rose, (2). Noes: Councilman McCall and President Godfrey, (2). Not Voting: Council- man Freeman, (1). Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: {F, 14. Councilman McCall referred to the matter of the deletion of the appropriation for the develop- ment of Alameda Memorial State each from the State Budget. He was of the opinion that there was little chance for this item to be reinstated. Mr. Neil Clark, Assistant City Manager, reported that, in accordance with Council instructions at the last meeting, Mr. Weller had telephoned Mr. Robert Crown, State Assemblyman, who had assured him that the monies in question could be restored to the Budget. Also, should there be need for a City delegation to appear in Sacramento on this matter, Mr. Crown would so advise the City - but he did not feel it would be necessary. Councilman McCall stated he would like to have this information in the form of a letter from Assemblyman Crown. 15.E Councilman McCall then suggested that the State be approached to consider the establishment of a slow and fast lane in each of the Tubes - the trucks and slow - moving traffic using the right lanes. The President asked Mr. Hanna to bring up this idea in his discussions with the State Division of Highways. 16'. Councilman Freeman asked the City Attorney for a written opinion about just what the people's protection was under the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Master Plan and, under Ordinance No. 1148, New Series, in the Fill Agreement - all of which required at some point, a minimum 5,000 square -foot lot. Also, to give a breakdown and point out the areas where the require- ment was not needed. Further, his opinion on how, by resolution, the Council amended ordinances in existence such as the Fill Agreement, by its actions. NEW BUSINESS: 17. Councilman McCall broached the subject of the State sale at public auction on February 25, 1964, of a 62,000 square -foot parcel of land bordering the Alameda side of the Estuary behind the old Posey Tube. Oral bids were to be received on the site, with a minimum bid of $60,000. He referred to the development of Jack London Square across the Estuary and felt the property in ques- tion could be developed with some comparable type of facility which would enhance the value and use of the Estuary. He inquired if there was any control the City could exert over the type of improve- ment which might be placed on this property. He felt that efforts should be made on the part of the City Manager's office, the Chamber of Commerce and all concerned, to encourage private enter- prise to improve this property. Mr. Neil Clark reported on the history of this area. The land had been acquired by the State in connection with the construction of the new Posey Tube, with the intention that it would eventually be declared surplus and offered for sale, presumably, on the basis of the existing land use. The property was in the "M -2 ", General Industrial (manufacturing) District. Mr. Clark stated that all interested City Agencies had been aware of the situation for some time. Councilman McCall requested that the Assistant City Manager find out about any State land within the City of Alameda which might be planned for. disposal. 18. Councilman Freeman stated she was concerned about a matter which had come before the City Planning Board recently. An application had been submitted for variances on the one hundred sixty - eight lots in Tract No. 2537, Unit IV, and Mr. Hawley had requested that action be taken on the group at one time. The fee for a single variance application was ten dollars. Mr. Hawley was willing to pay the sum of $1,680. However, the Planning Board did not think this was necessary, as it was being handled as one application. Councilman Freeman said she thought this might possibly be a policy decision and she did not know what authority the Board would have to make said'decision and she would like Mr. Cunningham to check in this direction. Mr. Cunningham stated he had gone into the matter thoroughly and advised the Planning Director that one application and one fee was all that was necessary since every application was the same. This was a regulatory, not a revenue producing, measure and hence, the justification for charging one fee when one application was presented. He stated he had not changed his opinion on this matter. He had advised the Planning Director that the procedure proposed to be adopted - namely, the grant- ing of one variance on one hundred sixty -eight lots, was proper. Councilman Freeman stated she would still like an answer in writing on this. 19 Councilman McCall said he understood Bethlehem Steel Corp. contemplated leaving the City of Alameda by 1965 or 1966 and inquired what the status of this situation was. He felt the City should know about such circumstances in order that it could plan ahead. The President asked Mr. Clark to investigate this matter in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, RESOLUTIONS: 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Freeman, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6566 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installation of Culverts and Drainage Improvements at Various Locations, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6567 Authorizing Execution of Application and Agreement Relating to City Employees' Coverage Under Federal Social Security Act." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. Resolution of Intention to Accept Proposed Grant of Lot for Use as Children's Recreational Facility in Subdivision Unit IV, South Shore, Tract No. 2537." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose. The motion lost on the follow - ing roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen La Croix and Rose, (2). Noes: Councilman McCall and Presi- dent Godfrey, (2). Not Voting: Councilman Freeman, (1). Absent: None. Therefore, the resolution was not adopted. 23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6568 Requesting State Department of Finance to Prepare Special Census Estimate as of April 1, 1964, and Authorizing Execution of Agreement Between City and Said Department Therefor." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President then declared the foregoing resolutions adopted, as indicated. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 24."' "Ordinance No. 1453, New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection (10) to Section 14 -213 Thereof, Relating to Fire Zone No. 2 (Nichandros - Pacific Marina)." Councilman McCall moved the passage of the ordinance as submitted. The motion was seconded by Coun- cilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. "Ordinance No. 1454, New Series An Ordinance Authorizing Amendment to the Contract Between the City Council of the City of Alameda and the Board of Administration of the California State Employees' Retirement System, Relating to Participation by City in Said System." Councilman La Croix moved the passage of the ordinance as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. FILING: 26. Financial Statement - Bureau of Electricity, as of December 31, 1963 - Verified by Hackleman & Larzelere. 27. Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans No. PW 2 -64 -4 - Installation of Culverts and Drainage Improvements at Various Locations. 28. Agreement - Between City of Alameda and State Department of Finance - re Special Census. 29. Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration, State Employees' Retirement System, and City Council of City of Alameda. 194 BILLS: 30. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $27,166.01, 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 February 18, 1964, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 31. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, March 3, 1964, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, City /Clerk