Loading...
1956-11-13 Regular CC MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 13, 1956 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Kranelly presiding. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Haag, Hove, McCall, Moresi and President elly, (5) were noted present. Absent: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. From Robert L. Wooldridge, submitting the Final Map of Tract No. 177, the subdivision developed by him on the property where the Municipal Nursery was for- merly located. The matter was referred to "Resolutions". REPORTS OF COMP:IT2EES: 2. From the City Manager, submitting the recornrnendation of the City Engineer that the Final Nap of Tract No. 1757 be approved - and stating he concurs tharewith. The communication was referred to the file on the subject. 3. From the Mayor, nominating Mr. Francis G. MacGinnis, 1811 Harvard Drive, for appointment to the office of member of the City Planning Board - to serve the unex- pired term of Mrs. Tova Petersen Wiley, which expires June 30, 1959. The matter was referred to "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: L. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hove, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5476 Approving Final Map of Subdivision Known as Tract No. 1757, Submitted by Robert L. Wooldridge and Constance S. Wooldridge, His Wife." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Moresi and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 5. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Moresi, who moved its adoption: esolution No. 5477 Appointing. Member of the City Planning Hoard." Francis G. MacGinnis, Td on roll The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Mc call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. =n. 2' None. President Kranelly declared the foregoing resolutions duly adopted and passed. 6. At this point, President Krane3 ly declared a recess until 9:00 o'clock p.m., in order that the Council could meet with both the Encinal Yacht Club an d the Civil Service Board in pre-scheduled sessions. 7. The Council reconvened at 9:05 o'clock p.m. and con tinued the meeting under the heading of "ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE". ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 8. "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Article 1, Chapter 3, 111-0 XI, and inserting in Its Place an Title and Stead the loTr Article 1, Chap- ter 3, of XI, Prescribing Rules and Regulations Governing the Planning and Subdividing of Land and the " Filing and Approval of Subdivision Maps. President Kranelly stated a list of objections to some of the provisions of the ordi- nance had been filed and it appears that, in the mectinF held by certain City officials with representative s of the realtors and developers, some of the points raised have been settled. 34 The City Attorney stated all points have been agreed upon with the exceptions of (1) Whether or not the ordinance should control splits into "two or more parcels" or "five or more parcels"; (2) The requirements as to frontage on interior and corner lots and the area of the lots and (3) The manner of dealing with the impo- sition of engineering costs. The basis for the further discussion of these points was the analysis of the City Attorney, dated November 13, 1956, copies of which had been sent to the Council members and other City officials. Mr. Richard Thunder stated it is the opinion of the Real Estate Board that existing property which is on dedicated streets should be excluded from the Subdivision Act and controlled by the Zoning Ordinance. One cannot ask a person to go through the subdivision procedure where you could under the Zoning Ordinance if the property is on a dedicated street. He felt the Subdivision Act is not the right place for this procedure. Mr. Bert Fernhoff stated his committee concurs with the Real Estate Board in this opinion - in those particular cases ,there lots adjoin an existing street. He said that any split less than five lots would be in conflict with the State Map Act. Mr. Thunder stated that when the City has approved a subdivision, the decision is made, but if it were the wish of the Planning Board, it would be possible for it to have the owner file another tract map. Mr. Annibale stated it is true the Planning Board has the discretion to allow the owner to file a Record of Survey Map - and not require him to file a Tentative Map. He quoted Sec. 11-311(a) of the local ordinance and referred to Sections 11540.1 and Section 11536 of the State Map Act and stated it is his opinion that such lands - not defined as subdivisionscan be regulated. Mr. Thunder stated the Real Estate Board believes the Engineering Department desires better control in the land splits than those conforming to the State Code. He pointed out there is an economic factor involved, however, and the Board strongly urges the City to require a bond to protect its interests. Councilman Moresi stated that, on recommendation of the City Engineer and the Plan- ning Director, the Council reduced this provision to cover less than five lots - and inquired if it were merely for more control and if so, could it be controlled under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Annibale replied that, if street improvements are required, Mr. Thunder suggests the City do this in the granting of the building permits. He said it is his opinion that, if the City is going to require street improvements, it has to be done under provisions of a Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Robert L. Williams, Planning Director, stated perhaps he could give some indi- cation of the prevailing acceptance of the provision for splits into "two or more" lots. He cited the City of Santa Barbara and also that, out of thirty-two communi- ties surveyed, twenty-four of them have such provisions which have taken effect within the last seven or eight years within Subdivision Ordinances themselves. He felt this particular procedure is essential - it reflects the contemporary subdi- vision ordinance framing. He quoted several sources which defined "subdivision" to mean the division of parcels of land into two or more lots for the purpose of transferring ownership, buildings or improvements, This definition is desirable. He stated this is the means by which the City is attempting to bring up to a good standard all such development. Mr. Martin Kaufman, Alameda County Planning Commission member, asked why this pro- vision is being put in the Subdivision Ordinance - why Mr. Williams, himself, is in favor of it and where in Alameda it would be necessary. He explained the reason that other agencies have included the division of land into two lots or more has been to take care of the problem where there are existing lots which are very deep and this situation does not prevail in Alameda. City Engineer Mark Hanna spoke up and stated Bay Farm Island would be the biggest area where provision for such deep lots would be needed. Mr. Kaufman said control could be maintained at any time with Zoning Ordinance regulations, especially in a community which is already 93% built up. Mr. Thunder stated the Real Estate Board has no objection to the City having power to control splits - but a split when involving less than five lots should be handled by the Zoning Ordinance. Then, if the property is not brought up to a good standard, the City should require a bond. Mr. Annibale said he seriously doubted that a provision to require a bond could be enforced. Councilman Haag asked why it is better to control two-lot splits under the Subdi- vision Ordinance rather than in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Williams replied it is a misuse of a Zoning Ordinance to make it a "catch-all". He felt the provision for a Record of Survey Map would be a short-cut method and the costs embodied in this procedure are no more expensive than those involved in the processing of a variance through the Zoning Ordinance, considering the time spent and the fees necessary. President Kranelly stated that what is probably uppermost in the minds of the Coun- cilmen is the question, "Just how much of a hardship the provisions of the Subdi- vision Ordinance as now drawn up would work on any developer or person intending to make a two-lot split in the City?" He asked the opinion of Mr. Thunder, who agreed it is at the discretion of the Planning Beard, Mr. Hanna stated that, as to specific examples where this provision could have been used in the past, he could cite the soeth end of Hawthorne Street - the property there was subdivided just a few years ago and since there were no controls, the developers could leave out anything they did not want to put in. It is too late there. He said the wording of the Subdivision Ordinance is such that it is pri- marily intended for the improvement of streets - and there is a difference between dedication and improvement. The City thinks those improvements should be put in and believes the time to do so is when the land is divided. In the east end of the City there is a fair amount of land which is now under one ownership, but it might be ten to twelve years before it is improved and it might very readily be sold off before then. At present there is notes much control as the City should have. He also mentioned the area south of Central Pvenue at Fourth Street, Eagle Avenue at Hibbard Street, Grand Street northerly from about Eagle Avenue to Clement Avenue and the property at the foot of Ninth Street. President Kranelly said this is, then, a method of allowing the City to control streets- on lots which do have all improvements in the streets. Mr. Fornhoff asked if it is necessary to have this control in cases where all improvements are in. He said the ordinance includes those instances where a man might have a large piece of property which he wants to divide into two lots. Should not those cases be excluded? There is no reason for it - provision is made just so someone can control the land. Mr. Williams stated the point,whether the land contains two lots or five lots,is that it can be poorly subdivided. Admittedly, the definition of "subdivision" meaning five parcels worked ou:_te well at one time. Now, however, all planners are convinced that such definition cannot apply in the old areas as well as in the new areas. President Kranelly said, getting back to the matter of whether it sliould mean two or five parcels, Mr. Thunder claims it is not legal to mean "two". Mr. Annibale stated he disagreed with this statement. President Kranelly stated that since the Council has been informed certain sections within the ordinance are permissive by the Planning Board, what is wrong with allow- ing the ordinance to stand as drawn up and if there are certain exceptions, they can be made at the time needed. Mr. Annibale emphasized that the ordinance affords every subdivider an appeal to the City Council from the Planning Board's decision, and the action of the Board or the Council can be taken to the Superior Court, Councilman Hove said he felt that to require someone to go through a cumbersome pro- cedure is unreasonable - the Subdivision Ordinance should apply only to new areas. He thought the Council could accomplish the necessary restrictions or control by Use Permits under the Zoning Ordinance - and it would be unreasonable to require this cumbersome procedure where street improvements aro in. The Subdivision Ordinance should be flexible so it would not work hardship on anyone. It is unreasonable to compel anyone to file under this cumbersome procedure and to tie it down to the individual lot owner where street improvements already exist. He felt the matter could be controlled by requiring only a Record of Survey Map. President Kranelly asked if he is suggesting the Subdivision Ordinance apply only to new areas in this respect. Councilman Hove agreed. Mr. Thunder stated the City would be on thin 7round - basically, the Subdivision Ordinance is going to control only certain areas of land, those from Encinel Avenue to the Bay Farm Island Bridge. You are going to require that any place in the City be 50 feet by 100 feet for interior lots and 60 feet frontage for corner lots. Con- sidering costs today, with, every foot added to a lot you are raising the cost of land and the potential proposed homeowner has to pay. There will not be buyers for 60-foot lots. It is the opinion of the Real Estate Board the City should upgrade the size of corner lots - but they should be 50-foot frontages. The Board is going on record as being opposed to the size of lots proposed in the Subdivision Ordinance. If the Council passes this ordinance, a piece of property on a corner would have to be 110 feet wide before it could be divided. 'Councilman Hove repeated he felt the City could control the situation by the Zoning Ordinance and the filing of a Record of Survey Map easier than by the Subdivision Ordinance. President Kranelly asked. the City Attorney what the problem would be to amend the ordinance so that the lands where street improvements already exist would not be affected. IVed—nere for many years and their properties have to be protected. he • -7:1-1:7 CrITC ,K Te-ar-em-any industria IcCTIII stated the peoo]e on Bay Farm Island fact that the exist Mr. Travers said one cannot overlook facts - and the fact is, the Oal lend Airport is engaged in a long-term expansion program. It - 38 Mr. Annibale pointed out that Sec. 11-319(t) presently provides that the Pianning Board may accept a Record of Survey Map in such cases when the property is being divided into fewer than five lots. Councilman Hove asked Mr. Williams if this would satisfy his requirements and he agreed this would accomplish the desired controls, and the City would be protected. Mr. Thunder stated this is more realistic and would make it for the small builder who is trying to accomplish something. why so much control is needed, to which Mr. Hanna replied the sometimes the developers cut the lot so close to the existing of side yard and other regulations is voided. Mr. Annibale stated he would like to work out the language more definitely, and Mr. Hove agreed the filing of a Record of Survey Map is not outlined. The second item of contention was next discussed - the provision that lots be a minimum of 5,000 square feet, with 50-foot frontages for interior lots and 60-foot frontages on corner lots, economically possible Mr. Fernhoff asked reason is because house that the intent President Kranelly pointed out Mr. Thunder had already stated 4,500 square feet should be the minimum requirement - and he asked Mr. Williams what his opinion is on this. Mr. Williams said he felt very strongly on this subject also. He then referred to and quoted from a number of authoritative publications by FHA, H.H.F.A. etcetera. He also displayed some drawings showing what flexibility was available in design of a house on different sized lots. Mr. Thunder stated the Real Estate Board realizes that the present requirement of only 4,000 square feet is tight, but this is a minimum standard - 4,500 square feet would be better. However, the Board feels it is not practicable tomake a good design standard the law - it is just not realistic. Miss Mildred Meyers, member of the City Planning Board, stated ene_ _of the Board is so anxious to have _2_ Councilman Moresi said this would mean there would have to be a study of the entire precise plan. Mr. Williams pointed out this would have to await the development of the Zoning Ordinance which would be the precise plan of land use. Councilman Moresi felt the Council would have to designate certain areas on hay Farm Island where 50-foot lots would not be desirable - then the Council would remove from the Planning Board the necessity of making exceptions to the minimums. She, personally, felt the 50-foot minimum is what should be adopted - the standard should not be dropped to )1,500 square feet. Councilman McCall felt the ordinance should be adopted as submitted with regard to lot sizes. Councilman Haag said he believed it should go the other way but did not know how to suggest the changes to take care of the situation. Mr. Williams stated that, in terms of tire, he had not heard of any new developments contemplated. With regard to the new Zoning Ordinance, he said it ought to be placed in the hands of the Council within the next two or three months. Councilman Hove referred to Sec. 11-3134 of the ordinance, under "Exceptions" and asked if it cannot be stated that specific restrictions apply on certain areas of Bay Farm Island. Mr. Annibale suggested that a flat map be drawn and it merely be made an integral part of the ordinance. President KranellY pointed out the specific areas would have to be determined and, according to Mr. Williams, this would have tow alt for the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Thunder sugested it would be wise for the Council to hold up action on the ordinance. He stated the Real Estate Board wants to go on record as saying the Council is signing the death warrant to the land -where the farms are on Bay Farm Island by passing the Subdivision Ordinance as it now stands. He snid the Board is only telling, the Council that with the Airport expansion, the jet planes and the proposed industrial area coming onto the Island, it would be unwise for the Council to set standards of 50-foot lots and 60-foot corner frontages. The Council should allow some latitude in which to move. If the area is made economically possible for the land to be developed, it will achieve more taxes for the City eventually. Councilman Hove asked Mr. Williams how much of a job it would be to set up these areas, to which Mr. Williams replied it would be a very important job and would have to be made a special project, once he has learned the policy standards of the Council. He said it would probably require hearing on the Bay Farm Island area. President Kranelly said he believes the ordnance should be passed as written. Councilman McCall stated the Council has a Planning L)irector and it has faith in him - and he would like to have Nr. Williams' recommendation. Mr. Williams stated the recommendations of the Planning Staff, as well as those of the Planning Board, are embodied in this ordinance. Councilman Haag referred to Section 11-3131 of the ordinance - "Exceptions" and stated that, rather than hold this ordinance up for another three or four months, he felt the provisions for exceptions are so worded as to be abl© to take care of these situations. de agreed the points covered by Yr. Thender pre entirely right _ nf them apply to Bay Farm island and woeld have a sympathet'c hearing. He said nea-- lernnosed ox�ainar,c© as long as the .• ... flat percentage limitation". It was felt there shovld be a flat ..,,ercentage cost but ..• in the case or unusual expense actual costs would be charged. • Mr. Annib ale had stated the latter sug9;estion . was not workable and no agreement has • been reached on this phase of the matter. • • • Mr. Thunder said the statement had been made bv- Mr. Lowell Du ran at the meeting • • held with certain City Officials and the Comnittee that the City En,c7ineer's costs • • had exceeded the Tract 1250 engineer's costsbv 18%. The problem here and to 1,,,,ich most are objectin,7 is that there is too much supervision - costs are getting out of •• • • hand. •• MT. Hanna stated he did not have any idea what money was naid to Mr. Mbrjig, engineer for Mr. Lowell Dugg an on Tract No. 1250. He felt the City En7 ineers have .- • • to exercise considerable inspection on this job. A new foreman means new education .• and orientation. between the• project engineer and the City's engineers. He a greed • .• City does go further with inspections than . eerhaos other c ommunities do - especially .• in survey checkin. He stated the City of Oakland, for instance, stresses materials •• inspections, whereas Alameda makes more insoection on surveys. • Oakland requires a 4% fee in advance - Alameda's costs run about 4% to 5%. 15e :• -• • Engineering pointed out the survey lines on 'Bay Farm Island are so involved that the • • DepartMent has spent considerable time and mone y. in this respect. If these are not • checked, the streets are not properly located. • • • • .• He cited certain comparisons between the County of 1-i1ameda and the City - and said ' .•• ••• • •- • the City's requirements are, perhaps, more all inclusive. Most of the tracts in ••' • • • • Alameda have not gone in. fast. Mr. Flashman went broke in developing his - Tract . ••• .•• • o. 1155-, hay Farm Island. Mr. Duggan started his subdivision 4 years ago this • • • month - Tract No. 1250, Bay Farm island. • Mr. Travers addressed the C ouncil on this subject, stating that, again, objecti- vity is required. There should . neither be a blank check for the su bdivider to • mismanage, nor should there be a blank check .:-.,.7iven. to the Engineering Department to not control its costs on a major subdivision such a Utah is about to embark upon in this City. H'•:. said if the average charge In Alameda is 5% and stated this is an excessive charge - the inspection. charges would be a sizeable item on their street improvements which will run $5,000,000. It Is net right that there should be no checks and balances where costs run into that much money. There should be • some kind of ceiling so that the subdividers will know in. advance what these costs •• are going to be. An ordinance should cg-mtain a fair percentage ceiling. •' • • .• , . Mr. Froerer stated he thought ft no be entirely proper to fix a ceiling but he did no know how one could relate a cost on a project the size of that of Utah Farm : • • • Construction. Company. He s aid. the Inspection. costs on Tract No. 1250 on • • • • • Island r an 4.1% - and he, personally, knew about the slow progress on this subdivision. - the work was intermittently. done. However, he would. think the (,)ity • • • • would be very safe in estimating the cost on the south shore wpuld probably be about 3% and possibly less than that.. One thing that makes engineering work particularly difficult now is the shortage of engineers - and it is hard for a • • • • • developer to procure competent drafts: to do work or them, consequently, very • • poor work is coming into the Engineering De partment which, in turn, mean the • • • • City engineers have to devote more than usual time in checking. He pointed out • • • • • that when the City accepts these improvements, it is then the City's responsibility • • • • thereafter t o operate, maintain, rebair and reblace the streets. Therefore, the • • • • standards for construction of improvements have been high. for the last twelve years, • • • • that he knew of - and the City h as not had. any failures and, the maintenance costs • • • • • • have been relatively. small. There have been, only minor repairs necessary on the • streets to maintain the wheel loads and the City engineers have tried to do a real • • engineering job. This is the prooer way to have these improvements made. He said • • • • • he would be willing to set the too limitation. at 4.55 - pointing out the really fair • • way would be the actual cost, with a coiling of 4.5. • • • • President Kranellv. stated he could appreciate Mr. Traver 's concern with costs, but • • • • • the subdivision ordinance is designed to apply to all developments. The ordinance • • • • shduld reflect City experience and then some compromises can. be worked out. , • • • Mr. Froerer said the subdividers are :-sking f a definite ceilin and he would. be . • • • • perfectly willing to set the top cost • • • • Councilman Hove asked if there was any recourse - Mr. worn stated he assumed that if the subdividers felt they were being ugouged" they would have the right to • • • • • President Kranelly asked about the engineering costs on the Golf Clubhouse - • • • • • • : Mr. Hanna stated his figures include many items in addition to the actual . • • • • Inspections. Councilman Haag said. he thought ft mw about 32:, as he figured it. • • • • • • Mr. Travers cited the orocedure whereby an estimate o1 . cost of the engineering, • • • • inspections could be arranged for in. the particular c ase of the South ;-.11ore project • • • • • involving Utah Construction Company because he cou1 d. give an accurate estimate of time for 1oin7 each type of inspection. He said his computation was based on 0 to 3%- costs. He pointed .out tne time to resolve this matter is now. He felt e ceiling should be established which. would be aonlicable to the smaller subdivi- sions and possibly e study would lead to the possibility o2 having a sliding scale which would be applicable to all situations. He thew:bt that in the small sub- divisions a cos of 4 OP 4.1% would prevail but where there is a major development there might be scne reduction. President Kranelly asked if it'would be agreeable to set a ceiling not to exceed 4%. Councilman McCall asked. what happens in small subdivisions - if the subdivider does not wou k. cooperatively with the City engineers, he should then be penalized. AnPibale stated tpis \ould be difficult Ix aminister - just where to establish penalties. councilmaA Iduresi Iraq •ircd if the Council cool not, sti -ulaJe the ma.:111mum cost would be 4/). Mr. Hanna stated it could be sot no in ;be ole'dirlance that it would be the actual cost and the City Manager could arrange that there or be maximum costs - his office could work out the agreement with the developer as to what the prober amount o time would be. Councilman Haag stated the Conncil could do exactly at Mr. Travers suggests - if he could come into the ETIC7, nee:r and giv€,-, his actual time schedule. Mr. Hanna concurred, em'olaasizing t:nat the timetable is the key to =he ',hole Problem. He said the time can bo budgeted if a progressive work schedule is followed. Mr. Fernhoff stated the subdivider and the City shoul agree on a period or time within whic 7.he job is to be completed. If finished within that time, then the certain percentap;e shall not be exceeded - but if the subdivider has to Go beyond that stipulated wriod, he would oay the actual cost. Mr. Froerer agreed the time element involved is vital and if the subdivider exceeds the time allotted, he would then be required 10 f0 the additional cost. Mr. Travers asked if the City iiianager would have any objection to setting the toD ceiling at 4%. President Kranelly inquired. of the City Attorno y. if this could be incorporated in the ordinance and Mr. Annibale Said it could. President Kranelly stated they seem to have reached agreement on the three main points of objection .. and said the ordinance is abparently now ready for adoption. Mr. Annibale interjected that it could be adopted a the next regular meeting of the Council as the language of the ordinance would have to he changed in several places to incorporate the changes suggested. It was 50 ordered. 4 9.' President Kranelly announced the off-street parking lots are to be dedicated. this Thursday morning, November 15, at 10:30 0 'cloc1?- and asked that the members of the Council be present at the Central Avenue lot. ADJOURNMENT: 10. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - 10 assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 20, 1256. at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,