1974-11-05 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - - NOVEMBER 5, 1974
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m, with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Chuck Corica and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the
Reverend Raymond Currie, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Corica, Hurwitz, McCall and President La Croix,
Jr., (5) were noted present.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held October 15, 1974" were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Z. From the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, signed by the Acting
Executive Director, requesting consideration Of the relocation of the automobile barrier at the
foot of Webster Street next to the Estuary.
President La Croix remarked he saw no reason not to desire the barrier be set back, but he questioned
whether the City should pay for any changes as he felt the cost should lie with the developer, Mr.
Robert Hannon.
On question, the City Engineer stated he had no objection to the request, however the State owned
approximately sixty percent of the frontage and, to his knowledge, their consent would also be
Mr. Robert Hickman, a staff member of BCDC, reported their office had been working with Mr. Hannon,
OD his application for 28 boat berths at the foot of Webster Street, which would be in addition to
the Mariner Square 0or1na, He stated Mr. Hannon had agreed to provide a public access pathway on
his property at both the west and east sides of Webster Street, and it was their feeling that it would
be best for this pathway to be connected across the end of Webster Street.
Councilman McCall asked if a similar request had been directed to the State and Mr. Hickman stated
it had not, and that the developer had received a lease from the State to place the boat berths in
the bcation.
Councilman Hurwitz moved approval of the request conditioned on the developer being charged with the
costs of relocating the barrier from the City-owned portion of the Street. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Beckam and carried on unanimous roll call vote.
The City Engineer was directed to prepare a report of the probable costs of relocation and to contact
the State District Engineer and Mr. Hickman.
3. From Mr. Garry L. Deuel, 921 Grand Street, requesting a revocable permit to allow a wrought
iron ornamental fence to encroach into the public right of way in front of his home.
Councilman Hurwitz commented on the number of similar requests being received by the Council. He
suggested the communication be referred to the City Engineer for a report and recommendation as to
what the property owner could do, and further requested a similar report and recommendation on the
previous request of Mrs. James R. McNish, 1812 Schiller Street. It was so ordered.
4. From Mr, Joseph M. Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, concerning development of the fill area on
Bay Farm Island.
President La Croix reported the matter was before the Planning Board the previous evening. He
suggested the communication be referred to the City Engineer for comment.
Councilman Hurwitz requested that a copy of the letter be forwarded to Harbor Bay Isle Associates
for their comments.
Councilman Corica said he would be interested in knowing what other company had done a soil analysis
in the area and whether it was true the sand had settled in some spots but not in others.
The Acting City Attorney stated there had been introduced into evidence in the Superior Court an
engineering report from a firm specializing in soil compaction and the settlement question of the
fill would be under a continuing review by that firm. He was requested to obtain a copy of the report
for the information of the Council.
HEARINGS:
5. In the Matter of a Petition to rezone certain properties commonly known as 1301, 1307, 1310
and 1311 Central Avenue and 1410 Sherman Street, from the "C-l", Neighborhood Commercial District,
to the "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District, filed by Mr. Richard Perata, agent for Beatrice
Goldsmith, John Frye and LeRoy J. Kinzel.
The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the notice that this would be the
time and place for Hearing on the matter, and all interested parties had been notified.
A verbatim transcript of the Hearing is, by reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
At the conclusion of the Hearing, Councilman Corica moved the recommendation of the Planning Board
be upheld and the subject property be rezoned from the oC-l», Neighborhood Commercial District,
tc the "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent:
None.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
6. Councilman Corica introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over
Under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the
City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series."
(C-1n to "R-4", - ]30], 1307, 1310 and 1311 Central Avenue and 1410
Sherman Street)
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
7. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Acting Planning Director, transmitting without
recommendation the Tentative Map for Tract No. 3627, a condominium conversion of 13 units located
at 863-867 Walnut Street, filed by Murray-McCormick Environmental Group for Messrs. Albert and
Leslie Kessler.
From Mr, S.D. Kamrar, 836-A Walnut Street, in opposition to the conversion.
President La Croix directed the item be held over pending consideration of an Interim Ordinance enacting
a temporary moratorium on condominium conversions.
8. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Acting Planning Director, making recommendation
OD the Tentative Map for Tract No. 3631, a condominium conversion to 86 units of complex known
as the Coral Reef Motel and Apartments located at 400 Park Street, filed by Murray-McCormick
Environmental Group for Mr. Kenneth C. AitkeOs'
President La Croix directed this item be held over also.
9. From the Environmental Assessment Committee, signed by the Secretary, reporting on their
review of an application for a building permit to construct a 7-11 food store at the corner of
Santa Clara Avenue and Broadway.
From Nr. Walter Wilson, 1509 Broadway, appealing the finding of the Environmental Assessment
Committee and requesting a continuance.
Councilman Hurwitz moved consideration of the item be continued to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Council to be held on November 19, 1974. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Corica and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: N0Oe, Abstaining:
Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
10. From the Golf Commission, signed by the Secretary, recommending changes in the fee structure
at the Alameda Municipal Golf Courses.
Councilman Corica moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman
McColl and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to '/ReI0lUtiOn5x.
RESOLUTIONS:
11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Corica, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8276
Establishing Rates and Fees to be Charged for Play on Alameda
Municipal Golf Courses."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
12' From the City Manager recommending an extension of time of twelve months from November 6,
1974, for completion cf the public improvements in connection with Parcel Map No. 318. (Robert
E. Hannon - Division of property on the east side of Webster Street at the Estuary)
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and approval of the extension of time for a period of
twelve months, subject to the City Engineer's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
13. From the City Manager recommending an extension of time of two years from September 22, 1974,
for completion of the public improvements in connection with Parcel Map No. 691. (Sarah K. Mark
and Clifford G. Wallace - 1208 St. Charles Street)
Councilman Beckam moved the requested extension be granted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting continued with the regular order
Of business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
14. Consideration of an interim ordinance enacting a temporary moratorium on the approval of
Tentative Subdivision Maps for the conversion of multiple dwellings to condominium units.
President La Croix noted the two agenda items concerning condominium conversions which had been held
over pending consideration of this interim ordinance. He reported an ordinance was being prepared
which would establish regulations governing condominium conversions, and any action taken on the
proposed interim emergency ordinance would be to provide a reasonable period of time for its
completion.
Acting City Attorney Stroud stated the interim ordinance would limit the moratorium to a period
of four months and he anticipated the ordinance establishing the regulations would be ready for
Council consideration in January, 1975.
The President remarked that Mr. Albert Kessler, one of the applicants requesting the conversion of
units located at 863-867 Walnut Street, had indicated his willingness to cooperate.
Councilman Hurwitz recalled when the Planning Board request for a temporary moratorium had been
considered at its meeting of June 18, 1974, it had not been felt an emergency existed. He noted,
however, that since that time a number of requests for approval of condominium conversions had been
received and he was of the opinion all such requests should be held in abeyance until an ordinance
establishing guidelines had been completed and considered.
Mr. John Anthony, 450 Park Street, representing the applicant who had requested approval of the
Tentative Map for Tract No. 3631, stated his firm would welcome an ordinance establishing standards
for condominium conversions. He requested, however, that their Tentative Map be considered for
approval prior to the adoption of the interim 0rdinJnCe.
Following discussion, President La Croix asked if any member of the Council wished to move that
this Tentative Map be considered, as requested, and there was no reSp0nIe.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Ordinances for Passage".
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
15. "Ordinance No. 1741,
New Series
An Interim Ordinance Enacting a Temporary Moratorium on the Approval
of Tentative Subdivision Maps for the Conversion of Multiple Dwellings
to Condominium Units."
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four, Noes: Councilman McCall, (1).
Absent: None.
It was noted by the President the ordinance would become effective on November 6, 1974 and would
remain in effect for a period of four months.
The following persons offered their assistance in the drafting of an ordinance establishing regula-
tions and guidelines for the conversion of condominium units: Ms. Rena Clements, Associated Building
Industry of Northern California; Attorney Samuel Young, 1334 Ballena Boulevard; and Mr. James
McClure, President of the Alameda Board of Realtors.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
16. Councilman Corica recalled a communication which had been received at a prior meeting requesting
a tennis court be built on property located at the corner of Otis Drive and Willow Street, and its
referral to the Recreation Commission. He asked if a report would be ready soon and if there were any
conditions in the original Agreement which would set a time limit for the use of the property.
The City Manager stated the Recreation Commission had not held a meeting since receipt of the
letter, and he would read the Agreement and report on its conditions, if any.
17. Councilman McCall, in referring to previous discussion concerning condominium conversions,
asked if the applicants who had already paid their fees to the City would be required to pay again.
He was advised they would not.
Councilman McCall then moved that no additional fees be charged to those persons who had already
made payment of a fee to the Planning Department for a condominium conversion. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and on roll call vote carried unanimously.
18. Councilman Hurwitz inquired as to the status of the ordinance concerning the installation of
dead bolt locks.
The City Manager replied preparation of the ordinance had been temporarily deferred, along with
several other projects, until such time as items with more pressing mandatory deadlines had been
accomplished.
19' Councilman Hurwitz questioned the status of the dilapidated store building located at High
and Jackson Streets.
The City Fngi0eer stated his intent was to institute proceedings for condemnation not only of
this property but also of property located at 418 Santa Clara Avenue. He explained the latter
property was a burned out house owned by Mr. and Mrs. A.V. Barnhill,
20' Councilman Hurwitz expressed his concern over difficulties encountered by persons in obtaining
dog licenses. He suggested it might be possible to make some arrangement with the veterinarians
to provide this service.
The City Manager was requested to explore this suggestion in connection with the report he was
preparing on the operation of the Pound.
NEW BUSINESS:
21. President La Croix stated the Council had gone on record in favor of establishing a Real
Property Conveyance Tax which the Alameda Realty Board was opposing. He noted a referendum petition
was being circulated. He asked for Council approval of a press release supporting their position.
Following discussion in which several changes were made in the wording of the release, Councilman
Hurwitz moved its approval. The motion was seconded by Councilman Corica.
Councilman McCall express his opposition to the enactment of the tax.
On a call for the question, the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four.
Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
22. Councilman Corica asked that the City Manager direct the Director of Recreation to ascertain
the feasibility of providing the services of a Recreation Leader after school hours at the
Makassar Strait playground. It was so ordered.
RESOLUTIONS:
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, whc moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8277
Amending Resolution No. 6232 by Amending Section 2b Thereof, Relating
to Fire Department Holidays."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Corica and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Corica, who moved its adoption:
'Resolution No. 8278
Authorizing Execution of Agreement with County of Alameda for the
Collection of Taxes Under the Alameda Real Property Conveyance Tax
Ordinance."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: FDUr, Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
25. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8279
Authorizing Execution of Contract with Alameda County Training and
Employment Board."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: NOOe, Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
25, Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 2-541 Thereof,
Relating to Vacation Leave."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
FiVe, Noes: NOne, Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
27. "Ordinance No. 1742,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article 3 to Chapter 3,
Title II, Thereof, Consisting of Sections 2-331 Through 2-338, Creating
a Historical Advisory Commission and Providing for Membership and Duties
Thereof."
At the conclusion of discussion concerning membership of the Commission, Councilman Hurwitz moved
the ordinance be passed, as amended by deleting the second sentence of Section 2-332, leaving
membership to consist of those persons appointed by the City Council to the Design Review Board.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Corica and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
28. 'Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 9, Articles 1
Through 4, to Title X Thereof, Consisting of Sections 10-911 Through
10-941, Relating to Preservation of Historical Monuments."
There followed a lengthy discussion of the provisions of the ordinance, at the conclusion of
which Councilman Hurwitz requested the ordinance be returned for redrafting and resubmission to
the Council. A verbatim transcript of changes recommended by members of the Council will be
furnished by the City Clerk to the Acting City Attorney and Messrs. Cervelli and Tuchsen of the
Design Review Board for incorporation into the ordinance. It was so ordered.
BILLS:
29. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the
total amount of 666,019.75 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 Corica moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on
November 5, 1974, and presented to the City Council at this meeting be allowed and paid. The
motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: NOne, Absent; None.
FILING:
30. Agreement - Between County and City - re Collection of Taxes Under Alameda Real Property
Conveyance Tax Ordinance.
31. Contract - Between ACTEB and City - re administration of Comprehensive Manpower Program Under
1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).
ADJOURNMENT:
32. There being no further business to come before thp meeting the Council adjourned to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday, November 19, 1974, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
Verbatim excerpt of portion of Council meeting of November 5, 1974
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 9, Articles 1 Through 4,
to Title X Thereof, Consisting of Sections 10-911 Through 10-941, Relating to
Preservation of Historical Monuments.
Hurwitz: Move passage of the ordinance as amended.
Corica: Second.
Stroud: This one has a fairly significant amendment ti it but you may
La Croix: We can still pass it as amended.
Stroud: You may.
Clerk: May I have permission to change the title then to Articles 1 Through 5...Consisting
of Sections 10-911 Through 10-951?
La Croix: Right. The motion then to amend is to change title ...
McCall: Is this ordinance No. 2?
Hurwitz: Yes, to include Sections 10-951.
Clerk: Councilman Hurwitz, do you move passage as amended?
Hurwitz: Right.
La Croix: And we have a second by Mr. Corica.
Beckam: Mr. President, a question again. We discussed the last time this came up owner
consent prior to being -- the owner of the property having his property placed on
the list -- of being notified by -- somewhere down the line, perhaps when he
applies for a permit to make substantial change or permit for demolition, this may
very well be his first notice unless there is something spelled out in here that
this property is on such a list. I do not see anywhere where consent of the owner
was discussed or handled except by an appeal after the fact when the demolition or
other work was desired. One way of getting around that, perhaps, is to contact
the owner prior to placement on such a list and if the owner sells his house, by
having a report in the City Engineer's office, for example, does not necessarily
mean that that would be picked up in a title report and the buyer would be aware
of it, and if the buyer purchased therroperty and decided to improve it, or do
something with it, that would be news to him that he had to go through this
procedure and if he knew of that procedure prior, it might make a very great
difference to him prior to his purchasing it. We discussed also the placement
of historical markers, I do not see in here anything funding such markers or
providing for a system of such location or the consent of the adjoining owner for
the location of such marker. And also the list is to be composed by inspecting --
"it shall be the duty of the Historical Advisory Commission to: Sec. 10-931(b)
Inspect and investigate any site......". If this is to be an inspection of the
outside of therremises from the street, I think that is fine but I think it should
be spelled out in here because I don't think by ordinance we have the right to
tell a Commission to invade the privacy of a home.
La Croix: I think you are very properly stating that.
McCall: I agree.
Stroud: Let's see if I can remember the list. In terms of notifying the owner, of course
that can be done administratively. We don't have -- the means by which the list
will be compiled will be left up to the Commission, so there isn't anything in the
ordinance on that. We can go into that de4i1 although the ordinance woujActend
to get long and cumbersome and difficult,/ very administrative procedureMcluded
in the ordinance. The Commission would have its own -- that's part of their job
is to determine how they go about compiling the list. I don't know that it would
be practical to notify everybody in advance that they're being considered.
La Croix:
Page 2
Well, I don't think its a question of consideration, I think its a question of -
do you or do you not want your property to become a historical monument as far
as the City of Alameda is concerned. There are some people who perhaps wouldn't
want this.
Beckam: Nor, perhaps, not want the marker in front of their house. It would be seem to
me that the simple statement of owner consent or owner contact prior to the listing
of such a site, or tree, or whatever, before the fact instead of after the fact.
La Croix: That should be their prerogative. I think what Mr. Beckam said is so valid,
Carter, when you talk about the administrative problems, the number of properties
in Alameda that were going to be confronted with over the years to come as
historical monuments are going to be very few, Mr. Hurwitz' home, and things
like this.
Hurwitz: And Mr. Corica's barbershop.
La Croix: Without being further facetious, they are very, very few. I can't see an adminis-
trative problem. I would think that before any designation of a historical
monument would take place that the property owner's right to be foremost in our
minds as to notification and whether or not they, in effect, did want that property
so designated.
La Croix: That's aollicy matter. If you want an ordinance that says that the property owner
has toconsent, well I'll write that in there.
Hurwitz: I think, simply to make it a historical monument I don't see where it is - I think
it would be nice to notify the owner, b4t not simply to register it as a historical
monument and not put any marker or take any other action, I don't see where it is
necessary to notify the owner. I would say certainly before any markers are put
on the owner's property that the owner's consent be received, and also I did have
a note here that it was in the old ordinance the owner's right to appeal and I
think it was left out of this ordinance and I would like to see that back in.
La Croix: Thatshould be in there definitely.
Beckam: Section 10-942, paragraph (c).
La Croix: I think the significance of the property being sold again, with the Transfer Tax
being imposed, that it would certainly be relevant to the new purchaser whether
or not they could or could not restore in a manner which they saw fit.
Hurwitz: But, simply legistering as a historical monument, I don't see why it's necessary
to notify the owner. In fact there are several in this town, in fact I'd say the
majori4f them are no longer in existence and should be registered as such, such
as the old Borax Works, and the Bird Hotel, and this sort of thing. But I certainly
hope that the City wouldn't erect any historical markers on somebody's property
without ti-eir permission.
Corica: OK, Lloyd, you can put that out in front of the barber pole any time you want.
Stroud: There isn't any provision in this ordinance for going around putting markers on
anybody's property.
Beckam: However it was discussed at the last meeting when this was brought up and it was
suggested that we could put markers up by getting donated funds to so do, and if
we are contemplating putting markers in front of someone's home without their
permission, I think it should be covered in here to get their permission.
Hurwitz: Well, I don't think we need an ordinance for that. I don't think we have any legal
right to do it.
Stroud: We couldn't do it without their permission even if it's not in the ordinance.
Beckam: The marker could be placed in the public right-of-way in front of the house and
therefore designate Mary Smith as being a historical marker and you might expect
Visitors on every Sunday.
McCall: That's right.
Page 3
Beckam: And I don't think that Mary Smith would like that, especially at breakfast with her
hair in curlers.
Hurwitz: Well, I can't see putting in front of their house without notifying them anyway, but--
Beckam: However, just the fact of notifying -- I'm not against the historical marker, I
think it's a heck of a good idea, I've worked with people who've done it elsewhere,
too, but I think a little protection for the individual should be involved because
this goes on, once the list is made then you go through the other provisions.
For example,if the Commission fails to issue a certificate of approval the owner
of the historical monument may appeal in writing, within 15 days%, to the Council.
The City Council shall reverse the decision of the Commission ONLY if it finds,
upon the evidence of qualified sources...", I would assume that the qualified sources
would be a real estate appraiser who is familiar with real estate appraisal practices,
and they're not cheap, yet on the last page we find that "the Historical Advisory
Commission4iall have no power or right to acquire any property for or on behalf
of itself of the City, nor shall it acquire or hold any money for itself or on
behalf of the City." Paragraph (c) on page 5 says you may be spending some money,
I think, Mr. President, really we should go back with a little more in depth review
before the adoption. I'm not against the process, I think Alameda needs these, but
I think we should do it in a little better fashion and go through the whole process
first. I seem to find holes that I don't like and wouldn't want to be responsible
for.
Hurwitz: Well, I would certainly agree with the owler's right to appeal. I don't feel, really,
that the other things are --
La Croix: Why don't we do this, gentlemen. Why don't we incorporate the suggestions that
have been outlined here, send the ordinance back for redrafting and containment
and have this before the City Council at its next regularly called meeting for
consideration for adoption?
Hurwitz: All right. And one other thing I'd like to ask the City Attorney that I meant to
ask him, I questioned it on the other one. (referred to Sec. 10-941) The clause,
"general welfare"? I think that's pretty much a catchall. We've already covered
public health and safety.
La Croix: That's a lawyer's statement.
Stroud: That's shorthand for the valid exercise of the police power.
Hurwitz: Which means almost anything.
Stroud: No, it means that if a rat's running out of the basement, a health problem, or
something like that, you don't have to define which health problem in the ordinance,
any health problem would be - any health or safety problem would be general welfare.
Hurwitz: You don'tieel that public health and safety covers that?
Stroud:q It's redundant but the law turns out to be redundant.
La Croix: I would suggest it's nitpicking and let's leave it in.
Hurwitz: All right.
McCall:
Mr. Mayor, before you get through with this, I'm all for the'hysterical department
but as far as I'm concerned I think this is completely an invasion of somebody else's
rights, of property owner's rights, when somebody can tell you what you can do
with your house when you own it, and certainly what Mr. Beckam said a moment ago
in most cases, in my business, there is a recordable document that says what the
property is and goes into metes and bounds and description of the property, and
in this case I would hope that the real estate people, when they get a list like
this, they certainly would inform the people who are prospective buyers that
they're going to be subject to tremendous control, and subject to the fact that
somebody's going to be looking at their house, that they might be coming through
their house, I would think that they'd have to get permission every time to the
house or even knocked on the door of the house, because this is an invasion of
privacy, as far as I'm concerned, and we're getting so god damned liberal in this
town that it's killing me.
Page 4
La Croix: Well, Bill, I agreQ with your statements, I think that's why Mr. Beckam's questions
were raised
McCall: The property owner has no rights.
La Croix: And I think that's why as long as these are covered completely in the Historical
Monument ordinance, that we can consider it for adoption. I think this is
something that must be spelled out, that people have to know, who are affected by
it, that their home is a historical monument, that it contains certain restrictions,
if it does, and what those restrictions are.
McCall: I don't think we have that power.
Stroud: Well, there are no restrictions, first of all, in this ordinance. There is no
right to visit the property, knock on the front door, or anything else.
McCall: Well, what's this thing got the writing in there for this way? I read the writing
in here, that you're saying it in here.
Stroud: Not a word in there says that it gives the public the right to walk into somebody's
house, not a word, not an inference.
McCall: It says you can't even demolish the thing.
Hurwitz: I don't think it says that it can't be demolished but that -
McCall: It says they have to go to the Advisory Commission first. To me it's taking
property owners' rights away from them, it's a restriction of -- in other words it's
an invasion of privacy. We want to take, and we've got something that everybody
likes the idea, and, to be perfectly honest, I was born in an old house on Park
Street and I still own it and maybe I don't want that mentioned as a historical
monument. I don't even want it listed. I have this right as a property owner.
Is the Advisory Commission going to tell me what I'm going to have on my property
when I own it and pay taxes on it?
Stroud: Well, Mr. McCall
McCall: This isn't a Gestapo and it's not Communism or Socialistic --
Stroud: I will write this ordinance any way the Council wants it, I'm not suggesting
anything here.
McCall: Well, it's a San Leandro ordinance. Don!,t tell me that it's not.
Stroud: I was asked by this Council to draft an ordinance and what I drafted was the
ordinance that's used in a majority of cities in California and you can like it
or not like it. I present it to you, not as an advocate but on your request.
What was added to this ordinance, and it's a policy matter and if the Council
doesn't lik4t, strike it. This is not the San Leandro ordinance, when we get to
page 4, Section 10-942, that comes out of an ordinance that I discovered in Florida.
Green Gables, I believe it is, Florida. There was an indication by a couple of
the members of the Council that they wanted a little more teeth in the ordinance.
The California model simply stalls demolition long enough to see if money can be
raised to buy the site before it's destroyed. The Green Gables plan is that it
can't be destroyed at all unless the property owner can show that he's going to
lose money by not demolishing it. So what I did is insert that in and so we
have both processes. It's a policy matter with the Council whether they want the
heavier teeth, or not. Al] we'd have to do, if we don't like that part of it, is
to strike Section 10-942, we'd still have the California model. There is no
provision here to put up plaques or to invite people into homes, or anything like
that. If you don't want anyone to be on the list who doesn't want to be on the
list, then I'll add a section saying that you have to have the property owner's
consent.
La Croix: I think ti.at's important.
Corica: I go along with that.
La Croix: I think that's the meat of the whole thing, I think that's what the intent of Mr.
Beckam's questions were, that with the consent of the property owner, initially,
that their property be designated as a historical monument.
Page 5
Hurwitz: Are you going to say with their consent or their right 0 aPpea,1? I think they're
two different things.
Beckam: One would be forcing the issue and one would be asking will you cooperate.
Hurwitz: I think that some items may be of -- I don't know of any in Alameda right offhand
but they may be of such historical interest that perhaps it should be up to the
Council to decide whether or not they should be a historical monument.
Corica: I think this is a good idea and I can't really see too many people objecting to
the fact that they live some place that has a lot of history and they probably,
95% of them or whatever, might say, sure, do whatever you want, I'd like to have it.
They'd probably be proud of it. But by that same token, unless you're going to be
prepared to be able to buy it, I'll have to go along with Bill there, you can't
tell a fellow that, no, you're not going to destroy this thing, unless the City
wants to buy it.
Hurwitz:
Absolutely not. This is a misunderstanding because that's the last thing I want
to do is take property. I only feel that if a monument, a building, or whatever,
is of such historical value that there should be some attempt to save this, but
there should be something more than to be able to walk into the Building Department's
office and say, I want a Building Permit, and the 20 minutes it takes you to get
down there and get that bulldozer going, you knock the building over without
anybody even knowing about it. I would only feel that somebody should know about
this, if it is a -- just off the top of my head, Croll's, and I know Mr. Croll
would like to save it very much. But if somebody happened to get ahold of that
through an estate if he should die, or some other thing, and decided they wanted
to put whatever there, a twin to the McDonald's, that this could be demolished in
the time that ittook to walk into the Building Department, get a permit and go
down there and knock it down. There has to be someway that these can't be knocked
over and I do not intend the taking of property from anybody, I only intend that
there be some delay so that it can be examined.
McCall: But who's going to pay for this?
Hurwitz: If the building is of such historical import and the man who owns the property
wishes to demolish this property, and nobody is willing to buy it from him, he has
every right to demolish it.
McCall: Why don't we put it in writing?
Hurwitz: Well, that's what I'm saying, the right of appeal, but I do want the Council, or
whoever, to have the right to look at this and decide whether there is enough
historical value to it, that perhaps the City or perhaps a private party or somebody
else would want to purchase this property.
L4 Croix: Well, ifpu want to go that far, Lloyd, I would think that a clause should be
inserted in the ordinance which stipulates that the City of Alameda or a Historical
Commission buy the property and that they do so within a period of time.
Hurwitz: I believe the City of Oakland and I believe also San Francisco have ordinances to
this effect. I know San Fran cisco has one and I think to date they have failed
to save any property but at least they have delayed demolition until somebody
could look at this.
La Croix: I think it should be spelled out.
Hurwitz: I do, too. The last thing I want to do is take someone's property.
La Croix: Well, Carter, let's then make the revision that this Council evidently
Stroud: Well, if I get the meaning first of all. There are two major concerns of what I'm
supposed to be drafting her4°a Certificate of Approval is either in or out, that
is you can't demolish it unless you prove you're going to be damaged; and (b)
does the property owner have to consent before the Council can put his name on the
list?
Page 6
Hurwitz: I would rather see his right to appeal than his consent.
Stroud: Well, I need the consensus of the group on that.
Hurwitz: This is nly consent to have it listed as a historical monument that would possibly
delay demolition.
Beckam: Once he consents to it, then he is under the right of appeal at a later date should
such necessity arise, but the initial right to consent I think should be given to
the owner before he is steamrollered into the necessity for a right of appeal.
La Croix: I agree with you.
McCall: May I ask if Section 10-931(b) doesn't mean the right to inspect and visit the
property? I don't want anybody coming to my front door.
La Croix: All you have to insert there, Bill, is right of inspection on approval of the owners.
McCall: But it doesn't say here that you're going to get approval of the owners.
La Croix: Than that's what you should put in there.
McCall: It says, issue Certificates of Approval. Are we going to give these guys a badge
to walk through the house? With these kind of things, I think we ought to get down,
Mr. Mayor, have a meeting of the Committee and a work session and go over these
things rather than waste the time of the City Council like this tonight. None of
us are really up on this thing, not a bit.
Beckam: Mr. President, may I make a suggestion. I believe Mr. Stroud will be looking at
this again and I suggest, or perhaps volunteer the services of two members of the
Design Review Board who've been working on this, they both sit in the audience, the
Chairman ofthe Board, Joe Cervelli, and one of the members, Dave Tuchsen, perhaps
as they've been listening to all this they could work with Mr. Stroud to bring
back at the next meeting, or not knowing of any real urgency to get this done, at
the first meeting after that, because I realize that Mr. Stroud is also busy on
several matters which are of prime importance to the City.
La Croix: Gentlemen, would you agree with that request? Fine.
Cervelli: We would prefer the second meeting.
La Croix: Let's do this thing properly. I know what Mr. Hureitz' intent is and I think we
all agree with that. I would suggest, Lloyd, that you meet with Mr. Stroud and
with the two gentlemen in question and when the ordinance is properly prepared, as
to your best concerns, to bring it back to this Council for reconsideration.
Goss: Mr. President, I might suggest, too, the ordinance you adopted just previously
also provides very generally that the Commission which you established may develop
and recommend to the City Council a program for preservation and restoration of
important historical sites within the City, and that within that very general
framework much of this could be accomplished.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF A PORTION OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY, NOVEHOER 5, 1974, 7:30 O'CLOCK P.M.
In order of appCdrun[e:
ETHEL M. PITT, City Clerk
TERRY LA CROIX, JR., Mayor
ROBERT L. VENABLE, Acting Planning Director
CARTER STROUD, Acting City Attorney
STANLEY D. WHITNEY
WILLIAM M. McCALL, Councilman
JOHN O. GOSS, City Manager
C. J. CORICA, Councilman
LLOYD . HURWITZ, Councilman
RICHARD PERATA
JOSEPH SULLIVAN
MRS. MALEKA BROWN
MRS. VIOLET SOARES
ARTHUR ROKE
GEORGE W. BECKAM, JR., Councilman
HEAR:GS:
Clerk: 1. In the Natter of a Petition to Rezone Certain Properties cowimanly known
as 1301, 1307, 1310 and 1311 Central Avenue and 1410 Sherman Street, from
the "C-1", Neighborhood Commercial District, to the "R-4", Neighborhood
Apartment District, filed by Mr. Richard Perata, agent for Eeatriee Goldsmith,
John Frye and LeRoy J. Kinzel. Planning Board has recommended approval
and an ordinance for introduction has been prepared. It should be noted that
the affidavit of publication of the required Notice of Hearing is on file
and all interested persons have been notified that this would be the time
and place of Hearing.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Madam City Clerk. Mr. Venable, I wonder, sir, if you
might explain the Planning Board's action and the recommendation of staff.
Venable: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. I believe you have copies of the letter that
was transmitted to you from the Planning Board. This application is filed
for the purpose of rezoning from "C-1", Neighborhood Business District,
to "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District. It involves five preperties, one
property formerly had a gasoline station which was torn down during the
summer months, now is vacant. The property immediately to the north has a
single-family residence on it. The property immediately to the east is - a
single-,amily and the next one to that is a duplex. The other property is
a gasoline station located at the gore of Encinai, Central and Sherman
Streets. Probably a little history as to why the property was zoned as
commercial. It did have the two commercial stations on it at that time
and as I understand the consultant, when he drew the boundaries, did allow
a certain amount of flexibility for expansion of commercial properties and
therefore did zone the properties which were residential, they were or they
are non-conforming uses at the present time.
LaCroix: When was that rezoning?
Venable: That was 1958.
LaCroix: 1958.
Venable: Probably the reason that this petition was filed was,you heard in recent
months the 7-11 proposal at that particular location. The Planning Eoard,
I think we stated in the letter to you, that perhaps this property has
outlived its rezoning unC now is surrounded by residential uses--ohly the
two commercial lots remain, one of which is vacant and we did have a number
of residents in the area that supported this application to rezone from the
"C-1" to "R-4". I believe that is about all I have at the present time.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Mr. Venable. Gentlemen, do you have any questions of
Mr. Venable this time? (no response) Mr. Stroud, if you would please,
sir, explain the issue and we know this has been before you for some time,
would you please give this Council its direction as to what action it
might take.
Stroud: Thank you, Mr. President. The issue is whether or not this particular zone
shall we say has become obsolete. That is, whether conditions in the
neighborhood have changed or uses which are permitted in 'C-1" zones have
evolved to such a state that they are no longer good for the health and
safety of the neighborhood. They are -- your alternate actions, of course,
are to grant the zoning or to deny the rezoning or there is a third
possibility and that is the Planning Board is studying a change in the
composition of 'C-1" and "C-2" zoning itself. In fact, I have, if you are
interested in looking at a sample of what they are going to be studying - it
their next meeting on this subject.'
LaCroix: This, of course, is only at the study stage and is not at presently an
adopted zoning ordinance.
Stroud: That is correct. We are . . there was a, as you already know, a writ
filed for a building permit a few weeks ago. We finished the first stage
of that litigation a week ago. Friday. The Judge indicated that he would
wait until after tonight to render his decision, so it is set for Friday
for his decision. If you wish to study the matter further in terms of the
composition of "C-1" zones, I have prepared another interim ordinande to
tide us over until that can be done.
LaCroix: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Stroud. Gentlemen, do you have any questions of
the City Attorney? (no response) At this time, ladies and gentlemen, I
would declare the Hearing open and ask those proponents, those who are in
favor of the rezoning, cs recommended by the Planning Board.
'elnitney: Mr. Mayor.
LeCr ix: Mr. Whitney, if I might hear from the proponents first, sir, please.
Whitney: Well, all I want to do is to make a motion here for a continuance of this
matter on the grounds that the City Attorney and I have had an agreement.
LaCroix: Well, Mr. Whitney, sir, I will recognize you, sir, under the opponents.
Whitney: I don't want to go through a hearing because I'm not prepared to go
through a heaning, your Honor and I think that I am entitled to -- to have
the agreement which was made with your City Attorney abided by. I wrote
you a letter, there is a copy in the City Clerk's hands and I call attention
to that fact. 1 never heard from it, I never had an answer. Notwithstanding,
I ask that the matter be continued so far as the rezoning is concerned
until the disposition of the present suit and 1 don't -- and consequently
I relied on that agreement and 1 did not prepare to come in here for a
hearing. I thought this thing today was a date set for a hearing to be
set, not the hearing itself. Therefore, I am not prepared to go ahead with
it.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Mr. Whitney.
Whitney: May I understand, then, that you are denying my application for a continuance
to the next meeting?
LaCroix: I myself would deny it, sir. I am going to ask the City Attorney a question
because this is based upon an assumption of an understanding that you claim
to have had with our City Attorney which he differs with. Mr. Stroud, you
have said, to this Council, that the agreement that Mr. Whitney alludes to
between you and he was not as stated, is that not correct?
Stroud: That is correct. What happened was, we started this hearing on a Wednesday
afternoon, I believe it was, I had to go back into the Port lawsuit on
Thursday, we didn't finish Wednesday afternoon and Mr. Whitney and I were
standing in the hallway and he said, "What will we do? Well, well have to
continue it. He says, "Do you wish to continue it?" At that point, we had
on the agenda the meeting where we were to set this hearing. Mr: Hhitney
was aware of that because he mentioned it to me. In fact, Mr. Whitney at
that time was under the impression that the hearing two weeks ago was going
to be the hearing date and I had to tell him it wasn't the hearing date, it
was the date that we set the hearing. .
-3-
Wtithey:
Tha: e LnE, Pr,r,Thc,j :Woarc, not uefort tht Council.
Ane I said to kr. .whitnty, if yo want to hold everything ih aUeyanoc,
we can do that." Mr. Whitney has hot held evtrything in abeyance. nt Jes
finished his pr checkin jest recently, Mr. Hanna can verify that, if
ththe was a, agreement, Mr. Whitney has not *1/c up to it. : never said
to Xr. 'Whitney that this matter wolc not be nedhd until o'r,
dermined. There was never any such agreement. He was -in Court last
Friday when the Judge mace it very clear that he wanted to see what we eie
or the rezoning before ne rendered his decision.
LaCroix: Well, I can't believe, Mr. Stroud, end I can't believe Mr. Whitney, that as
a former City Attorney, and also as one who, I am sure, is well versed in
the procedure of this City and this Council tnat jo oud not Pa aware O.
sir, after publications nave been duly and properly made, that there was
not a Hearing before to is b
this evening.
riitney: There is absolutely no reason, Mr. Mayor, why you cannot continue this T:o tne
19th or a hearing. It has never come up before, the matter carie through
routinely from the Planning Board, through rera, there has never been
ntinuance, th .attar in court has been going constantly and s now
and nas been concluded and subTlitted to tha court to write tri:]fs.
mine and Mr. Stroud answered it. It is on now for Friday, the 8tn, for
decision. Lhe City will not be damaged, tha City is not involv,': in his
thing, You are not going to lose anything by it and I think that in all
fairness, in view of the fact that 1 did write this letter on October 9 and
said, "Please be informed, Mr, Carter Stroud, Acting Cit., Attorney, and this
office have entered into an agreement that all pending matters with referance
to the proposed rezoning at :no real property at :re northeast orrLr of
Central and Sharn would no continued and would o neld in status quo until
the termination of the existing action in the Superior Court, name14,
in-ftnoy v s. Oiy of Alameda". Now, 1 ouldn't write that letter -if triai'd
was not such an agreement, and as far as an concerr,oc, I've pract'l-ac
law for 40-odd years, and when 1 g-lva my word, I kadp -it. And tnis case,
blieved ir. Stroud wus going ;0 o tne same th'ing. j unddrstading was
1:hat panting matte,
s before the City, razon'ing and otnarw.'ise, d,d
continued. What I did with preparation for trial has nothing to do with that
phase of it as Mr. Stroud indieat
LCroix: Well, Stanley, I would recommend to this Council that we go forth with the
hearing this evening and action ba 'Laken based upon their decision. .
Whitney: Very wall, and I'm sure you will excuse me. Thank you very much.
LaCrolx: If that is the wish of the Council..
If Mr. Whitney wants a continuance, 1 think we could continue it if he would
also stipulate to continue the court matter.
Whitney: Why, I want the decision on Friday..
Stroud: What Mr. Whitney wants is an advantage over the City.
Whitney: No I don't. I want the decision. The matter has been tried, it has been
disposed of and I want a decision as the Court has indicated.''
McCall: Mr. Mayor, a point of order here.
LaCroix: Yes, Mr. McCall.
McCall: Did we answer a letter of October 9 that was written to the Honorable City
Council, City of Alameda. Did we answer the letter to Mr. Whitney?
Stroud: No, we didn't. I was out of town.
McCall: Why didn't we have the courtesy of the answer?
Whitney: I have never had an answer.
McCall: Mr. City Attorney, I mean if you left town then the City Manager or the
Assistant City Manager should have answered the letter. I think only out of
courtesy when someone sends a lett r. I'm not defending Mr. Whitney, He's
got his own problems. But I'm trying to say that by, wine by the book,
someone should have answered this. You don't ignore something that's
written to you, the whole City Council, by another attorney relative to
a case pending before this Council. I want to know why it wasn't answered.
Stroud: My understanding was that the letter related to the meeting of October 15th
and I was under the impression that this hearing was on October )5th. I
found ot the hoaring wasn't en October
only tha date to set,
1„a--
Croix : Thats right,
Stroud: So there wasn'
F. The hearing was on -- that was
going to be any need to discuss continuanc of the matter
Oecause it wasn't going to be heard anyway.
McCall: In my office, if someone sends me o latter and requests an answer,
-J-
it ouck -,;tocust.: 1 dor't ',:ec.;) ni;t nonging
wtn tindt hock ono rignt now wo are leaving corsc,,vo's wicie open if we
oon't give an anower. In fact, I wou]o 'like t3 ask the City Manager why -it
wasn't answurcO.
havo nuvor soor, 7:hE 1ottor.
t.cOsi: 3':<, that's what: I Lit-, try.ln to ..;s:y 'S tne conicctiont.,
LoconOy, though, think that it is rorty oovlous though tht
zhu 1otter in affect w,Ls answurod oy the City Couci dup1 ic.4 on October
15-tn when tho matter was set for public hearing, which it was.
try: Of which I had no notice. until 1 got a card about two days ago from the
City Clerk stating this was gohig to be a hearing.
Coss: Maybe the City Clerk could inform you as to her notice procedure.
Whith : beg pardon?
Goss: Ethe'i, could you i:,form h1 as to your notice procedure?
Clerk: On the date that the agendas were sent out, we did notify all The interestud
persons that the hearing was set.
nitney: Yes a re'.1",ineer, a card.
cierK: \n-ich was a wee ago.
Whitney: Came in about two days ago,
Goss: Could you indicate what date that that card, the notice was sent?
Clerk: It would have gone out oh, well, it was a wee today, it was the 29th, the
30th of October was the day of our agenda conference.
LaCroix: 1,,jell, the only thing that .1 would recommend at all, Stanley, is tnat i this
Council does not wish to go ahead with the procedure of this hear-inc:J, is
that we so inform the Court and that fla action be taken by the Court until
such tir;le as tne hearing has been 'before this body.
hitney: Eell what you do is of no interest to t ir. ayor. .
LaCroix: 'a';1 , it seoliis to ',I-Jo. .
:!hitnoy: A11 I'm intarested in is thaz this hearing toLay aa continued unti the
Court matter is tomitriotely out of the way - you ',1 either -- if you win it,
so you win. If yas loso, then we win. Buz that has nothi g to to .:;itn tne
rezoning. !ie aro not suing Lithe( for or against the rezonir.g.
moroly ,.:;31: a suit pending for a uiding pen]iiz,
euCcoix: Stun",uy, ft we suu,:. to if it hud notnin:, to co with the ror,incj,
tnere is no red:eon mv this hearing snouin: De nel this uvening.
3,uuu,.!se ot
here and with -- u,et tha
aganst us end also appear with witnesses for us; and in reliance on his
agreeTont with me, clic t prepare for this hearing.
Mr, May or
LuCroix: : 'can't understanc.
Corica: Let me ust say something. :t Sees to me that unless you co - that we
1 or coordinate the Co-: hearing with cur hearing, that it sedins
to me that you would certainly nve the advantage, Mr. Whitey, and the
peop-ie that ara complaining in the neighOorhood here are going to Pe at
a disadvantage. And, uh
hitney: Mr. Corica, the people in the neighborhood are not involved in this suit.
This is a suit between ma and the City of Alal-nada.
Corica: 1 fully realize that, Mr. Whitney. Eat 1 for one would like to her what
the people in t - rinborhoc d have to say and this is important to
Whitney: Fine, and you can hear it on NovarnHer 19, just as well us yo, can today and
at the same 'time I will be here with witnesses anu you can heer he I
think untit-H to th -:y froo the City in vi.of tnet
agreeent.
LaCroix: Mr. Hurwitz.
Hurwitz:
this letter that Mr. Whitney is quoting. he last pc aph of this
latter 1 don't quite understand because, if 1 might quote it, it says,
in view of Xr. Stroud's agreement with us, will Ou - please 00 geoe
eno to continue any hearin9 matter before the Council to NoveF:ber
1574", which ls today, I believe, "wa as.aue by that Mr. S,:roca will
nave completed the Harbor Eay suit and we will DO to dispose with
tna City manoamus suit".
hey: I ',-inight explui.n tnat, 1,% Hurwitz. Trnrs Iluatter has on cracjc,nc; alon
primari'iy because Mr. Strcue has been involved in the Hunbor :sk
case. It's :on over, 1 think, '-''bout tnis
writte, I assuri.ed that n ovember Eith, the 1,‘:h :e thng ou
fni snh rc completeo. However, of the fact that 0 ab';e
,1L,:i '.,h ,..,i, ,,.(°V. ,-,I,S, L ,,LL'K ,a') 1 ,,,,L Friday when
m.. 1-hally finished thu rmItter, this Uute was bsed, arbitrarily,.
c',owever, the first paragraph, referree to the matter very completely, that
'everything will be neld in abdyance until the case is disposed of". These
cutes down below were only uesszinates in view ot the fact the
was bbhuing. Mr. Stroud knows that. His--it was at his requat the matter
wtls continued.
LaCroix: Mr. 'e!h'ithev, if I ,, gnz inject somtning n&r3 thoL:gh, thin,: that yO6
C hZ:VC? to acknowledge, sir, that if the Court were to rule your
Yavor and a ,bui, ing permit should be issued, based upon the Present 7ehing,
there is no
Whitney: 1 don't understad. You say, if the Cour t was doing r:ie
LaCroix: If the Court ware to rule and a uilding permit ware to be .SSUECI
hitney: Y.
LaCroix: seC upon the present zoning
ilhizney: .-cighL.
LaCroix: Then there wou'id be no so' sr, whatscver, to hold another zoning
hearing. 1,, . uld tzt not b tru r. Stroud?
Stroud: No. Because the issue in this, the reason that the Court put this ratter
of was thz,t the law says that if you issue a building perrht and then you
rezone, you can revoke the buildi- pemit. The JuH , did not want to to
put in the position OT doing a use-less act.
StrouC: The Judge does not want this mbtter cot inued until after he has rendered
his decision, . . and 1 have to repeat, Mr. 1v:nithe was n court ant c.a,_re
all of this.
1;1hitr : And 1 don't think this City is -in a position, pardon me, am 1 interr,:bti
you?
Stroud: .Yes.
'vinithey: Gb ad , I'M
sorry.
Stroud: The course oh' evehts is very si:o1e. e nave, ',,b were forced to cohtinbe
this matter three or fobr times. 1 am sorry 1 bi,dn't puy close atton to
the first paragraph of that letter, but I' c been, commuting. If Xr. '0:hit'hey
-o-
misunderstood me, I am sorry. We d. not agree that this thing would be
continued until the Court case was fn shed
Whitney: Just exactly as the first paragraph states,
Stroud: And, if we did, we had an agreement that Mr. Whitney, the other half
that agreement was tha
01
. Whitney would hold up prosecuting his building
permit, which he didnt do. So if there was an agreement, he did not abide
by it.
Whitney: I don't know what you mean by that remark. Not prosecute the building
permit case?
Stroud: That is exactly right.
Whitney: That was entirely separate. . and distinct.
Stroud: Hold everything in abeyance, meaning you and the City.
Whitney: What was 1 going to do? Ask the Court to do nothing?
Stroud: I am not going to argue at this point about -it.
LaCroix: Mr. Whitney, I am going to rule, sir, from this chair, that the he ring will
proceed.
Whitney: That what?
LaCroix: The hearing will proceed.
Whitney: Thank you. You will excuse me, Mr. Mayor. May the racord show that 1 came
here and opposed the hearing and asked for a continuance and was not granted
the privilege and courtesy of a hearing under the circumstances. Thank you.
LaCroix: Than you vary much, Mr. Whitney. At this time, I'll
yone from th
audience who is a proponent, those who are in favor of as set
forth by the Planning Board. Mr. Richard Perata, 1 think you are the
realtor involved in this, sir? If we could have your name, sir, and
address for the record.
Perata: Richard , rata, 1206 Central Avenue. My honorable opponent, Mr. Whitne 's
statements got me so confused that I'm not quite sure in which direction to
go. I think wa have had a lot of people come up before the Planning Board
and I thought also, before the City Council before, with reference to rezoning
Sherman and Central Avenue. I don't want to go over a lot of territory that's
a1rcody been covered, auout railroad tracks and all this sort of thing.
thought at the time 1 don't know whether you read th,-, tapes on the meeting of
the Planning Board which the proponents attended about three weeks ago.
-9-
LaCroix: We are familiar with that, I believe every member of the Council is.
Porata: At that timP, the one thing I took issue with more than anything was the report
by Planning staff. 1 had made notes on that particular staff report and,
if you wish, I'll the notes that I made because to me the report by
the staff really got me riled up, personally. It would only take a couple
of minJtes, if you
LaCroix: Co rigmc ahead.
Stroud: Mr. President, I'm not sure you received the report he's ting Out,
though, so he may be .
LaCroix: o11 myself am perfectly familiar with the statements of the Planning
aff and Mr. Judge, in particular,
Perata: On the - 1 may be repetitious here, but this is an answer, paragraph by
paragraph, on the memorandum to P nning Board from Planning staff. Second
paragraph, and the Planning staff's cloim of an "emotional reaction by a
ncJnurnoo, What the staff dismisses as an emotional reaction is in fact
an attempt by local rLsc1nts, taxpayers and voters to maintain the ntegrty
of their neighborhood by offering SOME thoughtful opposition through an
appeal process clearly authorized by law. Actually, what staff persona
thinks of our appeal is irrelevant. The appeal should be judged on the
merits, namely, the desirability of permitting a 24-hour commercial establish-
ment in an acknowledged residential area. They are the ones that keep
bringing up stores and so forth - I, I'm not mentioning anything about that,
we are just looking for one thing now and that is rezoning. On that third
paragraph, pertaining to staff's boi ief that "crime is already present", it
is precisely because clements of crime, nois and traffic congestion already
exist in this residential area that we oppose the proposed store. It seems
fundamental that you don't eliminate problems like noise, and traffic by
introducing into the area something like a store where noise of all kinds,
traffic and potential for crime are inherent. Now, Mrs. Goldsmith lives
directly alongside of this empty lot now and Mr. Kinzel ' so lives alongsid
of it and Mr. Frye has a home next to Mr. Kinzel, all zoned "C-1". Na, it
is because of the fact that that nai jhborhood over the past several years
has almost completely reverted to residential a
-10-
is why we want it rezoned
*E‘uy:070 ), ',sPnbp 02 0d :1,17,'Dox
ssnoop
./C002u7: u'ilm SY2 SSn2,S!,7 2up flOA
",A17 ON ::17,jM
(..„1,71„.„0 4 7, 01 •,)
5ULUO,77) c; uo
nofi P:P c7"):7, ;p.tau cucgspnb T pn0 c.),,ofipx
"JN Jto sucsonP fiu0 A0L4 not,: 0 U0 1U 'UDrIW 70fi Y,U2U1 :x OJfl07
OUCH J,70/:
a7U,7,
!C )0A72 uL oxe roS '7V-15P I -1-!- 11,?2 I :xLcJDP-7,
;c, TISc")J c5
?,!,;(Dm )0 0J. sucL7Lg;-)d Puz fiaL:), asoi o;
;:)A0 ll 17Ua'0 S7i...1,6111? puP SU7),U0O ;.:',Pin0.,lLAU,7 ;nig 4.0 1u,6 1.L
cl,r? uotas?nb ca ocCqno st gi,Pd ;:,L5uts OU 272U1
pLo7, 7U7 77A!-70U0D I.!,DM OS S" S70 07 qgoA Pug fig 05U L00 0n0;0)s
.rnpun 0 L 2!?,4, 0U0 SS0 U0flW '7,117:7002 6Ut;.UU2d U7 2ju-_,, Ppm co /C-77"1D?
.377 U7:,) o; figmutw Pl.ig 40 ;u5t..1. PLP ;117117".W.JJ!.H7
L! /;1 LJ0c7W 7 sPcp upum ?ous J7U0 2U U00 OUI L PsspJdxp 00
pui U:71M L,UOD /77),17 SMOA .mo 0J pno.).5 Pug uo
css,7,Po.),d OnO 01 o5 flO u L sn US 7,7C(747 7.L17U woos
LL71-s 2tPIY,RLd 'E"Lfl.
p. OflSS ?acup tijas
aLqpuellun '_120,7 S7 S7 S7>.:J23 15uucz
oug :to OUI ;DUrspUr 02. A0O asao..).d no 7.,55n0
oa L101S 50uuLd 0y2. S 11701 5,=7
's5upa 02.0 Suc,R '7r170°.21\10J 0 1 5u!1 n SL
10100JG 4v '5um: ',7CH).027W,
20 n0A 001 10 L7A0J,d7SL7 07 .20u07,
„ZOAO 100U1 2.r102r00. 0101X1 U00J10 111u7100ns a.!a
007::1 of Lo SajCAP 000u 00000 Tw 20
'L, I
1010YiL . '01 1. 000C 001 n".)‘
Perets=1: Yes, I --
McCall You made no offer whatsoever on the property?
Perata: An offer? No sir.
McCall: You had no interest in the property?
Porata: No, none whatsoever.
That's all.
Perata: I mi Jflt
LaCroix: Don't elaborate. Any other questions, gentlemen?
Perata: I'd like to
all: One more question. Would you, Mr. Meyer, through you, would you recommend
where the Acapulco restaurant is that they do the same thing with the rezoning
because it is in chC nnDhborhood area? At Willow and Lincoln, would you
recommend we do the same thing.
Perata: No. At Willow and Lincoln?
McCall: Where they have the congestion and all the people comlnD every day at noon
and every night. Would you?
Perata: Well, it is something that exists there at the present time. We've get an
empty lot where we are at the present time.
McCall: That's all I want d.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Mr. Perata. Any questions of Mr. Perata?
Corica: No. I'd just like to make this comment, I don't have any questions.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Mr. Perata. At this time, the hearing is still continuing,
ladies and cnt1eman, any other proponents who would wish to address and
shed any new light on the subject. Mr. Sullivan, briefly, if you would
please.
Sullivan: Mr. Mayor, I want to compliment you on ypur decision to hold this hearing
tonight and Mr, Whitney didn't wish to further delay the 'court proceedings
until this ouncil acted on it. I went te further state thatelnasmdch as
1 had *peKen agaminst 4n all-high 7-11 oparch th:0 Plcwinlng 13Gard
meeting,
received a card from rs. Pitt more than a week ago advising me
of this hearing tonight. I don't know the exact data, but it-was more than
4 week „J...3,
I would to say
to
hat we would like Mr. Whitney to be able
co something with his pro-- ty and he probably would havd eon, le
-12
probably would have got it with most any' ing else, if he hadn't come in
with an all-hight operation of a 7-11 grocery store. I can understand
why that would agitate people in most any residential area. It seems to me
that most people can 00 their grocery buying in the about 18 hours a day
or 16 hours a day without having something open from 10 o'clor< et night
until 6 or 7 in the morning. Most of the major grocery stores in town
ma,,,je to maintain proper hours, Encinal Market, Williams Brothers, Safeway
Lucky. You can name any other - they don't need all-night operatiu. All
night operation for as is wanted in this case is, more, f think, to sell
liquor than to SL1I food. As I commented before tho Planning Eoard, and
I think it's worthwhile saying again, little kiddies won't -be running down
the 7-11 at 2 or 3 in the morning to buy a popsicle or a half a or
of low fat milk. Its more likely to buy a jug of wine, and I don't -- by
the way I take a drink so its not that I'm speaking as a teetotaler. Now,
imagine the Police Department would appreciate that fewer places would
have all-night operations in this town, 1 think they would like to have
fewer people roaming the streets, as far as possible. Now I'm not only
speaking as - while I'm up here - against the 7-11 operation in this store
even though they
LaCroix: Thats the only subject before this body tonight, Mr, Sullivan.
Sullivan: Well, I'd want to confine it to that. Although they said thty diont intend
to operate it all night, if you gave them permission to put it there I
imagine they could operate it all night. But im opposed to a11-night
operation of any grocery store anywhere in town.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.
Hurwitz: Mr. Sullivan, if 1 may ask Mr, Sullivan a question. I beieve you live uite
close to an operation that is very similar to the 7-11 and I was wondering
if you would ' el that that area should be rezoned.
Sullivan: Mr. Hurwitz, I'm glad you asked that, I've given it a lot of thought. And
that thing, as 1 first understood it, when that grocery store, it hau been
a grocery store many, many years ago, it used to be a Safety store when
moved into the area, and when the current operation was talked about, I
understood it was going to o , a 7-11 store, but at that tme, not haOng
been agitated by what Utah International wanted to do out on Li, Farm Island,
I wasn't attending any of the meetings here before the City Council or
the Planning Eoard. I've gotten quite an education since, and had I
known dS much about it now that citizens can come in here and protest these
things, and sometimes g results, I would just as vehemently opposed that
one in my area, it's around the corner from where I live, 1 would have
opposed that one as 1 do now. 1 see no reason, it' open and closes at
midnight, I sec no reason for a grocery store in a residential area
being open until midnight. As I pointed out, Lucky, Safeway, Williams
Brothers, Encinal, you can name them, they don't need a midnight eration.
LaCroix: Thank you very much, Mr. Sulliv n. Yes, you may and I am Long to limit the
discussion to this lady at this time if you please. This will be the last
speaker.
In: (Mrs. Maleka Brown, 1309 Sherman Stre ' ) At the risk of being repetitious,
because 1 have been up about four times uld still '4: see some new fe,ces that
T have not seen here Oefore, and so T, feel vel%1 strongly about making this
appeal far razanirQ.
xTt say cf these 94tlemoh hove bean n his Council for about
two VTh dP4r, 4nd zm we yo ,,J so.an them, ,
iBrawn: Wel hAva seen Ot3 pf yqu I don 't think TIVe San. may be due to
01 poor FlemdrY,
Hurwitz;
d y fL the lady' name ard ae,s0
13rown; My ncwfl Is Mzlek,: prcuh 4hd livP 41; 130 -man Street, ap just a new
resident npre, I moved h.2na fror- NeW jarFroy, and tha reason rn here is
axpriencet'4 thlo partic.:u14r kind of a problem just 'p2for2 came
cloro to livP, monr.i to Ala,mede because it t'
flr of al
was ciOt and yet lovely, ud eforc cor'i n Cu Alameda,
',iyipcj In Nzv Jersey, oxoerieneed Pnvirohmenta'i problerr . that cbUld
not have be iEved ha I not lived throi/gh it, We lived in a little community
similar like Alameda and one day word at around j;hat they were going to
built a ' 11 on one of the corners and at that time we were in need of a
store because we lived quite far from the shopping center, and so I did not
involved with it, having to do with a lot of other organizations, until
-14-
ozer accowtshod ahz tner huo po'cioeFon at r.'y door I
lot in zre to try ar,c1 tav suid,
rowh, I am surp-iseul that you not invoveo in stopin9 th- 7-ll.
at that time I ignorant o: the fact but, ,;,htn-in six :,:onths after
-Lnto I ot the '.'"i2th, the rubbish... th:.: cnidren
L. . cht r.ot zoi"!ct feci'H,y.,,z.L there,
,jatnerec: aroznd the store
dh, ero(,:;s, the sale cres, they ned
open becths there, te";ephone booths there, and the children ,,%ere there
oestantly and they threw bozzles at pass',ng car,O
LaCro-ix: s. 3rown, if 1 mic,ht ask , u, dear, you don't mint, if you could addre:-.,s
yoJrse-if to the subacz at han namoly, the neghborhood r000sa": ShariT.en
Street. thank you for your disertation about New Oarsey, but lf y
coulO
d:rect yourse'if on.ly to this.
Srown: Yes, r orry, yor, I wil]. And so I feel tnat the area such d beautful
res-idental area tnat I woulC It to be rezoned so that whatever
there a legal pattern to h11 gs out that would 'disturb the 'balance
of the community, I would ',ike very ',..1jCh L hat cone. Than you.
Lz;Croix: Thank you very much. A]l ht, I'll roco'gni7e you Thd he in.1 Cu t 01
debate you don't mind. wo, tw,o .
Soares: Sir, I have scmetnihg thut has not been brought up before. I wou'id
chance to speak.
aCroix: All ri :t fine, as soon as th-is ge ".-eman fThished, recogn-:Le
you.
My name is Arthur Roke, 3 Peru Street. Xr. n.itney mato the tate:,..ehz
that before the C-:t CouncY: zhat he \,:as argulhg a court of Thu, ne was
versing 0'.ty of Aiameda. Uhfortunately, gen emen, I am part of the
CY:y of AThmeda and tnerefore I was j- ''tec: that you :lad the o:,en hearin.
Seco:yely, 'It seemed to me that p.et upon the 'C,33C,1 nature
of the ounci'l cut of order. I yJould ':iko to
part:.cor soioject, hay.i.n not become ,volved befere c a eitioeh
or ,fora the City Counci': and just from the hetes I have mad- th-:s
A huber of yeoro a(3o, an unnamed attorney wantec to reLone '1700 Contra;
Avehue for a mortuary and On''' of tae arumehts
31 that gehto:,....h Yu.
was a few minutes away from the ,major areas of the City of Alameda, and
1 think the citizems countered 3t that point that the argument that a few
places away in Alameda are less than five minutes by car or bicycle, and
I am quite sure your City Clerk has that tape still on record. One of
the things that has cropped up is that as times change, neighborhoods
change and Measure A has changed a great deal. Within one and one-half
block of this proposed 7-11 store is the Sutherland Pharmacy, Louis
Market, two antique store s a former BM grocery store and a couple of other
stores, one of which is now import-export, 1 would assume. This is a small
shopping complex that was zoned "C-1" a number of years ago by the Master
Plan of the City of Alameda and is still in operation. While that is in
operation, the gas station tha that is directly across the street from the
Sherman Street property is virtually on the verge of bankruptcy and having
itself roobed at whenever possible. Consequently, 1 would think that the
Sherman Street "C-1" complex would not be a viable or a valuable thing for
our society today. Planning, gentlemen, is the crux of the idea. Within
blocks today is a "C-1" shopping center. Why add another one that clos e.
And as to Mr. McCall, the Acapulco idea was a very valuable point to bring
up. By the Acapulco is a grocery store, a Chinese food place and several
other operations that are in business. To my knowledge, hzviog lived here
my entire life, except for years that I was may a,t college or alsewherE,
none of thesa are all-plght cperatIon. If one of those operaVio% went
aefunc hc voce of A4.med4, or t least my part o the voice, would
oppo'4e zddi'nQ any now Mlciln95 Dr 4ny flew store, in thEA area as c shopping
canter, thin, gct rrn w haya in the st, west and south ends to
this islan, cO7ercial1y zoned aras that are mor4 than meAecta for tn.i
itizens of Alameda, Thank you vry much,
LaCroix: Ticv YoQ.
JcCe.1l r, Muor, could I as t.he gentleman questiPn?
Roke: You may, Mr. McCall.
McCall: You came into the nicture there of two stations out a lot of other stations
throughout our Olty when we had uhf:' red trains. This is how these centers
came. They were commercial centers, North Park Street, South Park Street,
16-
whether it was astick station or Grand Street station, Morton Station,
Chestnut Station, whatever station itnYisht be, we had the loop in Alameda
of the red trains and this is where the cemm:uters shopped. In those
days those were neighborhood shopping centers for the convenience of people
9LttiJ off. I agree with yo. There we had the best rapid transit in the
country right in our own commanity rc L got rid of i t. Sc then we turn
around now and we're going to get rid of everything else that goes with
it because a few people are going to at upset about it, and 1 think thes,,
legitimate people who have been in business all these years and on
this property have a right to use their proerty. This is not America
when you can't use ropery that you own and it is zoned.
Roke: That's true, Mr. McCall. Legitimate business in an operation of a
business is one thing Having the absente,, ownership of a piece of property
which is serviced by a as station for Standard Oil under a private
operator for 25 years, I do not call a business. I call that owning
property and receiving the rent from it, and that is what Mr. Whitney, or
whoever Mr. Whitney represents, has done over the past few years. Unfor-
tunately, as much as 1 like to deny it, my grey hairs belie the fact that
I well remember the red trains and I also remember the shopping centers,
having been around he e for long time. I think your point is well taken,
but the shopping centers of those days are not shopping centers of these
days.
McCall: You're saying that these merchants have no right to be in business?
Roke: I'm not saying that.
McCall: That's what you just told me.
Roke: 1 am saying that the citizens of the City of Alameda, by the Measure
property A and other things have a right to choose how they would have the
City zoned and 1 think in this particularcase, you are looking at an area
that should be d)WnzOned to residential rather than continued as commercial.
ix: Thank you very much. I will recognize the lady and that will be the last
speaker, if you don't mine.
Scares: Gentlemen, than you very much for allowing me to the last speaker.
My name is Violet Soares, I live at 1336 Sherman Street, and I do feel the
-17-
a eu:seas thut ko There nuu
citiou are sus,Jasea so saice ay a state lek that says noise
'Levu', was s,,,n,a,poaee :3 bL csm's':etee by S-azemser Als.eaa failed
to do this, They do havu a six M3,-',:hcL extension, not feel that this
;J:uaksunty shoe. granafethereU in unecr the neise these
-ihtereession it has terrific lICC:SS nork, Ana theh ang tnis type
of station 'kith a qui k turnover and a-,se with unloadng al: yoar
beveracJes ano so vIna-a witn the ateriels there th,:it ardata mons noise,
S3 khy acd more ho-Mse to our area, :ts noisy enouh tnere -chat ihtar-
section and I fon. like I know there's peen ,Yi8,400 spent for this
Garbell noise level pan, : do, 't know now far it's gone :.;Ma sheerstand
that the average noise is o or or soma on this ices, arca pm sure
that intorgectich exceeds that novm
LaCroix: Mos intersections do
Soares: ell, I feel that no further noisc snocc, be added, especially to a residential
neighborhood, ,o I ask that this property Pa rezoned so at east wo can re'lp
c the noise anC I -f o not feel that oo shou*ie grandfathered in
just becaus the City had to ask for an ex ti. n000 o the Carbel:
plan.
LaCroix: Thahk you very much, Mrs. Soars, I would ask at this time, ladies and
gent*icmen, if there are ahy opponents, those who or opposed o t he recon-
'dation of the Plahnin, Board to reLone this property. There being none,
then I vr:,1', declare the nearing CoscO,
Stroud: May 1 state for the rc:corci, M. President, that one two developers are ir
the audience.
LaCroix: Thank vou vory r, Str .ac, if the City Clerk woucl so nose, The
nearing closed. iV0 of the people ih the asdienea kns\,:
I fee Lacut th-is particuar issue. Gentlemen, tnihk 'Cho C-H zoning
has out,ivat iLs usctfuss ih this 'o or :1Hht ,:sc; pcint
ost that shoout j years ago, I think it WdS, my great sne1e COSCI filS first
gas station on that corner una it 0 very i,uch rght out oh tha corner at
003 corncr, not ‘,,:here 003 property ih ,uest,oh i0 located,
feel that there are a numPer of areas in town where we have had oi gas
stations, if you will, that demand attention not only from our Planning
Board but also from this Council and that we should possibly consider the
reclaiming of those properties through zoning, so they would be better
utilized by the people of our City. 1 would like to make one thing clear.
Tonight we seem to have taken on the 7-11-type market. That is, not what
we are here to do, ladies and gentlemen, 1 think we are here tonight to talk
out zoning and rezoning only. I, for one, have used the 7-11 store en
Pacific Avenue just_ below Webster Street and have always found it to be a
very commendable operation. I don't know how many people in this audience
have, but 1 have found it to be so. Gentlemen, I would recommend that
this Council does rezone this property from "C-1" to R-* because I
believe very much that it should be residential and not commercial.
Corica: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to get something in here that 1 tried to say about 15
minutes ago. But, anyway, I'd like to respond a little bit to Mr. Hurwitz
and Mr. McCall and as far as the Acapulco and I think that Mr. Hurwitz is
referring to the convenience market on High Street. There is a big difference
there and 1 think the difference is this the buildings were there when the
zoning was there and in this particular case we have en empty lot and the
residents around that neighborhood didn't object to the gas station, but
they are afraid now of what might happen to their neighborhood if this
particular facility goes in and I really think they have a right e be heard
if they object, I think its our duty to listen to them and to keep them
happy if possible. Now, years ago, I don't know, maybe Mr. Hanna can
remember, but 1 remember that when people used to come up here for not a
use permit, but special zoning, that first they would go around the neighbor-
hood to see if there were any objections, and you actually got pe000 to
say they did not object to your building or starting a business in that area
and that's the way that it went, and I think this is what the people here
are asking is, legitimate, they are afraid ef what 11-7i ht happen to their
neighborhood, they are trying to protect themselves and I concur with you,
Mr. Mayor, as far as implementing this interim ordinance, I think this should
be done. The only thing that 1 would like to get into the record is this,
why the "R-4" when Measure A actually ]fmil:s you to "R-2"? 1 know that it
conforms with the surrounding zoning and 1 will go along with it but this
is the way that -- it seems to me that it should uu on to 'R-2", but
I have no qualms about passing this ordinance tonight.
LaCroix: I hear a motion to that effect?
Corica:
1 woulL M3Ve,
Eeokum: Mr. President.
LaCroix: lt has been moved that thL rccornroot1cn of the Planning Board be upheld
and that the property be rezoned. from "C-1" to "R4". Do I hear a second?
Hurwitz: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. I'd only like to say that 1 agree, I don't
think tht its important whether it 15 a 7-11 store or another gas station.
I think that the people there do not want any more commercial establishments
in that area and 1 think as far as the taking of the property, the people
who are requesting the rezoning are in fact, theoretically, devaluing their
own property since they're devaluing it from a '0" to an "R", which theoretically
would be worth 1es money. I think that there is sufficient commercial area
up along. Encinai and for that reason, I would uor this motion.
LaCroix: Very good, sir. Any further discussion? Anybody want to take a crack at
this?
Beckam: Mr. Presio nt, I assume the motion was made for the ordinance for rezoning
and not for the potential ordinance suspending.
LaCroix: That is correct. Any further discussion?
McCall: klell, Mr. Mayor, the only question. 1 have here is one of the big ones, is
the same as Mr. Oorica, our Vice Mayor, has stated, the fact that if Measure
A stays where it is and say we go for "R-4"manu it is absolutely illegal use
of that property for that purpose. Unless you went to en "R-1" or if you
went to an "R-2", the most that coulc be built on this piece of property,
probably, I don't know if the property could be -, lit and you could out two
up1xes on it or whether you could just put a straight four units on it.
1 would like to have the Planning Director tell me exactly what can be Duiit
on that property as it now exists oy thL present owner.
Vanao
proparty, : road tho dhaat siza nUur yoc
canad put two proparty O,COO, I Ca'Hava id ucas hava
„
-.,snuorood o,aao and ;,h.d, would DC SUbjC:Ct Wtri
soucinr uutwoun strudtdrcs, tht of-straat parKinc„ and tno ydrd
rad,riraants, plus thd covurad. "n 4' wo-'ic r:ora tndn a uup':e.
afn
LuCr, -: I tnIrik assantiuy, c. MaCal, it has boon shown to us that wa cannod,
;aw, rczona by rafarandom, and this is what iS being chul'.an,jod tna
courts at this particu]ar t. focCivaly, this City shoc'W bc rdzonad
y actor cf its P'Euo-In,ng :card and tho City Cooncil, I bc uhd this
somoonat 1,-;nat -Erna procoss of Planning is no,:v in tnis pdnzauar Citj .
fael what you nava is an arda that can Oa affactivay, uhda.- tna :ono,
Od ra,onaU "R-4" and that's trio ruason for no. rsquost. Offccvc:y, t•ara
aguin, with i'vaasura A, Y wouid Oa 1-:mitad to Cap,axas and: as f,lr. Varabla,
I thin'.‹, nas said, if undar tha scoare foocucja, tnoy possibly couTd do
Tn-is %,2auld Oa a la itiLiata rignt of the zonin.
Ona
so ra quast-;on, Mr. VanaOla, -c.f 1 zy. Xr. VendUcTh, do you tnirA tnat
this raconi o woald davalud tna proparty.
Vs: Co) I hava no idaa whatnar it woud or not. It C.1 dapands or. the cadlanC
for ros
I 'moan tha ciffaranca cat\ocan gorni with tha "0-1' it how awists, tha
va]uo o on prop:arty, varsus tha rauonin,3 to
Vanarola: I can say is, gcncra]-1 "0-", -dna commercial va.uc woJld
McCal'i: Ana this is nc.) invorsa condamnat-ion tnn?
VanaOa: Purcon?
Ana this is not. t,*o. tdCwing of -ivata property or invarso coodamnat'ion?
L.n.ava tnat c,uaston, probaY:y tha Attornoy
Yas, tha City Attornay.
c0 x: uas. 3050o OUiC; j0 o ans',,:ar tne cuastion of Mr.
MaCal.L?
Strodd: There hasnt been a single ease thult I know of, and we went throu'cin this
when Harbor P,ly isle was threatening to hit us with their axe and we
ignored them, where anyone's received a dollar for downzonin5. The Court
O f Appeals, much to our horror, in L.A. two or three weeks ago, I just
read the case yesterday, thn a demurrer situation said that someone
could iead it, but as of yet, no one has ever recovered any money from it.
MicCa 1: Well, MT. Mayor, just one final question, then. I'll keep my mouth shut.
In other words, you're assuring me and the Councilmen toat you can defend
us in Court?
troud: Oh, I never write insurance policies, but if I didn't think
McCall: You'rL not going to gamble with me?
Stroud: No, In not gambling..
McCall: OK.
Stroud: The normal, you see, until this wild case which we are hoping an are pretty
sure the Supreme Court will throw out there was a 1 -senting opinion in
it, until that time, the rLeuy f or downzoning is to un-downzone it,
you follow me. In other words, Mr. Whitney comes in for his writ, for his
building permit, the Court says ths not a valid downzoning, issae the
building permit. In other words, he doesn't need money from s, e has
got a remedy. So that we have never worried about these thirAS the pest,
He there ace cases going back 60 yuars that our Suprema,Cchla and tha
United Stateo Siapreme Coort say a tievalwatism Is net A taMnsi, as long as
it is a reasonablo exeroite of colico pnwor. Mr, Whitney, is not going
Op isisus siDn4 0sit thiorPv 00 is just not ping to oke as mabf as he thousans
his WIZ gsing tO aiakE0
LaCNIi“ Then you, Mi."t St,roaO, think we have spent enough time in th'is artiaelan
aroo, 4n4 gentleiewen we have a motion and a second, Could wahave
6 roarulin if the ordinance ih this particular eases
Clerk: An ordinance REL-lesslfying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City
o Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No, 1277, New Series, from the
1, Neighborhood Business District, to "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment
District, Richard Perata, agent for John Frye, Beatrice Goldsmith, and
LeRoy J. Kinzel.
-22-
LaCroix: acj ac aaVc a Ya;1 Cai , please.
Clerk: Councilman Eeckam?
Beckam: Aye.
Clerk: Councilman Corica?
Corica: Aye.
Clerk: doJ,Ln tlurwitz.?
Hurwitm7: Aye.
Clerk: Councilman M all?
McCall: No.
Clerk: and Pr President x?
LaCroix: Aye, and so moved and the property s ezoned. Any further hearings to come
before this body?
Clerk; No.
LaCroix: Reports and Recommendations, please, item No.
Beckam: N. President, 1 think we shoul'' pon t out that the ordinance has bar
introduced and the property is not rezoned effective tonigh-L
LaCroix: 1 would doubt very much if we wouldn't vote that in in two weeks, but you
are properly correct, Mr. Beckam. Thank you very much.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
verbatim transcript of a portion of the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Alameda held November 5, 1974.
City lrlerk of the Pity ot IllamPda
-23-
uxcurr.h.. u
h,U:!:ih2CES PASSA(:E:
LIL-hding tht-2 a:':,eda Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 9, Articles . ,
to Title X Thereof, Consisting of Sections 10-911 Through 10-941, Relating ,3
Preservation of Historical Monuments.
passage of the ordinance as amended.
Corica: Second.
Straud: This one has a fairly significant arnondmantn it but you may -
L_d croix: 1,e can still pass it as amended. •
You may.
ay have permission to cnanga he title then to Articles 1 Through 5...Consisting
of oections 10-911 Through 10-951?
La Croix: Right. Inc motion then to amend is to change title ...
YcCa;l: Is this ordinance No. 2?
Herizz: Yes, to include Sections 10-951.
Clerk: Councilman Hurwitz, do you move passage as amended?
Hurwitz: Right.
Cro'lx: And we have a second by Mr. Corica,
eckam:
V.r. President, a question again. t! the last time this came UD owher
consent prior to being -- the owner of the property having his property placed on
the list -- of being notified by -- somew:-Iere down tha line, perhaps when ne
applies for a permit to make sbstantial change or permit for demolition, v,his may
very wall be his first notice unless there is something spelled out ih nere that
this property is on such a list. 1 do not see anywhere where consent of the o,:ner
was discussed or handled except by an appeal after the fact when fne demolition or
other work was desired. One way of getting around that, perhaps, is to contact
the owner prior to placement on such a list and if the owner sells his house, by
having a report in tha City Engineer's o'1 ca, for e);ample, does not necessarily
mean that that would be picked up in a title report and the buyer would be aware
of it, and if the buyer purchased theTroperty and decided to improve it cr do
something with it, that would be news to him that he had to go through tnis
Procedure and if he knew of that procedure prior, it might make a very groat
difference to him prior to his purchasing it. We discussed also the fd-H.:oet
of historical markers, 1 do not sea in here anything funding such markers or
providing for a system of such location or the consent of the adjoining awe r for
tne location of such marker. And also the list is to be composed ty inspec
shal-: Pa the duty of the Historical Advisory Comirhssioh to: Sec. 10-931(b
1"nspect and investigate any site..... If this is to be an inspection of the
outside of thep-emises from the street, 1 think that is fine but I think Sh0j1G
be spelled out in here because 1 don't chink by ordinance we have the right to
tel a Commission to invade the privacy of a home.
...a Croix: 1 think you are very properly stating that.
I agree.
:..troacH he-s's ses if 1 can rer,-.aber the list. In oar: of nozifyihg owner, of corso
sha,. ca.:1 be cone 0cnistrativ21y. 3 o't have -- the meahi:-, ) C 'hst
j2 co;u'LY,led 11 CGM,r(iS'i;i0, so
orcina: on that. C Cc o ihtto that altJtjh L
ko'l0 and cuOs-some 2rocebuu,....,u2a
the orChinauce. The Cossoh (h'uva its t:!at's Qart thr joL
is to deter-He how -they go about col:,p4,l'uncj thc. 11 a 0 0i that 'uou
00 pract-:cal 00 not-,fy everybody :in advance that they're being co:IsiderG:d.
ckam:
dont think its a ciestion 01 consideration, thin*k its a eeestThn 01
eo you o do you not want your property to become a historical monment as far
es the C:ty of Al is concerned. There are some people who perhaps wouldn't
want ths.
nor, perhaps, not want the marker in from of their house. It would be seem to
me that the simple statement of owner consent or owner contact prior to the listing
of such a site, or tree, or whatever, before the fact instead of after the fact.
La Croix: That should be their prerogative. I think what Mr. Deckonii said is so valid,
Carter, wnen you talk about the administrative problems, the number of properties
in Alameee that we're going to be confronted with over the years to come as
historical monuments are going to be very few, Mr. Hurwitz' home, and things
like this.
And Mr. Corica's barbershop.
ix: hoat Den further facetious, they are very, very few. I can't see an adminis-
trative problem. I would think that before any designation of a historical
monument would take place that the property owner's right to be foremost in our
minds as to notification and whether or not they, in effect, did want that 'property
so designated.
La Croix: That's aplicy matter. If you want an ordinance that says that the property owner
nas to mnsent, well I'll write that in there.
rwitz: I think, simply to make it a historical monument I don't see where it is - I think
it would be nice to notify the owner, LW_ not simply to register it es e isor :el
monument and not put any marker or take any other action, I don't see where it is
necessary to notify the owner% I would say certainly before any markers are put
on the owner's property that the owner's consent be received, and also 1 6JO have
a note here that it was in the old ordinance the owner's right to appeal and I
think it was left out of this ordinance and I would like to see that back in.
LO Croix: That should be in there definitely.
cum: Section ;0-942, paragraph (c).
La Croix: I think the significance of the property being sold again, with the Transfer Tax
being imposed, that it would certainly be relevant to the new purcnaser whether
or not they could or could not restore in a manner which they saw fit.
Hurwitz: But, simply yegistering as a historical monument, I don't see wh y s necessary
to notify the owner. In fact there are several in this town, ie fact I'd say the
majoritypf them are no longer in existence and should be registered as such, such
as the old Eorax Works, and the Bird Hotel, and this sort of thing. But I certainly
hope that the City wouldn't erect any historical markers on somebody's property
withoutthir permission.
Oorica: OK, Lloyd, you can put that out in front of the barber pole any time you want.
Stroud: There isn't any provision in this ordinance for going around putting markers on
anybody's property.
ueekaw. However it was discussed at the last macting when this was brought up and it was
suggested that we could put markers up by getting donated funds to so do, and If
we ane contemplating putting markers in front of someone's home without their
permssion, I think it should be covered in here to get their permission.
Hurwtz: I don't think we need an ordinance for that. I don't think we have any lea
rgnt 'Co CO it.
Stroud: 1°e couldn't do it without their permission even if it's not in the ordinance.
b'eckam: The marker could oo eleced in tne peblic right-of-way in front of tine 13S r:ci
therefore designate Mary Smith as being a historical marker and you might expect
visitors on every Sunday.
That's ri
Pdge 3
And I don't think that Mary Smith would 11 ke that, especially at breakfast with her
hair in curlers.
urwitz: Well, I can't see putting in front of heir house without notifying them anyway, but--
Deckam: However, just the fact of notifying -- I'm not against the historical' marker, I
think it's a heck of a good idea, I've worked with people who've done it elsewhere,
too, but I think a little protection for the individual should be involved because
this goes on, once the list is made then you go through the other provisions.
For example)" it the Commission fails to issue a certificate of approval the owner
of the historical monument may appeal in writing, within 15 day“, to the Council.
The City Council shall reverse the decision of the Commission ONLY if it finds,
upon the evidence of qualified sources...", 1 would essume that the qualified sources
would be a real estate appraiser who is familiar with real estate appraisal practices,
and they're not cheap, yet on the last page we find that the Historical Advisory
Commission Sall have no power or right to acquire any property for or on behalf
of itself of the City, nor shall it acquire or hold any money for itself or on
behalf of the City." Paragraph (c) on page 5 says you may be spending some money,
I think, Mr. President, really we should go back with a little more in depth review
before the adoption. I'm not against the process, I think Alameda needs these, but
I think we should do it in a little better fashion and go through the whole process
first. I seem to find holes that I don't like and wouldn't want to be responsible
for.
Hurwitz; Well, I would certainly agree with the omer's right to appeal. I don't fed, really,
that the other things are --
La Croix: Why dortt .we do this, gentlemen. Why don't we incorporate the suggestions that
have been outlined here, send the ordinance back for redrafting and containment
and have this before the City Council at its next regularly called meeting for
consideration for adoption?
Hurwitz: All right. And one other thing I'd like to ask the City Attorney that I meant to
ask him, I questioned it on the other one. (referred to Sec. 10-941) The clause,
"general welfare"? I think that's pretty much a catchall. We've already covered
public health and safety.
La Croix: That's a lawyer's statement.
Stroud: That's shorthand for the valid exercise of the police power.
Hurwitz: Which means almost anything.
Stroud: No, it means that if a rat's running out of the basement, a health problem, or
something like that, you don't have to define which health problem in the ordinance,
any health problem would be - any health or safety problem would be general welfare.
Hurwitz: You don'tibel that public health and safety covers that?
Stroud:q It's redundant but the law turns out to be redundant.
La Croix: I would suggest it's nitpicking and let's leave it in.
Hurwitz: All right.
McCall: Mr. Mayor, before you get through with this, I'm all for the hysterical department
but as far as I'm concerned I think this is completely an invasion of somebody else's
rights, of property owner's rights, when somebody can tell you what you can do
with your house when you own it, and certainly what Mr. Beckam said a moment ago
in most cases, in my business, there is a recordable document that says what th
property is and goes into metes and bounds and description of the property, and
in this case 1 would hope that the real estate people, when they gat a list like
this, they certainly would inform the people who are prospective buyers that
they're going to be subject to tremendous control, and subject to the fact that
somebody's going to be looking at their house, that they might be coming through
their house, I would think that they'd have to get permission every time to the
house or even knocked on the door of the house, because this is an invasion of
privacy, as far as I'm concerned, and were getting so god damned liberal in this
town that it's Killing me.
; ■ A
sa Croix:
hell, 2-H 1 your statements, I thini: that's why iC. Deckam's questions
were ruised
Tha property owner has no ric
Ahd I thin2 that's why as i ng as these arc covered completely in the Niihierical
Mdinument ordinance, tnat we den consider it for adoption. I think this is
something that must be spelled out, that people have to know, who are af-i'aezed by
it, that their home is a historical monument, that it contains certain restrictions,
if it does, and what those restrictions are.
HcCa'1: I don't think we have that power.
Stroud: there are no restrictions, first of all., ih this ordinance. There is no
right
to visit the property, knock on the front door, or anything else.
what's this thing ;ot the writing in there for this way? I read the writing
-In here, that you're saying it in here.
Stroud: l';ot a word in there says that it gives the public the right to walk into somebody's
house, not a word, not an inference.
urwit7:
McCall:
:t says you can't even demolish the thing.
don't think tt says that it can't be demolished but that
:t says they have to .co to the Advisory CaTmission first. To me it's taiKinci
property owners' rignts away --'rom them, it's a restriction of -- ih othur words i
hn invasion of privacy. 'v;e, want to take, and we've got something that everybody
the idea, and, to be perfectly honest, I was born in or cid house o or
Street and 1 still own it and maybe 1 don't want that mentioned as a nistorica
monument. 1 don't evon want it listed. 1 have this right as a property o,hner.
Is the Advisory Commission going to tell ma what I'm going to have on my property
when own it and pay taxes on it?
Stroud: Well, Mr. McCall
This isn't a Gestapo and it's not Communism or Socialistic
Stroud: i will write this ordinance any way thn Council wants i t, I'm not s
anything here.
it's a San Leandro ordinance. DonYt tell ma that it's not.
Stroud:
(39e.
iLJ
1 was asked by this Council to draft an ordinance and what 1 drafted was to
ordinance that's used in a majority ofcitiies in California and you can 1-i'u-a it
or not like it. I present it to you, not as an advocate but on your repeast.
Uhat was added to this ordinance, and its o policy matter and if the Council
doesn't ii:uet, strike it. This is not the San Leandro ordinance, when we get to
pega 4, Section 10-942, that comes out of an ordinance that I discovered in Florida.
Gri.ah Gables, 1 believe it is Florida. There was an ineication by a couple, of
tne members of tiie Council that they wanted a little more teeth in the ordinance.
The California modal simply stafls dem-iition long enouc,hn to sae i money can be
reised to buy to site before 'it's destroyed. The Gradh Gables pian is that it
0 be destroyed at all unless the property owner can sow that he's c,;t:q to
ioee money by not demolishing it. So what 1 did is in,-rt that in and so we.
hay:I:both processes. It's a policy matter with the Counc-i whetner tney want the
hiiidaver teeth, or not. All Ue'Ci have to do, -if we don't 1:ka that part of it, is
to strike Section 10-942, we'd still have the California mod'., There is no
ovision here oo put oo pladues or to invite people into homes, or an'ythihg
thus. If you don't want anyone to be on the list who doesn't want to ba on the
then I'll add a section saying that you have to have the property owner's
consent.
La Croix: thinkti.at's important.
alohs with that.
La Cro-ix: I tnihk that's the meat of tido o 1 thini: that‹ what the intent of 'mr.
du,stichs were, that \,:ith the consent of the property uivner,
that their property Cesisneted as a 1-Mstorical mcnumend.
"urwit":
r c a
;ca you g)Ihg to say with their consent their right to appea 2
two' oifferehz th'ings.
I thih they're
Cho 351 a forcing the 5SU2 nd oho would be asking will you ocoporate.
Y think that soma itans DO of don't know 0 any in Alamda right offhand -
but they may be of such historical interest that perhaps it should be up to the
Council to decide whether or not they should be a historical monument.
thiu is a good Idea ZOld I can't really sea too •:any paop7e objecting to
thu fact that they live soma place that has a kit of history and they probably,
SU" of thum or whatevar, ,might say, sure, do whatever you waht, I'd 123 to have it.
They'd probably 5s proud of it. 'L-ut by that same tokan, unless you're going to 5c
prepared to be able to buy it, 111 have to (-,o, along with Dill there, you can't
tall a fallow that, no you'ra not going to destroy this thing, unless tha City
wants to buy it.
Hurwitz: ALso';Jtoly not. This is a misuhderstandihg becausa that's the last thin I nt
tO OD -LS ta.ka property. I only feel that if a 301 1323, a building, or whatover,
is of such historical value that there shoad be 53::12 attewot to savo this, but
theC2 should be something more than to be abla to walk into the 3uile1 hg Daparv,:,an
office and say, I want a DuIldihg Permit, and the 20 minutes it ta'kos you to get
dcwh there and got that bulldozer going, you knock the 3211 3130 over without
anybody even knowing about it. I would only feel that somebody snould know bout
this, if it is a -- just off the top of my head Croll's, and I know Ar.
would 1113 to save it very much. 3ut if somebody happened to gET, uhold of t-Lat
throun an astato if he should die, or soma other thing, and decided thby wahtod
to put whatever there, a twin to tho McDonald's, that thI:s couio be demolished ir
tno time that it.took to 153.5 1310 the Building Dapar=ent, get a permit ara
covhn there and knock it down. Thera has to ba sopeway that thOSE can't DO khocked
cvor and I do not intend the taking of property from anybody, 1 only intend that
there ba 5032 di ay so that it can be exalvined.
0031 : But who's going to pay for this?
if the building is ot sucl nistorica: import and the man who owns tno property .
wishes to demolish this property, and nobody is willing to buy it from him, 02 has
every richt to demolish it.
,,:hy don't we put it in writing?
:.r.:1 Z: o;!, that's ,,lhat I'm saying, the right of appeal , ut 1 do want the Coahcil, Cr
whoovar,tohava the right to look at this and decide whathar there is enough
historical value 'so it, that perhaps tho City or perhaps a private party or 601.2306y
2152 would want to purchase this property.
La crox: II yJJ 114 10 g'o ,;C, LIOJ, woo':d 30121 n 0
inserted in the ordinance which stipulates that the City of Alameda or a Historical
Commission buy tha property and that oS2y 50 so within a period 03 time.
2.51 13: I San 266 the City of Oakland and I believe also San Francisco have ordinances to
this offoot. I know San Fran disco has one and I thihk to date they hava failed
to sava ahy proPort\ but at least they have delayed demolition until somabody
could 1-ok at this.
I think it should D3 spelled out.
too. Tho -;ast tning I want to do is take someone's property.
La Cr',-)H.X: °v311, Carter, let's then ma'ke the revision that this Council evidently
Stroud: u1 01; 1,.21:1C of al.:. Thera ara tv:3 ma:Jor 66.66266 of what
suo,:.Yosee to bo drafting hero; Cortificato of .3 02166 is eithah Ih or out, 6666
is you caht it unless you prove yo're ci to bo 6o.acioci; anO
000s the property owner have to consoht 423320 0,10 0ou2c-'11, 366 oat h-is naolL: on
,lould rather sea his right cappeal znah his consent.
Stroud: need the consensus of the group on that.
This isonly consent to have it listed as a historical monument that would possibly
delay demolition.
Once he cohsants to it, then he is under the right of appeal at a later data
suh necessity arise, out the initial rip o consent 1 think should be given to
the owner bofore he is steamrollered into tha necessity for a ri nt of appeal.
La Croix: agree with you.
May I ask if Section 931(b) doesn't mean the right to inspect and visit the
property? 1 don't want anybody coming to my front door.
La Croix: All you have to insert there, Bill, is right of inspection on approval of the owners.
Hc,a.: But it doesn't say no that you're going to get approval of th owners.
Croix: Than that's what you should put in there.
Deckam:
:t says, issue Certificates of Approval. Ara wa going to give these guys a badge
to L through the house? ith these kind of things, 1 hink we ought to get down,
Mr. Mayor, have a maeting of the Committee and a work session and go over these
things ratner than waste the time of the City Council like this tonight. None Of
us are really up on this thing, not a bit.
Mr. President, may 1 makL o suggestion. 1 b2 7:10V Mr. Stroud will be look at
trM;s agaTh and 1 sugest, or perIaps volunteer the services of two ,:,:emDars c the
Design Review 3oard who've been working on this, they both sit in
Chairah of*e Board, Jo a Cerva711, and one of the members, Dave Tuchsen. ":;crops
they've been listening to all this they could work w=,th Yr. Strouci to
ack at thc n2xt meeting, or not knowing of any real urgency to get tnis dene, az
tne first meeting after that, because 1 realize that Mr. Stroud is also busy on
several matters which are of ,rime importance to the Ciy
La Croix: Gentlemen, would you agree with that request? Fine.
Cervelli: would prefer the second macting.
Croix: Let's co tnis thing proper-1y. I know what Mr. Huraitz' intent is and 1 think we
all agree with that. 1 would suggest, Lloyd, that you meat with Hr. Strod and
with the two gentleman in ciuestion and when the ordinance is properly pra,:;ared, as
to your best concerns, to bring it aac to this COU5C11 for reconsideration.
•residoc,t, 1 'Tight suggest, too, fi-,e ordinance you adopted just .prevously
also provdes \,try serally that the Commission which you established may develop
and recommend to the City Council a program for preservation and restoration of
importantstorical sites within the City, and that within that very general
framework much of this could be accomplished.