1971-01-05 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - JANUARY 5, 1971
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Fore and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend Father James Maresca, Assistant Pastor of St. Barnabas Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held December 15, 1970, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. / From Mr. V. W. Dennen, 1918 Everett Street, commending the Pound personnel for its efforts and
praising Mr. Jack Fink, former officer in the Alameda Police Department, for his weekly article in the
Alameda Times -Star with regard to dogs confined at the Pound. Mr. Dennen had included a check in the
amount of $20 to be used to find qualified homes for lost dogs.
It was agreed, in view of the fact that acceptance of the check would involve certain mechanical problems
of accounting in City offices, that the check be returned to Mr. Dennen with thanks for his very generous
offer and the suggestion that the money be sent to Mr. Fink for use in this program.
3. From Mr. Dennen, with regard to the proposed City Hall, submitting clippings of old buildings in
support of hi s recommendation that the present facility be saved and stating he was satisfied with and
proud of the present "Hall ".
The communication was to be acknowledged with appreciation and filed.
4. ✓ From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, - Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 173 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revaluing fund.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
5. From Mrs. Alice Q. Howard, 1556 Everett Street, on the subjec
garbage and solid materials for recycling.
President La Croix pointed out that studies were being made with regard to ways of handling refuse 'in the
City and also in the County. The Mayors' Conference meeting in February, he said, would feature a
presentation by staff representatives of Bay Area 'counties who had been conducting a study on refuse and
the needs of all communities to handle various types of garbage. He said he felt some good information
would come out of this session.
of waste disposal, and separation of
Councilman McCall remarked that this problem was regional in nature and sooner or later an area which
would be acceptable to all cities and counties in the region would have to be found.
It was suggested that City Engineer Hanna attend the February meeting of the Mayors' Conference, if
possible
HEARINGS:'
6. In the Matter of a Petition to Rezone from the "R -1 ", One - Family Residence, to the "R -4 ", Neighbor-
hood Apartment District, certain property known as 1337 Sherman Street. The Petition had been filed by
Mr. _A. P. Russello, Jr. The Planning Board had recommended denial of the application
The Clerk stated there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in this matter
and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition was considered had been sent to the
Councilmen.
A communication had been received from Mrs. Lee Hewitt, 1340 Sherman Street, in opposition to the proposal.!
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, explained the action of the Board, as recited in its letter dated
November 25, 1970, stating only one large lot of 11,820 square feet was involved. Presently on the lot
was an old seven -unit conversion which had suffered serious fire damage approximately a year ago. Since
that time the building had been unoccupied. The proposal was for a new seven- unit building, an exhibit
of which was posted for viewing. The Planning staff had not recommended for or against the application
on the finding that this would be an intrusion into a single- family neighborhood and an extension of an
existing "R -4" zoning in use immediately to the north. It was felt the proposed apartment building was
a far better use than repair of the present fire - damaged building, if such a choice had to be made.
Johnson stated seven persons from the neighborhood had appeared at the Board Hearing in protest, claim-
ing this would be an unwanted change from single - family use, it would be a speculative development on the
part of a contingency buyer and the General Plan indicated the area was residential preserve rather than
multiple development. The Board, recommending denial had also found that multiple zoning on the lot was
not necessarily the highest and best use, that there were probably residential uses of a more compatible
character than that which would be developed under this particular' proposal.
City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and recommendations
of the Planning Board and its advisory report, based upon Section 11 -175 of the Municipal Code, should be
sustained, modified or disapproved.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Bernard Bernardi, 300 Coral Reef Road, Real Estate Broker representing
the petitioner, stated the building was beyond repair and the application had been made on the property
for the reason that it adjoined "R-4" zoning. He said the proposed structure would be exceptional in
architectural design and constructed to leave the majority of light and space between the structure and
the single - family home to the south. He said there would be no outside stairways and extensive landscaping'
would be put in. He said the neighbors would be requested to select the fencing and its height so there
would be no obstruction of view in any direction. Mr. Bernardi said it was sincerely felt the project
would beautify and be an asset to the neighborhood, and to the City.
Mr. Bernardi gave his arguments in reply to the protests which had been registered at the Board Hearing.
He said he had approached the neighbors on both sides and they had indicated their approval; he had there-
fore believed there would be no opposition and had not approached any other property owners on the block.;
He said there had been a suggestion to split the lot in two parcels, each with 43 feet frontage. This
would restrict somewhat the layout of the houses and detract from the aesthetic value.
It was suggested that back -to -back homes or duplexes be constructed on the property. Mr. Bernardi stated
with present -day cost of construction, the result would have to be something exceptional to be successful.
He claimed the only feasible plan for the lot was the proposed seven -unit dwelling.
It was explained that the fire damage had exceeded the limit which would permit the owner to refurbish the
dwelling, which was a pre - existing improper use in an "R -1" zone.
Mr. David Johnson, 1440 Broadway, Oakland, Architect on the project, pointed out briefly the primary archi-
tectural features of the design of the proposed development, as indicated on a site plan on the board. He
said all parking had been arranged in the rear to avoid unsightliness from the street and the widest side
yard of 19 feet would be on the southerly side, where the zoning would change to the lower density single-
family district. The styling of the proposed structure was explained.
On the call for opponents, Mr. George St. John, 1344 Sherman Street, urged that he property remain in i
present zoning and cited the parking problem in the area.
Mrs. Joseph Soares, 1336 Sherman Street, stated she was in opposition to the rezoning and expressed
opinion that there were other parts of the City where the proposed dwelling could be built.
Mr. C. R. Birkholm, 1313 Sherman Street, stated he had been authorized by his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Rober
Pike, 1317 Sherman Street, and Mr. and Mrs. Conrad Shaft, 1309 Sherman Street, to speak for them. He point-
ed out that at the north end of the block there were an apartment house and a realty office. He said he
disliked to see multiple family units established farther south on the block, as there were no other multiple
dwellings on the street all the way south to the lagoon. He expressed resentment, as a native Alamedan, to
the change taking place in the City in the reversion from a community of single - family residences to the
apartment complex type of living. He commented that residents of the block did not park their cars on the
street and he felt the proposal would not provide sufficient parking area for the units contemplated and
some vehicles would be parked on the street.
Mr. Birkholm said he recognized the economics of land development would enter the picture. He suggested
the neighbors might concede and agree to a single- family residence on the front of the property and a
duplex to the rear with driveway facilities at the back of the lot. He pleaded that the zoning be retained
as at present, or at least be closer to the present status than covered by the petition.
Mr. Paxton Davis, 1322 Sherman Street, stated he would like to see the block remain in single - family
residences.
Mr. Ward Ely, 1321 Sherman Street, stated there were two homes on the west side of Sherman Street in the
block under consideration which had no parking facilities whatsoever and consequently three or four cars
were parked on the street. He said he could accept the proposal more readily if more parking were provided.
He agreed with Mr. Birkholm's suggestion that the property be developed with a single- family residence and
a duplex or quadruplex if this could be planned with adequate parking facilities.
Mr. Birkholm requested the opportunity to speak briefly again and stated the hope of the neighbors was to
improve the area rather than to have it remain at status quo.
At this time, Mr. George Pagonis, Real Estate Broker with offices at 315 - 14th Street, Oakland, requested
the opportunity to speak as a proponent of the petition. He stated he had contracted with the present
owners to sell the property, subject to the requested rezoning. He asked that the Council consider the
position of his clients, who had purchased the property in 1959 with six or seven units and assumed that
the property was zoned for apartments. The neighbors had lived with the situation during the years. He
said if the rezoning should not be allowed his client would have a monetary loss.
The Hearing was declared closed. President La Croix spoke as to the possibilities for this property in the
event the - Council should not act favorably on the petition. In light of the statements made, he suggested
Mr. Bernardi return to the Planning Board and staff and possibly something could be worked out, such as a
single family - duplex combination. Mr. Johnson said this might be true but Mr. Bernardi's interest in the
property could very well terminate if the decision should be to deny the zone change. However, he said it
was his feeling that, regardless of who might be the owner, there should be further exploration on some
other zoning or other type of use for the property.
There was some discussion on types of development which might be constructed on the parcel. President
La Croix expressed strong feeling that the area should be maintained as a single- family dwelling zone. He
suggested the request be rejected and the owner be advised to go back to his architect and the Planning
Board and staff and come up with an alternative plan which would meet with approval by the neighbors and
the City.
Councilman Longaker said he hoped the neighbors realized it was not economically feasible for a developer
to put a single-family dwelling on the subject property and that they had a conciliatory frame of mind.
He moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be sustained and the petition be denied. Councilman
Levy seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall expressed the hope that the subject property would not lie
vacant for a long period of time.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
7. From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Improving
Eagle Avenue from Webster Street to Eighth Street, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Comple-
tion be ordered filed.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be followed, that work on the designated project be accepted and
the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
8. V From the Public Utilities Board, signed by the Secretary, with regard to reuse of its buildings at
Park Street and Otis Drive. The communication was in compliance with the Council's request at its last
meeting in connection with the suggestion that the buildings be used for cultural activities.
The Board had expressed the conclusion that the structural improvements on the property could not be
satisfactorily or economically remodeled to accommodate any reuse suggested or proposed, and that, in the
judgment of the Board, the property had significant attraction for residential development.
Councilman Fore moved the report be accepted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and unanimously
carried.
9. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map for
the subdivision known as Tract No. 3270, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report
dated December 23, 1970, including provision for park and recreational land or fee in lieu thereof. The
Map had been filed by Jones-Tillson & Associates for Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett on property at the south
end of Ninth Street at Portola Drive.
A communication had been received from the developers requesting credit for 6,000 square feet of lagoon
area within the subdivision to fulfill the requirements for reservation of lands for park and recreation
purposes in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1627, New Series.
It was stated this matter would be continued to the next regular meeting of the Council on January 19,
1971
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
10. Brought up at this time was the matter, continued from the meeting of December 15, 1970, of the
Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract No. 3258, on which the Planning Board had recommended
approval, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated December 4, 1970, and
certain other exceptions as noted. The Map had been filed by Jones-Tillson & Associates for Braddock &
Logan on its townhouse condominium development of 190 units on Bay Farm Island between Casitas Alameda
and Islandia No. 1, and known as Islandia No. 2.
On request, City Engineer Hanna explained the Division of Highways, in 1964 and in 1966, had required
some planning for a system of select streets for the entire City. This plan had been developed by the
City Engineer's office to serve as a general guide for a roadway system, specifically on Bay Farm Island.
Subsequently, when Tentative Maps had come in for approval, the Department had attempted to guide the
street systems of the proposed subdivisions to align reasonably well with this system of select streets.
Mr. Hanna said the Tentative Map for Tract No. 2730, Casitas Alameda, had included some minor alignment
deviations and one-half of a 64-foot roadway along the south boundary. In the City Engineer's Report
on the Map and subsequent alterations thereto, it had been recommended that one-half of an 88-foot
roadway be constructed at that point. The developer had decided to break up the project into three parts
and as the sections progressed the question had arisen whether the roadway, now known as Catalina Avenue,
should remain along the immediate southerly perimeter of Casitas Alameda or whether it might best serve
at a location more to the south. At the beginning of the process Shoreline Properties, Inc, had owned
both sides of the roadway so any relaxation of construction of the north half was of no real significance.
Plans had become congealed quite recently and Utah Construction & Mining Co. now had some pretty definite
thinking as to the plan it wished to submit to the City. It felt that a street belonged in the location
under discussion, that an 88-foot roadway was wider than necessary and their plans called for a 64-foot
road. Mr. Hanna said the City departments had examined the plans and agreed that the 64-foot roadway
would serve the plan now being considered by Utah and would be suitable, rather than the 88-foot width.
Mr. Hanna stated Islandia No. 1 had been planned with half of an 88-foot right of way on the same roadway,
and also Islandia No. 2 until recently. However, as a result of the review of Utah's latest thinking,
he said, he-felt this width was unnecessary and a 64-foot roadway would be adequate. Islandia No. 1,
which was bonded to put in half of the 88-foot roadway, would then effect a saving. Mr. Hanna said his
thinking was that it was now known a roadway belonged at the location under discussion and the basic
responsibility for Catalina Avenue should now be required and accepted by the developers of Casitas
Alameda. On question, he said the developer had not entirely agreed to comply.
In discussion with Messrs. John Hughes of Braddock & Logan, Building Developers, 14795 Washington Avenue,
San Leandro, Hanna and Cunningham, it was stated there had been agreement with regard to the provision
of right of way, construction of paving, curb, gutter and some storm drainage but not the sidewalks,
street trees and street lighting, at this time. Mr. Hanna stated, in reply to Mr. Cunningham's question,
that these improvements could be included as a requirement under Tract No. 3258, if the subdivider was
willing.
Mr. Hughes stated it was agreeable to his Company that this all be tied in with approval of Tract No. 3258
and the portion southerly of Islandia No. 1, already bonded for half of an 88 -foot street, would be
reduced to half of a 64 -foot roadway. He said it had been their request to bring the matter to a head and
not keep the bond going indefinitely but to do the street work next summer and clean the matter up.
On question, Mr. Johnson, Planning Director, stated he would recommend approval and concurrence.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be adopted and the Tentative Map for the
subdivision known as Tract No. 3258 be approved, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's
Report dated December 23, 1970, and construction of one -half of the 64 -foot roadway along the southerly
edges of Islandia Nos. 1 and 2 and Casitas Alameda (Catalina Avenue), as required by the City Engineer,
Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
11.x° Councilman McCall remarked that he had noted the City of Oakland Housing Authority had had problems
recently in collecting rent on its properties. He said he had found, on investigation, that checks were
sent to the individuals who would not sign them over to the Authority. He suggested that the Council
request of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda that, on persons on welfare and living within
a Housing Authority jurisdiction, the Welfare Department be directed to send a separate check to the
Housing Authority to cover rents and the balance of the money to the individual family. In this way h
felt the Housing Authority and the taxpayers of the community would be protected.
President La Croix remarked that the Board of Supervisors had requested a task force study committee on the
subject of welfare in the County. He, as Mayor of the City, had been requested to make an appointment to
the committee and he had named Councilman Longaker, who had graciously accepted. He said he felt Council=
man Longaker would represent the Council and the City very well in this situation.
President La Croix requested that Councilman Longaker bring to the attention of the committee the suggestion
made by Councilman McCall.
Councilman McCall said his thought was that the City would be going further into housing and it would be
advisable to be protected early in the game, rather than to find out too late that nothing could be accomp-
lished.
President La Croix commended Councilman McCall for his remarks.
12. President La Croix commented on the tentative report from the City Manager on the subject of a new
City Hall. He said he felt a new complex, including a City Hall and cultural facilities, was a project on
which the City should get started. He suggested the City Manager be requested to submit a space study of
the needs of City Hall, as he felt this would be one of the first aspects to be considered.
After some discussion, Mr. Weller was requested to proceed on such a study with City staff.
13. President La Croix, at this time, recognized and welcomed Mrs. Anne Diament, member of the Hous
Authority of the City of Alameda.
14. Councilman Longaker stated he had spoken with Dr. Malcolm, County Health Officer, who had stated i
was quite possible that the City of Alameda would soon have a mental health program. If this should come
pass, he said, the committee on this problem would deserve a tremendous amount of credit for their
untiring work.
RESOLUTIONS
15., The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7714
Appointing Member of the Pension Board." (George A. Hackleman)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
16.7 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7715
Calling General Municipal Election to be Held in the City of Alameda
on Tuesday, March 9, 1971; Establishing Election Precincts; Fixing
Number of Election Officers on the Board of Election for Each Precinct;
Fixing Compensation of Election Officers and Designating Hours of Voting."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall,
oho moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7716
Approving Warrant No. 173 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District
No. 2105"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, Jr., (1). Absent: None.
18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7717
Authorizing Execution of Cooperative Agreement with State of California
Relating to Traffic Control Signal System and Installation and Maintenance
of Pavement Markers and Stripes, and Superseding Prior Agreement Entered
Into October 21, 1969."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
19.v/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7718
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Replacement of
a Sanitary Sewer on Encinal Avenue East of High Street, Calling for Bids
and Directing City Clerk to advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
20. "Ordinance No. 1640,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4-333 Thereto,
Prohibiting Diving and Jumping from Both Sides, and Fishing from
East Side, of Cola Ballena Bridge."
Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman Levy seconded the motion
which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Councilman McCall explained the position he had taken at the last meeting when this ordinance was introduced--
as he was not aware, until after talking to Mr. Hanna, of the circumstances which had prompted the ordinance.
BILLS:
21. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $43,804.84, 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 Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on January 5,
1971, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by
Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
22. Mrs. Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, stated the residents in her neighborhood were still dissatisfied
with the recreation facilities provided for their children and those living in the townhouse developments.
She said they were actively interested in what happens with regard to recreation on Bay Farm Island.
23. Mrs. Lee-Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, inquired as to the Utah plan which the City Engineer had
mentioned in the discussion with regard to the Tentative Map on Tract No. 3258.
Mr. Hanna stated Utah had shown its present thinking in this matter and he expected the plan would be
presented for formal review in the not too distant future.
FILING:
24. Cooperative Agreement - Between City and State - re traffic control signal system at Maitland Drive
and Route 61 (Doolittle Drive).
25. Specifications No. PW 1-71-1 - Replacement of Sanitary Sewer on Encinal Avenue East of High Street.
MEMORIAL RESOLUTIONS:
26.4 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
7719
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to
Leonard E. Lee
WITH 'GREAT SORROW, the Council of the .City of Alameda records the death of one of
the City's most dedicated citizens, LEONARD E. LEE.
"WHEREAS, Mr. Lee had been an active participant in the fraternal and social life
the City; and
"WHEREAS, Mr. Lee had been the creator of the Alameda Boy's Club, had been its first
eader and had served on the Board of Directors of the organization since its inception; and
"WHEREAS, Mr. Lee had been tireless in his devotion to the idea of providing wholesome
leisure -time activities for boys of the City and had been actively instrumental, with the aid
of other civic- minded members of the community, in construction of permanent quarters and
facilities for the Boy's Club and establishment of a forward- moving program in this undertaking.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in acknowledgment of his selfless and inspiring
contribution of time and effort on behalf of the youth of the City, the Council of the City of
Alameda does hereby express its heartfelt gratitude for the endeavors of this exceptional man
and its sense of personal loss in his passing.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread in full upon the minutes of
this meeting and a copy thereof be sent to the family of Mr. Lee in order that it might convey
to its members a sincere expression of sympathy in their bereavement.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this meeting of the Council of the City of Alameda
adjourns, it shall do so in respect to the memory of LEONARD E. LEE, whose demise will be deeply
felt by the community."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the folio
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
The President requested that all stand for a moment of silence in observance of the passing of Mr.
Lee.
ADJOURNMENT:
27. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the
memory of LEONARD E. LEE, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, January 19, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk