1971-10-19 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY OCTOBER 19, 1971
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Longaker and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by
The Reverend Father Donald Broderson, Assistant Pastor of St. Philip Neri's 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 October 5, 1971, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Mr. Mark E. Happ, 3221 Thompson Avenue, requesting the opportunity to speak to the City Council
on behalf of the Christmas Tree Lane Committee.
Mr. Happ was invited to address the Council at this time. He called attention to the brochure which had
been mailed to the Councilmen on the subject entitled, "Alameda's Christmas Tree Lane ", and summarized the
document which covered the history of the illumination of trees on Thompson Avenue between High Street and
Fernside Boulevard at the Holiday Season. He recalled that at its meeting of December 3, 1963, the City
Council had adopted a policy of accepting the responsibility of lighting the street at the Christmas season;
lights, wire and any necessary conduit or other special equipment required was to be donated by the indivi-
duals or organizations sponsoring the program and the expense of maintaining and replacing these items
would be borne by the City.
Mr. Happ said the maintenance and repairs of the equipment had been minimal and as of December, 1970, there
were lights sufficient for only four trees and only three trees had been decorated. A letter from the City
had informed the group that it was no longer safe or practicable to decorate the trees and enthusiasm of
the residents in decorating their homes had likewise diminished during these seven years. Mr. Happ
requested that the policy indicated by the Council in 1963 be enforced at this time so that eleven trees
would be properly lighted this year and in future years.
President La Croix inquired as to participation by the homeowners on the block in support of any action the
Council might take in this matter and formation of a permanent committee to meet and work with the City
Engineer during the year prior to the Holiday Season to be sure that everything necessary would be done.
Mr. Happ said he felt he could speak for the residents that this could be assured.
It was suggested that this effort could be handled as a Chamber of Commerce venture with monies allocated
through the City as an advertising media and the block under discussion be designated as "Christmas Tree
Lane" for the City, hopefully to continue with future Councils.
Upon request for comment, City Engineer Hanna read from a letter by Mr. James Cowan, General Manager of the
Bureau of Electricity, quoting on the cost of material, labor and energy for lighting three, seven and
eleven trees this year and expected expense in future years. On the proposal to light seven trees the
estimated cost for the first year would be $1165 with a cost for each subsequent year of $880; for eleven
trees, which he felt the residents desired, the cost would be $1835 the first year and $1315 each subse-
quent year, with approximately $500 the first year for overhead and equipment.
President La Croix said he felt if a lighting project were to be properly done and continued on an annual
basis, with every resident of the area participating and a standing committee to work with the City to keep
it going, an outstanding display could accrue to the benefit of the City. He said he would like to see an
area formally designated for this purpose. Other members of the Council expressed agreement.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman McCall moved the City participate to the extent required as
indicated by the City Engineer from advertising funds in addition to those already allocated to the Chamber
of Commerce, that the policy set by the City Council at its regular meeting held December 3, 1963, with
regard to illuminating trees on Thompson Avenue between High Street and Fernside Boulevard be reaffirmed
and followed in this and future cases, and that eleven trees be lighted this year. Councilman Longaker
seconded the motion.
There was some discussion as to whether this matter should be handled through the Chamber of Commerce or
directly by the City. It was decided to act on the motion as originally made.
Councilman Fore said he understood that the particular block of Thompson Avenue under discussion would then
be the only "Christmas Tree Lane" in the City of Alameda and he wished the record to so indicate. An amend-
ment to the motion to include this stipulation was acceptable to Councilmen McCall and Longaker.
On question, Mr. Hanna stated he felt the motion was clear. The question was then put and the motion, as
amended, carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Mr. Happ, on behalf of the Homeowners Association, thanked the Council for its consideration and asked
that the large group attending with their families might be excused at this time.
3. From Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, with regard to the Planned Development Ordinance revision,
on which the continued Hearing was scheduled for this meeting.
President La Croix stated Mrs. Lane had not been able to attend the meeting. She had followed the matter
for some time and, should action be taken on the proposed revision this evening, it was hoped that she
would concur. The communication was referred to the file on the subject.
4. From Central Labor Council of Alameda County, signed by Mr. Richard K. Groulx, Executive Secretary,
requesting the opportunity to address the City Council concerning the League of California Cities.
President La Croix requested that the City Manager notify Mr. Groulx that a representative of the Labor
Council might appear before the City Council at its next regular meeting on November 2, 1971, under "Oral
Communications, Agenda ".
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
5. V/ Mr. William S. Godfrey, 1235 Hawthorne Street, former Mayor of the City of Alameda and presently a
Commissioner of the Housing Authority, addressed the Council. He offered his congratulations upon the
action with regard to "Christmas Tree Lane ", which he was glad to see continued as a tradition in the
City.
Mr. Godfrey read from a prepared statement presenting a plan for the disposition and use of the site of
the former Bureau of Electricity plant at 920 Park Street. He said the Housing Authority would like to
see the property transferred to the Authority for the express and specific purpose of constructing
approximately forty units of housing designated for elderly occupancy. It was proposed that the Authority
would accept title with a reversionary clause similar to that enjoyed on all Authority properties and it
would, at no cost to the City, arrange for the demolition, site clearance, rezoning and construction of
the units for occupancy by elderly citizens at rents which they could afford to pay. During the period
of Authority control the property would not be exempt from taxes as it was at the present time. He said
he was not prepared at this time to present full details; however, the Authority's objective in the
venture would be to serve the City's elderly citizens by providing decent, safe and sanitary dwelling
units at economical rates and he believed this objective would be synonymous with the objectives of the
Council.
Mr. Godfrey said the Authority's Executive Director was preparing a package in detail, including construc-
tion and finance costs and projected rental income over a twenty -year base period, for presentation to
the Council at its pleasure. He said he earnestly believed the plan would demonstrate (1) the City's
interest in and concern for its elderly citizens, (2) a beneficial effect on the surrounding properties,
(3) tax revenue for the City, (4) benefits which could be supported by the City Planner, (5) control over
the property by and management through the Housing Authority and (6) ownership of the property remaining
with the City under the reversionary rights. He thanked the Council for the opportunity of presenting
this plan in the name of the Housing Authority and offered to answer any questions of a general nature.
Upon request for comment, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, said the proposed project seemed to be
a beneficial and compatible use, not standard multiple residential, with less disturbance to the estab-
lished neighborhood and to existing traffic patterns and uses than from commercial development.
Councilman McCall said he had contacted old residents of the area, who had indicated they would object
to a service station or other commercial development on the site. He said he questioned the validity
of the location for the proposed type of project and posed the question as to what might happen in
twenty years and what guarantee the people of the neighborhood would have that the project would be
operated and maintained in a first -class manner.
Mr. Godfrey said if the property had been properly managed, upon reversion of the site and improvements
to the City after the twenty -year period, he would assume the City would then enter into another twenty -
year lease to keep the project going. He said he assumed the Council would not want to make a decision
on the proposal at this meeting and that it would want to refer the matter to the Planning Board for
study and recommendation, at which time the Authority would be prepared to make a full -scale presentation.
There was a lengthy discussion on the proposed sale of the property, the procedure for its sale and the
proposal by the Housing Authority for use of the land.
President La Croix suggested that the communication from the Bureau of Electricity, on the agenda under
"Reports and Recommendations ", requesting authorization to proceed with sale of the subject property
with the firm of Callan, Stroud & Dale as the Agent in the matter, be taken up for consideration at this
time, that the Bureau be informed the Housing Authority would be requested to present to the Council a
program as outlined by Mr. Godfrey with regard to the possibility of developing senior citizen type
homes on the property, that the proposal be presented to the Public Utilities Board for its consideration
and comment and then to the Planning Board and City Council for deliberation and consideration before
any action was taken on disposal of the property, and that the. City Attorney be instructed to elaborate
on the legal facts and the involvement of the Council in the sale of the property.
After some further discussion, Councilman Longaker moved the matter of disposal of the property at 920
Park Street be referred to the Planning Board to determine its highest and best use, that Mr. Godfrey or
other representative of the Housing Authority, if so desired, present its proposal to the Board, that
all consideration be given to the Public Utilities Board and that lines of communication be kept open
between the Bureau, the Public Utilities Board, the Planning Board and the Housing Authority. Councilman
Levy seconded the motion.
Councilman McCall, speaking on the question, inquired if other people were being ruled out of quoting on
the property. He was assured that the recommendation of the Bureau of Electricity would be continued
until the proposal of the Housing Authority could be considered by the Planning Board with information to
the Bureau of Electricity, and returned to the Council.
Incidentally, Mr. Godfrey called attention to the Ground Breaking Ceremony to be held by the Housing
Authority at its Third and Brush Streets site of the 120 -unit low- income housing project on Friday,
October 22, 1971, at 3:30 o'clock p.m., to which the public was invited.
At this time, Mr. Dolph Siotemaker, Salesman with the real estate firm of Harry A. Parks, Inc., Oakland,
addressed the Council. He said he had a client who had been interested in the subject property for some
time. He said the Public Utilities Board had indicated that the optimum return to the City would be by
rezoning the property to commercial use rather than residential. His client had acted upon the fact
that this would presumably be the decision of the City Council and he had an offer of $200,000 for the
property which he was obligated to submit to the City. Mr. Slotemaker explained briefly his client's
proposed use for the site.
Mr. Cunningham pointed out the Council was not at the moment considering actual sale of the property and
was in no position to evaluate bids. He suggested the bid not be accepted as a formal offer to buy
property and Mr. Siotemaker be advised to keep in touch with the City offices with regard to the status
of the property and its ultimate disposition, as determined by the Council.
Mrs. Laurie Malcolmson, Director of the Senior Activity Center meeting at Christ Church Parish Hall and
sponsored by the Adult School and the Council of Churches, addressed the Council. She said she was also
a member of the Alameda Committee on Aging which had been studying the matter of obtaining housing for
senior citizens in the community for a number of years. She said a survey had been taken of 81 members
of the senior program regarding their housing situation and she would like the Council to study the
Authority's proposal.
After brief further discussion, the question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
HEARINGS:
6. s,,. Continued from the regular meeting held August 3, 1971, was the Matter of the proposed revision of
the Planned Development section of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series).
The matter had been referred to the City staff for further clarification of the proposed revision and for
certain changes the Council felt were necessary.
Mr. Johnson, Planning Director, stated the proposed ordinance concerned a major revision to the present
pertinent section of the Code. He briefly reviewed the points covered as set forth in the Board's letter
dated June 21, 1971, and the changes which had been made in the document to include certain basic controls
which it was felt more properly belonged at the Council level as a matter of communication and of general
interest on the part of the Council to determine the direction the Board and private developers were
taking. The sections which had been changed were Sections 11- 1358.4, 11- 1358.7, 1358.9 and 11- 1358.10, as
set forth in his memorandum dated October 14, 1971. The change requested by the Council was covered by
the addition of Paragraph (c) to Section 11- 1358.9, to provide Council review of Planned Development pro-
posals affected by Section 11- 1358.4 for approval or referral back to the Planning Board for reconsidera-
tion. Mr. Johnson said it was felt the change on this paragraph now presented to the Council represented
its objective. The sub - paragraph was intended to be a vehicle for communication between the Board and
the Council to inform the Council of current Planned Development proposals and also to allow the Council
to express current objectives or interest regarding any proposal at any given time.
Councilmen Longaker and Fore expressed approval of the changes.
Councilman McCall inquired, in the event the Council should object unanimously to a feature of a proposal,
whether the Planning Board could still pass the development. Mr. Cunningham explained that while the
change would bring every Planned Development to the Council it did not provide a veto power unless it was
affected by Section 11- 1358.4. The Board would have to reconsider the matter in the light of the Council's
disapproval.
Councilman McCall inquired as to the provisions of Section 11- 1358.10 - Approval of Final Development Plan.
Mr. Cunningham explained that if everything had been satisfactory with the preliminary plan, it had met
with approval by the Board and the Council if affected by Section 11- 1358.4, and the final plan had been
submitted by the developer, the Planning Director or the Board, at its option, would inspect this plan for
substantial compliance with the preliminary plan. If it should not comply with the original plan the
developer would have to go back and start over with the regulations of Section 11- 1358.9.
It was pointed out that it was this Section on which Mrs. Lane had indicated particular concern.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that final plans would be required only for developments involving more than two
acres in area and those not requiring subdivision.
Mr. Johnson commended Mr. Bernard Carter of the Planning Department staff, who had prepared the ordinance
revision.
Mr. John Barni, Jr., 1277 Bay Street, remarked that the proposed ordinance revision had not been available
to citizens for perusal. It was stated the proposal had been published in the Notices designating the
time and place for Hearing by the Board and the Council. Mr. Cunningham stated the ordinance being amended
provided for notification procedure and publication. He noted that the legislative procedure in the
adoption of ordinances did not provide for publication and wide dissemination until final passage, when
it is published in accordance with the City Charter's provisions.
There being no objections, the order of business proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances ".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
7. Councilman Levy moved the following ordinance be introduced, 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 11 -1353 Through
11 -1357 Thereof, and Adding Sections 11 -1358 Through 11- 1358.13 Thereto,
Relating to Planned Development Combining Zoning Districts."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
President La Croix complimented the Planning staff, the Planning Board and the City Attorney for the
excellent work and effort put into this amendment.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
8. v Councilman McCall brought up the subject of a fishing pier in the City of Alameda. He suggested
if nothing was to be done about such a facility that at least a boat ramp might be constructed at minor
expense. He said he would like to know the legal owner of the property behind Encinal High School on
the water side and of the property from the end of the cul de sac between the fences, and whether the
people of Alameda could legally put a boat into the Bay on the South Shore without having to go to
Grand Street or around the old mole, as there were many bass in that area at the present time. He said
he felt the Regional Park District was not going to make a move in this matter, the State was belaboring
the point and the fishing pier was not forthcoming from Ballena Bay. He requested that the City Attorney
be directed to work with the City Engineer on the possibility of the site he had mentioned being used
as a public boat ramp, even if only for access.
Mr. Cunningham stated it was his opinion and that of the City Engineer that the site in question was owned
by the Alameda Unified School District. He said he and Mr. Hanna would be willing to undertake an inquiry
of the Superintendent of the School District as to his feelings on the use of the land by some device and
the construction, if so desired, on District property.
Councilman McCall stated he felt he could get Wildlife Conservation Board funds for development of the
property.
Mr. Cunningham was requested to pursue this matter, in conjunction with Mr. Hanna, with the Alameda Unified
School District and to investigate a possible lease agreement with the Wildlife Conservation Board.
9. Councilman Fore inquired as to the status of the Widening of Eighth Street. Mr. Hanna stated the
project involving the area from Portola Avenue north was waiting for discussion with the Recreation
Director and then the Recreation Commission, who had asked for a special meeting on the subject. He
said this could be done in the next few weeks.
Mr. Hanna was requested to pursue the question as expeditiously as possible.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Councilman Fore stated that at the peak hours of traffic drivers stopping to look at automobiles
in the used car lot at the southwest corner of Buena Vista Avenue and Park Street reduced the street to
one lane of traffic. He said the "No Parking" signs had been turned around and were not visible from
the street.
Mr. Hanna said he would be glad to investigate this situation.
11.V Councilman McCall complained that left -hand turns were not permitted off Park Street onto Clement
or Blanding Avenues at the peak hours but many vehicles made left -hand turns coming from Paceco onto
the Park Street Bridge although there was a "No Left Turn" sign.
Mr. Hanna stated this situation would also be investigated.
RESOLUTIONS:
12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7848
Prescribing Duties of Charter Amendment Advisory Committee."
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.
13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7849
Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1)
Industrial Type Tractor - Loader with Three Point Hitch for the Golf Course,
Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
14.N The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7850
Acknowledging Appointment of Member of Building Code Board of Appeals."
(Mr. Robert Duncan Nicol)
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.
President La Croix commented that Mr. Nicol, who had been present but had left the meeting, was an architect,
licensed by the American Institute of Architects, possessed of outstanding ability, was a musician, and
was quite concerned about the City, its architecture and its goals. He said he mentioned these facts as
Mr. Nicol was totally deaf but had tremendous ability to act with fellow members in meetings of boards.
He said he felt very strongly about Mr. Nicol's capabilities.
15. `'The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7851
Appointing Member of the Recreation Commission." (Mr. Raymond P. Kranelly)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7852
Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1) New,
Latest Model Eight Channel Recorder, Dual Transport Logging System for the
Police Department, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise
Same."
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 President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
BILLS:
17. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $23,373 71, 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 October 19,
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:
18. Mr. Louis Baca, 886 Cedar Street, on behalf of the co- owners of the Yarn Barn at 928 -A Central Avenue,
complained that the parking regulations in the 900 -block of Central Avenue were not being enforced.
It was stated this matter would be investigated.
FILING:
19. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity as of August 31, 1971 - Verified by
George A. Hackleman.
20. Auditor's Report - City of Alameda for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1971 - Verified by George A.
Hackleman.
21. Specifications No. MSP 10 -71 -6 - One Tractor - Loader for Golf Course.
22. Specifications No. MSP 10 -71 -7 - One Logging System for Police Department.
ADJOURNMENT:
23. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, November 2, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk