Loading...
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