Loading...
1971-12-07 Regular CC Minutes330 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY DECEMBER 7, 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 an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Doyle D. Dewberry, Pastor of Calvary Baptist 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 November 16, 1971, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2./ From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary, requesting approval of Warrant No. 178 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund. The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".v 3. From Mesdames Alice M. Klingel, Harriett M. Smith, Mari Ferguson, Carol Heche, Geneva Twist, Vera George Knox and D'Arcy Hamilton, on the subject of moderate - priced living quarters for elderly residents. 4. _, From Alameda Junior Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, endorsing and recommending transfer of the Bureau of Electricity property at 920 Park Street to the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda for construction of low -rent housing for senior citizens of Alameda. President La Croix recalled, after the proposal of Mr. William S. Godfrey on behalf of the Housing Authority that the site of the former Bureau plant be used for low -rent units for elderly citizens, the Council had directed that a feasibility study be made of the highest and best use of the parcel, on which no recommendation had yet been received. He said certain questions had been raised with regard to the proposal and emphasized that no action would be taken on the matter until the Council had had the opportunity to thoroughly consider all facts and information. 5. y' From Mrs. Leonora Luntsford, 1143 Mound Street, suggesting the former light plant building at Park Street and Otis Drive be used for an indoor plunge. The communication was to be acknowledged and referred to the file on the subject. 6. V' From Doric Development, Inc., signed by Mr. Ronald H. Cowan, President, with regard to provision of individual utility services and "in lieu of" fee for parks and recreation in connection with multi- family structures. City Attorney Cunningham, on request, stated the City ordinances were clear on the legal questions raised by Mr. Cowan and condominiums were within the concept of subdivisions; the policy questions would be for consideration of the Council. Councilman McCall expressed the opinion that the complete situation of conversion of apartments to condominiums and other aspects of the question should be reviewed by the involved members of the City staff, with a report to the Council on the matter. Mr. Cunningham stated he and the Planning Director had discussed the matter and the Planning staff was in the process of making a study covering substantially what Councilman McCall had suggested. It was agreed that the study should be continued, with eventual report to the Council thereon. 7.` From Mrs. George R. Osborne, 656 Westline Drive, urging that the request by the developer for land credit in lieu of cash be rejected in connection with recreation lands required on the subdivision known as Tract 3373, condominium project of Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett. It was stated that Mrs. Osborne would have the opportunity to speak at the time of consideration of the matter under "Unfinished Business ", if she so desired. 8. From Davis, Craig & Bartalini, Attorneys for Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett, developers, with regard to the proposed credit for private open space in connection with the subdivision known as Tract 3373. President La Croix stated a representative of this firm would also have the opportunity to speak on behalf of his client at the time the matter was considered later in the meeting. 9. V From Raymond H. Levy, Inc., Attorneys for owners of adjacent property, requesting abandonment of section of Sixth Street south of Central Avenue. The matter was referred to the City Manager for review by the City Engineer and report and recommendation to the Council. On a question by Councilman Longaker, Mr. Hanna stated at one time the Hideaway Theater had been located at the southerly extremity of Sixth Street. He said he was under the impression that only one -half of the intended street had ever been dedicated. It was pointed out that, should the Council take action to abandon the street area, the land would revert to the adjacent property owners. HEARINGS: 10. v In the Matter of a Petition to Rezone from the "R-1", One-Family Residence, to the "R-1-PD", One- Family Residence, Planned Development District, a certain 7.23-acre site westerly of Bay Farm Island Bridge and southerly of Otis Drive, commonly known as the Hester property. The Petition had been filed by Knuppe Development Co., Inc. The Planning Board had recommended the rezoning be granted, contingent upon approval of the Planned Development plan. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice that this would be the time and place for the Hearing on the matter and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. Received too late for listing on the agenda was a communication from the Bayview Estates Homeowners' Association, setting forth three specific objections to the development proposed for the subject area and urging that the Council consider the wishes of the Association in the matter. On request, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board on the petition, as set forth in its letter dated November 11, 1971. The applicant proposed to construct sixty-three condominium units, using the modified cluster townhouse concept, a recreation building and certain open spaces. He proposed that all roadways within the project be private. Mr. Johnson stated the matter of the precise development would come before the Board as a Planned Develop- ment project, the application therefor having already been filed. He said presentations had been made at the Board Hearing by the applicant, and questions of traffic increase, the effect on property values, the appearance, protection of the beach, et cetera, had been discussed. It had been pointed out to the repre- sentatives of the Bayview Estates Homeowners' Association that, whether the zone change was allowed or not, any development of the parcel would have the potential of increasing traffic in the Bayview Estates develop- ment and that their questions might also have to be raised with single family detached or any other kinds of development. He said the applicant had indicated he was desirous that this zone change be conditional upon approval of his final plan and had so requested as the property was at the moment in an escrow which was conditional to approval of his final development plan. Mr. Johnson said the Board had found that the "R-1-PD" zoning was in many ways more restrictive than "R-1" and that any subsequent approvals of develop- ment of the property would require approval on both Planned Development under "PD" and as a subdivision. It was pointed out that the rezoning action would not commit the Council to any particular development. The applicant had filed his application the day before the new Planned Development ordinance had become effective and the Council would therefore not be involved in final approval of the plan; however, the development would come before the Council for approval of the subdivision. There was discussion with regard to the desire of the applicant that, should the Planned Development plan and subdivision map be disapproved, the zone change would not be adopted. City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and recommendations of the Planning Board and its report, based upon Section 11-175 of the Municipal Code, should be sustained, modified or disapproved. He pointed out there had been prepared, in the event the Council should decide to act favorably on the petition, an ordinance which would accomplish the rezoning; however, it did not present a conditional rezoning, as requested by the applicant. President La Croix expressed the thinking that the developer desired the condition to protect his own interests and the action of the Council should be to protect the best interests of the City and not neces- sarily those of the developer. It was agreed that under the circumstances the ordinance as prepared would be acceptable. On the call for proponents, Mr. Donald Bissell of the Civil Engineering firm of Bissell & Karn, Inc, San Leandro, addressed the Council as the representative of the developer, who extended his apologies for not being able to attend the meeting as he was out of the country. Mr. Bissell introduced Messrs. John Sue of the firm of Ribera & Sue, Landscape Architects and planners for the project, and James B. Davis, Attorney with the firm of Davis, Craig & Bartalini. Mr. Bissell explained that the proposed project was not a condominium in the true sense of the word, but a town home development so that the land under the units would be conveyed along with the units. He called attention to an exhibit on the board showing one of the three alternate proposals. Mr. Sue displayed slides indicating the way the plan would orient to Otis Drive and Bayview Drive. He said the developers had been working with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission staff with regard to the desirability of continuing the public access along the water side of the project. He said the proposal was to keep the beach intact in its present condition and clean it up somewhat. There was discussion with respect to the traffic problem on Otis Drive, a possible second bridge and access to the beach areas with relation to the proposed project. On the call for opponents, Mr. Joseph Barker, 351 Laguna Vista Drive, Director and Acting President of the Bayview Estates Homeowners' Association, came forward. He said the Association was not opposed to the rezoning and felt the proposed development would be an asset to the adjoining Bayview Estates providing the recommendations of the Association were taken into account. He said the organization opposed the type of construction, which they felt was inferior to that in Bayview Estates, and were concerned about the traffic problem. He pointed out the objections set forth in the Association's letter: (1) extension of Bayview Drive to connect with High Street; (2) any development of the Hester Tract unless garages were constructed, an access road were provided to the beach area which would allow City trucks to reach the beach for cleanup purposes, deed restrictions would call for no exposed television antennas, clothes lines, basketball backboards and similar items, underground distribution of utilities; (3) any type of construction not equal to or better than that in Bayview Estates. He said he wished to present the objections at this time in order that the Planning Board would have them on record at the time of final approval of the plan. 332 President La Croix said he felt most of the objections would be written into a homeowners' agreement and the covenants and restrictions at the time of the proposed development and the developer would be amenable to the majority of the points. Mrs. Joy Osborne raised questions on the "R -1" and "R -1 -PD" zoning of the property, by which, in view of the date of his application, the developer could go back to the "R -1" zoning if he so desired. She wondered why there was a question of conditional rezoning, as it seemed moot and clouded the issue. Mr. Johnson explained the confusion existed over the timing of the application, as Mr. Knuppe had come in under the terms of the old ordinance and any subsequent developer would be bound by the new ordi- nance and would not have the choice of which Mrs. Osborne spoke. President La Croix declared the Hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Council. Councilman Levy moved the petition for rezoning the specified property from the "R -1 ", One - Family Resi- dence, to the "R- 1 -PD ", One- Family Residence, Planned Development District, be granted. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The matter was referred to "Introduction of Ordinances ". REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 11. ' From the Bureau of Electricity, signed by Mr. L. F. Randall, Commercial Manager, submitting the annual ten -year Financial and Statistical Forecast. Councilman McCall moved the presentation be accepted with appreciation. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 12. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending rezoning from the "C -2 ", Central Business, to the "R -5 ", General Apartment District, certain properties known as 2507, 2513 and 2515 Central Avenue. The Hearing on this petition was set for the next regular meeting of the Council on December 21, 1971. 13. From the City Manager, recommending the contract be awarded to Nixon-Egli Equipment Co., Inc., sole bidder, for furnishing a Street Sweeper for the Street Department at a price of $18,438.33. Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be adopted, that the contract be awarded to the designated company for furnishing the Sweeper for the specified Department at the price quoted. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman Longaker suggested that establishment of a schedule for street sweeping be attempted. Mr. Hanna said he agreed this would be desirable and he had spent a -great deal of time trying to accomplish such a program. He was requested to look into the matter again. 14. From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily' completed on the project of Improving Santa Clara Avenue from Grand Street to Park Street, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be followed, that the work be accepted as satisfactorily completed on the designated project and the Notice of Completion'be filed. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 15. 4 Brought up for consideration at this time was the matter of the Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract 3373, a 42 -unit condominium project on Ballena Boulevard and Cola Ballena for Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett, developers. Mr. Johnson said there was displayed on the board an illustration of the proposed subdivision. He explained that it would be a full condominium development on a parcel which was previously approved for a 200 -unit apartment building. Because of conditions which had developed, the land had been sold to Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett and it was their proposal to develop the 42 -unit project. The question had arisen under the appropriate City ordinance and State law as to whether land should be dedicated, a fee be paid in lieu thereof or whether the open space as substituted by the developer would provide for the land dedication requirement. He said under the ordinance the fee in lieu of land dedication is a requirement to be made or the Board and Council could elect to accept the substitution of privately maintained open space. The Planning Board had so found. He said there was approximately 20,000 square feet of open land in the center of the proposed subdivision exclusive of private patios, driveways, walkways, et cetera, as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which had approved the project. The sole finding to be made was whether or not the 20,000 square feet of open recreational area was a reasonable substitution for the land dedication requirement. He expressed the opinion that the area proposed to serve the rather expensive condominium project would probably be a good deal more than adequate. Mr. Cunningham said the issue before the Council was whether or not the credit for the private open spaces should be permitted. He said if it were found it was in the public interest to allow the credit and the five items enabling the Council to grant the credit were present, he would agree that the obligation was to allow the private credit. 333 Councilman McCall called attention to the communication dated December 3, 1971, from Davis, Craig & Bartalini, Attorneys, signed by Mr. Samuel P. Young, and inquired if the City Attorney had any differences with the legal opinions expressed in the letter. Mr. Cunningham stated that insofar as the letter dis- cussed the ordinance and its legal implications he did not differ with it; however, insofar as it adopted an advocacy position and argued that the criteria had been met, he said he had no comment. Mr. Jack Gallagher, member of the firm of Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett, addressed the Council on the subject. He called attention to the illustrations on the board describing the ordinance and manner in which it would work. He said his firm felt it should be granted credit for the open space, that the areas required by BCDC would be landscaped and maintained by the developers as public lands, as opposed to the private open space in the center of the project. Mr. Gallagher said the provision that the open space would remain as planned was guaranteed in the covenants and restrictions and he read a statement which would be included therein, as follows: "The land described as open space on the map shall remain open space for recreational use by the residents of the condominium project. The open space shall be maintained by the Board as provided in Paragraph 7H. This subparagraph 17B cannot be amended or terminated without the consent of the City Council of the City of Alameda, State of California." He distributed copies of the statement to the members of the Council and said the final draft of the covenants and restrictions would be completed at approximately the time the Final Map would be submitted for approval. He said it was not anticipated that there would be many children in the proposed project and it was felt that the developer would be able to provide the necessary recreational facilities without burdening any of the City's other facilities. After brief further discussion for clarification and upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman McCall moved that the Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract 3373 be approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Board and subject to all terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated November 4, 1971, with the Council finding of credit for private open space in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 -328 of the Municipal Code. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. RESOLUTIONS: 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7864 Authorizing Execution of Amandment to Cooperative Agreement Between State and City Relating to Modification of Certain Existing Traffic Control Signal System." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 17. ` The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7865 Approving Warrant No. 178 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2105." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. 18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7866 Amending Salary Resolution No. 7806 by Deleting One (1) Position of Laborer in the Golf Department." 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. 19. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7867 Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Contract N62474 -67 -C -0153 (Modification PO00013) Relating to Special Services Furnished by City to U. S. Navy Off- Station Public Quarters." 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. 20. 'The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7868 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Appreciation and Commendation of Alan S. Hart for His Service to the City." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted. 334 INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 21. Councilman McCall moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Regulations." The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman McCall said he felt the persons, undoubtedly members of the Engineering Department, respons- ible for the very prompt action in alleviating the traffic problems at Blanding and Clement Avenues and Park Street should be commended and thanked for the expeditious manner in which the situation had been handled. 22. 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 An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series." (From "R -1 ", One - Family, to "R- 1 -PD ", One - Family Residence, Planned Development District - Knuppe Development Co., Inc.) The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 23. "Ordinance No. 1655, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 2 -312 Thereof, Relating to Membership of Recreation Commission." Councilman McCall 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. BILLS: 24. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $64,322.75, 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 Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on December 7, 1971, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. AYes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 25. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, expressed appreciation for the article in the Alameda Times -Star on the recent flooding on Webster Street. He presented snapshots taken of drainage conditions back to the year 1933, indicating that he had been arguing on this subject since that time. Mr. Gottstein questioned the need for mentioning that correction of the problem would cost the City a million dollars. He requested that the members of the Council speak on the subject. Councilman McCall stated if Mr. Gottstein wished to complain about the City Engineer his remarks must be directed to the President as Mayor of the City. He said he had noted at the time of the Webster Street flooding Lake Merritt had overflowed into Lake Merritt Drive and in the evening the drainage from the Lake had been the heaviest he had ever seen. He said he would back the City Engineer to the hilt. President La Croix stated the City Engineer had reported that the problem of rain accumulation could possibly be alleviated if the City were to spend in the area of a million dollars for the purpose. He said there were many other more important needs in the City on which he would feel inclined to spend such funds. He said he felt the inconvenience of a little water for a short while from time to time during the year was not worth such a sum. He said he would like to feel that the majority of the elected representatives of the City felt the same as he did on the subject. Mr. Gottstein went on to complain about the system of draining the storm waters from the College of Alameda through a sewer which was already inadequate. Councilman Longaker said he did not claim to be either a plumber or an engineer and if there was a question concerning engineering matters he turned to the City Engineer for his opinions. He said the Council had not as yet received a recommendation from the City Engineer or the City Manager as to how the problem should be corrected or the cost. He agreed it was unfortunate but he agreed that inasmuch as it happened only a few times a year a million dollars could be better spent in other ways. He remarked that the problem of flooding on Nason Street had not been resolved; he did not know the answer and wished that a solution could be found. Mr. Hanna stated he felt the whole subject was much bigger than any one of the several facets being discussed. He pointed out there was the Webster Street flooding, the problem on Nason Street, the million- dollar cost, that all of these points were separate components of a total problem. Discussing one facet was all right within certain limits but when extended beyond those limits the subject was no longer germane. On further discussion, Mr. Hanna stated the Del Monte Corporation would install storm drains to serve its land which was relatively high, but this would have no particular effect on Webster Street drainage. He said he had previously explained rather completely that the College of Alameda did not in total drain into the Webster Street drain, that about one quarter of the water still flowed into the Webster Street drain but the additional water from the College was eliminated to the north, as suggested by Mr. Gottstein. He said the pipes seen by Mr. Gottstein were close to Webster Street and they produced no more water than was coming in there previously. President La Croix stated at such time as the Council wished to concern itself with this problem action would be considered and at that time he was sure Mr. Gottstein would be aware of the fact. FILING: 26. Amendment to Cooperative Agreement - Between City and State - re Modification of Certain Existing Traffic Control Signal System. 27. Amendment to Contract No. N62474 -67 -C -0153 (Modification P000013) - Between Department of Navy and City - re Special Services Furnished U. S. Navy Off- Station Public Quarters. 28. Councilman Longaker moved the Council retire to an executive session for consideration of appoint- ments to City Boards, Commissions and Committees. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and unanimously carried. After a five - minute recess, the Council reconvened in the Conference Room, No. 303, for its deliberations. Following brief discussion, Councilman Longaker moved that Mrs. Barbara Roth, 457 Taylor Avenue, be appointed as a member of the Charter Amendment Advisory Committee to replace Mr. Kenneth Kofman, who had resigned. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: 29. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, December 21, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk