Loading...
1969-07-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING- JULY 15, 1969 The meeting convened at 7:30 ofclock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman McCall and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Sherwood Daily, who was welcomed as the newly-appointed Pastor of the First United Methodist Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and (5), were noted present. Absent: None. President La Croix welcomed to the meeting Mr. Jerry Healy, Teacher Alameda High School, and about thirty students of the Government class. MINUTES: President La Croix, Jr. in the summer session at 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held July 1, 1969, were approved as transcribed. HEARINGS: 2.1 In the Matter of a Petition to rezone vacant property known as Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 244, at the easterly end of the block bordered by Sandcreek Way, Willow Street and Whitehall Place from the "R-1", One-Family Residence District, to the "R-2", Two-Family Residence District. The Petition was filed by Mr. Bruno G. Santone. The Planning Board had recommended that the appli- cation be denied. The City Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publication setting this time and place for the Hearing on this matter was on file. The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board at which the Petition was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. A communication had been received from the South Shore Isle Homeowners Association, signed by Mrs. Edna Lipsius, Secretary, requesting that the Council act favorably on this petition. President La Croix recited the issue before the Council, as covered in the memorandum dated July 8, 1969, from City Attorney Cunningham, who was on vacation. This was whether the findings and recom- mendation of the Board and its advisory report based upon Section 11-175 of the Alameda Municipal Code should be approved, modified or disapproved. Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, on request, reviewed the action of the Planning Board. He pointed out the property to the east of the parcel in question was zoned "A-P", Administrative- Professional District, to the south the zoning was "R-5-PD", and to the north and west "R-1". The Staff had supported the "R-2" change with the thinking that the land use proposed was probably the highest and best for the property in the light of existing uses in the immediate and surrounding areas. He stated the applicant planned to further divide the property into six lots and to construct six duplex dwellings. Mr. Santone had submitted a design for two dwellings indicating the type of construction he proposed. It was considered harmonious with the development in the general vicinity. Five people, all owners of single-family dwellings adjacent to the west, had appeared in protest at the Board Hearing, feeling that duplex zoning would harm single family uses. Questioning of Mr. Johnson by the Council brought forth the information that there had been other proposals for the use of the land under consideration for business or professional development, and there was much multiple and duplex zoning in the vicinity. It was noted that the South Shore Isle Homeowners Association had made no presentation at the Board Hearing. On the call for proponents, Mr. Bruno G. Santone, 604 Westline Drive, the Petitioner, appeared. He said he had talked with many residents of the area and shown his plans for deluxe duplexes, in a different concept. He submitted exhibits of his proposed construction. Mr. Santone also presented a petition signed by eleven residents of the area indicating approval of the proposal. On the call for opponents, Mr. Luther McDevitt, 2029 Sandcreek Way, expressed his strong opposition to construction of duplexes or apartments in the area. The Hearing was then declared closed. Councilman McCall moved the property in question be rezoned as requested. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, (4). Noes: Councilman Fore, (1). Absent: None. There being no objections, the order of business was referred to "Introduction of Ordinances". INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 3./ 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 Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series." ("R-1" to "R-2" District.- Bruno G. Santone) The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Fore, (1). Absent: None. The meeting then reverted to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 4•/ In the Matter of an Appeal, continued from the meeting of July 1, from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance to allow a radio aerial and antenna to exceed the allowable fifty- five feet by forty-two feet,or a total height of ninety-seven feet, at 3231-A Fernside Boulevard. The appeal was filed by Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Mr. Donald B. Bitner. The City Clerk stated the interested parties had been informed that this would be the time and place for Hearing on this matter. The minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the application was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. It was noted that communications had been received from the following, requesting that the Council uphold the action of the Planning Board and deny the variance: Miss Marie Riordan, 3226 Fernside Boulevard; Twenty-six residents in the area. President La Croix read from the City Attorneyts memorandum that the issue before the City Council was whether or not the action and findings of the Planning Board, taken under Section 11-161(b) and (e) of the Alameda Municipal Code, should be affirmed, modified or reversed. Mr. Johnson, on request, then reviewed the facts in the case, as covered in his memorandum dated June 25, 1969. The applicant, he said, held a Home Occupation Permit and a City Business License for operating a General Contractors business at this address and proposed to use the tower to broadcast to mobile stations located in the trucks of his foremen and to a mobile station located in his boat, which was berthed at the rear of the property. On the call for proponents, Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney, came forward to represent Mr. Bitner. He presented to the Councilmen photographs showing the property from various directions and other properties in the neighborhood. He said Mr. Bitner intended to erect an antenna approximately eight inches square at the base extending upward to just a wand in the upper extremities, very similar to what now existed on the property. Insofar as liability was concerned, there would be adequate insurance to cover, although the unit would be erected by competent electrical engineers and installed in such a manner that it would be very safe. As to interference to radio and television, there might be some at the present time, but the proposed installation would fall under the restrictions of the Communications Commissions of the Federal Government and there would be no such interference. The new unit was expected to provide better transmission and reception. Mr. Whitney introduced Mr. Frank Westcott, electronic consultant with General Communications Engineer- ing, who explained briefly the proposed installation. He said the Company guaranteed no interference would be caused by the new equipment and the F.C.C. woul d not issue a license for building commercial equipment unless it passed very rigid examination. On the call for opponents, Mr. Robert Platt, 3235 Fernside Boulevard, asked those present in opposition to the proposed antenna to rise and several citizens rose. Mr. Platt expressed the opinion that Mr. Bitner1s proposal seemed to be an intensification of his business activities in the neighborhood, and suggested that he should be remanded to the commercial and industrial zones of the community. He also commented on the insurance aspects of the case. Mr. William J. Emmons, 3233 Fernside Boulevard, distributed to the members of the Council photographs of the properties involved and also presented a copy of the Home Use Permit issued to Mr. Bitner and his business operation. Mrs. Marian and Mr. Roy Neill, 3231 Fernside Boulevard, voiced their objections to the height of the antenna. Mr. Neill also pointed out that liability insurance could be cancelled at any time. He suggested the applicant be required to post a bond to take care of any possible damages. He also expressed the opinion that there was not sufficient area to properly guy the tower. Mr. Whitney, on rebuttal, stated if the Council should decide to grant the requested variance it might attach the condition that the applicant supply liability insurance in whatever amount it might determine and furnish a certificate to remain on file so long as the antenna is maintained. He pointed out the ninety-seven-foot height involved was from the ground, not from the roof of the residence. This would make quite a difference, he said, in the wind resistance and other conditions. The Hearing was then declared closed. Councilman McCall moved the Appeal be denied and the action of the Planning Board be upheld. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 5./ In the Matter of an Appeal from the denial by the City Manager of a Permit to Operate Public Motor Vehicles. The Appeal was filed by Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Mr. Alfred D. Lucius of Checker Cab Co. The Clerk stated the interested parties had been informed that this was the time and place for Hearing on this matter. Mr. Samuel P. Young, Attorney with the firm of Davis, Craig & Bartalini, had submitted on behalf of Goodwill Cab a statement in opposition to the issuance of such Permits to Mr. Lucius. President La Croix stated the issue before the City Council in this matter was whether this applicant for a taxicab permit, heretofore on June 9, 1969, denied by the City Manager after hearing thereon conducted pursuant to Sections 7-112 and following, and Sections 13-213 and following, of the Alameda Municipal Code, was able to show any cause to this Council why it should not approve the action of the City Manager in denying said permit. City Manager Weller was invited to submit his comments. Mr. Weller said he was in the unfortunate position of being both an advisor to the Council, hopefully, and an advocate of the decision he had made as the Hearing Officer under the provisions of the Municipal Code. He called attention to the information sent to the Councilmen as the basis for the finding - notes taken at the Hearing in question, his memorandum indicating the basis on which his judgment was rendered, and the opinion and advice from the City Attorney as to the procedure to be followed. He pointed up the comment in Mr. Cunninghamls opinion in part as follows: "Absent arbitrary or capricious action, his (the Hearing Officer's) determination comes on appeal to you with a presumption of validity." This was to say that the Council was not obligated in any way, nor was it suggested or intended by the Municipal Code, that there be a rehearing. Mr. Weller went on to say he believed the basis for the Hearing at this meeting should be to determine whether or not the findings of the Hearing Officer in this case were "arbitrary or capricious". If they were not, it seemed the Council should not go behind the judgment rendered by the Hearing Officer. This was not a "de novo" hearing, starting anew, the question was whether the finding was completely irrelevant and the judgment exercised was not soundly grounded. The question of rehearing the facts of the case and determining whether the judgment of the Council might have been different from the judgment of the Hearing Officer, he felt, was not involved this evening. President La Croix then stated, for the edification of the audience and the Attorneys representing the applicant, that the Council would not hear the matter as originally presented before the City Manager, but would consider the denial of the Permit. Mr. Whitney, representing Mr. Lucius, stated he found himself under a considerable handicap. He said he had not had the privilege of seeing Mr. Wellerts findings in the matter nor to review the opinion of the City Attorney. He had come prepared to submit the matter "de novo" with witnesses and to show why the Permit should be granted by the Council. He respectfully suggested that the matter be continued to the next meeting of the City Council and in the interim he be favored with the findings of the City Manager and the opinion of the City Attorney. He felt there was a public interest involved, namely, the convenience of the citizens of the City of Alameda. Councilman McCall remarked that over the years taxicab permits had been granted from time to time, always through the City Managerfs office as an administrative function. The Council directed this obligation to the City Manager as the Hearing Officer to comply with the rules and regulations set out. He went on to say if Mr. Whitney had an argument that the City Manager was not holding a public hearing properly, or did not give Mr. Whitneyfs client a "fair shake", this was what he would like to know. Mr. Whitney again called attention to the language of the Municipal Code, with regard to the right of appeal to the City Council. It was felt the opportunity had been provided for Mr. Whitney to present his clientts case adequately. Mr. Whitney reviewed aspects of the Hearing and commented that Goodwill Cab, between a first and second Hearing on two separate applications by Mr. Lucius, had been granted Permits for three additional taxicabs. He expressed the opinion that a monopoly existed and that the people of Alameda were not receiving the cab service to which they were entitled. President La Croix pointed out that the Hearing before the City Manager was based upon the justification for additional cab permits, for which the City Manager had found there was no real need, and this was his finding. His action and opinion thereon was the question before the Council this evening. Councilman Longaker said it was his understanding that the purpose of the Hearing was to show the necessity for cab service, that Yellow Cab Company held twenty-one and Goodwill Cab held six Permits. He expressed the opinion that if better service were needed and if Goodwill was unable to supply such service then Yellow Cab should use the Permits which had been granted to them or have them revoked. Councilman McCall again quoted for the record the issue before the Council, as set forth by the City Attorney in his opinion. Mr. Whitney, however, argued he felt he was entitled, if he did not believe the Hearing Officer was right in his opinion, to present the matter to the City Council. Mr. Weller pointed out the opinion of the City Attorney that the fact that the Council "might, at such Hearing, had you conducted it, have decided the issue the other way, should not be controlling now." He repeated the statements of the City Attorney as to the Councilfs responsibility in the proceedings. President La Croix stated, in all deference, Mr. Whitney had had the opportunity to evidence the fact that he felt additional permits should be granted. Of this the Council was aware. The City Managers findings were that additional permits should not be granted and upon that fact he declared the Hearing closed and asked that the Council act on the presentation before it this evening. Mr. Whitney was assured that the public records in this matter were available in the office of the City Clerk. Councilman Levy stated he felt in all fairness that Mr. Whitney, representing his client, should have made available to him all information on this case. He felt also that it would be proper to grant a continuance. President La Croix disagreed, saying he felt the Hearing had been held according to the provisions of the Municipal Code and Mr. Whitney had had access to all information divulged at that Hearing. That information had been conveyed to the members of the Council for its perusal and action and for that reason he felt there was no need to go into another presentation. Councilman Fore asked if, after the Council's decision this evening, Mr. Whitney might have the evidence and an opportunity to reopen the subject. There was some discussion as to the records of the proceedings and their availability. Mr. Weller stated the notes on the Hearing were a matter of public record and a copy had been available in the office of the City Clerk since the day following the date of Hearing, for anyone interested in obtaining them. With respect to the availability of records after this Hearing before the Council, they would be as available as they had been previously. If the applicant should see fit to reapply he might do so on the same basis as previously and he would be accorded as fair a Hearing as he had been accorded on the previous occasion. Mr. Weller said, with respect to his memorandum and the City Attorney's opinion, he could not say whether these would legally be considered public information. He had no objection, however, to making these available. The applicant had been informed on the date of the Hearing of the results and, if there was any exception to the decision, that exception might have been taken at that time. The City Clerk, on request, stated Mr. Lucius had been informed by letter on the date of Hearing, June 9, as to the action of the City Manager, and a copy thereof was on file. Councilman Fore moved, in view of Mr. Whitney's claim that he did not have all evidence on hand, that the Hearing in this matter be continued. Councilman Levy seconded the motion. Speaking on the question, Councilman Longaker asked if Mr. Whitney's concern was that he did not receive a copy of the City Manager's findings, and that the motion now was that the decision be postponed for two weeks or to a date to be set, at which time Mr. Whitney would then have had an opportunity to read the findings. It would not necessarily mean that there would be any change in the decision. Attention was called to the specific points set forth in the Appeal filed by Mr. Whitney on behalf of Mr. Lucius. Mr. Samuel P. Young, Attorney representing Goodwill Cab, urged that the motion be denied. The question was then put and the motion lost on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Fore and Levy, (2). Noes: Councilmen Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, (3). Absent: None. Councilman McCall then moved the Appeal be denied and the action of the City Manager be upheld. Council- man Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, (3). Noes: Councilmen Fore and Levy, (2). Absent: None. A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting continued under the regular order of business. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 67 From the Auditor and Assessor, submitting net assessment values for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, indicating the gross taxable City roll at $120,469,894, exclusive of the State-assessed public utility roll. Upon request, Mr. Weller gave a brief explanation of the report. Councilman Longaker moved the report of the Auditor and Assessor be accepted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 7./ From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Shell Construction, Inc., low bidder, for the project of Constructing the Central Equipment Repair Garage, at a cost of $150,800. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be accepted, that the contract be awarded to the designated Company for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 8./ From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract 3105, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's report dated July 1, 1969, and certain specific exceptions as noted. This was the "so-called" front of the Ballena Bay development, running from Central Avenue to the channel. On request, Mr. Johnson explained the proposed subdivision. He said the Map conformed almost to the letter to the Planned Development previously submitted, and approved by the Board. City Engineer Hanna reported that total agreement had been reached with the developer with regard to certain aspects previously not resolved. Mr. William B. Kirkland, Jr., President of Pan-Pacific Development Company, added his explanation of this portion of the large map presented previously at the time the Master Plan of the development was submitted for approval of the Council. He stated this was a radically different plan from the one presented by the previous developer, Bernhard & Bramante, and commented on the changes proposed by his Company. Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be accepted, and the Tentative Map on the subdivision known as Tract 3105 be approved, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's report dated July 1, 1969. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Abstaining: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. 9. ✓ From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract 3115, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineerts report. dated March 24, 1969, and certain specific exceptions as noted. This was a six -acre parcel at the northwest corner of Mecartney Road and County Road. On question, Mr. Hanna reported this Map met with the requirements of the Engineering Department. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation of the Board be accepted, and said Tentative Map of Tract 3115 be approved, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's report dated March 24, 1969. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 10.7 From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended with regard to the off- street parking requirements, as proposed in its Exhibit A to Resolution No. 672, submitted therewith. The next regular meeting of the Council, on Tuesday, August 5, 1969, was set for the Hearing on this matter. 11./ President La Croix, at this point, introduced and welcomed former Councilman William (Mike) Bartley and Miss Karen Calista, Maid of Alameda. RESOLUTIONS: 12.'' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7509 Urging Postmaster General of the United States Issue a Commemorative Stamp to Mark the 100th Anniversary of the Arrival of the First Transcontinental Passenger Train in Alameda." The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore. The resolution was read in full at the request of Councilman Levy, who expressed the opinion that it would help to implement the issuance of the Commemorative Stamp which would bring honor, stature and national recognition to the City of Alameda. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. President La Croix declared the foregoing resolution adopted. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 13. "Ordinance No. 1598, New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subdivision 55 to Section 17 -333 Thereof, Relating to Limited No Parking (North side of Atlantic Avenue between Third Street and Main Street)." Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. BILLS: 14. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of 539,787.70, 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 July 15, 1969, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 15."7 Mr. John Barni, Jr., 1438 Park Street, urged that the proposed ordinance amending the off - street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance be given careful consideration before action is taken thereon. FILING: 16. Financial Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of May 31, 1969 - Verified by Hackleman, Larzelere, McKenna & von Kaschnitz. 17. Financial Report - City of Alameda, as of June 30, 1969. 18. President La Croix then requested that the Council meet in a personnel session at the earliest possible time, for the purpose of discussing the subject of appointments to Boards and Commissions of the City. It was agreed this meeting would adjourn to an adjourned regular session to be held on Tuesday afternoon, July 29, 1969, at 4:00 o'clock. 19.47 President La Croix thanked those in the audience for being present, and called attention to the fact that the Council Chamber had been newly painted in the process of its renovation. President La Croix suggested that in adjourning, a silent prayer be given for Corporal Chris R. Martinez, Jr. of the United States Army, who met death in Vietnam on May 26, 1969, and for the success- ful venture of the three Astronauts on their trip to the Moon. ADJOURNMENT: 20./ There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the memory of Corporal CHRIS R. MARTINEZ, Jr., to assemble in adjourned regular session on Tuesday afternoon, July 29, 1969, at 4:00 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY AFTERNOON JULY 29, 1969 The meeting convened at 4:00 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Longaker, (1). NEW EUSINESS: 1. Brought up for attention was the matter of consideration of appointments to the various Boards and Commissions of the City of Alameda. Councilman McCall moved the Council retire to an executive session for its deliberations. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and unanimously carried. Discussion ensued with regard to prospective appointees to fill current vacancies on the several Boards and Commissions. The appointments to be made were determined and City Attorney Cunningham was requested to prepare appropriate resolutions for action by the Council at its next regular meeting on Tuesday, August 5, 1969. 2./ Assistant City Manager John D. Goss reviewed for the information of the Councilmen action by the State Legislature on AB 1618, which would have imposed a tax on municipally-operated electrical utilities, and which had been defeated. 3.1 President La Croix announced that the City of Alameda would host the next meeting of the Mayors' Conference of Alameda County, on Wednesday evening, August 6, 1969, at the Encinal Yacht Club. 4. Councilman Fore commented on the offer of a Barber Shop Quartet to appear at the Council meeting on August 19, to sing several numbers during a short recess in the order of business. He said this novelty had been introduced in several cities in the surrounding area and had been well received. This matter was to be investigated. ADJOURNMENT: 5. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble Respectfully submitted, (7,-1 City Clerk Clerk in regular session on Tuesday evening, August 5, 1969, at 7:30 o'clock.