Loading...
1965-12-07 Regular CC Minutes� ���� ������ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING DECEMBER 7 1965 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Councilman Bartley and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. Joseph Chastain, Pastor of the Church of the 0enuraoe. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and ,Councilmen Bartley, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held November 16, and the special meeting held November 23, 1965, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: From Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, signed by Mr. George M. Taylor, Secretary, concern- ing the request for a "special shopper service" in Alameda - and informing the Council of the recent broad liberalization of the transfer privilege in order that it could now be used effectively as a shopping service, under the "Stop-Off and Go-Again" arrangement. It was pointed out this would really be more convenient for Alameda shoppers since there were three principal shopping districts in the City, at some distance from each other. The Clerk was asked to acknowledge the letter with thanks for the District's consideration of Council- man McCall's request for a "Shop-A,Bouud Pass" for Alameda. Councilman McCall, himself, also expressed his appreciation Of the courtesies extended to him by Messrs. Hensel, General Manager, and Bingham, Public Relations Director, of the Transit District, in their discussions of this matter with him. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 3. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, spoke again of the traffic congestion on Webster Street. aMr. Harold McGinnis, Resident Engineer for Shore Line Properties, Inc., stated he was available, should there be any questions concerning the matter of the Tentative Map for Tract No. 2822 which was to come up later in the meeting. He respectfully requested that the 'Map" be approved subject to the requirements of the City Engineer, as amended by the City Planning Board. 5,v At this point, Mayor Godfrey spoke of the exceptionally fine job the Police Officers had done during the recent Veterans' Day Parade. He called up Police Chief William Tulloh and presented to him a plaque from the County of Alameda Veterans Affairs Commission which read, "To the Alameda Police Department in Appreciation for Outstanding Service - Veterans Day Parade, November 11, 1965." Vice Mayor Rose also coouoentad that these awards were not given out every year to the respective Police Departments - but only when such an excellent job was done. He congratulated Chief Tulloh. Chief Tulloh responded with thanks for this recognition of the long hours his men had put in on this duty and the good results. Be said he knew his Officers would appreciate this plaque. HEARINGS: 6y The matter was called up concerning the Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny the application for three variances on the property known as 1812 Shez"/an Street. Said Appeal was filed by Mrs. Martha Maholland, owner of said premises. The Clerk stated all interested parties had been notified that this was the time and place for the Hearing. Also, copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this application was considered had been given to the Councilmen for their information. Upon request, Planning Director Johnson reviewed the history of this ceoe. A memorandum on the sub- ject had also been sent to the Councilmen by Mr. Johnson, in further clarification of the existing circumstances. It was emphasized that this was e long, narrow lot which presented the problem in trying to build u second dwelling in the rear for which there was not adequate access for driveway purposes or yards. City Attorney Cunningham then stated that the legal issue before the Council was whether or not the Planning Board's action, taken under Sec. 11-161(d)(e) of the Alameda Municipal Code, by which the Board denied the application should be offilo/e6, modified or reversed. The President called upon the proponents of the question and Mrs. Maholland addressed the Council. She pointed out she lived on Social Security income and felt that the proposed dwelling would give her additional livelihood. Mrs. Maholland's daughter also spoke in her behalf. Mr. Cyril Collins, of Carber, Inc., representing "Guaranteed Homes" of Hayward, stated his firm would be the builders who were attempting to arrange this matter for Mrs. Maholland. He explained several details and suggested certain revisions in the lay7oot which would reduce the yard encroachments. Upon inquiry for any opponents to the issue, there was no response. The President then declared the Hearing closed. 469 A very detailed discussion was then had by the Councilmen in an effort to work out this problem for the benefit of Mrs. Maholland. However, it was felt this proposed development was not feasible on this extremely narrow lot. Councilman La Croix then moved the decision of the City Planning Board be upheld and the Appeal be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and carried on the 'following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: 0ooe, Absent: None. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Reconstruct- ing a Portion of Fernside Boulevard between Harvard and Cornell Drives - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Rose moved the recommendation be adopted; that the work on said project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 8. From the Alameda Unified School District, signed by Mr. Charles A. Briscoe, Assistant Secretary, requesting cancellation of taxes on certain property acquired for expansion of Haight Sobool, The matter was referred to "Resolutions". 9�~ From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of Tentative Map for Tract No. 2822, "Villa Del Don", Bay Farm Island, subject to the following exceptions and con- ditions: "(1) That Lots 53-79, inclusive, be served with uoderground'electric utility and that Lots 1-52, inclusive, remain with no approval on electric utility service, with the direction to the subdivider that underground service is preferred and that the Board reserve the right for future approval if the subdivider elects to use overhead electric service. (2) That the streets be named as follows: ^A, Street to be Holly Street, 'B' Street to be Gardenia Terrace, `C` Street to be Eugenia Court, and 'D' Street to be Fir Avenue, with the understanding that the subdivider and the Planning Director should reach mutual agreement on street names should these be completely unsatis- factory. (3) That specific exception to Section 1l-3119(a) of Ordinance No. 1208, New Series, be allowed on Lots 59 and 61 to accommodate the less than standard frontage on these two odd shaped but desirable lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. (4) That approval is further subject to the conditions contained in the City Engineer's report of November 24, 1965, except that Dahlia Drive need not extend east of Camellia Drive and that right-of-way widths for `A` and `D' Streets and Camellia Drive-remain at 60 feet." Also, the subdivider indicated that a street tree planting plan would be submitted at a later date, but prior to the approval of the Final Map. Councilman McCall moved that the Tentative Map of said Tract No. 2822, as submitted to the Council with the recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, as amended by the City Planning Board, be approved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose. Speaking on the question, there was a thorough question and answer period and discussion of the reason for the present exclusion of underground electric utility service to 'lots 1 - 52". Mr. Johnson explained that this was an engineering matter involving electricity distribution. He stated there were presently negotiations between the subdivider and the Bureau with regard to this question. Mr. Johnson pointed out the Planning Board's decision was that said negotiation should continue and that overhead utility service would be acceptable to the Board, probably only if it followed a rear lot line. Mr. Calvin Jones of Jones-Thenn & Associates, Civil Engineers for Tract No. 2822, pointed out that the two cul-de-sacs in said Tract would be served "underground". Be then explained further details of the peculiar circumstances involved in this particular development and emphasized that the sub- divider and the Bureau recognized the problem and were working together to effect a feasible and fair arrangement to make it possible for the utility to be put underground. Mr. Jones also called atten- tion to the fact that the subdivider was to go back to the Planning Board for their consideration and approval if it were found that the underground method was not feasible in this portion of the Irmct. It was also later stated by Mr. Jones that the subdivider would also expect to come back to the Coun- cil for approval of this phase of the Tract. Mr. Weller then expressed his opinion on the subject to the effect that the State Public Utilities Commission without question would soon require that all new construction be placed underground. He also believed that it would eventually require the ultimate undergrounding of the existing overhead systems. He pointed up the fact that the difference between the initial cost of uuder8rmuodioA on new construction and the conventional, overhead installation was not really substantial, in terms of the value of the property involved. However, when one got into the conversion from overhead to under- ground, then the costs ranged from eight, ten, twelve-times more than the first installation cost. There were recognized problems - engineering and economic - and these were why he felt the advice and recommendation of the Public Utilities Board was important because it was the one which was in a posi- tion to understand what the ultimate bill would be, for example, in the City of Alameda. He emphasized that such conversion of the existing system would cost a fantastic amount of money and the City would certainly have to have some idea of how it could be financed before it undertook said project. Mr. Weller stressed the fact that he believed the time was now when the City ought to require everything in new construction where it was engineeringly feasible be placed underground. The President also commented that a committee from the Mayors' Conference of both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties had been appointed to work together with the Public Utilities Commission to arrive at a determination of certain rules for underground utilities. As soon as reports were completed and available from these Bodies, the Councilmen would be informed. City Attorney Cunningham then called attention to the fact that the motion did not /'force underground- ing" because the Planning Board's report merely stated that such would be preferable. This brought up further discussion and Councilman McCall expressed his opinion that there were valid reasons for � y��� �� � �� going underground as soon as possible. It was developed that all recognized the additional benefits of underground installations. It was reiterated by Mr. McGinnis that if the subdivider's negotiations with the Bureau of Electricity could be worked out then the entire Tract would be served by underground utility installations. However, if such were not possible, then the developer had agreed to appear again before the Plan- ning Board for its approval of the overhead service for Lots 1 - 52, inclusive. It was pointed out that all the subdivider was asking for at this time was approval of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the Tentative Map as itemized in its letter of December 1, 1965, and to leave this specific question open concerning the required undergrounded utilities for the designated lots. The question was then put and the motion as made by Councilman McCall and seconded by Councilman Rose carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: Councilman La Croix, (1). Not Voting: Councilman Bartley, (1). Absent: 0one, Councilman Bartley explained his position in this development - having been the realtor who had con- summated this sale of property to the developer. Be stated he had discussed the situation with the City Attorney, who had assured him there was not the remotest conflict of interest in this case. He wanted to be extremely cautious, however, so the finger of criticism could not be pointed toward him or to the City Council and, therefore, he had abstained from voting on this issue. l0. ^ From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Carpentry Work at Godfrey Park - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Bartley moved the recommendation be approved; that the work on the designated project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayaa: Five. Noes ; None, Absent: None. 11. From the City Manager, with regard to the maintenance of Webb Avenue Fire Station and roquoot- iog authorization to engage an architect to prepare plans for replacement of said Station as proposed in the Capital Outlay Program. Councilman La Croix moved the report of the City Manager contained in his letter of December 2, 1965, be accepted; that his request be granted and he be authorized to proceed in accordance therewith. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: 0ooe, UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 12. The President referred to the letter from the State Division of Highways, addressed to the City Engineer, in response to the Council's request through Mr. Hanna, to check the visibility hazard due to the type of landscaping on the Oakland approach to Posey Tube. It was agreed that the planting in the gore area should be removed and assurance was given that improvement could be expected in the near future. 13. Councilman McColl submitted the report from the Council's Committee on the Capital Outlay Pro- gram. He stated it was important to make some immediate improvement of conditions in the Webb Avenue Fire Station but no great expenditures would be made unnecessarily. Councilman McCall stressed the fact that work must get underway to prepare the plans and specifications and to make a site study for the replacement of this facility. He said the Committee recommended this project be given 0n, 1 priority. Councilman McCall also stated the Committee believed the Corporation Yard project sho uld now be given high priority, eoyecially,due to the fact that the Bureau of Electricity had acquired some property north of Clement Avenue on the west side of Grand Street. It was felt plans and estimates of cost should be prepared for the Council's consideration. The hope was expressed that some agree- ment could be reached by the City Manager and the "Bureau" for joint use of maintenance facilities for all City vehicles and equipment - with a centralized garage being given strong consideration. Be also mentioned the "temporary" sanitary facilities on the South Shore Beach and urged that some action be taken to establish permanent structures before another summer season arrived. Councilman Rose concurred with the verbal report and pointed out t6 at the thinking on the Corporation Yard was merely bringing up to date the recommendation of City Engineer Hanna of some time ago. Councilman McCall stated the Committee would like to submit this as a recommendation to the Council at this time. Following some further discussion for clarification of certain phases of the matter, the President asked Mr. Hanna to bring up to date his cost figures for the proposed Corporation Yard project. NEW BUSINESS: 14. President Godfrey inquired the Council's pleasure with regard to the City Manager's suggestion that the advice and recommendation of the Public Utilities Boa rd be sought concerning the possible requirements for underground electric utility facilities in all new construction. Councilman Bartley concurred with this idea and then brought up the subject of the Subdivision Ordi- nance of the City of Alameda and the several amendments thereto. He felt a fair study should be made to "modernize" the provisions of said ordinance and one important phase thereof would be the requirement that any new buildings must have access to an improved public street. Councilman Bartley asked that this subject be studied to ascertain if it could be incorporated in the Subdivision Ordi- nance of the City. 471 Upon query, Mr. Johnson replied that his department had been working on updating this particular ordi- nance and in view of the apparent urgency as presently expressed, he would step up the activities in this respect. He said he would have a recommendation ready for submission to the City Council in ninety days. The President then asked Mr. Weller to request a recommendation from the Public Utilities Board with a possible requirement of underground utility service in all new construction which might then be added to the Subdivision Ordinance in its contemplated revision. Councilman McCall urged that in setting up these new regulations, the City Attorney strive to attain uniformity with other cities in the area. Be stressed the fact that this would eliminate confusion among contractors and facilitate the inspection duties. President Godfrey also stated there was a joint committee of both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties working on the idea of making it mandatory that the Subdividers provide sites for parks, schools and other public purposes. Be remarked that this requirement would be of particular importance to the cities in southern Alameda County and in Contra Costa County. He stated there was a definite trend to upgrade the Subdivision Ordinances —in all of the cities concerning these points. RESOLUTIONS: 15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8881 Cancelling City Taxes on Property Acquired by the Alameda Unified School District for Public Purposes." (Expansion of Haight School) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6882 Authorizing Exchange of Real Property with the Regents of the University of California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: 0one, Absent: None. 17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6883 Resolution Appointing Special Bond Counsel to Prepare Special Assessment Proceedings and Authorizing Execution of Agreement (Assessment District No. 85-1)," (East Alameda-Bay Farm Island Street Improvements) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6884 Resolution Appointing Special Bond Counsel to Prepare Special Assessment Proceedings and Authorizing Execution of Agreement (Assessment District No. 65-2)." (Fifth Street-Central Avenue Sewer) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix und on roll call carried by following Noes: the 19. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6885 Adopting and Submitting Budget for Expenditure of Funds Allocated from the State Highway Fund to Cities." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6886 Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Architectural and Design Services in Connection with New Pool Proposed for Alameda Swim Center." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 21. "Ordinance No. 1518, New Series An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Regulations." Councilman La Croix moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council- man Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. FILING: 22. Agreement - Between City and Messrs. August E. Waegemann and Bruce D. Heiser re Alameda Swim Center. 23. Budget Expenditure Approval - Between State of California and City of Alameda. BILLS: 24. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $65,021.41, 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 McCall moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on December 7, 1965, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 25. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, December 21, 1965, at 7:30 o'clock. u