1972-03-07 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY MARCH 7, 1972
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Scout Mayor Mike Turnbull and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation
delivered by The Reverend Charles N. Nahnsen, Pastor of the Immanuel Lutheran 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 February 15 and the special meeting held February 29,
1972, were approved as transcribed.
2. At this time, President La Croix announced that Boy Scout Day would be observed at this meeting.
He read a Proclamation declaring the observance of the Day and then presented the document to Scout
Mayor Turnbull in commemoration of the Day.
The President called upon Assistant City Manager Goss, who had coordinated the program of Boy Scout Day.
Mr. Goss said this had been the largest turnout for Scout Day in Government since the program was
instituted in 1953, with twenty -eight boys nominated and twenty -six participating, representing nine
troops throughout the City. During the afternoon the Scouts had assembled in the Council Chamber for
a short course in City government when the organizations and functions of the government of the City of
Alameda and the agenda of tonight's meeting had been reviewed, as well as some of the community issues
confronting the City. The boys had then visited the various City Departments to learn in more detail
the work of the particular office. Many of the boys and their parents were present at this meeting,
with the Scout Mayor and Councilmen occupying the dais with their counterparts on the City Council.
President La Croix presented to each participating Boy Scout a certificate of his achievement in this
program. He congratulated Mr. Goss and the staff for their work and participation in the effort with
the hope that all would recognize the value of scouting for boys and girls, and thanked the boys for
the time spent in observing the City government in operation in the hope that they had gained an
insight into the functions of the City offices and the importance of the operation to all citizens.
He congratulated the parents, relatives and friends of the Scouts who were in attendance as well as
the leaders in the Scout program for the excellent job done in the City in this movement.
3. President La Croix then announced that this evening the City Council would recognize 100 years of
what he would like to call good government in the City of Alameda. He said on March 7, 1872, the
Governor of the State of California had recognized theformalization of government in the City of
Alameda, after incorporation of the City on April 19, 1854. He requested that everyone who could stay
for the complete meeting, after which cake, coffee and punch would be served in observance of the
occasion. President La Croix recognized the grandson of the first President of the Board of Trustees
of the City of Alameda, Mr. Herbert S. Haight, who had come from his home in Contra Costa County to
join in the celebration. Mr. Haight was introduced and welcomed with a round of applause. The President
then named the members of the first Board of Trustees, as follows: Messrs. H. H. Haight, E. B.Mastick,
Fritz Boehmer, Jabish Clement, and Henry Robinson. He called attention to the displays furnished by
the Historical Society evidencing the growth of the City throughout the years.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
4. ��t`` From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 181 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
5. From the Alameda Unified School District, signed by Dr. G. R. McConnell, Superintendent, endorsing
the City's position with regard to the Regional Airport Systems Study (RASS).
President La Croix pointed out the importance of this study to the City of Alameda was well known; the
City, through the City Attorney and the Planning Department, was protesting some actions of the proposed
Study Committee and the support of the School District in this matter was very much appreciated.
6. From Pan - Pacific Development Company, signed by Mr. Jack Seely, Vice - President, requesting permis-
sion to erect an identifying sign at the entrance to Ballena Bay.
The President stated this request should be directed to the Planning Department for attention. It was
so ordered.
7. From Pan - Pacific Development Company, signed by Mr. William B. Kirkland, Jr., President, request-
ing a time extension of six months for completion of the public improvements in connection with the
subdivision known as Tract 3011.
City Engineer Hanna stated, on question, that granting this extension would cause no disadvantage to
the community or to the new residents in the area.
Councilman McCall moved the requested time extension of six months from March 4, 1972, be granted the
developer for completion of the improvements in connection with said Tract. Councilman Longaker seconded
the motion which on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
271
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
8. Mr. Martin Kaliski, 95 Century Drive, Mill Valley, one of the principals in Seaside Development
Company, requested the opportunity of speaking in connection with the report by the Planning Board on
its action with regard to the Company's development known as Waterfront Towers on the south side of
Central Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Streets.
9. Mr. John J. Williamson, 512-B Central Avenue, also requested the opportunity to address the Council
in connection with this matter.
HEARINGS:
10. In the Matter of the Report of the Superintendent of Streets on the Santa Clara Avenue-Third Street-
Lincoln Avenue Street Lighting Improvement District.
The Clerk stated there were on hand the Affidavits of Posting and of Mailing the required Notices in the
matter.
City Attorney Cunningham, on request, stated this matter was taken up under the Streets and Highways Code
of the State. The issue before the Council was to hear and pass upon objections or protests, if there
should be any, from the persons upon whom an assessment was proposed to be levied and who were named in
the Report of the Superintendent of Streets on the work he had done or caused to be done in the specified
Lighting Improvement District, as authorized by the City Council through adoption of its Resolution No.
7845, at its meeting held October 5, 1971.
Mr. Hanna reported that a request had been received from residents of the 200-block of Santa Clara Avenue
that street lights be installed and they had been informed the funds could be raised in advance of instal-
lation of the lights or they could petition for formation of an assessment district in which 60% of the
property owners must sign the request that the district be set up. He said this was a simple process in
which the City could move relatively rapidly.
After a public hearing before the Council as to the need for the lighting and the general willingness of
the majority of the property owners to participate, the Superintendent of Streets had been directed to
notify the owners to proceed. If the work should not be completed within sixty days he then would be
required to accomplish the work and upon determination of the costs he would distribute these over an
assessment process based on a front-foot basis. Mr. Hanna stated these costs had been completed and had
been spread over the entire frontage; they were somewhat less than originally anticipated, approximately
fifty cents per front foot, so that the average property would pay about $20 or $22 each for the lights,
five of which had been installed at a total cost of $535.04. He said they had been in place for about
four months and he felt the people were pleased with them.
President La Croix said he had talked to residents in the area involved and they were well satisfied and
appreciative.
There being no objections, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7888
Confirming Report of Superintendent of Streets of Construction, and Cost
Thereof, of Work Performed in Santa Clara Avenue-Third Street-Lincoln
Avenue Street Lighting Improvement District, Assessing Such Cost Against
Parcels of Property Fronting on Streets Therein, Making Said Special
Assessments Lien on Said Properties, and Ordering City Engineer to Make
Certificate and Notice of Lien and File Same with City Tax Collector."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall said he felt this was a good time to explain to the public
the procedure for setting up a lighting assessment district as from time to time the City received requests
for lights from areas which had not come under the original subdivision ordinance such as Otis Drive, the
area involved in this matter and many other streets. There was comment with regard to a request from
residents of the 2600-block of Clay Street for lighting improvement and their interest in the same procedure.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
HEARINGS:
12.'t In the Matter of a Petition by Bay View Development Company to rezone from the "R-1", One-Family
Residence, and the "R-2-PD", Two-Family Residence, Planned Development Districts, to the "C-1-PD", Neigh-
borhood Business, Planned Development District, certain property of approximately six acres at the northwest
corner of County and Mecartney Roads. The Planning Board had recommended denial of the petition.
The Clerk stated there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice setting this time and place
for the Hearing in this matter and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition was
considered had been sent to the Councilmen.
372
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board on the petition, as set forth
in its letter dated February 9, 1972. He said this was a repeat of an application heard by the Council
at its regular meetings of June 15 and July 20, 1971, when the Council had sustained the recommendation
of the Board for denial.
Mr. Johnson said the applicant's intentions with regard to the parcel had not changed. He desired to
develop a shopping center on the five -acre westerly portion of the site of about 45,000 square feet,
as indicated by the exhibits posted on the wall, also showing off - street parking for 179 vehicles and
a service station site of roughly one -half acre. He said the exhibits at this time were somewhat
schematic as the precise location and size of the buildings was not known although this signifidd the
developer's intention. He said the proposal was to construct a full -sized neighborhood shopping center,
not to be confused with a community -size center similar to the South Shore Center. He noted that the
property had been proposed for residential development under several alternate plans - initially a
duplex or couplet plan, later modified to townhouse cluster type. Because the configuration of the
property did not allow for optimum design the owners had been seeking commercial use for approximately
the past year.
Mr. Johnson stated the applicant had indicated he would comply with all subsequent Planned Development
requirements and all matters of street improvements required by the City Engineer in eventual subdivision,
also that there was a definite interest on the part of several tenants in the location. He said he
had had long experience with the applicant and did not question his representations in this regard.
Mr. Johnson said the staff continued to have reservations about the proposal. The only change between
this proposal and the former one was that now the City's new and amended Planned Development regulations
would apply. He said he would stipulate that there remained a justifiable need for commercial use on
Bay Farm Island but this approach was extremely piecemeal and there would inevitably be conflicts
between the proposed development and the "R -1" uses immediately to the south. The proposed zoning
tended to indicate future land uses for Bay Farm Island because of the key location as the corner would
have to be a major crossroads. There would be traffic control problems at the intersection and it would
indicate the course of decisions which would have to be made. He pointed out the General Plan did not
call for commercial use at this point and it was no help in reaching a decision in the matter.
On question by Councilman Longaker as to a reasonable period of time to wait upon Utah International,
Inc. for a decision on the development of its Bay Farm Island lands, Mr. Johnson said it was known that
Utah had been desperately trying to put together a proposal and he felt very strongly that there would
be requests before the :Council for consideration of its development plan within the next six months.
Councilman Longaker asked, if the property under discussion were allowed to be rezoned, whether it
would be possible to ask Utah to change its plan. Mr. Johnson said this would be entirely possible and
this was his dilemma and the reason he could not recommend that the rezoning under discussion be granted.
He said if this were done and if Utah's plan could be assumed, for the sake of the question, it would
simply mean that the two commercial sites would be combined, making a total area of about sixteen acres.
This would be too much at the location in question and there would be conflicts as to function, design,
size and traffic circulation and control. He said he could not point out too strongly that if the
Council were to go along with the plan under discussion, it would force itself into decisions it might
not want to make. He pointed out that sixteen acres of commercial zoning would serve all of Bay Farm
Island into perpetuity and he felt it was not the best design for the Island to put all of the commer-
cial facilities at the location in question as it would create too many obvious problems.
To a question by President La Croix, Mr. Johnson said if Utah were to locate a commercial district
abutting the area presently zoned residential the same traffic problems would exist. He said this was
the reason he felt the location immediately north of the area under discussion was not the best for
commercial use, that there were better locations for this use shown on the Utah plan but this was
simply a projection at this point.
Councilman McCall asked Mr. Johnson when he felt a shopping center would be constructed on the Island
and the Planning Director said he could not say when this would be done, that the City itself was
involved in possible Golf Course surplus which might be the best location for the first shopping center
and what he would call the best commercial site on the Island. There was discussion with regard to
whether this Golf Course land bore a reservation that it must be used for recreational purposes only
and possibly a reversionary clause. Mr. Johnson said he could not give definite information on this
point at this time but would have to defer the subject to later conversation with the City Attorney.
Councilman McCall raised the question and Mr. Johnson confirmed that there had been no opposition by
Utah to the Bay View Development proposal at either the first or this Hearing.
President La Croix remarked that Utah could not and should not in any way dictate the policy with
regard to the development proposed in connection with the rezoning application under discussion.
Mr. Weller pointed out the fact that Utah had not submitted a plan for its Bay Farm Island development
was not entirely its fault. He said he had suggested to the Company that every possible problem should
be resolved, at least to the satisfaction of the City staff, before it should submit its plan. Secondly,
he said, with respect to the applicant and also with respect to Utah, it was not known whether there
would be any development on Bay Farm Island due to the prospective influence of the Airport Land Use
Commission and he felt Utah or Bay View would be premature in seeking to rezone property when there
was no assurance that they would be permitted to develop it at all. He said he would say that Utah
had no influence at all on the staff's recommendation, that he felt Mr. Johnson was talking about a
prospective orderly development which would indicate that the traffic circulation and characteristics
would not dictate or even suggest a twelve to sixteen -acre commercial area at the location.
It was pointed out that, as much as it was protesting the proposals of the Airport Land Use Commission,
the City had not put any moratorium on the development of Bay Farm Island, either the upland area or
the proposed Utah project, and it was only proper that the petitioner should be allowed to pursue his
just cause.
City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was to decide whether or not the findings
and recommendations of the Planning Board, submitted under Section 11 -175 of the Municipal Code, should
be approved, modified or disapproved.
On the call for proponents of the rezoning, Mr. Roderic Duncan, Attorney with the firm of Lempres,
Duncan & Morgan, 1801 Harrison Street, Oakland, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He said this was
his third appearance before the City Council with regard to rezoning the subject property; each time
there had been a Utah plan just around the corner and he was sure the representations had been made in
good faith. However, he said, a long time had elapsed, the plan had not developed and he seriously
questioned the ability of anyone to predict when Utah would be able to get all considerations together
and submit its proposal. He said in suggesting that Bay View continue to wait to develop its property
this included the situation of the great need of the residents of Bay Farm Island for shopping facilities
on the Island. He remarked on the loss of sales tax to the City by people shopping in San Leandro.
Mr. Duncan said there had been some consideration raised by people opposing the design of the proposed
development and by others who had felt the site was more suitable for a park or other purposes. He called
attention to a petition, signed by 303 residents of the Island in favor of the rezoning, which had been
presented to the Board at its Hearing and brought to this meeting at his request. He said the signatures
were additional to those on the first petition bearing 247 signatures and presented at the previous Hearing
before the Council. The new petition was filed with the City Clerk.
Mr. Duncan argued the architect had redesigned the parking areas since the first presentation to attempt
to lower them from the view of the street and the homes in the vicinity and to make them more attractive.
He said they were prepared and anxious to work with the Planning Department staff, if possible, to make
the proposed project as attractive as possible, that there were Triple A tenants who would like to estab-
lish businesses in the center just as soon as available, with the present population of the Island, that
he was willing to submit to any condition about producing proof of the interest of those prospective
tenants within a very short time if the proposal were approved.
Mr. Duncan said there had been concern shown about the small tip of the property which would be cut off
by the Island Drive extension as this could present some serious problems. He said his client had agreed
that this small area should not be considered in the present application and it should for the time being
remain in its present zoning. He said his client did not feel that any of these considerations were sub-
stantial hurdles toward approval of the project, that the real and substantial one, as raised by Mr.
Johnson, was the Planning staff's desire to have a master plan for the entire area before commercial zoning
would be allowed on the property in question.
Mr. Duncan said it seemed strange that during the past year they had operated under the assumption that
their major opponent in the matter was Utah International, Inc., and that they had felt if they could ever
get the approval of that Company the concerns of a lot of people would be satisfied. He said in the last
few months they had had opportunity to talk to Utah representatives and it had been indicated that Utah
had no objection to the proposal, although they were not in wholehearted support. He said he felt the
thinking of the Planning staff with regard to the effect of rezoning these six acres upon the future of
the major portion of the remaining land on Bay Farm Island was a gross exaggeration, that there was no
reason to say a certain ten acres would have to be commercial because another parcel was commercially
zoned. He displayed a small map and explained his thinking and questioned that development of the subject
area as proposed would produce a severe traffic problem. He reiterated that there was a great need for a
shopping center on Bay Farm Island, that since Mr. Surano had acquired the property seven years ago his
taxes had increased 1000% on the land, it was still idle and developing it with single family homes would
not be economically feasible. He requested the approval of the Council on the proposal.
On the call for other proponents of the rezoning, Mr. Joe Poree, 1000 Island Drive, said he had been
opposed to the previous petition as he wished to determine Utah's plans. He said he felt a year was suffi-
cient time to wait for Utah and he now had no objection to the proposal.
On the call for opponents of the rezoning and in favor of the Planning Board action, there was no response.
The Hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Longaker said he felt the City had waited a reasonable length of time, he understood the think-
ing of the Planning Director, that there was no plan at the present time for Utah's project and there was
no opposition by Utah to development of the subject property. He said he felt the people on Bay Farm
Island had been very patient, they deserved a place to shop and it would now be an obligation of Utah
to amend its plans to fit in with what might be decided at this Hearing. He moved the subject property
be rezoned from the "R -1 ", One - Family Residence, and the "R- 2 -PD ", Two - Family Residence, Planned Develop-
ment Districts, to the "C-1-PD", Neighborhood Business, Planned Development District. Councilman Fore
seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall inquired, if he should go along with the motion, whether a
condition could be attached setting a time limit for the start of the proposed project and if it was not
developed during the time set the land would revert to its present zoning. Mr. Cunningham stated if the
rezoning were granted, the development would come under Planned Development controls and the Planning
Board could impose a time limit. He said it was his opinion that a time limit could be put on the rezoning
but if at the expiration of the time limit the condition, that is the construction, were unfulfilled,
further action by the Council would be necessary. He said it would be difficult to forecast whether the
City might in such a circumstance be involved in litigation.
President La Croix raised the question to Mr. Johnson, should the motion carry as presently before the
Council, what controls he would have to exercise over Utah's plans to assure the most properly located
and developed shopping center so that in the future the City would not find it had created a second or
third rate type of center for the area. Mr. Johnson said this was a difficult question as, should the
rezoning be allowed, the City would be confronted with quite a different Utah plan. The design of the
building on a rather irregular and odd - shaped piece of property could be accommodated but he was not
confident as to how profitably the shopping center could be accommodated into the Utah development. This
e74
one small parcel could control the architecture, siting, parking and landscaping of the whole complex.
He said a rather different circulation pattern would be forced upon the City as it would have to be
protected in that Mecartney Road would have to be 88 feet wide and Bay Farm Island would become a
crossroads community rather than, as presently indicated by Utah, a concentric ring community. He
explained the planning involved.
Mr. Duncan said he would stipulate to the conditions suggested by the City Attorney as to time, suggest -
ing one year. Mr. Cunningham said after the vote on the pending motion the contents of the effecting
ordinance would have to be decided.
There was discussion as to the proper action for the Council to take in this matter. Councilman McCall
said he would like to amend the original motion that the matter be continued to the regular meeting of
the Council on March 21, 1972. Councilman Fore declined to withdraw his second to the original motion.
Councilman McCall moved the matter be tabled as non - debatable. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion
which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Fore, (1). Absent:
None.
The President stated no further action would be taken on the petition at this meeting.
13. In the Matter of a Proposal by the Planning Board on Its Own Initiative to rezone nine separate
parcels as indicated on Exhibit Maps submitted, to correct Zone Map discrepancies. The Board had recom-
mended the rezonings be approved.
The Clerk said there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in the matter
and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the proposal was considered had been sent to the
Councilmen.
Mr. Johnson explained the action of the Board, as set forth in its letter of February 9, 1972, had
covered ten parcels labeled "A" through "J" and one owner of property known as 904 Regent Street had
requested and been allowed continuance to a later meeting in order to give his counsel opportunity to
review the matter. The proposal, which had risen out of discrepancies in drawing a more precise Zone
Map, an ongoing project of the Planning Department for some months, now came to the Council with specific
recommendations on the nine parcels, omitting Exhibit "F ".
Mr. Johnson displayed each of the parcels involved by projector on the board, explaining the discrepancy
in each case. It was stated all property owners had been notified by mail and there had been no formal
opposition to the proposal.
On the call for proponents or opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be accepted. Councilman McCall seconded
the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
There being no objections, the meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances ".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
14. 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."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
15. From the Planning Board, signed by the Assistant Secretary, submitting the recommendation that the
highest and best use of the Bureau of Electricity property at 920 Park Street would be housing for
senior citizens.
President La Croix complimented the Board for its far - sightedness and projection in the recommendation.
Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation be approved. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which,
after clarification of the intent of the motion, carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four.
Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
The President requested that the staff, through the City Manager, proceed with all expediency in this
matter, hoping for the proper outcome through the action of the Housing Authority.
16. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, reporting in accordance with provisions of
Sec. 11- 1358.9 of the Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 1653, New Series) on its action with respect to
density and height limit increase on the Planned Development filed by Seaside Development Company for
the Waterfront Towers proposed on the south side of Central Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Streets.
A communication had been received from Mr. John J. Williamson, 512 -B Central Avenue, protesting the
proposed development.
7
Mr. Kaliski, who had requested the opportunity to speak at this time, stated Seaside Development. Company
had proposed construction of a high -rise dwelling on the property in question and at three presentations
before the Planning Board the proposal had been denied. He said the Company had a sincere and unselfish
interest in developing the property in this type of construction and it was hard to understand the reason
for the denial. His partner, Mr. Vladimir Turski, had requested that he explain the matter to the City
Council.
President La Croix pointed out for Mr. Kaliski's information that the project exceeded the density require-
ment by 1% and the height limitation by 50% when applied to the actual proposed height and 125% when
applied to the total number of floors, and these facts had been the reasons for the Board's denial of the
Planned Development.
At the suggestion of the City Attorney, Mr. Kaliski explained that when the property was originally
purchased and design of the project was started after filling, the Company had applied to the Planning
Board for approval of 362 low -rise units and had been requested by the Board to put 450 units on the
property for the reason that the parcel was unique and it wanted to see it used to its greatest density
and efficiency. Consequently, Mr. Kaliski said, the Company had spent additional money to eventually come
up with 370 low -rise units and provision for an eight -story high -rise building, which had been approved by
the Board. The construction had not proceeded by reason of internal problems, interest rates, et cetera,
and when the Company had returned to considering the project last year the cost of construction had gone
up so high they were faced with a condition where low -rise costs were very nearly as high as high -rise
costs and there were other factors to consider. Because of this the Company was forced to redesign and in
so doing it had developed the thinking that high -rise was the proper concept for the land in question.
Mr. Kaliski said the Planning Board, the Council and the people of the neighborhood were not doing him or
his partners any favor by permitting construction of high -rise buildings as they were more expensive and
at much greater risk. He suggested if the City did not approve of this type of structure he and his
partners would just forget about that concept. However, he said there would be no way anyone could convince
them that high -rise was not the best use of the property, as the structure would be a better, more attrac-
tive, more convenient, more permanent and more secure building, superior in every respect to the low -rise
proposal. Also, Mr. Kaliski said, the complaints advanced by the residents of the area concerning higher
density, additional automobiles, pollution and a few blocked views could be easily counteracted. He said
there would be less blockage of view by high -rise than by low -rise because of the additional open space
in the former, there would not be more people or more cars because the proposal last presented was for
418 units and the original proposal approved in 1967 was for 430 units. Mr. Kaliski respectfully requested
that the Council, if it felt the high -rise proposal had merit, refer the matter back to the Planning Board
for further consideration with the condition that prompt action be taken.
Mr. Kaliski said his Company felt the original proposal was still valid as no time limit had been attached
at the time it was approved, and they felt that the revised Planned Development Ordinance, recently adopted,
was not applicable to their proposal. He requested that the City Attorney be directed to furnish the
Company with an opinion on this matter as ,soon as possible.
Mr. Cunningham stated what Mr. Kaliski had said was substantially correct, that the law applicable in the
matter was clear, that the 1967 plan, as approved, could not be changed by a subsequently enacted ordinance
if the developer had expended funds, labor or material in such a way as to constitute the intrusion of a
substantial property right between the time of the prior approval and adoption of the new Planned Develop-
ment Ordinance. He said the question of time limit on either Ordinance was not material. Mr. Cunningham
said, the legal question being clear, the answer would depend upon the factual background, that there was
a dispute with the developer claiming he had expended between $80,000 and $100,000 on the site for drainage
and other work. He had not said, however, that the expenditure of funds was directly in furtherance of
the Planning Board's approval of the 1967 Planned Development proposal. Mr. Cunningham said he had asked
that Mr. Turski supply him in writing such factual information as he would deem appropriate which would
enable him to make a factual determination. He said the City Engineer was of the opinion that no work
had been done on the project in question and if this was the case, obviously, the new Planned Development
Ordinance would apply.
President La Croix requested that Mr. Turski of Seaside Development Company submit to the City Attorney
in writing a report of the items of expenditure he felt would substantiate the claim that moneys had been
expended in connection with the approval granted on the original plan in 1967.
The City Attorney said he would also need and presumed that the City Engineer would supply the City's
factual position in the matter. Mr. Hanna said he would be glad to furnish this information.
Councilman McCall commented that this was not a case of someone new coming into the City with a development,
that Mr. Kaliski had resided in Alameda as a boy, had attended local schools, his family had owned the old
Strand Theatre and Marti Rae Court had been named for Mr. Kaliski and his brother.
Mr. Williamson, who had requested the opportunity to speak on the matter, said he was probably more affected
by the proposed development than anyone else in the area, that he found the plan submitted to the Board
very vague. He submitted that the plan on display furnished very little detail as to what was proposed
and this was his reason for objecting strenuously to the project. Mr. Williamson said there were certain
attachments to the plan submitted which would affect him adversely in connection with his boating activities
and he said he did not intend to give up his boats nor the right to use the water, that according to Mr.
Turski's statements before the Board some kind of bridge was planned, which he assumed was a plan to fill
in the area and take the water rights from the residents. He also complained that traffic conditions
would be aggravated by the proposed project.
President La Croix called for action by the Council on this item. Mr. Cunningham pointed out the matter
before the Council for approval or disapproval referred only to the incentive density increases granted
under the new Planned Development Ordinance, Sec. 11- 1358.4, as explained in the communication.
Councilman McCall moved the ruling of the Planning Board in this matter be upheld. Councilman Longaker
seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
17. t' From the City Manager, recommending that contract be awarded to 0. C. Jones and Sons for the
project of Constructing Arch Culverts at Various Locations at the estimated price of $64,854.25.
Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be adopted, that the contract be awarded to the designated
contractor for the specified project at the estimated price named. Councilman Longaker seconded the
motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
18. V' From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Jardin & Jardin, low bidder, for the
project of Installing Storm Sewers in Pacific Avenue from Grand Street to Minturn Street and in Willow
Street from Pacific Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue at the estimated price of $18,832.59.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be accepted, that the contract be awarded to the specified
contractor for the designated project at the estimated price indicated. Councilman Longaker seconded
the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
19. y` From the City Manager, recommending that public improvements in connection with the subdivision
known as Tract 3270 be accepted and the developer be released from his performance bond. The subdivi-
sion was the condominium development of Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett at Portola Avenue and Ninth
Street.
Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation be adopted, that the street improvements in connection
with said Tract be accepted and the developer be released from his bond. Councilman McCall seconded
the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
{
20. / From the City Manager, recommending that public improvements in connection with the subdivision
known as Tract 3271 be accepted and the developer be released from his performance bond. The subdi-
vision was the condominium development of Dowjo Developers at 2106 Otis Drive.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be approved, that the street improvements in connection with
said Tract be accepted and the developer be released from his bond. The motion was seconded by
Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
RESOLUTIONS:
21. V The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7889
Approving Warrant No. 181 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, Jr., (1). Absent: None.
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7890
Declaring Intention of City to Redeem All Series A Off- Street Parking
Revenue Bonds Issued Pursuant to Resolution No. 5312, Adopted April 24,
1956, and Authorizing Redemption Procedure Provided in Article IV of
Said Resolution."
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.
23. "Resolution No.
Confirming Participation in Cooperative Library System Film Service Project."
It was stated this resolution had been withdrawn.
24. / The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7891
Acknowledging Lessee's Exercise of Option to Renew Lease of City -Owned
Tidelands to Alaska Packers Association, Inc. (Fortmann Basin)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall inquired as to the amount received on this lease and whether
the compensation had been just, compared to amounts being paid by other firms on the Estuary, and
whether there was no possibility under the agreement to leave the way open for negotiation as the
property gained in value.
Mr. Cunningham stated the City no longer wrote this type of lease, that the original lease had been
authorized by Ordinance No. 911, New Series, adopted in March, 1947, and the total revenue to the City
had been $175,000 for each 25 -year term, with no escalation clause and no provision for re- opening
negotiations.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes:
Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
377
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
25. Councilman Longaker 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." (North end of Grand Street - Tinker Avenue)
The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
26. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $85,694.71, 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 March 7,
1972, 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:
27. Mr. Roy Seward, 2210 Santa Clara Avenue, said he had received the impression at the last meeting of
the Council that the revised Bicycle Ordinance would be on this meeting's agenda.
Mr. Cunningham stated the document would come before the Council at its next regular meeting on March 21,
1972.
28. ` Mr. Williamson, 512 -B Central Avenue, said he belonged to a volunteer organization which examined
boats at the north end of Grand Street and there was need for portable sanitary facilities in the area.
Mr. Weller said he would discuss the matter with the Director of Recreation and Parks.
29.,,E Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, again brought up the subject of a fence which had been
constructed in connection with the condominium development at Ninth Street and Portola Avenue. He inquired
on what grounds the Council had determined that the fence was legal as he claimed it was six feet four
inches for a certain distance.
President La Croix stated on the basis of reports from the City Engineer's office, the Planning Department,
the City Manager's office and the personal inspection of members of the Council it had been found that
the fence as constructed was not more than six feet high and the level of the ground below was such that
an area of the structure was six feet five inches for a distance of twenty feet.
Mr. Gottstein expressed his objection to the determination.
FILING:
30. Report of Superintendent of Streets regarding Santa Clara Avenue -Third Street - Lincoln Avenue Street
Lighting Improvement District.
31. At this time, President La Croix recognized former Mayor William Murray and his wife, who had given
a valiant son in the service of his country in World War II. The gentleman, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Walter
Hake and Col. and Mrs. Zang, their daughters and son -in -law, rose and were welcomed with a round of
applause.
The President then recognized and welcomed former Mayor Raymond P. Kranelly, former Mayor William S.
Godfrey, Mr. Lloyd Hurwitz, President of the Historical Society and other members of that organization.
He thanked Mr. Haight for his attendance on this occasion.
MEMORIAM RESOLUTIONS:
32. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7892
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to Vernon 0.
Hanson, Park Department Employee.
"WITH DEEP SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of
its loyal employees, VERNON 0. HANSON.
"WHEREAS, Mr. Hanson had commenced his employment with the City of Alameda on April 30,
1956, as a Laborer in the Street Department, in which he had been promoted to the position of
Tree Trimmer and subsequently had been transferred to the Park Department, in which he was
serving at the time of his demise; and
378
8
"WHEREAS, Mr. Hanson had been diligent and conscientious in the performance of
his duties and well liked for his amiable personality and cooperative manner toward his
fellow employees, who have been deeply saddened by his illness and passing.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does
hereby acknowledge with appreciation the reliable service rendered by this faithful
employee during his years of City employ and expresses its sense of personal loss in his
passing.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread in full upon the minutes
of this meeting and a copy thereof be sent to the family of Mr. Hanson to extend to its
members sincere sympathy in their bereavement.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this meeting of the Council of the City of
Alameda adjourns, it shall do so in respect to the memory of VERNON 0. HANSON."
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.
The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
33. At the suggestion of the President, Councilman Longaker introduced his daughter and son -in -law,
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Ingalls, who were visiting from Spokane, Washington. They were welcomed with
applause.
ADJOURNMENT:
34. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to
the memory of VERNON 0. HANSON, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, March 21, 1972, at 7:30
o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
J +^