1964-03-03 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY AFTERNOON MARCH 3, 1964
The meeting convened at 3:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Freeman, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey,
(5), were noted present. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Receipt of the Notice and Agenda for this special meeting had been acknowledged by the Council-
men and was on file. The purpose of said meeting was to hear a report by the Mayor concerning the
Temporary Housing Projects and his request for Council direction thereon.
Upon request, the Clerk read in full the prepared report, dated March 3, 1964, which set forth the
factual data with regard to the closing of Estuary and Webster Temporary Housing Projects and the
number of families still involved in the relocation efforts. Also, the following suggestions were
contained therein and the President asked that the Council give them consideration as the basis for
an expression of City policy:
"I believe that the Alameda Housing Authority should be urged to establish economic
and other reasonable criteria for admission to and continued occupancy of the Projects.
Our survey strongly indicates that many present occupants are financially able to relocate
in private facilities, and I see no reason why they should not be required to do so. The
1960 Federal Census reports that 18.9% of all Alameda families had gross incomes of less
than $3,000. in 1959. These families were distributed through every Census Tract in the
city, and I can find no justification for permitting continued occupancy in our Temporary
Housing Projects on the part of persons whose income is substantially above that enjoyed by
many other citizens who have accepted the responsibility for financing their own private
accommodations. I am aware that the Housing Authority has not heretofore set up such
criteria, and presumably with good reason, but I think the situation has now so changed that
our temporary public housing must be reserved for those in economic need.
2 - "I believe that the United States Navy should be requested to release all temporary units
in Western and Makassar Projects and to return these Projects to Housing Authority control
with the expectation that civilians meeting reasonable economic criteria may have the oppor-
tunity to obtain decent housing. It is admittedly difficult to make the choice between the
housing needs of our Navy and those of economically- distressed local civilians, but it seems
to me that the Federal Government has a responsibility which it must now meet."
In conclusion, it was stated that these two recommendations, if carried out, would free in the Western
and Makassar Temporary Projects at least enough units to take care of the .approximately one hundred
families in the Estuary Housing Project for whom private housing may not be economically available.
The Council was asked for its approval of these proposals as Council policy and its authorization
for the Mayor to represent the City as necessary in attempting to carry them out.
A lengthy and detailed discussion of all aspects of the circumstances was had. It was pointed out
that the Federal. Government had repeatedly expressed its concern about housing for those in the
lower income brackets and it was felt that, in this instance, the Twelfth Naval District could
reasonably cooperate with the City in the plan proposed. It was also brought out that the Council
had been doing everything possible for the people in the Housing Projects in this respect even though
it was not legally obligated to relocate them.
Councilman La Croix said he felt a motion was in order to the effect that this was an expression of
City policy - that the Council concurred with the statements contained in Items Nos. 1 and 2 as recom-
mended by the Mayor in his report and that he be authorized to pursue this matter further with the
Twelfth Naval District and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda with regard to the possibility
of locating these people within these two Housing Project areas. Councilman La Croix so moved and
the motion was seconded by Councilman Rose.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall expressed his continued opposition to Mr. Neil Clark,
Assistant City Manager, having been appointed as a Housing Advisor in this matter to a special -
privilege group. He felt all surveys concerning economically- distressed families should include
everyone in the community - not in just a special area. Further, he believed that the Council would
be encroaching into the jurisdiction of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda in its operation
of the Housing Projects.
Following further discussion of the situation, the question was put and the motion carried on the fol-
lowing roll.call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Freeman, La Croix, Rose and President Godfrey, (4). Noes:
Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
2. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
9. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, reiterated his contention that Webster Street should
be raised before any further construction was done along this thoroughfare and urged the Council to
establish the proper grade thereof at a sufficient height to obviate any future flooding.
Upon inquiry,, Mr. Hanna stated he felt that, within six to eight months, his Department would be able
to submit its report on its studies of this situation, including the suggestion that consideration be
given to the official grade being higher. He pointed out that there was no great urgency in this
matter.
HEARINGS:
10Y The matter was called up concerning the petition from Schmidt & Gravatt for the reclassification
of property at 2713 and 2717 Central Avenue, from "R -1 ", One- Family Residence, District to "R -2 ",
Two - Family Residence, District.
The Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publication of said Notice of Hearing was on file and copies of the
minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter was considered had been sent to the Council-
men for their information. The Planning Board had recommended approval of the petition for said
reclassification.
Upon request, Mr. Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the history of this case, pointing up that
there had been no protests against the requested rezoning of the property in question. There had been
unanimous agreement by the Board that the proposed construction would be an attractive development in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Cunningham then stated the legal issue before the Council was whether the findings of the Planning
Board in its advisory report based upon Section 11 -175 of the Zoning Ordinance should be approved,
modified or disapproved.
Upon the call for proponents and opponents, respectively, there was no response. The President then
declared the Hearing closed.
Councilman McCall felt this development would be a tremendous advantage to the City and moved the
Council approve the recommendation of the City Planning Board and that said property be reclassified
as requested. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The matter was then referred to "Introduction of Ordinances ".
ii( The matter was then submitted with regard to an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to
allow a variance for certain proposed construction in the rear of the property at 1520 -22 Alameda
Avenue. The Appeal was filed by Mrs. Marie Simonson, owner of the adjoining property at 1524 Alameda
Avenue.
Upon request, Mr. Johnson outlined the case and explained the circumstances involved in allowing,a
ten -foot driveway to the proposed rear structure. He distributed pictures to the Councilmen for their
further information.
The City Attorney stated the legal issue before the Council was whether or not the action of the Plan-
ning Board, under Section 11- 161(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, should be upheld, modified or reversed.
Upon the call for proponents, Mr. A. C. Johnson, Architect for Lakehurst Construction Company, spoke
on behalf of Mr. Robert Minton, owner of the property in question, and pleaded that the decision of
the Planning Board be upheld. He pointed up that, ultimately, there would be four living units on
the property with adequate parking in the rear. The existing two -unit house would be renovated and
the development of the parcel would upgrade the neighboring properties.
The President then called for the opponents to the question and Mrs. Marie Simonson expressed her fear
that, with only a ten -foot driveway, someone would run into her home which, unfortunately, was built
right on the adjoining property line.
Mr. Robert Minton, 820 Grand Street, owner of said property, offered to have a "guard" placed along
the outside of the driveway to fully protect Mrs. Simonson's home.
There being no further speakers on the subject, the President declared the Hearing closed.
In response to questions, Mr. Johnson, the Architect, assured the Council the driveway would be com-
pletely straightened out and rebuilt.
It was felt that with the safeguard along the driveway to protect the Simonson home, the driveway
would be an adequate width. Councilman LaCroix then moved that the Appeal be denied and the ruling
of the Planning Board be upheld to allow the requested ten -foot driveway. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Rose and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA:
12 From Mr. Raymond E. Brown, City Auditor, requesting the creation of an additional position of
"Accounting Machine Operator" for his office, and itemizing the reasons therefor.
There being no objections, the City Attorney was directed to prepare the necessary resolution for con-
sideration by the Council at its next regular meeting.
13. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending the denial of the petition
filed by Mr. William D. Cox to rezone the property at 2615 San Jose Avenue, from "R -1 ", One - Family
Residence, District to "R -4 ", Neighborhood Apartment, District.
The date of Hearing on this matter was set for the next meeting of the Council, on March 17, 1964.
14." From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to J. H. Fitzmaurice, Inc., low bidder,
for the project of Installing Arch Culverts and Drainage Improvements at Various Locations, at the
total cost of $26,484.85.
Councilman Rose moved the recommendation be approved and the contract be awarded to the designated
firm for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix
and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
15. Councilman Freeman introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under pro-
vision 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." (2713 and
2717 Central Avenue)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
16'( Councilman Freeman inquired about the situation in Unit II of the South Shore Project where the
fire alarm boxes had been installed but were inoperative because the entire- system had not yet been
connected.
Mr. Hanna reported that he had investigated and found that the Bureau of Electricity had an immediate
and continuing contact with the Fire Department in such matters. He stated that as soon as the
Bureau completed the wiring, it would notify the Fire Department, which was aware that the fire
alarm boxes were not usable at this time. Mr. Hanna said he understood the wiring would be com-
pleted in about three weeks.
17. Councilman Rose referred to the discussion at the last Council meeting with regard to the offer
by Shore Line Properties, Inc., of a parcel in Unit IV and its development as a children's recrea-
tional facility to be dedicated to the City. He felt the Council had not adequately expressed its
appreciation to the Developer for his generosity and interest in the City - and suggested that such
a letter be written.
The Clerk was instructed so to do.
18V / Councilman Freeman referred to a memorandum received in 1955 from the City Planner of Richmond
which contained a breakdown of the direct cost to the City to serve one home for one year. She
inquired if the City Planning Director could submit an updated resume of such cost, using the
memorandum and the material now available, so that one would know what each piece of property must
be assessed to carry its own weight.
Mr. Weller pointed out that such a report could be made but no one could guarantee its accuracy.
However, Councilman Freeman said she would like to have such-a breakdown. Mr. Weller requested a
copy of said memorandum and was asked to have such determination of cost made.
19.E Councilman McCall referred to his recent request for a letter of confirmation from Mr. Robert
Crown, Assemblyman, concerning the restoration of the $185,000. allocation in the State Budget for
the development of the Alameda Memorial State Beach - and inquired if said letter had been received.
Councilman McCall said he still felt the State Beach property should be fenced.
Mr. Weller stated he would ask Mr. Crown for such a letter. He explained that he had been assured
by Mr. Crown that he had every confidence this sum would be restored to the Budget and the City
would be advised if there was any difficulty, which could then be taken care of by a City delegation
appearing in Sacramento.
20/ Councilman McCall also spoke of other parcels of undeveloped land along Webster Street and
inquired if the City Planning Director could prepare some type of plan for this area which would be
desirable for the City. He felt this matter should be pursued with the aid of Mr. Johnson and the
Development Committee of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
21. Councilman Freeman referred to a letter which had been received from the State Lands Commission
and quoted from certain portions thereof. She asked Mr. Cunningham to write to the Commission for
clarification of several statements made therein.
22. Councilman McCall spoke of the recent publicity given the Sunday and Holiday Fun Pass now issued
by the Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District which could be used anywhere in the East Bay. They cost
sixty cents and it was felt that many Senior Citizens and children would derive much pleasure from
their use.
RESOLUTIONS:
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption:
19D
"Resolution No. 6570
Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Contract No. NBy(U)-44650 (Modification
No. 'IP) Relating to Employment Conditions in Special Services Furnished by
City to U. S. Navy Off-Station Public Quarters and Homoja Housing Project."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by
the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6571
Finding and Determining That Work Proposed to be Done Under Building Permit
Applied for by Good Chevrolet is Compatible with Redevelopment Plan for
Park Centre Project, No. Calif. R-63, and Authorizing Issuance of Such Permit."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by
the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
25. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Freeman, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6572
Finding andJ)etermining That Work Proposed to be Done Under Building Permit
Applied for by Agnew & Copeland, Realtors, is Compatible with Redevelopment
Plan for Park Centre Project, No. Calif. R-63, and Authorizing Issuance of
Such Permit."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6573
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Planting of Turf
at McKinley Park, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
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.
27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6574
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installing a
Suspended Ceiling in the Golf Course Restaurant, Calling for Bids and
Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by
the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6575
Requesting Owners of Certain Marsh, Tidelands and Other Lands on and
Contiguous to Bay Farm Island, to Develop Plan Satisfactory to the City
Council for Reclaiming, Filling and Improvement of Said Lands."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose.
Mr. James B. Davis, Attorney for Shore Line Properties, Inc., was asked if his firm had any definite
plans yet for the development of the lands it had recently acquired on Bay Farm Island. He stated
that the Company was in the process of procuring a Land Use Planner in order to develop a detailed
plan, but at present, there was no specific plan ready. He said it was hoped to move as quickly as
possible in this matter and the plans would be submitted to the proper City Agencies in due course.
Mr. Davis also commented that his client felt it would be beneficial to all concerned if there were
a committee comprised of certain City Officials who could work with him and his Staff in preparing
preliminary plans.
Upon inquiry for more information about the membership of the "Committee", Mr. Davis replied that
they would like to have the professional advice of such men as Messrs. Mark Hanna, City Engineer;
Donald Johnson, City Planning Director; George A. Rose, Councilman; Eric Essex, member of the
Planning Board; a member of the Recreation Commission; and Dr. Donald M. Roderick, Superintendent
of Schools - all of whom were knowledgeable in their respective fields and would be of great help in
the proper planning of all aspects of the development.
Mr. Davis mentioned that all phases of the over-all development would proceed simultaneously - the
working out of a Fill Agreement with the City, through the cooperation of Mr. Cunningham, City
Attorney, and the use of both "Subdivision" and "PD" types of plans and maps for presentation, as
well as the Reclamation District formation, if necessary.
20
It was brought out that the City should be kept aware of all aspects as any proposed development
progresses and therefore the possibility of more fire stations and more police protection, etcetera,
should be made a part of any study about the City's future needs in this respect.
The question was then put and the motion to adopt said resolution was carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted.
FILING:
29. Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans No. PW 3 -64 -5 - For project of Planting Turf at
McKinley Park.
30. Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans No. PW 3 -64 -6 - For project of Installing Sus-
pended Ceiling in Golf Course Restaurant.
31. Affidavit of City Manager and Chief of Police concerning the expenditure of monies from Police
Secret Fund from July 1, 1963, through February 28, 1964, as provided in Section 17 -11
of the Charter.
32. Financial Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of January 31, 1964 - Verified,by Hackleman &
Larzelere.
BILLS:
33. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the
total amount of $12,731.13, 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
March 3, 1964, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
34. There being no further business to come before :. the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday evening, March 17, 1964, at 7:30 o'clock.
Respectfully submitted,