Loading...
1963-10-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ACAMBDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 15 , - - - - - - 1 9 6 3 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Councilman La Croix and was followed by the Invocation, delivered by The Reverend Mr. 0. I. Erickson, Pastor of.7rinity Lutheran Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Freeman, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held October 1, 1963, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: ^/' 2., A petition was presented, signed by twenty-nine residents in the vicinity of the Broadway and Otis Drive intersection, requesting the Council to investigate and change the left-turn lanes at this location and the red curbs in front of the homes in proximity thereto. It was pointed out these streets are included in State Highway Route No. 226 and the City Engineer was presently working on the matter in an attempt to restrict the parking only during the peak hours . of traffic. One of the State requisites in allowing "pert time parking" was for the City to have an ordinance authorizing the towing away of cars in violation of said parking restrictions, which the City did not currently have. During the discussion of this situation, it was agreed an injustice to certain property owners in this locality had been created by the no parking" ordinance. The President stated he was planning to call a special meeting of the Council to consider some personnel appointments and, possibly, this matter could be discussed further and resolved at that time. Therefore, if there were no objections, he stated said meeting would be held on Tuesday, October 29, 1963, at 1:00 o'clock p.m. 3. / From Utah Construction & Mining Co., signed by Mr. F. M. Keller, Senior Vice President, concern- ing proposed modification of the "Fill Agreement" and stating it would execute said modification upon authorization of the modification by the City. � �. From Reclamation District No. 2087, signed by Mr, Charles T. Travers, President, referring to the proposed modification of the "Fill Agreement" and stating it would execute same as assignee upon authorization of said modification by the City. Councilman Freeman submitted several questions with respect to the completion of the fill and the entire public works involved in the easterly end of the South Shore Project - and the responsibility therefor - which were clarified by the City Attorney and Mr. James 8. Davis, Attorney for Shore Line Properties, Inc. 5. 1/ From Mr. Donald K. Maclean, 1106 Grand Street, in protest against the development of Unit IV, South Shore, as proposed by Shore Line Properties, Inc, � h. From Mr. Robert D. Follrutb, Sr,, 980 Post Street, in opposition to the development of Unit IV, South Shore, as proposed by Shore Line Properties, Inc. These communications were referred to the file on the subject. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: V/ 7. Mrs, Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, made several inquiries concerning certain provisions of the Fill Agreement which were answered by the City Attorney. She contended that any further modi- fication of said Agreement would liberalize it to the extent that there would be no protection for the people of the City. 8. 8r. G. N. pope, 1820 Bay Street, expressed his opposition to the development of Unit IV, South Shore, as contemplated by Shore Line Properties, Inc, � Y." ./ Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, reiterated his complaint about the lack of assigned Police Officers to take care of traffic in the Posey Tubes. He suggested a double-end tow car should be available for emergency use to obviate congestion. He also again urged that the grade of Webster Street be raised to eliminate any possibility of winter storms flooding the area. 10k' Miss Paula Gisi, 1024 Onion Street, Secretary; Gay Holmes, Treasurer; and Jordan Rudge, of the Civics Club of St. Barnabas School, appeared to extend an invitation to a member of the City Council to speak before this Club on "City Government". There were also several other members of the Club in attendance at this meeting. The President welcomed these young people and assured them one of the Councilmen would plan to give such a talk at an appropriate time for all concerned. ll� Mr. Donald Bruzzone, 1265 St. Charles Street, spoke at length in opposition to the development of Unit IV, South Shore, as submitted by Shore Line Properties, Inc., on the particular basis of the increased density contemplated. He felt the area should be improved with one-family, quality hones. 15 9 12. The matter was called up concerning the two Hearings relating to Resolution of Intention No. 6522 to Order the Improvement of Garden Road, Between County Road and Mecartney Road in the City of Alameda, The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of Resolution of Intention No. 6522, the Affidavit of Mailing printed copies of Resolution of Intention No. 6522 to the forty-four interested property owners and the Affidavit of Posting the Notice of Improvement, incorporating said Resolution - all in accordance with the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911' and amend- ments thereto. The Clerk stated there was also on file her Certificate that no protests or objec- tions had been filed. Hr. Cunningham stated the issue in the first Hearing was whether the Council should find and determine that the public convenience and necessity required the improvement of Garden Road between County Road and Mecartney Road and whether it should further find and determine that the Special Assessment Inves- tigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1921 should not apply and whether this Council ' should determine that such project should proceed under the terms and provisions of the Improvement Act of 101I. Mr. Richard P. Schacht, Attorney, represented twenty-three of the forty-four property owners involved in this matter. He stated he had a petition signed by thirty-three of the interested property owners who requested the Council to grant a continuance of these Hearings for a period of thirty days to allow them an opportunity to further study the proposed work and improvements and the costs as sub- mitted by the City Engineer. Be pointed out it was hoped that the property owners on Garden Road would be able to accomplish the desired improvements without the necessity of the added expense of forming an assessment district. This would afford a substantial savings to the taxpayers concerned. Mr. Robert T. Anderson of the firm of Sturgis, Den-Dulk, Douglass & Anderson explained that he had been employed as Special Counsel to handle the proceedings and to certify to the validity thereof in the ultimate sale of bonds, should the assessment district be formed. Be agreed the property owners could make a saving in accomplishing the street improvements if they were able to do so without the formation of such a district. He suggested that if the Hearings were to be continued, they be continued to a date certain. The consensus of the Council was that the property owners on Garden Road be given the opportunity to achieve the desired improvements at the least possible cost. Mr. Schacht then requested that the Hearings be continued to the Council meeting of November 19, 1963, and he filed with the City Clerk the petition requesting said continounce. There being no objections, the President stated the Hearings would be continued to November 19, 1982, as regUeated, 13� The matter was called up on the Appeal filed by Mr. Donald A. Parker, 1801-A Chapin Street, from the decision of the Planning Board to deny his application for a variance to allow a six-foot fence along his front property line on Buena Vista Avenue. The Clerk stated a petition had been received, signed by eighty-three residents in the area, request- ing the Council to take favorable action on Mr. Parker's Appeal. Upon request, Mr. Venable, Acting Planning Director, explained the situation with the display of a sketch of the lot in question and the location of the duplex thereon. Mr. Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether or not the action of the Planning Board under Section 11-161(b) of the Zoning Ordinance should be affirmed, modified or reversed. Upon inquiry of the President, there were no proponents in this matter. The President then called for the opponents to the denial and Mr. Parker reviewed the history of, his case and asked to be allowed to retain the fence to provide privacy for the only yard area he had, which was at the "aide" of his home, although it was at the "front" of the lot, according to the pro- visions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Charles Dodt, 1723 Chapin Street, spoke in support of Mr. Parker's Appeal. There being no further proponents or opponents who desired to speak, the President declared the Hear- ing closed. The one objection raised by the Council was the obstruction the fence caused to traffic visibility at this corner. Following some discussion of this point, Mr. Parker agreed that he could cut his fence back to an angle which would improve the view of Buena Vista Avenue to the west. The Council concurred that the City Engineer would determine upon the proper cutback of the fence to permit adequate visibility at this corner for traffic safety. Councilman McCall then moved the Appeal be granted and the recommendation of the Planning Board be reversed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. l4: The matter was called up with regard to the requested reclassification of certain properties on Lincoln Avenue and Fourth Street, specifically described in the petition, from the //R-l", One- Family Residence District, to the "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District, 8r. George J. McCloskey, Jr., Petitioner. The Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing was on file. Copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter was considered had been sent to the Coun- cilmen for their iuformation. Upon request, Mr. Venable reviewed the land use of this block by reference to a displayed map of the area. The Planning Board had denied the petition on the grounds that the lots in the block were not susceptible to multiple development and the residents in the area desired to retain the one-family residence character of the neighborhood. 8r. Cunningham then stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings of the Planning Board under Section 11-175 of the Zoning Ordinance should be approved, modified or diaapprove6. Upon the call for any proponents, Mrs. James Codino, 1600 Fourth Street, voiced her objections to having any of these properties rezoned for multi-family developments. 8r. G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, also supported the Planning Board's action. The President then called for the opponents and Mr. George McCloskey, Jr,, the petitioner, addressed the Council in explanation of his desire to fully utilize his deep lot by constructing a three-unit building at the rear of the existing dwelling. He felt there was just too much land going to waste in the rear portion of his property. There being no more speakers on the question, the President declared the Hearing closed. Councilman La Croix then moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be upheld and the petition to reclassify the designated properties be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes; None. Absent: None. 15.V The matter was next called up relating to the requested reclassification of certain properties of the Nichandros Development Co,, Inc., in the Pacific Marina area, from the "M-1-PD" and the "M-2-G", Industrial Districts, to the "D-6-PD",.8otel-Apartment, Planned Development, District. The Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing was on file. Copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter was considered had been sent to the Coun- cilmen for their information. The Planning Board had recommended the reclassification, as indicated, of only Parcels 5, 6 and 7. The Clerk also read a letter from Utah Construction & Mining Co., signed by Mr. Charles I. Travers, Manager, South Shore Land Office, which had been delivered during,the early part of the meeting. It was stated that "Utah" did not oppose the proposed rezoning of the land in question. Once again, Mr. Venable was called upon to give the factual data of this case. He reviewed, by reference to a large map displayed for this purpose, the circumstances pertinent to the land use of the entire area involved. Mr. Venable pointed out approval had already been given for an eighty- four-unit apartment building in the area and it was felt the apartment complex should be developed in order to put the property to use. Furthermore, there had been attempts made to attract industry to this area but so far, the land was lying idle. The parcels recommended to be rezoned comprised 48.3 acres. Mr. Cunningham advised that the issue before the Council was whether the planning Board's action based on Section 11-175 of the Zoning Ordinance should be approved, modified or disapproved. Upon the call for proponents, the following .spoke in favor of the recommended reclassification in question: Mr. Paul Cucleben, 1917 Stanford Street; Mrs. Inez Kapellao^ 1128 College Avenue; Mr. Frank Countner, associated with the Nichandros Development Co., Inc,; Mr, Frank Goctucein, 721 Haight Avenue; Mr. V. J. Assetto, 1311 Hansen Avenue. All pointed up principally the advantage of making use of the land for residential purposes in view of the fact that efforts to attract "industry" had been in vain. It was developed that the problem of ingress and egress to and from the area in question was being worked on to effect adequate traffic circulation. In answer to the call for any opponents, Mr- Marcel J. Marquis, 910 Pacific Avenue, expressed his belief that the area should remain in the industrial zone. Mr. G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, opposed the rezoning on the grounds that it would subvert the Master Plan and he felt it was spot zouing. There being no further speakers on the question, the President declared the Hearing closed.` Councilman McCall moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be approved and Parcels 5, 6 and 7 of the "Nichandros" property be rezoned to "g-6-PD", Hotel-Apartment, Planned Development, District, as indicated on the map attached to the Board's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Council- man Freeman. It was felt there should have been some expression from the Alameda Chamber of Commerce concerning its position in this matter. Mr. Raymond P. Kranelly, 1309 Mound Street, Chairman of the Industrial Affairs Committee of the ''Chamber" last year, stated the members had inspected this property at that time and had wholeheartedly endorsed the project to the Board of Directors of the Chamber and let- ters to this effect had been written to both the Planning Board and the City Council. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Rose, (1). Absent: None. The matter was then referred to "Introduction of Ordinances". REPORTS OF OFF CERS BOARDS, ETC.TERA: 16.V. From City Planning Board, signed by the Acting Secretary, recommending that the Council not adopt the proposed ordinance to set a minimum period within which applications for variances, use permits and district boundary amendments might be resubmitted. A Hearing in this matter was set for the Council meeting of November 5, 1963. 17. From City Planning Board, signed by the Acting Secretary, recommending acceptance of the Tenta- tive Map for Tract No. 2537, Unit IV, South Shore Project, in accordance with provisions of Sec. 11-3134 of Ordinance No. 1208, New Series, subject to the conditions set forth in its letter dated October 9, 1963, Mr. Joseph H. Steveley, 934 Court Street, stated he wanted to go on presented by Shore Line Properties, Inc., was a good one and he was development would not reduce the present property values. However, objections to the proposed location of a "Tot Lot" park which would he felt, would ruin the value of his property. Further, he thought was poor because of its proximity to Krusi Park. record that he thought the plan not opposed to it. He felt the Mr. Steveley registered his be right next to his home and, the choice of site for a park The President pointed out there had been some question about the desirability of a park in this particular area of the South Shore at all and there would be further consideration given this phase of the matter. Mr. Steveley was to be informed if and when the subject was to be discussed. Mr. Roger Hooper, 2836 Waterton Street, expressed his confidence in the developer of Unit IV and his approval of the plans as submitted by Shore Line Properties. He felt it could be a show place and a credit to the City. Councilman Freeman moved the Council deny the recommendation of the Planning Board and not accept the Tentative Map for Tract No. 2537, Unit IV, South Shore Project. She itemized four reasons for her motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman McCall then moved that the Council approve the report and recommendation of the Planning Board and accept the Tentative Map for Tract No. 2537, Unit IV, South Shore Project, subject to all of the conditions imposed by the Board in its letter dated October 9, 1963. Councilman La Croix seconded the motion. Dr. Alice Challen, 2601 La Jolla Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed plan of Shore Line Properties, principally because of the small lots and the increased density which would result. Speaking on the question, Councilman Freeman raised a number of questions pertaining to the legal and engineering ramifications of the provisions of the Fill Agreement, its Modification and the 'proposed Modification thereof. She contended the Council had not yet discussed and determined upon the City's actions concerning the options contained therein. City Attorney Cunningham, Mr. Davis, Attorney for Shore Line Properties, Inc., and City Engineer Hanna explained and clarified the several points questioned. Following a prolonged and detailed discussion of this matter, the question was put and the motion carried on the following roll cull vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Freeman, (1). Absent: None. 18:( From From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to McGuire and Hester, low bidder, for the project of Installing a Storm Sewer on Mound Street from Calhoun Street to Adams Street, at the total cost of S27,707,75. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be adopted; that 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. 19: 1 From Mrs. Lee H. Cavanaugh, Vice President of the Board of Education, requesting a leave of absence from her duties on said Board during the month of November, 1963, as she will be out of the United States. Councilman Freeman moved the leave of absence be granted to Mra. Cavanaugh for the period requested. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 20— Councilman McCall 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, Nev Series." (Parcels 5, 6 and 7 of Nichandros Development Cu., Inc. - Pacific Marina) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 21: At this time, the President referred to the memorandum from the City Manager calling attention to the fact that the Charter Revision Committee had been asked to remain in effect pending deter- mination of a date on which the Charter question might be submitted to the electorate. He had indicated future election dates to be held in the County and City within the next two years. The President asked that the Councilmen give this matter some study in order that it could be dis- cussed 22.v Also, the President called attention ,to the matter of the City of Alameda becoming a member of the Associated Day Area Governments. As requested by Councilman Freeman at the last meeting, copies of the By-Laws of said organization had been received and he inquired if the Council wished to seriously consider the question of joining nd.D.A.Q." at this time or at the next meeting. Upon advice of @r. Cunningham, Councilman Freeman moved the City Attorney and the City Manager be authorized to commence such proceedings as were necessary to enable the City of Alameda to join this organization. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. RESOLUTIONS: 23, The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adopt ion: "Resolution No. 6529 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Various Items of Playground Apparatus for the McKinley Park Tiny Tot Area, 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. 24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6530 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1) New, Latest Model, 1964, Six-Cylinder Four-Door Sedan with Automatic Transmission, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same," (For City Attorney) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll cull carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 25. The following 'resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6531 Cancelling City Taxes on Property Acquired by the Alameda Unified School District for Public Purposes. (Portion of former Clark Pottery property - adjacent to Woodstock Park) t 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. 26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6532 Adopting Revised Budget for Expenditure of Funds Allocated from the State Highway Fund to Cities." 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. The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 27. "Ordinance No. 1442, New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subdivisions (126) and (127) to Section 17-432 Thereof, Relating to Stop Intersections (Clinton and Willow; Pacific and Peru), and Repealing Subdivision (4) of Section 17-461 of Said Code Relating to Yield Right-of-Way Intersections (Clinton and Willow)." Councilman Rose moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council- man La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 28'~' "Ordinance No. 1443, New Series An Ordinance Creating a Recreation and Parks Commission, Providing for Membership Thereof, Defining Powers, Purposes and Duties of Said Commission, and Repealing Ordinances Nos. 1066, New Series, and 1102, New Series." Councilman La Croix moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. � ���� ]��� �� 29. "Ordinance No. 1444, New Series , An Ordinance Accepting the Requirements of Section 13522 of the Penal Code of California Relating to Training of Law Enforcement Officers." Councilman La Croix moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council- man Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 3O.» ^/ "Ordinance No. 1445, New Series An Ordinance Amending Ordinances Nos. 1148, New Series, and 1279, New Series, by Authorizing the Modification of the Agreement and Its Amendment Authorized in Said Ordinance, Said Modification Relating to the Shoreline Retention and Public Improvement of Fill Area 'C'." Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council- man Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Freeman, (1). Absent: None. FILING: 31. Specifications and Provisions No. MS 10-63-14 - Playground Apparatus for McKinley Park. 32. Specifications and Provisions No. MS 10-63-15 - One (I) New, Latest Model, 1904, Six- Cylinder Four-Door Sedan with Automatic Transmission for City Attorney, 33. Auditor's Quarterly Report - City of Alameda, as of September 20, 1963 - Verified by Backleman & Larzelere. 34. Modification of Fill Agreement - Between City of Alameda, Utah Construction & Mining Co., and Reclamation District 2087. BILLS: 35. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $29,371.90, was submitted 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 October 15, 1963, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None. 36, The President reminded the Council of the proposed special meeting to be held on Tuesday after- noon, October 29, 1963, at 1:00 o'clock, primarily to discuss personnel for the Committee on Com- munity Improvements. Notices would be sent out at the proper time. ADJOURNMENT: 37. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 5, 1963, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,