Loading...
1962-07-17 Regular CC Minutes491 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1962 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Collischonn presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Godfrey and,was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. C. Edgar Manherz, Pastor of First Methodist Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Godfrey, McCall, Rose and President Collischonn, (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held July 3, 1962, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2. From Mrs. Leonora Luntsford, 1143 Mound Street, concerning the control of obnoxious weeds. The letter was to be acknowledged and referred to the City Manager for further investigation. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 3. Mr. G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, referred to Item 3 under "Reports" on the agenda concerning the Planning Board's recommendation to amend the Master Plan to effect a change in route of the Industrial Road. He said he understood this matter was going to be laid over - and he strongly voiced his objections to any delay in setting a date for a Hearing on the matter. 4. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, protested against the lack of proper parking facilities at Washington Park, while the large fill -area immediately south thereof, which has been sold to the State for a beach -park, lies dormant. 5: Mrs. J. B. Coffman, 2846 Santa Clara Avenue, referred to an article in the newspaper with regard to some closed sessions which can be held by the sub - committees of the Citizens' Committee on Charter Revision. She inquired about the interpretation of the right to conduct the public's business in private._ The President statedzhe had made it very clear that the meetings of the Committee as a Whole should be open to the public. In response to Mrs. Coffman's query, he agreed that the public would indeed have -every opportunity to express its convictions on the subject. 6. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1610 Encinal Avenue, also spoke on the meeting held the previous night to organize the Citizens' Committee on Charter Revision.. She contended that any meetings of all agencies created by a Legislative Body come under the provisions of the "Brown Act ". Mr., Way, Acting City Attorney, reiterated his opinion that this is a voluntary matter for the Council in its direction to the Citizens' Advisory Committee and a matter for it to consider when it wants to make its meetings public and when it wants to go into closed sessions for sub - committee study. HEARINGS: 7.' The matter was called up concerning the petition from South, Shore Land Co. for the rezoning of certain portions of Unit I, Tract No. 1866, and Unit II, Tract No. 1898 - west of Grand Street, South Shore Development. The City Planning Board had recommended denial of the petition. The Clerk stated many letters had been received in protest against any rezoning in the South Shore area, copies of which had been sent to the Councilmen for their information and had been posted. Also, copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter was considered had been fur- nished to the Councilmen. A letter dated July 16, 1962, from South Shore Land Co., signed by Mr. Charles T. Travers, Vice President, outlining its procedure for the development of its Unit II property, had been received and copies had gone out to the Councilmen. The President declared the Hearing open and stated the petitioner desired to make a statement. Mr. Travers addressed the Council and asked for a continuance of the Hearing to the next regular meeting of the Council, to be held August 7, 1962. He said there were a number of compelling and important reasons for his request. He recalled that there had been a substantial divergence between the Plan- ning Board's position and the Council's position and stated this was a matter they had been studying in some detail. He also recalled that, at the meeting of June 6, the Council clearly indicated to South Shore Land Co. what was acceptable with regard to its original petition for its forty acres and that one of the Councilmen who participated very strongly in making his position known and in mak- ing suggestions with regard to that - Councilman Schacht - was, unfortunately, not going to be present at this meeting - he was away on a vacation. Also, Mr. Weller, with whom they had been working on procedural matters, was not available for this meeting. Beyond that, the two most important reasons that gave them great concern were these: At the meeting of July 3 the Council had requested that they prepare site utilization studies in detail so as to help it come to a conclusion on this very important matter. Immediately, the very next day, Mr. Travers stated, he contacted the Company's architects who are in Beverly Hills, and on Mr. Travers' instructions and authority, they worked the staff and a crew the entire weekend in order to get that work completed which the Council asked be delivered by 4 €€ July 12. They had a very short time in which to do the work and, frankly, complained bitterly to Mr. Travers regarding the amount of detail which they felt should be more carefully studied and included in their -work. Also, within the last twenty -four hours, some suggestions had been made to the Company that were very vital in nature and required further study on their part - study on the part of their administrative people and study on the part of their legal counsel. Mr. Travers said they had a partial record of the transcript which was.very lengthy, and to bring anybody new into the picture to study it and review it, would take time. He said few people could have any more reluc- tance than he in respectfully making a request for a continuance but he felt this matter was important enough to warrant a fair and sound study of all the facets - and they just had not had time to do it in the midst of the confusion and the going back and forth from one Board to another and the changes in the positions that necessarily had to reflect the Council's views in this matter. This was the purpose of their asking for a continuance and they respectfully requested that the Council grant them that privilege. Councilman Godfrey stated he did not want to indicate that he would necessarily be against the con- tinuance - but he couldn't help but smile at Mr. Travers' reasons for asking for this because these were the very reasons that the Planning Board asked the Council to give them an extension of time.to study the matter - which it refused to do, at Mr. Travers' insistence. Councilman Rose stated he would be available at any time, but he realized this was vacation period and he knew that other members of the Council had families who must be considered. He said it seemed to him that this matter was of such importance that whether the Hearing was for the next meeting - or, if-other members of the Council could not be present then, it could be set for the next month or during the next three months - but he thought this was of sufficient importance that the entire Coun- cil should be available at the time of decision. He asked for an expression from other members of the Council as to their availability. He had stated he would be available at any time and he would like to know what the vacation schedule was for the others. Councilman Godfrey stated he would be out of town starting his family vacation on July 26, and he would be back on August 21. Councilman McCall stated he would be here on August 21. The President stated he would be here at all times. Councilman McCall stated he did not think he could go along with the absolute thinking that all of the Councilmen had to be here. He felt it was a matter of a decision and he believed that if he were to be out of town, he would have confidence that the other members of the Council would know his feelings with regard to the Hearing on the subject. The meeting could still be held and if a decision could not be made, the Hearing could be continued for another meeting. He said he would, therefore, move that the request be granted and the Hearing in this matter be-continued to August 7. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). A recess was declared, after which Mr. James C-. Calkins, representing the opponents in the foregoing matter of the South Shore Land Co. petition, made the following statement: For the benefit of the audience at this meeting he said he would like to explain that it was within the discretion of the Mayor as to whether any arguments could be given in opposition to the request for a continuance.' For the record, he wanted to say that the Citizens' Committee did oppose a continuance because it did not feel that the developer had shown any justification for it. On the other hand, his group was not a vindictive one and it had always felt there should be a complete, fair and impartial Hear- ing. His group felt that this Public Hearing for both sides should give both the proponents and the opponents concerned with this issue an opportunity to present their case to a City Council which was not only open - minded but undecided. Therefore, they did not register any more than the token opposi- tion to the continuance but they did feel that this problem was so much a part of Alameda and so sincerely affected the future of this City that it was incumbent that those who were elected to repre- sent the people as a Governing Body be present. Therefore, they would request that the Mayor invoke the Charter provision to assure that-all Councilmen would be present at the continued Hearing. S The matter was called up with regard to the Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance for the property at 2004 Pacific Avenue to allow excessive rear yard coverage. The Appeal was filed by Henry M. and Norma E. Thelen, who were present at this meeting. The Council had been furnished with copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of June 25, 1962, at which this matter had been considered. Upon request, Mr. Schoenfeld, Planning Director, explained the circumstances involved. Mr. Way, Acting City Attorney, pointed out that the vote on the motion before the Planning Board to grant the variance had resulted in a tie. He stated the Council should base its decision on the criteria set forth in Section 11- 161(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, with which it was familiar. The proponents were called for and Mr. Henry Thelen addressed the Council in explanation of his situa- tion. He stated he had a petition which had been signed by seventeen or eighteen families in the immediate vicinity of his property, indicating they had no objections to the roof he °had built which connects his garage and a playhouse and thus covers a seven and one -half foot area between the two structures. There was no response to the call for opponents in this matter. The President then declared the Hearing closed. Councilman Godfrey moved the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). 493 9: The matter was next called up concerning the Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance for the property at 1613 Alameda Avenue to allow a fifth dwelling unit to be con- structed on a lot which is four hundred square feet deficient in size for this addition. The Appeal was filed by Howard and Betty Seymour, who were present at this meeting. The Council had received copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of June 25, 1962, at which this application had been reviewed. The President called upon Mr. Schoenfeld, Planning Director, to present the factual data. Mr. Way, Acting City Attorney, cited the criteria upon which the Council should base its decision, and pointed out the Board's motion and vote in this case was an actual denial of the application. The proponents were asked to come forward and Mr. Howard Seymour, Appellant, read a prepared statement on his behalf, pointing up that if allowed to construct the extra living unit, he could provide com- plete off- street parking and still maintain all yard -area requirements. Upon inquiry, there was none who desired to speak in opposition. The President declared the Hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Council. Councilman McCall spoke in favor of the development and moved the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 10. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending the reclassification of property at 631 Taylor Avenue from the "C -2 ", Central Business District, to the "R -4 ", Neighborhood Apartment District. The matter was set for Hearing at the Council meeting of August 21, 1962. 11. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending denial of the petition to rezone the property at 1605 -1607 Oak Street from the "R -6 ", Hotel- Apartment District, to the "C -M ", Commercial- Manufacturing District. This matter was also set for Hearing at the Council meeting to be held August 21, 1962. 12. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending the amendment of the Outline Master Plan by changing the route of the proposed Industrial Road, as specifically set forth in its letter of July 10, 1962,.and as illustrated by the accompanying map dated March 7, 1962. 13 ✓ From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending the Council give serious con- sideration, in its future development of Clement Avenue, particularly from Park Street westerly, to the relocation of the rails of the Alameda Belt Line to the northerly side of said street for the reasons as outlined in its letter of July 11, 1962. These recommendations were laid over for future consideration pending receipt of, and the Council's opportunity to study, detailed reports from the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The President stated a date of Hearing on this issue could possibly be set at the Council meeting of August 7, 1962, if the matter of the South Shore rezoning petition was settled at that time. 14Y From Assistant City Manager, recommending the Acting City Attorney be authorized to employ Special Legal Counsel for the purpose of establishing the Garden Road Assessment District. Councilman McCall commended the property owners affected for their interest in proceeding with this improvement and moved the recommendation be approved - that the Acting City Attorney be given authority to employ said Counsel. The motion was seconded by Councilman Godfrey and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). NEW BUSINESS: 15i A request was presented for Council authorization to repair a break in the eighteen -inch cast iron sanitary sewer pressure line on the levee south of San Leandro Channel and approximately one hundred fifty feet west of the old Bay Farm Island Bridge approach. A memorandum was read from the City Engi- neer giving details of the circumstances which necessitated emergency action. Councilman McCall moved that the City Manager proceed to accomplish said public work without contract on the finding that great necessity and emergency required immediate action, as provided in Section 3 -15 of the City Charter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Godfrey and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). BILLS: 16. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $26,102.09, were presented to the Council at this meeting. The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman Godfrey moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on July 17, 1962, 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: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Schacht, (1). ADJOURNMENT: 17. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in adjourned regular session on Thursday evening, July 26, 1962, at 7:30 o'clock, for the purpose of hearing the reports of the Youth Activities Committee. Respectfully submitte lerk