Loading...
1969-05-20 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR. MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING MAY 20, 1969 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Levy and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Joseph Chastain, Pastor of the Church of the Nazarene. ROTJ, 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 May 6, 1969, were approved as transcribed. HEARINGS: 2./ In the Matter of a Petition to rezone the property known as 2615 San Jose Avenue from the "R-1", One-Family Residence District, to the "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District. The petition was filed by Mr. John Barni, Jr., for Gramercy Mortgage Corporation. The Planning Board had recommended the reclassification be denied. The City Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in the matter. The interested parties had been informed of this time and place for the Hearing and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the application was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board on this petition, as set forth in its letter dated March 28, 1969. City Attorney Cunningham explained the issue before the Council was whether the findings and recommendations of the Planning Board in its advisory report pursuant to Section 11-175 of the Alameda Municipal Code should be approved, modified or disapproved. On the call for proponents, Mr. John Barni, Jr., 1438 Park Street, appeared. He explained the original intention had been to demolish the old structure and erect a new apartment which, it was felt, would be welcomed by the neighbors. However, after finding the number of people in the area opposed to the proposal, including the next-door neighbor, his client had decided there was no point in pursuing the idea at this time. Therefore, the matter had come to the Council in the normal course of business, following the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. On the call for opponents, Dr. Neylon Vedros, 2625 San Jose Avenue, addressed the Council. He spoke for a number of residents of the area and respectfully requested that the Council go along with the Boards decision in the matter. Mr. Ira Plummer, 2631 San Jose Avenue, also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman Levy expressed the opinion that there was no real problem in this issue. He moved the action of the Planning Board be upheld. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker. Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall inquired if the house on the property under discussion was inhabited and whether it would continue to lean on the house next door. Under the City regulations, he asked if this was proper. City Engineer Hanna was requested to submit a report on the question. The question was then put and the motion lost on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Levy and President La Croix, (2). Noes: Councilmen Fore, Longaker and McCall, (3). Absent: None. Councilman McCall stated he would like to receive the report from the City Engineer with regard to the condition of this property before taking further action on the rezoning. It was pointed out the question of public health and safety in connection with the building was beside the point and had nothing to do with the rezoning issue. Councilman Longaker stated, in the light of this fact, he would like to have his vote reconsidered and moved this be done. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Levy, Longaker and President La Croix, (3). Noes: Councilmen Fore and McCall, (2). Absent: None. Councilman Longaker then moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be upheld. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Levy, Longaker and President La Croix, (3). Noes: Councilmen Fore and McCall, (2). Absent: None. The petition to rezone the property at 2615 San Jose Avenue was thus denied. 3•/ In the Matter of a Petition to rezone the property known as 533-535 Central Avenue from the "R-2", Two-Family Residence District, to the "R-5", General Apartment District. The petition was filed by Mr. O. M. Simmons for Mrs. Tessie Goerl. The Planning Board had recommended the application be denied. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing. The concerned parties had been informed that this was the time and place for Hearing on the matter, and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. A n P Mr. Johnson, on request, reviewed the action of the Board on the proposed zone change on the lot of 4,734 square feet bearing two units in a state of advanced dilapidation. The proposal was to replace the building with a small multiple or to sell the property for multiple redevelopment but there was no apparent market for it in its present zone classification. On request of the Board, the Planning Staff had submitted information on the neighborhood, indicating that a broader area for zone change should be considered. Inasmuch as the subject property was included in the broader area, to be considered by the Council in the next Hearing this evening, the Board had recommended denial of the petition to rezone the property at 533-535 Central Avenue, without prejudice. Mr. Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was the same as in the previous Hearing, whether the findings and recommendation of the Planning Board, pursuant to Section 11-175 of the Alameda Municipal Code should be approved, modified or disapproved. For the information of the Council, Mr. Cunningham recited the duties of the Board at its hearings on rezoning applications under the pertinent section of the Code. On the call for proponents, Mr. O. M. Simmons, 1708 Versailles Avenue, a Real Estate Broker with Traver & Leuck Realty, spoke. He submitted a petition signed by ten residents consenting to and approving the application. He commented that some of the signers had also signed another petition due to a misunderstanding of its contents. Mr. Conrad Goerl, 68 Rockridge Road, Fairfax, son of the petitioner, then addressed the Council. He stated the rezoning proposal had developed because his mother felt the houses were badly run down and something had to be done but it was economically unfeasible to rehabilitate them. They were, at the same time, anxious to preserve the value of their property next door. Mr. Goerl pointed out the Planning Board had recommended the parcel be reclassified to the "R-3", Restricted Apartment District, in its consideration of a zone change for a large portion of the area, the subject of the Hearing next listed on the agenda. This change, Mr. Goerl said, would permit only limited development and the property would consequently stay just as it was. He argued that there were multiples on both sides of the lot in question, and urged that the zone be changed as requested. Mr. John Barni, Jr., urged that the rezoning be granted as new development on the property would enhance the area greatly and would be to the best advantage of all concerned. On the call for opponents, Mrs. Ann Costello, 1411 Sixth Street, appeared. She stated she had circulated the petition signed by thirty-two property owners which protested against rezoning in the area, to which Mr. Simmons had referred. Mrs. Costello admitted there were several houses in the 500 block of Central Avenue which did not look good but she could see no reason why there should be more apartment houses. Mr. John J. Williamson, 512 Central Avenue, spoke of the serious present and potential traffic conditions along Central Avenue. He felt it was premature to rezone the property to "R-5" and that it should be considered with the whole area in connection with the General Plan. He urged the rezoning be denied. Mrs. Mary Rainey, 558 Palace Court, stated there were many children in the neighborhood and with more and more cars the traffic problem should be given consideration. There was a question and answer period by the Councilmen. On a question from Councilman McCall, Mr. Johnson stated there were no protests at the Planning Board Hearing against the Goerl application. Councilman McCall then inquired of Mr. Goerl, through the Chair, if the parcel were rezoned, whether it would remain in the Goerl family to be improved. Mr. Goerl assured him this was true. Councilman McCall stated under these circumstances he would be inclined to approve a spot zoning in this case. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman Longaker moved the decision of the Planning Board be reversed on this matter and the zoning be changed from the "R-2" to the "R-5" District on this property. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Levy, (1). Absent: None. There being no objections, the order of business proceeded under "Introduction of Ordinances". INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 4./ Councilman McCall introduced the following ordinance, after which it was 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." (533-535 Central Avenue, "R-2" to la-511 District) The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Levy, (1). Absent: None. Councilman Levy explained he had voted against the rezoning because he felt under the General Plan this area might have certain changes and a development of this type might have an undesirable effect. The meeting then reverted to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 5. ' In the Matter of a Proposal to rezone certain properties in the 500 block of Central Avenue, on the southerly side of Palace Court, on Fifth Street, Hoover Court and Sixth Street, from the "R -2 ", Two - Family Residence District, to the "R -3", Restricted Apartment, and the "R -5 ", General Apartment District. This proposal was introduced by the Planning Board on its own Resolution of Intention. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in this matter and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which it was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. Mrs. Ann Costello, 1411 Sixth Street, had submitted a petition signed by thirty -two property owners in the area, in protest against the proposed zone change. Mr. Johnson, Planning Director, distributed exhibits of the areas studied by the Board and its recommendations on the several properties involved. The proposal was to amend the parcels to the "R -5", General Apartment District, or to such other zones as the Board might recommend. Latitude was therefore provided up to the "R -5" zone. The matter arose out of the Goerl application with a Board request to the Staff to evaluate neighborhood suitability to zone change and the potential for upgrading of existing improvements. The Board found that this was a neighborhood of mixed uses, of small lots, with some large lots, and the neighborhood rezoning might be more useful than a so- called "spot" or narrow zone change. The recommendation of the Board was that Area "B", bounded by Central Avenue, Fifth Street, Palace Court and Sixth Street, be rezoned to "R -3 ", and that Area "C", the portion on the south side of Central Avenue, be reclassified to "R -5 ". The finding on the part of the Board recognized that the two areas were substantially different in lot size and character and that Area "B" could support only a modest increase in the density. City Attorney Cunningham stated the issues before the Council were identical to the former two Hearings, except in this case the matter arose on the Boardls own motion, rather than on petition of a property owner. On the call for proponents, there was no response. On the call for opponents, Mrs. Ann Costello requested clarification of the proposal. Mr. Johnson indicated on Exhibit 2 the properties suggested for reclassification. Mrs. Costello again voiced her opposition. Miss Helen Malczovn, 1415 Sixth Street, also expressed her objection. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman Fore moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be sustained and upheld, excepting the property known as 533 -535 Central Avenue which had been reclassified to the "R -5" District by the previous action. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy. Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall asked Mr. Johnson if the proposal included, on the south side of Central Ave, properties easterly of Fourth Street only and nothing westerly of Fourth. Mr. Johnson stated this was true. At the request of Councilman Longaker, Mr. Johnson explained the difference between the t "R -3" and the "R -5" zoning. With the structure of the lots in the area, "R -3" would not anticipate much greater use than "R -2 ". The recommendation of the Staff had been to go to at least "R -4 ". The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. President La Croix explained his vote was for the reason that the previous action was to give only to the properties what was felt in the best interests of the area, and the Staff had not recommended the "R -3" reclassification in the matter presently under consideration. There being no objection, the order of business was revised to "Introduction of Ordinances". INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 6.' Councilman Fore introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provisions 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." (500 Block of Central Avenue, Palace Court, Fifth Street, Hoover Court and Sixth Street, excepting 533 -535 Central Avenue, - 1R -2" to "R -3" and "R -5" Districts) The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 7. / From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Oakland Fence Company, low bidder, for Replacement of the Chain Link Fence at Washington Park, at a cost of $7,191. Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be accepted; that the contract be awarded to the designated Company for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 8./ From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending the rezoning of properties known as 1213 through 1223 Pacific Avenue and 1711 through 1721 Sherman Street from the "R-2", Two-Family Residence District, to the "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District. The petition had included the properties of 1212 and 1214 Buena Vista Avenue; however, the Board had recommended to exclude these properties from its action. The Hearing on this matter was set for the next meeting of the Council, on Tuesday evening, June 3, 1969. 9.7 From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Constructing Culverts at the Intersections of Clinton Avenue and Walnut and Laurel Streets, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be adopted, that the work on said project be accepted as satisfactorily completed and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 10.7 President La Croix requested that Councilman McCall comment on the status of the fishing pier proposed for the west end of the City, and the report from the City Attorney on the subject. Councilman McCall stated he would like to see the City proceed on this project with the appropriate agencies in an attempt to accomplish the construction of the facility. President La Croix requested that Councilman McCall, Mr. Weller and Mr. Cunningham serve on a committee with him to pursue the matter. The City Manager was asked to arrange a meeting for discussion with the proper authorities at the earliest convenient time. NEW BUSINESS: 11. Councilman Levy requested that a resolution be adopted to congratulate Rabbi Gunther Gates on the occasion of the twenty-second anniversary of his service as the leader of Temple Israel. A testimonial dinner was planned for the evening of May 24, 1969, in his honor. It was so ordered and the order of business proceeded under "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: 'Councilman Levy introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7475 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda Congratulating Rabbi Gunther Gates on the Twenty-Second Anniversary of His Service to Temple Israel and to the City of Alameda." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 12.-- "Resolution No. Implementing Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by Establishing Procedures for Administration of Employer-Employee Relations Between City and its Employee Organizations; and for Resolving Matters Affecting Employment." 13.- "Resolution No. Adopting Rules and Regulations to Carry Out Provisions of Employer - Employee Relations Resolution." Mr. Cunningham stated this was the time and place for the Hearing on the matters contained in these resolutions. It was now appropriate to hear representatives of employee organizations on the two matters, principally No. 1. Likewise, this was the time and place for Hearing with respect to Section 3508 of the Government Code, which was reflected in Paragraph 10(C) of the first mentioned resolution; namely, the finding and statement by the legislative body - the City Council - that peace officers are defined and are not, however, prohibited from joining organizations comprised solely of their on members, as set forth in Section 10(C). Mr. Joseph R. Grodin, Attorney with the firm of Neyhart, Grodin & Beeson, 100 Bush Street, San Fran- cisco, addressed the Council on behalf of the Alameda Police Association. He opposed the inclusion of Section 10(C) in the proposed resolution on the ground that it was not good policy. Mr. Grodin called attention to Section 5(B) and requested that the wording be changed to read meeting and conferring". Mr. Weller stated he would suggest that the wording in question be changed to read " meeting and conferring in good faith....". This was satisfactory to Mr. Grodin and the other representatives present. - - _ Mr. Grodin further requested changes in the wording of Section 6(B), 3(F)(2), and 14(B). Mr. Weller stated these were not matters of great moment. The attempt was to set up ground rules which had not existed heretofore and there was always room for modification after some experience had been gained. He explained the intent of the City with respect to the sections in question. Mr. Grodin stated, with respect to the resolution on rules and regulations, the general consensus was that the issue could use a great deal more study and discussion. He urged that the Council defer consideration on this resolution until there had been an opportunity for further discussion with the City Manager and the City Attorney, and that action now be taken only on the general resolution. Mr. Weller expressed the opinion that adoption of the basic resolution without the attendant adoption of the rules and regulations essentially would not mean anything, as the attempt was to establish procedure by which there could be formal recognition and that resolution contained the rules and regulations. Mr. Thornton C. Bunch, Jr., Attorney with the firm of Davis, Cowell & Bowe, 2150 Franklin Street, Oakland, addressed the Council on behalf of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 689, representing the personnel of the Fire Department. He also urged that action be deferred until at least the next Council meeting in order that further discussion might be had. Mr. Bunch concurred with Mr. Grodin on the amendments desired. Mr. M. A. Walters, 4066 Fairway Avenue, Oakland, Assistant Business Manager of Local Union No. 1245, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, then spoke. He stated he would prefer that the Council adopt the basic resolution and delay action on the rules and regulations. He also set forth certain points on which he wished to have discussion. Mr. Weller pointed out that, as a practical matter, the Council always has the final authority to adopt or to modify this or any other resolution, so that even if there were something the employee organizations felt they could not live with, it would be in the final judgment of the Council as to whether or not it was going to be changed. This being the case, he failed to understand the extreme concern over the contents of what was basically a beginning. His concern was to get something on the books" on which experience could be gained and necessary consultations could be held in an attempt to reach an agreement as to what modifications should be made. There was some discussion as to whether one or both of the resolutions should be adopted. President La Croix expressed the opinion that it was better to have a working document than to have none whatsoever. He emphasized he felt the Council should adopt both resolutions at this meeting. Councilman Fore then moved that both of the resolutions under discussion, to be numbered 7476 and 7477, respectively, be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy. The Clerk was instructed to change the wording on Page 5 of the first Resolution, No. 7476, Section 5, Subparagraph (B), to read: " does not preclude employees or their recognized employee organizations from meeting and conferring in good faith or making grievances Mr. Cunningham suggested the other changes could be discussed and made from time to time. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 14./ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7478 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1) New, Latest Model Tractor with Power Take -Off and Three Point Hitch for the Park Department, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 15. i The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7479 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda'One (1) New, Latest Model Utility Tilt Trailer, 8 Wheel Tandum 24,000 Pounds Rated Tilt, for the City of Alameda Golf Course, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. / The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7480 Calling for Bids for Legal Advertising for the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year 1969 - 1970." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared all of the foregoing Resolutions adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 17. -- 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." The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. BILLS: 18. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $43,163.92, 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 May 20, 1969, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 19i Mr. Charles A. Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, read a prepared statement with regard to the deplorable lack of upkeep of the South Shore Beach, about which Councilman McCall had complained at recent meetings of the Council. Mr. Tillman concurred with Councilman McCall. President La Croix informed Mr. Tillman that the City Manager had been directed to write to the East Bay Regional Park District about this condition. As yet there had been no reply but it was hoped that a report would be forthcoming shortly. 20." Mr. Lewis R. Baca, 886 Cedar Street, complained of the lack of outside maintenance of the property at 887 Cedar Street. The City Manager was requested to investigate this matter. FILING: 21. Specifications No. MS 5 -69 -4 - One (1) New, Latest Model Tractor with Power Take -Off and Three Point Hitch for the Park Department. 22. Specifications No. MS 5 -69 -5 - One (1) New, Latest Model Utility Tilt Trailer, 8 Wheel Tandum 24,000 Pounds Rated Tilt, for the City of Alameda Golf Course. ADJOURNMENT: 23. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, June 3, 1969, at 7:30 olclock. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk