Loading...
1960-08-02 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 2, 1960 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President McCall presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Schacht. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Collischonn, Petersen, Schacht and President McCall, (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held July 19, 1960, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2Y.. From Pacific Bridge Company and Pacific Marina Corporation, dated July 21, 1960, signed by Messrs. W. G. Swigert, Jr. and A. C. Rice, respective Presidents, requesting the City to take the following specific actions: (1) Accept Bethlehem Avenue between Webster Street and the east side of the Southern Pacific Right-of- Way as a dedicated street and (2) Request the California State Highway Department to modify the Webster Street Freeway Agreement to bring the southern boundary of the freeway to the Bethlehem Avenue intersection. These actions are requested in order to facilitate the development of the Boat Harbor area on the Estuary. During the course of discussion it was brought out that the complete development of this area would be most advantageous to the City and the Council should do all pos- sible to encourage and support it by acting promptly to enter into the necessary negotiations with the Federal and State Agencies involved to accomplish the results requested. Councilman Schacht thereupon moved the matter be referred to the Adminis- trative Staff concerned and the Council adopt in principle the proposed actions and the matter also be referred to the City Planning Board for its interim study and report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and carried on the follow- ing roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 3. G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, gave a lengthy dissertation concerning the Civil Service Board's consideration of salary increases and also the raise in the City tax rate during the years from 1949, as compared with other cities in the State. President McCall explained the difference in the tax base between Alameda and other cities, pointing up the City's lack of industry and also the fact that it gives more services to its citizens. HEARINGS: 4. The matter was called up with regard to an appeal from the decision of the Plan- ning Board to grant a variance on the property of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Dixon, 981 High Street, to allow a five-foot encroachment into the front yard area. The appeal was signed by the following: Messrs. Oscar J. Sobol, 985 High Street; Milton A. Keenan, 989 High Street; H. M. Buchan, 974 High Street; David F. Roddan, 961 High Street, and Mrs. Beverly G. Kordash, 988 High Street. The Clerk stated a supplemental appeal had been received just before the meeting which was signed by Messrs. Richard Spatcher, 976 High Street, and William Harlow. Two letters were on file in support of the variance from Messrs. Frank E. Gilman, 984 High Street, and William J. Corkery, 977 High Street. The Clerk pointed out that copies of the minutes of the Board meeting at which this matter had been considered had been sent to the Councilmen for their information and Mr. and Mrs. Dixon had been notified of the time and place for said Hearing on the appeal, as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance. A large-scale, plot-plan sketch of the Dixon premises and the adjoining properties had been drawn on the blackboard for clarification of the situation. Upon advice of the City Attorney, Mr. Schoenfeld, Planning Director, reviewed the circumstances involved, pointing up the fact that all the garages on this side of the block have a fifteen-foot setback and Mr. DiXon's proposed new garage will line up with his exist- ing one at this same setback. The following spoke in opposition to the variance: Messrs. Sobol, Buchan and Roddan, all of whom stressed the fact that this "second" garage will spoil the appear- ance of the block and deteriorate the property values. The proponents were then called upon and the following spoke in favor of the contem- plated construction: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Dixon, the applicants; Mr. William Corkery, Mrs. Frank Gilman, Mr. James G. Santilena, 993 High Street; Mr. Dino Airale, 995 High Street. Mr. and Mrs. Dixon read a prepared statement listing a number of points in favor of their plans and explaining how the structure would appear when complete, also item- izing the residents in the block who are in favor of or opposed to their variance. It was suggested that possibly a carport would solve the Dixons' problem and be less objectionable to some of the neighbors. However, there was equal opposition to this idea from the present proponents. The Council thoroughly discussed the situation through questioning of the several speakers and study of the individual plot plans and clarification of the pertinent sections of the Zoning Ordinance by Mr. Schoenfeld. Upon inquiry of the President, no further comments were forthcoming and President McCall thereupon declared the Hearing closed. Councilman Collischonn then moved the Council uphold the Planning Board's action and the appeal be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). 5•Ni The matter was next called up concerning the improvement of Mound Street, between Otis Drive and Waterton Street. (The Superintendent of Streets had been directed by the City Council at the last meeting to proceed under Section 5870, et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code). The Clerk stated there was on file a copy of the Notice which was given to the prop- erty owners involved and also a copy of the card which was posted in the area, as required. Mr. Annibale stated this is a Hearing provided by the Streets and Highways Code whereby the Council hears and passes upon any objections or protests to the requirement of the installation of street improvements in Mound Street as set forth in the previous motion of the Council. It was noted that the three property owners affected were present, namely: Mr. Frank R. Killinger, 932 Mound Street; Mr. and Mrs. James Marberry, 2840 Otis Drive; and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stone, 2900 Otis Drive. Mr. Killinger, spokesman for the parties concerned, gave a resume of actions affecting Mound Street which had been taken from time to time since March 18, 1958. He pointed up the fact that these three particular property owners are not opposed to the paving of this block of Mound Street but strongly feel that Waterton Street between Mound and Court Streets, and Court Street between Waterton Street and Otis Drive should also be included in this improvement project in order that the entire area would be upgraded. Mr. Killinger, who lives on the northeast corner of Mound and Waterton Streets, stated that if he were to have his portion of Mound Street paved, he would want to have his portion of Waterton Street paved also, as there is quite a dust problem from this side. Mr. Annibale explained that, in line with the proceedings the Council is acting under at this meeting, consideration can be given only to the improvements on Mound Street between Otis Drive and Waterton Street. The Council cannot consider any improvements on Waterton or on Court Streets at this time - these could be included in a larger assessment district or subsequent action can be taken to initiate similar proceedings to cover each of these blocks. He said he would assume that the cost involved for the individual property owners, whether the Council continues under the present pro- ceedings or whether the Council drops this proceedings entirely and then tries to proceed under an assessment district, would be approximately the same in any event - and maybe more, because of the overhead involved. He reiterated that the "Mound Street block" is the only area to be considered at this meeting. Considerable discussion ensued about what procedure the Council would properly pursue to accomplish the improvements in the three blocks in question. Mr. Annibale explained the legal technicalities under which the Council has jurisdiction. Mr. Hanna pointed out there is a serious problem at the intersection of Court and Waterton Streets due to the fact a portion of this area is owned by Utah Construction Company. It was suggested the Council approve this first proceedings and then follow through at its next meeting by authorizing similar legislation for the improvements to be installed in the other two blocks mentioned. Mr. Annibale pointed out that before the Council makes any definite determination to proceed on the other two blocks, it should await the report of the City Engineer con- cerning the percentage of improvements now completed. It was later stated by Mr. Hanna that the necessary sidewalks and curbs are presently installed in these blocks. Both Messrs. Marberry and Stone stated they have no objections to the paving of Mound Street - Mr. Stone commented, however, he would like to have the work spread over a larger area so it would not cost the three owners on Mound Street so much. Mr.Hanna indicated an estimate of costs involved - Mound Street, 1,800.; Waterton Street, S1,800.; Court Street, $2,000. He stated the total cost under the present proceedings would, therefore, be S5,600. However, if an attempt were made to set up an assessment district under other sections of the Street Improvement Act of 1911, there would be an additional cost of $1,000. for attorney's fees, plus other expenses in handling the bonds, etcetera. He emphasized that whatever saving there might be in distributing the cost over more property owners would be offset by the extra over- head expenses. Other suggestions were made and discussed in an attempt to accomplish the improve- ments in the three specified blocks at the least possible cost to all concerned. Mr. Sidney Dowling, Jr., 1211 Sherman Street, felt it would be totally unnecessary to continue the Hearing on the Mound Street block because if the "time element" of sixty days should prove insufficient for completion of the project, it could be extended. Councilman Petersen moved the Hearing be continued to the Council meeting of Septem- ber 6, 1960, in order to dford the people concerned an opportunity to work the situa- tion out harmoniously among themselves. There was no second. Such a delay was questioned due to the possible bad weather conditions which might be encountered later in the year and which would prohibit street improvements being made then. Following inquiry about whether or not the Council could direct the Superintendent of Streets to proceed with notification to the property owners on Court and Waterton Streets - and after consultation between the City Attorney and the City Engineer, Mr. Annibale stated there is a serious problem at the junction of Waterton and Court Streets, where some of the land is owned by Utah Construction Company, which compli- cates the situation insofar as the proceedings under this section of the Street and Highways Code is concerned. Therefore, he suggested the City Engineer and himself be given an opportunity to study this and consult with said Company so the same type of proceedings may be set up to make the improvements on these two streets. Mr. Roger Hooper, 2836 Waterton Street, expressed fear that these negotiations would be prolonged aid the Mound Street improvement could not be made before winter. He asked why the Mound Street work could not go ahead while the situation at Court and Waterton Streets is being worked out. He felt a two weeks' continuance at this time would be helpful. Mr. Gary Schweitzer, 2828 Waterton Street, concurred with Mr. Dowling's statement that the owners on Mound Street have sixty days in which to complete the improvements there, which time can be extended - therefore, he felt the Council should proceed on this phase of the area improvements. Mr. Killinger reiterated the three blocks should be done at one time in order to effect the most saving; therefore, the Mound Street owners should have the opportunity to try to get the owners on the other streets into the entire project. It was agreed the Council is to assume that Messrs. Killinger, Marberry and Stone will contact the neighborhood property owners and set up a meeting with Messrs. Hanna and Annibale to work out the situation. Mr. Killinger stated they will be glad to hold either joint or separate meetings with the several property owners in the area. The City will cooperate in providing a meeting place in the City Hall if desired. Councilman Petersen moved the Hearing be continued to the Council meeting of August 16, 1960, and the sixty-day period in which the property owners on Mound Street are required to construct the improvements will commence as of the final date of the Hearing, as now continued. The motion was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Coun- cilman Freeman, (1). REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 6. From Public Utilities Board, Bureau of Electricity, signed by Mr. G. A. Baxter, General Manager, recommending the Council give consideration to amending the City's contract with the California State Retirement System to effect certain "survivor benefits", at a nominal additional annual cost. It was stated the Board would be willing to pay its proportion of said cost if the contract is so amended. Councilman Collischonn moved the matter be referred to the City Manager for study and report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Schacht and unanimously carried. 7. From City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Painting and Decorating Portions of City Hall - recommending it be accepted and Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Schacht moved the recommendation be adopted; that the work on the speci- fied project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and unanimously carried. 8 From the Mayor, nominating Mr. George A. Rose for reappointment as a member of the Recreation Commission for the term expiring August 31, 1963. Also, calling attention to the expiration of the term of Mr. Daniel J. Rourke, incumbent, as a Council appointee for the same term. It was indicated that both of the incumbents are willing to serve for the ensuing term. The matter was then referred to "Resolutions". 9‘j. From Treasurer, in compliance with Resolution No. 6026, reporting on the colla- teral held in his office during July, 1960, in the total amount of $1,000,000. The report was noted and ordered filed. 24 INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 10. Councilman Schacht introduced the following ordinance which is being passed and enacted in the event of great emergency and necessity - a statement of which facts is contained therein: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title XI of The Alameda Municipal Code Continuing Non- Conforming Open Land Use for a Six-Month Period (Emergency and Necessity)." The ordinance was then referred to "Ordinances for Passage". RESOLUTIONS: 11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Petersen, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6112 Appointing Members of the Recreation Commission." (George A. Rose and Daniel J. Rourke) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Council- man Freeman, (1). 121 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who movedits adoption: "Resolution No. 6113 Appointing Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda." (George B. Johnson and Marshall S. Pease) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Council- man Freeman, (1). 13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Schacht, who moved its. adoption: "Resolution No. 6114 In Appreciation and Commendation of Mr. Richard Ricca For His Services on Behalf of the City of Alameda." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). At this point, President McCall introduced and welcomed Mr. Tom Flynn, Oakland Tribune reporter, who will replace Mr. Ricca as the Press representative in Alameda City Hall. 14. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Schacht, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6115 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda Supporting and Requesting Action on the County of Alameda's Proposal Relating to the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). 15/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6116 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda Rescinding Resolution No. 5401 Relating to the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6117 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Repair of Gutters and Minor Street Patching with Asphalt Concrete for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1961, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent:* Councilman Freeman, (1). 17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6118 Resolution of the City of Alameda Approving Final Map of Subdivision Known as Tract No. 1992 (Pearl Street -- South of Otis Drive)." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Council- man Freeman, (1). The President declared all of the foregoing resolutions duly adopted and passed. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 18. "Ordinance No. 1343, New Series An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title XI, of the Alameda Municipal Code, Continuing Non-Conforming Open Land Use for a Six-Month Period (Emergency and Necessity)." It was pointed out the ordinance becomes effective immediately through its emergency provision. Councilman Collischonn thereupon moved the ordinance be passed as sub- mitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). 19. At this time, Mrs. Phyllis McEachern, 507-D Santa Clara Avenue, addressed the Council on the subject of the need for a public swimming pool for children in the West End of the City. She commended Mr. Frank Weeden for the excellent program he has initiated for teaching very young children to swim and his public interest in building pools - the existing one in Lincoln Park and the proposed one in Franklin Park. She pointed out, however, his water-safety program is for only kindergarten and first-grade youngsters and with the Alameda Swim Center being in the East End of the City and already crowded, many children are deprived of convenient facilities. Mrs. McEachern said many mothers are concerned about this situation and are hoping something might be started to get a pool in that area - possibly for use of Encinal High School or installed in Washington Park, but definitely to have it open for general public use. She stated that swimming is a very healthful recreation and emphasized the need for a pool in the West End. The President explained the lease agreement under which Mr. Weeden constructed and operates his pool in Lincoln Park and stated the Franklin Park pool will be under the same arrangements - whereby the pool will revert to the City at the expiration of a ten-year period. There was some discussion of the situation, the Council being sympathetic to the cause, but pointing out to Mrs. McEachern there is practically no chance of the City being able to afford the construction of a swimming pool in the West Ind. It was suggested that a group of public-spirited citizens, such as Mrs. McEachern, approach the Junior Chamber of Commerce with the idea that it adopt this very worthy cause as its project to create an atmosphere of favor toward public subscription for such a pool in the West End. The suggestion was also made that the Alameda Board of Educa- tion be approached on this subject, especially in view of the fact it already has the property, and the opinion was expressed that such a pool could be put to good use at Encinal High School. Mrs. McEachern thanked the Council for its interest and indicated she expected to follow up this matter. FILING: 20. Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans No. PW 7-60-16 - for Repair of Gutters and Minor Street Patching with Asphalt Concrete, 1960-1961. 247 BILLS: 21. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of 13,716.44, 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 Schacht moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on August 2, 1960, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Freeman, (1). ADJOURNMENT: 22. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, August 16, 1960, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk