Loading...
1958-05-13 Regular CC MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 13, 1958 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President McCall presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Freeman, ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Collischonn, Freeman, Petersen, Schacht and President McCall, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: From the following with reference to the proposed new Zoning Ordinance: 1. Alameda Chamber of Commerce, Housing and Property Development Committee, dated May 9, 1958, signed by Mr. Martin C. Kauffman, Chairman, listing cortain require- ments of the proposed Zoning Ordinance which it feels should be carefully investi- gated before final action is taken by the Council. 2. Real Estate Board, submitting specific items, as requested by the Council, on which it would like to have further discussion before adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. 3. Mrs. Cora E. Vaughan, expressing opposition to the proposed rezoning of pro- perty known as 1128 Morton Street to a single-family dwelling district. a. Mr. Sidney A. Haag, 1525 Gibbons Drive, setting forth his opinion that opposi- tion to the Zoning Ordinance has come up with "too little and too late" and stating he felt the Council has leaned over backward to give everyone "his day in court". 5. Miss Mildred S. Meyers, 2021 Alameda Avenue, stating the density pattern set forth in the proposed Zoning Ordinance was thoroughly planned, based on the future development of Alameda in conjunction with the Outline Master Plan - and urging the Council to hold to these standards. 6. Mr. and Mrs. Girdwood N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, dated May 12, 1958, outlining their objections to several sections of the proposed Zoning Ordinance - and request- ing the entire Ordinance be denied adoption. 7. Mrs. Charles Moresi, 119 Santa Clara Avenue, stating that, at the time the Planning Department was created and a Planning Consultant was hired, it was done with the idea in mind that future growth of Alameda be so planned and regulated that the present amenities be maintained and industrial growth encouraged, consistent with good economics. She also pointed out the study and drafting of the proposed Zoning Ordinance has been under the direction of very competent people and the Coun- cil should be in a position to make a determination as to the qualities of the Ordinance as presented to it. The foregoing communications were referred to the file on the subject to be con- sidered during the Hearing. HEARINGS: 8. The matter was called up concerning the proposed new Zoning Ordinance, The Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publicatien of the Public Hearing was on file. President McCall stated the City Council has before it a Zoning Ordinance with a recommendation from the City Planning Board that it be adopted. The City also has an Outline Master Plan which has„already been adopted, on which the Zoning Ordinance is based. He read the nine points setting forth the objectives of the Master Plan. Councilman Freeman stated the point which seems to puzzle most people is that con- cerning the smaller-size lots which would be non-conforming under the proposed Ordinance and where the building thereon might be fifty per cent destroyed by fire. She id the misconception is the people feel their homes would then be "ruled out" and this is not so. She asked that Mr. Schoenfeld speak on this point to make it clear to the public just what the situation would be. Mr. Schoenfeld stated the definition of a "non-conforming building" best covers the subject and he thereupon read as follows: "A building or structure, or portion thereof, which was designed and erected or structurally altered prior to the effective date of these regulations for a use which does not conform to the _use regulations of a district in which it is located." Further, Section 11-1231, Aon-Conforming Use: "A use which occupies a building or open land and which does not comply with the use regulations of the district in which it is located prior to the effective date of these regulations." He also read Section 11-151: "Any non-conforming building, or any non-conforming use being conducted within a structure or upon open land may be continued, as provided in this Section, except..." and he quoted the exceptions thereto. He specifically mentioned the term "non-conforming use" as contained therein and said it would be, in his opinion, an unreasonable statement to make that, if someone does not actively use a structure which may encroach on a required side yard - just because he does not use it for a year or two - itT,Jould have to be torn down and rebuilt to conform to the very letter of the yard regulations. He felt sure, in his own mind, this was not the intent of the Planning Board in writing the section as it is. Mr. Annibale stated perhaps some clarifying language should be used in this section to more definitely carry out the intent, and he recommended to the Council that, in line with Mr. Schoenfeld's statements, the verbiage be clarified to that extent. Mr. Schoenfeld continued, stating he wished to amplify his remarks and point out that in all cases the emphasis is on the "u e", and he cited anexample to illustrate his point. Mr. Richard Thunder spoke on behalf of the Real Estate Board, stating his Board is deeply indebted to those men and women who have served the City so unselfishly on the Planning Board throughout the years. The Real Estate Board is merely trying to point out to the Council certain things it feels are dangerous to the community. He referred to the nine-page report submitted by his Board Flying details of the changes recommended to be made in the Ordinance. Reference was also made to the written opinions presented by Mr. Sol Gilberg, copies of which the Council had received. He stressed the importance of adopting a sound Ordinance. Mr. Thunder emphasized there are three main points covered by his Board's recommended changes. He mentioned the revenue to the City coming from the assessed valuation of both real property and the improvements thereon. In a recent survey covering 1,200 homes in existing Alameda, the Board was amazed to learn 74.97 per cent of these homes did not apply (conform) under the proposed new Ordinance. The Board does not think it is good law whereby three out of every four home owners in Alameda, from now on, will have to appear before the Planning Board for approval of any plans concerning their property. The Real Estate Profession was also profoundly shocked at the fact that, under the proposed Ordinance, in addition to the usual yard requirements, it also limits a person in a residential neighborhood to build on forty per cent of his lot, regardless of size. He felt this is, basically, going beyond the provisions of the Health and Welfare Code and jeopardizing the rights of a person who owns property. He also spoke of the area containing the highest density of population in the City - bounded by Park and Grand Streets and the south line of Central Avenue and both sides of Lincoln Avenue. He pointed out there is to be a controlled density in this area, under the Master Plan and, too, there is only one section in the whole of Alameda which is designated as °R-6" - running only from Oak to Walnut Streets and from Lincoln to Encinal Avenues. There are 37.5 acres in this area and only a bout seventeen acres of this total can be used for the highest density. The proposed Ordinance would restrict the density to about fifty per cent of what is permitted to be built under the existing Zoning Ordinance. The "R-5" District, to the west, is further restricted in the number of units allowed on a given parcel. He cited the economics involved and said he f elt, and most realtors contend, that the proposed Ordinance will "stop dead in its tracks" the demolition of obsolete buildings and the erection of new apartments in these districts and "kill off", until the Ordinance is amended, any chance of improving the assessed value of property in this area. Mr. Thunder concluded by stating the Real Estate Board thinks there is a grave situation which should be considered - it is "dollars and cents". The restrictions in Alameda are more severe than in any other community with which conditions have been compared. The proposed Ordinance would injure the normal transition period in those sections which everyone considers multi-family districts. Councilman Petersen inquired of Mr. Thunder if he thought property densities could be controlled properly by some means of making adjustments in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Thunder cited the population of Alameda at the end of World War II as about 85,000 (89,906) and many people lived in substandard housing. Wise planning brought about better supervision of the provisions of the Codes. Now, the population has decreased to around (-),00n and it is continuing to decline. He admitted there will be an increase when the South Shore is developed, but the fact that worries many is that obsolescence is catching up with certain sections of the community. He said laws can be passed "until the cows come home" but if it is not economically sound to develop property, it will not be developed - and if the proposed Ordinance is passed, the population will continue to decline. Mr. Martin C. Kauffman, Chairman of the Housing and Property Development Committee of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council on behalf of this organiza- tion. He enlarged upon the points set forth in his letter of May 9, copies ofwhich the Councilmen had. He said he felt his interpretation of the proposed Ordinance is different because he interprets the Outline Master Plan differently than the Council does and that is one point where everyone "gets off" - the interpretation of the Master Plan. Another point is the interpretation of what the will of the majority of the people of Alameda might want. He then cited objections to certain sections of the Ordinance and made the following comments: 11-133, Use Permits; should provide for revocation by cause, and not require people to come in each year for renewal. 11-156, Certificate of Occupancy Permit; he felt there was no way to enforce this provision, and one would have to follow the exact wording of the Ordinance - not as to how the Planning Board or Council might interpret it at some time. 11-1329, C-1, Neighborhood Business District Regulations; he did not think it wise to insist that a store which does not have proper accessability to the ear of the property, have a rear yard. k6 4 11- 1344, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements (ML District); he felt the minimum required area should be 5,000 square feet, pointing up the present difficulty of selling industrial land in Alameda without adding to it by requiring 10,000 square feet. He would like to see this requirement stricken from the Ordinance. R-5 and R-6 Districts; he said he thinks the greatest damage will be done in these Districts by the provisions of the proposed Ordinance, which restrict the build- able area of a lot to fifty per cent. The cost of improving property would be exorbitant. Mr. Kauffman also stressed the fact that the zoning of any given area should be determined definitely and so indicated, so that any prospective developer will know exactly what can be done on any particular parcel. Councilman Petersen asked if he thinks the proposed Ordinance is a good one insofar as raw land is concerned, to which Mr. Kauffman replied it is a "beautiful example of an ordinance written from the book" - it covers raw land where one can do exactly what is wanted. It is a typical example of where you start an entire new city - but the trouble is, one cannot adapt the Ordinance to Alameda nroper. Mr. Kauffman asked if he is correct in stating that any non-conforming residence would have to have an Occupancy Permit each year, under the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Annibale stated this is so, if required by the Planning Board, through notification to this effect by the Planning Department. There was some discussion on this point. In response to President McCall's question as to the nrojected population of Alameda, Mr. Kauffman stated that, based on the present setup for business in this City and the property zoned for commercial use, it is indicated it will be from 90,000 to 100,000. Tiere was considerable discussion on the issue of the limitation of the buildable area of a lot in the high density districts. Mr. Girdwood N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, stated he would highlight the objections set forth in his letter, which he proceeded to do at great length, reiterating several points alreadytrought out. Messrs. Annibale and Schoenfeld explained certain sections of the Ordinance as necessary. Mrs. Isabelle I. Wright read a prepared statement concerning her pronerty located on the northeast corner of Fountain Street and Encinal Avenue. It is presently in the "B" Two-to-Four Family Dwelling District and is proposed to be zoned as "R-1". She referred to her letter of April 17, 1958, presented to the City Council at its meeting of May 6, in which she had asked that the property be placed in an "R-1,PD" District. Now, however, she requests that the lot be allowed to remain in its present zone (or equivalent), namely the "R-4", as she intends to build an apartment on the lot at a later date. Mr. M. E. Lee also read a prepared statement, again pointing up the limitation on the buildable space of a given parcel of land. He claimed the proposed Ordinance is detrimental to the existing portion of Alameda and beneficial only to new develop- ment. He contended the proposed Ordinance would stop any new building in the old part of the City, and stated that many changes should be made in the Ordinance for the benefit of all property owners and the City of Alameda as a whole. Mr. Myron Feigenberg stated he felt the big problem in Alameda is not now to take care of the new influx of population but how to take care of "blight". He felt Ala- meda has more blight and older structures than any of the surrounding cities, and the proposed Ordinance would only prolong and amplify this condition. He said the approach to this problem should be to find out what can be done with the City to make it a higher-density area. He urged that serious consideration be given to the points mentioned at this meeting, as the proposed Ordinance affects every citizen in Alameda. Mr. Charles T. Travers of Utah Construction Company mentioned that the Planning Board has spent a very considerable neriod of time in trying to develop a satisfactory Zoning Ordinance for this community. He believes all will agree that such an Ordi- nance is needed to help the City grow and to protect the community. He felt the Council definitely has some problems before it in this matter and thought it would be unwise to proceed with "nutting the Ordinance on the books" without further con- sideration. He said he had listened to the opinions of many people concerning the Ordinance and they seem to have some genuine fears about some of the results which will be effected by it. It would not be good if an Ordinance is passed which will have a bad effect on7owth, development, improvement, clearing away of older struc- tures which have outlived their usefulness, etcetera. It would not be good for a new development if the rest of the area takes on some aspect of blight. All should be working together to accomplish a broad objective. Mr. Travers thereupon suggested a little more time be taken and the Council appoint a representative group of possibly one of the Administrators, the City Attorney, Planning Director and, perhaps, the City Engineer, to go into some work sessions with some of those who have studied the effects the Ordinance would have on the community, and see if some agreement can be reached within this group - then report to the Council and recommend what should be done from the many technical effects and ramifications which require analysis. He offered his assistance in this effort, as it applies to the whole Ordinance, in the hope it will help all do a better job in the community. 41 Mrs. Young, 1206 Buena Vista Avenue, said she was looking forward to having some improvement and felt the City has to start somewhere - people should have faith in the Planning Board and what it is trying to do by the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Edward. Gamble, 2014 Clinton Avenue, stated much of the talk this evening had been whether or not it was economically feasible to buy or sell a certain piece of land, in order to erect a given number of units. He felt the law of supply and demand would take care of this problem. He pointed out the majority of the taxpayers in Alameda are interested in living here. Mr. Feigenberg reiterated his opinion that Alameda's main problem is "blight" and what to do about the older buildings, many of which contain substandard housing and also have more units than is allowable under even the existing Ordinance. He felt that, under the proposed Ordinance, many of these structures will have to remain because a developer just cannot replace them, unit for unit, with the cost of land being what it is. At this point, a ten-minute recess was declared. Mr. Thomas Caton, Attorney, addressed the Council, stating he understands the pro- posed Zoning Ordinance is the method by which the general aims of the Master Plan will be carried °qt. He said he would like to call to the attention of the Council the question of whether or not this is the only, or the best way, in which to follow the intent of the Master Plan. The members of the Real Estate Board have spoken of the effect, percentage-wise, on the properties in the City - the land developers have spoken of the effect on possible future business and land values in the City and Mr. Travers, in the course of his talk, mentioned one thing he, himself, wishes to sneak about - and that is "fear". He said this has been literally the essence of every question that has been asked of him concerning the Ordinance - the fear of every average citizen of the City of Alameda as to what the effect of this Ordinance will be upon him, and how he can conduct his activities in the future to comply with this Ordinance. He said he maintains the Ordinance does not set forth guides by which anyone can understandably guide his course of action. He said that, according, to the Real Estate Board, approximately seventy-five per cent of the property in the City would fall within the category of non-conforming use, and once within that cate- gory, and, in effect, to conduct any activity on that property, the owner would have to secure a permit from the Planning Board or get permission for making a variance in the Zoning law. He queried what, if any, standards are set by this Ordinance to govern the Board in connection with those variances. He said he had, to date, been able to find none, other than the general standard of matters which are aimed or directed toward "to promote the general health, welfare and safety" of the City. He said the fear which has been communicated to him is that there is a non- standardized interpretation of the Ordinance. The personnel of the Planning Board certainly is subject to change and the members, as individuals, can change their minds from time to time. Therefore, the course of thought they should follow should be consistent with something - and he posed the question, "Just exactly what is that to be?" He suggested that the proposed Ordinance, in its present form, not be passed until something of this nature can be inserted therein. He felt there is the great possibility of unequal enforcement as to these variances. He, too, stated that if he can be of any assistance in this way, he would be happy to volunteer his services. Mr. Schoenfeld stated he would like to enlarge upon this issue as he felt he should put at ease the minds of those people who harbor such fears. All over the United States, in thousands of communities such as this, there are Planning Boards, Commis- sions and Boards of Appeals or Adjustments, as they are variously called. They are comprised of fellow citizens appointed by the Legislative Body to do a job of adminis- tering and of judging the merits of any cases which may come before them. In Alameda, that job is done by the Planning Board. In larger communities where the job is just too great for such a board to handle it, the State law of California provides that a Board of Appeals may be appointed or there may be a position of Zoning Administrator, plus a Board of Appeals to take care of it. The law will set down and restrict the activity of this Board and it is bound to judge each case on the four major points which are spelled out in this Ordinance. He mentioned these are the factors the applicant has to state in his application and, in so stating, these form the items on which the Board would have to judge the case. He thereupon read said points. He agreed that one does have to depend, in the administration of any laws, upon the integrity of those appointed to such positions by the Legislative Body. The protection offered any applicant, as written in the proposed Ordinance, is that he may appeal to the Council if he feels the Board's decision is wrong. If the Council does not Five him the relief he thinks he is entitled to, then he has the privilege of taking the matter to Court. The only difference between what is proposed in Alameda and what is practiced in many communities in the United States is that in many cities the matter comes only on an appeal from some administrative official to the Appeals Board and this Board makes its decision. If the person still thinks he is aggrieved, then he Foes to a Superior Court. Mr. Schoenfeld stated this system has been operating successfully in thousands of cities. He admitted it is true one occasionally hears of glaring examples of the gross misuse of a public trust, but such cases are, fortunately, few. Mr. Lindley F. Bothwell, of the Alameda Home Cwners Association, stated his organiza- tion has spent considerable time in reviewing not only the proposed Ordinance but the existing one, in trying to keep up with the times. He said he is surprised that 6 people have not taken more interest in something which will mean so much to them - the Zoning Ordinance is definitely a big step in the growth and progress of Alameda. He, too, expressed surprise that the citizens did not have more faith in those appointed to the Planning Board and those elected to the City Council. He felt that, in the best interests of Alameda, the proposed Ordinance should be passed. He said the people of the South Shore area feel the City should remain a fairly low- density community. Mrs. James Wiley, 1232 St. Charles Street, stated the Master Plan which has been referred to many times this evening, was set up to take c are of the orderly growth in population of this community. The Zoning Ordinance has been worked on for four years, which is a long time to work on a Zoning Ordinance, and items it is about time the City got one - it is paid for, it is needed right now and the City should have it quickly. However, the Zoning Ordinance was passed to implement, by law, the orderly growth of this community. It was set up to provide for a population of about 125,000. Those who planned the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance had hoped, as Mr. Kauffman mentioned, there would be a population of around 90,o0o to 100,000 in the next twenty-five years. She said she, too, had very grave fears, as a resident and taxpayer of Alameda, that the community will be allowed to go down instead of to go up. There have been lots of mistakes made in the past - narrow streets, houses and apartment buildings set right on the sidewalk line - these things were allowed because th.e City did not have proper zoning standards. All of these mistakes cannot be corrected - but the City can start now to go forward and see that future develop- ment is done according to the best concepts of planning. She felt the proposed Ordinance is a very modest one - it is not extreme at all - personally, she would like to have it a little "tougher". She realizes the developers have to be given the opportunity to build their multiple dwellings in the areas set aside for them - but she did not think people had to be "packed in as tightly as they want to pack them in. The over-all amenities, as Mrs. Moresi stated in her letter, should be consi- dered, as they are important. She emphasized that she wanted to "lay one ghost" now and forever and that is this shibboleth of non-conforming lots. She stressed the fact there are all sizes of lots in Alameda - they are lots of record - they are legal, lawful lots - and people can build on them. She said the Planning Board has set up a good pattern and a good plan for the Council to work by - it will take care of a very dense population and she is positive a considerable population increase will be made during the next twenty-five years, if property values are not inflated beyond their proper values. President McCall disagreed with the statements that Alameda is a blighted area. He said there is opportunity to keep it a beautiful, residential city but industrial balance is needed, as well as the development on the South Shore. He commended the Planning Board for the tremendous job it has done. He remarked, also, that consider- able money had been spent to employ a Planning Consultant to prepare a Master Plan. He felt there was quite a bit of misunderstanding on this matter. He referred to the suggestions made that a committee be appointed to work out some of the problems involved, and he would have no objection to this if such is the desire of the Council. He pointed out the Zoning Ordinance is designed to coincide with the Master Plan and if there is not a meeting of minds that the Master Plan is practical, then any changes to be made in the Zoning Ordinance must be reflected in the Master Plan. Councilman Freeman said she did not believe the Council needs another advisory board - she felt the Planning Board is capable and no one would challenge its honesty. She thought the citizens can depend on the fact that, if this Ordinance should go through, it would be because it is the feeling of all concerned that it is a good Ordinance. Councilman Schacht felt there are probably only four or five items which are really causing any difficulty. He reviewed the steps taken with regard to the Ordinance and said he did not think too much would be gained by appointing a citizens' com- mittee on this matter. He felt, however, before he could approve the Ordinance, he would like to have certain clarifications given to him which he is unable to receive at a public meeting of this kind. He would, therefore, be willing to meet again with the Planning Board, so that, before the Ordinance is introduced, he could discuss these several questions and be certain he fully understands what they mean. He felt the Council should adopt the best possible Ordinance to carry out the Master Plan. Councilman Freeman questioned the necessity of meeting with the Planning Board, when the Planning Director and City Attorney are available to clarify any points. Councilman Collischonn concurred with Councilman Schacht and stated he felt the Coun- cil should accept the invitation of Mr. MacGinnis, President of the Planning Board, to meet with the Board once more to discuss these four or five controversial items. He said he believes the Council should make the best effort it can to eliminate at least the minor objections, if nothing more than to clarify the wording, to make it possible for the average citizen to understand what he is reading. He expressed the thought that, if the language can be simplified in certain sections which will elimi- nate the doubt some neople have expressed, perhaps that would go a long way toward satisfying, a greater number of the citizens. He thereupon recommended th.e Council accept the Board's invitation and meet with it. Considerable discussion was had as to when this would be possible and it was finally determined the Council would meet with the Board at its next regular meeting on May 26. President McCall requested that each one havehis questions ready in writ- ing so they can be presented for definite clarification. Mr. Schoenfeld suggested it will help expedite the situation if any questions are turned in to the City Clerk as soon as possible so she can transmit them to the Planning Department. This will enable the Staff to review them and be prepared with the answers. In response to Councilman Petersen's question, Mr. Annibale stated he would hope the Council could come out of this meeting with the changes it desires to be made and it could then introduce the Ordinance at the following meeting, without a referral back to the Planning Board. ADJOURNMENT: 9. There being, no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, May 20, 1958, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted