Loading...
1958-07-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 15, 1958 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President McCall presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Freeman, followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by Miss Gladys C. Grier, Minister, Home of Truth. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Collischonn, Freeman, Petersen, Schacht and President McCall, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the adjourned regular meeting held June 24, 1958, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2' From Pacific Bridge Company, submitting Application for Permit to Fill Property at the north end of Sherman Street by end dumping 68,000 cubic yards of concrete rip rap and dredged soil for development of a "Botel . The application was accompanied by a bond in the amount of $5,000. Upon inquiry, Mr. Hanna indicated the plans conform to his specifications. President McCall stated the City is happy to see this proposed development and asked the pleas- ure of the Council. Councilman Petersen moved the Application be granted and a Permit to Fill Property be issued as requested. The motion was seconded by Council- man Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. V 3. A petition was presented, signed by twenty residents, requesting standard curbs and sidewalks be installed on Mound Street between Otis Drive and Waterton Street. Mr. Hanna was requested to explain the situation and he stated a somewhat similar petition was received by the Council e arlier this, year which was referred to the City Manager and City Engineer for report. He pointed out correspondence and discussions had been carried on in connection with the original request but it was found the City could not obtain cooperation from the adjacent property owners. At that time the petition was for sidewalks, curbs, gutters and permanent paving, if possible, or temporary paving if that is all that could be accomplished. He said that, according to the Alameda Municipal Code, the City Council can require these sidewalks, curbs, gutters and a sanitary sewer if it were necessary, to be put in under a "junior assessment district" procedure. However, he felt it was desirable to ascertain just what the basis is for that particular code requirement and he has referred it to the City Attorney for M..s consideration and opinion. Upon receipt of such ruling, he will be in a position to report to the City Manager upon the status of the situation. There being no objections, it was determined the Council would await the further report from the City Engineer, following receipt of the City Attorney's opinion. It was so ordered. From the following, registering their opposition to the formation of the Bay Farm Island Assessment District No. 58 -1: 1 . Mrs. Anna Belle Wilson, 310 Beach Road 5. Claude, Jr., and Claudine Stuart, 286 Beach Road 6. Amelia and John Tilleman, 318 Beach Road 7. Ruth W.. French, 211 Beach Road 8. Oveta Fitzsimmons, 316 Beach Road 9. Mrs. N. Van Der Haeghen, 329 Beach Road 410. Mr. and Mrs. William R. Yarbrough, 311 Beach Road. The Clerk announced that these communications must be read in full and Mr. Annibale suggested such be deferred until the Hearing on the subject later in the meeting. It was so ordered. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 11. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, called attention to the extreme traffic congestion caused by a breakdown in Posey Tube. He cited the instance of an accident in the Tube recently and suggested the forty -five minute holdup of traffic could have been avoided if an Oakland Police Officer had diverted traffic to the freeway instead of letting it proceed through the one usable lane in the Tube. He suggested a solution to such incidents could be effected by a meeting of the City Managers of Alameda and Oakland and a member of the County Board of Supervisors to authorize the diversion of traffic to other routes when the Tube is blocked. Mr. Gottstein also deplored the length of time being taken to complete the lighting and painting projects in Posey Tube. Councilman Collischonn stated Mr. Gottstein had presented a good point concerning the traffic situation and felt the City Manager should follow through. He also sug- 1 8 gested that possibly an electric sign could be located at Buena Vista Avenue which could be operated from the Tube any time there is a stoppage there. This would allow traffic to detour and save considerable time. President McCall concurred that traffic should be diverted, not only from the Tube but along the freeways, by some forewarning system which would allow people to turn off prior to the point of the accident or whatever is causing the stoppage. He pointed out, however, electrical systems are expensive and it might have to be taken care of by police officers on both sides of the Tube in such cases. He felt the matter is a police problem and should be referred to the City Manager who, in turn, would discuss it with the Chiefs of Police of Alameda and Oakland. President McCall mentioned that he had sent a letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on the subject and, in response to Councilman Freeman's question as to the action taken, he replied the matter had been referred to the County Highway Advisory Committee which had subsequently written to the State Highway Commission. It was determined a follow -up letter should be written to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to ascertain what action, if any, has been taken in this respect. Fol- lowing a report, the Mayor would appear before the Board to discuss the situation, if necessary. At this point, Councilman Schacht inquired if there is any ordinance regulating the transportation of gasoline or explosives through Posey Tube. President McCall stated former Fire Chief Lane had investigated this matter and there are safety regulations under which oil companies are allowed to send their trucks through - and even atomic warheads are c arried through en route to the Naval Air Station. Councilman Freeman stated it is a hazardous situation. She said she did not think the City of Alameda has much to do with it - she believes the regulations come under State and County Health and Safety Codes. If the City were to observe these rules and regulations, no one in the community would need to worry and she felt the Council should ascertain what they are. President McCall suggested the City Manager be requested to check into the report which had been made to a previous Council by the Fire Chief, who had gone into this situation very thoroughly - and submit a report thereon to the Councilmen. HEARINGS: 12. Continued from the last meeting, and called up at this time was the appeal by Mr. Rueben A. Keturi, 1321 Versailles Avenue, from the decision of the Planning Board to grant certain variances to Mr. Elias M. Kassis for construction of two fourplexes on his property at 1311 -1313 Versailles Avenue. The Clerk announced that both Messrs. Keturi and Kassis were present. Mr. Annibale advised that any new material should be presented at this time. He said he understood the members of the Council had been furnished with a scale plot plan of the property in question, indicating the locations of the proposed structures and the existing buildings on adjacent properties in relation thereto. Mr. Keturi was called upon and stated he had nothing new to add - but he could not understand why the variances should have been granted. He felt there is no extreme hardship which would make it impossible for Mr. Kassis to conform to the requirements. Mr. Kassis, 2110 Santa Clara Avenue, then addressed the Council, stating Mr. Keturi had obtained the signatures to his petition of protest by false statements. He thereupon presented written statements from the following, indicating their approval of his proposed development: Mrs. Frances Hess, 1355 Versailles Avenue; Mrs. Esther Tebow, 1332 Versailles Avenue; Mrs. Merle Pagel, 1345 Versailles Avenue; Mr. Frank H. Kellogg, 1363 Versailles Avenue; Mrs. Charles Reading, 1343 Versailles Avenue; and E. A. Heinbockel. Councilman Collischonn stated he had personally inspected the property after review - ing the plot plan thereof. At the last meeting, he had been rather reluctant to consider the proposal but after seeing the neighborhood and recognizing the fact this lot has been vacant for many years, he said he has completely changed his mind. He felt it would be a creditable improvement to the area and he did not think the Coun- cil should deny Mr. Kassis this opportunity to develop the property. It was brought out there would be one -for -one off- street parking facilities. Snap- shots of Mr. Keturi's house were displayed, showing the stairway to the second floor which encroaches into his side yard area, practically to the property line. Councilman Freeman asked if Mr. Kassis had presented any alternate plans for this property - she wondered if his two -story structure might cut off the light and air from Mr. Keturi's dwelling. Mr. Schoenfeld answered that the applicant had submitted only this particular plot plan. Councilman Schacht stated he felt the three -foot, variance granted on the north side of the Kassis property - leaving a five -foot side yard - is reasonable and he does not believe it will cut off all of the light from the Keturi dwelling. Considerable discussion ensued concerning the comparative heights of the proposed structure and the existing adjacent dwelling pertinent to the accessability of light and air. It was determined the three -foot variance would make no appreciable differ- ence in this respect. Councilman Petersen inquired if it is true the Alameda Municipal Code provides that such variances should be granted only in case of an extreme hardship, to which Mr. Annibale quoted from Section 11 -161 of the Code and commented that it is certainly within the power of the Planning Board to grant this variance and it is certainly within the power of the City Council to sustain its decision. However, the City Council also has the power to allow the appeal and deny the variance. He explained the Code does not stipulate "extreme" hardship but rather "....unnecessary hardships or practical difficulties in specific exceptional cases...." In response to Councilman Freeman's question, Mr. Kassis replied that he planned to make a roof garden on the garages for the tenants to use as a sun deck. As a result of a discussion on this point, Mr. Schoenfeld explained this was not a part of the motion so Mr. Kassis would be only morally - but not legally - bound to provide this facility. He mentioned the Planning Staff had merely suggested the advantage of this space as a factor in consideration of the plans because of the extremely high coverage of the lot area. At this point, Mr. Henry Powey of San Carlos, owner of the property fronting on Encinal Avenue, the rear yards of which abut the Kassis property, stated that, since the last meeting, he has had an opportunity to study the physical lay -out of the pro- posed development and he wanted to go on record as withdrawing all objections what- soever to the apartments to be constructed. He felt the development will be a definite improvement to Versailles Avenue and certainly will be better than the vacant lot which has been there for so long. Mr. Keturi reiterated that he could not understand why the variances were granted when he has the signatures of almost everyone in the block objecting to them, especially considering the parking problem. Mr. Annibale stated there is a very strong presumption in law that the Planning Board operated within the scope of its power in granting the variances upon the terms as set out in the Municipal Code. No further reason need be given. Councilman Collischonn said he felt the objections to the proposed structures have been magnified somewhat out of proportion - the Council has heard all of the arguments from both sides, and the matter has been adequately covered. President McCall thereupon declared the Hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Council. Councilman Freeman stated she felt it should be required that Mr. Kassis construct the roof gardens or sun decks on the garages. Upon request, Mr. Annibale stated the Council has the power to modify the variances as originally granted by the Board - and, in terms of open space for the tenants of the apartments, this would be a valid modification. Councilman Collischonn thereupon moved the Council deny the appeal of Mr..Keturi and sustain the action of the Planning Board in granting certain variances on the property known as 1311 -1313 Versailles Avenue on condition that Mr. Kassis creates a recreation area or sun deck on the roofs of the two garages. The motion was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen „Collischonn, Freeman, Schacht and President McCall, (4). Noes: Council- man Petersen, (1). Absent: None. 13. The matter was called up concerning the formation of the Bay Farm Island Assess- ment District No. 58 -1. The Clerk proceeded to read in full the letters listed on the Agenda under "Written Communications ", which had been deferred to this time for consideration. Upon inquiry of Mr. Annibale, the Clerk stated the following documents are on file: the Affidavit of Publication of "Notice to Property Owners" which was published twice, in accordance with the law, on June 24 and 25, 1958; the Affidavit of Mailing "Notice to Property Owners” which was sent to each property owner in the District; and the Affidavit of Posting "Notice of Improvement" placards throughout the area. President McCall announced the presence of Mr. Ernest A. Wilson, Legal Counsel, of the firm of Kirkbride, Wilson, Harzfeld & Wallace, and Mr. Harry H. Shatto, Consult - ing Engineer, both of whom have been employed by the City to carry out the necessary procedure in the formation of this Assessment District. Also, the City Engineer has worked closely with Mr. Shatto in this matter. Mr. Hanna presented Mr. Shatto, stating he has done practically all of the work on this project and is completely familiar with the plans and the prorating of the assess- ments. He stated Mr. Shatto has an explanation for any apparent discrepancies. Mr. and Mrs. Claude Stuart, Jr., 286 Beach Road, had stated the assessment cost is not consistent -.the same size lots being charged different amounts. Mr. Shatto stated that, insofar as the street work is concerned, equal parcels are receiving the same charge - the difference in the amounts charged against any lots of the same size has to do only with the individual benefits which come from the standpoint of driveway and /or sidewalk construction. Mrs. N. Van Der Haeghen, 329 Beach Road, had submitted five specific questions with regard to the removal and replacement of a portion of her sidewalk and her driveway approach- and, also, asked why the full length of Beach Road is n of being graded and paved, as requested in the original petition. Mr. Shatto gave a detailed explanation as to the engineering technicalities involved in all such sidewalk and driveway construction. He also pointed out the new grade of Beach Road will be ten inches lower than the present sidewalk level and it is that condition which must be consideredn ow before the plans are prepared and the process of construction is started. Mr. Van Der Haeghen stated that when his sidewalk was to be put in, the City had surveyed to establish the grade and the work was done by a licensed contractor. He asked if the grade was wrong. Mr. Hanna explained that, based on the information the City had at the time, the sidewalk was put in higher than the existing gutter which is not too low, related to the sidewalk - but based on an over -all plan which has been developed as a result of this District, it is found now that the gutter line is to be much lower than it was heretofore thought to be. Therefore, in order to get an approach into the sidewalk, it will have to be dipped at that point. He. stated it is not possible to do a piecemeal job of construction and have it exactly com- patible with everything that would be designed in an over -all project. Councilman Freeman asked why Beach Road has to be lower than it is ,now and Mr. Hanna replied that, at one time, the City expected to run the storm drains through Seminary Avenue and thence to the Golf Course, but as a result of more complete thinking at this time, it has been found the sewer line can be located to the south, rather than northerly of this point, and reduce the total cost to the whole Assessment District. Mr. Robert DeCelle, 276 Beach Road, expressed the opinion that if there has been an error in the engineering figures which affects some of these properties, then that portion of the cost should be borne by the City. There was some discussion on this situation, Mr. Hanna explaining the Engineering Department has staked grades in accordance with the best plans available - but, again, these plans were drawn without any expense to the Bay Farm Island property owners, and it does cost money to draw plans. The City has done its very best to make these side- walk plans consistent and to integrate them, even though they go in like a checker- board. He pointed out the City has worked very closely with Mr. Shatto in trying to save as many of these sections of sidewalk as possible. However, there are some apparent discrepancies which will make it necessary to remove some of the sidewalks. Councilman Freeman inquired if the present plan is adequate so there will be no occa- sion later to make any changes after the fill of Bay Farm Island is completed. Mr. Hanna replied that the change in grade of the gutter line has nothing to do with the proposed fill of the Utah Construction Company area - it is integrated with an over- all drainage plan for the whole Island. Councilman Petersen asked how many particular property owners are affected in this respect in addition to the Van Der Haeghens, to which Mr. Shatto gave the estimate of approximately half or about twenty -nine of the total parcels involved in the Dis- trict. Mr. -Hanna clarified the point to which Mr. DeCelle was referring - where apparently good concrete is in, having been put in under City Permit, and now has to be cut out. It was determined there were only about seven of these cases. Mr. Shatto pointed out there is a heterogeneous mixture of sidewalk construction in this area - some of which were put in under City Permit and some were not. Some are three, or four, feet in width - and the standard is five feet. All of these var- iances cause difficulties in adhering to a standard. However, even where the side- walk had not been constructed in consistent alignment down the street, but it was still adequate and in good condition, it was saved and only that part was removed which was necessary to make the conformations into the driveway. The next question raised was why the full length of Beach Road is n of being graded and paved as requested in the petition. Mr. Hanna stated he did not recall that the original petition spelled out any limits - it mentioned Beach Road and it did not say anything about Seminary Avenue, Melrose Avenue or Flower Lane. At that time, the matter was explored further by asking for additional petitions from various residents and those on Fitchburg Avenue did not want the Assessment District. The City owns the property from approximately two hundred ten feet north of Fitchburg Avenue, south to Fitchburg Avenue - and, at that time, around over to Maitland Drive. The City also owns the east side of Beach Road for perhaps another two hundred feet northerly from this two- hundred- ten -foot point. Taking into account the finances of the City and the fact there was some question of whether or not the District would be pro- tested out and in attempting to hold down the total cost and considering the City's Master Plan and the possibility of a perimeter road which would cut diagonally across this two - hundred - ten -foot length - it was felt it would be desirable to stop the improvement at the end house, or the south limit of private development. Considerable discussion was had on this situation. Mr. Hanna referred to a drawing filed in the Planning Department which shows how this whole area would be completely demolished if a perimeter road ever goes through there. Mr. Schoenfeld displayed said drawing and Mr. Hanna indicated the route of the proposed road. Mr. Shatto pointed out that if the perimeter road were established, then all improve- ments in this two hundred ten feet of Beach Road would be nullified. Mr. Hanna stated he did not know whether or not the limits of the Assessment District can be altered at this meeting - the Legal Counsel could advise on this point. He then explained that if the City were to pave Fitchburg Avenue, there would also be a large storm sewer main involved - the cost of which would be distributed over all the properties in the District. He asked Mr. Shatto if this would be so, to which Mr. Shatto replied, "That is true." The cost of the storm drainage features is one which is directly attributable to roadway construction itself. It is shared by all and would, therefore, be paid proportionately by all in the District. Mr. Shatto pointed out that the boundary of the Assessment District as now set up is just about as far as it should go without having to add a disproportionately large sum for the cost of an additional drainage system. In response to President McCall's question as to who would pay the cost of the improve- ments in the remainder of Beach Road, it was developed that since the City owns the property on both sides of the Road, all of the cost of the street work would be borne by the City and the cost of the drainage system would be prorated over the entire District. Councilman Freeman inquired what the actual costs would be with regard to the drain- age project as well as the street construction, to which Mr. Shatto gave the follow- ing estimates: $3,200. for the street work and the total amount would be approxi- mately 15,000. in round figures. It was ascertained from Mr. Hanna there were no Federal Funds available for such a project. Mr. Hanna said he believes it is legally permissible for the City to "bow out' of any expense and allow the property owners to pay for all costs involved in said District - and he inquired if he understands this point correctly. Both Mr. Shatto and Mr. Wilson agreed this is true - the City's contribution is entirely voluntary. Councilman Collischonn inquired concerning the procedure involved in the formation of an Assessment District and Mr. Shatto explained it can be initiated either by peti- tion of the interested landholders or by the City Council - then it goes through the manipulations of preparing plans and obtaining jurisdiction, after which a Hearing is held. This is the deciding Hearing tonight, at which a fifty -one percent protest could stop its formation. He pointed out there are only seven protests and even if every one were valid, that would be only about sixteen percent of the fifty -eight parcels involved. Technically, as far as the District is concerned, "hardship" is not a factor and does not constitute a valid protest, because if one does not have the necessary cash, it goes to bonds and he is allowed fifteen years in which to pay it off. Mrs. Ella May Waterbury, 338 Beach Road, stated she had circulated the original petition and she knew there were more than fifty -one percent who signed to have the district established. Mr. Neil Clark pointed out the matter of the Beach Road Assessment District has been under discussion for more than three and one -half years and was initiated originally by a petition, informal in character, from the property owners. A meeting had been held and a poll taken, not only of those on Beach Road but also from Island and Garden Roads and other connecting streets. Very early it was indicated that those on the other streets were not interested in participating in an Assessment District. As a result, the approach was confined to Beach Road, and Mrs. Waterbury and her committee made a house -to -house canvass which clearly indicated a majority were in favor of the formation of an Assessment District. In response to Councilman Collischonn's question, Mr. Annibale answered the protests would have to exceed fifty -one percent of the total parcels involved to stop the formation of the District. Mr. Robert DeCelle reiterated that he felt the understanding was that Beach Road was to be improved for its full length. Mrs. Waterbury corroborated his statement in this respect, pointing out the original petition requested the improvement of Flower Lane, Melrose Avenue up to Maitland Drive, and Beach Road - it did not state "two' hundred ten feet short of the end of Beach Road ". Mr. Hanna stated the City has done everything it can to try to promote this District - it has tried to hold down the expense to where it would be acceptable to the people there. Many of them have been afraid the District would not be established. In endeavoring to keep it within bounds and at the same time trying to conserve every- body's funds - not just theirs, but the City's - it was felt, in the light of the plans which have been at the Engineers' disposal from the Planning Department - and taking into consideration the City's ownership and the fact the people on Fitchburg Avenue were opposed to the District - and taking into account the fact the majority of the traffic utilizes the entrances to the north andmt Fitchburg Avenue - that the boundary should be established two hundred ten feet north of Fitchburg Avenue, which is where the City property on both sides ends. Mrs. Waterbury contended the proposed perimeter road is not at all feasible and she urged that Beach Road be improved for its entire length. Mr. Weller stated he is not particularly concerned a bout whether the City has to undertake the additional cost of the extension of Beach Road improvements but he is concerned with the prospects of the City possibly having to rip out and destroy the investment it has in such improvements. He did not know how valid the map is but it is his feeling the Council is not in a position this evening totrake a judgment as to whether or not that map is valid. It would be his suggestion, therefore, that if it can be done, perhaps the Hearing could be continued until the Council could receive advice from the Planning Board as to its plans in this area or that the District as presently set up, which does not include this final stretch of Beach Road, be okehed by the Council. It seems to him the City is going to have to pay the cost in any event if the improvement is made - so nothing is lost or gained whether or not it is included in this particular District. Upon request, Mr. Wilson stated the procedure being followed here is purposely designed to be quite versatile. The Council may tonight confirm the assessments and order the work by awarding the contract - and it may, during the conduct of the pro- ceedings, make changes and modifications either with reference to the amount of work to be done or with reference to the particular manner in which the assessments have been spread. Those changes and modifications are based upon "Notice" and a second Hearing and they are based upon their own original jurisdiction and their own original "Notice ". It is perfectly possible to go ahead with the project tonight and, if you can plan this additional work within sufficient time, to have a Hearing to enlarge the Assessment District and thus add it. He said he thinks probably the most serious point to be discussed is the fact mentioned by Mr. Shatto that this addition would have a serious effect upon the drainage design and it may be necessary to reassess all of the properties and add this additional cost for that particular construction. It would be up to the engineers to decide whether the road could be extended, without making that change. Mr. Wilson continued with reference to the manner of spreading the assessment, stating there has been a great deal of thought and consideration given to it. It is true that it will be getting late in the Fall if the work does not proceed soon and the bids in this matter were opened on the basis there would be an award within thirty days. That would give the contractor an opportunity to "get in and out" before the Winter rains. Therefore, it is suggested early action be taken and any substantial changes desired to be made be based upon further study,and consideration during the pendency of the project. Mr. Wilson also pointed out that in the Notice which was published, in the Notices which were posted along the streets and in the Notices which were mailed to the prop- erty owners, the exact terminus of Beach Road was stated. There being no further comments, President McCall declared the Hearing closed and referred the matter to "Resolutions ". REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, E['CETERA : 1L. From the Mayor, nominating Mr. Frederick S. Curren, 980 Pearl Street, as a me ber of the City Planning Board for the term expiring June 30, 1961. The matter was referred to "Resolutions ". 15. From the City Planning Board, signed by Mr. A. Raymond Schoenfeld, Secretary, recommending approval of the Record of Survey Map of Lots 72 through 75, Block 3, Tract No. 1866 - South Shore Development. Councilman Freeman moved the Board's recommendation be adopted; that South Shore Land Co. be permitted to record the Record of Survey Map in lieu of a Final Map covering these lots. The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. From the City Manager, concerning installation of stop signs in South Shore Unit No. 2 to control traffic at entrances to Otis Drive and Shore Line Drive from Grand Street to Westline Drive. The matter was referred to "Ordinances for Introduction ". 17. From the City Manager, reporting that the fill operation at 466 Central Avenue has been satisfactorily completed and recommending its acceptance. Councilman Schacht moved the recommendation be approved and the project be accepted as of July 15, 1958, the completion date established by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18. From the City Manager, submitting a request from the United States Air Force for a Revocable Permit to install a recruitment sign on the north side of Doolittle Drive in the vicinity of the Model Airplane Field. Councilman Collischonn moved the request of the Air Force be granted and a Revocable Permit be issued to allow the installation of said sign in accordance with the regulations of the Building Department. The motion was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call c arried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 19. From the City Manager, submitting request from Major Louis B. Scott of the Marine Reserve Training Center, for the installation of five directional signs to the Center. Mr. Hanna stated he had discussed the matter with Major Scott who had agreed to eliminate the sign proposed to be erected at Buena Vista Avenue and Paru Street. He indicated the exact locations of the remaining four signs, and it was developed two of them would be on Federal property; therefore, the only request the City could make on these would be that the signs conform as much as possible to State Highway stand- ards. Mr. Hanna stated that if the sign at Buena Vista Avenue and Willow Street were permitted, Major Scott should obtain permission from the property owner immediately adjacent so there would be no protest later. Councilman Freeman thereupon moved the request of Major Scott be granted and a Revoc- able Permit be issued to allow the installation of the two signs to be located on City property, provided he obtain permission from the property owner adjacent to the sign at Willow Street and Buena Vista Avenue. The motion was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 20. Councilman Collischonn introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subdivisions 98 Through 113 to Section 17 -432 Thereof, Relating to Stop Intersections. (South Shore Unit No. 2)" 21. With regard to the following ordinance, Councilman Freeman called attention to the fact that, in the Modification of Agreement, reference is made to the "report and recommendations of the firm of Dames & Moore, Soil Mechanics Engineers, dated May 15, 1958 ". She pointed out a letter from Dames & Moore, dated July 3, 1958, has since been received which indicates a correction has been made in the Plate attached to the previous report. Councilman Freeman inquired if this change should be included in the Modification of Agreement. Mr. Annibale stated the ordinance would be introduced authorizing the Modification of Agreement ".... to conform completely with the report and recommendations of the firm of Dames & Moore, Soil Mechanics Engineers, dated May 15, 1958, and filed with the City Clerk on June 24, 1958, as amended by letter of Dames & Moore, dated July 3, 1958, to the end that said area shall be suitable for use by the City a s a public beach." Councilman Freeman thereupon introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1148, New Series by Authorizing the Modification of the Agreement Authorized Therein, Said Modification Relating to Beach Slopes and the Northwesterly Terminus of the Perimeter Road." Councilman Freeman said she understands this covers only fill areas "A" and "B" and she thought Utah wanted all of the beach slopes settled at this time. If they are going to include area "C" eventually, she felt it should be included in this Modifi- cation, so the ordinance would not have to be amended again. Mr. Annibale stated Paragraph 8 (A) 1 of the Fill Agreement which is now being modi- fied is the only one which refers to beach slopes - and this refers only to fill areas ''A" and "B". In response to Councilman Freeman's question as to there being a sea wall from Park Street, east, Mr. Hanna replied the.Fill Agreement refers to a mud dike to serve as a method of retention for area "C ".' UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 22. Mr. Hanna stated the City is faced with the problem of utilizing the Bureau of Electricity services for installing street lights on Willow Street, south of Clinton Avenue, and it is necessary to obtain a finding from the City Council that for reasons of economy City forces should be used to accomplish the installation. Councilman Schacht thereupon moved that, under provision of Section 3 -15 of the Charter, the Council finds the Bureau of Electricity can perform this project more economically without contract and, therefore, said City forces be authorized to make such installa- tions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. �3' Councilman Freeman asked that the City Attorney request the Legal Counsel of the Water Resources Board, who happens to be the Attorney General, to render an opinion as to who is responsible, under Reclamation law, for the retention of reclamation projects, and in what manner said responsibilities can be charged to some other party. Councilman Petersen referred to an opinion from the Attorney General received in August, 1957, in response to several questions concerning the lagoon easements, at 4 which time he had quoted from Section 50652 of the Health and Safety Code. He asked if an interpretation of this in relation to Councilman Freeman's request could be procured. Mr. Annibale stated he thought this referred to the Board of Trustees of the Reclama- tion District. He stated he had checked briefly on the Water Resources Board and he could find no connection between it and the Reclamation District - further, the agency who gives the number to a Reclamation District is the State Lands Commission. He stated he would investigate the matter more thoroughly. Councilman Petersen referred to Section 9 (B) 14 of the Agreement between City of Alameda and Utah Construction Company and inquired if the Company has the right to reassign a right of the Reclamation District to another private organization. Mr. Annibale replied he did not believe it has that right, but he will also check on this matter and report. RESOLUTIONS: 24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Schacht, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5822 Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Frederick S. Curren) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 25. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5823 Declaring Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Lands for Right -of -Way Purposes, Including Street and Highway, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Purposes." (Tilden Way) (Fleming) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Petersen, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5824 Authorizing Modification of That Certain Agreement by and Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda City Garbage Association, Dated February 1, 1956, Relating to Charges Made at the Refuse Dump." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call c arried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Freeman, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5825 A Resolution Overruling Protests on Resolution No. 5798 of Preliminary Determination and of Intention - Bay Farm Island Assessment District No. 58 -1." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Petersen, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5826 A Resolution Ordering Reduction of Assessment - Bay Farm Island Assessment District No. 58 -1." (From original estimate of `$72,476.11 to $64,948.91) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 29. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Freeman, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5827 A Resolution Determining Convenience and Necessity, Adopting Engineer's Report, Confirming Assessment and Ordering Work and Acquisitions - Bay Farm Island Assessment District No. 58 -1." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 30. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Freeman, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. ,5828 A Resolution of Award of Contract - Bay Farm Island Assessment District No. 58 -1." (Gallagher & Burk, Inc., $50,114.48) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.. Mr. Wilson, Legal Counsel, explained details of the four resolutions relating to the Assessment District. 31. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5829 Authorizing Year -End Transfers on the Books of Account of the City of Alameda." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Mr. Weller outlined the financial conditions involved and stated copies of the Audi- tor's Report will be sent to the Council members within the next day or two. The President thereupon declared all of the foregoing resolutions duly adopted and passed. FILING: 32. Financial Statement - .Bureau of Electricity, as of May 31, 1958 — Verified by Hackleman & Larzelere. 33. Modification of Contract - Between City of Alameda and Alameda City.Garbage Association. 34. Auditor's Financial Statement - City of Alameda, as of June 30, 1958 - Verified by Hackleman & Larzelere. 35. Modification of Agreement - Between City of Alameda and Utah Construction Company. BILLS: 36. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda, and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of 169,936.35, was submitted to the Council at this meeting. The list was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman Petersen moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on July 15, 1958, and presented to the Council at this time, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 37. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, August 5, 1958, at 7 :30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,