1976-04-06 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - - - APRIL 6, 1976
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Beckam, followed by an Invocation delivered by the Reverend
Glenn W. Thomson, Chaplain of the Naval Air Station.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica, (5),
were noted present. Absent: NOne,
MINUTES:
I. The minutes of the regular meeting held March 16, I975, were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Mrs. Joann Vander Kooi, I546 Broadway, appealing decision of the Planning Board in denying
continuance of the Use Permit for operation of the Small World Nursery.
The hearing was set for April 20, 1976.
3. From Jones-Tillson & Associates, signed by Mr. Calvin M. Jones, requesting a two-year extension
of approval of the Tentative Map for Tract No. 3645 to November 6, 1978, (Village II - Harbor Bay
Isle AsS0cfDt2S\,
Councilman Beckam moved the time limit be extended two years to November 6, 1979 for the Tentative
Map for Tract No. 3645'
4. From Mr. Edward Jordan, Editor of Spirit Arts Co-op, 530 Santa Clara Avenue, requesting
permission to make a presentation on a proposal to convert the BeIl]2hBm Steel Shipyard into a center
for the performing, visual and creative arts.
Mr. Jordan stated he wished to withdraw that portion of his request relative to the two-month trial
period, as it would be a disservice to all concerned. He read the goal of the organization from
his letter to the Council. He related Mr. Malone, of Calpak Properties, had written him again and
though had not withdrawn his support, was most anxious to hear the response of the City Council. He
stated he was asking for a vote of confidence from the Council so his organization could proceed
with their plans. He stated the long term goal was to utilize the large brick building on the Calpak
property for the Center. He indicated he had met with the Bicentennial Committee and was willing
to work with them for the planned July 4 exhibit. He related the actions taken to date.
It was the suggestion of the Council that Mr. Jordan meet with staff to discuss the feasibility of
the project, and then return to the City Council when more specific details were available.
5. From Misses Laura Hurwitz, Tracy LOmhd and Connie Bryant, reoueSti0g permission to make a pre-
sentation concerning a recreational use.
Miss Connie Bryant, I914 Cambridge Drive, spoke for the group. She suggested a boarding stable and
riding academy be established on Bay Farm Islond, Miss Bryant related and posted a drawing illustrating
their plans in detail and a projected plot plan for the use.
The suggestion was referred to the Recreation Department for consideration.
6. From the California Music Merchants Association, Inc., signed by Mr. George A. Miller, Executive
Director, regarding the Business License Ordinance.
President Corica noted the amusement device industry was requesting they he allowed to utilize the
option of computing the business license tax on gross receipts rather than a flat rate.
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance for passage he amended by deleting Section 13-I925 from
Section 13-1102, and permit amusement devices to be covered under gross reCeiptS. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously on voice vote,
Mr. Miller, who was in the audience, expressed his appreciation for the Council's action.
7. From the Islandia Home Owners' Association, sinned by the Board of Directors, concerning airport
growth plans of the Port of 0Dk]ond,
President Corica stated he wished to amend a statement in the letter and indicated the Mayor and the
entire Council had agreed to the action taken on Runway 27. He related nothing had been given up, the
lawsuits were pending, Assemblyman Miller had been requested to pursue the bill which would prohibit
utilizing Runway 27, and the Council had adopted a resolution supporting their position on Runway 27.
He stated Port of Oakland officials had requested to be notified of any violations, so it could take
action. President Corica further referred to the comment in the letter which indicated the training
flights constituted 15 to 20 percent of the total noise. On request, the City Attorney stated he
had checked with Wyle Lab, who were gathering data for the Noise Element, and they indicated that
estimate was considerably high.
Mr, Len Peters, I003 Tahiti Lane, expressed the Association's concern about previous promises made
by the Port of Oakland. He said he had spoken with the Chief of Tower Controllers, Mr. Charles
Evans, who indicated the new procedures were basically the same as before, allowing the exceptions
when Runway 29 was closed due to construction or safety considerations, which would include weather
conditions. He stated the new instructions did not use the words "prohibited" or "restricted', and
charged the Port of Oakland had "softened" the rules. He listed the sources of his information,
President Corica related the actions taken last year with regard to AB 2738. He suggested the
City of Alameda would be benefited by any arrangement made, rather than to do nothing until the
state legislature acted.
Councilman Sherratt stated the Council had not made any agreements with the Port and quoted from
Item 19 of the minutes of the meeting held May 6, 1975, which reflected the Council's action directing
Assemblyman Miller to pursue legislation to ban the use of Runway 27,
Councilman Beckam defended the actions of the legislature, particularly in respect to prOhbitiOg the
proposed freeway around Alameda. He also mentioned Assemblyman Lockyer's bill, AB 3784, requiring
noise abatement plans when the Land Use Commissions (ALUC) considered airport expansion. He asked
that the City Attorney instructed to prepare a resolution endorsing AB 3784. He also suggested
residents of Bay Farm Island write each senator and assemblyman in their area to urge passage of
these two bills.
Councilman Diament commented to federal level was responsible for rules pnverninq airports, and
suggested efforts be directed to federal represenatives. She stated a resolution had been proposed
by the state legislators asking the federal govenrment for help in regulating airports, and the
resolution had been withdrawn at the request of the former City Council. Councilman Beckam requested
the City Manager to check on this information and he also asked the City Attorney to check with
the Port of Oakland to see if their operating rules have been or propose to be amended to reflect
the agreement.
8. From Mrs L.E. Francis, 2465 Shoreline Drive, suggesting use for property on Bay Farm Island
owned by Harbor Bay Isle Associates.
The communication suggesting the property be used for horse breeding was referred to the Recreation
Department,
9. From the Board of Port Commissioners, City of Oakland, signed by Mr. Robert E. Mortensen,
transmitting a Port Resolution prohibiting the use of the North Field runways of the Metropolitan
Oakland International Airport.
It was the consensus of the Council that the communication be accepted.
10. From the San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club, signed by the Chairman of the Transportation
Subcommittee, suggesting the City consider the need for bicycle parking lockers in preparation of
its application for Transportation Development Act funds for the I976-77 fiscal year.
The communication was referred to the Recreation Department for consideration.
Councilman Hurwitz requested information about the status of bike paths. The City Manager related
a link of the path would be included in the Washington Park plans, and indicated financing was
the hindrance. On request, the Park and Recreation Director explained the Transportation Develop-
ment Act funds could only be used for off-street areas, and explained this was the reason for the
City's involvement in the Bay Farm Island Bridge and Washington Park areas, projects.
11. From Mariner Square Associates, signed by Mr. John Beery; and Ancient/Mariner-Rusty Pelican,
Inc., signed by Mr. Douglas F. Rys, concerning the appearance of Webster Street at the approach to
Mariner Square.
President Corica related the City Engineer had indicated this material was being stockpiled for
use in correcting the drainage problems in that area and to provide material for the proposed Patton
Way project.
12. From the Alameda Womens Improvement Club, signed by Mrs, Louise Benedetti, Secretary, requesting
placement of a bus bench at Otis Drive and Park Street.
President Corica advised the bus bench was in place and the A/C Transit District was planning
to install a shelter in the near future.
13. From Mr. Fred E. Laughlin, 924 Versailles Avenue, concerring operation of the Bureau of
Electricity'
President Corica stated Mr. Laughlin was requesting an investigation of the Public Utilities Board
which was contrary to the Council's policy. He related the qualifications of the Board members. He
also reviewed the actions of Mr. Laughlin in appearing before the Council and the Public Utilities
Board and the Board's responses to his inquiries.
Mr. Laughlin spoke about his findings and charged the Board was a "rubber stamp" for the Bureau's
General Manager. He charged the present high rates were the result of policies of the Bureau
and the Board, and requested a special committee be appointed to investigate the DurRo's operations.
After considerable discussion, the Council declined t0 anpoint the requrested committee. City Manager
Goss, a member of the Board, refuted Mr. Laughlin's charge that the Board acted as a "rubber stamp",
Mr, George Gardiner, II14 Court Street, stated he had done research work with Mr. Laughlin in an
attempt to determine what the yield to the City was on its investment. He described the difficulties
involved because of their inability to determine the current market value of the Bureau's property
and eqUipment.
Councilman Beckam suggested the City Manager and the President of the Public Utilities Board meet
with Mr. Laughlin and anyone else and volunteered to join the group, to review some of the aspects
of the information asked for.
14. From Mr. Joseph M. Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, concerning the Planning Department.
The communication was received.
15. From M.A.G. Consultants, Inc., signed by Dr. Maurice A. Garbel], filing a claim against the
City for professional services.
President Corica explained the claim was filed in connection with work done as part of the noise
element and that the City Attorney had recommended it be denied.
Councilman Hurwitz moved denial of the Claim. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Diament, Hurwitz and President Corica, (3).
Noes: Councilman Beckam, (1). Abstaining! Councilman Sherratt, (1). Absent: None.
HEARINGS:
15. Continued from the meeting of March 16, 1975, in the matter of consideration of revisions to the
Planned Development Ordinance.
The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file.
President Corica noted the Planning Board had been working on the proposed amendments for more than
a year, and declared the hearing opened.
Mr. John Fenstermacher, I734 Cambridge Drive, President of the Planning Board, reviewed the work of
the Subcommittee, which had been meeting for fourteen months to develop the proposals, and stated
the subcommittee had considered information received from the Goals Study. He said there had been
some disagreement on public vs private streets and the question of mixed uses. He reported the
questions had been resolved by a majority vote of the Board, and they had determined the density
would be determined by underlying zoning. He stated the Board had decided on the wording of Sections
1355 and 1355.I at their meeting held April 5, 1975.
On request, Mr. Stroud explained the ordinance which had been submitted and the appended pages illus-
trating the Board's recommendations and the Planning Director's recommendations.
Councilman Beckam noted there had been some modifications received just prior to this meeting and
the public had not had a chance to look at them' He suggested the public hearing be held, the
ordinance introduced, and any modifications to come in later and be properly presented.
President Corica declared the hearing would he postponed until the next regular meeting, and directed
the City Attorney to submit one ordinance with the Changes shown and one set of comments.
I0. Continued from the meeting of March 16, I976, in the matter of consideration of revisions to
the Design R2VfeNOrdinance,
The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file.
The President declared the hearing opened.
After considerable discussion, the Planning Director presented a brief report on the chronology of
the Design Review Board, the proposed amendments, and comments, both favorable and unfavorable,
concerning the Board's actions since its creation. He stated the Design Review Board had approved
the amendments, the Planning Board had approved the review by use rather than cost, and had approved
review of single family residences in an xR-l" zone by a vote of five to twV. He stated the
questions before the Council were approval of single family residences and no fee for minor applica-
tions, and listed the alternatives to single family residence review as: (1) except all residential;
(2) review all single family uses; (3) leave the ordinance as it exists with review restricted to
multi-family zones which would allow review of sinqlefamily uses in other than "R-I" zones; and
(4) review all single family residences on that pertion which was visible from the street, I.E., roof
lines, window spaces, materials, building portions, sizes and yards, and all other building improve-
ments not requiring a building permit, such as paint and exterior color selection would be exempt
from review. He noted it was not the function of the Design Review Board to redesign a project,
but to suggest broad alternatives from which choices might be made,
Mr. Tom Lee, Planning Assistant and Secretary to the Design Review Board, made a slide presentation
of projects, before and after, which had been subject to design review.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Joseph C2rVelli, Chairman of the Design Review Board, reported the
proposed ordinance had been approved by the Board, which felt single family residences in all zoning
districts should be included as an essential item for design review continuity. He noted there was
an appeal process to the City Council, and answered questions nut by Council members.
Councilman Beckam suggested the Design Review Manual be updated so anyone, including a layman, could
understand it.
President Corica remarked that the majority of people he had spoken with were opposed to the
concept of a Design Review Board, as they felt it was just another layer of government telling
them what to do with their own homes, and cited criticism which he had heard.
The following persons spoke in support of the proposed ordinance: Mr. James 3mallmnn, 2242 San
Antonio Avenue; Mr, John Beery, Mariner Square; Mrs, Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive; Mr, Robert
Wood, 3I50 Phoenix Lane; Mr. John Dickson, 911 Grand Street, and Mrs. Patricia Payne, 2121 Alameda
Avenue.
On the call for opponents, M5, Rena Clements, Associated Building Industry of Northern California,
stated their organization was not opposed to design review, however recommended single family homes
in any zoning area not be included in the ordinance. She reported their problem was in the
interpretation of subjective guidelines, where the situation might and did arise with a professional
opinion being expressed against another professional opinion, or a lay person making judgements
OD technical issues which he was not qualified to dn. She suggested that should the Design Review
Board be continued, the manual be made more clear and precise SO the guidelines would be easier to
follow by both the developer and the Board, She offered the assistance of her association in
this regard.
Mr. Gerhard DeqemaO, Vice President, Bonded Remodelers Council, suggested a General Contractor
specializing in remodeling be put on the Board, and the manual be rewritten and contain specific
guidelines.
Mr. Robert Smith, 3530 Magnolia Drive, repeated his previously expressed opinions to the Design
Review Board and demanded the ordinance establishing the Board be repealed. He alleged the ordinance
was illegal, which statement was refuted by the City Attorney,
Mrs. Ella Waterbury, 338 Beach Road, again reviewed her experience with the Board. She opposed
the inclusion of single family home review in the ordinance.
Mr. Richard Roth, 1417 Fifth Street, also reviewed his involvement with the Board which he had
previously reported to the City Council, and expressed his strong objection to a review of single
family residences.
The hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Diament stated that after due consideration, it was her opinion single family home
review should be deleted from the OrdjDanCG.
Councilman Beckam referred to Section 11-231 (d) of the ordinance and recommended it be changed to
read: "The following improvements are exempt fro the provisions of this Chapter: (1) Additions
or repairs to an existing improvement if no structural change to the exterior thereof is to be
mode. (2) Improvements to single family dwellings not visible from the street."
Following lengthy discussion, Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be taken out of order. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll ca]] vote. Ayes:
Three. Noes: Councilman Diament and President Corica, (2). Absent: None.
The meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
16, Councilman Beckam introduced
"structural" in Section 1I-23I(d)
the Charter:
he following ordinance, as amended by insertion of the word
), after which it would be laid over under provision of law and
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending and Adding Certain
Sections to Articles 3 and 4, Chapter 2, Title XI thereof, Relating
to Design Review Regulations and Special Provisions,"
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Three. Noes: Councilman Diament and President Corica, (2). Absent: None,
A ten-minute recess was called. Upcn reconvening, President Corica announced the report and
recommendation concerning the proposed transfer of City-owned real property to the Alameda Unified
School District would be taken out of order.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
17. From the City Manager concerning the proposed property transaction with the Alameda Unified
School District.
President Corica reported the issue clearing title technically invested in the City of property
on which schools are located had been discussed for a number Of years. He referred to the ch0r0n-
ology of communications, discussions and meetings between representatives of the School District
and the City, which was incorporated in the report.
The City Attorney noted the agreement was in proper form and had been prepared by the County Counsel.
RESOLUTIONS:
8. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Sherratt, who moved its adoption contingent
upon the required bond's being posted:
"Resolution No. 8511
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction and Completion
of Improvements in Connection with Parcel Map No. 1774 and Approvinc
Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (Division of Property at
18 Garden Road - Mervin J. Shields and Paula V. Shields)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman DianRnt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Abstaining: Councilman Hurwitz, (1). Absent:
President Corica, (1).
9. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Sherratt, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution Nn. 85I2
Approving Parcel Map No. 1774 fcr Division cf Property at 18 Garden Road,
Alameda, California, and Permitting Recording Thereof (Mervin J. Shields
and Paula V. Shields)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on
the following roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes N00S, Abstaining: Councilman Hurwitz, (1).
Absent: President Corica, (1).
The meeting returned to the renular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
10. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, making recommendations on proposals to
rezone Jackson Park, Washington Park, Woodstock Park, Buena Vista Park, Rittler Park and Krusi Park,
from residential classification to the "0", Open Space District.
The hearing on this matter was set for May 4, 1976.
11. From the City Manager concerning the lease of City property at 2226 Santa Clara Avenue.
Vice President Beckam noted the lease, if anproved, would permit the County to remodel and upgrade the
bui]dfnq.
On request, the City Manager reported the County wished to remodel the structure in order to provide
more efficient use in providing health care services at an estimated cost of approximately SI20,000
to $I40,000' He stated the proposed lease would begin July 1, 1976, for a term of 15 to 20 years
depending on the amount of remodeling costs, and in addition, the County would pay the City $125
per year, the lease amount in effect since I957.
Mr. Goss said it was anticipated the remodeling would take place between September and November,
1970, that City staff now housed in the building would remain there until the remodeling commenced,
and would return to the building, however to smaller quarters, when completed and remain until
May 1, 1977. He reported there was no space available with City Hall to accommodate staff members
Of Social Service and Advanced Planning, and some of the options available were; (1) pay the County,
Or have some eXbhanqe, at a cost of about $4,0110 to allow staff to stay in the building during the
remodeling; (2) Move staff hock and forth approximately four times until the Police DuiMinq is
completed in September, 1977; (3) Rent commercial space; /4\ Lease a modular structure to be placed
at some location in the City; or (4) Use part of the Post Office building. He recommended the staff
be moved to a location to be determined at the commencement of remodeling, and then relocated into
the City Hall when the Police Denartment moved.
There followed lengthy discussion concerning the possibilities suggested by the City Manager and the
utilization of School District space which might be available.
Vice President Beckam requested the City Manager investigate any and all possibilities for housing
staff members, including rental of commercial offices and School District space, with a report to the
City Council at the end of a one month period.
Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report and incorporated Vice President 8eckxm's reques
in his mOti0n. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following voice
vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: NOne, Absent: President Corica, (1).
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to 'Introduction of Ordinances",
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
12. Councilman Diament introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Authorizing Execution of Lease to the County of Alameda Relating to these
Certain Premises Commonly Known and Described as 2226 Santa Clara Avenue
and Terminating Previous Lease.'
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: None. Absent: President Corica, (1).
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
13. From the City Manager on the County Emergency Medical Services System Plan.
Vice President Beckam reported the City Manager recommended the Plan be endorsed in concept on
the condition present service levels not be reduced and there be proper representation for Alameda
OD any Committee implementing the Plan.
Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report and approval of the recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following voice vote. Ayes: Four. Noes:
None. Absent: President Corica, (1).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
14. Consideration of following item brought up under "New Business" at regular meeting held
April G, 1976:
(a) Request by Councilman Hurwitz for preparation of a resolution indicating to the Housing
Authority that the Council would like to ^ee the 40% of the first year HCDA funding under Section 8
directed to low income family housing, so funds might be used to assist placement of Makassar Housing
tenants.
Councilman Hurwitz stated he realized there was a need for senior citizen housing as wellas low
income family housing, however, as approximately 200 families were going to be displaced within a
short period of time and the Housing Authority had no funds for relocation, it might be well to direct
the remaining Section S moneys be used for leased family housing.
Councilman Sherratt stated he had contacted some of the Commissioners and the Executive Director of `-
the Housing Authority and discussed the issue. He noted some 80 units would be funded under the
pending applfcntiOn. It was felt by the Housing Authority that if the application were changed, it
could create problems; that it was planned to apply the 40% remaining funding to the 105 units at
Otis and Park and the modulars under a clause called "recnetly completed housing', as they were not
subsidized at this time. He reported the Authority was also pursuing the psosibility of reconstruction
loans through the state, and the suggestions made at the joint work session. He explained if the
40% were redirected and the application rewritten, this would not mean that Makassar Tenants would
be on a priority list as this was against federal reoulations.
Councilman Hurwitz reported he was in receipt of a letter from HUD to the Housing Authority advising
them their request for a waiver to except projects under the Section 8 new construction regulations
had been disallowed; therefore these funds would not be used for the Park-Otis complex. On request,
he read the letter.
Assistant City Manager Creagh stated the Authority had indicated they would make application for
Section 8 funding for low and moderate income families for I00 additional leased units in the
coming year, under HCDA procedures.
Councilman Diament expressed her agreement with Councilman Sherratt /S remarks, She said she felt
confidence should be kept in the Authority and the Executive Director as they were doing all they
could and were also looking for other alternatives to house Makassar tenants.
Mrs. Dorothy Allen, I020 Pacific Avenue, asked how the funding would be distributed,
Assistant City Manager Creagh explained 65% of the amount was allocated for senior citizens and
40$ for senior citizens and existing housing,
There followed a lengthy discussion of HCDA Section 8 and the application.
It was noted President Corica had entered the chamber at 8:30 o'clock p.m, and taken a seat on the
Council.
President Corica said it was his opinion the Housing Authority was doing everything in its power
to assit the tenants of the Makassar project.
Councilman Hurwitz moved the resolution be taken out of order. The motion died for lack of a second,
A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, and there being no objection, the meeting reverted
to "Hearings" and President Corica presiding,
HEARINGS:
15, In the Matter of the Appeal from a decision of the Planning Board in denying continuation of
the Use Permit for operation of the Small World Nursery, filed by Mrs. Joann Vander Kooi, 1546
Broadway.
The President declared the hearing opened.
OD request, the City Attorney explained the Council had the discretion as to whether or not this
should be a public hearing per se; that in accordance with the provisions of the prevailing ordin-
ance, the Council should base its decision on the record unless it was determined evidence existed
which the Planning Board should have considered and which had not been presented to thBm.
Councilman Sherratt requested speakers be limited to five minutes and directed to speak to the
subject.
Planning Director Patterson reported the Planning Department had received no additional information
than that which the Board had considered, and minutes of the Board meeting of December 15, 1975,
at which the matter had been heard, had been transcribed and transmitted to the City Council. He
stated the Planning Boar,' action was to deny the permit but grant a six month stay at the present
location, the vote being six to zero with one member absent.
President Corica noted a petitbn had been received signed by 769 residents in favor of the continued
operation of the nursery.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Thomas Davids, I825 Fremont Drive, a member of the Consistory of
the First Christian Reformed Church of Alameda, referred to the appeal request and accompanying
report. He explained the appeal was being made at the request of the supporters of the Small World
Nursery who recognized the need for the program and asked that it be allowed to continue. Approxi-
mately 75 persons in the audience rose to indicate their support of the request. Mr. Davids
r2oUrted the non-profit program was a part of the overall ch oh program and in its operation had
observed all of the previous conditions placed on the Use Permit. In answer to questions, he
stated the nursery did not operate during the summer months, and there was no alternative to the
use of the backyard as a play area.
Councilman Sherratt asked if a fence could be constructed which would he six feet high on the play-
school site, and probably eight feet high on the opposite side, to assist -VI cutting down on the
noise problem. Mr, Davids replied this had not been explored, to his knowledge'
Mrs. Margaret Rosenow, 2526 Otis Drive, stated the opponents previously had been opposed to the
raising of the fence and also to planting trees or shrubbery in the backyard area. She said this
had been suggested about two years previously.
Mr. Harold Nelson, 13I7 Court Street, remarked he was a resident of the immediate neighborhood
and had no objection to the nursery operation. He noted the playgrounds of Lincoln and St. Philip
Neri Schools were in the vicinity and were noise producing and he felt the children of pre-school
age should also have the right to play out of doors.
Mrs, Harriet Petroelje, 2833 Santa Clara Avenue, reported this was not a day care center and it
was her belief the Planning Board had made their decision on that basis.
Mrs. Marcia Howes, I369 Hansen Avenue, reported there was no space in the backyard to permit the
moving of playground apparatus and toys. At the present time, she stated, there was an approximate
five foot high wooden fence Separating the backyard of the nursery from the adjoining property.
Mrs. Joanne Rich, 1329 Sherman Street, and Mrs. Bonnie Burr, 449 Pacific Avenue, also spoke as
proponents of the appeal.
City Attorney Stroud stated the Noise Element discussed the effectiveness of various shielding
measures and it might be possible the right kind of barrier would be of some use in alleviating
the noise.
Mr. Davids, on question, stated the Church would be willing to consider any suggestion which would
alleviate the problem.
On the call for opponents, Mrs. Thelma McKenzie, 2913 Morton Street, voiced her strenuous objection
to the nursery school operation. She alleged the noise was injurious to her health and well being,
and repeated her statements made at the Planning Board hearing. She reported that, even wither
doors and windows closed, the noise was audible within her house. She further stated the fences
were sorely in need of repair and the children were endangering themselves by climbing on
them. She stated te had lived in the area for 50 years, the neighborhood was zoned residential and
nursery school operations had been prohibited in the past.
Mrs. Olive Hainke, 123I Court Street, stated her residence abutted the Church and play yard and
she had purchased the property prior to the Church's comir.g into the area. She agreed with the
statements made by Mrs. MacKenzie. She complained of the lack of street parking for her family
and guests, and alleged the parking sites were used by members of the Church ac nursery. She
alleged the petitions presented by the Small World Nursery in favor of their continued operation were
signed by persons who did not live in the immediate vicinity and therefore were not subjected to
the noise and inconvenience,
Mr. Ross Justus, 29I9 Madison Street, reported that almost every resident in the block where the
church is located had signed a petition in opposition to the nursery school operation. He con-
firmed the statements made by Mrs. MacKenzie and Mrs. Hainke, and said he did not believe there
was any way by which the noise could be muffled as the wall of the Church was about 35 feet tall
and a 6 feet tall fence would not eliminate the nofSe.
The hearing was declared closed.
At the conclusion of lengthy discussion, Councilman Beckam moved the matter be remanded to the
Planning Board for rehearing, with appellants to provide an aCCVotticOl report on the possibility
Of providing fencing, at Church expense, which would abate nOiSe The motion was seconded by
Councilman Hurwitz and carried unanimously on voice vote.
16. In the matter of consideration of revisions of the Planned Development Ordinance.
President Corica reported the revisions had been under study by the Planning Board and its sub-
committee for many months. He noted the matter had previously been considered by the City Council,
who had made suggestions and referred it back to the Board for further study and recommendation.
The President declared the hearing opened.
On the call for proponents, Mr. John Fenstermacher, President of the Planning8Oard and a member
Of the subcommittee, stated one of the areas addressed was that within which the Design Review
Board would take over and handle a Planned Development application. They had also attempted to
reword the ordinance so that it would be clear to the lay person. He said the Board had reworked
the areas of densities and mixed uses and had submitted its written recommendation. He answered
questions put by Council members and elaborated upon the written report of the subcommittee. He
noted the subcommittee had taken into the consideration the Goals Study in their deliberations.
There followed a prolonged discussion of density and the method by which this would be determined.
Mrs. Rosalie McPherson - member of the Planning Board, recommended the Board version of Section
11-I355 (b) - Density be adopted and any reference to gross or net acreage be omitted, and also
the Board's recommendations with renord to Section 1I-I355.I - Streets and Other Transportation
Facilities be adopted. She stated this would offer the developer flexibility to design a street
anyway he wanted it, subject to the City Engineer's requirements. She said Mixed Uses would
remain just that, under the Board recommendation, except that the land being considered for
commercial development would be zoned commercial, She stated the Committee had made a provision
for the Planning Board to approve residential uses in any zone other than an "P" zone, or if it
determined the use was compatible with the development. She reported other bay area communities
were allowing only 4 lots per acre, whereas their recommendation was 6 units per acre.
Councilman Beckam noted a standard subdivision would allow 8,7 units per acre and questioned why
the recommendation was for 6 units. Mrs. McPherson stated a Planned Development was to create
a maximum amount of open space and was a bonus to the developer who could be as creative as he
wanted with his design.
Mr. Robert Duncan Nicol, member of the Planning Board, also addressed the matters of density,
mixed uses and private streets. He concurred in the recommendations of the subcommittee.
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, urged the adoption of the ordinance as proposed by
the Planning Board. He distributed written copies of his presentation. He noted that in addition
to the Harbor Bay Isle development, the revision concerned development of the Del Monte property
as well as that of the Naval Air Station when and if it were vacated by the federal government.
He argued the advantage of public vs private streets within a development.
Mrs Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, recommended public streets be required in all Planned
Developments.
MrS, Ina Ratto, I053 Island Drive, noted the difficulties encountered by the residents of Kingston
Drive, a private street. She supported the Planning Board's recommendations with the exception
Of Sectbn 1I-7.355.I - Streets and Other Transportation FdCftiSS, as this would allow private
streets to be included in the calculation of density.
On the call for opponents, Mr. George Thenn, representative of the Arbor Development Company:
talked to the issue of private streets. He related his experience in attempting to develop a
25!. acre project in an "R-1-PD" zone on an irregularly shaped parcel, and stated they ended up
with a 6 per acre density with no bonuses and private roads. He reported the Planning Board had
ruled private road would not be allowed and they had then developed an »R-l" configuration, after
which the Board had stated they could not go "R-I" as they were in a "PD" zone. He said they were
now in a quandry as to how they should proceed. He stated a Planned Development with private
streets meets the needs of many homeowners, and noted those Bay Farm Island developments completed
with these amenities contained few unsold lots units and were well mafntained. He said he
believed there should be more flexibility in the calculation of density.
The hearing was declared ClOsed.
Following discussion, Councilman Beckam moved approval of Section 11-1355 - Density to read:
"(a) The Planning Board shall determine the number of dwelling units that are appropriate for
the Planned Development. Unless mitigating measures elan be implemented under Sectbn 1I-I356,
density which could create the conditions listed in that section shall not be allowed. (b) The
maximum number of dwelling units which the Board may permit, per gross acre, shall be: (1) R-1:
8.5. (2) R-2; 17.5; (3) R-3: 21.5; (4) R-4: 29.0; (5) R-5: 43,5; (6) R-6: 87.5. (c) Density shall
be calculated for each Planned Development. The Board may calculate density on the basis of more
than one Planned Development if the Planned Developments are contiguous and part of an approved
Master Plan. This section may be applied to existing as wellas proposed Planned Developments."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Thr2e, Noes: Councilman Didment and President Corica, (2). Absent: None.
Councilman Beckam moved approval of Section II-I355.1 - Streets and Other Transportation Facilities,
to read: "(a) All streets other than ways used for access to garages or parking areas, shall
be dedicated unless the Planning Board determines that private streets are a necessary arrange-
ment in the design of the Planned Development and the covenants and conditions include a provision
that the City may repair streets and/0r require dedication at a later date if streets are not
maintained. (b) The Planning Board may require the dedication of any walkway, bicycle path or
other transportation facility within a Planned Development if such dedication appears to be in the
public interest. (c) A Planned Development shall satisfy the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance
or the requirements for exceptions to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. If the Planning
Board determines that the design of the Planned Development meets the requirements for exceptions,
approval of the Planned Developmentshall constitute the recommendation to authorize exceptions to
the requirements and regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance." The motion was seconded by
Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President
Corica, (1). Absent: None,
Councilman Beckam moved approval of Section 1I-1354.2 - Uses Permitted in Planned Developments"
to read as proposed by the City Attorney in his memorandum of April 9, 1976. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Sherratt and failed to carry on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Two
Noes: Councilman Diament, Hurwitz and President Corica, (3).
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
17. ' Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, as amended at Sections II-1355 and
II-I355.I, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter.
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code h« Repealing Sections I1-I553
Through I1-I358.I3 and Adding New Sections I1-I553 Through 11-I358 to
Title XI, Chapter 1, Article 3 Thereof Relating to Planned Developments
Combining District Regulations."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Three. Noes: Councilman Diament and President Corica, (2), Absent: None.
The meeting returned to "Unfinished Business".
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
18. Councilman Hurwitz referred to the matter of the reconstruction of the Golf Course driving
range and cart storage 5hBd. He recalled that on March 16, 1975, the Council had requested a
report from the City Manager on the Capital Outlay Program Council had adopted and had adopted a
motion that reconstruction of the driving range and cart storage shed be placed in first priority
for Capital Improvement funding. He said, in the meantime there seemed to be some confusion and
it was his understanding that at no time was it proposed that funds be taken from the Police
Headquarters project.
City Manager Goss said it was his opinion the Golf Advisory Commission had recommended funds
be setaside for the Police building be spent in advance on the driving range project, on the
theory it could be repaid during the course of construction of the Police building.
Councilman Hurwitz said although he felt very strongly the reconstruction of the driving range
should be started as soon asposSfble, he felt there must be money available somewhere without
jeopardizing the Police project, He suggested the money might be borrowed from a private source
The City Manager reported that under state law, a public jurisdiction R could not borrow money
without repaying it in the same fiscal year. However, he said, a lease-purchase arrangement or
Other techniques could be investigated.
President Corica noted that each day of delay was increasing the cost of the project and a loss
Of increased revenue.
At the conclusion of discussion, the City Manager was requested to prepare a report on various
methods by which the project could be financed.
NEW BUSINESS:
19' President Corica asked how the members of the Council felt about travelling to Sacramento to
lobby for special projects and bills-
It was the consensus of the Council that this would be of value, and President Corica requested
each Council member to provide the City Manager with a list of special projects and bills they
might wish to pursue and legislative offices and administrators they wished to visit,
Mrs' Inez Kapellas commented on the advisability of a majority of the Council traveling together,
and asked if this would be a violation of the Brown Act. She was assured that any such trips would
be publicized and all meetings would he public.
29' President Corica displayed a medallion which he had received for his participation in the
DeAnza Trek.
21. President Corica requested the Council review the written goals of the Architectural Barriers
Committee, in order that adoption might he considered at the next regular meeting Of May 4, 1976
RESOLUTIONS:
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution NO. 8513
Supporting AB 3784 Requiring Inclusion of Airpn-t Noise Abatement
Program in Formulation of Required Comprehensive Lard Use Plans."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: FiYe, Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
23. "Ordinance Nn. I801,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending and Adding Certain Sections
to Articles 3 and 4, Chapter 2, Title XI Thereof, Relating to Design
Review Regulations and Special Provisions."
Councilman Sherratt moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: Councilman
Diament and President Corica. (2). Absent: None,
24. "Ordinance No. I802,
New Series
Amending Article 3 of Chapter 1, Title XI of the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Certain Subsections Thereof, Relating to Zoning
District Regulations,"
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes/ None.
Absent: None.
25. "Ordinance NO` 1803,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the
City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance A0, 1277, N.$.'/ (Longfellow Park)
Councilman Diament moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. .Noes. None.
Absent: None.
26. "Ordinance No. I804,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City
of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No, 1277, M.5," (Franklin Park)
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Sherratt and carried on the following roll ca]] vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
27. "Ordinance No. I805,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City
Of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S,' /Lincoln Park)
Councilman Diament moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Sherratt and carried on the following r0]] call vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent:
None.
28' "Ordinance No. 1806"
New Series
Authorizing the Transfer of Certain City-Owned Real Property to the
Alameda Unified School District,"
Councilman Diament moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Hurwitz.
Mrs, Inez Kapellas alleged the Council did not have the jurisdiction to transfer the properties by
Ordinance, as they had been purchased through a bond issue authorized by the electorate. She asked
the Council to reconsider the matter, and not to act hastily. She reported the people were inter-
ested in rehabilitation, rather than rebuilding of Alameda High School and alleged this had become
a political issue and they might be forced to go to a referendum or appeal to the courts.
City Attorney Stroud disputed MrS. Kapellas' allegations. He stated it was legal for the Council
to adopt an ordinance transferring property by a fVur-fifths vote,
Attorney Michael Grappo stated it was his understandina the ordinance would permit the exchange of
properties, one of which was needed by the School District for the purpose of completing the
construction of a new building and destruction of the AlamedaHioh School building. He urged the
ordinance not be passed, He remarked on the Initiative Petition which had been filed and which
the Superior Court had ruled inanpr0priate to place on the ballot in its present form, as it was
not property drawn up. He said the people wanted the opportunity to express themselves on the
question as to whether or not the existing building should be brought up to the structural safety
requirements of the State of California, or destroyed and new building constructed. He stated
that was the intent of the initiative Pet1ti0n. He alleged the people had further been denied the
opportunity to express themselves by the Board of Education, and referred to Section I5505 of the
Education Code. He asked that the Council include in the 0rd1naOce conditions which would compel
the Board of Education to put the issue on the ballot of the next election.
President Corica reported the matter of the transfer of title of the properties used by the School
District had been discussed for many years; that the Council had previously adopted a resolution
placing the Initiative Petition on the ballot of the June Primary Election, however the Court had
ruled this could not be done.
Mr. Frank Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, expressed his opposition to the passage of the ordinance.
Mrs. Eleanor 3ta]l0an, 1311 Dayton Avenue, stated she had represented many persons on the opposite
side of the issue. She noted this item had been thoroughly discussed when the Goals Study was being
prepared and the end result was that the people asked that the City and State remain separate,
and that the School District remain with the State control. She reported the property transfer
had been under consideration for the past ten years, and asked the Council to pass the ordinance
as submitted.
Mrs. Ina Ruttn, I055 Island Drive, urged the Council not to authorize the transfer of the property
without first giving the electorate an opportunity to express themselves at the ballot box.
She noted the cost of a Special Election could be greatly reduced by consolidating precincts. She
alleged that if the people did not have a chance to vote on the issue, there was every possibility
no bonds, especially school bonds, would be passed in the future.
Dr. G.R. McConnell, Superintendent of Schools, reported the Board of Education had fully complied
with Section I5505 of the Education Code, and this had been validated by the State Education
Board and County Counsel. He noted that the resolution adopted by the Council at its last meeting,
declaring the intent to transfer the property, had been passed by the Board of Education and
the Agreement had been signed by both parties and was now a binding agreement between the City
and the Board of EduCotiOn.
Pn a call for the question, the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: FiVe,
Noes: None. Absent: None,
BILLS:
29. An itemized List of Claims aqDinSt the City of Alameda and the departments thereof in the
amount of S45"I33,18, 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 Beckam moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on
April 20, 1976, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid, The
motion was seconded hy Councilman Hurwitz and on voice vote carried unanimously.
OPAL CPMMUNICATIOmS, GENERAL:
30' Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, commented on action taken with regard to the Planned
Development ordinance.
31. Mr. Joseph Sisson, 221 Santa Clara Avenue, expressed the opinion that many items on which the
Council had taken action had been pre-judged prior to the meeting.
32. President Corica requested that the Council consider at the meeting of May 4, I976 placing
limits on the number of persons to be permitted to speak on an agenda item, and a time limit.
FILING:
33. Lease between City and County - re 2226 Santa Clara Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT:
34. There beina no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned at 1:00
o'clock a.m. to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, May 4, I976, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk