Loading...
1969-08-19 Regular CC Minutes4 a REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING- AUGUST 19, 1969 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Levy and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Father J. W. Hamme, Pastor of St. Barnabas Church. President La Croix recognized and welcomed Mr. C. Richard Bartalini, President of the Board of Education, Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lohrberg of Thornwood, New York, visitors in the City, and Dr. Ernest Berg, President of the Alameda College of Peralta Junior College District. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). President La Croix announced that Councilman Fore was confined to Alameda Hospital after having had surgery the previous Saturday. He was doing very well and expected to be back with the Council within two or three weeks. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held August 5, 1969, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2./ A petition, signed by forty-three residents in the area, protesting against the use of the property bounded by Buena Vista and Pacific Avenues and Benton and Sherman Streets as a container yard for Maritime shipping, and requesting that the situation be corrected. President La Croix commented that City Engineer Hanna had submitted to the Council a lengthy memorandum after studying this situation and conferring with Mr. Wallace F. Carpenter, Assistant Manager of the container division of Encinal Terminals, the owner of the lot involved. The latter had agreed to have a trailer-mounted container placed on the lot in question so as to block the driveway located at the intersection of Morton Street with Pacific Avenue, to require the use of the Benton Street driveways. This would curtail the problem of trucks on Pacific Avenue at night. At the request of Councilman Longaker, Mr. Roger F. Thomas, 1621 Morton Street, who had submitted the petition, addressed the Council. Mr. Thomas questioned the use of the property as a container lot under its particular zoning, the "C-14", Commercial-Manufacturing District. He complained that trucks went in and out of the lot at all hours of the day and night, causing excessive noise. It was determined that the use of the lot as a container yard was proper under its zoning. Councilman McCall reviewed the negotiations with Alaska Packers Association at the time this land was sold to the Association by the City and rezoned for construction of a warehouse, with entrance on only one street and attractive landscaping. President La Croix informed Mr. Thomas that the City Council was aware of the problem and in sympathy with the petitioners. Encinal Terminals had agreed to curtail the night-time problem of trucks on Pacific Avenue and the Council would request that it be furnished a complete report on the matter. Mr. Joseph Tramte, 1211 Pacific Avenue, complained that the lot in question had turned into a dump, and that employees of Encinal Terminals and Del Monte parked all over the neighborhood, blocking drive- ways and making it impossible for property owners to use parking spaces in front of their homes. Mr. Charles Mowbray, 1319 Pacific Avenue, protested against the condition of the street, because of the truck traffic and the noise of their shifting gears. The City Manager was requested to review the situation and submit a report thereon. 3. / From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary, requesting approval of Warrant No. 162 in the amount of 650,000 to replenish the revolving fund. The matter was referred to "Resolutions". 4.v From Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch, Attorneys, signed by Mr. Kenneth I. Jones, requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution in opposition to Federal legislation proposing taxation of income from municipal bonds. This matter was also referred to "Resolutions". HEARINGS: 5. / In the Matter of a Petition to rezone certain property known as 504-506 Central Avenue from the "C-1", Neighborhood Business District, to the "R-5", General Apartment District. Filed by Mr. Erwin A. Barbour for Mrs. Hattie L. Barbour. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of this time and place for the Hearing on the matter, the interested parties had been so informed, and the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board at which the petition was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. City Attorney Cunningham explained the issue before the City Council was whether or not the findings and recommendation of the Planning Board and its advisory report under Section 11-175 of the Alameda Municipal Code should be approved, modified or disapproved. Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, then distributed copies of a map of the area involved and explained the proposed zoning change, as set forth in the Board's letter of July 30. He said the property lay adjacent to "R-5" zoning on the east and "C-1" on the west. The property in question had not been used commercially for at least fifty years. Presently, it contained a two-unit dwelling place to the front and a single-family unit at the back. The former was in need of rehabilitation and repair and probably demolition. The small unit in the rear, occupied by Miss Helen Barbour, the daughter of the owner, was in relatively good condition. Mrs. Barbour had passed away between the time the petition was filed and the time of the Planning Board Hearing thereon. Mr. Johnson pointed out there had never been any representation by Mr. Barbour that the matter was anything but one of appreciating the value of the property in the hope that it could be sold or redeveloped. There had been no protests received. The staff had no firm recommendation other than that the zone change was probably speculative but it could find no serious objection and so recommended to the Board. The Board had accordingly recommended the rezoning as applied for. The Board had discussed rezoning of the property to the west from the "C-1" to the "R-5" District, but could not include the property in its recommendation as Mr. Barbour's petition covered only the one property and, under the ordinance, the Board could not increase the application. It was the Board's intention, however, to pursue the matter at some future date. On the call for proponents, Mr. Erwin A. Barbour, 1831 Harvard Drive, appeared. He pointed out that the property to the west, with the exception of a one-chair barber shop, had not been used commercially since the elimination of the train service connecting with the San Francisco ferries and the abandon- ment of the Fifth Street Station. He said the subject property had been his family's residence for fifty-three years and it appeared, appropriately, that the property would be sold to settle the estate. On the call for opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be approved and the property in question be rezoned as requested. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). The matter was referred to "Introduction of Ordinances". 6./ In the Matter of a Proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the so-called "0" Zone (Open Space Zoning District). The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in the matter and the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board at which the subject was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. Mr. Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was the same as that involved in the previous Hearing and the action of the Council should be to affirm, modify or reverse the findings and recommendation of the Board. Mr. Johnson reviewed the action of the Board on this proposal, initiated by the Council, to create a new zoning district called the Open Space Zoning District, or the "0" Zone. The specific problem in the ca se was that there was an apparent need, expressed in times past, for some type of restriction against uses in areas which should be preserved for recreation or aesthetic resource. It had arisen specifically from a problem with the lagoons, recognizing that they are in a multiple form of ownership - a certain portion in the ownership of the Alameda West Lagoon Homeowners Association, a form of public ownership, and certain other areas in the ownership of private parties - and certain rights or privileges or even requirements on the lagoons were controlled by the City. It was felt the "0" Zone could be applicable to areas other than the lagoons. The different types of controls the City could use on the lagoons and other open space areas had been reviewed, resulting in the proposed Open Space Zone as the best way to proceed at this time. It was also a way to carry out the implementation program called for by the General Plan. Mr. Johnson reviewed the contents of the proposed ordinance. There had been no proponents or opponents at the Planning Board Hearing and the Board had recommended adoption of the ordinance as originally proposed with only slight changes in the language. President La Croix pointed out the proposed amendment would provide a much-needed tool over and above what had been available in the past for greater control of the City's waterways. Mr. Johnson added there yet remained the procedures necessary, et cetera, for applying the tool; in short, it would still be necessary to go through the required Hearings to use the "0" Zone. On the call for proponents, Mr. A. T. Wiemken, 605 Glenwood Isle, spoke as Secretary of the Alameda West Lagoon Homeowners Association. He requested that the members present stand and be recognized, and a good number of people rose. Mr. Wiemken expressed the approval of the members of the Association of the proposed amendment and, on their behalf, urged that it be adopted. Mr. George Osborne, 656 Westline Drive, spoke as an individual owner interested in the beauty and recrea- tional facilities, specifically, of the lagoons. He felt the pleasure of lagoon living could certainly be disrupted if buildings were permitted in the middle of the lagoon or cantilevered over it. He expressed admiration that the Council had taken this step and urged adoption of the ordinance. On the call for opponents, Mr. Stanley Boersma, 1901 Central Avenue, addressed the Council. He said he wholeheartedly endorsed this type of zoning, although he realized the only thing being done at this Hearing was to establish the Zone and not necessarily to rezone the lagoons. At such time as this would take place, he said, he would like to speak on the subject. He said in listening to the descrip- tion of the structure being set up for allowing construction within the "0" Zone, he found it difficult as a developer, owner and architect to plan anything in the type of area set up by the proposed ordinance without the consent of the Planning Board. He said there had not been any specific regulations set forth in the ordinance like those contained in other zoning districts, saying exactly what a person could or could not do under the Ordinance. He said it seemed to him if this type of zoning were to be instituted there ought to be some guideline as to what could or could not be done. He described the inclusion of the lagoons in the "0" Zone as a "land grab", and protested against the adoption of the proposed ordinance as being unfair to the property owners on the north side of the lagoon. President La Croix, in explanation of points raised by Mr. Boersma, stated he felt more guidelines were needed for adequate control of future development in conjunction with the General Plan in the lagoon and waterfront areas of the City. This would not involve a few people on the South Shore but would protect the entire community. He did not feel the ordinance would place an insurmountable obstacle before a good developer. The restrictions to be imposed by the proposed ordinance were argued. Mr. Boersma inquired, in view of the delay in commencing work on his proposed construction at 890 Union Street, on which the variance granted him would expire in May, 1970, in the event the procedure should be implemented, what would happen to a specific circumstance of this kind, whether it would be necessary to commence all over again or if the variance would hold for its present duration. Mr. Cunningham stated it was his opinion that if construction had not been started at the time the ordinance became effective a developer could be required to seek a Use Permit from the Planning Board for any encroachment. He said the "0" Combined District was similar to the Planned Development overlay. He felt the guidelines were equally specific. There were no further opponents.. President La Croix invited the Councilmen to submit questions. Councilman McCall inquired how many pieces of property on the full lagoon system were overhanging the lagoon. He felt in all fairness to people living on the north side of the lagoon, the Council should see the full picture as to how many property owners had already taken advantage of the situation. He felt Mr. Boersma had been placed in a difficult position. He agreed that the lagoons were not intended to be for the use of anyone other than the property owners thereon. Councilman McCall pointed up the City's interest in the lagoons was a drainage easement and any structure proposed to be built over it required clearance by the City Engineerls office, so that it would not cause any problems with the drainage system. It was his understanding that there was a requirement for a certain size dock and that the north side owners were given slightly more latitude than those on the south side. Mr. Cunningham quoted from the advisory report of the Board a statement that "it provides a potential for the improvement of and protection to the urban environment and aesthetic resource of the City by bringing designated open spaces under the purview of the Planning Board." He said it should be stressed that the adoption of the amendment would not rezone anything — it merely provided a way the Board could come before the Council and say it believed a particular area should be in the "0" Zone. City Engineer Hanna then stated, in clarification, that many of the north side properties owned land out into the lagoon and therefore their property lines were out beyond the sea wall. If the zoning ordinances were to apply there as they would anywhere else in the City, one could build out to within a certain distance of his lot line. Therefore, if a party elected to build and wanted to cantilever out over the wall, he would first have to have sufficient property to meet the zoning requirements. He said the Council had pretty well indicated there were to be no obstructions in the lagoon whatsoever. There had been three situations where this made no difference. Mr. Hanna enumerated several other situations which pre—existed the filling project, and others in which structures had been constructed in a cantilever design since the fill had gone in. It was determined that Mr. Boersmats original variance would not be affected unless or until the Plan- ning Board recommended that the water area of his particular parcel be reclassified to the "0" Zone. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the lagoons themselves created far more value than the ordinance would take away and indeed the provision in itself might create value. If the lagoons were to be used incorrectly by someone, that someone could destroy another partyls value in the lagoon. This ordinance would protect value. The whole attempt was to protect aesthetic resource for the enjoyment of as many people as possible, not specifically to take away someonels value. The ordinance was designed to protect and enhance, not to take away. President La Croix stated he had to an extent been the instigator of this proposal because of the construction plans of Mr. Boersma on his property on the lagoon. He said he felt as the City was to change, unless there was an awareness of the changes and unless thinking was projected to proper controls for the aesthetics of the community, an awful lot would be lost in the ensuing years because of inaction on the part of the City offices. He felt this was a good zone and it would be something to be proud of in the years ahead in connection with the City's water potential. Councilman Levy moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be accepted with regard to creating the Open Space Zoning District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Levy, Longaker and President La Croix, (3). Noes: Council- man McCall, (1). Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). The matter was referred to "Introduction of Ordinances". REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 7. I' From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Chain Link Fence Replacement at Washington Park, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be followed, that all work on the designated project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 8. Councilman McCall commented on the report of the City Engineer with regard to the meeting held on August 12, 1969, on the subject of the Fruitvale Bridge. He felt this was a step in the right direction and requested that Mr. Hanna report verbally on the subject. Mr. Hanna reported a meeting had been requested by the Corps of Engineers and held in the City Hall with the Engineers of the Cities of Oakland and Alameda and the Public Works Director of Alameda County, to discuss the status of plans for a new Fruitvale Bridge, and to set up a liaison committee to work with the "Corps" so that what the latter did would meet with the approval of the local bodies. The representatives of the "Corps" stated they were in the process of taking the first major step, that of employing an engineering consultant to study types of bridges, estimates of costs, the way a bridge would tie in with City streets, et cetera. It was expected the contract would be let immediately and this phase would be completed within just a few weeks. Six weeks from that meeting, it was hoped a report could be given to the liaison committee and then to the Chief of Staff in Washington. If this received approval, the work could then proceed with formal plans and specifications with the hope of awarding a contract for construction of a new bridge by July 1, 1970. Construction of the new bridge was expected to require about one year. 9. 7 Councilman McCall thanked Assistant City Manager Goss for the report furnished the Council with regard to the closing of Park Street Bridge recently, indicating a cost to the City of $892.73 for straight time and overtime, and the effect on the operations of the Bay Cities Ambulance Company. NEW BUSINESS: 10. "Councilman Longaker remarked on the subject of derelict automobiles left on the streets of the City. He wondered if the Police Department was aware of the problem and pursued it or whether a citizen must report such instances before any action would be taken to remove these cars. Mr. Weller reported on the legal procedure followed in removing such vehicles. He said the City was in the process of reassigning the responsibility for checking of these cars from the Police Department to the City Engineer's office, because the Engineering personnel were on the streets about as often as the Police Department and this change relieved the services of a trained Officer for the time necessary for posting notices, making citations, et cetera. Mr. Weller said the City was well aware of this problem, which was a national one, and a very serious one simply in terms of the disposition of the vehicle. At the request of President La Croix, Mr. Weller reviewed the recourse the City had in cases where vehicles had been abandoned on private property. RESOLUTIONS: 11. ca The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7521 Approving Warrant No. 162 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2105." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). 12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7522 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Construction of Storm Sewer Interconnection on Webster Street near Tynan Avenue, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). 13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7523 Authorizing Increase of Petty Cash Fund of Purchasing Department." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). . 14/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7524 Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Watson L. Butcher) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). 15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7525 Opposing Change by Federal Government in Tax - Exempt Status of Municipal Bonds." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy. Upon request, Mr. Weller explained that, traditionally and historically, securities of local agencies, primarily cities, counties, special districts and states, had been exempt from Federal income tax. He said there was legislation in the Congress at this time which had passed the House of Representatives and was now before the Senate which would tax a substantial part of the interest income from municipal bonds. This would mean that because of the income tax implication, if the legislation were to pass, the interest rates on municipal bonds would be increased. The effect would be to increase very sub- stantially the debt service cost for all local agencies and to make the adoption of local bond issues much more difficult. This would have the effect also of cutting back on the financing of the capital outlay needs of cities and counties. There was substantial opposition to the legislation on the part of local agencies, but one -half of the Congress had seen fit to pass it anyway. This request for a resolution in opposition, he felt, was in order as it really posed a substantial threat to the welfare, the development and the financing of local agencies. Mr. Weller added, on a question from President La Croix, that the League of California Cities had been quite active in opposing the bill. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). The President declared all of the foregoing Resolutions adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 16.x' Councilman McCall moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series." ( "C -1" to "R -5" District - 5040596 Central Avenue - Barbour) The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). 17. Councilman Levy moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Sections 11 -1377, 11 -1378 and 11 -1379 to Article 3, Chapter 1, Title XI Thereof, Creating an Open Space Zoning District and Prescribing Regulations Therein." The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 18. "Ordinance No. 1598, New Series An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Regulations." Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). 19. "Ordinance No. 1599, New Series An Ordinance Amending Section 15 -6210 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Relating to Rates for Collection of Garbage and Refuse." Councilman Levy moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). BILLS: 45: 20. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $39,170.81, was presented to the Council at this meeting. The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on August 19, 1969, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Fore, (1). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 21/- Miss Karen McClure, 2811 Yosemite Avenue, asked if separate bicycle auctions could be held for children and adults as the children could not afford to pay as much as the adults could pay for the bicycles. Mr. Weller was requested to investigate this request to see if anything could be done in the matter. 22.- Mr. Boersma, 1901 Central Avenue, inquired if, in the discussion with regard to the proposed construction of a new Fruitvale Bridge, anything had been said about correcting the condition of the Oakland approaches to the Bridge. Mr. Boersma was assured that Oakland was well represented at the meeting on the subject and the concern of their Engineers was their general street plan. The liaison committee was established to be sure that in the discussions with the staff of the "Corps" the needs of the Cities of Oakland and Alameda would be adhered to. Councilman McCall pointed out the City had already committed itself as to the approaches to the new Bridge and had been on record for some time. 23.v Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, complained that traffic to the Tube on this date had been backed up on Webster Street to Taylor Avenue. Mr. Gottstein suggested that the left-hand turn at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street be prohibited during peak hours, and one traffic lane be limited to buses only, to relieve the traffic situation going to the Tube. Mr. Gottstein also suggested that the railroad tracks be removed, at least across Webster Street. At Mr. Gottstein1s request, Mr. Hanna explained what was proposed on the project of Constructing a Storm Sewer Interconnection on Webster Street near Tynan Avenue, for which specifications were adopted at this meeting. 24. Mr. Osborne, 656 Westline Drive, expressed his delight that the Planning Board had studied and submitted a recommendation to require more off-street parking, and his disappointment that the Council had seen fit not to adopt it but had requested additional consideration be given the subject. FILING: 25. Specifications No. PW 8-69-16 - Construction of Storm Sewer Interconnection on Webster Street near Tynan Avenue. ADJOURNMENT: 26. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, September 2, 1969, at 7:30 olclock. Respectfully submitted,