1972-09-05 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 1972
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman McCall and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered
by The Reverend Father John H. Hamme, Pastor of St. Barnabas Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the special meeting held August 14 and the regular meeting held August 15, 1972,
were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
21 From Mrs. Bertha C. Toy, 1616 Dayton Avenue, urging enactment of the sign ordinance.
The communication was acknowledged with appreciation and referred to the Hearing on the subject.
3. / From Mrs. R. D. Van Amburg, 1057 Camellia Drive, urging passage of the ordinance prohibiting
off - premise advertising signs or billboards.
This communication was also referred to the Hearing on the sign ordinance.
4. From the California Roadside Council, signed by Mrs. Ralph A. Reynolds, President, commending
the Council on the proposed sign ordinance.
The letter was acknowledged with appreciation and also referred to the Hearing on the subject of signs,
later in the meeting.
5. From The Honorable Fred F. Cooper, Supervisor Third District, County of Alameda, requesting that
the City Council expedite consideration of future development along San Leandro Bay and participation
in a joint planning body on the subject.
City Manager Weller, on request, reported that there had been little progress since the opening meeting
on this subject which he and the President had attended some months ago. The preliminary report of
the study committee had been submitted but nothing had been done by the agencies involved except to
indicate an interest in the prospect.
After brief discussion, it was agreed that President La Croix and Councilman Longaker would meet with
Supervisor Cooper at a time to be arranged, for an exchange of information on the matter.
6. v/ From The Honorable Robert E. Hannon, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County,
concerning the ballot measure proposed for the November General Election with respect to the Super-
visors' working hours and salaries.
President La Croix stated the communication was merely informational at this point and it was directed
that the letter be acknowledged and filed.
It was suggested that the Press provide coverage on this matter for the enlightenment of the electorate.
7. « From The Honorable John H. Reading, Mayor of the City of Oakland, requesting that the Council
give careful consideration to the effects of the proposed Harbor Bay Isle project on both Alameda and
Oakland.
President La Croix said he would be happy to respond to Mayor Reading and to set up joint meetings of
staff for discussion of the problems raised in the communication. He said he would like to expand the
discussion to include the Port of Oakland and the City of San Leandro as well as the City of Oakland.
The Councilmen expressed their views on the subject. Councilman McCall said he, as a member of the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Planning Commission and the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee,
had had the opportunity to listen to the representatives of the Port of Oakland and other members of
the Commission and there had been a good input from experts. He read a prepared statement with regard
to the current operations and proposed expansion of the Oakland Airport and expressed the opinion that
the situation was a danger to the City of Alameda and it was time for the City to be concerned with
the liveability of existing conditions and to seriously discuss with the City of Oakland how the Cities
could live together. He pointed out an intolerable noise level would be created by the proposed
expanded jet operations and commented that an open area testing facility was to be installed by World
Airways as a part of its new maintenance and repair center.
President La Croix said Councilman McCall's remarks were completely true and they added to the concern
the City should have with regard to its future. He requested from the other members of the Council
some direction as to establishing a meeting with the other bodies involved.
After further discussion and upon advice of the City Manager, it was decided that a meeting would be
arranged as soon as possible with Mayor Reading and the President or a member of the Port of Oakland,
473
with the President and Councilman Levy representing the City of Alameda, for policy discussions on
this subject, after which it was anticipated that joint staff discussions would be set up for consider-
ation of the technical problems involved.
At this time, Mr. C. A. Briscoe, 1320 East Shore Drive, complimented the Council on the position it had
taken on this question. He said he had been prepared to present the case of the East Shore Homeowners
Association in view of the serious noise problem in that area of the City and requested that he be
permitted to file his statement with the Clerk later. This was acceptable.
8. / From The Honorable Fred F. Cooper, Supervisor Third District, County of Alameda, suggesting that
Council representatives meet with him to discuss various aspects of the proposed Bay Farm Island develop -
ment.
It was agreed that discussions at the County level should be withheld for the time being in view of the
plan for meeting with representatives of other agencies on this problem.
9. From Mr. Armando A. Cortopassi, 5131 Crockett Place, Oakland, urging that the proposed "stop- growth"
measure be rejected.
It was directed that the communication be referred to the file on the subject.
10. / From Mrs. Madeline Henningsen, 2122 Santa Clara Avenue, in opposition to any further multiple unit
developments and in support of the proposed environmental impact study.
This communication was to be acknowledged and referred to the file on the subject.
11.V From Mr. Christopher Marvin Forrest Reynolds, 878 Laurel Street, suggesting the City Council apply
for State funds to construct bikeways.
This matter was referred to the Director of Recreation and Parks for study and recommendation.
12. From the following, endorsing the Mayor's proposal that an environmental impact study be made of
proposed developments in the City: Harry E. and Therese C. Hauer, 1325 Clinton Avenue; R. D. and G. E.
Van Amburg, 1057 Camellia Drive; Sandra Alexander, 3231 Briggs Avenue; and Paula Cusack, 2523 Washington
Way
The communications were referred to the file on the subject.
13. From the following, in favor of the proposed Harbor Bay Isle Project and urging that the Council
support and approve the rezoning application of the developer:, Mr. Daniel M. O'Connell, 300 Park Street;
Joyce E. Cooper, 3234 Central Avenue; Mrs. Andre Larson, 4546 San Carlos Avenue, Oakland; Mrs. William C.
Cunha, 1037 Via Bonita; Sheila and Jack Galliano, 1109 Fontana Drive; Chris Berti, 3229 Calhoun Street;
J. R. Lanzit, 332 Laguna Vista; John K. Johnson, Jr., 3268 Briggs Avenue; Don Oransky; Deanna Odell,
Mary H. and H. Theodore Craig III, 3014 Bayo Vista Avenue; Rhoda and Frank Siegel, 629 Glenwood Isle;
C. B. Sillers, 1028 Sandcreek Way; Mrs. Ruth I. Childers; James L. Brown; Sam J. Tasoulas; Selma Coffin,
3280 Central Avenue; Pat Crow; Michael Flores, 2160 San Antonio Avenue; Carolyn R. Browning; D. M. Jackson,
3031 Bayo Vista Avenue; Philip D. Foye, 2930 Gibbons Drive/ Mrs. A. F. Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive;
Leslie G. Salazar; Mr. and Mrs. Mark W. Rockey, 909 Shorepoint; Mrs. George E. Kempster, 1721 Nason
Street; Mr. and Mrs. Robert R. Sides, 2153 Alameda Avenue; P. M. Kay, 2605 Central Avenue; Mr. Michael
Preston, 3008 Bayview Drive; Mr. James D. Betz, 933 Shore Line Drive; Mr. Guy E. Hornby, 1311 Webster
Street; Mr. Jim McFarlane, 1146 Bismarck Lane; a petition signed by sixty -three South Shore merchants;
Robert P. and Geraldine E. Murphy, 2909 Bayview Drive; Mr. W. J. Lightfoot, 3109 La Campania; John A.
Ratto, 1411 -A Versailles Avenue.
These letters were referred to the file on the subject of the rezoning application by Harbor Bay Isle
Associates.
14.x' From the following, in opposition to the proposed Harbor Bay Isle development on Bay Farm Island:
Mrs. Eloise A. McKean, 3227 Garfield Avenue; Mr. Sydney Howard, 1316 Clinton Avenue; Mr. Carlo M. Ramos,
3212 Garfield Avenue; Christopher Marvin Forrest Reynolds, 878 Laurel Street; Mr. Art Hyland, 1519
Central Avenue; Mr. Verdinal T. McKean; Mrs. J. L. Ogden, 216 Maitland Drive; Mr. William D. and Patricia
Evans, 2829 Otis Drive; Mrs. Jean Firpo, 3264 San Jose Avenue; Victor and Ann Quintell, 3286 San Jose
Avenue; Mrs. Clara Muzio, 3266 San Jose Avenue; Mrs. Sylvia McElvogue, 2527 Lincoln Avenue; Marilyn
Nelson, 3282 San Jose Avenue; Mrs. Victoria F. Turner, 615 -K Willow Street; Mrs. Sandra Alexander, 3231
Briggs Avenue; Mrs. Paula Cusack, 2523 Washington Way; Mr. Donald E. Wilson, 2630 Otis Drive; Mrs. Grace E.
Wilson, 3217 Fiji Lane; Mr. William P. Stier, 1623 Moreland Drive; and Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Dickinson,
55 Garden Road.
15.v From Mr. and Mrs. W. Taylor Partch, 3233 Encinal Avenue, expressing opposition to the Harbor Bay
Isle development until an ecological impact study and an unbiased traffic analysis could be made.
16.'1 From Mr. Lloyd S. Helm, 2720 Otis Drive, suggesting State Highway 61 be rerouted along the edge of
the Bay from the Bay Farm Island Bridge to the south end of Broadway.
17. From Mr. and Mrs. Robert D. Larsen, 1293 Weber Street, expressing concern for the traffic problem
in connection with the proposed Bay Farm Island development.
These communications were acknowledged and referred to the file on the subject of the rezoning petition
of the Bay Farm Island developer.
18. ✓ From the Board of Education, signed by Mr. James L. Nolin, President, requesting that the Council,
Planning Board and appropriate City staff meet with the Board for review of the reports of the Sites,
Facilities and Financial Planning Committees on Tuesday, September 12, or Thursday, September 14, at
4:00 o'clock p.m.
After some discussion, it was agreed that a joint meeting of the City Council and the Board of Education,
with the respective staff members, would be set for Tuesday, September 12, at 4:00 o'clock p.m., in
the Council Chamber, for review and discussion of the designated reports, in connection with the anti-
cipated school bond issue election.
It was stated that a representative of the Planning Board had been present at Committee sessions and
it would not be necessary to have additional input from the Board at this time.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
19. Mr. Raymond P. Kranelly, 1150 Admiralty Lane, President of the Islandia Homeowners Association,
presented a statement of the Highlands Committee to Combat Airport Noise, of which he was serving as
Co- Chairman with Mr. George Gammell, President of the Casitas Homeowners Association, to express the
concern of the members of the Associations and all residents of Bay Farm Island and Alameda on the air-
port noise problem. He said he would like to echo the remarks of Mr. Briscoe in commending the Council
for its action on this matter and to bow to Councilman McCall for his great knowledge and experience
in working with the Airport Land Use Planning Commission and the RASS Committee.
Mr. Kranelly read into the record pertinent portions of the statement, which had been distributed to
all homeowners on Bay Farm Island, with regard to plans for expansion of the Oakland Airport and
increased operations on Runway 27 with take -offs directly over the highlands and also the plan of
World Airways to install an extremely noisy engine test center which would send noise waves over a
wide radius of the East Bay and seriously affect all of Alameda and nearby communities. It was pointed
out that the Bay Farm Island highlands would bear the worst of the noise, in addition to that caused
by aircraft take -offs and landings. All highlands residents were urged to write or telephone to members
of the City Council and officials of the Port of Oakland and the Airport Land Use Planning Commission
requesting that serious consideration be given to the problems facing these residents.
Mr. Kranelly then filed the statement with the Clerk.
20. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, requested the opportunity to speak under Reports Nos. 3,
4 and 5.
21. Y Mrs. Eleanor Tattersall, speaking for the organization called ALAMEDA TODAY AND TOMORROW, Box 1706,
Alameda, commended the Planning Board for taking the first step in a plan of design control for the
City by recommending adoption of the proposed off - premise sign control ordinance. She said since the
City had spent large sums of money to underground utilities on Park and Webster Streets to enhance the
visual environment, the organization was sure the Council would pass the ordinance as one more step in
beautifying the City, and the group recommended its adoption.
HEARINGS:
22. Continued from the meeting of August 15, 1972, In the Matter of a Proposal by the Planning Board,
on Its Own Motion, to amend certain sections of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to sign
regulations.
The Clerk stated there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the time and place for the Hearing
and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the matter was considered had been sent to the
Councilmen.
Two additional communications had been received from Mrs. Arthur Heche, 1521 Union Street, and Mrs.
Helen G. Dodt, 1723 Chapin Street, urging approval of the ordinance and ban of billboards in the City.
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, explained that this matter had arisen from several joint meetings
of the Council and the Planning Board during 1969 and 1970 concerning directions which should be taken
in the City's planning program. The Board had directed that the program be undertaken in three parts -
signs, historic preservation and architectural control. The matter now involved the last stretch of
the first part of the study, the emphasis in this case being to upgrade the City's visual image by
proposing elimination of off - premise advertising structures, to be accomplished by the proposed ordi-
nance, which was believed to be fully legal and which had been approved as to form and content by the
City Attorney. He said the ordinance was somewhat different from those of other jurisdictions in that
it provided a long -time schedule for amortization - up to five years - and it would phase out those
signs which were of relatively modest construction quickly and on the more expensive signs the owner,
operator or advertiser would have up to five years to ameliorate the particular non - conforming use.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that signs in the City were only part of the visual image problem and that
removal of outdoor advertising was but the initial step. He said there were at the present time fifty -
eight billboards in the City controlled by billboard industry companies, twenty -three of which were
presently non- conforming or illegal. All were owned by two sign companies, Foster & Kleiser and
Eller Outdoor Advertising Company. He said his Department had dealt rather extensively with the sign
companies and did not have general argument with their representatives, Mr. Walter Moreno and Mr. Robert
Bestor, respectively, but had specific argument that total prohibition of outdoor advertising structures
was the best way to go. Many alternate ways to proceed had been explored and the one most often
mentioned by the sign companies and by others was control by use permit, which he did not recommend
as this method would not prohibit but would only control signs and the extraneous conditions typically
added to a use permit were impossible to apply to an outdoor advertising structure.
Mr. Johnson said there had been considerable support indicated for the proposed ordinance at the Board
Hearing and many organizations in the City supported the proposal. There had been three protestants,
the sign company representatives and a labor union representative.
Councilman Longaker called attention to an action in which an injunction had been granted preventing
the Council of the City of San Diego from enforcing its ordinance which would have phased out billboards
by 1976. He requested that Mr. Johnson enlarge on the legal ramifications of this matter.
475
Mr. Johnson said he was not the Council's legal advisor but he would point out a number of California
cities had adopted sign ordinances, the City Attorney felt the proposed document was legal and enforce-
able and in such shape that he could defend it in court.
On a question by Councilman McCall with regard to non- conforming signs remaining in the City, Mr. Johnson
explained incidents occurring in the City in this respect since 1963 when the City Attorney, the late
Mr. Frank Annibale, had advised that he could not enforce the existing ordinance and suggested the City
relax in this regard, and in 1968 when the City was prepared to take legal action and the sign companies
had removed a number of signs. He said the sign companies had indicated they would at the present time
remove non - conforming signs.
There was an exchange of questions and answers by the Councilmen and Mr. Johnson with regard to compensa-
tion of an individual for loss, possibility of the sign companies operating in the City again with the
architectural control board after signs had been removed, the position of a merchant with regard to
erecting a sign on top of his building to advertise his business, and advertising on taxicabs. Mr. Johnson
said it was felt that signs were the logical place to start in making Park Street more attractive.
Mr. Johnson pointed out a map on the wall indicating all outdoor advertising company billboards in the
City as of this date, conforming and non - conforming, and the types of signs.
Mr. Walter Moreno of Foster & Kleiser introduced Mr. Wilmont Sweeney, the Corporation's Attorney. Presi-
dent La Croix welcomed Mr. Sweeney, who was also the Vice -Mayor of the City of Berkeley.
Mr. Sweeney said he represented Metro Media or Foster & Kleiser, whose position was in opposition to the
proposed ordinance totally banning outdoor advertising signs in the City, claiming that legally the
Corporation had a legitimate business function to perform, that it was providing a service to the community,
the state and the nation.
Mr. Sweeney said he disagreed with any legal opinion that the industry might be deprived of its property
by a governmental entity such as the City without just compensation to the industry itself, that this
was basic and special legislation was not needed to provide it. He pointed out that in exercising the
power of eminent domain the City would be required to compensate the party whose property it might take
in a just manner and this would be required by his clients in the event the City should completely elimi-
nate'the use of outdoor advertising. He said the industry had already invested substantial sums of money
in the structures in Alameda and this did not speak to the value of the reduction in business and income
nor the fact that the property owners relied on the income from lease of the sites for the purpose of
daily living.
Mr. Sweeney pointed out that his client provided work for many people in various categories and he felt
this should be a consideration of the Council in deciding what action it should take on the proposed ordi-
nance. He said his client would be willing to continue discussions with the City with a view to working
out some kind of reasonable resolution of the matter but he did not view the total taking of the property
of the industry as being a very cooperative gesture. He said he also disagreed very strongly with the
suggestion that granting the sign companies a period of time in which to go out of business would be
equivalent to paying for the value of the assets of which they would be deprived. He commented that the
sign industry provided free advertising space for many charitable organizations, which indicated that
everyone did not look upon the outdoor advertising business as something evil. He said he believed the
industry should be reasonably regulated but total elimination was not reasonable regulation.
A film was then presented in support of the sign companies' case.
Mr. Art Powell, Business Representative of the Sign Painters' Union, urged that action on the proposed
ordinance be postponed and that billboards not be totally banned from the City.
Mr. Robert Bestor of Eller Outdoor Advertising Company said it was very hard to believe and accept that
there was no place for his Company's business in the City of Alameda, and he felt there was a better
solution than the one proposed for the industry and for the City, that there were many cities in the
State where a compromise ordinance had been worked out which was acceptable and which accomplished the
beautification aims of the City and allowed the industry to remain. He proposed that his Company's repre-
sentatives sit down with someone to be appointed by the Council to discuss the question of outdoor
advertising and alternatives to prohibition, calling attention to his letter to the Councilmen on the
subject.
Mr. Sweeney pointed out the San Diego case was very much in point. He commended the reading of the Judge's
opinion in the case and said it would be his assessment that under similar circumstances the same kind of
ruling would be handed down in the case of the City of Alameda. However, he said, it was quite possible
and probable that a reasonable and sensible ordinance would be worked out which all could learn to live
with.
To a question by Councilman Levy, Mr. Bestor said discussion of an alternative to prohibition had been
proposed to the Planning Board but it had been rejected.
Upon inquiry by Councilman Levy, Mr. Johnson explained he did not feel a partial solution was available
under terms of the desired objectives by holding off on the ordinance and having further discussions.
He said protracted discussions had been held with Messrs. Bestor and Moreno, in most of which Mr. Bernard
Carter, Associate Planner, had participated as this was essentially his project. He said the conclusions
had been that it was difficult to dress up outdoor advertising in the terms desired.
Upon question by Councilman McCall, Mr. Sweeney said he did not believe the industry, or any other company,
could afford to give up a quarter- million dollars without fighting as hard as it could to preserve it.
On the call for proponents of the proposed ordinance, the following spoke: Mrs. Marion Bothwell, 875
Portola Avenue, member of the Board of Directors of the California Roadside Council and representative
of the Alameda Garden Club, who said the City of Alameda needed retail buying badly and she felt the
47
ordinance was an excellent start in the beautification of the City, which would attract shoppers; Mr.
Michael Moriarity, 865 Cedar Street, who felt people should be approached more subtly with advertising
and suggested that defaced signs be repaired immediately or removed; Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight
Avenue, who suggested the consideration include signs on buses and advertisements in telephone books,
that there be a separate telephone book for advertising; Mrs. Gail Young, 413 Yorkshire Road, who said
when bringing guests into the City for the first time, regardless of from what direction, she had
experienced great embarrassment because billboards with their attending commercialism were the first
view of the City and she felt the sign companies could come up with alternatives which would be
pleasant to the eye; Mr. John McNulty, 455 Central Avenue, who said a vote for the ordinance would
affirm his faith in the Council's interest in the City's future and a vote against would show an
insensitivity to the needs and desires of most residents to beautify the City. The Hearing was
declared closed.
President La Croix said he was totally in favor of the proposed ordinance, primarily because the
Council had directed the Planning Board and staff in joint meetings to come up with an ordinance
which would clean up and beautify the City. He commented on the claims that without signboards the
City would have dead shopping areas, and pointed out that signboards had not contributed to the well-
being of the Park Street business area. He remarked that the ordinance was supported by the Alameda
Chamber of Commerce, the South Shore and Park Street Merchants' Associations and several special
interest groups. He urged the members of the Council to consider the fact that supporting bodies in
the community were in favor of the ordinance and he hoped it would be introduced this evening and
passed at the next regular meeting of the Council.
Councilman Fore pointed out the by -laws of the Chamber of Commerce were to further business and
industry in the City and it received funds as the advertising agency of the City. He said he could
not see how throwing an industry out of business would make for better business in a community.
President La Croix commented that Metro Media was involved in many phases of the advertising field
and had many outlets in which to advertise products.
Councilman McCall said he would not make a decision on the matter without attendance of the City
Attorney, who was on vacation, and in view of the statements by Mr. Sweeney and the fact that a court
case was pending on a similar situation, he would move that the matter under discussion be tabled.
Councilman Fore seconded the motion.
After brief discussion, the question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None.
The President requested that the matter be brought before the Council at its next regular meeting on
September 19, 1972.
A ten - minute recess was called at this time. Upon reconvening, the Council proceeded with the regular
order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
23. V From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Recon-
structing Broadway from Encinal Avenue to Blanding Avenue, recommending it be accepted and the Notice
of Completion be ordered filed.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be followed, that the work on said project be accepted and
the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the follow-
ing roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
24. t/From the City Manager, requesting authorization to dispose of two Police Sedans and one Pickup
Truck through solicitation of sealed bids.
Councilman Fore moved the request be granted and authorization be given to dispose of the specified
vehicles in the manner described. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
25. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the rezoning applica-
tion of Harbor Bay Isle Associates for portions of Bay Farm Island, with certain modifications.
Mrs. Inez Kapellas, who had requested the opportunity to speak as Acting Chairman of the Committee
for Concerned Citizens, stated she would like to speak at one time on this item and the two following
matters as they were related. She said she had spoken at the last meeting of the Council on the
destruction of the City and that each day this was coming closer, from the Port of Oakland, Oakland
Airport and private developers, that no one had taken time to consider the human need in all of these
areas and it was time to bring a halt to any expansion of Oakland Airport. She pointed out recent
statistics in the Oakland Tribune on the number of people traveling by air and expressed the opinion
that expansion was not necessary. She remarked that the City did not have a Housing Element pursuant
to the General Plan and therefore it could not allow for effective open space for the Plan, that a
Charter amendment petition had been filed by the people indicating they were desirous of handling
further growth in the City. She said for some years people had attended Planning Board and City
Council meetings in large numbers pleading that their elected and appointed representatives hold a
taut line on density but to date the voice of the people had not been heard in any instance and too
many times the City officials had dictated to the people and ruled them, not represented them.
Mrs. Kapellas said as Acting Chairman of the Committee she was speaking for 4,270 people and that was
a mandate that the proposed multiple dwelling development or any rezoning would not continue until the
people had had their say. As a mandate, they were telling the Council to hold the line now and the
people were removing the question from the hands of the Council and they would be heard as there was
477
no one higher in authority than the people themselves. She said there were two courses to take to insure
that the people would not perish; one was court action and another was recall and the easiest and least
expensive would be recall. She said the people in large numbers were requesting again that the Council
forego any hearings on any developments until the people had had their say, environmental studies must
be made and the human need must be considered before the highest and best use was applied and the Housing
Element must be completed before the City would have a sensible and true General Plan for guidance.
Councilman Levy remarked that he had seen Mrs. Kapellas in a fine presentation on television recently.
Mr. Burton Rupp, an employee of Doric Development, Inc., asked to speak and commented that the City
Council, since he had come to the City in 1948, had lowered the tax rate when no other surrounding city
except San Leandro had been able to do so, that the Council had done an excellent job, apartments had
been built in the City which had raised the assessed valuation and given people a place to live. He said
fully one -third of the buildings replaced by apartments had been slums, pointing out when he had first
come to the City he was desperate for a place to live and had lived in the Housing Projects and the City
had developed so that he now had a nice home. He said whatever decision the Council might make, he felt
it would be done justly and the present and past Councils had done a good job keeping the City in excel-
lent condition.
Councilman McCall moved the Hearings be held on Items Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which were related matters, at
the regular meeting of the Council on October 3, 1972. Councilman Fore seconded the motion.
26. `;The Clerk was requested to read into the record the next item which was from the Planning Board,
signed by the Secretary, recommending amendment to the General Plan on certain portions of Bay Farm Island.
Mr. Johnson explained this matter should come up for hearing preceding the Hearing on the zone change
application. With regard to the Board's recommendation for adoption of an Interim Open Space Plan, Item
No. 5 on the agenda, he requested that the Hearing thereon be scheduled for the meeting of September 19,
if possible, in view of the State requirements in this respect. He said the matter was not related to
the Harbor Bay Isle development, the Plan was a rather brief document setting objectives and goals and
was non - controversial, simply setting the stage for the Planning Department to prepare a final Open Space
Plan.
With the consent of his second, Councilman McCall amended his motion to remove the reference to Item
No. 5, on the Interim Open Space Plan.
President La Croix, under the question, expressed the opinion that any valid initiative to be presented
to the Council would hold precedent over any hearings and, on that basis, it was proper to establish the
Hearing date.
There was brief discussion with regard to the verification of signatures on the petition which had been
filed on August 30, 1972, calling for a Charter amendment prohibiting multiple dwelling construction in
the City with the exception of low -cost and senior citizen housing under the Housing Authority, and the
position of the Council in this respect.
The question was then put and the motion, as amended, setting the Hearing date on the amendment to the
General Plan on certain portions of Bay Farm Island and on the Harbor Bay Isle rezoning petition for the
regular Council meeting on October 3, 1972, carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
27.,E From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, transmitting its Resolution recommending adoption
of the Interim Open Space Plan.
The Hearing on this matter was set for the next regular meeting of the Council on September 19, 1972.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
28. Brought up for discussion was the matter of the proposed redevelopment of the Loop Lumber Company
property.
Upon advice of the City Manager, President La Croix suggested that the developer be advised to present
this matter to the Planning Board for hearing. He also suggested that the Park Street Merchants Association
and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce should have some input into the proposal as to its effect on the
shopping areas in the east end of the City.
NEW BUSINESS:
29.V Councilman McCall said he, as representative of the Alameda County Mayors' Conference on the Air-
port Land Use Commission, was particularly concerned about the airport noise threat to the residents of
Bay Farm Island and the rest of the City, and had been watching the situation with growing alarm. He
said he would welcome the opportunity to make the feelings of the people of the City of Alameda known to
other members of the Commission and the Oakland Airport itself, that the next scheduled meeting of the
Commission was on September 13 and he intended to bring up the matter at that time. He suggested that as
many of those interested as possible attend that meeting and make their presence felt so that the other
members of the body could see there was a real public concern about the condition. He said his reason
for so stating was that the whole Land Use Commission was oriented toward development of Oakland Airport
at the cost of the liveability of the people of Alameda and the people should band together and make it
known to the Commission that they meant business and wanted to be heard in support of those who were
trying to protect the City of Alameda.
RESOLUTIONS:
30. t The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
478
"Resolution No. 7974
Approving and Adopting a Budget for the Fiscal Year 1972 -1973; Appropriating
Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Budget for Said Fiscal
Year and Ratifying Certain Expenditures Heretofore Made."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
31.E The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7975
Fixing the Rate and Levying a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the
City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year 1972 -1973 and Apportioning the Same
Among the Several Funds of the City." ($2.16)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
President La Croix commented that the City should be proud of the fact that it had been possible to hold
the line on taxes and the rate would remain at $2.16. He commended the City Manager and the staff for
the job continually done for the residents of the City.
32. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7976
Declaring Intention to Join with Association of Bay Area Governments and
Other Agencies Seeking Funding to Carry Out Field Trials of the SPUR /ABAG
Solid Wastes Plan, and to Undertake Other Regional Solid Wastes Planning
Efforts."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
33. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7977
Amending Salary Resolution No. 7959 by Creating One (1) Position of Inter-
mediate Typist -Clerk and Deleting One (1) Position of Senior Stenographer -
Clerk in the Police Department."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
34. ✓The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7978
Rejecting Claim of Emilio Joe Segura Against City."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
35.\/`The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7979
Rejecting Claim of John Abeyta Against City."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
36. After discussion for clarification, Councilman Longaker introduced the following resolution and
moved it be adopted:
"Resolution No. 7980
Setting Public Hearing on Map of Reversion to Acreage of Subdivision
Tract 1289.) (October 3, 1972)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
37. Upon statement by the City Engineer that the Final Map was satisfactory and correlated with the
Tentative Map, Councilman McCall introduced the following resolution and moved it be adopted:
479
"Resolution No. 7981
Approving Final Map of Subdivision Known as Tract 3411, Authorizing
Execution of Agreement for Construction of Public Improvements Therein,
Approving Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency, and Accepting
Certain Easements (Knuppe Development Co., Inc., a California Corporation,
Subdivider)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
38. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7982
Ratifying Appointment by City Clerk of Deputy City Clerks to Verify
Signatures on Freeholders Charter Amendment Petition."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
39. "Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 11 -14B1 and
11 -14B2 Thereof, by Amending Article 4 -B of Chapter 1, Title XI Thereof,
and by Adding Sections 14 -B8 Through 14 -B15 to Said Article, Regulating
the Design, Maintenance and Location of On- Premise and Off- Premise Signs
and Providing for the Abatement, Removal and Prohibition of Non - Conforming
Outdoor Advertising Display Signs."
It was stated this ordinance had been tabled by previous action of the Council in connection with the
Hearing on the matter.
40. Councilman Levy introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision
of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article 8 of Chapter 5,
Title XVII Thereof, Relating to Prima Facie Speed Limits."
The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
47. "Ordinance No. 1676,
New Series
Creating the City of Alameda Disaster Council, Providing for Membership,
Director and Other Offices Thereof, Prescribing Duties, Functions and
Responsibilities of Same, and Repealing Ordinances Nos. 1029, 1142 and
1575, New Series."
Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy
and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
42. Two itemized Lists of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amounts of $29,571.40 and $176,761.35, were presented to the Council at this meeting.
The Lists were accompanied by certifications from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct.
Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the Lists of Claims filed with the City Clerk on Septem-
ber 5, 1972, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was
seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
43. Mr. L. A. Patton, 1020 San Antonio Avenue, said after he had made a presentation to the Council at
its last meeting with regard to the widening of Eighth Street, he had had a meeting with a representative
of the California Division of Highways and submitted questions with respect to the plan for a new tube
under the Estuary connecting Main Street with the Grove - Shafter Freeway, rerouting of Highway 61, a plan
for a north shore Route 61, and whether moneys appropriated some twenty -two years ago by the State for
an interchange at Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue could be brought forward at this time. The gentleman
had informed him that he should consult the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, that all moneys
had been withdrawn from this area since the citizens had voted down the Southern Crossing. He sug-
gested, in connection with the communication from Mayor Reading and plans for a meeting on the impact
of the proposed Harbor Bay Isle project on traffic conditions in the Cities of Oakland and Alameda,
that the problems were regional and the person to consult was Mr. Joseph Bort, President of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which controls the money to be spent in the area, and that
he be brought into a community meeting with Mayor Reading and the Oakland and Alameda City Councils
on the issue and citizens be invited to be present. He said it appeared that the City needed a
public relations man to do the footwork and learn the proper way to proceed in these matters.
President La Croix said Mr. Bort was an appointee of the Mayors' Conference to the Transportation
Commission and he could only say the City should talk to the other municipalities involved before
approaching the Commission.
Mr. Weller, by way of clarification, said what was under consideration was not who would pay for the
improvements but what improvements would be required and once this had been established the Metro-
politan Transportation Commission might very well be involved, as well as a number of other agencies.
He said he felt the Council was sincerely trying to get first things first and it seemed the first
thing was to determine what would have to be built and some idea of the price and then the financing
could be considered.
44. d/ Mr. Edmond L. Plonczak, 3209 Otis Drive, complained that he paid very high taxes and received
no protection from the speeders in front of his home which were becoming intolerable. He protested
that the Council was not doing its job properly, that truckers and a dope peddler had tried to run
him down and beat him up.
The City Manager was requested to again take this matter up with the Chief of Police and ask that
proper surveillance be placed on the street.
Mr. Plonczak inquired of the City Engineer if he was aware that Otis Drive was not fit for heavy
traffic, as it was on "bogged" land and each time a heavy truck or bus passed the house vibrated, the
curbs were dropping down at the joints and the street was cracked between the driveways because of
this thumping. He said the last resurfacing project was not finished properly and there was a depres-
sion in front of his home which denoted that the land was sinking.
The City Engineer was requested to investigate the condition.
45. Mr. John Mitcheom, President of the Alameda Board of Realtors, requested that the Council have
a resolution prepared in support of the Watson Tax Limitation Initiative, Proposition 14, which
would be on the ballot for the November General Election and which would reduce the taxes of the people
of the City by approximately 40 %.
President La Croix suggested that the Board of Realtors submit a letter to the Council requesting
support of the measure and asked that the City Manager see that the communication was before the
Council for action well in advance of the November Election date.
Councilman McCall suggested that Mr. Mitcheom obtain a copy of Mr. Weller's memorandum on this subject,
which presented the matter of the Initiative very completely.
FILING:
46. Annual Report - Bureau of Electricity - for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1972.
447. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of June 30, 1972 - Verified by
George A. Hackleman.
48. Agreement - Between Knuppe Development Co., Inc., and City - re Tract 3411.
49. Final Budget - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1973.
50.\/ President La Croix requested that all stand for a moment of silent observance of the tragic
incidents at the Olympic Games in Munich in which Arab terrorists had shot several Israeli participants
in the Games, and that thought be given to living together as brothers.
ADJOURNMENT:
51. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to
the memory of the Olympic athletes and coaches who had lost their lives in Munich, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, September 19, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk