1972-04-04 Regular CC Minutes387
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY APRIL 4, 1972
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 Wilton Vincent, Pastor of the Santa Clara Avenue United Methodist 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. Councilman Fore requested that an addition be made to the minutes of the regular meeting held March 21,
1972, that he had inquired of Councilman Longaker what he had learned during the past two weeks with regard
to the petition of Bay View Development Company for rezoning of a parcel of land at Mecartney and County
Roads and Councilman Longaker had replied he had learned of the importance of the studies with regard to
the future of the Oakland Airport in connection with development of Bay Farm Island. The minutes of the
regular meeting held March 21, 1972, were then approved as corrected.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. r From Misses Lynn Howard, 1709 Grand Street, and Brenda Terwilliger, 100 -D El Toro Road, Encinal High
School students, requesting that an ordinance be passed requiring that all political signs be removed
within forty -eight hours after elections.
The young ladies were present and came forward to speak on their proposal. Miss Howard said their main
reason for wishing the sign control was because of the visual pollution from signs remaining after elections
and suggested that a $50 fine be imposed on violators for each sign left after the specified time. She
said they were thinking particularly of public areas but possibly if private properties were involved the
owner could be notified of the objection.
Miss Howard said she understood there was an ordinance at present prohibiting advertising on public property
and suggested, if the City should not wish to adopt their proposal, that the present ordinance be more
rigidly enforced and possibly a fine be imposed on those who did not comply. Miss Terwilliger remarked on
certain signs from previous elections which were still posted in the City.
City Attorney Cunningham stated anyone convicted of posting signs on public property was subject to a fine
although the ordinance prohibiting the posting of such signs in the first place was not strongly enforced
and this was probably the objection. He said the City would of course have no jurisdiction over what
could be done on private property.
President La Croix said he had noticed a sign endorsing Mr. Stark, candidate for Congress, on school prop-
erty - the old Bethlehem parking lot, which he understood was not permitted. He suggested that the present
ordinance was adequate and possibly greater enforcement should be attempted, that, with the approval of
the other members of the Council, the City Manager should be requested to pursue the matter of obtaining
the best possible enforcement of the law. He thanked the young ladies for their efforts.
Councilman Longaker commented that the work being done by this class of young people, under the direction
of Mr. Don Perata, was making the students aware of some of the social problems existing in the community
and said Mr. Perata and the students were to be commended.
Councilman McCall suggested that the private firms saturating the area with campaign signs be informed of
the ground rules in the City. He moved that the City Manager and the City Attorney notify the necessary
people and the press relative to enforcement of this program in the City of Alameda. The motion was second-
ed by Councilman Fore.
On question by Councilman Longaker, Councilman McCall said the motion intended that notification be given
the firms involved, campaign managers and even the candidates themselves, with one rule for everyone.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
President La Croix remarked that it would be up to the City Council to support and back up this work
effort by the staff.
3. ' From County of Alameda Veterans Day Commission, requesting an appropriation of the sum of $250 as
the City's share of the cost of the 1972 Veterans Day celebration, to be held in San Leandro in connection
with that city's centennial observance.
Councilman Longaker moved the matter be referred to the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for attention. The
motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
4. ,+f. From Mr. Lawrence B. Landon, 1617 Everett Street, requesting permission to encroach into the two
and one -half foot public right -of -way for a distance of 74 feet eight inches for construction of a four -
foot chain link fence.
City Engineer Hanna, on request, said Mr. Landon seemed to have been the victim of a great deal of abuse,
vandalism and trespassing and he had done a good job of cleaning up his property. He said there was no
disadvantage to the City in granting the encroachment permit and he would have no objection to its approval.
Mr. Cunningham said there was some liability involved but if the request was approved by motion his
office could draw up an appropriate permit by which Mr. Landon would agree to hold the City harmless,
as he had set forth in his letter.
Upon inquiry by Councilman Fore, Mr. Hanna explained the four -foot height would be permissible in the
commercial zone in which the property was located. He said Mr. Landon wanted two types of fences, one
of which was not mentioned in his letter, and the plan was to put some aluminum slats in the chain
link fence along Tilden Way to reduce the visibility in the belief that if one cannot see into the
yard one is not inclined to want to do something in or to the yard. Mr. Hanna said he had granted
Mr. Landon permission to put these slats in with certain restrictions. However, when the applicant
wished to put up a fence along the front property line this became a different matter which was within
the purview of the City Council.
Councilman Fore moved the request be granted and a Revocable Permit be issued to allow the fence to
encroach onto the public right -of -way as specified. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall remarked that the property occupied by the Department of
Human Resources Development,next door to the subject property, was very poorly kept. He suggested
that this agency be contacted and urged to clean up the place and be informed that its employees and
clients were encroaching onto private property.
The City Manager was asked to see that the agency was notified of the Council's request in this matter.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
5. ` From Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, submitting certain questions with regard to City -
controlled salt marsh, tide and submerged lands, particularly with regard to a lease agreement between
the City and the Port of Oakland on submerged lands bayside of Bay Farm Island on which the payment
was $1.
City Manager Weller said he understood that there had been certain adjustments in the boundary lines of
both cities so the City of Alameda had received more than the stipulated $1. He pointed out it had
appeared to the City Council at that time that in an arrangement between two public agencies the nominal
figure of $1 was reasonable, as with the lease on the Naval Air Station.
President La Croix answered Mrs. Lane's questions as to any benefits to the City and whether they would
outweigh the noise increase, water and air pollution which would result. He pointed out that one of
the reasons the City had taken the stand of opposition to the airport expansion program was that it
would not derive any benefits from the noise and air pollution. He said he had just signed a letter to
the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee at the behest of the City Attorney and Dr. Maurice A.
Garbell that the City requested at least a 5,000 -foot outboard runway should the Oakland Airport be
allowed to develop additional runways for air traffic. This would take air traffic farther away from
the City of Alameda than was now possible. He commented that he had presented a paper before the
Regional Airport Systems Study Committee wherein the City had laid down certain criteria to which it
was hoped the Committee would adhere in making recommendations for the use of future airports in the
area.
President La Croix said he had also written to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission which,
on April 6, would again discuss the issue of the Southern Crossing, hoping it would change its position
and render a decision in opposition to the proposed bridge. He said he had spoken the previous evening
to Mr. Dan Rosenberg of the Sierra Club with regard to the presentation to be made before BCDC at the
Hearing in San Francisco on the 6th wherein the City would again state its policy of opposition to the
Southern Crossing.
On request, Mr. Cunningham said the City controlled all of its salt marsh, tide and submerged lands
with the exception of the approximately 640 acres under lease to the Port of Oakland. He explained the
lease had been entered into in March, 1955, and was in part a settlement of a condemnation action
brought by the City of Oakland against the City of Alameda. The suit had been filed in 1954 and a
special Bill had been introduced in the Legislature and passed which conveyed to the City and permitted
the City to convey to the City of Oakland certain other tidelands which it previously had not had in the
original 1913 grant. The City of Oakland had agreed to spend and apparently had spent ten million
dollars in furtherance of the grant.
In connection with the lease, Mr. Cunningham said, one of the terms was that it was taken subject to all
of the trust terms and conditions by which the land had been conveyed to the City - promotion of com-
merce, navigation and no uses which would be in detriment of those purposes. He said he doubted that
the City would enter into such a lease today, not for reasons having to do with loss of tidelands or
control but rather with the more immediate problem having to do with the noise impact areas now present
because of generation by the Oakland International Airport. Financial benefit to the City of Alameda,
in his personal opinion, had vanished in the past, although it was present to everybody's satisfaction.
He said the City still controlled all of its other salt marsh, tide and submerged lands, even those
under lease, many of which had been entered into recently.
Councilman McCall remarked that the Naval Air Station lease for $1, Encinal High School, the entrance
to Ballena Bay, and the site of the old Borax Works were on mostly tideland area and everything outboard
was filled land. He pointed out that a portion of the Naval Air Station land was within the City and
County of San Francisco.
6. From the State Department of Public Works, signed by Mr. James A. Moe, Director, informing the
Council that the City's share of the TOPICS (Traffic Operations Planning to Increase Capacity and
Safety) funds was $30,476 each for fiscal years 1971 -72 and 1972 -73, and requesting that a resolution
of intent be provided the Department to obligate the apportionments.
389
Mr. Hanna explained the setup under which several cities, including Alameda and the County, cooperated
on this program with the County of Alameda undertaking a great deal of the effort involved and developing
the expertise to handle the red tape involved. He said the City would eventually submit a letter of
priority establishing what the funds would be used for.
Councilman McCall moved the communication be accepted and the appropriate resolution be prepared for action
by the Council at its next regular meeting on April 18, 1972. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
7. 1 From Mr. Larry Bergeron, Project Chairman, Alameda Jaycees 1971 Alameda Youth Bicycle Auction,
requesting that the Youth Bicycle Auction continue to be held each year.
President La Croix informed Mr. Bergeron, who was present, that this program was an ongoing one after its
initiation last year. He said he had been assured by Mr. John Goss, Assistant City Manager, that the
auction would be held again this year and that the Junior Chamber of Commerce would be requested to parti-
cipate.
8.° ` From Mr. James R. Seward, 2210 Santa Clara Avenue, with respect to proposed revision of the Bicycle
Ordinance, requesting that at least adults be prohibited from riding on the sidewalk.
Mr. Seward, who was in the audience, was invited to comment at the time the Ordinance would come up for
adoption later in the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
9. Mrs. Lane submitted further questions with regard to her letter. She inquired if the communication
addressed by the President to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission had been sent by him as an
individual or on behalf of the City Council.
President La Croix stated the letter had been sent on behalf of the City Council, including a copy of Reso-
lution No. 7587 indicating the City's opposition to the proposed Southern Crossing by a three to two vote.
Councilman McCall requested that the statement be clarified, that the letter was sent on behalf of a
majority of the Council, saying he would also submit a communication on the subject.
Mrs. Lane said she understood the State Lands Commission required maps on coastal and inland waters, and
inquired if the City had these maps as well as the original maps when the lands were granted to the City
by the State.
Mr. Cunningham stated the grants had not been made by maps, that the City Engineering Department had maps
showing its tidelands and leases, and that the City was preparing in response to the State mandate a
lengthy and very expensive report, which was due by the end of the year. He said there would be a map in
connection with the report but he had no idea when it would be available for viewing.
10. Mrs. Blanche Cervelli, 542 Taylor Avenue, requested the opportunity to speak on the proposed revision
to the Bicycle Ordinance.
11. Mr. John Mitcheom, 1319 High Street, President of the Alameda Board of Realtors, requested the oppor-
tunity to speak under Item No. 1 of "Reports and Recommendations" regarding the Tentative Map for Tract 3391.
12. Mr. Larry Bergeron, 1357 Pearl Street, said in writing the Council he had been concerned as to when
the Alameda Youth Bicycle Auction could be held in relation to the calendar of the year, that it was his
understanding that one Auction would be held each year under this program.
President La Croix suggested that Mr. Bergeron coordinate his efforts with Mr. Goss through the City
Manager's office.
HEARINGS:
13./ In the Matter of a Petition filed by Mr. John Mitcheom on behalf of Mr. Lino Lorenzetti to Rezone
from the "C -1 ", Neighborhood Business, to the "R -4 ", Neighborhood Apartment District, certain property
known as 1547 Sherman Street. The Planning Board had recommended the rezoning be approved.
The Clerk stated there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice that this would be the time
and place for the Hearing on the subject and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition
was considered had been sent to the Councilmen.
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, explained the action of the Board on the application. He said a
single parcel was involved and it was immediately adjacent to another almost identical lot owned by the
same party in the "R -4" zone. He said both properties at 1543 and 1547 Sherman Street were improved with
two - family dwellings, both seriously sub - standard. Under the present zoning the owner could not structurally
improve the property in question as it existed as a non - conforming use, and the owner's intentions in the
matter were somewhat unclear or misguided although this did not enter into the consideration. He said, as
he saw it, whether or not the owner should desire to build another unit at the rear of his properties was
not necessarily material. Nonetheless, the property in its present zoning did not serve any useful purpose,
either for the owner or for the City. He said the lot was 37 feet by 150 feet in size and a combination
of the two lots under "R -4" zoning would allow a total of seven dwelling units. Mr. Johnson said the staff
had recommended approval and there had been no protests at the Board Hearing.
President La Croix said he was under the impression that the intent was to move two duplexes to the back
of the lots and inquired as to the procedure involved. It was stated a Relocation Permit would be necessary
if this should be the case.
To a question by Councilman Longaker, Mr. Johnson said the staff had felt the property should be
rezoned as it would enhance the applicant's position for rebuilding. He said he knew of no commit-
ment that an improvement would be made in either of the existing dwellings.
City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and recommenda-
tions of the Planning Board, as set forth by the Planning Director, should be approved, modified or
disapproved.
On the call for proponents, Mr. James Ferguson, Sr., owner of the adjacent fiveplex at 1539 Sherman
Street, said he had owned his property for approximately six years. He indicated the subject property
was in very poor condition and said he was wholeheartedly opposed to any modification of the existing
dwellings unless the structure would be completely torn down and another updating unit be erected in
the area. He said he was in favor of the rezoning but he had learned this evening that there might be
a continuation or upbuilding of the property as now existing with something built on the back and this
he vigorously opposed. He said the property would not meet any existing standards and this could be
readily seen by any passerby; he and his neighbors felt it was time the City was cognizant of the
condition and the owners of the subject property should be caused to realize their responsibility to
upgrade the neighborhood. He said putting something on the back of the property would not help the
situation and he opposed this proposal.
Mr. John Mitcheom appeared as the representative of the petitioner. He said he had managed the
property for some time but he did not accept the responsibility or obligation, legally or otherwise,
for the tenants. He said as the property existed at present nothing could be done with it and he
felt the owner should not have had to pay the zoning application fee and wait three or four months in
order to do something with the property as the two adjacent lots had been in one ownership as long as
he could remember. He said he had not realized there would be a problem in rezoning the property,
that he would not promise that the dwelling would be torn down although he knew it would have to be
brought up to Code if it were to stand. He inquired of the City Engineer as to this point.
Mr. Hanna, stated some deficiencies had been corrected five years ago on the plumbing, wiring and other
needs. He said it could remain as at present although it would not be acceptable to him. He reported
certain unsanitary conditions existing on the property and said it seemed there were many things which
could be done in ordinary everyday maintenance.
Mr. Mitcheom said unsanitary problems were one thing and the, rezoning was another. He said his original
intention had been to tear the dwellings down and to erect six or seven units. At this time, he said,
the property owner planned to move another building onto the lot, raise it up and build two units under-
neath. He said he assumed the property would be upgraded at the same time as the building was done and
tenants would have to be removed in order to do so. He said the anticipated expenditure would not be
a small one and he could not imagine the property owner having all this work done if it were not to be
a good investment. He said he still would like to see the dwelling demolished and replaced and would
attempt to have the owner do so.
President La Croix said he would like to assure Mr. Ferguson that the City had taken cognizance of the
condition of the property and the City Engineer had brought several facts about the situation to the
attention of the Council. Mr. Hanna had suggested that before an additional dwelling unit were per-
mitted on either of the lots some public commitment should be made by the owner as to upgrading the
existing building. President La Croix stated he was not opposed to the rezoning but the City should
have some assurance that the upgrading on the existing dwelling would take place before the problem
was increased by an additional number of units to the back of the lot. Mr. Mitcheom said the property
owner had informed him this would be done.
On the call for opponents, Mrs. Joy Osborne, 656 Westline Drive, requested clarification of the owner's
intentions on the properties. She questioned the number of parking spaces which would be required if
seven units were to be constructed, and was informed if new buildings were constructed one and one -half
spaces would be required per unit.
The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman McCall inquired of the City Attorney if the matter could
be continued and the property owner be informed that the Council would greatly appreciate his tearing
down the present building. He said if Mr. Mitcheom insisted that action be taken at this meeting,
he was prepared to make the motion to overrule the Planning Board on the petition. Mr. Cunningham
said there was specific authority to continue the matter.
In reply to an inquiry by Councilman Levy, it was stated a procedure could be taken through the Health
authorities and the Fire Department to cause upgrading or abatement of the property as a nuisance
although, as Mr. Johnson had pointed out, the owner could not proceed with any reconditioning of the
property if it were to remain in its present zone.
Councilman McCall moved the matter be continued. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker.
After some discussion and upon advice of the City Manager, it was decided to continue the matter to the
regular meeting of the City Council on May 2, 1972. This was acceptable to Councilmen McCall and
Longaker, the question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
14. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending that specific exception to Section
11 -327 be granted with regard to the open space requirement in connection with the Tentative Map for
the condominium subdivision known as Tract 3391, for Mr. Donald B. Bitner at 2426 Lincoln Avenue.
This matter had been referred back to the Board for reconsideration of the open space requirement, in
view of the present provisions of the land dedication ordinance and the desire of the Council to give
the developer every possible consideration in this respect.
Mr. Mitcheom, who had requested the opportunity to be heard on this subject, spoke as President of the
Alameda Board of Realtors, saying that he had presented the position of the Realty Board at the last
meeting and that position had not changed. In reply to his inquiry, he was informed the ordinance was
under study for reqriting by a committee consisting of the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Planning
Director and the Director of Recreation and Parks.
The City Attorney commented, so that Mr. Mitcheom would not be misled, that the contemplated changes
would not eliminate any structures but rather would add more.
Mr. Mitcheom said the Board of Realtors felt the existing ordinance was unfair and, inasmuch as it was not
possible to have the fee removed, recommended that a more equitable fee be considered in connection with
the ordinance. He said it was the feeling of the Board that a fee at the Building Department level would
be easier to handle, more equitable for all, to be applied to all units. He recommended that the Council
approve the Planning Board's recommendation that the builder be relieved of the responsibility of paying
the fee in lieu of open space.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation of the Board be accepted, the Tentative Map for the subdivision
known as Tract 3391 be approved, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated
March 8, 1972, and specific exception to Section 11 -327 be granted with regard to the open space require-
ment. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: Councilman Longaker, (1). Absent: None.
Mr. Bitner, upon invitation to speak, inquired as to the in lieu fee required on his condominium subdivision
at 3215 Briggs Avenue.
President La Croix stated the Council had acted in good faith with regard to this matter and its action
would stand.
fi
15.'`` From the City Manager, recommending that public improvements be accepted in connection with Parcel
Map No. 694, a two -lot subdivision at the southerly end of Hawthorne Street, and the developer be released
from his bond.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be adopted, that public improvements in connection with the desig-
nated Parcel Map be accepted and Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett be released from bond. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
16. From the City Clerk, informing the Council that the County Registrar of Voters had set Tuesday,
April 11, 1972, as the final date for receiving arguments for or against the Charter amendments to be
consolidated with the State Primary Election on June 6, 1972.
Councilman McCall moved the City Manager and the City Attorney be requested to prepare arguments in favor
of the five proposed Charter amendments which would be consolidated with the State Primary Election on
June 6, 1972. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
17.x°' President La Croix brought up the matter of a request submitted at a recent meeting that portable
sanitary facilities be installed at the north end of Grand Street in connection with the Boat Ramp, and a
report from Mr. Mainland, Director of Recreation and Parks, advising against providing these facilities.
He said he found himself in disagreement with the recommendation for the reason that it seemed any time
the City was placed in a position of encouraging this type of use it also must accept some type of responsi-
bility for consideration of the needs of users of the areas. He inquired as to the cost of furnishing
such units.
It was stated the cost would be approximately $30 per month. Mr. Weller said he felt Mr. Mainland's
argument against the proposal was because of the invitation to sabotage and vandalism rather than the
matter of public need.
After brief discussion, Councilman McCall moved the City Manager be directed to acquire two sanitary
stations for use at the Grand Street Boat Ramp for a period of four months and that evaluation of the use
and possibility of vandalism be reported back to the Council at that time. Councilman Levy seconded the
motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
18. /President La Croix inquired of Mr. Hanna, with the impending reconstruction of Broadway, if this
street was used as a through truck arterial for vehicles coming from San Leandro or the Oakland Airport
area using the Alameda streets rather than the Nimitz Freeway.
Mr. Hanna said he did not believe this was true. He said exclusive studies had not been made on the subject
but he had had no experience with trucks making that kind of run. Every truck he had observed had had a
termination in Alameda, either starting or ending its trip in the City. He said Alameda was a terminal
city and a great deal of trucking emanated from it, with steel beams and all sorts of materials and a
great deal of construction going on at all times.
President La Croix said he had had complaints from residents of the area and he would like to eliminate
misuse of the street by any trucking companies which should not be using it.
After considerable discussion on the subject, the City Engineer was requested to investigate the situation
to see if there was some way to assist the residents of the area in the present circumstances.
19.`f Councilman Longaker inquired as to the status of the Eighth Street widening program.
Mr. Hanna stated he had met with the Recreation Commission, explained the need for the widening and
offered three alternate proposals, in effect requesting its recommendation and reaction to at least
one of the proposals. The vote had been taken that what he considered the best alternate be used.
It would call for keeping the palm trees in a median and putting a roadway on the west side thereof
so there would be two roadways, one northbound and one southbound. A problem relating to the Commis-
sion had to do with how much it could be compensated for the existing improvements which would have
to be taken for roadway widening. He said he had pointed out that technically the City could not use
Gas Tax Funds to buy property which was already owned by the City; however, Gas Tax Funds could be
used to pay for the improvements which would be removed, i.e., tennis courts, so many square feet of
grass, so much irrigation system, so many trees. He said the City Manager had suggested that perhaps
it would not be necessary to build a tennis court and put in so many square feet of grass in another
location but the City could get permission to take an equivalent sum of money and put into the Capital
Improvement Fund earmarked for recreation and park facilities but not necessarily on a square foot
basis. He said he had told the Recreation Commission that he would do whatever he could toward getting
as much Gas Tax Funds as possible within the law to offset the area and facility requirements.
Mr. Hanna said since that time he had met with the State and it was pretty clear that the City could
not pay for any of the land involved but for the existing improvements and, at this time, he was
reviewing the itemized estimates. When it was felt the estimates were right these would be forwarded
to Sacramento for approval and assurance that this could be done. He said he hoped to have the project
under construction in four and one -half months.
20. Councilman McCall said he had received a communication dated March 17, 1972, from the office of
the League of California Cities and quoted for the record from Item 9 on the Transportation Committee's
meeting of February 18 regarding airport land use planning, responsibility of the airport manager for
noise control and of the County as the enforcing agency. He inquired what the City should do in
addition to what had been done to move this matter ahead.
Mr. Cunningham said the City was proceeding as fast and as thoroughly as possible with the staff avail-
able and the addition of outside engineers and outside counsel and he could not advise anything further,
faster or better than what was being done.
Councilman McCall expressed the opinion that the burden of proof rested on the Port of Oakland and the
airport manager and he felt the Board of Supervisors should take action. He felt the only way this
would be accomplished was for the Mayor to appear before that body on the subject.
President La Croix said he would be happy to so appear if this were the desire of the Council and sug-
gested, if it should be considered advisable, that Councilman McCall as a member of the Airport Land Use
Committee raise the question on the floor, and that the Committee bring to the attention of the County
its responsibility to fulfill its obligations. If it then seemed necessary he said he would be more
than willing to represent the City before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cunningham said the City had filed an official petition before the Board of Supervisors, its repre-
sentatives had appeared before every meeting of the County Land Use Commission and there would be a
lengthy presentation to the County counsel, the Board of Supervisors and to the Land Use Commission
of a rather lengthy brief of the law. He said there was nothing further the Council could do on this
subject at the present time.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
21. Councilman McCall requested that he be allowed to revert back to "Unfinished Business" and inquired
as to the status of the proposed boat ramp behind Encinal High School. He said if the City was not to
have a ramp he would like to see the road improved to at least provide access to the beach as the fish
would start to run about April 15. He requested that the other members of the Council take a ride
along the Embarcadero in Oakland to inspect the new facility which the City of Oakland, with help from
the Federal Government and other agencies, had constructed at the old Lake Merritt channel on the
Estuary. He said he felt it was time the City had a facility of this kind on the South Shore and
pointed out the necessary funds were available from the State.
Councilman Longaker remarked that Ballena Bay had agreed before BCDC to extend its breakwater to prevent
damage to its riprap and the agreement was that a fishing pier be established on the end of that finger
of land.
Councilman McCall said he would like to determine the correlation between the City Engineer's office
and the developer to see if the area could be used temporarily for the summer and then get the plans
for the boat ramp and the pier. He said the developer could also be helped by getting Wildlife Con-
servation Board funds for the pier on a matching basis.
Mr. Hanna stated the City had a preliminary plan which had been approved by the Recreation Director.
The estirn ated cost for the parking lot, boat ramp and related appurtenances would be $250,000. He
said obviously this project would not be completed in time for the fishing season this year but the
plan now awaited his further action.
In further discussion, Mr. Hanna said he believed if the plan on hand appeared reasonable, the next
step would be to send it to the Wildlife Conservation Board for approval by Mr. Nesbit, the Director.
If it should appear reasonable to Mr. Nesbit approval would be necessary from BCDC, the Corps of
Engineers, et cetera. He said the attempt was to integrate the project with the Ballena Bay fishing
pier.
RESOLUTIONS:
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7899
Authorizing Mayor to Execute Application for Grant from California
Council on Criminal Justice to Acquire Video Training and Surveillance
Equipment, and Agreeing to Provide Matching Funds Therefor."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker.
President La Croix stated this resolution had been requested by Police Chief Young, it had the concurrence
of the City Manager and the City would have to furnish only personnel and /or site location for the monitor-
ing equipment.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7900
Granting Doric Development, Inc., Revocable Permit to Store Trees and
Shrubs on City Property."
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.
Mr. Hanna explained the site involved was just east of the service station at Otis and Westline Drives.
He said he had no objection and felt the soil might be improved by placing the trees there.
Mr. Cunningham stated the Company had agreed to hold the City harmless and it was felt that, with the
general area specified, there would be very little exposure so the City had not required insurance. He
said the Company was well covered.
24. ` The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7901
Rejecting Claim of East Bay Municipal Utility District Against City."
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.
25. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7902
Ordering Vacation of Two Unused Public Service Easements (Private
Roadways Within Tract No. 3373)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore.
On question by Councilman McCall, Mr. Cunningham said the easements were being vacated so that it would
not be necessary that they be shown on the Final Map and thereafter proceedings would have to be taken
to vacate them. It was stated normal public utility easements were involved.
Mr. Hanna concurred that the easements were useless to the City and this was the reason for the vacation.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7903
Approving Final Map of Condominium Subdivision Known as Tract 3373,
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction of Public Improvements
Therein, and Approving Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency
(Intersection of Ballena Boulevard and Cola Ballena - Lindsey, Gallagher
and Willett, a Partnership, Subdividers)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker.
Councilman McCall complained that the drawings had just been received on this date. Mr. Hanna explained
that the certificate sheet of the Final Map had only been delivered on this date but the working drawings
had been in his Department for some time and they contained the deletion of the easements. He said on
question that there had been no basic changes from the Tentative Map.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
3
4
"Resolution No. 7904
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Appreciation and
Commendation of Dr. Donald M. Roderick, Retired Superintendent of Schools."
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.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
28. "Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City
of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series."
(1547 Sherman Street)
This ordinance was laid over to the meeting of May 2, 1972, in connection with the Hearing on the
petition to rezone the designated property.
29. "Ordinance No.
New Series
Authorizing Purchase of Real Property From State of California (Department
of Public Works) for Sum of $28,210.00 (Vicinity of Posey Tube, Eleven
Parcels)."
Mr. Hanna explained the purpose of purchasing the property was for eventual widening of the service
road on the west side of the Posey Tube. He said the State was disposing of its excess lands and if
the City wanted to acquire any of its lands in the future it should be done at this time as the State
would dispose of the rest of the land to private developers. It was stated Gas Tax Funds could be
used for the purpose.
Councilman McCall said he agreed that the City should purchase the land but it seemed strange to him
that the School Department had acquired land without cost and it was necessary for the City to purchase
land from the State. He inquired if there was not some way by which the City could obtain the land
by a "horse trade ".
Mr. Hanna explained the Federal Government,, when it wished to dispose of excess land, gave special
consideration to School Districts and to certain other agencies.
Councilman McCall said he felt, in view of the proposed use of the land, the State should negotiate
with the City on a basis whereby it would not have to use this amount of money from its Gas Tax Funds
which could be used properly elsewhere in the City. He suggested that it might be possible to work
out a satisfactory arrangement with the State and the County for the areas the City planned to acquire
in that location.
Mr. Weller, on request, explained that according to State policy it would not be possible for the State
to grant the City this land without cost.
Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision
of law and the Charter. Councilman McCall said he would second the motion on the proviso that the City
investigate before adoption of the ordinance any alternative methods of acquiring the property. The
amendment was satisfactory to Councilman Longaker and the motion, as amended, carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
30. "Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Chapter 3 of Title VII
Thereof; and Adding a New Chapter 3 to Title VII Thereof, Consisting of
Articles 1 Through 6, Sections 7 -311 Through 7 -361, Regulating the
Operation, Registration, Licensing, Purchase and Sale of Bicycles."
Mr. Seward, who had requested the opportunity, addressed the Council. He quoted from a dictionary the
meaning of the words "bicycle" and "sidewalk ", claiming the former was a vehicle and that sidewalks were
for the use of pedestrians, not bicycles. He estimated there must be 10,000 or more bicycles licensed
altogether in the City and if these were all to be turned loose even the old Code provisions would be
weakened. He pleaded that at least adults should be required to ride in the street, and expressed the
opinion that no bicycles should be allowed on the sidewalk, let alone adults. He said if the proposed
revision was passed it would leave him no choice but to go to the people with a petition, and he hoped
he would not have to do so.
Mrs. Cervelli, who had also asked to address the Council on the subject, spoke of incidents she had
witnessed when a Police Officer had ignored violation of the Code provisions by young adults riding
bicycles. She said if the proposed revision should be passed with Section 7 -332 as written, the pedes-
trians would have no place to walk, and she would prefer to see the provisions of the old Ordinance
retained.
5
Upon inquiry as to the prime reason for the change in the specified section of the proposed Ordinance,
Mr. Cunningham said he would speculate, based on his conversations with the officer with whom he had
worked, that it was felt there were so many residential areas in the City that it was really a danger,
in view of the fact that bicycling had increased in favor, to require, for instance, that a woman using
a bicycle for exercise ride on the street in a residential area. Many of such riders were beginners of
uncertain ability and it was felt the danger to the riders was very real to require them to get out into
the streets where there was a largely unoccupied sidewalk. He said the prohibition against riding in
the business district had always been in the Code and was continued and he would be the first to agree
with the protestants that it was violated constantly. He said the solution was not to pass a more
restrictive law if the law as proposed was reasonable, but to enforce the present laws. He said enforce-
ment of bicycle violations was not considered of a very high priority by the Police Department - there
were not many bicycle accidents.
After a lengthy discussion on the proper action for the Council to take in the matter, Mr. Cunningham
suggested that he speak with the Chief of Police and attempt to learn if there was some reason he could
give the Council as to the elimination of the "over eighteen" restriction, as apparently the two speakers
found no fault with the Ordinance except the particular section permitting persons of any age to ride on
sidewalks except in business districts.
President La Croix said he felt the thing which concerned the Council was how the Police Department could
best enforce the Ordinance, either the present one or that which was proposed, whether the law as proposed
was a good one which could be properly enforced by the Department and give it better control over both
street and sidewalk riders.
Mr. Longaker said he had been very encouraged to hear the comments relative to the Police Chief's interest
in carrying on an educational program and he could not help but feel that this was where the answer to
the problem lay.
Councilman McCall said he had witnessed an incident when Mr. Seward had almost been hit by a bicycle rider
and recalled seeing another near- accident involving a careless bicycle rider. He said he felt the City
was being run into the ground with bicycles and indicated a strong feeling that the section under discus-
sion should be deleted from the proposed Ordinance, that he did not want to see anyone riding on the side-
walk as the first right was that of the citizen and the pedestrian on the sidewalk. He said if a person
on the sidewalk should be hit by a bicycle and be injured he would feel the City should be sued as it
would be responsible for the accident by permitting the sidewalk riding.
Mr. Cunningham suggested eliminating allowing anyone to ride on the sidewalk, although this would produce
a great unpopularity. He said he felt sure if the Police Chief knew of the strenuous objections indicated
he would agree.
Councilman Longaker moved the passage of the Ordinance be continued until the City Attorney could report
back to the Council after consulting with the Police Chief on the questionable section. Councilman Levy
seconded the motion.
Mr. Weller said it was his understanding that the objection was to permitting persons over the age of
eighteen to ride bicycles on the sidewalk and this additional restriction would make the proposed Ordinance
impossible to enforce.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
It was requested that the statement of the Chief of Police be before the Council for the next regular
meeting on April 18, 1972.
Councilman McCall said he would like to know what adjacent cities had in their ordinances relative to this
subject.
Mr. Cunningham said he was sure the Police Department would be willing to get this information as it had
no doubt considered some of these provisions in drafting the document under consideration.
31. "Ordinance No. 1664,
New Series
Authorizing Grant of Non - Exclusive Public Service Easements (Water
Transmission) to East Bay Municipal Utility District."
Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
32. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $47,235.78, 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 questioned an item of $759,60 to the Sleep Aire Mattress Company. Mr. Weller was requested
to check into this item and provide information thereon.
Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on April 4,
1972, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
33. Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, inquired if the City would take a position or make an
appearance before the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District with regard to the amendments to
Regulation No. 2.
Mr. Cunningham said he would recommend that the City support Regulation No. 2 as it would contribute
to the general well -being of the community, and not only Alameda. He said he felt the City should
not appear for any presentation but his personal view of the proposed resolution was that it would
be to the City's best interest if it were adopted. It was not in the best interest of the developers
and especially industrial developers as it would cost them money.
It was requested that this matter be brought before the Council at its next regular meeting on April 18,
1972.
FILING:
34. Agreement - Between Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett, Subdividers, and City - re Tract 3373.
35. President La Croix thanked the City Engineer for establishing a "No Smoking" area in the Council
Chamber.
36. Councilman Fore moved the Council retire to an executive session for consideration of appoint-
ments to the various Boards and Commissions. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and unanimously
carried.
After a five - minute recess the Council reconvened in the Conference Room, No. 303, for its deliberations.
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was determined that no further action would be taken at this
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
37. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, April 18, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,