1963-07-02 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 21._ 1963
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman McCall and an inspiring Invocation was delivered by The Reverend
Mr. J. Paul Coleman, Minister of First Methodist Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Freeman, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey,
(5), were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the special meeting of June 18, the regular meeting of June 18, and the
special meeting of June 25, 1963, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2." From Mr. Aubrey Crider, in Appeal from the decision of the City Planning Board to deny his
application for a Use Permit to operate a pizza parlor at 535 Pacific Avenue by the Lessee, Mr.
Luigi Di Michele.
The matter was referred to "Hearings ".
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
31/ Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, stated she felt the City has deprived the citizens
of Alameda of the use of the South Shore each by its enactment of the ordinance which prohibits
parking on the south side of Shore Line Drive - and by not providing a specific parking area for
those who wish to use the beach. She thought this eliminated direct access to the beach, and
questioned whether or not this violated the State law.
Mr. Way stated that this action by the Council did not render the beach unuseable as a matter
of law and did not violate the Tidelands Grant Act provisions.
Councilman Freeman also thought that, since these were tidelands, an opinion should be procured,
from the State Lands Commission or the Attorney General, as to whether or not this prohibition
of parking was contrary to State law.
4. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, again suggested that parking meters be established
on Shore Line Drive which would provide revenue to the City as well as control the parking situation.
HEARINGS:
5. The matter was called up concerning the Appeal filed by Mr. Crider from the decision of the
Planning Board to deny his application for a Use Permit to allow the lessee, Mr. Luigi Di Michele,
to operate a pizza parlor at 535 Pacific Avenue.
The Clerk stated the case file was on hand containing pertinent data, the Councilmen had been
sent copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this matter had been considered
and Mr. Crider and his lessee, Mr. Di Michele, had been notified of the time and place of this
Hearing.
Upon request, Mr. Robert Venable, Associate Planner, reviewed the case history and pointed out
the Staff had recommended to the Board that the application be denied on the grounds that the
proposed operation of the pizza parlor was a more intensive non - conforming use than the previous
one of a TV and Radio Repair Shop. He referred to several photographs showing views of the
premises and the surrounding strictly residential neighborhood, which were inspected by the
Councilmen. Mr. Venable remarked that the motion before the Planning Board to grant the application
had resulted in a tie vote due to the absence of one member, which was then considered a technical
denial of the application.
Mr. Way was then called upon to define the legal issues and stated it was the Council's
prerogative to grant or deny the appeal on the basis of its consideration of whether or not such
a business would, under the circumstances in this particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious
to property improvements in the vicinity or to the City.
The President called for the proponents to speak on the question and,there was no response. Upon
the call for any opponents to the denial of the Planning Board in this matter, Mrs. Frances
Di Michele, spoke on behalf of her husband. She pointed up the improvements which have been
made to the building in question which also enhanced the appearance of the neighborhood and
explained that the proposed pizza operation would be by telephone orders and delivery. Mrs.
Di Michele said there would be practically no transient trade. She stated her husband had
circulated a petition which had been signed by all of those in the neighborhood and which indicated
approval of the contemplated business.
A question and answer period was then had between the Council and Mrs. Di Michele in developing
details with regard to said operation. It was pointed out that the intent of the non - conforming
use section of the Zoning Ordinance was to gradually phase out any type of business in residential
districts. Further, it was emphasized that there were many commercial districts throughout the
City where such business operations would be permitted.
There being no other opponents to the denial of the application, the Hearing was declared
closed. The Council then discussed the question further, after which Councilman La Croix
moved the Appeal be denied and the requested Use Permit not be granted. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Rose.
Mrs. Di Michele was allowed to speak at this time and made a final plea that since the premises
had been made ready for this enterprise, the Use Permit be issued to conduct the pizza parlor
for a trial period of only three to six months, with the understanding that it would be solely
a delivery business - and no customer pick -ups would be allowed.
However, the question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Councilmen La Croix, Rose and President Godfrey, (3). Noes: Councilmen Freeman
and McCall, (2). Absent: None.
6. The matter was then submitted with regard to the proposed amendments to the Alameda
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance Section) relating to the size of building sites and the
number of dwelling units to be allowed on lots less than 5,000 square feet in area.
The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in
this matter and copies of the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board at which the subject
had been considered have been sent to the Councilmen for their information.
Mr. Venable was called upon for his presentation of the factual data and explained that the
item has been before the Planning Board for over a year during which time a study has been made
of this question. It was the decision of the Board to recommend to the Council that an
ordinance be adopted to restrict the number of houses on such sub - minimum lots to one single -
family unit each, because the density pattern would otherwise be thrown out of balance.
In response to questions, Mr. Venable stated the "R -2 ", Two - Family Residence District was the
most seriously affected zone - although the "R -3 ", Garden Apartment District and the other
Multiple - Family Districts would also be involved.
Upon request, Mr. Way stressed that this was a Staff recommended amendment and the only issue
before the Council was whether or not the general welfare of the community requires said
additional restriction being imposed in the Zoning Ordinance.
The President called for the proponents of the question who desired to speak. There was no
response. He then inquired if there were any opponents to the proposed amendments and Mr.
G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, addressed the Council. He felt the restriction would be
unreasonable in many cases from the standpoint of economics and he did not believe the present
regulations necessarily affect the density.
There being no further opponents to the question, who wished to speak on the matter, the -
President declared the Hearing closed. The Council then discussed the subject and it was
developed that there were certain legal ramifications with regard to the existing sub- standard
lots and the dwellings thereon which should be given further study. Also, the question was
raised with regard to those existing non - conforming cases where the dwellings might be
destroyed by fire and then the owners could rebuild only a single- family dwelling.
Mr. Weller then explained that, in his opinion, the amendments as proposed would, in effect,
rezone these particular lots to an "R -1 ", Residence District, simply by the restriction of
allowing only the single - family dwelling thereon. This, he thought, was contrary to the basic
intent of the rezoning process which requires the posting of notices, the holding of Public
Hearings, etcetera.
Councilman La Croix then moved that the proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning
Board not be approved and the matter be returned to the Planning Board for further study and
exploration of other methods of accomplishing the desired control of the density problem in the
areas indicated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried by the following vote.
Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
7:'/ The matter next called up was the proposed amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code
(Zoning Ordinance Section) relating to sign regulations.
The Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing was on file and also,
copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which this subject was considered have
been sent to the Councilmen for their information.
Upon request, Mr. Venable presented the factual data pertinent to the proposed changes. He
cited a certain case which pointed up the current restrictive nature of the size of signs
allowed for apartment houses, for example. The recommended changes would allow a more adequate
size sign in such instances. Mr. Venable remarked that the major changes were in the realm
of the definitions now in the Zoning Ordinance which were not clear, and other clarifications
of the existing provisions.
The President then called upon Mr. Way who stated the only legal issue before the Council was
or not these amendments were necessary for the general welfare of the community.
The President inquired if there were any proponents who desired to speak on the subject and
there was no response. Upon his call then for any opponents, there was likewise no response.
The President, therefore, declared the Hearing closed, and asked for Council discussion.
Mr. Weller pointed out the Staff had drafted the language in the proposed amendments to be
incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance without adequate consultation with the Assistant City
Attorney. He agreed the present sign -size limitations were quite unreasonable but he felt the
contemplated changes as drafted would not clarify all of the questions which might be raised
and they did not entirely meet the problems which may now exist. He suggested this matter,
too, ought to be given further study by the Planning Staff and the Attorney's office to
insure that everyone understands the problem and a satisfactory solution could then be
effected by proper ordinance language.
Mr. Way also brought out the fact that, apart from the regulations on signs in the Zoning
Ordinance Section, the Alameda Municipal Code also contains a fairly elaborate section regulating
advertising structures. He felt these two sets of provisions should be studied in conjunction
with each other to be sure they do not conflict and, perhaps, consolidate them into one
ordinance.
Several examples were cited from the proposed amendments where definitions were not clear and
uniform interpretation would be difficult.
Councilman La Croix then moved that this matter be referred back to the Planning Director and
City Attorney for further development of appropriate language to possibly consolidate all sign
regulations. The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS ETCETERA:
8.V From City Manager and Chief of Police, submitting their Affidavit concerning the expenditure
of monies from the Police Secret Fund from July 1, 1962, to June 30, 1963, as provided in Section
17 -11 of the City Charter.
The document was noted and ordered filed.
9. From City Auditor and Ex- officio Assessor, setting forth the total assessment valuation of
the City for the tax rate basis as the sum of $67,493,885.
The communication was ordered filed.
10. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., low bidder,
for the project of Resurfacing Major Streets at the total cost of $32,329.07.
Councilman Rose moved the recommendation be approved and contract be awarded to the designated
firm for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Freeman and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
11. From City Manager, recommending all bids be rejected on the Construction of a Recreation
Building at Godfrey Park, and that the matter be referred to the Recreation Commission for
consideration of possible changes in plans which could reduce costs without affecting the
utility of the structure.
Considerable discussion was had on whether or not it would be advisable to hold up the award
of contract from the standpoint of possible rising costs in labor and materials. Also, it was
felt that if changes were made in the building, to effect savings through certain substitutions,
it would not then be as desirable. The opinion was expressed that any such savings would not
be substantial enough to offset the possible higher bids which might be submitted on another call.
With regard to the suggested "negotiating" certain modifications with the low bidder pending
actual award of contract, Mr. Way cautioned the Council that this had been a formal bid call and
the Courts have quite strictly construed that the proper procedure should be adhered to. He
recommended that the Council either reject all bids and submit another call under revised
specifications or award the contract to the present low bidder on the original specifications.
Following discussion of further ramifications of the circumstances, Councilman McCall moved the
contract be awarded to the low bidder on the original specifications, including the alternates.
The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Four. Noes: President Godfrey, (1). Absent: None.
12. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Lino Lorenzetti, low bidder, for the
project of Installing Exposed Aggregate Concrete at Lum Park, at the total cost of $1,632.50.
Councilman Freeman moved the recommendation be accepted and contract be awarded to said bidder
for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
13. Councilman Freeman introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of-Certain Real Property for
General Municipal Purposes (Southwest Corner Otis Drive and Willow
Street - Utah Construction & Mining Co. • .793 Acre)."
14. Councilman La Croix introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing
Subdivisions (2) and (3) of Section 17 -342 Thereof, Relating to
Prohibition of Left Turns."
15. Councilman McCall introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Subdivisions (33) through (37) to Section 17 -333 Thereof,
Relating to All Time No Parking."
16. Councilman Rose introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance by Quitclaim Deed of
Portions of Certain City -Owned Public Utilities Easements to
Assurance Finance Co., a California Corporation."
UNFIINISHED BUSINESS:
17. The President announced that Mr. Thomas Firby, of the Alameda County District Attorney's
Office, who was the legal advisor of the County Superintendent of Schools, has ruled that the
City of Alameda could not consolidate its measure on the proposed revised City Charter with ,
the ballot for the School District Junior College Election. This was due to the fact that
the College Election would be held under the provisions of the State Education Code while the
matter of the Charter would be under the State Elections Code and there would be certain
conflicts in the two procedures.
The President pointed out the City Council has expressed its reluctance ; to spend the money
necessary to hold a special election on the question of the proposed Charter. He mentioned
there would therefore be quite a delay in bringing this matter to a vote of the people
because the alternatives were the State General Election of November, 1964, or the next
General Municipal Election of March, 1965 - unless the Council did decide to call a special
election.
He felt this was regretable because the Citizens' Committee on Charter Revision has worked
hard for a long period of time in reviewing the existing Charter and preparing the proposed
one for submission to the voters. President Godfrey stated the Committee should be informed
of Mr. Firby's ruling and also the decision of the Council as to what procedure it wishes to
follow.
It was developed that the Charter Committee has completed its three public meetings where .,
excellent presentations had been made by the members thereof - but the apathy on the part of
the citizens as indicated by the small number in attendance at these-meetings was deplorable.
The matter will next be referred to the City Council for its action and it was felt the.
Committee will probably ask the Council to dissolve this Body.
It was suggested that the question of consolidating certain elections be investigated and
every avenue be explored in order to facilitate the Charter measure being submitted to the
people as soon as possible without calling a special election.
Mr. Weller pointed out the City could advise the League of California Cities of this situation
which applies not only to Alameda but probably to many other cities as well, where conflicts
between two State Codes deprive a city of making substantial savings in the cost of certain
elections. He felt some effort might then be made through the League Staff to eliminate such
conflicts by proper legislation.
The City Manager was requested to check into this matter further.
18/ Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Way to send to the Councilmen, in preparation for the
development of Unit IV on the South Shore, copies of the opinion of Mr. Annibale, dated
March 27, 1959, relating to "dike protection, southeast portion of South Shore Fill" and
also a letter to Mr. Annibale from Mr. Charles Travers, dated March 17, 1959, and further, the
minutes of the meeting of Reclamation District No. 2087, held December 14, 1959, with particular
reference to paragraph 12, page 3 thereof.
Councilman McCall requested that Mr. Way also send his opinion on the ruling made by Mr.
Annibale.
19Y' Councilman Freeman then submitted certain questions concerning the tentative budget
computations and it was suggested she discuss the matter with the City Manager.
NEW BUSINESS:
20. Councilman La Croix broached the subject of the possibility of installing certain raised
sections in the roadways which would warn drivers of their approach to a stop intersection.
He remarked that he had recently noticed such installations in another city which he thought
were a good idea and asked that the City Engineer give this matter some thought and submit a
report to the Council.
RESOLUTIONS:
21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6498
Appointing Member of the Retirement Board." (Solvig Erickson)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6499
Authorizing Execution of a Contract with Brink's Incorporated, for
Their Services Relating to Parking Meter Collections, for the Fiscal
Year 1963- 1964."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 6500
Authorizing Year -End Transfers on the Books of Account of the City
of Alameda."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
24. "Ordinance No. 1429,
New Series
An Ordinance Amending Title IX, Chapter 1, Article 4, of the
Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Thereto Sections 9 -1413 and
9 -1414, Relating to Dogs on the South Shore Beach."
Councilman La Croix moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
25. "Ordinance No. 1430
New Series
An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Section 3 -5421 Thereof, Relating to the Collection of Cost of
Preparing Delinquent Roll and List."
Councilman Freeman moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
26. "Ordinance No. 1431
New Series
An Ordinance Amending Title IV, Chapter 2, Article 1, of the
Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Thereto Section 4 -214, Relating
to Motor Vehicles in and Upon Public Parks and Beaches."
Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
FILING:
27. Contract between City and Brink's, Inc. - Parking Meter Collections.
28. Financial Statements - Bureau of Electricity, as of March 31, April 30, and May 31, 1963 -
Verified by Hackleman & Larzelere.
BILLS:
29. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in
the -total amount of $38, 229.60, 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 McCall moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City
Clerk on July 2, 1963, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote.
Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
30. At this time, Councilman McCall referred to the annual public auction of unclaimed,
lost and stolen property which will be held this year on July 9. He spoke of the great number
of bicycles and tricycles on hand and said he was hopeful that some organization would sometime
as a civic gesture take on the project of negotiating with the City for the purchase of these
items, have them reconditioned and then pass them on to needy children. He felt it would be a
great opportunity for some club or group to perform a tremendous service.
31. Councilman McCall also spoke of "Alameda Day" at the County Fair in Pleasanton and
pointed up the fact that the "Maid of Alameda" had for the first time, been chosen "Maid of
Alameda County ". He felt the Alameda Junior Chamber of Commerce should be commended for its
effort in this program, which has brought recognition to the City.
ADJOURNMENT:
32. The President stated that if there were no objections and there was no further business
to come before the meeting, he would adjourn this meeting to the next morning, Wednesday, July
3, 1963, at 8:30 o'clock, in Room 303, for a personnel session.
Respectfully submitted,
* * * * * * * * *
Ci tviC1erk
ADJOURNED - REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 3t 1963
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Freeman, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President
Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. The Council immediately went into an executive session for the purpose of discussing
personnel matters. After some deliberation on the subject, it was determined that no action
would be taken at this time.
ADJOURNMENT:
2. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to
assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, July 16, 1963, at 7:30 o'clock.
Respectfully submitted,