Loading...
1960-10-18 Regular CC Minutes277 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 18, ------- 1960 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with Vice President Schacht presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Collischonn and was followed by the Invocation, delivered by The Reverend Father Daniel W. Finnigan, Assistant Pastor of St. Joseph's Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Collischonn, Freeman, Petersen and Vice President Schacht, (4), were noted present. Absent: President McCall, (1). MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held October 4, 1960, were approved as transcribed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 2/ At this point, Councilman Freeman referred to the ordinance concerning the use of water and tidelands areas listed on the agenda as an "emergency" measure, and requested that this matter be laid over to the first meeting in November. She stated she had several questions on the subject which she would first want investigated - and it would require four votes of the Council to pass said ordinance at this meeting under its emergency provision. Councilman Freeman inquired if this proposed ordinance proteyts the lives of children who wander into the water areas and, if so, in what manner. She said she understands the ordinance is not enforceable with the present police staff and asked how far the Council is willing to go to implement the ordinance to assure its enforcement. Also, she inquired how much difference this ordinance makes in the police powers for protection of the youngsters than what they now have. Further, since the lagoon exclusion from Reclamation Dis- trict No. 2087, these water areas have become the responsibility of the City but with regard to the tidelands, they were granted to the City in trust by the State of California for specific uses and she wondered if there might be a conflict in the City's restriction of their use. She desired said information before the ordinance is voted upon. Councilman Petersen felt some report should be received from the Chief of Police and concurred that the Council should have more information. He questioned whether or not the Council can legislate against this problem of water hazards to young children and also wanted to know if the Police Depart- ment believes it can enforce such an ordinance. CoUnoilman Collischonn pointed out the proposed ordinance merely empowers the police to remove some unauthorized person from the water areas and the intent is to protect those children who cannot swim. In response to questions, Mr. Annibale explained the ordinance merely prohibits unauthorized activi- ties in these particular water areas. For instance, in the lagoons, swimming is not authorized unless the person belongs to a permittee or an abutting property owner. The same is true in the Estuary. However, on the South Shore Beach, swimming is an authorized activity because this has been dedicated as a public beach. In all of the tideland areas, fishing is also an authorized activity. The following spoke in opposition to the passage of such an ordinance: Mr. Lochridge L. Key, Jr., 871 Cedar Street; and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hopping, 553 Cedar Street. They appeared as spokesmen for a group of ten citizens, presumably residents of this block, and pointed up that the ordinance would be discriminatory, too restrictive and would cost an excessive amount to enforce. They also objected to the fencing recently placed at the various street ends by the City in its attempt to keep small children from gaining access to the lagoons. They claimed this was futile as the children could still get to the water through apertures on abutting private properties. A lengthy discussion ensued - it being emphasized that the sole intent of the Council is to take what- ever steps it can to eliminate further tragedy through the drowning of any little child in the water areas of the City. Councilman Freeman also asked that the cost to enforce said ordinance be included in the Chief's report as she felt additional patroling would be necessary. Further, she asked Mr. Annibale to-check into the control of the waters of the Estuary and the Bay - she said she understands the City cannot legislate against the use of any waters owned by the Federal Government. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, spoke on the subject and concurred that the passage of such an ordinance would be a step in the right direction. He reiterated his belief that the Chief of Police should have been requested by the Council to be present at this meeting in view of the fact that his Department would be primarily concerned in this matter. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1610 Encinal Avenue, agreed that some further action is needed in addition to the fences at the ends of streets in order to try to keep youngsters away from the lagoons. In concluding the discussion, it was determined that the ordinance could be introduced, laid over in the normal procedure and, before further action is called for, the requested information would be supplied. 3. Mr. G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, mentioned the disturbances which have been caused lately at the Library by groups of young people and he suggested some definite action be taken to eliminate this problem. Mr. Clark was asked to investigate this situation. He pointed out, however, the main responsibility for maintaining order in the Library rests with the Library Department, under the Library Board, and the chief administrative officer is the Librarian. He stated the police cooperation is, of course, to be expected and his only concern in this matter would be to determine that the Police Department had done its duty in this particular situation. It was suggested that possibly Mr. Sharafanowich could arrange to be on duty in the Library during evening hours occasionally, which would deter any future commotion. 4. Mr. Robert Hopping, 883 Cedar Street, inquired if any consideration is being given to the installation of traffic signals at Grand Street and Encinal Avenue. Mr. Hopping was informed that there was an ordinance on the agenda for introduction at this meeting authorizing the installation of such signals at this particular intersection. HEARINGS: 5• The matter was called up concerning the appeal from the decision of the City Planning Board to deny certain variances on the property known as 2804 Central Avenue, filed by Mr. Charles F. Ribak, owner. The Clerk stated all pertinent data on the subject was on file and Mr. Ribak had been notified that the Hearing would be held at this meeting. Also, copies of the minutes of the Planning Board meet- ing at which the matter was considered had been sent to the Councilmen, as well as sketches of the property in question, for their information. Upon advice of Mr. Annibale, Mr. Schoenfeld, Planning Director, gave a resume of the circumstances involved in this case. He pointed up the extremely small size of this lot and the fact that the proposed addition of a ground-floor bedroom would encroach to within six feet, five inches of the rear property line. He indicated the Board had endeavored to work out an alternate solution to the Ribak's problem by converting the existing, attached garage to the desired bedroom and then con- structing a carport in front thereof. Mr. Ribak addressed the Council and explained that, due to the chronic illness of his wife, there is a sincere need for the additional bedroom. He also pointed out the reasons why the garage could not be satisfactorily converted to a room and a carport erected to house their automobile. He stated this rear area is useless as a "yard" because nothing will grow there. He referred to a set of snapshots showing several views of the property which were passed to the Councilmen to further illustrate the situation. He stated there had been no objections from any of his neighbors. There followed a discussion of all phases of the application for the Council's clarification. Upon inquiry, there were no opponents in the matter and the Vice President thereupon declared the Hearing closed. Councilman Petersen moved the Council grant the appeal under the criteria as set forth in Sec. 11-161(b) of Ordinance No. 1277, New Series, and reverse the ruling of the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 6.V The matter next presented was the proposed reclassification of a certain area in the west end of the City in the vicinity of Paden School, as more fully delineated by motion of the Council at its meeting of May 3, 1960, from the "R-3-PD" and "R-4" Districts to the "R-5" District. The Clerk stated the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing before the Council at this meeting was on file. Also on file was the report and pertinent maps covering the study submitted by the Planning Board, together with copies of the minutes of the Board meetings at which the rezoning and related subjects had been discussed. Copies of all of this data had been sent to the Councilmen for their information. Upon request, Mr. Annibale outlined on the large map the area proposed to be rezoned and only on which the Council could take action at this time. It was developed that the Board had also encom- passed some surrounding areas which the Council could take into consideration insofar as they relate to the possible rezoning of the specific section designated. Mr. Schoenfeld then explained that both the Planning Board and the Planning Department had reviewed this matter thoroughly, pointing out that they had already been in the process of studying the area south of Central Avenue because they were concerned with the pattern of zoning in this section, due to a lack of relationship between the potential "R-3" District development and the need for some higher density in this area. He stated the report on this matter takes into account the existing land uses and he described them in detail by use of a map displayed. The net result was the recom- mendation from the Board that the areas southerly of Central Avenue should be in a higher density zone. The reason the Board did not recommend an increase in density for the area northerly of Central Avenue at this time is because the predominant number of parcels in this block do not readily lend themselves to multiple development and the existing houses therein are in good condi- tion and are not likely to be torn down and replaced with multiple-type structures in the near future. It was brought out, therefore, the present "R-4" zoning on the north side of Central Avenue would be maintained. The certain area on the south side of Central, as shown on the map, was intended to be "R-5-PD" zoning. A lengthy discussion was had in clarification of the areas involved and the sug- gested rezoning of each. The Vice President then inquired if there were any proponents and the following spoke in favor of maintaining the same zoning north of Central Avenue: Mrs. Arlene Potter, 403 Central Avenue, and Mrs. J. Howard Cook, 414 Taylor Avenue. Each party also opposed the rezoning of the area south of Central Avenue to "R-5-PD" District. The opponents in the matter were then called for and Mr. and Mrs. Leo J. Gunston, 1077 Park Avenue, who are also owners of property at 422 Taylor Avenue, addressed the Council. Mrs. Gunston read a prepared statement, pointing up that their property is now vacant and the zone does not permit its development to the fullest. They stressed the fact the zone should be an "R-5" District to allow their utilization of this property under economically feasible conditions. Mr. Gunston claimed that a failure to rezone his property would amount to confiscation thereof as it is not economically feasible to construct only a four-unit dwelling on his parcel. It was pointed out once again to Mr. Gunston that he, himself, had never actually filed a petition for the rezoning of his particular property. Upon inquiry, there were no further opponents to the recommendations of the Board, and Vice President Schacht thereupon declared the Hearing closed. Councilman Collischonn moved the rezoning of the area as initiated by Councilman Petersen and as proposed in the report from the Planning Board be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). Councilman Collischonn then moved the matter be sent back to the Planning Board with the request that it, on its own initiative, propose specific zoning of this area and submit its recommendations to the Council. In an attempt to clarify the situation, Mr. Annibale commented that he believed the objective is to authorize the Planning Board - outside of the confines of Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series, which stipulates time limits, etcetera - to study the entire area delineated on the map and under consideration tonight, and any adjacent areas in which it may feel study is necessary and initiate on its own motion a rezoning procedure for those sections which the Board feels should be rezoned. Having initiated such action, the Board would then hold a Hearing and submit its recommendations to the Council. Upon inquiry as to how much time this would take, Mr. Schoenfeld endeavored to ascertain the size of the area the Council desired to be studied. It was finally determined the area would be about the same general section as that under consideration at this meeting, and Mr. Schoenfeld said he felt it would be ready for the Council's attention at a December meeting or, at the latest, a January meeting. Councilman Petersen spoke in opposition to the motion on the following grounds: The Council is being premature on the whole area, including aspects of the current report because (1) There is no defi- nite assurance there will be a State Beach Park; (2) There is a great deal of land under water now which some contractor may choose to develop eventually; (3) The report assumes that a freeway is to be routed over Eighth Street and he would fight that to the bitter end; (4) There is a possibil- ity the new Webster Street Tube would change the whole pattern of traffic in this section; (5) There is a possibility there would be a connection to Alameda on the most westerly side, coming in on Main Street and (6) There should be more of the "R-1" District zoning in the portion of the area now tidelands. Further, before the Council makes any decisions concerning the entire area in ques- tion, the Master Plan, which is supposedly outdated, should be revised. Councilman Petersen also emphasized that he thought the Council should first amend some of the pro- visions of the Zoning Ordinance itself before it attempts to go into the rezoning phase of planning. Vice President Schacht felt the Planning Board had spent a great deal of time in reviewing and pre- paring its report-and he believed its recommendations with respect to the two parcels adjacent to Paden School were valid. He felt action could be taken at this meeting to accept said recommendations and rezone these sections to the "R-5" District. There was no second to Councilman Collischonn's motion. Councilman Freeman then moved the Council reconsider the previous action in denying the Board's recom- mendations. Vice President Schacht relinquished the Chair momentarily and seconded the motion, which died on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilman Freeman and-Vice President Schacht, (2). Noes: Councilmen Collischonn and Petersen, (2). Absent: President McCall, (1). Mr. Gunston requested the Council to make .a motion to continue the Hearing to the next meeting in order that he and his attorney could present some additional facts. Mr. Annibale ruled the Hearing had been closed and, therefore, could not be continued. Upon inquiry of Vice President Schacht, Mr. Annibale explained the procedure by which any rezoning may be initiated - by the Planning Board, by the City Council or by any citizen who files the necessary petition. Following further lengthy discussion, Mr. Schoenfeld said he felt the Planning Board would be most receptive to reviewing this matter again in an attempt to clarify the zoning. He agreed the Board's report covered a larger area than that specified in the original request but it was for the purpose of showing the relationship of the proposals in the given area to the vicinity. He felt the Board could recommend a clean delineation of zones in the entire area if it is not limited to just the "R-3-PD" and "R-4" Districts and it could describe more accurately - and the Council could take action on - a broader area. Thus, a Whole new pattern could be established in this section of the City. Vice President Schacht contended the Council should make some directive in this matter. He thereupon relinquished the Chair and moved the Council refer to the Planning Board for its further consideration and recommendation that area adjacent to Paden School, now in the "R-3-PD" and "R-4" Districts - covering in general the land south of Central Avenue out to the Bay from the southerly extension of Third Street on the west to the southerly extension of Sixth Street on the east - but excluding any land north of Central Avenue. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn. 280 Speaking on the question, Councilman Petersen reiterated his belief that the most pertinent business the Planning Board could attend to at this time would be to study and recommend the amendment of certain Zoning Ordinance provisions which now cause hardships. It was pointed out that the Board, in conjunction with a Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, is proceeding with this work. The question was then put and the motion died on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilman Collischonn and Vice President Schacht, (2). Noes: Councilman Petersen, (1). Present: Councilman Freeman, (1). Absent: President McCall, (1). REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 7. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, submitting its vigorous endorsement of the preliminary report of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District entitled, "Plans of Routes, Rights-of-Way, Terminals, Stations, Yards and Related Facilities and Improvements". It urged the Council to give wholehearted support to the present plans and that it impress upon the District's Board of Directors the need for commencing discussions with the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dis- trict for the purpose of developing closely integrated, convenient feeder bus service. Mr. G. N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, spoke in opposition to the Council's endorsement of this report from said Transit District, until some of the other cities have done so. Mr. Schoenfeld pointed out that under the law which created the District it is mandatory that this report be transmitted to all political subdivisions for their review and comments, which will then be given consideration at subsequent Hearings. Councilman Petersen stated that before the City endorses any such plan, the Council should at least request a rapid transit shuttle system to the several points of the main line. A lengthy discussion also ensued on this subject. Councilman Collischonn then moved the Clerk be directed to write to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in support of its "Plans" and requesting the District to commence discussions with the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District for the purpose of developing closely integrated, convenient feeder bus service. Messrs. Schoenfeld and Hanna further explained certain phases of the transit plans, relative to the connection between the Rapid Transit District and the Alameda-Contra Costa line. Councilman Petersen still felt the City should make its desires known at the outset and, therefore, he amended the motion to include the request that Alameda be considered for a rapid transit shuttle system connection between the main line and the City. The amendment was seconded by Councilman Freeman and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). The motion, as amended, was then seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 8/ From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., low bidder, for the project of Resurfacing Fernside Boulevard between Pearl Street and Thompson Avenue, at the total cost of $25,669.35. Councilman Petersen moved the recommendation be adopted; that contract be awarded to the specified firm for the designated project at the price quoted and the bid bonds or checks be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 9:\/ From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Schwartz & Lindheim, Inc., low bidder, for the project of Remodeling in Room 310, City Hall (Auditor's Office), at the total cost of $1,677. Councilman Freeman moved the recommendation be approved; that contract be awarded to said firm for the specified project at the price quoted and the bid bonds or checks be returned to the unsuccess- ful bidders. The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 101 From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Morris Landy Motors for furnishing five Sedans to the Police Department, at the total cost of $12,086.52, and that he be authorized to dis- pose of certain surplus used equipment at the highest price obtainable. Councilman Collischonn moved the recommendation be followed; that contract be awarded to this firm for furnishing the Sedans at the total cost indicated and authorization be granted to sell the used vehicles at the best prices obtainable. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman. Speaking on the question, Councilman Petersen cited the comparative costs of operating and maintain- ing the police cars and said he believed the Council should investigate the possibility of contract- ing City maintenance of the police fleet in order that the vehicles will be mechanically kept up satisfactorily as a safety factor. He felt the situation merits some study. Mr. Clark commented that this subject is under almost continuous review by the City Manager's office. There are many facets to be considered and he said that probably before the next budget sessions there will be more information available to demonstrate the reasons for the procedures followed. He pointed out these cars are given regular service but it must be remembered that they are sub- jected to a terrific amount of travel time. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 281 11. From City Manager, recommending the issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Bay Farm Island Improve- ment League to install a traffic safety sign, as described, on the levee west of Maitland Drive. The costs of the sign and its installation would be borne by the League. Councilman Collischonn moved the recommendation be approved; that a Revocable Permit be issued to the "League" for the purpose stated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 12. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, submitting the draft of certain proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series, as itemized. The Hearing date in this matter was set for the Council meeting to be held November 15, 1960. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 13. Councilman Schacht introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provi- sion of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Alameda Amending Section 9 of Ordinance No. 642, New Series (Civil Service Ordinance), Relating to Reemployment of Personnel." 14. Councilman Collischonn 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 Section 18-3110 to Title XVIII Thereof, Regulating the Use of Water and Tideland Areas Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda." 15. Councilman Freeman introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under pro- vision of law and the Charter:- •"Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding to Section 17-442 Thereof Subdivisions (13) Through (16) Relating to Electrically Operated Traffic Control Signals." RESOLUTIONS: 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6144 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1) New, Complete Three Cubic-Yard Street Sweeper, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Freeman, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6145 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installation of a Culvert in the Intersection of Caroline Street and Fair Oaks Avenue, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). The Vice President thereupon declared the foregoing resolutions duly adopted and passed. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 18. "Ordinance No. 1352, New Series An Ordinance Amending Section 17-461 of the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subdivisions (5) and (6) Thereto, Relating to Yield Right-of-Way Intersections." Councilman Collischonn moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 282 FILING: 19. Specifications and Provisions No. MS 10-60-12 - Furnishing one Street Sweep r. 20. Auditor's Financial Statement -City of Alameda, as at September 30, 1960. 21. Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans No. PW 10-60-23 - Installation of Culvert in Intersection of Caroline Street and Fair Oaks Avenue. BILLS: 22. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $56,081.18, was presented to the Council at this meeting. The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman Collischonn moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on October 18, 1960, and presented to the Council at this Meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: President McCall, (1). 23V At this point, Vice President Schacht announced that the Junior Chamber of Commerce plans to continue its "planting" project on the north side of Doolittle Drive on Saturday, November 19, 1960, and anyone interested in assisting in this endeavor is invited to be present at that time. 24' the members of the Council were invited by Pomeroy-Bates & Rogers-Gerwick to attend the Christening Ceremony of the Oakland-Alameda Vehicular Tube, to be held at 9:00 o'clock a.m., Satur- day, October 22, 1960, at the foot of Stanford Street. ADJOURNMENT: 25. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 1, 1960, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, City ,Cler-