Loading...
1966-11-01 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAM8D& HELD TUESDAY EVENING ' NOVEMBER 1, 1960 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledoe of Alle- giance was led by Councilman Bartley and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. Wilfred 8. Hodgkin, Rector, Christ Episcopal Church. The roll was called and Councilmen Bartley, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent; None. MZNUTES; 1. The minutes of the adjourned regular meeting held October 25, 1966, were approved as transcribed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: / 2. Mr. Tom Holler, program Director of East Bay chapter, National Safety Council, addressed the Council, pointing up the highlights of the excellent record of City of Alameda in its safety endeavors for 1965, He credited the City's success in this respect to its traffic enforcement and emphasized the fact that there had been no traffic deaths during this period. Mr. Holler left a sup- ply of booklets of the Chapter's "Traffic Accident Summary - Alameda, l965'', ~/ 3. Mr. A. T. Wiemken, Chairman of the Congress of Community Progress, of the Alameda Chamber of Com- merce, reported on the activities of this group. He explained that the purpose of this "Congress' was literally an old-time Town Meeting where representatives of all levels of the citizenry gathered for an all-day meeting to pinpoint the City's problems and needs and to propose practical programs to resolve said problems. He cited other areas where such "Congress" meetings had been held with bene- ficial results to the respective communities. Be stated his purpose in appearing at this meeting was to inform the Council of the progress of the local Congress to date. Mr. Wiemken stated the Project Committee, consisting of about thirty-five leading citizens of Alameda, had had many meetings and had prepared rather a comprehensive questionnaire to be distributed, together with a self-addressed, postage- paid envelope, to every residential doorstep in Alameda. This would be done on Saturday, November 12, 1960, through the cooperation of the Alameda Council of Boy Scouts of America. He announced that this Congress had been scheduled for Saturday, February 18, 1967, probably in the auditorium of Alameda High School. He expressed the hope that everyone would be present at that time to insure the success of this program. President Godfrey remarked that Councilman Bartley was the City Council representative on this Steer- ingCommittee of the Congress. 4. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, commented that he believed the City Councilmen were indeed very much underpaid in view of the great amount of time they expended on behalf of tbe.City and the lack of appreciation for their efforts. Mr. Gottstein also referred to the remark made at the last adjourned regular meeting concerning a new City Hall for Alameda - and he could not under- stand why anyone should believe such a structure was necessary. He suggested several methods of taking care of the need for more space. Mr. Gottstein also reiterated his protests against the drainage problem on Webster Street and the traffic congestion in the Alameda entrance to Posey Tube at peak commuter hours. BEARINGS; 5. , The matter was called up concerning Resolution of Intention No. 7024 for Assessment District No. 66-1, adopted by the City Council at its regular meeting held September 6, 1966 - and also the determination of Public Convenience and Necessity of the Improvements and Other Matters in connection with said Assessment District for construction of the Fifth Street-Central Avenue Sewer. President Godfrey introduced Mr. Edwin N. Ness of the firm of Sturgis, Den-Dulk, Douglass & Anderson, Special Counsel in these proceedings. The President stated certain procedures would be followed in this matter in accordance with legal regulations therefor. Upon request, the Clerk read the titles of the documents which had been mailed, posted, published and filed, and was instructed to file all of this material. The President then requeSted the Clerk to read the names of those who had sent in written protests, which were as follows: Rent Kibbe, 510 Central Avenue (rear); John J. Williamson, 512-B Central Avenue; Mrs. Ethel J. Kibbe, 510 Central Avenue; D. C. Strehlow, Jr., 1601 Cornell Drive, owner of Parcel 5 in the proposed District; Helen Barbour for Mrs. Hattie L. Barbour, 506 Central Avenue; General Services Administration, signed by Mr. Clarence w. Hull, Regional Counsel, merely pointing out that property of the Federal Government was not subject to local taxation or assessment. The property involved in this matter was a portion of the former Maritime Training Station, now known as 620 Central Avenue. From M. Kaliski for Seaside Development Co., owner of Parcels Nos. 16, 17, lO and 19 of said proposed District. City Attorney Cunningham was called upon to explain the position of the "public agencies" involved in this proposed District., He said there was no problem with the Alameda Unified School District. Mr. Cunningham explained that the law provides that Public Bodies, such as the United States or the State of California, could not be brought into an assessment district without consent. Be pointed out the "Stote" , had given jts consent because it was believed the improvement would benefit its beach develop- ment. However, the Federal Government had taken the contrary position and had declined to pay said assessment. Mr. Cunningham explained that the ,'19I3 Aot'v under which these proceedings were being held, provided that in the event the Federal Government did not pay this assessment within thirty days, the City automatically had to pay it. There was considerable discussion about this phase of the mutter and Mr, Ness recommended the assess- ment on the Federal parcel remain as originally indicated and during this thirty-day period he would investigate the situation to ascertain the proper application of the regulations. Councilman McCall moved that the assessment on the Federal parcel remain as originally set and be ! � billed to General Services Administration and if not paid by this Agency, the City would then pay said i=~ amount. Councilman Rose seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The City Clerk called attention to a letter from Morrison Brothers Improvement Co., dated November 1, 1966, which had been delivered just prior to the meeting this eveniug. At this point, City Engineer Hanna reported on the results of the bids received on this project. There were nine bids which varied from $125,803'85, the low bid submitted by Murphy Bros., Inc,, Berkeley, to a high bid of $185,325,20, Mr. Hanna stated the low bidder 6ad done similar and even larger jobs for other communities in the immediate ureu. The work was adequate and this firm had been highly recommended by several bankers. He said he considered the bid fair and believed the company was reliable. The President then declared the Bearing open and asked the City Engineer to give his report on the proposed work, explain its necessity and the general background and area involved. Mr. Manna proceeded to cover these several phases in detail by reference to large maps displayed for the information of all. The many parcels were clearly indicated and identified. City Attorney Cunningham then stated the legal issue before the City Council was whether this Council should find and determine that the public convenience and necessity required the proposed public improvements in Assessment District No. 66-1 to be made. These improvements were set forth in Reso- lution No. 7024, adopted by the Council on September 6, 1966, and consisted of the construction of certain sanitary sewers with necessary appurtenances. At the Public Hearing portion of these pro- ceedings, all persons who had filed written objections or protests to the proposed work or any part of it, or the amount of the assessment or any act in connection with the District, might be heard. Following the receipt of these protests or objections, and the discussion of them, the Council might act on Resolutions listed as 0os, 1 through 7 on the agenda. The City Attorney suggested the letter from Morrison Brothers Improvement Co, be read in fuIl, since it had been received too late for copies to be made and distributed to the Councilmen for their informa- tion. It was felt the CouoQil should consider all aspects of this entire situation. Mr. Ness pointed up the fact that the Counoil was really holding two Hearings at this meeting - (1) [/ The Hearing required under the State Constitution for Charter Cities on public convenience and neces- sity and (2) The Hearing under The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 on the Engineer's Report and Assessment. The issues before the Council on that portion of the Hearing were the boundaries of the District, the cost of the work, the assessment as it was spread against individual property owners,- the relation of the assessment of one against another and all matters of this nature - in addition to finding public convenience and necessity. The Clerk then read the "Morrison" letter, dated November 1, 1960, in which it was requested that the Council review certain specific circumstances which it was felt would effect some adjustment in its assessment. The City Engineer reviewed the history of this case and the situation was discussed in detail by the Councilmen, Mr. Ness, Mr. Dudley W. Frost, Jr. of Morrison Brothers, and the City Manager. The following then spoke in support of their written protests: Messrs. John J. Williamson, 512-O Central Avenue; Kent Kibbe, 510 Central Avenue'(rear); Mrs. Ethel J. Kibbe, 510 Central Avenue. 8r, John B. Dooley, 516 Central Avenue, addressed the Council merely for information on the subject. Miss Barbour stated she did not wish her letter to be considered' a protest. Mr, R. C. Strehlow, Jr., then spoke at length on his plea that his one-half acre of tidelands property would never be developed and, indeed, there would be no need for sanitary facilities on this under- water parcel. He emphasized that this area was an isolated piece of property which had no ingress or egress thereto. Be felt the only way it would ever be used would be through its acquisition by the School District or the State as an additional area for either Paden Sc600l or the State Memorial Beach. There was a great deal of discussion about the many phases of this matter in relation to the other properties. It was pointed out the same formula must be applied to all parcels - but it was agreed the tidelands property was unique in its location and potential development. The City Attorney suggested the City Engineer inform the Council what percentage of the area involved was represented by written protests, because if the owners of more than fifty per cent of the area proposed to comprise the District should protest, then the formation of the District would fail. The Assistant City Engineer, @r- Lee Eichelberger, stated the total protest represented only eleven per cent of the area to be embraced by said District. There being no further speakers in this matter, President Godfrey declared the Hearing closed. Councilman McCall then moved the assessment on the tidelands parcel be deleted. Councilman La Croix seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen La Croix, McCall and President Godfrey, (3). Noes: Councilmen Bartley and Rose, (2). Absent: None. The City Attorney explained that this would result in a reduction of the contingency fund of the Dis- trict by the amount of the assessment previously established. There being no objections, the order of business was revised and the meeting proceeded under the heading of "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: 6. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution'No. 7046 Resolution Directing City Engineer of the City of Alameda to File an Amended Engineer's Report and Amended Cost Estimate, Assessment District 0o, 66`1, City of Alameda, Alameda County, California.' The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 7. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7047 Resolution Approving Amended Assessment Diagram." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None. 8. The following resolution was introduCed by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7048 Resolution Finding and Determining That the Public Convenience and Necessity Require the Construction of Improvements in Assessment District No. 66-1, City of Alameda, Alameda County, State of California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 9. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7049 Resolution Overruling Protests - Assessment District Nn, 66-1, City of Alameda, Alameda County, California.' The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Rose, (1). Absent: None. 10. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7050 Resolution and Order Approving Amended Engineer's Report, Ordering the Construction of Improvements, and Confirming Assessment, Assessment District No. 06-1, City of Alameda, Alameda County, California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman. Rose, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7051 Resolution Authorizing City Engineer of the City of Alameda to Make Changes in the Work, Assessment District Mo, 66-1, City of Alameda, Alameda County' California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. 12. "Resolution No. Resolution of Award of Contract - Assessment District No. 66-1." Upon request of City Attorney Cunningham and Special Counsel Ness, the President stated that, if there were no objections, the resolution would be laid over to the next meeting for action, pending a deter- mination of the market for sale of the bonds in this project. The meeting then reverted back to the regular order of business. • REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA:, 13K From Acting City Manager, recommending the acceptance of street and public improvements in Sub- division Tract No. 2532 (Golf 'N more Estates - Bay Farm Island) and the release of the bond in excess of $200,000. Councilman Bartley moved the recommendation be adopted; that said improvements in Tract No. 2532 be accepted and the bond in the amount of $216,398.21 be released. The motion was seconded by Council- man McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 14Y From ACting City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of the Grand Street Boat Ramp Parking Lot - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be followed - that the work on the designated project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Bartley seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. In response to Councilman Rose's suggestion, Mr. Weller stated he would report to the Council with regard to the possibility of charging a fee for use of said parking lot. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 15. The matter was submitted concerning cncerning the operating agreement for the Alameda State Memorial Beach and the South Shore Beach. Upon request, Mr. Weller pointed out this matter had been under conSidera- Non for the past eighteen months to two years, in discussions with the State Division of Beaches and Parks and the East Bay Regional Park District. He explained the basic concept of the three-way agree- ment between State, District and City and emphasized that the City would undertake no part of the cost of the development or the operation of these two recreational facilities. It was pointed out these areas were more suitably District-type developments and indeed, the District would he able to develop them much more rapidly than the State. Following further discussion for clarification. of certain aspects of the subject, the matter was referred to "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7052 Authorizing Execution of Agreement with East Bay Regional Park District, Relating to Operation of City's Public Beach." Councilman Rose seconded the motion. Speaking on the question, it was developed that the City-District Agreement would not be signed by Mayor Godfrey until the Agreement between the State of California and the Federal Government had been executed. The question was then put and the motion to adopt said resolution was carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared said resolution adopted. Revising the order of business once more, the meeting was referred back to "Unfinished Business". UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 17. Councilman Rose referred to the recent authorization to execute an agreement between the City and Ribera and Sue for architectural services for the redesign of Woodstock Park. He inquired what the status of the negotiations on this matter was. Mr. Cunningham explained the circumstances involved and stated the entire matter was being held in abeyance pending further decisions and developments from the Recreation Department. 18.' Councilman La Croix referred again to the requested analysis by Mr. Harold Michaels, Alameda Hospital Administrator, of the study made some time ago concerning emergency or first aid facilities in the new hospital complex. He stated he and Councilman Bartley would plan. to meet as soon as pos- sible with Mr. Michaels to further discuss the subject. NEW BUSINESS: 19' McCall referred to the meeting to be held this next Friday, November 4, of the Associa- tion of Bay Area Governments, at which time the Executive Committee would submit a recommendation for the establishment of a "Regional Government'. He, therefore, moved President Godfrey join with cer- tain other cities in the area who objected to this move, to have the matter laid over in order that more detailed information might be furnished all of the City Councils before action was taken. The motion was seconded by Councilman. Rose and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 20. "Ordinance No. 1540, New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subdivision 6 to Section 17-344.1 Thereof, Relating to 24-Minute Parking Limit." (Broadway - Blanding Avenue to Clement Avenue) Councilman McCall 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. 21. Certificate of Filing Boundary Map - Assessment District No. 66-1. 22. Certificate of Filing Boundary Map in Office of County Recorder. 23. Certificate of Posting Notice of Improvement at or near Council Chamber door. 24. LertifiCate of Mailing Copies of Notice of Improvement. 25. CertifiCate of Posting Notice of Improvement. 26. Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Improvement. 27. Affidavit of Publication of Notice Inviting Sealed Bids. 28. Certificate of Posting Amended Notice of Improvement at or near CounCil Chamber door. 29. Certificate of Mailing Copies of Amended Notice of Improvement. 30. Affidavit of Publication of Amended Notice of Improvement. 31, Amended Cost Estimate and Amended Engineer's Report. 32. Operating Agreement - Between East Bay Regional Park District and City of Alameda - Public Beach. BILLS: 33. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $75,692.59, 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 La Croix moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on November 1, 1906, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 34. The President called up the audience for a moment of silence in observance of the passing of Walter Torres, Parks Department Employee. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the memory of Walter Torres - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 15, 1966, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, Clerk