Loading...
1965-07-06 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING JULY 6, 1965 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Godfrey presiding. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Councilman Rose and was followed by an inspiring Invocation by The Reverend Mr. Martell Twitchell, Pastor of Santa Clara Avenue Methodist Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Bartley, La Croix, Jr., McCall, Rose and President Godfrey, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held June 15, and the special meeting held June 22, 1965, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2`r From The Honorable George A. Willson, Assemblyman, Fifty- Second District, and Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary, submitting a copy of House Resolution No. 523, relative to the constitutional guarantees of "Free Press" and "Fair Trial ". It was requested that the attention of the Police Department be called to this document. The Clerk was to acknowledge said communication and then refer it to the City Attorney. 3.'4( From Veterans Affairs Commission of County of Alameda, signed by Mr. Allen F. Strutz, Treasurer, requesting approval and appropriation of $1,000. for the City's participation and share in the 1965 Veterans' Day Observance, to be held in the City of Alameda on November 11. The President commented that the City was honored by the fact that Councilman Rose was the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Commission of the County of Alameda. Councilman Rose reported briefly con- cerning the plans for this year and moved that a sum not to exceed $1,000. be appropriated for the City's share in this patriotic observance in Alameda this year. The motion was seconded by Council- man McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 4.N From American Society of Landscape Architects, signed by Mr. David Mayes, President,Northern California Chapter, expressing its opposition to any proposal to use the presently designated lands of the Alameda Memorial State each fora Junior College Campus. The Clerk was to acknowledge this letter and refer it to the file on the subject. 5`' From The Honorable Neal S. Blaisdell, Mayor of the City of Honolulu, and Chairman of the American Executive Committee, extending an invitation to the City of Alameda to be represented at the Eighth Japan - American Conference of Mayors and Chamber of Commerce Presidents, to be held in the City of Oakland, October 24 -28, 1965. Councilman McCall spoke in favor of this Conference and said he believed it was very worthwhile and the City should be represented. President Godfrey stated the program of said Conference was closely connected with the Sister -City Program and he, therefore, suggested that Councilman and Mrs. William McCall be designated as the representatives of the City of Alameda. Councilman McCall expressed his appreciation of this suggestion but stated he realized the protocol involved and pointed out that the Mayor and Mrs. Godfrey should be the official representatives of the City of Alameda at this particular event. President Godfrey stated he, therefore, would plan to attend said Conference. The Clerk was requested to respond to the invitation accordingly. 6. From Kiwanis Club of Alameda, signed by Mr. Raymond E. Waterlow, President, indicating its strong support of, the City Council in its position to endeavor to have a Junior College Campus located in the' City of Alameda. The letter was to be acknowledged by the Clerk. 7. From Founders Savings and Loan Association, signed by Mr. Edward J. Parodi, Sr., Vice President, requesting an extension of time of six months from July 16, 1965, in which to complete public improve- ments in Tract No. 2599 (Southwest Corner of Island Drive and Mecartney Road). Councilman La Croix moved the request be granted and an extension of time of six months from July 16, 1965, to January 17, 1966, be allowed for the purpose indicated. The motion was seconded by Council- man Bartley and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 8.' Mr. James B. Davis, Attorney, representing Shore Line Properties, Inc., and Braddock, Logan & Valley, stated they had a matter concerning the Final Map for Tract No. 2730 which was not on the agenda for this meeting but which he would ask that the Council consider under "Resolutions ". President Godfrey explained that the City Attorney had briefly commented on the circumstances pertain - to this case and he had asked Mr. Cunningham to further advise the Council on the subject under the heading of "Resolutions ", later in the meeting. HEARINGS: 9. The matter was called up concerning the Appeal, filed by Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Mr. D. E. Bitner, from the decision of the Planning Board to deny request No. 2 in the Applica- tion - to eliminate the required space of eight feet between the main structure and an accessory building, for a distance of twenty -eight feet, six inches, on the property known as 1701 and 1705 Central Avenue. Upon request, Mr. Robert L. Venable, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the history of this case for the information of the Council. Also, Mr. Cunningham, City Attorney, stated the legal issue before the Council was whether or not the action of the Planning Board under Section 11- 161(b) and (e) of the Alameda Municipal Code should be affirmed, modified or reversed. The President called for the proponents who wished to speak in this matter - and there was no response. Upon the call, then, for the opponents to the Board's denial of this phase of the Appli cation, Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney, represented the Appellant, and addressed the Council at length in explanation of the proposed plans of Mr. Bitner for the subsequent development of the two lots which made up his parcel of property. Mr. Bitner, too, emphasized certain points in favor of his contemplated improvements. There being no further speakers, the President declared the Hearing closed. The Council then discussed in great detail the several aspects of this case. Councilman McCall move that the Appeal be granted and the decision of the Planning Board be reversed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Rose, (1) . Absent: None. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 10. From Auditor and Assessor, submitting the assessment values for the fiscal year 1965 -1966 and showing the total valuation for the tax rate basis as $78,832,453. The information was noted and the letter ordered filed. 11. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., low bidder, fo the project of Resurfacing Mound Street from Otis Drive to San Jose Avenue, at the total cost of $5,267. Councilman Rose moved the recommendation be adopted; that contract be awarded to the designated firm for the specified project at the cost quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 12.E From City Manager, recommending the rejection of the one bid received on the call for the project of Widening Clement Avenue from Park Street to Oak Street - and that authorization be given to re- advertise for bids on said project. Councilman Rose moved the recommendation be approved; that the sole bid be rejected and the re- advertisement for bids on this project be authorized. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 13. From City Manager, concerning the emergency repairs at the Grand Street Boat Ramp, which were ordered made to the floating walkway. It was requested that the Council concur in this action as provided for in Section 3-15 of the City Charter. Councilman Rose moved the request be granted and the Council approve the necessary action taken with- out contract as set forth. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the follow- ing roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 14. From City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Installing a Storm Sewer on Broadway from Calhoun Street to La Jolla Drive - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Rose moved the! recommendation be adopted; that the work on said project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 15Y Councilman Rose referred to a recent article in the Alameda Times -Star about the Council action with regard to the salary increases for the City employees. Councilman McCall was quoted as being in opposition to the salary increases because of the differential of a five per cent raise to certain City officials and only a two and one -half per cent raise to other City officials and the general employees. Further, it was stated he claimed the proposal was submitted at the last minute by the City Manager. Councilman Rose said he thought there had been ample opportunity to review the matter but if Council- man McCall still felt he had not had sufficient time to completely study all aspects of the salary question and desired to re -open the matter for further consideration and subsequent action, he would be willing to listen. Councilman McCall pointed out his thinking on the subject - to the effect that a "percentage" raise was not fair to the low- income employees. He felt a flat amount across the board would be far more equitable to those who needed it most. Following some discussion of the subject, with certain comparisons being pointed up, Councilman McCall stated that the action had been taken for this fiscal year and he felt it would be better not to disrupt the salary situation by trying to make any changes at this time. He emphasized that he would give a more careful analysis to the matter hereafter. RESOLUTIONS: 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6822 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Construction of Various Site Improvements and Paving Work in Godfrey Park, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6823 Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Contract No. NBy(U)-44650 (Modification No. 'C') Relating to Special Services Furnished by City to U. S. Navy Off- Station Public Quarters and Homoja Housing Project." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 6824 Requesting Payment by the Fiscal Agent of the Amount Held in the Off-Street Parking Surplus Revenue Fund to the General Fund of the City of Alameda." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 19' request of President Godfrey, Mr. Cunningham presented the matter of the development of a certain portion of Bay Farm Island as covered by the Final Map of Tract No. 2730. He pointed out the Tentative Map, as amended, had previously been approved by the City Council. The subdividers of this parcel were Shore Line Properties, Inc., and Braddock, Logan & Valley, as a joint venture. Mr. Cunningham explained the many legal and engineering phases of such a large subdivision and said he had prepared two resolutions relating to said development for the Council's consideration at this time. City Engineer Hanna commented that the street name shown might be changed, depending upon the action of the Planning Board when the matter was submitted for approval. He stated this was of no significance insofar as .the Final Map was concerned. Councilmen La Croix and Rose expressed their disapproval of the "last-minute" submission of this matter, which obviated the Council's study of all the details involved in this development. As had been requested earlier, Mr. James B. Davis, Attorney, addressed the Council and reviewed several aspects of the case. He remarked that the street name had been approved by the Planning Director, instead of by the Planning Board, due to a misunderstanding of the requirement, and this matter would be corrected by the proper application to the Board at its next meeting on July 12. Mr. Davis urged the Council to take the necessary action at this meeting in order that the subdividers might proceed without further delay in the construction of the "models". He pointed out that the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $336,600. had been posted. During the course of the discussion, Councilman McCall suggested that it be made clear that the Council was not by-passing the Planning Board by acting on this matter prior to the Board's approval of the street name, but said action was necessary to expedite the matter. Mr. Hanna also clarified the significance of the relationship between the Tentative and Final Maps of a subdivision. He stated the Tentative Map was given very careful scrutiny on the part of the Planning Board, the City Council and the various technical staff members. The Final Map was a surveyor's map which, if it followed the Tentative Map, as approved, was then, in effect, a technical instrument which would not deviate from what had already been approved. Therefore, the Final Map was the freezing of survey lines and dedications and items of that sort, which had been thought through during the Ten- tative Map study. It was then the job of the City Engineer and the City Attorney to make the determina- tion that the Final Map had followed the intent of the Tentative Map. Mr. Hanna stated there was, therefore, not nearly pointed up, for instance, that the Final Map does attention to the fact that this Final Map covered the Tentative Map for the entire area. Mr. Hanna for this portion of the development. as much effort needed in reviewing the Final Map. He not even go before the Planning Board. He called only one-third of the parcel originally approved in stated this Final Map did follow the Tentative Map It was brought out that the Council had given thorough consideration to the details involved in this development and that the City Attorney and the City Engineer had expressed their opinions that the procedure was in order. 416 Councilman McCall then introduced the following two resolutions and moved their adoption: "Resolution No. 6825 Approving Final Map of Subdivision Known as Tract 2730, Submitted by Shore Line Properties, Inc., and Braddock, Logan & Valley, and Approving Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency." "Resolution No. 6826 Authorizing', Execution of Agreement for Construction and Completion of Improvements in Subdivision Known as Tract 2730 -- Shore Line Properties, Inc., and Braddock, Logan & Valley." The motion to adopt each of the preceding two resolutions was seconded by Councilman Bartley and car- ried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Bartley, McCall and President Godfrey, (3). Noes: Councilmen La Croix, and Rose, (2) . = Absent: None. Councilman Rose explained that he was completely in favor of this project and he would have voted for the adoption of these resolutions relating thereto had more time been allowed for study of the Final Map in question. The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. Councilman McCall then moved that the subdivider be required to apply to the Planning Board for its approval of the suggested street name in the approved Final Map. The motion was seconded by Council- man Rose and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman McCall also felt it would be well to write a letter to the Planning Board informing it of the Council's action in this matter. It should be emphasized that it was not the intention of the - City Council to by -pass the Planning Board for even the smallest kind of a mistake which might be made in following the technicalities involved in the Subdivision Ordinance, or to accelerate a certain program. FILING: 20. Supplemental Agreement - Contract No. NBy(U) -44650 - Between City of Alameda and United States of America. 21. Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans No. PW 7 -65 -20 - Site Improvements and Paving Work in Godfrey Park.' 22. Agreement - Between City of Alameda and Shore Line Properties, Inc., and Braddock, Logan & Valley - Re Tract No. 2730. ADJOURNMENT: 23. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, July 20, 1965, at 7 :30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, ** Councilman Rose stated he had reopened the matter to give Councilman McCall the opportunity to intro- duce a salary resolution as he wanted it to be, inasmuch as Councilman McCall could not on his own motion have reopened the question.