Loading...
1956-08-09 Regular CC Minutes4(1 ADJOURNED REGULAR. MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF TUE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD THURSDAY EVENTN(1 AUGUST 9, 1956 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock P. • M. with President Kranelly presiding. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Haag, McCall, Moresi and ?resident Kranell- (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Hove, (1). RDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: V 1. "Ordinance No. Nev; Series An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Real Property Known as Encinal Project, Cal-4113." President Kranelly stated all members of the Council have now had a chance to study the memorandum from the City Attorney concerning the conditions set forth in this matter. He said he was not too sure they should proceed until the Council knows exactly where it stands. He referred tc the letter sent to the City Manager by Senator Knowland, to -rhich was attached a co.)v of a letter from Tr. Cole, Adminis- trator of the Public Housing Administration. He felt that, according to Fr. Cole's letter, there is no problem to the matter at all, but the problem has developed in the San Francisco Office of the Public 'lousing; Administration. Mr. Froerer stated he felt the people in the San Francisco Office are working out details in accordance with instructions and policies set down by the Commission. If the City of Alameda cannot accept transfer of this property under these conditions, it would have to get the -)olicies changed so the City could meet the conditions and accept transfer of the property. President Kranelly asked if it would be improper to go directly to the Administration - or would the Council have to go through Senators Knowland and Kuchel. 1r. Froerer replied that he felt there would be more success attained by acting through Senators Knowland and Kuchel. He also stated Congressman Miller is still in Washington and the City might attempt to contact him to ascertain what he thinks of the situation. President Kranelly concurred that Congressman Miller should be contacted immediately to find out if the City can get a "waiver". Councilman Moresi asked if the terms, as set forth to the City, were on a regular printed form from Yiashington - or were typed in San Francisco. Mr. Annibale an- swered that these are the rules and regulations of the Public Housing Administration and he would take it they were from '7ashington. Councilman Moresi wondered if it would be possible to contact the officials in the San Francisco Office and go over the situation witb them and ascertain if the City could by-pass the conditions. President Kranelly said he could not understand the "extra stipulations" which have been thrown in. Mr. Froerer explained these rules are not writ-Len into the "law", but are Adminis- trative Or('ers. He further pointed out that it had never come to his at'ention or that of the City Attorney that these conditions would be imposed. He had thought it would be a simple Deed of 'rust. Councilman Haag said he felt the Council should not even contact Messrs. Herman and Melville of the San Francisco Office - he thought the ,matter should be handled directly through the Senators and Congressman Miller. President Kranelly stated any action on the adoption of the. ordinance should be post- poned tonight and the City Manager be directed to contact Congressman Miller tomorrow morning to find out what can be done and, if need be, to contact Senators Knowland and Kuchel. Nith regard to the time element, Mr. Annibale stated the final closing date is September 30, 1956. The matter of the adoption of the ordinance was laid over to the next regular meeting of the Council to be held August 21, 1956. ADJOURNMENT: 2. There being no further business to come before the meting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on muesday evening, August 21, 195=7, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, 0 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 21, 1956 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock P. M. with President Kranelly presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was lead by Councilman Moresi. The Reverend Franklin Scott of the Santa Clara Avenue Methodist Church then delivered a most inspiring invocation. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Haag, Hove, McCall, Moresi and President Kranelly, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held July 31, the regular meeting of August 7, and the adjourned regular meeting held August 9, 1956, were approved as transcribed. OPENING OF BIDS: 2. Six bids were received and read for the project of the Wrecking and/or Removal of Buildings Located on Off- Street Parking Site on Central Avenue, near Oak Street, in accordance with Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans therefor, No. PW 8- 56-18, as follows From Cleveland Wrecking Company, of Cincinnati Removal A Removal B Accompanied by certified check in amount of From Zamora Wrecking Company Removal A Removal B Accompanied by a Bid Bond From Charles L. Campanella Co. Removal A Removal B Accompanied by a Bid Bond From J. Henry Harris Removal A Removal B Accompanied by a Bid Bond From Joseph D. Ballinger & Co. Removal A Removal B Accompanied by a Bid Bond From Lantzco Removal A Removal B Accompanied by a Bid Bond V 3. Four bids were submitted and read for the project of Filling a Portion of the North Side Sewer between Arbor and Hibbard Streets, in accordance with Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans therefor, No. PW 8- 56 -19, as follows: 990. 1,330. 250. 850. 1,000. 730. 990. 769. 651. 1,210. 1,430. 1,243 1,420 From McGuire and Hester Accompanied by a Bid Bond From Prodanovich Inc. Accompanied by a Bid Bond From Daniel L. Trade Accompanied by a Bid Bond From John H. McCosker, Inc. Accompanied by a Bid Bond $14,470. 15,810. 10,987.65 17,639. The foregoing bids were referred to the City Manager and City Engineer for examina- tion and recommendation. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 4 A mimeographed copy of a letter, dated August 6, 1956, addressed to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, was received from Paul Revere Cowles concerning the proposed Transit District. The communication was referred to the file on the subject. 5': From the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, suggesting the zone status of the property of Alameda Bayside Construction Corporation remain unchanged until more information is available relative to the development of the property. President Kranelly stated this matter is presently in the hands of the Planning Board and no recommendation from it has as yet been received by the Council. He said the Council appreciates the letter from the Chamber, a copy of which will be directed to the Board - and the matter will be referred to the file pending receipt of a recommendation from the Board. 6. From the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2087, enclosing its resolutions approving certain estimates and calling for payment to Utah Dredging Company for work performed. It was requested the Council approve Demand Warrants Nos. 2L, 25, 26 and 27 in the respective amounts of •100,000.; 1100,000.; 822,545.52 and 838, 018.22. The matter was referred to "Resolutions ". 7. From City of Alameda Taxpayers' League, Inc., commending the City Council and the several Department Heads for the announced intention to increase the tax rate by only three cents over the previous year. The communication was noted with appreciation and ordered filed. 8Y From the following landscape contractors in protest against the rejection of all bids on the project of the Planting and Establishment of Lawn (Second Part) for the New Municipal Golf Course: Elmer L. Dunn Construction Company, K. E. C. Company and Rudolph Watson. President Kranelly asked if it had not always been the practice of the City to reserve the right to reject bids - and if the contractors were aware of this pro- vision. Mr. Froerer answered, "Yes ", and stated, further, the Charter provides that if the City can perform work more economically without contract and if it appears the City will profit from, the rejection of bids this action can be taken. It was pointed out that, in this case, the City will save about 86,000. by having the work done by City forces. The City Manager was asked to write to the three firms in explanation of the situation. 9. From The Alameda County Citizens Voter Registration Committee, requesting the City Council to declare the week beginning August 26, 1956, as "REGISTRATION WEEK ", and to give publicity to the fire -house registration system. President Kranelly said everyone is agreed that it is incumbent upon all to vote and the Council is quite agreeable to making this declaration. Councilman Hove thereupon moved the Council declare the week beginning August 26, 1956, as "REGISTRATION WEEK ". The motion was seconded by Councilman Moresi and unanimously carried. 10. From Mr. Andrew J. Pagano, 1318 Park Avenue, protesting against the decision of the Council to allow the construction of a warehouse on the land formerly occupied by the Pacific Housing Project - in reversal of the recommendation of the Planning Board to deny the petition for the reclassification of this area from the "B" Dwelling District to the "G" Light Industrial District. President Kranelly stated the Council has noted the contents of this letter. He said, however, in reaching its decision to rezone the property in question, the Council did so in the best interests of the use of the land and with no other thought in mind. He then referred the communication to the file on the subject. J 11. From Utah Construction Company, dated August 17, 1956, with regard to its South Shore Development and particularly with reference to the recommendation of the Plan- ning Board concerning the widths of the waterway between the existing shoreline and the northernmost projection of "fingers ". The communication covered specific details of the entire project and asked that the Council not accept the recommendation of the Planning Board as it applies to the distance of water between the existing shoreline and Utah's development and, instead; the Council approve Utah's plan as adopted and submitted by it at this time for the lagoon development north of Otis Drive. President Kranelly stated the Council has considered the contents of the letter and, in summary, Utah recommends the Council not accept the recommendation of the Planning Board as it applies to the distance of the waterway between the tips of the "fingers" and the shoreline. He pointed out the Board has approved the widths of the lagoons at 125 feet between fingers west of Grand Street and 95 feet between fingers east of Grand Street -- but it has not approved the distance from the finger tips to the 4 south shore line. President Kranelly noted there is on the agenda a letter from the Planning Board making its recommendation on this matter - and he thereupon requested the letter be read at this point. The recommendation of the Board, as adopted by motion at its meeting of August 15, is as follows: "That within the proposed south shore lagoon system the average distance between the closest point on the arc, forming the ex- tremity of any residential land peninsula, to the closest point along the existing south shore seawall shall be 250 feet. The distance shall be measured at the normal water line established by the City Council for each portion of the lagoon system. For the purposes of this recommendation the normal water lines shall be those recommended by the recent Gotaas report. "At the option of the developer a minimum distance of 200 feet of water may be utilized on any peninsula described above if compensated for elsewhere in the same portion of the lagoon system so that the average distance of 250 feet is maintained." President Kranelly stated there is an alternate plan which the Council has looked over and given consideration. The Council feels it is a fair compromise that the distance from the finger tips to the south shore be an average of 200 feet, with no point being less than 150 feet. He pointed out there has been a reduction in the number of lots. He then asked Mr. Robert Williams, Planning Director, to display the plan in question and indicate the modifications. Mr. Williams stated the basic variation between this suggested scheme and the plan now proposed by Utah involves a modification of the entire west central lagoon. With one less waterway, it then develops into a loop- street pattern. The acreage imme- diately east of the last lagoon would comprise an area for the enlargement of the Alameda Hospital. He said there would be 16 land - locked lots in the easterly area - but the suggested plan reduces the total number of lots by only 5. He said he hadn't had an opportunity to check all of the measurements as yet and asked Mr. Travers if his figures agreed. Mr. Travers replied that his Company would lose 10 lots by this plan instead of 5 - and there would be 21 less lagoon lots and 22 more interior lots. President Kranelly pointed out this alternate plan presents a fair compromise it is the suggested change in order to come up with the 200 -foot average from the south shore line to the tips of the fingers. At this point, Miss Mildred Meyers, member of the Planning Board, addressed the Council, stating this matter has been studied so thoroughly by the Board - there are so many points it has gone over so many times. She said that, from the first, the Board had been told that it should set the pattern, should establish the standards. The Board studied a couple of plans and set some standards for the waterways between the fingers - some of the Board did not like them much, but it seemed at that time it was a matter of those standards or no lagoons. She remarked that, from the Gotaas Report, it appears there has to be some sort of drainage there and the lagoon system will be the cheaper method. The Board felt that to improve the whole City and to get a very fine development there, more water space is needed. She pointed out the members of the Board had inspected several lagoon areas and the finer lagoon treat- ment shows a larger water area. She asked that the water areas not be cut down - they should be kept fine and broad. It is not only to the City's and people's advantage now, but it is something for the future - something which people will come to see - it will be comparable to what Lake Merritt has done for the City of Oakland. She felt everyone of the lots with more water around them will sell for a higher price and Alameda will have some very fine homes. Mrs. Wiley of the Planning Board stated that when she saw this alternate .plan for the first time last evening she was not really in favor of it - the passage ways are too narrow for sailing small boats. She stated, however, the average of 200 feet doesn't sound too bad. She mentioned there is a very nice little baylet at the foot of St. Charles Street and she felt it would be much nicer and more thoughtful to spread the advantage out a little more on each side of it. Councilman Hove asked if the Board had made any recommendation with regard to the other areas involved. Miss Meyers stated it is unfortunate that decisions have been made piecemeal - the whole development should be studied from beginning to end. Councilman Haag asked Miss Meyers, "Do you mean the recommendation did not apply to the easterly lagoons, or was it all embraced ?" Miss Meyers replied, "The Board's action covered only the westerly and central lagoons". She pointed out the easterly lagoons take a different form and should be individually studied. Mrs. Wiley stated the reason for having studied only these two sections is because Utah was ready to work on these areas. She felt the easterly lagoons should be very carefully studied to make sure they are just exactly right from both sides. 4 4/ a Councilman McCall stated the pressure might not have been as great concerning the easterly lagoons - but he felt the people at the foot of Broadway who now have water in their basements should be given some relief. He said the plan displayed on the bulletin board is presented to Utah as the recommendation of the Council. He asked Mr. Travers to state the feeling of Utah with regard to this scheme. Mr. Travers said he would like to do much more than that - he wanted toshow the Council some more detail on the plan which Utah has before the Council and which is its recommendation. He displayed a plan which he said Utah has drawn which indi- cates what the Company would have to abide by in following the recommendation of the Planning Board. He said that, so far as he knows, the Planning Board at no time made a plan like this, which would show the effect of taking a 250 -foot average distance from the existing shoreline. Without having made such a plan, how would it know the effect of such requirements - Utah could not know until a definite plan was before it. He said it was unfair of the Board to make such a unilateral decision - the plan should have been discussed in detail with Utah - that, the Board has not done - and this plan is the result of that study. It would have disastrous effects on Utah's development if this plan were adopted. He noted it was said that Utah brought in its map piecemeal - he agreed Utah did not present this particular map at the meetings of June 27 and 29 - but it was a map similar to this and the entire lagoon system was shown on that map clearly and defi- nitely - the west, central and easterly lagoons were all shown as Utah's recommenda- tion. He said the Board was aware of that fact. Mr. Travers asked why the lagoons west and east of Grand Street are always being discussed - pressure is always being brought to bear on those west of Grand Street. He pointed out that just as many dollars, as much ingenuity and effort are tied up just as much in the east end as in the west end. He said the results of this plan would cause Utah to lose some 4700,000. in lot values alone from the property and it would cause a very substantial net loss to the tax- payers of the City. He then referred to the letter already mentioned and quoted detailed figures indicating the economic loss which would make the lagoon project impossible. He then displayed a map in line with what Utah recommends with regard to the distances between the seawall and the finger tips. He pointed out there are six points west ad three points east of Grand Street which are only 100 feet across - the average is very much more substantial than that. By use of the plan displayed, he called off the various distances of the waterway widths between every point along the south shoreline and the development. He said Utah sincerely believes this carefully studied plan is a good sound proposal for its development - the Company has not just relied upon itself for this opinion - it has too much at stake to do that. Utah cannot afford to be wrong - it has to be right. This plan is the outgrowth of nine months of study - Utah has improved upon the plan originally drawn by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Utah has engaged a Marina Consultant, Mr. C. A. Chaney. He came to the west coast about three weeks ago - prior to the time of this dispute - to look over Utah's project. Utah has asked him to prepare a written report, which he has advised will be ready in about three weeks. Utah has asked him if the waterway widths, as recommended by the Company, would in any way hamper the ready sale of property. Mr. Chaney had answered unhesitatingly, "No, there was no reason why the waterway widths should be even one foot larger." He said Utah would be happy to furnish excerpts of the report as soon as it is received. Mr. Travers pointed out the following comparisons: west lagoon, 23.4 acres in water and 20 acres in land; west central lagoon, 15 acres in water and 16 acres in land; east lagoon, 38.4 acres in water and 36.8 acres in land. He mentioned the lagoon development in Marin County - Marina Vista - which had been cited, and some slides shown of that area. The statement had been made that the waterway there was 140 to 150 feet wide. He had recognized the area and, upon checking, he found this lagoon was 1,500 feet in length and the distance between bank to bank was 100 feet - leaving 70 feet at the most of open water. He stated the streets there are 20 feet wide - Utah's streets will be 52 feet wide, with street lights and an underground storm drainage system. The homes in Marina Vista sell for approximately 440,000. He felt it is a perfect example of how to judge distances. He said Utah's development will be better - the plan has been carefully thought through - it is a very sound plan. Utah has 400 acres to develop on the south shore and 878 acres on Bay Farm Island. Utah must have coordination - liaison without rancor - the situation must go well, if it is to go at all - and it is not starting off well. Utah has had a very unfortunate experience in this first presentation. Utah made one slight mistake - there should have been more time between the meeting of May 14, and the subsequent meeting at which a decision was requested. Mr. Travers stated there is a controversy solely because the people living along the shore line want to protect their interests so badly they have fought against it - and even their acceptance today - if it is an acceptance - is a reluctant one. He pointed out Utah went through an election campaign. There have been quite a few points which have come up for adjudication by the Council. It was said the project was not soundly planned - the beach would was away. Utah had complete soil studies made by compe- tent engineers - and there is good clean sand. They said the development would drag - that Utah would work for awhile and then leave it half completed. He pointed out Utah is ahead of schedule - it has stayed with it and pushed the project through with capable "know-how". For nine months Utah hired a consulting firm. He said it was a costly job to make that study for lagoons, but Utah kept faith with the people on the south shore that it would study a lagoon plan. He felt it should be fairly easy for the Council to appraise the matter and he thought it was only fair to say that the Planning Board is not expert in the matter of lagoons. If Utah recommends this plan it has to be sure of selling these lots not everyone can pay $40,000. to $50,000. for a home. The decision is very important, it is vital to Utah. The Company has been whittled and whittled away - it has been through constant harassment - and it has much more at stake than the people who are looking across the waterways at the development. Mr. Travers said Utah originally filed an application for a permit to fill. The cost of making a solid fill reclamation plan for the project was $3,373,372. Then, when Utah turned to the lagoon plan, it was necessary to restudy costs and it was determined that it would cost $3,375,000. - or $2,000. more for the lagoon plan than for the non-lagoon plan. He agreed the Company has saved on the underground storm drainage system in the latter plan, but pointed up the additional expenses that are attendant upon this job - technical, legal and engineering. The result is a cost of $10,000. for raw land per acre. He said Utah has come to the end of the line economically, - it has to make it pay and it has to be the judge of the economics involved. He asked the Council, in its deliberations, to do everything it can to come to a " conclusion which will (1) cost Utah no more money in the development of its property and (2) lose Utah no more income from what it plans and hopes to get from its land - the project cannot stand any further whittling or cutting away. He said he has tied up his entire staff on working and reworking plans since the meeting of August 9. Utah cannot keep doing that over and over again - and the time used is money lost. He asked the Council to give this matter its earnest consideration and to let its decision be no more economic cost to Utah. He pledged Utah's earnest efforts and cooperation with all active departments in endeavoring to arrive at the best possible solution for everyone in the City - not just for a minority group. President Kranelly stated that, having heard the lengthy dissertation by Mr. Travers and the comments from two members of the Planning Board, the Council has before it a request from Utah Construction Company that its plan as adopted and submitted be approved by the Council. He pointed out the Council has made an alternative sugges- tion of a plan whereby the City could offer a 200-foot average waterway from the tips of the fingers to the shoreline. The Council understood this was a loss of only 5 lots - but according to Mr. Travers, it is a loss of 10 lots to the project. Councilman Haag asked that the Council hear from the Planning Director. Mr. Williams stated the Staff recommendation and a history of this project has been submitted in a memorandum to the City Manager, dated August 20, 1956, - copies of which had been sent to the Councilmen. He read the report in full, pointing up the fact that the Staff's recommendation for the waterway is an average distance of 200 feet from the closest points on the seawall to the closest points on the peninsulas. Councilman Hove stated he appreciated the text of Mr. Travers' remarks - however, he realized the Planning Board has devoted a lot of time to this matter and he knew that any recommendation it has made, has been made in good faith. He said he knew the Board's recommendation has come after serious consideration on its part. He said he was sorry more time has not been spent on the entire project and in this respect, he felt the point had been reached where nothing should endanger the development. He expressed thanks to the Board for spending so much time freely. Councilman Moresi stated she had gone to San Rafael to inspect Marina Vista. It is very pleasant there and the homes are beautiful. She pointed out the Planning Board has made one recommendation, after very serious study - the Planning Staff has made another recommendation - Utah has made another recommendation in line with the lots being readily saleable. She noted that Utah has engaged Mr. Chaney, Marina Consul- tant, and she would like very much to hold the decision of the Council until it receives a copy of the report from him. She felt the Council should get some other expert opinion as to what is best economically and esthetically for the City. Councilman Haag stated the Council studied a map last night showing the waterway distance of 200 feet which seemed satisfactory. He wondered if the Planning Board is adamant in holding to its recommended distance of 250 feet and if Utah is adamant in holding to its 125-foot minimum, or if it wouldn't be better to reach a compromise and try to end this matter once and for all. Councilman McCall stated he concurred with Councilman Haag. The whole Council wants to satisfy all of the people of the community and the Council, as a Body, has deli- berated, just as Utah and the Planning Board has. Many evenings have been spent on this subject and to spend more money and time is not going to accomplish anything 4 further. The Council has reached an impasse and there should be a compromise. Councilman Hove asked if Utah can afford any more time? Mr. Travers replied that, as you know, the fill is in progress, as described before. The dike that is being constructed preparatory to building the fingers is practically finished. Stock- piling is in progress at the present time. If another two or three weeks is lost, the material will already be stockpiled and will be there to put into the area. He said the planning on this job is large in scope and it does require a great deal of time to plan soundly. Time is precious and he said he is not sure Utah could buy the necessary time for additional study. He stated that, ordinarily, everyone in his organization thinks well of compromise - it is generally a good idea - a good way to settle differences - but if Utah had thought it was developing a plan that was going to be subjected to what it has gone through in this plan it might well have given consideration to setting up distances which were much more out of proportion - lower water widths, to give leeway for increasing them. He said, however, actually Utah recommended 100 feet west of Grand Street and 75 feet east of Grand Street, based on studies which were thought sound and, in the spirit of compromise, Utah agreed to increase them to 125 feet and 95 feet, respectively. He explained in detail the reason why, at the Board meeting of June 29, the subject of distances between the seawall and the fingers was not decided upon. Mr. Travers said Utah has tried to be fair and forthright. If the Planning Board's recommendation were to be approved by the Council, there would be no lagoon plan at all. Utah does not have to - under the Agreement, there is nothing called for com- pelling Utah to plan a lagoon system. As an example of Utah's good faith, it was decided upon after having put in 350,000 yards of fill. However, the lagoon system is a good plan and Utah will absorb this expense and is moving this fill out and making lagoons. He referred to rulings of the Council and the Board being based on the degree of reasonableness and asked if Utah's plan does not meet that test - is it not a reason- able plan for the Council to approve - and if it does meet the test, that is a mighty important point to consider. He said Utah can complete the fill and dispose of the land by selling it in the unimproved state - there is nothing to prevent Utah from doing that - but there is nothing that would do more to disappoint the concept of this project. In response to Councilman Haag's question as to the possibility of further study, Mr. Traver's said the answer is very nearly a "No" because of the time element - but he hated to be put in this position. He said Utah would try to do anything reason- able to expedite the settlement of the matter. Councilman Haag asked, "You haven't closed the door to compromise?" Mr. Travers replied, "If it is a compromise that (1) would not cost Utah any more money and (2) would not cut down on its expected income from the land." Councilman Haag stated, "You agree, if there will be a loss of 10 lots - there is no room for compromise?" Mr. Travers replied, "That is correct". Councilman McCall asked if it is Utah's intention to go to a depth of 6 feet in the lagoon. Mr. Travers replied he felt that is possible to achieve. Councilman McCall stated the Planning Board has made a recommendation that the average width of 250 feet be maintained from the present shoreline to the tips of the land fingers. He felt the Council would like to compromise and that a 200-foot average be maintained throughout the project. He thereupon moved the Council not accept the recommendation of the Board but, instead, it accept the recommendation of the Planning Director that the average width of 200 feet be maintained from the south shore perimeter to the tips of the fingers. The motion was seconded by Councilman Haag. Mr. Travers stated he thought this matter is so very serious to Utah that the Council would want to know directly from the Management what the Company's intentions would be. He very respectfully suggested the Council take appropriate time to learn the views of the Company directly. He said the importance and seriousness of this decision will be of such import to Utah that it will be proper for the Council to know what the alternatives are before the decision is made. At this point, with the consent of his second, Councilman McCall withdrew his motion. President Kranelly suggested the Council postpone action until it has had a meeting with the Management of Utah - and asked Mr. Travers how soon a meeting should be held. Mr. Travers answered, "At the earliest convenience". President Kranelly said the Council Committee will be composed of Councilmen Haag, McCall and Moresi - and the matter will be deferred until after the meeting with Utah officials. 12: From the F allow construct rst Savings and Loan Association, requesting a revocable Permit to on of a low planter, approximately 40 feet in length along its northerly property line and extending about 20 inches into the existing City property. This is in connection with its new branch office at 1416 Park Street. It was also stated the necessary liability insurance will be provided by the Association. The matter was referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation - and the City Manager was instructed to acknowledge the letter. 13. From the City of Richmond, extending an invitation to the City Council and City officials to attend the Dedication Ceremonies of the Richmond -San Rafael Bridge, to be held on Friday morning, August 31,1956, at the Richmond Toll Plaza. President Kranelly stated several officials plan to attend and the invitation will be acknowledged accordingly. �4 From the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, signed by Stanley D. Whitney, President, urging the City Council and the Management of Utah Construction Company, Utah Dredging Company and the Reclamation District No. 2087, to use their best efforts and the advice of skilled engineering authorities to see that the project of the south shore fill and development might be brought to a successful conclusion, with a minimum of time, effort and expense. The Chamber expressed its confidence in the ability of the Council to solve this problem and offered its assistance in connection therewith, if needed. President Kranelly thanked the Chamber for its endeavor to do whatever possible to further this development. He pointed out the Council, too, would like to see this project completed as soon as possible. The letter was then referred to the file. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1/. Mr. Frank Gottstein stated it was a shame to let a representative of Utah Construction Company occupy the floor of the Council and take so much time to speak in favor of his project - when no one else had an opportunity tos peak. President Kranelly pointed out the discussion tonight was solely for the purpose of the Council gaining information about the south shore project and he felt there was nothing to be gained by hearing on the subject from anyone else present. 16. Mr. Lawrence Picetti, 1269 Caroline Street, stated that if the lagoons are extending 125 feet out from the seawall, what percentage of land owned by individuals from the seawall out will be affected. He asked that the Council consider how many lots are being lost by people who are completely within the project. Upon request, the City Manager stated it is true that Utah had negotiated to fill - but the lagoon system plan has altered the situation. Some of the lots run all the way out - that is one of the problems of the Reclamation District. These people own land there and it is one consideration that must be given careful thought, particu- larly from the point of view of disposal of storm water - there will have to be a continuous channel. The Reclamation District will have to acquire those lands for that purpose. The wide lagoon at the levee covers an area which is not owned by Utah, but is under the Reclamation District. They will have to acquire those properties so the City of Alameda can get a complete unobstructed channel down there. Mr. Froerer stated there are a number of instances of this kind where pri- vately owned land runs out into the Bay. Mr. Annibale stated this is a problem of the Reclamation District. The City's position is that, in one manner or another, there is going to have to be guaranteed to the City a perpetual easement over those tidelands. Mr. Picetti stated he thought Utah is not losing as many lots as it claims to be. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: 17. From Donald D. Lum, M. D., President of the Alameda Board of Education, request - ing a leave of absence from his duties as a member of the Board, during the period from August 21, to October 15, 1956. Councilman Moresi moved the request of Dr. Lum be granted and he be allowed a leave of absence during the period specified. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and unanimously carried. J 18. From the City Manager, recommending Fire Chief Thomas M. Lane be authorized to attend the Conference of the Pacific Coast Inter - Mountain Fire Chiefs' Association, to be held in Sacramento from August 21, to 24, 1956, and D90. be appropriated for his expenses. Councilman McCall moved the City Manager's recommendation be approved; that Fire Chief Lane be authorized to attend the specified Conference for the period desig- nated and 390. be appropriated for his expenses. The motion was seconded by Councilman Haag and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 19. Fromthe City Manager, recommending Mr. Gene Saalwaechter, Director of Recreation and Physical Education, be authorized to attend the Northern California Recreation Leadership Preparation Workshop, as a representative of Recreation Administration, to be held at Hobergs from October 13, to 15, 1956 and 825. be appropriated for this purpose. Councilman Haag moved the City Manager's recommendation be adopted; that Mr. Saal- waechter be authorized to attend the Workshop during the period specified and 525. be appropriated to cover his expenses. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hove and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 20. From the City Manager, recommending Mr. Werner King, Director of Sanitation, be authorized to attend the Institute of the Directors of Sanitation, to be held at Asilomar on September 18, and 19, 1956; that 820. be appropriated for his expenses and permission be granted for use of a City automobile for transportation. Councilman Hove moved the City Manager's recommendation be accepted; that Mr. King be authorized to attend the Institute during the time indicated, 520. be appropriated to cover his expenses and he be permitted to use a City automobile for transportation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Moresi and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 21 From the City Manager, recommending Mr. Forrest V. Routt, Jr., Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Board and Personnel Director of the City, be authorized to attend the Annual Conference on Public Personnel Administration of the Civil Service Assembly, to be held in Washington, D. C., from October 7, to 12, 1956, and 8500. be appropriated for his expenses. Councilman Moresi moved the City Manager's recommendation be approved; that Mr. Routt be authorized to attend the designated Conference for the period specified and 8500. be appropriated to cover his expenses. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None, Absent: None, 22. From the City Manager, requesting authorization to dispose of certain scrap metal accumulated at the Corporation Yard. Councilman McCall moved the City Manager's request be granted and he be authorized to dispose of the scrap metal indicated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Haag and unanimously carried. 23. From the City Planning Board, recommending the denial of the petition from Donald J. and May Ellen. Bell, for the reclassification of their property known as 3207 Fernside Boulevard - from the "A-1" Dwelling District, to the "D" Commercial District, Councilman Haag moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be sustained and the Petition for reclassification of the property in question be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hove and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None. o/ 24. From the Mayor, City Manager and Deputy City Auditor, submitting their report on the Count of Money held on August 15, 1956 - showing the sum of 85,157,801.54 in the City Treasury. The report was noted and ordered filed. . From the Auditor and Assessor, informing the Council of a net increase of A87,388. in the estimated values of the Public Utility Roll - which makes the total new estimate of revenue B51,475,524. instead of '51,388,136. as originally set forth. The increase was noted with appreciation and the letter ordered filed. 26. From the City of Alameda, signed by the City Manager, requesting the Amendment and Division of Diagram and Assessment of one parcel, known as Nos. 122 and 123, in the Bay Farm Island Assessment District, Project No. 1, into two parcels to be known as Parcels Nos. 90-22 and 121. The matter was referrer to the City Engineer for his report and laid over to the meeting of September 18, 1956 for Hearing. 27. From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Installing Chain Link Fence at the Alameda Swim Center, recommending it be accepted [ and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Hove moved the City Manager's recommendation be adopted; that the work on this project be acepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Moresi and unanimously carried. 28. From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed in connection 4. tci with the Rental of Grading Equipment for construction work at the New Municipal Golf Course, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Moresi moved the City Manager's recommendation be approved; that the work on this project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and unanimously carried. 29, From the City Manager, recommending an extension of time to September 20, 1956, be granted to Utah Construction Company for completion of the project of Constructing the Washington Park Levee. Councilman McCall moved the City Manager's recommendation be adopted; that the extension of time as indicated be granted to Utah Construction Company for completion of this project. The motion was seconded by Councilman Haag and unanimously carried. 3 From the City Manager, recommending a thirty-day extension of time be granted to Zamora Wrecking Company for completion of the wrecking of buildings located on certain off-street parking sites. Councilman Haag moved the City Manager's recommendation be followed; that a thirty- day extension of time be granted to this firm in which to complete its project. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hove and unanimously carried. 31. From the Advisory Golf Commission, signed by Elliot Peterson, Secretary, con- cerning the rates for play on the new nine holes, as follows: 9 holes, any day, 8.75; 18 holes, Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays, $1.50; 18 holes, Mondays to Fridays, inclusive, $1.25. It was stated a survey has been made of the current playing rates of most public golf courses in this area and those of the Alameda Course are competitive. Therefore, the Commission recommends against increasing rates at this time. Councilman Hove moved the Commission's recommendations be adopted and the rates be established as set forth. The motion was seconded by Councilman Moresi and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 32. From the Recreation Commission, requesting the Council to send representation to the following recreation programs: Dinner honoring participants in the Midget and Little Coast League Baseball programs, to be held at Lincoln Park Recreation Center, Thursday, August 30. Also, the Second Annual A11-City Age Group Swimming Championships to be held at Alameda Swim Center on Saturday, September 8, and Sunday, September 9, 1956. President Kranelly stated the Council plans to be represented at these affairs. V 33. From the Recreation Commission, recommending floodlight charges for reserved use of Lincoln and Washington Park softball athletic areas, as follows: 81.00 per hour for Alameda organizations and teams entered in Recreation Department sponsored leagues - and $1.50 per hour for out of City and outside of league teams and organizations. 34. From the Recreation Commission, recommending that Rule 10, covering Permits for Use of the Building, under General Rules of the Lincoln Park Recreation Center, be changed to exclude the words "religious or". Rule 10 presently reads as follows: "No permits will be issued to any group for the purpose of conducting a religious or political (partisan) meeting". It was pointed out the City Attorney had rendered a Councilman Moresi moved the recommendation of the Recreation Commission be adopted and the fees as specified be charged. The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. legal opinion on this matter. Councilman McCall moved the Commission's recommondation be adopted and the words "religious or" be excluded from Rule 10. The motion was seconded by Councilman Haag and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 35. Councilman Hove 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 Subdivision (70) to Section 17-432 Thereof, Relating to Stop Intersections." (Taylor Avenue and Ninth Street) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 364. The matter was presented concerning the request from Mr. Gustaf A. Johnson for the refund of ,3.26 paid as personal property tax on his boat. A recommendation was 4 ?1 submitted from the Auditor and Assessor that the refund be made, as the tax had been levied in error. Councilman Haag moved the recommendation of the Auditor and Assessor be followed and a refund of $3.26 be made to Mr. Johnson. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hove and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 37. The matter was called up concerning the request from Mr. and Mrs. Wilfrid Keene for additional time in which to vacate their mortuary business on Central Avenue, which property is one of the off - street parking sites. A lease on the premises, between the City and the Keenes has been negotiated and prepared and the matter was referred to "Resolutions ". 38. The matter was presented concerning the abatement of a public nuisance - a dilapidated building known as 2316 Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Annibale stated he had received a report from Mr. Brummer, Chief of Inspections Division, that this dwelling has been entirely removed - and that the building known as 2318 Lincoln Avenue is also in the process of being razed. Therefore, the matter can be laid over to the meeting of September 18, for action at that time, if neces- sary. It was so ordered. RESOLUTIONS: 39. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hove, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5431 Proposing Two Charter Amendments on the Motion of the City Council; Calling a Special Municipal Charter Amendment Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors of Said City Two Proposals to Amend the Charter of Said City, viz: (1) To Amend Section 10 -2 of Article X, and Add Section 10 -4.1 to Article X, Relating to the Composi- tion of The City Planning Board, and the Terms Thereof, and (2) To Add Section 3 -19 to Article III, Relating to the Power of the Council to Cause an Integration of the City Health Department and the Health Department of the County of Alameda; Fixing the Date of Said Election, the Manner of Holding the Same, and Pro- viding for Notice Thereof; and Consolidating Said Special Municipal Charter Amendment Election with the General Election of the State of California to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 1956." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Moresi and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 40. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Moresi, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5432 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda Stating and Requesting Consolidation of a Special Municipal Charter Amendment Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 1956, with the General Election of the State of California to be Held on Tuesday, November 1956." 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. 41. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5433 Approving Warrants of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2087." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Haag and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 42. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Haag, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5434 Authorizing Execution of Contract with Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Advertising for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1957, and Appropriating $15,000. for Such Purposes." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hove and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 43. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hove, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5435 Directing the Mayor of the City of Alameda to Inform the Board of Administration of the State Employees' Retirement System of the Intention of the City of Alameda to Take the Steps Necessary for Participation in the State Employees' Retirement System ". The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Moresi and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 44. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Moresi, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5436 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Athletic Supplies and Equipment for Recreation Department for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1957, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." 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. 45. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman'McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5437 Authorizing Execution of Lease Between City of Alameda, Lessor, and George W. Murphy Mortuary, Lessee, for Period of Five Months, of Certain Real Property Condemned for Off- Street Parking Purposes." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Haag and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. President Kranelly thereupon declared all of the foregoing resolutions duly adopted and passed. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 46. "Ordinance No. 1194, New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subdivision (28) to Section 17 -342, Relating to Two -Hour Parking." Councilman Haag moved the ordinance be adopted as read. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hove and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Fave. Noes: None. Absent: None. 47. "Ordinance No. 1195, New Series An Ordinance Amending Section 13 -1933 of Title XIII, Chapter 1, of the Alameda Municipal Code, Relating to Business Licenses and Business License Fees." Councilman Hove moved the ordinance be adopted as read. The motion was seconded by Councilman Moresi and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. FILING: 48. Contract - Between City of Alameda and Chamber of Commerce for Publicity Services during fiscal year 1956 -1957. 49. Specifications - No. MS 8-56-22 - For Furnishing Athletic Supplies and Equipment for Recreation Department during fiscal year 1956-1957. 50. Lease - Between City of Alameda and Wilfrid and George Eleanor Keene. BILLS: 51. An Itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $34,583.03, was submitted to the Council at this meetl,ng. 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 August 21, 1956, and submitted to the Council at this time, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Haag and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 52. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, September 4, 1956, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,