Loading...
1953-03-23 Special CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 23, ---------- 1953 The meeting convened at 6:00 o'clock P. M. with President Osborn presiding. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Anderson, Branscheid, Jones, Sweeney and President Osborn, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. 1. The Clerk read the Call and. Notice of Special Meeting, acknowledgment of which had been signed by all members of the Council. She stated the Affidavits of Service also were on file, signed by Police Officer Jack Vollmer and City Attorney Clark. The notice set forth the purpose of the special meeting. - NEW BUSINESS: 2. /The first matter for consideration was a determination as to whether a Special Bond Election, in connection with the Recreation Program, shall be held and, if so, the employment of special counsel in the matter. Councilman Anderson moved that there be placed on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the City Council a Resolution determining that public interest and nec- essity demand the construction of certain municipal improvements connected with the expansion of the recreational facilities of the City; determining that the construction and completion of said municipal improvements is necessary and con- venient to carry out the objects, purposes and powers of the City; and determining that the cost of said municipal improvements will require an expenditure greater than that allowed therefor by the annual tax levy, and that the City Attorney be authorized to engage the services of the legal firm of Orrick, Dahlquist, Neff and. Herrington to prepare said Resolution and all other papers and documents necessary for the proper submission of the question of a bond issue to finance such improve- ments to the voters of the City and for the further purpose of certifying to the legality of all proceedings leading to the issuance of bonds, if issued. The motion was seconded by Councilman Branscheid. Speaking on the question, President Osborn stated he does not oppose any of the proposed improvements for the City of Alameda. He said he was strongly in favor of all improvements that have been promulgated but he does not believe this pro- posed plan which incorporates all improvements which should be made in the City, should be done now. He stated he felt there are a tremendous number of things needed for the development of the City and instead of going after them piecemeal by one bond issue now and others later it would be much more practicable to draft a complete program and submit it to the people of Alameda later. Councilman Jones stated the recreation program has been carefully worked out by the Recreation Commission. He said it has been gone over thoroughly and, while there are certain engineering features to be worked out, he felt it was ready to be voted on. He pointed out that the other projects mentioned are not ready to be submitted to the voters and, therefore, rather than deprive the children of this type of re- creation it would be well to present it to the people. He felt that now is the time to proceed with this particular matter. He pointed out that the Council has met with the recreation group and the necessity of getting started on this matter was recognized and it was felt inappropriate to allow any further delay. He empha- sized that the Council should take an absolutely united front in presenting this matter to the people. Councilman Branscheid stated the members of the Council have recognized the deficien- cies from a recreation viewpoint for many years. He felt that a unified program in this respect has been prepared for presentation to the people. He said it is not an elaborate one, but is widespread and takes into consideration all phases needed - one of the main features being that of swimming pools. He felt that to postpone action any further would be unfair. He agreed there are other phases of development and improvements needed in the City and plans for these can be carried on and sub- mitted at the time of future elections, but this recreation matter should be pre- sented at the earliest possible moment. Councilman Sweeney stated the Commission was organized to study and submit plans for a recreational program, it being felt these facilities in the City are lagging. He said the Commission has spent a lot of time and effort in giving analysis to this matter and it feels, in presenting this program, the necessities of today will be taken care of. The reason for getting together now, as far as possible, is that, after a thorough study of the situation, the Commission feels the City should have these facilities - an now. He stated he felt this is the opinion of the rest of the Commission, the members of which are here tonight. He also mentioned that he had never worked with a more thorough group than that appointed to this Commission. Councilman Anderson stated the two important phases of this program, as far as the Recreation Commission is concerned, have both come from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. He pointed out that well over two years ago, Alameda citizens went to work on this problem and have worked diligently and long on establishing some program. He said a committee of the Chamber of Commerce also went to work on a recreation program. He said he felt these two groups represented the people and, through these groups, the people have expressed themselves and he thought the Council is simply responding to the wishes of the people. He said that evi- dently the citizens of Alameda feel these are the most glaring deficiencies that should be taken care of immediately. He pointed out that as far as the other matters are concerned, they will be taken care of in due time. President Osborn stated he hoped he had not given the impression he was against this program - he reiterated that he was for it, but was merely opposed to the way in which it is being handled. The question was then called for and on roll call the motion carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Councilmen Anderson, Branscheid, Jones, Sweeney and. President Osborn, (5). Noes: None. Absent: None. 3. The matter was next presented concerning representation in Washington, D. C. in connection with the Alameda Bayside Construction Corporation situation. Councilman Anderson stated this situation was brought to a focal point last Wednes- day, at a meeting held in San Francisco with Captain Ransford, Head of Bureaus and Docks of the Navy Department. He stated the Mayor, Councilman Branscheid, the City Manager and himself had attended. He said it was clearly brought out, in talking with Captain Ransford, that he is an engineer and builder and his problem is to build what the Navy desires. He said this meeting was in the nature of a hearing, at which the Mayor most capably expressed the feelings of the Council to the Navy. He pointed out that Captain Ransford clearly represented that any ob- jections the City had was something he could not answer in any way - any relief the City might expect must come from a City source - and the City must talk to its representatives in Washington, - Senator Knowland or Congressman Miller. He said the question is whether the Council is taking care of the City's interests properly by use of communications or whether the Council should send a representative to Washington to personally represent the City on this matter. President Osborn stated Captain Ransford had stated he had no authority to make a decision one way or the other. He had expressed his appreciation of the City's position concerning the passing of ownership of the City's land to the Navy and of the type of development to be built on the land if it were owned by the Navy and leased to the Alameda Bayside Construction Corp. He said that any relief the City might hope to get would have to come through the legislative body. President Osborn pointed out that Councilman Branscheid had expressed the opnion that if the City were to achieve any medium of success to keep this land for itself, it would only be done by personal representation in Washington. It was requested that considera- tion be given to the authorization of the City Manager to make the trip to Washing- ton to represent the City. Councilman Jones stated he wanted to know what the City hoped to accomplish and asked if there were any other matters that could be taken care of at the same time. Upon request, City Manager Froerer stated there has been pending for about eight years the matter of the replacement of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge and whether or not any constructive work could be done in Washington along this line is un- certain. He also pointed out that the City is faced with the dilemma of temporary war housing. He mentioned that he had attended a very interesting meeting last Friday in Sacramento, at which representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and other citizens had been present. He stated there is a joint resolution before the Senate at this time which would provide for the extension of the date of taking over this housing from June 3, 1953, to June, 1954, and he felt it would be to the best in- terests of the City of Alameda to obtain this extension of time. He said these are two pressing matters and there may be some others which he could take up. Councilman Sweeney moved the Council commission City Manager Froerer to go to Washington immediately and carry out the mission in connection with the disposition of temporary var housing and that of the Navy taking over certain acreage of the City and its contemplated subleasing thereof to Alameda Bayside Construction Corp. City Attorney Clark asked Councilman Sweeney to include in his motion that an ap- propriation be made to defray expenses of said trip. It was determined that $600, be allowed. Councilman Sweeney amended his motion accordingly which was then seconded by Councilman Jones. 358 At this point, Mr. A. Hubbard Moffitt asked if it would be appropriate for him to be heard at this time. He stated he wanted to make a protest insofar as the motion concerns the, purchase of the property owned by the Alameda Bayside Con- struction Corp. He said he has no quarrel with the comments or intervention with regard to the war housing, however, he did not feel there was a clear mandate, at this point to register a protest on the disposition by a private corporation of its property. He stated the Council and a few interested citizens in the community have protested but there has not been a clear mandate from the entire citizenry, nor has there been overwhelming support of the citizens to warrant the expenditure of public funds to send someone back to Washington to try to hinder the development of idle tidelands. He said that if it were true that the Chamber of Commerce was behind the suggestion that has been made, it would lend some weight. He said the Mayor and Councilmen have taken this position and a few others, including the West Alameda Association which has voiced its opposition. He pointed out that the meeting last week was called by Captain Ransford to bring together those who were opposing the project to see if something definite could be taken to the Commandant to clarify the situation. He said as far as the Twelfth Naval District is concerned, it is ready to proceed. He said he felt it might be wise to examine the counsel of the City Attorney to determine whether or not the Council- men might be liable to a suit for damages in preventing this project from being undertaken. He claimed the City is now on the threshhold of an opportunity to develop some underwater land and to oppose the project is not to the best interests of the City. Councilman Jones stated he thought it would be well to bring out the point that when services are rendered, they are more to the people than to the land. He said that for the first several years, under a lease arrangement, the City would receive a given amount, but as a leasehold goes on, the amount of taxes would be reduced and eventually the sum the City would receive would reach the vanishing point. He emphasized that the Council is by no means ignoring the interests of the City. Considerable discussion ensued concerning details involved if the Federal Government were to take over - subsidies, number of units, costs and revenue. Councilman Anderson pointed out that when property is given away it is gone forever. He felt that land is the soundest investment any person or community can possess and he said he strongly felt the Council should send a representative to Washington - but he said that, before voting on this question, he wanted to know if the City Councilmen, as individuals, were legally responsible for any legal action in preventing the sale of this land. In response to this inquiry, City Attorney Clark stated that when one reviews this entire situation - going back to the first time Congress Construction Corporation applied for a reclassification of this property for its proposed project - and coming right down to the present situation, you will find that the City has a very vita.1 stake in the matter and good defense. He explained that the first time the Corporation came before the City Planning Board for rezoning, it submitted plans, rough to be sure, but at that time, as of later, the representation was made, which was believed by the City Council, that the property would be privately owned, privately constructed and privately operated. He pointed out the initial appli- cation for rezoning was rejected by the Board and so recommended to the Council, because of the nature of the construction. He said that six months later, or thereabouts, another application was before the Planning Board and at that time, Mr. Lee, representing a firm of architects, and the Congress Construction Corpora- tion appeared before the Council and submitted a very handsome model of what was contemplated. This model was displayed before the Chamber of Commerce and it was stated by the representatives of the Corporation, including Mr. Lee, that this was exactly what they proposed to build on the property under private ownership and the private development would continue. The Council and the Corporation came to a meeting of minds on that very question and, while no conditions were attached to the rezoning - the Council having been advised that such could not be attached - it was distinctly understood that was what was going to be done and that was the agreement - it having been specifically stated that the land would not be sold to the Navy. He stated, therefore, it was his opinion that the Council, in view of these circumstances, has a very vital stake in this matter, not only from the view- point of the development of lands within the City but also from the standpoint of revenue to be derived. He said that, as the matter stands now, it appears to be quite evident that the City will suffer from a loss of ad valorem taxes. He pointed out this is purely a local matter and the facts would constitute a good defense. Mr. Moffitt stated the proposal presently argued and before the Council now is not the one considered by this Body sometime ago. He stated this proposal is one between the Navy Department and the Alameda Bayside Construction Corporation and is only for the development of 500 units on 20 acres of land - it is not the one on which models were shown two years ago. President Osborn stated the Council understands perfectly well the conditions existing now - and stated that if Navy housing is to be built, it must be sub- sidized - and he felt it was his bounden duty to protect the City and its citizens. Councilman Anderson stated one point was brought out recently - in planning to build these 500 units, the Navy Department could not find a site in Oakland or San Leandro - neither of these cities wanted it. After some further discussion, the question was called for and the motion was carried on the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Anderson, Branscheid, Jones, Sweeney and President Osborn, (5). Noes: None. Absent: None. 4' last matter to come before the Council was that of authorization of the Mayor to attend a meeting of the Pacific Coast Board of Intercoast Governmental Relations at Portland, Oregon, April 2, to April 5, 1953, and making an appro- priation to defray the expenses of such attendance. Councilman Anderson moved the Mayor be sent to this meeting and the sum of not to exceed $250. be allowed for his expenses. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sweeney and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Anderson, Branscheid, Jones,Sweeney, and President Osborn, (5). Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 5. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, April 7, 1953, at 8:00 o'clock P. M. Respectfully submitted,