1972-02-01 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - - FEBRUARY 1, 1972
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman McCall and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend Raymond M. Currie, Acting Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held January 18, 1972, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From The Morning News, signed by Mr. Abe Kofman, Publisher, inviting the City to include an adver-
tisement in the special issue commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of
San Leandro.
It was directed that the communication be referred to the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for attention.
It was suggested that a letter of congratulations be sent to the City of San Leandro. The President
stated he would be glad to direct such a communication to the Mayor of that City.
3. From Mr. Frank A. Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, with regard to the proposed Charter amendments.
This letter was referred to the item under "Reports and Recommendations" pertaining to a communication
from the City Manager and the City Attorney on the Charter amendments proposed by the Charter Amendment
Advisory Committee.
4. v ffFrom the Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 180 in the amount of $21,405.94 payable to Paul Bouillin Enterprises
Incorporated.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
5. Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, requested the opportunity to speak under Items Nos. 2 and 3
of "Reports and Recommendations ".
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. From the Auditor and Assessor, requesting refund of taxes erroneously levied and collected.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
7. From the City Attorney, suggesting adoption of a statement of official position with regard to
matters being considered by the Regional Airports Systems Study ( "RASS ") Committee, submitting a proposed
"position paper" indicating concern with growth of airports and air traffic in the Bay Area because of
the deleterious effects on the City and mainly concern for the problems resulting from operations at the
Oakland Airport, the Mayor to present the statement before the Committee.
President La Croix remarked that this subject was of paramount importance to the City of Alameda and he
would be very happy as the Mayor of the City to present the suggested "paper" at the meeting of the "RASS"
Committee on Thursday, February 3, 1972, if this should be the direction of the Council.
Mrs. Lane, who had requested the opportunity to speak on the subject, addressed the Council. She said she
felt the report was very good but a very important point was missing, that of the physical hazard facing
the City due to the existence of the garbage dump in the area of the Airport. She said she had received
a report from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency which stated Oakland International Airport had
been given a top priority as to the airplane -bird hazard. She said there were eighteen garbage dumps in
the vicinity which contributed to the problem and the birds involved were seagulls; the problem would
still exist even with removal of the dump because of the tidelands. Mrs. Lane said she felt the physical
danger should be pointed out and made reference to crashes which had occurred in which the owners and
operators of the dumps had been held liable and paid damages. She raised the question of whether the City
would be liable in the event of a crash of a commercial airplane involving the City dump.
City Attorney Cunningham said the problem was not before the Council so there was no need for giving an
off -hand opinion. He pointed out, however, that an internationally known Aeronautical Engineer and Air-
port Consultant, Dr. Maurice Garbell, had been employed and, in subsequent study sessions of the "RASS"
Committee, he would deal with many problems as he was conversant with take -off patterns, altitudes at
which planes fly, et cetera, and it was hoped that technical problems would be left to him. Mr. Cunningham
said the purpose of the "position paper" was to "get a foot in the door" to give an overall position.
President La Croix commented that the City was very well represented before the bodies involved in this
type of study. He commended Mr. Bruce Aspinall of the Planning Department staff for the work he had done
in drafting the presentation and said, to his knowledge, Alameda was the only city in the Bay Area which
4
was challenging the study group on this subject and the reason was that great concern was felt for the
City and its citizens. He said he hoped the Council would see fit to adopt the proposed statement.
Councilman Longaker added his commendatory remarks with regard to the work of Mr. Aspinall on the
statement.
Councilman Fore moved, upon advice of the City Attorney, that the proposed statement be adopted for
guidance as the official position of the City Council with regard to the subject under discussion.
Councilman Longaker seconded the motion.
Councilman McCall said he felt it behooved the Council to make its thoughts known with regard to the
Oakland Airport. He commented on an article in the Oakland Tribune on the subject and stated he would
possibly challenge statements allegedly made by a staff member of the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission with respect to fill and development of Bay Farm Island and construction of the airport.
He commented on the recommendation that, in the event of fog or other difficulties, jet traffic should
be switched to the north airport and pointed out the City of Alameda had fought to get the pattern of
the jets to the southerly side of the port. He said there was presently a flight from Oakland at
approximately 11:00 o'clock p.m. which was very disturbing to him and to other residents in the
vicinity of his home. He suggested that all cities in the area join with the City of Alameda in
attempting to gain approval of a runway 5,000 feet offshore of the present Oakland Airport so that
plane traffic would be completely over the water and away from residential areas.
President La Croix said his presentation before the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee would speak
solely to the protection and best interests of the City, that Councilman McCall's remarks with regard
to a runway outboard of the present one made a great deal of sense and he felt the points raised should
be approached at the proper time.
The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
8. V, From the City Manager and the City Attorney, with reference to the changes proposed by the Charter
Amendment Advisory Committee, which had recommended that amendments to the City Charter be submitted to
the voters of the City, as follows:
(1) that the office of Auditor - Assessor become an appointive position designated as the Director of
Finance heading a centralized Finance Department, appointment to be made by the City Manager, and that
the position of Treasurer -Tax Collector become appointive and the duties be combined with the Finance
Department; (2) that the Council be authorized to contract with the County of Alameda for assessment
services and collection of property taxes; (3) that the residence requirement for persons to be elected
or appointed to elective office be one year; (4) that the fee to be received by Councilmen be estab-
lished at $100 per month; (5) that the Mayor of the City and President of the Council be allowed the
sum of $200 per month for expenses.
The Committee also recommended that the City Council take a formal position favoring consolidation of
local government elections, that no action be taken on districting, and that the proposed amendments
be placed before the electorate at the Primary Election in June, 1972, if possible, or as soon as
this could be done at a subsequent election.
President La Croix stated it would be necessary for the Council to establish priorities of the measures
on which consolidation would be requested. He again expressed appreciation to the members of the
Committee, chaired by Mr. William S. Godfrey. He recognized Mr. Godfrey, who said the Committee's
report had listed the suggested amendments in the priority order recommended by the group. He acknow-
ledged with appreciation the excellent help provided the Committee by Auditor - Assessor Martin, City
Attorney Cunningham and, particularly, Assistant City Manager Goss, who had attended all of the
Committee meetings and whose expertise in many fields had been of great assistance in the deliberations.
Councilman McCall expressed the opinion that the Mayor of the City and President of the Council should
receive at least $500 per month as a salary plus an expense allowance. He commended President La Croix
for his conduct of the office and pointed out his representation of the City on several Commissions
and Committees would certainly entail added expense. He cited examples of much greater amounts
received by other Mayors in the surrounding cities.
Mr. Godfrey pointed out that the Council had set down certain items on which it requested recommendations
from the Committee, not including the subject of Council compensation, and allowed latitude for discus-
sion of other provisions of the Charter if the Committee should so desire. He explained that the group
had set up bylaws indicating anyone desiring discussion of other items could bring up the subject in
written form and one member had indicated he felt it was ridiculous to have an elected Mayor at the
salary allowed by the Charter. Mr. Godfrey said he felt the Committee was attempting in its recom-
mendation on this point to send back to the Council the thought that the Mayor was not properly
compensated. As to the exact amount, he said, there had not been a great deal of discussion but he
believed the thought had been to suggest a minimum amount.
Mr. Cunningham pointed out the amounts recommended by the Committee, should they be accepted and
approved by the voters, would be in addition to the $200 monthly salary voted in by the electorate in
approving the elected Mayor measure.
Councilman McCall said he felt the voters should be given a choice and possibly should be allowed the
opportunity to vote on an alternate proposal of a $500 salary for the Mayor. He suggested the Charter
Amendment Advisory Committee might be requested to give this matter further study, taking into consider-
ation all facts and information available on the subject.
Mrs. Lane, who had requested permission to speak on this subject, asked that her letter dated January 10,
1972, on the proposed Finance Director be accepted as a second minority report, as it had been intended.
President La Croix said he felt this would not present a problem and he, as President of the Council,
would have no objection to accepting this communication as a minority report, if Mrs. Lane so desired.
There being no objections, the President directed that the letter be so designated, evidencing a
minority position.
President La Croix requested comments from the other members of the Council with regard to the report
under discussion, taking into consideration the date by which the matter must be submitted to the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors with request for consolidation with the State Primary Election on June 6, 1972.
Mr. Cunningham stated such a request must be in the hands of the County Board by March 24 and, at the
very latest, final action would have to be taken by Council adoption of appropriate resolutions at its
regular meeting of March 21, although he would prefer that action could be finalized prior to that date.
It was pointed out there was a strong possibility that it would not be possible to get all of the recom-
mended items on the June Primary ballot and it would have to be determined by the Council which of the
items would be the priority measures on which to seek consolidation.
There was discussion with regard to the suggestion of Councilman McCall with respect to the Mayor's compen-
sation, and referring the matter back to the Charter Amendment. Advisory Committee for additional study.
Mr. Weller expressed reluctance to recall the Committee into action in view of the fair probability that
it would not be possible to get the full number of measures on the ballot. He suggested an alternative
would be to prepare the proposal in ballot measure form and the Council could insert the desired figures
at the appropriate time.
After further discussion, it was decided that the matter would be resubmitted to the Committee for further
study and consideration and report back to the Council.
Councilman Longaker moved the report be accepted and the City Manager and the City Attorney be directed
to draft appropriate resolutions for presentation to the County requesting consolidation with the June 6
Primary Election and covering the amendments proposed, with the exception of the item relating to compen-
sation for the Mayor, for consideration by the Council at its next regular meeting on February 15.
Councilman Fore seconded the motion.
Mr. Goss called attention to the Committee's recommendation that the Council take a formal position favor-
ing consolidation of local government elections and that this position be communicated to the League of
California Cities and the Joint Committee for the Revision of the Elections Code. It was agreed that
this position was acceptable to the Council and amendment of the motion to this effect was satisfactory
to Councilmen Longaker and Fore.
After clarification by the City Attorney as to the intent of the motion, the question was put and the
motion, as amended, carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
9. , From the City Manager, recommending the public improvements in connection with the subdivision known
as Tract No. 3106 be accepted and the bond be released. This covered the development of Islandia No. 1
by Braddock & Logan.
Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation be adopted and the public improvements in connection with
said Tract No. 3106 be accepted and the bond be released. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
10. The matter was brought up with regard to the dedication of land or in lieu fee in connection with
the Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract No. 3378, the condominium development of Doric
Development Company at Shore Line Drive and Willow Street.
President La Croix recalled that this Map had been approved at the last regular meeting of the Council
on January 18, with the exception of the provision for land dedication or in lieu fee, on which questions
had been raised as to whether the criteria had been met in accordance with provisions of Ordinance No,
1627, New Series. A memorandum dated January 28, 1972, from the City Manager indicated that requirements
had been met under the Ordinance in its present form.
Councilman Longaker expressed the opinion that the Ordinance would have to be restudied, reworded and
tightened up. He said he felt with regard to the development under discussion the Council had no alter-
native but to accept the fact that sufficient land had been set aside in terms of space for recreation
and this should be the finding of the Council. He moved that the 31,682 square feet of land be accepted
as open space in lieu of payment of fee.
Councilman Levy, in seconding the motion, said he felt no apologies were needed with regard to the
development under consideration, that the developer had worked very closely with City Departments, it was
a good project and it would be beneficial to the City.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall quoted from Mr. Weller's memorandum dated January 28, 1972,
on the subject and suggested "it be made clear that each Planned Development would be judged upon its
particular circumstances and that the degree of offsetting credit established would depend upon evaluation
of each standard set forth in Section 11 -328 of the Ordinance ". He requested that this clause be made
a part of the motion.
Upon suggestion of the City Manager and the City Attorney, the motion was accordingly modified to state
the City Council had specifically found that the standards set out in subsections (a), (d) and (e) of
Section 11 -328 of the Municipal Code had been met, and that subsections (b) and (c) of this Section could
not be found to have been complied with at this time and prior to, or concurrently with, the approval of
the Final Map there would have to be a written agreement provided for in subsection (b) as well as evidence
of the validly recorded covenents showing that the use could not be defeated or eliminated. The amendment
6
was acceptable to Councilmen Longaker and Levy. The question was put and the motion, as amended,
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
President La Croix said he felt the Ordinance as it presently read tied the hands of the Council and
it was not a good regulation. He said he felt great pressure would be brought to bear on the City in
future development for recreational land and services and the City could not and should not expect
developers to provide their own recreational services for the people who would enjoy these amenities
and not expect that some of these services would have to be picked up by the City. He expressed the
hope that the Council could re- evaluate the Ordinance as to its effect on the City and what it would
permit the Council to do. He said he felt there would have to be a change in the provisions if the
City were to be developed as planned and still provide safeguards to the proper recreational needs and
open space. He said he would hope that in the near future the City Manager could come back with
information for discussion as to change in the Code to provide that the small condominium developer
would not "get a slap in the face" and have to pay fees while the large developer would be able to
provide merely open space in lieu of fees. He said he felt the City would suffer in the years ahead
unless it could come up with some opportunity to derive honest and proper funds from these developers.
Mr. Weller said the staff was well aware of the problem and he felt the dilemma was caused by the
attempt to develop an objective set of criteria and at the same time write an ordinance which would be
legal. He said the ordinances which had been reviewed in this connection provided for a high degree
of subjective judgment which was inherently unfair as it would depend upon the individual subjective
judgment of the City Council, the Planning Board or whoever might be involved; on the other hand, it
could not be said in all equity that everyone was to pay a certain amount per unit as the situation
would not be the same with respect to every development. He said the field was a new one and he felt
it would be a mistake to look at it only in terms of recreation as the same problems existed in
connection with sanitary sewers, storm drainage, in some cases part of the street system, fire stations,
and many other things, and there was no easy answer. What was needed was something which would provide
guidelines which could be interpreted by any reasonable person in the same way so that the City would
not be confronted with the situation where this City Council would say this was the answer in this
particular case and another City Council with the same set of conditions would come up with a different
conclusion.
Councilman McCall pointed out that the one who would pay in the end in these matters would be the taxpayer.
RESOLUTIONS:
11. V The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7878
Ordering Cancellation and Refund of Personal Property Taxes Erroneously
Levied and Collected."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
12.v/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7879
Authorizing Application to United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Grant to Develop Open Space Land (Lincoln Park)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
It was explained that the amount involved in the application was approximately $20,000 and the total
package was about $100,000.
13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7880
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Construction of
Arch Culverts at Various Locations in the City of Alameda, Calling for Bids
and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
14.j The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7881
Approving Warrant No. 180 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District
No. 2105."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
57
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
15. Councilman Longaker moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsection (5)
of Section 14 -212 Thereof, Relating to Fire Zone No. 1." (North end of
Webster Street, westerly side)
The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
16. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $60,752.44, 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 Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on February 1,
1972, and presented to the City Council at this meeting be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
17. _'.. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, expressed disapproval of the proposal to increase the Mayor's
compensation again so shortly after having the matter on the ballot previously, although he approved of
the amount at $400 or $500 per month. He said he felt it was a mistake to have for the office of Mayor
or Councilman a man who held two jobs, that self - employed men should serve in these capacities, and also
the Mayor should be a practical man with practical knowledge. Mr. Gottstein also suggested the Councilmen
should receive additional compensation.
18. Mr. Gottstein again brought up the subject of a fence constructed in the development of the condo-
minium subdivision at Portola Avenue and Ninth Street. He repeated his arguments with regard to his
request that the twenty -foot length of fence which was six feet four inches, according to his claims, be
reduced to six feet in height and asked that the other members of the Council who had not done so express
their thinking on the matter.
Mr. Gottstein said he felt the condominium developers had been given more privileges than he had anti-
cipated.
19. President La Croix thanked all those in attendance for being present, especially the young people
in the audience, apparently students in the governmental classes.
FILING:
20. Specifications No. PW 2 -72 -2 - Construction of Arch Culverts at Various Locations in the City.
ADJOURNMENT:
21. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, February 15, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk