1972-02-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY FEBRUARY 15, 1972
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Longaker and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by
The Reverend Dr. Wilfred H. Hodgkin, Rector of Christ Episcopal 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 February 1, 1972, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. °° From the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, signed by Mr. R. D. Marquardt, Executive
Director, submitting a check in the amount of $10,000 covering in lieu tax payment for 1971 -72.
President La Croix stated this check had been presented to him by Mr. Howard K. Palmer, Jr., Chairman
of the Authority, and Mr. Marquardt and it had been turned over to the City Manager for deposit. He
commented that the City had had an excellent relationship with the Housing Authority and its staff and
it was hoped this would continue in the future.
At the suggestion of Councilman McCall, President La Croix explained that the Authority was not required
to pay taxes to the City but it felt an obligation because of services rendered by the City.
3. 'e/ President La Croix at this time recognized several young people in the audience who were visiting
Alameda under the American Field Service program and their host families during their stay in the City.
He introduced and welcomed Mrs. Jack Harris, representative of the Field Service program, Miss Golda
Gittens from Barbados, attending Alameda High School, and her Alameda parents, Rev. and Mrs. William
Hunter; Miss Tove Malmedal of Norway, attending Encinal High School, and her Alameda hosts, Mr. and Mrs.
William Eastman; Bertil Lindblad of Sweden, attending Encinal High School and Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Wade;
Rosler Mason of Liberia, attending Encinal High School and residing with Commander and Mrs. Earl Rivard;
and Renato Stein of Brazil, attending Alameda High School, and his Alameda parents, Rabbi and Mrs.
Gunther Gates and their family.
President La Croix congratulated Mrs. Harris on her participation in the program and the parents who
had taken into their homes these fine and outstanding students. He offered the services of the Council
and of the City Departments with any information or aid possible. All were greeted with a hearty round
of applause, after which the young people and members of the Council assembled to be photographed for
the occasion.
HEARINGS:
4. V In the Matter of Vacation of Two Public Service Easements located in the subdivision known as
Tract 3270 at Portola Avenue and Ninth Street.
The Clerk stated there were on file Affidavits of Publication and of Posting of the Notices required in
this matter.
City Engineer Hanna said the vacation related to improvements just completed at the east end of Portola
Avenue in connection with the condominium subdivision at that location. He said there had been a City
sewer main running through the property and also a storm sewer coming from the foot of Ninth Street.
In order to construct the buildings of the development it had been necessary to move the pipes and it
had been determined during the Tentative Map stage that the sanitary and storm sewers would be moved
from the area of construction. Easements had been provided and sewers had been constructed in the new
locations and the City had no present or future need for the old easements which were no longer in use.
City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the City Council was to hear from all interested persons
concerning the proposed vacation of the storm water and sanitary sewer public service easements described
in Resolution of Intention No. 7876, adopted by the Council at its regular meeting of January 18, 1972,
and, further, to determine whether such easements were necessary for present or prospective public use
and whether the vacation was in the public interest. He pointed out that the City Engineer had made
affirmative findings on these two points.
On the call for comments, Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, expressed disapproval of the fact that
the easements were to be vacated after construction of the buildings rather than previous thereto. He
said he had given the easements to the City at no cost and the new development had been a detriment and
a great deal of trouble to him and his property.
After clarifying explanation by City Manager Weller, in the absence of further comment, the Hearing was
declared closed.
There being no objections, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions ".
RESOLUTIONS:
5. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
3 �J
"Resolution No. 7882
Ordering Vacation of Portions of Public Service Easements (In Tract 3270,
Portola Avenue -Ninth Street)."
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.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending denial of a petition to rezone from
the "R -1 ", One- Family Residence, and the "R- 2 -PD ", Two - Family Residence, Planned Development District, to
the "C- 1 -PD ", Neighborhood Business, Planned Development District, certain property of approximately six
acres at the northwest corner of County and Mecartney Roads, Bay View Development Company, petitioner.
The Hearing on this matter was set for the next regular meeting of the Council on March 7, 1972.
7. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending rezoning of nine parcels as indicated
on maps submitted, to correct certain discrepancies in the Zoning Map.
The Hearing on the matter was also set for the Council meeting of Tuesday, March 7, 1972.
8. From the Assistant City Manager, outlining a proposal for an off - street parking survey received from
Dr. D. Jackson Faustman, Consulting Traffic Engineer. This was in connection with the request of the
Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' Associations that steps be taken to provide additional off -
street parking facilities and the Council's action at its meeting held January 18, 1972, approving employ-
ment of an expert to make a study of the City's needs in this respect.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman Levy moved. the City enter into a contract with Dr. Faustman
to conduct a traffic study as indicated and the President be authorized to execute the agreement, commenting
that the report was very comprehensive and he felt the result would be something very knowledgeable and
worthwhile. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
On request, Assistant City Manager Goss briefly explained the project proposal by Dr. Faustman, who, he
said, was the only possessor of a Doctorate in parking engineering with extensive practical background in
planning off- street parking. Dr. Faustman proposed evaluation of the existing off - street parking conditions
in the City, identification of the need for additional such facilities based on the service for affected
areas, development of a proposed plan to meet the needs; projection of the annual revenue and expenses on
existing and proposed facilities and provision of a general analysis of the economic feasibility of any
proposed projects. Mr. Goss said Dr. Faustman had indicated that he would in the process look at various
alternatives as to size of projects and sources of funding which he might recommend. The cost of the
study projects was indicated in the proposal as $4,750 although there might be some additional costs with
regard to preliminary appraisals; however, Mr. Goss said he felt the amount could be kept within the
budget and the funds would come from parking meter moneys.
President La Croix pointed out the survey would cover all business areas of the City with regard to parking
needs,:
9. From the Charter Amendment Advisory Committee, signed by Mr. William S. Godfrey, Chairman, with
regard to the proposed Charter amendment concerning the Mayor's compensation.
The Committee, in its letter of January 12, 1972, had recommended that a proposed Charter amendment be
submitted to the electorate to provide for a Mayor's expense allowance of $200 per month. Councilman
McCall had indicated he felt the compensation for the Mayor should be at least $500 per month salary plus
an expense allowance and the Council had referred the question back to the Committee with the request that
it be given further study. The report of the Committee now under consideration stated it had rescinded
its previous action and now recommended that the Charter be amended to increase the Mayor's compensation
from $200 to $350 per month. This amount, along with the $50 expense appropriation for the Mayor and the
recommended increase in the fee paid to Councilmen to $100 per month would provide the Mayor a total
compensation amount of $500 per month.
Councilman McCall expressed his satisfaction with the revised recommendation of the Committee.
President La Croix, for the edification of the audience, read the contents of the communication.
Councilman Fore stated he would vote against this item as the Council, in forwarding its original request
to the Committee, had not asked that a study be made on the matter of increasing the salary of the Mayor
or the Councilmen.
President La Croix pointed out the Committee had studied this issue on its own initiative, feeling that
studies which had been made in other cities and evaluation of the Mayor and Councilmen salaries was a
subject its members wished to consider. He reiterated his previous statement that he had had no part in
raising the question and had not advocated an increase in the Mayor's compensation.
Councilman Levy moved the report of the Charter Amendment Advisory Committee in this matter be accepted.
Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes:
Councilman Fore, (1). Absent: None.
Councilman Longaker commented for the information of those in the audience that the Mayor spent a tremendous
amount of time in carrying out the functions of his office and as the ceremonial head of the City. He said
360
he felt the suggested salary was a token payment for one who was worthy of the compensation. He
reiterated statements previously made with regard to the compensation of the Mayor of San Leandro.
Councilman Fore expressed his objection to statements of this kind.
President La Croix expressed appreciation for the work of the Committee in reconvening and restudying
this issue for report to the Council.
10. From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Secretary, submitting a report and recommendations
with respect to the Golf Courses.
The Clerk stated a communication had been received on this date from Mr. Robert M. De Lamater, 89 Mait-
land Drive, protesting leasing of the Courses.
President La Croix recalled that a joint meeting had been held with the Recreation Commission some time
ago, at which time the Commission had been requested to make a study for report and recommendation to the
Council on possible solutions to the problems existing at the Golf Courses. He recalled the Council had
indicated at that time that it would not consider selling the South Course and its interest was in
receiving other proposals to solve the difficulties.
The recommendations of the Commission, as presented by its Golf Committee, were as follows: (1) that
the South Course be closed immediately, operating only the North Course, on the premise that the deficit
would be considerably reduced; (2) that the City continue to operate both Courses under conditions
similar to those existing at the present time, accepting a continuing deficit; (3) that an architect
be retained to develop a preliminary plan for remodeling the South Course, suggesting the hiring of Mr.
Robert Dean Putnam, Golf Course Architect; (4) that the Golf Course properties be leased to a private
firm to operate, maintaining a close rapport with the Director of Recreation, the Commission and the
City in general. It was stated that Beachcomber Golf had submitted an offer to redevelop the South
Course. The committee indicated it felt only the last two options would provide practical solutions to
the problem.
President La Croix said he would like to see the Council move as expeditiously as possible in arriving
at an answer and a course of action for the solution of the existing problems with regard to the Courses.
He expressed the opinion that the situation was much improved over what it had been six months previously
because of action by the Council, the Recreation Commission and the Department to better the conditions.
He suggested that a joint meeting be set up as soon as possible with the Commission and the City Council
for an open session where people might speak in this regard and the Council might deliberate on the
recommendations submitted.
Councilman McCall commented that there were many faithful City employees, some of whom were present, who
were very disturbed at this time with regard to the future of their positions and their security in the
community. He said he felt they should be told the truth of the situation and requested that the City
Manager be directed to discuss with the Golf Course employees the status of their jobs as the subject
had been already considered. He pointed out the Council was not fully aware of the proposal of the
Beachcomber Golf and he felt this should be openly discussed so that everyone would know what was trans-
piring, that he realized it was difficult to work when one's job was in jeopardy and the situation could
have a detrimental effect on the condition of the South Course and he did not want to see such a thing
happen.
Mr. Weller said he felt such a discussion with the employees would be premature as he did not know what
the details of the lease proposal might be and this was only one of the alternatives suggested by the
Commission. He said he could say that one of the serious considerations of the Recreation Director
and himself was what would heppen to the Golf Course employees in the event the Council should go along
with the lease option, and this would be one of the elements which would be taken care of if the decision
tended to go that way. He said at this point he had no conviction one way or the other but had only
broad outlines of what might be proposed. He assured that the obligation of the City and its Departments
to the Golf Course employees would not be forgotten, and he would be happy to tell the employees the
same thing, that the decision with regard to the Courses would not be made on the basis of whether the
lease would be better for the City, irrespective of what would happen to the employees to whom the City
had an obligation and responsibility, to say nothing of the concessionaire employees.
President La Croix thanked Councilman McCall for raising the question and stated the City's first
obeisance would be to the employees of the Golf Course in connection with any change which might be made
in the operation. He suggested that the joint meeting be held on Tuesday, February 29, 1972, at 7:30
o'clock p.m. in the Council Chamber. This was satisfactory to other members of the Council and it was
directed that the Director of Recreation and Parks be consulted in the matter and, if satisfactory,
arrangements be made accordingly.
Mr. Weller was requested to acquire as much information as possible with respect to the proposal of
Beachcomber Golf to be submitted with a recommendation to the Council, so that it might deliberate there-
upon for the public's interest and so that interested residents would be informed on the subject.
RESOLUTIONS:
11.\. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7883
Rejecting Claim of Harold Burdette Kluckhohn Against City."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7884
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installation
of Storm Sewers in Pacific Avenue, Grand Street to Minturn Street, and
in Willow Street, Pacific Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue, Calling for
Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
13.tr° The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7885
Stating and Requesting Consolidation of a Special Municipal Election to
be Held Tuesday, June 6, 1972, with the Primary Election of the State of
California to be Held on Tuesday, June 6, 1972."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy.
The City Manager pointed out this resolution and the one following involved the specific proposals both in
order of priority and as to content and therefore they should be considered together and if there was to
be any discussion as to which items the Council wished to place on the ballot the question should be dis-
cussed prior to adoption of this resolution.
The City Attorney concurred. He requested that the City Clerk be authorized to change in the resolution
under consideration on Page 2, Measure E, the proposed compensation of the Mayor from $300 to $350 in
accordance with the recommendation of the Charter Amendment Advisory Committee which had been accepted by
the Council at this meeting, also that appropriate changes to the same effect be authorized in the title
and wherever it might appear in the following resolution. It was so ordered.
President La Croix explained for the information of the audience the intent of the resolutions under
consideration. He noted that the last item in the priority list concerned increase of the Mayor's compensa-
tion, where he felt it should be, and it was very possible the City would not be able to have the measure
included on the ballot.
Upon inquiry by Councilman Fore as to the possibility of combining Items Nos. 4 and 5 of the proposed
measures, Mr. Cunningham stated the five ballot questions would affect eight Charter sections and it had
been his understanding that the Council had accepted at its last meeting the delineation of the proposed
changes into five separate measures; the questions set forth in the resolutions now before the Council in
Measures A through E and Measure D covering Councilmanic salaries and Measure E on the Mayor's compensation
were to be separately stated.
The Clerk was requested to read the questions set forth in the resolution for clarification. On request,
Mr. Cunningham explained proposed Measure C amending the required prior residence period of certain officers
of the City from three years to one year, stating that in recent years the Courts had become more cognizant
and perhaps more liberal of the voting rights of persons, the qualifications to vote and to run for office;
the present California law merely required that a person be a California resident and reside in the precinct
for fifty -four days. He said many cities and counties throughout California and in other states had resi-
dence requirements as qualification for those who would run for elective office. The City's requirements
previously provided for a five year term which had been reduced to three years at the suggestion of the
Charter Amendment Advisory Committee active at that time. Recently there had been two cases, one of which
had held that Butte County, which had a provision requiring County residency of five years immediately
preceding election of its supervisorial candidates, had been struck down as being violative of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. The City of Santa Cruz, with a Charter section similar to that
of the City of Alameda requiring a three -year prior residency or elector status, had been struck down for
the same reason. The result in those two governmental agencies had been that they had no durational resi-
dential qualifications and to avoid this in the City of Alameda it had been suggested that the time of prior
residency required be reduced to one year, based on other cases which seemed to indicate it was still proper
to require one year's residency as a durational requirement for elective office.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, the question was then put and the motion carried by the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Fore, (1). Absent: None.
14. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7886
Proposing Amendments to the Charter of the City of Alameda Upon Motion of the
City Council; Calling a Special Municipal Charter Election in the City of Alameda
for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors Thereof Proposals to Amend Said
Charter, Viz: (1) By Amending Sections 2 -1 and 2 -3 Thereof, and Adding Section
3 -2.1 Thereto, Relating to the Establishment of a Centralized Finance Department,
by Providing that the City Council May Combine Functions of Administrative Depart-
ments, and That the Offices of Auditor and of Treasurer Shall Become Appointive;
(2) By Adding Section 3 -20 Thereto and Amending Section 17 -4 Thereof, Relating to
Authorization to the City Council to Transfer, by Ordinance, to the County of
Alameda Any or All the City's Property Assessment and Tax Collection Functions,
Subject to the Right of the City at its Option to Resume Said Functions; (3) By
Amending Section 2 -5 Thereof Reducing Period of Time, From Three Years to One Year,
Certain Officers Shall Have Been Electors of the City; (4) By Amending Section 2 -4
362
Thereof to Provide That Each Councilman Shall be Paid $100.00 Per Month,
Rather Then the Present Maximum of $40.00 Per Month; (5) By Amending
Section 2 -1.1 Thereof to Provide That the Mayor Shall Receive a Compensa-
tion of $350.00 Rather Than the Present $200.00 Per Month; Fixing Date
of Said Election, Manner of Holding Same, and Providing for Notice Thereof;
and Consolidating Said Special Municipal Charter Amendment Election with
the Primary Election of the State of California to be Held on June 6, 1972."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Fore, (1). Absent: None.
15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7887
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Reconstruction of
Central Avenue from Fourth Street to Webster Street, Calling for Bids and
Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall stated this was the first time he had seen a City street in
such a deplorable condition, with large holes left by the contractors. He said he felt it should be
mandatory that they return and make temporary repairs.
Mr. Hanna stated the first weekend the street had been extremely rough, his Department had been called
out and a cutback had been placed in the trenches which had settled a great deal because of the rain.
He said his experience had been that there had been some improvement.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
16. Upon inquiry by Councilman McCall, Mr. Cunningham explained that Primary and General Election Days
were no longer considered holidays and the Council would meet on those days unless it wished to announce
in advance and post that the regular meeting would be held the following day.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
17. "Ordinance No. 1661,
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)
Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
18. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $48,051.79, was presented to the Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the Acting 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 Febru-
ary 15, 1972, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
19. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, expressed the opinion that the Mayor should receive greater
compensation and also the Councilmen. He contended, however, that, in discussion of the subject at the
last meeting, the situation should not have been belittled with regard to the salary of the Mayor of
San Leandro. He reiterated his opinion that the Mayor should have one job unless he was self - employed,
that if a man has two major jobs the situation does not work out as it is impossible to be in two places
at the same time.
20. Mr. Gottstein brought up a complaint with regard to his properties on Ninth Street and on Portola
Avenue, a subject on which he had protested previously with regard to a fence which had been erected by
the condominium developers at this location and which he claimed was more than six feet high, according
to a statement of a City official. He requested that each of the Councilmen who had not done so give
his opinion on whether the fence should be cut down as being of illegal height.
President La Croix reiterated his advice that if Mr. Gottstein differed with the opinions of the City in
this matter his recourse would be to a legal suit.
Councilman Fore, after clarifying discussion with Mr. Gottstein, pointed out the Council had contended,
upon the information available, that the fence was legal and Mr. Gottstein had been ruled against.
363
Councilman Longaker expressed the opinion that once Mr. Gottstein had sold the property its development
was the business of the purchasers from that point on. He said he considered the fence legal upon advice
of the City Engineer.
Councilman McCall said Councilmen Levy and Longaker and the President had reported that the fence was
legal and that had satisfied him.
Mr. Gottstein stated on the Portola Avenue side of the condominium development a part of the parking area
has been taken from the street in front of his rental property, that formerly there had been space for
two small cars to park and now only one could be accommodated. He said a sidewalk had been constructed
across the end of the street for entry to the condominium property with a wide stairway and a platform of
about six feet. He contended there would have been no necessity for so doing if a concrete step had been
constructed. The situation now was that at the public sidewalk the platform stopped and a dangerous
condition had resulted.
On request, Mr. Hanna stated he was not familiar with the detail under discussion, that his Department had
spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter during the planning stage, doing everything it could with
it and giving every possible consideration to Mr. Gottstein's property.
Mr. Weller stated he had received a call from Mr. Gottstein and he had inspected the property on two
occasions. He said he felt the basic problem was that Mr. Gottstein had sold an additional 2.6 feet of
the east line of his property to Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett in connection with the condominium develop-
ment and this was the area on which most of the landing or platform rested. He said he had a sketch of the
area involved and had requested that Mr. Robert Venable of the Planning Department inspect the property.
It was their joint conclusion that there was no encroachment on private property, that there was certainly
a parking problem which had existed probably ever since the sea wall was constructed and had undoubtedly
been aggravated by the addition of the eight -unit condominium development. He repeated that, if there was
a question of whether there was an encroachment or any inhibition against the use of Mr. Gottstein's
property, his action should be against Lindsey, Gallagher & Willett or against the owners of the condominiums.
He said the only other element involved was the change in the curb line at the extreme northeast end of
Portola Avenue which had been dictated, in the judgment of the City Engineer's office, in order to effect
proper drainage of the area, which he felt would not interfere with parking activities at the curb. He
pointed out there were several problems, the width of the street, the existence of palm trees and a guy
wire, so there was a parking problem on the north side of the street but it was not associated with the
development in question nor was anything else which had been put in as a part of the condominium project.
The City Engineer was requested to investigate this situation and submit a report thereon to the City
Council.
21. '` Mrs. Blanche Cervelli, 542 Taylor Avenue, said she was interested in the revised bicycle ordinance
and inquired when it would come up for action.
Mr. Cunningham stated proposed amendments to the ordinance were under study and the matter would receive
attention and come before the Council with a recommendation in due time.
There was some discussion on this subject. President La Croix suggested that anyone seeing a flagrant
violation of the law by a bicycle rider should report it immediately to the Police Department.
22.` Mr. John Kane, President of the Park Street Merchants Association, asked to comment with regard to
salaries for the Mayor and Councilmen. He said since coming to the City he had found that the Council
was very effective in everything it had done and the Mayor was very active in representing the City and
attending various functions in the community. He said he was in full accord with the Charter Amendment
Advisory Committee's proposal for increased compensation.
23. Mr. Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, said he had been very much interested in the Golf situation
and he did not approve of either of the plans submitted by the Recreation Commission. He expressed the
opinion that the companies which had submitted proposals with regard to operation of the Courses should be
present at the anticipated joint meeting on February 29 to answer the many questions which would undoubtedly
come up from interested citizens.
President La Croix stated the special meeting would be an open one and the Council would receive all facts
and information which could be obtained. Before it would make a decision on leasing the Courses, he said,
the companies submitting proposals would be interviewed and questioned, and he hoped the meeting would
produce the answers Mr. Tillman desired, as there would be an in depth discussion.
24. Mr. John Mitcheom, 1319 High Street, President of the Alameda Board of Realtors, commented on a
letter he had addressed to the Mayor and Councilmen which had been received in the Clerk's office too late
to be included on the agenda for this meeting. It was stated the Councilmen had received copies and were
familiar with the communication on the subject of Ordinance No. 1627, New Series, requesting that the
Council consider changes in the Ordinance with regard to dedication of land or payment of fees in lieu
thereof when open areas are not provided by the developer in comdominium type of construction or subdivision
developments.
Councilman McCall requested that the City Attorney clarify the statements of the Board of Realtors with
regard to condominium projects', explaining his understanding was that a condominium was a vertical subdi-
vision and the State law so stipulated.
Mr. Cunningham said, as he viewed the law, condominiums fall within the State definition of the subdivision.
He pointed out the matter was under active consideration by the City staff and a recommendation would be
submitted to the Planning Board and in due course the matter would come before the Council.
25.v Mr. Mitcheom brought up the subject of the General Plan and inquired how many of its proposals had
been implemented, commenting specifically that the City had not yet established an architectural review
board.
6
4
President La Croix said the matter was under discussion in an attempt to clarify establishment of such
a body, in view of the divergence of opinions, the manner of structuring the body and the results
desired. He suggested the matter be discussed with the Real Estate Board to determine if its members
might have some recommendations on the subject.
26. Mr. Gottstein asked to make an appointment with the City Manager for inspection of the area on
which he had complained.
Mr. Weller pointed out the matter had been turned over to the City Engineer for investigation and report
and he saw no point to a two-headed approach to what was really a civil action problem.
FILING:
27. Financial and Operating Reports - Bureau of Electricity, as of November 30 and December 31, 1971 -
Verified by George A. Hackleman.
28. Specifications No.
Street.
29. Specifications No.
Street.
PW 2-72-3 - Installation of Storm Sewers in Pacific Avenue and in Willow
PW 2-72-4 - Reconstruction of Central Avenue from Fourth Street to Webster
30. President La Croix thanked those in the audience, employees, members of the Golf Club and
interested young people, for attending.
ADJOURNMENT:
31. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday, March 7, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk