Loading...
1967-10-19 Regular CC MinutesI / ' Zi ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD THURSDAY EVENING OCTOBER 19, 1967 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President McCall presiding. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Councilman Levy. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Bartley, Fore, La Croix, Jr., Levy and President McCall, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held October 3, 1967, were approved as transcribed. • WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: From Mr. P. W. Barnard, 857 Laurel Street, in complaint about the poor taxicab service in Alameda and urging that steps be taken to improve said condition. The President asked that the City Manager check with the taxicab companies to alert them to this situation. • 3. From Alamedans for a Better Community, signed by Messrs. Ashley O. Jones, Robert S. Marder and Newton W. Elder, expressing objections to relegating "Oral Communications" on general subjects to the end of the agenda for Council meetings. • The communication was noted and ordered filed. The Clerk stated a letter had been placed at her station just prior to the meeting and, since it pertained to a subject already on the agenda, she would read it in full. The communication was from Mrs. Leland W. Pollard (Sarah Krusi), 1208 St. Charles Street, who expressed the hope that the Council would continue to oppose a southern crossing bridge terminal in Alameda. It was stated that this matter would be given further consideration under the heading of "Resolutions". ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 5:1 Mr. Robert S. Marder, 3006 Bayview Drive, Vice Chairman of Alamedans for a Better Community, stated his organization believed it was of vital importance that all citizens have an opportunity to address the City Council during the early part of the meeting on any subject in which they were interested. He suggested a time limitation be placed on the speakers, if necessary, but that the Coun- cil reconsider its recent action to move this category toward the end of the Council agenda. • 6.ti Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, concurred with Mr. Marder's remarks about placing "Oral Communications, General" at the end of the agenda. He said he was also in agreement with the hope • expressed by Mrs. Pollard that the Council would maintain its opposition to a southern crossing bridge terminus in Alameda. Mr. Gottstein then reiterated his protest against the nuisance created by • "drumks" in the City Parking Lot across from his home. He emphasized that the condition had worsened lately. Mrs. John Entwistle, 909 Regent Street, a member of Alamedans for a Better Community, felt the revision of the order of business would deprive citizens of an opportunity to bring certain matters before the Council under "Oral Communications, General", which would soon be listed at the end of the agenda. The City Attorney pointed up the fact that anyone coul d write a letter to the City Council about any matter of concern to him and he would thus be able to speak on the subject early in the meeting if he so desired. Further, the City Manager emphasized that the ordinance recently passed, which would become effective November 3, 1967, actually gave an additional "Oral Communications" for general sub- jects because the previous ordinance supposedly limited Oral Communications to those items already on the agenda. 8.v Mrs. Eleanor Tattersall, 1520 Central Avenue, also expressed concern about the limitation of Oral Communications. She said she was, however, more concerned about the deplorable conditions under which many families were living in the five-acre section of the former Estuary Housing Project, now privately owned. Mrs. Tattersall felt it was disgusting that the City had not kept its promise to renovate these living units so they would be habitable. She said that, as soon as the rains started, these people "will be drenched". Councilman La Croix reported on recent actions taken in an attempt to make these dwelling units at • least weatherproof. He pointed out this area was privately owned and the "City" could not continue to spend public funds on such premises. It was hoped that some agreement could be negotiated with Mr. Gomez, the owner, to have new roofs put on before winter sets in. Wl Mr. and Mrs. Richard Austin, 453 Buena Vista Avenue, each addressed the Council, advocating an elected Board of Education, as recommended earlier this year by Alamedans for a Better Community. They wanted to know just when this matter might be placed on a ballot for vote of the people. 10. The following spoke in protest against any southern crossing bridge having a terminus in Alameda: Mr. John J. Williamson, 512-B Central Avenue, Vice President of the Alameda Conservation Association; Mrs. Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive; Mrs. Ethel Jean Kibbe, 510 Central Avenue. • HEARINGS: 11. The matter was called up concerning the requested reclassification of that certain forty —acre parcel in the west end of the City covered by a License Agreement between the City and Pan — Pacific Development Company, the Petitioner. The requested rezoning was from the 11R -111, One— Family Residence District to the 1lC M —PD11, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice setting this time and place for the Hearing before the Council. Also, copies of the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board at which this matter was considered had been sent to the Councilmen for their information. Upon request, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the history of this case. He explained that the proposed reclassification was merely in conformance with provisions of the License Agreement referred to. City Attorney Cunningham then stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and the recommendation of the Planning Board in its advisory report under Section 11 -175 of the Alameda Muni- cipal Code should be approved, modified or disapproved. Upon the call for proponents, Mr. James B. Davis, of the firm of Davis, Craig & Bartalini, Attorneys for Pan — Pacific Development Company, said he thought it was not necessary to submit a detailed pre- sentation, since this action was in accordance with the License Agreement already in effect. However, he introduced Mr. William B. Kirkland, Jr., President of said Company, who desired to give an explana- tion of the status of the planning for this improvement. Mr. Kirkland then pointed up that his firm was endeavoring to bring this marina project to fruition at the earliest possible date. He stated he was pleased that a committee comprised of City Officials was working with him in order to assure that all developments would be in accordance with City regula- tions and desires. Mr. Kirkland said he was hopeful that this project would be one of the finest waterfront recreation areas that any city in the Bay Area enjoyed. In response to Councilman La Croix's question about what the commercial uses would be, Mr. Kirkland replied that his Company was devoting its efforts to recreational activities and the commercial uses which had been approved included those related to water recreation such as operation of a small craft harbor, yacht repair facility, necessary fuel docks, yacht brokerage, ship chandlery, food service and those normal amenities which were found in conjunction with a well organized marina. These uses were spelled out in the License Agreement. The President then inquired if there were any who desired to speak in opposition to the question. There was no response. President McCall then declared the Hearing closed. Councilman Fore moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be adopted and the reclassification be approved as requested. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Abstaining: Councilman La Croix, (1). Absent: None. The matter was then referred to "Introduction of Ordinances11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 12. From City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Culvert Recon- struction on Grand Street at the Intersections of Dayton Avenue and Palmera Court — recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be followed; that the work on said project be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Bartley seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 13. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Western Toro & Garden Sales, best bidder, for furnishing six Power Mowers for the Golf Department, at the total cost of $2,488.5O. Councilman Bartley moved the recommendation be adopted; that contract be awarded to the designated firm for furnishing the equipment specified at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 14. From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Vermeer Sales & Service, low bidder, for furnishing one Trenching Machine for the Golf Department, at a cost of 53,750. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be approved; that contract be awarded to the firm indi- cated for furnishing said equipment at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 15. Councilman Fore introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provision of law and the Charter: TrOrdinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 2 -541 Thereof, Relating to Vacation Leave." 16. Councilman Bartley introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provi- sion of law and the Charter: °Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series.' (Pan-Pacific Development Company) 17. Councilman La Croix introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provi- sion of law and the Charter: °Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Regulations." UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 18. The President referred to Councilman La Croix's inquiry at the last meeting with regard to the right of protest against the proposed Assessment District for Peralta Junior College District to build a certain four-lane access road from Redwood Road in Oakland. Upon request, Mr. Cunningham explained the legal technicalities involved. He suggested it might be well for the Council to give further thought to the long-range policy embraced - and consider whether or not the City would wish to oppose this method of constructing the road in question, due to certain ramifications. After a great deal of discussion of the circumstances, it was determined that the City Attorney be instructed to follow through on this matter and procure exact answers to certain questions still not precisely set forth. 19( President McCall also spoke of the recommendation of the Mayors' Conference that a study or investi- gation be made of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District situation. He said he was opposed to the expendi- ture of any of the City's funds for such a project. The President stated he believed that, if an investigation were to be made, it should be the responsibility of the State Legislature or the Grand Jury. Councilman La Croix expressed his opinion on the subject and moved the City Council go on record as not wishing to participate in any formal study which would cost the City taxxpayers any money. Councilman Bartley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 20. Councilman Fore complimented the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District for its recent action to initiate bus service directly from the east end of the City over the Park Street Bridge and via Nimitz Freeway to downtown Oakland. It was stated this service would became effective December 4, 1967, and that other transportation improvements were also pending. He thought a letter of appreciation should be written to the Board of Directors of the "District" - and the City Clerk was directed so to do. RESOLUTIONS: 21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7230 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installation of a Storm Drainage System on Fernside Boulevard, Central Avenue and East Shore Drive, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7231 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Five (5) New, 1968 Model Four-Door Sedans for the Police Department, 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. 23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7232 Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Contract No. N62464-67-C-0153 (Modification P009) Relating to Special Services Furnished by City to U. S. Navy Off-Station Public Quarters and Homoja Housing Project." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 247 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7233 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Appreciation and Commendation of William S. Godfrey for His Service to the City of Alameda." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 25. "Resolution No.7234 Declaring Support of City of Alameda for Southern Bay Crossing, and Repealing Resolution No. 6619." Councilman La Croix quoted the second paragraph of this resolution. He pointed out that no new knowl- edge or evidence had been presented since the Hearings on the Southern Bay Bridge Crossing several years ago which would tend to change the position taken by the former City Council by Resolution No. 6619. He spoke of the Master Plan Study underway by the firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, which would completely update the needs of the community. Councilman La Croix felt that time was not of the essence in which to rescind the former resolution and, therefore, he moved the resolution be tabled until new evidence and more definite information were available. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy. Speaking on the question, Councilman Fore stated he had spent a great deal of time in the study of the Southern Bay Crossing and submitted a lengthy report on the subject to the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. He said he believed he was fully qualified to act on the matter this evening. Councilman La Croix reiterated his belief that the language of the resolution was the issue in question. He emphasized that no new facts had been submitted and, therefore, the Council could not properly rescind the former resolution. He felt the present resolution should be revised or, as he had indicated, be tabled for future action. President McCall pointed out that both the City Engineer and the Planning Director were aware of changes and there were new sets of plans. He felt many changes had been made in the plans originally presented to the City. Councilman Bartley also spoke on the subject, pointing up that he had spent considerable time in dis- cussing certain phases of the Bay Bridge Crossing with Mr. Foley of the Toll Bridge Authority. He said he realized this bridge route would create some problems for the City but he believed the City would profit from it over -all. Councilman Bartley cited the fact that the City of Alameda presented a bad image to all visitors because it operated basically out of five back yards of Oakland. He said he believed the Southern Crossing would give the City two "front doors". He felt this resolution would put the City in a position to be able to talk to the proper officials and indicate that the City expected the best in design and location. Councilman Levy stated that while he was in accord with the Southern Bridge Crossing terminus in Alameda, he did feel that, with the Master Plan Study now in progress, this was not the time to pass this particular resolution. The question was then put and the motion to table said resolution lost on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen La Croix and Levy, (2). Noes: Councilmen Bartley, Fore and President McCall, (3). Absent: None. Councilman Bartley then moved the adoption of the resolution under consideration. The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman La Croix, (1). Absent: None. At this time, Councilman Bartley said he would like to have the Planning Director submit a report to the City Council on the activities of the Planning Consultants, Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, pertaining to the work they had done on the Southern Crossing Bridge design, location and route. Planning Director Johnson.then briefly reported on the progress to date of plans, financing and exist- ing contracts relating to the Southern Crossing Bridge and Freeway. City Manager Weller and the City Staff were to keep the Council fully informed concerning developments of said Southern Crossing of San Francisco Bay. 26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7235 Adopting Budget for Expenditure of Funds Allocated from the State Highway Fund to Cities." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7236 Adopting and Submitting a Second Amended Budget for Expenditure of Funds Allocated from the State Highway Fund to Cities." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. FILING: 28. Specifications No. PK 9 -67 -31 - Installation of a Storm Drainage System on Fernside Boulevard, Central Avenue and East Shore Drive. 29. Specifications No. MS 10 -67 -13 - Furnishing Five New Sedans for the Police Department. 30. Amendment of Solicitation /Modification of Contract - Between Department of Navy, Western Division and City - Special Services furnished by City. 31. Amended Budget Approval - Between City and State for Highway Expenditures. 32. Auditor's Financial Statement - City of Alameda as of September 30, 1967, Verified by Hackleman, Larzelere & McKenna. 33. Seconded Amended Project Statement - Between City and State for Highway Expenditures. BILLS: 34. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the several Departments thereof, in the total amount of $50,790.82, 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 La Croix moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on October 19, 1967, and submitted to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 35. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 7, 1967, at 7 :30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, /E by Clerk