1972-06-20 Regular CC Minutes4:13
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY JUNE 20, 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 a most inspiring Invocation delivered by
The Reverend Russell E. Palmer, Pastor of the First Christian 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 June 6, and the special meeting held June 15, 1972, were
approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. v4 From Mr. Donald C. Donovan, 822 Taylor Avenue, with reference to two Liquidambar trees which had
been planted in the parking strip in front of the property at 824 Taylor Avenue by his brother, owner of
the property, and himself.
Mr. Donovan was in the audience and was invited to address the Council on the subject. He said his
brother had received a letter from the City Public Works Maintenance Superintendent informing him that
the trees would have to be removed as they were in violation of the Municipal Code. He said the point he
wished to emphasize was that a year had elapsed since the trees were planted and the trees had now reached
such a degree of maturity that removal would destroy them; if notice had been received within a period of
two months he felt it would have been possible to remove the trees and plant them in the rear yard. He
suggested a statute of limitations be applied to the Ordinance requiring that infractions be reported to
the party involved within six months.
President La Croix commented that, while the type of tree involved was aesthetically pleasing, it caused
problems in the parking strips by disrupting the sidewalk, curbs and gutters. He pointed out the City
Engineer's office was not a policing agent in matters of this nature.
On request, City Engineer Hanna stated the City should not be involved in any cost in this connection, the
trees were too close together and the areas in which they were planted would have to be enlarged. He said
the trees had apparently been planted with the knowledge that the property owner should have contacted the
City and he had elected not to do so. He said he considered the fact that the Department had not learned
of the planting for a year was irrelevant in view of the great number of trees and planted areas requiring
maintenance and service throughout the City. He said an agreement had been reached with the property
owner that the trees should come out and another tree would be planted in the area at the expense of the
homeowner. Incidentally, he said, he felt the trees which were to be removed could be salvaged.
Mr. Donovan said his brother had consulted a nurseryman, who had advised him that if the trees were moved
during the winter they would stand approximately 100% chance of a successful replant but in the summer it
would be less than 50 %. He asked if the removal could wait for the winter.
Mr. Hanna said this would be agreeable, providing the property owner would do the work involved.
Councilman Longaker, Principal of Washington School located directly across the street from the subject
property, remarked that it was nice to see some trees on the block.
Councilman Fore moved the two trees be removed and another tree be planted in the area during the winter
months by the property owner at his expense, subject to inspection by the Engineering Department and,
upon advice of the City Attorney, that the matter be continued to the first meeting in December. Council-
man McCall seconded the motion which on roll call carried unanimously.
3.`I£ From The Honorable Fred F. Cooper, Supervisor Third District, with regard to developing and imple-
menting the general plan for San Leandro Bay, suggesting a moratorium be placed on further development
during the next two years while a study was conducted with federal funds through the Corps of Engineers.
President La Croix stated this matter had been the subject of study for the last several months, having
been initially raised by the Port of Oakland, that the City staff had attended the meetings on the subject
but that he did not understand how a moratorium could apply to the Municipal Golf Courses. He suggested
the letter be acknowledged, indicating the strong interest of the City, its involvement at the present time
in the matter and its intention to pursue the study.
It was emphasized that there would be no indication of placing a moratorium on any development in the City.
4. v From Dr. Leonard W. Charvet, President of Alameda Beautiful, endorsing the proposed regulation of
outdoor advertising display signs.
President La Croix said he concurred wholeheartedly with the remarks in the communication and had been
disappointed that the proposed ordinance before the Planning Board had not been recommended for adoption,
although the matter was still under consideration.
The letter was to be acknowledged with appreciation.
4
5. From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 183 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
6. From Mr. Vern W. Dennen, 1926 Everett Street, suggesting the City adopt an ordinance requiring
developers to allot only 50% of available space to large chain stores.
Upon request, City Manager Weller explained Mr. Dennen's letter espoused local enterprise as distin-
guished from chain operations. He expressed the opinion that the proposal would involve a serious
question as to the legal authority of the City to make such a distinction. He suggested the customer's
needs should also be considered, that if he was cut off from access to chain operations the entire
business community would be affected. He said the concept was admirable but he felt it could not
legally or practically be carried out.
The communication was to be acknowledged and filed.
7. Y' From Mrs. R. D. Van Amburg, 1057 Camellia Drive, praising the work of Mrs. Ina B. Ratto on the
Planning Board.
The commendatory remarks were acknowledged with appreciation.
8. 117 From Alameda City Disposal, signed by Mr. Lawrence Canepa, President, requesting approval of
proposed rate increases for garbage and refuse collections in the City.
President La Croix said he felt the Council did not have sufficient background to make a decision on
the matter at this meeting. He recommended it be turned over to the Auditor for review and report
back to the Council.
Mr. Randal F. Dickey, Jr., Attorney for the Company, explained the firm had recently concluded a new
contract with the Brotherhood of Teamsters resulting in substantially increased operating costs for the
ensuing three -year period and necessitating the request for higher rates.
Mr. Wesley Suman, Accountant for Alameda City Disposal, said garbage companies had discontinued more
than one collection per week at any residential dwelling other than apartments and commercial estab-
lishments; users were encouraged to have more than one receptacle and the charge for additional
containers was less than the initial cost. The charges at the present time, he said, were $1.90 for
one can, $3.50 for two, $5.10 for three and $6.70 for four cans, or a cost of $1.60 for each additional
container. The proposed rates would be $2.70 for one can, $4.95 for two, and $7.20 for three. He
suggested it might be advisable to stipulate that the charge would be $2.25 for each additional can
picked up per week, and $2.70 per cubic yard.
Mr. Dickey pointed out the effective date of the contract with the Teamsters Union would be July 1,
1972, and said the Company was quite concerned as it had been operating at a net loss for the twelve
months ending June 30, 1972, of approximately $40,000. He inquired if there would be any way the
increase could be made retroactive to July 1 under the circumstances that the situation had been
brought to the attention of the Council prior to that date.
Mr. Cunningham said at the time the present rates were set by ordinance the City had been actively
involved in and apprised all along of the negotiations and had been able to set the effective date back
from September 19 to August 1, 1969, on the basis that mechanics prevented the actual effective date.
He said he did not feel this could be done in this instance. He proposed that the rates for collection
be established by resolution; in other words, the ordinance could be amended to provide that the rates
would be as set forth by resolution adopted by the Council and this would eliminate a six -week delay
in the future; however, this would not solve the question of retroactivity in this instance.
After some discussion as to the proper way to proceed, Councilman Longaker moved the City Attorney be
requested to prepare for consideration by the Council at its next meeting on July 5 an amending ordi-
nance incorporating the rate increases as requested and providing that henceforth rates would be set
by resolution, with all information to be supplied to the City Auditor for evaluation and report to
the Council. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Mr. Cunningham remarked that at the time of the last rate increase in 1969 with its retroactive provi-
sion, the City had been flooded with telephone calls protesting the increase and the additional retro-
active billing. He explained the time involved in introducing and passing an ordinance and it was
decided the target would be for an August 1 effective date for the increases.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
9. Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, requested the opportunity to speak under "Unfinished
Business ", although her topic was not the Recommended Tentative Budget for the next fiscal year.
President La Croix said she might speak under "Oral Communications, General ".
10. Miss Joan Narahara, 106 Garden Road, requested the opportunity to speak under Item No. 3 of
"Reports and Recommendations ".
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
11. V' From the Auditor and Assessor, requesting refund of taxes levied against Todd Shipyards Corpora-
tion in the amount of $18,399.75. This involved a reduction in the assessed value of Mobile Repair
Vessel No. 1.
435
After brief explanation by the City Manager, there being no objections, the meeting proceeded to
"Resolutions ".
RESOLUTIONS:
12.I The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7939
Ordering Cancellation and Refund of Personal Property Taxes Erroneously
Levied and Collected."
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 then returned to the regular order of business.
13./ From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Installing
Storm Sewers in Pacific Avenue and in Willow Street, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Comple-
tion be ordered filed.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be followed, that the work on said project be accepted and the
Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
14. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of 2.9% increase in the
allowable density for the proposed 347 -unit Planned Development project of Braddock & Logan, known as
Islandia No. III.
On request, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, explained the action of the Board as covered in its
letter of June 16, 1972, for the forty- four -acre parcel on Bay Farm Island, as shown in the exhibit dis-
played for the information of the Council. He said consideration of the Board on the plan had been
continued since January and the much modified plan shown on the wall had resulted from many discussions
by the Board and the staff, dropping from the original proposal with 404 units to the present plan with
347 dwelling units in both townhouses and so- called patio homes, a type between townhouse and single -
family detached construction, taking advantage of zero side yards and other offsets similar to the Bayview
development and somewhat like the Ballena Bay project.
Mr. Johnson said there was proposed in the subdivision a two- and -one -half acre park site at the inter-
section of Holly Street and Fir Avenue, as a dedication within the subdivision process. He said by Muni-
cipal Code Section 11- 1358.1 the net area to be improved in the development totaled 38.8 acres exclusive
of public streets. This would allow 337.56 dwelling units under standard density allowance and the
developer proposed to construct 347 units which would require approval by the Council of the density
increase on nine units, or 2.9 %. It was pointed out the dedication of the park site would be without cost
to the City, and the remaining seven and one -half acres in the particular quadrangle of the development
was on intent by letter from the developer that it would be held for a period of one year from the date
of filing the Tentative Map with the understanding that the City would have the option to trade land or
negotiate the purchase of that parcel, so that the park site could be enlarged to ten acres.
Councilman McCall said he could not see the advisability of taking ten acres from the Braddock & Logan
development at a value of $45,000 per acre in view of the agreement with Utah International, Inc., whereby
the City could obtain a similar area within a half -mile distance at $7,500 per acre. He suggested the
two - and - one -half acre parcel proposed for a park site be developed by the subdivider and placed on the
tax rolls.
The subject was discussed at some length. President La Croix said he wished there was some way in which
five acres might be given to the City by the developer as the Recreation Director had indicated an excellent
job of park development could be done on five acres.
Mr. James B. Davis, Attorney with the firm of Davis, Craig & Bartalini, representing the developer,
reviewed that there had been several months of hearing on the project, the density had been reduced from
ten units per gross acre to about 7.83, the parcel had been in effect given for a park site and the number
of units had been greatly reduced. He said the developer had given more than any other developer he had
represented in the City recently and he felt it was very unfair to request additional from him.
Councilman McCall moved the two- and - one -half acre park site be amended out of the request.
At this point, Miss Joan Narahara, who had requested the opportunity, was invited to address the Council
in the matter. She said she represented an ad hoc committee for a group of citizens very much concerned
with the number of units proposed in the area; a petition signed by approximately 100 people had been sub-
mitted giving their views. She requested clarification of certain questions and Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Cunningham provided information with regard to incentive density increases provided by the Planned Develop-
ment Ordinance (No. 1653, New Series), the criteria governing the Board in granting these, and the
responsibility of the Council to act only on those proposals affected by Section 11- 1358.4 with approval
or referral back to the Board.
Mr. Cunningham suggested that Miss Narahara call his office and a meeting with him and Mr. Johnson be
arranged for clarification of the points she had raised.
Councilman McCall commented that he would have the opportunity to address himself to the matter of the
park site dedication at the time the Tentative Map for this project would come before the Council, and
requested that the developer submit an alternate plan for development of the acreage under discussion.
He withdrew his previous motion and moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be accepted and the
2.9% increase in allowable density be approved. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried
on t y following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
15. 1. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, requesting permission to extend by sixty days
its action on the application of Harbor Bay Isle Associates to rezone certain Bay Farm Island properties.
Mr. Johnson explained the Board was presently involved in hearings and consideration of the subject
application. Although the Ordinance required that the Board make a finding and report to the Council
on the matter within thirty days from the date of filing the application, under the circumstances of
the extremely complicated case involving very substantial acreage and total replan of the Bay Farm
Island community, the Board had the previous evening by unanimous motion requested the sixty -day
extension to make its findings. Under Section 11 -175 of the Municipal Code, only the Council could
grant the extention of time, which would continue the Board's report date to August 20, 1972. It was
stated there was a possibility that the deliberations would be completed and the Board's findings
could be submitted to the Council sooner and this was the intent of the Board if at all possible.
Councilman Longaker moved the requested time extension of sixty days be granted for action on the re-
zoning application of Harbor Bay Isle Associates. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which on roll
call carried unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
16. President La Croix stated consideration of the Recommended Tentative Budget for the City of
Alameda for fiscal year 1972 -1973, listed on the agenda for presentation at this time, would be laid
over for attention at the end of the meeting.
RESOLUTIONS:
17. y The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7940
Approving Warrant No. 183 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District
No. 2105."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None.
18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7941
Adopting Budget for Expenditure of Funds Apportioned from the Highway
Users Tax Fund to Cities."
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.
19.1 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7942
Authorizing Year -End Transfers on the Books of Account of the City of
Alameda."
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.
20.v/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7943
Authorizing the Execution of a Contract for Services of a Certified
Public Accountant for the Fiscal Year 1972 - 1973."
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.
21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7944
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Resurfacing
of Clement Avenue from Oak Street to Broadway, 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.
22. " The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
437
"Resolution No. 7945
Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Mrs. Frank A. Ratto)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7946
Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Herman J. Kihn)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
24.f The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7947
Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Melvin R. Sanderson)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
25.v/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7948
Appointing Member of the Civil Service Board." (Vernon N. Pecchenino)
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.
26. ,'The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7949
Appointing Commissioner of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda."
(Albert H. DeWitt)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
27.} The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7950
Appointing Commissioner of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda."
(Kenneth Kofman)
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.
28.:` The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7951
Appointing Member of the Public Utilities Board." (Albert H. Ainslow)
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.
29./ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7952
Appointing Member of the Social Service Board." (Clarine A. Souza)
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.
30./ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7953
Appointing Member of the Social Service Board." (Marvin C. Hockabout)
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.
31.7 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
38
"Resolution No. 7954
Appointing Member of the Social Service Board." (Mrs. Rudolph Steinmetz)
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.
President La Croix commented that Board and Commission members served the City very unselfishly without
remuneration and from time to time they were subjected to abuse because of decisions they found they
must make to the satisfaction of some and to the dissatisfaction of others. He said he would like to
publicly commend all citizens who were willing to serve the City in this way, and to express his personal
thanks.
32. /The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7955
Appointing Ellen Schmalenberger Treasurer and Ex- Officio Tax Collector
of the City of Alameda."
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 Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mrs. Schmalenberger, who received the congratulations of
the members of the Council and the staff upon assuming the office of City Treasurer. Mrs. Schmalen-
berger then introduced her husband Fred, and her daughter Holly Haugen. There followed a round of
applause.
BILLS:
33. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $43,441.47, 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 June 20,
1972, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded
by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
34. /Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, questioned a statement in the minutes of the last meeting
that Ordinance No. 1627, New Series, establishing regulations for dedication of land, payment of fees
in lieu thereof, or both, for park and recreational land in subdivisions, was still in effect.
Mrs. Lane was assured that the Ordinance was in effect and nothing had been done to amend or change it
or to discontinue its use. President La Croix said the Council had found the regulation did not
provide the desired controls with regard to all developments in the City and it had been referred to
the staff for re- evaluation and resubmission to the Council. He said he understood there was in the
drafting process a new ordinance which would encompass all builders within the City and it was felt,
if this document should be as anticipated, it would be more equitable and much more beneficial to the
City
Mrs. Lane pointed out it had been brought out at the Planning Board Hearing the previous evening on the
Harbor Bay Isle proposed Bay Farm Island development that approximately sixty acres would have to be
donated to the City for park and recreational lands, under the existing Ordinance.
Mr. Weller, in clarification, stated the conclusion had been in error, that, in checking the present
Ordinance against the proposed formula, it had been found it would run about three to one, roughly,
in favor of the City. He expressed the belief that, economically or in terms of acreage or by any
other method, the agreement the City had with Utah which had been subsequently passed on to Doric or
Harbor Bay Isle Associates was much more favorable to the City than the present Ordinance would be.
He said the implication of the discussion the previous evening was that the developer prospectively
was getting away with something and he should come under the Ordinance, but the City, in terms of
dollars and area, was infinitely better off under the existing agreement than it would be under the
Ordinance.
35. Mrs. Lane said she understood there would be a presentation by the RASS Committee and inquired
as to the date, location and time. She was informed the meeting would take place Thursday, June 22,
1972, in Kaiser Auditorium at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
36.v' Councilman McCall said he had read statements in the newspaper that someone "owed the City some-
thing" and so far as he was concerned no one owed the City anything. He said he had been under the
impression that the City had had a committee which had met with Mr. Donald Hawley of Shore Line
Properties, Inc., the original developer of the Bay Farm Island fill area, with regard to an agreement
and there was to be a certain number of school and park sites and whatever land was necessary, after
presentation of the plan, would be made available to the City at $7,500 per acre. He requested
clarification from the City Attorney, so that people would not think the City was receiving anything
free on the Bay Farm Island project.
Mr. Cunningham said these statements were correct; at the time the City had entered into the original
fill agreement $7,500 had been arrived at as the sum to equal the amount paid for the sand extracted.
He explained the details of the agreements in this connection.
439
37.1, Mr. Larry Surano, 2607 - 109th Avenue, Oakland, called attention to the communication from Bay
View Development Co., presented to the Council for consideration at its last meeting, requesting that
the matter of its petition to rezone property at the northwesterly corner of Mecartney and County Roads
be "removed from the table ". He inquired if there had been any decision on this matter.
President La Croix said it had been the Council's understanding that there was a request not to raise
the matter and its position had not changed, with the studies and evaluations proceeding by the staff
with regard to the proposed Harbor Bay Isle development and the Planning Board's request for a sixty -day
extension for its consideration and action on the plans. He said, nevertheless, if it was Mr. Surano's
wish that the matter be raised and action taken, whether affirmative or negative, this might be done.
Mr. Surano said he had been told the Utah or Doric plan was not the consideration in connection with his
property and he felt his Company had met all considerations involved. He said he would like to have an
answer if any member of the Council would raise the question from the floor.
Councilman Levy expressed the opinion that if the question should be raised from the table it might be
detrimental to Mr. Surano's proposal and he might find after deliberation that it would be to his dis-
advantage, that it should remain tabled until the complete picture of the future development of Bay Farm
Island was available.
To a question by Councilman McCall, Mr. Johnson stated no part of the Bay View Development Co. ownership
was included in the Harbor Bay Isle rezoning application and its parcel was shown as vacant on the large
exhibit model.
Councilman Fore said he believed Mr. Surano knew his business and what he was facing. He moved the matter
of his petition to rezone said property be removed from the table for action by the Council.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the first proposal of Bay View Development Co. in 1971 to rezone approximately 6.7
acres at the northwesterly corner of Mecartney and County Roads from "R -1" and "R -2 -PD" Districts to the
"C -1 -PD" District, on which the Planning Board had recommended denial and which had been sustained by the
Council; also the second application on a duplicate proposal to construct a shopping center on the five -
acre westerly portion of the site, with off - street parking and a service station site of one -half acre.
He said the staff recommendation continued to be for denial of the petition.
The motion to raise the matter from the table was seconded by Councilman Longaker.
Councilman McCall said he hoped Mr. Surano realized that he was placing himself in a position of having
his application denied and losing bargaining power by requesting that the Council take action on the
matter at this time.
Mr. Surano approached the podium and asked to withdraw his request. With withdrawal, by Councilmen
Longaker and Fore of the second and the motion, the item remained tabled.
38. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, expressed surprise at the outcome of the recent Special
Municipal Charter Amendment Election which had been consolidated with the State Primary Election on June 6,
1972, when a measure to increase the Council's compensation had been defeated.
39.`'` Mr. Gottstein again criticized the low plumbing permit fees charged in the City and suggested they
be increased.
President La Croix said a change in the Ordinance on this subject was under study and an amendment
increasing the fees should be before the Council in the near future.
40. /'Mr. Gottstein complained that a second sidewalk constructed in connection with the condominium
development at Portola Avenue and Ninth Street prevented him from putting in a driveway to his excavated
property on Portola Avenue, and that the sidewalk was not being used. He requested that the City Manager
explain.
Mr. Hanna stated the sidewalk was completely legitimate and was on the property on which it belonged.
41. Mr. Joseph M. Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, expressed the opinion that the City had a very fine
Council and the reason the Charter amendment measures calling for increase in the Mayor's and Council's
salaries had been defeated was that with the present cost of living and existing taxes people were against
proposals which would involve increased money expenditures, that it had not been a reflection against the
Councilmen. He suggested if people attended Council meetings they would be more appreciative of the
City's legislators.
Mr. Sullivan said he had been ashamed of the type of printing on the City tax bills and suggested that
the newly- appointed Treasurer obtain the forms from a good print shop.
Mrs. Schmalenberger stated this work went out on bid and she had no control over the transaction.
FILING:
42. Agreement - Between City and George A. Hackleman - for Accounting Services during fiscal year
1972 -1973.
43. Specifications No. PW 6 -72 -14 - Resurfacing of Clement Avenue from Oak Street to Broadway.
After a ten - minute recess, the meeting reconvened under "Unfinished Business ".
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
44.v At this time, the matter of the Recommended Tentative Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, was presented for consideration.
President La Croix expressed the hope that all citizens who had an interest in their community would
also be concerned with the budget and the expenses of the City. He said he knew full well the problems
the City Manager had been confronted with in preparing the budget and the problems facing the City in
this respect, as well as all surrounding cities.
Mr. Weller then made his annual presentation of the Recommended Tentative Budget for the ensuing fiscal
year calling for an expenditure of $8,256,970, exclusive of gas tax construction, at the present salary
levels and subject to such modifications as might be made as a result of the "meet and confer" sessions
in process at the present time.
By means of charts, graphs, tabulations and recapitulations, projected on the screen for the informa-
tion of all, Mr. Weller explained the organization of the City government and facts and figures in
detail by category, indicating that several estimates had been decreased from the previous year, that
the largest increase was on the Pension budget, and that otherwise the budget for the next fiscal year
was essentially the same as for the previous period. It was pointed out that $10,000 had been proposed
as a floating sum in the personal services account of the Planning Department to take care of unusual
short -term loads it might have for special studies, et cetera. This had been done rather than to
recommend additional personnel as it was desired to determine what the long -term permanent load would
be on that Department's staff, which he felt would have to be increased in size in the next year or
two. It was pointed out that the Library budget was submitted as transmitted by the Library Board
without any reduction, that the Parking Meter Bonds were in the process of being called and when they
had been paid off the City would be in a position to determine what would be done in the way of an
off - street parking program, to the extent that the additional funds released by retirement of the bonds
would help to finance it.
Mr. Weller explained the status of the Pension system under Ordinances Nos. 1079 and 1082, New Series,
that the small Capital Outlay projects included in the Street Department budget were items which could
not be put off, Gas Tax Construction projects and items in the Equipment Replacement and in the
Capital Outlay Funds, the latter major items involving matching Federal and State funds.
There was some discussion with regard to the possibility of federal revenue - sharing become a reality
and the aid which would be derived by the City in this eventuality.
At the conclusion of the presentation, President La Croix pointed out that the figures projected were
on the basis of the present tax rate of $2.16 and it would not be known until such time as the meet
and confer sessions had been concluded whether it would be possible to retain the same rate. He thanked
Mr. Weller and commended him on his customarily excellent job of preparing and presenting the facts
and figures of the City's financial picture for the next year.
There being no objections, the meeting returned to the subject of "Resolutions ".
RESOLUTIONS:
45.7 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7956
Approving and Adopting the Tentative Budget of the City of Alameda
For the Fiscal Year 1972- 1973."
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.
The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
46. President La Croix complimented the citizens who had remained to hear the budget presentation and
thanked them for their interest in this important issue.
ADJOURNMENT:
47. There being no further business to come before the meeting the Council adjourned, to assemble
in regular session on Wednesday, July 5, 1972, at 7 :30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Z �7�d�7•
City Clerk