Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - May 20, 19542-" CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LODI COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL MAY 20, 1954 Pursuant to the adjournment by the City Clerk of the regular meet- ing of May 19, 1954, the City Council of the City of Lodi met at 8:00 o'clock p.m. of Thursday, May 20, 1954; Councilmen Hughes, Mitchell, Richey, Robinson and Fuller (Mayor) present; none absent. City Manager Weller and City Attorney Mullen also present. Minutes of the previous meetings, April 28, 1954 and May 5, 1954 were approved as written and mailed. COMMUNICATIONS PERSONAL A claim for damages on account of injuries sustained INJURY by John Woulos, Europa Hotel, Lodi, California, CLAIM at the intersection of Washington and Elm Streets was rejected by the City Council, and the City Clerk was instructed to so notify the claimant through his attorney, George G. Spanos of Stockton, California. The claim was in the amount of $4,000. HOLLY DRIVE A petition, signed by twenty-four individuals, requesting the City Council to defer any action on the proposal to complete Holly Drive until such time as Mr. Harold Wise could be present to present the pros and cons of the problem to the City Council, was acknowledged and ordered filed on the motion of Councilman Robinson, Hughes second. PUBLIC HEARINGS AMENDMENT TO At the order of the Mayor, a public hearing was ZONING ORD. held on the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 469 (Zoning Ordinance) to provide authority for the City Planning Commission to modify front yard set- back requirements in new subdivisions when it is determined that such modification would provide better development. Due notice of the public hear- ing was substantiated by affidavit. There being no protests received, oral or written, Ordinance No. 509 was introduced on the motion of Councilman Hughes, Mitchell second. HOLLY DRIVE Mr. Blake Miller addressed the Council to inquire the effect of the Council's action in filing the petition pertaining to the Holly Drive opening. Mr. Mullen replied that the law specifically gave the subdivider the right to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission relating to the acceptance or rejection of a tentative subdivision map. He added that if an appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission were filed with the City Coun- cil, the City Council could set a public hearing, provided the subdivider would agree to the delay in signing the Final Map. He pointed out that the City Council was not legally required to hear or act on an appeal unless the appeal was made by or on behalf of the subdivider. Councilman Hughes pointed out that the Planning Commission had re- ceived petitions on both sides of the controversy, that it was a democratic body, and that both sides had been heard before the Commission made its decision. Mr. Miller stated that it was very obvious that certain members of the Commission C Minutes df 'May 20, 1954, continued. were biased on the matter. Councilman Hughes took exception to the charge and stated that he was sure the Commission was a very fair body. Mr. Miller stated that the Northern San Joaquin County Safety Council and the State school authorities might be interested in giving an opinion of the safety factors involved in opening Holly Drive behind the Washington School. Councilman Robinson stated that the City Planning Commission had gone through the question very thoroughly. He added that many of the commis- sioners felt that failure of Holly Drive to go through would present an intolerable situation on Lockeford Street for the Washington School. He also pointed out that the Planning Commission had the matter before it on two different occasions. Mrs. Charles May stated that the opening of Holly Drive would create a danger - our traffic hazard for children who must cross Holly Drive to get to school because there are no inter- sections to slow traffic between California Street and Ham Lane. City Attorney Mullen stated that the Council had a choice of two actions. It could either affirm the action of the City Planning Commission or it could set a public hearing on the matter with the permission of Stone bros., the subdividers. He pointed out that if the Council affirms the action of the Com- mission, the people could take the matter to the Superior Court for a decision as to the reasonableness of the decision. Councilman Richey stated that she believed the matter should be postponed until a hearing could be held. She knew the Planning Commission to be a fair and able body, but she felt that the people should have a hearing, and a delay of two weeks or a month would not harm anyone. She then moved that a public hearing be set, providing Stone Bros. would agree and all legal aspects of the matter are met, and that Mr. Wise be asked to attend to present his views on the question. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hughes. The City Attorney cautioned the City Council that, if the motion were adopted, the members of the Council should refrain from any discussion of the matter with the citizens of the community before the hearing so that they can hear all sides of the ques- tion with an open mind. Councilman Robinson stated that he agreed that the people should have hearings; however, in this case the people had ample hearing before the City Planning Commission. The motion was then defeated by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Richey and Hughes NOES: Councilmen Robinson, Mitchell and Fuller Following the vote on the motion, Mrs. Bing Taylor indicated her opinion that some members of the City Council should not be qualified to vote on the question due to personal bias. She then thanked the Council for its consideration in hearing the views of the group. Mr. Charles Boynton told the Council that the matter had been handled according to democratic process and he appreciated the manner in which the hearing had been conducted. Mr. Clifford Bull invited members of the Chamber of attend the meeting of the be held May 21, 1954. the councilmen to accompany Commerce to Sacramento to State Highway Commission to Minutes of May 20, 1954, continued. 3 2?�, REPORTS OF THE CITY i -TANAGER RES. 1#1814 Mr. Weller reported the bids received for furnish - ADOPTED ing concrete pipe had been tabulated and indicated that Spiekerman had been low bidder by a small AWARD margin on two sizes of pipe and Mumbert had been CONCRETE low bidder on three sizes. The bids for 6 and 8 PIPE inch pipe had been identical. Mr. Weller recom- mended that the award on the items be split. On the motion of Councilman Robinson, the Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 1814 awarding the contract as follows: TO SPIEKERMAN 3200 feet of 18 inch pipe at 4.87 $2,784.00 500 feet of 14 inch pipe at 4.57 285.00 6000 feet of 6 inch pipe at 4.32 1,920.00 TO MUMBERT 3600 feet of 16 inch pipe at $.71 42,556.00 1500 feet of 12 inch pipe at ;p.45 675.00 1500 feet of 10 inch pipe at ;..38 570.00 2000 feet of 8 inch pipe at ,x.34 680.00 AWARD The City Manager reported that one bid had been COKAVIINUTOR received for the purchase of the Comminutor for installation at the sewer plant. The Chicago Pump RES. 1#1815 Company submitted a bid of :5844.00, including tax, ADOPTED with an allowance of .3021.19 trade-in for the City's small Comminutor. The award for the Communitor was made to the Chicago Pump Company by the adoption of Resolution No. 1815 on the motion of Councilman Richey, Mitchell second. WASHINGTON Mr. Weller presented the following tabulation of STREET SEWER bids received for the construction of the sanitary INTERCEPTOR sewer interceptor on Washington, Vine and Stockton streets: BIDS REJECTED William Burkhardt $18,024.00 Jardim and Rodriques 7,742.00 Stockton Construction Co. 19,840.00 ir. Weller reported that the City Engineer's esti- mate of the cost of the work covered by the speci- fications is 413,544.00. He also reported that the City Engineer had recommended that the bid of Jardim and Rodriques be rejected as he did not believe it to be a responsible bid. The report further pointed out that the company furnishing the bond for Jardim and nodriques had been contacted and had indicated it would be happy to have the bid rejected. In- vestigation of bidder's record indicates that it is a new firm with limited financial reserves. On the motion of Councilman Mitchell, Richey second, the Council voted to reject the bid of Jardim and Rodriques as not being a responsible bid, and in- structed the C-ity Clerk to spread the contents of the City Engineer's memorandum and the letter from the bonding company in the minutes of the meeting. On the motion of Councilman Robinson, Richey second, the Council then voted to reject -the bids of William Burkhardt and Stockton Con- struction Company as being substantially higher than the City Engineer's estimate, and ordered the work done by force account. 328 Minutes of May 20, 1954 continued. Following is the City Engineer's Memorandum: "T0: City Manager DATE: May 20, 1954 FROM: City Engineer "Below is a tabulation of the bids received on May 17, 1954, for sanitary sewers in Washington, Vine and Stockton Streets: Wm. Jardim & Stockton Burkhardt Rodrigues Const.Co. 3560 £t. 16" sewers 48,544.00 :3,382.00 $8,900.00 3200 ft. 18* sewers 7,880.00 3,360.00 9,440.00 10 standard manholes 1,600.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 Total 418,024.00 47,742.00 019,840.00 "I wish to recommend that the bids of Wm. Burkhardt and Stockton Construction Company be rejected inasmuch as they represent a cost consider- ably higher than could be obtained by the use of City forces and equipment. "I wish to recommend that the Jardim and Rod- riques bid be rejected because I do not believe it to be a responsible bid. I believe it is impos- sible for them to do the work at the figure quoted. I have talked to the bonding company which would act as bidder's surety and they are very unhappy about this bid.. They would like to have the bid rejected. They have contacted the bidder who has indicated a willingness to withdraw his bid pro- vided he is not required to forfeit his bid deposit. The bonding company tells me they have a letter in the mail to that effect, but as of Thursday afternoon, the letter has not arrived. "The bonding company further tells me that the bidder is new at this venture and that his finances are very limited. If he were required to complete the work, at the price quoted, he would undoubtedly be placed in a serious financial situation. "From the City's standpoint, I can foresee many unpleasant relationships with the contractor if he were required to proceed, and possibly some legalaction. "I have previously submitted to you my estimate of what it would cost the City to do the work with our own forces: namely, a total of 418,844.00, less $5,300.00 worth of concrete pipe, or a net price of 413,544.00 for the work contemplated under the contract. In the contract I specified that the City would supply all concrete pipe." The bonding company's letter is as follows: "R.C.FISCHER Insurance -- Surety Bonds 150 Santa Clara Avenue, Oakland 10, Cal. May 19, 1954 "City of Lodi City Engineer City Hall Lodi, California Minutes of May 20, 1954 continued. 3 2 I L ATTEST: HENRY A. GLAVES, JR. City Clerk "Gentlemen: Re: Sanitary Sewers at Washington and Stockton Streets in the City of Lodi "I have contacted Mr. Manuel Jardim of Jardim and Rodriques who bid the Sanitary Sewers in Lodi on the 17th of May. "Mr. Jardim informs me if the City will release him without penalty, he would like to withdraw his bid. Very truly yours, (signed) R. C. Fischer" CLAIMS Claims in the amount of $76,710.29 were arproved on the motion of Councilman Richey, Hughes second. PROJECT On the motion of Councilman Hughes, Mitchell second, STATEMENT the City Manager was authorized to sign the Project STREETS Statement for Maintenance of Secondary and Major Streets. WASTE PAPER The City Manager presented a request from the CONTAINERS Chamber of Commerce for permission to place re- ceptacles on the sidewalks in the business district for the collection of waste paper and trash. Coun- cilman Richey protested that the containers would not improve the appearance of the streets and side- walks. The Council agreed to instruct the City Manager to reply to the letter from the Chamber of Commerce and explain that the City Council does not wish to take any action on the request. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT The City Manager reported that the Planning Com - FAMILY CARE mission on May 10, 1954, received a report from PLAN the Zoning Committee of the approval of the appli- cation from Mr. and Mrs. George Seibel, 433 East Locust Street, for a State Certified Family -Care - Plan -Home. HAM LANE Councilman Robinson pointed out that the Planning PAVEMENT Commission had recommended that the pavement width WIDTH on Ham Lane from Lockeford Street to Turner Road be established at 60 feet and the projected plan for Ham Lane from Kettleman Lane to Turner Road have an ultimate 601foot pavement with an 80 -foot right of way. City Attorney Mullen pointed out that it would be possible to include that portion of Ham Lane north of Elm Street since curbs and gutters have not been installed between Elm Street and Lockeford Street at the present time. On the motion of Councilman Robinson, Richey second, the Council voted to establish a 60 -foot pavement width on Ham Lane between Elm Street and Turner Road. The City Council adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ATTEST: HENRY A. GLAVES, JR. City Clerk