1969-12-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY EVENING DECEMBER 16, 1969
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman McCall and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend Wilfred H. Hodgkin, Rector of Christ Episcopal Church.
President La Croix asked that those present remember former Councilman William "Mike" Bartley,
who was critically ill.
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 December 2, 1969, were approved as transcribed.
2.e President La Croix recognized Mrs. Delio, teacher at St. Joseph's Grammar School, and her Eighth
Grade students, who were present in connection with their study of Government. He thanked them for
their interest in attending the meeting and expressed the hope that the experience would prove informa-
tive.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
3.' From Mrs. Rena V. Ramsey, 2041 Eagle Avenue, objecting to the retroactive feature of the recent
increase in garbage rates and also to the advance billing for service by the Alameda City Disposal in
three -month periods.
President La Croix explained that the ordinance effecting the increase in rates, No. 1599, New Series,
was adopted after the August 1 deadline, thereby creating the retroactive change. The procedure was tied
to the fact that the Alameda City Disposal was involved at the time in Union negotiations, the result of
which would be effective on July 1 and would obviously become a factor in the amount of rate adjustment
necessary.
City Manager Weller, on request, stated he had checked the complaint with Mr. Randal F. Dickey, Jr.,
Attorney for the garbage association. He explained that Mrs. Ramsey had been billed retroactively in
conformity with the provisions of the ordinance and with the general policy of the association. This
policy was to bill in advance, normally for a three -month period, as the amounts were relatively small
and the method was considered most convenient for the customer and obviously in the best interest of the
company because of the number of "move- outs" in the City.
Mr. Weller suggested, if the Council should so desire, he might contact the Alameda City Disposal and
discuss the problem, particularly with respect to its policy on the length of the advance billing period,
the reason therefor, and any limitations which should be worked out. It was requested that this be done.
4.' From Mr. Frank Terranova, requesting the opportunity to address the Council with regard to the
City ordinance which prohibits his making certain repairs on his property at 2318 Eagle Avenue.
Mr. Terranova was to be permitted to speak under "Oral Communications, Agenda ".
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
5.r Mr. Terranova, 1622 Clinton Avenue, came forward. He read a prepared statement objecting to the
City ordinance (Section 8 -3.03 of the Municipal Plumbing Code), which he believed was unconstitutional.
The ordinance, he said, prohibited him from making repairs on his property at 2318 Eagle Avenue, which he
had intended to convert so that his wife might use it as a poodle shop. He had been informed upon applying
for a permit that inasmuch as he proposed to use the property commercially he must employ a plumbing
contractor to do the work.
Mr. Terranova contended that, under the constitutional rights of a property owner, he should be permitted
to hold and to own property and to make repairs thereon under a proper permit, pointing up that the same
Code provisions by which a licensed plumbing contractor must abide would govern him also. He could see
no reason why a hardship should be put upon the property owner with present -day high costs, as long as
the work was done legally. He felt the ordinance had an adverse effect to what was intended in that it
forced people to perform work illegally, and contended it should be changed.
City Attorney Cunningham stated he had talked with Mr. Terranova and informed him of steps he might take
in the matter. He felt the Council would not be inclined to repeal the section of the Code referred to
on the theory that private homeowners might be allowed some leeway but when the general public was involved
the City would require that work be done by someone holding a specialty license.
Mr. Terranova was informed that, in view of his strong feelings in the matter, his recourse might be to
file a legal suit. This, Mr. Terranova said, was what he intended to do.
City Engineer Hanna pointed out that there were many hidden dangers in plumbing. Gas piping and many
other hazardous installations were included in this work and the basis for the restriction was that jobs
in which these dangers were present be done by competent people. It had been pretty well accepted through-
out the country that this type of plumbing should be done by men who were licensed by the State.
Mr. Terranova disagreed, claiming that all work must be inspected in the rough. Further, he said, since
purchasing his property he had had it inspected by the Inspector, who had contended it must be brought
up to Code so there could be nothing hidden. He again expressed his disapproval of prohibiting private
enterprise in this manner.
Mr. Vernon Harvey, 1800 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of Mr. Terranova's attitude. He said there was
a tendency to overlook the fact that the purpose of rules and regulations was to protect the public.
Councilman Longaker pointed out that elected officials, whether City Councilmen, State legislators or
people in Washington, D.C., are elected to do a job and they pass laws for the common good of all. This,
he noted for the information of the students in attendance, was a part of the Constitution, and the proper
way to question the law was to do what Mr. Terranova had said he was going to do, to take the matter to
court.
HEARINGS:
6.7 In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to grant certain variances in
connection with proposed construction at 1500 Central Avenue and 1501 Alameda Avenue. The Appeal had
been filed by Graham and Eleanor Tattersall, owners of property at 1520 Central Avenue.
The City Clerk noted the parties involved had been informed that this would be the time and place for
Hearing in the matter. The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board at which the application was
considered had been sent to the Councilmen.
Communications had been received this date from Mrs. Virginia J. Larsen, 1293 Weber Street, in defense of
the trees; and from Mrs. Dorothy P. Allen, 1020 Pacific Avenue, in opposition to the variance.
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, on request, reviewed the action of the Board, as set forth in his
memorandum dated December 11, 1969, in granting an eight -part variance in connection with the construction
proposed. The variances were (1) to allow a six -foot fence and /or wall in the front yard area.- forty -eight
lineal feet; (2) to encroach two feet into the required ten -foot side yard area for a distance of twelve
feet on Alameda Avenue; (3) to allow a roof encroachment of two additional feet for a distance of thirteen
feet on Alameda Avenue; (4) to allow a maximum encroachment of two feet nine inches into the required
ten -foot side yard area for a distance of five feet six inches on Central Avenue; (5) to allow a maximum
encroachment of three feet into the required ten -foot side yard area for a distance of five feet nine
inches on Central Avenue; (6) to encroach a maximum of fifteen feet and a minimum three feet six inches
for a maximum distance of twenty -nine feet six inches into the twenty -foot rear yard area; (7) to encroach
fifteen feet for a distance of twenty -one feet into the required twenty -foot rear yard area; (8) to allow
the maximum allowable coverage of 6,042 square feet to be increased to 6,382 square feet or an increased
coverage of 340 square feet.
It was pointed out that, while the number might seem excessive, most of the variances were for only short
distances, triangular in shape and most the result of attempting to fit a rectangular building onto the
odd - shaped triangular lot, bounded on three sides by Central and Alameda Avenues and an unnamed street
connecting the two aforementioned Avenues, at this location. The front yard was considered the narrow
dimension fronting on the unnamed street, the side yards fronting on Alameda and Central Avenues, under
Zoning Ordinance definitions, and the rear yard that portion of the lot immediately adjoining the Tatter -
sall property.
Mr. Johnson stated the applicant proposed to develop the property with a six -unit condominium similar to
that developed by it at Union Street and Central Avenue. It was noted that it was theoretically possible
to develop the lot with an eight -unit apartment building, without applying for a variance.
The staff had supported the requested variances and noted that the lot was unusual and that any development
would be difficult and would probably require compromise.
Mr. Tattersall had appeared in protest at the Board Hearing, centering his complaint on.the removal of some
of the trees on the applicant's property. He had been informed that the Board had no authority over trees
on private property. The applicant had noted that rather extensive planting was.proposed.on the property
and that screen planting would be installed along the rear line.
Mr. Johnson was asked to elaborate on the statement that the applicant could construct eight units on the
parcel. Mr. Johnson said this was based on the square footage of the land; the developer could build an
eight -unit building removing all of ,the trees, if he so desired, without applying for a variance.
City Attorney Cunningham explained the issue before the City Council was whether or not the actions and
findings of the Board, taken under Section 11- 162(e) of the Alameda Municipal Code, should be affirmed,
modified or reversed.
On the call for proponents, Mrs. Eleanor Tattersall, 1520 Central Avenue, came forward. She read a state-
ment prepared by Mr. Tattersall, who could.not be present. He stated his reason for filing the Appeal was
that he felt the variance was not consistent with other actions of the Planning Board. Mr. Tattersall said
he felt the reason the garages -were not placed on the property.line was that they would not meet,the
variance requirement in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 11- 14A6(b), requiring that if a garage is placed on
the property line.it must be seventy -five feet from any street.
Mr. Tattersall also- objected to Mr. Johnson's reply to an inquiry with regard to.this Section of the -Code,
saying he felt Mr. Johnson had his mind made up before Mr..Tattersall had spoken.
Mr. Tattersall went on to say his main reason for making an issue of the development was because of the
trees on the site. He said it was difficult, if not impossible, to argue the economic worth of trees to
businessmen. However, he claimed if the City and the State continued to tear down the trees, people would'
be left with a rather dull place to live. He urged that something be done to prevent this. He claimed if
one unit, the fifth, were not built a grove of very large trees and several small trees could be saved,
although this would mean less profit for the developer.
Mr. Tattersall said he hoped, if the Council was not convinced that the plans for the development should
be changed, that it would set up a committee to study how an architectural review board could be promptly
established in the City with power to turn down building applications on aesthetic and ecological bases.
Mrs. Tattersall requested clarification on certain phases of the Board consideration. She questioned a
statement that the building could be put on the property line by detaching the garages from the units.
She also read and requested clarification of Section 11- 161(b) of the Municipal Code on the reason the
variance was granted. Mrs. Tattersall at this time submitted photographs of the trees in question.
Mr. Cunningham pointed out that Section 11- 14A6(b) was the matter on which there had been several years'
problem in trying to devise some language which would take into consideration the then existing difficulty
of accessory buildings. It had been amended recently. The Section was as interpreted by Mrs. Tattersall
and as shown on the drawing.
In explanation, Mr. Johnson said he felt the Board had found this was indeed an unusual lot, burdened by
an excessive frontage. The development proposed was very unusual, with a situation which did not apply
generally to other property in this like zone because, ordinarily, the Board would be considering a lot
of this area for an eight -unit apartment building. The development proposed seemed to be an attractive
one, far less detrimental to the neighborhood than "an eight -unit cheese box" which could be built there.
He said he believed the granting of the variance would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Master Plan as he believed the Plan, or the General Plan as it was now called, encouraged development of
this type wherever possible.
Mr. Johnson said if there ever was an unusual situation and an unusual finding for a number of variances,
this was one. He added, with regard to Mr. Tattersall's statement that it sounded as if his mind was
made up previous to the Hearing, he would respond that this was true. He had recommended to the Board
considerably previous to the Hearing that the application be granted.
Mr. Newton Elder, 2206 Encinal Avenue, suggested certain questions that officials should ask themselves,
in connection with situations like this one, with regard to exploitation of environment or ecology in the
older parts of the City, exploitation of land in the old districts, enhancement of the tax base at the
expense of environment.
Mr. Vernon Harvey commented the entire issue seemed to be based on the opinion of one man, the Planning
Director. This, to his mind, negated the democratic process and was detrimental to society.
President La Croix explained that the Planning Director and staff makes recommendations to the Board,
consisting of seven members, which renders decisions after much study and concern over any particular
project which might be proposed.
Mrs. Richard Cole, 2620 Bayview Drive, read a letter from Mr. Tom Taylor, 1049 Otis Drive, pleading that
the trees be saved. Mrs. Cole expressed her agreement with Mr. Taylor's statements, and said it seemed
odd that trees would be sacrificed in the older parts of the City while in the newer areas people were
encouraged to plant them.
Mr. Grant Payne, 858 Laurel Street, offered comments in support of the Appeal. He claimed there were
discrepancies in the number, position and size of trees between the site plan sketches submitted to the
Planning Board and the sketch shown in a recent issue of the Alameda Times -Star. He said he pointed this
out to show that the developers had become tree conscious since the present question had been raised.
He asked if the plan was to transplant large older trees to the site, as shown on later sketches, or if
saplings would be planted. He proposed, rather than to have the garage of Unit No. 5 attached as shown
on the drawings submitted, it be redesigned to place it under the house or on the first floor with a room
above it. In this way, he felt, all interests could be served, the trees could be spared, the developers
could still have this unit with approximately the same square footage, and the ultimate owner of the unit
would have property with some landscaping already in place. He expressed the opinion that the City should
have restrictions on trees, the same as it has restrictions on what property owners may or may not do with
their property.
Mr. Ashley 0. Jones, 1040 Fair Oaks Avenue, said he saw the Council's job as two -fold, to plan for the
future and to protect the citizenry at present. He deplored the fact that the provisions of the General
Plan had not been put into use.
Reverend Robert Buckwalter, 2311 Buena Vista Avenue, said he was concerned about destruction and read a
passage from the book, OUR PLUNDERED PLANET, dealing with the subject.
On the call for opponents, Mr. Donald Lindsey of Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett, came forward. He dis-
played drawings indicating the proposal for the property. He said his company was really concerned with
aesthetics and called attention to its development at Central Avenue and Union Street as an example. He
felt what was proposed would be a nice development for the City. A great deal of time and thought had
been given to arranging the building to save as many trees as possible, being concerned at the same time
with the size and quality of the units. He said in engineering studies every tree on the lot had been
plotted, at expense to the Company, and pointed out this aspect had been considered from the beginning of
the project and not just recently, as claimed. He said twelve major trees were involved, five of which
would be retained on the parcel itself. There were also four trees in the parking strip on the Central
Avenue side. The rendering which had appeared in the newspaper was not accurate. Mr. Lindsey said
there were additional trees around the building which were not shown. It was planned to plant mature
trees on the Alameda Avenue side and on the eastern boundary of the lot. He said saving the trees near
the Tattersall property would have been at the expense of Unit No. 5.
In reply to a question, Mr. Lindsey said the units were from approximately 1,450 to 1,600 square feet.
Councilman McCall inquired if there was a possibility that someone would wish to remove the trees rather
than to have them cut down. Mr. Lindsey said this aspect had not been investigated and he was not
knowledgeable on the subject.
Mrs. Carol Heche, 1521 Union Street, said she considered the planning which had gone into the condominium
at Union Street and Central Avenue excellent and the development had greatly improved the area. She sug-
gested it would have been better to have five, rather than six, units.
With regard to the matter under discussion, she read a prepared statement describing the trees on the lot
and suggesting some might be transplanted to other spots. She said only two of the trees were irreplace-
able - the Giant Redwood and the Magnolia. She felt, however, that they could be incorporated in the
planning by proper pruning or building around them. She also suggested that only five units be permitted,
if necessary to save these trees.
Mrs. Tattersall was granted an opportunity for rebuttal. She said the main issue before the Council was
the variance which had been granted for a fifteen -foot encroachment into a twenty -foot rear yard, which
she requested be denied. She also said she had wanted another point clarified as to major and minor trees
and Mrs. Heche had explained this. The trees which were being saved, in her mind, were minor while the
Redwood and the Magnolia, which would be sacrificed, were irreplaceable. She said she had nothing against
the builders but felt they should be more creative and go around the grove of trees.
Councilman Longaker said he had found in checking that the City was spending close to $170,000 per year
in maintaining the street trees alone. Thirteen employees of the City did nothing but take care of these
trees. He said he felt it would be recognized that there were people in City government who were cognizant
of the worth of trees in the community. Another problem involved was that the property in question was
privately owned and there was a question whether the City could tell the owners what they could do.
Councilman McCall said he would like to see the Redwood tree saved if possible. However, he pointed out
the fact that it was possible to put eight units on the property without obtaining any variances whatever.
He said he could not blame the Tattersalls for feeling as they did, although he had noted a sign on their
property that it was for sale. He felt the proposal would put a beautiful development on the lot in
question. He did not like the idea of sacrificing the trees and asked that Lindsey, Gallagher_ and Willett
do whatever they could to save then.
Councilman Fore moved the Appeal be denied and the ruling of the Planning Board be upheld. Councilman
Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
President La Croix said he believed this development was in the best interest of the community and compli-
mented the developers on previous building in the City. He expressed the hope that they could find it
within their financial means and concern for the, community to continue with developments of this type.
He felt the proposal lent itself to the General Plan and that the City was proceeding on the;Plan and
upgrading the types of developments coming along in the future. He pointed out that some of the zoning
with which the City was confronted was first instituted in the City approximately twenty -six. years ago.
There had been a great deal of upgrading in this field. He felt sure the Council and the City staff would
do its utmost to retain the green foliage and the -trees to the best interest of the citizens whenever
possible.
Councilman Levy pointed out that in the Park Street business area the merchants had voluntarily contributed
over $5,000 to have a tree planting program, to become effective soon.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
7/ From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending denial of a petition to rezone from
the "R -2 ", Two - Family Residence, to the "R -4 ", Neighborhood Apartment District, certain properties in
the 1600 blocks of Chapin and St. Charles Streets and the 1000 block of Pacific Avenue.
The Hearing on this petition was set for the next regular meeting of the Council on Tuesday evenin
January ;6, 1970.
8.'' From the City Manager, requesting authorization for payment of an invoice from the Bureau of Electri-
city in the amount of $1,702.58, in connection with the main fire station project.
Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be adopted, that payment of the invoice in question be authorized
in the amount specified in connection with the project named. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
9.' La Croix recalled that, some months previously, the. Council, after voting down a proposed
off - street parking ordinance, had referred the matter back to the Planning Board for study and report back
to the Council. He inquired of Mr. Johnson if he could say when this report might be forthcoming, so that
the Council might again look for some possible action on the matter.
Mr. Johnson said his Department was extremely short - handed at the present time and he could not say when
this report could be furnished to the Council. It was requested that all possible effort be made to get
the report to the Council as soon as possible.
NEW BUSINESS:
10.x President La Croix stated he had been approached by the Director of the Alameda Chapter of the.
American Red Cross with regard to the parking problem for night, as well as day, meetings in front of its
building on;Central Avenue near Chestnut Street, because of the multiple dwellings in the area. He inquired
if there was a possibility of alleviating the problem, especially during the daytime period, by a special
parking section from, possibly, 9:00 o'clock a.m. to 4:00 o'clock p.m.
Mr. Hanna stated he would be happy to look into the matter.
RESOLUTIONS:
11.- The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7573
Approving Disposal of Certain Records of First Aid Station."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
It was stated this action was taken for the reason that, with the removal of the First Aid function to
Alameda Hospital, the records were no longer pertinent.
12.,r "Resolution No.
Approving and Authorizing Execution of Apprentice Training Agreements
with State Division of Apprenticeship Standards."
Councilman Longaker requested that this matter be explained. At the suggestion of Mr. Weller, Assistant
City Manager Goss explained this program had begun approximately one year ago by a letter to the then
Mayor McCall from the State Division of Apprenticeship Standards, indicating they felt the area of
recruitment of policemen and firemen was crucial and needed support.
An Agreement was provided between the City and the State Division of Apprenticeship Standards and the
Veterans Administration to provide on the job training for new police and fire recruits who had been
honorably discharged from the service. It provided that over a two -year period, as long as they would
undertake and successfully complete a training program provided by the City for all such new recruits,
they would receive a certain sum in addition to the regular City salary. The program had begun in the
State of California and now was in effect in the City of Richmond and being considered in other cities
of the Bay area. Mr. Goss said the program was essentially designed to encourage policemen and firemen
to enter public safety employment. He felt it reflected recognition on the part of the Veterans Adminis-
tration and the State that there was a need for encouraging recruitment of outstanding young men into this
particular field.
Councilman Longaker inquired if the City was experiencing a shortage of police and fire recruits. Mr.
Weller stated the City's experience had been unusually good throughout the period when many public agencies
had had difficulty. However, he said, the recruiting problem, particularly in the police service, was
becoming more acute, and he would not want to feel too complacent about the past experience. The experience
at the State level had not been good, which was the reason for establishment of the program.
Councilman Fore asked, if the City should not adopt this program and a veteran should come along and
have the proper qualifications for appointment, whether he could apply for the aidprovided by the program.
Mr. Goss stated this would not be possible because there would have to be an established approved
training program, which this Agreement would provide.
Mr. Weller also pointed out that this was a competitive field, particularly in the police service area,
and to the extent that other cities would undertake the program, to that extent the City of Alameda would
be at a disadvantage if it did not have the program, at least in recruiting veterans.
There was discussion as to the position of non - veteran recruits. President La Croix suggested the intent
of the resolution was not to exclude non - service personnel but, when a qualified veteran might be involved,
this was an opportunity to be granted to such applicants, should they be accepted by the City. He also
remarked there had been some objection to the use of the term "apprentice" training in connection with the
Agreement. He suggested the word be deleted from the title of the resolution. It was determined this
would be valid and it would not change the import of the contract. Mr. Goss stated there was a parallel
already in the fact that there were veterans' preference points given to certain candidates in examinations
in most public jurisdictions as a matter of public policy to encourage veterans to enter public service.
Councilman McCall said normally when the word "apprentice" was used it meant a man was going to get less
money. His understanding, he said, was that a provision of this type would give a man journeyman's wages
while he was serving his apprenticeship. This program, he felt, would give a man top money at the start
of employment, whereas another man who was not in the service but might have been in a high priority defense
position would receive $80 to $100 per month less. His thought, he said, was that the City might make up
the difference and compensate all recruits in this way. Councilman McCall requested that action on the
resolution be held over until unanimous agreement could be reached by the Alameda County Mayors' Conference
that every city in the County would adopt the program so that Alameda would not be put at a disadvantage.
Councilman Longaker said he felt the entire salary structure was being tampered with. He moved the
resolution be tabled for further study. Councilman McCall seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, President La Croix stated he felt it was nice for the City to be in the lead in
salary negotiations and benefits to its employees for a change. He felt this was a good resolution and
the proposal would be beneficial to a lot of veterans.
Councilman Fore expressed his approval of the plan. It was stated the Personnel Director was also in
favor of the plan.
The question was then put and the motion carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes:
Councilman Fore and President La Croix, (2). Absent: None.
The City Manager was requested to provide such additional information as might be required by the
Councilmen.
13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7574
Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Shelving,
Benches, Storage Cabinet, Bin and Lockers for Central Equipment Garage
Facility, Calling for Bids and. Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
14. ' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7575
Amending Salary Resolution No. 7503 by Creating Seven (7) New Positions
of Police Aide and Establishing the Salary Therefor; by Creating One (1)
Additional Position of Survey Party Chief; by Creating Four (4) Additional
Positions of Fireman; and by Deleting the Classification and Three (3)
Positions of Police Communication Dispatcher."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
15.'' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7576
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to
Mrs. William J. Pooley, Member of the Social Service Board.
"IN A SPIRIT OF SADNESS,.the Council of the City of Alameda records the death
of one of its most dedicated public officials, Mrs. WILLIAM .J..POOLEY.
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Pooley was first appointed as a member of the Social Service
Board on July 21, 1953, to fill a vacancy existing at that time; and
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Pooley had served continuously as an active member of the Board
since the date of her appointment and had acted as its President for two terms during
those years; and
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Pooley had always shown a sincere spirit of humanitarianism and
had contributed generously in time and effort to the welfare of the less fortunate and to
the activities of various organizations concerned with the proper social and physical
development of the youth of the City.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does
hereby acknowledge with genuine appreciation the many years of noteworthy service
rendered by this fine woman on behalf of the residents of the City and does also express
its sense of personal loss in her passing.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread in-full upon the minutes
of this meeting and a copy thereof be sent to the family of Mrs. Pooley that it might
convey to its members sincere sympathy in their bereavement.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this meeting of the Council of the City of
Alameda adjourns, it shall do so in respect to the memory of Mrs. WILLIAM J. POOLEY."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None..
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted, as indicated.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
16. "Ordinance No. 1610,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 8 to Title X
Thereof, Relating to the. Construction, Regulation and Maintenance
of Floating Homes and Floating Home Moorages Within the City."
Councilman Fore moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy
and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
17. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $71,179.97, 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 December 16,
1969, 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.
00
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
18./ Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, inquired if the former Webb Avenue Fire Station was being
used for any purpose. On request, Mr. Weller stated there were several possibilities, either for disposi-
tion of the building or reuse. He expected to submit a report to the Council shortly as to what was
available on the property for whatever action might seem indicated.
Mr. Gottstein commented on the lack of room in the City Hall. He suggested moving one or two of the
City Departments to the Webb Avenue building. He also suggested that the City purchase the property at
the southwest corner of Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue, remove the building and include the land in the
City Hall parking lot.
19. President La Croix, at this time, recognized Mr. William S. Godfrey, former Mayor and presently
Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda.
Mr. Godfrey came forward and reported he had just returned from Washington, D.C. He said a new appropria-
tion;had been received for Section 23 of the Rent Supplement Program, which had been in financial trouble,
and the program would now go ahead.
He said the office staffs of the City's representatives in Washington had requested that he extend Season's
Greetings to the people of Alameda in their behalf.
20.7 President La Croix also recognized Mr. Clarence Gilmore, also a member of the Housing Authority.
He commented that the appropriation mentioned by Mr. Godfrey was in the amount of a half million dollars.
He complimented Messrs. Godfrey, H. Theodore Craig III, Attorney, and Richard Marquardt, Administrator,
as well as other members of the "Authority ", and extended thanks for the fine job being done.
FILING:
21. Specifications No. MS 12 -69 -11 - Equipment for Central Garage Facility.
22. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of October 31, 1969 - Verified by
Hackleman, Larzelere, McKenna & von Kaschnitz.
23. Monthly Report of Securities Transactions, November, 1969.
24.v' Councilman McCall remarked that the mother of Mr. James R. Brummer, Chief Building Inspector, had
passed away. He requested that out of respect to Mr. Brummer, the meeting also be adjourned in respect
to the memory of Mrs. Martha Brummer.
25. President La Croix requested that the Council retire to an executive session for discussion of
appointments to City Boards and Commissions.
Councilman McCall moved the Council meet in executive session as requested. Councilman Longaker seconded
the motion which carried unanimously.
26. The President requested that all stand for a moment of silence in observance of the passing of
Mrs. William J. Pooley, member of the Social Service Board, and Mrs. Martha Brummer.
27. The Council, after a short recess, reconvened in executive session in Room 303 of the City Hall, to
discuss the matter of appointing a member of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda to serve the
remainder of the term of Mr. William S. Godfrey. Mr. Godfrey had requested that he be relieved of his
duties as of December 31, 1969, in accordance with the agreement he had had with the Council at the time
he took office on the "Authority ".
After some discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Kenneth Kofman would be appointed to fill said term. The
City Attorney was requested to prepare the appropriate resolution for action. at the Council meeting of
January 6, 1970, the appointment to take effect January 1, 1970.
ADJOURNMENT:
28. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the
memory of Mrs. WILLIAM J. POOLEY and Mrs. MARTHA BRUMMER, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday
evening, January 6, 1970, at 7:30 o'clock.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk