1970-09-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY EVENING - - - - SEPTEMBER 15, 1970
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Longaker and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend H. W. Van Delinder, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr.
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held September 1, 1970, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane and Dr. James M. Boyd, Co- Chairmen, Bay Farm Island Action Team, with regard
to a petition to be submitted in connection with the Bay Farm Island development.
President La Croix stated those submitting the petition would be permitted to speak on the subject under
"Oral Communications, Agenda
(5),
3. From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 171 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
4., Dr. James M. Boyd, 1312 East Shore Drive, expressed his thanks for the privilege of addressing the
Council on behalf of the Bay Farm Island Action Team on their concern with regard to the prospect of growing
population on the "Island ". He said the concern was shared by a great number of people in the City. The
views expressed had already been presented to the Planning Board.
Dr. Boyd submitted a petition containing more than 5,000 signatures and read the statement thereon, as
follows: "We, as concerned citizens of Alameda, do not want nor can we afford 28,000 more people on Bay
Farm Island. Such a population would be disastrous to the environment, economy and quality of life of our
City. Therefore, we, the undersigned, urgently request the Planning Board and City Council to take immediate
steps, through legislative and other appropriate means, to make such a population impossible.
Dr. Boyd stated the signers of the petition were appalled at the proposed population projected for Bay Farm
Island and considered the suggested 28,500 excessive, with severe adverse economic, environmental and social
implications. He said it was felt by most of his Team that the original permission to fill 1,000 acres of
San Francisco Bay for use by commercial land developers was ill- advised, although it was recognized that the
decision must now be lived with, as well as the resulting adverse consequences. However, he said they
strongly opposed compounding the error to permit further development on Bay Farm Island, especially as
expansion plans involved substantial degradation of the original proposal by reducing the lagoons and open
space areas, building more apartments, and building on land which was described as "unsuitable for residen-
tial development Dr. Boyd continued at some length in explanation of the thinking of the group, closing
with the statement that the group urged strongly that the proposal to increase the authorized population
on Bay Farm Island not be approved.
Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, also addressed the Council on the subject of the petition. She said
the concern of the Action Team was based on the population increase indicated in the map attached to. the
Letter of Understanding dated May 4, 1970, between Utah Construction ;& Mining Co., the Alameda Unified
School District and the City Council, compared to the original Hawley plan for the proposed development.
She suggested to keep faith with the citizens already residing on Bay Farm Island, emphasis should be kept
on a family -type, water - oriented community of 15,000 to 18,000, as originally proposed and approved. She
added the May, 1970, map was predicated on the Southern Crossing and expressed the opinion that this would
be a total disaster to Bay Farm Island and Alameda; with the span, Bay Farm Island and the City of Alameda
would become a gigantic toll plaza interchange.
Mrs. Lane said there was an overwhelming lack of confidence in the City administration, frustration, a fee
ing of unresponsive City government, destruction of the single - family neighborhood and apparently uncontrolled
apartment building, indications of which appeared in the Appendix A Community Survey of the Comprehensive
General Plan Survey in 1966, with an increase in the intervening four years.
Mrs. Lane stated she had received a communication from a citizen which was felt to have merit and which
expressed in four points the ideas of many citizens, that the population explosion was not confined to Bay
Farm Island but was affecting the whole of Alameda and suggesting a Charter amendment to put a freeze on new
apartment construction, allow only unit - for -unit replacement of housing in the future and allow only single
family construction on undeveloped lots, granting no exceptions except through a vote of the people,
Mrs. Lane urged that the Council, in the impending joint meeting with the Planning Board on October 5, start
restoring the confidence of the citizens in City government by standing firm and taking the first step in
controlling the environment on Bay Farm Island.
President La Croix expressed appreciation to Mrs. Lane and Dr. Boyd for their efforts and concern, parti-
cularly for the central core area of the City as well as for Bay Farm Island. He pointed out the only plan
before the Planning Board and the City Council at the present time was the Hawley plan. The Letter of
Understanding had also been entered into with the Unified School District to preserve open land areas for
school use and park sites, based upon information from Utah Construction & Mining Co., when higher density
for Bay Farm Island was certainly envisioned. He stated that when and if a plan was submitted to the
Board for a change in the density or the layout of the area in question, there would have to be a Hearing
and, most certainly, the plan would have to come before the Council after action had been taken by the
Board. At that time, the Council would hear the facts and weigh the possibility of taking any action,
adverse or positive, on the proposed development. At this time, he said, he could only compliment Mrs.
Lane and Dr. Boyd for their interest.
President La Croix said he felt there were points on which all members of the City Council had shown
concern over the years and, in many instances, actions by members of the Council who had given unselfishly
of their time had been unpopular with some of the citizens of the community. He said, in all fairness to
the members of the Council, there might be lack of confidence by some people of the community but he, for
one, felt there was a lack of confidence in those who never appeared before the Council to voice their
opinions or concern. He complimented those who did appear but commented the vast majority of the people
never did so.
It was directed that the communication and petition be referred to the file on the subject for perusal
by the members of the Council.
Councilman Levy pointed out that the Council was fully aware of the concern of all signers of this petition
and felt the same interest. However, he emphasized this was not the time for the Council to take a stand
on the issue under discussion.
Councilman McCall reviewed the history of the area of Bay Farm Island under discussion and said he was not
about to tell someone he could not live in the City of Alameda. He said he felt it was to the "R-4" and
"R-5" Districts around Santa Clara and Central Avenues that density would come in the future. He contended
no one had the right to tell the owner of a lot 200 by 200 feet in these centralized locations that he could
not build an apartment house, as he could not afford to build single-family homes on his property. On the
other hand, Councilman McCall said he felt that when the Bay Farm Island plans come before the Council it
would be necessary to take a real good look at them as he did not want to see an inferior type of develop-
ment. The property, he pointed out, was not owned by the City but by a private corporation and, should it
see fit to "bail out" of the project or put in single-family dwellings, as suggested by the petitioners,
the City could come up with something which would be costly taxwise and would cause real problems. He said
the opportunity was provided to build dwellings on Bay Farm Island similar to those being built at the
present time and many people had moved from the main island to the townhouses there. He commended that
condominium-type living was becoming a way of life in the area.
Councilman McCall also mentioned the young people who had been compelled to buy homes out of the City to
build up an equity and who would like to come back to Alameda. He said until such time as he saw the plan
for the proposed development he would not criticize the developer or anyone else. He commended those who
had circulated the petition but expressed the opinion that it did not say there was lack of confidence in
the City Council.
Councilman Fore noted that neither Mrs. Lane nor Dr. Boyd lived on Bay Farm Island. He expressed agree-
ment with the opinions set forth by Councilman McCall with reference to the proposed development.
President La Croix stated he believed there were many citizens who were concerned with the population
increase and with the number of multiple units being constructed in the City and this was one of the reasons
for the joint meeting to be held with the Planning Board on October 5. He said he felt all should keep in
mind that there is progress, and properly planned progress could be good. This did not mean that building
should cease or that densities should not be increased in certain areas which could be an enhancing thing
for the community. He suggested the petitioners be prepared to present their points at such time as a new
plan for the Bay Farm Island development might be presented to the Planning Board for consideration.
Dr. Boyd requested the opportunity to speak and expressed the opinion that there had been a misunderstanding
as to the position of the petitioners. He respectfully asked that the members of the Council review the
letter submitted with regard to the petition which set forth their major concerns, based on a plan for
28,500 people which they thought had been submitted - not a full-fledged plan but an indication of the
increased density. He said his group would be prepared to go into more detail at the proper time but wanted
to point out to the Council their concerns in the matter.
HEARINGS:
5. In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance to allow the
off-street parking requirements to be reduced from one and one-half to one space per unit on construction
at 2620 Santa Clara Avenue. The Appeal had been filed by Mr. K. Kakligian.
The Clerk stated the Appellant had been informed that this would be the time and place for Hearing in the
matter and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the application was considered had been sent
to the Councilmen.
On request, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, distributed to the Councilmen copies of the applicant's
exhibit indicating his proposal. He stated the Appeal involved one part of a two-part variance request.
MIt". Kakligian had also applied for permission to construct an extra unit which the Board had granted, but
denied the off-street parking relief which he sought. Mr. Kakligian's representative at the Board Hearing
had stated the applicant had had a difficult time in acquiring the property, having sought to do so for
more than a year At the time of his original offer he had thought he could develop the property easily
with four units and provide only four off-street parking spaces. By the time the transaction was completed
the ordinance requiring one and one-half spaces for each unit had been passed. The Board had found that,
since the recently adopted off-street parking ordinance increasing the number of spaces required was a good
one, there would be a serious precedent established if it should grant relief in this case as there was no
real hardship shown. Therefore, that portion of the variance application had been denied. The applicant
had stipulated that he could develop the property with four units and six- off - street parking spaces, that
within the lot itself there was sufficient so- called geometry to provide for this, as shown on one of Mr.
Kakligian's exhibits.
City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the City Council was whether or not the action and findings
of the Planning Board, taken under Section 11- 161(b) and (e) of the Municipal Code, should be affirmed,
modified or reversed.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Kakligian, 4011 Ardley Avenue, Oakland, the Appellant, came forward. He
submitted to the members of the Council two drawings of his proposed construction, one indicating four off-
street parking spaces and the other showing six spaces. Also submitted were copies of statements from
owners of adjacent properties stating they had no objection to his building with only four garages in the
front of the property.
Mr. Kakligian explained that if he was forced to place six garages on the property they would have to be
built on the rear of the lot with a loss of about 65% of the area for parking and driveways. This would
not leave sufficient area to construct deluxe units. He said he also did not feel it was fair to his
tenants nor to his neighbors to have a driveway next to their homes with people driving in and out during
the night. He said he had discussed the matter with his neighbors and they preferred not having this long
driveway alongside the house and expressed the wish that the requested variance would be granted to permit
construction with four garages on the front of the property, as set forth in their supporting statements.
Mr. Kakligian stated he planned to move to Alameda and live in the proposed dwelling.
On the call for opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed.
President La Croix stated the Council was sympathetic to people wishing to develop property which was zoned
for multiple dwellings but he felt very strongly that if it were to digress from the ordinance it would be
doing untold injustice to future builders.
Councilman Levy explained that he had voted against the proposed ordinance originally as he felt the require -
ments were not sufficiently rigid. However, on the second presentation he had reconsidered and compromised
that the one and one -half spaces to one could be a good thing for the City and he had voted for the ordinance.
Mr. Johnson stated for the information of the Council that, in contrast to many applicants with whom his
Department had difficulty, Mr. Kakligian had been most cooperative and the recommendation was without pre-
judice. It was recognized that he was a good developer and a good land owner.
Councilman McCall moved the Appeal be denied and the ruling of the Planning Board be affirmed. Councilman
Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Malott and Peterson - Grundy, to
the project of Widening and Resurfacing Tennis Courts at Krusi Park at a price of $14,607.60
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be adopted, that the contract be awarded to the designated firm
for the specified project at the price quoted. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
7.Y' From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Glen T. Fleming, low bidder, for the project'
of Improvements to Eagle Avenue from Webster Street to Eighth Street at a price of $27,481.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be approved, that the contract be awarded to the specified firm for '-
the project named at the price quoted. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
bidder, for
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Brought up at this time were the matters of:
8.
9.
Consideration and adoption of a Budget for the City of Alameda for fiscal year 1970 -1971; and
Consideration and adoption of the tax rate for the City of Alameda for fiscal year 1970 -1971.
President La Croix recalled that for the last fiscal year the City tax rate had been lowered, pointing out
that Alameda County taxes had been raised due to the rise in property assessments. The 5% utility tax had
been instituted in the City and felt to be just and proper. He said he felt very strongly that this had
been generally well accepted.
President La Croix stated in the "meet and confer" sessions conducted by the staff with City employee groups
and their representatives, agreement had been reached with regard to salary increases and certain benefits.
He expressed the opinion that the citizens could go a long way before they could find a more dedicated group
of city employees than those in Alameda and said he felt the salary raises and additional benefits agreed
upon were justified. In order to meet the increases, he said, it would be necessary to increase the tax
rate by a proposed twenty cents. This` was something the Council did not like to do, but he noted that the
surrounding cities had adopted greater tax increases with the exception of San Leandro which, in the light
of its industrial tax base, was able to drop its rate.
City Manager Weller, on request, commented that in his career as a City Manager for approximately twenty -
four years this was the third time he had had to recommend an increase in taxes and he was not happy to have
to do so. He criticized the actions of the State Legislature with regard to taxes, which meant that city
councils such as the Alameda representatives, well- meaning, dedicated people at the local level, were
forced to carry the brunt of the public reaction against increased taxes.
140
There being no objections, the order of business proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
10.v The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7671
Approving and Adopting a Budget for the Fiscal Year 1970-1971;
Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in
Said Budget for Said Fiscal Year and Ratifying Certain Expendi-
tures Heretofore Made."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
11. ■7 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7672
Fixing the Rate and Levying a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year 1970-1971 and Apportioning
the Same Among the Several Funds of the City." ($2.16)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Councilman McCall stated he felt the people of the community should realize that the City Manager had had
quite a number of problems this year with respect to the budget and the tax rate and, if he had not felt
it would be possible to "live with" a reserve fund of approximately $215,000, it would have been necessary
to raise the rate by a considerably higher figure. He said the City, in all fairness to its employees,
had met and bargained in good faith, as required by law, that most of the employees live within the
community and participate in its activities and were deserving of the benefits granted them. He said he
felt Mr. Weller should be complimented on his presentation of the budget and the proposed tax rate.
President La Croix added his comments of commendation to Mr. Weller as an outstanding City Manager and
said he believed, regardless of indications of restlessness and concern, that it would be hard to find
better services than those provided in the City of Alameda.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
12. / Councilman Longaker brought up the subject of a memorandum from the City Manager dated August 14,
1970, with regard to the problems on the Municipal Golf Courses, pointing out the loss shown by the
operation for the last fiscal year and continuing each month. He expressed the opinion, in which he felt
Mr. Weller concurred, that the Courses should come closer to carrying their own weight and that some
action should be taken on this situation. He suggested that the Recreation Commission be authorized to
call for bids for the services of a qualified consultant to study the operation, or to request that the
Commission explore and make recommendations on the best way to utilize the best portions of the South
Course, with a view to reducing the operation expenses and overhead costs.
After some discussion of the subject and on advice of Mr. Weller, Councilman Longaker moved that the
Recreation Commission be directed to explore and recommend the best ways to utilize the best portions of
the South Golf Course with a view to reducing the operation expenses and overhead costs. Councilman Levy
seconded the motion.
President La Croix suggested the study include the thought of using a portion of the area as an upland
park area He felt it should be pointed out to the Commission that this had been one of the considerations
of the Council for Bay Farm Island for a number of years, and he would hope that this would be considered
in the overall study. He said he also felt, in all fairness to Councilman McCall's remarks over the years,
that if golf play was to be curtailed on the South Course strong consideration should be given to the
possibility of having a par three course.
Councilman McCall remarked that there were many people who wanted to play only nine holes, and suggested
that a nine-hole course be constructed from the present eighteen and it be played at a nine-hole rate.
He said he felt also that the Council should sit down with the Recreation Commission and discuss the
entire subject.
At Mr. Weller's suggestion and with the consent of his second, Councilman Longaker amended his motion to
include that it be indicated to the Commission that at such time as it felt ready to discuss this matter,
the Council would welcome the opportunity for a joint meeting for the purpose.
The question was then put on the motion, as amended, which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
RESOLUTIONS:
13. V The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7673
Designating Area Libraries for the Planning of the East Bay Cooperative
Library System."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore.
Councilman Levy complimented Mr. Carl W. Hamilton, Librarian, on his fine Annual Report
the resolution under discussion was very well worthwhile.
Mr. Hamilton, who was in the audience, was introduced and thanked for his good job.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.- Noes: None.
Absent: None.
14. f The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7674
e said he fe
Amending Section 1 of Resolution No. 7651 of the City of Alameda,
Designating the Number of and Providing for the Compensation of
Certain Officers and Other Employees of the City of Alameda."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
15. ( The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7675
Approving Warrant No. 171 of the Board of Trustees of Reclamation
District No. 2105."
ollow-
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
16. "Ordinance No 1631,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the
City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series."
(2110 Otis Drive Dowling - A -P to R -4 -PD)
Councilman Longaker 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 $43,480.02, 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 September 15,
1970, 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:
18. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, said he was in sympathy with the people o
and wished more people would appear before the Council on subjects such as the Bay Farm
and density.
Mr. Gottstein characterized the population increase not as a growth, but an invasion.
Mr. Gottstein complained again that the sidewalk on the College of Alameda grounds on the west side of
Webster Street had been removed and would not be replaced. He was informed that the removal had been pro-
posed by the College and, through the Traffic Advisory Committee, the sidewalk was not considered necessary
and was taken out.
19. Mr. Joseph M. Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, stated he had passed petitions opposing the Bay Farm
Island development in the east end of the City. He expressed the opinion that the proposed project would,
create too great a growth too rapidly.
20., Dr. Neylan Vedros, 2625 San Jose Avenue, stated he was in favor of the tax increase, adding he felt
for the services given in Alameda the taxes were very low.
Dr. Vedros said he thought the City should find a way to advertise the amount of the tax to the people.
He said his reason was that some very seriously needed school bonds had been voted down because the property
taxes were said to be higher. He felt if the citizens of Alameda had some access to the information on jus
how fair and low the City taxes were, they might not be so willing to vote down bonds for schools which
would be coming up again and were so badly needed.
It was suggested some cooperation could be obtained from the utilities for spreading this type of information.
Mr. Weller explained that the real problem was the ad valorem tax and getting some of the present ongoing
operating load off properties. He said he felt it was unrealistic to talk of floating more bond issues of
any kind so long as the ad valorem tax rate remained as high as it was at present.
142
A
21. Mr. Patrick Dunn, 1826 San Jose Avenue, stated he agreed with Dr. Vedros and Mr. Weller in their
statements. He said he had always voted for school bonds although his children attended the parochial
schools, but said he could not see the point of tearing down good schools to build new ones, on the claim
that the old schools were not earthquakeproof.
President La Croix stated this matter was controlled by legislation passed by the State, which charged
the School District and its elected officials to do what the law says or be held liable.
Councilman Longaker stated as the present law stands, by 1975 these buildings which had been deemed
unsafe would be vacated whether the School Department liked it or not.
22. / Mr. Lawrence A. Patton, 1020 San Antonio Avenue, recalled that recently he had written to the council
with regard to forming a committee, free of charge to the City, to attempt to find out some facts about the
Golf Courses. He suggested that someone from the City inspect the maintenance work, for instance. He
expressed the hope that the Council would consider the matter very carefully before closing one of the
Courses and selling the land.
President La Croix suggested that Mr. Patton report suggestions for more adequate maintenance to the
groundskeepers at the Golf Course. He also suggested that he attend meetings of the Recreation Commission
and submit his ideas which, he was sure, would be welcomed. He complimented Mr. Patton for his interest.
23.4 Rev. Robert Buckwalter, 2311 Buena Vista Avenue, said he was continually amazed at the breadth and
depth of the concern of the members of the Council in the City's problems. With regard to the Bay Farm
Island issue, he said he had lost faith in the Council, and he felt he spoke for many people, because it
was felt the density issue had been decided in connection with approval of the Letter of Understanding
dated May 4, 1970, involving provision of school and park sites on the development. Also, Mr. Johnson,
Planning Director, had said the development plan was unfeasible without the Southern Crossing and the
Council had voted against the Crossing. He said he was upset with these two actions of the Council.
24. Mr. Lesley Forden, 1448 Page Street, added his remarks, saying that at the meetings of the Council
and the Board of Education on the subject of the Bay Farm Island development and the Letter of Understand-
ing of May 4, at no time had any City officials said one word of opposition to more population.
President La Croix explained again the purpose of the meeting and the Letter of Understanding had been to
protect the School District so that, should it come about that there would be that type of density on Bay
Farm Island, the School District would have adequate school sites and the City of Alameda would be protected
with adequate recreational and green areas. He pointed out there was no legal manner in which anyone could
say to the City of Alameda that there would be 28,000 population in the development.
Mr. Forden suggested the people might be reassured if the Council did not continually say, "if the popula-
tion should reach 28,000."
FILING:
25. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity as of July 31, 1970 Verified by George A.
Hackleman.
26. Annual Report - Alameda Free Library.
27. Budget - City of Alameda - for fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
MEMORIAL RESOLUTION:
28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7676
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to
Henry P. Wichman, Retired Bureau of Electricity Employee
"WITH GREAT SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one
of its former loyal employees, HENRY P. WICHMAN.
"WHEREAS, Mr. Wichman had commenced his employ with the City on June 22, 1907, as
a Senior Account Clerk at the Bureau of Electricity, and had performed his duties capably
and conscientiously in that capacity until his retirement on December 31, 1949; and
"WHEREAS, Mr. Wichman had always been a most amiable person, cooperative with his
associates, and especially popular for the enjoyment he provided at employees' affairs with
his skill as a raconteur.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in recognition of the devoted service given
by Mr. Wichman during his forty-two years of City employ, the Council of the City of Alameda
hereby expresses its gratitude for the faithful and excellent work of this former employee.
"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 Mr. Wichman in order to extend to
its members a sincere expression of condolence 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 HENRY P. WICHMAN."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
29. At this time, Councilman Levy moved the Council retire to an Executive Session for discussion o
personnel matters. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
At the conclusion of the deliberations, it was determined that no further action would be taken at
meeting.
30. President La Croix requested that all in attendance stand for a moment of silence in observance o
the passing of Mr. Henry P. Wichman.
ADJOURNMENT:
31. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the
memory of HENRY P. WICHMAN, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, October 6, 1970, at 7:30
o'clock.
Respectfully submitted,
7
City Clerk