Loading...
1970-10-20 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING - - - - OCTOBER 20, 1970 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Levy. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr. were noted present. Absent: None. (5), MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the special meeting held October 5 and the regular meeting held October 6, 1970, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2. From Mrs. Alice Q. Howard, 1556 Everett Street, with regard to increased population and taxes in the City. President La Croix pointed out that Mrs. Howard had offered to supply a copy of the document to which she referred, "The Social Costs of an Expanding Population," with regard to computer data which had been compiled in a study made on the Davis campus of the University of California on density and the needs of the community to provide services, et cetera. It was directed that Mrs. Howard's communication be acknowledged and her offer to furnish the paper be accepted in order that the members of the Council and the City Manager might review the information contain- ed therein. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA: 3. Mr. Melvin Kahn, 467 Central Avenue, addressed the Council and stated he had submitted a letter dated October 16, 1970, requesting removal of a fence and gate over eight feet high which had been placed across Mecartney Road at approximatey "C" Street, cutting off access to his property which was adjacent to Mecart- ney Road. The communication had been received too late for inclusion on the agenda for this meeting. President La Croix stated, in deference to Mr. Kahn, he felt consideration of this matter was warranted and he would allow it. Mr. Kahn distributed to the Councilmen copies of the letter and snapshots indicating the subject fence and gate. President La Croix said he had been informed the street mentioned was not dedicated but was a private road and that Mr. Kahn had been advised to contact the City Engineer's office to obtain information with regard to the matter, and also Utah Construction & Mining Co. to obtain a key for access to the property. City Engineer Hanna, on request, explained the matter had come to the attention of the Building Department on September 28, at which time Mr. Kahn had spoken to Mr. James R. Brummer, Chief of the Inspections Divi- sion. An Inspector, delegated to investigate the situation, had prepared a drawing of the properties involved and location of the gate, and had noted the height of the gate was more than six feet, the break point for City regulations. He said Mr. Kahn owned one of several pieces of land which apparently were being farmed by a Mr. Ratto. Mr. Lynn Lee of Utah Construction & Mining Co. had been contacted with the purpose of getting the two parties together to resolve the problem. Utah had submitted a letter stating the gate was intended to prevent unauthorized persons from creating public or private nuisances out on the land beyond the gate. Mr. Hanna said it was his recollection that the road had been fenced for years with a gate at just about the same location. During World War II there had been a radar station in the area and one or two other facilities but the land had always been flooded and not of much interest. He said the gate was open during the day and closed at night and on weekends. It was requested that the City Attorney and the City Engineer investigate the situation to deter facts, and submit a report on their findings to the Council. HEARINGS: 4. ` In the Matter of a Petition to Rezone from the "R -2 ", Two - Family Residence, to the "R- 2 -PD ", Two Family Residence, Planned Development District, certain properties located on Whitehall Place, Willow Stree and Sandcreek Way, approximately 39,000 square feet. The petition had been filed by Mr. Bruno Santone. The Board had recommended approval of the zone change. The City Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice that this would be the time and place for the Hearing on this matter., - The minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the application was considered had been sent to the Councilmen Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board on this matter, as set forth in its letter of October 1, 1970. He said the developer proposed to resubdivide and construct twelve condominium units, as shown in the exhibit submitted and displayed on the board for viewing. The staff had indicated it considered the proposed project a good use of the property, the design was particularly attractive and it would be a neighborhood enhancement. Mr. Johnson stated one person had spoken at the Board Hearing in opposition to the proposal. The Board's findings had been that the cluster development tended to be more appealing and more efficient in land use, the proposal would not increase the basic density, the design would prove more functional and a more aesthetically designed project providing more community benefit than permitted under basic R-2" zoning. The applicant had also submitted a model exhibit, which was on display. City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and recommendations of the Board and its advisory report, based on Section 11-175 of the Municipal Code, should be sustained, modified or overruled. On the call for proponents, there was no response, and there were no opponents. The Hearing was declared closed. There was some discussion on the question of the Board's recommendation, also on the agenda, for approval of the Tentative Map on this subdivision, known as Tract 3253, contingent upon the rezoning of the property as requested. Upon inquiry by Councilman Longaker as to the problem of access by fire and similar equip- ment to the inner courtyard of the proposed development, Mr. Hanna stated the control of the Engineering Department would come through the subdivision process. He said he understood a letter had been submitted to the Planning Board stating the plans would be modified to allow for this condition. Following the deliberations and upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman McCall moved the recommenda- tion of the Planning Board be sustained and the requested reclassification be approved. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None There being no objections, the meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances". INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 5. Councilman McCall moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series." (Whitehall Place, Willow Street and Sandcreek Way - R-2 to R-2-PD - Santone) Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 6. In the Matter of a proposal to amend the Zoning Section of the Municipal Code with regard to adminis- tration of variance and use permit applications. The proposed change had been initiated by the Planning Board. The Clerk stated there was on file the Affidavit of Publication that this would be the time and place for the Hearing in this matter. The minutes of the Planning Board meetings at which the subject was considered had been sent to the Councilman. Mr. Johnson stated the Hearing concerned the Board's proposal to create a Zoning Administrator system and briefly outlined what would be entailed, as set forth in its communication of October 1, 1970. He said the proposed amendment would create a Zoning Administrator by definition, to be appointed by the Planning Direc- tor and approved by the Board; variances would be separated into two different types - minor variances covering yard and height encroachments, driveway deficiencies in length or width and increases in sign area - which it was proposed would be handled by the Zoning Administrator. Any other variances were defined as major changes and could not be acted on by this officer but must go through the Planning Board, similar to the present handling. The Zoning Administrator would also be empowered under the proposed ordinance to act on all use permits. Mr. Johnson, on question, stated personal contact would be made by the Zoning Administrator before action would be taken and all action would be set out in writing. He said the notification procedure would be broadened so that in cases where warranted the Administrator or his designated representative would make a direct call on the neighbor or party to be most directly affected by the action sought. Mr. Johnson stated notices to neighbors would be in the form of postal cards or form letters, as presently used, but the ordinance did not require posting or legal advertising. He said it was felt other minor variances such as yard encroachments more than three feet from a neighbor, driveway deficiencies not bordering a neighbor and all variances involving signs could be acted upon without notice in view of the relatively unimportant nature of the application, to more efficiently process the matter, to avoid obvious neighbor- hood disagreements and to more effectively negotiate quality conditions with the applicant, the last point a major one. In all cases involving this procedure, the applicant would have the right of appeal to the Planning Board, as would an aggrieved neighbor. The fact that the latter might not have information on the application would create a certain risk, although this was not considered to be very great. It was felt so-called "spite" appeals would be eliminated by largely eliminating the problem at its source. There was a brief question and answer period on certain fees, the definition of the Zoning Administrator, enforcement problems, et cetera. It was stated the Zoning Administrator would be the Assistant Planning Director. Mr. Johnson commented on the many years of experience of the present Assistant, Mr. Robert L. , , . Venable, in these matters. He said he did not feel at this point that the new procedure tional staff; however, future needs in personnel were not foreseeable. equire addi- Mr. Johnson stated the proposed procedure was seen as one in which better service could be extended to applicants, where service was not being denied to the public and the responsibilities under the ordinance could be handled more expeditiously. He said the proposed amendment had been reviewed by City staff members, who had worked with the Department in forming the recommendation and the final ordinance draft, since early, in June. It was pointed out that the proposed change would free the Planning Board, and hopefully the staff as well, for more important aspects of planning, would undoubtedly remove some items of appeal before the Council and make for a more efficient type of operation. Councilman Longaker expressed the opinion that it was extremely important, should the recommendation be approved, that the Zoning Administrator be given sufficient authority to make decisions so that he could act effectively. On the call for proponents, there was no response. On the call for opponents, Mr. Donald Dunn, 2120 -B Clinton Avenue, addressed the Council. He expressed the thinking that possibly too much authority was being placed on the shoulders of the Zoning Administrator. It was explained that in view of the fact that the Administra- tor could meet head on the particular problem, it was quite possible that fewer actions would come up for appeal. It was pointed out, however, that the right of the individual to appeal would not be removed. Mr. Dunn also suggested that the minor variance changes be published in the newspaper rather than to be handled by personal contact by the Administrator, who might have biased opinion. It was stated that in the course of the daily news, these items would undoubtedly be covered. It was pointed out that the proposed procedure had been carefully studied for a number of years and if it was found to be ineffective or ineffi- cient, the fact would be quickly evident to the Board and the Council. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman McCall moved the recommendation of the Planning Board in this matter, in accordance with Section 11- 172(c) of the Municipal Code, be approved. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The matter was referred to "Introduction of Ordinances REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 7. From the Mayor, City Manager and City Auditor, submitting report .on the Count of Money he 1970, indicating the sum of $9,470,402.97 in the City Treasury at that time. The report was noted and ordered filed. 8. 1, From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map on Tract 3253, the proposed subdivision of Lot 25, Block 5, Tract 1866 (Whitehall Place, Willow Street and Sandcreek Way), filed by Bates & Bailey for Mr. Bruno Santone et al, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's report dated September 25, 1970, and also subject to adoption of the zone change on which the Hearing had been held earlier in the meeting. d August Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be accepted and the Tentative Map of said subdivision known as Tract 3253 be approved, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's report dated September 25, 1970, and the requirements of the Fire Department. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 9. President La Croix brought up at this time the matter of Proposition 18 on the diversion of gas tax funds, to be included on the General Election ballot on November 3, on which the Council had requested a report for study. Councilman Fore called attention to the list of cities in the State, as furnished by the State Chamber of Commerce, which were opposed to the Proposition as they had nothing to gain from rapid transit, which also applied to the City of Alameda. He expressed his opposition to the measure. Mr. Welier stated for clarification that the list simply implied that these cities opposed the issue and he had information that the claim was not necessarily true. He said he felt the statement should not be le unchallenged that all of these cities had come out in opposition to the Proposition. Councilman Levy expressed the opinion that there were several flaws in the measure as drawn up and if the Proposition were defeated the situation would remain as at present. He suggested that a proposition might be presented at the next session of the Legislature which would correct many of the problems and possibly that would be a more advisable course to follow, than to approve something which would be unacceptable later on. President La Croix expressed the thinking that the Proposition was a good one with a lot of what the State needed on use of funds which were not presently being used in areas where problems were caused by vehicular transportation. He said there were shortcomings in the bill but there had been many imperfect bills over the years which nevertheless had had the power to accomplish a tremendous amount of good. He said the Mayors' Conference had gone on record at its last meeting as being in favor of Proposition 18. Councilman Longaker pointed out there seemed to be a question as to whether the bill needed to be passed at all, as the State Legislature had already appropriated moneys from highway revenues for the purpose of relieving air pollution. It was pointed out this was an initial appropriation and would not be ongoing. Councilman McCall expressed the opinion it was naive of the Council to go into something because it believed it was doing something for rapid transit or for smog control. He said there were regional agencies for smog and water pollution and he believed environment and ecology were their responsibilities. He said he did not believe in diverting highway users tax or gas tax funds, and he could see the Alameda County Mayors' Formula might be affected. Councilman Fore moved the Council go on record in opposition to Proposition 18. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Fore, Levy and McCall, (3). Noes: Councilman Longaker and President La Croix, (2). Absent: None. 10. Councilman McCall inquired as to the status of the proposed new Post Office and Fruitvale Bridge. Mr. Weller stated the City had been informed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Post Office people that it would be kept advised of progress on the proposed projects but no information had been received with regard to either. He said the City had not been encouraged to request reports on these matters, but was told it would be informed of developments. Councilman McCall remarked, with regard to the Bridge, that the majority of the people living in the east end of Alameda would have to cross Fruitvale Bridge to reach the Rapid Transit station; it had been stated, in the event a new bridge was to be constructed, traffic would be diverted for one year over Park or High Street Bridges. On the other hand, he said, anyone going to the Oak Street terminal in Oakland would use the Posey Tube. He said he felt this was a very poor setup and it was a shame that the people of Alameda had again been left out in the cold on this access. In reply to a question, Mr. Hanna stated studies on these matters were supposed to be under way. Mr. Weller was requested to communicate with the proper authorities with regard to the status of the Post Office and Fruitvale Bridge projects. Councilman Levy suggested, as a matter of conjecture, that the reorganization of the Post Office Depart- ment might have an effect on proposed future building construction. NEW BUSINESS: 11. President La Croix brought up a proposal presented to him by Mr. Larry Bergeron of the Alameda Junior Chamber of Commerce that the provision of bicycle racks in various locations in the City be given study. He said he had requested and received a report from Mr. Hanna, who had suggested the matter be referred to the Traffic Advisory Committee. It was so ordered. RESOLUTIONS: 12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7683 Amending Resolution No. 6232, Designating City Holidays for Miscellaneous Employees (Effective January 1, 1971)." 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. Mr. Weller stated this resolution would change certain holidays to conform substantially with new State laws and with the agreement reached with the various employee organizations. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7684 Amending Resolution No. 7477 by Adding Section 10, 'Rule 8', Thereto, Authorizing Dues Check-off for Employee Organizations." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll calI carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Mr. Weller explained that the resolution carried out the recommendation by the staff and employee organi- zations and approval by the Council of the check-off system as soon as the required equipment was installed. 14. ',,The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7685 Ordering Vacation of Portion of Public Utility Easement." (Tract 3105, Ballena Bay Community) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Abstaining: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. On question, Mr. Hanna stated the original easement was much larger than now needed and excess to the City's purposes. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 15. Councilman Levy moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending, Adding to, and Repealing Certain Sections of Chapter 1, Title XI, Thereof, Establishing a Zoning Administrator, and Relating to Variances, Use Permits and Other Zoning Regulations." The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five.. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. Councilman Levy moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 2-541 Thereof, Relating to Vacation Leave." The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 17. "Ordinance No 1632, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 10 -411 Thereof, Relating to Dilapidated Buildings." Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman 'Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18. "Ordinance No. 1633, New Series Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Parking Limits." (High Street, Atlantic Avenue) Councilman Longaker questioned the effect of this action', on the parking situation at the College of Alameda. President La Croix stated the College administration was hopeful of placing more automobiles in the westerly parking lot of the College and had requested that a study be made by the City Engineering and Police Depart- ments in support of the proposal to pave that lot. This ordinance also supported the proposal. After some discussion, 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: Four. Noes: Councilman Longaker, (1). Absent: None. BILLS: 19. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $52,565.43, 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 October 20, 1970, 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 20.1 Mr. Lynn Lee, Utah Construction & Mining Co., commented briefly on Mr. Kahn's complaint and of to cooperate with the appropriate City Departments in resolving the problem. 21. Mr. Donald Dunn, 2120-B Clinton Avenue, asked that Mr. Kahn be ruled out of order as setting a prece- dent in bringing up his problem at this meeting. President La Croix explained he had allowed Mr. Kahn to present his plea in deference to his physical incapacity, and he did not feel an adverse precedent had been set. Mr. Dunn stated the congested condition in the area in front of the main Post Office, which had been the subject of complaint some time ago, had not been alleviated. Mr Hanna reported the Traffic Advisory Commit- tee had given this condition a great deal of consideration in conjunction with a Post Office representative, and it had been decided the condition could not be. improved. 22. Mr. Ashley Jones, 1040 Fair Oaks Avenue, stated he had read a letter from Mr. Lesley Forden in the Alameda Times -Star, in which Mr. Forden had referred to the City of Palo Alto and a study which was made by that city with regard to many questions similar to those faced by the people of Alameda on the Bay Farm Island development. Mr. Weller stated he had been in contact with the City of Palo Alto and its conclusion was the same as his own, that the report was invalid. He said he had requested a copy of the report, the purpose of which in the case of the City of Palo Alto was totally different from the situation in the City of Alameda. For that reason, he said, he was not particularly concerned with the contents of the report unless it contained some complete innovation in the approach to the particular problem. Mr. Jones said his concern was that it seemed the City was waiting for something to happen with regard to submission of plans and the Planning Department was not planning. He said he felt the City had an obligation to have an idea of what it wanted, not merely what it did not want. He remarked that Council- man McCall had indicated concern for the people of the east end and their difficulty in getting to the Rapid Transit station; yet the logic of adding 28,000 more people, trying to get across an already inade- quate bridge and the problems of getting another bridge seemed not to be matters for consideration. In discussion, Mr. Jones stated he was in favor of a 900-acre park on Bay Farm Island. President La Croix expressed the opinion that these were matters to be approached when plans for the pro- posed Bay Farm Island development are submitted. He said he and those involved felt the joint Planning Board-City Council session had been very productive and had resulted in a lot of good as to what the feeling of Planning was and what the directives were. 23. Mr. Lesley Forden, 1448 Page Street, addressed the Council with regard to his letter, mentioned by Mr. Jones. He said he had been shocked because the newspaper had stated the City Manager could not tell the difference between 15,000 and 28,500 people. He stated studies were available and he had the one made in the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Weller took issue with people who have prejudgments and have decided the position they want to take, and seek to find some way to further justify their arguments. He repeated that the Palo Alto report was not germane to the particular issue involving the City of Alameda. He said it was his opinion, based on twenty-five years of experience, there was not the slightest question if one is talking simply economics in terms of the range of densities discussed in connection with Bay Farm Island, that the higher density is the better deal for the taxpayer. He pointed out he was not saying this had anything to do with aesthe- tics, with ecology or any other considerations, which were perfectly valid arguments. He said he was weary of the implications that were being made that somehow it would break the taxpayer if the City should go to the Utah plan as against the Hawley plan. In terms of the particular type of development, and in terms of the particular situation, the advantage, if any, would lie with the higher density. There was further exchange on this subject. Mr. Weller pointed out he had informed the Council that he could not give them a valid dollar differential between the two density figures in terms of the costs of service and the tax return. He said he could give pretty accurate figures insofar as tax revenues were concerned. He cited an example, that fire protection, again in the particular configuration, was not a function of population but of geography and area, and whether there were 15,000 or 30,000 people, the number of firemen, the kind of equipment, the number of fire stations would remain the same, so the cost would be the same whether there were 15,000 or 30,000 people. To a somewhat lesser, but not to a greatly lesser extent, the same would be true of the police service, streets and street maintenance, and the whole range of public works, so that all of the major costs of municipal service would be essentially the same, irrespective of the population, in the ranges under discussion. mr. Forden stated he and those of the same interest wanted the Council to publicly announce that there were facts and figures. 24. Mr. John Barni, 1364 East Shore Drive, expressed his pleasure that action had been taken on the Zoning Administrator proposal. He complained that on occasion, in appearing before the Planning Board, there had been only four members present and in order to get an action approved it was necessary to get the majority of four out of seven votes. He felt this was an unjust leverage placed upon anyone attempt- ing to get a variance before the Board, and that possibly the ordinance should be revised so that the majority of those present would be able to pass on the variance requested. He said he would like the Council to consider a change along these lines. Mr. Barni complained of inequities in taxes levied by the County Assessor. He requested the assistance of the Council in having a Deputy County Assessor on duty in the City of Alameda as formerly provided, and anything the Council could do in writing to the Board of Supervisors and to the elected County Assessor in attempting to get taxes assessed equitably in the City. Mr. Barni also commented on the recent news item that there were approximately 4,670 business licenses issued in the last fiscal year by the City, producing approximately $80,000 in revenue. He said he felt this was a small return. In checking the City ordinance, he said, he found that there had been no change therein since 1956 and he suggested it be amended to reflect an up-to-date basis. He also suggested that, in issuing licenses for particular businesses, consideration be given to the services demanded by the business and fees be set accordingly. Mr. Barni complained of the approach to Alameda over the Bay Farm Island Bridge, that the Hester property was not kept clean but was piled with rubble. Mr. Barni also stated he felt boundary lines of properties should be rectified where the City had taken strips of land in the past and deeds had never been recorded. Mr. Hanna was requested to investigate the condition of the Hester property. 25. Mr. Ashley Jones requested the opportunity to speak again and took exception to the City Manager's reply to Mr. Forden's statements. Mr. Weller stated he did not object to honest statements, but to statements which were prejudged and biased and people who were not interested in hearing the other side of the argument. President La Croix stated, in defense, that the City Manager had the prerogative, as any individual did, to make a statement and he felt the statement Mr. Weller had made was in a gentlemanly fashion with an explanation of his thoughts on the subject. He said he could honestly understand the weariness of the things to which anyone is subjected, whether an elected or appointed official or the City Manager, who hired by the City Council. He said he was happy the City of Alameda had Mr. Weller as its City Manager and, as an elected official and a member of the Council, he felt the City was very fortunate to have Mr. Weller. He did not necessarily agree with everything presented to the Council, and this was his prerogative. Mr. Jones stated he felt people had rights which they were not allowed to express in the process of govern- ment in this community and elsewhere. 26. The Reverend Darrel McCorkell, Pastor of the First United Methodist Church, apologized for his appear- ance too late to give the Invocation, under the misunderstanding that the meeting convened at 8 :00 o'clock. 27. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, complained again with regard to the removal of the sidewalk on the west side of Webster Street on the College of Alameda property. He said he felt it was needed. President La Croix stated he had talked to architects and educators at the dedication of the College the preceding evening and they had indicated they felt the sidewalk was not needed and the removal lent itself properly to the aesthetics of the area. Others had supported the contention that there was no need for the walk. Mr. Gottstein also complained with regard to the sprinkler system installed on the College grounds. FILING: Financial Report - City of Alameda, as of September 30, 1970 verified by George A MEMORIAL RESOLUTION: 29.v The following resolution was 'introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7686 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to Jean N. Stack, City Employee "WITH GREAT SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of its faithful employees, JEAN N. STACK, whose tragic accidental death has deeply shocked and saddened her many friends. "WHEREAS, Mrs. Stack had commenced her employment with the City on September 16, 1952, as a Junior Account Clerk- Typist and had advanced to the position of Senior Clerk - Typist in the Recreation Department, and on July 1, 1958, had transferred to the Personnel Department with the title of Personnel Clerk, in which capacity she was serving at the time of her passing; and "WHEREAS, Mrs. Stack had been most conscientious and dependable in the performance of the duties connected with her various posts during the years of her City employment, and was well liked for her congenial and cooperative attitude. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in recognition of Mrs. Stack's loyalty and efforts on behalf of the City and her harmonious relations with her associates, the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby express its appreciation for the excellent work of this devoted public servant and its sense of personal loss in her demise. "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. Stack in order to convey to its members an expression of sympathy in their bereavement. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this meeting of the Council o adjourns, it shall do so in respect to the memory of JEAN N. STACK." the City of Alameda The motion to adopt =said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call car ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilmen Levy and McCall and Presi dent La Croix eulogized Mrs. Stack, as an employee o- in the Recreation and Personnel Departments of the City. ied by the follow eighteen yea The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted. 30. President La Croix requested that all stand in a moment of silence in observance o Jean N. Stack, City employee. 31. Councilman Levy moved the Council retire to an executive session for discussion of appointments to the various City Boards and Commissions. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. After a five- minute recess, the Council reassembled in Room 303 of the City Hall for its deliberations. At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Attorney was requested to prepare appropriate resolutions for action by the Council at its next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 32. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the memory of JEAN N. STACK, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 3, 1970, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,