1971-02-02 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - FEBRUARY 2, 1971
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Levy and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend James M. Morton, Pastor of the Central Baptist Church.
President La Croix commented that he had had the privilege of addressing the officers and men of
the Naval Air Station on the first annual observance of Prayer Day on this date. Councilman Longaker,
who was suffering from a heavy cold, had been present, for which President La Croix expressed his appre-
ciation.
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 January 19, 1971, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Aeolian Yacht Club, signed by Norbert A. Cross, Commodore, with regard to the channel between
Bay Farm Island and the south shore of the main island of Alameda.
President La Croix remarked that this matter had been before the Council on previous occasions and just
recently, through the City offices, it had been the subject of a discussion between Utah Construction &
Mining Co. and the Yacht Club.
Councilman McCall expressed the opinion that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers had a responsibility in
connection with the channel and suggested Congressman George P. Miler be contacted in an effort to secure
aid in this direction
On invitation, Commodore Cross, 2812 Lincoln Avenue, addressed the Council. He stated the Yacht Club was
not satisfied that the channel had been excavated in accordance with the Agreement. He said the language
of the Agreement was rather vague. He recalled the negotiations between Shore Line Properties, Inc., and
the City for a Modification of the original Agreement whereby a channel would be excavated 7,000 feet
westerly of the Bay Farm Island Bridge. He claimed the channel actually did not extend westerly but, at a
point approximately 4,000 feet from the Bridge, made a turn and ended up out of deep water. He said the
Club had expected the project to come before the Council for acceptance.
President La Croix pointed out that acceptance of the channel as described in the Agreement had been ful-
filled, according to the City Attorney and the City Engineer. On request, City Attorney Cunningham stated
the City Engineer had indicated the channel had been dug and it was in the proper location and he was
necessarily bound by that determination, in that Mr. Hanna had many more facts on the question than he had
President La Croix stated he would like the Council to pursue the matter with the Corps of Engineers to see
if something would be done with regard to this channel area as a survival access to deep water. At the
request of Mr. Cross, it was agreed that the Aeolian Yacht Club representatives would be included in any
discussions.
3. From Mrs. Lee -Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, in favor of "districting" in the City.
President La Croix complimented Mrs. Lane on her intelligent letter, indicating that, though she was in
favor of the proposal, she realized the problems of districting were involved and complex and they should
be studied. He said this opinion coincided with the thinking of the Council that the issue should be sub -
mitted to the Charter Revision Committee for consideration.
On invitation, Mrs. Lane addressed the Council. She said she had found there was a feeling among citizens
of Alameda that it was necessary to state one's qualifications when speaking or writing on any problem in
the City. She said she had lived in Alameda since the late 1930's, attended the public schools and Notre
Dame and was now attending the new College of Alameda. She recalled various aspects of life in the City
in past years, such as the Southern Pacific Company "red" trains, the vegetable gardens in the West End,
Neptune Beach and a beautiful, unfilled Bay. She said she could not support the proposal by Councilman Fore
for districting as too many questions had not been given consideration. She requested that the following
question be placed on the ballot, if possible: "Do you favor districting in Alameda on a population basis
for the election of City Council and Board of Education members ?" for a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. She
said she was uncertain whether there was time for the inquiry to be included on the ballot for March 9.
President La Croix stated there was no longer sufficient time to include the question on the ballot for the
General Municipal Election to be held on March 9, 1971. He pointed out for the edification of the audience
that, even if the measure were to be included on the ballot in the near future, it could not become effective
until 1973. He said he felt there were very strong reasons for placing the matter before the existing
Charter Revision Committee, with the addition of new members to balance out the group, and providing an
honest opportunity to evaluate the need for districting. In this way, he said, he felt the public would
understand what was proposed.
Mrs. Lane said her thought had been to present the question to the people and, if the majority should
indicate a desire for the change, the matter would then be referred to the Charter Committee to find a means
of implementing the program on a just and fair basis. She said she had talked to many citizens who wished
to be informed as to the method of accomplishing the proposed change before supporting it. She wished to
be assured that the question would be considered on a ballot coming up in the future. Mrs. Lane was
informed that this was the intention of the Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
4. Mr. John Mitcheom, 1319 High Street, requested the opportunity to address the Council under the
subject of "Hearings".
HEARINGS:
5.7 In the Matter of a Petition to rezone from the "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment, to the "R-5", General
Apartment District, certain properties known as 2617 and 2619 Santa Clara Avenue and 2618 Janis Circle.
The Petition had been filed by Edward and Madlyn Murphy. The Planning Board had recommended denial of the
application.
The Clerk stated there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing in the matter
and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the subject was considered had been sent to the
Councilmen.
A communication had been received from Aster W. and Ruth M. Smith, 1506 Broadway, owners also of property
at 1512 Broadway, in favor of the proposed zone change.
On request, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board, as set forth in its
letter of January 15, 1971. He stated the three lots involved in the proposed zone change contained
approximately 17,120 square feet or .4 of an acre, with a total of seven residential units. The applicants
proposed to develop a thirty square foot building at the rear of 2617 Santa Clara Avenue which would over-
lap into the Janis Circle property and would house a club-classroom for a tennis court operated by the
applicants on the rear of adjoining property in the "R-5" zone, and a swimming pool which the applicants
intended to construct. The applicants gave private tennis lessons and planned to expand the recreational
use to include private swimming lessons.
Mr. Johnson stated eight persons had appeared at the Board Hearing in protest, one of whom had filed a
petition containing 120 signatories. The applicants had filed a statement explaining their proposal, a
copy of which was submitted with the Board's letter. He said the Planning staff could not make any finding
for the applicants and recommended that the zone change be denied. It was felt there was ample room in
the adjacent "R-5" zone for the proposed use and also that semi-institutional uses of this type were per-
mitted in the "R-4" zone with a Use Permit. The applicants had stated a Use Permit would be too limiting
and they did not desire to explore that possibility. Mr. Johnson stated the staff had received many
inquiries on and arguments against the proposal and continued to believe that no compelling reason existed
for the zone change other than certain conveniences for the applicants. The protests and arguments were
believed to indicate that this was an unsolved intrusion of higher density zoning into an established
neighborhood and the applicant's semi-business uses of the properties came close to creating objection-
able nuisance.
In reply to question by President La Croix, Mr. Johnson stated the applicants owned extensive properties
surrounding the proposed uses and he felt there was room either in the "R-4" or elsewhere in the "R-5"
zone in which the proposed use could be developed with or without a Use Permit. Also, he said, there
had been objections to the commercial use of the proposed swimming pool.
In reply to a question by Councilman Longaker, Mr. Johnson stated there had been a pre-school nursery at
the location.
City Attorney Cunningham explained that the issue before the Council was whether or not the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Board, under Section 11-175 of the Municipal Code, should be sustained,
modified or over-ruled.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, the applicant, came forward. He remarked
that Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who had submitted a letter in favor of the proposal, had also been purported to
have signed the petition in protest. He commented that there had been serious objection to the tennis
court on his property and stated he and his wife had a legal right to have the court and an educational
activity on property they owned at 2610 St. Margaret's Court under the present zoning, and also the right
to join with other property owners in the neighborhood and build a swimming pool, with the joint owners
contributing to the maintenance. He said the petition for rezoning was an attempt, not merely for the
convenience of themselves, but for the neighborhood. He said if he put the school in the center of the
acre and one-half they owned, he could use Santa Clara Avenue for ingress and egress, a convenience to
the neighborhood. He said the people using the tennis court needed to use the small school building for
dressing or for refreshments after playing. If he had a recreation building deep within the property, and
not on St. Margaret's Court, there would be less traffic on Janis Circle and virtually none on St. Margaret's
Court as that property would be rented, again a convenience to the neighborhood. Again, he said, in order
to have the recreational facilities, which he had a right legally to have under the present zoning, in a
position of most convenience to the neighborhood, he would have to move the recreational building to the
center of the property and that was the reason he sought rezoning of the parcels.
Mr. Murphy stated he objected to operating with a Use Permit as such a Permit would be inconclusive. He
said it would cost $40,000 to put in a good recreational-school building, thirty feet square, with a
swimming pool, and he did not want to spend this sum on something which was not set and determined. He
said the proposed building could be put into operation on the present "R-5" zoning and cause more inconve-
nience to the neighborhood, in which they lived also. He also pointed out that a change in the zoning of
the parcel at 2618 Janis Circle was not a serious matter; its inclusion in the petition had been at the
suggestion of the Planning staff when it was noted that about five feet of the proposed building would be
on that property. The two critical pieces of property were 2617 and 2619 Santa Clara Avenue. Mr. Murphy
stated he owned 2611, 2615, 2617, 2619 and 2621 Santa Clara Avenue. Four of these five lots were 149 feet
7
deep and thirty to thirty - seven feet wide; the parcel at 2617 was thirty feet wide with a building which
had no standard setback, no side yard, and the property at 2615 Santa Clara Avenue had no driveway. He
said he was in the business of tennis and recreation and the properties under discussion had been purchased
in order to install a tennis court; he was not in the business of apartment house building. He said he
felt the City would benefit as the convenience to the neighborhood was pronounced, and should a building
be constructed on the four lots in the future, it would be a better development. He expressed the opinion
that the increased number of units would be negligible in view of the parking requirements.
On invitation, Councilman McCall inquired if Mr. Murphy had presented his case before the Planning Board
in the same way as it had been submitted before the Council. Mr. Murphy stated he and his wife had prepared
a statement, copy of which had been submitted to the Board and to the Council, which they had tried to make
as reasonable as possible. At the Board Hearing the tennis court, the pool and the noise had become 'issues
for objection.
Councilman Longaker inquired as to the proposed location of the swimming pool in relationship to the pro-
posed building. Mr. Murphy stated he could legally construct the pool at the rear of property he owned
at 1514 Broadway but would prefer to place it at the rear of the parcel known as 2619 Santa Clara Avenue,
as the latter location would cause less inconvenience to the neighbors. He said Mr. Otto W. Sammet, 2624
Janis Circle, who had a garage adjacent to the proposed location, objected to the proposal.
The following spoke in support of the application: Mr. Donald Keleher, 1315 Lincoln Avenue, who commended
Mr. Murphy on his work with children; Mr. Donald Watts, 2611 Santa Clara Avenue, who stated prior to the
installation of the tennis court the rear of the property had been a veritable junk yard and since its
construction this was no longer the case, the noise was not objectionable and the operation had been a good
thing for the City; Mr. M. J. Freeman, tenant of the property at 2619 Santa Clara Avenue, who said he doubted
very much that Mr. and Mrs. Murphy would create objectionable circumstances with anything they might propose;
Mrs. Donald Espell and her son Ronald, 1621 Seaborn Court, who added supportive comments and urged approval
of the rezoning.
On the call for opponents, Mr. Otto W. Sammet, 2624 Janis Circle, expressed strong objection to use of the,
subject property for business activity and to the proposed rezoning. He suggested upgrading the "R-5"
zone to "R-4", rather than downgrading the property. Mr. Floyd L. Boyle, 2623 Janis Circle, reminded the
Council that the petition in protest had been signed by 120 residents of the immediate area and he felt
that should show some strength. He felt the proposed change would reduce the property values. Mr. Harry
Simmons, owner of property at 2628 and 2630 Janis Circle, said he had purchased his property with the under-
standing that it was a quiet residential district and he desired that it remain so. He objected to the
change to "R-5", not particularly with Mr. Murphy's plans in mind, but in view of what future owners might
do. Mrs. Bertha Glatze, 2621 Janis Circle, urged that the home atmosphere of the Circle be maintained. Mr.
John Feeney, 2625 Janis Circle, added his comments in opposition to the proposed reclassification.
The Hearing was declared closed. President La Croix said he might find himself somewhat prejudiced because
of his family and personal interest in the sport of tennis. However, he said, he was truthfully opposed
to the rezoning and could not find any real reason to create a new zone in the area involved to afford the
opportunity to install the facilities desired by the applicants; he said he felt it would downgrade the
area.
Councilman Longaker expressed the opinion that it would be a protection for the future if Mr. Murphy would
apply for a Use Permit. He said he would have to agree with President La Croix and moved the recommendation
of the Planning Board be sustained and the petition be denied. Councilman McCall seconded the motion.
Councilman Levy said he would have to agree with the thinking expressed by President La Croix but voiced
the opinion that his remarks could influence the vote of the other Councilmen.
Councilman McCall explained his second of the motion was prompted by the minutes of the Board meeting on
the Hearing, the staff recommendation and the petition signed by 120 residents of the area.
Councilman Fore stated he could see no real hardship to Mr. and Mrs. Murphy in continuing to operate as a
present and obtaining a Use Permit, with the property remaining in the "R -4" District.
The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.- Noes:
None. Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. y` From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Constructing a
Walkway along County Road and Maitland Drive between Mecartney Road and Doolittle Drive, recommending it be
accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed..
Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be followed, that the work on the specified project be accepted
and the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
7. From the City Manager, recommending the contract be awarded to Manuel C. Jardim, Inc., low 'bidder,
for the project of Replacing a Sanitary Sewer on the north side of Encinal Avenue east of High Street, at
the price of $6,774.70.`
Councilman Longaker 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.
8. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map for the
subdivision known as Tract No. 3286, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated
January 21, 1971, and certain exceptions as noted. The Map was filed by Jones -Till on & Associates for
Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett on property on the north side of the lagoon just easterly of Hawthorne
Street.
H
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be accepted and the Tentative Map for said Tract No. 3286 be
approved, subject to terms.and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated January 21, 1971, and the
certain exceptions noted. Councilman McCall seconded the motion.
Mr. Calvin M. Jones of Jones-Tillson & Associates, Civil Engineers, asked to address the Council and
requested permission, because of certain legal technicalities, to file the final map as a Parcel Map.
He said this procedure would not change any requirements or controls of the City, but would make it
possible to expedite the matter under County procedures.
On question, Mr. Cunningham said it was his opinion that under the circumstances the procedure suggested
by Mr. Jones was authorized.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
9. 'V From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending denial of a petition to rezone from
the "R-1", One-Family Residence, and the "R-2-PD", Two-Family Residence, Planned Development District,
to the "C-1-PD", Neighborhood Business, Planned Development District, a certain parcel of approximately
six acres on the northwest corner of County and Mecartney Roads.
A communication had been received from the Bayview Development Co., signed by Mr. E. Falaschi, President,
requesting that the Hearing on this petition be postponed until the meeting of the City Council on June 15,
1971.
There were no objections and the matter was set for Hearing at he June 15, 1971, meeting of the City
Council.
10. From the Acting City Manager, reporting all public improvements satisfactorily completed in connection
with Parcel Map No. 427, recommending they be accepted and the bond be released. This covered property at
the south end of Hawthorne Street.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be followed, that the public improvements in connection with said
property division be accepted and the bond which had been on deposit be released. Councilman Longaker
seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
11. (President La Croix stated it had been brought to his attention that there was some contention with
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors with regard to the servicing agreement on the new Fruitvale Bridge.
He said he had learned that the Board, in action taken January 26, had referred the matter to Supervisors
Cooper and Razeto for a study as to whether or not the Board should enter into an agreement covering the
servicing of the facility. He said he had noted by an article in the Times-Star that Supervisor Cooper
had suggested the County take over maintenance and then put pressure on the Cities of Oakland and Alameda
to take over partial maintenance.
President La Croix requested that the Council authorize the City Manager to draft a letter to the Board,
particularly the City's new representative, Supervisor Cooper, and to Supervisor Emanuel Razeto, advising
them of their responsibility on this issue and of the position of the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.
Councilman McCall, after commenting briefly, moved the Council authorize the City Manager to draft the
communication as outlined. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
12. President La Croix brought up the question of consolidating Municipal Elections with the School
Districts.
Upon request, Mr. Cunningham stated the City Clerk had talked by telephone with the Attorney for the
Alameda County Board of Education, a representative of the County Superintendent of Schools and the Chief
of the Elections Division of the County Clerk's Office, with regard to the possibility of so consolidating.
It was his understanding that the County offices were extremely reluctant to consider consolidation at
this time, although they did not absolutely or categorically say there was no possibility of doing so.
On question, the Clerk confirmed that this was her conclusion from the conversations.
President La Croix pointed up that the Council had attempted in the past to arrange for consolidated
elections in order to save money for the taxpayers of the City and had been told this could not be done.
He wished to air the matter so the citizens would realize if it were possible the Council would consoli-
date elections to afford the resulting savings to the City.
There was some discussion on this subject. Mr. Cunningham noted that the City might consolidate a special
election with the District and vice versa but the District election could not always be held on the date
of the City's General Municipal Election, the second Tuesday in March of the odd-numbered years.
Councilman Longaker commented that the Junior College District, encompassing Oakland, Berkeley, Piedmont,
Alameda and Albany, might have something on the ballot of a controversial nature and might not want to
become involved with the City election procedures.
President La Croix stated the matter would be pursued.
13. Councilman Fore recognized his wife, Helen, and his son, Louis, in the audience. He thanked Mrs.
Lee-Ann Lane for her interest in the subject of districting.
Councilman Fore then read a prepared statement to the effect that many citizens and taxpayers of Alameda
had asked him to propose again to the City Council that the matter of electing their Councilmen on a
district plan be submitted to the people on the March 9 ballot. He said the local press had received
more than 600 responses favoring a vote by the people on the plan. He said he would again appeal to the
City Council to permit the people of Alameda the right to vote on a districting plan and requested that
the people be allowed to decide by a "Yes" or "No" vote and thereby advise the Council of their wishes.
He said the Council could no longer stall, make excuses or prevent the people from voting on this important
issue. The time for action was March 9, 1971. This was his conviction and he intended to pursue it even
if it cost him the opportunity to serve as Alameda's first elected Mayor.
Councilman Fore then moved that a districting plan for the election of Alameda City Councilmen be placed
on the March 9, 1971, ballot for "Yes" or "No" recommendation by the people, and that the City Council
be guided by the vote and advice of the people on the matter.
Councilman McCall requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether this could be accomplished.
Mr. Cunningham stated it did not appear from his statement that Councilman Fore had suggested a precise
amendment to the Charter. He said if an amendment to the Charter of the City of Alameda was proposed, the
Constitution of the State and laws enacted pursuant to the authority of the Constitution require that the
Charter amendment, as drawn up and as approved by the City Council if, in fact, it be on the Council's own
that that official amendment to the Charter be advertised in the official newspaper not more than
sixty days nor less than forty days prior to the election. He said he was uncertain as to whether Council-
man Fore was proposing an official amendment to the Charter . but - if "this was the case it was, as Councilman
McCall had stated, too late because it would not be possible to meet the required advertisement dates.
President La Croix stated, in connection with Councilman Fore's motion, that the Council did not have a
districting plan and this was the problem faced by the City. He said he felt very strongly that, anything
of this moment and priority, for the best interests of the community, should properly go before a Charter
Revision Committee for study and proper edification of the citizens. He called for a second to the motion.
Councilman Levy declined to offer a second, as he felt the motion could not become effective. He said he
had stated he would second a motion by Councilman Fore if there were 1,000 signatures received by the news-
paper in reply to its inquiry on the districting question and this had not taken place. He said he felt
the responses received indicated that the people would like to express their thoughts on the subject and
if Councilman Fore should bring up the proposal in the future with a definite plan to be shown to the
electorate, he would be glad to support him.
President La Croix stated the motion had died for lack of a second. There was some discussion on statements
by Councilmen Fore and Levy in this matter at this and the previous meeting of the Council.
Councilman McCall said it was his understanding that the Charter Revision Committee would take this subject
under submission and hold public hearings throughout the community in order that everyone interested might
express his views on the matter. It would then come back to the Council, for its decision and, should the
people wish to have the matter submitted to a vote, Councilman Fore could then make the motion to proceed.
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, requested the opportunity to speak to the Council and suggested
that the City Attorney be directed to draft proper legislation to be submitted to the people at the nearest
forthcoming election which would meet legal requirements, to allow the electorate to indicate whether they
desired districting. If the vote was affirmative, the multitudinous details which would be entailed could
be tackled.
President La Croix pointed out that the opportunity had been provided by the Times -Star for people to
indicate they were in favor of districting but not to indicate disapproval. He said he felt the people o
the City should know what they were voting on when they indicated their opinion on a matter of such import
to the City. He said the wheels were already in motion to proceed with study of the issue and others which
it was felt should be given consideration. After due study and deliberation, the question could be included
in an election which might be held in the County before the next Councilmanic election of the City in 1973,
or be the subject of a special election.
RESOLUTIONS:
14. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7724
Requesting the League of California Cities to Seek State Action to
Alleviate the Problem of Litter and Waste Disposal Caused by the
Sale of Beverages in Disposable, Non- Returnable and Non - Biodegradable
Containers."
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.
Weller reported that the Board of Directors of the League had considered State legislation on this
matter and had unanimously determined that they would not support any new legislation but would simply
suggest to local agencies that existing ordinances covering littering, et cetera, should be enforced and
that they felt the legislation already existing should take care of the problem.
Councilman Longaker expressed the thought that if enough of the constituent cities who were members of the
League requested support in the matter, the League would respond. He said he felt a start had to be made
someplace.
15.`,'" The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7725
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Pavement
Repair and Resurfacing of Shore Line Drive, Grand Street to Broadway,
Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
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.
16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7726
Adopting Argument in Favor of Proposed Charter Amendment (Measure 'A')
on March 9, 1971, Municipal Election Ballot."
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.
BILLS:
17. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $99,188.92, 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 February 2,
1971, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. Councilman Fore seconded
the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
18. Councilman Fore commented, for the edification of the audience, that he had been beaten on proposals
at two meetings in succession, but that did not mean the members of the Council did not work together.
19. Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, remarked that Councilman Fore had campaigned for election
to the Council two years ago with the promise of lower taxes but this had not materialized.
Mr. Gottstein also criticized the attitude of Councilmen Fore and McCall in supporting the Southern Cross-
ing, and not putting the question on the ballot.
FILING:
20. Specifications No. PW 2-71-3 - Pavement Repair and Resurfacing of Shore Line Drive, Grand Street to
Broadway.
21. At this time, President La Croix noted in the audience his father and stepmother, Mr. and Mrs. Terry
La Croix, Sr., whom he welcomed and introduced.
22. Councilman Levy moved the Council retire to an executive session for consideration of appointments
to City Boards and Commissions. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
After a five-minute recess, the Council reconvened in Room 303 of the City Hall for its deliberations.
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was determined that no further action would be taken at this
meeting. The City Attorney was requested to prepare appropriate resolutions for action by the Council
at its next regular meeting on February 16, 1971.
ADJOURNMENT:
23. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, February 16, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
A A •g
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
"