Loading...
1971-02-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY FEBRUARY 16, 1971 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Boy Scout Mayor Philip Hanamura of Troop 1 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., (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held February 2, 1971, were approved as transcribed. 2. v' At this time, "Scout Day in Government" was recognized by the City Council. The Clerk read the Proclamation issued by Mayor La Croix setting February as "BOY SCOUT MONTH" and marking February 8, 1971, as the 61st anniversary of the founding of the organization. President La Croix called upon Mr. Goss, Assistant City Manager, who reported on the activities which had taken place during the afternoon for the enlightenment of the Scout Day "Officials". Sixteen boys who had received the highest scores in a three-page test on Federal, State and local Government had participated in a meeting in the Council Chamber at 3:00 o'clock, at which time there had been a short course in City Government with review of City functions and current City problems, also briefing of the agenda for this evening's meeting. Many of the Scouts had visited their counterpart Department Heads to learn in more depth the operation of the particular office. Certificates recognizing their achievement on the test and involvement in the 1971 Scout Government Day were then presented to all participating Scouts. There was a large audience comprised of Scouts and their parents. The President congratulated the boys and thanked Mr. Goss, Department Heads and those who had worked with the Scouts to make the observance a successful one. He also congratulated and commended the boys on their efforts in scouting and their interest in the community. The parents were requested to stand and received an ovation and the Scout leaders were commended for their activity in the movement. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 3. From Mr. Grant W. Payne, 858 Laurel Street, urging that the City Council adopt a resolution of out- right opposition to construction of the Southern Crossing. President La Croix pointed out the Council was on record as opposing the proposed Crossing and requesting a delay until the Bay Area Rapid Transit system had been given an opportunity to prove its worth to the Bay Area communities. He remarked that the only city in Alameda County on record in favor of the proposed bridge was the City of Oakland, for obvious reasons. He said he felt the resolution adopted by the Council on this issue indicated its position and the feeling of the community, and adoption of another resolution on the subject at this time would be of no avail. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA: 4. The Reverend Robert Buckwalter, 2311 Buena Vista Avenue, requested the opportunity to speak on Item No. 1 under "Resolutions". HEARINGS: 5. In the Matter of the Buena Vista Avenue Street Lighting Improvement District between Webster and Poggi Streets. On request, City Attorney Cunningham reviewed action by the Council at its meeting of August 4, 1970, instructing the Superintendent of Streets to install street lighting facilities in the area designated, pursuant to which the Street Superintendent had caused the work to be done. He had submitted the report on the work specifying the total cost, description of each property affected and the proposed assessment on each parcel upon which a pro rata lien for such costs was proposed. The Affidavit of Mailing of Notices of the Cost and this time of Hearing was on file in the office of the City Clerk. Mr. Cunningham stated this improvement was authorized by and had been undertaken pursuant to State law. He said the issue before the Council was to examine and pass on the report of the Superintendent of Streets and to hear and rule upon protests and objections if any were raised by property owners who might be liable for an assessment with regard to any portion of the report or any of the work performed. At the conclusion of the public portion of the Hearing, it would be possible to sustain or over-rule the protests if any should be received. In the event none were received or if it should be determined that none was valid, action could be taken by adoption of the resolution on the agenda for that purpose. City Engineer Hanna stated the report was essentially a review of what had taken place, as described by Mr. Cunningham. He said it had been originally estimated the cost of the work would be $1,800 for the twelve lights whereas the actual cost had proved to be about 58% of that amount or $1,037. The amount had been distributed on a pro rata basis to eighteen properties, ranging in amount from $17.82 to $171.02, depending on the amount of frontage involved. He said the urgent need for the lighting had apparently been recognized as many of the obligations had already been paid. Mr. Cunningham requested it be stated for the record that the area involved in this proceeding was the land on both sides of Buena Vista Avenue between a point 225 feet west of Fifth Street and Webster Street. The specific nature of the work had been installation of mercury vapor luminaires with six-foot steel supporting arms and brackets on wood power poles located on the south side of Buena Vista Avenue at intervals of approximately 122 feet, with the necessary attendant work.; There being no objections, the order of business proceeded 'to "Resolutions ". RESOLUTIONS: 6. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7727! Confirming Report of Superintendent of Streets of Construction, and Cost Thereof, of Work Performed in Buena Vista Avenue Street Lighting Improve- ment District (1970), Assessing Such Cost Against Parcels of Property Fronting on Street Therein, Making Said Special Assessments Lien on Said Properties, and Ordering City Engineer to Make Certificate and Notice of Lien and File Same with City Tax Collector." 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. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 7. vf Continued from the meeting of December 15, 1970, was the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a Use Permit to allow a rotating beacon mounted on the roof of the Harbor Master's office at the Pacific Marina. The Appeal had been filed by Mrs. Annie Fedasz, operator of the Travelodge Motel. Mr. Cunningham stated the issue before the Council in this case was whether or not the action and findings of the Planning Board, taken under Section 11- 162(e) of the Municipal Code should be affirmed, modified or reversed. Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board as covered in his memorandum dated December 10, 1970. He said Mrs. Fedasz and her husband, some months previously, had installed a rotating beacon on top of the Motel without an electrical permit. The beacon had become the subject of complaint by several tenants of the Caravel Apartments. Mrs. Fedasz had been notified of the complaints and the fact that a moving or rotating advertising device requireda Use Permit under terms of the Zoning Ordinance, and the beacon had been removed. Mrs. Fedasz had then applied for a Use Permit to install the beacon on top of the Harbor Master's building. There had been no opponents at the Board Hearing on the matter. The Board could make no finding to grant the Permit in spite of the contention by Mrs. Fedasz that it was necessary as a direction or location device to guide people to the rather remote and unlit area of the City. The staff had reported that such beacons were questionable location devices at best and hazardous under certain conditions, and granting the application might set a precedent. It further recommended that Mrs. Fedasz pursue a directional sign- ing program from the Webster Street area, even on City street right -of -way if necessary. The Board had recognized that directional signs were often targets of vandals and that the location was somewhat remote, but on the finding that no positive hardship could be shown, it had entered a unanimous resolution for denial with the suggestion that Mrs. Fedasz pursue the matter through the Chamber of Commerce and the City Engineer's office for assistance in directing the public into the Pacific Marina area. Mr. Johnson said he had been in touch with the "Chamber" since that time and knew that Mrs. Fedasz had at least approached that office with regard to the matter. On the call for proponents, Mrs. Fedasz came forward. She said the road from the Island Drive -In Theatre to the Motel was extremely dark and people could not find her place of business. She said signs had been painted in the vicinity but vandals had disturbed and broken them. It had been necessary to pick up guests and transport them from Webster Street to the Motel, and she was suffering a loss because of the situation. On question, Mrs. Fedasz said she had spoken to officers of the Chamber of Commerce with regard to the subject and had been informed that construction would take ;place by the Del Monte Corporation in that area and streets would then be put in; however, she did not believe this would be in the near future. President La Croix inquired of Mrs. Fedasz if she had thought of obtaining a permit to place a sign, in good taste and properly illuminated, on Webster Street. Mrs. Fedasz said she had tried for one year to obtain permission from Webster Street business establishments so to do. A liquor store had given permis- sion but the sign had been placed too high to be effective. On the call for opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed. Councilman Longaker said he felt sympathetic to the problem but also understood that a rotating light of the type requested might well create a disturbance to the privacy of the residents of the Caravel Apart- ments. He moved the Appeal be denied and the decision of the Planning Board in this matter be affirmed. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. President La Croix suggested again that Mrs. Fedasz pursue this matter with the Chamber of Commerce and, possibly, the owner of the Galleon to work out something far the proper designation of the Motel and the restaurant. 203 8. In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance to permit the required off - street parking space, a carport, to be located in the front yard area at 3231 -A Fernside Boulevard. The Appeal had been filed by Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Donald B. and Patricia M. Bitner. The Clerk stated the involved parties had been informed that this would be the time and place for the Hear- ing on the Appeal. The minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the application was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. Mr. Cunningham stated this was the last, or one of the last, appeals under the superseded zoning regulations and the issue before the Council was whether or not the findings and action of the Planning Board, taken under Section 11 -161 (b) and (e) should be affirmed, modified or reversed. Mr. Johnson said the Appeal was on a variance application, as stated, following conversion of a substandard garage, approximately nine by seventeen feet, into a small den and storage room without benefit of a Build- ing Permit. The lot was odd - shaped and only 1,700 square feet in area. The residence occupied most of the rear portion and the dwelling actually projected into Federal land to the rear of the property. The appli- cant claimed that the only practical and usable off - street parking space available on the lot was in the yard area in front of the garage and he desired to cover the space with a carport. The staff had recognized that the existing garage area was small and the applicant had spent a sum of money in conversion but still felt that any hardship involved was self- imposed and if a Building Permit had been applied for, the problem would have been called to the attention of the applicant. Mr. Johnson said there had been two opponents to the conversion, the adjacent property owners on either side. The Board had found that the hardship, if any, was self- imposed and no benefit to the immediate neighbors was shown. He called attention to the large - scale diagram posted on the board for viewing in this connection, and certain other exhibits. On the call for proponents, Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney with the firm of Whitney & Hanson, came forward to represent the appellants. He distributed photographs of the subject property for viewing by the Council- men. He said the only access to the small odd - shaped lot was from Fernside Boulevard via the right -of -way and pointed out that a chimney on the home at 3233 Fernside Boulevard invaded the right -of -way. He pointed out on the photographs the area directly in front of the garage of the Bitner residence and said it was necessary to drop down sharply from the front portion of the driveway in order to get into the garage and an ordinary car would not be able to do so; hence, the garage was unusable. He said the building had apparently been built at the time when Ford Model A cars were in vogue and the garage would accommodate a small vehicle, but he felt sure it would not take any of the larger present -day cars. In response to the claim in the denial action by the Board that the granting of the variance would be detri- mental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone district, Mr. Whitney pointed out the property was 107 feet back from the northerly side of Fernside Boule- vard and nothing was visible from the street. He said the neighbors had for some time made it their business to make complete inspection at all times as to what the Bitners did on their property but he claimed there was no damage to the public welfare and no injury to anybody's property. Mr. Whitney stated whether Mr. Bitner had built some type of wall inside the garage was a matter for the Building Department and he was sure Mr. Bitner would do whatever the Department required. He said whether there was a wall or not, there would not be an automobile in the garage as it was impossible to get one in and the space would be vacant. Mr. Bitner proposed to construct a light carport to keep the dampness off his car at night; it would be architecturally attractive, not unsightly, and he could see no reason for not permitting him to do as he wished in this matter. It was explained that the northerly edge of the carport, which would be of a standard type, would be just over the garage door. Mr. Whitney noted the driveway to the Bitner property was eight feet four inches wide where the chimney of the home at 3233 Fernside Boulevard extended into the right -of -way. He emphasized that the Bitner property was neat and well cared for. Councilman McCall remarked that the extreme narrowness of the driveway would permit only about three inches clearance for a car passing through. He also pointed out the carport would be within six feet six inches of the dwelling at 3233 Fernside Boulevard. In reply to questioning by Councilman Longaker, it was stated Mr. Bitner had purchased the home as it was at present. On the call for opponents, Mr. Samuel B. Young, Attorney with the firm of Davis, Craig & Bartalini, came forward to represent Mr. and Mrs. William Emmons, owners of the adjacent property at 3233 Fernside Boulevard. He said Mr. Emmons had been a resident of the City for 74 years and had purchased his present home 26 years ago, expecting to enjoy a certain way of life. He now found himself in the position of requesting that the Council uphold the ruling of the Planning Board denying the variance on the subject property. Mr. Young remarked that the area was one of the finest in the City, with deep water docks and well - maintained homes and yards. He expressed the opinion that the Emmons' and Mr. and Mrs. Roy Neill, owners of the property adjacent to the subject parcel on the other side and known as 3231 Fernside Boulevard, certainly had the right to enjoy the view from their homes. Mr. Young claimed there was a controlling reason the variance should not be granted in that the require- ments for a variance under the Zoning Ordinance had not been met by Mr. Bitner. He said he felt the exceptional and unusual circumstances in the case were more in favor of denying the request for the variance than in favor of granting it. He pointed out Councilman McCall's comment on the distance of only six feet six inches between the proposed carport and the rear of the Emmons' residence and remarked that some of the view of the Estuary would be cut off from the Neill home. Mr. Young argued that the Home Occupation Permit under which Mr. Bitner operated his contracting business in his home was being violated in that the application for the Permit had stated no commercial vehicles 204 would be used in the business. He pointed up Section 11 -1222 (e) of the Municipal Code requires that "conduct of the home occupation shall not create excessive pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic in the vicinity, and that the parking of commercial vehicles incidental to the occupation shall be permitted upon the premises only in enclosed structures." Mr. Young said it had been stated one -half of the garage on the property in question was apparently used for an office. He suggested the reason for the application for a variance was an attempt to comply with the Code requirements that the commercial vehicle be in an enclosed area. He submitted that this use was not proper for the area and it was apparent the appellant desired to continue it. He said Mr. and Mrs. Emmons had noted there had been a marked increase in traffic from Fernside Boulevard back to the Bitner residence, apparently of people concerned with his business. He said Messrs. Emmons and Neill felt the location of the proposed structure so close to their homes was detrimental to their properties. He claimed also that the proposed carport would be adverse to the Master Plan. He said he had witnesses who would testify to the usability of the garage for normal cars and Mr. Bitner's pickup truck, that the garage had been usable for automobiles prior to the construc- tion of the office and the proposed carport would not be necessary if the installation which had been made without a Building Permit were removed. Mr. Young urged that Mr. Emmons be allowed to enjoy his property as he had for so many years and that the variance be denied, noting that any hardship which might be shown in the case was self - imposed. He added, in connection with a question raised by Councilman McCall, that there were young children in the neighbor- hood. Mrs. Paula Emmons, 3233 Fernside Boulevard, stated the intent of the developers of the property had been to keep a wide open space appearance in the rear yard. Four different families had lived in the dwelling since the Emmons had resided in their home and cars had always been parked in the garage. She said since Mr. Bitner had purchased the property he had used the garage for storage for his business and left his car in front of it. She claimed if he should be allowed the variance they would be not only fenced in but foxed in as well. Mr. Roy Neill, 3231 Fernside Boulevard, submitted measurements of Mr. Bitner's garage which he said was of greater width than those of either of the adjoining properties. He said the entrance of Mr. Bitner's garage had been engineered so that cars drove in practically at a level and that a former owner had had a standard Chevrolet which had fit into the garage without trouble and he felt any standard car or Mr. Bitner's pickup truck would fit. Mr. Young asked to speak and stated there was on file an unverified petition, with thirty - eight signatures, in opposition to the variance. Mrs. Evelyn Dorfman, 649 Waterview Isle, stated she had resided at 3237 Fernside Boulevard for over twelve years and the Emmons' and Mrs. Barry, the former occupant of the residence in question, had been wonderful, cooperative neighbors. Mr. Whitney requested the opportunity for rebuttal. He commented that there were many names on the petition referred to by Mr. Young but the only signers living adjacent to +the property were William Emmons and Roy and Marian Neill. The balance were some distance removed and they would not be able to see the property under discussion unless they made a special effort to go down the driveway. He said he could see nothing in the Master Plan which would affect the situation. He said at the location where there would be a distance of six feet six inches between the Emmons' residence and the proposed carport there would be a fence. He argued that Mr. Bitner was operating on the property under a permit from the City of Alameda and questioned Mr. Young's remarks with reference to the office use of the garage as the gentle- man had never been in the building. The Hearing was declared closed. President La Croix stated he had no wish to sway the decision of the Council but he had seen a number of pictures prior to and during the refurbishing which had been accomp- lished without a Building Permit. He questioned how any builder of Mr. Bitner's knowledge and background in the City could feel justified in developing a portion of his property without obtaining such a Permit. He also cited the proximity of the proposed carport to the property at 3233 Fernside Boulevard and expressed the thought that the proposed structure might end up as a storage area as well. Councilman McCall stated he had understood in discussions with regard to other matters before the Council in the past concerning this property that the commercial vehicles would be parked away from the home and he had been under the impression that the truck had been parked at the service station at the southeast corner of High Street and Fernside Boulevard. Councilman Longaker stated he had before him a document dated February 7, 1967, signed by Patricia M. Bitner, in which a home occupation permit was requested for the property in question. He said the reply to the question on the application form as to use of commercial vehicles was "No ", and as far as he was concerned that was the answer. He moved the Appeal be denied and the decision of the Planning Board be upheld. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. At this time, President La Croix declared a ten - minute recess in order that the Boy Scouts and their families might leave if they so desired. Upon reconvening, the regular order of business continued. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 9. From the City Manager, requesting authority under Section 3 -15 of the City Charter to purchase in the open market two Greens Mowers for use at the Golf Course. Councilman Levy moved authority be granted as requested for purchase in the open market of the two pieces of equipment specified for the Golf Course. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 10. From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Sibbald Construction, Inc., low bidder, for the project of Installing a Sprinkler System in Godfrey Park at the price of $4,693. 205 Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be approved, 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. 11. From the Library Board, requesting the City Council approve an application for distribution of certain Federal Grant funds. There being no objections, the meeting proceeded again to "Resolutions ". RESOLUTIONS: 12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7728 Authorizing Participation by Alameda Free Library in Federal Library Services and Construction Act Projects Undertaken by East Bay Cooperative Library System, and Authorizing Alameda County Librarian to Execute Project Application." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. NEW BUSINESS: 13. V Councilman Levy stated on February 5, City Manager Weller, Councilman Longaker and he had inspected the new City Hall complex in Daly City, a beautiful structure which had been accomplished without a bond issue or use of City funds. He said the inspection tour had been taken with a view to possibly proceeding in the same way for the City of Alameda. President La Croix recalled that the Council had instructed the City Manager to submit a complete, report on the feasibility and possibility of developing a new City Hall complex. It had authorized a study of City Hall use on area and office needs for the staff. On request, Mr. Weller reported that the delay in submitting the study to the Council was due to the lack of information from the Federal Bureau of the Census in connection with the 1970 figures. He said the space requirements were not entirely related to population but would be strongly influenced by the popula- tion to be served and it was felt that, inasmuch as it would be necessary to make ten or fifteen -year projections, the start should be from a firm figure expected from the April, 1970, census data, which would not be available until some time in March. He said it would be possible to make an estimate at this time but it would be most helpful to have an official and firm figure with which to start. Mr. Weller said the figure with reference to Navy personnel was not pertinent to the study on space require- ments as the people were in and out but the confirmed civilian population would be important. President La Croix expressed the hope that at such time as the decision was made to proceed with develop- ment of a civic center complex, a cultural center would be included. He said he felt, in looking toward the needs of the City, to do otherwise would be a great mistake. RESOLUTIONS: 14. ' "Resolution No. 7729 Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Mr. James P. McClure) In accordance with his request, the Reverend Robert Buckwalter was invited to speak at this time. He said he had read of the appointment of Mr. McClure, who he had found was the man holding the license for South Shore Realty Company, and had heard a few days later through the Federal Employment Practices Commission that a charge of discrimination was to be lodged against the Company. He raised the question of whether the Council had been aware of this fact at the time Mr. McClure'a appointment was proposed. He said his remarks were not to judge Mr. McClure as guilty but he belonged to the organization called "HOPE" (Housing Opportunities Provided Equally) and in its files were other cases documented by verbal testimony of persons indicating that South Shore Realty Company had practiced discrimination in the past. Mr. Buckwalter asked also, if the F.E.P.C. should find the firm guilty of the charge, whether this fact would affect the appoint- ment. President La Croix stated that, to his knowledge, no member of the Council had been aware that any proceed- ings had been taken against this firm with regard to discrimination. On the second question, he said, he could only speak for himself as Mayor of the City that he would think, if the appointee were to be subjected to a trial and found guilty of discrimination, in the best interests of the community he should remove him- self from the position to which he had been appointed. He said he did not believe in any form of discrimi- nation and, as a founder and member of HOPE, he would hope that none of this type of thing was going on in the City of Alameda although it was known to exist. President La Croix said he could see no reason why the statements should have any bearing on the appointment of Mr. McClure at this time. He remarked on the letter in the newspaper in the last day or two by Mr. Grant W. Payne, candidate for Councilman, stating he was appalled that a realtor would be appointed to the Planning Board, and another letter that a member of the clergy should not have the right to voice his opinions on particular items of interest to the community. He expressed the thinking that no one in the City was a "second -class citizen ", that everyone had the right and the opportunity to serve the community to its best interests and if any realtor should be appointed to any City board he had a perfect right to accept as he would have background knowledge which would be pertinent and germane to decisions made in the planning of the City. 20' President La Croix expressed the opinion that at any time a question of this nature were to be raised before a public body proper information should be submitted and innuendoes should not be made. The Reverend Mr. Buckwalter defended his action and said he had had no intention of making any kind of challenge. Mr. Payne, 858 Laurel Street, asked to speak and said he had only questioned the man's efficiency as a member of the City Planning Board. He said occasionally members of the Board were forced to abstain for various reasons and if Mr. McClure was going to be an effective member of the Board there would undoubted- ly have to be a fine line drawn between members of his profession and his duty to the City as a whole. President La Croix stated on any selection it would be possible that the appointee would have a conflict of interest. He said on appointments to the various boards of the City, he looked for people who could give of themselves, timewise, and with the best interests of the community at heart. He said he felt very strongly that there should be a good realtor on the Planning Board. From time to time, there would be need for abstention but drawing a fine line on this point would eliminate a vast number of wonderful people in the community who would give of their time to serve the City in this way. After some further discussion, Councilman Levy moved the resolution be adopted. Councilman McCall second- ed the motion. Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall stated he would agree with the statements of President La Croix and spoke in defense of Mr. McClure's appointment. He recalled the Alameda Real Estate Board had requested that the Council appoint a realtor to the Board and suggested that if the Reverend Mr. Buckwalter had the information he had reported prior to this meeting, he should have so informed the Council. He said until the Court made a judgment against Mr. McClure he would stand by him. Councilman Fore pointed out that Mr. McClure had not been proven guilty and, should this prove to be the case, he felt sure he would come to the Council about the situation. President La Croix expressed his regret that the subject had come up and voiced his pleasure that Mr. McClure had agreed to serve the City on the Planning Board. The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Mr. McClure was then asked to rise and be recognized. He received a hearty round of applause. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, requested the opportunity to speak at this time and said he had recently appeared before the Planning Board on a matter involving property at the south end of Ninth Street on which a variance was requested which would be injurious to his property surrounding the parcel. He complained that the developers wished to place a six -foot fence against a new chain link fence which would have closed off the view of the lagoon and that he had not had the opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Gottstein was informed that he should take the matter up with the Planning Board. Mr. Gottstein also expressed his approval of Mr. McClure's appointment. 15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7730 Authorizing H. D. Weller, City Manager; John D. Goss, Assistant City Manager; and William H. Hildebrand, Assistant Director of Civil Defense, Alameda County, to Sign for and Accept Surplus Federal Property Under Public Law 655." 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. 16. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7731 Amending Section 2b of Resolution No. 6232, Conforming Listed Police and Fire Department Holidays." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker. After a lengthy discussion for clarification of the purpose of the resolution, the question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 17. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7732 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installation of a Storm Sewer in Wood Street from Eagle Avenue to the North End, 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 follow - ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18.x. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: 207 "Resolution No. 7733 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Four (4) New 1971 Models, Four-Door Law Enforcement Type Sedans for the Police Department, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 19.V The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7734 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1) New 1971 Model Two-ton Dump Truck for the Golf Course, 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 follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7735 Authorizing Execution of Agreement with State of California, Acting Through the State Personnel Board, for City Personnel Services." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7736 Establishing Election Precincts, Designating Polling Places Therefor and Naming Officers of Election for Each Precinct for General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, March 9, 1971." 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. 22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7737 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda Congratulating Jack and Marie Fleddermann on Receiving the Eagles"Mr. and Mrs.' Award." 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. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 23. 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 Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 17-218 Thereto, Prohibiting Obstruction of Intersection or Crosswalk." The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None, Absent: NOne. BILLS: 24. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $37,237.01, 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 16, 1971, 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: 25. Mr. Frank Gottstein commented on remarks by Councilman McCall with regard to the membership of Mr. Eric Essex on the Planning Board. He said he had worked on many jobs on which Mr. Essex had been the architect and his profession was not involved with planning. He complained again on the Planning Board's action in approving the variance in connection with proposed construction of a condominium development at the end of Portola Avenue. 26. Mr. John Barni, Jr., 1825 Clinton Avenue, as a citizen and another realtor, expressed great pride that Mr. McClure had been appointed to the Planning Board. He expressed the thought that a realtor must constantly sell Alameda to .his clients and a better person could not be on the Board. Mr. Barni questioned the statement by Mr. Weller that completion of a report on the proposed civic center complex should await firm census figures, and wondered if a delay was necessary in view of the changes in population which would take place in the next few years. Mr. Weller said he felt it was very important to start from a known correct figure in view of the projec- tions which would have to be made, particularly in view of the fact that no building would be done for probably the next five years at least. 27. Mr. John Barni, Sr., 1364 East Shore Drive, commended the City Council on the appointment of Mr. McClure to the Planning Board. He said he had been one of the Alameda Real Estate Board members who had recommended the appointment and he was pleased with the Council action. 28. Mr. Larry Bergeron, 2122 Santa Clara Avenue, Governmental Affairs Director for the Junior Chamber of Commerce, announced that his organization would hold a Candidates Night on Wednesday, March 3, 1971, at St. Philip Neri Hall at 7:30 o'clock. He invited the Councilmen who were candidates to be present and all interested persons to attend. 29. Mr. Gottstein commented on an article in the Alameda Times -Star stating the first Mayor of Alameda had been Mr. E. K. Taylor and the second had been Mr. W. H. Noy. He said political meetings were held at the old Wigwam on Webster Street with a bonfire in the middle of the street. Mayor Noy had a butcher shop at the old Bay Street Station and nice equipment - a yellow buggy with a handsome horse. He sug- gested Councilman Fore should paint his Company's trucks up and add a bright nameplate. FILING: 30. Specifications No. PW 2 -71 -4 - Installation of Storm Sewer in Wood Street. 31. Specifications No. MSP 2 -71 -1 - Four 1971 Model Law Enforcement Type Sedans. 32. Specifications No. MSP 2 -71 -2 - One 2 -Ton Dump Truck for Golf Course. 33. Cost Service Agreement - Between State Personnel Board and City. 34. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity as of December 31, 1970 - Verified by George A. Hackleman. MEMORIAL RESOLUTIONS: 35. President La Croix eulogized Retired Police Officer William N. "Tiny" Hansen, who had passed away on February 13, 1971. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption after adding his comments: "Resolution No. 7738 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memory of William N. 'Tiny' Hansen, Retired Police Officer. "IN A SPIRIT OF SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of its former most faithful and well liked employees, WILLIAM N. HANSEN, known to his friends and associates as 'TINY'. "WHEREAS, Officer Hansen had started his employment with the City on February 12, 1937, as a Police Officer and was serving in that capacity when forced by ill health to retire on April 15, 1961; and "WHEREAS, Officer Hansen had been assigned to work as a Juvenile Officer, in which field he had earned the respect of children and parents alike for his understanding applica- tion of authority, and had become well -known among officers involved in juvenile law enforce- ment, being instrumental in the founding of the Northern California Juvenile Officers Association. Furthermore, he had been honored by the California Congress of the Parent - Teachers Association with its Honorary Life Membership award and had won the De Molay Legion of Honor award, in acknowledgment of his contribution to the welfare of young people. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby recognize with appreciation the valuable work done by Officer Hansen during his twenty -four years of service and the genial and cooperative attitude he exemplified, and does also express its sense of loss in the passing of this gentleman. "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 Officer Hansen in order to convey to its members sincere 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 WILLIAM N. 'TINY' HANSEN." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall, who also commented on this out- standing former Officer, and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted. 36. President La Croix requested that all stand in a moment of silence in observance of the passing of William N. "Tiny" Hansen. ADJOURNMENT: 37. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the memory of WILLIAM N. "TINY" HANSEN, Retired Police Officer, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, March 2, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk /1) 209