Loading...
1971-06-15 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - JUNE 15, 1971 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Longaker and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Father Patrick J. O'Brien, Pastor of St. Philip Neri's 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 June 1 and the special meeting held June 8, 1971, were approved as transcribed. 2. At this time, President La Croix expressed appreciation to Mr. Michael Ackley, reporter for the Alameda Times -Star for the past several years, for the fair manner in which he had approached the business of reporting the City's activities. Mr. Ackley was leaving the local newspaper to accept a position with the East Bay Regional Park District in the public relations field. President La Croix then introduced and welcomed Mr. Steve Brown, who would take over Mr. Ackley's duties and cover the Council sessions from time to time. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 3. From Mr. David C. Whitley, 564 Central Avenue, concerning traffic conditions on Webster Street between Atlantic and Central Avenues, submitting proposals for evaluation with regard to "no parking" signs between Lincoln and Central Avenues from 4:00 to 6:00 o'clock p.m., adding loading zones along the street, improving the traffic lighting and increasing the length of time for the left -turn signal from Webster Street onto Atlantic Avenue. The matter was referred to the City Manager's office for study by the Traffic Advisory Committee. 4. From Mrs. L. Lane, 1425 Union Street, submitting certain questions with regard to the proposed amendment to the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance. President La Croix stated the Council had not yet received the proposed ordinance. It was expected that it would be presented at the next regular meeting, after which it would be thoroughly discussed, and the Council would then be in better position to respond to Mrs. Lane's questions. 5. From Mr. V. W. Dennen, 1926 Everett Street, expressing his approval of the WAY (WORK FOR ALAMEDA YOUTH) program providing summer jobs for the youth of the City, and criticizing the educational system for not preparing students to find employment. President La Croix expressed the hope that anyone in the City who could would lend assistance to the WAY program. He said he disagreed with Mr. Dennen's comments that the educational system had broken down, to the extent that there were simply not enough jobs for the young people of the community. Councilman Longaker pointed out that the School Department carried the ball on the WAY program through the efforts of Mr. Howard Fee. The communication was to be acknowledged and filed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA: 6. Mr. Chuck Corica, 1000 Post Street, requested the opportunity to speak on the subject of the Recreation Commission's recommendations on the Golf Course operation. HEARINGS: 7. In the Matter of a Petition, filed by Bay View Development Co., 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 at the northwesterly corner of County and Mecartney Roads. The Planning Board had recommended denial. The 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 the subject and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition was considered had been sent to the Councilmen. Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, distributed copies of the exhibit map of the area in question. He then reviewed that the matter had been transmitted to the Council at its regular meeting held Febru- ary 2, 1971, and at that time the applicant had requested, with Planning staff advice, that the Council Hearing be continued to this meeting. The reason for the lengthy continuance, he said, was to avail the petitioner of the then presumed opportunity to examine this proposal in the light of Utah Construc- tion & Mining Co.'s plans, which were at that time expected to be before the Council by this date. Such was not the case. Therefore, the matter now came before the Council without any more knowledge of the Utah development and without any material or facts before it other than that presented in the Board's letter of January 28, 1971, except that the petitioner might have further information. Mr. Johnson explained that the portion of the area easterly of Island Drive extended could be eliminated from the subject parcel if the Council should so desire; the petitioner had no plans for its development. He said the applicant proposed to develop on the property a small shopping center and had submitted development plans, utilizing only the portion westerly of Island Drive extended. He said the development plan showed a building area of approximately 42,000 square feet, approximately 280 off - street parking spaces plus loading and landscaped areas, that a rendering submitted with the plan showed a rather modest and low key development, all stores to contain one floor only. Mr. Johnson said the property in question had been proposed for residential development under several alternate plans, such as a duplex or couplet project which was later modified and submitted in tentative map form as a townhouse cluster development. Because of the configuration of the property and its limited size, the owners now proposed to develop the parcel for commercial uses. Mr. Johnson said the staff could not make a clear recommendation on the application. He said there was an immediate advantage to the Bay Farm Island community but there were also some immediate land use conflicts with the adjoining single- family residential uses directly across Mecartney Road. He said there appeared to be a long -term conflict with the Utah proposals but the Utah development schedule was unknown as were its precise plans, that the timing for the application was unfortunate but the staff found that there was no way to guarantee proper timing for an application of this sort. While the applicant',s plans were modest and low key, the plan was not unworkable. Also, he said, the staff found that the General Plan did not assist in making a decision in the matter. Mr. Johnson said the protestants at the Board Hearing had expressed the thinking that this was not the proper time to consider a piecemeal zoning approach for commercial uses on Bay Farm Island and that there would be some immediate conflict with adjoining uses. The Board's recommendation had been on the finding that the piecemeal zoning approach could not be recommended until a more comprehensive plan for the Island had been approved and that adjoining land uses were in conflict. On question by Councilman McCall, Mr. Johnson said the extension of Island Drive was included in the owner- ship of the applicant and the extension to the north to connect with County Road was in the ownership of Utah. He said it had no particular status at the present time other than a planned extension of Island Drive. Councilman McCall said he wished the record to show that the City had proposed an extension at the location. On his further questioning, Mr. Johnson explained that the zoning had nothing to do with the street dedication or opening, which would have to occur as a matter of subdivision. He stipulated that the present petitioner had not raised this question, that he had agreed verbally to extend the street opening if the project were allowed, at his expense. Councilman Longaker inquired regarding the status of Utah's plans for development of its land adjacent to the subject property and Mr. Johnson said the City had received no proper plan on this area. City Attorney Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was to determine whether the findings and recommendations of the Planning Board and the advisory report, based upon Section 11 -175 of the Municipal Code, should be sustained, modified or overruled. On the call for proponents of the rezoning, Mr. Roderic Duncan, Attorney representing Bay View Development Co., addressed the Council. He said he would commit his clients to what Mr. Johnson had indicated with regard to construction of the streets in connection with the proposed project. He said the only objection at the Board Hearing concerning the physical layout was that the parking was not sufficiently masked from the surrounding neighborhood and there had been a change in the plan to shelter the parking area. He said he felt the objections could be met but, since the application was for a "C -1 PD" zoning, it was not neces- sary to be too concerned with the physical layout as plans would have to be submitted in great detail for approval. He said his clients were quite certain they could provide a design which would efficiently and attractively meet any requirements the Planning staff might suggest. Mr. Duncan pointed out that Mr. Falaschi, President of Bay View Development Co., had had considerable experience in developing projects of the type proposed in the immediate area. He called attention to a letter from Mayor Jack Maltester of San Leandro to Mayor La Croix, of which he had received a copy, commend- ing Mr. Falaschi on his developments in that city and urging that he be given consideration as a developer in the City of Alameda. Mr. Duncan said the petitioner had attempted consistently to meet with representatives of Utah Construc- tion & Mining Co. for discussion of the proposal in connection with Utah's plans to reach any kind of agreement as to what would be satisfactory and agreeable. He said his clients had been denied any cooperation in discussing any plans of Utah and even the right to meet with Utah representatives. It was stated the petitioner had hoped to possibly acquire three or four acres to square off the subject property. Mr. Duncan said he had had a petition circulated in the area to observe the response as to how Bay Farm Island residents felt on the proposed development. At his request, Mrs. Abigail Wagg of Oakland, who had supervised the work of securing the signatures on the petition, stated she had covered virtually all of Bay Farm Island with the exception of the newer townhouses. She said she had found that there was an overwhelming response probably 90% - in favor of the proposed development, as there was a great need for the convenience of shopping in the area. Mr. Duncan filed the petition, containing 247 signatures, with the Clerk. He said, in conclusion, he felt it was obvious that the people of the area needed and wanted some kind of shopping facilities in the vicinity. He argued that Utah had had its land for five years and was not willing to reveal to anyone when they would proceed or have plans for the area. He expressed the opinion that in not allowing the subject development to proceed the City would penalize his client's rather substantial investment in a valuable piece of land and also the more than 3,000 residents of Bay Farm Island who had almost no shopping facilities and desired something more. He requested the opportunity to speak in rebuttal of any arguments in opposition to the proposal. On question by Presdent La Croix, Mr. Duncan stated he himself had not had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Utah people. He said he had made some independent checks and had confirmed his client's statements on every approach. President La Croix said he wished to remove any stigma from Utah in this matter and said he felt this Hearing should stand on its own facts. There was a question and answer period with regard to whether tenants in the proposed shopping center could succeed in the event Utah should install a center, possibly on a larger scale; the possibility of traffic problems in entering Mecartney Road from the proposed installation, which the City Engineer said he did not visualize although there was a great deal which was not known with respect to the street alignment at the present time; the fact that no legal commitments had been made as to particular tenants for the center. The following spoke in support of the rezoning and the proposed development: Messrs. Eugene P. Nunes, 1167 Island Drive; W. H. Schedler, 1115 Via Alamosa Drive; C. E. Fuller, 1031 Camellia Drive; Gary Fonda, 78 Garden Road; and Albert P. Dubbs, 36 Garden Road. On question by President La Croix, Mr. Johnson stated it had been expected the City would be holding public hearings on the Utah plans by May and this had not yet transpired; he would guess that hopefully the matter would have progressed to that stage by the end of the year. He said Utah had stipulated that its first subdivision filings would be in this general area. In the Utah preliminary plan in connection with the Letter of Agreement between Utah, the Alameda Unified School District and the City, there was a shopping center approximately the same size as the one under discussion located about 1,000 feet north of the subject parcel. Mr. Johnson pointed out if the rezoning under discussion should be granted, there would be no need for a shopping center to be constructed by Utah in that area. He said if this Utah plan could be assumed, it envisioned what is called a concentric ring traffic circulation pattern on Bay Farm Island. The major crossroads in this discussion would be Island Drive and Mecartney Road, almost in the center of the Island and, if the Council should go along with the requested rezoning, it would be going in for a so- called crossroads traffic pattern and this shopping center location could then become the focus for most of the Bay Farm Island development, the corner would in the future become a very major intersection, and the City would be committed to a crossroads vehicular commercial pattern on the Island. This was the kind of decision facing the City and an awful lot of future hung on this one development. It was stated that residents in the immediate area had indicated they were in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Johnson said the quality of the development would be no problem as the developer, a reputable man, had indicated he would work with the City on this project as he had in the past. He said if the zone change were granted, Utah would have to modify its plans so that there would not be a commer- cial area just north of the subject location. Following some further clarifying discussion, Councilman McCall moved the Hearing be continued until the Council meeting of July 6, 1971, with the request that in the interim a meeting be held between Utah Construction & Mining Co. and Bay View Development Co., if at all possible; if not, the City Council would have to make a determination at that meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy. After some deliberation and upon the advice of Mr. Cunningham, it was decided that the Hearing would be continued to the regular meeting of July 20 in order to allow additional time to arrange such a meeting and any additional information might be introduced and considered at that time. Mr. Weller was requested to draft an appropriate letter to go to both parties over the President's signature to endeavor to set up the conference. This was satisfactory to Councilmen McCall and Levy. Mr. Weller said, in fairness to Utah, much of the delay in filing their maps had been on the recommenda- tion of the City staff, who had felt there were substantial technical problems which should be ironed out before their filing. On question by Councilman Fore, Mr. E. A. Falaschi, President of Bay View Development Co., stated as soon as the blessing of the Council was received and the plans had been approved, his company would be ready to start construction. He said they had enough tenants, banks, grocery stores, large chains, drug stores and all necessary services. He estimated the investment would amount to over a million dollars. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 8.,V In the Matter of a Petition to rezone from the "R -1 ", One - Family Residence, to the "R -4 ", Neighbor- hood Apartment District, the northerly portion of 45 feet five inches of the property known as 1337 Sher- man Street. The petition had been filed by Mr. Arman R. Arakelian and the Planning Board had recommended denial. The Clerk stated a communication had been received from Mr. Arakelian, copies of which had been sent to the Councilmen, requesting that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice. The Hearing was therefore cancelled. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 9. From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Frandenhar Painting & Decorating, low bid er, for the project of Painting Portions of the City Hall, at the price of $2,935. Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be adopted, that the contract be awarded to the designated company for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 10. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 652, subject to conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated November 20, 1970. This covered a four -unit condominium subdivision at 2615 San Jose Avenue for D. B. Bither Co., Inc. The matter was referred to "Resolutions ". 261 11. From the Planning Board, signed by the Assistant Planning Director, recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 682, subject to conditions of the City Engineer's report dated March 24, 1971. This covered division of property at 34 -36 Garden Road for Mr. Albert B. Dubbs. The matter was also referred to "Resolutions ". 12.V From the Fire Department, reporting on the result of the election of the Department representative on the Pension Board, in which Captain Clifford P. Dutrow had been selected to so act in behalf of the Department. The matter was referred to "Resolutions ". ry, 13.,4 From the City Manager, transmitting the Recommended Tentative Budget for fiscal year 1971 -1972. Mr. Weller said he had suggested the City Council hold an adjourned regular session on Tuesday, June 29, at which time the budget could be discussed more fully. It was expected to have considerably more informa- tion with regard to the employees' salary and benefit picture, assessment rolls and other factors which at the moment were relatively uncertain. Councilman McCall stated he had missed the budget presentation last year and that he would like to be present at this year's review. He said he would be on vacation on June 29 and requested that the Council set a meeting for June 22 on this subject, if possible. However, it was felt that all information would not be on hand by that date. After some further discussion, it was decided that the budget discussion would be held Wednesday, July 7, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chamber. Councilman McCall moved the Recommended Tentative Budget for the City of Alameda for fiscal year 1971- 1972 be accepted. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 14. From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Secretary, submitting certain recommendations on the Golf Course operation. The Commission recommended that the fees be increased and submitted a schedule thereon, that the staff take steps to determine the feasibility of a first class restaurant operation with banquet and meeting facilities, development through community resources of a broad promotion and advertising program and revision of the contract of the Golf Professional to designate him as Clubhouse Manager and spell out the responsibilities of this position. Further, the Commission recommended that the Council authorize it to contact the American Society of Golf Course Architects in order to interview representative architects on the subject of acting as a consultant and /or doing a feasibility study on the approach best suited to the remodeling or redevelopment of the South Course and other contiguous areas. If this approach was satisfactory to the Council, the Commission proposed to report the results and incorporate a recommendation for further action. At this time, Mr. Raymond P. Kranelly, 1150 Admiralty Lane, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, was invited to address the Council on the subject. He said a great deal of time and study had been spent on the report which was requested by the Council approximately two years ago. He said to finalize the effort, the letter from the Commission now submitted a proposal which it was felt was in keeping with the request of the Council at its recent joint meeting with the Commission to come up with a plan to increase the revenue of the Golf Courses, decrease the expenses and include recommendations with regard to personnel. There was a question and answer period, with Mr. Kranelly supplying information with regard to the report. He stated it was estimated the proposed increase in fees would produce approximately $45,000 in additional revenue during the coming fiscal year The revision in the Golf Professional's contract to designate him as Clubhouse Manager could be made immediately. With regard to monthly tickets for seniors and for week- day play, and limiting the time for this play to times other than prime time, Mr. Kranelly explained that consideration had been given to limiting the time from 11:00 o'clock a.m. on through the day but it was felt that in view of the competition from surrounding courses this might be an unpopular move and any change was deferred for the time being. He recited statistics of play on the Courses in this respect, and said the Commission intended to watch the situation during the coming year to keep a record of the time the tickets were used and the number of tickets sold to Alameda residents and to those from outside the City. Councilman Longaker expressed appreciation to the Commission for the tremendous job performed in this matter and to Mr. Mainland for his conscientiousness. Mr. Kranelly pointed out the Commission requested permission merely to invite a Golf Course Architect and Consultant to a meeting in an endeavor to learn his thinking with a view to possibly re- arranging some of the South Course to the best advantage. He said there was no mention of committing the City to expendi- tures of funds until such time as the Commission would have a plan to submit to the Council. He also stated the Commission would be returning to the Council at the earliest possible time with recommendations for improving the driving range. Councilman McCall expressed thanks to the Commission for its work. He said he would like to see the Senior player rate remain as at present and be allowed for Alameda residents only, and that locker rental rates for senior citizens already having a locker remain at the $10 fee. Mr. Kranelly said he felt the Commis- sion would not object to granting a concession of this kind to Alameda residents. President La Croix said he felt the Council wished to take care of Alameda citizens first but that he could see no reason for not increasing the Senior Citizen rates for play as recommended by the Commission. He said he would be willing to go along with the retention of the $10 charge for those who presently had lockers but he felt the average citizen, whether senior .or otherwise, could meet the increased fee, noting that he had never had a senior citizen who played golf approach him with an objection to the proposed 262 change. He said he would support the recommendation of the Commission but would go along with the current locker rental rate remaining at $10. Councilman Longaker suggested it be determined how many holders of lockers were Alameda residents. Mr. Kranelly pointed out that Alameda was one of the few municipal courses which provided lockers and that for the service provided $15 per year was a very low charge. Councilman Fore criticized the operation of the shop at the Golf Courses. Mr. Kranelly stated the Recreation Director had the situation under control and during the next fiscal year there would be changes in operating this facility. After some further discussion, the Council expressed agreement to accept the recommendations of the Commission. Mr. Chuck Corica was then invited to address the Council, in accordance with his request. He said he had expressed his opinion in his letters that the Commission was doing a good job in directing the Golf Course operation but he had one opinion and Mr. Kranelly had another. He still thought that a Golf Commission would be better than the present setup. He took issue with the amount of profit expected as it would not be known how many players would be lost. Mr. Corica said he wanted to go on record in opposition to any rise in fees as he felt this was a step in the wrong direction and players would be driven away to other courses which had a lower price. He expressed the opinion that Alameda should let its competitors raise their rates first. He suggested that methods be explored in merchandising, such as advertising the Golf Courses, using a pleasant attitude toward golfing customers, giving the players a good buy and using the maintenance crew more efficiently. He said he personally felt the Courses could not be run satisfactorily from the City Hall. President La Croix commended the Recreation Commission and Mr. Mainland on the outstanding job done on the Golf Course study, and said he felt something good would come from it in the near future, hopefully, and certainly in the months and years to come. Councilman Longaker moved the report submitted by the Recreation Commission be adopted. Councilman Fore 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 "Resolutions ". RESOLUTIONS: 15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7785 Establishing Rates and Fees to be Charged for Play on Alameda Municipal Golf Courses." The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman McCall said he would like to see a breakdown in revenue as he felt the City should take care of its own senior citizens on the rate. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 16. Councilman Fore expressed his approval of the mini -bike facility opened on this date on the Alameda Dump property. 17. Councilman McCall called attention to the memorandum dated June 11 from the City Attorney with respect to the fishing pier and the proposed meeting on the subject. President La Croix stated a reply had been received from the East Bay Regional Park District, whose Acting Assistant General Manager, Mr. Jerry Kent, had been in contact with the Corps of Engineers and was arranging a meeting very soon with the three agencies to discuss further the opportunities of acquiring such a pier. 18. Councilman McCall commented on the report he had requested from the City Attorney on beach access relative to subdivisions. President La Croix pointed out this provision of the Business and Professions Code must be complied with by the City. 19. Councilman McCall also remarked on publicity with regard to the Fruitvale Bridge and the wonderful job Congressman George P. Miller and the County Board of Supervisors had done on this project. He said there were many people who had been actively involved in the struggle to obtain the new facility who also deserved commendations for their part in the effort. President La Croix said he felt the main issue was that the new Bridge would now be a reality. RESOLUTIONS: 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7786 Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement for County - Wide Intergovernmental Cooperative Traffic Records System (ACTRS) (Deletes Piedmont, Newark; Clarifies Prior Amendment, No Substantive Changes.)" 263 The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7787 Adopting Budget for Expenditure of Funds Apportioned from the Highway Users Tax Fund to Cities." The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7788 Authorizing the Execution of a Contract for Services of a Certified Public Accountant for the Fiscal Year 1971-1972." The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7789 Authorizing Year-End Transfers on the Books of Account of the City of Alameda." The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7790 Providing for the Amount Per Diem for Officers and Employees of the City of Alameda for Traveling Expenses." The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 25. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7791 Authorizing the Execution of a Contract with Brink's, Incorporated, for Their Services Relating to Parking Meter Collections, for the Fiscal Year 1971-1972." The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7792 Authorizing City to Intervene in Pending Litigation (Waldo Williams vs. Gonzales, Alameda County No. 412710)." The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. On request, Mr. Cunningham explained that this case concerned an accident in which Captain Williams had been involved on the way to respond to a fire. He elaborated on the circumstances for the edification of the Council. 27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7793 Approving Parcel Map No. 652 for Division into Condominiums of Property at 2615 San Jose Avenue, and Permitting Recording Thereof (C. A. Wooldridge, Civil Engineer, for D. B. Bitner Co., Inc.)" The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7794 Approving Parcel Map No. 682 for Division of Property at 34 -36 Garden Road, and Permitting Recording Thereof (Bates & Bailey, Civil Engineers, for Albert B. and Mary Louise Dubbs.)" The motion was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 29.x The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7795 Appointing Member of the Pension Board." (Clifford P. Dutrow) The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 30. 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 Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Regulations." The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 31. Councilman Fore 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 Article 1 to Chapter 4, Title II, Thereof, Consisting of Sections 2 -411 Through 2 -416, Estab- lishing Residence Requirements for Officers and Employees of the City." The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. BILLS: 32. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $47,515.71, 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 June 15, 1971, 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. 33. At this time, President La Croix recognized and welcomed Mr. Raymond D. Martin, Auditor and Assessor. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 34. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, complained again of the shallow curb on Haight Avenue, drainage and large construction trucks backing along the street with no concern for children who might be in the street. President La Croix stated he had inspected streets throughout the City and had found many curbs of a similar height to those about which Mr. Gottstein spoke. FILING: 35. Amendment to Agreement - for Intergovernmental Cooperative Consolidated Traffic Records System. 36. Agreement - Between City and George A. Hackieman - for Auditing Services for fiscal year 1971- 1972. 37. Recommended Tentative Budget - City of Alameda - for fiscal year 1971 -1972. 38. Agreement - Between City and Brinks,. Incorporated - for Parking Meter Collections - Fiscal Year 1971 -1972. 39. Councilman Levy moved the Council retire to an executive session for discussion of personnel matters and appointments to the various City Boards and Commissions. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which on roll call carried unanimously. After a five- minute recess, the Council reconvened in the Conference Room, No. 303, for its deliberations. At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Attorney was requested to prepare appropriate resolutions for action by the City Council at its next regular meeting on July 6, 1971. ADJOURNMENT: 40. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, July 6, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk