1971-09-21 Regular CC Minutes299
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 21, 1971
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman McCall and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The
Reverend Dr. Wilfred H. Hodgkin, Rector of Christ Episcopal Church. President La Croix thanked Dr.
Hodgkin particularly for being present in spite of suffering from a serious and uncomfortable back
problem.
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 September 7, 1971, were approved as transcribed.
2. President La Croix extended to the Jewish members of the community best wishes for a Happy New Year,
and welcomed a large number of students in the audience.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
3. 1//' From Pan-Pacific Development Company, signed by Mr. William B. Kirkland, Jr., President, requesting
six months extension of time for completion of improvements in connection with the subdivision known as
Tract No. 3011, and that the "Ballena Bay" sign remain and be accepted with the landscaping on the center
strip.
On inquiry, City Engineer Hanna stated he would recommend approval of the request.
Councilman Levy moved the extension of time of six months be granted as requested on the subdivision known
as Tract No. 3011, and that the sign be permitted to remain and be accepted with the landscaping on the
center strip. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
4. 1// From Pan-Pacific Development Company, signed by the President, requesting an extension of time to
December 1, 1971, for completion of public improvements in connection with the subdivision known as Tract
No. 3105.
Mr. Hanna indicated he would also recommend approval of this request.
Councilman Levy moved an extension of time to December 1, 1971, be granted as requested by the developer
for completion of improvements on said Tract. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
5. From Pan-Pacific Development Company, signed by the President, requesting a time extension to Novem-
ber 1, 1971, for completion of public improvements in connection with the subdivision known as Tract No.
3189.
Mr. Hanna explained this request related to the condominium development on the island, a relatively small
area, and he would have no objection to granting the request.
Councilman Levy moved the requested extension of time to November 1, 1971, be granted for completion of
said improvements on the designated Tract. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
6. Y From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 177 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions".
7. V From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Charles T. Travers, President of
the Board of Trustees, requesting that Messrs. Franz S. Collischonn, Charles T. Travers and Raymond P.
Kranelly be appointed as Trustees of the District for four-year terms and Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell be appointed
for a two-year term.
This matter was also referred to "Resolutions".
8. / From International Shows, Inc., signed by Mr. F. H. Creger, President, requesting permission to erect
a tent 370 by 150 feet on Del Monte property at the Pacific Marina for the San Francisco Bay and Sports
Show to be held from September 23 through October 3, 1971.
Through a misunderstanding of the proper procedure, the applicant had failed to apply previously for a
permit covering this event.
City Attorney Cunningham suggested, should the Council grant the requested permit, the following conditions
be attached: (1) that the permit be subject to compliance by the President of the firm with the Municipal
Code, Sections 10-531 through 10-537, and (2) that requirements of the Police and Fire Departments in the
matter be met.
Councilman Fore moved the permit be granted as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Attorney. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
9. From Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, suggesting motorcycles be prohibited in the Posey
and Webster Tubes.
President La Croix commented that the Tubes are part of the State highway system, in which these vehicles
are allowed. He suggested if it were desired to have them banned a communication should be directed to
the State Highway Department for consideration. He expressed the thinking that operators of motorcycles
had a perfect right to use the Tubes, as do other vehicles, and voiced the hope that safety and considera-
tion for others would be shown in their use.
The communication was acknowledged with appreciation.
10. ` From Alamedans with HOPE, signed by Mr. John B. Dickson, President, on the subject of population
density and low and moderate income housing in the City, with specific reference to the plans of Utah
Construction & Mining Co. for development of Bay Farm Island.
President La Croix remarked that representatives of the City had, the previous week, attended a hearing
by the Airport Land Use Planning Commission at which they were informed the City would be placed under
an umbrella whereby the Commission would have control over density, noise and the types of dwellings to
be permitted for construction within the City. He publicly commended Mr. Cunningham for his presenta-
tion, in conjunction with the Planning Director, in arguing why the City of Alameda should not be placed
under the umbrella. He said he considered the Commission, as presently constituted, one of the strongest
vehicles for the growth of any airport which might confront a city and said he believed the City would
find itself in jeopardy as to what it could do for its tax base and its future development. He said he
mentioned these points as he felt they would have a direct bearing on the type of low cost or moderate
income housing it would be possible to develop in the City in the future. He said it had been suggested
that a time might come when a freeze would be necessary; at this time it was not known what kind of
codes or restrictions the Airport Land Use Planning Commission might place upon the City.
11. At this time, the President called upon Mr. Stuart L. Wright, representative of the California
State Automobile Association. Mr. Wright reported that the City had had only 1.2 deaths per 100,000
population during the past year and a similarly good record on injuries with only fifty -four as against
a national average of seventy -three such cases. He presented to Police Chief Richard Young, on behalf
of the City and its Police Department, a special citation for the City's casualty record in the 1970
Pedestrian Safety Inventory Program.
Chief Young accepted the plaque, saying he felt sure it had been through the efforts of the working
Police Officers that the low rate of casualties had been experienced, and that the people of the community
deserved a great deal of credit for acting in a cautious manner and with safety as pedestrians.
President La Croix expressed appreciation to Mr. Wright and requested that Chief Young convey to the
men in his Department thanks for a job well done. He commented, for the information of the young people
in the audience, that cooperation and concern for one's fellows was what makes a City.
Mrs. Young was introduced and welcomed to the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
12. 1 Mr. Gottstein remarked on his letter suggesting that motorcycles be prohibited in the Tubes. He
said he was disappointed that other members of the Council had made no comment on his suggestion.
Mr. Gottstein complained that motorcycles retarded traffic, because of the fact that they must be kept
in motion in order to balance, and caused accidents.
At the suggestion of Councilman Longaker, it was requested that the City Manager's office direct an
inquiry to the proper State department as to whether the City has any jurisdiction over a motor vehicle
licensed by the State traveling over a State highway.
HEARINGS:
13. / Continued from the meetings held August 17 and September 7, 1971, In the Matter of Resolution of
Intention No. 7811, adopted July 20, 1971, to Order Vacation of Portions of Maple and Second Streets.
The Clerk stated there were on hand Affidavits of Publication and of Posting the required Notices of
Hearing in this matter.
Mr. Hanna reported that the streets involved in this action were publicly dedicated but had not been
used generally by the public and there was no need in the future plans of the City for public thorough-
fare purposes. Many of the areas would be constructed over by the new Western Housing Project with
the exception of an existing sanitary sewer running along the center of Second Street, for which an
easement would be reserved. The action had been requested by the Housing Authority of the City of
Alameda.
Mr. Cunningham, on request, stated the purpose of the Hearing was for the Council to hear the testimony
of any and all interested persons concerning the proposed street vacation, and to determine whether
the streets described in the Resolution of Intention were necessary for prospective street purposes
and whether the public interest required the vacation of the streets.
On question, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, stipulated to the advantage of the proposed action.
On the call for proponents, there was no response, nor on the call for opponents. The Hearing was closed.
There being no objections, the order of business proceeded to "Resolutions ".
RESOLUTIONS:
14. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7831
Finding and Determining Portions of Maple Street and Second Street,
Public Streets in the City of Alameda, are Unnecessary for Present or
Prospective Street Purposes; Ordering Vacation Thereof Subject to
Reservation of Permanent Easements and Rights of Way Therein as
Described in Resolution of Intention No. 7811 Heretofore Adopted on
July 20, 1971; and Directing City Clerk to Cause Certified Copy of
This Resolution to be Recorded."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
HEARINGS:.
15. ` In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance to allow six
dwelling units on a lot having approximately 8,317 square feet or an area deficiency of 683 square feet.
The Appeal had been filed by Mr. Lloyd Teeter on proposed construction on property known as 21482 Clinton
Avenue.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the action of the Board on the matter, as set forth in the Planning Department memo-
randum of August 16, 1971. He said the parcel in question, located in an "R -4" zone, was one of the old
lots along Clinton Avenue which was formerly about 370 feet deep and had been divided into two lots some
years ago prior to adoption of the present subdivision ordinances. He said the lot had no street frontage
as such but carried with it an easement twelve feet two inches in width and two hundred feet long for
driveway purposes only. He said the lot in question presently had two dwelling units on it and the
applicant proposed to place four additional dwelling units thereon. The lot, he said, also had frontage
on the lagoon.
Mr. Johnson said the thinking of the Board had been that the request was not justified since the hardship
in the case was largely self - created and similar variances in the vicinity approaching the amount of this
deficiency had not been granted. It felt the criteria set forth in the Code had not been met.
Mr. Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and determinations of the
Board with respect to the conditions required by Section 11- 161(d) of the Municipal Code should be affirmed,
modified or reversed.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Teeter, 263 Euclid Avenue, Oakland, the appellant, presented to the members
of the Council plans showing his proposal. He said the easement for driveway purposes had not been consi-
dered in his request for a variance, that the reason for his application was that the owner of the front
property had computed his driveway and turn - around easement in his lot area and the City could not deny
his request for a variance permitting six units. The result had been a very crowded lot because too many
people were using the easement. Mr. Teeter said he felt if the other property owner was able to use the
entire area in computing his square footage this was unjust and unfair and he, Mr. Teeter, should be
permitted to use at least the turn - around area in computing his property, which would give him much greater
usage of his land.
Mr. Teeter argued that under provisions of the Municipal Code he should be granted the variance, that it
would not be harmful in any way and there had been no protests against it. He noted, on a suggestion by
Mr. Cunningham, that a joint computation of the entire area of both parcels indicated there would be more
than enough for the twelve units.
Mr. Cunningham, on inquiry, stated Mr. Teeter had quoted from the old superseded ordinance on the subject,
which had been amended by Ordinance No. 1635, New Series. He called attention to the revised provisions
covering the Zoning Administrator procedure and the specific findings and determinations of the Board
required on major variances. He related other discussion with Mr. Teeter with regard to the easement, that
possibly there should be some exchange of property and subsequent granting of an easement.
Mr. Teeter stated his reasons for appealing were (1) that he had not been shown the reason for the Board's
denial as stated in the ordinance and the denial had been on the basis of the area deficiency and not for
the reason given in the Board's letter; the Board had stated additional reasons as lack of genuine hardship
and the fact that variances for similar amount of shortages had not been granted previously. He claimed
the crowding of construction on the property fronting on Clinton Avenue and the shortage of parking area
had damaged his property. (2) Mr. Teeter appealed for equal treatment under the Constitution of the United
States, under equal and similar circumstances. He respectfully requested that the City Council approve
the variance.
There was discussion with regard to the lot titles, the access easement, the rear property line, a rear
yard encroachment on which variance had been previously granted and expired, and the parking area to accom-
modate nine vehicles.
Mr. Teeter pleaded that he owned the use of the easement but did not have the fee title; Mr. Lee, the owner
of the property fronting on Clinton Avenue, paid the taxes and Mr. Teeter had maintained the easement,
according to an agreement on record.
On the call for opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed.
Mr. Johnson stated he had no quarrel with Mr. Teeter, with whom he had worked for years, and the relation-
ship had been most cooperative. He explained that the Board could not take into account in its considera-
tion easements granted from one property owner to the other. He said it was clear in this case that the
underlying fee separation existed, that the property in front owned by Mr. Lee contained in excess of
10,000 square feet, also that the property split had not been approved by the Board, to his knowledge.
He said he could only suggest that there should be some kind of resolution between the two property owners,
that grant deeds of easement were not cited in the ordinance.
It was suggested that Mr. Teeter endeavor to negotiate with Mr. Lee for sufficient land to enable him
to meet the square footage requirements of the City to permit the construction he proposed and grant an
easement for access to the front property owner. There was some discussion with regard to alternatives
available.
Councilman McCall moved that the Appeal be denied and the ruling of the Planning Board be upheld. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four.
Noes: Councilman Levy, (1). Absent: None.
Councilman Levy explained his reason for voting against the motion was that he felt upholding the Board's
decision would not accomplish what could be done in this matter, and he felt the Appeal should be
granted.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
16. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending denial of a petition to rezone from
the "C -2 ", Central Business, to the "R- 6- H -50 ", Hotel Apartment District, Height Limit Fifty Feet,
certain properties known as 2507, 2513 and 2515 Central Avenue.
The Hearing on this matter was set for the next regular meeting of the City Council on October 5, 1971.
NEW BUSINESS:
17. v President La Croix requested, if it met with approval by other members of the Council, that the
City Manager's office ascertain from the Chief of Police whether all possible was being done to stop the
undue noise generated in the City by motorcycles and automobiles. He said he felt the problem had
existed for a long time and he found it very disconcerting that people passed the Alameda Hospital on
motorcycles and in automobiles with no care whatsoever for the patients or residents of the area, or of
the City. He said he had had untold numbers of telephone calls from residents of the City during the
past few months complaining of this situation and asking if there was not some legislation in existence
on the State or City level to bring to the attention of users of vehicles the effect of these excessive
noises on others. The request met with the approval of other members of the Council and Mr. Goss,
Assistant City Manager, was requested to pass on this item to Chief Young.
Councilman McCall complained that he felt the most dangerous thing in the City at the present time were
bicycles with people riding with no respect for the law as to lights, horns and courtesy. He suggested
that the Police Chief be requested to bear down on enforcement of all laws in the City, including the
leash law.
President La Croix reiterated his statement that he would like to see certain streets designated for
bicycles. He said he felt automobile drivers would also like to see this done, and he hoped the City
Council would support the proposal at such time as it might come up for consideration.
Mr. Cunningham stated the Police Department recognized that the bicycle problem was increasingly one for
concern and it had proposed revision of the bicycle controls and regulations. He said an amendment to
the pertinent section of the Municipal Code would be coming before the Council before long which would,
hopefully, lead to closer control.
Councilman Longaker added his comment that the important factor in the discussion with regard to bicycles
was that of safety. He said he felt it behooved anyone in a position to do so to do as much as possible
in the educating process and the burden fell, not only on the shoulders of public school personnel, but
on those of parents as well.
RESOLUTIONS:
18.V The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7832
Approving Warrant No. 177 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District
No. 2105."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None.
19.E ' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7833
Appointing Those Nominated as Trustees of Bay Farm Island Reclamation
District No. 2105."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
303
20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7834
Authorizing the Use of Facsimile Signatures by the City Auditor and
Acting City Treasurer."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
21. After explanation of the resolution by President La Croix, the following resolution was introduced
by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7835
Authorizing Execution of Joint Powers Agreement Creating, and Establishing
Powers and Duties of, a Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall 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. 7836
Requesting State Department of Finance to Prepare Special Census Estimate
as of October 1, 1971, and Authorizing Execution of Agreement Between
City and Said Department Therefor."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
President La Croix explained this action was being taken in an attempt to secure an adjusted higher census
figure by the State Department of Finance which would reflect onboard military personnel in relationship
to the ship complement at the Naval Air Station.
23.1 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7837
Authorizing City to Withdraw from Joint Powers Agreement for County -Wide
Consolidated Inter - Governmental Cooperative Traffic Records System, and
Directing Notice Thereof to be Given in the Manner Provided in Termination
Clause of Said Agreement."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Mr. Hanna explained the work of setting up traffic data on a computer system under this contract with the
expectation that it might be a good tool to use in the design of streets and the control and reduction of
traffic hazards. It was now complete and it was felt that the smaller cities, of which Alameda was one,
could not use the system. If Alameda were to remain in the system it would be necessary to provide funds
each year for the use of the computer.
24. \v, The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7838
Rejecting Claim of Theda Duckworth Against City."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy 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. 7839
Rejecting Claim of Dorothy Duckworth Against City."
The motion to adopt said resolution 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 McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7840
Appointing Those Nominated as Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2087."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
27. / The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7841
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction and Completion of
Improvements in Connection with Parcel Map No. 691 and Approving Faithful
Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (Division of Property at 1208 St.
Charles Street - Sarah K. Mark, Formerly Sarah K. Pollard, and Clifford G.
Wallace)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
28.v The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7842
Approving Parcel Map No. 691 for Division of Property at 1208 St. Charles
Street, Alameda, California, and Permitting Recording Thereof (Sarah K.
Mark, Formerly Sarah K. Pollard, and Clifford G. Wallace)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
29. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7843
Authorizing Execution of Amendment to Fruitvale Bridge Replacement Escrow
Agreement."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following
roll �,call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
30. P The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7844
Appointing Member of the Social Service Board." (Mrs. Lelia L. Burton)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
31. 1/ "Ordinance No. 1651,
New Series
An Ordinance Conditionally Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property
Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New
Series. (From C -2, Central Business District to R -5 -PD, General Apart-
ment District, Planned Development - Doric Development, Inc.)."
Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
32. "Ordinance No. 1652,
New Series
An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code
Relating to Traffic Regulations."
Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman McCall seconded the motion
which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
33. Two itemized Lists of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amounts of $62,301.07 and $27,700.00, respectively, were presented to the Council at this meeting.
The Lists were accompanied by certifications from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct.
Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the Lists of Claims filed with the City Clerk on Septem-
ber 21, 1971, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
34. ' Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, reiterated her complaint with regard to the streets in the
South Shore Shopping Center, which she said were not of legal width, making it impossible for cars to
turn right or left without having to use the adjoining driving lane. She expressed the opinion that the
streets should be properly constructed at the time buildings were erected, two of which had recently
been completed, and that the property owner had enjoyed the use of his property to the extent that no
other citizen had been allowed.
305
Mr. Hanna, on inquiry, stated the streets in the Center were strictly private streets on private property
and the City had no control over them unless presented under a Planned Development project, in which
event the Planning Board could exercise some control over the aesthetics and the layout.
Mr. Johnson added his comments that he appreciated Mrs. Kapellas' complaint as the matter had long been
a subject of design consideration by the Planning Department. He remarked that there had been a change
in the management of Utah Construction & Mining Co., who were concerned with the design of the Shopping
Center and interested in the redesign of its parking lot and access to the new facilities.
President La Croix said he had recently seen an overlay map of the entire South Shore area and he could
vouch for Mr. Johnson's statements. He enlarged somewhat on the subject, and requested that the Planning
Department, through the City Manager's office, report back to the Council any information available on
the matter.
35. y" Mrs. Kapellas inquired as to the control of density on Bay Farm Island by the Airport Land Use Plan-
ning Commission.
President La Croix stated this question at the present time was an unknown quantity. The umbrella zoning
control exercised by the Commission over great portions of Alameda County and especially over the City of
Alameda might dictate what sound requirements the City might need in its building materials in any future
development of Bay Farm Island. There were certain decibels of noise levels with which the Commission
would function, which would possibly increase the cost of building. He said there were many facets of the
problem to be considered, and all the ramifications of the controls to be exercised by the Commission were
not known at this time.
Councilman McCall commented that the Commission could recommend that no residential development be permitted
in any area, on which the Council had the right of override by a four-fifths vote. He recounted a recent
occasion when the City of Livermore had approved a trailer park and had had to reverse its approval and
deny the park its permit after the Commission had come back with its recommendation.
Mrs. Kapellas expressed the opinion that there was a time when business encroached too much upon the commu-
nity and this should be investigated.
36. Mrs. Kapellas recalled that an ordinance had been proposed some time ago by the City Council requiring
that motorcyclists wear certain protective gear. She was informed that the State Legislature had not passed
the legislation. She said she felt this should be required of cycle riders for their own protection.
./
37. V Mrs. Lee-Ann Lane, 1425 Union Street, inquired as to the status of the Planned Development ordinance
revision.
Mr. Johnson reported that between his and the City Attorney's office general agreement had been reached
and preparation of a final draft was in process. He said the Planning Board had been requested to review
the draft and the newly proposed revision would undoubtedly come to the Council at its next meeting.
38. V Mrs. Lane commented that she had observed the Airport Land Use Planning Commission had been authorized
last year and she would have thought preparation for the Hearing before it would have been done many months
ago
President La Croix pointed out that although the law was enacted earlier the Commission had only recently
formulated its plans for action.
39., Mrs. Lane inquired as to revitalization of the Charter Revision Advisory Committee.
President La Croix informed her that it was hoped the first meeting could be set up for the middle of
October.
40. V Mrs. Lane remarked that she had read of legislation before the Governor to set up a board dealing
with the sewage problem in the Bay Area which would establish another layer of government.
Mr. Hanna, on inquiry, reported that this matter was being watched very carefully as it could affect the
City.
Councilman McCall pointed out the Regional Water Quality Control Board covering the nine Bay Area counties
and the State Water Quality Board were already in existence. He said what was proposed was a body to take
over these agencies to remove the activity from the local area and make it a full-scale State board.
41.V/Mr. Vernon W. Dennen, 1918 Everett Street, inquired as to the status of the Blanding Avenue condition.
He had requested some time ago that the street be squared off and made full width.
Mr. Hanna said there had been no change in the street. His position was that the situation was a difficult
thing to make perfect and there was no reason to put the required effort into the project.
President La Croix suggested the Councilmen inspect the area and consult with the City Engineer on the
subject.
Mr. Dennen suggested that an overpass be placed at the Alameda end of the Park Street Bridge into Blanding
Avenue to avoid the congestion of left-turning vehicles at the intersections of Clement and Eagle Avenues.
42. /Mr. Dennen also suggested that the City could obtain considerable revenue from cable television.
4/
43.1 Mr. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, complained, with regard to the condominium development being
constructed at Portola Avenue and Ninth Street, that large machinery had broken the sidewalk and the condi-
tion had not been corrected.
Mr. Hanna stated the developers were to repair any damage done during the construction process.
44. V Mr. James Flint, 1712 Webster Street, said there were too many people complaining of motorcycles and
that many more cyclists were careful about safety than those who did not observe the law.
Mr. Flint complained that there was a large hole in the pavement at the northeast corner of Webster Street
and Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Hanna was requested to investigate this condition.
45. Mrs. Helen Freeman, 831 Laurel Street, former Councilman of the City of Alameda, was introduced and
welcomed.
FILING:
46. Agreement - Between Department of Finance of State and City - re Census Estimate.
47. Agreement - Between County and City of Alameda - re Criminal Justice Program.
48. Agreement - Between Sarah K. Mark and Clifford G. Wallace and City - re Parcel Map No. 691.
49. Councilman Longaker moved the Council retire to an executive session for discussion of appointments
to Boards and Commissions of the City. 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, it was agreed that no further action would be taken at this meeting.
The City Attorney was requested to prepare appropriate resolutions for action at the next regular meeting
of the Council on October 5, 1971.
ADJOURNMENT:
50. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, October 5, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk