Loading...
1969-10-21 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR. MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING OCTOBER 21, 1969 The meeting convened at 7:30 olclock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Levy and was followed by an inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Robert P. Martin, Pastor of the Trinity Lutheran 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 October 7 and the adjourned regular meeting held October 9, 1969, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: From Reclamation District No. 2087, signed by Mr. Charles T. Travers, President of the Board of Trustees, submitting the Boards resolution with regard to nomination of candidates for the office of Trustee of the District, and requesting that the City Council appoint Messrs. John N. James and Bruce T. Mitchell as Trustees. The matter was referred to "Resolutions". 3. / From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary, requesting approval of Warrant No. 164 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund. This matter, also, was referred to "Resolutions". From Pan-Pacific Development Company, signed by Mr. William B. Kirkland, Jr., President, request- ing an extension of time of one year for completion of public improvements in the subdivision known as Tract 3011. Councilman McCall moved the request for an extension of one yearis time be granted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy. City Attorney Cunningham called attention to the statement in Pan-Pacificls letter that consent of the Surety on the faithful performance bond was provided under separate cover. This had not been received; however, the insurance writer for the developer had verbally assured that the consent had been granted and written confirmation would be forthcoming. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Abstaining: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA: 5. Mrs. Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, stated several people wished to speak on the subject of the recommendation by the Recreation Commission with regard to acquisition of a park site on Bay Farm Island. She was informed that the opportunity would be provided under the specific subject on the agenda. HEARINGS: 6.""- In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the City Manager to deny a Permit to Operate Public Motor Vehicles. The Appeal was filed by Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Mr. Alfred D. Lucius of Checker Cab Co. Mr. Cunningham stated this matter was before the Council on a procedural technicality in order that the applicant might have his appeal. The issue to be decided was whether the applicant for a taxicab permit, which was denied on June 9, 1969 by the City Manager, after a Hearing thereon conducted pursuant to Sections 7-112 and following and 13-213 and following of the Alameda Municipal Code, was able to show cause why the Council should not approve the action of the City Manager. While the applicantts scope of appeal was rather restricted he was, Mr. Cunningham felt, entitled to present evidence in support of his petition. The City Attorney stipulated that all witnesses be duly sworn before the City Clerk before presenting their evidence. On the call for proponents, Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney with the firm of Whitney & Hanson, repre- sented Mr. Lucius and Checker Cab Co. He emphasized that the Appeal was on the technical grounds referred to in the Code, that there was nothing to be deemed of a personal nature involving Mr. Weller as an individual, only in his office as City Manager. They felt the reason for the Appeal was that after the Hearing Mr. Weller misconstrued some of the evidence before him and made erroneous findings of fact. Mr. Whitney reviewed the circumstances of Mr. Lucius' original application for ten permits filed on April 4, 1969, and the Hearing thereon, held April 15, of which Mr. Lucius claimed he did not receive notice. The application was denied, a new petition was filed on May 19 and a Hearing held on June 9, at which Mr. Whitney represented Mr. Lucius. At that time, it was stated that Goodwill Cab had received three additional permits on April 22, between the time Mr. Luciusl first and second applications were filed. Mr. Whitney said he and his client felt if Checker Cab Co. had not filed its application, Goodwill Cab would not have applied for an increase in the number of its cab permits. Mr. Whitney called attention to the petition, copies of which had been distributed to the members of the Council for perusal, which contained same eight hundred odd names, many of whom were doctors and nurses who constantly had occasion to call cabs for their patients. Also, he said, signing the petition were many patients of doctors who were not able to get cab service and consequently had to cancel or to reset appointments, or people wishing to leave doctors' offices who had been forced to wait for long periods of time for a cab to pick them up. He submitted the petitions in evidence for examination by the Council to determine the number of people in the City who wished to have Checker Cab Co. operate in Alameda. Mr. Whitney commented that Yellow Cab Company, holding twenty -one permits, had evidently felt the pressure of the Lucius application and recently there had been more Yellow cabs on the City streets. He pointed out that Yellow cabs were not stationed in the City, but were dispatched from Oakland. He said Checker Cab Co. intended to station its cabs in Alameda with radio- operated service and Mr. Lucius had informed the City Manager that he would be able to answer any call within ten or, at the most, fifteen minutes from the time the call was received. Mr. Whitney stated certain allegations were made that Checker Cab Co. had been operating illegally in the City and these had been denied. He cited an instance when a Checker Cab driver had received a citation for picking up a passenger at the Naval Air Station and discharging said rider at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street. The charge, that the cab was illegally operated in the City of Alameda, was voluntarily dismissed by the District Attorney after investigation. This showed that the arrest had not been proper. Mr. Whitney claimed the same applied to the charges made by Goodwill drivers that they had constantly seen Checker Cab drivers illegally picking up passengers on the streets. The charges had not been sup- ported by evidence, they were voluntary by drivers of Goodwill, they were self - serving and only made for the purpose of embarrassing Mr. Lucius. Mr. Whitney quoted from Mr. Weller's report to the testified under oath, at the insistence of counsel up fares on numerous occasions in violation of the evidence was not refuted, under oath or otherwise, of the application. Council on the matter that "five drivers of Goodwill for Mr. Lucius, that Checker Cab drivers had picked Municipal Code " It had been stated that the and such violations would, of course, require denial Mr. Whitney called attention to an inconsistency between this report and the notes of the Hearing by the City Clerk, wherein there was a statement that Mr. Lucius denied the allegation. Mr. Weller recalled that Mr. Lucius had stated he was not responsible for the actions of his drivers and the statement might be taken as a personal denial. He pointed out the testimony of the individuals indicating they had seen violations was under oath, while the testimony of Mr. Lucius was not. Mr. Whitney said they could see no reason why same of the Yellow Cab Company's permits could not be taken from them and in turn issued to Checker Cab Co., who desired to be a local operation with head- quarters in Alameda. He said when carriers were in, all the Yellow and Goodwill cabs were at the Naval Air Station, picking up fares preferably for long hauls, and during those times there just were no cabs available for the people of Alameda. At such times, Yellow Cab might have eight or ten cabs at the Air Station but as soon as the particular situation was completed the cabs would be gone and there would be none available in Alameda. He said three persons had testified in the Hearing before the City Manager as to the difficulty of obtaining taxi service at commercial establishments during rush hours. Mr. Whitney said there had been a great point made of the fact that there was economic necessity why Goodwill and Yellow Cab should have a monopoly on the cab service in Alameda. He could not see why the City of Alameda should be concerned about the economic necessities of Yellow Cab Company. As far as Goodwill Cab was concerned, it was reported in the findings that, although at one time the drivers were making $60 per week, now it had gone up to 6100 per week. He expressed the opinion it was reasonable that the more cabs there were, the more use there would be for cabs; therefore, each driver would make more money - not only Goodwill but also Checker. He could not see where the question of economics entered into the problem, and felt the ability of a cab company to make a profit was not a good ground upon which to hinge denial of an application to operate in the City. There was a brief question and answer period between the Council and Mr. Whitney. It was noted that the City received complaints of poor cab service from time to time. Mr. Whitney then questioned Mrs. Lillian Deuschle, Nurse in the office of H. A. Renton, M.D., and Mrs. Margaret Longevin, both of 711 Taylor Avenue, and Mr. Ervin G. Werner, 22632 Pacific Avenue, who spoke in support of the claim that Goodwill and Yellow Cab did not give good service. Mr. Whitney called Mr. Alfred D. Lucius, 684 - 16th Street, Oakland, the applicant and owner of Checker Cab Co. On question, he stated if granted a permit he would establish his business headquarters on Park Street near Encinal Avenue, upstairs (Driftwood Restaurant), with parking in the rear. The cabs would be radio - controlled and based in Alameda, with a dispatcher on duty at all times. He felt customers whould not have to wait more than ten or fifteen minutes for cabs. He planned to start with five cabs, if the permit was granted, and add the others as needed. Mr. Lucius said he had seen as many as three Goodwill cabs parked on Buena Vista Avenue near Webster Street at night. He said he had heard many complaints regarding that Company's service. He was asked if he had ever permitted any of his drivers to violate any of the City ordinances and he replied, "Absolutely not." He added the drivers all knew they were not supposed to pick up in Alameda and if they did it was beyond his knowledge. He said he occasionally drove a cab and had never picked up anyone in Alameda. He stated the Naval Air Station had recently changed its ruling that the gates were open to all cabs, and in the last few months he believed it was possible to pick up there on a call only, except when a carrier was in, when all cabs were permitted to pick up fares. He said he had been told by people on the Station that they had waited for more than an hour for cab service. Mr. Lucius said he would be very happy to operate in Alameda and world give the best service he could. On question by Councilman Longaker, Mr. lucius said he was the sole owner of the business and did not plan to take in any partners, or anyone 8uld be financially involved in the Company. Councilman McCall brought up the matter of a permit Mr. Lucius had held in the City of Emeryville. Mr. Lucius said he did not now hold a permit there because the Police Chief wanted him to put in a telephone and get his own stand and the expense was too great for one cab. City Attorney Cunningham questioned Mr. Lucius with regard to this permit. The questioning revealed that the Police Chief of Emeryville had stated Mr. Lucius failed to put in a stand as promised when-the permit was first Branded and, when application was made for a renewal in January, 1969, the Chief refused to renew the permit for this reason. On questioning as to the number of cabs operated in Emery- ville, Mr. Lucius stated he did not operate any but a few cabs would go out on weekends and pick up. He said he had permits for two cabs but never operated them in the City. The Chief, Mr. Cunningham pointed out, had refused to renew the permit because (1) he failed to open the stand and (2) he did not operate cabs in the City. It was indicated that Mr. Lucius had five cabs at the present time, all 1966 and 1965 Dodges. Mr. Samuel Young, Attorney with the firm of Davis, Craig & Bartalini, representing Goodwill Cab, ques- tioned Mr. Lucius with regard to taxicab permits held by him. Mr. Lucius stated he held twenty permits to operate in Newark and Union City, obtained, he believed, in 1965. It was revealed he held one permit which allowed him to operate as many cabs as he wished, and he operated one cab in Newark which also picked up in Union City. On question, he stated he operated his other four cabs on Treasure Island. Mr. Whitney questioned Messrs. Lawrence W. Smith, 626 - 22nd Street, Oakland, and Louis Tyson, 3509 Red- wood Road, Oakland, who stated many people on the Base had complained of inability to get cab service. Mr. Tyson denied violating any of the City ordinances or picking up fares illegally. He said he had picked up intoxicated persons whom he knew and taken them home without charge. He said he had collected the names on the petition with the aid of others. Mr. Tyson was questioned with regard to his former employment with Goodwill Cab and the circumstances of the termination of that connection. Mr. Tyson stated the period had been about five years up until early 1969; that his employment with Goodwill had been terminated because he was ill and did not call in as he had no telephone at home. He had approached Mr. Lucius for a job with Checker Cab Co. and started working for the latter about two weeks after he left Goodwill. On the call for opponents, Mr. Young presented his case on behalf of Goodwill Cab. He called on Mrs. Olga Hughes and Mr. Joseph Hughes, 2212 Encinal Avenue, who stated the signatures on the petition purported to be theirls were not, in fact, affixed by them. Mr. Young pointed out that, in view of these circum- stances, the petition should not be given undue weight. Mr. Young then reviewed the history of Goodwill Cabls operations since its establishment in 1946. He pointed out that Mr. Wilson, the owner, had made from S2,000 to $4,000 net profit per year and had his wife and other relatives working with him in the business. Mr. Young called attention to the provision in the Code that one of the major points to be considered was !whether the permit holders are earning a fair and reasonable return on the capital investment devoted to such service." He said conditions had started to improve in the last year and a half and the drivers! income had raised from $60 per week average take -home pay to $100, and Mr. Wilson had discussed with various City officials the feasibility of obtaining more permits and expanding prior to the filing of Mr. Lucius! application. When the latter filed, Goodwill had speeded-up its application and been granted three additional permits. He said a dual system telephone had been installed at the Company headquarters, the fleet had been doubled and the business was succeeding. Every time a new cab was put on every driver suffered a loss in income for a substantial period of time, and then income would gradually build up again, which indicated that expan- sion in the business must be gradual. Mr. Young pointed up that the primary users of cabs in Alameda were women and young children. If cab drivers could not make a decent living for their families, he suggested they might be tempted to engage in operations which would be detrimental to the public interest. Mr. Young called on Messrs. Charles Bloodworth, 1947 - 59th Avenue, Oakland, and James Wells, 722 - 13th Street, Oakland, Goodwill drivers, who testified that the wages of the drivers ran about S55 per week and that adding more cabs on the streets of Alameda would cut down the drivers! remuneration until the business could be built up again. They also stated they had seen Checker cabs Nos. 7 and 11 picking up fares on Webster Street at Lincoln and Pacific Avenues prior to June 9, 1969. Mr. George Wilson, 1616 Buena Vista Avenue, was then called on. He said it was his plan to expand the Company if given the opportunity. At the present time, he was trying to get a stand on Park Street around Santa Clara Avenue; he had two new cabs and was planning on the third, had added a second telephone and was having signs made. His sole purpose was to try to better serve the City of Alameda. Mr. Wilson said he had been struggling for quite a few years and now business was opening up somewhat and he was trying to give better service. He said a cab had been hit by a drunken driver and wrecked recently and was sitting in front of his home. The newer cabs were awaiting installation of radios. He said he had eight drivers at the present time plus the driver of the wrecked car and one other. Mr. Wilson said, if Checker Cab were permitted to put five, or even three cabs on the streets, one company would benefit and the other would go down. He said the reason cabs sat idle was that they did not wish to put out more cabs than business called for. Mr. Whitney also questioned Mr. Wilson, who said at certain times of day the cabs might be held up in traffic and be delayed for a considerable length of time in picking up fares. He said he felt on any calls received from doctors! offices his Company had given good service. Mr. Young then summarized his statements. He said he felt the decision of the City Manager in this matter should not be overruled. He called attention to the affidavit from the Chief of Police in Emeryville that Mr. Lucius did not keep his word to establish a cab service in that City. He suggested the same thing might happen in Alameda. He said it had been established that Checker Cab had violated the Alameda Municipal Code by picking up fares within the City. He heartily suggested that Checker Cab Co. be denied a permit to operate in the City of Alameda. Mr. Young said he was working to get a stand on Park Street for Goodwill Cab. He had not as yet been able to get written consent of a property owner but hoped to have this completed within two weeks. He pleaded that Goodwill be given six months within which to give the City of Alameda the service it deserved before giving another company the opportunity. Mr. Whitney, on rebuttal, questioned Mr. Tyson regarding the signatures on the petition which he had presented. Mr. Tyson explained the signatures which Mr. Young had doubted had been obtained by Mr. Sam La Franco, who had since passed away. Mr. Whitney stated their quarrel was not with Goodwill but with Yellow Cab Company, holding twenty-one permits which they did not use. He said if Checker Gab held ten permits and Goodwill eight or ten, or whatever they would want, the business would break even. He felt there was no reason the Council could not reduce the number of permits held by Yellow and give them to Checker so the latter could operate locally. Mr. Richard Sequeira, Secretary-Treasurer of Chauffeurst Union Local No. 923, addressed the Council and expressed the opposition of his organization to granting the requested permits as it would adversely affect the working conditions and living of the drivers and would bring down the quality of men who would be driving women and children around the City. Mr. Dail Vaughan, General Manager of Yellow Cab Company, appeared and concurred with the statements by Mr. Sequeira and Mr. Young. He objected to issuance of any additional permits in the City as the City wanted quality and service and he did not feel it had been proven that his Company did not give good service. Councilman Longaker questioned Mr. Vaughan, who said the Company used all of its twenty-one permits. Mr. Cunningham had received information some time previous to this Hearing as to the location of Yellow cabs in the City. He related the information given him by Mr. Vaughan at that time, that there was one cab at the Webster Street stand, the rest were spotted by radio, several in various locations in the City and the Naval Air Station. No certain number was kept at any one time but cabs were spotted by demand and they did not overload the permits. Mr. Vaughan stated this was correct, the business was on a supply and demand basis and they did not jeopardize the business. They did not feel it was fair to overload the twenty-one permits at any one time. Councilman Longaker asked if it was true that they were operating more cabs in the City in the last few months. Mr. Vaughan said this was not true, the Company had always maintained service in the City and when the demand warranted it more cabs were dispatched to Alameda. Councilman Fore asked Mr. Vaughan if Yellow Cab Company planned to improve its service in the City in view of the many complaints about the service. Mr. Vaughan stated the Company had been constantly striving to improve the service and would continue to do so. President La Croix declared the Hearing closed. Mr. Cunningham stated the finding and determination of the Council should be whether or not Mr. Lucius had or had not shown cause sufficient to require a reversal of theCity Managers action in the denial. Councilman McCall moved the request of Checker Cab Co. be denied and the ruling of the City Manager at the Hearing before him on June 9, 1969, be upheld. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion. Speaking on the question, Councilman Fore stated there were complaints and he felt the citizens deserved better taxicab service than they were receiving. He believed Goodwill Cab was doing as good a job as possible but, with the current population, he wondered if the permits in operation would be able to adequately serve the people. If the service did not improve, he felt something should be done about it very soon. Councilman McCall stated it was his understanding that under the regulations the City Manager had the right to withdraw permits if adequate service was not being given, and the right to issue permits at his discretion if he felt this was necessary to provide better service to the community. Mr. Cunningham said this was true. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. After a ten-minute recess, the meeting continued on the regular order of business. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/ From the Acting City Manager, recommending a time extension of ten working days be granted for the completion of the project of Remodeling the Pblice Department Detective-Juvenile area. Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation be accepted and the extension of ten working days be granted as requested. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 8.v From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Chairman, recommending the City acquire a three or four acre park site, in the location noted therein, on Bay Farm Island. Letters had been received on this date from the following in support of the recommendation: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Sherratt, Mrs. Carol Byrne, Mrs.P. Merrigan, Mrs. Fred Archer, and Mr. Carl Jaramillo. Letters indicating opposition to the proposal were received, signed by the following: Roy C. Cunningham, Harry C. Carpenter, George Anthony, David Kennedy, Harry L. Burt, Audrey B. Ward and Daisy Wilburn. President La Croix stated in all fairness to the members of the Council, there would be much work and study on this subject. He then recognized Mrs. Ina Ratto, who had requested the opportunity to speak at this time. Mrs. Ratto said she and her neighbors who were interested in an additional park on Bay Farm Island had been very pleased with the consideration shown them by the Commission and very much impressed with the report submitted by Mr. Johnson, Planning Director. She said the population projection in the report was within reason and bore out the need for more open space. She felt the recommendation of the Commission would probably cover the needs of future inhabitants of the so- called upland, keeping in mind the prohibitive cost of acquiring additional land. She said it might be presumptuous to talk of financing a park for Bay Farm Island but they could not help speculating on this subject. She said she hoped the Council would take a hard look at the subdivision ordinance with an eye to "beefing" up the subdividerts responsibilities for the people he draws into a given area. Last but not least, Mrs. Ratto said, the people on Bay Farm Island who felt there should be another park were not interested in pushing anyone off of his property. They were merely interested in the possible setting aside of a piece of land by the City that would not go up in high density buildings. Mrs. Anne Brown, 1061 Camellia Drive, pointed out that at the Casitas Alameda Townhouse development there were many children and she felt the recreation facilities were not adequate. Mrs. Brown also offered her services to aid this program. Mrs. Barbara Soares, 2941 Windsor Drive, read a letter stating there had been an article in the Alameda Times -Star that it had been recommended the City acquire eleven acres, half of which was the property of the Soares family, which had been used for many years for a farming business. She expressed the objection of the family to selling any portion of its property. Mrs. Soares was assured this matter would be given complete study and no decision world be made until it had had thorough consideration. Councilman Longaker moved the report be accepted and referred to the City Manager for study and presenta- tion back to the Council for action as soon as possible, at the same time paying credit to people like Mrs. Ratto and Mrs. Brown, who had "bird - dogged" the subject for months, going from meeting to meeting with great tenacity. Councilman Levy seconded the motion. On the question, Councilman McCall remarked on the fine building and facilities at Godfrey Park and suggested that the City not try to acquire lands such as the Soares family property, adding that possibly a "horse - trade" could be negotiated. The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. RESOLUTIONS: 9.1 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7549 Appointing Those Nominated as Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2087" 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. 10. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7550 Approving Warrant No. 164 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 210$." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, (1). Absent: None. 11." The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7551 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Two (2) New 1970 Model 4 -Door Station Wagon Motor Vehicles for the Fire Depart- ment, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7552 Authorizing Attorney General of California to Prosecute Anti -Trust Proceedings, on Behalf of City of Alameda, Against Certain Automobile Manufacturers (Smog Control Devices)." 473 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. 13:f The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7553 Appointing Member of the Civil Service Board." (Vernon N. Pecchenino) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 14.f The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7554 Amending Salary and Position Resolution No. 7503, by Adding Section 2 Thereto, Providing for Uniform Allowances to Certain Personnel of Police and Fire Departments." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 15.' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7555 Amending Section 2g of Resolution No. 6232, as Added by Resolution No. 7357, Designating City Holidays for Certain Employees." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. f- The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7556 Amending Salary Resolution No. 7503 by Creating One (1) New Position of Associate Planner and Establishing the Salary Therefor; by Creating One(1) Position of Intermediate Typist-Clerk and by Deleting One (1) Position of Senior Typist-Clerk." 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. 17./ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7557 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for the Construction of the Clinton Avenue Storm Sewer at Oak Street, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." 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. 18. / The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7558 Authorizing Execution of Cooperative Agreement with State of California Relating to Installation of Traffic Control Signal System, Flasher 'Signal Ahead' Signs, IYield7 Signs and Placing Pavement Markers and Stripes at Intersection of Maitland Drive with State Highway Route 61 (Doolittle Drive)." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 19.' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7559 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to Angelo M. "Mike" Scardigno, City Employee. "IN A SPIRIT OF SADNESS, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of its faithful employees, ANGELO M. TEIKE" SCARDIGNO. IMHEREAS, Mr. Scardigno was appointed on November 4, 1957, as Laborer in the Street Department and, through diligent and conscientious performance of his duties, won promotion on June 16, 1958, to the position of Skilled Worker and on June 1, 1968, to the classification of Truck Driver, in which capacity he was serving at the time of his death; and 474 "WHEREAS, 'Mike ", as he was known, had always been a most friendly and obliging person and had been well liked by his fellow employees, who have been deeply saddened by his untimely passing. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby express its appreciation for the reliable service given by Mr. Scardigno during the period of his employment with the City and its sense of personal loss in his demise. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread in full upon the minutes of this meeting and a copy thereof be sent to the family of Mr. Scardigno in order to extend 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 ANGELO M. MMIKEU SCARDIGNO." 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. 20.7' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7560 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to Arthur L. O'Hare. "WITH GREAT SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of its loyal employees, ARTHUR L. O'HARE. "WHEREAS, Mr. O'Hare had commenced his employment with the City of Alameda on July 28, 1958, as Electrical Maintenanceman at the Bureau of Electricity, in which capacity he was serving at the time of his sudden death; and "WHEREAS, Mr. O'Hare had been a most conscientious and faithful employee, well liked for his friendly and cooperative attitude toward his associates and fellow workers. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby express its appreciation for the dependable service given by this gentleman during the period of his employment with the City and its sense of personal loss in his passing. "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 Mr. O'Hare that it may convey to its members a sincere expression of sympathy in their bereavement. "Eh 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 ARTHUR L. O'HARE." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 21. ' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7561 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to Elmer L. Critchlow, Retired Captain in the Fire Department. "WITH HEARTFELT GRTEF, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of one of its former employees, ELMER L. CRITCHLOW, who had served the City for a period of twenty -seven years. "SAS, Mr. Critchlow was employed by the City of Alameda on January 1, 1921, as a Fireman, and had risen through the ranks to be appointed on September 1, 1936 to the position of Fire Captain, in which capacity he was serving at the time of his retire- ment on July 15, 1948; and "WHEREAS, Mr. Critchlow had performed his duties diligently and faithfully and in full cooperation with his fellow employees. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in recognition of Mr. Critchlow's loyalty and efforts on behalf of the City, the Council of the City of Alameda hereby expresses its gratitude for his capable service during the long period of his employment, and its sense of personal loss in his passing. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be spread in full upon the minutes of this meeting, and a copy thereof be forwarded to the family of Mr. Critchlow, that it may extend to its members a sincere expression of sympathy and condolence in their bereave- ment; and "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 ELMER L. CRITCHLOW." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared all of the foregoing Resolutions adopted, ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 22. ,- "Ordinance No. 1604, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 2-533 Thereof, Relating to Sick Leave for Employees Injured or Disabled in the Cburse of Employment." Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 23. "Ordinance No. 1605, New Series An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Regulations." Councilman Levy moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 24/ ."Ordinance No. 1606, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Articles 1 Through 7, Chapter 12 to Title III Thereof, Establishing a Utility Users Tax, and Providing for Collection Thereof, Penalty for Delinquency, Remedies and Enforcement." Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. BILLS: 25. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $28,213.61, was presented to the Council at this meeting. The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on October 21, 1969, 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: 26./ Mr. Ashley O. Jones, 1040 Fair Oaks Avenue, asked what arrangement the City had with regard to acquisition of land for parks and schools with the developers of the 900 acres of fill on Bay Farm Island. President La Croix stated the provisions set forth in the Agreement with Shore Line Properties, Inc., were still in effect for, as he recalled, approximately ninety-one acres at the purchase price of 87,500 per acre. This involved both the School District and the City for acquisition of recreational and green areas. Mr. Jones asked, then, how Utah could stand on its demand for a certain amount of land to be set aside for schools and parks and yet they could raise the density of the population from 15,000 to 28,000 and not deed any further land to the City. Mr. Weller said he would expect the Cityfs position to be that the Agreement with Shore Line Properties, Inc., was on the basis of a certain configuration and a certain population to be served, and if there were any substantial change in the density or the prospective population the Agreement previously reached would be invalidated at least to the extent that the ninety-one acre figure would be reviewed. Mr. Cunningham enlarged somewhat on this subject. Mr. Jones asked if there was a possibility of the City adopting an ordinance which would "put some teeth behind" the present regulations as he felt the land would be worth nothing if there were not to be schools and parks in the area. He urged that something of this nature be done immediately regarding the acquisi- tion of the necessary land. President La Croix assured Mr. Jones that the subject was under consideration and deliberation and the City was looking for every avenue possible so that it would receive what was justly due the citizens of Alameda as far as recreation and green areas were concerned and protecting the School District as much as possible on its land acquisition on the Bay Farm Island fill area. 27. Mr. Frank S. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, stated he had been attending Council meetings for almost forty-one years and had brought up facts which needed attention, correction or improvement. He said he could not understand how the City Council could be so disinterested in a vital issue he had brought up regularly for many years. He suggested the matter of the Webster Street flooding should be an election issue at some future time. Mr. Gottstein recalled his repeated requests that the elevation of Webster Street be raised. There was considerable discussion regarding the recent heavy rains and the resulting flood conditions throughout the City. Mr. Hanna explained a delay incurred in the project of constructing a storm sewer interconnection on Webster Street at Tynan Avenue, due to the existence of concrete pavement underground in the area involved. This job, he said, would undoubtedly be readvertised for bid in the near future. He explained that the two drainage systems in the area would be connected and the condition about which Mr. Goddstein complained should be drained off more quickly than had been possible. He added that raising the street as Mr. Gottstein proposed would not be practical and would not solve the flooding problem. Mr. Hanna said it was planned to install an additional large storm pipe and it would do the job required, at much less cost than trying to raise the street. 28. / Mrs. Ina Ratto spoke again on the subject of the City acquiring land for recreational purposes on Bay Farm Island. She commented that the Planning Director's report anticipated townhouse-type construction on the 113 acres of upland yet to be developed which would bring another 3,500 population to the Island. She felt the report had borne out the need for a second park on the upland of Bay Farm Island. She also pointed out the recommendation was for one three to four acre park. Mrs. Ratto reiterated her statement that there was no intention of pushing anyone off their land. Their main interest was in seeing that a small portion of the undeveloped upland be left for a park or open purposes. She also asked if it was possible to say when a conclusion might be forthcoming on this matter. President La Croix stated the matter would be handled as expeditiously as possible, possibly in about a month. FILING: 29. Specifications No. MS 10-69-9 - Two New Station Wagons for Fire Department. 30. City Auditor's Report - City of Alameda - for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1969 - Verified by Hackleman, Larzelere, McKenna & von Kaschnitz. 31. Financial Report - City of Alameda - as of September 30, 1969 - Verified by Hackleman, Larzelere, McKenna & von Kaschnitz. 32. Specifications No. PW 10-69-17 - Clinton Avenue Storm Sewer, at Oak Street. 33. Agreement Between City and State regarding Traffic Control Signal System. 34.9- Councilman McCall commented that two well-known former Alamedans had passed away in the last two days - Mrs. Mary Shed and Mr. Ben Perata. He requested that these long-time residents be added to the adjournment in memoriam. President La Croix requested that all stand in a moment of silence in observance of the passing of Messrs. Angelo M. "Mike" Scardigno, Arthur L. O'Hare, Elmer L. Critchlow, Ben Perata and Mrs. Mary Shed. ADJOURNMENT: 35. There being no further business to came before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to the memory of ANGELO M. "MIKE" SCARDIGNO, ARTHUR L. O'HARE, EIMER L. CRITCHLOW, BEN PERATA and MARY SHED, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, November 4, 1969, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk