Loading...
1967-10-03 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING OCTOBER 3, 1967 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President McCall presiding. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Councilman Fore and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. Robert P. Martin, Pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Bartley, Fore, La Croix, Jr., Levy and President McCall, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held September 19, 1967, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2:7 From R. Borgman Sales Company, requesting permission to stage the annual Fireworks Display at South Shore on October 13, 1967, beginning at 9:15 otclock p.m. It was stated that adequate public liability insurance would be furnished and arrangements would be made with the Chiefs of the Fire and Police Departments. Councilman La Croix moved permission be granted as requested for this Display, subject to furnishing the required liability insurance and to arrangements with the Police and Fire Chiefs for proper supervision. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 3. From Oakland Chamber of Commerce, signed by Mr. W. A. Sparling, General Manager, extending its appreciation for the cooperation of City of Alameda in establishing the Scenic Tour project. The communication was noted with thanks and ordered filed. 4. From Mr. Lee Mayfield, 1509 Benton Street, in complaint about the unhealthy conditions prevail- ing in the building formerly operated as Walkerts Appliance Store, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Benton Street. City Attorney Cunningham referred to the letter from Mr. Charles B. Ruegnitz, Chief, Bureau of Sani- tation, Eastern District, Alameda County Health Department, dated September 29, 1967. Copies of said letter had been sent to all members of the Council for their information. It was pointed out that notice had been given to Mr. William Walker, owner of the premises, to discontinue the use of this store building for dwelling purposes. Mr. Cunningham stated there was also a complaint on file with the District Attorney for continuing use of the building for an appliance business after his application for a renewal Use Permit had been denied. The matter was under active process. In response to Councilman La Croix's question, the City Attorney said he believed this issue might be settled within three to four weeks. Mr. Cunningham was to follow through on this situation. . From Willow Street Home Owners, signed by Mrs. Mona Jacobs, 1019 Willow Street, protesting • against "no parking on west side of Willow Street, between Encinal and San Jose Avenues" - as set forth in Ordinance No. 1555, New Series. The letter was accompanied by a list of signatures of seven property owners in this block. Also accompanied by a letter of protest from Mr. B. M. Custer, operator of the Autumn Boarding Home (Rest Home), 2071 San Antonio Avenue. Mr. Walter Jacobs, 1158 Park Avenue, represented his mother and spoke on her behalf. It was empha- sized that this most recent ordinance effected complete no parking on Willow Street in this two- block area. It was contended that said street was narrow and said restriction would increase the speeding. Further, it was claimed this would reduce property values and make it difficult for service men in making their calls. He thought it would be acceptable if the "no parking" were limited to the period between 4:00 and 6:00 o'clock p.m. The President stated it had been suggested this no parking be set for only the day time between 8:00 o'clock a.m. and 6: 00 o'clock p.m. Mrs. B. M. Custer explained that she and her husband would have an investment of about eighty thousand dollars upon completion of the remodeling of their Rest Home. They had bought this property because it had considerable street parking available. However, under the current limitation, they would be denied this privilege because on the San Antonio Avenue frontage only one car could be parked due to the existence of a fire hydrant. Councilman La Croix suggested a study be made to establish whether or not a stop sign should be installed at Willow Street and San Antonio Avenue, should the no parking limitation be set between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The matter was referred to the City Manager for consultation with the City Engineer concerning the compromise of the two suggested no-parking periods - 4:00 to 6:00 otclock p.m. or 8:00 otclock a.m. to 6:00 o'clock p.m. It was noted there were only two properties in this area which had no off-street parking facilities at all and thus were the only two properties actually affected by the no parking. 6. From Mrs. Lenore Allen, 1705 Cornell Drive, calling attention to the condition of the sidewalk on the west side of Cornell Drive, between Fairview and Bayo Vista Avenues. She felt the situation should be corrected. City Engineer Hanna commented that he had talked with Mrs. Allen and this matter was to be followed up when the HAllens" had returned from a vacation. 7:' From Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by the Secretary, requesting approval of Warrants Nos. 131 and 132 in the respective amounts of $441,601.43 and 50,000., for payment of certain dredging work and to reimburse the revolving fund. The matter was referred to uResolutionsu. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: v7 8. Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, referred to the fact that there were five parking meters in the block in which he lived on Haight Avenue between Webster Street and Eighth Street. He said it was not fair that residents had to pay to park in front of their own homes.while the City Parking lot just across the street was "starving to death". It was developed that this block was in the "C-211, Commercial District. The President suggested it might be wise to investigate the possibility of having the parking meters in question - both on street and in the parking lot - effective until 12:00 midnight. The City Attorney was so ordered. Mr. Gottstein then suggested that the Federal Government buy this City Parking Lot for the construc- tion of its new Post Office and use the present main Post Office for its substation. HEARINGS: 9: The following Matters were called up: (1) Concerning the Resolution of Intention to Amend Reso- lution of Intention re Assessment District No. 67-1 - Street Improvements in the Vicinity of Otis School; (2) Concerning the Public Convenience and Necessity re Assessment District No. 67-1; (3) Concerning the Engineer's Report and Assessment re Assessment District No. 67-1. These Hearings had been continued from the Council meeting held September 19, 1967, to this meeting. The Clerk read the names of those who had submitted written protests against the proposed formation of Assessment District No. 67-1, as follows: Mrs. Opal Handy, 998 High Street; Mrs. Mary Ratto Fanucchi, 995 Post Street; Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Clegg, 1009 Peach Street; Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Brown, 3233 Calhoun Street; Mr. and Mrs. Charles W. Johnson, 1007 Peach Street; Mr. and Mrs. Ted Kaufman, 1083 Peach Street; Mr. and Mrs. Lee Gilbert, 1015 Peach Street; Mrs. Paul Michaleto, 3120 Washington Street; Karl V. and Donna V. Hokanson, 2700 Otis Drive; Thomas W. and Yvonne D. Burris, 3251 Calhoun Street; Alan H. Davidson, Attorney, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Bertil H. Johnson, 1026 Fountain Street. Letters in favor of said 'District' had been received from: Mr. and Mrs. M. Jenkins, 1010 Peach Street; Ralph E. and Isabelle O. Murphy, 1020 Peach Street; Mrs. Ursula McLean, 1026 Peach Street; Board of Education; Kenneth A. and Shirlee C. Miller, 1004 Peach Street. Upon request, City Attorney Cunningham reviewed the proceedings required in every case where an Assess- ment District was undertaken. Such a District was for the construction of public improvements in which the benefits of said improvements were spread in proportion to the value received from the adjoining property owners. He cited the fact that the three Hearings were held on Resolution No. 7191, amending Resolution No. 7176, (No. 1); Resolution No. 7192 (No. 2); and Resolution No. 7193 (No. 3). He explained the legal procedure covered by the Majority Protest Act of 1931 and also that said Hearing No. 2 was required of Charter cities, such as Alameda, under the State Constitution. The City Clerk stated the Affidavits of Posting and Mailing the Notices of Improvement and other docu- ments pertaining to these proceedings were on file. City Engineer Hanna spoke on the fundamental purpose of streets and their improvement. He pointed out the basic State Law in this respect was the Street Improvement Act of 1911. Mr. Hanna explained that the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 was the one under which these proceedings were being carried out. He emphasized that its principal objective was equity for all of the people affected. He stated the City had been consistent in its policy that the initial improvements be constructed at the expense of the benefitted properties and then, once installed, the City would maintain and replace them as necessary. By reference to a large map displayed for the information of all, Mr. Hanna then pointed out the streets involved in the proposed Assessment District. He indicated the areas to be paid for by the City itself and the Board of Education. f $ The President called for the opponents to the question who had filed written protests and the following presented their verbal arguments against the formation of said District: Mr. Sergio Fanucchi, 995 Post Street; Mr. Ted Kaufman, 1083 Peach Street, who also spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Clegg, 1009 Peach Street, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Brown, 3233 Calhoun Street, Mr. and Mrs. Charles W. Johnson, 1007 Peach Street, and Mr. and Mrs. Lee Gilbert, 1015 Peach Street; Mr. Bertil Johnson, 1026 Fountain Street. Upon the call for opponents from the floor, there was no response. President McCall then inquired if any of those in favor of said District desired to speak and the fol- lowing addressed the Council: Mr. M. Jenkins, 1010 Peach Street; Mr. Kenneth A. Miller, 1004 Peach Street; Mr. Richard Riehl, 826 Oak Street, who owned property at the south end of Peach Street which would be included in this District; Mr. James R. Murphy, on behalf of his parents, Mr. and Mrs. H. A. Murphy, 3009 Fillmore Street; Mr. Ralph E. Murphy, 1020 Peach Street. Upon inquiry, the Assistant City Engineer replied that 14.9 per cent of the property owners in the area involved had protested against the formation of Assessment District No. 67-1. The Hearing was then declared closed and, there being no objections, the order of business was revised and the meeting continued under TlResolutions ". RESOLUTIONS: 10. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7217 Resolution Overruling Protests." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7218 Resolution Overruling Protests and Amending Resolution of Intention No. 7176, Assessment District No. 67 -1, City of Alameda, County of Alameda, California." 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. 12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7219 Resolution Overruling Protests and Finding and Determining That the Public Convenience and Necessity Require the Construction of Improvements in Assessment District No. 67 -1, City of Alameda, County of Alameda, California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7220 Resolution Directing City Engineer to File an Amended Engineer's Report and Amended Estimate of Cost, Assessment District No. 67 -1, City of Alameda, County of Alameda, California." 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. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7221 Resolution and Order Approving Amended Engineer's Report, Ordering the Construction of Improvements, and Confirming Assessment, Assessment District No. 67 -1, City of Alameda, County of Alameda, California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7222 Resolution Authorizing City Engineer of the City of Alameda to Make Changes in the Work, Assessment District No. 67 -1, City of Alameda, County of Alameda, California." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. lb. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7223 Resolution of Award of Contract." (Assessment District No. 67 -1 - 0. C. Jones & Sons, low bidder - $28,629.71) The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The regular order of business was then resumed. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 17:7 From City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to A/C Grading and Paving, low bidder, for the project of Pavement Repairs on Shore Line Drive west of Willow Street, at the total cost of 62,770. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be adopted; that contract be awarded to the designated firm for the specified project at the price quoted. Councilman Bartley seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. le' From Acting City Manager Cunningham, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Constructing a Traffic Island on Encinal Avenue at High Street - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman Bartley moved the recommendation be followed - that the work on said project be accepted and the Notice of Completion therefor be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. v/ 19. From Acting City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Construct- ing Improvement at Lincoln Park Tennis Court - recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed. Councilman La Croix moved the recommendation be approved - that the work on the project indicated be accepted and the Notice of Completion therefor be filed. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 20. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 278, subject to conditions contained in the City Engineerts Report dated September 8, 1967, and specific exception being granted on one lot of slightly less than required width. The Map was filed by Mr. John A. Mancini for Mr. George L. Mennet. Councilman Bartley moved the Council approve said Parcel Map No. 278, subject to the specific excep- tions as set forth in the Boardts letter of September 12, 1967. The motion was seconded by Council- man Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The matter was then referred to uResolutionsfl. 21. From City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending reclassification of that certain forty-acre parcel in the west end of the City under License Agreement between City of Alameda and Pan-Pacific Development Company, the Petitioner. The requested rezoning was from "R-ln, One-Family Residence District to 11C-M-PDfl„ Commercial-Manufacturing, Planned Development District. The Hearing before the City Council was set for the adjourned regular meeting to be held Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, at 7:30 otclock. 22:/ From Acting City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Nelson T. Lewis, low bidder, for the project of Constructing Fire Station No. 1, at the northeast corner of Encinal Avenue and Park Street, at the cost of $258,500. Councilman Bartley moved the recommendation be adopted; that contract be awarded to the designated low bidder for the specific project at the price quoted. Councilman La Croix seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 23. From City Auditor, transmitting the Annual Financial Report of the City of Alameda for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1967. The Report was ordered filed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 24v.- President McCall broached the subject of nResolution No. 6619, Declaring Opposition of City of Alameda to Any Southern Bay Crossing Having Terminus or Accesses Thereto Within Said City'', which had been adopted by the City Council May 19, 1964. He referred to a memorandum from City Attorney Cunningham suggesting that should there be a desired change of position in this matter, the Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate resolution for submission at the next Council meeting. The President reiterated his thinking that it was inevitable there would be a Southern Crossing Bridge and, therefore, he believed the Council should endeavor to insure that the City would get the best and most adequate type of approaches, and on-and-off ramps at the best locations possible to procure. He felt there should be further consideration given this matter and possibly a change of the Council's position. Councilman La Croix commented that it was admitted the proposed terminus of said Southern Crossing would divide the City and increase traffic congestion. Therefore, he stated he would not change his opposition to the probable terminus route. The President then asked that the City Attorney prepare a resolution in support of the Alameda terminus of the Southern Crossing Bridge. 25. President McCall also referred to the Grand Street Boat Ramp which had been obtained through fin- ancing by the State Wildlife Conservation Board. He reported that he had been in Sacramento this date and had appeared before the Executive of said Board and the Director of the Department of Fish and Game to assure them that the City of Alameda was still interested and it was the City's intention to pursue its attempts to procure such a facility and a Fishing Pier on the South Shore. NEW BUSINESS: 26:' Councilman Bartley spoke on the subject of the proposed construction in Alameda of a new Post Office by the Federal Government. The proposed site, as determined by the Federal Postal Officials, fronted on Webb Avenue, running northerly to Lincoln Avenue, in the middle of the block between Park Street and Everett Street. He remarked that when this issue first became public knowledge in November, 1966, not one City Official had been contacted or notified of such intention. However, subsequently, there had been a meeting of certain City Officials, representatives of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the Post Office Department. Councilman Bartley pointed out the Planning Director had been instructed in January of this year to make a study of possible Post Office sites - which was done. Mr. Johnson's report had indicated the undesirability of the proposed site and the several disadvantages which would be encountered. Upon request, Mr. Johnson verbally cited the following serious criticisms of the contemplated location: Its extremely poor vehicular traffic service; Its poor pedestrian access; Its non - effective frontage. Mr. Johnson stated the building could not serve as a catalyst for other development and would offer no incentive for the buildings on Park Street to be refurbished. Furthermore, it would take away sig- nificantly from the service area which served these businesses. Mr. Ralph M. Smith, General Manager of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, who had diligently endeavored to get some action from the Postal authorities, was called upon for a report on this matter. Mr. Smith stated he had been directed by the Chamber Board of Directors to contact the Postal Regional Office to try to arrange a meeting with all parties concerned. He explained that he had attempted to do this but had been informed just this date that the decision to meet or not meet with the local representatives was up to the Post Office Department and no longer under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Office. President McCall said he believed the only step the City could take to accomplish some action would be for the City Attorney to send a telegram to The Honorable George P. Miller, Congressman, Eighth District, urging him to set up a meeting in which the City Officials could discuss the Post Office situation in the City of Alameda. He felt the City could offer some alternate sites. The President referred particularly to the existing parking lot at the rear of the present main Post Office and the possibility of extending the area on through to Santa Clara Avenue. He expressed the hope that a new Post Office building would stimulate other construction within the central business area. Councilman La Croix said he believed the requested meeting should be held in Alameda in order to better sell the City's position to the Postal authorities. He also wanted to have it made very clear that the City in no way was opposed to a new Post Office but only to the presently proposed site. 27; Councilman La Croix read a portion of a statement about a Public Hearing concerning a Resolution of Intention to Establish an Assessment District encompassing the Merritt Campus of Peralta Junior College to be scheduled by the Oakland City Council some time in September or October. The purpose of said District would be to construct an access road to the new Oakland Campus in the amount of 51,200,000. It was set forth that the taxpayers in the two - county, six -city "District" would be taxed an estimated three cents per one hundred dollars of appraised valuation for five years to pay for said thoroughfare. He inquired who had the right of protest in this matter. It was stated the City of Oakland had requested that this street be four lanes instead of the two lanes originally requested by the "District" and Councilman La Croix questioned whether or not the City of Oakland could acquire a $1,200,000. four -lane road to be paid for by taxpayers outside the City of Oakland. Therefore, Councilman La Croix asked that the City Attorney investigate the legality of this situa- tion as requested by the City of Oakland and submit his opinion on the subject. RESOLUTIONS: 28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7224 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Two (2) New, Latest 1968 Model Light Duty Pick -up Trucks for the Golf Department, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 29. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7225 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda One (1) Latest Model Utility Tractor with Dump Box Attachment for the Golf Department, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 30. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: The the Approving 352 Beach George L. "Resolution No. 7226 Parcel Map No. 278 for Division of Property at 348, 350 and Road, and Permitting Recording Thereof." (John A. Mancini for Mennet) motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman La Croix and on roll call carried by following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 31. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7227 Approving Supplemental Freeway Maintenance Agreement with State Division of Highways." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Bartley and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 32. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Bartley, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7228 Approving Warrants Nos. 131 and 132 of the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2105." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman La Croix, (1). Absent: None. The President then declared all of the foregoing resolutions adopted. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 33. "Ordinance No. 1557, New Series Councilman La which carried FILING: An Ordinance Amending Article 1, Chapter 1, Title II, of the Alameda Municipal Code, Relating to City Council Meetings and Procedure." Croix moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman Bartley seconded the motion on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 34. Amended Engineer's Estimate of Cost - Assessment District No. 67-1, City of Alameda, County of Alameda, California. 35. Amended Engineer's Report and Assessment - Assessment District No. 67-1. 36. Supplemental Freeway Maintenance Agreement - Between State Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, and City of Alameda. 37. City Auditor's Report - Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1967 - Verified by Hackleman, Larzelere & McKenna. 38. Specifications and Provisions No. MS 10-67-11 - Two Light Duty Pick-up Trucks for the Golf Department. 39. Specifications and Provisions No. MS 10-67-12 - One Utility Tractor with Dump Box Attachment for the Golf Department. BILLS: 40. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of 79,331.41, 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 Bartley moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on October 3, 1967, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 41. At this point, President McCall referred to a resolution which had been adopted by the City of Livermore, indicating its opposition to an increase in Motor Vehicle Registration fees on behalf of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. He believed the State Legislature would be taking some action to provide additional funds for "BART" - and it could be on the basis of an increase in the bridge tolls or the registration fees. He asked for the Council's concurrence that he suggest to the members of the Mayors' Conference that a study be made that the tolls on all San Francisco Bay Bridges be increased ten cents per vehicle only for the period of time in which to raise the funds to pay off the bonds for "BART". Following considerable discussion it was determined that the City Council of Alameda would go on record as being in opposition to an increase in motor vehicle registration fees to provide additional funds for "BART". The City Attorney was instructed to immediately draft a resolution to this effect, copies of which could be distributed at the Mayors' Conference to be held the next evening. There being no objections, the meeting was referred back to "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: 42. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman La Croix, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 7229 Declaring Opposition to Increase in Motor Vehicle Registration Fees to Provide Increased Monies for Bay Area Rapid Transit District." 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 President declared said resolution adopted. ADJOURNMENT: 43. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned. It was announced that the next regular meeting of the Council scheduled for October 17, 1967, would not be held on that date due to the attendance of the Councilmen at the League of California Cities Confer- ence in San Francisco from October 15 to 18, 1967. Instead, the Council meeting would be adjourned by the Clerk at that time to Thursday,, October 19, 1967, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, � Fty Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA TO HAVE BEEN HELD TUESDAY EVENING r. OCTOBER 17, 1967 ROLL CALL: The roll was called at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and Councilmen Bartley, Fore, La Croix, Jr., Levy and President McCall, (5), were noted absent. The Councilmen and other City Officials were in attendance at the Conference of the League of California Cities being held in San Francisco from October 15 to 18, 1967. ADJOURNMENT: Due to lack of a quorum, the Clerk adjourned the meeting to an adjourned regular meeting to be held Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,