1972-03-21 Regular CC Minutes379
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY MARCH 21, 1972
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Longaker and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by
The Reverend James Morton, Pastor of the Central Baptist 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 March 7, 1972, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. ' From Mr. George McCloskey, 1552 Everett Street, with regard to future traffic flow to and from the
City, indicating concern that when projected construction was completed there would be a serious traffic
problem on Webster Street and in the area of the Tubes.
The communication was referred to the City Manager for reply by the staff.
3. 7` From Alameda Chamber of Commerce, signed by Mr. A. T. Wiemken, President, informing the Council of
its support of the City's position with respect to the Regional Airport Systems Study (RASS).
President La Croix said the action of the Chamber was very much appreciated. The communication was to be
acknowledged and referred to the file on the subject.
4. / From Mr. Brian Maddock, 1000 Auburn Drive, in opposition to Bay View Development Company's petition
to rezone a certain parcel at Mecartney and County Roads.
5. K From John 0. and Martha L. Gillie, 3216 Mecartney Road, objecting to the proposed shopping center
at Mecartney and County Roads.
6. `` From Mr. Edward J. Lee, 1132 Fontana Drive, opposing the shopping center proposed by Bay View
Development Company.
These communications were referred to the matter of consideration of the rezoning application by Bay View
Development Company under "Unfinished Business ".
7. v. From Aeolian Yacht Club, Application for Permit to Dredge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of
material in the area of the Yacht Club.
City Engineer Hanna said he knew of no reason for not granting the requested Permit so long as it would
conform to the rulings of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, that it might be an asset to
the navigational area involved.
Councilman Levy moved the requested Permit to Dredge 20,000 cubic yards of material be granted the Aeolian
Yacht Club. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall inquired if there was a use for the spoils in the City. Mr.
Hanna expressed the opinion that it would be expensive and difficult to lift the material into trucks and
perhaps cheaper to move it on barges, also that it might not be desirable.
City Attorney Cunningham pointed out the Permit should be subject to approval by the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission. This amendment was satisfactory to Councilmen Levy and Fore, the question was put
and the motion, as amended, carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
8. From Mr. James R. Seward, 2210 Santa Clara Avenue, and Mrs. Blanche Cervelli, 542 Taylor Avenue,
submitting suggestions with regard to the proposed revision of the Bicycle Ordinance.
President La Croix said the proposed ordinance would come up for introduction later in the meeting and he
directed that the communications be referred to that item for discussion.
9. v From Dickey and Dickey, Attorneys, requesting vacation of a portion of Harrison Street in the
vicinity of Broadway.
Mr. Hanna explained that many years ago Harrison Street had existed parallel to and north of Blanding
Avenue, that its use was somewhat limited because of its location on the edge of the Estuary and over the
years virtually all of it had been vacated for public thoroughfare purposes. During the various formal
processes one small area had been omitted. At this time the small piece was not necessary and the title
would be cleared if it could be vacated. He said he was in complete agreement with the request.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman Longaker moved the City Attorney and the City Engineer be
requested to prepare the necessary documents to proceed in this matter, for action by the Council at a
later meeting. Councilman Levy seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall inquired if the proposed closing included all street ends
north of Blanding Avenue. Mr. Hanna said it was his understanding that all of Harrison Street which
formerly ran between Park Street and Versailles Avenue had been vacated for public thoroughfare
purposes except this one -half of the street. The area on which vacation was desired was thirty feet
wide north and south and eighty feet long measured east and west across the north end of Broadway at
the Estuary, the site of Loop Lumber Company. Mr. Hanna explained that Broadway between Blanding
and Harrison had been vacated for approximately eighteen years. Councilman McCall noted that the
proposed action would release the waterfront.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes:
Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
10. From Cablecom General of Northern California, Inc., signed by Mr. V. E. Sharar, President, sub-
mitting an application for a franchise to construct, install, maintain and operate a community antenna
television system in the City.
President La Croix commented that there were several private companies in this field which would like
to establish operations in the City. He said he felt very strongly that he would prefer to see the
City of Alameda operate its own cable television station if it should be decided to enter such a
program. ;It had been pointed out, however, that the proposals available should be investigated.
President La Croix stated the City Attorney had informed the Council the League of California Cities
had requested that member cities not adopt ordinances in this field at this time because of changes
which were taking place throughout the State.
Councilman Fore suggested that all companies interested in establishing cable television in the City
be permitted to submit their proposals for study. He said he would be in favor of private enterprise
operating such a business in Alameda.
Councilman Levy said he felt the subject was a vast one and not too well known, that a time of 60 or
120 days should be set for completion of a study of proposals for submittal to the Council, after
which the Council would be able to discuss the matter and take any action it might desire.
President La Croix said, with the approval of the Council, he would request the City staff to invite
any and all interested parties to submit for study and consideration proposals for operating cable
television in the City of Alameda, and that reports on the subject would be submitted to the Council
within 120 days. He expressed the hope that by that time the League of California Cities would have
its proposed ordinance available for consideration. It was so ordered.
Councilman Longaker stated he would like the record to show that he was interested in knowing the
implications of the Bureau of Electricity becoming involved with this subject and the pros and cons
of the Bureau running a cable television system within the City. President La Croix said this would
be reflected in the total study.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
11. Mr. John Mitcheom, 1319 High Street, President of the Alameda Board of Realtors, requested the
opportunity to address the Council with regard to Item No. 2 under "Reports and Recommendations" and
Item No. 1 of "Ordinances for Passage
12. Mrs. Blanche Cervelli, 542 Taylor Avenue, requested the opportunity of speaking on Item No. 1
under "Introduction of Ordinances ".
13. Mr. James R. Seward, 2210 Santa Clara Avenue, asked that he also be permitted to speak on Item
No. 1 under "Introduction of Ordinances ".
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
14. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending rezoning from the "C -1 ", Neighbor-
hood Business, to the "R -4 ", Neighborhood Apartment District, certain property known as 1547 Sherman
Street.
The Hearing on this matter was set for the next regular meeting of the Council on April 4, 1972.
From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map for
the subdivision known as Tract 3391, subject to terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report
dated March 8, 1972, and referring to the Council the matter of dedication of land or payment of fee
in lieu thereof for park and recreation purposes. The developer was Mr. Donald B. Bitner on property
at 2426 Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Mitcheom, who had requested that he be allowed to speak on this subject, questioned the fairness
of the provisions of Ordinance No. 1627, New Series, to the small developer who was required to pay
in lieu fees as compared to the larger developer with lands to dedicate for park and recreation purposes.
He said the argument of the Board of Realtors was with the double standard which was being applied in
these matters, stating he felt apartment buildings also should be included, and urged that the inequity
in the Ordinance be corrected.
On question by Councilman McCall, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, stated Mr. Bitner had been
present at the Planning Board meeting at which action was taken on this Tentative Map, he had understood
there would be a prerequisite of payment of the fee of $5,287 in lieu of land dedication, and that he
had not been represented by legal counsel.
381
On question by Councilman Longaker, Mr. Johnson said the study of possible amendment to the Ordinance on
this issue was in the process of going through a staff committee composed of the City Manager, the City
Attorney, the Director of Recreation and Parks and himself, and policy guidelines or objectives were
being drafted; however, the committee had not yet reached the point of ordinance draft form. He said
the committee was at this time discussing a different type of approach to the problem so that its appli-
cation would be more uniform, with an ordinance which would direct itself not only to subdividers but
to apartment house dwellers and builders. He said the intent was to be all- inclusive of affected parties
rather than to exempt condominium developers, so that there would be no advantage for Mr. Bitner to
await amendment of the Ordinance in this respect.
There was discussion between Councilman McCall and Mr. Johnson comparing the amount of fee involved in
Mr. Bitner's condominium development on Briggs Avenue and the matter now under discussion. Councilman
McCall said, as he viewed it, there was an inequity. Mr. Johnson said he had sympathy with this position
but he could only be guided by the requirements of the Ordinance. He added that the Briggs Avenue
development was not essentially similar to the one under discussion, that there was an interior courtyard
in the current development, about 1200 square feet of which was in common area. He said the developer
had not claimed by letter that this common area should be substitution for a portion of the in lieu fee,
which would thereby be reduced by about two- thirds.
President La Croix pointed out the Director of Recreation and Parks, in his memorandum to the City
Engineer dated February 25, 1972, had requested that the latter arrive at a figure of what the in lieu
payment should be and he had stated fees acquired from the development could be used for the ongoing
development of Lincoln Park or for maintenance purposes.
President La Croix submitted to the Council that in considering this issue the motion would properly be
to accept the proposal of the Tentative Map and to not request in lieu fees in this particular instance,
that until such time as the Ordinance is before the Council in proper form for presentation to the
building public, realtors and developers of the City, it was in an inequitable position in charging these
fees. Councilman Fore expressed agreement with this statement.
To a query by Councilman McCall, Mr. Cunningham explained the Council should treat the Board's report as
an action upon an exception from the land dedication or fee requirement, in accordance with Section
11 -3134 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance); under Ordinance No. 1627, New Series, there was
no choice on the part of the Council to waive the requirements unless exception to the entire Ordinance
was requested and acted upon. He strongly urged that, if it was the pleasure of the Council to waive the
fee >, the matter be treated as a request for an exception acted upon favorably by the Planning Board and
the recommendation accepted by the Council for approval of the Tentative Map and granting of the exception
to the land dedication ordinance.
After further discussion for clarification and upon advice of Mr. Cunningham, Councilman Fore moved the
Tentative Map for the subdivision known as Tract 3391 be approved, subject to the terms and conditions of
the City Engineer's Report dated March 8, 1972, and that the recommendation of the Planning Board concern-
ing an exception be accepted and the payment of the fee of $5,287 not be required. The motion died for
lack of a second.
Mr. Donald B. Bitner, the developer, addressed the Council and said he disagreed with the Ordinance and
he would go along with the thinking indicated by Councilman Fore's motion until the City could determine
how the provisions of the Ordinance could be made equitable for all concerned. He said he felt he was
not justly charged in this and in the previous instance.
The two choices available to Mr. Bitner were explained, that he accept the matter as presented at this
meeting with the consequent action by the Council, or that he ask that the Council refer the matter back
to the Planning Board and he submit his request for open land credit of 1200 square feet in lieu of the
payment of fees. Mr. Bitner said he would prefer to go before the Board again as indicated.
Councilman Longaker moved this matter be referred back to the Board to await the subdivider's application
for credit and /or exception to the provisions of the Ordinance. Councilman McCall seconded the motion
which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Fore, (1). Absent: None.
It was requested that Mr. Johnson lend to Mr. Bitner the necessary guidance in preparing the request for
land credit in this case.
16. v From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Lee J. Immel, low bidder, for the
project of Reconstructing Central Avenue from Fourth Street to Webster Street at the estimated price of
$114,505.15.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be accepted, that the contract be awarded to the designated
contractor for the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker
and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
17.' From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Installing
Sanitary Sewers in Central Avenue from Fourth Street to Webster Street, recommending it be accepted and
the Notice of Completion be ordered filed.
Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation be approved, that the work be accepted as satisfactorily
completed on the specified project and the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Levy seconded the
motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
18.v ` From the City Attorney, requesting authority to petition the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
for a finding of a "noise problem" at the Oakland Airport.
Councilman Longaker moved the City Attorney be authorized to proceed with all haste in this matter, and to
incur the expense of hiring outside technical and legal assistance, if necessary. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
191 Brought up was the matter of the petition of Bay View Development Company to rezone from the "R -1 ",
One - Family, and the "R- 2 -PD ", Two - Family Planned Development Districts, to the "C- 1 -PD ", Neighborhood
Business, Planned Development District, a parcel of approximately six acres at the northwesterly corner
of Mecartney and County Roads, for development of a shopping center. This had been tabled at the
regular meeting of the Council on March 7, 1972.
President La Croix said he felt very strongly about this matter in view of the problems confronting the
City with regard to the Airport Land Use Commission, pointing out the action just taken with regard
to the noise problem at the Airport. He said he would hate to see the City compound mistakes of the
past in this area of Bay Farm Island, and recommended to the other members of the Council that until
such time as the report of the Airport Land Use Commission was before the Council with its findings
and stipulations as to restrictions on zoning, noise, et cetera, this subject not be "removed from the
table ". At that time, he felt the Council would have the necessary information to proceed on the
project of developing the area of Bay Farm Island in question. He said this had nothing to do with
Bay View Development Company or Utah International, Inc. He looked upon the situation as an oppor-
tunity to wait for a period of time to evaluate any and all restrictions which might be imposed upon
the City and then to develop the Bay Farm Island area the best way possible for the future of the
City.
Upon inquiry by Councilman Levy, President La Croix said he understood the report was to be submitted
by June, 1972. Councilman McCall said he hoped this would be true but he would not guarantee this
date because of the many factors involved with the Airport Land Use Commission, that he felt the report
on the noise problem should come out in three months.
Councilman Fore reviewed the appearances of Bay View Development Company before the Council with regard
to developing its land. He argued if the Council was to continue to stand on a "let's wait and see"
attitude this matter could go on for the next five years. He expressed the thinking that the developer
had been very patient and private enterprise could not operate in this way. He urged that action be
taken on the petition.
President La Croix said he felt some of the problems facing the City at this time were the result of
taking "expedient" action without proper foresight in many instances and consideration of the City as
a whole. He said he did not want to make such a mistake, he did not want to see Mr. Surano hurt but
to give him a fair opportunity. He said he had been the only member of the Council in favor of the
previous petition for rezoning the parcel in question but since that time he had determined in the best
interests of the City, the developer and Bay Farm Island, it was not advisable to take action until all
the facts were known and these would depend greatly upon what the Airport Land Use Commission would
impose upon the City. He suggested, if he felt action was necessary, that Councilman Fore raise the
question of the rezoning request.
Councilman Longaker said he had made the original motion at the last meeting of the Council and since
that time he had learned some facts he had not previously known which had a direct bearing on the
situation. He said if the matter were to come to a vote at this time he would have to vote against
his original motion.
Councilman Fore said he was under the impression that there would be no hindrance insofar as traffic
was concerned. At his request, Mr. Hanna explained this aspect.
Councilman McCall inquired of the Planning Director if there was not an approved plan for the property
under discussion and if it could not be developed at this time. Mr. Johnson said this would be
possible, it could be improved, but the developer might have to file a new subdivision map, that he
was not sure the time limit on the current subdivision which had been approved by the Council had not
run out.
Councilman McCall said he did not want to hurt anyone; he felt the Council was anxious to protect the
developer and, as much as he would like to see the development go ahead, he was not in a position to
vote to take the matter "off the table" and to approve or disapprove the petition. He said he felt it
should be hald "on the table" for a reasonable period of time and it was his understanding that there
should be some kind of answer in three months or less. He said if this would cause a hardship on the
developer he would suggest that he come to the City with his original plan.
Councilman Fore moved the matter under discussion be removed from the table and brought up for dis-
cussion. The motion died for lack of a second.
President La Croix said the action would then be to allow the petition by Bay View Development Company
for rezoning the parcel at Mecartney and County Roads to stand as tabled until properly raised by the
Council for discussion at a future date.
RESOLUTIONS:
20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7893
Amending Resolution No. 7890 by Adding Section 3 Thereto, Directing
Off- Street Parking Revenue Bonds be Paid from Funds Other Than
Sinking Fund."
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.
21.x` The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7894
Rejecting Claim of Carroll Barnes 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.
22./ "Resolution No. 7895
Granting Revocable Permit to Construct Pedestrian Bridge Crossing
Shorepoint Court."
On request, Mr. Hanna explained this was to be a privately owned, maintained and operated pedestrian
bridge higher than necessary to meet all vehicle standards. He said it seemed to be a nice appearing
facility with lights and railings.
President La Croix raised the question of whether the structure would have restrictions such as wire to
prevent objects being thrown over onto vehicles passing under the bridge. Mr. Hanna stated there had
been no proposal for such screens. He said he had discussed the point with the Assistant City Engineer
and it had been felt they would not be necessary in this rather limited use, feeling that the facility
would be properly controlled as it would be privately owned.
President La Croix said he raised the question for the reason that this was a natural hazard type of thing
to anyone or anything passing below, and pointed out it had been necessary to erect fences at the Grand
Street Bridge because of problems which had risen. He said he wondered if this should be a positive
consideration on behalf of the developer and even a recommendation from the Engineering Department. Mr.
Hanna stated this could be added at a later date as the Council would have complete control over such
matters. He said he would like to maintain the aesthetics of the bridge and he felt it might be less
desirable with some other screening.
Mr. Cunningham pointed out this protection had been provided for in Paragraph (12) of the Resolution.
Councilman McCall expressed the opinion that the bridge called for some type of protective overhead coverage
and said it would be much easier to put it in at the start than to modify it later.
After clarifying discussion, Councilman Fore moved the resolution be adopted as submitted. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7896
Amending Salary Resolution No. 7806 by Creating One Position of Intermediate
Typist -Clerk and Deleting One Position of Senior Stenographer -Clerk in the
City Manager Department; By Deleting Eight Positions of Park Maintenance Man
and Substituting Eight Positions of Golf and Park Maintenance Man; and by
Deleting Nine Positions of Golf Course Maintenance Man and Substituting Nine
Positions of Golf and Park Maintenance Man."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore.
On request, Mr. Weller explained that the proposed change was not related to the question of the Golf
Course operation generally. He said it had been felt for some months that there were no significant
differences between the two classifications and there seemed to be no reason for having different classi-
fications for the same salary range, that it would provide more flexibility and would be of help in the
process of transferring employees from one department to another.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7897
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Resurfacing of
Various Streets in the City of Alameda, Calling for Bids and Directing City
Clerk to Advertise Same."
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.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
25.
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Chapter 3 of Title VII
Thereof; and Adding a New Chapter 3 to Title VII Thereof, Consisting of
Articles 1 Through 6, Sections 7 -311 Through 7 -361, Regulating the
Operation, Registration, Licensing, Purchase and Sale of Bicycles."
364
Mrs. Cervelli, who had requested the opportunity to speak on this subject, said she could not find any
changes in the proposed revision with the exception that it provided bicycles could be ridden on the
sidewalks, and on sidewalks in the business district after the close of business. She said she felt
the old ordinance was a better one.
President La Croix explained that the proposed amendment was actually a total re- enactment of the old
ordinance with some suggestions by the Police Department incorporated to give it greater control.
Mr. Cunningham said there had been a liberalization permitting bicycle riding in the business district
after business hours and there were many other changes such as definition of a bicycle, rules of the
road, compliance with the provisions of the State Vehicle Code. He said the ordinance as proposed
was strongly recommended by the Police Department. For example, he said, the Police Department had
recommended liberalization of the reporting and sales of bicycle operators to a weekly report rather
than daily, as provided in the present regulations.
Mrs. Cervelli said she did not question any other provisions of the proposed change but did urge that
riding bicycles be prohibited on sidewalks so that they would be safe for pedestrians.
Mr. Seward, who had also asked to speak on the subject, contended that a bicycleAwas not a device but
a vehicle and that sidewalks were intended for people to walk on and not for use by vehicles. He
urged that at least adults be prohibited from riding on the sidewalks.
President La Croix expressed the opinion that the safe and proper use of bicycles was a matter of
education which the Police Department had been engaged in for a number of years, it involved parental
and school education and the only thing the City could honestly and realistically do would be to
continually review with young people their proper operation. He said he sympathized with the state-
ments of Mrs. Cervelli and Mr. Seward but he doubted very much that restricting bicycle riding on
sidewalks to certain age groups, et cetera, could be controlled.
Mrs. Cervelli expressed the opinion that police officers when cruising around the City should be on the
alert for violations of this kind.
Mr. Cunningham said the problem the Police Department was having was not the riding of bicycles on
sidewalks but the manner of operation. He said the ordinance was intended to control operation of
bicycles on sidewalks rather than to prohibit it as this had not worked out. The controlling provisions
of Section 7 -332 of the proposed ordinance were explained to the protestants.
Councilman Longaker moved the ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over under provision
of law and the Charter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Councilman McCall suggested that an education campaign be started for enforcement of bicycle restric-
tions as there was abuse of the privilege of bicycle riding in the City.
26. Councilman McCall moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Authorizing Grant of Non- Exclusive Public Service Easements (Water
Transmission) to East Bay Municipal Utility District."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
27. "Ordinance No. 1662,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the
City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series."
(Nine Parcels)
Councilman Levy moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
28. "Ordinance No. 1663,
New Series
An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code
Relating to Traffic Regulations." (North end of Grand Street -
Tinker Avenue)
Councilman Longaker moved the orginance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
29. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $57,770.68, was presented to the Council at this meeting.
85
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 March 21,
1972, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded
by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
30. Councilman McCall requested that a resolution be prepared in memoriam to Gladys Murphy, City Clerk
of the City of Oakland and employee of that City for 45 years, who had passed away suddenly the previous
day. He said he and public officials of long standing had known Mrs. Murphy for many years and she had
done a tremendous job for all cities in the Bay Area. He requested that the resolution be adopted this
evening and the meeting be adjourned in respect to her memory.
President La Croix suggested that a copy of the resolution also be sent to the Mayor and Council of the
City of Oakland.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
31. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, said he had known Mrs. Murphy as a child, that her father,
Mr. Albert Rowse, was a plumbing contractor. He suggested a letter also be sent to Mr. Rowse. President
La Croix stated this would be done.
32. \>Mr. Gottstein said he had been involved in a bad accident as a boy riding his bicycle on the street.
He urged that the Police Department enforce careful operation of bicycles on sidewalks as riding on the
streets was unsafe.
33. /Mr. Gottstein brought up the subject of his complaint with regard to certain construction by the
developers of the condominium subdivision at Portola Avenue and Ninth Street. He said the City Manager
had made an incorrect statement with regard to transfer of property between Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett
and himself in this regard. He complained of certain work which had been done involving his property
adjacent to the new subdivision, pointing out he had a signed agreement with the developers, and he would
like to have someone from the City offices inspect it with him and advise him of his position.
President La Croix suggested if Mr. Gottstein, for any reason, was dissatisfied with what the subdividers
had done that he file a civil suit against them or have the area surveyed.
On request, Mr. Hanna explained that Mr. Gottstein had withheld 2.6 feet of his property in making the
sale to the developers in order to have a wider side yard on his Portola Avenue property and also had held
back approximately one foot on the north side of the large piece of property sold to Lindsey, Gallagher
and Willett to provide a wider south side yard on his property on Ninth Street. He reiterated that there
had been nothing wrong with the construction on which Mr. Gottstein had raised questions this evening.
Mr. Weller agreed he had made an incorrect statement and apologized for the error. He said he had been
attempting to establish that the improvements Mr. Gottstein complained about were on public property or
property owned by the developer and not on Mr. Gottstein's land, as he had contended.
Mr. Hanna said he understood there had been numerous discussions between Mr. Gottstein, the surveyors and
the developers. Attempts to explain the matter to Mr. Gottstein had been unsuccessful and it had been
suggested that he employ his own surveyor, which he was not willing to do. He said he found no purpose
or reason for inspecting the area further, that the City had expended the sum of $150 on this matter and
it had been correct in the first place. Mr. Gottstein expressed his displeasure with the decision.
Mr. Gottstein said he had an excavated basement in his dwelling on Portola Avenue and he wished to build
a garage under the building. He complained that, with the construction of sidewalk by Lindsey, Gallagher
and Willett in connection with the condominium subdivision, he would have difficulty in putting in a
driveway.
34.3 Mr. John Mitcheom urged that something be done as quickly as possible to amend Ordinance No. 1627,
New Series, on land dedication or in lieu fees for recreation and park purposes in connection with sub-
divisions. He suggested if the Planning Department required additional office help in order to accomplish
needed changes this should be granted as it was difficult for the realtors to defend the City's position,
which seemed to favor the large developer.
FILING:
35. Grant of Easement - Between City and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
36. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of January 31, 1972 - Verified by
George A. Hackleman.
37. Specifications No. PW 3 -72 -7 - Resurfacing of Various Streets.
MEMORIAM RESOLUTIONS:
38.x'° The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7898
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Memoriam to Gladys H.
Murphy, City Clerk of the City of Oakland.
"IN DEEP SORROW, the Council of the City of Alameda records the death of a most
devoted and distinguished officer of the City of Oakland, GLADYS H. MURPHY, City Clerk.
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Murphy had been employed by the City of Oakland for approximately
forty -six years, having by diligence and competence advanced through the years to appoint-
ment to the office of City Clerk, in which capacity she had served for a period of eighteen
years at the time of her sudden and untimely passing; and
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Murphy had engendered high esteem by her faithful service in further-
ing the cooperative efforts of the cities of the Bay Area in promoting better municipal
government, her concern with the improvement of election procedures of the cities of the
County of Alameda, and her participation in the activities of the City Clerks' organizations
in the State of California; and
"WHEREAS, Mrs. Murphy, by her cordial and gracious manner, had won the respect of
all in City government with whom she had come in contact.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in recognition of her integrity, proficiency
and amiable personality, the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby declare its gratitude
and express its sadness in the demise of this exceptional woman.
"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 Mrs. Murphy and to the Mayor
and Council of the City of Oakland in order to convey sincere sympathy 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 GLADYS H. MURPHY."
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.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
ADJOURNMENT:
39. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned in respect to
the memory of GLADYS H. MURPHY, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, April 4, 1972, at 7:30
o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk