1970-06-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY EVENING - - - - - - - - - JUNE 16, 1970
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock 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 Harold Petroelje, Pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fpr8, Levy, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (4), were noted
present. Absent: Councilman Longaker, (1).
MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting held June 3, 1970, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2./ From B. J. and Joyce F. Alexander, 1830 Nason Street, expressing concern about the overall picture
of growth and probable tax increases in the City.
President La Croix noted that a copy of this letter had been sent to the Planning Board. He expressed the
opinion that all members of the Council and the Planning Board and staff shared the concern of Mr. and Mrs.
Alexander, and in the future there might possibly be reason to give consideration to reduction of the
density in some areas of the City.
The communication was to be acknowledged with appreciation.
3./ From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 159 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to xResOlUtiODso.
4. / From County of Alameda Veterans Affairs Commission, signed by Mr. Allen F. Strutz, Treasurer, request-
ing that the City appropriate the sum of $300 as its share of the 1970 Veterans Day observance.
Councilman McCall moved the matter be referred to the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for attention. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None.
Absent: Councilman Longaker, (1).
5. / From Mr. L. A. Patton, 1020 San Antonio Avenue, with regard to operation of the South Golf C0Ur32,
Mr. Patton offered his services to organize and lead a citizens' committee to study aspects of the operation,
with a report and recommendations to be submitted to the Council in thirty days.
President La Croix acknowledged with appreciation Mr. Patton's offer of his services in this matter. It was
agreed that a management survey would not justify the cost. However, it was pointed out that a staff report
on the subject of the Golf Courses would be forthcoming in the next few months and at that time the question
would be given thorough consideration. It was therefore felt that appointment of a citizens' committee
would be inappropriate at this time.
8.y From Alameda Council of the Parent-Teacher Associations, signed by Mrs. R. A. Ibarolle, President,
submitting a resolution with regard to the Bay Farm Island fill area development.
The organization expressed its opposition to any residential development or school site in the southwesterly
portion of the proposed development, adjacent to the proposed runways and flight patterns of the Metropolitan
Oakland International Airport, because of the safety and noise factors. It was also recommended that the
provision of public library facilities be included in the development plans.
It was stated that there was reason for serious concern on this subject by people of the City. The officials
were aware of this and the problem would be given thought in consideration of the development.
Councilman McCall stated he had noted the trend of concern by the general public with regard to density
the cost of schools, taxes, et cetera. He requested that a breakdown be made of the South Shore area as it
was originally assessed as tideland lots, taking into consideration it had been filled by private develop-
ment, comparing these figures with the assessed valuation on the present improved properties and the cost
Of additional City services required, also the revenue gained by the Bureau of Eleotrioitv. He felt the
was South Shore area had more than paid for itself, whereas this wa not necessarily true in some other parts
of the City which were receiving more services.
City Manager Weller, on request, expressed the opinion that the South Shore area was more than paying its
way. He stated there was no practical way to determine whether an area was paying its way and the idea was
foreign to the principle of government as the City would not refuse to respond to a fire alarm on the basis
that a particular property had not paid enough in taxes to justify the response - no profit and loss state-
ment would be maintained on services rendered by the City. He commented that, as a general rule, the higher
the density, the more favorable the ratio would be between the cost of providing service and the total tax
revenue. He said he felt there was no question that increasing density would have the effect of a net
improvement in the financial situation of the City.
President La Croix commented on the density in the center of the City, where there were extremely deep lots
on which "corridor" multiple dwellings had been COD3trUCted. He expressed the opinion it should be required
that green areas be provided to break up these developments as the City must provide park areas for the
,
residents of these units the same as it does for people living in private homes. He said he felt the
Planning Board and Department should be concerned with problems of this nature, as people in the City
were concerned with this aspect of the density probl8m.
The subject was discussed further and it was agreed that the Council wanted the best possible development
on the Bay Farm Island fill area.
HEARINGS:
7./ In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to grant a Use Permit to allow
a nursery school and/Op day care center at 44 Garden Road for a 90-day period, with certain stipulated
conditions. The Appeal had been filed by Mr. William W. Whattam, the applicant.
The Clerk stated the parties involved had been informed that this would be the time and place for Hearing
in the matter.
President La Croix read a memorandum from the City Attorney stating the issue before the Council was
whether the findings and decision of the Planning Board, taken under Sec. 11-162(e) of the Municipal
Code, should be affirmed, modified or reversed.
Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board, as related in his memorandum
dated June 11, 1970. He stated the Whattams were presently operating the facility without benefit of
permits, either from City or County agencies concerned, caring for from 20 to 22 children from about
7:00 o'clock a.m. to 12:00 midnight. The Planning Department had received several complaints with regard
to the operation and had advised Mr. and Mrs. Whattam that a Use Permit was required. Material had been
requested from City and County agencies concerned, and this was submitted to the Council with the memo-
randum.
Mr. Johnson stated Mr. and Mrs. Whattam and one other person had appeared in support of the application,
and seven persons had appeared in prDt8St. It had been brought out that the Whattams would be satisfied
with a trial 90-day Use Permit and a limit of six children.
The staff had not taken a strong position in the matter, recognizing that in certain situations a neighbor-
hood day care center would be a desirable use; however, it did recommend the limitation to six children,
as ten children would border on a commercial use. It also felt that neighborhood opinion should influence
the decision in matters of this kind.
The Use Permit had been granted for the 90-day period, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the
operation be limited to six children, (2) the back yard be properly fenced, (3) the hours of operation be
limited to 7:00 o'clock a.m. to 7:00 o'clock p.m., and (4) the regulations of the Alameda County Welfare
Department be met.
The Whattams were now appealing these restrictions, requesting they be allowed a maximum of ten children
for an unlimited time. Mr. Johnson SUggeSted that Mr. Whattam might request further relief in his pre-
sentation before the Council.
On question, Mr. Johnson stated the Alameda County Welfare Department was in the process of a home study
to meet licensing standards on this operation. It was pointed out that exception is made on the limit of
six children if a full-time assistant is employed to help in the home. He stated he knew of no criteria
for this employee; he was under the impression that the assistant must simply pass muster with the
Welfare Department as being a capable employee, someone outside the immediate family.
Councilman Levy was informed, in reply to a question, that there were other similar centers in the City,
although it was not known whether the number was sufficient to satisfy the need.
On the call for proponents of the Appeal, Mr. Whattam, 44 Garden Road, came forward. He said the reason
for requesting the Use Permit was that there was a need for this type of service in the City of Alameda.
He said Mrs. Whattam had at one time had more clients than she could handle without irritating the neigh-
bors. They had cut down the number and started the process of obtaining a license approximately a month
ago. He said they felt the City should not limit them below the number the State would allow, of ten
children maximum; if the State considered the facilities were not large enough for ten children they would
respond accordingly. He said Mrs. Whattam had help in the home so it would not mean another employee.
Consequently, they felt they were not bringing someone into the neighborhood just for this operation.
Mr. Whattam also requested relief from the hours limitation condition as some mothers using the service
worked on the swing shift or had changing hours, and the limitation to day hours would make it impossible
to take care of their children.
To a question, Mr. Whattam stated this was not the sole means of livelihood, that he was an Electronics
Specialist. He said the business was a means of augmenting the income in the home and there was also a
Deed for the service.
Mrs. Whattam came forward. She stated she had been operating the business at this address since the latter
part of August, 1908. She said at the start she had furnished transportation because many working mothers
would not have a car, so there would not be cars coming and going and no one seemed to mind the operation.
She said at the present time she had 14 children and at one time had had 24 and as high as 32. She said,
under the Welfare Department regulations, she could have ten children during the day and then another set
of five at night. She said the graveyard shift was more in demand than any other as it was difficult to
get sitters for night work. She said there were three bedrooms and two full baths in the home and large
living and dining rooms and kitchen.
Mrs. Mildred Entwistle Blake, 3 Garden Road, said she was a working mother and Mrs. Whattam cared for her
two children. She verified that there was a need for the service as it was hard to find anyone to do this
work. She said she was very well satisfied with Mrs. Whattam's service.
��]�
'M ���
K
On the call for opponents, Mr. John E. Mitcheom, 1319 High Street, addressed the COUDCil. He said he had
become interested in this matter because of the fact that his company had sold the home next door to the
subject property, known as 40 Garden Road, to Mr. Legaspi. The properties shared a common driveway. The
Legaspis had been assured that the zoning was single-family and certain uses would not be permitted.
Mr. Mitcheom said problems had started on the driveway with commencement of the business in question, and
had become a growing COnCerD. Other people in the area had become concerned with property values being
adversely affected by a use which they felt should not be permitted in an xR-lx District. He stated the
easement for the driveway was recorded, both property owners having the right to go in and out but definite-
ly not to park in the driveway. A turnaround area had been created in the rear so that either neighbor
could back onto the other's property and turn around, and he would not have to back all the way out. If
the properties were to be fenced off it would not be possible to use the turnaround area. The space between
the houses, he said, was quite narrow and the entrances were on the side off the driveway. He submitted to
the Council that a safety and noise problem would definitely be created.
Mr. Mitcheom then presented a petition signed by 32 residents of Garden and Beach Roads, protesting the
establishment of the nursery school or other similar institution on the property under discussion. He said
he was not in favor of the Use Permit being granted and would file an Appeal from the action of the Board in
this mdtter. He said he felt the proposal of Mrs. Whattam was very worthwhile and he, as a realtor, would
be glad to sell her a place in the proper zone where she would have no problem.
Messrs. Noah H. Garrett, 25 Garden Road, and Albert C. Gonzales, 11 Garden Road, also spoke in protest.
The Hearing was declared closed. President La Croix inquired if the Board had considered denying the Use
Permit entirely. Mr. Johnson said the suggestion had not been made. The Board's consideration was limited
to determining if there was not some way the use in modified form could be permitted, recognizing it was
an indicated and desirable use under certain conditions. He stated, in reply to questions, that the neigh-
bors had raised the point of denying the Use Permit entirely, indicating rather strongly that they did not
want the use in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson added, in reply to further questions, that, should the 90-day
period be affirmed, the issue would be reviewed every 90 days by the Planning Board, and the matter had been
set for hearing again on September D.
There was a period of discussion with regard to the proper action for the Council to take in this matter,
in view of the unusual nature of the Appeal. At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman McCall moved
the Appeal be denied and the decision of the Planning Board be affirmed. Councilman Levy seconded the
motion which carried on the following roll call Y0tS, Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
Mr. and Mrs. Whattam were informed they must comply with the conditions set forth by the Planning Board
in its action.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
8. / From the Auditor and Assessor, requesting cancellation and refund of certain taxes erroneously levied
and collected.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions".
9. . From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., low bidder, for the
project of Improvement of High Street from San Jose Avenue to Thompson Avenue, at the price of $57,479.05'
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be adopted, that the contract be awarded to the designated firm for
the specified project at the price quoted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call
carried by the following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
lO. / From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Remodeling the
Police Department Locker Room and Squad Room Areas, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion
be ordered filed.
Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be followed, that all work on said project be accepted as satis-
factorily completed and the Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
11. 1 From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to American Building Maintenance Company, low
bidder, for Janitorial Services for the City Hall and Libraries for fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72, at the
prices of $16,541.50 and $16,784'82, respectively.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation be approved, and the contract be awarded to the firm named for the
designated project at the prices quoted. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: NVDe, Absent: One.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
l2./ President La Croix stated he had met with Congressman George P. Miller recently and had been assured
that the moneys had been allocated for construction of a new Fruitvale Bridge. Some problems still had to
be ironed out between the County and the cities but Congressman Miller seemed to think this would be done
and there was a strong possibility that this project might soon proceed.
13. Councilman McCall stated he had received many questions from Bay Farm Island residents with regard to
the project of widening Maitland Drive and County Road. Mr. Hanna stated this was a temporary patch job
to provide a reasonable roadway. The objective, he said, was to widen and smooth the street and some spots
had been dug out and corrected with solid asphalt. The whole street would then be resurfaced to produce a
good adequate-width roadway between Mecartney Road and Doolittle Drive. The triangle was to be filled so
that it would not hold water. Because of the indeterminate nature of the Utah plans, it had seemed inad-
visable to put in anything more permanent.
^
14./7 President La Croix stated he had recently raised the question of the fencing of the drainage areas on
Bay Farm Island behind the various developments, as a safety precaution. He said considerable fencing had
been installed and it had been found to be beneficial safety-wise and also aesthetically in the development
of the project.
l5,` Councilman Fore commented on the dangerous traffic conditions at the intersection of Clubhouse Memo-
rial Road and Maitland DpiV8, Mr. Hanna stated he did not know of any accidents at the intersection but
he would check the files and keep the item in mind.
NEW BUSINESS:
�
l6.' President La Croix stated he had just been handed a letter from Mr. William Andrade, Chairman of
Independent Cabs of the Greater East Bay, requesting that, with the present emergency situation due to the
A/C Transit District strike, the Independent and other taxicab firms be granted an unlimited clearance for
all vehicles of such firms to operate during the emergency situation.
Mr. Weller, on request, stated the Municipal Code provides for this type of emergency. It would require
an action by the City Council waiving the provisions of the licensing aspects of the Code. The restric-
tion is provided that the emergency license would be issued only to a person recommended by the Chief of
Police so there presumably would be some kind of screening. He said his concern was whether there was
such an emergency as he was not aware of an additional demand for cabs not being met by Goodwill Cab or
Yellow Cab Company, which companies held Permits to operate in the City.
Mr. Weller was requested to pursue this matter with Goodwill Cab and Yellow Cab Company and establish
whether an emergency situation existed, subject to his opinion, and report to the Council. Should there
be a declared emergency, the Council could take action at any time.
l7,,/ President La Croix commented on the Flag Day Ceremonies at the U. S. Coast Guard Station on Govern-
ment Island the previous Sunday. He said the program had been a very fine one, with approximately 150
people in attendance. He congratulated Councilman McCall on the excellent job he had done as Chairman of
the affair.
RESOLUTIONS:
18. v The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7635
Approving Warrant No. 169 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation
District NV, 2105."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: President La Croix, Jr., (1). Absent: One.
19. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7636
Ordering Cancellation and Refund of Real and Personal Property
Taxes Erroneously Levied and Collected."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
20./ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7637
Constituting the Alameda County Topics Fund Group."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore.
On request, Mr. Weller explained this program would involve no cost to the City. He said Alameda County
had been designated as the coordinating agency for the area. The program would have some value to the
County and, from time to time, to the City as well and it was felt it would be appropriate for the City to
participate.
Mr. Hanna stated the pooling project was an endeavor to reduce the administrative effort involved. It was
suggested that this might be a means for the City to obtain moneys for the approaches to the proposed new
Fruitvale Bridge.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None.
Absent: One.
21./ "Resolution No.
Adopting Policy Statement Regarding Air Pollution Control."
President La Croix said this statement had been adopted by the Alameda County Mayors' Conference. The
question had been raised as to whether it was valid to use gas tax funds in this connection.
Councilman Levy moved the resolution be laid over for further consideration of this question. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None.
Absent: One.
Councilmen Levy and McCall were asked to study the proposed resolution and submit a report thereon at the
next regular meeting of the Council.
22.- The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7638
Requesting Payment by the Fiscal Agent of the Amount Held in the
Off-Street Parking Surplus Revenue Fund to the General Fund of
the City of Alameda."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7639
Providing for the Amount Per Diem for Officers and Employees of the
City of Alameda for Traveling Expenses."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the follow-
ing vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7640
Authorizing Year-End Transfers on the Books of Account of the City
Of Alameda."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted, as indicated.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
25.'/ "Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Sections 3-1251
and 3-1252 Thereof, Relating to Water Users Tax."
Councilman McCall recalled that, at the time the proposed Utility Users Tax ordinance was discussed, he had
fought hard to impose the tax on all utilities if it was to be adopted at all. He said he would oppose the
amendment, repealing Article 5 pertaining to water users, unless a sewer service charge could be imposed.
He said he felt the proposed amendment to the original ordinance was not fair to other utilities.
Mr, Weller, on request, explained he felt the matter was not a question of equity as related to all UtilitiSs.
If this were the case, he said he would agree the water district should be in the same category as any other
utility. He said it was a question of equity to the taxpayer. He said, as he had pointed out in his memo-
randum dated June 10, 1970, a tax costing 50% or more to collect was not an equitable tax. In the final
analysis, he pointed out, it would be the taxpayer who would have to bear the cost.
There was a lengthy discussion on this question. None of the Councilmen wished to introduce the ordinance.
Mr. Weller pointed out that, under these circumstances, as of July 1 every customer of the East Bay Municipal
Utility District in the City would be in violation of the present ordinance. He suggested if the Council
did not wish to introduce this amending ordinance, some action should be taken to modify the existing ordi-
nance, at least setting up the effective date of the Article pertaining to the Water Users Tax. It was
pointed out again that there had been no illusions from the outset as to the position of the East Bay Muni-
cipal Utility District in this matter, when they had stated they would consider the matter in relation to
their ability to collect the tax.
Councilman McCall suggested the original ordinance be amended to set up the effective date of participation
to January 1, 1971, to provide opportunity for additional discussion with the Board of Directors of the
Utility District.
President La Croix suggested and requested that the ordinance be introduced and that a committee composed
Of Councilman McCall, Mr. Weller and himself, if this was approved by the Council, meet with the proper
personnel of the Utility District for discussion of the matter before the ordinance would come up for passage.
Councilman Levy stated he would be glad to introduce the ordinance, under these conditions. Councilman Fore
seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall inquired of Mr. Weller what had become of the $30,000 cost first
estimated by the District, where it was now $93,000. Mr. Weller stated he had been under the impression
that the cost figure had always been in the neighborhood of the higher figure.
The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Awes: Councilmen Fore,
Levy and President La Croix, (3). Noes: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: Councilman Longaker, (1).
The City Manager was requested to arrange a meeting at the earliest possible date with the proper personnel
of the East Bay Municipal Utility District for discussion of this matter.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
26: "Ordinance No. 1622,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 10-230,1 Thereto,
Providing Conditions for Issuance of Special Equipment Installer's
Permit by Electrical Department."
Councilman Levy moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which
Carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
27.' "Ordinance No. 1623,
New Series
An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code
Relating to Traffic Regulations." (Two-Hour, All Time and Limited
No Parking - Encinal Avenue between Lafayette and Chestnut Streets,
and Pease Avenue)
Councilman McCall moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. Councilman Fore seconded the motion which
carried on the following roll call VOte, Ayes: Four. Noes: NOne, Absent: One.
BILLS:
28./ An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $28,502.82, was presented to the Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct.
Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on June 16, 1970,
and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: One.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
29. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, complained of the condition of streets due to repairs by the
utility companies. She mentioned a particular spot at San Jose and College Avenues where there was a large
bump in the middle of the intersection. She felt the streets should be repaired properly after work of this
type had been done.
Mr. Hanna explained the procedure followed by the utility companies on their projects. He said they were
Very cooperative in working with the City in these matters and he would investigate the situation.
30,/ Mrs. Kapellas stated the question of high density in connection with the Bay Farm Island proposed
development was a matter for concern to the people of the community and it must be stopped somewhere. She
voiced her thinking on the subject and expressed the opinion that the people of the City did not want the
proposed development.
3l.' Mrs. Kapellas commented on the matter of day care centers in the City. She expressed the opinion that
practically every mother was forced to work in order to make ends meet and therefore baby sitting services
were needed. She felt people who could do this work should be given a helping hand and that applications
of this type should be very carefully investigated before they are denied.
President La Croix stated the concern of the City Council was the location of such centers.
32. , Mrs. Kapellas also expressed her objection to the utility users tax. She said she planned to attend
the Hearings on the rate increases proposed by the Telephone Company to oppose the increase as she felt
collection of taxes should not be imposed on the citizen. She claimed the City was not limited on the
Utility users tax and this she opposed, as she felt it was not a valid, legal way to tax.
President La Croix explained the reduction of the City tax rate and imposition of the utility users tax was
felt to be the most fair and equitable way to spread the tax.
33. ~ Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, complained again with regard to the small size of type used
in the telephone books as compared to the size of the advertisements in the yellow pages. He suggested a
tax be imposed on the Telephone Company for adV8rtiSing.
FILING:
34. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of April 30, 1970 - Verified by George A.
Hackleman.
35. Councilman McCall moved the Council retire to an executive session for discussion of personnel
matters. The motion was seconded by Councilman Levy and unanimously carried.
After a five-minute recess, the Council reconvened in Room 303 for its deliberations. At the conclusion
Of the discussion, it was determined that no action would be taken at this meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
36. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular meeting on Tuesday evening, July 7, 1970, at 7:30 o'clock.
Respectful ly submitted,
/7 7 -
\--1 7-,c_
City Clerk