Loading...
1986-02-18 Regular CC Minutes41 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY FEBRUARY 18, 1986 The regular Council meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. (at the conclusion of the Community Improvement Commission) with President Diament presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Lucas. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Lucas, and President Diament - 4. Absent: MINUTES Councilmember Lucas Council Meeting of January 21, 1986. carried by unanimous 1.) CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Monsef - 1. moved for approval of the minutes of Special January 8, 1986, and Regular Council Meeting of Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion, which voice vote - 4. (A)Dsent: Councilmember Monsef Councilmember Corica requested that Item No. 1-D, "Authorizing execution of agreement with Bassett & Ciofalo Landscape Architects for professional services related to landscape design of the Webster Street site," be taken out of order for discussion under the regular agenda. Councilmember Lucas moved, seconded by Councilmember Hanna, that the Consent Calendar be adopted with the exception of Item 1-D. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk (*). REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *86-094 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of the public improvements and release of bond for Tract 3903. (Victoria Bay, Village III) Accepted. RESOLUTIONS *86-095 Resolution No. 10825 "Authorizing open market purchase of four police vehicles for the Police Department." Adopted. *86-096 Resolution No. 10826 "Authorizing open market purchase of State-mandated smog testing equipment for the Central Garage." Adopted. *86-097 Resolution No. 10827 "Authorizing execution of agreement with the Park Street Business Association for updating the street directory within the Park Street Commercial District." Adopted. 42 INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES *86-098 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 5-176 to Article 7, Chapter I, of Title V thereof relating to placement of business directories." Introduced. BILLS *86-099 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct, was approved in the amount of $1,618,571.76. RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 86-100 From Gerald J. LaHue, 1020 Willow Street, regarding Ordinance No. 2259, N.S., "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit overnight parking of large vehicles on City streets and property." Mr. LaHue stated that he has been a truck owner and operator for the past twenty-five years in Alameda, and experienced parking problems in the City at the beginning of the year. Mr. LaHue recommended that parking permits be made available to truck operators or that a lot be made available for the rental of parking spaces. Councilmember Lucas suggested staff look at potential sites for legal parking of trucks. The City Manager noted that owners of off-street parking lots may be interested in facilitating parking areas. President Diament commented that the matter is a problem throughout the County, and staff will explore the possibility of locating sites. 86-101 From Terri Bertero, Site Manager, Casitas Alameda Homeowners' Association, Inc., expressing concern regarding the lack of street parking in the area. President Diament commented that one of the questions raised by this matter was the fact that Baywood Village charges for parking spaces, and asked if parking had been required as part of the approval. The Planning Director stated that the off-street parking spaces, other than those provided for the dwelling units in Baywood Village, were required for approval of the project. Councilmember Corica questioned why public parking is being allowed on the south side and not on the north side of Mecartney Road to which the Planning Director replied that the City Engineer's Department has indicated that the north side of Mecartney Road is wide enough only for the traffic lane, but there is width on the south side. Councilmember Corica suggested that perhaps the divider strip could be modified to allow parking space on the north side. Councilmember Lucas inquired if the parking charge is a proper charge. 43 The Planning Director replied that the Homeowners' Association indicates that they are empowered to exercise the charge but further information is necessary to determine if there is any violation. Councilmember Lucas suggested that perhaps the Homeowners Association could be requested to eliminate the charge voluntarily. President Diament commented that it has been noted that garages are not being used for parking and asked if it could be explored through the Homeowners' Association. The Planning Director responded it could. The City Attorney commented that normally the presumption is that they could not charge rent, but if it were in the CC&Rs at the time of the approval, that would have to be considered. Councilmember Hanna commented that reducing the center divider and taking away the landscaping for parking might work against the City's plan for a first-class development. Tom Reiman, Executive Director of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle, speaking by request of Baywood Village Board of Directors to present their response to the issue, stated that the community regulations require that residents park their vehicles in their garage, but also require the Board of Directors to regulate the visitors' parking area; that permits are issued and fees are used to pay for the person who checks the parked vehicles; that they have requested Baywood residents by letter not to park in the Casitas area. In response to a question by President Diament, Mr. Reiman stated that he did not know if there were any documentation that the cars parked in Casitas belonged to Baywood residents. Councilmember Hanna commented that ownership of vehicles should be obtained. Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept the communication; Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion, and it was carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4. Councilmember Corica made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lucas, to take the Appeal out of order at this time. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. APPEALS 86-102 Consideration of appeal of Planning Board decision to approve Planned Development PD-85-3, to construct 164 single-family detached homes on 32' x 70' lots on a 19.3 acre parcel bounded by Mecartney Road, Aughinbaugh Way, Catalina Avenue extended, and the Casitas Townhouse development. Appellants: John Guidici, Elizabeth Zackheim, Elizabeth Thomas, Peg Roberts, Rosalie McPherson, and Walt Moeller. The City Attorney explained the appeal process. The following persons addressed the Council on the matter. Rosalie McPherson, 1128 Marianas Lane Walter Moeller, 406 Channing Way, President of the Alameda Alliance Homeowners Elizabeth Zackheim, 1023 Via Bonita; 44 Robert Lewellyn, Vice President, Casitas Homeowners' Association; Florence McConnell, (no address given); Howard Banchefsky, 3100 Paseo, Board of Directors, Casitas Homeowners Association; Judith Milliron, 1049 Via Bonita; Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street; Barbara Thomas, P.O. Box 1381; Steven Brimhall, Vice President, Doric Development. In response to inquiry from Councilmember Lucas, Mr. Brimhall stated that Doric Development intends to contain parking within the project. Councilmember Lucas stated that Barbara Thomas raised a valid question regarding the need for a complete record of the December 9, 1985, Planning Board meeting. Councilmember Corica commented that perhaps the material from December would shed more light on the matter. In response to Councilmember Hanna, the City Attorney explained that the verbatim transcript is the best record. Councilmember Lucas made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hanna, that the matter be held over to the next Council meeting (including the hearing regarding Tentative Map for Tract 4495, Ratto Farms), at which time the Council will have a full record. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. (Absent: Councilmember Monsef) Rae Sund, 149 Inverness Way, discussed the failure of Harbor Bay Isle to provide a promised recreational vehicle (RV) lot. Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, noted that the Student Housing Task Force does not have a member who resides on Bay Farm Island. Councilmember Corica inquired about the proposed RV park. Mr. Brimhall responded that in the event Harbor Bay Isle is successful in developing a recreational vehicle storage yard, Doric Development intends to provide the project with access to it. Councilmember Lucas inquired about a time limit regarding the development of RV lots within the project. Steven Brimhall explained that if Doric Development arrives at the Third Phase and the RV park is not developed, an RV lot will be provided on the site. President Diament inquired about the status of the matter regarding access to Mr. Kahn's property. Mr. Brimhall responded that Mr. Kahn received what he had requested. Councilmember Lucas stated for the benefit of the audience that the continuation will be heard at the next City Council meeting. 45 HEARINGS 86-103 A hearing regarding Tentative Map for Tract 4495, Ratto Farms on Bay Farm Island. (Doric Development, Inc.) This item was held over to the next Council meeting, along with the above-referenced Appeal. (See related remarks under Paragraph Number 86-104.) 86-104 A hearing on the repairs to sidewalk, driveway, curb, or gutter at 2303 Pacific Avenue and 2021 Encinal Avenue. The Public Works Director stated that Section 5600 of the Streets and Highways Code requires that each property owner maintain the sidewalk in front of their property; if they do not, then the City provides the owner with a notice to do it; if they do not make the improvement, the City does it and sends the bill to the property owner; if that is not paid, the property is posted and a hearing comes before the Council. Councilmember Hanna made a motion that the two properties be heard at the same time. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and the motion was carried by a unanimous vote - 4. President Diament asked if there was anyone present from 2303 Pacific Avenue or from 2021 Encinal Avenue. (No one was present.) * * * (See Paragraph Number 86-103) Councilmember Corica announced that members of the audience wished to address Council at this point in time regarding the continuation of the Ratto Farm Appeal and the Tentative Map hearing. Rosalie McPherson, 1128 Marianas Lane, inquired about the Tentative Map for Tract 4495, and questioned whether the map could be approved at the continued hearing if the time limit on it ran out. Councilmember Hanna suggested that Mr. Brimhall ask for permission to extend the Tentative Map time limit. The City Attorney responded that it is not always possible, and that the State Law does not sometimes give that option. James B. Davis, 1134 Ballena Blvd., Harbor Bay Isle Attorney, stated that he, too, was not familiar with State law on that matter, however, HBI would certainly agree to a continuance of the Tentative Map. Mr. Davis further stated that he did not believe that HBI was beyond the time limit. The City Attorney assured Council that the hearing could be continued; it was the one-year time limitation that could not be. The City Attorney informed Council that Harbor Bay Isle was way within the one year period. Councilmember Lucas made a motion that the hearing regarding the 46 Tentative Map be held over, as well as the related resolution. Councilmember Corica seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. * ** Council returned to the Sidewalk Lien Hearing discussion. President Diament summarized the purpose of the hearing as stated by the Public Works Director previously, that the work was not done by the owners; that the City has performed the work and billed them, and that the property owners have not paid for it. The Public Works Director agreed and added that the purpose of this hearing is to present the report from the Superintendent of Streets to show the cost of the work which has been done and which is to be a lien on their property. The Public Works Directed also stated that the purpose of the hearing was to give the owners an opportunity to be heard by Council. President Diament noted there there were no speakers. Councilmember Hanna made a motion that the hearing be closed and that the report of the Superintendent of Streets be accepted on both 2303 Pacific Avenue and 2021 Encinal Avenue and that the related Resolutions be taken out of order. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 86 -105 RESOLUTION NO. 10828 "Confirming report of Superintendent of Streets in the matter of the repair of sidewalk, driveway, curb or gutter in front of property known as 2303 Pacific Avenue, and directing the filing of a Notice of Lien on said property with the County Auditor." Adopted. Councilmember Corica made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and the motion was carried by voice vote - 4. 86 -106 RESOLUTION NO. 10829 "Confirming report of Superintendent of Streets in the matter of the repair of sidewalk, driveway, curb or gutter in front of property known as 2021 Encinal Avenue, and directing the filing of a Notice of Lien on said property with the County Auditor." Adopted. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution and Councilmember Corica seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a voice vote - 4. HEARINGS (Continued) 86 -107 Hearing on Infiltration /Inflow Sanitary Sewer Corrections and Environmental Impact Report. President Diament reviewed the speakers who would participate, public at the hearing as well as sheet attached to the handout. March 10, 1986 to be included in Report) and the responsiveness agenda for the hearing, noting the the opportunity for input from the by sending in a self - mailing comment All comments must be submitted by the final EIR (Environmental Impact summary of the public hearing. 47 President Diament also informed the public that a record was being made of the hearing and would be available to the public by calling Audrey Rogers at 465-3700. President Diament opened the hearing. Michael Wallace, East Bay Municipal District, stated the East Bay I/1 (Infiltration/Inflow) study was performed by the seven SD1 communities served by East Bay Municipal District to solve the wet weather problems of the sewer collection system. He explained the various causes and effects of overflow of the sewer system. Mr. Wallace noted that EBMUD is currently completing a facility planning effort for its own facilities. Facility plans for the I/I study recommend a twenty-year construction program and perpetual maintenance program for each community. He summarized the cost effectiveness, the rehabilitation, and long term maintenance program. He outlined the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 20-year program. He noted the possibility of grant funding. The Public Works Director referred to the maps displayed on the board which showed the I/I correction work to be undertaken during the first five years of Alameda's construction and revenue program to eliminate overflow of raw sewage and estimated the cost of the project to be $4,000,000.00. The City of Alameda plans to use a pay-as-you-go approach to finance construction rather than selling bonds at this time. Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut, noted that the presentation did not address the amount of local contribution necessary with relationship to the anticipated grant from the Joint Powers Agreement from Clean Waters Act Grant and questioned what that would be. The Public Works Director responded that it would be a matching grant, therefore, the City of Alameda would be contributing $1.5 million. Speakers: Louis Johnson, 1822 9th Street, Robert Nelson, 1854 9th Street, and Charles Haak, 1859 9th Street addressed the issue of the 9th Steet flooding due to the heavy rains which were not draining off sufficiently. The Public Works Director noted that the speakers addressing the flooding were not addressing the sewage problem at issue. He informed them, however, that a design had been made for a relief sewer and interceptor in conjunction with the Patton Way Project; that it is under construction now; that two other storm drains have been designed (one of which is nearing completion). Councilmember Hanna commented that he believed the construction underway should solve the 9th Street flooding problems for the next twenty years. In answer to a question from Councilmember Hanna regarding cost, the Public Works Director answered that the cost of the current phase of construction is $1,800,000. Mr. Johnson thanked the Council for hearing him and stated he believed 48 their problem was resolved. President Diament declared the hearing closed. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to take the Resolution regarding the infiltration /inflow correction out of order. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 86 -108 Resolution No. 10830 "Designating East Bay Municipal Utility District as Lead Agency for environmental documentation for infiltration /inflow correction." Adopted. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution, Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86 -109 From City Manager recommending summary abatement of garbage at 855 Cedar Street. Councilmember Hanna indicated that although he believed the current handling of the garbage problem was commendable, he requested another way to put the owner on notice via a court action so there would not be the constant reoccurence of this problem. The City Manager stated there is a provision in the Municipal Code allowing citation and subsequent court action and will take that approach if the problem is not abated. He stated that it is currently cleaned up because the property owner realized the matter was coming to Council. Councilmember Hanna recommendation in Councilmember Lucas unanimous voice vote 86 -110 From Finance January 31, 1986. The City Treasurer commented that he originally submitted letters and an addendum to the Investment Portfolio. He stated that, based on his letter, he had no specific problem with the Investment Portfolio per se, and no problem with a specific depository. He stated that his problem is based on Resolution 9430, concerning duties of the Treasurer; the first one, to sign all contracts for the deposit of funds with each bank. The City Treasurer commented that the Council passed the Resolution to insure checks and balance in deposit of funds; that in reviewing the contracts currently on file, he finds that the majority of the contracts have been filed either by the Finance Director or by one of his assistants. Councilmember Lucas asked if there was a delegation of that authority. The City Manager stated that under the previous Treasurer that authority was delegated by letter, and that he understood the Finance Director has been discussing with the current City Treasurer a similar letter of delegation. In addition, he stated that the City Treasurer made a motion to accept the City Manager's the event he needs to proceed further. seconded the motion and it was carried by a - 4. Director on City's investment portfolio as of 49 was offered an opportunity to come in and participate in the placement of funds aside from the contracts. The City Attorney inquired as to why the Treasurer has not signed the cards (contracts for deposit of funds) of which the City Treasurer said he was not given the opportunity. The City Attorney assured him that he, as Treasurer, always has that opportunity, and that it cannot be denied. The City Treasurer stated that the monies had been deposited before the contract was signed. The City Attorney stated that the Treasurer has the authority from the time of Election to go into the Finance Department, check the contracts, sign what he believes is proper and refuse to sign what he believes is not proper. The City Attorney added that the Treasurer may then come to the Council and state that he believes the money should be moved. The City Attorney further stated that the Treasurer has a duty as custodian of the money to either sign off or ask for its removal. The City Treasurer stated that he could only sign a contract which he is aware of. The City Attorney said it was the Treasurer's job to be aware. Councilmember Corica said that he had a question concerning what he read in the paper to the effect that the financial institution (Alameda First National Bank) might not be used in the bid process because the Treasurer may arbitrarily say he does not want the money there. Councilmember Corica questioned that if the financial institution is not contacted, how could the citizens of Alameda know they are getting the best possible rate. The City Treasurer replied that he did not know of any financial institution with whom he has not been in contact. President Diament stated the City had a copy of one (contract for deposit of funds) that the Treasurer refused to sign; a letter that the Finance Director had addressed to the Treasurer regarding a local bank. The City Treasurer stated that he had no problems with the local bank; that he does have some questions; that he does have an appointment with the President of the bank on Friday to discuss his questions and has no personal vendetta against the bank as has been suggested by other people. Councilmember Corica asked why the Treasurer had an appointment with the bank president, to which the City Treasurer replied that he had specific questions that he would like to ask before entering into the contract. Councilmember Lucas asked the City Treasurer if he usually asks specific questions with any bank that he deals with, to which the City Treasurer replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Lucas then asked if he was aware of the City policy favoring local business and promotion of local business, to which the City Treasurer responded that he is familiar with it and supports it. 50 Councilmember Corica commented that he would not want any financial institution excluded from consideration as long as they have enough money to back up the funds deposited. The City Treasurer agreed. Councilmember Lucas commented that the Finance Director's report dated February 3 is signed by the Finance Director but not the City Treasurer and asked if the City Treasurer had seen that report, if he agreed with it, and his reason for not signing. The City Treasurer stated that there exist several financial institutions where the City has deposits where he has not signed the contract and that he believes this is shortcircuiting the checks and balance system. Councilmember Lucas commented that the City Attorney had stated it was the Treasurer's duty to follow up on these measures, and asked the City Treasurer if he believed he had made that effort, to which the Treasurer replied in the affirmative. The City Manager asked if the institutions were not on the previous report. The Treasurer said that he could not answer; the City Manager said they were except for one; the Treasurer said he thought not. The Finance Director stated there were currently ten contracts for deposit of funds, two of which were signed by himself since the Treasurer took office, four were before, and the other contracts were signed by former Treasurers and one by a Finance Director. It is the City Treasurer's prerogative to request a new contract but the Treasurer has not requested to do so. The Finance Director stated that none of his staff has signed bank contracts. The City Attorney stated that the Charter provision is difficult and he could understand a new City Treasurer's problems with his relationship with the Finance Director and with the Council; therefore, he would assure the City Treasurer that he has the authority to go into the Finance office, look at the contracts, go to the banks and get it taken care of, and he may ratify what is done or get new contracts to sign, but he is duty bound to do the checks and balances and not wait to be asked. As an elected official, he does not need to wait to be asked but he has the power to do it. The Finance Director stated that funds are deposited on a daily basis, that calls are made and investments are made. The City Attorney suggested that the Finance Director attempt to call the City Treasurer and it can be ratified later. He recommended to the City Treasurer that as he has been given custody of the money, he can come in either before or after the fact (since he is a working person) and check and approve or disapprove and if disapproving, then the reason for it, but without waiting for someone to invite. Councilmember Corica mentioned that, regardless of jobs, there must be some time found to become familiar with the work and make sure everything is going right. He said he does not like anyone to arbitrarily freeze someone out. 51 The City Treasurer asked who he is supposed to have arbitrarily frozen out. Councilmember Corica replied a financial institution that the Treasurer did not want to deal with, as reported in the paper. The City Treasurer stated it was a statement made by someone in the paper and that he should not be held accountable for someone else's statement. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to accept the Finance Director's recommendation. Councilmember Corica seconded the motion. Councilmember Hanna commented that there appears to be some personality difference or some problem that he cannot quite assess. The City Attorney commented that he was not going to impugn anyone, because he did not believe it was correct or necessary. He stated he believes that there is present what is often present when there appears to be conflicting jurisdiction, someone new is finding their way. The City Attorney further stated that the Council runs the City and the Treasurer has the custody of the money which means that he has to come in and see that it is correct, and the Resolution says how he is to do it. He can review the institutions and sign off or not and if not, then come to Council and say why it is not. If he does not, then the City may proceed without him. Councilmember Hanna commented that the City Attorney's analysis corresponded to his own; that there appeared to be some problem between the two gentlemen that should be worked out; that if the Treasurer finds something that is worthy of his resistance, then he must work it out with the Finance Director toward agreement, and if it cannot be agreed, then he should come with his reasons to the Council. Fred Scullin stated that he believed there was a problem of protocol that had not been solved; that the former Treasurer was in ill health for a long time before leaving office and that the Finance Director became accustomed to performing certain duties that had been performed by the Treasurer; that the Finance Director takes instruction from the City Manager and therefore the proper chain of command is for the Treasurer to address any requests that he may have of the Finance Director to the City Manager. The City Attorney noted that the word protocol was appropriate and suggested that the principals in this matter work out the protocol. President Diament called for the question on the motion on the floor. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4. 86 -111 From Public Works Director regarding status of the vacant City -owned property at Otis Drive and Willow Street. President Diament explained that the report states the medical group that had been planning to build there has withdrawn their request, and the City Manager is requesting that the staff be instructed to zone the land for R -1 Planned Development. 52 Councilmember Hanna made a motion to accept the Public Works Director's recommendation. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4. Councilmember Hanna stated that there was another letter relative to that, from Mr. Barnard, regarding an application for a refund. The City Manager responded that it is not a practice to refund; that he will review this and come back to Council; that he will recommend that the amount of money be refunded that has not already been expended in terms of time and material. RESOLUTIONS 86 -112 RESOLUTION NO. 10831 "Approving the update and revisions to the City of Alameda guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act to conform to the 1984 State guidelines." Fred Scullin commented that he believes in conforming to the State guidelines but not elimination of some of the process currently employed. President Diament asked the City Attorney if there is opportunity for public comment when proposed negative declarations go to the Planning Board for determination, to which he replied in the affirmative. The Planning Director commented that the Planning Board's power would not be diminished and that the new procedure would provide opportunity for public comment prior to consideration of the matter by the Planning Board. Councilmember Lucas made a motion to adopt the Resolution; Councilmember Corica seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 86 -113 Resolution No. 10832 "Authorizing execution of agreement with Bassett & Ciofalo Landscape Architects for professional services related to landscape design of the Webster Street Park site." Councilmember Corica commented that he noted from the report that the City is considering a mini -park, and that he believes the proposed site can become a problem area. Councilmember Corica suggested that perhaps only grass be planted at the site. President Diament commented that the site was acquired specifically for use as a park. The City Manager stated that the inclusion of a drinking fountain would be appropriate. The City Manager added that it is an entrance to the City, and may require some design work. Councilmember Hanna noted that the matter can be best addressed by a professional. 53 Councilmember Lucas concurred that a professional might be helpful, particularly with lighting and visibility. The City Manager stated that all possibilies will be considered. Councilmember Corica made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 86-114 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending Ordinance No. 1082, N.S., by amending Section 6 and Subsection (o) thereof relating to management of the Pension Fund and by amending Section 11 thereof relating to service retirement." The Finance Director briefly described the amendment. Councilmember Corica stated that he was very comfortable with the amendment. Councilmember Lucas updated. Councilmember Hanna ordinance. suggested that the language of the ordinance be requested that the City Manager review the Councilmember Corica made a motion to introduce the ordinance. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. NEW BUSINESS 86-115 President Diament nominated Mr. Robert Guthrie to the Civil Service Board. The Council approved the nomination. 86-116 The City Attorney stated an Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim had been received from Joyce Maestas. Councilmember Lucas made a motion that the claim be denied. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 86-117 Councilmember Lucas inquired about a wall being constructed behind the McDonald's Restaurant in the South Shore Shopping Center area, and commented that the natural resources of the beach are not being fully utilized. Councilmember Corica alluded to the parking problems in the shopping center, and inquired about new structures being built in the mall. Mayor Diament requested that Council be provided with a sketch of the developments in that area. Councilmember Lucas requested the plans for the proposed retail stores, and commented that there is a need for a Planned Development Overlay. Councilmember Hanna inquired about a proposed Planned-Development 54 Overlay for the shopping center which was considered by Council a year ago. The Planning Director responded that it was Council's decision not to proceed with the Overlay. Councilmember Lucas expressed concern for Harsh's plans and Shoreline Drive, and requested a copy of the plans. Councilmember Hanna made a motion, which was seconded by Lucas, that the Planning Board initiate consideration of The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 86-118 Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, noted that the design review person was only part time. The City Manager responded that the present position is full time. at Park Street Councilmember rezoning. ADJOURNMENT 86-119 President Diament adjourned the meeting to an Executive Session regarding Martin versus the City of Alameda and West versus the City of Alameda. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch City Clerk