Loading...
1986-07-15 Regular CC Minutes159 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA TUESDAY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JULY 15, 1986 The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. (at the conclusion of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting) with President Diament presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Hanna. Reverend Su Schlagel gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Lucas, Monsef, and President Diament - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES Councilmember Monsef made a motion for approval of the minutes of the meeting of July 1, 1986. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Corica, Lucas, Monsef, and President Diament - 4. Noes: None Absent: None Abstentions: Councilmember Hanna - 1. (Councilmember Hanna abstained due to his absence from the July 1, 1986, meeting.) CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Corica stated he would be voting no on the Consent Calendar Item No. 1 -F, a Resolution regarding approval of Final Map of subdivision known as Tract 5527. Councilmember Lucas moved for adoption of the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item 1 -F and Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *86 -408 From Assistant City Manager regarding General Liability Insurance for Park Street Wine and Crafts Fair. Accepted. *86 -409 From Finance Director on City's Investment Portfolio as of June 30, 1986. Accepted. *86 -410 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of the improvements and release of bond for Tract 4361, Clipper Cove. Accepted. 160 RESOLUTIONS *86-411 Resolution No. 10962 "Approving, authorizing and directing execution of agreement for bond counsel services with Jones Hall Hill & White, a Professional Law Corporation, with respect to Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes." Adopted. *86-412 Resolution No. 10963 "Providing for the borrowing of funds for Fiscal Year 1986-87 and the issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes therefor, and authorizing the sale of Notes to A.R. Altura & Company, Inc." Adopted. *86-413 Resolution No. 10964 "Authorizing execution of agreement for construction and completion of improvements in connection with Subdivision 5527 and approving bonds as to sufficiency (Pulte Home Corporation, subdivider)." Adopted. *86-414 Resolution No. 10965 "Awarding contract to McGuire and Hester for Clinton-Park-Otis Sanitary Sewer Project, Phase I, P.W. No. 3-86-7, and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted. *86-415 Resolution No. 10966 "Authorizing execution of agreement with Harbor Bay Isle Associates for Contract Administration and Coordination for Harbor Bay Business Park Assessment District 84-4, Phase II." Adopted. *86-416 Resolution No. 10967 "Authorizing execution of a personal services agreement for a period of one year for a position of Fleet Mechanic." Adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES *86-417 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by deleting the one-hour parking zone on the west side of High Street between Central Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue." Introduced. *86-418 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by providing for a traffic signal at the intersection of Bridgeway Road and Island Drive." Introduced. BILLS *86-419 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct, was approved in the amount of $1,507,238.04. **************** 161 RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 86 -420 From Jack O. Lubbock, 1044 Fontana Drive and Charles Ormond, 1363 Crown Drive, regarding the adoption of a more appropriate name for the Alameda (Tidal) Canal. Jack Lubbock addressed Council regarding his communication, noting that the waterway is referred to by Oakland as Oakland Inner Harbor, that the Coast Guard states that the term estuary does not apply to this body of water, and that the word estuary is defined as "an arm of the sea at the lower end of a river ". Councilmember Lucas commented she would like to see the name "Alameda" attached to this part of the waterway and asked if there were an historical reference point to the Alameda name, to which Mr. Lubbock replied there was none, that the last official Inter -City Map is dated 1871, on which it is the Estuary of San Antonio. Councilmember Corica commented that he thought Mr. Lubbock's suggestion was excellent and wanted the Council to pass a resolution so the City could use the name in the future and that he liked the name Alameda Inter -Bay Waterway. President Diament stated that that she would like to see the name changed officially and be put on a map. Councilmember Hanna stated he believes that the waterway should have a name that connotes beauty, that there should be a huge celebration in favor of the estuary, and that the name should be chosen through a contest or some other public participation. President Diament inquired of Councilmember Corica if he would be willing to head up a committee to secure a name, and he responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the communication and to appoint Councilmember Corica to head the committee to provide recommendation of a name to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lucas and carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86 -421 From John Beery, Jr., Alameda Gateway, 2900 Main Street, concerning the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission's official policy on open space. The City Manager noted that Mr. Jonas was present in the event the Council might have questions regarding the original proposal from the staff of the ALUC. Councilmember Corica noted that all of Council had received President Diament's letter to the Chairperson of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and noted that with the letter was a memo indicating that if any member of the Council wanted to have this agendized, it could be. He then asked if any member of the Council had requested to have the matter agendized. President Diament commented that it was probably on agenda due to the written communication, to which Councilmember Corica stated that Council did not request it on agenda, but appears to be a hearing because of the inundation of maps. He stated that the City Manager said he had not received responses from Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and stated that at the ALUC meeting there were answers to the questions in the letter. The City Manager stated that the reports he was referring to were the reports for the July 16th meeting. Councilmember Corica inquired if the City Manager had received responses and the City Manager replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Corica stated he would be happy to go through all twelve of the responses from the ALUC if they wished. Councilmember Lucas said said she did not think all the items referred to what Mr. Beery was talking about in his letter, to which Councilmember Corica agreed. Councilmember Lucas mentioned it was only the last item in the letter that appeared to be related to Mr. Beery's letter, and perhaps he could give the ALUC's answer on that particular point so that Mr. Beery's concerns could be discussed. Councilmember Corica read from an ALUC report which addressed the matter under discussion and recommended against modification of the density standard. President Diament noted that she wanted Alameda to have equal treatment with Oakland in the setting of safety zone boundaries. Councilmember Corica stated the Council is for controlled density and that he is against any more density. He referred to the EIR General Plan Amendment for Alameda Gateway /Todd Shipyard, dated March 26, 1984, page 25, which states "dwelling units are also permitted subject to issuance of a Use Permit." Mr. Beery stated that he would like the Council to consider the waterway as a part of the total density and if that is not possible, then totally skew the safety zone to the Alameda side and go about reducing the total density in the City. Councilmember Lucas inquired if,when he referred to density, he was referring to residential use of property. Mr. Beery replied he was referring to total density which is determined by the amount of acreage in a total zone, and certain parameters determine certain purposes, e.g. business purposes, parks, etc. Mr. Beery also commented that residential use is excluded from certain parts of the safety zone. Councilmember Corica stated that building of residences is still in the EIR. 163 Councilmember Lucas asked the Planning Director what the zoning in the shipyard area is, whether or not it would permit residential development, to which the Planning Director stated the zoning in the Gateway Project is M-2 which is Industrial Development and it allows a variety of uses, since the EIR was written for the project, the zoning ordinance was changed so that permanent residential development is not allowed in the Industrial District any longer. In response to Councilmember Lucas' query if it would require rezoning before permanent residences would be permitted, the Planning Director responded it would require that or a change in the ordinance again. At one time residential uses were allowed in industrial zones but several years ago that was modified so that it now requires use permits in the commercial zones and new residential uses are not allowed at all. Councilmember Lucas noted that most of the time when speaking of density problems, reference is being made to residential use density. In this case, referring to the density at this site, reference is being made about areas where people are going to work or go for recreation, to which the Planning Director noted that was correct; that in safety zones, density is in terms of pure numbers of people over a given period of time and the City's General Plan is different from the ALUC's plan. For example, in the vicinity of the Oakland Airport in the past, the City's plan would allow for some permanent residential usage there whereas the ALUC's plan would not. Councilmember Corica inquired why Council was not informed that the residential usage was taken out of the EIR, to which the Planning Director responded that change occurred after the document was prepared and did not relate at all to the document, that the change was made by Council by ordinance. Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept the communication. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86-422 From Donald Dowdell, President, Chamber of Commerce, thanking the City for its support. President Diament noted that the Chamber of Commerce was able to accomplish their projects for the year without borrowing money from the City, and congratulated them. Councilmember Hanna commended the Chamber of Commerce and made a motion to accept the communication. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86-423 From Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce, urging general membership and City Council to support City staff's alternative to the proposed Business License Tax. 164 Councilmember Corica inquired why this matter was not put under the heading of Hearings though there had been several hearings and meetings with the business associations and others. President Diament stated this is the customary way this has been done in the past and for several months there have been a number of hearings including one that was televised and that the City has attempted to reach everyone. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to consider the written communication prior to the consideration of the related ordinance. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas, Monsef and President Diament. - 4. Noes: Councilmember Corica - 1. Absent: None. 86 -424 From Walter G. Grady, 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, expressing opposition to the proposed amendment to the Business License Tax. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to hear the written communication from Walter G. Grady regarding the Business License Tax at the time the related ordinance is considered. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Monsef and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas, Monsef and President Diament. - 4. Noes: Councilmember Corica -1. Absent: None. HEARINGS 86 -425 Hearing regarding proposed Rezoning, R -86 -4, to change the zoning of those properties located north of Shore Line Drive and west of Park Street in the environs of and including South Shore Center from C -2, Central Business District to C -2 -PD, Central Business - Planned Development District. Applicant: City of Alameda. (Continued from Adjourned Regular Council Meeting of June 24, 1986) President Diament explained the hearing procedure. The Planning Director explained the background of the subject of the hearing. Councilmember Lucas inquired if the Post Office was zoned C -2, to which the Planning Director responded that it is. President Diament opened the public portion of the hearing. On the call for proponents, there were none. On the call for opponents, the following person spoke: Michael Wood, representing Harsh Development, stated that Harsh Development opposes not the concept of the Planned Development (PD) but only the scope of the PD in this context. The majority of the shopping center is fully developed under the existing C -2 zoning. 165 Mr. Wood commented that Harsh is willing to work with the Planning Board on the undeveloped corner of Park and Shoreline under a PD overlay, but does not wish to add a PD overlay to the portion of the Center previously built out. Mr. Wood further stated he would like to clarify how the PD Overlay would affect the existing Center. In particular, if the PD is overlaid that the existing Center will be treated as having been approved as the Planned Development. The Master Plan would be the approved blueprint and those elements itemized on the Master Plan would continue to apply even if the overlay is imposed. Specifically, four small kiosks, the existing parking ratio that complies with the C -2 zoning and lastly that the agreement reached with the Planning staff which was that the development of that undeveloped corner would be up to 30,000 sq. feet provided the developer maintained the 4.5 per thousand parking ratio as agreed upon. Planning Director responded the undeveloped area would develop at the same parking ratio as the remainder of the Center, and would treat the Master Plan as the adopted PD Plan for the Center. The corner would require additional review by the Planning Board at such time as new buildings were proposed for it; they would hold hearings under the PD process. Existing conditions would be presumed to be the same as approved conditions once PD Zoning is applied retroactively. Councilmember Lucas inquired if the parking ratio could be increased, to which the Planning Director replied that it could be on new development. Councilmember Monsef inquired if the parking conditions had to be decided now. Councilmember Lucas stated that she did not believe the Council has any basis to make a decision on the required parking ratio tonight, and the Planning Board is the proper body for that kind of decision. The Planning Director noted that the Planning Board could not increase the maximum required by the Zoning Ordinance. President Diament closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Hanna noted the problems began with the Post Office problem and he has had many questions from the public regarding development that he has not been able to answer and therefore, in order that there be some environmental control over the area, which is of such great interest to the community, there should be a PD overlay on the entire Center. Councilmember Corica stated that he agreed with Councilmember Hanna and noted the problems started with the wall, the parking lot's character was changed, and that although it is a little late, there should be some control. Councilmember Lucas added that she was also concerned about the design quality in the Shopping Center which, while adjacent to 166 the shoreline, the view of the beach is blocked by a solid wall without a window and it would have been good for Council to have some input into the design. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to take the related ordinance out of order. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86-426 Ordinance No. N.S. "Reclassifying and rezoning certain properties within the City of Alameda by amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.; Applicant: City of Alameda, R-86-4, those properties located north of Shore Line Drive and west of Park Street in the environs of and including South Shore Center." Introduced. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to introduce the ordinance. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86-427 Hearing on General Revenue Sharing for Fiscal Year 1986-87. President Diament opened the public portion of the hearing. On the call for proponents, there were none. On the call for opponents, there were none. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Councilmember Lucas made a motion to take the related Resolution out of order. Councilmember Corica seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86-428 Resolution No. 10968 "Approving and adopting the 1986-87 General Revenue Sharing Budget." Adopted. Councilmember Corica made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Diament announced that by consensus of Council, the Ordinance regarding Business License Tax amendment would be considered at this point. President Diament noted that two Written Communications (Nos. 86-423 and 86-424) were to be considered in connection with the ordinance. Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept Written Communciation No. 86-423. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 167 Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept Written Communication No. 86 -424. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 86 -429 Ordinance No. 2295 N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter 1 of Title XIII thereof relating to Business License Tax." Introduced and adopted. Richard Roth, Board Member of West Alameda Business Association, reported that the Association voted to support Alternative IV with two (2) exceptions: 1) the $100.00 minimum should not be tied to the Index, and 2) if sufficient funds generated, not move to the proposed second level. Vic Viviano, 1202 Lincoln Avenue, commented that the amendment would be difficult for small businesses and the City will receive less services. Dorothy Abdulrahman, 4334 Essex, described a problem she would encounter as a licensed mobile cart peddler. The City Manager stated he would examine the situation. Linda Pritchard, 3263 San Jose Avenue, voiced her concerns regarding the business tax, particularly with regard to real estate business in which she stated that Alameda taxation was much higher than in surrounding cities. President Diament noted that the Council had received a letter from the Park Street Business Association approving the Business License Tax Ordinance. In response to Council discussion concerning the introduction and adoption of the ordinance at one meeting, the City Attorney explained that the City Charter states any ordinance setting a tax is immediately effective. He also noted that the ordinance may be amended before adoption. The Finance Director clarified police officers' authority regarding license violations, and explained the proposed changes to the ordinance. Councilmember Hanna inquired as to the difference between the $114,000. anticipated revenue from the first year at 40 cents, and the $206,000. anticipated from the second year at 50 cents, to which the Finance Director responded that the factors included a raise in the minimum tax as well as percentage increase on gross receipts of larger businesses. Councilmember Hanna stated there has been some very significant changes from what was originally offered by the City Manager, and the City has considerable support for what is being offered. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to approve the ordinance, and Councilmember Lucas seconded it. 168 Councilmember Corica commented that he was concerned about the Business License Tax and believes the proposed increase is a dramatic one. Councilmember Corica added that the Sign Ordinance is being enforced and costs some people a lot of money to comply, and that insurance rates are going up which will affect businesses. He suggested doubling the tax now and not altering the percentage(s) until the City determines where it stands next year. Councilmember Corica also stated he would feel more comfortable if an arrangement could be made which left gross receipts out of it. Councilmember Monsef stated he, too, was concerned for small businesses, however, believed percentages should be built into the fee structure. Councilmember Monsef also expressed concern for the increases which will affect the large businesses, and which could be considered a bit unfair. He suggested that perhaps the motion include a "ceiling" possibly based on 40 cents per thousand. Councilmember Lucas commended staff on being responsive to the community and believes that everyone has had an opportunity to work on the proposal. Councilmember Lucas stated it is the best proposal and supports Councilmember Hanna's motion. Councilmember Corica said he was not speaking only for small businesses, but for all of the businesses in the City. In response to inquiry from Councilmember Corica, the Finance Director responded that if the City doubled the flat fee, an additional $350,000 revenue would be generated this year. Councilmember Corica stated that amount would cover the Budget deficit. The Finance Director noted that the City would have to double everything across the board. The City Manager stated that the entire business rate structure must be considered. He added that $300,000 revenue was originally being looked at, however, the impact was too significant upon the business community. Councilmember Lucas stated that a percentage formula would provide automatic adjustments. On the call for the question, Councilmember Hanna's motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas, Monsef and President Diament -4. Noes: Councilmember Corica -1. Absent: None 86 -430 Hearing on Proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements/ Gas Tax Budgets for Fiscal Year 1986 -87. President Diament reviewed the procedure of the hearing. 169 The City Manager gave an overview of the proposed budget and noted one further change (since the Council work session) in the revenue picture. He stated that a notice was received from the County that the $20,000.00 grant anticipated from the County to help finance the operation of Mastick Senior Center was not recommended by County staff, but there has been a letter appealing the decision and therefore the final decision has not yet been made. He summarized various categories of budgeted items. Councilmember Monsef inquired if the proposed budget had a $192,000.00 deficit, to which the City Manager replied that, if the County did not allow the $20.000.00 grant, the budget would have a $212,000.00 deficit. Councilmember Corica said a reason for voting against the proposed business tax was because he did not know how the proposed budget would come out because there is no report yet on how much each department spent and he would like a finalized figure on each department. The City Manager noted that by early September of each year, there will be a complete printout of actual monies expended, as well as a review of the objectives and their results, and an audit will have been completed, on the fiscal year 1985 -86. He added that the budget is reviewed through the year when unexpected events affect the revenues or expenditures. The Finance Director stated that the tentative close of the books is made on June 30th and further adjustments need to be made as some income and expense activity in July requires allocation to the 1985 -86 fiscal year, and normally the books are finally closed in early August. Councilmember Corica commented that he believed the time for the business license tax review should have been after the figures were all in and it was known what the City needed . The public portion of the hearing was opened. On the call for proponents: Mr. Dankworth, President, Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board, addressed Council on the areas where cuts would need to be made if the $20,000. is not permitted by the County, stating that there would be a reduction in social work and aid to seniors in dire conditions, and that the repair needed for two roofs will take more than what is contained in the budget for repairs and maintenance. Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut, addressed Council on his suggestions regarding the budget, e.g., abolishing the Cable Oversight Committee, cuts in personnel, demand for 15 acres from Harbor Bay Isle, sale of property, and building a jail. 170 On the call for opponents: Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, addressed the Council, inquiring whether or not the Charter reflected a specific budget deadline, he inquired on the status of various City -owned properties, requested a tax increment breakdown of Marina Village, and requested a transfer of $100,000.00 from the Enterprise Fund to the Golf Course. Mr. Tillman stated that he believed Council should not accept a budget until all actual figures are available. President Diament closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Monsef stated he did not believe the budget should be a deficit budget, and asked the City Manager to recommend where the budget could be cut. The City Manager noted that the budget for capital improvements included the cost of underground tanks, and recommended a $192,000.00 reduction there. He stated the additional $20,000.00 may still come from the County and if not, then that matter could be addressed later. Councilmember Monsef suggested that $212,000.00 be cut from the capital improvements budget at this time. Councilmember Corica recommended that the $20,000.00 for the Cable Oversight Committee be shifted to the Mastick Senior Center and also that there be provision for police dogs for the City of Alameda, that the City Manager cut assistant department heads rather than two police officers, and that he would like exact end of the year figures before deciding what the needs are. President Diament asked if two policemen were deleted from the budget, to which the City Manager replied there were not. Councilmember Lucas asked if the revenues might increase and the City Manager replied that there is a possibility of increase in sales tax revenue if the economy turns up. Councilmember Hanna commented that the $212,000.00 only represents nine - tenths of one percent of the budget and considering the nature of estimates that are conservative, there does not appear to be a great deal to be concerned about. He added he would be supportive of balancing the budget by transferring in the amount set aside for the capital improvements. Councilmember Monsef made a motion that Council accept the budget with the proviso of cutting capital improvements by $212,000.00 in order to balance the budget. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion. Councilmember Corica inquired if there would be further discussion and consideration of the transfering funds from the Cable TV Oversight Committee to the Mastick Senior Center, and 171 also look into the possibility of a canine unit for the Police Department, and perhaps the City Manager could give an estimate of which couple of assistant department heads could possibly be eliminated in order to conduct a more adequate budget. Councilmember Monsef stated it was not in his motion at this time but that he would like to see a report from the City Manager in September. Councilmember Corica asked for clarification that it would be on the items just discussed, to which Councilmember Monsef agreed. The City Manager commented on the difference between proposed and final budget, noting that when the proposed budget is adopted, it becomes the final budget. Councilmember Corica commented that the changes councilmembers had discussed putting into the budget would not be carried out. The City Manager responded that he would do whatever Council directs with regard to the canine corps, that staff would bring back to Council a report on the matter. Councilmember Corica stated that if Mastick does not get the money from the County, the transfer of monies should be done, and he inquired if the budget was adopted, how would the transfer be handled, because it is his desire that it be done. The City Manager commented the way he would like it to be handled, is to leave it open and then he hoped to find funds other than removing support from the Cable Oversight Program, possibly from reserves or other locations. Councilmember Hanna noted that the motion was to provide the $20,000 from the Capital Improvements allowance. Councilmember Monsef called for the question. The vote on the motion to adopt the resolution and amend by cutting $212,000.00 from the Capital Improvements allowance was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. RESOLUTION 86-431 Resolution No. 10969 "Approving and adopting an Operating Budget and Capital Improvements/Gas Tax Budget for the Fiscal Year 1986-87, and appropriating funds for the expenditures provided in said Budgets for said Fiscal Year." Adopted Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution as amended. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5 . 172 86 -432 Resolution No. 10970 "Requesting and authorizing the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the City of Alameda as a voter approved levy for the Library Fund, pursuant to Section 16 -2 of the Charter of the City of Alameda." Adopted. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86 -433 Resolution No. 10971 "Authorizing a loan to, and the execution of, a Repayment Agreement with the Alameda Community Improvement Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86 -434 Resolution No. 10972 "Establishing Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 1986 -87." Adopted. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 86 -435 Resolution No. 10973 "Authorizing execution of a Grant Agreement with Alamedans with Housing Opportunities Provided Equally for Fiscal Year 1986 -87." Adopted. Councilmember Monsef inquired if Mrs. Pryor had the experience and expertise to undertake this type of project to which Mrs. Pryor responded that her staff had been doing it, and have had successes with it. Councilmember Corica said he would like to have seen the Senior Citizen Center more involved but after the letter from them stating they were unable to do so because of staff restraints but that they would still be somewhat involved with it, he feels comfortable voting for the Resolution. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Monsef and President Diament -4. Noes: Councilmember Lucas -1. Absent: None *86 -436 Resolution No. 10974 "Approving Final Map of subdivision known as Tract 5527 and accepting certain easements and rights of access (Lighthouse Cove on Bay Farm Island, Pulte Home Corporation, subdivider)." Adopted. Councilmember Corica stated he would vote no because he believes it is too densely populated and he doesn't like to see small streets. 173 Councilmember Hanna moved for adoption of the Resolution, Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas, Monsef and President Diament -4. Noes: Councilmember Corica -1. Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 86 -437 Councilmember Hanna requested a report regarding the Doherty property case and a written transmittal from the City Attorney regarding future court dates. The City Attorney reported on the progress of the matter, noted that there will be another hearing on August 5, and agreed to send a note regarding court dates. 86 -438 Councilmember Corica questioned the content of an article in the Oakland Tribune regarding developers buying Harbor Bay Isle land. The Public Works Director stated that the property was formerly owned by a division of Bass Enterprises and Doric Development, and Doric Development accomplished a buyout with Home Savings of San Diego to replace the partnership. 86 -439 Councilmember Corica expressed concern regarding the unavailability of restroom facilities at Godfrey Park, and proposed that a policy be established which would provide a key upon receipt of a deposit. The City Manager stated the matter would be addressed. 86 -440 Councilmember Hanna made a motion that the City contact the School District to initiate discussion between the Council and Board of Education regarding the possibility of purchasing the Mastick property. He said there were a number of reasons why it might be advantageous for the City to do that now rather than fourteen years from now. Councilmember Corica said it had already been voted on. Councilmember Lucas stated she felt very strongly that it should be discussed and requested a ruling on whether or not it could be further discussed. The City Attorney said he believed a person who was not in attendance could make a motion to reverse the action of the Council at a subsequent meeting but it would require a majority vote. Councilmember Hanna made a motion to change the position of Council regarding the matter. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. 174 President Diament commented that she did note at the meeting when it was disapproved, that Council was not going to hurt itself by talking to the Board of Education and believed that Mr. Thomas made some very strong arguments. Councilmember Monsef stated the City could raise the issue or bring it back for discussion perhaps a year from now, so doors were not being closed. Councilmember Corica commented on the possibility that things might improve within the next fourteen years, and the School District might want to give the property to the City. President Diament noted that the School Board could sell the property, lease included, to someone else, to which Councilmember Corica commented to the effect that it would be unlikely. President Diament stated she would like to allow the Senior Citizens an opportunity to provide input into the discussion on the matter. Councilmember Lucas noted that a motion was on the floor. Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut, commented on the possible provision of a school on Harbor Bay Isle, and the possible use of used portables, for the purpose of saving the developers from spending money. The City Attorney noted that what he has seen is in reverse, that in order for the City to impose by ordinance the fee for temporary schoolrooms, they must have some clearance from the State, and in order to get that, they must get rid of their empty classrooms, so the way he has seen it, the problem with their retaining the ownership of Mastick School is that they may not be able to turn around and ask the City to pass an ordinance to impose fees on developers. The City Attorney stated further that the point appears to be what is called the "time value of money ". According to the principle involved, if the school district were desperate enough to get rid of the property, they could offer it with a large discount because it has a fourteen year lease. They might offer it to the City that way. Councilmember Lucas stated that it affects the market value of the property which is much lower now than it will be at the end of the lease, when improvements belong to the owner of the land without being subject to any lease, regardless of any inflation. Councilmember Hanna stated that the motion is to reconsider and also ask the City Manager to arrange with the Superintendent of Schools for discussion. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas, and President Diament -3. Noes: Councilmembers Corica and Monsef -2. Absent: None. 175 Councilmember Hanna made a motion to extend the meeting (due to the 11:00 p.m. hour). NEW BUSINESS 86 -441 President Diament stated a Shore Line Drive resident requested that Council consider parking stickers for that area. President Diament suggested: (1) the Traffic Advisory Committee discuss the proposal, (2) the number of vehicles per unit be controlled, and (3) if necessary, restrictions imposed. Councilmember Lucas requested parking meters be considered also. Councilmember Monsef asked that a short parking limit (2 hours, perhaps) be considered. The City Manager said he would follow through. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL 86 -442 Gary W. McAfee, 2614 Bayview Drive, suggested that the City consider: 1) diverting all through traffic on Shore Line Drive onto Otis Drive, 2) stop signs along Shore Line Drive, 3) a crosswalk in front of MacDonald's, 4) diagonal parking, and 5) two -lane traffic on Shore Line Drive. In response to inquiry from President Diament, the Public Works Director stated that the matter of traffic capacity and speed could be studied. President Diament noted that the crosswalk matter had been addressed by the Traffic Advisory Committee. ADJOURNMENT President Diament adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,, Diane B. Felsch City Clerk