1986-10-21 Regular CC Minutes237
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
OCTOBER 21, 1986
At the end of the Pre-Council meeting, President Diament called a
Closed Session to order to consider the Worker's Compensation
claim of Douglas K. Clifton.
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. (at the conclusion of the
Community Improvement Commission meeting) with President Diament
presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember
Monsef.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Lucas, Monsef
and President Diament - 5.
MINUTES
Councilmember Hanna made a motion for approval of the minutes of
the Regular Council Meeting of October 7, 1986 and the Special
Council Meeting of October 9th. Councilmember Lucas seconded
the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Hanna requested that Item 1-D, regarding the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit
Application, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
under the regular agenda.
Councilmember Monsef moved for adoption of the Consent Calendar
with the exception of Item No. 1-D. Councilmember Lucas
seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*86-601 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending
acceptance of work by Anchor Fence, Inc. for replacement of
chain link fabric at Krusi Park. Accepted.
*86-602 From Finance Director on City's Investment Portfolio as
of September 30, 1986. Accepted.
*86-603 From Police Chief regarding abandoned vehicles.
Accepted.
RESOLUTIONS
*86-604 Resolution No. 11032 "Authorizing execution of grant
agreement with the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for marketing
portfolios." Adopted.
238
*86-605 Resolution No. 11033 "Authorizing execution of extension
of personal services agreement with Mark Kaiser." Adopted.
*86-606 Resolution No. 11034 "Awarding contract to Reliable Tree
Experts for pruning of City street trees in various locations in
the City of Alameda and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
*86-607 Resolution No. 11035 "Authorizing contracting in the
open market for rehabilitation of street sweeper pursuant to
Section 3-15 of the City Charter." Adopted.
*86-608 Resolution No. 11036 "Awarding contract to Nixon-Egli
Equipment Company for a leaf collector for the Public Works
Department and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
*86-609 Resolution No. 11037 "Authorizing extension of
completion date for the renovation of the Mastick Senior Center
Lobby." Adopted.
*86-610 Resolution No. 11038 "Authorizing open market purchase
of a sedan for the Fire Department pursuant to Section 3-15 of
the City Charter." Adopted.
*86-611 Resolution No. 11039 "Authorizing execution of amendment
to service agreement with Gates, McDonald & Company for workers'
compensation claims administration." Adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
*86-612 Ordinance No. • N.S. "Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by repealing Section 12-326 of Article 2, Chapter
3, of Title XII thereof, relating to minors being accompanied
into Dance Halls." Adopted.
BILLS
*86-613 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as
correct, was approved in the amount of $2,020,990.25.
RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
86-614 From Sandra Slauson, 2426 Otis Drive, requesting an
ordinance amendment prohibiting vending machine sale of
pornographic material.
Sandy T. Kaney, 3002 Cerro Vista, expressed her concern, as a
mother of young children, regarding the availability of
pornographic material, and opposed its sale.
239
The City Attorney explained the laws governing newsracks and
pornography.
President Diament noted that Council has heard from Dorothy
Fullerton, representing the Alameda Council P.T.A. Board, whose
members want an ordinance that will remove pornographic material
from the area of other papers, and also had a communication from
Mary Burson, 2500 Eagle Avenue, who could not be present, but
wished to express an opinion against pornographic material and
its placement in newsracks.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to accept the communication and
request the City Attorney draft an amendment to prohibit the
visual display of this material. Councilmember Monsef seconded
the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
President Diament commented that we often hear about the rights
of the First Amendment, but not the responsibilities that go with
it.
Councilmember Lucas inquired whether other cities have similar
ordinances and if they have been successful, to which the City
Attorney responded there have been some ordinances in the East
and he has written for copies; that the vending machine question
is a difficult one; and that he could research other communities.
Councilmember Lucas requested further research to be presented
when the ordinance comes before Council.
86-615 From Walter Moeller, President, Alameda Alliance of
Homeowners, P.O. Box 4020, regarding the proposed traffic
management ordinance.
Mr. Moeller read his communication regarding placement of the
traffic management initiative on the ballot, and requested
Council support the matter and submit it to the voters.
Dee Prado, 1137 Bay Street, voiced concern regarding traffic
management initiative, stating that this initiative does not
appear to be the best way to make appropriate law, feels voters
not informed enough, so perhaps should be done by fully informed
officials who can check out the laws and other areas of study,
and asked Council to gather more information prior to taking
action on this initiative.
Don Dowdell, Chamber of Commerce, said he believes proposed
ordinance poses total threat to developers, not a slow-down but
no growth; elected officials must serve entire welfare of city,
and among other things, raising property values, especially
unused, dormant, rundown property of the City, requests Council
oppose petition, and suggests consultants, specialists, and
traffic committee input.
240
Kay Hickox, Box 1225, opposed the initiative because it does not
address some necessary areas, but is glad something is being
done, and urges Council to study the traffic situation further.
Rosalie McPherson, 1128 Marianas Lane, said Council will not play
a role in the matter unless they support it because it will go on
the ballot anyway, that it is workable, and requests Council put
it on the ballot.
Ian Roger, 340 Tideway Drive, recalled Councilmember Corica and
Council's concern over loss of Todd Shipyards, knows Council's
concern about traffic; said there is a time to recognize benefit
of going ahead in spite of personal feeling; wonders how many
initiators are from Alameda proper; believes development
necessary; doesn't like NARF traffic but knows it is necessary.
Mike Gorman, 1318 Clinton Avenue, asked Council not to put matter
on ballot, it can go on by signatures; asked for economic impact
study; believes this is "I ,ve got mine now, nobody else can
have theirs" situation, it is reasonable to develop small
portions of land in controlled way, traffic is minimal compared
to cities nearby, and that problem is not just development but
perhaps more to each family having more vehicles than in past.
President Diament commented she would like to make a statement
about Council "not playing a role": She stated it has been
playing a real role for many years; Patton Way has been in plans
for many years as a part of traffic systems management; Council
has been making traffic analyses in the City itself; has been
working with neighboring cities and with the County; and is
concerned with Nimitz Freeway problem which also affects Alameda.
She added that she has heard from experts on initiative; has
suggested the formation of the Traffic Committee for traffic
systems management which is not just development but
intersections, roads, turns, shuttle busses, public
transportation, staggering work hours; that there is a great
deal of work to be done on it and answers to be worked out.
Councilmember Lucas stated she understands request of the
Alliance to put matter on the ballot immediately; the time when
it would come up is April, 1987, presently under no deadline;
has heard opposing views; would like this issue aired to the
community; said when she first heard initiative, thought Council
should pass ordinance to adopt initiative, but in reviewing all
aspects of it, realizing that what is proposed is amendment to
the General Plan, which under normal City procedure would be
handled on first level by Planning Board, believes any issues
touched upon tonight could be brought up for Council to study,
i.e., economic impact; and since initiative is not until April,
there is time to study and expose all these aspects to the
community.
241
Councilmember Corica stated he heard same story that City would
suffer with Measure A and Prop 13 but we are recovering from
Proposition 13.
Councilmember Corica made a motion to place the initiative on the
ballot.
Councilmember Monsef stated he is very concerned with traffic
issue but believes Council has not yet heard all of the facts,
and would like to hear all the facts before deciding, for
example, financial obligations in regard to the bonds, etc.
Motion failed for lack of second.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to refer matter to the Planning
Board as a proposed amendment to our General Plan. Councilmember
Monsef seconded motion but would include that matter should be
expedited. Councilmember Lucas agreed.
Councilmember Hanna stated that there should be emphasis on
expediting the matter; wants all ramifications to be examined,
and asked City Manager if it could be done in time, and added
that deadline should be reviewed as to when Council could perhaps
put matters on the ballot.
The City Manager responded that staff would propose engagement
of outside independent review, someone who has not worked for the
City of Alameda previously or for any development; that Public
Works has some studies that can be used.
Councilmember Lucas asked City Clerk if election schedule has
been prepared. The City Clerk stated preliminary calendar
indicates Council would need to put initiative on the ballot by
second meeting in January.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas, Monsef and President Diament - 4.
Noes: Councilmember Corica - 1. Absent: None.
86-616 From L.A. Patton, 1020 San Antonio, concerning a single
high school concept.
Mr. Patton suggested a swap of the Encinal High School for Navy
property [suggested area was pointed out on map.], suggested
placement of the Museum and the establishment of a cultural
center in the historic City Hall, placement of the City
administrative offices, library, and court, in old Alameda High
School building, and thus form a Civic Center.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated he attended a forum at
the Lum School, believed the meeting was slanted toward one high
school, and that there were a number of teachers and
administrators for it, but not much input from parents.
242
Dorothy Madsen, 2226 1/2 Buena Vista, stated that United Cable
said they were financially solvent and the City should not have
to bail them out.
Pam McKenzie, 1129 1/2 Pearl Street, noted that the proposed
rebuilding must be done immediately; that United Cable is
prepared to make a $4,000,000.00 investment in Alameda to correct
technical problems and service limitations of present system, but
needs Council to approve rebuild.
Councilmember Lucas inquired what would happen if proposal were
not allowed. The City Manager responded that, regarding the
rebuild, United Cable would have to decide whether or not they
wanted to continue to operate within the City.
Ms. McKenzie stated Council approval was required under the
legislation.
Lynette Simpson, Consultant, stated that, under the Cable Act of
1984, circumstances sufficient for suit would have to be
unforeseen but fibre optic modification was discussed as a
technical risk and therefore it was not unforeseen and could not
be used for the basis of a suit.
The City Attorney noted that every contract requires fair
dealing.
The City Manager commented that staff recommends Council allow
United Cable to rebuild but does not recommend concessions. He
noted, in answer to citizen comment that United Cable had been a
poor choice, that it is the only one still operating as a cable
company, that Council therefore has certainly made the best
choice.
He added that federal legislation has clouded the issue of
additional 1% which may be questionable since federal law allows
only 5% franchise fee. It is worth discussion since they paid
for the conduit in the first place and now are paying for it.
Ms. Simpson, Consultant, noted that 78 channels were a high
number, that other program suppliers supply fewer, not more, than
that number, and that is also true of the foreseeable future, and
there can be several data circuits on one video channel.
Mr. Gorman noted, in answer to Councilmember Lucas' prior
question regarding what would happen if Council did not approve
rebuild, that the City would pay when the system deteriorates and
a new system needs to be provided, and added that most Alamedans
do not want too much change.
Ms. McKenzie commented that the issue was in the operation of
the system; that labor and electrical costs would go down.
243
Dorothy Madsen, 2226 1/2 Buena Vista, stated people only want to
build a new high school to get money, and that it is a waste of
the taxpayer's money.
President Diament commented Council had enough problems without
entering into School Board area.
Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the communication
and request City Manager to defer the matter to the Board of
Education. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
86-617 From Maryhelen Nisewaner, 1048 Marianas Lane, addressing
various traffic related issues, and requesting a taller flag pole
at Scout Park.
President Diament noted that the City Manager had investigated
the matters addressed by Mrs. Nisewaner.
The City Manager noted the park and the flag pole were designed
and constructed by volunteer efforts and the pole made
specifically for the park which is maintained by citizens who
prefer to leave the pole as it is; and with regard to the
traffic suggestions, they have already been carried into effect.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to accept the communication and
thank Mrs. Nisewaner for her suggestions. Councilmember Lucas
seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
86-618 From United Cable Television regarding the proposed
rebuild of the Alameda Cable Television system.
Mike Gorman, 1318 Clinton Avenue, stated he believed it was best
if the City did not share in the cost or risks of the fiber optic
failure.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut, noted Cable Committee chairman's
letter of October 14th recommended that United Cable be allowed
to come directly to the Council regarding rebuilding the system.
Gordon Christopherson, 2807 Marina Drive, stated that United
Cable was functionally bankrupt because it cannot get parts for
the fiber optic system, that they had made unrealistic promises
with unproved technology, and that the City should not have to
save a limited partnership. He presented information to Council.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, stated that basically,
United Cable is not working, City did not ask for change to fiber
optics, United Cable has had two opportunities given by City to
improve, and that United Cable manager has done a good job but is
not a major force in United Cable.
244
Mr. Tillman produced the fact that the Union City system had
been sold three times.
Councilmember Corica noted that when United got the franchise,
money was no object, then they came back to Council for fibre
optics, then the limited partnership; that services have
improved under Pam McKenzie; and now they wish to rebuild; that
he has no problem with the rebuilding as long as the City does
not have to pay for it.
President Diament noted there was no money involved.
Councilmember Hanna stated the question regarding the number of
channels seems to be whether or not more than 78 are really
needed and the answer from the discussion would appear that it is
improbable; that an additional factor in the approval stating
that "in the event more than 78 channels are needed, a second
cable would have to be installed" would suffice. Councilmember
Hanna stated he could not see why Council would not want United
to rebuild the system (except perhaps for the limit to 78
channels, although it seems no more are needed) for the sake of
the 10,000 subscribers, and noted the rebuild would also remove
the necessity of the small LDU boxes located all around town on
the poles and sidewalks.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to approve the rebuild and for
staff to work out the details of the wording of the agreement and
approval be by Council at another time. Councilmember Lucas
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Corica said he would like an insert in the motion
that the rebuilding be done at no cost to the City.
Councilmember Hanna agreed to the addition to the motion, and
added that if subscription goes up, the City will obtain a higher
return.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Pamela McKenzie requested that Item No. 12 on the agenda
regarding the modifications to the franchise agreement be taken
out of order. Council agreed.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
86 -619 From Cable Television Oversight Committee in response to
United's request for modifications to the franchise agreement.
Ms. McKenzie, stated she appreciated Council's approval of the
rebuild and what is being requested now is the appointment of a
negotiating committee to deal with two specific financial issues,
one of which is outlined in the franchise: that a prepayment can
be waived, and is not a concession. The other issue is that
245
Council waive the 1% conduit rental fee, which has been discussed
as a cloudy issue and may, in fact, be in excess of the allowable
5% franchise fee.
Gordon Christopherson, 2807 Marina Drive, asked that perhaps the
Council or City Attorney could research the possibility of
protection of the rate payers in the rebuilding, and that there
should be an examination of the limited partners with regard to
conflict of interest.
Mike Gorman noted that he believes the City has a list of the
names of the limited partners on file and that there are none
from Alameda.
Councilmember Corica said he would like to have a copy.
Councilmember Corica stated he feels no obligation to negotiate
for any concessions, and that the City has been cooperative.
Councilmember Monsef agreed and said if items were to be
clarified, perhaps the Oversight Committee could look at them and
then refer them to Council; and asked for a review of the 1%
fee.
The City Attorney stated that the question should be looked at in
the context of the new federal law.
James B. Davis, 1134 Ballena Blvd., United Cable attorney,
stated that United Cable's FCC attorneys have advised United that
the 1% conduit excess is contrary to the Cable Deregulation Act.
Following a discussion regarding the 1% tax, prepayment figures,
and related details, Councilmember Lucas stated she agreed
Council should be interested in the legal issue, and that a
negotiating committee is not needed for that.
Councilmember Corica made a motion that there be no negotiating
committee formed. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and
it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion that the City Manager and the
City Attorney be authorized to make a recommendation regarding
the 1% tax. 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.
President Diament announced that the three written communications
be heard under the related hearing. [No. 86-623]
86-620 From Joey Winters, 2233 Santa Clara Avenue, urging Council
to give careful consideration to proposed downzoning.
246
86-621 From R. She/man, 2103 San Jose Avenue, expressing
opposition to proposed downzoning.
86-622 From Christopher D. Hanson, regarding the downzoning
issue.
HEARINGS
86-623 Hearing regarding proposed Zoning Text Amendment, ZA-86-3,
which would delete the definition for "apartment hotel"; delete
the R-3 through R-6 zoning classifications; add new land use
regulations pertaining to residential, office and business uses;
add a section pertaining to non-conforming uses; add a section
pertaining to a Housing Authority site; and add a section
stating the time that the ordinance will apply to specific
properties.
President Diament explained the procedure of the hearing.
The Planning Director described the subject of the hearing. He
noted that there were two options: (1) to regulate all
residential districts as if they were R-2, or (2) on a sequential
basis the changes could be made as the Planning Board and Council
work through the City to amend the zoning map itself. He added
either way would work but the Board recommends that regulation as
R-2 would be the appropriate way to go.
Councilmember Lucas commented that the third version of the
zoning intended for the future is the RAP. She inquired if
version A is adopted and there is some general idea where the RAP
zoning would be in the future, after zoning changes are
completed, would it still mean an office building could not be
put into an area where Council might want that type of zoning in
the future but at this time it could not be built, to which the
Planning Director responded that was correct.
The Planning Director added that the Board and Council would have
to hold hearings to specifically apply the RAP district to
properties within the City. Once that was done, then property
owners within that zoning district could apply for a use permit
for consideration of office uses.
Councilmember Lucas asked what the schedule would be for the
downzoning to be completed, and how would it be known when the
downzoning is completed so there would not have to be special
spot zoning for this purpose.
The Planning Director said the City was divided into six areas to
keep them manageable in size, that it takes a number of weeks to
go through hearings for a particular area, and estimates
approximately February of 1987 to be the completion date.
Councilmember Corica suggested that perhaps a workshop explaining
247
the matter in detail to the people might be in the best interests
of everybody concerned.
President Diament opened the public portion of the hearing.
On the call for proponents, no one came forward.
On the call for opponents, the following spoke:
Joey Winters, 2233 Santa Clara.
Richard Roth, 1417 5th Street.
Councilmember Corica stated it is his suggestion that it be done
all at one time, but Council felt not all people could be heard
that way.
John Barni, 1380 East Shore
Gene Sandifer, 8 Wellfleet Bay
Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle
Madelyn Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle
Christopher Hanson, 543 Palace Court
John E. Mitcheom, 3591 Central Street
Ian Keye, 1915 Schiller Street
[In favor of downzoning, opposed to RAP]
Councilmember Corica made a motion to have a work session, have
Planning Department determine what the people want and what they
want to do in the best interest of the entire City; suggested
putting off taking any action this evening, have the people
addressing Council this evening invited to the work session;
and, get out more efficient notices.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion but wanted it made clear
that version A (that the Planning Board approved) that would
immediately apply to all property zoned R-3 through R-6 is
totally unacceptable to her, and for the reason many speakers had
mentioned, that it would change the zoning of their property
without legal notice; that staff had outlined another option to
delay the effect; stated Council has voter's mandate to put
Measure A into effect but needs notice. She added that she
agrees with Councilmember Corica that there should be a workshop
to explore and explain the situation but version A is
unacceptable to her.
Councilmember Corica stated there was no problem to him in
leaving things the way they were as long as everything is
downzoned, and use the property for the use permitted right now.
Councilmember Monsef stated he supports the motion but likes
option B better than option A.
Councilmember Hanna asked clarification that the proposed zoning
would be completed by February or March, 1987.
248
The Planning Director noted there were thousands of property
owners in each section under consideration but assumes it can all
be done by March.
President Diament requested the Planning Director describe
the first notice procedure.
The Planning Director noted that there was a quarter page
advertisement in the newspaper, telephone poles in the vicinity
were posted, and property owners residing outside Alameda
received letters.
Councilmember Corica asked if there would be value in sending
notices to the Real Estate Board.
President Diament agreed there would be and stated it could be
done through the Board of Realtors and through licensed realtors.
The City Manager commented that this zoning is only to bring the
City into conformance with the General Plan.
The Planning Director added that there is an adopted General Plan
and the densities must be reduced to conform to the Plan.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
86-624 Councilmember Hanna made a motion to continue on with the
meeting past 11:00 p.m., Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion
and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
APPEALS
86-625 Appeal of Planning Board decision to conditionally approve
Use Permit, UP-85-27, requiring the relocation of a satellite
dish antenna from the roof of the two-story house to the roof of
the garage for the property located at 719 Grand Street.
Applicant: Robert Mason. (Continued from September 16, 1986)
The City Attorney explained the appeal procedure.
Dr. Ronald Hillenbrand, 715 Grand Street, stated that when the
dish was originally put up, the dish was hidden by the house,
that the garage lowers it to eye level and is detrimental
visually.
President Diament inquired if he was the only one affected by it
to which he responded his neighbor was also affected.
Responding to a question as to whether Dr. Hillenbrand's
testimony could be heard since he did not attend the Planning
Board hearing, the City Attorney questioned him and determined
249
that he could not have known the Planning Board would recommend
the garage roof position and that it might fit that exception.
Councilmember Corica stated there was also a list of
persons petitioning Council to have the dish removed
roof to the garden for reasons of "(1) aesthetics"
devaluation of property."
The City Attorney noted that since there appears
there may be a case to remand it to the
consensus,
Board.
names of
from the
and "(2)
to be a
Planning
The Planning Board Director commented that the dish had been put
on the roof without appropriate permits; they were notified;
hearings held; staff consulted with experts regarding reception,
analyzed site in question; found that dish on ground was better
for aesthetics, however, not good for reception; found garage
roof less visible than house roof to complaining neighbors.
President Diament asked if the dish had been removed from the
house roof to which the Planning Director replied it was not yet
done because they still had the opportunity to appeal.
Councilmember Lucas inquired if use permit was only
yard, would there be legal problems.
The City Attorney stated that the FCC regulations were not
perfectly clear on the matter; that if there is litigation on
matters such as these, the judge would have to balance between
reception for the litigant on the one hand and visibility to
people on the other hand.
In this instance, ground mounting will allow reception from
satellites as opposed to 25.
Councilmember Corica asked if there was a way to mount on
ground but raise to, perhaps, 3 feet for better reception.
The Planning Director stated that it was possible but that
house blocks reception and anywhere lower than the height of
garage roof, the house begins to block the satellites.
Dr. Hillenbrand asked if the dish was put up without a permit.
Upon receiving an affirmative answer, he then asked why it could
not be taken down.
for back
11
the
the
the
President Diament commented he cannot be prevented from putting
it up somewhere.
Councilmember Corica commented Council could try putting it on
the ground and the owner could perhaps come back to change it if
he wished to.
250
President Diament inquired if Council could require the dish be
put on the ground, to which the City Attorney replied if it were
reasonable to do so. He added that a problem is that the
satellites are all in one hemisphere and so the position of the
house is important, as well as the length of the lot.
Councilmember Corica commented on the lack of presence of the
applicant and suggested that Council make a decision and
applicant can appeal if he wants to.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to locate the antenna on the
ground, that Planning Board Findings Nos. 1, 2, and 3 apply and
that #4 needs to be adjusted to this situation. Councilmember
Corica seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lucas clarified that the motion was to modify
Planning Board's decision to place the dish antenna on a ground
mount not over six feet in height.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
RESOLUTIONS
*86-626 Resolution No. 11040 "Authorizing appropriation of five
hundred dollars from the General Fund for a San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission Permit Application
relating to the seawall adjacent to Bayview Estates." Adopted.
Councilmember Hanna inquired who has paid for the work and
materials to date, and whether or not the seawall work was
complete.
The Public Works Director responded that the property owners paid
for the materials and the Homeowners' Association paid for the
$100.00 fee to BCDC; and, that the seawall work is primarily
complete although the final finishing up is to be done and will
be completed.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
86-627 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending various sections of Chapter 1 of Title XI
thereof relating to regulations for R-3 through R-6 zones, and
non-conforming uses."
This item which was related to the Hearing No. 86-623 was held
over.
251
86 -628 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Chapter 1 of Title II thereof relating to City
Council Meetings and Agendas therefor."
Councilmember Corica made a motion to introduce the ordinance.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
86 -629 Ordinance No. 2307, N.S. "Approving and authorizing
execution of Development Agreement with Alameda Gateway, Ltd.
and making certain findings with respect thereof." Introduced.
Frederick W. Leitz, 1322 Clinton Avenue, commented that this is
for the redevelopment of the Todd Shipyards area, urged Council
approve the ordinance, and added that it would provide jobs.
Lawrence P. Haney, 430 Buena Vista, stated he supports
redevelopment of the former shipyard because it would enhance the
West End, provide balance and bring the West End a little
prestige and bring jobs, with no detrimental impact on the East
end or Bay Farm Island and no real impact on traffic; that
Patton Way will help; and added that he was voicing the
sentiments of many people of the West End.
Richard Roth, 1417 5th Street, stated he supports development of
the West End; that whenever the West End wants to put in
something, there are always problems; that Gateway will give the
West End something to be proud of; and would generate traffic
only down Atlantic and through the tube.
Ian Roger, 340 Tideway Drive, stated that the Gateway project
would be good for the West End and that Gateway is a fine
development.
Walter Moeller, 406 Channing Way, stated he opposes approval of
Gateway; questions that the City has a viable Combined Land Use
Plan ECLUP]; and believes Posey and Webster tubes appear to be
near capacity.
Rosalie McPherson, 1128 Marianas Lane, stated she believes the
project is not the problem but that traffic is the problem.
Barbara Thomas, 1118 Paru Street, stated she believes that there
is not a valid Combined Land Use Plan, that the project is fine
but the traffic will be too heavy through the tubes.
John Beery, 2900 Main Street, stated the shipyard buildings were
425,000 square feet and employed 1500 people at their peak; that
the then -Mayor Corica was extremely concerned about Todd leaving,
because of the loss of jobs; that the buildings that exist are
already remodeled; that people already employed are mostly
252
Alamedans; and that the Red & White Fleet is establishing a
ferry boat service to start sometime in April which will help
move people from the island, and alleviate commute traffic.
Councilmember Corica stated he was concerned about the tubes and
traffic problems.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the ordinance, and
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion.
Councilmember Monsef stated the issue is traffic, that he is not
against the project, but will vote no.
Councilmember Lucas stated she takes the traffic problems
seriously and takes the West End seriously, and believes this
project is what the West End has needed for many years.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas and President Diament - 3. Noes:
Councilmembers Corica and Monsef - 2. Absent: None.
86-630 Ordinance No. 2308 N.S. "Authorizing execution of
amendment to Tidelands Lease with Alameda Gateway, Ltd."
Adopted.
Richard Roth, 1417 5th Street, commented that, if this ordinance
does not pass, the City will lose out.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the ordinance.
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
86-631 Selection of members for the Mayor's Transportation
Systems Management Review Committee.
President Diament commented that she had put out a ballot for the
Councilmembers to select members of the Committee.
The City Clerk stated that William Hildebrand and Kenneth Melvin
received the highest count, and that three citizens received an
equal number of votes.
President Diament suggested that the five citizens be allowed to
be members of the Committee instead of four as planned.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to place the five citizens on
the Committee, Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
253
The City Clerk read the names of the additional three persons
named to the Committee: Larry Patton, Gail Wetzork, and Bruns
Grayson.
President Diament noted that Marina Village withdrew as developer
with regard to the Committee, and she suggested that a
representative of the developers not be added and Council agreed.
NEW BUSINESS
86-632 Consideration of appointment to the Board of Appeals.
President Diament announced that Don Bell has resigned after many
years of service and nominated Lee Darrow to the Board of
Appeals.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the nomination and Council
unanimously agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
President Diament adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m.
Respectfully
r-
rt--//
,"
submitted,
Diane B. Felsch
City Clerk