1987-03-03 Regular CC Minutes47
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
MARCH 3, 1987
The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. (at the conclusion of the
Closed Session for discussion of the Worker's Compensation of
James Johnson, and the Housing Authority meeting) with President
Diament presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by
Councilmember Hanna. Reverend Charles Dubbs gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Lucas, and
President Diament - 4.
Absent: Councilmember Monsef - 1.
MINUTES
Councilmember Lucas made a motion for approval of the minutes of
the Regular Council Meeting of February 17, 1987. Councilmember
Corica seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Barbara Thomas, 1118 Paru Street, requested that Item #1 -D be
removed from the Consent Calendar to the Regular Calendar. [See
paragraph item 87 -145.]
Councilmember Lucas moved for adoption of the Consent Calendar,
with the exception of Item #1 -D regarding an extension of time to
complete improvements for Tract 4382. Councilmember Corica
seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote -4.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*87 -122 From Public Works Director and Fire Chief on Status of
State - Mandated Fire Safety and Exit Program, Title 24, Article 7,
of California Administrative Code. Accepted.
*87 -123 From Director of Recreation and Parks recommending
acceptance of work by Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for completion of
the repaving of the Alameda Municipal Golf Course Parking Lot.
Accepted.
*87 -124 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of work
by Andero Concrete, Inc. for construction of wheelchair ramps at
various locations, Phase 5, P.W. No. 8- 86 -28. Accepted.
48
RESOLUTIONS
*87-125 Resolution No. 11117 "Adopting Plans and Specifications
for Arbor Street improvements, Buena Vista Avenue to Pacific
Avenue, P.W. No. 1-87-2, calling for bids and directing City
Clerk to advertise same." Adopted.
*87-126 Resolution No. 11118 "Awarding contract to Mountain
Cascade for the construction of Krusi Park Pump Station Bypass,
P.W. No. 9-86-34, and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
*87-127 Resolution No. 11119 "Awarding contract to McNamara
Construction, Inc. for construction of Oleander Avenue at Melrose
Avenue, P.W. No. 12-86-38, and authorizing execution thereof."
Adopted.
*87-128 Resolution No. 11120 "Vacation of Public Utilities
Easement in Tract 4513 (Harbor Bay Isle, Woodbridge Estates)."
Adopted.
*87-129 Resolution No. 11121 "Adopting Plans and Specifications
for repainting of traffic signals and street lights in various
locations in the City of Alameda, P.W. No. 2-87-5, calling for
bids and directing City Clerk to advertise same." Adopted.
*87-130 Resolution No. 11122 "Awarding contract to Bob Dron,
Harley-Davidson Motorcycles for two Police Department motorcycles,
and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
*87-131 Resolution No. 11123 "Authorizing open market purchase of
a truck for the Golf Department." Adopted.
*87-132 Resolution No. 11124 "Adopting Plans and Specifications
for motorscooter for Recreation and Parks Department, calling for
bids and directing City Clerk to advertise same." Adopted.
*87-133 Resolution No. 11125 "Approving Parcel Map No. 4949 for
division of property in Alameda Marina Village and accepting
certain dedicated lands and easements." Adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
*87-134 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending certain sections of Chapter 3 of Title XvII
thereof to define parking enforcement holidays." Introduced.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
*87-135 Ordinance No.- 2321 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-86-9,
the property located at 500 Maitland Drive (Assessor's parcel No.
74-1040-3-15)." Adopted.
BILLS
*87-136 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as
correct, was approved in the amount of $1,442,587.08.
***********
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
87-137 Six letters from concerned citizens regarding the proposed
Ballena Bay hotel project.
President Diament commented that the matter has been removed from
the Planning Board agenda for further consideration.
The City Manager noted that the matter had been removed from the
Planning Board agenda until such time as applicant wishes to have
an initial study and the determination as to whether an EIR will
be necessary; and added that witnesses will be notified so they
can present their concerns.
Diane Broch, 546 Kings Road, Crown Harbor Homeowners, submitted
surveys to Council (one regarding Crown Harbor and one regarding
Cola Ballena); and read the lists of names of those who signed,
indicating they favored an EIR.
Elizabeth Phipps, 536 Kings Road, Crown Harbor Homeowners,
expressed her concerns about the process and procedures regarding
the project; stated she questions that a City employee can submit
an unbiased report on the project; that she doesn't believe
sufficient notice was made, because she questions the Times Star
is a paper of general circulation; that she had been told BCDC
had given its approval, then informed it had not; that everyone
did not receive telephone notice; that an EIR is necessary; and
Council should see that the Planning Board follows appropriate
process.
Councilmember Corica stated there was one house on Minturn Street
that required an EIR.
The Planning Director noted the EIR was prepared because of the
historical resources consideration.
Councilmember Lucas inquired if the Historical Advisory Commission
was involved, : to which the Planning Director responded
it was and that it made a recommendation to the Planning Board.
Jay Bono, 572 Kings Road, thanked Council for their consideration,
stated he needs more facts regarding the project, and believes the
Planning Board should require an EIR.
Julie Maxeiner, 1202 Ballena Blvd., presented copy of survey of
homeowners and read the names of persons who signed the survey in
favor of an EIR.
James Spitzer, 450E Cola Ballena, representing Alamedans for
4*-0
Responsible Planning, pointed out comparisons of ratings by the
Planning Board regarding traffic, housing, transportation
circulation and other impacts, between the initial studies of the
Ballena Bay project and the church project (the house referred to
by Councilmember Corica); commented on the mandatory findings and
stated that many people are concerned about the proposed Ballena
Bay project.
Barbara Thomas, 1118 Paru Street, expressed her concerns regarding
the project; stated she believed there would be negative effects;
and inquired if there is an EIR for the historical structure
recently slated for destruction, and requested Mr. Spitzer use the
rest of her time to finish his remarks.
Mr. Spitzer, continued his comparison and stated that there would
be heavy usage and substantial growth but CEQA requires an EIR
even if there "may" be significant effects .
Councilmember Hanna stated he appreciated the remarks and
information presented by the citizens and made a motion to accept
the communication. Councilmember Corica seconded the motion and
it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
87-138 From Harry B. Conway, Jr., 1012 Azalea Drive, regarding
construction work at 1011 Begonia Drive.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept the communication.
Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
87-139 From Charles Bonny, 633 Post Street, #1693, San Francisco,
regarding the adoption of Ordinance No. 2316, N.S., which
addresses the location of vending machines containing adult
entertainment.
Richard Armstrong, 1626 Encinal Avenue, expressed concern about
availability of the Spectator to children; and stated people have
a right to keep it off the streets.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept the communication.
Councilmember Corica inquired if there was anything that could be
done legally to expedite the matter.
The City Attorney commented that the First Amendment does not
permit seizure of printed matter other than as evidence in
prosecution, and reviewed in detail the options open in handling
the problem.
Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote -4,
87-140 From Trevor Trevallion, 3206 Briggs Avenue, regarding the
expansion of Encinal Market (Design Review 86-84).
John E. Mitcheom, 759 Central Avenue, stated a client of his,
affected by expansion of the market, requested he notify Council
that he believes that the expansion of the market is really an
expansion of the building.
Trevor Trevallian, 3206 Briggs Avenue, expressed concerns
regarding the market, including the parking lot and frontage of
the parcel; and doesn't believe that the expansion complies to
the zoning ordinances.
The Planning Director stated that, whenever Mr. Trevallion has
expressed concern regarding Planning Department's interpretation
of ordinances affecting this property, the City Attorney has been
consulted.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to accept the communication.
Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion.
Robert Brower, 3433 Golden Gate, Lafayette, commented on the
parking space and that there is neither a Negative Declaration nor
an EIR, that Mr. Trevallion has not had an opportunity to fight
items in the Design Review, and added that whenever there is a
substantial controversy, there must be an EIR.
Councilmember Lucas inquired if parking spaces can be placed in a
setback area.
The Planning Director stated parking spaces can be placed as
proposed; each of Mr. Trevallian's concerns were taken under
consideration and addressed to be sure the plans complied with
zoning regulations; Mr. Trevallion was upset because the matter
before the Planning Board was a Design Review matter, which is not
a question of use but a question of design of the building and
landscaping, etc.; that, regarding the EIR, according to the
State guidelines, the existence of substantial controversy by
itself does not require an EIR, there must also be shown there is
a possibility of significant affect occurring from the project in
conjunction with the substantial concern of the community.
The City Attorney commented that the parking on this lot is the
type that exists on many lots in the City of Alameda, and that the
Planning Director is correct in his remarks regarding the
necessity of a tolerable claim of significant impact in
conjunction with the substantial concern.
The motion for= acceptance of the communication was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
HEARINGS
87-141 Hearing regarding the vacation of a public utility easement
in Tract 3865 (north- of South Shore Beach and Tennis Club).
President Diament opened the hearing and announced that the
hearing would be continued because Pacific Bell has notified the
City that they have a question about whether or not they have a
line running through the easement under consideration.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
87 -142 From Chairman, Historical Advisory Commission, regarding
establishing fees for certain actions of the Commission.
Councilmember Lucas stated she has some concern about whether or
not the procedure would cost more than the revenues to be raised
to which the City Manager stated that the process is in place for
other fees and this would not add substantially to the workload.
Councilmember Corica expressed some concern regarding the amount
of the fees involved.
Councilmember Hanna stated he would like to see examples of each
of the items to obtain some idea of the effort involved and the
desirability of charging for it, and that the total hourly rate
could be substantial.
Councilmember Corica agreed.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to accept the report, and
consider the recommendation later after examples of computation of
fees on specific items, and effort involved, is presented to the
Council. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
87 -143 From City Manager concerning Care for Alameda -
Clean Days Program, April, 1987.
Councilmember Corica stated he would abstain because it
the Oakland Scavenger company for which a relative works.
The City Manager outlined the rates reflected in his staff report,
which would fund the project.
Councilmember Hanna stated the clean -up project last year had been
received favorably by the public, is very helpful for the City,
and made a motion to approve the report and recommendation.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and stated that the City
has a large percentage of senior citizens and others who are not
able to take items to the dump and this will help those people.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote. Ayes:
Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas and President Diament - 3. Noes:
None. Absent: Councilmember Monsef - 1. Abstentions:
Councilmember Corica - 1.
Keep it
involves
87 -144 From Planning Director on preliminary draft of an updated
Housing Element for the City of Alameda. (Workshop)
The Planning Director commented that this is the second workshop
on this matter; that the updated Housing Element will go to the
State Department of Housing for review and return to the City
which will then hold hearings.
53
Consultant Jeffrey Baird made a presentation of information
regarding the matter, and displayed a chart of ABAG Housing Needs
Determination.
There was public input by the following:
Lois Pryor, 1814 Clinton Avenue.
John Doherty, 1329 Weber Street.
Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street.
Councilmember Lucas offered suggestions regarding preparation of
the Housing Element.
President Diament declared the workshop concluded.
87-145 From Public Works Director recommending an extension of
time of two years, to January 6, 1989, in which to complete the
improvements for Tract 4382 (Harbor Bay Isle, Village 3 North).
Barbara Thomas, 1118 Paru Street, asked for more detailed
explanation and commented that this is the third extension.
The Public Works Director explained that all of the public
improvements have been completed with the exception of the
landscaping maintenance, the bond was reduced last January to
reflect an existing $16,000.00, which remained on the bond for the
landscaping work, and, there has been no development in the tract
and the developer wishes to hold the landscaping in the common
areas until the houses are constructed so that the landscaping can
be watched over, maintained properly and not vandalized.
Councilmember Corica stated he had a problem with giving an
additional extension, and would be voting no.
To Councilmember Hanna's inquiry of how many of the 27 homes have
been constructed, the Public Works Director replied there were
none.
Councilmember Hanna asked clarification that basically, the area
was a subdivision with no homes, all the infrastructure, but no
landscaping because there were no homes, to which the Public Works
Director responded that was correct.
Councilmember Hanna inquired if it were true that landscaping is
usually destroyed when new homes are put in, to which the Public
Works Director acknowledged that was usually the case.
Councilmember Hanna noted that if Council did not approve the
extension, the City would be requiring that the landscaping be put
in even though there are no homes.
Following further discussion, Councilmember Hanna made a motion to
continue the matter to the next Council meeting, to allow time to
visit the site and obtain a drawing which shows the status of the
adjacent improvements (other subdivisions). Councilmember Lucas
54
seconded the motion, which was carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas and President Diament -
3. Noes: Councilmember Corica - 1. Absent: Councilmember
Monsef - 1.
Councilmember Corica stated he was voting no because extensions
have already been granted.
President Diament said she voted for the motion because if it is
not impinging upon the people in the area, it is a reasonable
request.
RESOLUTIONS
87 -146 Resolution No. "Ordering vacation of public utility
easement located within Tract 3865 (North of South Shore Beach and
Tennis Club)." (Hearings, Item No. 6)
This matter was held over because the related Hearing had been
continued. (See No. 87 -141.)
87 -147 Resolution No. 11126 "Accepting dedication of 4.5 acres of
Shoreline Park for public access and park purposes from Harbor Bay
Isle Associates."
Leora Feeny, 1330 - 8th Street, stated that seven years ago she
urged Council to provide land for both school and park; that the
continuity of the shoreline is essential if the City wants the
East Bay Regional Parks District to take over management and /or
extension of the shoreline; that Council must maintain integrity
of the shoreline and protect this resource with wisdom and
foresight as there are few opportunities left to provide parkland
of this quality; and urged Council to dedicate the 4.5 acres and
resolve to complete the 7.4 acre dedication as soon as possible.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated there are already 10
acres of shoreline on the north side of Bay Farm Island and grant
money has been needed to take care of erosion, addressed his
concerns regarding the school needs, and stated that it should be
determined whether the commitment related to this matter is
binding.
Gig Codiga, representing the Alameda Unified School District and
the School Board, stated that the School Board is concerned about
a second school site for Harbor Bay Isle; would like the City
Council and School Board to work together to provide a suitable
school facility; appreciates the Shoreline Park and a greater
need for the school site, urges Council to delay action in order
to work with School District.
Stephen Brimhall, 1141 Harbor Parkway, Executive Vice - President of
Doric Development, stated their position on the matter is that
they are before Council in furtherance of an agreement entered
into 10 years ago; that in 1977, the City and Harbor Bay
disagreed on a number of issues including dike maintenance, number
of residential units in the project, public lands obligation,
dwelling unit tax, and construction of public improvements on the
dedicated land, and all the issues were resolved in the 1977
settlement agreement; that since 1977, this agreement has been
continually reaffirmed, including a school park option in 1980,
the park has been staked out, has been before BCDC, and finally to
Planning Board; that if funds cannot be commited in the next few
weeks, the EDA funding (approximately $450,000.00) will be lost.
John Barni, Jr., 15 Sand Harbor, commented he believed Council has
not followed through on the original agreement.
Ellen Fingerhut, 418 Channing Way, urged Council not to accept the
4.5 acres so that there can be more backing for a free school
site; and stated that homeowners want to be involved.
Barbara Kerr, 909 Oak Street, stated some communities are tearing
down buildings to retrieve open space and shoreline, that Council
should protect what we have while it is still available, take
ownership of shoreline and protect it for the use of the entire
community, and adopt not only the 4.5 acres but all 12 acres.
Kathleen Keating, 50 Chatham Point, asked confirmation that there
is a binding agreement with Harbor Bay Associates; expressed
concerns about school needs and a desire to know more about the
financial implications.
William Norris, 120 Capetown Drive, states that he appreciates and
uses City parks and shoreline park area, but is concerned about
school needs, believes Council should not take action until
financial implications are clear; urged Council to wait.
Barbara Thomas, 1118 Paru Street, stated that the City could have
both parks and schools sites; that the School District can take
the school site and pay a few dollars and the Council can buy the
park.
Pete Templeton, 376 Channing Way, representing Clipper Cove
Homeowner's Association, stated there has been a lot of debate and
that, in the absence of a binding agreement there is no rush;
that the homeowners are concerned; that Clipper Cove Homeowners
pay for open space but are in favor of the school site; and
requested the subject be tabled for further input.
Ronald Lappa, 1011 Tahiti Drive stated he was concerned about the
City giving up the option on the school site, that he enjoys the
park land but is concerned about priorities; asked what
examination has been made into funds for schools; and requested
more time for public debate.
Rich Thomas, 1300 Hansen Avenue, stated there seems to be a
significant concern regarding adequate school housing on Bay Farm
Island; and would like to know if there is legal liability to the
City if there is a delay in action.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to extend the Council meeting
indefinitely. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it
was carried by unanimous voice vote ° 4.
Alan Jay, 388 Victoria Bay, stated the school site is needed;
that there is high speed traffic and the children riding to school
on bicycles are in a dangerous situation.
Bobbie McChristy, 416 Harbor Road, Board Member of Homeowner's
Association- Harbor Pointe, stated she represents 46 homeowners and
asked for time extension to learn more information.
James Davis, 1134 Ballena Blvd., attorney for Harbor Bay
Associates, stated that there were many hearings 7 years ago;
there was a letter regarding the 7 -year option 8 days after the
decision was made; the 7 years have been extended to 1990; the
1980 price was $292,000 per acre; there is a binding agreement
from 7 years ago and final aspect is being presented which is
dedication of the 4.5 acres; $400,000.+ will be lost if
arrangement is not accepted; there is no obligation under BCDC
law to grant shoreline park, and the School Board participated in
the hearings years ago.
Darlene Evans, 1215 Grand Street, stated that if the park is to be
made, it should not be ordinary but a tribute to the past and
something unique.
Elizabeth Rogers, 1261 Weber Street, stated a lot is being
discussed that has been from 1975 through the present time; that
she has made efforts to see that developers fulfill their
obligations, but believes Council should accept the shoreline
being offered; and asked if there was any documentation that EDA
is going to be lost.
The Public Works Director responded that a representative from EDA
said they have extended far beyond what they had wanted to;
Mrs. Rogers stated that the City and School District should do
something about the school site; that the City is obligated to
take the dedication of shoreline; and that whatever the vote,
Council should work with the School District to try to get the
school site as well as the rest of the shoreline.
The City Manager stated there is a 1977 agreement; that the 40
acre dedication agreement is clearly an executed agreement.
Councilmember Corica stated that in the minutes of 1980, the
purchase price was to be the current market value and therefore
they should give the acreage at $7500 per acre.
The City Attorney stated there had been an earlier agreement for
96 acres at $7500 per acre but that was given up; there was a
time limit on that contract, and a settlement in 1977; the City
must determine that the agreement always contemplated some of the
land would be on the bey; that underwater land is not included;
that there is a binding agreement.
Councilmember Corica referred to the minutes of July 1, 1980,
regarding a 12 acre shoreline park and interior site with purchase
option at 1980 cost.
57
The City Attorney stated that, regarding the option, the City
could enforce the option agreement by reason of the letter.
Councilmember Lucas commented that the minutes state that the
option price would be as of 1980, and asked if there is a price.
The City Attorney stated that would be a matter of appraisal.
The City Manager stated there have been discussions, the City had
an appraiser, the developer had an appraiser, and the price was
set as of July 2, 1980.
President Diament commented that, as far as the School District is
concerned, there have been discussions with individuals and with
superintendents, and the School Board has been party to the
discussions.
The City Manager commented that he sat on a school committee which
brought in relocatables; and brought in teachers, but there were
not enough children to keep it going.
The City Attorney noted there is a reversionary agreement. The
school cannot opt for the site, not use it for a school, and then
sell it later for profit.
Ms. Keating made further comments regarding the agreement.
87-148 Proposed BCDC Cease and Desist Order for Bayview Estates
Beach Fill.
Mr. Millman requested Council continue the item regarding the
Cease and Desist Order, on the agenda under Unfinished Business,
be postponed due to the lateness of the hour and the fact that
many concerned speakers had left.
Councilmember Corica made a motion to continue the item.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
RETURN TO DISCUSSION REGARDING PARAGRAPH 87-147
Councilmember Corica commented he believes the issue is that the
people have come in and made concerns clear and that it was agreed
that when the grant monies were received, a decision would be
made.
President Diament noted that it was the EDA's funding problem that
brought the matter back before Council at this time.
Councilmember Lucas stated that the issue was before Council in
February, all the facts were not available, therefore she did not
make a decision at that time; and inquired of the City Attorney
if the developer would have a legal way out of the option, or if
the school district could accept the option if they want to.
The City Attorney stated the developer could present an argument
regarding the site.
Mr. Davis, attorney for Harbor Bay Associates commented that his
client authorized him to state that Harbor Bay Isle is clearly
bound by the option.
Councilmember Hanna stated Council has been waiting for years for
the School District to estimate school needs; that in December,
1986, a letter from the Superintendent of Schools indicated a need
for the three year extension; that the School District has not
been able to estimate needs of Amelia Aerhart School; that the
School District representative stated during the evening there has
not been opportunity, but they have had opportunity for many years
and have not taken advantage of it; that, regarding commitment, a
developer comes with plans for review in detail by Fire
Department, Police Department, Planning Board and then Council for
approval, and as long as the tentative map is followed, a
developer need not return to Council for final approval.
Ms. Keating approached the dias and President Diament requested
she submit her papers to the City Attorney for consideration.
President Diament commented that the option should be kept open
for the school.
Councilmember Hanna stated he believes the City is fortunate to
get shoreline park free and the school site offered at 1980 prices
on a seven year option, and now an extension to ten years.
Councilmember Lucas stated she agreed and also agreed with the
speaker who stated that one can never get back shoreline if it is
gone; that there is still an option to get schools; that
everyone can enjoy the shoreline, and the school site can be
received later.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and it was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas and
President Diament - 3. Noes: Councilmember Corica - 1. Absent:
Councilmember Monsef - 1. Abstentions: None.
87 -149 Resolution No. 11127 "Authorizing appropriation of funds
for a study of City's Emergency Medical Care Program."
Kim Purcell, 1819 San Jose Avenue, paramedic for the County of
Alameda, representing Concerned Alamedans for Responsible
Prehospital Care, stated her concerns regarding the need of an
outside report for the proposed study; that Alameda is the only
city in the Bay Area Counties that does not have a paramedic
service.
Councilmember Corica stated that there is a hospital within a
short distance and there is excellent response time.
Patricia Hines, 3306 Fir Avenue, said that even three minutes of
critical time was extremely important; is in favor of funds for a
9
paramedic program study for Alameda; and hopes that problems can
be identified and resolved.
Councilmember Lucas stated that she believed Council
get the best possible solutions and that Dr. Crowel
the most highly qualified and best person to do the
City.
Councilmember Lucas
Councilmember Hanna
unanimous voice vote
made a motion to adopt the
seconded the motion and it was
- 4.
should try to
1 seems to be
study for the
resolution.
carried by
87-150 Resolution No. 11128 "Awarding contract to Fanfa, Inc.
for the closure of Doolittle Landfill site, P.W. No. 12-86-39,
and authorizing execution thereof."
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
87-151 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Section 15-6210 thereof relating to rates for
collection of garbage and refuse and prescribing method of
collection."
The City Manager stated this amendment would fund the Clean-Up
Program and closure of the dump site, and gave details regarding
the rates.
Darlene Evans, 1215 Grand Street, in her remarks, referred to the
Livermore Program that is performed twice each year.
President Diament suggested Ms. Evans submit her information to
the City Clerk for forwarding to the Management Analyst.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion and it was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Lucas, Hanna, and
President Diament - 3. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmember
Monsef - 1. Abstained: Councilmember Corica 1.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
87-152 President Diament noted that there were a number of
speakers for the item regarding the Cease and Desist Order, which
was originally scheduled to be heard under Unfinished Business and
was continued due to public request (See Item 87-148); and
requested that the matter be rescheduled for the March 17th
Council Meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
87-153 Councilmember Lucas requested that a dead-end street sign
be posted for the 1800 block of Nason Street.
60
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
87-154 John Barni, Jr., commented that Harbor Bay Isle Associates
owes the City a Fire Station on Bay Farm Island; and stated, in
reference to the shoreline matter (Paragraph 87-147), that
California State Law provides a 180 day appeal period and the
matter may end up in Court.
ADJOURNMENT
President Diament adjourned the meeting at 12:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane B. Felsch
City Clerk
****************