Loading...
1978-03-21 Regular CC MinutesI 0 IJ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY 7 - 7 - MARCH 21, 1978 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Invocation was delivered by the Reverend Joseph C. Meagor, Jr., of the First Baptist Church. President Corica introduced Mayor of the Day Robert Schenone of the Alameda Chapter, Order of DeMolay, who led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Tillman, and President Corica were noted present. Absent: Councilman Sherratt. DEMOLAY IN GOVERNMENT DAY: 1. President Corica announced the second annual DeMolay in Government Day in the City of Alameda. The President called upon Assistant to the City Manager Rob Wonder, who had coordinated the day's program, to give a report on the activities. Mr. Wonder commented briefly on the foundation and organization of the Order. He said the young men and women had assembled in the Council Chambers for a brief overview of the services and functions of the City, following which, the participants had been turned over to their counterparts in City Hall where they were given a review of the functions of each position. This was followed by a tour of the new Police Administration Building. President Corica presented each participant with a certificate of achievement. MINUTES: 2. The minutes of the regular meeting of March 7, 1978, were approved as submitted. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 3. From Mr. Otto W. Sammet, 2624 Janis Circle, requesting permission to address the Council regarding a swimming pool located on adjoining property. Mr. Sammet reviewed the history of his complaint against the location and drainage of the swimming pool on the lot adjoining his. He requested the City compel the owners of the swimming pool to correct what he alleged was faulty construction, to install drainage to keep the water off of his property, to relocate a gas line, and to move the pump building. He further alleged he had become a victim of continuous harassment by the adjoining property owner, and stated this had been injurious to his health and deprived him from enjoyment of his premises. President Corica suggested Mr. Sammet should call the police for assistance if he were threatened. In response to a question by Councilman Diament, City Engineer Hanna explained that in several studies, his department had not found any significant drainage problem. President Corica suggested the City Engineer or staff again inspect the properties and determine if there was any significant damage or drainage problem. Mr. Sammet requested that someone other than Mr. Hanna conduct the inspection. 4. From the County of Alameda, Veterans Day Commission, requesting a S250 allocation to support the Alameda County Veterans' Day Parade. Councilman Beckam moved the $250 be allocated for the parade, seconded by Councilman Tillman, and carried on unanimous voice vote. 5. From the County of Alameda, Veterans Day Commission, inviting the City of Alameda to serve as the "Host City" for the Alameda County Veterans' Day Observance Parade, and submitting a request for additional funds and items in the event of acceptance. Mr. Jerry Williams of the Veterans Day Commission remarked on the founding of the Commission and the Parades. He noted the Cities of Hayward, San Leandro, and Albany had been rotating the hosting of the Parades in the past years. He also stated the host city would be expected to provide a union band and an additional allocation of $1,500 to cover the costs of trophies and other incidental expenses. President Corica commented the City had already allocated funds to support the Fourth of July Parade in the City, and because of the extra costs involved, for example, the extra Police protection, the City would not be able to act as the "Host City." He thanked Mr. Williams for extending the invitation to Alameda. The concensus of the Council was to decline the invitation. 6. From the Planning Board, signed by the Chairman, concerning the review process of City of Alameda funded projects. President Corica reported the Council had agreed prior to convening to move this item from "Reports and Recommendations" to this position on the agenda, at the request of the Planning Board Chairman. Mrs. Rosalie McPherson, President of the Planning Board, read for the record the letter from the Board to the Council: (dated March 13, 1978) "At the hearing on March 6, 1978, the Planning Board reviewed and approved Use Permit 78-5, a request of the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department, to expand the existing building at McKinley Park, even though the City Attorney had rendered an opinion that a Use Permit was unnecessary. (Carter Stroud's opinion dated February 27, 1978, attached). "It is the Planning Board's position that the intent of the special "0" zone, Open Space District, is to provide a forum for public input for proposed changes in parks through the Use Permit process. Also, the Board feels that any building structure within public park lands should be reviewed. This forum provides an opportunity for neighbors and users to express their concerns regarding the expansion of park facilities and programs, which may have an effect on the surrounding area. "In addition, the Planning Board felt strongly that all projects in the City of Alameda should follow the same standard procedures required of the private sector and be subject to the same review, conditions and requirements imposed on private development. Further, the Planning Board is concerned about the funding of projects prior to their being reviewed by the appropriate process; and subsequently, using the approval of funding as justification for an exemption to the review process. A 'This letter is to communicate the expressed concerns of the Planning Board to the City Council as to the appropriate handling of these type matters in the future. Therefore, a City Council policy statement is requested so that Planning Board and all City departments will know the proper future course of action to follow. Likewise, City Boards' roles are properly defined." Signed by Rosalie McPherson, Chairperson, Alameda City Planning Board. Mrs. McPherson stated she had restricted certain public input at hearings on the assump- tion the Board would be hearing a Use Permit application on the construction at McKinley Park, She said the Board interpreted the Ordinance to mean the Planning Board would hear a Use Permit application on any public or private building constructed in all "0" zone land in the City. President Corica said he had assured concerned residents the Senior Citizens' Center would be heard by the Planning Board as a Use Permit application. He said he agreed with the Planning Board opinion that the City should follow the same procedures as the private sector in construction on public lands. Mrs. McPherson stated the Planning Board did not wish to pre-empt the Recreation Commission in any of their actions. President Corica asked why there was an attempt to change procedures controlling the construction of public projects. Mrs. McPherson stated the Planning Board requested a statement of policy from the Council in order to avoid any controversy or confusion over future projects, such as the Senior Citizens' Center. President Corica stated he felt there was a need for as much citizen input as possible, and felt the present policy allowed for the maximum opportunity for citizen comments. Councilman Tillman asked Mrs. McPherson if a Use Permit had been obtained for the construction at Buena Vista Park. Mrs. McPherson stated the area was not then under an "0" zone, however, the Planning Board had reviewed the project in relation to a row of historical houses along one end of the park, through an Environmental Impact Report process. Mrs. McPherson noted the Recreation Commission had applied for a review from the Zoning Administrator on the project at McKinley Park. It was the opinion of the Board the project should more properly come under review by the Board. At this time, the Recreation Commission had asked for an opinion from the City Attorney on the jurisdiction of the Planning Board in this matter. Mrs. Gertrude Woods, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, read for the record the communication of the Commission to the Council: (dated March 20, 1978) "At the regular meeting of the Recreation Commission on March 9, 1978, the inter- relationships and the overlapping responsibilities of the Boards and Commissions of the City in accomplishing their assigned responsibilities and reporting to the City Council, was discussed at length. The Recreation Commission assumes responsibility, receives direction from the Council, functions through the Council, and asks Council approval of a delegated duty. Prior to the completion cf a specific action delegated by the Council to the Commission, any and all necessary and legal processes for performing this function must be taken. "The Recreation Commission feels strongly that all recreation and park projects should be reviewed by agencies of the City where appropriate and, most importantly, provision for opportunity of the citizens of Alameda to express their feelings regarding each proposal must be maintained. "Each project, depending upon the funding source, has a different acquisition and approval procedure, a different time element, and a need for a special approach while, at the same time, allowing for a regular review procedure and comment through hearing conducted by the Recreation Commission and thence to the City Council for approval. "The Recreation Commission is concerned that the overlapping responsibilities of various Boards and Commissions, the overly extended time necessary for this procedure before a project may get underway and the need for simplification of the prccess be addressed by the City Council. "The Ordinance creating the Recreation Commission states that the purpose of the Commission shall be 'to advise, coordinate and give guidance to the acquisition, development, maintenance and operation cf parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities in the City. . "The duties of the Recreation Commission include, among other items: 1. Advise the Director of Recreation & Parks, the City Council and the Board of Education on all matters pertaining to the establishment and the operation cf community recreation programs, activities and facilities. 2. Hold hearings and do all things necessary to inform itself with respect to the promotion and successful operation of City recreational activities. "Our specific conflict appears to be with the City Planning Board over the interpretation of their charge regarding "0" - Open Space District regulations under the Zoning Ordinance. "The City Attorney has made a ruling that the Council may request an advisory opinion from any board or commission, but that the Recreation Commission reports directly to the City Council as is detailed in the establishing ordinance. "Park and recreational buildings, structures, equipment and facilities have been historically considered basic components of the City of Alameda's Parks and Recreational System and until recently there has been no question regarding required "Use Permits" by the Planning Board. The Recreation Commission has not been in conflict with the City Council on previously funded Parks and Recreation projects approved by the City Council. "When the City Council has approved funding or has directed staff to file an application for funding for a specific Acquisition or Development Project, it has been logically interpreted by this Commission that the City Council has also considered the project as having an appropriate purpose and, therefore, not subject to the securing of a Use Permit that may be granted or denied by the Planning Board. "The Recreation Commission, then, asks that the processes be clarified so that the Commission will be able to continue operating within the parameters of the applicable sections of its creating ordinance designating its duties and responsibilities. The Commission is most anxious to move responsibly and with all due speed to bring needed projects to a successful conclusion to meet the needs and requests of citizens of our city." Signed by Gertrude B. Woods, Chairman, Alameda Recreation Commission. Mrs. Woods said the Recreation Commission was asking the Council for an interpretation of the ordinances establishing the Planning Board and the Recreation Commission; specifically who was responsible for Parks and Recreation, the design of facilities, and appropriatness of City-owned properties on which the facilities were placed. She noted that prior to 1976, the "0" zone ordinance was not in effect, so there was no conflict regarding the necessity of a Use Permit. She said the Recreation Commission requested that all applicable boards and commissions review projects before the funding was received from the funding agency, whether state, federal, or other source. Mrs. McPherson concurred in this request. Councilman Beckam suggested an administrative procedure be prepared by staff for consideration and adoption by the Council, to outline the proper project referral procedure for timely advisory review and recommendations by the appropriate boards and commissions in order that funding would not be held up for a last-minute review or Use Permit application. Assistant City Manager Creagh commented on a memorandum from the City Manager which suggested a possible procedure as requested by Councilman Beckam. He noted the memorandum suggested that at the time conceptual review was made by Council of the project, whether State or Federally funded, the project would then be referred to appropriate boards or commissions for an advisory opinion. He asked whether this would be sufficient to satisfy Councilman Beckam's request. Councilman Beckam said in essence this was the procedure he suggested, but he requested the administrative procedure be formally written to avoid any future confusion. Mrs. McPherson said she felt the City Charter and the Ordinance controlling the Planning Board gave the Board the power to require a Use Permit. She questioned the preparation of an administrative procedure, as suggested, since the Board so interpreted the Ordinance. The City Attorney stated it was not the function of the Planning Board to interpret the Charter or the Ordinances, and he had specifically held the wording regarding the application for a use permit did not apply to projects approved by the City Council. He further stated although in this particular case the conditional Use Permit may be desirable, in the future such a condition might not be desirable. He stated the difference was between a Planning Board report to the Council or the Board actually issuing a permit and putting conditions on a Council project. If the Council did not approve of the conditions, there could be a problem of appeal. President Corica reiterated his position that the procedure not be changed and the City be required to follow the same procedures as a private concern constructing a project. Councilman Beckam said the conflict had occurred because there was no clear cut procedure to follow, and again suggested the preparation of an administrative procedure. Councilman Tillman agreed with Councilman Beckam that an administrative procedure would be desirable. Mrs. Inez Kapelias, 1128 College Avenue, expressed her concerns about any possibility of bypassing any public hearing processes. Mrs. Barbara Borden, President of the School Board, reported the School Board was required to apply for a Use Permit from the Planning Board for the construction of any School District project. Councilman Diament suggested the Ordinance be amended to require a Use Permit for public projects, Councilman Tillman asked the City Attorney if the Ordinance specifically required a Use Permit application. Mr. Stroud replied the object was not to restrict public input, but to maintain the final decision with the Council, rather than with the Planning Board, by not requiring a Use Permit application for public projects; that the Planning Board would still be consulted for an advisory opinion. Councilman Beckam repeated his position that an administrative procedure be established. Councilman Diament concurred with Councilman Beckam, with the condition that a Use Permit application be submitted for the Senior Center project. Mr. Gerhard Degemann, Chairman of the Design Review Board, said he felt City projects should also go before that Board for approval. Councilman Diament suggested the matter be considered concluded, with the condition that a Use Permit application be submitted for the Senior Center project. Councilman Beckam said he would concur, with the additional condition that an administrative procedure be prepared. Councilmen Diament and Tillman said they agreed to the condition of Councilman Beckam. It was, therefore, the concensus of the Council that a Use Permit application be required for a Senior Citizens' Center and an administrative procedure be prepared for approval. HEARINGS: 7. In the Matter of Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Senior Citizens' Center. President Corica called attention to an error made in the Senior Council bulletin regarding remarks he had made at a previous meeting and asked the error be corrected. He then described the procedure to be followed for this hearing. City Attorney Stroud stated the issue was to decide whether or not the Environmental Impact Report was complete under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Mr. Michael Church of the Planning Department reviewed the history of the project. President Corica read aloud the Planning Board resolution recommending certification of the EIR, with the finding that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. President Corica then called for proponents of certification of the EIR. * * Mr. George Skells, 2624 Clay Street, remarked on the lack of adequate facilities for senior activities. He advocated the Center be built and suggested perhaps more than one center should be built. Mr. Gunnar Swanson, 104 4th Street, noted he had filed a petition signed by 173 residents in support of the proposed site. He commented the senior citizens of the west end of Alameda particularly needed a senior citizens' center. Mr. Sig Bray, 2045 Central Avenue, opposed the location of the Center in the old Alameda High School buildings, and advocated locating the Center at the proposed Westline site. Mr. William Thomas, 1518 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition to locating the Center in the High School due to the unsafe structural conditions he felt existed there. Ms. Lucille Harrison spoke in favor of the establishment of a Center at the proposed site. She stated it was nearer the west end of the City than Alameda High School and public transportation was available to the site. Mrs. Gertrude Woods, 1247 Sherman Street, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, noted the design of the project allowed for 38 parking spaces, but that it was possible to add up to 20 on-site parking spaces; and across the street, there would be a parking lot with 70 spaces. She also noted the No. 63 AC Transit Bus did stop in front of the proposed site. She reported the expected capacity of the Center would be 250 people. President Corica then called for opponents to certification of the EIR. Dr. Alice Challen, 2601 LaJolla Drive, opposed the proposed location of the Center because she felt (1) the location isolated Senior Citizens from the rest of the community, (2) heavy traffic in the area was a safety hazard, (3) there was no adequate public transportation to the site, and (4) the park across the street could pose a safety hazard from the undesirable "gangs" she felt congregated there. She noted petitions circulated by her group contained signatures of 2,630 residents who opposed the proposed location and advocated establishment of a Center at the old Alameda High School Building (East Wing). She suggested a representative of HUD meet with members of the Council and with residents to explain exactly what might happen with the funding should the Westline site no longer be considered. Mr. Charles Booth, 2130 Alameda Avenue, opposed the Westline site because of what he felt was a lack of speedy ambulance and other medical services to the area. Mr. Ernest Ellis, Chairperson of the Mayor's Committee on the Handicapped, read a statement prepared by the Committee. "By unanimous vote, the Committee has opposed the construction of the Senior Center at its present site. Our stand is based upon considerations affecting the handicapped." He stated the primary objection was the inaccessibility of the site, due to lack of adequate public transportation, the heavy traffic in the area, and the generally hazardous conditions of the area. Mr. Russ Sisung, 221 Santa Clara Avenue, opposed the Westline site because of the adverse impact as reported in the EIR, the lack of transportation to the site, and the lack of space for the Center to grow. He also advocated the use of the East Wing of the old Alameda High School buildings. **See page 194. Mrs. Elvina Lankton stated she would not use the Center if constructed at the proposed site because she felt it was not a safe area. Mr. Donald Bell, former Principal of Alameda High School, spoke in favor of locating a Senior Citizens' Center in the East Wing of the old buildings. He described the available space and facilities of this building. Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, spoke in opposition to the Westline site on the basis of excessive traffic hazards in the area and the lack of adequate public transportation He also commented it was his understanding the site decision would be returned to the Planning Board for further review. President Corica noted the previous decision of the Council to require a Use Permit application for a Senior Citizens' Center. Planning Director Patterson stated for the record he had also understood there would be a Use Permit hearing. Mrs. Josephine Bixler, 814 Haight Avenue, stated she felt the EIR was not complete because it did not adequately address the problem of traffic safety. Mrs. Harriette Roberts, 3275 Thompson Avenue, spoke in favor of the East Wing of the old Alameda High School as the site for the Senior Citizens' Center, and alleged this would be a saving of taxpayers' money. Mr. James Gary, 1617 Encinal Avenue, spoke in favor of the East Wing location because of its central location in the midst of other cultural activities. Ms. Phyllis Bentson, 925 Broadway, opposed the proposed Westline site as she felt it was isolated from the rest of the community. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, opposed the proposed Westline site because of inaccessibility due to the incline of the street leading to the site. She also felt the EIR was not complete because it had not addressed the safety of handicapped persons or provisions for medical care. She also objected to comments quoted in the Tribune attributed to Mr. Rob Wonder, Assistant to the City Manager, regarding the structural condition of old Alameda High School. Mr. Wonder reported he had been misquoted and had actually said he felt HUD would require a structural and feasibility analysis before the City would be allowed to put a Senior Citizens' Center in the East Wing. On question from President Corica, Mr. Wonder explained HUD was interested in making sure cities were utilizing allocated funds; that if the City did not perform, that is, start the project on the proposed site, HUD might request the funds be re-programmed to other eligible activities until such time as the City had made a final decision on a location. He stated the City was not precluded from re-applying for funding for a senior citizens' center. Mr. Michael Grappo, 1505 Broadway, commented on the findings of the Planning Board in the EIR, and advocated the use of the Alameda High School Buildings. Mr. Gerhard Degemann, 304 Sand Beach Road, commented on the construction of the old Alameda High School Buildings. He said it was his opinion the buildings could be economically rehabilitated for use as a senior citizens' center. Dr. Lai Chu Christy, 825 Portola, stated she felt the EIR was not complete because it did not include a letter from the City Engineer to the Planning Board regarding traffic problems at the site. Mrs. Avis Grappo spoke in favor of preserving the old Alameda High School buildings for use as a senior citizens' center. Mrs. Marion Bothwell, 875 Portola, spoke in opposition to the Westline site on the basis of excessive traffic in the area. She also questioned whether the funds could be used for a neighborhood center and senior citizens' center, combined. Mr. Wonder stated this was not an allowable project, however a neighborhood center was an eligible activity and a separate application could be submitted. Mr. Ernest Chase, 833 Portola Avenue, said he felt the EIR was not complete because the memorandum from the Engineering Department regarding the traffic problem was not included. Mr. Albert Berding, 845 Portola, presented some pictures of the lagoon adjacent to the proposed Westline site, indicating an adverse effect on the lagoon he felt would be caused by construction of the center, as reported in the EIR. Mr. Don Patterson, Planning Director, reported the Planning Board had included the memorandum from the City Engineer in the Final EIR. President Corica declared the public portion of the hearing closed. Councilman Diament stated she felt the EIR was incomplete due to the lack of mention of proviSions for the handicapped, insufficient information about the traffic problem, and information from the San Leandro Bay Transportation Study had not been included. President Corica stated he felt due to the public sentiment, as expressed by the petition< and attendance at the meeting, the residents did not want the Senior Citizens' Center constructed at the proposed Westline site, and he agreed perhaps this was not the best site. He said he would not want to certify the EIR due to the reported adverse effects the Center would cause on that site. He suggested staff produce EIR's for other specific sites. Councilman Beckam quoted passages from the California Administrative Code concerning certification of an EIR: "Title 14, Section 15012, Informational Document, An EIR may not be used as an instrument to rationalize approval of a project, nor do indications of adverse impact, as enunciated in a EIR, require that a project be disapproved." He read further, "Section 15085, EIR Process, The following steps shall be followed after Lead Agency decides to prepare an EIR, Paragraph 15085(g), Certification of Final EIR, The Final EIR shall be presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency shall certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the state guidelines and that the decision-making body or administrative official having final approval authority over the project has reviewed and considered the infor- mation contained in the EIR prior to the approval of the project." He said he understood these sections to mean a vote to certify the EIR did not approve the project, nor could a vote not to certify mean disapproval of the project. He then moved "(1) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State guidelines and that this Council has reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR, (2) the EIR is an informational document intended to inform decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of the proposed project (Section 15012, State Code), and (3) the resolution be taken out of order." On question from President Corica, City Attorney Stroud responded the Council did not have to certify the EIR, or the Council could certify the EIR and then ask for additional EIR's on other sites, or the Council could certify and then discard the EIR entirely. Councilman Tillman seconded Councilman Beckam's motion. The motion failed to carry on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Beckam and Tillman (2). Noesz.Councilman Diament and President Corica (2). Absent: Councilman Sherratt (1). It was noted that Councilman Beckam left the meeting at this time. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 8. From the Assistant City Manager concerning a City newsletter. Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report and the subject be discussed further at a future meeting, seconded by Councilman Tillman, and carried on unanimous voice vote. Councilman Diament suggested the City's participation in the Progress Edition of the Times Star might be an alternative to a newsletter. 9. From the Assistant to the City Manager concerning appraisal of the Alameda Belt Line property. Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report and the resolution be taken out of order, seconded by Councilman Tillman, and carried on unanimous voice vote. RESOLUTIONS: 10. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Tillman, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8876 Accepting Proposal of Holabird & Andrews for Appraisal of Alameda Belt Line Property." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt (2). REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 11. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending street name changes. President Corica reported the following changes were recommended: Mariner Square Loop East to Mariner Square Drive, Maitland Drive (short section near the Bay Farm Island Bridge) to Seal Point Court, and eliminating Harbor Bay Boulevard which had been withdrawn from the earlier planning of the Harbor Bay Isle development; this latter action will allow the westerly portion of Mecartney Road to resume its original designation. Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report and approval of the street name changes as recommended, seconded by Councilman Tillman, and carried on unanimous voice vote. 12. From the City Manager regarding the ABAG Environmental Management Plan. Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report, seconded by Councilman Tillman. On the question, Mr. Tom Rhodes, 1327 Webster Street, spoke in opposition to the Environmental Management Plan. He felt the improvements claimed were insufficient in relation to the loss of local control he felt would be a result of adoption of the Plan. He suggested Alameda withdraw from ABAG or at least vote against the Plan. President Corica responded he felt it was important for the City to remain a member of ABAG in order to be able to make the City's residents' wishes known. Councilman Diament asked if anything had been scheduled for receipt of public input on the Plan. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 13. Inquiry by Councilman Diament concerning a letter received regarding a "No Left Turn" sign in front of premises at #7 Garden Road. City Engineer Hanna reported the Traffic Advisory Committee had considered the complaint and concluded the sign should not be moved. Mr. Hanna stated, however, he did not agree with this decision, and with the consent of the neighbors, he would have the sign moved. 14. Inquiry by Councilman Diament regarding a letter from the South Shore Isle Homeowners' Association requesting notification of matters pertaining to construction permits in their area. Councilman Diament noted a letter from Planning Director Patterson to the Homeowners' Association had been sent explaining the situation. Mr. Lex Collins, President of the South Shore Isle Homeowners' Association, expressed their appreciation for the timely solution to the request. 15. Request by Councilman Sherratt for amendment to the Bingo Ordinance regulating games conducted by organizations from outside Alameda. City Attorney Stroud reported he would prepare the amending ordinance for introduction at the April 4 meeting. 16. Councilman Tillman requested a comparative report on the cost of his electricity bill from the Bureau in relation to what the same service would cost if provided by PG&E. NEW BUSINESS: 17. Councilman Diament asked that a parking space be reserved for the handicapped on Oak Street, as close as possible to that entrance to City Hall. Assistant City Manager Creagh noted the plan for the parking spaces in the lot between City Hall and the Police Administration Building did provide a space for the handicapped. 18. Councilman Tillman asked that a communication from Judge McDonald regarding transportation of prisoners to the Municipal Court be considered. Councilman Diament noted Chief of Police Young had prepared an explanation of this problem. She requested the report be submitted to the Council. RESOLUTIONS: 19. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8877 Calling a Public Hearing on Proposed Cooperation Agreement with Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and Authorizing City Clerk to Publish Notice Thereof." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt (2). The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 20. "Ordinance No. New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 13-195 Thereof Relating to License Fees." Councilman Diament introduced the ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 21. "Ordinance No. 1910 New Series Amending Ordinance No. 1082 N.S. by Amending Subsection (o) of Section 2 Thereof, Relating to the Definition of 'Permitted Securities'". Councilman Tillman moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt. 22. "Ordinance No. 1911 New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Certain Sections of and Adding Certain Sections to Chapter 3 of Title XIII Relating to Charitable Solicitation Permits." Councilman Diament moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt. 23. "Ordinance No. 1912 New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article 7 to Chapter 1 of Title III Thereof, Providing Authority to Advance Reimbursable Funds." Councilman Diament moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried on the following r0]] call vote: Ayes: Three. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Beckam and Sherratt. BILLS: 24. An itemized list Of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof in the amount of S119,967.65 was presented to the Council at this meeting and was accompanied tv certification from the City Manager that the claims shown were correct. Councilman Diament moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on March 21, 1978, and presented to the City Council at this meeting be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried unanimously OD roll call vote. FILING: 25. Proposal of Holabird & Andrews re Appraisal of Alameda Belt Line property. ADJOURNMENT: 26. Councilman Diament moved the Council retire to executive session for a discussion cf litigation, seconded by Councilman Tillman, carried by unanimous voice vote. At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined no action would be taken. 27. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned at 1:00 o'clock a.m., to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, April 4, 1978, at 7:30 o'clock p.0, Respectfully submitted, City Clerk **Insert: Councilman Tillman questioned Dr. Challen about her statements about the isolation of the seniors at the proposed site. Dr. Challen responded she felt it was better to keep various age groups within easy access of one another, in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. She said she felt the seniors were often lonely and would welcome the chance to be around younger people, Councilman Tillman said he felt senior citizens were more careful than other groups with regard to traffic safety. He said traffic safety had been a factor in the construction of the senior citizen housing at Park and Otis, and there had been no accidents at that site. He felt the proposed Westline site posed no more of a traffic hazard than the Park/Otis location. He further said he did not feel the proposed Site was isolated because of the nearly flat geography of Alameda. He stated he felt the site was also desirable because the construction would leave ample room for outdoor activities, such as barbeque pits, and attractive landscaping. ,-te;