1976-01-20 Regular CC Minutes58
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - JANUARY 20, 1976
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Diament and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the
Reverend Mervin R. Megill, Pastor of the Immanuel Baptist Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica,
(5), were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held January 6, 1976, were approved as submitted.
President Corica noted the presence of Mr. Wayne Bruce, Engineer-Manager of the East Bay Dischargers
Authority, and requested the first item under "Reports and Recommendations" be considered out of
order.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
2. From the City Planning Board concerning the Environmental Impact Statement for the East Bay
Dischargers Authority Water Quality Improvement Program.
President Corica stated the proposed project concerned a discharge line coming from Southern
Alameda County and ending about three miles offshore of the Oakland Airport. He reported the city
had registered its written objections following the Council meeting of January 6, 1976, and the
City Engineer had attended the public hearing held January 14, and expressed the city's position.
Mr. Bruce, assisted by Mr. David Kennedy of Kennedy Engineers, explained the project was a joint
exercise of powers consisting of cities and sanitary districts in the southeastern portion of
Alameda County. They exhibited a drawing entitled, "Joint U-e Outfall Study of the Proposed EBDA
Project", and stated public information brochures were available to the audience. Mr. Bruce
stated the project consisted primarily of a pipeline which would pick up highly treated effluent
from the southern cities and discharge it northward to a vicinity in San Francisco Bay, generally
west of the Oakland Airport and due west of Bay Farm Island. He reported the pipeline would be
some twenty-seven miles long extending from the southern part of Alameda County and along through
the cities of Fremont, Newark, Union City, Hayward and San Leandro. He noted the treated effluent
presently went to the nearest shore and they were precluded, by State Water quality standards
from continuing that practice and the effluent must now be carried to a point which achieved at
least a ten to one dilution with the Bay waters in deep water.
Mr. Bruce reported various alternatives had been investigated and this project selected as the
most cost effective and best solution in terms of overall water quality in the Bay Area. He said
it was coordinated with several other subregional water quality programs, all of which had been
studied on a statewide basis to determine that they were compatible with each other and not in
conflict. He stated their point of discharge was, therefore, not solely determined by EBDA. He
reported the sewage would receive full secondary treatment by the time it was discharged and approxi-
mately eighty-five percent of the suspended solids and oxygen demanding materials removed. He
stated the treated wastewater would be discharged through a diffuser, approximately one-half mile
in length, at a point three miles offshore of Bay Farm Island, and the diffuser would achieve a
dilution of approximately twenty-five parts Bay water to one part effluent.
Mr. Kennedy explained the studies made leading up to the location of the diffuser, water quality
aspects particularly related to the point of disposal, and tidal patterns. He stated they had
conducted limited dye dispersion studies in the area of the diffuser to coorelate and corroborate
whether the studies reported on a generalized area of the south Bay were applicable to the particular
point of proposed discharged, and they found essentially the same type of tidal pattern and water
movement. He reported there would be some influence from the discharge of wastewater in the
immediate vicinity of the outfall, and this was expected to extend approximately one-half mile
north and one-half mile south, elliptical in shape, a total width of one-half to three-quarters of
a mile.
Mr. Bruce reported the objections expressed by the City Engineer at the public hearing would be
investigated further by the Environmental Protection Agency, and a meeting would be set up to
address the specific concerns of the City of Alameda. He noted there was also a concern regarding
the route through the Ba_,, Farm Island proposed development and the Port of Oakland property. He
stated three alternative routes were considered in the EIS, one following basically up Doolittle
Drive and across a portion of San Leandro Bay, the second cutting through the middle of the Oakland
Airport between the old and new airports, and the third going offshore along the levee; however
there had been construction problems in terms of the stability of the dikes on this alternative.
He said they were now proposing to look at alternate outfall locations dropping further south,
one of which would leave from the San Leandro Marina and go roughly due west, and another would
drop back to the Oro Loma treatment plant and discharge due west from Oro Loma. He stated that in
order to fully evaluate these alternates it would be necessary to take a close look at the cost of
construction as related to the environmental impact and the resultant water quality in the Bay.
He said it would take many months to complete the study and there was some concern regarding the
delay of the overall project until the alternate outfall location had been finally determined. On
question, he stated San Leandro was the most northerly discharger into the system.
59
There followed a discussion of'the East Gay Municipal Utility District system and its participation
in the project. Mr. Bruce reported a study had been done on the possibility of connecting the
pipeline to the EBNIUD outfall, however it was found not to be viable because of the tremendous
disruption in trying to construct such a large pipeline through the City of Alameda and out portions
of Oakland, the limitations of the EBMUD site for treatment facilities, and the concentration of
such a large amount of waste at that point in the Bay.
Councilman Sherratt noted the Beach Erosion Committee had determined Alameda had unique tidal
currents, He stated the location of the EBDA outfall diffuser was of much conern to the Committee
because of the already present problems of beach erosion and odor. He said the Committee felt the
two-day dye dispersion study was too limited and of little value.
At the conclusion of discussicn, it was the recommendation of the Council that the outfall diffuser
be located at a more southerly position.
Mr. Bruce stated the concerns expressed would be addressed in great detail, and he would recommend
staff participation inworkine cut the scope of the study.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
WPITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
3. ' From Mr. and Mrs. Leo Duriez, 2530 Buena Vista Avenue, opposing enactmert of any ordinance
compelling a homeowner to comply with the Building Code,
The communication was referred to the Planning Board for consideration in connection with their
public hearings on the Housing Element.
4, , From 5 residents of Marti Rae Court regarding traffic at the rear of Redwood Square.
On request, City Engineer Hanna stated he had written to the property owner involved on the north
and the real estate firm managing the property on the south of this location requesting some action
he taken to alleviate the noise problem, without response. He said he had also spoken with several
business owners in the area, and this might he an appropriate time to raise the subject again as
a liquor license had now been applied for by the Gourmet Cellar.
Councilman Sherratt recalled previous correspondence received from Mrs. Mabel C. Besoyan, 2421
Marti Rae Court, and asked that the complaint be pursued further in the interest of the home owners.
The City Engineer was requested to follow through in his efforts to correct the situation.
5. From the Alameda City Disposal concerning oarbage and refuse collection rates.
President Corica repeated his previously stated objections to the increased rates, He stated it
was his opinion the city was not receiving a fair return from the franchise agreement and reported,
for the record, the following percentages of gross receipts received by other jurisdictions:
Oakland - 655; Udbn City - 105; Fremont - 10%; Hayward - 10%; Livermore - 2%; Mill Valley - 105;
Albany - 7V; Piedmont - 51/21; Stockton - 20; Santa Clara - 101. He stated he had found out the
City of Alameda was one of the few cities obligated to furnish the garbage company with a dump site,
and the Disposal Company admitted the shares for the partners were taken out before gross income
was computed,
President Ccrica suggested senior citizens simply be required to show their Medicare cards to
qualify for the 10% reduced rate offered by Alameda City Disposal, as not all senior citizens were
property owners.
Councilman Hurwitz suggested alternate methods be developed for this purpose, such as showing a
driver's license or other identification as proof of age.
HEARINGS:
6. Housing and Community Development Act Preliminary Application for 1976.
The Clerk stated communications had been received from Mr. Tom Coughenour, 955 Shorepoint Court 5103,
submitting is proposal, and from Mr. Joseph M. Koons, 1814 Main Street, submitting a project outline.
President Corica reported the Act required an opportunity be provided for citizen input, that five
hearings were being held and the final hearing would be held on February 17. He noted Mr, Coughenour
had suggested $25,000 be allocated to improve the lighting and music system in the Alameda Free
Library, with a like amount to be allocated each succeeding year.
Mr. Rob Wonder, Administrative Assistant, reviewed the information presented by the Assistant City
Manager at the meeting of January 6, 1976, He exhibited a slide presentation explaining the four
areas of the Act, i.e., Congressional intent of the legislation, purposes and objectives, eligible
activities and application and review requirements.
City Manager Goss noted that last year when the City Council had reviewed the first year application
under HCDA, it had been necessary to identify housing and community development problems for those
of low and moderate income, and this had led to the development of the Community Development Plan,
expressed in short and long term goals. He stated the short term objectives included (1) development
of appropriate administrative and staff capability to undertake the administrative and planning of
programs under the Act, as applied to Alameda; (2) preserve the City's existing housing stock,
especially, but not only, when it was threatened by demolition for public or other improvements,
60
such as schools and parks, particularly in the northside; (3) prevent blighting influences and the
deterioration of property, particularly on the northside, but also in other parts of the community
where there was a demonstrated need for a program of rehabilitation; (4) broaden the range of
available housing for those of moderate and low income, especially for those with large families;
(5) improve the living environment of those of low and moderate income families through an overall
neighborhood improvement effort, including, but not limited to decent housing, development of
neighborhood conservation planning and improvement programs, *grieved community facilities such
as community centers, parks, street lighting, safety lighting, sidewalk and street repair and
street tree planting, and preparation of an incompatible zoning study; (6) assist expansion of
the city's housing stock available to those of low and moderate income; (7) remove architectural
barriers in public buildings and on public streets and rights of way; (8) assist expansion of the
city's housing stock available to the elderly; and (9) a general goal relating to the provision of
a center for senior citizens.
Mr. Goss said the current year program emphasized primarily alternate housing and was oriented
toward the project of the Alameda Housing Authority in movino and rehabilitating homes displaced
by the anticipated construction of Alameda High School. Also involved, he said, were some security
features at Esperanza Housing, the ability to rehabilitate older buildings vacated because of the
Park-Otis Senior Citizen Housing Project, and expenditures related to administration and planning
of the HCDA program.
Mr. Goss reported in the first year of the program the city had been allocated $260,000 and there
was a tentative second year allocation of 5575,000, however there was a possibility this amount
would be cut hack. He said it was expected the amount of the allocation would be $900,000 to
$1,000,000 For the third and subsequent years. Mr. Goss stated that after final approval of the
application by the City Council, it would then go to ABAG for clearance and submission to HUD,
which agency would have 75 days to review the application and hopefully the approval would he
given by the first part of July, 1976. He noted the program, as outlined in the first year and
suggested for the second year, contained as much flexibility es possihle, with some of the suggested
programs stated as alternatives.
Summarizing the proposed preliminary application, Mr. Goss reviewed in detail the following suggestions:
(1) $57,000 to continue the planning and administration of the program. (2) $150,000 for housing
rehabilitation with Alternate A covering completion cf the first year program of rehabilitation of
the Alameda High School homes. He stated there was a possibility this cost might exceed the funds
allocated in the first year program, and the purpose of this alternate was tc provide any additional
funds necessary to adequately bring the project to completion. In the event the project can be
accomplished with allocated first year funds, he said the second year funding would then be used
for Alternates 9 and/or C. Alternate B proposed the direct acquisition and rehabilitation of resi-
dential units scattered throughout the community, with the possible lease to the Housing Authority
of the residential units for the purpose cf providing housing for those of low and moderate income.
Alternate C would develop appropriate staff to undertake a program geared to encourage conservation
of the city's housing stock. (3) $100,000 for construction of the first phase of the community
building at the northside park. (4) 512,000 for reconstruction of the restroonis at McKinley Park
to meet minimum health and safety standards. (5) $45,300 to provide first phase land acquisition
and development of pedestrian and bicycle ways along Atlantic Avenue from Vain to Webster Streets,
as well as improvement of the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Webster Streets. (6) $42,750
for other community improvements which would provide street trees and modern street name signs
in the target area, and for conversion of existing street lights for improved area lighting at
Woodstock Homes. (7) $20,000 for removal of architectural barriers at street intersections.
(8) $17,00D for removal of architectural barriers at the new Police Station. (9) 1125,000 for
first phase design and construction or reconstruction to provide a senior center.
The President declared the hearing opened.
Mr. Josenh Koons suggested a program be instituted to convert the former Post Office building for
use as a Senior Citizen-Youth Center, or Community Center, and to house an art gallery and the
Historical Museum. He stated such a program would utilize the talents and abilities of retired
career people to supervise and train young persons who might he in need of help in selecting and
training for a career.
Reverend Russell E. Palmer, President of Alameda Service Agencies Cooperative, reviewed provisions
of the Housing and Community Development Act as related to community services, neighborhood facilities
and recreational participation. He particularly stressed Section 8, Eligible Activities, provided
funding of social services in support of the community development program where funding or such
services under other applicable federal laws and programs had been applied for and denied, and
where such services were supportive of only those activities assisted with community development
block grants. Reverend Palmer stated ASAC had investigated what other adjacent cities were actually
doing with Community Development Funds and had found San Leandro had funded a comprehensive study
of child care centers, Livermore had allocated three-year moneys for building a multi-service
center to house all social services, Oakland was buying a building for the East Oakland Youth
Development Center and Hayward was funding programs for the mentally ill, developmentally disabled
ex-addicts and ex-offenders. He requested an allocation of the city's HCDA funds to member agencies
qualifying.
The City Manager explained other communities had made application for other federal program funding
and, when denied, their social services becameeligible for funding under HCDA. He reported that
Alameda had not as yet made application for other funding, therefore, its social service programs
were ineligible under the Act.
It was the consensus of the Council that the city should establish a program to assist in the pre-
paration of funding applications for projects which were presently ineligible under HCDA.
61
Mr. Dave Moyer, Director of the Alameda Head Start Program, 1826 Clement: Avenue, asked that con-
sideration be given to assist Head Start in finding a location in the community to set up a center
for their program, and its expansion. He noted San Leandro was using HCDA funds for a study of
their need for child care. Mr. Moyer stated Head Start had no funds available for construction and
were presently paying rent to the Housing Authority for the facility they were using. He questtioned
the ineligibility of the Head Start Program.
Mrs. Honors Murphy, Chairman of the Mayor's Committee on Architectural Barriers, reported the
Committee had voted to request that a portion of the funds received by the city under HCDA be used to
remove materials and architectural barriers which restrict mobility and accessibility for the elderly
and handicapped. She said they would like to see currently existing barriers corrected rather than
moneys spent for new buildings which were mandated by state law to make provisions for the handi-
capped.
Mr. Russell Sisung, 221 Santa Clara Avenue, asked the Council, in their review of the proposals
for disbursement of HCDA funds, to consider how the projects would be paid for in the future, and
would they add to or detract from the quality of life in Alameda,
Mr. Chris Corpus, 509 Santa Clara Avenue, President of United Philipinos of Alameda, suggested
inauguration of a training program for low income persons to enable then to get out of their low
income status. He stated his organization had applied for a manpower grant to establish such a
progaam for all ethnic groups, and if the funds were forthcoming they would need a building. He
reported the building now housing the Xanthos House was for sale, and asked that consideration be
given to using a portion of HCDA funds to purchase it for community purposes,
The Hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Hurwitz stated that during the series of hearings on this wetter a number of worthwhile
projects had been suggested. He requested that each person submitting a project be notified in
writing of its eligibility or non-eligibility, and of the consideration given to the project.
There followed a discussion of the wording of the proposal to develop a program geared to encourage
conservation cf the city's housing stock. Councilman Beckam suggested this proposal (76-2-0 be
amended by deleting the word "abate" so that the paragraph would read: "Conduct sidewalk surveys,
as well as investigate housing complaints, in the city's target area to identify, investioate and
encourage correction of visible substandard housing conditions."
At the conclusion cf discussion, Councilman Sherratt moved approval of the preliminary applicattien,
as amended at proposal 76-2-C. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously
on roll call vete.
A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting returned to the regular order of
business.
7. In the Matter of the proposed adoption as the Alameda Swimming Pool Code of the Uniform
Swimming Pool Code, 1973 Edition, by the International Association of Plumhing and Mechanical
Officials, with amendments, additions and deletions thereto, as the Primary Code.
The Clerk reported the Affidavit cf Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was or file_
The City Attorney explained the California Health and Safety Code required all cities to adopt
Uniform Codes; that the Uniform Building Code had previously been adopted and the Uniform Plumbing
and Electrical Codes were being prepared. He reported three copies of the Uniform Swimming Pool
Code, 1973 Edition, were on file in the office of the City Clerk, and the city was permitted to
make changes tc the Published Code.
The President declared the hearing opened.
On the call for proponents or opponents, Mr, Otto W. Sammet, 2624 Janis Circle, reviewed his
previous complaints to the City Council concerning the swimming pool constructed and in operation
on adjoining property at 2619 Santa Clara Avenue. He was informed by the City Attorney that his
was a civil matter and the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, if adopted, could not be retroactively
applied.
The hearing was declared closed.
Following discussion, and there being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
8. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Adopting by Reference the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, 1973 Edition, Copyright
1973 by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, with
Amendments, Additions and Deletions Thereto as the Primary Code; Providing for
the Protection of the Public Health, Welfare and Safety by Prescribing Minimum
Standards for the Design, Construction or Installation, Repair or Alterations of
Swimming Pools, Public or Private, and Equipment Related Thereto; Requiring a
Permit and Inspection Therefor; Providing for the Administration and Enforcement
of the Standards Set Forth Herein; Providing for the Qualifications and Registra-
tion of Persons Engaged in the Business of Swimming Pool Installation or Alterations
or Equipment Related Thereto; and Prescribing for Penalties for Violations Thereof."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business,
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
9. From the City Manacer reporting completion of improvements in connection with Parcel Map
No. 1458, recommending acceptance and release of the faithful performance bond. (4-unit condominium
conversion, 1233 Broadway - Alameda Associates)
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 1a58 and release
of the faithful performance bond, The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried
unanimously on voice vote.
10. From the Historical Advisory Commission submitting recommendations on the Alameda City Hall
and Alameda Theater.
Councilmen Sherratt moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam
and carried unanimously on voice vote.
Councilman Hurwitz requested a resolution be drafted designating these two buildings as historical
monuments for consideration at the next meeting of the City Council,
During discussion, it was pointed out by the City Attorney that designation as a historical monument
would not preclude demiition of a structure, however it would provide for a review by the
Historical Advisory Commission prior to the issuance of the demolition permit.
Planning Director Patterson reported the governing ordinance also required a formal application
be submitted to the Historical Advisory Commission concerning any proposed alteration to a building
designated as a historical monument.
11. From the Recreation Commission regarding the narinq of Northside Park.
President Corica reported the park was rapidly nearing completion. He stated the Recreation Commission
had assigned a subcommittee to investigate naming of the park and their recommendation had been
"Northside Park" or "Buena Vista Park',
Councilman Sherratt said it was his opinion the park should be named after a person who had made
a contribution to the city.
Councilman Hurwitz and President Corica stated they would prefer the nare of 'Buena Vista Park",
as 'Northside Park" denoted a specific area of the city, and it would he difficult to single out
the name of an individual franthe many persons deserving tnis honor.
Mr. Charles Tillmar, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, recommended the park be named atter Mr. Jack Clark
for his dedication to the city.
Mr. Nicklaus P. Cabral, 940 Eagle Avenue, suggested the park be called "Leonard Lee" park to honor
the founder of the Alameda Boys Club.
Mr. Joseph Sullivar, 3221 Liberty Avenue, also suggested the name of 'Buena Vista Park".
Mr, Domonik Widak, 2837 San Jose Avenue, suggested the park be named for Mayor Corica.
Councilman Beckam submitted the name of "Centennial Park,
Councilman Diament suggested the park he named for Mrs. Geraldine Leydecker, a former leader of the
Recreation Department, or "Buena Vista Park",
Mrs. Gertrude Woods, Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Recreation Commission, stated the commdttee
had seriously considered each suggestion made for the naming of the park before raking their
recommendation.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Hurwitz moved the park be named "Buena Vista Park'.
The motion was seconded by Councilmen Diarent and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Three. Noes: Councilman Sherratt, (1), Abstaining: Councilman Beckam, (1).
12. From the City Manager recommending completion of the purchase of radio equipment for the
Engineering Department from Motorola, in accordance with Section 3-15 of the City Charter.
Councilman Beckan moved approval of the recommendation, the motion was seconded by Councilman
Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
13. Councilman Beckam asked that d date be set for the early part of February for a special meeting
with the Goals Study Task Forces. He requested the City Manager to make the necessary arrangements.
Councilman Sherratt stated he was disappointed that the report of the Library Board concerning
their feasibility study had not been completed for consideration at this meeting. He requested
that a list of alternate uses for the Post Office building be prepared for the regular meeting of
February 17, so that the Council might decide what tc do with the facility. Ile also requested the
report from the Library Board be submitted at that time.
63
15. Councilman Sherratt requested the City Manager give a verbal status report of the January 20
meeting between the City Manager and Councilman Sherratt regarding beach erosion.
Mr. Goss stated he had met witg representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the Regional Park
District in conne-tion with the followup to the work done by the Committee on the subject of beach
erosion. He said he had learned from the Corps of Engineers that the Samll Works Projects of
$1.000,000 or less, are fairly well being phased out. He said he had explored with them the question
of the demonstration grant and they seemed to be positive in their support, and there should be a
nationwide listing of priorities of such demonstration projects by mid-March. He stated this did not
mean funding, but priorities which could be submitted for funding.
Mr. Goss said they had discussion of the possibility of a "do-it-yourself" experimental groin project
and received a very firm negative response. Also discussed was the option of getting an appropriation
bill for seventy percent of the cost of the project, under the Navigation and Harbors Act, however
this would be an eight to ten year process and the direction of the Committee was that this should
be pursued. In this connection, Congressman Stark had been contacted and he will attempt tobtain
a resolution from the House Public Works Committee, the first step in the procedure for a feasibility
study.
Councilman Sherratt stated plans were to reconvened the Committee and meet with Congressman Stark
in early February.
16. Councilman Hurwitz inquired as to the maintenance cost of the Post Office building.
The City Manager reported the actual direct cost was approximately 515.00 per month for watcr and
utilities, insurance $25,00 per month, and the City Engineer had estimated a range of $70.00 to
580.00 for maintenance; however this did not reflect any additional cost and was a calculation of
manhours to maintain the grounds and no new personnel were involved.
NEW BUSINESS:
17. Councilman Hurwitz stated he had read ir the newspaper that the County was passing the cost of
the use of County cars for transportation to and from work on to the user. He asked the City Manager
to prepare a report of the costs incurred by the City for the private use of city vehicles by employees.
18. City Attorney Stroud asked the Council to set a date for public hearings pertaining to
Variances and Use Permits and revisions of the Planned Development and Design Review ordinances. He
noted a special meeting would be held by the City Planning Department on January 28, 1976, to consider
these items.
The public hearings were set for February 3, 1976 and the City Clerk was directed to publish the
required Notice of Hearing.
RESOLUTIONS:
19. The following resolution was Introduced by Councilman Eeckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8467
Adopting Specifications, Special irovisicns and Plans for the Resurfacing
of the Tennis Courts at Franklin Park, Calling for Bids and Directing City
Clerk to advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None, Absent: None.
20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8458
Authorizing a Request to HUD for Extension of the Community Development
Block Grant Program 1975 Program Year.'
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vcte. Ayes: Five. Noes: None, Absent: None.
21. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No, 3469
Authorizing Substitution of Subcontractor (Northside Park)."
(PN 8-75-12)
The notion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
22. Councilman Hurwitz introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter.
"Ordinance No.
New Series ---
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 7-118 of
Article 1, Chapter 1, Title VII Thereof, Relating to Fees for a
Public Motor Vehicle Driver's Permit.'
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
23. Councilman Hurwitz introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 3-1313 of
Article 1, Chapter 13, Title III Thereof, Relating to a Tax Upon
Construction of Residential Dwelling Units,'
The notion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five, Noes: None, Absent: None.
Councilman Diament introduced the following ordinance, after whicn it would be laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 5-151 and
5-152 of Article 5, Chapter 1, Title V Thereof, Relating to Permits
for Cement and Concrete Work."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None, Absent: None,
25. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
'Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sectbn 5-162 of Article 6,
Chapter 1, Title V Thereof, Relating to Fees and Deposits for Street
Use Permits.'
The motion wo seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
26. . Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amendiru:, the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 1-146 by
Amending Subsection (j) and Repealing Subsections (k) and (1)
of Section 10-149, and by Amending Section 10-155 Thereof, Relating
to Fees for House Mover's Permits and Relocation of Building Permits."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None, Absent: None.
27. Councilman Diament introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
'Ordinance No,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 12-373 of Article 7,
Chapter 3, Title XII Thereof. Relating to Carnivals, Circuses and Fairs
Application Fees.'
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried or the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five, Noes: None, Absent: None.
PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES;
28. "Ordinance No. 1782,
New Series
Amending Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-6210 of the
Alameda Municipal Code, Relating to Rates for Collection of Garbage
and Refuse,"
65
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance he passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Three, Noes: Councilman
Hurwitz and President Corica, (2). Absent: None.
29. "Ordinance No. 1783,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending and Adding Certain
Sections to Article 1, Chapter 3, Title XI Thereof, Pelating to Rules
and Reaulations Governing the Planning and Subdividing of Land the
Filing and Approval of Subdivision Maps.'
City Attorney Stroud requested the following changes be made in the language of the ordinance: that
Section 11-317(c) be amended by striking the words °Failure to comply with Sec. 1)-3110(f)" and
substituting any reason hereunder", and Section 11-3110 (f) be amended by striking the word "approved"
and substituting 'certified",
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be passed as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Nees: None. ABsent: None,
30. - "Ordinance No, 1781,
Ncw Series
Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to
Traffic Regulations."
Councilman Sherratt moved the ordinance be introduced and passed as subndtted. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote, Ayes: Five. Noes:
None, Absent: None.
BILLS:
31. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the
total amount of 550,488.05, was presented to the City Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the claims shown were correct.
Councilman Beckam moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on
January 20, 1976, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and on voice vote carried unanimously.
FILING:
32. Specifications No. PW 1-76-1 - Resurfacing of Tennis Ccurts at Franklin Park,
33. Affidavit from City Manager and Chief of Police - re Police Secret Fund for period from
July 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975,
ADJOURNMENT:
34. There being no further business to come before this meeting, the Council adjourned to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday, February 3. 1976, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,