1976-03-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - MARCH 16, 1976
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Hurwitz.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
I. The minutes of the regular meeting held March 2, 1976, were approved as submitted.
2. President Corica announced the scheduled hearings to consider revisions to the Design Review
Ordinance and Planned Development Ordinance would be continued to the next regular meeting of
April 6, 1976, and the revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance referred back to the Planning
Board for review and clarification prior to that date.
3. ` Regarding the agenda resolution proposing amendments to the Charter, President Corica reported
the Social Service Board was in the process of gathering input concerning their powers and duties
and at their request this proposed amendment would be deleted from the resolution and considered at
a later time.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
4. ' From Mrs. Lenore Smith, 1360 Park Street, concerning unleashed dogs.
The communication was referred to the file.
5. From Mrs. Martha L. Moletu, 3515 Magnolia Drive, regarding the Bicentennial garden located on
Shore Line Drive.
President Corica noted the site of the garden was privately owned and Mrs. Voleta had expressed a
concern as theprOperty owner proposed to develop it for commercial use.
Councilman Diament asked if it would be possible to explore the use of unused city land for this
purpose. The City Manager stated he had been advised this was being done.
The communication was referred to the Bicentennial C0mmit128,
6, From Mr. William M. McCall, Chairman, requesting permission to make a presentation on behalf
Of the Alameda Bicentennial COmmittee,
Mr. McCall introduced the members of the C0mm1ttpe who were in the audience, Joe Camicia, Nicklous
Cabral, Clarence Kline, Terry LaCroix, Sr., Billie Trujillo, and Pauline Henderson, Coordinator.
He noted Councilman Hurwitz was on the Committee and also served on the County Bicentennial Commission.
Mr. McCall reviewed the plans for a community parade culminating in a picnic and related activities
at the Robert Crown State Memorial Beach Park to be held on July 4, 1976. He reported the plan
included a fireworks display of 255 shots at a cost of $2,000, and it was estimated the total cost
of this official Bicentennial Project would be $3,500. He stated the Committee had no funds at
their disposal and requested the city allocate funds to defray the anticipated expenses. On question,
Mr. McCall agreed the project could be financed with half of the cost allocated in the present fiscal
year, and the remainder after the beginning of next year. He stated any unspent moneys would be
returned to the General Fund.
Following discussion, Councilman Beckam moved an allocation of $1,750 to be paid from the Contingency
Fund for the current fiscal year, and an additional $1,750 to be allocated in the I976-1977 budget
either from the Contingency Fund or the Community Promotion Fund. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Diament and carried unanimously an voice vote.
HEARINGS:
7. In the matter of consideration of revisions of the Planned Development Ordinance.
President Corica noted this had been continued to the meeting of April 6, 1976, and the revisions
neferred to the Planning Board for review and clarification.
8. In the matter of consideration of revisions to the Design Review Ordinance.
President Corica stated this item had been continued to the meeting of April 6, 1976.
9. In the matter of an Appeal filed by Mr. M.E. Leach, 3218 Fir Street, from the decision of the
Planning Board in denying a Use Permit for premises at 3200 Encinal Avenue.
City Attorney Stroud advised the City COOncil this was a limited appeal which provided for a review
of the actions already taken, and should not be construed as a new heorfnq,
President Corica noted Mr. Leach was requesting a Use Permit to operate a liquor store on the premises
which were located in a "C-l" zone, and the Planning Board had denied the Permit on a split vote of
four to three.
Mr. Leach reviewed the circumstances leading up to his request for the Use Permit. He said the
location had been the site of a grocery store for approximately 100 years, had been granted a
license to sell beer and wine only in the 1930/s, and he had applied to the State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control for a permit for the additional sale of liquor. He reported his plans
to rehabilitate the structure to a Victorian standard and provide off-street parking had been approved
by the Design Review Board, the Building Inspector, and City Planning Staff. Mr. Leach stated it
was his opinion the granting of the Use Permit for the liquor store would generate revenue for the
city through taxes. He noted he was further requesting authorization to operate the business beyond
the I0:00 p.m. limit set by ordinance, however would agreed that should this cause a disturbance
in the area, he would comply with the limitation. He referred to the written record in the matter.
City Attorney Stroud reported this was a request for two separate conditional uses, one for an
extension of the hours and the second for the use as a liquor store. He said if the Council were
to agree on the use as a liquor store, it would be proper to refer the matter of the extended
hours to the Planning Board.
Planning Director Patterson concurred with Mr. Stroud's statement. He reported the Board's motion
had been to limit the hours and grant the Use Permit for the liquor store, which motion failed to
carry.
On request, Mr. Stroud explained that if the City Council found the Planning Board's action was not
supported by the evidence, it could reverse the decision. He said the provision for referring
it back to the Board when it was found evidence had been excluded. In this particular case, he said,
the Board had not had the authority to act on the matter of hours alone and its motion to grant the
permit for the liquor store had failed to carry.
President Corica stated he wished it noted in the record that petitions had been presented both in
favor of and in opposition to granting the Use Permit.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Sherratt moved that, after review of the action taken
on the record, the Use Permit for the operation of a liquor store be granted, and the matter of the
extension of hours be referred back to the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Beckam and on roll call carried by unanimous vote,
10' In the matter of the Proposal to amend the Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Alameda
by adding a Housing Element thereto and Environmental Impact Report thereon.
The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file.
The hearing was declared opened.
Planning Director Patterson noted this was the first of several Elements to the General Plan. He
stated Elements concerning Seismic Safety/Safety, Airport Safety and Land Use would be presented
to the City Council in the future. He commended the Advanced Planning staff for their preparation
Of both the Housing Element and Scenic Highways Element.
Mr. Michael Church, Assistant Planner, reported the Environmental Quality Act required the preparation
Of reports on General Plan Elements; and the EIR prepared on the Housing Element was very general
in nature because of the non-specific character of General Plan Elements. He stated the Draft ER
had been prepared by the Environmental Impact Planning Corporation of San Francisco in November, 1975,
and a representative of that firm was present to answer any questions. He said the Draft had been
distributed in that month, both locally and to State agencies, and the review period expired
January 16, 1976 without comment. He noted the City had received one written response from the Port
Of Oakland dated January 26, 1976, which was included. Mr. Church reported a joint hearing on the
EIR and Housing Element was held on February 11, 1976, before the Planning Board who directed
staff to prepare a response to the Port's letter, and approved the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for
submission to the City Council for action and certification.
Mr. Church reported the Housing Element had been prepared in three separate phases, reviewed each
phase, and stated the contentn conformed in every respect with State guidelines, with particular
emphasis given to the needs of low and moderate income people. He stated all three phases were
given public hearing before the Planning Board on December 15, 1975, with numerous responses received
from the public and comments by the Board, and a set of amendments were distributed January 6, I976.
The second public hearing, he said, was held on February 11, 1976, and during th2int2rYeDfDg period
three written responses were received from members of the public and two letters from involved
agencies, one from the Port of Oakland relating to the EIR and the other from the Department of
Housing and Community Development, the reviewing agency. Mr. Church stated every attempt had been
made to amend the Element to reflect the concerns which had been expressed. At the final public
hearing, he said, thePlanning Boardmted unanimously to approve the revised Element, including each
series of amendments, and had directed it be transmitted to the City Council with a recommendation
for adoption.
On the call for proponents or opponents, there was no response. The hearing was declared closed.
Following discussion, Councilman Beckam moved the Council certify that it had reviewed and considered
the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and that said Report had been
completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines, and that the City's Comprehensive General
Plan be amended by adopting as its Housing Element, the documents entitled, "City of Alameda Housing
Element Phase I, Population and Housing Characteristics, August, 1975; City of Alameda Housing Element
Phase II, Housing Market Characteristics, SEptember, 1975; and City of Alameda Housing Element Phase
III, Housing Problems and Policies, February, I976," The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament
and carried unanimously on voice vote.
Councilman Beckam stated that in going through the EIR and the Housing Element he noted reference
to many recommendations of the Goals Study, and adoption of this Element would be a part of a viable
General Plan which could and should be revised as needed, and reviewed p2ri0dic3lly.
PresidentCorica announced the Goals Study Congress would be held on Monday, March 22` 1975, in the
Alameda High School Auditorium, and invited public partiCjpatiOn.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its adoption:
'Resolution No. 2495
Amending Comprehensive General Plan by Adopting Housing Element
Thereof and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Said
Element."
The meeting returned to the regular order of business,
HEARINGS:
I2, In the matter of the Proposal to amend the Comprehensive General Plan for the Ci ty of Alameda
by adding a Scenic Highways Element thereto and Environmental Impact Report thereon.
The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file.
The hearing was declared opened.
Planning Director Patterson reported this Element had been prepared by the Advanced Planning staff,
and noted Mr. Jay Kalter, a Planning Aide under the CETA program, had done the basic research and
early drafts Under the direction of MrS, Julia Weston Steuber, Senior PlaOner,
Mrs. Steuber explained the approach which had been taken in developing the Element and he processing
followed, including the action taken by the Planning Board on the Element and the EIR. She stated
this was one of the nine mandated Elements to the General Plan and had been required by the State
since 1973. She reported the basic purpose of the Element was for protection of official State
scenic highways, a State designated network of scenic highways shown on State road maps and subject
to special State funding. She noted there were none of these highways located in Alameda, and
none which would meet the State criteria for qualification, however the Element was still required.
She reported the basic goal of the City's Element was to reaffirm and promote the City's image and
"sense of place", and this goal was taken from one adopted by a Task Force of the Goals Study. She
stated recommendations had been developed for protecting and improving, and in some cases publicizing
the City's scenic reS0Ur[e3. She said they had also attempted to focus on alternatives to the auto-
mobile by providing a pleasing travel experience for those using other means of transit.
Mrs. Steuber reported components of the Element consisted of a scenic drive, gateways to Alameda,
bicycle routes, Victorian Walking tours, tour of public/institutional buildings, and future additions
to the Scenic Highways Element, She said staff felt the most critical areas were the gateways to
the City and recommendations had been developed toward enhancing their appearance.
With regard to the processing of the EIR and Scenic Highways Element, Mrs. Steuber noted the Council
had received copies of the distribution list. She stated most people on the list had received
three copies of the Element, each time accompanied by a request for comment, and follow-up telephone
calls had been made and they were also notified of the public hearings both at the Planning Board
level and before the City Council. She stated the EIR had been prepared by Environmental Impact
Planning Corporation of San Francisco and filed with State and local agencies, however no written
comments had been received and no comments Wee made at the Planning Board hearing on February 11, 1976.
She reported the Planning Board had approved and recommended the EIR and Scenic Highways Element
for adoption, and had made the following specific comments to the Council: (1) To recommend
additions prepared by the Planning Director and the City Attorney; (2) To recommend additions prepared
by the Planning Director and the City Attorney (2) that a north side and Victorian tour be included;
(3) that the Council request the County of Alameda to amend its Scenic Route Element to coincide
with the City's; and (4) that the City pursue cooperation with the Victorian Society In putting
together a tour book. Mrs. Steuber answered questions put by members of the City Council.
On the call for proponents, Mrs. Lois Hanna, 644 Sandhook Isle, suggested development of the scenic
area directly in front of the Main Gate of the Naval Air Station, and the planting of magnolia trees
along Atlantic Avenue.
On the call for opponents, there was no response. The hearing was declared closed.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Sherratt moved the Council certify that it had reviewed
and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and that said
Report had been completed in compliance with CEQA and State goide]ine\, and that the City's Compre-
hensive General Plan be amended by adopting as its Scenic Highways Element for the development,
establishment and protection of scenic highways within its jurisdiction that document entitled, "City
of Alameda Scenic Highways Element, November, 1975." The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam
and carried unanimously on voice vote.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions",
RESOLUTIONS:
13. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8496
Amending Comprehensive General Plan by Adopting Scenic Highways Element
Thereof and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Said Element."
The motion to adopt said resolution 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:
14. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, making recommendation on amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to uses not conducted within enclosed buildings or structures
in commercial and industrial districts.
The hearing was set for April 6, 1976.
15. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, making recommendation to rezone Longfellow
Park, Franklin Park, and Lincoln Park from residential classification to the "D", Open Space District.
The hearing was set for April 6, I976.
16. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretory` concerning status of the deletion of
the Fernside Boulevard extension from the General Plan.
President Corica reported this item was now being processed by staff and the project should be under-
taken when the preparation of the Land Use Element had progressed to a point where a more detailed
analysis could be given to this segment of the Circulation Element.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt
and carried unanimously on voice vote.
Councilman Beckam repeated the motion which had been adopted by the Council at its meeting of
January 7, 1975, in which the Council had gone on record as opposing the extension of Fernside
Boulevard and referred the matter to the Planning Board for hearings to amend the General Plan.
HS said he would like to be assured that interim copies of the report prepared concerning the
issue be made available, and he so moved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and on
voice vote carried unanimously.
17. From the City Manager concerning revised Section 2I05 Gas Tax Budget for 1975-76 fiscal year.
Councilman Hurwitz asked what effect the revisions would have on the proposed storm drain improve-
ments between Atlantic Avenue and the Estuary. The City Engineer stated the project would not be
affected as it was a 51,000,000 project presently under consideration by the Alameda County Flood
Control District.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt
and carried unanimously on voice vote.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "ReSO]utiOn5".
RESOLUTIONS:
18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8497
Affirming and Adopting Amendment No. 1 to Highway Users Tax Fund
Budget."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Beckam 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:
19. From the City Manager regarding the Business License Tax ordinance.
President Corica recalled that in prior discussion a majority of the Council had agreed to increase
the Business License Tax four times in the category of rentals and three times in all other
categories, with the exceptions recommended by the Ad Hoc Finance Committee. He said he had since
heard many objections to the extent of the increase and while he had felt previously that two and
one-half times might be a fair rate, he was now reluctant to increase the tax as suagested. He
stated he realized there was a need for additional revenue, and suggested the tax be increased a
straight two tin/es across the board, with review at the end of a two-year period.
Mr. Donald Lindsey, President of the Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the previously stated position
of the Chamber in recommending an increase in the business license tax of two and one-half times.
He said the Chamber realized the need for increased fees and the inequities existing in the current
ordinance, and urged that any action taken in amending the ordinance bear a one-year limitation.
It was their opinion, he said that the amendments required a great deal of additional study with
input from the City as well as the business community, and it was their recommendation that the
parties work together toward eliminating some of the inequities at the end of the one-year period.
On question, Mr. Lindsey cited as an example of a possible inequity the proposed fee to be charged
persons engaged in the rental of commercial and residential properties.
Councilman Diament noted the Ad Hoc Finance Committee had recommended a larger fee than was proposed
in the ordinance, and she did not feel their work should be ignored.
In response to a question put by Councilman Hurwitz, City Manager Goss said he would estimate if
the rates were doubled this would produce roughly $85.080 to S90,000 per year; if triples, $I70,000
to $I89"000 per year. Based on the policy direction of the Council, revenue was estimated at
approximately $200,000 which would be the three times increase except for apartment units which would
have a four times increase.
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, a member of the Ad Hoc Finance Committee, remarked the
matter of an increase in business license fees had been before the Council for more than eighteen
months. He stated the Committee had held numerous public meetings and no official representative
from the business community had ever taken part in the discus[i0ns. He suggested the Council
proceed with the matter and adopt the ordinance as proposed. He recommended the Council again
consider a sales tax on real estate transfers.
Mr. James McClure, 2811 Yosemite Avenue, Past President of the Ad Hoc Finance Committee, and a member
Of the business community, reported the Committee had spent fifteen weeks in deliberation and at
no time did they receive any input from the Chamber of Commerce.
He objected to their opposition at this time.
Mr. Robert Smith, 3530 Magnolia Drive, suggested the fees be set at a low rate and increased over
a period of several years.
Mr. George A. Miller, Executive Director of the California Music Merchants Association, representing
the vending amusement device indUstry" mported 331 general law cities and a large number of charter
cities were collecting fees according to gross income, and they had found this to be a more equitable
method. He referred to AB 858 passed several years ago placing all non-charter cities on a gross
income basis for the collection of business license fees, and stated he would propose this as a
recommendation from their industry.
Mr. John Barni, 2000-B Central Avenue, suggested inequities existed in the proposed ordinance and
recommended the City Council, along with the Chamber of Commerce and others, look into the licensing
procedure within the coming year in an attempt to remedy these inequities.
Mr. Harry Potter, General Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, stated Mr, Bert Rupp and Mr. Don
Oransky had attended the meetings of the Ad Hoc Finance Committee as their representatives. He
commented that at one time the Committee had been talking of a ten times increase in the business
license fee, ultimately settled on five times, and the input of Mr. Rupp was not accepted. Consequently,
he said, the Chamber had been forced to its present position of a maximum of two and one-half times,
with a proviso of a one-year life to allow additional study and input into the matter.
Mr. John Beery, Mariner Square, presented a petition signed by twenty-nine members of the Park Street
District Association affirming their support of the Chamber of Commerce position on the proposed
increased business license fee.
Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report and to move the ordinance out of order, with the
following amendment: To remain three times but to go with three times on the apartment
dwellings instead of the proposed four; also to set a time frame on the ordinance to expire and be
reevaluated on June 30, 1977. Councilman Dianent stated she would second the motion without the
time frame.
Councilman Beckam remarked that some time ago he had asked that a financial report be prepared by
the City Manager to deal with the potential of the budget situation for the next year, because of
the probable loss of some Revenue Sharing funds. He stated the report had been received at the
previous meeting and predicted a somewhat bleak future in the City's funding picture for the coming
year. He noted cutbacks had been made in many areas however it would be necessary to seek additional
revenue to perform normal operations. He proposed a substitute motion that the three times increase
go for the one-year period mentioned, but that it increase at the end of the one-year period to a
four times increase in the hope that between now and the end of that one-year period most of this
could be resolved to remove the inequities and come up with a fair tax throughout the City for all
the areas being considered. Councilman Sherratt stated he would agree with this proposal.
Following further discussion, Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and that the ordinance
for introduction be taken out of 0rder. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on
the following roll [al] vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: Councilman Sherratt and President Corica, (2).
Absent: None.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
20, Councilman 82Ckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter, and further moved the Council he receptive to additional input
from the business community within the one-year period:
"Ordinance No.
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Certain Sections of
Articles 3, 4 and 5, Chapter 1 of Title XIII; by Repealing Articles
7 and 9, Chapter 1 of Title XIII and Adding In Lieu Thereof New
Articles 7 and 9; and By Adding a New Article 10 to Chapter 1 of Title
XIII, Relating to Business Licenses and Business License Fees."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Three. Noes: Councilman Sherratt and President Coica, /2\. Absent/ None.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
21. From the City Manager recommending acceptance of public improvements in Tract No. 3422,
(Garden Isle Townhouses - Braddock & Logan, Subdividers) excepting the Sidewalk and street trees,
and approval of reduction in the performance bond to $4,000.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the recommendation and approval of the reduction in the
performance bond to $4°000, The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously
On voice vote.
22. From the City Manager recommending three Labor Trainee pcsitions be added to the Street Division
Under the Economic Development Act, Title X.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the repOrt. The motion was seconded hv Councilman Sherratt
and on voice vote carried unanimously.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
23- The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8498
Amending Salary Resolution No. 8379 by Adding Positions Funded Under
Title X of the Federal Puhlic Yorks Economic Development Act /PWEDA\
and Establishing Salaries Therefor."
The motion to adopt said resolution 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:
24. From the City Manager concerning costs incurred by the City in adopting mandated Elements to
the General PldD,
City Manager Goss explained that at the present time there was no provision for funding those
Elements under 5R 9n, however some had received partial federal "70I" planning moneys and funds
from the Housing and Community Development Act.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt
and carried unanimously on voice vote,
25. From the City Manager concerning the status of proposals relating to County Planning.
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report, seconded hy Councilman Sherratt, and carried
unanimously on voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
26. From the Golf Advisory Committee transmitting Golf Course and Driving Range report.
Mr. Clifford P. Dutrow, Chairman, assisted by Mr. D. Grant Mainland, Recreation Director, presented
the proposal for the reconstruction of the driving range and the construction of a cart storage
building at the Alameda Municipal Golf Course, and exhibited slides reflecting present and projected
income, in explanation of the written report.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Dutrow stated the Commission had finished drawings for
the project, could go to bid in April, be into construction in July, and derive income for the
City in 0ctober. He said they were requesting the sum of $I03,9I6 be allocated from the Capital
Outlay Fund for the project, which they proposed to repay over a three-year period. He reported
the payoff of the project from its own revenue would coincide with the retirmenet of the Golf Course
Bond balance, and it would then be appropriate to allocate one-half of this available estimated
income, or approximately S18,312, plus the S35,000 Bond amortization to the General Capital Improve-
ment Fund and allocate the estimated balance of $18,312 per year to the Golf Course Capital Outlay
Improvement Fund.
Following discussion, Councilman Diament moved the reconstruction of the Driving Range and Cart
Storage Shed be placed in first priority for Capital Improvement funding. At the suggestion of
Councilman Sherratt, Councilman Diament incorporated in her motion a request that the City Manager
submit a report on the Capital Outlay Program. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and
carried unanimously on voice vote.
A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting continued with the regular order
Of business.
27. Consideration of the following items brought up under "New Business" at the regular meeting
held March 2, 1976:
(a) Request of Councilman Diament that the Golf Course crew receive an official commendation.
Councilman Diament remarked she knew Denny Plato and his crew were responsible for the Golf Course
budget being underrun. She reported the lake was created at a very reduced figure due to the fact
they had worked out the pump system and the process for filling the reservoir, that eight alterna-
tive tees had been built at a cost of less than $100 each which would have cost approximately $16,000
if done on the open market and the pipe puller designed by Mr. Plato had been done at a saving to
the City. Councilman Diament moved a resolution be prepared commending the Golf Course Crew, for
consideration at the next regular meeting of the City Council. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously.
Councilman Sherratt moved a letter of appreciation from the City Council be transmitted to all City
employees with their paycheck thanking them for their extra effort since the hiring freeze went
into effect. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously on voice vote.
/b\ Request of Councilman Beckam that discussion be held at the meeting of March 16, I976 and position
taken on SB I500, court reorganization proposal,
Councilman Beckam reported SB I500 by Senator Song proposed to reorganize California courts and help
finance the sydem by taking some of the fines and forfeitures which now went to cities and putting
them into a different fund. He said this would create an approximate $54,000 estimated revenue loss
to the City during the next year. He stated SB 1550 by Senator Roberti proposed a similar type
reduction and would take $5 from every $25 fine, which would also result in a loss to the City.
Councilman Beckam moved resolutions be prepared for consideration at the next regular meeting opposing
both SB I590 and SB 1550 for dissemination to Legislators and proponents. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously.
City Manager Goss requested staff latitude to express opposition to the bills by letter for
expediency, if necessary. Councilman Sherratt so moved; the motion wa seconded by Councilman
Diament and carried unanimously or voice vote.
(c) Request of Councilman Sherratt for timetable on construction of City portion of New Island Drive.
Councilman Sherratt reported this information had been provided hy theCity Engineer.
28. Councilman Sherratt moved the City Council instruct the City Manager to draft a letter to
appropriate ]eqisltOrS and Planning agencies stating the City Council requests Assemblyman Miller to
pursue legislation to reaffirm the Port of Oakland and City Council policy concerning permanent
closure of Runway 27, as set out in the resolution previously adopted by the Council; also Stating
the City recognizes the presence of the Oakland Airport and is oddreSsfng it in its General Plan;
that the City will, of course, consider the Airport in its planning process; that the City Council
has great concern for the health and safety of the existing residents not only on Bay Farm island
but the entire adjacent urban area, ard urneS the Port of Oakland to regulate their General Plan
to make it more realistic and compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of
the adjacent urban area.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously on voice vote.
President Corica read a press release to be issued on the subject of the closing of Runway 27,
Councilman Beckam referred to a press release issued by the Port of Oakland under date of March 10,
I976, setting out the types of aircraft to he precluded from using Runway 27, however stating the
prchibition would not apply whenever the main Runway 1I-29 was closed. He noted the release did
not state the reasons for closing Runway 1I-29 which would allow the use of Runway 27, whether for
emergency Or minor or major repairs. He requested that Mr. Robert Mortensen of the Port of Oakland
be contacted and asked to make the prohibition effective at all times except when Runway II-29 was
closed for emergency reasons only, as the City Council had requested in the past.
Councilman Hurwitz stated it was his opinion the Port of Oakland should be informed the City was still
opposed to all expansion plans of the Oakland Airport which would infringe upon the east end of
Alameda and on Bay Farm Island.
Mr. Len Peters, I002 Tahiti Lane, stated he represented the Islandia Home Owners Association in
matters pertaining to the Oakland Airport. He reported the exception presently in effect on the
use of Runway 27 from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. stated, 'The noise abatement program does not
apply when Runway 29 is closed for any reason." He stated that apparently the voluntary ban by the
Port of Oakland ccntained that same exception. He cited examples where temporary lack of visibility
caused by fog allowed the use of Runway 27.
100
Mr. Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, read into the record the following three suggestions:
(1) That the City of Alameda should Urge Assemblyman John Miller to carry legislation to ban jets
from Runway 27 permanently; (2) the City of Alameda should formally issue a statement or resolution
to the media and to all levels of regional government that Alameda was opposed to any airport expan-
sion which would erode the quality of life in Alameda by imposing increased noise impact on Alameda;
and (3) Alameda should issue a public request for support from all areas in its fight to keep from
being overrun by Oakland AirpOrt,
RESOLUTIONS:
29. Councilman DjdmeOt moved the resolution concerning the Initiative Petition be taken out of
order to accommodate those in the audience who wished to speak on the subject. The motion was
Seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote. On request, the City Clerk
read the title of the resolution.
President Corica reported the City Council had been asked to place an Initiative Resolution on the
June 8, 1976, State Primary Ballot; that the petition had contained the required number of registered
voters residing in the City of Alameda.
Councilman Diament requested the City Attorney to advised the Council concerning the statements
made by Mr. Jay Grenig, Attorney, representing parties opposed to the initiative.
Mr. Stroud reported Mr. Cren1g'S letter addressed itself to the question of whether the proposed
resolution was within the scope of the initiative power under the general law, and his conclusion
was that it was not. Mr. Stroud stated he had read the letter and found no fault with it. He said
that, simply stated, the initiative power under the general law was the power of the people to
enact legislation, to do legislatively what the Council could do legislatively, and Mr. Grenig/S
conclusion was that the school system, being a State agency responsible for admidstering State
function, was not a legislative matter and therefore not within the scope of the initiative. Mr.
Stroud said he thought this was correct, however there were two problems in that this was not proper
legislation for the City Council as it was a School Board matter, and it was not a legislative
matter as it dealt with administration of the schools. He pointed out this was limited to the
general law area. He stated the City Council did have the power to put advisory nutters on the
ballot under the Charter, however this was not what was requested.
Councilman Beckam stated it was his opinion the petition was to provide an answer by the people,
which might or might not differ from the decision made by the School Board, and was merely a
questioning of the decision as a practical matter.
Mrs. Inez Kapellas, I128 College Avenue, sonke5person of the Save Alameda High School Committee,
maintained it was not within the jurisdiction of the City Council to decide the subject matter of
any initiative. She referred to the recent Goals Study in which the Council had requested input
from residents on all issues. She reported that more than fifteen percent of the electorate had
signed the petition and wanted to be heard on this issue. She alleged the community had been
denied the rights to the opinion which they had voiced before the Board of Education and had
been ignored, and this was their only way to bring the matter to a vote of the people.
Mr. Dennis Rothhaar, I305 Franklin Street, Oakland, Attorney for the Save Alameda High Committee,
questioned the statements made and opinions cited by Attorney Grenig in his letter. He stated the
Only issue before the City Council #C3 whether or not the issue should be placed on the ballot.
The following persons spoke in favor of placing the issue on the June primary ballot: Mrs.
Harriet Roberts, 3275 Thompson Avenue., Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue; Mrs. Ina Ratto,
I053 Island Drive; Attorney Michael Grappo, I505 Broadway; and Mr, Frank Ratto, I053 Island Drive.
Mrs. Barbara Kahn, 467 Central Avenue, spokesperson for the Committee of Outraged Taxpayers and
Mrs. LuAnn De Witt, 2917 Central Avenue, requested the Council refuse to place the measure on the
ballot.
Mr. Jay Grenig, Attorney for the Committee of Outraged Taxpayers, stated it was his opinion the
City Attorney had adequately explained the laws which applied to the situation, and referred to
his letter on the subject.
not
Councilman Hurwitz said it was his Opinbn the matter's important point was/whether or not the high
school should be replaced but whether or not the City Council had any jurisdiction in the matter
He noted the people had previously voted for a separate School Board and the matter of the High
School was a decision to be made by the Board.
At the conclusion of lengthy discussion, the following resolution was introduced by Councilman Oeckam,
who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8499
Proposing an Initiative on Petition Signed by Fifteen Percent /I5 of
the Registered Electors; Calling a Special Municipal Initiative Election
in City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to Electors of Said City
the Following Resolution: Shall Alameda City School District Amend the
Plans with the State of California and Bring Alameda High School into Confor-
mance with the Field Act Requirements by Rehabilitating the Existing
Structures Pursuant to Article III, Section 3.2 and 3.3 Article XI Sections
11.1 and 11.2 paragraph 4, and Article XXI Section 21.1 of the Charter of
the City of Alameda, California; Providing for Notice and Advertising of
Same and Consolidating said Special Initiative Election with the State
Primary Election to be Held on June 0, I976."
JL � 0' �� }L �
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman D7Qnent and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: Councilmen Hurwitz and Sherratt, (2). Absent: None,
At this point, Councilman Beckam absented himself from the Council Chamber.
30, The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Sherratt, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 0500
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions 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 Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: NOne. Absent: Councilman Beckam, (1).
31. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz who moved its adoption:
'Resolution No, 850I
Establishing Schedules Relating to Plumbing, Heating and Ventilating Fees,"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes' None. Absent: Councilman Beckam, (1).
It was noted Councilman Beckam had returned to the Council Chamber.
32. The following resolution, technical amendments and deletion of measure referring to the
duties and powers of the Socia Service Board, was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its
adoption:
"Resolution No. 8502
Proposing Amendment to the Charter of the City of Alameda upon Motion
of the City Council; Calling a Special Municipal Charter Election in the
City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors Thereof Proposals
to Amend Said Charter, Viz: (1) By Amending Sections 2-1, 3-7/A\ and (B) and
6-2 Thereof Providing that the Mayor be listed as an Officer, That the Office
Of Vice President be Changed to Vice Mayor and that Special Meetings be Called
According to General Law; (2) By Amending Sections 2-1 and a2 Thereof Relating
to Change of Status of the Offices of City Auditor, Ex-Officio Assessor, and
City Treasurer, Ex-Officio Tax Collector, and Providing that Said Offices
Shall be Appointive by the City Council rather than Elective; (3) By Amending
Section 17-4 Thereof and Repealing Section 22-6 Thereof Providing That the
Budget may be prepared and the tax rate fixed prior to the third Tuesday in
September, Modifying the Delinquency Rate applied to Assessed Valuation and
Repealing the Provision Requiring Payment for Copies of Public Records; (4)
By Amending Sections 2-E, 2-8 and 19-2 Thereof and Repealing Sections I9-4
Through 19-11 and 19-I4 Through 19-I6 Thereof Relating to the Use of General
Law Procedures for General Municipal Elections and Special Municipal Elections
(5) By Amending Section 20-2 Thereof and Repealing 5ectbDS 20-3 Through 20-27
Thereof Relating to the Use of General Law Procedures for Recall: (6) By
Amending Section 13-3 Thereof Providing Right of Appeal to Members of the
Police and Fire Department Who Have Been Granted Permanent Civil Service Status;
(7) By Repealing Article XXIV Thereof so That State Parking and Assessment
District Acts will Apply; and (8) By Amending Section 3-14 Thereof Relating
to Publication of a Digest of Ordinances Before Enactment; Fixing Date of Said
Election, Manner of Holding Same and Providing for Notice Thereof; and Consolidating
Said Soecial Municipal Charter Amendment Election with the Primary Election of
the State of California to be Held on June 8, 1976."
The motion to adopt said resolutbn was seconded by Councilman Ofapent and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: NOne, Absent: None.
33. The following resolution, with technical umerdm2rtS and deletion of the measure
referring to the duties and powers of the Social Service Board, was introduced by Councilman Diament
who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 9503
Stating and Requesting Consolidation of a Special Municipal Election to be
Held Tuesday, June 8, 1976, with the Primary Election of the State of
California to be Held on Tuesday, June 8, I976'"
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.
34. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption;
'Resolution No. 8504
Stating and Requesting Consolidation of a Special Municipal Initiative
Election to be Held Tuesday, June 8, 1976, with the Primary Election of the
State of California to be Held on Tuesday, June H, I976."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: Councilmen Hurwitz and Sherratt, (2). Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
35. "Ordinance No. 1798,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within
the City of Alameda by Amending Zonina Ordinance No. 1277, N.S."
Councilman Diament moved the Ordinance be passed as SUbmitted. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes' None. Absent: None.
36. "Ordinance No. I799,
New Series
Adopting by Reference the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1973 Edition,
Copyright 1973, by International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials, with Amendments, Additions and Deletions Thereto as Primary
Code; Adopting by Reference Specifically the Recommended Practices
Contained in Appendix B of Said Primary Code Provfding for the Protection
of the Public Health, Welfare, and Safety by Prescribing Standards for the
Installation and Maintenance of Heating, Ventilating, Cooling and Refrigeration
Systems; Requiring a Permit and Inspection Therefor; Providing for the
Administration and Enforcement Thereof of the Standards Set Forth Herein;
Providing for the Qualification of Persons Engaged in the Business of said
Installations or Alterations or Equipment Related Thereto; and Prescribing
Penalties for Violations Thereof."
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
37. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the departments thereof in the
amount of S108,2I5.52, was presented to the 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
March 16, 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.
ADJOURNMENT:
38. There being no further business to come before this meeting, the Council adjourned to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday, April 6, 1976` at 7:30 o'clock p,m,
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk