1975-08-05 Regular CC Minutes`<,
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - - - AUGUST 5, 1975
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Hurwitz and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the Right
Reverend Monsignor Alvin P. Wagner, Pastor of St. Joseph's Basilica.
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 July 15, and special meeting held July 24, 1975, were
approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From the following concerning Police Headquarters: Mr, John J. Guidici, 1035 Via Bonita; Betty
and Cecil McQuay, 3359 Fernside Boulevard; Mary A. Cronin; and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce,
signed by Mr. Donald Lindsey, President.
These communications were referred to the Hearing to be held at this meeting in the matter of the
relocation of the Police Headquarters.
3. From the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, signed by Mr. Donald Lindsey, President, regarding the
placement of signs to direct visitors to areas of Ballena Bay, Pacific Marina and Mariner Square.
President Corica reported staff work had been done by the Engineering Department and the matter
was now before the Planning Board for reVfeN.
On question, Planning Director Patterson stated the subject would be placed on the agenda of the
next Planning Board meeting scheduled for August 18, 1975.
4. From Mr. William L. Maynard, 350 Tideway Drive, advocating issuance of a permit to Pan-Pacific
Development Company for construction of a permanent breakwater.
President Corica stated a meeting had been held within the past week with representatives of the
Wildlife Conservation Board and Fish and Game Commission concerning a site for a boat ramp and
fishing pier, and a report would be made by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
On request, the City Manager stated the construction of the breakwater would be without cost to the
City and would be a contractural obligation between Pan-Pacific and BCDC, and the City was not a party
to the agreement.
On the conclusion of discussion, the Council deferred action pending conclusion of discussions with
the Wildlife Conservation Board.
5. From the Alameda Unified School District, signed by Mr. William J. Frank, Director of Engineering,
requesting a variance be granted to allow installation of a 10-foot high chain link fence running
from east to west along Clement Avenue, in connection with their improvement of property referred to
as the "Adjacent Play Area" west of Thompson Fi2ld,
It was noted a variance would not be required in this instance because of the "M-1» zoning which
carried no fence height requirements.
Councilman Hurwitz requested the City Manager to ascertain if park facilities would be available at
all hours for public use.
6. From 15 part-time Library employees, endorsed by 19 full-time Library employees, protesting
the non-receipt of a pay increase by part-time and temporary employees.
Ms. Patricia Roshaven, 1142 Highcourt, Berekeley, stated she had been a part-time employees of the
Library for one yeur. She reported Library employees, both full and part-time felt there was an
inequity in that full-time employees had received a twelve percent salary increase, whereas part-time
employees had received no increase. She said it was their suggestion all employees should receive
an eight to ten percent raise, the budget be reviewed with this in mind, and the possibility of part-
time employees being allowed to join the union be investigated.
Ms. Janet Heyer, 1611 Santa Clara Avenue, a full-time Library employee, urged all full-time employees
to join in accepting a lesser raise so part-time employees might be able to share.
The City Manager was directed to review the matter and submit a report.
7. From the lational Rehabilitation Association, signed by Mr. Gil Johnson, Vice Chairman, regarding
the installation of sidewalks and barrier-free conStruction.
On question, City Engineer Hanna reported the City had, for the past two years, followed State law
in all new construction and reconstruction.
Ccuncilmar Diament inquired if barriers in front of some of the larger stores, such as Safeway and
Lucky, were in the process of being removed. The City Engineer replied if the ramps and entrances
were reconstructed they would have to meet the requirements. The City Attorney noted there was no
provision in law for retroactive application.
It was the suggestion of the Council that stores with barriers be contacted for voluntary removal.
HEARINGS:
8. In the Matter of an Appeal filed by Mr. John Barni, Jr., for Mr. and Mrs. Mervin Shields, from
a decision of the Planning Board concerning Major Variance 75-5 for property 'located at 18 Garden
Road.
It was noted a memorandum had been received from the Planning Director submitting findings of the
City Planning Board, and a communication received from 19 property owners on Garden Road urging
support of the Planning Board decision.
The City Attorney stated the issue was to determine whether or not the Planning Board was supported
in its decision to deny the variance, which required a showing of hardship on the part of the appli-
cant and a showing of no detrhent to surrounding properties.
Mr. Phillip Judge, Assistant Planner, reported the Plannning Board, at its regular meeting held
June 30, 1975, had considered the application to permit the establishment of two lots, both of which
would contain less than the required 5000 square foot minimum lot area required by Section 11-134/a\
Of the Zoning Ordinance, He noted staff had recommended approval based on the facts that a number
of lots on Garden Road presently contained less than 4300 square feet of lot area; a similar pro-
posal to divide these lots had been approved by the Planning Board in 1965, but was not carried
through by the applicants and, therefore, was not recorded; and a 4300 square foot lot differed
from a legal 5000 square foot lot by only 14%. He stated the applicants owned an 8600+ square foot
parcel of property at 18 Garden Road which they desired to split into two 4300+ square foot lots.
Mr. Judge said a number of Garden Road residents had opposed the variance request, and the Planning
Board, in making a motion to approve, denied the application on the findings that (1) there were
no exceptional or unusual circumstances or conditions; (2) the subject property was not denied any
substantial right now lawfully possessed by other properties in the same vicinity; (3) the granting
Of said variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property
or improvements in the same vicinity and zone district; and (4) the granting of said variance would
be contrary to the spirit of the General Plan. He noted the burden of proof was now on the appli-
cant to prove where there had been some error or abuse of discretion exerted by the Planning Board,
Or wherein its decision was not supported by the evidence in the record.
The Hearing was declared opened.
On the call for proponents, Mr. John Barni, Jr., 1277 Bay Street, stated the application was now
before the Council because he and the applicants felt the Planning Board did not receive all the
facts correctly in the matter. He reported the Zoning Ordinance stated a variance could be
obtained with certain conditions, some of which had been referred to by the City Attorney; and the
findings required for issuance of a variance must be based on a determination that all of the
following conditions of the Zoning Ordinance were present. "[I) That strict compliance with the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent
with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, due to unique physical or topographical circumstances
Or conditions of design. (2) That strict compliance with the regulation would deprive the appli-
cant of privileges enjoyed by owners of similarly rnned property. (3) That the variance, if
granted, will not adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development of
abutting properties or the surrounding area, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
contrary to adopted plans or development policy. (4) That the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties or
inconsistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Barni alleged the subject property did have peculiar physical conditions, as it has a 50 foot
frontage on both Garden and County Roads and contains a total lot area of 8.650 square feet. He
noted there were several other properties in the neighborhood containing 72C5 than 5000 square feet
and having less than a 50 foot frOntage. Mr. Barni related two new single-family homes would be
constructed with standard setbacks and, if the requested variance were granted, it would not alter
the present uses in the neighborhood.
Referring to a posted map of the neighborhood, and to Section I1-I34/a\ and (b) of the Zoning
Ordinance requiring a lot area of 5000 square feet and lot width of 50 feet, Mr. Barni noted the
area bounded by Garden, Mecartney and County Roads contained 52 properties, 30 of which were
deficient in lot area and width. Therefore, he contended, 58 percent of the neighborhood enjoyed
a use which the applicants were requesting the Council to approve. He stated if the variance
were issued, each dwelling site would have a 50 foot frontage and each home would contain approxi-
mately 1800 square feet on the first floor, including a two-car garage.
Concerning the petition signed by 19 property owners in the neighborhood, Mr. Barni noted this
constituted 15 properties, 8 of which were deficient in lot size as defined by the current
Zoning Ordinance and their owners were enjoying a condition being denied to the applicants.
On the call for opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Sherratt moved the decision of the Planning Board be
overruled and the requested variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and
on roll call carried unanimously.
9. In the Matter of an Appeal filed by Mr. Donald J. Gehb, President, Alameda First National
Bank, from the decision of the Design Review Board concerning Sign installation at 2234 Otis Drive.
City Attorney Stroud reported the issue was whether the Design Review Board decision, in light
of the entire record, was supported by the evidence, or whether the Design Review Board had abused
its discretion.
Planning Director Patterson stated he would make a presentation, on behalf of the Planning staff,
as an overview of the South Shore Shopping Center, and Mr. Dave Tuchsen, Vice Chairman of the Design
Review Board, would give justification of the actions taken by the Board.
Mr. Patterson, utilizing projected slides and a posted map, described the layout of the site plan of
the Alameda First National Bank building under construction and adjoining properties. He noted Otis
Drive was being proposed as a financial district in this specific area, and the Council decision in
this matter would affect consideration by the Design Review Board of two additional similar sites
with regard to signs. In his slide presentation, Mr. Patterson also compared signing in the four
City business districts to that of other communities having signage regulations.
Mr. Patterson indicated the double-faced free standing sign, which the applicant wished to place
adjacent to the entry to the drive-in tellers, measured 5/4'/ wide by 8/0o in overall height, with
6" lettering, The question, he stated, was is this an appropriate scale to the architecture and
pedestrian and could something less than that height be read, or is it necessary. He noted the
proposed bank was a large building, architecturally unique and located in a row of financial institu-
tions with vantage points from Otis Drive and Park Street. In his opinion, he said, the amortization
question was not appropriate as there would be no improvement in the community if an amortization
period of from three to five years were followed in the sign ordinance. He stated Wells Fargo and
Great Western Savings and Loan might be asked to cooperate in taking their signs down so all
banking institutions would have a comparable and economic vantage point, and Wells Fargo had indicated
their willingness to do so. Mr. Patterson said he felt the issue before the Council was a test
Of the express goals of the community, i.e., to eliminate visual pollution through proper design
identification, not advertisement.
Mr. Dave Tuchsen, 606 Santa Clara Avenue, Vice Chairman of the Design Review Board, reported the
Board had made its decision on this particular application based on the governing Ordinance and
Manual. He stated he would like to emphasize the following points, namely, (1) excessive identifi-
cation was one of the first things the Board felt was prevalent in the application; (2) design impact
on the site and neighborhood of this particular sign, as zoning directly across the street was '/R-1"
and the Board did not feel this particular free standing sign was appropriate for the neighborhood;
(3) the precedent which would be set if the free standing sign were allowed; and (4) the application
was treated fDir]y. He noted the design Review Board had jurisdiction over the sign.
The Hearing was declared opened. On the call for proponents, Mr. Donald J. Gehb, President, Alameda
First National Bank, with the use of slide projections and film, showed pictures of the proposed
sign and surrounding area. He reviewed in detail the reports submitted by staff, Design Review
Board and himself, and the hearing before the Board. He noted that of fourteen recent sign applica-
tions, four requests for free standing signs were received, three had been approved and his applica-
tion had been declined. He disputed the points set out by the Board in making its decision and
alleged the Board had abused its discretion and was unreasonable in turning down the application.
Mr. Gehb displayed a petition signed by numerous residents requesting the sign be allowed. He
recalled that in September, 1974, a sign ordinance had been prepared by the Chamber of Commerce
and was still under study by the Planning Board, and urged the Council to instruct the Board to
expedite its consideration. He stated when the ordinance was adopted, they would adhere to its
regulations. Mr. Gehb was assisted in his presentation by Mr. Tom Donahoe, a licensed electric
sign contractor employed by Advertising Products, Inc., who answered the questions of the Council.
MrS, Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, questioned the proposal to eliminate parking on the south
Side of Otis Drive between Park and Willow Streets in front of the planned financial district. She
said it was her opinion if a sign was aesthetically pleasing, it should be allowed.
Mr. Wayne E. Peace, President of Alameda Federal Savings, reported his institution was quite willing
to abide by any sign ordinance which would be enacted. He stated the sign for their new building on
Otis Drive was in the design phase, and urged the Council to consider that parity was important as
they must complete with their neighbors in encouraging local people to do business with their con-
cern.
Mr. Robert Smith, 3530 Magnolia Drive, reiterated his previously expressed opinion of the Design
Review Board.
On the call for opponents, there was no response. The Hearing was declared closed.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman SHerratt moved the decision of the Design Review Board
be overruled and the sign application granted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and
carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: Councilman Hurwitz, (1). Absent:
NOn2
At the request of Councilman Beckam, staff was directed to contact other business establishments
along the south side of Otis Drive in the vicinity of Alameda First National Bank and to request
voluntary lowering of their signs, and the Planning Board was directed to pursue the preparation of
a sign ordinance for Council consideration at an early date.
A ten-minute recess was Called. Upon reconvening, the meeting continued with the regular order
Of business.
10. In the Matter of the Relocation of Police Headquarters.
President Corica reported this Hearing was being conducted for the purpose of receiving input and
alternative proposals from the citizens of the City concerning the plan to move the Police Depart-
ment into new quarters, at the old Post Office building. He said two meetings had been held between
City staff, the Chief of Police, Police Lieutenant Wood, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce
and business community, and Councilman Diament and himself; representatives of the Chamber and
business community had asked they be allowed to present an alternative plan for the relocation of
the Police Department and it had been emphasized that time was of the essence and if the alternative
site should prove unsatisfactory, they would withdraw their objections and assist the City to
expedite the move to the Post Office building. He stated it should be realized that with inflation,
any delay would necessarily increase costs and the money at hand would be insufficient and that if
a bond issue were put to a vote and failed, the Police Department would be left in its present
inadequate facilities. He said the Council awaited the alternative proposal with the hope it would
solve the problem without going to the taxpayer.
President Corica noted that for some time the City administration had been under attack by the
local newspaper and others who objected to the move to the Post Office and he wished to state
publicly that the Council, as a whole, had the utmost confidence in the City Manager. He stated
the Council was willing to listen and base its decision on what would be the best for the majority
of citizens of A]O0eda,
The Hearing was declared opened.
On request, City Manager Goss summarized the chronology of events leading up to the present issue.
He noted a little over two years ago, it had been learned the Post Office building was to be declared
surplus and available for disposal to local governmental agencies; it had been suggested at that
time by the local newspaper the building be demolished and used as a parking lot, which led to
correspondence from concerned citizens suggesting the building was architecturally important, should
be saved and possibly used for some public use. After the building had formally been declared
surplus by the General Services Administration, the then Mayor La Croix had requested staff to
explore possible alternative public uses for the structure. Upon review of the building, it
appeared to be suitable for possible re-use as a Police Station, or perhaps a Library-Cultural
Center and it was concluded after examination by professionals in architecture, engineering, planning
construction etc., the building could be restored to a facility to meet the needs of the Police
Department for the foreseeable future. He said the goal was to provide a modern police fDC1lity.
At that point, the GSA had been notified of the City's possible interest in the structure and
preliminary discussions were conducted. During this time, written communications from organizations
within Alameda were received requesting the City to acquire the property for public use; this
occurred during February to May, 1974. After the discussions and the feasibility of the project
had been examined in more detail, the City Council, on May 29, 1974, authorized the City Manager
to offer GSA not more than $300,000 for the property. During this time, GSA filed an environmental
impact statement on the possible sale of the site to the City in the form of a negative declaration.
Mr. Goss said, on September 19, 1974, after more definitive cost estimates of the conversion of the
project had been prepared, the City Council approved a Capital Improvement Program for the period
]974-]976 which contained a number of projects, the chief of which was $1,400,000 for acquisition
Of the Post Office building with its conversion to a Police Station. Negotiations had then been
undertaken with GSA with the result of an extremely favorable negotiated figure of $165,000 to be
paid over a six month period, without interest. He noted this was an extremely low amount and
was the result of the prospective continued public use of the building and the conversion cost
to a public agency that would bear on such a project. He stated the City Council, on October 1,
1974, accepted his report recommending the City proceed with the acquisition of the Post Office
building and adopted Resolution No. 8268 authorizing the submittal of a formal offer to purchase
the structure. He said it had been mentioned, at that time, that it would take GSA a period of
time before the offer could be accepted and the next steps for consummating the sale could be under-
taken. He stated the offer was accepted and the deed transmitted to the City during the past
month, and the City was now in a position to accept the deed and formally complete the transaction.
Mr. Goss reported, in order not to lose time with the project, prospective architects had been inter-
viewed during late 1974 and on January 21, 1975, a contract had been awarded to the firm of Radcliff,
Slama and Cadwalader, a firm with considerable experience. He stated the architect then conducted
a thorough review of the space needs of the Police Department, special needs particular to police
activities, adjacency relationships, and the application of codes to the proposed conversion prOjeCt.
He said this study involved a review of several recently constructed police facilities and
conferring with appropriate County, State and Federal officials, including representatives of the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice
Planning and Architecture. Also, at the same time, in defining the scope of the project, discussions
had been held with representatives of Alameda County to determine if the municipal Court could and
should be included with the Police Department project. He stated initially this appeared promising,
but several problems arose leading the City Council, on June 3, 1975, to approve proceeding with
the Police building alone including a "soft" holding facility. Mr. Goss stated that during the
same period of time appraisal information had been sought in the general area to assist in planning
for the project.
He noted there had been opposition to the proposed conversion project and the Chamber of Commerce
had requested an opportunity to look into the subject further for the purpose of determining if
an alternative proposal could be developed, He said, it seemed to him it should be the City/3
goal to obtain modern headquarters for the Police Department, one that would meet their needs for
the foreseeable future and at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. He suggested the following criteria
should be borne in mind. (1) would it provide a facility adequate to meet the Police Department's
needs now and in the future; (2) would it make sense operationally: (3) what would be the costs;
(4) would delay be created and costs increased as a result; (5) would we be looking at direct compari-
sons on costs and operations and comparability; and (6) would it be architecturally compatible in
scale an character with existing structures, including setbacks, landscaping, materials, building
mass and screening. Mr. Goss stated the City was in the process of developing an environmental
impact report on the project, and when completed, it would be in draft form and would permit
anyone with factual information to offer to submit it as part of the draft, in terms of completing
the final EIR.
Police Chief Richard Young, on request, stated it was his considered professional opinion the
location of the Police Headquarters was immaterial and did not have to be adjacent to other municipal
offices. Concerning its construction, he stated the building must be entirely of reinforced steel
and concrete, Class nA" construction, and aesthetically pleasing and attractive to the public. With
respect to the architect, he said the architect had been chosen following an investigation of several
firms and the use of an oral selection board. He said he was satisfied with his ability, experience
in this type of construction, services and cooperation. He urged there be no change of architects.
As to the total cost, he reported there was a differential between the money available for relocating
in the Post Office building and that needed for a completely new facility. He noted the City Council
had expressed a policy that the cost of any facility should not be an additional burden on the
taxpayer, and it was now a political decision as to whether this policy should be changed. Concerning
the counter proposal to be presented, he urged the Council to examine it in detail before making a
decision. He said it was possible it would be acceptable as presented, however it could require
modification to ensure an efficient, new Police Headquarters facility. He reported that officials
of the Chamber of Commerce and the Park Street Merchants Association had assured him if the counter
proposal was not accepted, there would be no further opposition to the Post Office project; however,
he knew of at least two different parties who intended to circulate petitions calling for a referendum.
He suggested any persons planning to circulate petitions because they might not agree with the
ultimate decision of the Council, consider the possible consequence that it would effectively scuttle
the project for many years and the ultimate result would be decreased efficiency and services. He
noted the financial planning for either the Post Office or a new facility was based on a timetable
Of going to bid for construction at the end of this year, and beyond that inflation would increase
the costs.
Police Leiutenant Wood reported he had been assigned to the project eight months dgO. He noted
Police Headquarters had been located in the basement of the City Hall since its construction sometime
prior to the turn of the century. He stated the Post Office building was originally constructed
with security in mind and would provide the kind of operational space required in modern police
facility. Lieutenant Wood reviewed the displayed plans which had been developed and said they
represented a thorough and complete analysis of the people and systems which comprised the operations
Of the Deportment' In describing the proposed conversion, he stated the Post Office building would
provide 20,480 square feet of finished space and would accept the installation of a second floor
thereby giving three floors and providing an unfinished roughed-in floor space on the top floor
Of about 4,500 square feet for future expansion. He said the growth space was of utmost importance.
In duscussing the security factor, Lieutenant Wood said they expected to develop a pistol range in
the basement of the facility and also an area to be used as an emergency operation center. He
Stated the Federal government would contribute, on a fifty-fifty basis, funds to help a local
government develop this type of space, which must be in a protected area meeting Federal specifica-
tions and standards. He noted the Post Office building would conform to these requirements. He
Urged that the Council incorporate plans for a pistol range, emergency operation center, and growth
space in any site which they might consider for the Police Headquarters.
Mr, Don Lindsey, President of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, assisted by Mr. Harry Potter, General
Manager, presented their alternative proposal. He stated it was their belief the City's plans to
move the Police Department to the Post Office building would impede business expansion, however
they agreed the Police Department needed larger and more modern accommodations. He reviewed the
Post Office project and noted the costs had been set out, at the Council meeting of January 21, 1975,
as $265,000 for land acquisition, construction of 20,200 square feet at an estimated $55 per square
foot -- $1,100,000, and contingency fund $35,000, a total of $l,400,000 or a $320,000 increase over
over the original estimate. He reported the City Manager had set out the cost of an annex proposal
as $100,000 for land acquisition and demolition, construction of a first level of 10,000 square feet
at $35 per square foot -- $350,000, construction of the second and third levels of 20,000 square
feet at $70 per square foot -- $l,400,000, a total of $l,850,000. At that same meeting, he said, a
decision had been made to proceed with the Post Office project and authorization had been given for
the execution of an architectural service agreement with the firm of Radcliff, Slama and Cadwalader.
He alleged the decision was based on the $450,000 difference in price.
Mr. Lindsey reported that at a recent meeting of representatives of the City staff, Police Depart-
ment, and Chamber of Commerce, the City had been asked to come up with schematics and costs for an
annex compared to current projects on the Post Office remodelling. He said the following costs
were developed by the City for the Post Office proposal: land and building acquisition $158,000;
building rehabilitation and reconstruction of 20,500 square feet of net usable area, or 21,600
gross square feet finished space including framing in of o Otio a] space, $l,170,000; on site
development of 13,840 square feet at $2 per square foot, $27,700; off site development and land
acquisition for parking $80,000; and site development $25,600. The total cost of the project, he
said, was estimated at $1,402"300; and, in addition, $147,000 would be required to rough in the
4,900 square feet of desired growth space. Mr. Lindsey alleged the proposal was unrealistic and
stated they would suggest the cost of off site development and land acquisition for parking would
cost at least $I21,600; and the value of the two parcels being considered in the area would have a
value in excess of $120,000 which would not include demolition costs. In conclusion, he said it was
their opinion the Post Office project would cost $1,503,900, however they had serious reservations
regarding the remodelling cost.
Mr. Lindsey introduced Mr. Ron Stanley, Vice President of American Savings and Loan Association,
who, he said, has had extensive experience in remodelling and contracting new construction and was
an authority on the subject.
Mr. Ron Stanley, 1414 San Jose Avenue, stated it was his opinion remodelling a building the age of
the Post Office was very tricky, difficult and unpredictable in terms of costs, time and other
factors. One thing, he said, which was constantly a problem in remodelling was the absence of good
documented information with regard to how the building was originally constructed. He stated it was
his personal opinion this was not a good economical project. He said he felt the Police Headquarters
should be in a new structure rather than a remodelled sixty year old building, and it was not felt
the costs would be far in excess of that originally proposed. He estimated cost overrun on the
Post Office project would be at least ten percent.
Mr. Lindsey displayed their proposal for a new Police Headquarters to be built at the southwest
corner of Oak Street and Lincoln AYenUe, He stated this would consist of a two-story concrete and
steel masonry structure over a Class nA" garage, would provide five additional parking spaces to
the existing 131 spaces in the City Hall parking lot, and would be attractively land3Cdped.
He said the building would contain 21,600 square feet of finished area, plus 8,400 square feet of
garage area. He presented the following cost analysis: Parking area of 8,400 square feet at $10
per square foot, S84,000; finished area on parking level and second and third levels of 21,600
square feet at $61 per square foot, $1"401,800; landscaping $10,000; for a total building cost of
$1,411,500. Added to this would be the architect's fee of 61/2%, or $92,000, and the cost of acquisi-
tion and demolition of the Gay/Ward properties estimated at $80,000. This would bring the total
project cost to $l,583,600.
Mr. Lindsey then presented a second proposal utilizing the Same site, but reducing from 10,000
square feet to 9,000 square feet the areas of the second and third levels and increasing ground
floor level from 1,600 square feet to 3,600 square feet. He noted this would provide the same
total square footage of 21,600, but would eliminate one row of parking in the garage, however the
net parking spaces would equal the existing 131 spaces. Their cost analysis of this proposal
included at the parking level 5,400 square feet at $10 per square foot -- $54,000 and 3,600 square
feet Of finished area at $61 per square foot -- $219,600; at the second level of 9,000 square feet
at S61 per square foot -- $549,000; at the third level 9,000 square feet at $61 per square foot --
$549,000; landscaping S10,000; a total building cost of $1,381,600, In addition would be the
architect's fees estimated at $89,800, and $80,000 for land acquisition and demolition; a total
project cost of $1,551,400'
Mr. Lindsey introduced Mr. Richard Lyons of W.E. Lyons Construction Company, and noted the firm had
recently completed the Hayward Police Department complex, was presently building Haight School and
had constructed numerous commercial and governmental buildings throughout the state.
Mr. Lyons, 1310 Bay Street, reported the Hayward Police Department building contained 33,500 square
feet; it is a two story building constructed of steel, concrete and masonry with parking provided
On the perimeter. He stated some of the features in their contract of $l,815,000` which equaled
$57.07 per square foot, and included landscaping and outside parking, were a complete communications
Center system, an emergency power system, 11 cells for 21 inmates, showers and locker rooms, an
elevator, many training and conference rooms and offices. He said the building was originally
designed with a basement of approximately 2,300 square feet to provide an emergency Operating
center, and when the basement plan was eliminated and the center brought above grade it saved
approximately $27,000" or $]],58 a square foot for that area. He stated, on question, this
facility did not contain a pistol range.
Mr. Lyons stated it was his opinion that, if the construction contract for a new Police Headquarters
were awarded on or before January 1, 1976, a two-story Type I structure over a Class nA" parking
garage could be built for $61 per square foot for finished space and $lO per square foot for a
parking garage; however these estimates excluded laDd3Cdping. If an additional floor were required,
he said they felt the additional cost would run approximately $55 per square foot, and a detached
parking structure could be built for $8 per square foot if additional parking would be required.
He estimated construction of a pistol range would cost approximately $4,000 per stall.
Mr. John Leavitt, 1612 San Antonio Avenue, presented a cost analysis of both the Post Office proposal
and the Chamber of Commerce annex proposal. He noted the project cost of the Post Office was estimated
at $l"503,900. Adjustments to this figure were estimated at $44,667 and $22,334 in retail sales
taxes from Wards Auto Body Shop and Lake's Garage, respectively, and property tax income from the
Gay/Ward property of $8,520; a total cost, less adjustments, of $1,428,378. The cost of the annex
project was estimated at $l,583,600, and adjustments would include receipt of retail sales taxes
from the commercial use of the Post Office building of $208,446, property tax income from the
building of $21,600, and elimination of parking for the Police Department external to the Post
Office at a projected cost of $13,132; a total cost, less adjustments, of $1,340,422. Based on these
projections, Mr. Leavitt stated the difference favoring the annex would amount to $87,957. It was
his opinion, however, if and when the City advertised for bids on the Post Office proposal, the
result would be considerably higher than presently estimated.
In concluding the Chamber presentation, Mr. Lindsey stated it was their opinion the Park Street
business district had an excellent future in providing viable retail sales outlets, financial insti-
tutions, and business offices; a great deal of enthusiasm had been generated lately to improve the
appearance of businesses in the area as well as improving signing and off-street parking. He said
it was important to the well being of the community that the sales tax dollars be retained. He
alleged the use of the Post Office building as a Police Headquarters would create adverse effects
upon the business district in that (1) space in the downtown area would be prevented from developing
commercially and, additionally, the Post Office building would be restricted from commercial use;
(2) commercial usage of a building the size and location of the Post Office building would have a
dramatic positive commercial influence on the downtown area; and (3) business plans for expansion
and modernization in the area were being held in abeyance because of the uncertainties of the
Police Department move and commercial investment in the building would encourage implementation of
those plans. Mr. Lindsey said it was his opinion a new facility could be constructed for $50,000
to $80,000 more than a remodelled facility which would Only serve the Department's needs for a
twenty or thirty year period. Concerning quarters for the Municipal Court, he stated the possibility
ity
of establishing a perma nent home for the Ccurt, if the Post Office project were pursued, seemed to
have been lO5t. However, he said, there would seem to be a definite possibility in retaining this
facility in Alameda if the annex proposal were accepted; that an additional floor could be easily
incorporated with their proposal providing up to 10,000 square feet more and a parking structure could
be erected on the City Hall lot adjacent to the annex for approximately $8 per square foot. He
stated it was their firm belief the needs of the business community, the City, and the Alameda Police
Department would best be Served by erecting a new building on the present City Hall lot.
Councilman Dium2Dt asked Mr. Lindsey if the plans of the Chamber of Commerce had been checked with
the Police Department. Mr. Lindsey replied they had done so, however the Department was non-committal
at this time.
In reply to a question put by Councilman Oia0ent, Mr, J.B.S. Johnson, Past President of the Chamber
Of Commerce stated their proposal was for a Class "A» building over a Class »Ao garage.
Councilman Sherratt asked Mr. Johnson if their proposal, if accepted, would be under construction
by January 1, 1976. Mr. Johnson stated he believed this was possible.
Councilman Sherratt then asked Mr. Burns Cadwalader, the City's architect for the Police Headquarters
project, for his opinion on the time schedule. Mr, Cadwalader said he considered it extremely
unlikely that an architect could put together the drawings, get bids out, and construction underway
by 1. He noted the following time schedule on the present design, assuming it were approved
around the middle of August, the design development would take to September 30, through construction
documents completed by January 20, and construction could start about the end of February. However,
he said, on a new project it would probably take 30 days to employ architects, from 30 to 45 days
for development of the schematic design, another 30 days for design development, and from 90 to 120
days for completion of construction documents; and it was his opinion the earliest bids could be
called for would be about April 15, I975,
Councilman Hurwitz asked Mr. Cadwalader if he felt the figures projected by the Chamber would provide
the same amenities in a new building which were available in the Post Office. Mr. Cadwalader replied
that from the basis of their research, he did not. He offered an explanation on how they had arrived
at their cost estimate of $1,185,000. He reported a 5% contingency had been allowed as well as a 7%
inflation factor. He disputed the cost estimate offered by the Chamber of Commerce for a new annex
facility and said he would more closely estimate this at $1,686,000.
Councilman Hurwitz asked Mr. Lindsey if, in their costs, they had considered the pistol range or the
emergency operations center as possibly costing additional money. Mr. Lindsey stated the $61 per
square foot figure was based on a comparable facility as built in Hayward recently which housed an
emergency operations center. Mr. Lyons reported the emergency operations center cost was approximately
$145,000, of which the federal government had paid one-half; and noted a similar facility could be
included in either project with federal assistance if it met the guidelines.
Attorney James Stonehouse, 2990 Northwood Drive, representing Mr. Robert L. Lippert, presented the
proposal of his client which had been submitted, in writing, to members of the Council. He stated if
there was to be consideration of an alternate location, rather than the use of the Post Office, Mr.
Lippert would agree to purchase the building from the City for the money already expended. This
would include the $165,000 paid for the building, the $14,000 expended for architects' fees, and
the fees paid by the City for the appraisal of surrounding properties. He said the deed which Mr.
Lippert would request would include a reverter clause which would simply state that after 20 years
Of possession by Lippert, the property would automatically revert to the ownership of the City
at no cost. In addition, there would be a condition that if he obtained the building, the name
would be changed to the Lippert Building and a condition of the reverter clause would be that the
Dame be maintained.
Mr. Stonehouse stated Mr. Lippert would further offer and guarantee the use of 3,000 to 4,000 square
feet of space for use by the Alameda Historical Society for a museum, without cost; and would main-
tain the exterior of the building with the exception of the change of name and addition of a sign
indicating the two tenants. He displayed a drawing indicating the existing central lobby and stated
all positive features of the building would be retained. He said Mr. Lippert proposed to use the
building as a Home Center for the sale of hardware, housewares, and lawn and garden items and Mr.
Andy would be in charge of the building. He noted this offer would provide both sales and
Pagano
taxes to the City for a period of 20 years, at which time the property would revert to the
property ,
ownership of the City.
Concerning the annex cost estimate produced by the Chamber of Commerce in their proposal, Mr. Stone-
house stated Mr. Lippert, a licensed General Contractor, would guarantee these figures. That is,
if the building went for bid by 1, he would enter a bid on the figure presented by the
Chamber and would build it for that figure; also, he would not take a General Contractor's profit
from the bid and if the building were brought in under cost, the difference would be donated to the
City.
Mr. Stonehouse related that Mr. Lippert firmly believed that to place the Police Department facility
in the Post Office building would have a devastating effect on the Park Street business district;
that more businesses would have to be taken for parking and the building would be cut from commercial
use, leaving no room for growth on Park Street.
Mr. Stonehouse stated their research indicated the City had paid $165,000 to the United States
Government without benefit of an enabling ordinance. He said Mr. Lippert had instructed him to
prepare a taxpayer's suit requesting an injunction to prohibit the City from expending any further
funds on development of the Post Office, and to return the funds expended to the City treasury. He
reported the suit had been drafted and executed and was ready to be filed. On behalf of Mr. Lippert,
he asked that the ordinance on the agenda for consideration concerning the Post Office acquisition
be postponed for two weeks while the Police Department examined the Chamber proposal. If the
Council postponed consideration of the ordinance, as requested, he stated Mr. Lippert had instructed
him not to file any action for that period of time, and he would also extend his purchase offer
for a two week period. Mr. Lippert confirmed this statement.
President Corica remarked the ordinance on the agenda for consideration would finalize the purchase
of the Post Office building; that whether or not the Police Headquarters were relocated to that
Site or a new site, it would be necessary for the City to own the building before they could do
anything with it. He reported the City Council had acted in good faith with the Chamber of Commerce`
the business community, the local newspaper, and everyone concerned with the subject, and had
agreed to consider alternative proposals. However, it was his feeling if the matter were brought
to a bond issue, the issue would fail and the Police Department would remain in its present quarters.
Councilman Sherratt expressed his agreement with the President's remarks. He stated it was his
opinion the Council should act on the purchase of the Post Office, as the location of the Police
Department was an entirely different issue.
Councilman Hurwitz stated he thought Mr. Lfppert'S offer was very generous, however it was unfor-
tunate it had been presented with the threat of a lawsuit if not accepted. He said he would like
to further study the Chamber's proposal, to include everything which would have been incorporated
in the Post Office project including the 4^500 square feet of expansion space.
Councilman Beckam said he would hope the possibility of the Municipal Court being placed within a
new building would also be examined, as he was concerned the City would lose the Court if it were
not included. He noted the County was now looking for a new site for the Court and had allocated
$500,000 for this purpose.
Mr. Lippert reported he had become involved in the matter because a number of merchants were
discussing circulating d referendum petition if the ordinance to purchase the Post Office was
adopted. He stated this would cause a delay in proceeding with the Police Headquarters. He said
he had taken a survey to find out where the citizens wanted the Police Headquarters, and it showed
they preferred the site behind the City Hall, He knew of two separate referendums which were being
prepared, he said, and the only way he could think of to stop the Police Department from making a
move was to stop the Post Office deal. He requested the Council delay taking action on the ordinance
for a period of two weeks, in order that the alternative plans might be examined and a report made
tG the City Council. He indicated his offer would accompany any alternative site selected.
A five-minute recess was Called. Upon reconvening, the meeting continued with the regular order
Of business.
Or the call for proponents, of the alternative proposal, presented by the Chamber of Commerce,
the following persons spoke:
Mr. Arthur Smith, 1417 Everett Street, stated he lived in the immediate vicinity of the Post Office
building, and expressed his objection to the appraisal of individually owned properties in the
area. He was advised by the City Manager that his property would not be involved in any taking by
the City.
Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, stated her only interest was in seeing the Police Department
in a new building. She recommended a tax increase for a one or two year period to pay for the
prO'eCt. She asked if other proposals had been explored and was advised consideration had been
given to the site behind City Hall, the Times-Star building, and the electric light plant.
Mr. Robert Smith, 3530 Magnolia Drive, said he would not object to a small tax increase to pay for
a new building. He stated he would like to see Park Street developed with a modern mall area and
felt if the Police Department were relocated in the Post Office building, this would be impossible.
He asked the Council to take into consideration that the Police Department in that location would
be less desirable if something else equal could be found.
On the call for proponents, of the Post Office site, the following persons spoke:
Former Councilman William M. McCall, 1105 Mound Street, protested the threats which had been made,
both verbally and in the newspaper, by the opponents of the Post Office project. He stated it was
his opinion that was the best possible site for the Police Headquarters,
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, stated he was not particularly a proponent for either
of the sites discussed, and suggested other locations be explored.
Mrs. Lola Brown, 2938 Fernside Boulevard, stated her strong support of the plan to relocate the
Police Department in the former Post Office building. She noted the building was well located with
room for expansion, and funds were available to proceed without a tax increase or bond issue.
She stated she was opposed to a retail outlet occupying the building.
Mrs. Jacqueline Manfre, 3001 Central Avenue, stated that after a tour of the Post Office building,
it was her firm conviction it should be retained for a Police Headquarters. She urged the reloca-
tion be undertaken as quickly as possible. She reported she had taken a survey of the parking
situation in the Park Street district and had noted how many of the parking spaces in the public
parking lot were occupied by merchants and their employees. She stated she had information Mr.
Lippert had purchased property at the corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street and planned to demolish
the existing building and pave the lot for parking; also that Mr. Don Lindsey was reported to have
purchased the same piece of property as a replacement for Ward's Body Sh0p, She asked that Mr.
Lippert express his exact intention for the Post Office building and his plan to retain the
interior.
Mr. Lippert stated he had purchased the above mentioned property to create a parking lot for use
by merchants using the public parking spaces behind the Post Office building. He said the other
lot referred to was purchased by Mr. Lindsey and would be available to relocate Ward's Body Shop,
if the alternative site were selected. This was done, he said, to avoid any condemnation pr0C22diD
Mr. Salvatore Monaco, 2450 Otis Drive, said it was his opinion a new Police Station would not be
as structurally sound as the Post Office building. He stated he had been impressed by the enthusiasm
displayed by members of the Police Department in their desire to relocate to that site.
Mr. Gerhard DegeNdnn, 304 Sand Beach Road, stated he was a General Contractor specializing in the
remodelling field. He questioned the hidden costs which might be incurred in remodelling the Post
Office building because of its age.
Mr. Robert DeWitt, 2917 Central Avenue, stated his main concern was with cost overrun. He questioned
the difference in figures quoted by the Chamber of Commerce and the City's architect to redo the
parking lot, and why the pistol range and command post would not be as desirable in a new building.
The Hearing was declared closed.
On request, Planning Director Patterson reported the Planning Board had reviewed the two proposed
locations as they were related to the City's General Plan, They had concluded that both sites would
comply with the General Plan, however the site adjacent to the present City Hall was more substan-
tially in compliance with the General Plan.
Following discussion, the proposal of the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Lippert were referred to
staff and the City architect for review and report.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances."
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
11. Councilman Hurwitz introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Authorizing Purchase from United States of @02ric� of Former Post
Office Building and Real Property, Located on the North Side of
Central Avenue Between Park Street and Park Avenue."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
FjVe, Noes: None. Absent: None.
12, Councilman Diament moved the Council adopt a vote of confidence in the City Monager, The
motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
13, From the City Planning Board, signed by the Acting Secretary, making recommendation on Parcel
Map No. 1264, a division of property located on the north side of Blanding Avenue at Broadway into
two parcels, -Filed by Taylor Woodrow of California Incorporated.
Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report and recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Hurwitz and on roll call vote carried unanimously.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
14. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8394
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction and Completion
of Improvements in Connection with Parcel Map 1264 and Approving
Faithful Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (Division of Property
on North Side of Blanding Avenue at Broadway - Taylor Woodrow of
California Incorporated)."
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.
15. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8495
Approving Parcel Map No. 1264 for Division of Property on North
Side of B]aOding Avenue at Broadway, Alameda, California, and
Permitting Recording Thereof (Taylor Woodrow of California
Incorporated),"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: N0ne, Absent: None,
The meeting reverted to the regular order of business,
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS/
16. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, making recommendation on proposed
amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series, concerning uses permitted in ,C-lx, Neighbor-
hood Business, and nC-2», Central Business Districts.
The Hearing date on this matter was set for August 19, 1475,
17. From the Auditor-Assessor requesting cancellation and refund of real property taxes erroneously
levied and paid.
Councilman Sherratt moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Beckam and on roll call carried unanimously.
There being no objection, the Meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Sherratt, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8396
Ordering Cancellation and Refund of Real and Personal Property Taxes
Erroneously Levied and Collected."
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 Auditor submitting report of Count of Money held May 14, 1975, indicating the
Sum of $1I,658,275.20 in the City Treasury at that time.
Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz
and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
20' From the City Manager recommending contract be awarded to Brink's, Inc., sole bidder, for Coin
Collection of On-Street and Off-Street Parking Meters, at a per unit meter collection cost of
twenty-five cents.
21, From the City Manager reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of the
resurfacing of the Boat Ramp parking lot, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion
ordered filed.
Councilman Diament moved the project be accepted and the Notice of Completion filed. The motion
was seconded by Ccuncilman Beckam and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
22. From the Acting City Manager reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of the
resurfacing and minor repairs of various streets, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of
Completion ordered filed.
Councilman Beckam moved the project be accepted and the Notice of Completion filed. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on roll call vote carried unanimously.
23. From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Secretary, recommending the Dwelling Unit Tax
Fund of $23"050 plus $2,000 currently in the Capital Outlay Fund be used to repair the Franklin
Park tennis courts with remaining funds to be allocated for security lighting at Lincoln and
Washington Parks.
President Corica stated this item would be carried over to the next regular meeting of August 19,
1975, for consideration.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
24. From the meeting of July 15, from the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, concerning
Tentative Map No. 3627, a condominium conversion of a 13-Unit apartment project at 863-67 Walnut
Street, filed by Albert and Leslie Kessler.
President Corica reported this item had been withdrawn at the request of Mr. Albert Ke53ler,
25. Continued from meetings of July 1 and July 15, consideration of resolution limiting terms of
membership on City Boards and Commissions.
Councilman Hurwitz requested this item be held over to the next regular meeting of August 19, 1876,
for consideration and it was so ordered,
NEW BUSINESS:
26. Councilman Hurwitz requested staff investigate the possibility of obtaining the Dial-8-Ride
service discontinued in Richmond for Alalmeda residents.
RESOLUTIONS:
27. "Resolution No.
Limiting Terms of Membership on City Boards and Commissions."
It was noted this item had been held over to the meeting of August 19, 1975,
28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8397
Approving Map Showing Locations of Proposed City Street Construction
to be Performed with 1975-76 Fiscal Year Moneys Payable by County of
Alameda Under 'Mayors' Formula,' and Derived from State Highway
Users Tax Fund."
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.
29. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8398
Amending Salary and Position Resolution No. 8379 by Creating One (1)
Additional Position of Associate Planner and Deleting the Position
of Associate Planner (HCDA); and by Creating One (1) New Position of
Assistant Planner (HCDA) and Deleting One (1) Position of Assistant
Planner in the City Planning Department."
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.
30. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8499
Authorizing Execution of Agreement Between City and Heromu Akagi,
Doing Business as Alameda Delicatessen, Relating to Operation of
Parks R8fereShment Concession."
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 President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
31. 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 3-5415
Thereof, Relating to Tax Receipts and Contents."
The motior was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
32. "Ordinance No. 1767,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 11-24D3(h)
Thereof Relating to Conversion to Multiple Houses."
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call Y0te, Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
33. "Ordinance No. 1768,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection (a)
Of Section 2-5313 Relating to Unused Sick Leave Pay Upon
Retirement."
34. "Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 17-333
Thereof, Relating to All Time and Limited No Parking."
At the request of Mr, Wayne Peace, President of Alameda Federal Savings, consideration of this
item was held over to the regular meeting of October 7, 1975.
BILLS:
35. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the
total amount of S139,871.44, 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
August 5, 1975, and presented to the City Council at this meeting be allowed and paid. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on roll call carried by unanimous vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
36. Mrs. Inez Kapellas commended the Planning Director for allowing Department assistants to
present issues to the Council. She also questioned the availability of parking sites if
Alameda Avenue were closed in the vicinity of the new Alameda High School.
37. Mrs, Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, questioned the Council decision in overuling the Planning
Board action concerning the lot split at 18 Garden Road.
38. Mr, Robert Smith commended the City Council for its introduction of the ordinance authorizing
purchase Of the Post Office building.
FILING:
39, Agreement Between City and Taylor Woodrow of California Incorporated regarding Parcel Map
No. 1264.
40. Agreement Between City and Heromu Akagi, regarding Operation of Parks Refreshment Concession.
41, Financial Report - City of Alameda, as at June 30, 1975.
ADJOURNMENT:
42. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday, August 19, 1975, at 7;30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk