Loading...
1976-11-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - NOVEMBER 16, 1970 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Diament and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the Reverend Donald Sager, Pastor of the Court Street United Methodist Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica, (5), were noted present. Absent: NDD2, President Corica requested the resolution honoring Ruth M. Drossel be taken out of order. There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: 1. ` The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8627 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda Commending Ruth M. Drossel for Her Civic Contributions." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. President Corica read the resolution in full, which commended Mrs. Drossel, National Chair of ALAMEDA-VOTE '76/AMERICA-VOTE /76, for having brought nationwide recognition to the City in the promotion of voter registration and turnout at the polls for the 1976 Primary and General Elections. He presented a signed and framed copy of the resolution to Mrs. Drossel, which she accepted with gratitude. Councilman Hurwitz remarked that ALAMEDA-VOTE '76 had been singled out for an award by the State Bicentennial Commission, and had been the only committee to be so honored. Mr. Gary L. Gates, representing a number of fraternal Orgdntat1ODs within the City, expressed their appreciation to Mr3. Drossel and their support of the project. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. MINUTES: 2. The minutes of the special meeting held October 7, October 22 and October 29, and regular meetings held October 26 and November 2, 1976, were approved as submitted. Councilman Beckam stated he would abstain from taking any action on the minutes of the special meeting held October 22, 1976, as he had not attended that meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 3, From Mr. Robert McCord, Realtor, requesting Subdivision Map Act requirements be waived for properties known as 1102-I106 Park Street. City Engineer Hanna stated the waiver would accomplish the purposes and intent of the State Subdivision Map Act, as well as City ordinances, and the proposed division of land complied with requirements as to area, improvement and design, drainage, improved public roads, sanitary facilities, water supply, environmental protection, and no public improvements would be necessary or desirable. He said he had a letter from Mr. Leon Corcos, the owner of the property, and the one problem noted, i.e., drainage from the garage, would be corrected by installation of a sump pump by February 1, 1977' Councilman Sherratt moved the Council so find, and the Subdivision Map Act requirements for the described properties be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously on voice vote. City Attorney Stroud advised that no action be taken on this request until after the Council had considered and taker action on an ordinance relating to the waiver of Parcel Map provisions. With the consent of the second, Councilman Hurwitz moved that his previous motion be rescinded. The motion carried unanimously on voice vote. 4. From Alameda Animal Rescue & Control, signed by Mrs. Carmen Lasar, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, concerning the Alameda Animal Shelter. President Corica reported he had talked with Mrs. Lasar and she was agreeable to a postponement until the City Manager had investigated the allegations of the communication and submitted a report to the Council. 5. From the East Shore Home Owners' Association, 3ign8d by the President, opposing any proposal to extend Fernside Boulevard to Otis Drive, and endorsing the concept of an underwater crossing of San Leandro Bay at 66th Avenue. President Corica directed the communication be referred to the file on the Combined Land Use, Circulation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Mr. Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, asked when the Element would be available for study. He said that possibly the persons passing petitions at this time regarding the Fernside Extension, of which he was a proponent, should be made aware of the advancement of the Municipal Election date to March 8, 1977. He stated he did not believe a January date for submission of the study would allow enough time for re-evaluation. He noted three members of the present City Council had previously taken a negative position on the Fernside Extension, and this was one reason why they were proceeding with the initiative petition. President Corica stated this subject of the Element had been discussed at the prelious Council meeting, at which time the Planning Director had been asked when it would be ready and he had suggested it would be about January when the Council would receive the report. Councilman Hurwitz stated he did not feel he could take any stand either pro or con until he had seen the report. He said he did not vote opposing the Fernside Extension, but had voted to send it back to the Planning Board for a study. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue, expressed the opinion that an extension of Fernside Boulevard would not relieve traffic on 140 Street. She said she did not believe a study coming out of the Planning Department would satisfy her concerns on the subject. Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, said he heartily supported the extension of Fernside Boulevard. He alleged that three members of the City Council had gone on record as directing the Planning Board to delete all reference to the Fernside Extension from the General Plan. He noted that at a recent meeting, he had urged the Council to rescind its direction to the Planning Board, and alleged the Council had refused to do so. President Corica reported the City Council had adopted a motion instructing the Planning Board to disregard the prior Council action directing that it delete references to Fernside Boulevard from the General Plan, and further directing the Planning Board to conduct a full hearing process with no regard to the prior directive. He disputed Mr. Sullivans' allegations. Mr. Sullivan asked that the Council, under New Business, introduce a motion that at thier next meeting they would go on record to send the issue to the ballot to allow the people to vote for or against an extension of Fernside Boulevard, and thus eliminate the petition process. President Corica said it was his firm belief that all members of the City Council would fairly evaluate the Element, and would be open minded in the matter of the Fernside Boulevard Extension. Councilman Beckam noted that the motion finally adopted by the City Council had been adopted at the insistence of Mr. Sullivan, who had stated at that time it would Etisfy the proponents of the Fernside Bouelvard extension and would guarantee no petition would be circulated. HEARINGS: 6. In the Matter of a petition filed by Harbor Bay Isle Associates to rezone an approximate 10.34 acre parcel located on the San Leandro Channel adjacent to Maitland Drive, from "R-1-PD" Single-Family Residential, Planned Development District to "C-2-PD", Central Business, Planned Development District, for the proposed Harbor Bay Isle Club. The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file. President Corica explained the procedure to be followed, and declared the hearing opened. Planning Director Patterson reported the applicatbn had been approved by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of October 18, 1976, by a vote of six ayes, ro noes and none absent. He said staff did recommend approval of the rezoning. He stated he felt this was a fiarly clearly cut decision; that the Council was aware that Harbor Bay Isle Associates had had a change in their concept of recreation facilities, whereas previously they had planned arecreation club in Village I which would have been privately supported by the Home Owners Association, this had been found not to be feasible and they now chose to request a zone change for a private recreational club. He stated membership would be available to purchasers of Harbor Bay Isle property as well as the general public. Mr. Patterson reported the Planning Board had expressed concern and required conditions on the Planning Development to provide access to the water edge in the form of a pedestrian and bicycle path and an additional 40 car parking requirement. He said he had requested the consultant, after the Planning Board hearing, to provide a revised layout to indicate the impacts these conditions would have on the Harbor Bay Isle Club project. In explanation of his remarks, he posted the original and revised plans of the project and pointed out that the project would be locked in to the south by the School District, to the east by the Bay Farm Island Bridge, and to the north by the water's edge. He said it was his opinion the develeper must either drop some of the facilities within the Club or extend the use to the west. Councilman Hurwitz asked Mr. Patterson if his reservations had been expressed to the Planning Board at the time of the hearing, Mr. Patterson said they had not, since he was not in attendance. However, he stated, the Planning Board supported the Planning staff position and required the conditions for public access and additional 40 car parking spaces. Mr. Hurwitz asked Mr. Patterson if he still had reservations about the revised plan. Mr. Patterson said he did, specifically from a professional design point about the over intensification of the use, which might necessitate dropping some present proposed facilities, and lack of landscaping. Utilizing the posted revised plan, he pointed out other areas of concern and noted he had discussed these with the applicant. He further acknowledged the plan was still in a concept phase and had not been detailed or engineering and there was some flexibility. City Attorney Stroud advised that prior to taking any action on the rezoning application, the City Council should first make a determination as to whether or not the existing Final EIR prepared by A. D. Little, Inc. was adequate as to the Harbor Bay Isle ultimate project description. He said, if the Council believed the EIR covered the new description, he would support findings supporting that conclusion. Mr. Patterson stated that possibly a lot of the questions raised regarding design were a function of the Design Review Board, however he thought the Council should be made aware of them at this time. Councilman Beckam suggested that as there were a number of concerns which apparently the Planning Board had not reviewed, that perhaps the matter should go back to the Planning Board for re-hearing. City Manager Goss remarked that what was before the Council at this time was the rezoning appli- cation and not the details of the design. Mr. Patterson said that if the Council should approve the rezoning, then it would be incumbent upon the developer to satisfy the design problems. On the call for proponents, Mr. Oscar Barry of Harbor Bay Isle Associates reported they had gone through a Planned Development procedure before the Planning Board and had received their approval on a 6 to 0 vote, at which time the Planning Board had imposed two conditions, (1) a public access on the bay front, and (2) increased parking. He stated the Planning Director had requested a plan for his review. He said that under the normal design process, they would go back to the Planning Board and make a presentation on the final development plan and then appear before the Design Review Board and satisfy the concerns of the Planning Director at that time. He stated he had not yet seen the revised plan and might possibly have the same concerns; that they would satisfy them and the concerns of the Design Review Board. He reported the Planning Board had imposed conditions which they would meet, and they would also satisfy the Planning staff as to the design. Mr. Barry stated that the only reason for the rezoning application before the City Council was that when the PD ordinance was changed, to omit mixed uses, that if you wanted to have a recreational club at which outside members were present, it was necessary to rezone to "C-2-PD", otherwise this particular issue would not come before the City Council and would be a matter of continual discussion between the developer and the Planning Board. President Corica stated he would be satisfied as it was a matter of record and clearly understood that if concerns were expressed with not enough parking, or traffic, or staff had problems, that they would be taken up by the Planning Board and come to the Council for final approval. City Attorney Stroud asked if the design problems discussed were a part of the PD approval. Mr. Barry said they were a condition of the PD approval and would be resolved by increasing parking and giving access to the public on the waterfront. Mr. Patterson reported the Planning Board's action was to approve the rezoning and the Planned Development. He said that what was missing in the design problems would be resolved with the Design Review Board, and if the developer could not satisfy the staff as well as the Design Review Board, that decision could be appealed to the City Council. He stated the only he was raising was that he had particular concerns with adding an additional 40 parking spaces and providing public access to the bay edge; which was tightening the project considerably; and there was the possibility some parts of the facility might have to be dropped in the form of tennis courts or other recreational facilities. Mrs. Inez Kapellas questioned why the developer was proposing rezoning applications in a piecemeal fashion. She noted the Marketplace property had recently been rezoned "C-2-PD", and suggested the developer consolidate all such rezoning requests into one application for the entire project. At the request of the Council, Mr. Ron Curtis, Harbor Bay Isle Associates, utilizing a posted illustration, outlined the layout of the recreational facility as modified by the conditions imposed by the Planning Board. On the call for opponents, there was no response and the hearing was declared closed. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Beckam proposed the following motion: That the Council does hereby find and determine that the existing A.D. Little EIR is adequate to cover the impacts of the project described in R-76-14. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote. Councilman Beckam then moved the ordinance for introduction be taken out of order, which was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously. Councilman Diament questioned a statement contained in the informational brochure on the Harbor Bay Isle Recreation Center, under Reclamation District Assessment, that "it was assumed that there would be no reclamation bond assessment for the recreation center site and the bond lien for the land would be charged to the remaining residential acreage." Attorney Daniel E. Cummins, representing Reclamation District No. 2105, reported that at the time of the Subdivision Map there would be a reapportionment of the assesmsent, which would probably be done by the involved landowners. He said he would anticipate that if this was a private club, there would be no assessment lien since it only served to serve the residential area; however, if it was a public club, there might be a lien on the land. He reported that any reapportionment would be determined by the Board of the Reclamation District. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 7. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S." (Harbor Bay Isle Associates - R-76-14) The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 8. In the Matter of a proposal to amend Article 1 of Chapter 3 of the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 11-316.5 thereto relating to waiver of Parcel Map requirements. The Clerk reported the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file. President Corica explained the procedure to be followed and declared the hearing opened. City Attorney Stroud noted there were technical requirements for Parcel Maps under the State subdivision Map Act and the proposed ordinance would bring the City in compliance with those requirements. He reported a Parcel Map requirement could not be waived unless it was found the proposed division of land complied with requirements as to area, improvement and design, drainage, improved public roads, sanitary facilities, water supply, environmental protection, and that no public improvements would be necessary or desirable as to consequence of the proposed division. Upon introduction and passage of the ordinance, he stated all prior Parcel Map waivers granted would thereby be ratified. On the call for proponents or opponents, there was no response. The hearing was declared closed. Councilman Beckam moved the proposed ordinance be taken out of order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 9. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series Amending Chapter 3, Article 1 of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Waiver of Parcel Map." The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. NOes: None. Absent: None. The meeting reverted to "Written Communications". WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 10., From Mr. Robert McCord, Realtor, requesting Subdivision Map Act requirements be waived for properties known as 1102-1106 Park Street. City Engineer Hanna asked that property known as 1108 Park Street be included in the request. He noted there were three buildings involved at the addresses 1102, 1106, and 1108 Park Street, and repeated his statement that the waiver would accomplish and the owner had indicated his willingness to install a sump pump by February 1, 1977, to correct a drainage problem at the depressed garage. Councilman Sherratt moved the Council so find and the Subdivision Map Act requirements for the described properties be waived, and the owner be required to install the sump pump recommended by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and on voice vote carried unanimously. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 11. In the Matter of a proposal to amend certain sections of Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series relating to anneal of decisions made by the City Planning Board and Design Review Board, as set out in Article 10 of Chapter 1, Title XI of the Alameda Municipal Code. The Clerk noted the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file. President Corica explained the procedure to be followed and declared the hearing opened. City Attorney Stroud reported the proposal would clarify the governing ordinance by more clearly setting out appeal procedure. On the call for proponents or opponents, there was no response. The President declared the hearing closed. Councilman Beckam moved the proposed order be taken out of order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 12. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series Amending Article 10 of Chapter 1, Title XI of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Appeals from Planning Board and Design Review Board Had After Public Hearing." The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting returned to the regular order of business. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 13. From the Social Service Board, signed by the President, requesting exclusion of reference to social service functions from Ordinance No. 1733, New Series, governing the Community Relations Commission. President Corica, for the edification of the audience, reported there was ongoing discussion of a possible merger of the Social Service Board and Community Relations Commission; that in some instances both the Board and Commission felt there were overlapping duties. He remarked that Mrs. Darlene Banda, Chairman, and Mrs. Linda Pritchard, of the Social Service Board were in the audience and asked if there were plans at this time for another joint meeting between the bodies. Mrs. Banda replied that there were not; that following the first joint meeting the Social Service Board had taken action to request the City Council to eliminate the confusion of function and/or duplication of services rendered by both the Board and Commission. She said this position seemed to be supported by some aembers of the Commission, and noted the Council had received communications from the Commission on the subject. She reported that the Council would shortly be receiving a report from the Board concerning their goals and future plans. President Corica commented that any possible merger would have to be approved by the electorate, and a decision should be made soon in view of the fact that the election date had been moved up to March 8, 1977. He said that he, personally, was in favor of a merger and asked the Council members to express their views on the subject. He stated he would like to see the duties of the Social Service Board expanded to include the charges of the Community Relations Commission, and that there be representation on the Board of everyone now serving on both with attrition eventually reducing membership to seven persons. Councilman Sherratt stated he thought both the Board and Commission had been asking for help and direction from the Council for at least the last year, and suggested an early joint session of the Board, Commission and Council ofr the purpose of discussion and action, it if were found desirable to place the matter on the ballot in the form of a Charter Amendment. Councilman Beckam stated he would agree the problems should be ironed out so the needs of the City might be addressed. He said that if both the Board and Commission were to continue, there should be a definite division in the function of their duties. He stated he was aware of certain funding which would be coming available, both in the training of people in the Human Relations portion and the Social Service portion and wondered if the Council wanted to comingle the services. Councilman Sherratt suggested a communication be sent to both the Board and Commission requesting them to outline what they would like to discuss at the joint session. President Corica said he would like to poll the Council and find out if they were in favor of a merger. Councilman Beckam stated he thought the matter should be evaluated thoroughly before he made his decision on a merger. Councilman Hurwitz stated that while he was not opposed to a merger, he would like to see what was involved, such as membership and what functions were proposed for a single Board. Councilman Diament said she would be happy to listen to discussion from both the Board and Commission; that it had been her feeling the Social Service Board should be the predominant Board and other committees or Commissbns would serve under its direction. President Corica requested the Assistant City Manager to prepare a report on ideas which had been discussed by the Community Relations Commission, and directed the City Clerk to contact both Commission and Board members to ascertain an agreeable date for a joint meeting with the City Council. Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report of the Social Service Board. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously on voice vote. Councilman Beckam said he would also like to know from the Social Service Board and Community Relations Commission those things which they felt should be done, based on the needs assessment of the area, in lieu of one Board requesting that the other have duties deleted from its wording. He stated he believed each Board should look broadly at the City to find out what needed to be done, and not deleted from the other. President Corica said he thought this would be brought out at the joint meeting. 14. From the Community Relations Commission, signed by the Secretary, submitting a request for a joint session with the City Council. President Corica noted the action taken on the prior communication. Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report, seconded by Councilman Sherratt, and carried unanimously on voice vote. 15. From the Community Relations Commission, signed by the Secretary, concerning the Tenant Relations Position of the Alameda Housing Authority. President Corica reported the Commission recommended that the establishment of a Tenant Relations position for the Alameda Housing Authority, with funding from HCDA moneys, be included in as a project recommendation for the coming 1977 HCDA program year. Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and referral to the 1977 Housing and Community Development Act application. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt. Councilman Beckam noted the Tentative Budget approved for 1976-77 included CETA personnel for the Housing Authority, namely a Leasing and Maintenance person, a Tenant Services representative, a Junior Accountant, Public Service Worker II and a Public Service Worker III, a total of 7 persons. He stated there were people working for the County of Alameda who were Alameda residents and he thought in the normal attrition of jobs of this type there might be a spot available for a CETA worker to move in sooner than waiting for next year's HCDA funding. He requested this be explored. City Manager Goss explained that as various positions under CETA were vacated, they were not filled because of a decrease in the funding money. He said it was his understanding the program wherein Alameda residents worked under the County CETA funding was also being phased out. Councilman Beckam stated he would check with the ACTE3 Board as he believed there were money and positions available. On a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 16. From the City Manager transmitting application for a permit to dredge and fill property along the Estuary by Smith-Rice Company. The Clerk reported the required bond was on file. Planning Director Patterson stated the Environmental Assessment Committee, on November 10, 1976, had approved a category exemption under Sections 1501, 1502 and 1503 of the adopted Alameda Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, and there was no further environmental review or documentation needed by the City. Councilman Sherratt moved approval of the application. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and on voice vote carried unanimously. 17. From the City Manager requesting City participation in reapportionment of a portion of the assessment lien of the Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105. President Corica stated he understood the reapportionment was being made so that the City would not be liable for any costs. City Manager Goss said the City had been asked to join in a request for reapportionment, since the City would be a property owner within the District and consent by affected landowners was required by the Water Code. He reported the property was within the boundaries of the Reclamation District. Mrs. Helen Freeman, 831 Laurel Street, questioned whether this concerned the 12-inch strip of land between Mecartney Road and the model homes. Attorney Daniel E. Cummins, representing Harbor Bay Isle Associates, stated the reapportionment was required under the Water Code as a result of a subdivision. He said at this time the subdivision consisted of dividing a very small portion of Harbor Bay lands into 15 residential parcels, one parcel of common area, a rather substantial portion of land offered for dedication to the City for expansion of Mecartney Road, and along each end of the dedicated land two strips 12-inches wide comprising approximately 125 square feet which had been granted in fee to the City to meet the City Engineer's requirements. He explained the methods by which reapportionment was achieved. He said they were asking the city to join with Harbor Bay Isle Associates, and the effect to the City would be to reduce to zero the lien on property owned by and to be dedkated to the City. He answered the further questions of Mrs. Freeman. Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and that the City join in with other property owners in the reapportionment of the assessment lien of Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously on voice vote. 18. From the City Manager recommending contract be awarded to Gallagher and Burk, Inc., lowest and best bidder, for the project of the construction of a parking lot at 2216 Lincoln Avenue. Councilman Beckam moved award of the contract as recommended. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously. 19. From the City Manager concerning construction of the Police Administration Building. City Manager Goss commented that items listed as revenue sources in his written report, particularly the Capital Outlay Fund and the sale of the Post Office, were subject to some fluctuation. He stated that if the Council accepted the recommendations of the report and directed to architect to work with the apparent low bidder to attempt to balance expenditures to revenues by taking out portions of the project to reduce its cost, a more refined revenue estimated could be made. Police Chief Richard Young said his Department was now at the critical point in their struggle to obtain a modern facility. He noted the need for larger and more efficient quarters had been evident for many years, however no corrective steps had been taken until approximately four years ago when the matter had been brought to the attention of the public. He recalled the effort made to convert the Post Office building which would have adequately served their needs, the opposition expressed by the business community, and the final decision of the City Council to construct a new facility at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street. He said that 14 to 15 months had now passed since the decision; the architect had estimated construction costs at $1,999,000, however the lowest of the eight bids received had been $2,070,000, only 3.5% above the estimate and which did not seem insurmountable. He commented that funds which the City had available for the project were approximately $200,000 less than the lowest bid. He said there were several reasons for the discrepancy, namely, (1) inflation; (2) the recession of last year which created a market for low bids was not as great, thus building costs in general were higher; (3) the purchase of private property plus relocation costs were higher than originally anticipated; (4) at the time the decision had been made to proceed with the present site, no firm estimate of eventual construction cost had been made; (5) expensive aesthetic costs, not necessary for utility, were added to satisfy exterior design requirements. Chief Younr said the plans and design of the building gad probably received more professional and practical input than any similar undertaking. He said it was now known how much space would be needed forpresent and future expansion and this was included; the communications system was a necessity whether or not they had a new building; the completion of the pistol range was dictated in order that legal requirements might be satisfied without unnecessary overtime costs and to minimize civil liability. He said the bid for the second floor expansion space was so low that it would be unconscionable not to proceed with that option. He stated they had eliminated everything which they felt could not be justified, even an extensive jail. Chief Young pointed out the building would undoubtedly be used a minimum of 30 years, with a probable 50 year life as a Police Headquarters. He asked that the Council not delete any of the essential or necessities designed into the buildino, and implored them to somehow locate the $200,000 now needed to make the Alameda Police Administration Building a practical and beautiful edifice of which the City and its citizens could be justly proud. President Corica remarked the Council well remembered the opposition expressed to the use of the Post Office site, and said he wished that some of the objectors at that meeting were present this evening to offer suggestions on raising the additional money needed to complete the project. Mr. Joseph M. Sullivan, 1221 Liberty Avenue, agin suggested the City adopt a property transfer tax to be used for this and other essential capital improvements. Mr. Burns Cadwalader, project architect, reported he and Mr. Don Kasimoto had talked to two of the apparent low bidders, Lyons Construction Company and Arntz Brothers, each of whom could be low according to which alternates were accepted. He said they had both indicated a willingness to work with the architects and the City in doing whatever the Council should instruct. He asked that the Council make a decision as to which way they wished to go and which alternates they wished to accept, after which the City Manager could be instructed to work with the architects and that low bidder in coming up with whatever change orders might be necessary to make required adjustments which would come within the budget for the project. He offered their assistance. President Corica stated the Council was committee to the project, and he would like to see the building completed in its entirety now rather than wait on some of the alternates and complete them later at an inflated price. Councilman Hurwitz agreed. Councilman Sherratt stated he also agreed the entire project should be completed. He asked the City Manager if he could foresee any funding sources in the future. 2 Mr. Goss said it would depend, if the architect were directed to work with one of the two named contractors, on what they might be able to cut out of the base bid. He stated the gap between available revenue and the value of whatever was able to be cut out would determine the funding needed. He said, for example, if it were a minor amount, an adjustment in the Business License Tax might suffice; if a major amount, there were sources which would be considered such as the pending Sewer Service Charge, a one-time Property Tax increase, et cetera. In answer to Council- man Beckam's question, he said he was not suggesting the bid be awarded at this point, but that direction be given to the architect to work with the contractor to see what changes could be made in the project without reducing its quality, to reduce the total cost and to come back with a report. There followed a discussion of the alternates and the change orders to be considered. Mr. Bill Viel, President of MCG Company, Contractors, commented his company could also be considered a low bidder depending upon the alternates diosen. He said he wished to make the Council aware that possibly more than two contractors were involved. Councilman Beckam said he would like to see all the alternates and the entire project completed at one time. He moved the matter be held over to a Special Meeting set for November 30, 1976, to allow time for negotiations between the City Manager and the architect for a firm and final report, and if it were true there might be a third low bidder, that they be included in the negotiations. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz. City Manager Goss said he did not think it would be advisable to negotiate with three contractors. Mr. Cadwalader concurred. He suggested to the Council that if they wished all of the alternates, they indicate their intent to draw up an agreement with the low bidder, to include the base bid plus all alternates, and instruct the City Manager to have the architect work with the low bidder to come up with whatever change orders were necessary to reduce costs. Following discussion, Councilman Hurwitz rescinded his second to the motion made by Councilman Beckam. He then moved the City Manager authorize the architect to discuss with the apparent low bidder possible change orders for the base bid and all alternates and prepare a report on whether or not the bid should be awarded and to whom, for consideration at the Specl.al Meeting of November 30, 1976. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously on roll call vote. 20. From the City Manager concerning the open market purchase of a Street Sweeper. Councilman Sherratt moved acceptance of the report and approval of the recommendation to purchase one 1977 Model 2-TE-3 Mobile Street Sweeper in the amount of $32,975.00 from the Nixon-Eglic Equipment Company, Inc. on the open market. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously on voice vote. 21. From the City Manager regarding removal of the rest room building at the south end of Grand Street. Councilman Beckam moved approval of the recommendation that the City Manager be authorized to direct a communication to the Regional Park District indicating the City had no objection the removal of the rest room building, conditioned upon no other structure being placed at the location which would obstruct the public's view of San Francisco Bay looking south on Grand Street. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and on voice vote carried unanimously. 22. From the City Manager on bus shelters. Councilman Beckam moved approval of the recommendation of the City Manager, and that the resolution be taken out of order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried unanimously on voice vote. The meeting proceeded to "Resolutions". RESOLUTIONS: 23. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8628 Authorizing Execution of Amended License Agreement with Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District for Installation and Maintenance of Bus Stop Shelters." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President declared the foreging resolutions adopted. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 24. Councilman Sherratt commented on the Charter Amendment passed at the November General Election limiting terms of office of elected officials. He said it seemed unclear in the minds of some people whether or not this would also be applied to appointments on Boards and Commissions, and asked that the Council address the subject. He stated he was of the opinion this should be a policy decision. 243 Councilman Hurwitz requested preparation of an ordinance which would limit to two terms the length of time an appointee could serve on a Board or Commission established by ordinance, and preparation of a similar Charter Amendment covering Cheer Boards. 25. Councilman Beckam questioned the status of the report concerning activities at 970 Post Street. City Attorney Stroud said he would foTbw through on the matter, however he believed he had forwarded a copy of his report to the Council several weeks ago. 26. Councilman Hurwitz inquired concerning the time schedule for cleanup of the stockpile at the Mariner Square Loop. He commented on the appearance of property in the same area and belonging to the School District and asked that a letter be written to the Board of Education requesting that cooperation in a general cleanup. City Engineer Hanna reported he had been in contact with the California Military Forces and after a review of the stockpile problem, they would make arrangements to do the work in lowering and re-arranging the stockpile, however no definite time and date had as yet been scheduled. 27. Councilman Hurwitz inquired as to the status of litigation concerning the removal of off-premise signs. City Attorney Stroud made a verbal report on pending court action and noted a regulatory ordinance on the subject had been prepared and would be presented to the Council for consideration in the near future. 28. Councilman Beckam questioned the status of the requested report on a noise reduction program for motorcycles and/or cars. City Manager Goss said a status report outlining some of the concerns which had been developed by the Police Department would be forwarded to the Council within the week. NEW BUSINESS: 29. Councilman Hurwitz suggested term lengths for members of all Boards and Commissions be standardized at 4 years. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 30. Councilman Sherratt 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 Adding Chppter 6 to Title II Thereof Providing a Statute of Limitations for Mandamus Action Against Certain Adjudicatory ADministrative Hearings and Establishing Provisions for Obtaining Administrative Record of Certain Adjudicatory Administrative Hearings." City Attorney Stroud reported recent legislation permitted the City to impose a 90-day statute of limitations on administrative decisions, however an ordinance was required. He said the law also required provisions be set out for the preparation of the record. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 31. Councilman Sherratt introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Cheer: "Ordinance No. New Series Amending Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. Providing for Certain Amendments to the Pension System for Members of the Police and Fire Denartments of the City of Alameda Entering City Service After January 1, 1953." City Manager Goss commented the ordinance had been thoroughly reviewed by the City Attorney, as well as the Attorney for the employee organizations and the actuary. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the foTbwing roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 32. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 2-312, 2-321 and 11-221 Thereof Relating to Nomination and Appointment of Members of the Recreation Commission, Golf Commission and Design Review Board." The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 244 BILLS: 33. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $207,758.85, 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 billls as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on November 16, 1976, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and on voice vote carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: 34. Mrs. Inez Kapellas, commented on the increased property tax bill, and protested the utility tax in particular. FILING: 35. Amended L4cense Agreement with Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District re bus shelters. ADJOURNMENT: 36. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned at 10:40 o'clock p.m. in respect to the memory of ROBERT L. LIPPERT, to assemble in regular session on Tuesday, December 7, 1976, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk