Loading...
1977-03-15 Regular CC Minutes30! REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, - - MARCH 15, 1977 The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Beckam and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the Reverend Richard S. Neely, Pastor of the Alameda Baptist Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Hurwitz and President Corica, (4), were noted present, Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. From "Safe Our Shoreline", signed by Mrs. Leora Feeney, Chairperson, requesting City Cuoncil to make a declaration of intent to adopt policy of preserving for the public, access to open space on a continuous shoreline strip of not less than 100 feet wide from mean high tide all along Bay Farm Island waterfront. President Corica reported that on March 4, 1977, the Planning Board had taken action on the matter and it was to encourage a continuous strip of shoreline around Harbor Bay Isle, however the 100 foot strip had not been considered to be an element of prime importance. He said he though it would be upto the Council to decide whether there was to be a 100 foot strip or whether a bike path - walkway would be sufficient. He suggested that inasmuch as the City was in the process of working with BCDC on the matter, the City Manager arrange an excursion for the Council so they might go over the site. He noted there were portions of the shoreline where it would be impossible to have a beach. Councilman Diament stated it was her opinion the city was again in the position of not really knowing what the developer was planning or what had transpired between the developer and BCDC. She said she would like to see the Council go on record as approving a continuous 100 foot strip of land left for public access. Councilman Hurwitz stated he would agree with the continuous strip however questioned whether or not it should be 100 foot wide. Mr. Robert DeCelle, 276 Beach Road, stated the 100 foot figure had come from the original presen- tation by Harbor Bay Isle developers. He quoted a statement made by Mr. Ron Cowan which had appeared in the Alameda Times-Star on May 27, 1972 that included in the modern planning would be a 100 foot wide esplanade on the three sides of the community which would border the water; the green beltvould offer bicycle paths, walking trails and opportunities for fishing and picknicking. Mr. DeCelle referred to the three public hearings helf before the Plannirg Board at one of which a scale model of the development had been viewed and Mr. Cowan had again referred to the 100 foot esplanade which was to follow the entire three and one-half miles of shoreline on Bay Farm Island and be left open for the people of Alameda to enjoy, Mr. DeCelle also quoted from the statement of the Subcommittee on Open Space for Natural Environment contained in the Goals Study. He urged the Council to adopt a policy direction approving a continuous shoreline strip. Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, commented on the South Shore beach erosion, and expressed his concern that the city would be burdened with the cost of maintaining the shoreline of Bay Farm Island. President Corica remarked that to his knowledge no decision had been made as to who would maintain or have jurisdiction of the Bay Farm Island shoreline, and he had not heard the developer say he would not be agreeable to a 100 foot wide strip. He stated the developer was in the process of talking with BCDC and the city in an effort to arrive at a mutual agreement. He said he, personally, had some reservations with the 100 foot figure as he would not like to see a road developed which could cause some police er'oblems. He said it was his opinion the developer, BCDC, and the city should be allowed to discuss the matter before action was taken. Mrs. Leora Feeney referred to a statement in the Environmental Impact Report that most of the open space area for Harbor Bay Isle would be availalbe to the other residents of Bay Farm Island as well as the people of Alameda; that the perimeter reserve, a 100 foot wide public recreation area, would extend for 14,200 land feet along the shoreline, and would cover an area of approximately 32.6 acres; the allocation of land responded to the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and BCDC's intent to provide ppblic access to the San Francisco Bay; and plan had been discussed for offering the undeveloped land for this perimeter park to various public entitles without cost. She stated Harbor Bay Isle had been contemplating nodule parks on the shoreline rather than a continuous park and she was afraid this might happen unless the Council offered the developed, staff members and the public some firm direction. Following a brief discussion, Councilman Hurwitz moved the Council go on oecord as favoring a continuous band of public access around Harbor Bay Isle. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following voice vote. Ayes: Four, Noes: None, Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). HEARINGS: 2. In the Matter of a proposal to rezone from "R-4", Neighborhood Apartment District, "C-1", Neighborhood Commercial District, and "M-2-G", General Industrial, Government owned or controlled District, to "R-4-G", Nieghborhood Apartment, Government owned or controlled District, approximately 53 acres located northerly of Singleton Avenue and westerly of the Alameda Facility, Naval Supply Center. U 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 called upon the Planning Director for explanation of the Planning Board action and recommendations. Mr. Patterson reported the Planning Board, at its regular meeting held February 14, 1977, had considered the proposed and adopted and motion recommending approval based upon the following findings: (1) the 'R-4", "C-2", and "M-2-G" District classifications for the "North Off-Station" housing are not appropriate considering the residential land uses presently conducted, and Federal government ownership and control of these areas. (2) This classification would not interfere with the authority of the Federal government to preempt local zoning laws, but rather it acknWedges the government's relationship to the area. (3) Rezoning this property "R-4-G" provides additional land use controls, should this property ultimately be owned by a non-governmental entity. (4) The proposed zoning designation is in substantial compliance with the Trend Plan of the General Plan. (5) Rezoning this property to "R-4-G" will remove a "C-1" district which presently is unnecessary for an area which is developed residentially. (6) No adverse impacts upon the enfironment will be created by this rezoning, if approved. The President declared the hearing opened. On the call for proponents or oppoents, there was no response. The hearing was declared closed. Councilman Hurwitz moved approval of the Planning Board recommendation and the ordinance for Introduction be taken out of order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting proceeded to "Introduction of Ordinances". INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 3. Councilman Hurwitz 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. (R 77-3) The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: None. The meeting returned to the regular order of business. HEARINGS: 4. In the Matter of Resolution of Intention No. 8658 to abandon unimproved park site not used by the public for park purposes and conveyed to the City by Parcel Mao for park purposes. The Clerk noted the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file; correspondence had been received from A.A, Hyde, 1095 Jose Lane, objecting to the proposed sale and eventual use of the parcel for other than a park site, and all persons previously expressing an interest in the matter had been notified of the hearing. President Corica explained this matter involved a city-owned parcel of land at the corner of Holly and Oleander on Bay c.arm Island and called upon the Planning Director for an explanation of the issue. Mr. Patterson reported the subject site had been considered by the Planning Board on January 31, 1977 and found to be in general conformance with the City's adopted General Plan entitled, "Comprehensive General Plan - 1990 for Alameda, California", as amended by the Noise and Airport Safety Elements. He reported approval had been based upon five findings. He referred to a communication dated March 15, 1977 from the Port of Oakland, from which he quoted: "It should be noted that the Stipulated Judgement in the action between the Port and the City of Alameda, which was settled by the January 21, 1976 Settlement Agreement, provides that the existing General Plan for this site (and for other areas below a line substantially identical to the City's Noise Element 65 dBA CNEL line) is not adequate. Thus, the City Planning Board's finding under Govern- ment Code Section 65402 that disposition of the site conforms to this inadequate General Plan should not be controlling." Mr. Patterson noted the Settlement Agreement specified the existing General Plan was and is an adequate General Plan for the pruposes of developing all areas in the city except those areas presently zoned residential south of the 65 dBA CNEL line; that the existing General Plan and its Elements are adequate for purposes of development approvals north of said line until a new General Plan, or a particular Element thereof, is adopted to replace the existing General Plan or any portion thereof, at which time the new General Plan or Element thereof shall become the basis for development of all areas within the the City. Mr. Patterson noted the park site is presently zoned R-1-A-PD; that one of the findings stated the subject site lies southerly of the 65dBA CNEL line in the Noise Element of the city's General Plan, and while residential uses are normally unacceptable, other land uses are conditionally acceptable in the R-1 District: agriculture, horticulture, home gardening, underground and above ground utility installation, libraries, fire stations, private and religious schools, nursery schools, day care centers and churches. Councilman Hurwitz stated it was his recollection that at the time the land was dedicated to the city the developer was not given the option of giving money in lieu of the land but was required to give the land for park purposes. Mr. Patterson stated staff had researched the chronology of events surrounding the city's acquisition of the 2.5 acre parcel which was dedicated to the city by the developers, Braddock & Logan, as a part of the approved conditions of the Tentative Map for Tract 3422; that on June 12, 1972, the Planning Board had approved the 44 acre Planned Development proposal; that Ordinance No. 1653, N.S. was in effect at that time and offered a 15% density bonus potential for specific design features; that the proposal to dedicate the 2.5 acre parcel was part of the developers' unique design feature which entitled consideration of the bonus; that Ordinance No. 1653, N.S. was amended in June, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1807, N.S. He said that on August 7, 1972, the Planning Board recommended approval of the Tentative Map and at that meeting accepted the developer's proposal to dedieate the 2.5 acre park site in lieu of the $46,000 feet as required by Subdivision Ordinance No, 1627, N.S. He stated Braddock & Logan elected to delay development of an additional 7.5 acres and made it availalbe to the city for additional park land however the City Council in November, 1973,nfused the option; that Ordinance No. 1627, N.S. was repealed by Ordinance No. 1728 N.S. in October, 1974. City Manager Goss reported at the time the option was available the city had been looking at a D acre park site, however the City Council had rejected the option to purchase an additional 7.5 acres and the city was left with the lmaller parcel which presented problems for development and maintenance as a park. Also, he said, it would be made clear that if the property were sold the proceeds would go into the Park and Recreation Fund. City Attorney Stroud explained the provisions of the Government Code setting out procedure leading up the hearing and the duties of the City Council. The President declared the hearing opened. On the call for proponents, there was no response. On question, the City Clerk reported communications on the subject hdd been received from the Garden Isle Homeowners Association, and from Stephen M. Chandler, Attorney for Braddock and Logan. On the call for opponents, Mr. John Hughes of Braddock & Logan read and distributed to the Council a prepared statement in which he alleged they had not been given a choice or option to pay a dwelling unit tax or dedicate land, but were mandated to give a park site at a specific location and an option for one year for the city to purchase an adjoining 7.5 acre park purposes. He also stated they had not been in favor of the location of the park site because it eventually ended ur with a separation of the two tracts comprising the Garden Isle project; that when the project was approved by the Airport Land Use Commission the 2,5 acre site had been shown as a park. President Corica asked Mr. Hughes if he was now interested in acquiring the 2.5 acre site. Mr. Hughes replied they had been dedicated the land for park purposes, it was a condition of approval and had been established on all drawings and presented to various government agencies, and pros- pective buyers of Garden Isle units; it had always been given their understanding a park would be developed on the parcel, and it had been so represented. He maintained they had acted in good faith and felt the city should also act in good faith and retain the property as a park site. Mr. Malcolm Longaker, 1126 Holly Street, protested the sale of land deeded to the city by the developers on December 22, 1972, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1627, N.S., adopted by the City Council on August 18, 1970. He noted Ordinance No. 1627, N.S. had been repealed by an action of the City Council on March 6, 1973 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 1688, which called for payment to the city of a flat $150 for each new dwelling unit built and this money was earmarked for park and recreational purposes. He said he felt it would be a breach oftith to those persons who had purchased homes in Garden Isle if the City Council decided to sell this particular piece of property, and reported that those who purchased homes after the dedication of the land had to pay approximately 10% more than those who had purchased homes earlier. He implored the Council not to dispose of the land for any purpose whatsoever and asked why the city was now proposing its sale. He referred to other city owned lands which, if sold, would bring a larger monetary return. Mr. Richard Noble, Manager of the Garden Isle Homeowners Association, said it had always been their understanding that as a condition of approval of the subdivision by the city, the developer was obligated to give the parcel to the city for a park site. He stated they would protest the sale for any other use than for a park. Mrs. Alfreda Chinski, 3404 Redhook Lane, stated she lived directly across from the park site and was opposed to its sale. She alleged the homeowners had indirectly paid for the cost of the land and it had always been presented as a futurepark area. Mr. George Gammell, 1065 Jost Lane, President of the Garden Isle Homeowners Association, stated their Board wished to go on record as protesting any use of the land other than as a park. Councilman Hurwitz asked if the Homeowners Associations of Islandia and Garden Isle had considered the possibility of maintaining the site as a park. Mr, Gammell said they would be willing to discuss it with the Islandia association. There followed a discussion of this aspect. The following persons also spoke in opposition to the sale; Mr. Frank Ratto, 1053 Island Drive; Mrs. Inez Kapellas, 1128 College Avenue; Mr. Troy Zornes, 1027 Kingston Lane, Mr. Houck, 3429 Catalina Avenue; and Mrs. Maria Zornes, 1027 Kingston Lane. On direct question from Mrs. Kapellas as to what the city palnned to do with the proceeds should the propery be sold, the City Manager stated there had been some previous suggestion that the money be used to properly develop Godfrey Park. He said the issue was whether or not there might be one adequately developed park and by selling the undersized parcel this might be accomplished. Also, he stated, there was now the prospect of a 6 acre park adjacent to the shopping center to be built on Bay Farm Island, ��� Mr. Walt Jacobs, President of Temple Israel and resident of a Garden Isle home, stated he would be in favor of the Homeowners Associations' stand on the issue; that their interest in the land came from the point that they had spent two years endeavoring to relocate the Temple because of the expansion of the Alameda High School and would be interested in purchasing one acre of land from the city, with the remaining portion developed into a mini-park. Following a brief discussion, the report of the City Manager regarding bid proposals fer the sale Of the Holly-Oleander site be considered at this time. Upon advice of the City attorney, the President declared the hearing closed and the meeting proceeded to "Reports and Recommendations". REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 5. From the Assistant City Manager regarding bid proposals for the sale of the Holly-Oleander site. President Corica read aloud the four bid proposals which had been received, the amounts bid and the uses proposed. He said it would be his suggestion that perhaps the city could take care of the need for a new Temple and still leave the one acre of open space for a mini-park, in this way receiving some funds and at the same time leaving some open space. Councilman Hurwitz said, in his opinion, the area should be left as open space. He moved all bids be rejected. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Three. Noes: President Corica, (1). Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). The meeting returned to "Hearings". HEARINGS: O. President Corica asked for an opinion from the City Attorney as to the purpose of holding the hearing on the Resolution of Intention to abandon the unimproved park site at Holly Street and Oleander Avenue. City Attorney Stroud noted the hearing was to determine whether the dedicated park site should remain as such or be abandoned; that if abandoned, the money must be used for park or recreation purposes in that area otherwise it would be a breach of faith with the person who dedicated the land. He said the hearing process was only to approve or overrule the objections. Councilman Hurwitz moved the land remain as a park site. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following voice vote. Ayes: Four, Noes: NOn2, Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). Councilman Beckam moved the City Manager be directed to contact the Homeowners Associations regarding joint development and participation in the cost of development of a park on the Site. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following voice vote. Ayes: FVUr, Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). A ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting returned to the regular order of business. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 7. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, transmitting determination of General Plan compliance concerning disposition of the Otis/Rosewood site. Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the unanimous vote of the Council members present. 8. From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, requesting the Council to direct a communi- cation to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission proposing no action be taken regarding the shoreline of the Harbor Bay Isle Development until such time as Harbor Bay Isle Associates submitted a perimeter plan to the city and/Or the city's Combined Land Use Element had been published, public hearings held and the Element adopted. Planning Director Patterson stated the above report had been reviewed by the Planning Board at its meeting held March 14, 1977, following which they had concurred that city staff should consult with BCDC staff on the bay edge issue before a formal anplication or hearings are held on the Element. He noted the Board had respectfully requested a communication acknowledging the Board's intent. Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the Planning Board's recommendations of March 14, 1977, and approval of the City Manager's recommendation that communication with BCDC be along the lines of a mutual exchange of information and ideas on any proposed Bay Farm Island pPrimter plan, that preliminary review of any such plan by staff and BCDC's Design Review Board be conducted, with the city advised of the result, and that BCDC withhold final review and approval of any such plan until requested by the city. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diam2nt and carried on the unanimous voice vote of the Council members preSent. From the City Manager regarding an offer to sell the Alameda Theater to the City of Alameda. President Corica reported he and the City Manager had spoken with Mr. Lippert this date, who had agreed to hold his offer open for a while until it could be explored further. He stated they had also suggested to Mr. Li-pert that perhaps the Alameda Unified School District or other parties might be interested in acquiring the theater; also, no report had been received from the Community Center Committee. 308 Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report until further information was developed, and the City Manager be authorized to refer the offer to the School District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously by voice vote of the Council members present. 10. From the City Manager regarding the application for CETA Title VI funds. The City Manager explained the program as outlined in his report and answered questions of the Council. He stated he had contacted the Alameda Unified School District regarding the program and they had expressed interest, but had indicated they were unable to submit specific requests at this time and might possibly make a request at a later date. Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report and approval of the City Manager's recommendation as set out therein. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the unanimous vote of the Council members present. Mr. Chris Corpuz, 509 Santa Clara Avenue, President of the United Pilipinos of Alameda, noted the Title VI funds obtained would be used only for Public Service Employee type programs. He asked if all the proposals submitted to the city would be included in the application, to which the City Manager replied in the affirmative. 11. From the City Manager reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of construc- tion of the parking lot at 2216 Lincoln Avenue, recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion ordered filed. Councilman Beckam moved the project be accepted as satisfactorily completed and the Notice of Completion be filed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the unanimous vote of the Council members present. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 12. Councilman Diament asked if there were any report on the progress of the flood control survey. City Engineer Hanna stated his last contact had been approximately one month ago at which time a final report was being put together. He said he would follow through on this. 13. Councilman Beckam requested that Vehicle Code Section 22507 relating to length of time vehicles were parked and size regulations be referred to the Traffic Advisory Committee for review. NEW BUSINESS: 14. President Corica requested preparation of a resolution expressing objection to the Federal requirement that ballot materials be printed in other than the English language. 15. President Corica referred to the Bicentennial Fourth of July parade held in the city. He said many people had expressed themselves as being in favor of having an annual Fourth of July Parade; that he had asked the Social Service Human Relations Board to consider this and they had replied they did not feel they wished to sponsor the event. He stated that inasmuch as many of the people on the Bicentennial Committee and others who worked on the parade last year felt they would like to undertake this event, he proposed setting up a committee to leok into its feasibility not as a total city-sponsored event but as a community endeavor. He suggested the following as members of the Committee: William McCall, William Trujillo, Ken Kofman, Linda Pritchard, Robert Mowery, Terry La Crois, Jr„ Douglas Durein, Ruth Drossell, and Councilman Anne Diament. Councilman Diament suggested Mr. William Thomas also be included on the Committee. 16. President Corica referred to a Proclmation of Appreciation which had been received from the Alameda Girl Scouts. 17. Councilman Diament referred to pending legislation proposed by the California Housing Financing Agency to implement the Neighborhood Preservation Program, and suggested the city explore this. RESOLUTIONS: 18. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8684 Declaring Canvass of Returns and Result of General Municipal Election Consolidated with Special Municipal Charter Amendment Election and Special Municipal Initiative Election Held on March 8, 1977." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None, Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). 19. The following reolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8685 Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Approximately Seventy-One (71) Revolvers for Law Enforcement Use, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). President Corica commented that the revolvers would be paid for by the Police Officers. 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Hurwitz who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8686 Approving Conflict of Interest Codes for: Department of the City Manager, Engineering Department, Planning Department, Social Service Human Relations Board; and Library Department." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmen Sherratt, (1). The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 21. "Ordinance No. New Series Authorizing Execution of an Annexation Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the City of Oakland, Acting By and Between Through its Board of Port Commissioners." City Attorney Stroud reported This action was the outgrowth of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Alameda, Port of Oakland, and Harbor Bav Isle Associates; that it involved the exchange, transfer, detachment and annexation of certain real property located on Bay Farm Island in order to facilitate construction of a city line road in Alameda and to place certain Port owned and operated properties within the City of Oakland. Also, he noted, the Port would continue to pay to the City of Alameda an annual amount, equal to the taxes now being paid on the properties. Mrs. Inez Kapellas questioned whether or not the public interest was being protected. She asked why the Port of Oakland would receive in excess of 500 acres, while the City of Alameda received only 7.63 acres in exchange and there would remain the joint responsibility for the maintenance of the city line road. She further questioned the legality of transferring title to tide and submerged lands. President Corica stated there was more to the Agreement than just an exchange of properties, that it also covered the use of Runway 27 and other conditions. Councilman Diament said she was of the opinion a public hearing should be held on the matter to allow for input from interested persons. Mrs. Helen Freeman, 831 Laurel Street, spoke concerning the transfer to title to tide and submerged lands and contents of the Settlement Agreement. Councilman Diament moved a public hearing be held on the matter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried by unanimous vote of the Council members present. President Corica set the hearing date for April 5, 1977. It was the consensus of the Council that an emergency ordinance be prepared for consideration of intruduction and passage at that meeting. 22. Councilman Hurwitz moved the following ordinance be introduced and passed as an urgency ordinance: "Ordinance No. 1859, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 7-334 and Adding Sections 7-3325 and 7-3326 to Article 3, Chapter 3 of Title VII Thereof, Regulating the Operation of Bicycles and Use of Bicycle Lanes." The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). Councilman Diament expressed her concern with the present riding of high speed bicycles on sidewalks throughout the city. She asked that this be investigated for consideration of a prohibition of this practice. Councilman Furwitz concurred. 23. Councilman Beckam moved the following ordinance be introduced and passed as an urgency ordinance: "Ordinance No. 1860, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 17-333 and Section 17-432 Thereof Relating to Traffic Regulations." The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). Councilman Hurwitz asked why the placement of a stop sign at the northwest corner of Fernside Boulevard and Encinal Avenue had not been included. City Engineer Hanna remarked this was a unique situation and the ordinance would be of a temporary nature until the problem area had more thoroughly investigated. He said they had considered the placement of such a sign and he would bring it up again. 310 ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 24. "Ordinance No. 1858, New Series Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sections 11-14B8, 11-1484(b)(3) and (4) and 11-14B9(a) Thereof and By Adding Section 12-2513 Thereto, Relating to Abatement and Removal of Nonconforming Signs." The City Attorney requested the ordinance be amended to include a minor amendment to Section 11-14B8 relating to the regulation and abatement of outdoor advertising display signs. Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as amended. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1). BILLS: 25. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total amount of $170,218.26, was presented to the Council at this meeting. The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the claims shown were correct. Councilman Beckam moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on March 15, 1977, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried by unanimous vote of the Council members present. ORAL COMMUNIGTIONS, GENERAL: 26. President Corica announced that members of the Alameda Chapter of the Order of DeMolay were in attendance and had this date participated in DeMolay Day in Government, with approximately twenty young men taking part in the program. He read the names of the participants and the role each had taken for the day. 27. Mrs. Inez Kapellas complained of the condition of the roadway of San Jose Avenue, and asked if it could be leveled. The City Engineer stated he would check into the matter. 28. Councilman Beckam moved the Council retire to executive session for discussion of pending litigation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried unanimously on voice vote. After a five-minute recess, the Council reconvened in the Conference Room of the City Hall. At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined no action would be taken at this time. ADJOURNMENT: 29. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned at 11:15 o'clock p.m. to asemble in regular session on Tuesday, April 5, 1977, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. c Respectfully submitted, City Clerk