1977-05-03 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - -MAY 3, 1977
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Tillman and followed by an Invocation delivered by the Reverend
Albert Larsen, Assistant Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Tillman and President Corica, (4), were
noted present. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held April 5, 1977, were approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Mr. Joseph M. Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, concerning the Final Report of the Mayor's
Ad Hoc Committee on Financing Capital Improvements,
President Corica noted Mr. Sullivan's concern was with the perimeter of the Bay Farm Island fill
area, and thought Utah International should be required to post a bond which would be sufficient
to correct any conditions which might arise which might be similar to the problems experienced in
the South Shore beach area. He said he thought Mr. Sullivan's point was well taken, however he
pointed out there would not be very much of a beach on Harbor Bay Isle.
Mr. Sullivan stated his concern was not only with the perimeter area but who would be responsible
in the event of extraordinary risks, i.e. excessive house and street settling, sewer problems
with lagoons, breakage in sewer and/or gas lines caused by land settling, and retention of the
fill. He noted a former proposal to mound areas of the flat landfill had been abandoned, as it
was not found suitable for the soil conditions on the property. Mr, Sullivan recommended as a
safeguard that Utah International should be bound by a long term bond in a substantial amount to
cover these and other unforeseeable problems which might develop in the future.
City Manager Goss suggested the questions raised be referred to staff for a report, and the
President so directed.
3. From Save Our Shoreline, signed by Mrs. Leora Feeney, concerning bond in connection with the
Fill Agreement on the Harbor Bay Isle perimeter,
President Corica stated this communication addressed almost the same issue discussed by Mr. Sullivan.
He asked the City Engineer to furnish an explanation of the Fill Agreement bond.
Mr. Hanna stated the Fill Agreement specified there would be a bond not to exceed $500,000, however
when the bond was finally determined, it was set at $50,000. He reported the bond was still in
effect and the company had assumed its responsibilities in maintaining the perimeter up to date.
He stated the Fill Agreement further required the developer or the persons following to assume a
responsibility for maintaining the perimeter so it would not rest with the city.
Councilman Diament asked who would be the successors to the developer, whether the Reclamation
District or the home owners.
Mrs. Feeney questioned whether or not the $50,000 bond was now sufficient because of inflation,
et cetera. She also asked if it were known how much the bond cost the Reclamation District per year.
The City Manager stated the questions asked would be addressed in the staff report on the subject.
4. From Mr. Donald E. Roberson, 2244 Encinal Avenue, regarding the Environmental Impact Report
for Harbor Bay Isle.
President Corica stated Mr. Roberson was concerned about the 100 foot band around the perimeter
of Harbor Bay Isle and referred to the EIR recommendation of a 300 foot band. He reported the
City Council, Planning Board and Recreation Commission had previously taken action favoring a
continuous perimeter band, however had not as yet agreed on what the size would be and were looking
at alternatives. He asked the City Manager if he had any knowledge as to when the Design Review
Board of BCDC would look into the matter.
Mr. Goss stated he was unaware of any time at this point. He said he understood there would be
a joint meeting of the City Planning Board and Recreation Commission on May 12, 1977, at which they
would be considering the perimeter question.
Mrs. Leora Feeney stated it was her belief the EIR was based on the fact that there would be a 100
foot wide band. She said the recommendation in the EIR was for a 300 foot wide band, narrowing to
100 feet and broadening to 500 feet in some places. She reported Save Our Shoreline was recommending
only the 100 foot band be enforced.
Planning Director Patterson informed the Council the joint meeting between the Planning Board an
Recreation Commission on May 12 was basically for the developer to make a presentation of the
water edge treatment and open space, along with the calculations of acreage and the rationale of
design considerations involved. He said it was his understanding no conclusions would be drawn at
the meeting, and the public hearing on the matter would be at a later date.
HEARINGS:
5. In the Matter of the Historical Monument Status of the Alameda High School Structures.
The City Clerk stated communications had been received from Mr. Thomas F. Lee, Secretary of the
Historical Advisory Commission, and from Mrs. Borden, Spokesperson for members of the inooming
Board of Education,
President Corica noted this matter had come up some time ago at which time the Council had decided
to set the hearing for a date after thenew members of the Board of Education had been sworn in.
He explained the procedure to be followed and called on Mr. Lee for an explanation of the appli-
cation.
Mr. Lee reported the Histcrical Advisory Commission staff had received a request from Mrs. Inc-
Kapellas to review Alameda High School for its historical significance, as outlined in Ordinance
No. 1755, N.S. Subsequently, he said, staff had conducted a study, prepared a report and had
submitted it to the Commission.
President Corica said it appeared to him that no matter what action the Council took at this
meeting, the school district would not be bound by the decision.
Mr. Gerhard Degemann, member of the Hisotirical Advisory Commission, reported the Commission had
considered the application on February 17, 1977, inspected the site, studied the staff report,
reviewed the report of the Historical Resource Officer of the East Bay Chapter of the American
Institute of Architects and heart from speakers for and against the application. He stated the
Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the Alameda High School structures be
declared a historical monument and met the specifications of the government ordinance. He said
their decision was based on the following reasons: (1) the structures are associated with an
historical era and of a unique period in the City's history; (2) the structures are associated
with neighboring buildings from the same era and architectural style; and (3) the structures are
stylistically significant because they are the only example of the neo-classic style in high schools
throughout San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland and Sacramento.
Mr. Degemann noted the Alameda Times-Star had published an article stating the AIA had found
Alameda High School did not meet the criteria established by the National Register of Historical
Monuments, Mr. Degemann said the AIA had never stated this as their official position; that the
State Historic Resources Commission is the final arbiter in deciding whether a site meets the
criteria established by the National Register, had meet on March 4, 1977, and decided the site
met the criteria, and had referred the matter to Watington, D.C. He stated the normal process
in the listing of sites to the National Register required from three to six months from the
date of referral by the Historic Resources Commission.
Mr. Degemann briefly reviewed the application and supporting documentation,
The President declared the hearing opened. On the call for proponets, Mrs. Barbara Borden, 343
Oleander Avenue, stated she had never considered the Alameda High School buildings to be the
responsibility of the City Council should historical status be granted, She reported the Historical
Advisory Commission had met on February 23, 1976 to consider the issue and had voted three to
two for denial at that time based on the educational value of the building; that on February 27,
1976, she had written the Commission expressing her disappointment in the decision as, in her
opinion, the HAC had discussed andvoted on the issues outside their realm of responsibility and
requesting consideration and the evaluation be kept within the scope of the ordinance. She said
she subsequently received a reply stating the HAC was not empowered to provide an appeal process.
Mrs. Borden stated she had then requested the City Council to provide an appeal process, which
request was referred to the City Manager. She reviewed additional efforts she had made and referred
to copies of correspondence which were in her possession. Mrs. Borden noted it had been over one
year since the matter had first been considered, and, inher opinion, should have been resolved at
time. She referred toproblems now facing the Board of Education with regard to the structure as
they related to the housing of students after June 30, 1977, pending legislation, and a demolition
contract, She stated these issues should be restricted to that agency. Mrs. Borden said she
had always advocated the retention and rehabilitation of Alameda High School both as a citizen
and as a member of the Board of Education, and had tried for many years to solicit support to
place the issue in the hands of the people who would be required to financially support the
decisions of their elected officials. Acting in her capacity as President of the Board of Education,
she reported, the majority of the Board were in favor of the HAC recommendation to officially
list Alameda High School as an Historical Monument. She commented on the Field Act as it applied
to the use of the building.
Councilman Tillman asked Mrs. Borden if the building were retained as an Historical Landmark, was
the Board of Education contemplating using it as an additional school facility in view of the
fact another high school was under construction. Mrs. Borden stated the building could not be
used for any students under compulsory education, and the building would have to be used for
other purposes.
Mr. Degemann stated he had received a call this date from the San Francisco Chapter of the/VA
and that the Alameda High School would be featured in their May issue. He said the author,
Allan Temko, was an Architectural Historian and critic and requested Mrs. Helen Freeman to read
the article entitled, "Architect Spare That School" for the edication of the Council and
audience.
On the call for opponents, Mrs. Lois R. Hanna reported that at the March municipal election, the
citizens had elected her to the School Board. She stated she had run on a plank of completing the
new high school and demolishing the old, and had received the largest number of votes cast. She
said, on behalf of those 6,000 plus voters, she asked that the High School not be designated as
an Historical Monument, She stated it was her belief the School Board should be concerned with
school matters; that there wa sno money for rehabilitation, maintenance or utlities and no firm
plans for its use. She said it had little value to the future students of Alameda High School;
that the new building and construction should last for another fifty years; and the students
should not be compelled to sit on the steps of private properties located across the street. She
asked that the Council consider the welfare of the children in reaching their decision.
Mr. William Kirland, 1720 Palmera Court, stated he had been a student of Alameda High School in
1926. He reported on the three bond issue attempts to raise money for rehabilitation to meet
the Field Act which had failed. Mr. Kirland stated that in about 1969 or 1970 the School Board
had organized a large group of volunteers to examine every conceivable alternative. He said the
final result was the decision to go to the community with not going ahead with rehabilitation of
Alameda High School, as against building a new one, and the citizen reply was they did not want
to move the site of the high school. He stated that subsequently another citizens committee was
formed to examine the alternatives, following which an offer had been made to the City Council
by the Board of Education that it consider use of the building as a City Hall and Community
Center, which offer had been declined.
He said the State, by that time, was running out of money to help finance local School Districts
in rebuilding schools; the proposition was made to the state that the school would be rebuilt as
the least costly alternative and would remain on the same site, and the State had informed the
Board the site was not big enough. He said this led to the acquisition of additional properties
and the demolition of existing buildings to enlarge the site so it would be at least a minimum
size campus. He stated in his opinion the children on the east end of town deserved as decent
a campus as those on the west end enjoyed. He questioned how the taxpayers could be expected
to support another "white elephant".
Mrs. Eleanor Stallman, 1311 Dayton Avenue, referred to a study made in 1961 by Eleanor Tichie
on Historical Monuments in Alameda and the Bay Area. She stated a listing was made of the many
beautiful monuments in Alameda which should be preserved, and noted Alameda High School was not
among them. She said, to her knowledge, it had not been recognized as an Historical Monument
by the Alameda Historical Society or the Society of the California Pioneers. She referred to
Ordinance No. 1742, N.S. and asked if any plan had come forward for the preservation and restor-
ation of the building, or for its use. She said she felt as a taxpayer that it was not feasible
to save a monument in the middle of a school ground without any plans for its rehabilitation or
occupancy.
President Corica announced a short rebuttal time would be permitted.
Mr. Michael Grappo, 1505 Broadway, stated each time the matter of a bond issue to rehabilitate
the building had been placed on the ballot it had failed. He claimed the School Board had faile
to comply with Education Code requirements which would have given the voters the option to deter-
mine whether or not they wanted to tear the building down. He said there was also a provision in
the Code to take the question to the electorate as to whther the building should be abandoned
and tents used, which was not placed on the ballot. He said that prior to 1968 these were
requirements of the Education Code, and thereafter the matter of whether or not school should be
abandoned was optional with the Board. He alleged that because the Board did not place the
issue on the ballot, they were now in a position where they could be personally liable if the
building was occupied without rehabilitation and doing the structural work required. He said
this matter could still be placed on a ballot and if the voters rejected the proposition to abandon
the building, the school building could be used without any personal liability. He said the people
did not like the fact that they had not been given the opportunity to decide whether or not the
building should be destroyed, and referred to the petition signed by approximately 4500 persons
opposed to its demolition. He recommended a study be made of possible uses for the building.
Mrs. Ina Ratto, 1053 Island Drive, stated that in 1938 a bond issue had been passed to rehabilitate
Alameda High School and other schools in the District. That with the advent of World War II and
the difficulty in securing materials and manpower, the bond issue was not brought to fruition.
She stated the 1968 bond issue lumped together the above schools and required a two-thirds vote
to pass. She alleged the issue failed because it did not get a two thirds majority, even though
it had a rajaority of the votes cast; that when the law changed to allow a simple majority for
passage, the School District had been asked to put the same bond issue back on the ballot which
they declined to do. Mrs. Ratto said at the time the School District had asked the City if they
had a use for the building and would purchase it, the then City Manager reported the District had
allowed insufficient time to evaluate the true cost and had recommended agianst the purchase.
Concerning the space required for construction of a new school, Mrs. Ratto said the state did
not mandate specific space areas but did have guidelines. She said the granting of historical
status would not mean Alameda High School could not be torn down, but would only provide additional
time to consider alternative uses.
The hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Beckam requested an opinion from the City Attorney as to the effect of placing the Alameda
High School on the City's historical roster. Mr. Stroud replied the implementation sections of the
governing ordinance provided a short delay period before demolition could take place with longer
periods requiring additional council action. He pointed out, building regulations did not apply
to school districts as the School Board had its own Building Code and was not applying to the City
for a building permit or demoliton permit.
Councilman Diament said it seemed to her the HAC had advised the City Council according to their
guidelines and that it was the wish of the majority of the present Board of Education that
Historical Monument status be granted to the Alameda High School building, and she would so move.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: None. Absent: None.
A ten-minute recess was called, Upon reconvening, the meeting continued with the regular order
of business.
HEARINGS:
6. President Corica announced the hearing in the matter of the proposed adoption of the Uniform
Building Code, 1976 Edition, would be held over to the regular meeting of June 7, 1977.
7. In the Matter of the proposed adoption of the National Electrical Code, 1975 Edition,
Copyright 1974 by the National Fire Protection Association, with amendments, additions and
deletions thereof as the Primary Code, as the Alameda Electrical Code.
The City Clerk noted the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file.
On request, Mr. A.E. Sligh, Senior Electrical Inspector, reported the National Electrical Code
was updated every three years and he would recommend adoption of the 1975 edition. He referred
to his written report on the subject.
The President declared the hearing opened. On the call for proponents or opponents, there was
no response. The hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Tillman moved acceptance of the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector and the
ordinance for introduction be taken out of order, seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried by
unanimous voice vote.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
8. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Adopting by Reference the National Electrical Code, 1975 Edition,
Copyright 1974 by National Fire Protection Association, with
Amendments, Additions and Deletions Thereof as the Primary Code;
Prescribing Regulations for Safeguarding of Persons and Property
from Hazards Arising from Use of Electricity; Providing for the
Issuance of Permits and Collection of Fees Therefor; Providing
Penalties for Violation Thereof, and Repealing Any Ordinances in
Conflict Therewith.'
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diamnt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
HEARINGS:
9. In the Matter of the proposed adoption of the Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition, Copyright
1976 by International Conference of Building Officials and Western Fire Chiefs Association with
amendments, additions and deletions thereof as the Primary Code, Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F,
G and Uniform Fire Code Standards enumerated in Table 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 11-A, 11-B, 17-A, 33-A,
38-A, 42-A, 42-B thereof as the Secondary Code, as the Fire Code of the City of Alameda.
The City Clerk noted the Affidavit of Publication of the required Notice of Hearing was on file.
On request, Fire Captain Alberti for the Fire Prevention Bureau reported the 1976 Uniform Fire
Code reflected the latest and most up to date fire safety practices. He recommended its adoption
and referred to his written report in the matter.
Councilman Tillman inquired if smoke detectors would be required in new construction. Captain
Alberti stated the 1973 Building and Fire Codes already required the installation of smoke
detectors in any new construction or major additions, and would apply to single-family residences.
The President declared the hearing opened. On the call for proponents or opponents, there was
no response. The hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report of Fire Captain Alberti and the Ordinance for
instroduction be taken out of order, seconded by Councilman Diament and carried by unanimous vote,
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
10. Councilman Beckam introduced the following ordinance after which it would be laid over under
provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Adopting by Reference the Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition, Copyright
1976, by International Conference of Building Officials and Western
Fire Chiefs Association; with Amendments. Additions and Deletions
Thereof as the Primary Code; Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G and Uniform
Fire Code Standards Enumerated in Table 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 11-A, 17-A,
33-A, 42-A, 42-B Thereof as the Secondary Code; Regulating Conditions
Hazardous to Life and Property from Fire or Explosion; Providing for
Issuance of Permits; Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof and
Repealing Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 of
Ordinance No. 1719, New Series and Any Ordinances and Portions of Ordinances
in Conflict Therewith."
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
City Attorney Stroud expressed his appreciation to both Mr. Sligh and Captain Alberti for their
assistance in the preparation of the foregoing Ordinances.
Themeeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION:
11. Continued from meeting of April 5, 1977, from the City Manager regarding Master Agreement
with Cal Trans for Patton Way.
President Corica stated this proposed project was designed to relieve traffic congestion in the
west end of the City. He reported approximately $2,550,000 in FAU funds were available for
construction.
City Engineer Hanna stated the Agreement was required by the Federal government and the State
was charged with the responsibility for seeing that the regulations were observed. He reported
the Cooperative Agreement which would be expected in about two months would be more specific as
to services, payments, et cetera.
Councilman Tillman noted the project would be finned in the proportion of 83% from FAU sources
and 17% of matching funds from Alameda Highway Users' Gasoline Taxes. He asked if his use of
Gas Taxes would interfere with the extenjon of Fernside Boulevard.
City Manager Goss replied priorities had already been established in terms of the current capital
budget as far as the use of Gas Tax funds; however the Couj1 would have another opportunity to
review their use. He said he did not believe this project alone would preclude the Fernside
extension, but there were other demands on Gas Tax funds which might influence the priorities
for their use.
Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the recommendation and the resolution be taken out of
order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tillman and on voice vote carried unanimously.
Councilman Beckam questioned when the Enviornmental Impact Assessment by the state would be
availdie. Mr. Hanna stated it should be forthcoming in about a month's time. Councilman Beckam
recommended that when received it be distributed to the Planning Board, City Council, and onto
any members of the public wishing to receive it. Mr. Hanna reported tbe state was about a month
late at this point in their schedule of events.
I)ESOLUTIONS:
12. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8707
Authorizing Execution of Master Agreement with State of California for
Administration of Patton Way Project in Accordance with Federal Aid
Urban Requirements."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
13. Continued from the meetings of April 5, and April 19, 1977, from the City Manager recommending
approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 3634, Neighborhoods 1 and 2 of Village 1, Harbor Bay Isle.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report and the resolution be taken out of order, seconded
by Councilman Tillman, carried unanimously on voice vote.
RESOLUTIONS:
14. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8708
Approving Final Map of Subdivision Known as Tract 3634, Authorizing
Execution of Agreement for Construction of Public Improvements
Therein, Approving Bonds as to Sufficiency, and Accepting Certain
Easements, Access Rights and Parcels of Land (Harbor Bay Isle
Associates, Subdivider),tt
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
The meeting revertd to the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
15. From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Secretary, submitting recommendation on continuous
shoreline strip along the perimeter of the Bay Farm Island development.
President Corica reported the Commission concurred with the City Council's position of a continuous
perimter strip, however favor a strip not less than 100 feet in width from mean high tide.
Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report, seconded by Councilman Beckam, carried by
unanimous voice vote.
16. From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Secretary, submitting recommendation on a dog run.
President Corica reported the Commission had not recommended the development of a dog run at this
time.
Councilman Beckam noted the Commission had further stated that until the leash law could be more
vigorously enforced, the success of such a facility was questionable. He recommended a more
vigorous enforcement of the leash law be undertaken.
Councilman Tillman suggested staff should continue to search for a suitable site as he felt
there was a need for such a facility.
Councilman Beckam moved acceptance of the report, seconded by Councilman Tillman, carried by
unanimous voice vote.
17. From the Recreation Commission, signed by the Secretary, submitting recommendation regarding
a skateboard facility,
President Corica reported a skateboard park as a commercial venture was proposed by Mr. Wayne
Milani on property owned by Pacific Shops. He stated he understood the proposal had been
approved by the Planning Board at its meeting held May 2, 1977.
Councilman Diament moved acceptance of the report, seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on
the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
18, From the Recreation Commission, singed by the Secretary, concerning library facilities on
Bay Farm Island.
President Corica noted the Commission had suggested steps be taken to find out whether land in
the area of the shopping center site might be set aside for library purposes. He aggested this
be referred to staff for exploration of the cost factor, possible site bcation and report.
Councilman Beckam then offered the foregoing as a motion, which was seconded by Councilman
Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent:
Councilman Sherratt, (1).
19. From the City Manager recommending contract be awarded to Schmidt-Gravatt, lowet and best
bidder for the project of the Remodeling of Restrooms at McKinley Park.
Councilman Beckam moved approval of the recommendation and award of contract to Schmidt-Gravatt.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
UNFINSHED BUSINESS:
20. Consideration of appointment to Library Board.
President Corica announced this item would be held over to the adjourned regular meeting of May
24, 1977.
21. Consitderation of following item brought up under "New Business" at the regular meeting held
April 19, 1977: Remarks by City Attorney ooncerning the National Leagued' Cities request for a
contribution to subdize litigation in the matter of new federal regulations concerning unemployment
insurance.
000
City Manager Goss stated the federal government had enacted a law which would require local govern-
ments to pay unemployment insurance. He said this would have an economic impact on local govern-
ment and had raised certain legal issues. He stated the National Institute of Municipal Law
Officers was attempting to develop a lawsuit and he recommended Alameda join in the litigation at
a cost not to exceed S1,500 rather than the $5,000 requested by NIMLO.
Councilman Diament moved authorization be given to enter into the agreement at a cost not to exceed
$1,500, and the resolution be taken out of order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Tillman
and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman
Sherratt, (1).
RESOLUTIONS:
22. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, with Exhibit "B" to be modified
to indicate an amount of $1,500, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8709
Authorizing Agreement with NIMLO Respecting NIMLO Federal Unemployment
Compensation Tax Litigation Trust Fund,"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
The meeting returned to the regular order of business.
NEW BUSINESS:
23. President Corica reported a request had been received from the Alameda Swimming Pool Association
for approval to dig wells on the Lincoln and Franklin Park sites:, He said the Association had came
UP with $2,000 cost estimate for each of the wells which they were willing to pay. He requested
the City Engineer to evaluate the cost to the City to provide wells on all park sites.
24. President Corica commented concerning the proposed bridge fare iocrease. He stated some
cities in Alameda County had gone on record in opposition, and nported Senator Holmdahl had
introduced AB 234, which was approved 7 to 5 in the Senate Finance Committee, to oppose such an
increase by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. He suggested the Council take a stand
against the increase and so inform the Commission.
Councilman Beckam noted that, per Council policy, this and any item brought up under "New Business"
would appear on the agenda of the next meeting for discussion.
25. Councilman Diament referred to SB 453 (Foran) which proposed the establishment of a Public
Beach and would permit cities and counties to apply for funds on behalf of themselves or on
behalf of special districts and regional governments maintaining beach areas in their jurisdiction.
She stated it had passed the first committee and was now before the Senate Finance Committee. She
said she would like to see the Council endorse the bill.
26. Councilman Diament proposed Councilman Tillman replace former Councilman Hurwitz as an ex-
officio member of the Golf Commission.
27. Councilman Tillman commented on the establishment of a local cable TV system. He said he
had been approached by residents of the City who desired a larger choice of programs than those
offered by the regular television stations.
RESOLUTIONS:
28. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8710
Declaring Intention to Order Vacation of a Portion of County Road,
a Public Street in the City of Alameda, Referring to Certain Map for
Particulars Thereof, Fixing Time and Place for Hearing thereof, and
Ordering Publication and Post of Notices of Said Proposed Vacation."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Tillman and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
29. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8711
Consenting as Owner to the Detachment of Certain Territory from the
City of Alameda and Consenting to the Annexation Thereof to the City
of Oakland."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Council an Sherratt, (1).
30. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8712
Consenting, as Legislative Body, to the Detachment of Certain
Territory from the City of Alameda, and Consenting to the Annexation
Thereof to the City of Oakland."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
31. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8713
Adopting Conflict of Interest Codes for All City Departments,
Commissions, Agencies and Board."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
32. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8714
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Minor Street
Patching with Asphalt Concrete; Repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk and Driveway; and Installation of House Laterals, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1978, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to
Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the
following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
33. "Ordinance No. 1865,
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 11-14E5 Thereof
Relating to Adult Entertainment Activity."
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None.
Absent: Councilman Sherratt, (1).
34. "Ordinance N. 1866,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City
of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S." (U.S. Naval
Reserve Training Center)
Councilman Tillman moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Diament and carried or the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent:
Councilman Sherratt, (1).
BILLS:
35. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the
total amount of $199,099.81, 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 Diament moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk
on May 3, 1977, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried by unanimous voice vote of the Council members
present.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
36. Mr. Robert HUdkins, Member of the Library Board, referred to report submitted by the Recreation
Department concerning Library facilities on Bay Farm Island. He remarked that at the Council
meeting of December 7, 1977, it had been suggested there be a joint Recreation Building/Library
within the Harbor Bay Isle development and this has been referred to the Library Board. He stated
the Board had not been too overly enthusiastic about the joint use as it had hoped for property
in the shopping center, but having no funds to obtain that, they were willing to go along with
the proposal. He reported that he and Mrs. Hanna had appeared before the Recreation Department
at one time, again he had appeared alone, and Mrs. Hanna and the City Librarian had then met
with the head of the Recreation Department and Commissioner Gertrude Woods He said he had now
found out that in the Exchange Agreement concerning the Otis/Rosewood-Harbor Bay Isel propertly,
and viewing the map denoted "Exhibit Bx, it showed the Recreation Building and contained no
provisions for library fdCilftbs. He asked that the Council give consideration to 23tabHshing
a library on the park site and designate finDnC1Oa from the funds received through the exchange.
City Manager Goss reported the Agreement was clear that the money would have to be used for
acquisition of the 6 acres plus construction Of the park. He said it was unknown at this time
what the actual cost of the park and related structures would be and whether or not there would
be excess funds which could be utilized to expand the community center to include a branch library.
FILING:
37. Master Agreement with State of California - re Patton Way project,
38. Agreement Between Harbor Bay Isle Associates and City - re Tract 3654.
39' Agreement between NIMLO and City - re NIMLO Federal Unemployment Compensation Tax Litigation
Trust FuDd,
40' Financial report of Auditor and Assessor for 9 months ending March 31, 1977,
41. Specifications PW 5-77-3 - Minor Street Patching with Asphalt Concrete for fiscal year ending
June 30, 1978.
42. Specifications PW 5-77-4 - Installation of House Laterals for fiscal year ending June 30, 1978.
43, Specifications PW 5-77-6 - Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk and Driveway for fiscal
year ending June 30, 1978.
ADJOURNMENT:
44. There being no further business to come hefore the meeting, the Council adjourned at 10/00
O'clock p.m. to assemble in adjourned regular session on Tuesday, May 24, 1977, at 7:30 o'clock
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk