Loading...
1999-09-07 Joint ARRA/CIC/CC and Special and Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 7, 1999- -6:30 P.M. Mayor/Chair Appezzato convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Authority Members/ Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor/Chair Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (CC/99-429) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; (CIC/99-28) Property: Alameda Naval Air Station and Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating Parties: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Community Improvement Commission and United States Navy; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. Following the Closed Session, the Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Appezzato announced that instructions were given to the City/Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's real property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Appezzato adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, D ane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission September 7, 1999 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 7, 1999- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:46 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (99-432) Presentation of Alameda Free Library Summer Reading Club Student Participants by Library Director Susan Hardie. The Library Director described the program, recognized participants, and introduced Library Board Members. (99-433) Presentation by Rebuilding The Tower (ARTT) Chair Wood explained the activities, and reported additional members. CONSENT CALENDAR Robert Wood, President, Alamedans Committee, on ARTT Activities. purpose of the Committee, summarized on expanding the Committee by six Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar- Councilmember. Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*99-434) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 17, 1999. Approved. (*99-435) Recommendation to adopt Amendment No. 1 to FY 1999-2000 Community Development Block Grant, Action Plan and authorize execution of Grant Agreement and related documents. Accepted. (*99-436) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to a Consulting Contract with Chandler Lee, AICP. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 (*99-437) Resolution No.13135, "Amending Procedures for Disability Retirement Determinations of Local Safety Employees of the Public Employees Retirement System." Adopted. (*99-438) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,912,782.34. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (99-439) Resolution No. 13136, "Appointing Christine Johnson as a member of the Recreation Commission." Adopted. Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Johnson with a Certificate of Appointment. (99-440) Resolution No. 13137, "Appointing Jay L. Ingram as a member of the Recreation Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Ingram with a Certificate of Appointment. (99-441) Public Hearing to consider a proposed Negative Declaration (IS-99-4) and Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Zoning Text Amendment (ZA-99-2), to amend Subsection 30-4.20 of the Alameda Municipal Code to delete the Master Plan requirement for a market analysis and phasing diagram and allow for preparation of Development Standards, Guidelines and Procedures in-lieu of detailed development plans within the Mixed Use Planned Development (MX) District, (99-441A) Resolution No. 13137, "Adopting a Negative Declaration, IS-99-4, for a Zoning Text Amendment to Delete the Master Plan Requirement for a Market Analysis and Phasing Diagram and Allow for Preparation of Development Standards, Guidelines and Procedures In- Lieu of Detailed Development Plans Within the Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX)." Adopted; and (99-441B) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Zoning Text Amendment (ZA-99-2) to Amend Subsection 30-4.20 of the Alameda Municipal Code to Delete the Master Plan Requirement for a Market Analysis and Phasing Diagram and Allow for Preparation of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 Development Standards, Guidelines and Procedures In-Lieu of Detailed Development Plans Within the Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX). Introduced. The Planning Director explained the options created by the proposed text change; stated land must be zoned MX in order to use the Master Planning Process, which includes a Planning Board Public Hearing, and introduction and final passage of an ordinance by the City Council; there would be opportunity for public review and input at the Planning Board level, and at least two City Council meetings; once a property was zoned MX, the process would require the Applicant to submit an Application requesting Master Plan approval and meet all the submission requirements set out in the Municipal Code; staff would evaluate project, schedule a public hearing with staff recommendation and the Planning Board would conduct a Public Hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council; the City Council would hold a public hearing and introduce and finally adopt related ordinance; Master Plans are adopted by ordinance; an ordinance takes 30 days to go into effect. The Planning Director further stated when a Master Plan is adopted, the authority for approving the development plan lies with the Planning Board; the Planning Board holds a Public Hearing and takes action; action is final unless appealed [by public] or called for review by a member of the City Council. The Planning Director explained the three ways the process could be used under the proposed text change. The Planning Director stated the matter before Council was first scheduled for a decision on July 20, 1999; the City received a letter [dated July 19, 1999] from Arc Ecology, Renewed Hope, Audubon Society and Sierra Club, raising a number of concerns; staff met with groups and reviewed text changes; the most recent letter indicates the City has responded in an appropriate manner and has taken into account the concerns; however, the groups had one suggestion pertaining to the wording of the section on the process of placing a matter on a Planning Board Agenda for public notice purposes: that the language should be very clear, any action taken by the Planning Director can be set aside and go before the Planning Board for a decision; and that she [Planning Director] believes the language is clear. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the City Attorney concurred with the Planning Director, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The Planning Director stated the groups identified certain areas of change, including transit priority and conservation of housing; groups believe the proposed text change should be done in conjunction with the General Plan changes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 In response to Vice Mayor Daysog, the Planning Director stated the issues raised by the groups need to be addressed in the General Plan. Councilmember Kerr requested the Planning Director to verify that MX District plans have been part of the zoning. The Planning Director responded a Master Plan is like a mini- zoning ordinance: specific to property, adopted by ordinance and refers to Plans as an Exhibit; changes must come back before the Council as Master Plan Amendments. Councilmember Kerr stated Development Plan changes included projections and elevations before and required Council action. The Planning Director responded significant changes require Council action, e.g. footprints; proposal provides for written conditions, rather than elevations [drawings], adopted through the Development Guidelines and Standards; changes effecting the Master Plan would come back to the City Council. Councilmember Kerr stated there are two kinds of zoning approaches: 1) detailed guidelines, developed over the years, for Residential Zoning, and, 2) Planned Development (PD) Overlays where drawings become the Zoning; MX zoning has been similar to PD: projections and elevations are part of the zoning and changes require going back to Planning Board; and a concern is the possible elimination of drawings for MX zones. The Planning Director stated one of the exceptions is Harbor Bay: elevations are not required. The Planning Director explained that the City has a final development plan process which requires each set of elevations to go before the Planning Board; said process is compared to a set of guidelines, including standards, e.g. coverage, setbacks, parking, and outside employee amenity; process has been routine and non-controversial, however, the additional step going back to the Planning Board results in a two- to three- month process. Councilmember Kerr stated drawings are useful in Mixed Use [zones] where there is a side-by-side relationship between residential and commercial; a sharp difference in such zones can create problems. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry whether proposal had the unanimous approval of the Planning Board, the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Public speakers: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 Marty Buxton, Catellus, stated Catellus's Application for MX zoning would be the same approval process that has been in place since the early 1980's; Catellus will apply for a Master Plan to be reviewed by the Planning Board and the City Council; each phase of the Project over the next fifteen years or so will be reviewed by the Planning Board; Catellus believes a verbal description, at the Master Plan level, of all the parameters of the design is the best way to proceed, rather than an elevation; the MX zoning should be revised to delete requirements for the Market and Development Schedule and Phasing; Catellus will follow Option 1, the existing process. Linda Bytof, Alameda, suggested certain revisions to Section 30- 4.20 (g)4. William Smith, Sierra Club, expressed certain concerns regarding transit issues and housing stock. Bill Smith, Alameda, spoke on affordable housing and work programs. Opponents: Steve Dos Santos, Renewed Hope. (Submitted Petition.) Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope. Marilyn Buckhorn, Alameda. Allen Asker, Alameda. (Submitted Letters and Petitions) Carl Halpern, Alameda. Eve Bach, Arc Ecology, San Francisco. Jim Sweeney, Alameda. Ann Mitchum, Alameda. Richard Neveln, Alameda. David Borglum, Alameda. Proponents: None. Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Vice Mayor Daysog stated MX zoning is simply a lever for facilitating economic development; MX zoning is essential for expanding Silicon Island; discussed MX zoning as it relates to Silicon Island and high-tech businesses; stated the proposal for workforce housing, with respect to East Housing, does not work; the City Council must scrutinize [proposals] carefully; Council is willing to review other ways; Alameda Point will be one of the most studied 1,500 acres in California; the notion that there will not be enough public input belies reality; it is important to move forward with the MX District and to set in place the regulatory framework; a plan must be in place. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 Councilmember Kerr stated MX zoning has been in place in the City for about twenty years; what is being discussed this evening are changes in procedure for MX zoning; it has been suggested MX zoning be extended not only to FISC and Alameda Point, but possibly City- wide; people do not want MX zoning coming into their neighborhoods with a shortage of public input; the proposed changes are intended to streamline the process; Catellus stated only phasing and economic justification should be eliminated; guidelines, rather than detailed plans, would be required; non-tested and less definitive guidelines would be developed and City Council could delegate review to Planning staff; said decisions would be placed on Planning Board Agendas; Chair of the Planning Board suggested that decisions by Planning staff be placed on Planning Board Agendas' Consent Calendars to allow them to pulled and heard; however, the Planning Board decided upon a list of staff decisions and an appeal procedure, which slows the process down; another concern regarding proposal is the 2,000 sq. ft. minimum standard lot size; the bent of the MX changes is to set minimum standards; the current public hearing process should not be downgraded; that not everything is noticed automatically in the newspapers, not everyone receives the Alameda Times Star [current Official Newspaper of the City for legal advertising] and the Alameda Journal no longer delivers to the north side very much; citizens watch Channel 22 [Cable government channel] for City Council and Planning Board agenda items which is a standard way [of providing public notice]; the existing MX zoning has worked very well for a long time and should remain in place; and that she would support Council discussion on the elimination of some of the phasing and/or economic planning. Councilmember Johnson stated the intention [of the proposal] is not to eliminate public comment; the Planning Board is an excellent Board of citizens who take full responsibility for what they recommend to the City Council; something needs to be done to facilitate the building process; proposal is designed to handle non-controversial issues; the public still has plenty of opportunities: public hearings, appeal process; the proposal allows the City Council to delegate some, all or none of the decisions to the Planning Director at a public hearing; the Council wants to allow the City to move forward in development; Council does not want to hide things or allow developers to take control; there is concern about public process, which has been resolved to the greatest extent possible in the planning process; the Planning Director can answers questions and concerns; proposal does not compromise the public's ability to participate in the process; and that she will support the [Planning Board] recommendation. Councilmember DeWitt stated elimination of public input appears to be the major issue; the MX Zoning proposal will not eliminate input; many individuals have met with the Planning Director to change proposed language, in order to abate fears regarding [lack Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 of] public input; another concern is the new MX zoning was developed to tear down East Housing faster; Catellus stated the purpose is to streamline the process to allow developer to be competitive; citizens have stated there should be a faster process for City permits; and the proposal will help the City be competitive and meet development obligations. Councilmember DeWitt moved approval of the Planning Board's recommendation. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion. Mayor Appezzato stated Catellus has agreed to go with whatever process the Council selects, because they have been accused of being the culprit behind the MX [proposal]; there is a backlog of over 1,600 Use Permits; the City does not have money to hire tons of people to do everything that needs to be done; since 1993, the City has tried to convert the Navy Base with a great deal of public input; the Planning Board has unanimously approved the proposal; the City Council is in control and will select the process for issues at public hearings; complimented the Planning Board and staff for being creative; and stated that he will support the recommendation. Councilmember DeWitt reworded his motion for clarification purposes: Council approve the proposed Negative Declaration (IS 99- 04) and Zoning Text Amendment ZA 99-02 by adopting a Resolution and approving the first reading of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor Daysog second the reworded motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Absent: None. Abstentions: None. *** Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 10:31 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 10:46 p.m. * * * COUNCIL COMMUNICATION(S) (99-442) Mayor Appezzato announced that he would call a Special Meeting on September 9, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. to address businesses on Park Street [check cashing and sale or exchange of tobacco-related products]. AGENDA CHANGE (99-443) Councilmember DeWitt requested the recommendation to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 Allocate Funds and adopt Plans and Specifications for construction of Veterans' Memorial Building Roof Repairs [paragraph no. 99- be taken out of order. Hearing no objection from Council, Mayor Appezzato agreed to move said matter forward. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (99 -444) Recommendation to Allocate Funds and adopt Plans and Specifications for Construction of Veterans' Memorial Building Roof Repairs, No. P.W. 08- 99 -21; and (99 -445) Resolution No. 13140, "Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate in the Open Market Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter for Construction of Veterans' Memorial Building Roof Repairs, No. P.W. 08- 99 -21." Adopted. Jim Sweeney, Alameda, stated the Veterans' Memorial Building Committee has been meeting since April; urged Council to move forward. Mayor Appezzato stated that he will support the recommendation; other projects are being delayed; staff used tremendous ingenuity to find funds. Councilmember Kerr stated the building was in bad condition when the City received it from the County; the City owns the building now and it is an asset to the people of Alameda; the flooding and rot cannot continue; other projects are being delayed to keep the building from decaying. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt complimented Councilmember Kerr for supporting the staff recommendation because some of the money being reallocated is coming from Littlejohn Park, which is in the north side area. Councilmember Kerr stated the Park is her neighborhood park and that she regrets project will be delayed. On the call for the question, the motion, carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (99 -446) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13139 "Adding the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District to the City Historical and Cultural Monument List " Adopted, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 (99-446A) Recommendation to adopt Guidelines for Preserving the Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District; [Historical Advisory Board]; and (99-446B) Recommendation to approve, as a Concurring Party, the Memorandum of Agreement, among the United States Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the Layaway, Caretaker Maintenance, Leasing and Disposal of Historic Properties on the former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California. Frank George, Alameda, stated the Historical Advisory Board [HAB] and staff should be willing to work for the good of City's culture; respecting the law is necessary for protection; regarding [demolition of] the Webb Avenue garage, when an individual disregards the law, the result is anarchy and lawlessness; the Planning Department posts notices for everything, e.g. tree planting; a National Trust would keep any lawless action from occurring and guard against immeasurable error. Mayor Appezzato requested Mr. George to clarify action he would like the City to take. Mr. George stated there are too many flaws with the proposal; a National Trust should be adopted; if that [Webb Avenue garage] were under the National Trust, it would not have been demolished; the building should be put back and protected using the National Registration of Historic Places; the City of Woodland has saved historic monuments by doing so; the National Trust offers federal protection. The Assistant City Manager stated staff is proposing amendment to the Municipal Code, and Mr. George is suggesting the City adopt a National standard. Councilmember Johnson requested staff to address Mr. George's request. Alameda Point Planner Elizabeth Johnson stated the National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit organization which litigates cases. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding registering buildings with the National Trust rather than after- the-fact litigation, the Alameda Point Planner stated the property [Webb Avenue garage] was on the National Register of Historic Places and was subject to protections; however, protections do not interfere with local law. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council could go forward tonight and continue to review Mr. George's recommendation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 Mr. George reviewed information on the National Trust; stated the National Trust offers protection from developers. Mayor Appezzato stated the Alameda Historic Preservation Society has endorsed the language [before Council]. The Planning Director stated staff is familiar with the National Trust for Preservation which provides technical assistance and directly funds projects, however, it is not a regulatory authority; the City could not invite the National Trust to regulate the community; and that she would meet with Mr. George to discuss the matter. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether civil actions of the National Trust are based on City law or federal law, to which the Planning Director stated the National Trust uses cities' ordinances, California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and federal law, and does not have regulatory authority to supersede local government. Councilmember Kerr inquired if the National Historic Trust were in place, would the Webb Avenue garage, which was demolished because it was a hazard, have been prevented from being demolished. The Planning Director responded there is not a National Trust for buildings to enter into; stated the Park Street area is already designated as a historic district under the National Register, which is a form of recognizing significance; said designation is used by groups, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, as a basis for litigation using rules under CEQA; the National Trust also works to educate and offers financing to communities and property owners; the National Trust is not a substitute for local control. Councilmember Kerr stated Mr. George is indicating a more complete designation would cause more funding, loans, etc. The Planning Director stated that she would meet with Mr. George; however, she is not aware of a designation higher than the National Register. Lou Wall, U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, West, stated that he began a fellowship with the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1970 and has been a member ever since; that he worked for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for twelve years and worked for the Navy for twelve years; the National Trust is a private, non- profit organization which promotes historic preservation throughout the United States; it owns approximately twelve to twenty donated properties and only takes properties which are heavily endowed; the National Trust provides assistance when the law is broken, e.g. City has an ordinance and does not follow Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 its own procedures; under the National Landmark Program, the Secretary of Interior designates a property as a National Historic Landmark; the 1966 Historic Preservation Act established the list of historic properties and directed the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places; said properties have less significance than a National Landmark, but are considered important to communities or States; protection is provided under the National Historic Preservation Act whether properties are Landmarks or on the National Register; any federal Act undertakings that would affect a historic property listed on the National Register, including funding, require the organization to afford the Historic Preservation Advisory Council an opportunity to comment prior to approving the action; in the present case, the Alameda Naval Air Station Historic District has been determined eligible for inclusion in the Register, as have the jetties and federal channel; nothing can be done with said properties before affording the Advisory Council an opportunity to comment; the regulations produced by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation provides direction on how to comply with Section 106; the protection afforded by 106 will be lost, unless federal monies are used or a federal permit is required to do a project on the property; in the future, after the property has been transferred to the City, a developer, or property owner, it will be protected by the City's ordinance; 106 is a public review process to get what is in the public interest; the Navy is trying to transfer the federal public process to the local process; said process is the HAB makes a recommendation to the Alameda City Council and the City Council has the final say; the 106 process is all advisory; the Advisory Council cannot stop another agency's project from destroying a historic property; however, a decision cannot be made until the Advisory Council is afforded an opportunity to comment; if an agency acts before the Advisory Council was afforded an opportunity to comment, the National Trust would take the agency to court. Mayor Appezzato requested staff to meet with Mr. George to review his recommendations. Councilmember Kerr inquired who is paying for maintenance and where the south jetty is located. Alameda Point Planner Elizabeth Johnson stated maintenance is currently completed by the Navy through the cooperative agreement; when the cooperative agreement ends, maintenance will be completed by the City; further stated the south jetty is the portion of the training wall in the channel between the northwest territories and Port of Oakland; it is called a training wall because it the structure which was constructed by the Army Corps. of Engineers to train the channel to flow in a certain direction. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry, Mr. Wall stated the jetties are 1,600- to 1,700-feet and extend beyond the estuary. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution and approval of the staff recommendations. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson requested staff pursue Mr. George's suggestion to determine whether there is further protection for both this matter and the next agenda item [paragraph no 99-447] and report back to Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (99-447) Public Hearing to consider amending Alameda Municipal Code Sections 13-10.6 and 13-10.7 to establish special provisions for Historical Monuments in the Service of Notice and Order, and Appeal Provisions of the Abatement of Substandard and Dangerous Buildings; and amending Alameda Municipal Code Sections 13-21.4 and 13-21.5 to regulate exterior modifications of Historical Monuments, provide public notification of Hearings, modify the appeal procedures and make minor technical changes [Historical Advisory Board]; and (99-447A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 13-10.6(a) (Service of Notice and Order: Method of Service, Proof of Service), Subsection 13-10.7(a) (Appeal Procedure; Administrative Hearing) of Section 13-10 (Abatement of Substandard and Dangerous Buildings), Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) and Subsection 13-21.4 (Procedures for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments) Article VII (Historical Preservation) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing). Introduced. Eunice P. Kelley, Alameda, stated a former City Employee, Jeff Eichelberg, works on said matters; that she will contact Mr. Eichelberg and request that he contact the City; an article in the Antique Journal outlined the City of Woodland's redevelopment efforts; Woodland has been restored without bringing in a developer; said information will be provided to Council. Mayor Appezzato stated information on the funding used by the City of Woodland would be of interest. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, stated the Architectural Preservation Society supports the Ordinance; however, the organization shares concerns regarding [demolition of] 2411 Webb Avenue; proposed Ordinance does not go far enough to forestall repetition of said incident; the Preservation Society provided suggestions to the HAB to prevent reoccurrence; the HAB agreed with one suggestion regarding notification; staff intends to have the new Building Official Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 review other suggestions; the most important matter is the portion of the Municipal Code which deals with substandard and dangerous buildings summary abatement procedures; current Code allows the Building Official to order demolition if a building is immediately hazardous; the Building Official does not have the authority to order repair, selective demolition or erect sidewalk barricades to protect the public; suggested these options be reviewed. The Deputy City Manager stated that he sent a letter to Mr. Buckley confirming the new Building Official would respond to the matter. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council could proceed this evening, to which the Deputy City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr moved introduction of the Ordinance with the City Attorney's language pertaining to the call for review. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated the City will continue to work towards developing more protective language in the Municipal Code. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (99-448) Ordinance No. 2803, "Approving and Authorizing the Execution of Temporary Construction Easements Between the State of California, Department of Transportation, as Grantee, and the City of Alameda, as Grantor, for the Seismic Retrofit Project for the Posey and Webster Street Tubes. Finally passed. Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (99-449) Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on his living conditions. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (99-450) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. Mayor Appezzato nominated Victoria Ryan to the Social Service Human Relations Board. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:30 p.m. spectfully submitted, ane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY- -SEPTEMBER 9, 1999- -5:00 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 5:04 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. [Councilmember Johnson arrived at 5:07 p.m.] Absent: None Mayor Appezzato stated that he called the meeting to take swift action to keep cigarette and check cashing businesses from going in for 45-days; before considering the moratoriums [introduction of ordinances] the Council would hear public comment. Wilma Chan, Alameda County Supervisor, stated that she is in support of the moratorium for two reasons: 1) the [proposed] location of Cigarettes Cheaper is very near to[Alameda] High School; there has been a growth in teen smoking, while smoking in the rest of the population has gone down; there is open lunch period at Alameda High and the proposed location is around the corner; 2) Cigarettes Cheaper has been paying people to sign petitions at the store to overturn the 50 tobacco tax which is going to bring $20 Million into Alameda County to serve kids up to 5 years; a study completed by the Social Service Human Relations Board indicated children up to 5 years need services including immunizations, child care, etc.; hopefully, said services will be funded through the cigarette tax; petitioners stated the tax should be repealed because a lot of the money will go to State workers, which is not true; petitioners are being deceptive. Michael Cooper, Island High, spoke in support of moratorium. Jerry Sherman, President, Park Street Business Association, stated the property owners are in a hard spot; owners prefer to rent to businesses which will pay the most rent; proposals for Cigarette Cheaper and Check Cashing both run counter to vision for Park Street; that he is in favor of Council supporting the moratorium. Mayor Appezzato commented on the [Park Street] visioning process. Agnes McKinlay, Alameda, stated there is not adequate shopping in Alameda; Park Street should be an area for families to shop and stroll; Check Cashing businesses prey on the underprivileged; cigarette store would be only blocks from Alameda High; said businesses are not the direction Alameda should be going; urged Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 9, 1999 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 7, 1999- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special City Council Meeting at 7:00 p • IfL Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (99-430) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Manager. (99-431) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of potential cases: One. Following the Closed Session the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Appezzato announced that regarding Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the City Council conducted evaluation of the City Manager; and regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, gave instructions to City Attorney and no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Meeting at 7:30 p.m. pectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, C C City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 1999