Loading...
1990-08-07 Regular CC Minutes246 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AUGUST 7, 1990 The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. (at the conclusion of the Alameda Sewer Improvement Financing Corporation) with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Thomas. Reverend William Harrison gave the invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas, Withrow and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S) President Corica announced that, during the Special Council Meeting held July 23, 1990, Council adjourned to Closed Session and took the following action. Regarding Pending Litigation, pursuant to Subsection (a) of the Government Code Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: 90-525 Golden Gate Audubon v. City of Alameda: authorized execution of final settlement agreement. 90-526 Hallem v. City of Alameda: authorized settlement negotiations. 90-527 Trabelsi v. City of Alameda: discussed status of the case. 90-528 Wilkes v. City of Alameda: discussed status of the case. 90-529 Regarding Initiation of Litigation, pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Brown Xct: no action taken. Special Council Meeting of July 31, 1990: 90-530 Labor Relations, pursuant to Subsection (a) of the Government Code Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act: Council did not go into Closed Session and no action was taken. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda, at the request of the Councilmembers indicated: Councilmember Camicia: (90-558) report regarding setting hearing August 7, 1990 247 for Appeal PDA-90-7 for Ballena Isle Hotel; Councilman Arnerich: (90-559) report concerning cigarette sales to minors; Councilmember Withrow: (90-560) report regarding consumption of alcoholic beverages in parks; Councilmember Thomas: (90-562 through 90-576) Introductions of Ordinances related to the Master Fee resolution. Councilmember Thomas stated she would vote no (*90-541) on Bills. Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *90-531 From Public Works Director recommending award of contract to Carone Brothers, Inc., for earthquake damage repair at various locations, No. P.W. 3-90-5. Accepted. *90-532 From Public Works Director recommending award of contract for minor street patching with asphalt concrete for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1991, No. P.W. 5-90-8. Accepted. *90-533 From Public Works Director recommending FAU Grant Applications for two projects: 1) Mariner Square Drive reconstruction south of Marina Village Parkway/Mariner Square Drive intersection, and 2) resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 13. Accepted. *90-534 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of work by J.R.'s Landscaping for Minor Street Patching with Asphalt Concrete for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1990. Accepted. *90-535 From Public Works Director recommending award of contract to J.R.'s Landscaping for repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, and Driveway for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1991, No. P.W. 5-90-7. Accepted. *90-536 From Community Development Director regarding technical amendments to the Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan and to the Rental Rehabilitation Program Tenant Assistance Policy. Accepted. *90-537 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending award of contract to Gateway Landscape Construction, Inc. for construction of Bridgeview Park, No. P.W. 10-89-19, and landscape improvements along Tilden Way, No. P.W. 5-90-06. Accepted. RESOLUTIONS *90-538 Resolution No. 11995 "Approving division of property located at 3256 and 3258 Briggs Avenue and granting a Waiver of the requirement of a Parcel Map." Adopted. August 7, 1990 248 *90-539 Resolution No. 11996 "Granting a Noise Monitoring Facility Easement to the City of Oakland. (Port of Oakland)" Adopted. *90-540 Resolution No. 11997 "Designating Attendant Lot Parking Rates." Adopted. BILLS *90-541 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct, was ratified in the sum of $2,148,120.80. [One No vote: Councilmember Thomas.] MINUTES Councilman Arnerich moved approval of the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 17, 1990, Special Council Meetings of July 10 and July 23, 1990. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-542 President Corica announced that Margery Fredericks, Alameda Children's Musical Theater, and many children and adults were present in the audience regarding the theater issue (regarding compliance with terms and conditions of Use Permit, granted in 1985]; stated Council is aware of the concerns; Ms. Fredericks has been talking to the City to work things out; believes Council should remand the matter back to the Planning Board for review; and perhaps the issue can be resolved that way. He inquired if that is satisfactory to Ms. Fredericks, who responded that it is. Councilman Arnerich clarified the matter would be reheard by the Planning Board, however, if not satisfactorily resolved, the matter can then be appealed to the Council. 90-543 Councilmember Withrow introduced Christiani Schwab, from Schwartsenfeld, Germany, an exchange student with the International Rotary Program. President Corica invited Ms. Schwab to visit the Mayor's Office and she will be made an honorary citizen of the City of Alameda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 90-544 From John Scott Graham, Alameda, expressing various concerns regarding the Harbor Bay Ferry Project. John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, expressed his concern that traffic from Harbor Bay Business Park, may filter into the residential area through the Ferry parking lot. John Hand, 1617 Gould Court, inquired what type of craft will be used as a ferry, and how much water it draws. August 7, 1990 249 The City Manager responded, describing the ferry as a single-hull, cabin-cruiser-like craft, presently being constructed; and holds approximately 80 to 90 people; and stated if Mr. Hand would leave his name and a telephone number, staff will provide additional information. Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the communication. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-545 From Alameda Property Owners' Association, Alameda, requesting Council to reconsider its decision of July 3rd regarding unreinforced masonry buildings. Niall Leahy, 2065 Encinal "E", stated he is a property owner and is a tenant in a URM building on Webster Street; if URM work is mandatory, the many vacant stores on Webster will remain empty because of cost involved; and he requested reconsideration of Council's decision on July 3, 1990. John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated if an earthquake of high magnitude occured, there could be great injury or death because of URM buildings, and one life is worth great effort. Councilmember Camicia commented the ordinance has only been conceptually approved; reviews and hearings before the Planning Board are expected to result in changes and refining of the ordinance, which will then come back before Council. James Kennedy, 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, stated, regarding whether or not the City would be liable for doing, or failing to do, engineering reports, that one of the Sections of the State Hazards Reduction Act provides immunity to the City, and also cited the Health and Safety Code, Councilmember Arnerich noted there is currently a suit against Santa Cruz regarding earthquake damage. Bill Martini, 3669 Grand Avenue, stated his concerns are monetary as he does not know how he can afford the seismic upgrading work; requested Council reconsider July 3rd decision, consider funding, how owners can handle tenants and vacancy problems, and consider waiving [City] fees because the work is mandatory. In response to Councilmember Thomas's question regarding amortization, Mr. Martini responded his building does not produce enough income to service a 15 year loan of $300,000+ for a complete retrofit; and he already has a loan on the property so he would not be able to add a loan for retrofit. Delores Standenraus, 611 Washington Street, stated no bank will loan money on buildings needing seismic upgrading; noted funds required, and the fact that she must mortgage other property to fund what is necessary for the seismic upgrade. Herbert von Colditz, 233 Brighton Court, stated he is a retired August 7, 1990 250 engineer; URM buildings are proven to be a great hazard in earthquakes; urged Council protect citizens' lives and maintain a strong ordinance to promptly strengthen the City's URM buildings. Jim Thompson, 3231 Calhoun Street, Alameda Property Owner Association, stated the [Association's] proposal, basically, is that [URM property owners] would like to form a workshop with the Council to discuss owners' problems; URM property owners should be represented on a committee; the City should have a structural engineer evaluate every building on the URM list to be sure it is a URM building; City should search for funding; only life-safety measure of securing walls and roof is necessary; requested extension of time for an engineer's analysis be lengthened, waiver of all building permits, removal of certificate recording; and would like five URM building owners to meet with Council and discuss problems. Asta Gregersen, 1325 Park Street, stated the price of retrofitting her building would be $164,000 plus architect and engineering fees, and she needs assistance with funding. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, suggested Council explore using the zoning ordinance where buildings must be demolished to allow owners to replace and,'as an incentive, to expand their buildings; waive City fees; and get together with owners to explore funding possibilities. Betsy Orr, 114 Lagunaria Lane, stated a new committee is needed; building owners should have a representative; and most damage in the [October, 1989] earthquake was to frame, not brick, buildings. Steve Ganguet, 1353 Park Street, requested a new study committee be formed with equal representation of property owners. John J. Leavitt, Alameda Property Owners, 1612 San Antonio, compared loss of life from URM buildings in this City to automobile accident deaths; and requested committee with property owners, and an open forum. Jim Orr, 114 Lagunaria Lane, believes buildings undamaged in 1989 earthquake have withstood a severe test; and stated the matter should be placed on the ballot, be voted on by the City, and include all buildings in Alameda. Wil Garfinkle, 2938 Northwood Drive, requested a work session so people can express their concerns to Council; and noted 10 banks and 14 insurance underwriters have turned him down on his building identified as a URM building. Dave Plummer, 1401 High Street, Altarena Playhouse, stated the Playhouse is on the high risk building study list, the Board of Directors is taking the ordinance seriously and are in the process of getting proposals for engineering analysis for seismic upgrade. Paul H. Breitkopf, 18223 San Jose Avenue, Unreinforced Masonry Committee, stated URM buildings pose a danger to the public, the August 7, 1990 251 economic affects of the ordinance were given serious consideration, wonders why owners were not present at the public meetings on this subject during the past 12 months; because of economics, only minimal upgrade is being required; the ordinance can be worked on, and formation of a new committee is a delay tactic. Scott Brady, 1231 Park Avenue, #A, Chairman, Unreinforced Masonry Committee, stated the issue at hand is what the law is asking for; the purpose of SB547 is to reduce life safety threat posed by URM buildings, identified as the most hazardous building type in earthquakes; three tasks were given Committee: 1) identify potentially hazardous URMs; 2) develop and implement mitigation program to reduce hazard; 3) report findings to State Seismic Safety Commission; of the 153 jurisdictions reporting thus far, 66% have a mandatory upgrade requirement; 15% have interim program, 6% have voluntary program, and 13% have some other form; Alameda has a hybrid program with a minimal upgrade, the State has called a voluntary program and believes the matter is barely covered; an upgrade must be done whether under City ordinance or by State law; there are Bills before the State legislature dealing with funding, and monies will be made available, but the program must not wait for that; he noted local cities with devastating damage done by earthquake to URM buildings; and commented that any further questions or comments of property owners should be addressed in the Planning Department or Planning Board process. Martha Beazley, Alameda, stated she would like to know the qualifications of the Committee members, questioned the fee structure, whether or not the fee will be waived; and commented it is important for the business owners to [financially] survive. Carroll Tarver, 114 Haight Avenue, Past President Alameda Improvement Association, stated the building owners in Alameda have supported the City and now they need help. President Corica stated the two-year period is too short; perhaps 5 years would be better; there is a search for funding; perhaps there could be bonds allowing the City to borrow money at a lower rate to be given to owners at a lower percentage; the Committee has done a great job; if the Committee is to continue much longer, he suggests Council add [URM building] owners on the Committee; he would like to send a message to the Planning Board to consider extending the limitation to at least five years; and perhaps Council should make a determination on the time frame. The City Attorney stated that since the matter is not agendized, the most Council can do is present thoughts and guidance to the Planning Board, not take a vote. Councilmember Thomas stated interests must be balanced; Council should decide its goals and work toward that, with representation of the [URM] building owners and persons from the Victorian Preservation Society; some buildings will be lost because of costs involved; information is needed on what will happen to Park Street, the City tax base, and sales tax, before a decision can be made; and she believes Council needs to re-think the entire August 7, 1990 252 position. Councilman Arnerich agreed with Councilmember Thomas, stated Council is looking at the preservation of lives and the preservation of economics; the speakers have stated their positions, Council must make a decision and will do what it believes to be in the best interests of all of Alameda. Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to have the matter brought back for reconsideration. Councilmember Camicia stated there will be a number of opportunities for input; suggested expanding the Committee and instructing the Committee to work with the City toward a financially viable plan; and perhaps a Committee Member should spend time in Sacramento to make sure a Bill is passed that will help this process. President Corica suggested one of the persons on the prevailing side [of the July 3rd Council decision] request reconsideration. The City Attorney reviewed procedures for reconsideration, noting the reconsideration would need to be on the same day [as the action], however, the matter could be reagendized, a motion to rescind can be made, and if passed, the matter may be reheard. Councilman Arnerich moved to rescind the previous motion at the past [July 3rd] meeting. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion. The City Attorney stated the action cannot be taken under Written Communications. Councilmember Thomas requested a URM status report be agendized. Councilmember Camicia suggested to expedite matters, Council could also make additions to the Committee, and start the Committee on the process of finding a financial solution. Councilmember Thomas requested the matter be agendized for the next meeting. Councilmember Camicia stated he assumes Council would each make another appointment to the Committee from the building [owner] community. President Corica agreed. Councilmember Camicia requested recommendations for new Committee members be made prior to the next meeting. Councilmember Withrow stated it was recommended by speakers that there be a workshop, and he would like to see Council host a workshop within thirty to sixty days, to allow building owners to participate. President Corica stated the speakers were heard, and a workshop August 7, 1990 253 would only delay matters as Council will be moving ahead at the net meeting and including building owners. Councilmember Withrow stated he backs the workshop so that Council can come up with a good equitable way of either implementing something or recognizing what it cannot implement. President Corica inquired of the audience who would like a work session, and there was an affirmative response from few people. Councilmember Withrow requested workshop issue be agendized for the next Council meeting so that the possibility of a workshop may be discussed in detail. President Corica inquired how many persons in the want a workshop, to which there was more applause the workshop. Councilmember Thomas moved acceptance of the Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which unanimous voice vote - 5. audience do not against than for communications. was carried by Councilmember Withrow requested (90-546) the resolution regarding lease financing documents be taken out of order. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-546 Resolution No. 11998 "Approving, authorizing and directing execution of certain lease financing documents, approving the form and authorizing distribution of a preliminary official statement, in connection with the offering and sale of Certificates of Participation relating thereto, and authorizing and directing certain actions with respect thereto, relating to the reconstruction of the Police Administration Building." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-547 From William Stier, Alameda, relating to the Webster Street area, traffic, commercial business mix, former sites, and unreinforced masonry building regarding various issues including, among others, Lucky Store and Jiffy Lube requirements. Bonny Moore, 627 Lincoln Avenue #22, suggested placing a fence around the Jiffy Lube site to shield the unsightly condition of the lot so that it will not adversely affect the business district. President but there The City the toxic Corica commented there is to be a parking lot on the site are problems to be worked out. Manager noted the property owner must first take care of soil, and the City is trying to work with the owner. Councilmember Withrow moved acceptance of the communication. August 7, 1990 254 Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. HEARINGS 90-548 Consideration of a Master Fee Resolution. President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing. The City Manager reviewed the background of the matter. President Corica opened the public portion of the hearing. On the call for proponents, the following persons spoke: Jeff Eichenfield, 1516 Oak Street, #220, Alameda Main Street Program, favored the proposed fees; commented the fees for signs are now $100, but minor design review is $50, and he believes they should be the same. On the call for opponents, the following persons spoke: Richard Roth, 1417 - 5th Street, stated he is opposed to fee increases until the City provides value per dollar, the City should provide service worth the money to be paid; the fees could cost more for a homeowner than the project itself; The City, in the past, performed services free of charge and now continually raises fees; how can people be encouraged to improve their properties with all the fees; requested Council reconsider the issue before taking further action. Martha Beazley, Alameda, inquired why she received a bill for fire inspection if the ordinance has not been passed. President Corica closed the public portion of the hearing. The Fire Chief stated the City has charged cost recovery fees for fire inspection for approximately eleven years and additional fees were included in December, 1988; the inspection under the new fee schedule, would have brought Ms. Beazley's fees up to $40. Councilmember Thomas stated citizens pay taxes, she is sure they would like a credit for for City services provided; people expect government to provide some services; and questioned if fees being raised to pay the cost of salaries. Councilmember Camicia stated he believes this [Fee schedule] attempts to make sure that people pay for special services provided; and as budget woes continue to worsen in the State and County, the City must pay attention to nickels and dimes. President Corica stated the City charges for services but the question is: Why the increase in fees? The City Manager stated most fees have not been raised for 12 years, and are being charged only to people who use the services; August 7, 1990 25J the City is facing increased fees from the County and the State which will affect the City's financial future. Councilmember Withrow stated he believes the City should be defining and quantifying what the requirements are for the funds before increasing taxes [fees]. Councilmember Thomas noted the increases in church inspection and tree maintenance service fees, among others; stated the City should be providing such services and not expecting to recoup such costs. Councilman Arnerich stated he disagrees: this City was rated with outstanding credit rating because of good management; it is the fifth best managed City in the County; there must be payment for the cost of government; if there is discomfort with particular fees then those could be discussed and some changes made. President Corica stated he is uncomforable because business owners and persons who want to do something with their homes are the ones who must pay, and inquired what additional services will be provided for the increased fees? Councilmember Camicia commented that the fees the City must pay the County and State are going up, e.g., lab fees; Council can try raising fees and if it is a failure, the matter can be agendized again and Council can back out of it. Councilmember Camicia moved the related resolution be taken out of order. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, and Thomas - 3. Noes: Councilmember Withrow and President Corica - 2. Absent: None. 90-549 Resolution No. services and permits." Councilmember Thomas Councilmember Withrow following voice vote: President Corica - 3. 2. Absent: None. "Establishing fees for various City Not adopted. moved disapproval of the resolution. seconded the motion which was carried by the Ayes: Councilmembers Thomas, Withrow and Noes: Councilmembers Arnerich and Camicia - 90-550 Consideration of the proposed Marina Village Master Plan Amendment, MPA-90-1, and associated Negative Declaration, for the uses permitted in Parcels B and C of the Marina Village property. The amendment would permit 156 residential units instead of 112 units, eliminate 37,550 square feet of restaurant use, and a 200-room boatel, and permit an additional 60,000 square feet of office use, and retain 55,600 square feet of temporary office use in a mixed use, M-X District. Applicant: Alameda Real Estate Investments. President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing. The Acting Planning Director reviewed the background of the matter. August 7, 1990 256 President Corica noted the Plan passed unanimously by the Planning Board. On the call for proponents, the following spoke. Don Parker, 1150 Marina Village Parkway, commented on the progress made in the last eleven years in developing the area; and stated the request for a Master Plan Amendment is a continuation of the project, using the same guidelines and types of materials. Ken Kay, KenKay Associates, Land Planner and Architect for Marina Village, showed diagrams of the shipways, proposed office buildings, public accessways, plaza, museum, open space, etc. Mr. Parker commented on the benefits to the public that the amendments will make, including reduction in traffic, $200,000 for Sherman Street connection; 80,000 square feet of public access will be provided including museum and public sculpture; and noted the substantials revenues that will be generated for the City, and will help satisfy the City's housing element by meeting the above moderate requirements called for in the housing element. President Corica opened the public portion of the hearing. On the call for proponents, the following person spoke. John Barni, Jr., 875 Island Drive, stated this is an excellent opportunity to look at the tax structure, he believes that, before the Plan is approved, Council should have the Finance Director take a look at the project; Council has an opportunity to increase the square footage of commercial industrial sites and 44 residential units which would be 8 to 10 million dollars in additional land value to the project; he believes the project should be approved; a toxic waste analysis of sub-soil should be done, if it is not done already. On the call for opponents, there were none. President Corica closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Camicia stated he believes it is a very interesting project and moved approval of the Negative Declaration. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion. Councilmember Thomas inquired if the Finance Director has considered the finances Mr. Barni pointed out. Councilmember Camicia stated that could be done under the Master Plan approval. Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to know if the toxic waste soil analysis is done. The Acting Planning Director stated she understands that is done at the time applicants come in for a building permit. August 7, 1990 257 Mr. Parker stated analyses have been done throughout the entire project including that specific site and the report was done by Woodward & Clyde three years ago, and produced no level of contamination on that site; the report must be done for any financing; and the report is open as a public record. The motion [approving the Negative Declaration) was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the Master Plan Amendment. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90-551 From Chairman, Historical Advisory Board, regarding the Burbank-Portola Heritage Area. Robert DeCelle, P.O. Box 1606, Chairman, Historic Advisory Board, stated this is the third Heritage Area; the Victorian Preservation Society and a State Office of Historic Preservation grant has paid for cost, and the Board recommends Council confirm the Heritage Area designation. Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-552 From Chairman, Historical Advisory Board, regarding renaming of Main Street to Mulvaney Street. Robert DeCelle, P.O. Box 1606, Chairman, Historic Advisory Board, stated, when the Board found Main Street was named after a Mr. Main, who developed the West End, the Board thought it would be wrong to remove that historic name, and recommends the Council request the Navy name one of their streets [within the new housing project] after John Mulvaney in recognition of his role in the establishment of the Navy base. Councilman Arnerich inquired if the naming could be ready for their fiftieth anniversary, to which Mr. information on where to write has been given to the expedited to be DeCelle stated Mayor. President Corica stated he does not believe there problem in expediting the work. will be any Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-553 From Chairperson, Port Authority Task Force, rezoning federally-owned land within the City. regarding John Barni, Jr., 875 Island Drive, stated the Task Force is August 7, 1990 • 258 requesting Council to consider rezoning to mixed use zoning on federally-owned lands in order to plan for future re-use of the property along the lines of Marina Village, the only other mixed use development in the City; the Planning Department has suggested that the item be discussed in conjunction with General Plan rezoning for the entire City and he believes this item could come before the Planning Board at an earlier date. Councilmember Camicia stated he believes it makes a lot of sense and moved the recommendation. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion. President Corica stated he is opposed to this for only one reason; when base closures are considered, one thing looked at is a base that has an alternative plan and he believes this is a step in that direction; and if the base should close, the City will have many years to take care of the situation. Councilman Arnerich stated he agrees with President Corica; and he believes starting to move in this direction is a little premature. Councilmember Camicia stated he believes the recommendation is precautionary; he doubts the Secretary of Defense will check zoning in Alameda when he determines what bases to close; he believes this move [rezoning] keeps options open and makes sure if it [the base] does close, the Port of Oakland does not have access to that piece of property. President Corica stated that his information is that the land will be offered to the City first; the City has the right of first refusal. To Councilmember Thomas's question regarding what is allowed under M-X-G, the Acting Planning Director replied the designation stands for mixed use and the Council decides the proportion of the various uses. Councilmember Thomas inquired if the M-X-G zone is inconsistent with the military, to which the Acting Planning Director replied it is not; because of the G designation, it is consistent, and also consistent with the City's General Plan. Councilmember Thomas noted some things exist there [Naval Base] which do not exist in the rest of the City, and which the City might wish to dissuade no matter who is there, e.g., heavy construction of residential housing in safety zones; and sees no problem with referring the matter to the Planning Board for review. Councilmember Camicia stated the motion could be amended. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not want to direct the Planning Board to rezone, simply to see if there is a way to make it better. President Corica stated he would rather vote this particular rezoning recommendation down, and if Council wants more August 7, 1990 259 information, it can be obtained. Councilmember Withrow commented he does not understand what is gained by rezoning all federal land in a broad sweep. Councilmember Camicia commented he does not think the zoning is going to be an issue as to whether the base stays open or closed but would withdraw his motion so Council can move on the matter. Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the report [only]. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-554 From Chairman, Cable Television Oversight Committee, urging Council to support federal efforts to re-regulate certain aspects of Cable Television. Councilmember Camicia stated he would abstain on this matter as he is doing some work for a media company that has cable television properties. President Corica commended Ronda Cohn, General Manager, and United Cable, stating a good effort is being made to take care of the City but he believes more control could be exercised over cable companies if present legislation, which caused control to be lost, can be overturned by legislation now pending. Councilman Arnerich stated he believes there is some fine administrative staff in United Cable in Alameda but actions of cable television companies throughout the country require more control and he recommends the Mayor write the letter as recommended in the Oversight Committee's report. By consensus of Council, the report and recommendation were approved. [One abstention: Councilmember Camicia] 90-555 From Chairman, Solid Waste Management and Recycling Committee, regarding curbside recycling services. President Corica stated he would abstain on this matter as he has a son that works for one of the companies mentioned in the report. Doug Linney, 617 Baywood Road, Chairman, Solid Waste Management and Recycling Committee, stated the Committee recommends Council award contract to Pacific Rim to do curbside recycling; reviewed background, goals and procedure of Committee; stated the broad goal is 50% reduction of solid waste by the year 2000; proposals were weighed in accordance with criteria established and Pacific Rim received the most points; the Committee voted unanimously, is convinced the education component is important for the success of recycling program and was impressed with Pacific Rim's proposal, Pacific Rim would need to establish a new alternative billing system; and requested Council accept the report and direct an agreement be prepared with Pacific Rim. Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated, as Member of the August 7, 1990 260 Committee, most impressive to him was Pacific Rim's one-can approach, not requiring citizens to segregate the material and the company would segregate the material after pickup; of the 25 highest-rated participation rates in the country, all 25 use a one-can approach; Pacific Rim is also impressive in commitment to education, a vital factor in achieving reduction; and urged acceptance of Committee's recommendation of Pacific Rim 20/20. Chuck Mack, 70 Hegenberger Road, Secretary-Treasurer, Teamsters Local 70, stated he was present to oppose the approval of the proposal at this time; is not prepared to make arguments against the proposal because he had only seen the proposal within the past week; requested Council hold this matter over for a month or a month and a half, to give Local 70 an opportunity to determine the impact on its membership. Adam Davis, Recycling Coordinator, Oakland Scavenger Company (OSC), stated the Recycling Committee used eight criteria, on five criteria, OSC proposal rated higher; the Committee decided Oakland has more experience, a more complete proposal, shows greater ability to perform toward the City's satisfaction and at a lower cost than its competition; rated Pacific Rim higher by only 3% on 440 possible points; OSC would cost the City 28% less, over $742,000 over the 5 year program if consumer price index stays at 6%; Pacific Rim offers $28,000 annually to non-profits, which OSC offers $70,000; OSC has exciting, economical educational program; has 71% participation rate in Albany, and can save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. David Deeks, 2000 Embarcadero, Suite 300, Oakland, Manager, Programs Development, Oakland Scavenger, stated, the Committee report rates OSC less than 3% difference from other proposal on a possible 440 points and that indicates the decision is not a clear-cut issue, but the cost of the program is clear-cut and OSC's current proposal would save the citizens three-quarter million dollars during the life of the contract; OSC is known and dependable, has over 53 employees in the City; and its program provides quality and proven local success in a cost-effective manner; described comprehensive educational program and notes that the company offers 1-, 2- or 3- container options. Councilmember Withrow further discussed with Mr. Deeks the figures in connection with the participation and promotion segment of the proposal. Councilmember Camicia moved to continue the meeting after 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Camicia noted there appears to be confusion in the numbers and Mr. Mack mentioned he would like time to get involved in the process, therefore he [Camicia] would not mind waiting another two weeks to have some of the numbers resolved. August 7, 1990 261 Councilman Arnerich stated figures and additional information should be in the report [when the matter is returned to Council]. Councilman Arnerich inquired if the program is mandatory for everyone in the City and if so, is the program also mandatory in other cities, to which Mr. Linney replied he believes in every city that has a curbside recycling program, everyone must pay. Councilmember Camicia proposed tabling the matter for two weeks to resolve some of the numbers discussed. Steven Moore, 433 Industrial Way, President, Pacific Rim, explained Pacific Rim's proposal and program; there will be a weekly curbside service; recycling in all Alameda school classrooms plus curriculum for all classes, recycling at all Alameda Parks, City facilities and community events, and at churches; host facilities for placement of recycling containers at their locations will be paid; full-time waste consultants will be available for waste committees, etc; most extensive public education, community participation program anywhere is provided, which motivates as well as educates; references are unsurpassed; and requested Council support Committee's recommendation. Pat Colburn, Garbage Without Guilt, stated she attended most of Committee's meetings, works for solid waste consulting firm in San Francisco, is impressed with Committee's self-education and is confident they chose the right firm for Alameda; Pacific Rim is locally owned, has recycling experience, emphasizes education and motivation and suggests Council take Committee's recommendation. John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated recycling items have recently been referred to as precious metal, and he does not believe he should need to separate items and pay to have them picked up. Harold Griego, 930 Park Street, stated he is a property owner and retired Teamster; does not know why his rates have been raised for garbage pickup; does his recycling now; and does not see why he should pay another $20.00 for recycling; and he would like Council to vote the matter down. Larry Diaz, 70 Hegenberger Road, Oakland, stated he is a Teamster representative of waste disposal workers, commends Committee for its efforts, however, experienced Teamsters could have given valuable input, and have an interest in what is done; and requested time to come back and make a presentation. Councilmember Withrow stated there is a flat rate of $20.00 that everyone must pay per year, questioned how a company will structure a contract in order to maximize income; money is made by less participation; believes that is why Mr. Linney pointed out commitment to increasing program participation and promotion is an important element in the contract; one company is willing to put in $30,000 and the other [Pacific Rim] is willing to put in $500,000, and a commitment to motivate people to pursue the August 7, 1990 262 recycling program; and he is ready to vote on the matter. Councilmember Thomas inquired of Oakland Scavenger if they will use two trucks to pick up, and Mr. Davis replied there would be a separate truck for the recycling pickup. Councilmember Camicia stated he would like to defer the matter for two weeks to resolve some of the comments Mr. Davis made regarding some of the numbers in the report. Councilman Arnerich stated he would like to know how long 20/20 has been in operation, who do they service locally, so their performance can be explored, who the companies service, numbers clarified, more information, whether it is mandatory in every city that everyone must pay; and he would like 30 days so that a complete report can be returned including status and reputation of both firms. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion. [Note: No call for the question.] Councilmember Thomas stated a Committee that Council appointed has reviewed the issue and came back with a recommendation and it is important to respect the Committee and not second-guess them, however she has problems with the recommendation; there is a serious difference between $1.25 and $1.60, and believes the $500,000 is coming out of the 1.60; the consensus of the Joint Powers Solid Waste Management Authority on which she sits, is that three bins are preferable. Councilman Arnerich stated the Committee has done a great job but there are just not enough answers for him to vote on the matter and he would like to know where 20/20 is coming from and who they have been servicing. Councilmember Camicia stated he would like to meet with the Committee Chairman to resolve a number of the questions that arose during the discussion. Councilman Arnerich suggested reagendizing the matter in 30 days. Councilmember Camicia so moved. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, and Thomas - 3. Noes: Councilmember Withrow - 1. Absent: None. Abstentions: President Corica - 1. 90-556 From Chairman, Finance Committee, summarizing July 19th Committee actions. Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow, and President Corica - 4. Noes: None. Absent [from the dais] Councilmember Thomas - 1. 90-557 From Public Works Director on the status of Flood Plain Map August 7, 1990 263 Revisions. Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow, and President Corica - 4. Noes: None. Absent [from the dais] Councilmember Thomas - 1. 90-558 From Acting Planning Director recommending setting hearing for Appeal of approval of Planned Development Amendment, PDA-90-7, for the Ballena Isle Hotel, Conference Center, office buildings and marina-related facilities. Location: Ballena Isle. Appellant: Elizabeth A. Principato-Phipps for Alamedans for Responsible Planning. Councilmember Camicia stated he requested this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar; it has become a subject of considerable interest the last couple of days; he would like Council to waive the policy [which disallows speakers] when Ballena Bay Hotel Project Appeal is heard; the decision he will make will be based on the Planning Board transcript and what speakers say; he would like Council to waive the previous decision [July 17, 1990] and allow everyone to speak at the podium on that issue and he so moved. President Corica inquired if the action held at the last meeting will be reconsidered. Councilmember Camicia stated he is just referring to the hotel matter as it appears to be the issue that has created controversy and he would like that resolved. President Corica stated if that is to be an exception for the hotel, perhaps Council should reconsider the action taken [at the July 17th Council Meeting]. Councilmember Withrow stated that is viable to discuss; his concern has been that Council has not been consistent; Council had a policy that could not be monitored; due to some statements that have been made, he is willing to propose Council consider dedicating the second Tuesday of every month to holding a full-blown hearing for all appeals that come out of the Planning Board where persons may want to appeal something to Council and anyone can speak and can provide any data. Rosalie McPherson, 1128 Marianas Lane, Alameda Alliance of Homeowners, stated that she believes it is great that opening up the public hearing [on Appeals] is being proposed; the problem with the Appeals process is that people are not reading the ordinance which states Appeal procedure clearly; in the past, public testimony has been heard; and more attention must be paid to the ordinances and Charter. Elizabeth Phipps, 536 Kings Road, Alamedans for Responsible Planning, commended the suggestion that public hearing be allowed on the Ballena Bay Project, read the ordinance on hearing at August 7, 1990 264 Appeals, believes it incumbent upon Council to instruct staff to follow procedures in place and/or amend them. Councilmember Camicia inquired of the City Attorney what is the proper procedure to allow speakers at the next Appeal, to which the City Attorney stated a Councilmember could direct a particular item be placed on the next agenda and the matter rescinded, reconsidered; any action can be taken. Diane Coler-Dark, 2847 Jackson Street, voiced her disapproval of not allowing speakers on Appeals and requested Council reconsideration. Councilmember Camicia suggested agendizing Appeal procedures for August 21st Council Meeting and set the Appeal for September 4th; and so moved. The City Attorney noted the time frame that would be necessary if the ordinance is to be changed. Councilman Arnerich stated the procedure should be the way it was [in the past]; a decision can be made in two weeks; the Appeal can be heard in one month; and Council can limit speaking to the testimony and written communications. Councilmember Camicia so moved. By consensus of Council, the motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-559 From Chief of Police concerning cigarette sales to minors. Accepted. Councilman Arnerich suggested law enforcement notices be sent to businesses which sell tobacco. Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the report. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-560 From Chief of Police regarding consumption of alcoholic beverages in parks. Councilmember Withrow moved approval. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. RESOLUTIONS 89-561 Resolution No. 11999 "Approving Salaries and Benefits for Management and Confidential Employees and Appointed Employees of the City of Alameda for period January 1,1990 to December 31, 1991. The City Manager explained the background of the proposed salaries based upon the median of a Council-approved nine-County Bay Area survey. August 7, 1990 265 Deanna Johe, 3258 Ravens Cove, Confidential Employees, reviewed the procedure used by the group [Management and Confidential employees] to provide a salary proposal, stated the approach is the same as was used and accepted by Council for the two previous proposals in past years, utilizing a 10-city salary comparison; and further discussed the delay in, and urged approval of, proposed salaries. Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated the proposal for Confidential Employees is perfectly proper, however, he has a problem with the proposal for managerial employees, and suggested a system be devised that would be based more on merit rather than an arbitrary percentage increase. Councilmember Withrow commented upon making the pay raises a function of merit and tying it to goals; if the goals are achieved, then a pay raise would be given; the system would be applied to top management all the way through to the bottom, perhaps on a six-month basis; there would be a performance review and a cap percentage of funds that are available. Councilmember Camicia agreed salaries need to be tied to performance reviews; and it should be done from the top to the bottom; it gives responsibility to Councilmembers to give six-month reviews to the persons Council is responsible for and to every other manager on the list. Councilmember Thomas stated she is concerned the City is getting caught up in pay escalation against other cities; concerned that four members of management were in the closed sessions at which details were discussed regarding the pay raise and benefits even though she voiced her discomfort; that, of the 58 positions in the City, only 10 are below the median of $39,500; believes positions, where people cannot be retained because persons are not paid enough, deserve more of a raise than a position with many applicants; it is inconsistent to give a person a raise if that person is being disciplined, a pay raise should not be given; would like exploration of a bonus plan for employees who do outstanding work which should be rewarded with a bonus but not a permanent raise; and if there is a position that cannot be filled, more money should be paid for that position. Councilman Arnerich commented that is pork barrel politics, as in the thirties and forties when bosses in big cities rewarded workers they liked, and ones they did not like were given poor jobs; in response to a speaker, Council had great difficulty filling the City Attorney and Planning Director positions; City employees are not serfs nor feeding at a public trough, but do a job and do it well; he compared wages and costs in 1955 with 1990, noting costs of most items from nickel ice cream cones to house payments, cost 10 or 12 times, or more, than in 1955, while some wages have not kept pace, e.g., police officers; he compared the wages of journeymen carpenters and plumbers to police officers who make far less; commented Management and Confidential have proposed an equity adjustment retroactive to January 1, 1990, a 5 percent raise retroactive to January 1, 1990, and in January 1, 1991, a 5 percent raise; he proposes a 4.8 adjustment for all department heads August 7, 1990 266 retroactive to January 1, 1990, he recommends that the 5 percent recommended for January, 1990, be received in July, 1990, and then a 5 percent in January, 1991; reviewed proposed wages for officials and department heads and noted his proposed figures as follows: [Position] [Amount cf raise] [Percentages] 1 -1 -90 thru 12 -31 -91 1 -1 -90 thru 12 -31 -91 City Manager: Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Personnel Director Finance Director Public Works Director Planning Director Community Development Director Executive Director, Hous. Auth. Recreation & Parks Director Library Director Police Chief Fire Chief $11,512 10,000 9,800 5,123 9,032 9,519 6,538 5,124 9,330 7,685 8,832 8,465 9,284 6,782 12.92% [12.92 %] [11.93 %] 7.75% 12.92% [12.92 %] [7.75 %] [7.75 %] 12.00% [12.92 %] [12.92 %] [12.08 %] [12.78 %] [11.64 %] [8.61 %] Councilman Arnerich noted the only person over $100,000 would be the City Manager, whose salary would be $100,300; he stated his proposal saves the City $69,000. President Corica stated he has no problem with the proposal for the persons making $40,000 or less, but has a problem with [proposal for] department heads, top management; and has a problem with equal amount of percentage increase for someone receiving $89,000 a year as someone receiving $40,000 a year, because the cost of food is the same for both, and he believes the percentages should not be the same; he commented on car allowance inequities; noted increase in personnel for some offices, e.g., City Attorney's office, which he believes should make things easier; commented perhaps a 2 1/2 percent increase should be given top management; persons under $40,000 should receive the median wage. Councilmember Camicia commented he believes the most hazardous job in Alameda is the police officer position, and he would like to see Police Management get a raise consistent with the rank and file; for confidential employees, he agrees with President Corica that anyone making under $40,000 should receive a retroactive January 1, 1990, raise of 7.5 percent [5% cost of living, 2.5% average equity increase]; following that, they should receive a 2 1/2 percent [increase]; management should receive a 2 1/2 percent increase, and all of these would be reviewable every six months under a performance review procedure. President Corica questioned whether Councilmember Camicia was considering 2 1/2 percent on current salary or on proposed salary for the top management, and Councilmember Camicia responded he was considering current salary. August 7, 1990 267 Councilmember Withrow requested clarification that the difference between proposals is that in the second year, Councilmember Camicia is recommending 2 1/2 percent every six months and Councilman Arnerich is recommending 5 percent [for the year]; and if the two Councilmembers could agree on figures, would Councilman Arnerich agree with the 2 1/2 percent being a function of achieving goals. Councilman Arnerich stated he would support that. To President Corica's question regarding the final figure for department heads, Councilman Arnerich stated the figure would be 4.8 percent retroactive to January [1990], 5 percent from July to December [1990], then next year [1991], 2 1/2 and 2 1/2 [percent], which amounts to 4 percent for the whole year. President Corica stated he would like 2 1/2 percent per year. Councilmember Camicia and Councilman Arnerich each indicated that they could not support [that percentage]. Councilmember Withrow stated if a price escalation of 5 percent is projected, a raise of only 2 1/2 percent would result in a cut of 2 1/2 percent; and if a cut is being proposed, it should be evident. President Corica stated he would like top management to receive half the percentage of the people making $40,000 or less; instead of 4.8, 5 and 5 percent, he is suggesting for top management, 2 1/2, 2 1/2 and 2 1/2 percent. Councilman Arnerich moved that for the management, there would be 4.8 [percent] retroactive to January 1, [1990], 5 percent retroactive to July 1, 1990, 2 1/2 percent, January 1, 1991, and 2 1/2 percent, July 1991, which would provide a two-year package; then include a merit clause which was discussed. The City Manager inquired if Councilman Arnerich was addressing department heads and above, or if he was talking about everyone on the list, every Management and Confidential employee. Councilman Arnerich responded he would list the people he was talking about, so that it will be on the record: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Personnel Director, Finance Director, Public Works Director, Planning Director, Community Development Director, Executive Director of Housing Authority, Director of Recreation and Parks, Library Director, Police Chief and Fire Chief. Councilman Arnerich stated the rest of the employees [on the proposed Management and Confidential Salary Resolution] would receive what was recommended by the Confidential and Management Staff, The City Manager inquired if Councilman Arnerich is suggesting [Management and Confidential Employees receive] everything that was recommended, except for Department Heads, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk, and those would go according to Councilman August 7, 1990 26 Arnerich's formula. Councilman Arnerich stated yes. The City Manager requested clarification that the benefits proposed, e.g., retirement, health plan, deferred compensation, would remain as presented. Councilman Arnerich responded there is one [benefit] he would like to see remain the same because of the increase; he would like to see the [proposed] deferred compensation remain at 1 %. Otherwise, he has no objections to the other proposals. Councilmember Camicia stated he would try again to make another case for Police management; believes safety services should not be included in this package as it is a different kind of task. Councilman Arnerich stated he does not have any problem with that. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion, which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia and Withrow - 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas and President Corica - 2. Absent: None. Councilmember Thomas commented some of the lower -paid employees are not receiving a large enough raise; and the percentages are unfair to such persons. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 90 -562 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Section 10- 942(c) of Chapter 9, Title X, Article 4, thereof relating to Certificate of Approval." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90 -548] 90 -563 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending the following sections: Section 3 -1313, Title III, Chapter 13, Article 1; Section 3 -1513, Title III, Chapter 15, Article 1; Section 5- 152(b) Title V, Chapter 1, Article 5; Section 5 -162, Title V, Chapter 1, Article 6; Section 5- 264.2, Chapter 2, Title V, Article 6; Section 6 -223, Title VI, Chapter 2, Article 2; Section 10 -146, Title X, Chapter 1, Article 4; Section 10 -155, Title X, Chapter 1, Article 5; Section 10 -726, Title X, Chapter 7, Article 1; Section 16 -236, Title XVI, Chapter 2, Article 3; and Section 17 -368, Title XVII, Chapter 3, Article 6, relating to various Central Permit Fees for Permits and Services." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90 -5481 90 -564 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 1929, Establishing Certain Fees and Charges for Various City Services and Permits." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90 -5481 90 -565 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending the following Sections: 14D9, 14D10, 173, 233, 319.2(f) , 1102, 1357.2(a) & (b) , 1610 (a) (b) (c) (d) & (e) , 3110 (b) & (g) of Title XI, relating to Zoning Fees." Not introduced. August 7, 1990 269 [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-566 Ordinance No. • N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Section 2-711, Title II, Chapter 7, Article 1, thereof, relating to Filing Fees." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-567 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 2335, Establishing a Fee Schedule for Applications to the Historical Advisory Board." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-568 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Establishing Fees for Various City Services and Permits." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-569 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 1931, Establishing Certain Planning Department Fees and Charges for Various Services and Permits." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-570 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 1931, Relating to Fee Schedules, by deleting Exhibit B, Special Programs." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-571 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 2485, relating to the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code and the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code Standards, by amending Section 304(c) of the Uniform Building Code Plan Review Fee." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-572 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Section 2-314(5), Article 1, Chapter 3, Title II, relating to duties of City Recreation Commission." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-573 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the following Alameda Municipal Code sections: Title VII, Chapter 1, Article 1, Vehicles for Hire, Sections 7-114 and 7-118 relating to Taxicab Permit Fees, Standards of Maintenance and Annual Inspections; Title XII, Chapter 7, Article 6, Massage Establishments, Massage Technicians, and Massage Services; Sections 12-765 and 12-7612 relating to Permit Investigation and Fee; Title XVI, Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 16-6112 relating to Private Patrol Watchman Permit." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-574 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the following Alameda Municipal Code sections: Title II, Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 2-522 Fees to be Charged by Supervising Animal Control Officer; and, Title IV, Chapter 1, Article 3, Section 9-145 License Fees-Amount." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-575 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 2410, Establishing a Fee Schedule for Fire Code Permit Fees." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] 90-576 Ordinance No. • N.S. "Amending New Series Ordinance No. 2279, Relating to the Uniform Fire Code, by adding Section August 7, 1990 270 11.302 (e) and (f) to Division III, Article 11, False Alarms." Not introduced. [See Paragraph 90-548] FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES 90-577 Ordinance No. 2495, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 12-1023 and 12-1031.1 to Chapter 10, Title XII thereof relating to Alarm Systems." Adopted. Councilman Arnerich moved adoption. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by the followng voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas and President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember Withrow - 1. Absent: None. NEW BUSINESS 90-578 Presentations to the City Council by Economic Development Commission applicants (voluntary). Maurice Kohan, 2818 Otis Drive, and Helen Sause, 816 Grand Street, Applicants for Economic Development Commission, reviewed their backgrounds, qualifications and reasons for wanting to serve on the Commission. 90-579 Consideration of nominations for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. President Corica noted that of the seven appointments to be made, most nominations must come from various agencies' recommendations. President Corica made the following nominations: From the Chamber of Commerce: James Kennedy for [representing] Real Estate; Councilmember Camicia seconded the nomination which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. From the Alameda Main Street Project: Diane Coler-Dark [representing retail/commercial]; Councilmember Thomas seconded the nomination, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. From the Economic Development Corporation of Alameda: Wayne A. Milani, for [representing) Manufacturing and Industrial Marine-related business; Councilmember Thomas seconded the nomination, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. From Port Authority Task Force: Robert M. Wood representing Community-at-Large; Councilmember Camicia seconded the nomination, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. From Economic Development Corporation of Alameda: Helen Sause, representing Community-at-Large; Councilmember Thomas seconded the nomination, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. James Pittard, representing the field of Banking and Finance; Councilmember Withrow seconded the nomination, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. August 7, 1990 271 Edward Clark, representing the Community-at-Large; Councilmember Thomas seconded the nomination, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Corica commented pursuant to ordinance, Port Authority Task Force members, Robert Wood and Wayne Milani, must resign their Committee positions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ITEMS 90-580 Gerhard Degemann, 19 Sandpiper Place, commented the Council Chamber chairs should have cushions; the microphone system needs to be upgraded, and complained about the 3-minute time limitation for speakers. ADJOURNMENT 90-581 President Corica adjourned the meeting in memory of Joseph Durein, noting his many years of dedication and service to the City of Alameda, at 1:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 6fr DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk At the Council Meeting, August 21, 1990, the above minutes of August 7, 1990, were approved with the following changes: Correction: President Corica stated the minutes, under Paragraph 90-555, should reflect "son-in-law" instead of "son." Modification: Councilmember Withrow requested that, in the motion under Paragraph 90-561, the wording "up to" be inserted in front of "4.8 [percent]." DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance, in accordance with the Brown Act. August 7, 1990