1989-02-21 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 21, 1989
89 -112 The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. (at the conclusion of the
Closed Session to discuss Workers' Compensation Claim of Donald
McFarland, and the Community Improvement Commission Meeting) with
President Corica presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Monsef. Reverend
Robert Keller gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Monsef,
Thomas, and President Corica.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to approve the minutes of the
Regular Council Meetings of January 17, 1989 and February 7, 1989;
Special Council Meetings of January 10, January 13, January 26, and
January 31, 1989. Councilmember Monsef stated he would abstain
from the meeting of February 7, 1989, as he was absent from that
meeting; and, President Corica stated he would abstain regarding
the meeting of January 17, 1989 as he was absent from that meeting.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion, noting that he would
abstain on the February 7th meeting.
The motion was carried by the following vote: For the Special
Council Meetings noted above: the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. For the Regular Council Meeting of January 17,
1989: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Monsef, and Thomas
- 4; Noes: None; Absent: None; Abstentions: President Corica
- 1. For the Regular Council Meeting of February 7, 1989: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Thomas, and President Corica - 3; Noes:
None; Absent: None; Abstentions: Councilmembers Monsef and
Camicia - 2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Thomas called attention to the fact that Item 1 -B
(See *89 -114) approves adjournment of the next Regular Council
Meeting from March 7, 1989 to March 14, 1989, due to the election
that will be held on March 7th.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to approve the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
February 21, 1989
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*89 -113 From Community Development Director regarding adding grants
for storefront assistance to Existing Facade Improvement Program.
Accepted.
*89 -114 From City Clerk regarding adjournment of March 7th Council
Meeting to March 14, 1989. Accepted.
*89 -115 From the Acting Finance Director regarding the Investment
Portfolio as of January 31, 1989. Accepted.
RESOLUTIONS
*89 -116 Resolution No. 11652 "Awarding contract to Golden Bay
Construction, Inc. for the construction of wheelchair ramps, Phase
7, and Chapin Street improvements, No. P.W. 1 -88 -1, and
authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
*89 -117 Resolution No. 11653 "Authorizing the destruction of
certain City Clerk Department obsolete records, Phase II." Adopted.
*89 -118 Resolution No. 11654 "Approving amended Agreement with
Alameda County for trauma and emergency medical defibrillation
oversight responsibilities." Adopted.
*89 -119 Resolution No. 11655 "Adopting Residential
Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan under Section
104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended." Adopted.
*89 -120 Resolution No. 11656 "Authorizing open- market purchase of
Recreation and Park Department Supplies." Adopted.
*89 -121 Resolution No. 11657 "Authorizing open- market purchase of
truck for the Golf Course." Adopted.
*89 -122 Resolution No. 11658 "Authorizing open- market purchase of
ten patrol vehicles for the Police Department." Adopted.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
*89 -123 Ordinance No. 2420, N.S. "Authorizing acceptance of Penal
Code requirements relating to the selection and training standards
of public safety dispatchers." Adopted.
*89 -124 Ordinance No. 2421, N.S. "Amending Title XVII of the
Alameda Municipal Code to remove a no- left -turn restriction for
McDonald's Restaurant on Shore Line Drive." Adopted.
BILLS
*89 -125 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct,
was approved in the sum of $1,038,724.89.
February 21, 1989
48
RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
89 -126 From Thornton C. Bunch, Jr., San Francisco, regarding
proposed modifications to Pension Ordinance 1082, and requesting
clarification of Council's action on June 21, 1988. Accepted.
Mr. Bunch, 22 Battery Street, Suite 810, San Francisco, reviewed
the appearance he made before Council on June 21, 1988, on behalf
of the 1082 Pension Improvement Committee, consisting of Fire and
Police Department personnel, regarding the Committee's attempt to
start the meet and confer process concerning pensions; Council
directed City Staff to look into the matter and report back and it
was believed the Committee was recognized; that [report] has not
been done; and correspondence has been received suggesting he
request clarification of the [June] decision and recognition of the
Committee; and he requested Council recognize the Committee.
Following considerable discussion, during which Councilmember
Camicia noted Council had agreed in June to begin a dialog and
suggested a one -time meeting to discuss issues with whatever
representatives are chosen, and proceed from there, and President
Corica commented he would first like to have a staff report
following staff's meeting with Police and Fire Associations'
representatives, the City Manager explained what the process will
be and an estimated time schedule..
Mr. Bunch stated the question is not whether there is a meeting
with City staff to review PERS, but whether the Committee will be
recognized by the City for the purpose of Meet and Confer on the
subject of pensions.
President Corica stated more information is needed as to whether
Council should work with this Committee and then perhaps other
Committees, each dealing with single items that are items of Meet
and Confer.
Councilmember Camicia stated he does not understand why Council
cannot meet with the Committee before getting into some kind of
confrontational situation; suggested Council could gather
information and meet at the same time.
Councilmember Monsef stated Council has been meeting with labor
unions through the City management, and does not believe the City
should change its policy.
Councilmember Monsef moved acceptance of the Written Communication.
Councilmember Arnerich seconded the motion provided that the matter
is expedited.
Councilmember Camicia requested that if the information is not back
within a month, he would like the matter returned to the agenda in
a month for Council discussion.
Councilmember Thomas stated the motion made in June was that staff
February 21, 1989
4
provide a recommendation to Council that would begin the process,
and there has never been a report back to Council as to whether or
not the Committee should be recognized, and noted the Council has
had the Personnel Director contact PERS regarding cost of joining
PERS Public Safety; the information would be helpful, and the
matter should be agendized as a report, and there should be input
before the Personnel Director forwards the information to PERS.
The City Manager stated there would be a report back in 30 days to
explain the ramifications of the formal representations that Mr.
Bunch requested, and what impact they will have.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -127 From Betty and Arthur S. Collins, submitting petition
requesting rezoning of Lincoln Avenue between Broadway and Pearl
Street to R -1 zoning. Accepted.
Mr. Collins, 2609 Lincoln Avenue, submitted to Council a message
from Teresa and Arnold Wallinson in favor of rezoning to R -1;
stated Alameda does not need more cars, more crowding nor
diminishing quality of life; and requested Council consider the
points submitted.
By consensus of Council, the Written Communication /Petition was
accepted.
HEARINGS
89 -128 Consideration of proposed Negative Declaration, IS- 88 -13,
and proposed Zoning Text Amendment, ZA -88 -4, amending Sections
11 -14A6 and 11 -14A7 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to yard
requirements, amending Sections 11 -148A relating to height
exceptions, and amending Sections 11 -1346 and 11 -1350 relating to
on -site watchmen or manager's quarters /living quarters to
Intermediate and General Industrial Districts (M -1 and M -2).
Applicant: City of Alameda.
President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing.
The Planning Director explained the issue, noting that it could
best be described as a clean -up matter, basically reorganizing some
portions of the Zoning Ordinance, providing additional definitions
so that people can better understand the Ordinance, making some
changes for more ease in administration of the Ordinance, etc.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
On the call for proponents, there were none.
On the call for opoponents, there were none.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Monsef moved the recommendation of the Planning Board
be accepted and the related ordinances be taken out of order.
February 21, 1989
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -129 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending various sections of Chapter I, Title XI, thereof,
relating to regulations for Industrial Districts." Introduced.
Councilmember Monsef moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -130 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending various sections of Chapter I, Title XI, thereof,
relating to regulations for yards for substandard lots and for
permitted encroachments in required yards." Introduced.
Councilmember Monsef moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Thomas commented on the ordinance's reference to
chain link fences and decks, stating that the ordinance seems to
contain a lot of control, there is a lot of information to pass
tonight, and there should perhaps be more public input.
President Corica commented that one of the reasons for the
ordinance was because, without appropriate control, the appearance
of a neighborhood can be changed.
Councilman Arnerich stated he shares Councilmember Thomas's concern
as he also finds the ordinance a bit overly restrictive, and
discussed notification of homeowners and builders with the Planning
Director.
Councilmember Monsef stated this is ordinance introduction and the
public may come back with input; and called for the question.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Monsef, and President Corica - 4.
Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None.
89 -131 Consideration of proposed Negative Declaration, IS- 88 -21,
proposed Rezoning, R -88 -8, and General Plan Amendment, GPA -88 -2,
for a parcel located at 475 Santa Clara Avenue from R -2, Two Family
Residence District to C -1, Neighborhood Business District.
Applicant: Mira Lee for William Mah. (Continued to March 14th
Council Meeting)
President Corica announced this hearing has been pulled at the
request of the Applicant and will be heard at the next meeting.
89 -132 Consideration of conversion within certain Underground
Utility Districts (Phase 3) (Districts No. 10 through No. 20).
President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing.
The Acting Public Works Director described the matter.
February 21, 1989
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
On the call for proponents, there were none.
On the call for opponents, there were none.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Thomas inquired how many owners were sent notices, to
which the Acting Public Works Director noted about 200.
Councilmember Thomas stated the cost of the undergrounding is a lot
of money to people on a fixed income and believes there should be
more input from the public on the matter.
The City Manager noted the undergrounding can be financed up to
five years.
Chris Nicolas, inquired if the notice to the homeowners was
accompanied by information directing them to the Council Meeting.
President Corica noted that the hearing is published in the
newspaper.
Councilmember Thomas noted that the report states all property
owners within each proposed district were notified about the
hearing by certified mail.
An unidentified citizen stated he is a property owner on 8th
Street, and believes a few property owners should not need to pay
for something to benefit the entire City of Alameda, when all the
taxpayers should be involved.
The Acting Public Works Director responded that the main line is
paid for by the funds from the various utility companies; the
property owners are responsible for the portion from the main line
to the house which is approximately set at a maximum $1750.
The City Manager noted the City pays for its share of the public
right -of -ways also.
Councilmember Monsef commented, to clarify the issue, the country's
trend is that cities are undergrounding utilities; Alameda has
committed to setting a policy for the same standard as other
cities; and the districts under discussion are just the beginning.
President Corica stated that all property owners will be paying
their fair share.
The speaker stated he understands beautifying Alameda, but all
property owners should pay at the same time; the property owners
should pay now and then the work can be done.
Richard H. Bellefeuille, 363 Magnolia Drive, commented that the
undergrounding for City buildings is being paid for by citizens;
February 21, 1989
52
he agrees with the previous speaker that everyone should be
charged, and the City can then proceed in any area at any time.
George C. Gadsby, 3437 Solomon, stated that this project is
similar to the sewer lateral project; sewer laterals are a
City -wide problem that should be paid for on a City -wide basis.
Charles E. Thoss, 3204 Mecartney, stated he agreed with the three
previous speakers; fifteen years ago the Bureau ran the lines
underground, and he offered to pay for underground lines on his
property; now it will cost him $100 a foot to run lines
underground, and he is totally against it.
Councilman Arnerich stated he is concerned about the project;
Alameda citizens have been requested to purchase spark arresters at
$200, sewer laterals at $3,000- 5,000, and now the undergrounding,
and he does not want to take action tonight; it is difficult for
people on fixed income, etc., and he would like postponement of the
issue until he can study it more thoroughly.
President Corica asked if Council is considering forgetting about
the undergrounding.
Councilman Arnerich replied he is not in favor of disbanding the
program, but he believes there is a concern of the people.
President Corica stated it appears that the people are not content
with the program; and he requested staff report back at the next
Council Meeting for Council's decision as to whether or not to
continue with the City's underground program; by that time Council
would have enough input from citizens and a decision can be made.
Councilman Arnerich discussed with the Acting Public Works
Director, the projected increase in cost.
Councilmember Camicia stated he believes Mr. Arnerich is
indicating that Council is interested in exploring other funding
options; believes Council understands undergrounding of utilities
will enhance Alameda and increase property values; and would like
to wait a few weeks to find a more attractive funding solution.
President Corica stated if Council finds the funding solution is
not appropriate, then Council should take action at that time, and
not keep delaying the matter.
Councilmember Camicia agreed, and made a motion to table the matter
for three weeks. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion and it
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
89 -133 From City Manager regarding feasibility of Linoaks Motel and
Portola Triangle as possible library sites. (Held over from
Council Meeting of February 7, 1989)
* From David Plummer and Karin Lucas, Co- Chairs, Committee to
February 21, 1989
Retain the Carnegie Library, requesting full, fair, and objective
consideration to retaining the Main Library in its present location
and to the renovation and expansion of the Carnegie Building.
* From Thomas S. Eanes, Alameda, regarding library site selection
error in basis of site plans.
* From Thomas S. Eanes, Alameda, regarding library site selection
alternative plan for use of the Carnegie Library.
Imelda Merlin, 2824 Waterton Street, stated she supports the
building of a new library on the Portola Triangle, and noted the
City owns the lot, and there is room for a building and parking.
Thomas Eanes, 1830 San Jose, expressed concern for the preservation
of the Carnegie Building; and spoke in favor of a new library
building on Portola Triangle, with a guarantee that the Main
Library would be retained as a Branch Library.
President Corica stated he believes the Carnegie Building is not in
jeopardy but will be retained in some capacity.
Dave Plummer, 1401 High Street, stated he was submitting a petition
with 1050 signatures, requesting a fair and equal study be given
the Carnegie Building and annex; has discussed the matter with a
State Library representative, who is a facility planner and
distributor of federal and State [Prop 85] funds; discussed
funding; believes the plan for renovation of the Carnegie Building
is feasible, and there is time, if Council wishes, to have an
unbiased study with another architect.
Robert Vaughn, Box 1054 Alameda, stated he uses the West End Branch
Library and would not want that branch closed; he is a teacher,
believes there is room for library system improvement and whatever
else is decided, he supports renovation of the Carnegie Building.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola, stated he favors a one -story building,
and urged Council to make a decision, go forward for State funding,
and not further delay this action.
Gertrude Woods, 1247 Sherman Street, member of Alameda Library
Board of Trustees, reviewed the background of the search for a
site; and requested Council select a proper site for the library
to permit enhanced library service.
Lucy L. Brohard, 632 Arlington Isle, stated people are fearful the
Carnegie Building will be torn down, however, the Library Board and
City Council are on record to preserve the building; to qualify
for State funding, space needs requirements must be met.
Alice A. Challen, 2601 La Jolla Drive, stated a library must be
accessible, near community activity and public transportation as
the Carnegie Building is; Portola Triangle is in a dangerous area
for Senior Citizens, has heavy traffic problems, infrequent bus
service and is out of the question; a library should be centrally
located; supports reconsideration of the Carnegie Building.
February 21, 1989
Roscoe Hamilton, 1283 Weber Street, President, Board of Directors,
Alameda Historical Museum, stated he is not pro or against this
issue; but the Board would protect, enhance, and be pleased to
accept, the Carnegie Building if offered as a museum for Alameda.
Woody Minor, 2144 McKinley Avenue, Berkeley, stated a basic premise
was the foregone conclusion that the Carnegie Building could not
function as a library into the 21st Century, however, an expanded
Carnegie with annex is worth considering; if the library moves
out, he likes the dream of an expanded museum but wonders how
rehabilitation would be funded; and requested Council give the
Carnegie fair consideration before making a decision.
George Gunn, 3256 Garfield Avenue, Curator of the Alameda
Historical Museum, commented that, by allowing the museum to have
the Carnegie Building in the event it is vacated, it will validate
the premise that it is a historical building.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated he liked the Linoaks
site for a library, but is reconsidering because, if school bonds
are passed, taxpayers cannot also afford a new library.
Rose Anne White, 1122 Versailles Avehue, member, Alameda Free
Library Board, stated Alameda needs an efficient modern library on
a new site; remodeling present facilities would be inefficient,
and will support the Council's decision.
Charles A. Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt, stated Council is in process
of caring for homeless and making facilities for underprivileged
people, units being built at Independence Plaza are costing $75,000
per unit with the land; acquisition cost of Linoaks is $2,400,000,
or $48,000 per unit; and he does not want to see 50 units used for
a library when housing is so important in all areas of the City.
Ralph E. Yandell, 1319 Burbank Street, reviewed the many libraries
in Alameda, including the Naval Air Station, and College of
Alameda; stated there is redundancy in the library system;
Portola Triangle is not accessible; and suggested the City
retain the Carnegie Building library.
Archie Waterbury, 338 Beach Road, Member, Friends of the Library;
stated architects should plan for housing advanced technology; and
if the Museum is placed in the Carnegie Building, it will be an
institution of which Alameda could be proud.
Peter Ekstein, 2111 Buena Vista Avenue, East Bay Chapter, American
Institute of Architects Historic Preservation Committee, quoted
from Committee's letter stating concern that change of Carnegie
Building usage may require extensive modifications to architectural
features; belief that the proposal to rehabilitate and add an
annex is feasible and appropriate, providing needed facilities;
and urged Council consider the proposal and attempt to retain the
Main Library; and offered assistance to City staff.
Dick Hubert Bellefeuille, 363 Magnolia Drive, stated he represents
February 21, 1989
the Church of the Nazarene which recommends, now that Council is
nearing a decision, that Council send the Church a letter stating
Council will cease further consideration of the Church property in
any form, and if not, then a letter stating Council's reason.
President Corica stated the Church has been cooperative through the
years while Council debated about library sites; the former pastor
was advised that Church expansion plans would not be hindered, and
if the Church would like a written statement, it deserves one; and
thanked Mr. Bellefeuille and the congregation for their kindness.
Robert Brewer, 2238 Santa Clara, raised questions regarding
business area parking problems; and stated he is disturbed by
proposals that ignore a problem to retail health of the area.
Albert S. Edgerton, 2229 Santa Clara, Alameda New Library Site
Committee, commented on the scope of information gathered; stated
the only City -owned property large enough to house the library is
Portola Triangle; the Linoaks property has proximity to City Hall
and is the preferred site of the Committee; and the Committee
recommends that the Council make a decision on a site at this time.
Andrew P. McCormack, 1238 Versailles Avenue, commented the Linoaks
is suited to senior housing; the Carnegie Building would be a nice
museum site; the Portola Triangle is large enough for a library;
and voiced concern about drug problems in the Triangle area.
Susan McCormack, 1238 Versailles Avenue, commented if the Carnegie
Building cannot be retained as a library she would like to see the
museum there; and Linoaks would be good senior citizen housing.
George C. Gadsby, 3437 Solomon Lane, read excerpts from the State
Library representative's letter; stated Linoaks produces taxes,
provides housing and parking; suggested saving the Carnegie
Building as a museum; and the library be on the Portola Triangle.
Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, discussed cost
estimates, urged Council retain existing Carnegie and add annex;
solve parking for all of Park Street area and library by acquiring
parking area adjacent to the Alameda Theater.
Greg L. Beattie, 1023 Morton Street, Committee to Retain the
Carnegie Library, stated funding can be obtained from the State to
rehabilitate the Carnegie Building if it is retained as a library
for ten years; the Carnegie Foundation should be checked to be
sure the building can be used for another purpose; low- income
housing should not be torn down when housing is badly needed.
Barbara Rasmussen, 1611 Central Avenue, stated she is a teacher who
is frustrated that she has had to go to Oakland for library
materials; likes the Carnegie Building but her personal preference
is the Portola Triangle, which would be helpful to the West End.
Michael A. Grappo, 616 Westline Drive, stated Portola Triangle is
impossible as library site; traffic is dangerous for pedestrians;
the City could use other park area in Alameda; Linoaks is costly
February 21, 1939
to buy and low -cost housing is needed; suggested well- stocked
libraries throughout the City instead of one large library.
Paul H. Breitkopf, 1823 San Jose Avenue, stated more information,
research, and experts with objective opinions, are needed; the
matter could be placed on the ballot; proposal for another branch
library if needed, is good, because in electronic age, libraries
scattered around town work as well as one building.
Lyann Sankey, 3007 Lincoln Avenue, stated a library needs central
location; she cannot allow her children to ride to Portola
Triangle; traffic is bad there; "new" is not necessarily better
or beautiful; would rather funds be used for books than building.
James R. Anderson, 1240 Pease Court, stated there is no
appropriate location in Alameda; renovation and an annex to the
Carnegie is more economical than developing proposed sites; and
urged Council further consider the Carnegie Building as a library.
Ruth Maclver, 615 Rock Isle, member of new library site committee,
reviewed background of activity of the Committee; and urged that
the new library go forward.
President Corica congratulated the library site committee for the
hard work they have done through the years.
Councilman Arnerich discussed State representative's letter;
quoted from a 1960 Carnegie Foundation letter which noted that the
Carnegie Corporation policy was to not make conditions other than
provision of a site and yearly maintenance; stated there is much
to consider in selecting a library site, and Council has no
intention of dismantling the Carnegie Building.
Councilmember Camicia stated Council must make a decision tonight
and the most important thing Council can do is build a library that
is worthy of this community; and discussed with the City Manager,
projected revenue from the Linoaks site, and how it affects the
purchase price.
Councilmember Monsef stated there have been site discussions for
many years; in 1984, previous Council decided 4 -1, to build a new
library, after serious consideration of many sites including` the
Carnegie Building; it is shortsighted to select a site without
parking; the Linoaks is a good possibility; but cannot consider
the Portola Triangle, spending millions of dollars, for a library
that people may not use; the decision to build a new library
cannot be delayed any further as construction costs are rising.
Councilmember Thomas stated a lot of people have worked long and
hard for a new library; 27 sites have been studied; agrees with
speaker that children cannot bicycle to the Portola Triangle; the
Triangle is zoned open space and the Planning Board has refused to
rezone it; her choice is to expand the Carnegie, but if cost is
excessive, the Carnegie cannot control the library's destiny;
Council can move forward on Linoaks, finance with UDAG funds, put
Linoaks on ballot, and if voters turn it down, then Council can go
February 21, 1989
forward with Linoaks, if funding is found, for low- income senior
housing; people have said there must be a site before it can go on
the ballot but she believes there can be two sites, both the
Carnegie and the Linoaks, and proceed that way, moving forward, for
the best solution of needs.
Councilman Arnerich inquired what affect there would be on
Proposition 85 funds, to which the City Manager responded if the
City applies for funding but cannot show matching funds to go
through with it, the City would probably not get the grant; and
explained further detail, timeframe requirements, and financing.
Councilman Arnerich discussed the timeframe regarding putting the
matter on the ballot, to which the City Manager responded it would
be November or possibly a year from now.
President Corica, discussed with the City Manager, the possibility
of the failure of the vote and its affects on the application
process.
President Corica stated he would be more comfortable using the UDAG
funds for a library or a public building than for a large business.
Councilmember Monsef inquired if the State would accept a site that
is conditioned on approval of voters; the City Manager replied he
does not believe so, unless the site is owned, and voter - approved.
Councilmember Camicia stated that the Portola Triangle is a viable
site; and perhaps building on the site would improve the area.
Councilman Arnerich stated the Park Street area appears to be the
center of the City and believes Portola Triangle is not central.
President Corica stated the Linoaks would be an enhancement to, and
a step towards, a Civic Center.
Councilman Arnerich compared square footage of proposed sites and
the finances involved; and believes the Linoaks is a viable site.
Councilman Arnerich made a motion that Council proceed with the
Linoaks site for a future library. Councilmember Monsef seconded
the motion.
Councilmember Camicia stated he would be more comfortable with the
Portola Triangle but the library site is an important issue and
Council must move together and move quickly for Proposition 85
funds, and he will therefore support Council on this motion.
Councilmember Thomas inquired if it was necessary to choose a
configuration at this meeting; and the City Manager suggested
designating the Linoaks site, which is viable by itself, and
subsequently, consider the additional parcels for parking, etc.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
February 21, 1989
RESOLUTIONS
89 -134 Resolution No. "Amending the Combined Land Use Plan
of the General Plan of the City of Alameda by amending the Land Use
Plan Map Designation from Special Single Family to Neighborhood
Commercial for the property located at 475 Santa Clara Avenue.
Tabled to March 14th Council Meeting with related Hearing and
related Ordinance. (See 89 -131)
89 -135 Resolution No. "Establishing Underground Utility
Districts Nos. 10 through 20 at various locations in the City of
Alameda." Tabled to March 14 Council Meeting with related Hearing.
(See 89 -132)
89 -136 Resolution No. 11659 "Approving Final Map of Subdivision
known as Tract 5850 and accepting certain easements (Lighthouse
Cove, Pulte Home Corporation, Subdivider)." (Continued from
February 7, 1989, Council Meeting.) Adopted.
President Corica stated he will be voting "no" on all three
resolutions (89 -136, -137, -138) for reasons mentioned before, that
the Tract was at one time in a danger zone but because of certain
mitigation, it is not now considered a danger zone, but as flight
patterns are the same, he still considers it dangerous.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia,
Monsef and Thomas - 4. Noes: President Corica - 1. Absent:
None.
89 -137 Resolution No. 11660 "Authorizing execution of agreement
for construction and completion of improvements in connection with
Subdivision Tract 5850 and approving bonds as to sufficiency (Pulte
Home Corporation, Subdivider)." (Continued from February 7, 1989,
Council Meeting.) Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia,
Monsef and Thomas - 4. Noes: President Corica - 1. Absent:
None.
.
89 -138 Resolution No. 11661 "Accepting dedication of open space
easement for public park purposes from Lighthouse Cove Planned
Development Homeowners' Association (Parcel B of Tract 5527)."
(Continued from February 7, 1989, Council Meeting.) Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia,
Monsef and Thomas - 4. Noes: President Corica - 1. Absent:
None.
89 -139 Resolution No. 11662 "Amending the City Cooperation
Agreement with Marina Village." (Continued from January 17, 1989
February 21, 1989
and February 7,,1989 Council Meetings.) Adopted.
Don Parker, Marina Village, discussed off-site improvement funds
available; noted the excess of funds available; requested Council
consider reducing the amount available for additional expenditure
cited in Section 2.5 from $300,000 to $150,000; which would still
leave an excess of approximately $100,000 for any major overruns;
and Section 3.4 needs to be amended to include the concept of
reimbursement through the offset of building permit fees.
The City Manager commented he believes it appropriate to add to
Section 3.4 language to include credits to building permits as that
was the original intent; regarding the reduction from $300,000,
additional resurfacing is needed estimated at $30,000, and he would
feel more comfortable if reduction were to $175,000 or $200,000;
therefore he would recommend amending Section 2.5 from $300,000 to
$200,000 and amending Section 3.4 to include a credit to building
permits for those amounts which are not available or chosen to be
funded by the City through construction improvement tax.
Mr. Parker stated that both of the suggestions would be acceptable.
Following brief discussion, Councilmember Camicia stated he will
move the adoption of the resolution incorporating the suggestions
made by the City Manager and agreed to by Mr. Parker.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89-140 Resolution No. "Approving criteria for the use of
UDAG loan proceeds and authorizing an amendment to the EDCA Grant
Agreement." (Continued from February 7, 1989, Council Meeting.)
Councilmember Thomas remarked there was a suggestion under the
library discussion that the funds be used on a temporary basis for
the library.
The City Manager stated if Council wishes to indicate it has no
problem proceeding with UDAG loan repayment funds toward purchase
of Linoaks site, a financing proposal could be submitted to Council
on March-21st to incorporate the use of these funds.
Councilman Arnerich asked clarification if that action would be
binding in any way, to which the City Manager replied it would
simply give staff direction that Council would like a proposal to
use the UDAG funds for purchase of the Linoaks as interim financing
and using the proceeds from the motel operation to substitute as
repayment in lieu of investing it in the bank as is being done now.
Councilmember Monsef moved the City Manager's recommendation.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89-141 Resolution No. 11663 "Authorizing incentives for
participants in "Beat the Back-up" TSM." Adopted.
President Corica commented the City is encouraging alternatives to
February 21, 1989
automobile travel on February 28th.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -142 Resolution No. 11664 "Authorizing use of City Hall Parking
Lot for car- pooling vehicles." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -143 Resolution No. 11665 "Authorizing appropriation of funds
from the Golf Course Enterprise Account to fund test drilling for a
new well at the Golf Complex." Adopted.
Councilmember Monsef made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -144 Resolution No. 11666 "Authorizing payment for emergency
repairs to Truck #1 pursuant to Sections 3 -15 and 3 -15.1 of the
city Charter." Adopted.
Councilmember Monsef made a motion to adopt the resolution.
councilman Arnerich commented that the Assistant Chief did a fine
job getting a good price and saving the City a good deal of money.
councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
89 -145 Resolution No. 11667 "Authorizing execution of an agreement
with Island City Gun Club, Inc. to terminate lease." Adopted.
Norman Lynda, 420 Maitland, urged Council vote in favor of the
agreement, noting that the Club voted unanimously in favor.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
89 -146 Resolution No. 11668 "Voiding the contract for legal
services with Meyer and Mitchell." Adopted.
* From chairman, Concerned Citizens for Good Government, regarding
the legal representation issue.
The City Attorney excused himself from the hearing of this item.
President Corica stated Mr. Logan, the attorney who has reviewed
the matter for Council, is present.at the meeting.
William Withrow, 133 Cumberland Way, stated he supports the
recommendation of the City Manager to void the contract; and he
February 21, 1989
recommended a formal decision process of evaluation of requirements
for legal services, and settlement of lawsuits out of court.
George Gadsby, 3437 Solomon Lane, commended Council for
the matter back so there could be public input.
Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Court, stated that the contract
not have been done in the first place.
President Corica stated Mr. Logan brought to Council's attention
that the Charter prohibited the action.
Richard Sherratt, 1138 Ballena Boulevard, stated Council should
admit it made a mistake, proceed with a legal and proper
evaluation; and reviewed the procedure and process followed.
Richard Roth, 1417 5th Street, stated there is no evaluation,
lawsuits should be prevented as far as possible, prefers an
in -house City Attorney; and would like the contract voided.
bringing
should
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut, stated speakers might be present for
election purposes.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated he believes the Council
voted its conscience; was pleased with City Attorney's able and
appropriate comments in the newspaper regarding a particular case.
Robert Logan, Attorney from San Jose who had advised Council,
stated he was present to discuss the contract; had been called by
the City Manger to review the contract, in reviewing the Charter,
he noted the City Attorney's position looks toward the hiring of an
individual and not a law firm, and therefore the contract is
invalid and should be voided by Council.
Councilmember Camicia stated Council must stop interfering in the
day -to -day duties of staff, staff must find a way to be
independent, and if that can be done, he does not believe there
will be such problems again; Council must regain its integrity.
Councilman Arnerich stated he believes that what Councilmember
Camicia referred to, is being done tonight; speakers have said it
is an error, but at least Council is trying to correct a wrong.
Councilmember Monsef stated Council did not make the mistake
intentionally, and has not discussed anything in Closed Session
that did not belong in Closed Session.
Councilman Arnerich made a motion to void the contract with Meyer
and Mitchell. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion.
Councilmember Thomas addressed press coverage, Council went on the
best advice it had at the time; and reviewed the procedure that
was followed, and wonders why the press did not pick up the process
when it was done by the City of San Leandro; City Attorney did as
he was told, which was to find a more economical way to deliver the
services; and she personally does not think he did anything wrong.
February 21, 1989
Councilmember Camicia stated the best thing about a representative
form of government is that, whatever happens, ultimately the
representatives are responsible.
President Corica stated what is being overlooked is that the City
Attorney told Council a year ago, that he was overloaded; Council
knew lawsuits were coming in which should not be settled; Council
also looked at cost effectiveness; and the contract proposal
appeared to provide a good cost savings; reviewed negative
newspaper coverage; and stated he is sure no one tried to do
anything illegal; the purpose was to try to strengthen and expand
the City Attorney's office.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
89 -147 Ordinance No. , N.S. "An ordinance reclassifying and
rezoning of a certain property within the City of Alameda by
amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series; Applicant: Mira
Lee for William Mah; R -88 -8 the property located at 475 Santa
Clara Avenue. (Continued to March 14, 1989 Council Meeting.)
89 -148 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending certain sections of Chapter 3 of Title XVII
thereof pertaining to parking enforcement holidays." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to introduce the ordinance.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Richard Roth, 1417- 5th Street, stated whenever the City Hall is
closed, the meters should not be in effect and there would be no
confusion for the people regarding parking meters.
NEW BUSINESS.
89 -149 Councilmember Camicia requested staff to prepare a report
for consideration at the next Council Meeting on evaluation
procedures for appointed officials, with a range of options and a
suggested form to follow.
Councilman Arnerich suggested the report be on the March 21st
meeting agenda, and Councilmember Camicia agreed.
89 -150 Councilmember Camicia requested a report, off agenda, on the
procedure which will be followed when the City seeks a City
Attorney or City Attorney firm.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
89 -151 Richard Sherratt, 1138 Ballena Blvd., stated he believes the
City Attorney did as he was instructed; read from a regional
publication; and expressed his concern on how Alameda is regarded
by others.
February 21, 1989
President Corica responded, regarding the publication, that there
are some who look for the negative.
Councilmember Thomas commented on newspaper coverage regarding
retreats for Council and quoted from the "Open Meeting Laws" from
the California Attorney General's Office, which covered notice
requirements under the Brown Act, and she believes retreats held in
Southern California would violate the Brown Act.
89-152 Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Court stated Closed Meetings
should not be semi-closed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in
accordance with the Brown Act.
February 21, 1989