Loading...
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