Loading...
2000-07-18 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JULY 18, 2000 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the regular meeting at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (00 -398) Members of the Alameda Civic Light Opera gave a brief performance from the upcoming production of Annie. * ** Mayor Appezzato recessed the Regular City Council Meeting to convene the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 8:10 p.m. The Regular City Council Meeting was reconvened at 8:27 p.m. * ** CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the Consent Calender. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *00 -399) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting, and the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting held on July 5, 2000. Approved. ( *00 -400) Recommendation to approve amendments to the Bylaws for the Mayor's Committee for the Disabled. Accepted. ( *00 -401) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications, authorize call for bids, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all Agreements for the award of the Construction Contract for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 21, No. P.W. 02- 00 -03. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 July 18, 2000 ( *00 -402) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $259,584 to Gordon N. Ball, Inc., for Bay Farm Island Dike Repair Phase 2, No. P.W. 05- 99 -16. Accepted. ( *00 -403) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $2,527,195 to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for Harbor Bay Parkway Extension Phase 4 and Landscape Improvements Phases 3 and 4, No. P.W. 07- 99 -19. Accepted. ( *00 -404) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Subsection 30 -78.6 (Waiver of Parcel Map) of Section 30 -78 (Tentative and Parcel Maps) Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Introduced. ( *00 -405) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 1,729,951.21. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (00 -406) Resolution No. 13252, "Appointing Leslie A. Krongold as a Member of the City Library Board." Adopted. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Krongold with a Certificate of Appointment. (00 -407) Resolution No. 13253, "Appointing Horst Breuer as a Member of the City Planning Board." Adopted. Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and present Mr. Breuer with a Certificate of Appointment. (00 -408) Public Hearing to consider: Resolution No. 13254, "Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing; requested that all ballots be turned into the City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 July 18, 2000 Clerk and tallied. The Public Works Administrative Management Analyst stated the ballots were tallied for Zones 5 and 7; there must be a majority of return votes [in favor] to pass; in Zone 5, the proposed rate increase was approved by a majority vote of 40 to l; in Zone 7, the rate increase was unanimously approved. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -409) Recommendation to accept the Economic Development Strategic Plan and the Alameda Downtown Vision and refer documents to affected City Staff, Boards and Commissions and other responsible parties for analysis and recommendation regarding implementation. Jack Bertram, Member, Economic Development Strategic Plan Task Force (EDSPTF), urged adoption of the Plan as written; stated there is a need for follow -up; there will be cost involved. Mayor Appezzato requested staff to distribute Certificates of Appreciation for the members of the EDSPTF: Sebastian Baldassare, Sara Bargas, Jack Bertram, Darryl Browman, Dr. Victoria Brown, Anna Elefant, Ananda Ghish, Karen Gold, Dion Griffin, Nancy Heastings, Victor Jin, Bruce Kern, Jim King, Frank Matarrese, Paula McCloskey, Marilyn Moffitt, Carl Nelson, Dennis Pagones, Dr. Kent Rosenblum, Helen Sause, Jerry Sherman, Doug Svensson, James Sweeney, John Teetsov, Eugenie Thomson, Debra Turnage, Juan Vazquez, Rahn Verheaghe, and Al Wright. Eugenie Thomson, Member, EDSPTF, presented a handout to the City Council; stated the sustainable transportation system strategy would be to develop a residential and business community transportation system considering all [estuary] crossings with emphasis on public access to the waterfront, a parking and traffic circulation system for business communities, and emphasis on all modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, and transit; the Plan presented to Council is to build a City master transportation system, which would be funded by developer fees and other sources, as fast as possible; Alameda is changing; historical data for the Tubes show there is not much difference between the present and when the Base was in operation; limits are being reached; with growth from the Catellus project, traffic in the Tubes will be greater than when the Base was in operation; the Navy did not have much commuting- -many lived on the Base; the economy is Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 18, 2000 vibrant and many people are doing well, which creates more travel; in addition, Alameda is attracting businesses, such as high -tech, which have a high percentage of employees that live off of the Island; the strategy presented to Council indicates it is very important to review a City transit system; the amount of growth which can be accommodated must be considered; the Planning Board would like to address the matter in short order; requested an amendment to strategy #5, on page 23 of the Strategic Plan, which reads: provide for an internal and external traffic circulation system by creating a City Master Transportation Plan; suggested two bullets be added: 1) by implementing a City Transit system and roadway system for all modes of transportation, and 2) that the Planning Board and City Council determine the amount of growth the City can accommodate, and that said effort be completed by the end of the year, including decisions on Oakland mitigation, such as the Broadway/ Jackson interchange and the amount of land use by type location and all monitoring measures. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether the Task Force agreed with amendments proposed by Ms. Thomson. Ms. Thomson responded Frank Matarrese would address the matter. Mayor Appezzato stated the amount of growth that the community can absorb should be reviewed; the census results should be interesting; currently, the City has seven- to ten thousand people less than when the Naval Base was at its height; there are one thousand homes unoccupied; issues should be viewed in the complete context with all other issues, not just transportation and traffic circulation, but the number of homes which should be built, etc.; if the City focuses on one issue it will go nowhere; things can be studied forever. Charles Ward, Member, Economic Development Commission (EDC), urged Council to approve the Plan as written; stated projects should move ahead; information in the Plan can be reviewed and updated, e.g., in response to census figures; the Plan is a living document. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Boards' and Commissions' responses should be adopted into the document when the document is adopted by the City Council, rather than just accepted. Mr. Ward responded the [document's] purpose was to provide a fundamental base; stated the City should decide areas which will be the focus and where money will be spent; noted the importance of community involvement. Mayor Appezzato stated the Planning Board submitted a letter Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 18, 2000 requesting the Council to include further studies of traffic, public transit, parking, workforce housing, retail mix and implementation; requested Frank Matarrese and the Economic and Community Development Assistant City Manager to address said issues. Frank Matarrese, Chair, EDC and EDSPTF, stated major areas of concern in the City were covered against a backdrop of preserving the quality of life; strategies included retail mix, industrial mix, traffic and transportation, housing and industrial entrepreneurship, including youth -run businesses; all the points people thought were critical were covered; Council should focus on and give a stamp of approval on strategies; the Planning Board was correct in highlighting housing and traffic; the focus was how much development can be absorbed while maintaining the quality of life; the document is a living document; there must be follow up; the EDC will consider follow up at its next meeting; regarding amendments, the documents can be approved tonight; traffic must be addressed; the strategies indicate traffic must be addressed; there will be recommendations with public hearings; the amount of growth that can be absorbed requires follow up; the EDC will make a recommendation for a formalized follow scheme. Economic and Community Development Assistant City Manager stated the fourteen fundamental strategies, in the Downtown Vision and the seven similar fundamental goals in the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) are proposed for adoption; suggestions made by the Planning Board and EDSPTF member Eugenie Thomson, with respect to various items, including traffic, parking and housing, are additional items that should be considered as part of the Tactical Implementation Plan; staff recommends the Tactical Implementation Plan be sent back to the affected Departments, Boards, and Commissions for review; the Plan may be altered, changed or adjusted; to respond to said issues raised, Council could specifically direct that the items [suggestions by the Planning Board and speakers] be incorporated. Mayor Appezzato read the seven strategies, which can be expanded. Councilmember Kerr stated the original recommendation was for Council to accept the documents and refer them to various Boards and Commissions, and other responsible parties; inquired whether the recommendation was being modified to have Council accept and adopt the documents. Mr. Matarrese responded the recommendation stands; his objective is to have the plans go forward and involve more than the EDC; it is appropriate to pass on the documents to other Boards and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 July 18, 2000 Commissions. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the recommendation stands to accept the Plans and refer them various Board and Commissions, to which Mr. Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, stated the Society transmitted a letter to Council on the Downtown Vision Plan; the Plan gives consideration to historical preservation, particularly one of the flagship projects in the plan: restoring and developing the Alameda Theater; the Plan speaks to improving enforcement of the existing Sign Ordinance, however, does not suggest improvements be made to the Ordinance; said idea came out of the workshops and was not included in the Plan; requested that language be added to the Plan, which calls for review of the existing Sign Ordinance and improvements where warranted; funding for development of design guidelines for Park Street is unclear. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the creation of effective and responsive public transit will make the Plans work; there should be exploration of a City operated Transit system; connections to the mainland have been limited for the past 30 to 40 years; an extra public transit connection would be a major investment; the Public Transit Committee has a consultant and will develop a public transit plan for the General Plan. Councilmember Kerr stated the documents are imaginative and remarkable; implementation strategy 2.b on Page 15 [of the EDSP] addresses turning the green area of the College of Alameda into retail; it is economically and aesthetically important that City entrances be attractive; other cities are spending a lot of money to develop attractive entrances; work /live [studios] are mentioned; page 29 of the EDSP adopts compliance with ABAG's housing goals; the City might not want to commit itself to housing goals set by representatives of other cities; the City should evaluate its own housing goals; ABAG quotas are based on potential job development in Alameda, however, there might be gridlock before ABAG's projected job numbers can be reached; emphasis on ferries is good; economic development should be related to traffic capacity; there is an endorsement of grid -type streets, which is not always best; increased access to the water is great; further stated the Park Street [Downtown] Vision is an enjoyable document; there should be discussions about Central Avenue as an Art Center and alternate uses for the Alameda Theater, including second run movies or film festivals. Vice Mayor Daysog stated low density neighborhoods attract families Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 18, 2000 and companies to Alameda; the two studies pay great respect to the quality of life in Alameda; thanked the EDSPTF members; stated implementation should move forward. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the language in the Plan which addresses business development is broad enough to allow existing Business Associations to participate in implementation. Economic and Community Development Assistant City Manager responded the language on implementation measures and the text was refined to recognize the two incubators [Business Associations] the City already has in place; a third incubator for youth is being established through the HOME Project. Councilmember Johnson stated there are several business organizations in town; another similar organization should not be created. Economic and Community Development Assistant City Manager stated staff is proposing that Council accept and adopt the [Downtown] Vision and EDSP strategies, which are semi - permanent road maps; there is flexibility to examine all kinds of options for implementation, including narrowing [the number of Business Associations] to avoid overlap. Councilmember Johnson thanked the Task Force members and public for participating; implementation should begin; she supports the Plans; the City should proceed as quickly as possible toward developing implementation. Councilmember DeWitt stated the Downtown Visioning Plan discusses a retail mix; the EDSP identifies important items and a time period for response; that he would like to amend the time limit in the Plan; the Plan has 60 to 90 days for response; however, the Public Transit Committee is conducting a study which will not be completed until November; requested a longer period of time be considered. Councilmember DeWitt further stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation, including the addition and amendments mentioned by Eugenie Thomson and Chris Buckley; however, he does not agree with the 60 to 90 day time limit. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember DeWitt was making a motion. Councilmember DeWitt moved acceptance of the [Economic Development] Strategy Plan and the Downtown Visioning Plan; and that said documents be sent back to [affected] City Departments, Boards, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 18, 2000 Commissions, and other appropriate bodies, for analysis. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember DeWitt was including in his motion that comments by speakers be addressed. Councilmember DeWitt responded in the affirmative; stated matters addressed by the Planning Board as well as public comment this evening should be included. Mayor Appezzato inquired the desired time limit. Councilmember DeWitt suggested the time limit be six (6) to nine (9) months. Councilmember Johnson stated the Public Transit Committee has a Consultant reviewing major transit issues in Alameda; however, the Plans should not be delayed based on said Consultant's work; suggested Council approve time frame set within the document; further stated if the Public Transmit Committee needs more time, its response can be updated based on the Consultant's findings. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Public Transmit Committee could provide a report if it cannot meet the limits. Councilmember DeWitt concurred; stated he wanted to raise the issue that there are some very important, heavy topics that the Committee is reviewing. Councilmember Johnson stated the Public Transit Committee could be tardy. Mayor Appezzato stated there was a motion on the floor. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated that she preferred the prompt response of 60 -90 days; stated the matter should remain on the front burner; Plans are living documents; if the Public Transit Committee changes or provides a new recommendation, documents can be altered. Vice Mayor Daysog stated faster [response] is better; the Downtown Vision Plan was completed because absent a plan, the City was subject to the market, e.g., establishment of Cigarettes Cheaper and check cashing stores. Mayor Appezzato stated the City received a $45,000 grant for the Park Street Business Association to study transportation for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 July 18, 2000 livable communities. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:35 p.m. (00 -410) Resolution No. 13255, "Approving the Expenditure of Funds from the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in the Alameda Point Improvement Project to Provide Affordable Housing Opportunities." Adopted. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated there is a parallel need for public transit funding; the City Council should consider public transit funding for development. Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. [Refer to July 18, 2000 Community Improvement Commission Minutes, paragraph no. 00 -35 for Councilmember Kerr's objections to Resolution.] (00 -411) Ordinance No. 2839, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising Section 23 -3 (Trees and Shrubbery) of Chapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas and Public Property), Thereof, Granting Authority to the Public Works Director to Supervise, Control and Manage City Trees and Shrubs." Finally passed. Councilmember Johnson moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt stated the only change is shifting responsibility from the Park and Recreation Director to the Public Works Director. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -412) Ordinance No. 2840. "Ordering the Submission of a Proposition of Incurring Bonded Debt to the Qualified Voters of the City of Alameda at the General Municipal Election to be Held on November 7, 2000, for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Development of Certain Municipal Improvements (Public Library) and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 18, 2000 Calling for a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 7, 2000." Finally passed. (00 -412A) Recommendation to approve Site Selection Process for Main Library. Tom Billings, Alameda, urged Council to unanimously adopt the Ordinance; stated the library location is a separate issue and should not be determined by the voters; site selection and use of the Carnegie building are too complex and technical for voters to understand; elected representatives and staff should make said decision. Dave Plummer, Alameda, stated voters probably will not approve a $10 Million library bond without having a voice in site selection; Alameda might not receive $20 Million from the State, which is 60 of Proposition 14 funds; former Proposition 35 library grants were given to requests which had the most bang for the buck; a moderate alternative to the LinOaks Library should be submitted to the voters; expansion of the Carnegie to 35,000 square feet, on its own property, with parking across the street, would keep the total cost under $14 Million; the City's Engineering Department designed a 53- car parking lot at the Video Maniac site [corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street]; said lot could serve the Alameda Theater and the Carnegie Main Library; Alameda voters should be permitted to voice their opinion on the library site prior to voting for funding; a more moderate library would most certainly gain voter approval and State grant money. Mayor Appezzato stated 720 of Alameda voters supported the State bond measure; the City's measure will be contingent upon receiving the State grant; the last time the voters considered a library [1996], opposition wanted no new taxes. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the focus should be on getting funding first; the site selection process should follow later. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the City appears to low -ball estimates for projects it wants and high -ball costs of projects not desired, e.g. $7.9 Million for AP &T Cable TV venture, which is costing $20.5 Million, plus interest on bonds; the estimate for a new library at the LinOaks is $25.7 Million, while the Carnegie renovation is $27.3 Million; voters should be permitted to examine both proposals and decide at the polls; common sense indicates restoration and expansion of the Carnegie would be the most cost effective option; the Park Street Vision includes a new library; suggested a library annex, with high -tech equipment and meeting rooms, be created on Park Street and paid for out of redevelopment bonds; further stated Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 18, 2000 a new branch will be needed at Alameda Point; to build trust with taxpayers and voters, cash should be conserved by restoring the Carnegie; Measure C [1996 Library Measure] failed to receive a simple majority. Vice Mayor Daysog stated rehabilitation is as, if not more, expensive than new construction; East Housing is an example where rehabilitation costs would have been tremendous. Stephanie Young and Gina Rodriguez, HOME Project, high school Students, spoke in favor of the Library Bond Measure. Jacque Herman, HOME Project, High School student, spoke in favor of placing the library bond measure on the November ballot; stated location is not important. Lena Tam, President, Alameda League of Women Voters, stated the League is committed to the advocacy of the local bond measure; the League only takes positions after thorough study; the cost of the bond is the same, regardless of location; therefore, it is premature to debate the matter [location] until funding is approved; voters appreciate ballot measures focused on one issue; voter apathy increases as the number of measures increases. Dorothy Fullerton, American Association of University Women, noted the importance of libraries to education; stated Alameda deserves a first -class library; urged unanimous support. Christopher Buckley, Alameda, urged the Council to support placing the bond measure on the ballot; stated there should be a public vote on site selection; the vote could be advisory and non - binding, with Council making the final decision; suggested the Bond Measure go on the November ballot, site selection analysis be completed, and an advisory vote be placed on the March [2001] ballot. Karen Butter, Library Board, stated the Library Board supports language which is location neutral; the Library Board unanimously adopted a Resolution recommending a community process to determine the main library site; the State library estimates local communities will not be allowed to apply for funding for one year; during said time the community can be engaged regarding site selection; urged a companion measure [selecting library site] not be placed on the ballot. Honora Murphy, Friends of the Alameda Free Library, stated the Friends of the Alameda Free Library was organized 28 years ago with the intent to raise funds for library services in the City of Alameda; the organization focuses on what would provide the best Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 July 18, 2000 services for the community and is not interested in location; need for library services has increased and will continue to do so. Jennie Wong, Alameda, stated Alameda is a diverse community; all of the diverse groups need improved library services; urged Council to support the bond measure; stated location can be determined later; library services should be considered a basic requirement for a civilized city along with police and fire protection, clean water, and a sewer system. John Abrate, President, Alameda Free Library Foundation, stated the Library Foundation was created 18 months ago to review high -end fundraising, e.g., grants; the organization cannot come up with $10.6 Million; urged Council to unanimously vote for final passage; stated the Foundation is not site specific, rather it examines the entire library system. Carl Halpern, Secretary, Library 2000, stated Library 2000 is committed to a modern library system with adequate services for children, seniors and schools; the library should make technology available to all Alameda citizens; the Carnegie library structure should be preserved as the heritage of Alameda; $10.6 Million will provide for a state -of- the -art main library and improvements at the Bay Farm Island and the West End Branches; Library 2000 is not committed to any site; urged the Council to pass the Ordinance placing the bond measure on the ballot and reject any proposal to put a site selection measure on the November ballot. Charles Ward, Alameda, stated bond funding will not put heavy taxation on property owners or sales tax; the location issue should be addressed after funding is received. Robbie Dileo, Alameda, stated site selection clouds the issue; combining two issues is not a good way to get [voter] approval; the site should not be selected by the voters; if there is an advisory vote, it should be after the City receives the bond money; Alameda preserves its historical structures. Michael Torrey, Alameda, stated action should be taken to ensure that the public will be included in library design and site selection; suggested workshops be held. Arnold Fong, Organization of Alameda Asians, stated the Organization supported Proposition 14 and supports the local bond measure; libraries are often the only means to level the playing field for immigrants. Frank Matarrese, Library 2000, stated there is a lot of enthusiasm Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 July 18, 2000 for the bond measure; there is a great need and an opportunity to receive two dollars for every dollar the City spends; details can be worked out once the money is received; urged Council to unanimously place the measure on the ballot. Councilmember Johnson moved final passage of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated the location of the main library has been a long and contentious battle, which has gone on for over 30 years; the matter should be settled; four years ago, a new library at the LinOaks site was voted down by a large margin; a companion measure is needed on the November ballot to allow the people of Alameda to choose [library location]; staff has recommended an aggressive and extensive community engagement to get the widest possible input; there is no wider input than a vote of the people; small groups, in venues of limited size, with only invited guests does not provide the widest possible input; out -of- town consultants would not provide the widest possible input; a vote of the people would provide the widest possible input; the main reason provided for not allowing the voters to select location was because staff wrote a memo to Council indicating they do not want it; the City Attorney has ruled the powers given to the Library Board do not extend to Capital Improvements; the Council is free to override the Library Board; it is a myth that the City will not have to make a decision [regarding location] until it receives money from the State; Proposition 14 has two distinct categories for applications: 1) entirely new construction, and 2) rehabilitation and expansion of existing facilities; the decision on site must be made prior to submitting the funding application to the State; proponents for both sites voted for Proposition 14; voters who favor the Carnegie will not support the bond measure if they cannot have a voice in the location, and the same might be true for LinOaks supporters as well; there are two advantages to sending the decision to the people: 1) nobody will be able to tell the State there is a divided community; and 2) the election itself - -the two factions will both have something to campaign for; energy will go into site promotion, rather than defeating the bond measure. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Councilmember Kerr was proposing to have people choose between the LinOaks and the Carnegie. Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative; stated all of the action has been around the LinOaks and the Carnegie; other sites have been brought up, however, the major emphasis has been the LinOaks and Carnegie sites; there are also a number of people who Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 July 18, 2000 want branches expanded and approved; her [site selection] proposal would not take money from branch expansion and would be limited strictly to the location of the main library. Vice Mayor Daysog stated choosing between new construction at the LinOaks and rehabilitating the Carnegie, does not seem to be a choice; there are logistical difficulties involved with rehabilitating and expanding the Carnegie; condemning church or private property adjacent to the Carnegie would cause great uproar; space would be lost in rehabilitation and modernization of the Carnegie; substantial rehabilitation and expansion of the Carnegie poses a danger to the historical integrity of the building; the responsible thing is to focus on funding; then, there can be a discussion of choices; however, the LinOaks is the best option; the City owns the land; the site is big enough for a new library and is located in the civic core; the whole notion of public choice [on location] blurs the issue. Councilmember Johnson stated the Carnegie Building has served the City adequately for the last 100 years; the Carnegie is a beautiful structure; the library system has not been adequate for decades; the biggest issue it not location, rather it is the City does not have a library system which is adequate for its citizens; focus should not be on location; there will be a thorough public input process on the location of the library; placing the matter on the ballot would limit the site to the LinOaks and the Carnegie; 720 of the voters supported the Statewide measure without knowing whether Alameda would receive funds. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he supports the proposal to seek funds prior to discussing the site. Mayor Appezzato stated site selection was not the issue the last time the measure failed [1996], it was no new taxes; the question is whether Alameda needs a new main library. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (00 -413) Ordinance No. 2841, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 3 -70.6 (Other Financing Powers of a Community Facilities District), 3 -70.8 (Transfer of Funds; Use of Money; Interest), 3- 70.14; (Definitions) and 3 -70.98 (Actions to Determine Validity of Bonds or Special Tax Levy), of Section 3 -70 (Special Tax Financing Improvement Code) Division I (General Provisions), Article IV (Special Tax Financing), of Chapter III, (Finance and Taxation)." Finally passed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 July 18, 2000 Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -414) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -64 (Leases of City Property to Telecommunications Companies) to Article V (Administrative Procedures and Policies) of Chapter II (Administration), Thereof, Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Leases of City Property with Telecommunications Companies for the Installation of Telecommunications Equipment on City Property. [Required four (4) affirmative votes.] FAILED. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated that the ordinance is a violation of Section 3 -10 of the City Charter which states: "all acts of the Council providing for the acquisition, transfer or lease for a period longer than one year, of real property, shall be by ordinance ... no real property of the City shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the Council "; the requirement for an ordinance and four affirmative votes reveals the scrutiny the voters want the Council to apply to disposition of City real estate; the ordinance would amend the Municipal Code, delegating powers to the City Manager, which are reserved to the City Council by the City Charter; such delegation would be legal only through voter approval of a Charter Amendment; stated the ordinance is illegal and urged the Council to vote against it; stated if Council approved the ordinance, he would file a lawsuit in Superior Court. Mayor Appezzato inquired if Council was on firm ground. Acting City Attorney Highsmith responded that given the threat of litigation, Council could defer the matter to another meeting or move forward tonight; the choice was up to the City Council; that she believed the City Attorney's Office reviewed the issue, and Council could move ahead this evening. Councilmember Johnson requested staff to give examples of the allowances which the proposed ordinance would provide. Acting City Manager Wonder responded that the matter before Council dealt with telecommunications equipment, including antennae and structures to house telecommunications; there were limitations; 200 square feet could not be exceeded; equipment must not have a significant visual impact on the community; there were limitations on what the City Manager could do. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 July 18, 2000 In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry concerning lease of property, Acting City Manager Wonder stated antenna installations would be on existing City property, as done previously. Mayor Appezzato stated that he was prepared to move forward. Councilmember Johnson moved approval [final passage of the ordinance]. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated the ordinance was not in the spirit of the City Charter. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he believed Mr. Grzanka brought up interesting points; he would like to review the matter and would abstain. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (00 -415) Richard Neveln, Alameda, announced that it was Space Week; stated everyone should visit the Aircraft Carrier USS Hornet, now a Museum in Alameda, to view Apollo artifacts. (00 -416) Alan Belliston, Alameda, objected to the Annual Park Street Pub Crawl event; stated during the event bars encouraged people to go bar to bar to drink; that he became aware of the event when his new car was wrecked by an uninsured drunk driver; questioned who would take responsibility for the $3,800 repair bill; stated the City should prohibit the event; bar owners should be held responsible for damages caused by the event, including his car. Mayor Appezzato stated the City does not condone drunkenness, drunk drivers or rude and offensive conduct; Mr. Belliston's comments would be shared with the Park Street Business Association; bar owners were not allowed to serve drunks and could be sued. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (00 -417) Written Communication from the League of California Cities and Designation of Voting Delegate for League's Annual Conference. Councilmember Kerr was appointed voting delegate and Mayor Appezzato Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 July 18, 2000 alternate delegate. (00 -418) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (2) for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Mayor Appezzato nominated incumbents Neil Coe and Lee Stuart Darrow for reappointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. (00 -419) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. Mayor Appezzato nominated incumbent Michael Gwynn for reappointment and Jim Franz for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. (00 -420) Councilmember Kerr stated a number of Park Street merchants were disappointed in the frequency of skate boarders on Park Street, and requested a staff report on enforcement measures. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 July 18, 2000