Loading...
1996-05-21 MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY 21, 1996 The meeting convened at 6:50 p.m. with President Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas, Vice Mayor Mannix and President Appezzato 5. ABSENT: None. Adjourned to Closed Session to consider: 3-A. (96-269) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9. Number of Cases: 1 3-B. (96-270) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency Negotiator: Personnel birector and Austris Rungis Employee Organization(s): International Association of Firefighters, Local #689 - IAFF 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session: Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting reconvened and President Appezzato announced that Council gave instructions to Legal Counsel and City negotiators. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MAY 21, 1996 The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m., with Mayor Appezzato presiding. Councilman Arnerich led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas, Mannix and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY None CONSENT CALENDAR President Appezzato stated that the following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4-B (96-276) [Resolution regarding Alameda Stand for Children Day]; and 4-F (96-277) [Resolution regarding Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2]. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. 4-A. (*96-271) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of May 7, 1996. Approved. 4-B. See Paragraph (96-276) 4-C. (*96-272) Report from City Clerk recommending authorization to call for bids for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 1996-97. Accepted. 4-D. (*96-273) Report and Recommendation from Finance Director to set Hearing for June 18, 1996, for Establishment of Prop 4 limit for 1996-1997. Accepted. 4-E. (*96-274) Resolution No. 12766 " Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 1996-97 and setting Public Hearing for June 4, 1996." Adopted. 4-F. See Paragraph No. (96-277) Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 44,4 4 P,t0 4-G. (*96-275) Bills in the amount of $2,844,648.04 for ratification. Ratified. 4-B. (*96-276) Resolution No.12767 "Designating June 1, 1996 Alameda Stand for Children Day." Adopted. President Appezzato read the Resolution. Joanne McKray, Alameda Democratic Club, stated that a commitment to Alameda's youth should be encouraged. Barbara Kahn, Alameda, reported that she would be visiting Washington, D.C. on June 1, 1996, with 3 students from Chipman School; she announced that contributions for the trip could be made through the Xanthos organization; and she stated that the community should provide support to its children. Robert Glotch, Director, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, stated that all children are at risk; United Way will not be contributing any longer to the organization; and Alameda Stand for Children Day is an attempt to bring the needs of children to the forefront. Christine Allen, Alameda, discussed the Encinal High School Band Review Event, and the lack of community participation in the planning process. Elsa Bogosian, Alameda, stated her support for the Resolution. Jon Schiller, Xanthos, Inc., Alameda, discussed United Way de- funding, and urged Alameda to commit itself to its children. President Appezzato suggested an annual fund raising drive, and pledged his support. Councilmember Lucas requested a report from Community Development on whether funds were available for children. Councilmember DeWitt pledged his support for, and help with, the Encinal High School Band Review event next year. President Appezzato stated that he had requested staff to contact community businesses regarding vacancies and job opportunities for the youth during the summer; and he thanked Councilmember DeWitt for the suggestion. Councilman Arnerich moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 2 4-F. (96-277) Resolution No. 12768 "Resolution Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of July 16, 1996 Hearing Thereof - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84- 2." Adopted. Earl Peacock, Alameda, requested Council to hold the matter over until the City Attorney determines whether it is legal to spend the monies for other than what it is collected for. The City Manager suggested that City Council adopt the Resolution setting the hearing date, and direct the City Attorney to review Mr. Peacock's comments and report back at the July 16th Council Meeting. Councilman Arnerich moved adoption of the Resolution, and direction to the City Attorney to review Mr. Peacock's comments and report back on July 16th. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-E. (96-278) President Appezzato announced that the agenda item regarding AB 2203 and AB 2346 would be taken out of order at this time. Written Communication from Nancy J. Nadel, East Bay Municipal Utility District Director, Ward 5, recommending opposition to AB 2203 and AB 2346. (Mayor Appezzato) Nancy Nadel, Director, East Bay Municipal Utility District, explained the recommendation to oppose Assembly Bills 2203 [limits the District's ability to set tiered water rates] and 2346 [facilitates cutting District into two or three water districts], and urged Council to send a clear message to the legislators. Don Roberts, Alameda, urged Council to support Nancy Nadel's position. Councilman Arnerich moved that Council endorse Director Nadel's position. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 3 5 -A. (96 -279) Report from the Sub - Committee on defining proclamations. (Vice Mayor Mannix and Councilmember DeWitt) Resolution No. 12769 "Establishing Council Policy on Proclamations ". (Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, and Vice Mayor Mannix - 3. Noes: Councilmember Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 2) Morton Wellhaven, Alameda, stated that he supports leaving the power to issue proclamations with the Mayor. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that the City Charter does not grant the Mayor the authority to issue proclamations; the authority should be placed in an ordinance; and he supported Option No. 2. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, urged the Council to not change the procedure. Allan Shore, Alameda, stated that the City Council should designate the difference between Mayoral proclamations and City proclamations. Robb Alongi, Alameda, Out On The Island Member, stated that the City Council should consider the recent Court decision that it is not okay to discriminate against any individual based on one single identifiable characteristic. Christine Alien, Alameda, stated that she was concerned with the timing of the proposed change in procedure; and she supported retaining the current procedures as it stands. President Appezzato stated that the City Charter designates the Mayor as the ceremonial head of the City; there are no procedures set in the Charter, or by ordinance, for proclamations; historically, the Mayor issues proclamations; he supports the process that the citizens have come to recognize; and in an attempt to bring the issue to closure, he intends to issue a proclamation in June recognizing the Gay and Lesbian community in Alameda. Vice Mayor Mannix stated that there was no attempt to subvert the authority of the Mayor; the City Council Sub- Committee was established to respond to the concerns expressed in the community regarding the issuance of City proclamations; he believes the Sub - Committee's final recommendation leaves a certain measure of authority in the Mayor's Office to issue proclamations, and places onerous proclamations that become issues on the City Council- - individuals answerable to the electorate. Vice Mayor Mannix reviewed the options under consideration: 1. Continue the process as is with proclamations issued by the .Mayor in the name. of the City; by individual Councilmembers in their name; or by the Council majority in the name of the City; 2. Break proclamations into two Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 4 separate types as follows (in this scenario, city proclamation should be objectively evaluated on the basis of acts or services which articulate some tangible act or service for the community, state, or nation): a. Mayoral Proclamations - issued in the Mayor's name and at his/her discretion and dealing with routine ceremonial and protocol type issues; and b. City proclamations - issued by the Council at the specific request of groups or individuals and dealing with the less routine issues which address areas of political, moral, religious, or sociological questions; 3. Issue proclamations under the same formula as currently exists but require that they reflect objective standards of tangible service to the community, state, or nation; and 4. Have proclamations issued only by the full Council upon a majority vote. Vice Mayor Mannix further stated that the Sub-Committee recommends a standard for issuing proclamations, in order to enhance the significance of the proclamation event; options 2 and 3 fit the criteria; and preference appeared to be option 2. Councilman Arnerich stated that he would not support a proclamation contrary to his beliefs. Councilmember DeWitt thanked the Mayor for his statement indicating that he [Mayor] was willing to continue to issue proclamations, and had decided to issue a proclamation on behalf of the Gay Pride Month in the month of June; he stated that he was in favor of the Council adopting a Resolution appointing the Mayor as the individual who has the authority to issue proclamations; it was a right that has been exercised down through the years; he desired a Resolution because during the past year a Board issued a proclamation, and he preferred the authority remain with the Mayor as the ceremonial head of the City, individual Councilmembers are not authorized to issue proclamations in the City of Alameda; he would like the Mayor to be designated as the individual who issues proclamations; the second item that he strongly supports is the concept of two types of proclamations; the first type would deal with administrative matters and issued, as in the past, with regards to the many events in the City; the second type of proclamation would be issued in the name of the City and voted on by the full Council; proclamations dealing only with moral or religious issues should be defined by staff, e.g. legal staff or staff that writes resolutions and/or policies; the basic qualifications, or the type of resolution needs to be worked out; and the Mayor should be established as the individual who issues proclamations, and two types of proclamations established. Councilmember Lucas stated that she could support Option 1; the Mayor issues proclamations in the name of the City and is the ceremonial head of the City; Council should be able to continue to pass proclamations with a majority vote; Councilmembers and Boards should be able to write a group or individual acknowledging merits Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 5 of service in the community; and she will support Option 1. Mayor Appezzato stated that he would support Option 1 which is the status quo. Councilmember DeWitt moved the establishment of a resolution defining the Mayor as the authority to issue proclamations. Under discussion, President Appezzato stated that authority was included in Option 1. Councilmember DeWitt responded that Option 1 included the intent to exclude Boards and individual Councilmembers. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion. Under discussion, and in response to President Appezzato, the City Attorney stated that there were three categories of proclamations: 1) proclamations issued by the Mayor, as provided for in the City Charter since 1937; 2) proclamations issued by the City Council, e.g. someone requests a proclamation and the Mayor declines; and 3) proclamations issued by individual Councilmembers. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether the Social Service Human Relations Board could still recognize a meritorious group in the community. The City Attorney responded that it depended upon how Councilmember DeWitt defined proclamation. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether restricting groups, boards, and Councilmembers from speaking publicly in recognition of a City group, would be a violation of the Freedom of Speech Act and the mission of a board or Councilmember. The City Attorney responded that Council could establish rules for issuance of proclamations on behalf of the City, that freedom of speech could not be restricted; and Council could prescribe rules and regulations upon which the City, as a governmental entity, spoke. Councilmember Lucas stated that she would take serious exception to that interpretation. Councilmember DeWitt stated that if an individual wanted to recognize a group, there were options besides a proclamation; Council was attempting to establish proclamations as a certain type of recognition; and he inquired whether preventing someone from issuing a proclamation was, in fact, violating their right of free speech. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1 496 6 7 The City Attorney responded that it would depend upon how proclamation is defined; in the traditional sense, proclamations are issued by a governmental entity in recognition of some type of person or event; Council has the authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations; and an individual has a right to recognize any entity that he /she desires. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether it was within the authority of the Council to set policy that does not violate the Constitution of the United States when it comes to using the word proclamation and issuing a proclamation. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Mannix stated that it should be clear that letters of recognition from boards and commissions would not be impacted; the word proclamation has probably taken on a strong meaning as reflecting something that articulates the representatives of all the people speaking for the people; and boards and commissions are not accountable to the electorate, as is the Council. Councilmember Lucas stated that she disagreed; Social Service Human Relations Board issued a proclamation on behalf of the Board; and Councilmember DeWitt wanted to deny the Board that authority. Councilman Arnerich stated that most boards and commissions recognize achievements by letter. Councilmember DeWitt stated that Option 1 provided for establishing a resolution defining the Mayor as the authority to issue proclamations, and eliminates the authority of boards to issue proclamations. President Appezzato stated that he did not believe the motion was necessary, and he would not support it. On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember DeWitt and Vice Mayor Mannix -2. Noes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Councilman Arnerich stated that the motion was not against the City Charter; the Charter states that the Mayor may designate a proclamation; that a Councilmember may request the Mayor to declare a proclamation and should the Mayor decline, and upon getting the votes of two other Councilmembers, a proclamation can be provided, superseding Mayor's authority; and that an individual Councilmember may recognize a group should he /she not get support. Councilmember DeWitt moved that policy be written which proclaims two types of proclamations - -the Mayoral proclamation and a City Council proclamation -- issued along the lines as discussed. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 7 41 0 Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion. President Appezzato stated that he would oppose the motion, and stay with the status quo. On the call for the question, the motion CARRIED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, and Vice Mayor Mannix -3. Noes: Councilmember Lucas and President Appezzato - 2. Councilmember DeWitt stated to preclude future discussion and controversy, he would move that City-type proclamations have guidelines and standards, and that the standards be based upon accomplishment or contributions made by the organizations requesting the proclamations. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion. Under discussion, President Appezzato stated that he would oppose that motion also. Councilmember DeWitt restated his motion that proclamations issued by the City Council have standard(s) based upon achievement or accomplishment. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Lucas stated that Councilmembers are elected; that a Council majority wants to restrict what Council can do and vote on; she is suspicious of the motives; and she will find issues that will defeat the majority vote. Vice Mayor Mannix stated that Councilmember DeWitt was attempting to give opportunity to vote as individual members of the Council, and that his [DeWitt] effort was not an attempt to limit the vote of individual Councilmembers. Councilman Arnerich stated that he wanted the opportunity to voice an opinion on proclamations, although he agreed with Councilmember Lucas that no one should be suppressed from going to Council for a proclamation. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he was not trying to limit Council's vote; he would not want to violate anyone's constitutional rights; and there should be standards and types of contributions established for proclamations. President Appezzato called a recess at 8:58 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 9:09 p.m. President Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember DeWitt would maintain status quo until legal ramifications were determined. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1946 8 Councilmember DeWitt responded that based upon advice from the City Attorney, he would like the matter further studied; and he would withdraw his motion to establish standards for City-type proclamations. Vice Mayor Mannix withdrew his second. Councilmember DeWitt stated that Council did vote to establish two types of proclamations, and he hoped that was clear. President Appezzato questioned whether the Mayor still had the authority and responsibility as designated by the Charter. Councilmember DeWitt responded in the affirmative; and he stated that the only new item was the establishment of a policy for City proclamations. President Appezzato inquired whether it could be brought back in writing. Following Council and staff discussion on Council action, President Appezzato inquired whether anyone in the majority wanted to reconsider the motion. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether the Mayor would issue a proclamation on behalf of the City. The City Attorney stated that the Mayor represented the City; and mayoral proclamations dealt with routine-, ceremonial-, and protocol-type issues. President Appezzato inquired whether the Mayor's ability to issue proclamations would be hindered by the process tonight. The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember DeWitt's intent was to restrict that process, to which Councilmember DeWitt responded it was not. Vice Mayor Mannix stated that Council voted Mayoral proclamations would be issued in the Mayor's name. Councilman Arnerich stated that, in some instances, proclamations could be construed as endorsed by the entire Council, e.g. Gay Pride Month; and he suggested that Councilmembers who support such proclamations sign them. President Appezzato inquired whether the Mayor can continue to issue proclamations in his/her name, as has been done since 1937, to which Councilmember DeWitt responded with exception of certain proclamations in the name of the entire City. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1995 9 Jj In response to President Appezzato, Councilmember DeWitt stated that his motion was for two types of proclamations: those voted on by the Council and those not voted on by the Council. Councilmember Lucas stated that it was an attempt to limit the Mayor to routine proclamations only. Councilman Arnerich stated that the Mayor should canvass Councilmembers on their positions regarding Gay Pride Month, and on any other issues that effect morals and standards. President Appezzato stated that he intends to issue proclamations in the name of the Mayor, as the ceremonial head of the City based on historical precedence. 5-B. (96-280) Report from Assistant City Manager on options for the Linoaks Motel and the Carnegie Library and cost estimates to bring the Carnegie up to URN standards, including some interior work. William M. McCall Sr., former Alameda Mayor, stated that the acrimony should stop; City should sell the Linoaks Motel, rehabilitate the Carnegie as a library, and add an addition to the Carnegie when enough money is in the bank; that smaller grants should be applied for; and questioned whether the City had approached foundations. Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that she supported selling the Linoaks Motel, and the option of using College of Alameda's Library during the interim. David Plummer, Alameda, noted that Randolph Langenbach provided a rendering for the expansion and rehabilitation of the Carnegie building on City-owned land at the January 11, 1989 meeting; and he [Plummer] supported the College of Alameda option during the interim, and the Carnegie Main Library remaining as the permanent Main Library. Honora Murphy, President, Friends of the Library, stated that City Council should pursue funding for retrofit purposes and move slowly on deciding anything else, and also not conclude that defeat of a ballot measure will keep Friends of the Library from speaking again. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he supported the College of Alameda proposal; and expanding library hours at the West End and Bay Farm Island branches, if College of Alameda is not available. Councilmember Lucas stated that she agreed with Mr. McCall's comments; [March '96] voters gave two mandates: City save money and that voters do not like the Linoaks; Carnegie Main Library is the least expensive option; one possibility is to sell the Linoaks to Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 10 the Housing Authority for senior housing; and she questioned when a reply from the State was expected on grant funding. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated that grant application was being reviewed, and an answer expected in the near future. President Appezzato stated that he believed the voters' mandate was no more taxes. Councilman Arnerich stated that there should be a definitive time line for the State funding. The City Manager suggested that Council make a decision absent any State funding. Vice Mayor Mannix stated that the voters' mandate was on the financing vehicle; and he moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt stated that the City should be considering library services during the two- or three-year period; and he inquired whether the Children's Library required retrofit work. The City Manager responded that the Children's Library needed reinforcement. In response to Councilmember DeWitt, the Assistant City Manager stated that the College of Alameda approached the City after the March election; and indicated a willingness to allow the City to use the facilities for student services, while the Carnegie building was being retrofitted. Councilmember DeWitt stated that the City Manager should determine whether it is financially possible for the City to use the old Post Office building temporarily. In response to President Appezzato, the City Manager stated that $959,437 came from the Library Construction Fund and may be used for construction of the Library; $105,211 came from the Community Facilities District and was designated for library construction; an additional $1.8 million dollars came from the Urban Development Action Grant Program as a loan, and may, or may not, be used-- depending upon whether Council makes findings that 1) the use of funds for the library would be for economic development purposes, and 2) the use of the proceeds from the Linoaks had been toward economic development in the business districts, both Park Street and Webster Street. Regular Me-rin, City Council May 21, 1996 11 President Appezzato stated that the Housing Authority should continue working on the cost for using the Linoaks as a senior center; there are many options to be explored; the Linoaks should be retained until the Civic Center Plan is completed; Council needs more information, e.g. offers on Linoaks; vacant sites should not be considered; both the sale of the Linoaks and that site used as a parking lot should be explored; and College of Alameda, the old Post Office building, and Veterans' Building be explored as possible sites for a library during the interim period. President Appezzato further stated that he would support the motion, if his comments are included. Councilmember Lucas stated that library experts should advise staff on how much service the two library branches [Bay Farm Island and West End] could provide, e.g. expanded hours. Vice Mayor Mannix stated that, by implication, the Council has stated that staff should continue to research options and provide the best possible options to Council to make a decision. Councilman Arnerich stated that a time frame of 90 days should be included in the motion. Vice Mayor Mannix agreed to amend his motion accordingly. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 5-C. (96-281) Report from Planning Director on the Planning Board's recommendation to City Council regarding the Proposed Initiative from Alamedans for a Better City (ABC). Eve Roberson, Alameda, stated that she has been involved with the issue of infill housing for the past couple of years; and the following two items would relieve some of the infill problems: 1) in all new construction in residential zones, R-1 through R-4, open space should be at least 600 square feet per dwelling unit, with no exceptions allowed for any substitutions by the construction of the hugh balconies that have characterized the infill projects around town, and 2) parking should meet existing codes, with no exceptions for grandfathering in or in-lieu parking. President Appezzato stated that the reason for Measure A was to stop the destruction of Victorians and the propensity to have rental units; and that infill housing has not been the major cause for the dilemmas. In response to Councilman Arnerich, Eve Roberson stated that the six Planning Board recommendations are good. Vice Mayor Mannix moved the recommendation and that Eve Roberson's Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 12 two recommendations regarding open space and parking requirements, be sent to the Planning Board for review. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion. Under discussion, President Appezzato stated that he was opposed to any ballot measure that would amend Measure A; he agreed with the Planning Board that provisions of the initiative not be incorporated into the Municipal Code; that the Planning Board hear all new infill housing requests; and that there be expanded public notification. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 5-D. (96-282) Written Communication from Barbara Kerr, Alameda, recommending that certain requirements be added to the Contract between the Alameda Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity concerning property located at 1109 Buena Vista. (Councilmember Lucas) Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that the issues addressed in her communication should be given consideration, and the Contract with Habitat for Humanity should be reviewed by the Housing Authority should Council not wish to review it this evening. Mr. Waller, Habitat Board Member, and Project Manager for 1109 Buena Vista Avenue Project, stated that Habitat relies on community support; Barbara Kerr's issues are good ones for discussion; and he explained the project and loan repayment. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry, Mr. Waller stated that homeowners are provided training in landscaping and maintenance. Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the recommendation and correspondence. [Failed for lack of a second.] Councilmember Lucas inquired whether the matter could be considered by the Housing Authority also. The City Manager responded that design review issues would go to the Planning Board, and legal issues could be addressed at that level also. Vice Mayor Mannix moved that Council accept the correspondence and defer the public hearing to the Planning Board. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion.. Rcgular '4er-zing, City Council May 21, 199t5 13 Under discussion, President Appezzato stated that he was concerned about this matter coming to Council before going to the Planning Board. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Lucas moved that the City Attorney respond to whether Ms. Kerr's proposed contract amendments are feasible. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 5-F. (96-283) Final Passage of Ordinance No 2724,N.S. "Authorizing Execution of Lease Between the Alameda Police Department (Lessor) and Cellular One (Lessee) for Cell Site Lease. (Requires four affirmative votes)". Finally Adopted. Vice Mayor Mannix moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -5. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) 6-A. (96-284) Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, discussed home ownership issues. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) 7-A. (96-285) President Appezzato stated that he would requesting staff to bring an ordinance on banning the sale of Saturday Night Specials to the City Council. 7-B. (96-286) President Appezzato requested staff to provide the following information: the number of tidelands leases, revenue per lease, summary of leasehold improvements, termination dates, renewal clauses, lessees, terms, and standard for determining fair market value. 7-C. (96-287) Councilmember Lucas stated that Planning was working on amendments to the Sign Ordinance--signs to accommodate County- wide bus shelter advertising; the City fought to get rid of billboards; and staff should be alert and thoughtful of the off- site advertising problem. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 14 8. ADJOURNMENT 8-A. (96-288) Mayor Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. *** R- pectfully submit d, taA'd DT E B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting, City Council May 21, 1996 15