1990-04-03 Regular CC Minutes103
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF- ALAMEDA
APRIL 3, 1990
The meeting convened at 7:40 p.m. (following the Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners Meeting) with President Corica presiding.
Councilmember Withrow led the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend Doug
Henderson gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, .Thomas,
Withrow, and President Corica - 5.
Absent: None.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S), if any.
90 -222 President Corica announced that Council adjourned to Closed
Session before the Regular Meeting to consider the case of Colvin
v. City of Alameda pursuant to subsection (a) of the legal counsel
section of the Brown Act, and no action was taken.
CONSENT CALENDAR
At the request of Councilmember Thomas, Agenda Items No. 1 -F
(90 -233), resolution of appreciation to City Volunteers, and No.
1 -K (90 -244) Bills, were removed from the Consent Calendar to the
regular Agenda. Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilman Arnerich seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*90 -223 From Public Works Director recommending an 18 -month
extension of time in which to complete the improvements for Tract
5603 (Otis Drive and Willow Street). Accepted.
*90 -224 From Acting Planning Director regarding funding application
to the California Energy Commission for the preparation of a new
Energy Element. Accepted.
*90 -225 From Community Development Director regarding Alameda
County Economic Development Program. Accepted.
*90 -226 From Executive Director, Housing Authority, concerning
Amendment to Public Housing Security Memorandum of Understanding.
Accepted.
*90 -227 From Executive Director, Housing Authority, concerning
Waiver of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for Fiscal Year
1990 -1991. Accepted.
April 3, 1990
RESOLUTIONS
*90-228 Resolution No. 11943 "Ordering the Vacation- of certain
right-of-way within Lot 2, Parcel Map No. 4949. (Alameda Marina
Village at Atlantic Avenue.)" Adopted.
*90-229 Resolution No. 11944 "Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District 84-2." Adopted.
*90-230 Resolution No. 11945 "Authorizing the submittal of a loan
application, the execution of a Standard Agreement and any
amendments thereto, and any related documents necessary to
participate in the California Natural Disaster Assistance Program
and secure a commitment of funds from the California Department of
Housing and Community Development." Adopted.
*90-231 Resolution No. 11946 "Authorizing open market purchase of
an optical archive scanning system." Adopted.
MINUTES
Councilman Arnerich moved approval of the minutes of the Regular
Council Meeting of March 20, 1990, and Special Council Meeting of
March 20, 1990. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
90-232 Proclamation declaring April, 1990, as Fair Housing Month.
President Corica read the proclamation and presented same to Archie
Webber, Executive Director, and Melissa Michaels, Assistant
Director, of Sentinel Landlord/Tenant Assistance Project.
Councilmember Thomas moved Agenda Item No. 1-F (90-233) be taken
out of order. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-233 Resolution No. 11947 "Resolution of appreciation to
Volunteers for the City of Alameda." Adopted.
At Councilmember Thomas's request, the Personnel Director described
the Volunteer Program and expressed the value of, and the work
performed by, volunteers on behalf of the City.
Councilmember Thomas moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote vote - 5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
90-234 From John Barni, Jr., 875 Island Drive, suggesting the
establishment of a qualifications list and general exam for future
April 3, 1990
107
Planning Board applicants.
John Barni, Sr., 1380 East Shore Drive, stated he believes the
Planning Board rules should be revised to allow a simple majority
to pass an item, because if only three or four board members are
present, matters must often be held over.
President Corica commented he has a problem with the proposal to
have a list of qualifications and general examination of all
applicants as it would be more like hiring staff than persons who
represent the people; the City has very good boards and
commissions, members are volunteers who attend as often as
possible; a test is not necessary to find how dedicated a person
will be; and a primary qualification is a desire to serve.
Councilmember Withrow agreed with President Corica regarding
attendance and testing; stated he believes there should be some
expertise; it would seem appropriate to require the Planning Board
to have one architect and one landscape architect; and believes
the thrust of Mr. Barni's letter is important.
Councilmember Withrow proposed Council advertise for Planning Board
applicants; applicants should go through a public hearing before
Council, make a statement on their experience, expertise,
interests, aptitude, and why they want to be on the Planning Board,
and then make themselves available to questions by Council; and so
moved. The motion failed for lack of a second.
President Corica stated many applicants will not want to appear at
a public hearing before Council for consideration of appointment to
the Board.
Councilman Arnerich stated there should be some persons with
expertise on the Planning Board; several City boards and
commissions have such requirements; perhaps there should be one
architect and one landscape architect on the Board, and Board
members can attend seminars and training courses.
President Corica stated it would be necessary to amend the
ordinance which addresses the Planning Board [to require specific
backgrounds].
Councilman Arnerich moved staff pursue changes in the ordinance to
require an architect and a landscape architect on the Planning
Board. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion.
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not see the need for a precise
requirement that there be either an architect or a landscape
architect but agrees that there should be someone with subject
matter expertise, e.g., a Transportation Planner; she does not
want the City to be in the position of not being able -to find a
landscape architect to serve on the Board, and does not believe a
hearing is necessary.
Councilmember Camicia stated he believes the best part of
participating in local government is that anyone can do it;
April 3, 1990
108
reserving openings for persons with specific expertise limits
people who really want to serve; Council should choose the best
person regardless of whether the person's background is in
architecture or not.
The vote on the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich and Withrow - 2. Noes: Councilmembers
Camicia, Thomas, and President Corica - 3. Absent: None.
Councilmember Thomas moved acceptance of the communication.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia,
Thomas and President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember Withrow - 1.
Absent: None.
Councilmember Thomas moved Agenda Item No. 5 (90-235) report
concerning the Gang Task Force, be taken out of order.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-235 From City Manager submitting status report concerning the
activities of the Gang Task Force. (Continued from the March 20,
1990 Council Meeting)
Regina Tillman, 435 Buena Vista, No. 115, stated the youth of
Alameda are not as bad as in other cities and rather than label
them as problems, provide programs, giving them something to do
during the summer.
President Corica stated Council is proud of its youth; they are
part of the family.
Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista, # 105, stated that Recreation
and Parks Department indicated the activity was to be for all
youth, she now reads it is to deter gang activities, and she
believes if activity is to be provided, it should be because it is
needed, not to label youth as being in need because of gang
activity.
Linda Green, 1871 Chapin Street, Buena Vista Community Association,
stated most trouble attributed to gang action is not coming from
Alameda children; persons present are concerned their children are
being labeled, and requested Council give youth positive things to
do without labeling.
President Corica stated Council is not labeling the youth, perhaps
newspapers have contained statements, and Council is aware that
persons are coming into Alameda and causing disruption.
Larry Smith, an Alameda youth, stated young people are the
resources of the community, and need activities, e.g., studios with
video cams, weight lifting, etc.
Clayton Guyton, 457 Buena Vista, No. 302, stated perhaps it
April 3, 1990
109
[labeling of youths] is due to the newspaper because there is an
effort to provide activity for West End youth; parents are
concerned their children should not be labeled in any way, and
parents want the City to know there are a lot of good young people
in the community.
Darlissha Tillman, Buena Vista Community Association, 435 Buena
Vista, #115, stated she is a seventh grader, that the young people
need places to go, e.g., a recreation center in the summer, places
to study in the evening.
Arline Moten, 1868 Chapin Street, stated the speakers are -serious
about the youth; activities would be good for the youth; and a
positive image for the children needs to be provided.
Ashley Moten, 1868 Chapin Street, stated if Council can open places
for young people to go, it will make a difference.
President Corica expressed appreciation for the speakers' input;
commented Council should stress providing a boys' club, girls° club
or a center where youth can be off the streets, and he would like
staff to look into that possibility.
The City Manager responded that the intent of the report is to
provide pro-active methods and provide participatory activities for
youth throughout the City.
Councilman Arnerich stated if parks and playgrounds are closed,
more police are hired, more jails are built, etc., because there
are more problems; and the whole Council is committed to the
concept [of providing activities for youth].
Councilmember Camicia stated if anyone is offended by the name of
the task force, it is certainly not the intention and perhaps there
can be a more appropriate title for the future; and moved
acceptance of the report. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion
which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-236 From Charles Millman, 2916 Bayview Drive, concerning
five-percent preferential on City contract bidding for City of
Alameda licensed contractor.
Mr. Millman stated other cities have a preferential price; an
Alameda contractor in a recent bidding lost by about 1%; and he
believes it is time the City showed it is behind local businesses.
Pete Fox, Fox Developers, Inc., 1913A Broadway, stated he has lost
jobs on both sides of the Bay; two bids in Alameda, was second
bidder and lost through the five-percent, and lost jobs in San
Francisco, through the five-percent preferential.
President Corica stated bids awarded are generally the "lowest and
the best" bids; the "best" being determined by staff.
Councilmember Thomas stated she believes when the issue was brought
up several years ago, there was quantification of preference;
April 3, 1990
11 0
there are also findings to be made if the City doesn't go with a
local contractor; staff should review the matter, and if the
administrative instruction is not comparable to what -other cities
are giving in terms of preferences, return to Council with a new
one.
Councilman Arnerich commented on the distinction between Charter
Sections 3-16 and 3-17 and noted to make changes, a Charter
amendment by the vote of the people would be required [for Section
3-17].
President Corica stated all of Council would like the contracts bid
by Alamedans to go to Alamedans, but it is the responsibility of
staff to be sure the City has the best person to do the job.
Councilmember Thomas stated Section 3-17 of the Charter states that
preference can be given to contractors; if Council cannot give
preference within the context of the Charter, the Charter should be
changed.
President Corica concurred with Councilmember Thomas.
The City Manager clarified a 5% differential applies to Materials
and Supplies only, not to a contract for public work; Section 3-17
gives preference if the quality and price of the work [public works
contract] are equal; it appears the Charter would need to be
changed to authorize staff to award to someone for less on a public
works contract.
The City Attorney stated Council may direct staff to amend the
Alameda Municipal Code to provide five-percent to local residents
whether or not the bids for Materials and Supplies are equal.
Councilmember Camicia moved to amend [interpretation of] Section
3-16 for the supplies and materials [by amending the Alameda
Municipal Code] and to proceed to place Section 3-17 on the ballot.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion.
Councilmember Thomas stated she believes there should be a staff
report as to whether or not other cities give a five-percent
discount or credit, and how-the cities handle that.
Councilmember Camicia stated he would incorporate that into his
motion. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
HEARINGS
90-237 Consideration of Zoning Text Amendment, ZA-89-2, and a
Proposed Negative Declaration to add a Floor Area Ratio with a
Design Review component and associated definitions to the
residential zoning district bulk entitlement sections of_the Zoning
Ordinance, and to the maximum height allowed within the R-5 and R-6
Zoning Districts. Applicant: City of Alameda. (Continued from
the February 6, 1990 Council Meeting)
President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing.
April 3, 1990
111
The Acting Planning Director reviewed the background of the matter.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
Christopher Hanson, Alameda, stated if Council wishes to consider
the Amendment before them, people in the R-5 and R-6 Districts
should be notified of the City's intention.
Denise Rosko, 2701 Central Avenue, strongly endorses the idea of
design review, does not agree with proposed floor area ratio of the
ordinance; suggested perhaps an advisory committee could be
appointed to assist in updating design review guideline.
Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, urged Council vote
for design review alternative; and stated the proposed height
limit for the R-6 zone is reasonable but perhaps 40 ft height
should be considered.
Linda Pritchard, 3263 San Jose Avenue, Planning Board Member,
stated unless the City wants to be committed to design review,
Alternative No. 3 with both the floor area ratio and the design
review is probably the way to proceed.
Gerhard Degemann, 19 Sandpiper Place, favors a design review board
which he believes is important in Alameda, and a general contractor
is needed to provide balance.
Don Patterson, 2424 Central Avenue, Alameda Board of Realtors,
requested Council to accept public input but defer a decision to
the next hearing; the Board feels strongly about the issues'
impacts and would like more input from the residents.
Madelyn K. Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, stated the bulk floor area
ratio should be discarded, and the R-1 districts should be added to
the design review process.
President Corica noted he led the fight to abolish design review
[Board]; a large number of property owners were disappointed with
what they were told to do with their homes; he has no problem with
a staff person reviewing a-design; does not believe he will be in
favor of hiring more staff; need to handle matter so that a
Yorkshire-type problem does not occur again.
Councilman Arnerich stated he agrees with Mayor Corica regarding
design review; what is appreciated by one may not be by another;
he was disturbed with Design Review Board years ago telling persons
what to paint and what shrubs to plant; and suggested further
study, as there seems to still be confusion about the matter.
The City Manager noted Council could do as Mr. Patterson requested
and hold the matter over to the next meeting to give Mr. Patterson
an opportunity to advertise in the paper; another option would be
to refer the matter back to staff if Council wishes to see some
additional changes or information, close this hearing, and
reschedule for another hearing.
April 3, 1990
112
Councilmember Camicia [moved] suggested Council close the hearing
[public portion], allow citizens to submit written comments and
request staff return to Council with further information about how,
with existing staff, the design review function can be performed;
agreed with President Corica that adding another layer of
government is not a good idea.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion.
President Corica closed the public portion of the Hearing.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
90 -238 From Finance Director transmitting the 1988 -89 Audited
Financial Statement and Management Letter, and 1988 -89 Program
Performance Review.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, compared the length of the
present Audit to previous, briefer, Audits; emphasized Council
should be consulted when audit extensions are required, and
authorize same; noted the former Finance Director recommended
strict enforcement of the penalty clause for the remainder of the
Touche Ross contract.
Kevin Harper, City Auditor, commented when the audit firm he worked
for merged with City's audit firm, he immediately removed himself
from participation in the supervision of the audit; however he
believes the audit is the most thorough, and the best, audit the
City has had; past audits have met minimum requirements, but the
present one has added significant information, for use by citizens,
bondholders and underwriters, and is a step toward obtaining the
best bond ratings possible for the City.
Councilmember Camicia requested the City Auditor to comment on the
best and worse things the document reveals.
Mr. Harper stated the most crucial number (page 4) is the increase
in the fund balance of the General Fund for the year ending June
30, 1989; and one area to note is the special revenue fund on page
4: there is a decline in the fund balance of almost $14,000,000,
which is not by itself a specific danger sign but everyone should
understand what is being spent and whether or not there are
sufficient funds to meet the programs budgeted in that fund.
President Corica commented the $7500 still owed to the audit firm
should be held until the matter of late penalties is resolved.
The Finance Director stated an audit firm partner has .offered to
meet with Councilmembers to discuss any aspects of the audit
report.
The City Manager suggested perhaps it might be better to get input
from the auditing firm to further explain information, before a
April 3, 1990
decision is made concerning the liquidated damages.
Councilmember Camicia suggested accepting the audit and the letter
and request the Mayor meet with the audit firm and work out a
settlement.
Councilmember Camicia suggested Deloitte Touche perhaps could
pursue the law firm for not providing legal representation on a
timely basis; someone, preferably not the City, should have legal
recourse against them.
The City Manager suggested if he [the City Manager] or President
Corica could talk to the audit firm, information could then be
relayed back to the Council on the issues raised, provide some
additional information on all issues discussed on contributing
factors and what might be the best way to handle the matter.
Councilmember Thomas requested information on exact dates of audit
submissions, e.g., Bureau of Electricity, Housing Authority, etc.;
on what firm, under what contract, and under who's authorization,
the law firm was required to produce a legal representation letter;
on withholdings, such as FICA, if legal counsel is a contract
employee.
Councilmember Thomas stated she will abstain from the vote until
she receives the report.
Councilmember Camicia moved to accept recommendation No. 1, which
accepts the audited financial statement and the management letter,
and No. 2, that the Mayor and the City Manager work with Deloitte
Touche, and perhaps others, to resolve the issues.
Councilmember Withrow requested a modification to the motion that
staff be directed to withhold any future payments if there is a
disputed [penalty] fee, and do so until the matter is resolved.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow and President Corica - 4.
Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstentions: Councilmember Thomas -
1.
90 -239 From Finance Director recommending the release of Request
for Proposals for professional audit services.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, asked if there is a reason
for not having penalty clauses in the recommendation.
The City Manager stated the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the
audit is under the authority of the Auditor and not the City
Council.
President Corica stated a penalty clause can be added to a contract
later.
The City Attorney commented that she will include a liquidated
damages clause in a contract.
April 3, 1990
1.14
Councilman Arnerich clarified the inclusion in the contract would
be a $200 per day penalty clause.
Kevin Harper, City Auditor, stated he wanted Council to see the RFP
before releasing it; Deloitte and Touche has advised they will not
make a proposal because of his participation as the elected Auditor
of Alameda; the contract calls for a three-year period and a
three-year option contingent upon good performance and the ability
to negotiate a fair fee each year; believes it is detrimental to
have a penalty clause because an audit must be a team effort of
both City staff and outside auditor's staff, and if penalty clauses
are stated up front, both sides position themselves in case
something goes wrong, therefore he did not include penalties in the
proposal.
The City Auditor stated he has asked the City Attorney for an
opinion on whose jurisdiction the audit contract is under; the
audit RFP is under the jurisdiction of the City Auditor, the
contract is not clear yet.
President Corica stated if an audit firm should get a contract for
six years, there should be a sliding fee scale, downward, because
the audit firm would know the City better as each year passes.
The City Auditor commented that keeping the same audit firm for a
number of years saves the City money because it takes less staff
time when the audit firm has become familiar with the City.
Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation. Councilmember
Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
90-240 From Acting Planning Director regarding letter from Diane
Coler-Dark, with petitions signed by members of the Park Street
Business Association, requesting a moratorium to halt the
proliferation of restaurants in the Park Street business district
while the City examines concepts that would maintain a healthy
retail mix in this area.
Diane Coler-Dark, 2857 JaCkson Street, requested Council, if it
believes a moratorium is too harsh, to consider a compromise and
request staff to look into the matter, examining retail mix
concepts and ordinances, e.g., Berkeley Ordinance.
John Barni, Sr., 1380 East Shore Drive, disagreed with the previous
speaker; stated an owner of property should have the right to lease
his property to someone he believes is creditworthy.
Christopher Hanson, 543 Palace Court, stated Park Street suffers
from not having an anchor tenant, e.g., Macys, Bullocks; Park
Street restaurants provide clustering which has anchor-tenant
benefits because it draws pedestrian traffic to stores near the
restaurants; believes the concern might be the quality of the
restaurants; but the market handles poor quality.
April 3, 1990
115
President Corica agreed with Mr. Hanson and John Barni, stated Ms.
Coler-Dark is concerned for Park Street business, but he believes
rights cannot be taken away from people who want restaurants; and
if restaurants are not quality and do not make money, they will
close.
Councilmember Withrow stated he agrees wholeheartedly with
President Corica; does not believe Council is qualified to do
economic engineering; believes the market forces in place within
the City will determine the makeup of Park Street, opposes a
moratorium as he sees no advantages.
Councilmember Camicia stated the Berkeley ordinance could be
reviewed, agrees the moratorium is not appropriate at the moment,
but it does no harm to perhaps do a quick survey of Park Street
businesses and take a look at the Berkeley ordinance to see if
there are any benefits for Alameda.
Councilman Arnerich stated he shares President Corica's and Mr.
Barni's views that the marketplace always dictates what is going to
succeed or not succeed.
Councilmember Withrow moved to accept the report.
Councilmember Camicia requested, off agenda and at the convenience
of staff, a report on the Berkeley Ordinance.
Councilmember Thomas requested that the report also address what is
desired on Park Street.
Councilmember Withrow requested modification of direction to staff;
direction should include ideas to provide leadership from a
positive standpoint, to achieve what is desired.
Mayor Corica stated, for the record, that the majority of Council
was not in support of a moratorium.
Councilmember Camicia moved to accept the communication.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote.
90-241 From Recreation and Parks Director on status of potential
use plan for open field space at the College of Alameda.
President Corica noted the College of Alameda is willing to make
the land available; Amey Stone has been involved in the matter,
and there has been much cooperation from everyone involved.
Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation.
Councilman Arnerich stated he is very pleased with the -Recreation
and Parks Director's work on the potential use plan which includes
a full-sized baseball field with grandstand area and three soccer
fields; and noted there is ample parking in the area.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by
April 3, 1990
116
unanimous voice vote - 5.
RESOLUTIONS
90 -242 Resolution No. 11948 "Adopting Policy Statement for dental
benefits for City Councilmembers and various benefits for City
Auditor and City Treasurer." Adopted.
President Corica stated during the last meeting, there was some
doubt that Council could appropriately vote on the subject matter
of the resolution in question, but the matter has been discussed
with the City Attorney who has indicated there is no problem; this
is no different from medical benefits being received from the City
and he believes all of Council are receiving those benefits.
Following discussion on motions to reconsider, and the application
of Robert's Rules of Order, Councilmember Withrow moved adoption of
the resolution. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which
was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow and President Corica - 4. Noes: None.
Absent: None. Abstentions: Councilmember Thomas - 1.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
90 -243 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending Chapter
(Zoning) of the Alameda Municipal Code relating to
design review, maximum number of stories and height
coverage in residential districts." (Continued from
1990 Council Meeting) Held over. [See 90 -237]
I, Title XI
floor area,
and building
February 6,
BILLS
90 -244 Ratify.
Councilmember Thomas noted there were two checks listed for
non - departmental attorney fees at $23,000 each.
The City Attorney stated only one check was issued and returned to
her office.
The City Manager agreed there should be only one check, one may
have been cancelled and deleted; and he will check to be sure
there is no error.
Councilmember Camicia moved to ratify the Bills [a List of Claims
certified by the City Manager as correct, in the sum of
$2,452,617.72]. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was
carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow and President Corica - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS
90 -245 Mayor Corica requested the Public Works Director to
investigate emergency funding sources for deepening and widening of
the Bay Farm Island channel.
April 3, 1990
117
90-246 President Corica stated he would like to go back to
Washington, D.C. in the next two weeks to discuss the Naval base
closure matter. Following Council discussion regarding
Councilmember Withrow accompanying the Mayor, President Corica
requested staff to agendize approval of his travel expenditures at
the earliest possible time.
90-247 Councilmember Camicia criticized the Oakland International
Airport for being adverse to a new runway over the water, and
stated the City must fight the Airport on the issue.
90-248 Councilmember Thomas stated that she had not been informed
of the March 26th Special Council Meeting until March 27th; and
does not know what affect it could have on the Council action
taken. Mayor Corica stated in the future Special Council Meetings
should be scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
90-249 Gerhard Degemann, 19 Sandpiper Place, stated time extensions
should be granted to speakers if an item is important, such as the
Audit.
90-250 Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, inquired about the
construction taking place at the former Lucky's Store site at
Central and Webster Street.
90-251 Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, thanked Council for
honoring a commitment that was made many years ago regarding the
Portola Triangle.
90-252 Diane Coler-Dark, 2857 Jackson Street, commented on how
other communities process new restaurant businesses.
ADJOURNMENT
President Corica adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in
accordance with the Brown Act.
April 3, 1990