Loading...
2000-01-18 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - JANUARY 18, 2000- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m. Vice Mayor Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend David Borglum, Home of Truth Spiritual Center, gave the Invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (00 -20) Mayor Appezzato requested the Resolution Acknowledging the efforts of the Education Foundation for the Gala Event and Concert Series [paragraph no. 00 -34] be address first on the Regular Agenda. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (00 -21) Presentation of Certificate of Service to former Planning Board Member John Teetsov. Mayor Appezzato presented the Certificate to Mr. Teetsov. (00 -22) Proclamation declaring the week of January 31, 2000 through February 7, 2000 as "Voter Registration Week" in the City of Alameda. Mayor Appezzato presented the Proclamation to May Fung, Voter Outreach Coordinator for Alameda County Registrar of Voters. (00 -23) Presentation on the "Twenty Minutes a Day" Baby Reading Program. The Library Director presented Council with packets provided to new parents and provided an overview of the program. (00 -24) Mayor Appezzato announced Alameda County has decided to return the matter of 1/2 cent sales tax reauthorization to the voters in November; there was a poll in 1998 to determine whether citizens felt things are going in the right direction; in 1998, Alameda was the second highest in the County with 65% responding that the City was moving in the right direction; newest poll indicates 720 of citizens believe the City of Alameda is going in the right direction, 16% felt the City is on the wrong track and 12% had no opinion; 72% approval rating says something about the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 January 18, 2000 City Council and staff. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced various items [paragraph nos. 00 -26, 00- 28, 00 -29, 00 -30, 00 -31, and 00 -32] were removed from the Consent Calender for discussion. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calender. Councilmember DeWitt 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 -25) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on January 4, 2000. Approved. (00 -26) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize calling for Bids for Traffic Signals at Marina Village Parkway /Challenger Drive, and Atlantic Avenue /Challenger Drive, No. P.W. 06- 99 -17. Steven Gerstle, Alameda, stated practices in the City of Alameda encourage automobile traffic and restrict pedestrians; to permit cars to make left turns without having to wait for pedestrians, there are not pedestrian crossing signs at the intersections of Central Avenue and Webster Street, and Central Avenue and 8th Street; pedestrians have to make three -way crossings; new intersections should allow pedestrians to cross from each corner; there should be a general policy on the matter; further stated Marina Village Parkway intersection is very wide and traffic signals should allow enough time for seniors to cross. Mayor Appezzato requested the City Manager to take the matter under advisement and contact Mr. Gerstle. Councilmember Kerr requested the Public Works Director to address whether there are any barriers proposed to keep pedestrians from crossing at the intersections. The Public Works Director stated that he would discuss the matter with Mr. Gerstle; generally, the City does not want traffic turns conflicting with pedestrian crossings; further stated the amount of time provided for pedestrian crossing correlates to the width of the road. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City Council is moving toward a more strategic approach to dealing with traffic. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 January 18, 2000 Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *00 -27) Recommendation to accept the work of D'Arcy and Harty, Inc. for Infiltration and Inflow Project, Phase VII, No. P.W. 11- 98-27. Accepted. (00 -28) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Alameda and Mahendar Chima for Land and Transportation Development Services. Richard Neveln, Alameda, inquired how hiring the Consultant would relate to the development of a Transit Plan for the General Plan of the City; further inquired whether the Consultant with interact with the Public Transit Committee. The City Manager stated the City has a full -time Development Transportation Engineer; the Contract is for an additional consultant to work with the City on a variety of projects. The Public Works Director stated the consultant will work on land development; the Consultant will review parcel maps, subdivisions, and public improvements associated with Harbor Bay; the consultant will not work in the transportation section. William Smith, Sierra Club, stated that his question regarding the scope of the work was addressed. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -29) Resolution No. 13169, "Supporting Proposition 26 (Let's Fix Our Schools Initiative)." Adopted. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the City is using taxpayer- funded facilities and staff to try to sway the voters in a matter which will be decided by the electorate Statewide, not the City Council; there is an important reason for the two- thirds requirement for passage of bonds; bonds are levied against property owners not the electorate at large; Alameda's homeownership rate is slightly more than 40% compared to a national average of 640; more than 500 of the households in Alameda do not pay property taxes; if the measure passes, taxes would be paid by only two- fifths of the homeowners on the island, which is unfair and is the reason for the two- thirds Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 January 18, 2000 requirement for passage of bonds; the City Council is elected to take care of matters under its jurisdiction in Alameda; urged Council to refrain from passing such resolutions, which will have the effect of influencing the vote of the electorate. Vice Mayor Daysog stated many people have tried to strengthen the relationship between the School District and the City; children are the responsibility of both the School District and the City; from an economic standpoint, it is important for cities to back schools; surveys indicate a chief reason businesses and residents choose to live in particular cities is quality of schools; schools in Alameda need help; school leaders have indicated, relative to school's throughout the East Bay, the City of Alameda receives less [funding] per student from the State because of a State formula set years ago; the problem has been compounded by closure of the Base; in 1997, around 55 -570 of residents voted in favor of a school bond measure, which was less than the required two- thirds vote; however, a strong majority voted in favor; schools are worth making an exception to the two- thirds vote rule. Councilmember Kerr stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Daysog that good schools are the hallmark of a good city; the ballot measure amends Section 13 of the State Constitution to eliminate the need for two- thirds vote to raise property taxes; instead, future taxes could be passed by a simple majority; many voters supported Proposition 13 because they were being taxed out of their homes and might not want to support this measure; School Board Members and people with children might want to make it easier to raise taxes for schools; there are different needs and different opinions in the City on this issue; the Proposition also amends Section 16 of the State Constitution as to the financing of charter schools which are formed to give more neighborhood control; perhaps people in neighborhoods with under - performing schools might want to form this type of school; there are legitimate reasons to vote for and against the Proposition; people on fixed incomes might be worried about raising taxes; people with children might want to make it easier to raise taxes for schools; that she will abstain. Vice Mayor Daysog 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. Abstention: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Vice Mayor Daysog read the Resolution. Mayor Appezzato noted that the League of California Cities asked the City of Alameda to support the League's position on Proposition Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 18, 2000 26 and urged the City Council to join the rest of the cities in the State of California in support of the important initiative; stated other cities are taking a position on the initiative; thanked the Vice Mayor for bringing the matter forward. Councilmember Johnson stated every school site has temporary facilities; that she appreciates the smaller class size; more classrooms are needed to support the smaller class size; a good community is not complete without good schools; the City Council is taking the position and setting policy to support schools financially; hopefully, the taxpayers of Alameda agree; thanked the Vice Mayor for placing the matter on the Agenda. Mayor Appezzato stated the City Council's role is to promote the common good for all citizens of Alameda, not special interest groups. (00 -30) Resolution No. 13170, "Supporting Proposition 14, California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000." Adopted. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated with the exception of the remarks following the passage of the previous resolution, this resolution is the most egregious example of sticking resolutions where they do not belong; previous comments were obviously trying influence the voters in the City on how to vote, which is a misuse of taxpayer funds; the taxpayers are funding City Hall, paying Council and staff; Council is not to influence the voters with taxpayers money; there may be people who oppose the measure and Council is using their taxes to try to sway the vote; further stated Alameda voters rejected Measure C, a ballot bond measure for construction of a new library; the Proposition provides that jurisdictions eligible for library funding will receive only 650 of eligible construction costs; inquired where the remaining 35% would come from; stated said amount will come from the people paying property taxes in Alameda; voters previously rejected library bonds; the matter is for the voters -at -large to decide; considering sentiment over Measure C, Council is not expressing the views of Alamedans -at- large by passing the proposed Resolution. Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda, stated public libraries are the cornerstone of a democratic society because they provide free access to education; the Carnegie Library was built in 1902 and was state of the art more than 90 years ago; the State needs to keep pace and turn out an educated citizenry to make communities economically viable; Proposition 14 provides bond funding; it is not a tax measure; qualifying communities would receive 650 of the cost of constructing and furnishing a library to make it compatible Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 January 18, 2000 with technology and provide computer and internet connections; the 35% funding the community must provide can include the current appraised value of real property purchased for the [library] site; schools benefit from Proposition 14 because priority will be given to applications from communities where the public library and the School District have entered into a joint use agreement; joint use agreements can include homework centers, technology sharing agreements and other programs to address local needs; libraries have always been centers for lifelong learning and literacy; Alameda should continue to do all it can for citizens; Proposition 14 will help Alameda get a new state of the art library; the legislation which created Proposition 14 received only three opposition votes; it has bipartisan support and is backed by the League of Women Voters of California, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Teachers Association and the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs; the State cannot afford not to spend the money; money should be spent productively. 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. Abstention: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Mayor Appezzato read the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson stated there is funding priority for cities which work closely with schools; if the City needs to formalize its relationship with the School District, the matter should be placed on an agenda. (00 -31) Resolution No. 13171, "Supporting the Passage of Proposition 12, the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000." Adopted. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated Council is passing a Resolution supporting a Statewide proposition concerning safe neighborhood parks, clean water, clean air and coastal protection; inquired who would be against safe neighborhood parks, clean water, clean air and coastal protection; thanked the City Council for recently granting the four -way stop sign in his neighborhood making it much safer; further stated the matter is before the electorate Statewide; requested Council not to occupy itself and waste staff resources on matters beyond the City's direct control; maybe the Council feels the Resolution will influence voters to vote in favor of the Proposition, which would be undue use of taxpayer resources; requested Council to refrain from such Resolutions now and in the future; stated the matter should be left up to the wisdom of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 18, 2000 electorate. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City would be eligible to receive over $1 Million in funding and whether the specific amount would be given to the City if the City fills out the proper paperwork and spends funds within eight years. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City would be eligible to receive a specific amount if the City applies. Councilmember Kerr stated there is not a bidding process; a specific amount is available to Alameda. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he appreciates Mr. Grzanka's engagement of City Council on a wide -range of civic affairs; citizens should exercise their ability to gather as much information to make an informed decision; that he sees the Council's role as fashioning the information necessary to allow the wisdom of the people to be exercised; it is important for the City to assist with educating the public about challenges to allow them to make an informed decision; the City is adding another set of information into the hopper; citizens will make their own decisions; Council is doing the right thing in engaging in support of different propositions. Mr. Grzanka stated Councilmember Daysog is correct that the City Council has an informational role in considering these Resolutions; according to the League of California Cities' guidelines for passing such resolutions, the City must provide both pro and con information related to such matters before the electorate; that he has been the only opposition; the Councilmembers are cheerleaders to get propositions passed and are not following the League's guidelines. Narissa Ramos, Alameda, stated that she would like to give her time to Thomas Pavletic. Thomas Pavletic, Alameda, stated the Council might not be using its resources in the correct way, however, only a lawsuit or vote of the people can correct the matter; the problem is not the State making investments, it is the manner in which the State chooses to finance said investments; Council has only viewed whether the investment is good and has missed the point and failed to inform the citizens of the real issue which is whether the market should have a role in operating facilities and how facilities should be paid for; the State is running a huge cash surplus and carries a huge debt load which comprises over 50 of its budget -- billions of dollars of debt; someday the party will end as it did in the early 1990's when Hughes [Aircraft Company] and other big industries left Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 January 18, 2000 the State; the debt burden will become too much for the State; schools are a good idea, however, paying for them on a 30 -year mortgage is not a good idea; the State is wealthy enough today and can pay today; said matter should be addressed. Mayor Appezzato stated the voters can decide at the election, or initiate a recall if they do not approve of Council's actions. Richard Hunter, Alameda, stated there has been rumbling about a new library in Alameda for 30 years; that he voted for the expenditure of money to purchase the Linoaks Motel as a possible library site; nothing has been done; there has been criticism about the terrible type of people and circumstances at the Linoaks; further stated one thing Council could do is work on MTBE [Methyl Tertiary -Butyl Ether]; gas pumps have been labeled: "MTBE has been found to be a poison and hazardous to the environment "; a good Council Resolution would be that MTBE is not to be sold, transported or stored in the City of Alameda; MTBE is ending up in the water; Council should focus on specific issues which are easy to address; the State of Alaska got MTBE out of its gasoline; the City should consider the results and problems associated with MTBE. William Smith, Sierra Club, stated the Sierra Club is in favor of parks; bonds might not be the best financing method; however, when an investment is in the future and will be paid back in the future, it is appropriate; the improved health and quality of life will more than payback the bonds by making the State of California an attractive place to live. Mayor Appezzato stated that he will support the investment in the future. Councilmember Kerr stated the matter is similar to supporting Measure B [sales tax reauthorization] because there is specific money designated for Alameda; matter is within Council's jurisdiction. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -32) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 25 -1.2 (Certain Officers to Reside in City) of Section 25 -1 (Residence Requirements) of Chapter XXV (Personnel Policies). Introduced. Steven Gerstle, Alameda, stated there will be an earthquake on the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 January 18, 2000 Hayward fault which will be a catastrophe; it would be helpful to have the Police Chief, City Manager, Fire Chief and Public Works Director here during the time they will be needed most; the City will need all hands on deck. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the City of Phoenix, Arizona requires its employees to move into the City within six months of being hired, which serves the City well; the City of Alameda needs the key people available in emergencies; also, all citizens are better served when the people who serve them are their neighbors and friends and see them on day -to -day basis, rather than just a professional basis; the matter relates to affordable housing; there should be a housing structure which allows the citizens who work for the City to move here and live here. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like to table the matter because she would like a report from the City Attorney on the State Constitution prohibiting employees from being required to be residents of the City, except as it pertains to employees required to respond in the case of an emergency; said report should include discussion and designation of employees who need to be on the Island in the event of a serious emergency; the residency requirement should not be removed until the City designates which employees are needed on the Island to have sufficient expertise to run emergency services; for example, a representative from Public Works. Councilmember Kerr moved the matter be tabled and brought back [with a report from the City Attorney] for Council discussion on [special] personnel requirements. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated options should be presented along with information on what other cities are doing; the City probably cannot require all employees to live in the City, however, all requirements should not be dropped; report should discuss restrictions on proximity to the City; possibly positions can be justified on an emergency basis. The City Manager stated the City Attorney can provide the legal framework for the recommendation; that he presented the matter based on a suggestion from the City Attorney's Office; the City is proscribed by a Supreme Court decision to require employees to reside inside the City limits; Section 25 -1.4 requires certain employees to reside within a 40 minute response time and identifies counties where said employees can reside; there is a limitation for certain employees, such as police and fire public safety employees, and some utility and public works employees, who might be needed in an emergency; the City Council can make a condition of employment Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 January 18, 2000 that the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk reside in Alameda; that he may, as City Manager, impose a requirement for Department Heads to reside in Alameda as a term of employment; key players are homeowners in Alameda at this time; that he and the City Attorney will respond to issues raised in an Off Agenda Report and the matter will return to Council for consideration. Councilmember Kerr requested that the Report address any special requirements since Alameda is an island. Mayor Appezzato stated any union involvement will have to be discussed with unions; the law cannot be violated; inquired whether a motion should be made. Councilmember Kerr stated that she made a motion. The City Attorney stated the Charter requires three votes to take action, if a motion is not made there is no action by default, however a motion can be made to table the matter. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *00 -33) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 1,298,957.36. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (00 -34) Resolution No. 13172, "Acknowledging and Commending the Efforts of the Alameda Education Foundation for the Gala Event and Concert Series Spring 2000 Program." Adopted. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Appezzato read the Resolution and presented it to Judy Blank, Alameda Education Foundation; Jennifer Dufton representing Michael Morgan, Director of the Oakland East Bay Symphony; Steven Cohen, AT &T; Josh Cohen, Lucient Technologies; and Iry Hamilton, Aviso; stated Frederica Von Stade was not able to attend since she was traveling. Iry Hamilton, Aviso, stated the event was a turning point in terms of community involvement in the education process. Jennifer Dufton, Executive Director of the Oakland East Bay Symphony, reviewed the activities of the Oakland East Bay Symphony; announced there will be three more concerts in the series on Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 January 18, 2000 February 3rd, March 25th and April 15th. Judy Blank, Alameda Education Foundation, gave the City Council calendars with the concert dates noted along with ticket order forms and Education Foundation membership forms. Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:24 p.m. (00 -35) Public Hearing to consider Call for Review by Councilmember Kerr of the Planning Board's approval of a Use Permit, UP- 99 -33, pursuant to Section 30 -4.9 (c)1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the auto repair service use in a building located at 1629 Webster Street in the C -2 (Central Business) District. Applicant: Tosco /Sam Koka; and (00 -35A) Adoption of Resolution Approving a Use Permit to Operate an Auto Repair Facility at 1629 Webster Street for a Total of Three Years. NOT ADOPTED. (00 -36) Resolution No. 13173, "Overturning the Planning Board's Approval of a Use Permit to Operate an Auto Repair Facility at 1629 Webster Street, Alameda." Adopted. Jim Sweeney, Alameda, urged Council not to approve the use permit. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated the plans for Webster Street should not include an auto repair shop. Steven Gerstle, Alameda, stated the idea is to increase pedestrian - oriented businesses on Webster Street; there has to be a critical mass of pedestrian- oriented business to begin. Thomas Pavletic, Alameda, stated auto repair shops should be off- set from Webster Street. Michelle Frederick, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated WABA opposes the proposed auto - related use; site is a prime retail site; use is inappropriate; letters were sent to Mr. Koka and the Planning Board stating WABA's position; the Kokas and their representatives attended a WABA Board meeting where they were encouraged to look for a different use for the site; WABA's decision was based on input from the community; the community has clearly indicated a desire for more pedestrian- oriented businesses and specifically asked for no additional auto - related businesses; although WABA remains opposed to the project, WABA will work with the applicant regardless of the outcome; urged Council to carefully consider its decision; stated there are exciting developments being Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 January 18, 2000 considered for Webster Street. Mayor Appezzato stated a letter from WABA President Kent Rosenblum stated that the WABA Board agreed to abide by the decision of the Planning Board because the conditions of the permit reasonably address the Board's concerns. Ms. Frederick stated WABA agreed to abide by the Planning Board's decision; however, there are questions regarding what will occur when the three -year permit expires. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether WABA opposes the auto repair use, to which Ms. Frederick responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there are more details for WABA's reservations, beyond the business not being pedestrian - oriented. Ms. Frederick responded the primary objection is auto - related use in the particular zone, which is proposed for transition; WABA is attempting to bring more pedestrian- oriented business, e.g., restaurants, retail; there is an abundance of auto - related and drive - through business; the community has indicated more of said use is not desired; another problem is what will happen at the end of the three years; WABA believes the new street scape will be under construction by said time; the types of businesses WABA wants to attract should not be scared away by continuing heavy auto - related traffic down the street; goal is to bring historic image toward the Atlantic Avenue end of the street, rather than the opposite. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether WABA would assist applicants with design issues, to which Ms. Frederick responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog further inquired whether WABA would ensure the design does not scare anyone away. Ms. Frederick responded the design must be quality; the question is whether the proposed use, on a prime retail corner, maximizes use of the space. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether WABA is aware of other uses for the empty lots surrounding the area. Ms. Frederick stated some projects are in confidential phases; the Elders Inn is in final permit process; there is a restaurant project proposed for the former Duffy Diner site; at the Mexicali Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 January 18, 2000 Rose site, another restaurant is in the planning process; the southeast corner of Webster Street and Pacific Avenue is in the preliminary planning stages for a family restaurant; there are many other active projects along other parts of the street. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether there are restaurant tenants for the two empty lots across from the proposed site, to which Ms. Frederick responded in the affirmative. Councilmember DeWitt stated auto repair does not seen compatible with other possible uses. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the front half of the lot would be used. Ms. Frederick responded Planning tried to come up with a compromise for the site; the proposed permit allows the Kokas to use the existing structure and the front approximate one -third to one -half of the lot would remain available for other development; however, the Koka's representative spoke at the Planning Board and there are remediation concerns; Tosco has up to three years to take care of remediation, which would prevent the front half of the lot from being developed. Mayor Appezzato stated the front lot will not be used for car repair; after three years, the use compatibility will be assessed; conditions answered concerns. Ms. Frederick stated WABA agreed to abide by Planning's decision. Councilmember Johnson stated an individual at the WABA office informed her that the concern was making sure the use was only for three years; that she was not aware WABA opposed the development; inquired whether WABA is opposed to the development. Ms. Frederick stated that WABA has been opposed to the use from the beginning; early in the process, WABA made it clear to the Koka's representatives that the Board could not support the use because the community indicated they did not want to see auto businesses on Webster Street. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether WABA's position continues to be opposed. Ms. Frederick responded in the affirmative; stated WABA always was, and still is, opposed to the use; however, WABA is ready to work with the Applicant whatever the outcome is and will assist if the three -year conditional use permit is approved; if the permit is not Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 January 18, 2000 approved, WABA would be willing to help develop another type of business. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether WABA opposes the use or opposes the use on the street [Webster Street]. Ms. Frederick stated WABA is opposed to the use in the zone; the site has a Webster Street address even if the front half of lot is not developed. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the lot could be used for something more consistent with WABA's views. Ms. Frederick responded based on the surrounding properties, which are moving quickly and have backup interest, if the current negotiations should not be fruitful, there are others waiting in line to look at properties; there is reason to believe site could be developed by someone else. Peter Ekstein, Project Architect, stated the project has modified itself; the concern over landscape delays has been mitigated by the seller; the clean up of parts of the site that the seller is under contract to do will not prohibit landscape from going in; also, the three curb cuts which exist will be removed; the activity on Webster Street will be landscaping; the landscaping will inhibit sight of the existing building; the situation will improve incredibly; the clean up which has been completed makes site look better; the business is rather small; Mr. Koka works on four or five cars a day; there will not be traffic which will cause a problem; there will be landscaping along Webster Street and around the corner; the City's parking requirement is in excess of what the owner needs; WABA has a beautiful sketch of how they would like the street [Webster Street] to appear with Victorians; however, none of the businesses have parking; parking is a requirement that the City is properly concerned with; after three years a positive result will be demonstrated; if not, the business will be kicked out. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Kokas bought the property, to which Mr. Ekstein responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether only the building in the back would be used, to which Mr. Ekstein responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato inquired what would be done with the front portion [of the lot]. Mr. Ekstein stated there will be landscaping; nothing specific is planned at this time; other potential development could occur on Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 January 18, 2000 Webster Street which would be much more compatible with WABA's concept of pedestrian activity; it is difficult to plan a development for the area because of the parking problem; for every 125 square feet [of building], a parking space is required; nine spaces are required for the [Applicant's] small building. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Kokas have further development plans for a pedestrian- oriented business. Mr. Ekstein stated the Kokas are thinking about it, but do not have plans because if the use permit is not approved, there is nothing to do. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Applicant understands that he will have to stop doing business if the Planning Board's conditions are not met. Mr. Ekstein responded in the affirmative; stated three years gives the Applicant time to think; expansion of the auto repair business probably would not be approved; however, there are no plans; he [Mr. Koka] has three stalls to work on cars and one employee; there will be two people working on three cars. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether the Koka's current auto repair business will be moved to the proposed location and whether he [Mr. Koka] desires to be in the auto business permanently. Mr. Ekstein responded in the affirmative. Councilmember DeWitt auto repair; that he the area and leave in would be a hardship, three years and what repair. stated the future plan for the site is not does not see how the business can come into three years; inquired whether the three years why one would want to go into business for alternatives can be offered other than auto Mr. Ekstein stated the Applicant was surprised by the three year limitation; their goal is not three years, it is longer; they have the three year period to impact the situation in a different way and develop another kind of commercial space along Webster Street with possible residential upstairs; a solution can be found which the City would accept without expanding the automotive activity; the property next to the site is the Mexicali Rose and behind the site is a vacant lot. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether his [Mr. Kokas] primary business is auto repair. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 January 18, 2000 Mr. Ekstein stated that is what he [Mr. Koka] does for a living; if he bought a piece of property which is larger than his business needs to function, he has space to develop. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether the three year opportunity would be used to show that auto repair fits well. Mr. Ekstein stated use is reasonable activity at the site; there is an auto repair shop across the street; one block away is a gasoline station; there is another automotive activity which sells cars out of an old furniture shop near by; the business will not stand out in the neighborhood; it will improve the situation; if WABA can come up with real projects during the three years, it would be wonderful. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Applicant has an intention of leaving in three years. Mr. Ekstein responded businesses termination; stated if he [Mr. there, he will move somewhere Clement Street now. are not started with a three year Koka] is forced not to continue else; the business operates on Councilmember Johnson inquired whether it is understood that the Planning Board's approval was for three years; permit will not be renewed, the Kokas will have to reapply. Mr. Ekstein responded the three year limitation is understood. Councilmember Johnson further inquired whether a plan would include staying at the site. Mr. Ekstein responded if the business is not acceptable to the neighborhood, the Kokas will find a better spot. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Applicant understands that he could be forced to close his business when he reapplies if the neighborhood is opposed and he has not met the conditions, to which Mr. Ekstein responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated the applicant was approached by WABA about putting in another business and his [Applicant's] statement was that auto repair was what he did and another business would not be considered; at the Planning Board Meeting, Mr. Ekstein stated getting the landscaping in would be difficult because the seller might have a delay in remediation. Mr. Ekstein stated that the seller has determined work Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 January 18, 2000 [remediation] on the site will not inhibit landscaping activity. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there is anything in place to ensure that the area which is not used for the business is made available for other uses. The Planning Director stated the City has the same kinds of tools working with any property owner, which are the powers of persuasion and working through the Economic Development staff to look for opportunities; the City has more compelling powers through the Community Improvement Commission in terms of eminent domain; the use permit only approves the adaptive reuse of the building at the rear and provides outside parking for employees and customers; there is no use authorized for the front part of the property. Vice Mayor Daysog stated as planned, the idea is to wait for three years to ensure the Applicant has conformed to stipulations; in three years, he must go through the planning process again to ensure that he conforms the City's stipulations; inquired whether there are regulatory mechanisms to encourage the space fronting Webster Street be used, rather than waiting for three years. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City is aware the site is underutilized; as people look for sites, Economic Development staff would work with property owners and developers; one of the reasons for the three year limitation is that the City is in a process of reviewing the area; the property owner was told that it may not be possible to apply for a renewal in three years because the use may not be available by use permit or there may be clear direction that would make the use unacceptable through the General Plan or other community planning documents; the landowner can participate in the process; the property is undergoing remediation; the remediation must be resolved for the property to be reused; said criteria are why staff made a recommendation for three years; with very little capital investment, the property can be used; there will be some return on the property; however, the period is short enough that if anyone were looking at the site, it remains available and within a short period of time may become another kind of use; three years gives a window to develop a policy which will provide clear direction to the owner and anyone else who might be interested in looking at the property, and deals with the transitional character of the area. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Applicant could go through the use permit process again in three years; at that time, if direction has been clear from the community, organizations, Council and the Planning Board, it will not be approved. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 January 18, 2000 The Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated there will be discussions on where automotive uses are appropriate. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the business can be shut down in three years if the City does not like what is going on, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato requested the Planning Director to confirm that nothing can be done on the front portion of the lot without the City's approval. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato further inquired whether Mr. Koka can use only the garage for three years and whether the business could be shut down if what he does is not in agreement with WABA or anybody else, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the size of the portion of the lot on the Webster Street, the Planning Director stated it is approximately half of the parcel. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether said section was a realistic size to be available for development. The Planning Director responded it [development] would be constrained; stated parking would need to be provided; opportunities, such as parking -in -lieu or a provision to park somewhere else until a portion of the property became available and could be redeveloped for parking; the use does not have to stay for three years, however, it is the landowners intent; if there is an attractive enough offer, the owner may choose to relocate and take advantage of an opportunity to sell the property; front portion is small and how much building could be put on the site would be constrained if parking had to be accommodated on site; a building could go on the corner and an adjacent site could provide parking; by itself, it represents a relatively constrained opportunity at this time. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Applicant could be shut down before the three years if he violates one condition of the use permit, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember DeWitt inquired the benefit of having the property owner go through putting up fences and landscaping, if the business will be shut down in three years. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 January 18, 2000 In response to Councilmember DeWitt, the Planning Director stated the land is privately owned; there has been an application to use the land in a way which is allowed by the Code; there are two kinds of uses: uses which are permitted as a matter of right and uses which are conditionally permitted; uses must be conditionally permitted unless the City can make findings of detriment to protect the public interest; said question is before Council tonight; Council can find use permit is not appropriate and a Resolution, which includes ways use is detrimental, will memorialize Council's action; the question is not whether there is public benefit, rather it is: does a person have a right to use property and can it occur without a significant impact on the community. Councilmember Johnson inquired when the property was purchased, to which the Planning Director responded the property was under agreement and was purchased in the fall of 1999 prior to Planning Board action. Councilmember Kerr stated properties across the street were characterized as not having any activity at the Planning Board meeting; as a practical matter, the City only enforces or does not renew use permits in extraordinary circumstances; on Webster Street and Clement Avenue, there have been cases of so much crime that the City finally got rid of the businesses; there is another case where the use permit is in question; use permits seem to have a life of their own and can translate into more serious activity, e.g., the southern half of the Park Street business area was zoned C -1, not C -2, and there had been a little car repair place at the corner of San Jose Avenue and Park Street which closed down, however, Big 0 Tires went in because the use permit was still running; Big 0 Tires is a fine business, however, the large volume business is along the back lot line of Jackson Park Victorians and air tools are used extended hours six days a week; the City must be careful when use permits are granted due to what uses can move into; that she cannot imagine telling anyone who has made an investment in a property to shut down in three years; as a practical matter, discussion should be considering the business permanent; the entitlement is not automatic; a use permit is required; everybody in the City has to decide which way Webster Street will go; a car - oriented business near the north end of Webster Street had tires in front for years and dragged down every proposal that came along; another car repair facility will have an effect on what else comes into the northern part of Webster Street and will detract from pedestrian- oriented activity; that she brought the matter for review because people thought nothing was happening on said corner of Webster Street; surrounding uses which were considered did not include that most of Pacific Avenue west of the business is residential; the effect of businesses on adjacent or near by residential uses must be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 January 18, 2000 considered; the City has worked hard to get housing, particularly lower income housing, yet does not seem to consider the effect of its decisions on lower- income citizens, which should have been considered. Mayor Appezzato stated there was a great deal of controversy over the Browman Project, the Webster Street Hotel, the Antiques Fair, the Bruzzone Property and the Island Drive -In site; an Alameda resident bought a property and has promised to use only the gas station; questioned whether he [Mr. Koka] should be given a chance or told he cannot use the property he bought; stated the letter from the President of WABA stated conditions of the permit reasonably address WABA's concerns; the Applicant knows the business could be shut down in three years or before; across the street, there is an enclosed auto repair facility; inquired whether the City is being fair and how property rights should be addressed; further stated the use permit is extremely stringent; if uses are violated, the City can take action to shut down the business; that he is inclined to agree with the Planning Board and give the applicant the opportunity; in three years, if the operation is not conducive to where Webster Street is going, the owner is well aware that he may not be able to continue the business. Councilmember DeWitt stated the City Council needs to decide whether or not auto repair is desired on Webster Street at said location; location is high - profile; residents and WABA have indicated auto repair is not desired; work on Webster Street should start now; the Planning Board did a good job; until he realized the Kokas bought the property and want a permanent auto repair facility, he was in favor; the City should be straightforward with the Applicant and let him know auto repair is not wanted at said location. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the issue is not whether or not auto repair is desired; the issue is creating an environment of economic development; small businesses should be encouraged and guided in a framework of expectations set by local residents; the question is whether it is possible to have economic development as well as community development; the Council must micro - manage what is going on; Mr. Koka says he can conduct his auto business off of Webster Street; the City has to be engaged with the part of the property which fronts Webster Street; the challenge is determining what can be done to fulfill the design expectations of WABA and other community members for pedestrian street scape, particularly on the corner of Pacific Avenue and Webster Street; the City Council, along with WABA, recently agreed to seek $2 Million to improve the street scape of a wide swath of Webster Street; hopefully, the City will get funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 Q January 18, 2000 in addition, the City will provide a local match of $200,000; if the City does not receive the $2 Million, there will still be $200,000 allocated for Webster Street; citizens should be engaged to ensure Webster Street or other parts of Alameda are designed in a way which fills expectations and encourages entrepreneurs; there was concern over the Walgreens development project's economic and design impacts; the project is economically viable and provides a set of services residents need because people were actively engaged; the proposed project entails Council involvement in day - to -day design of the corner; there is an opportunity for a win -win solution; if the City does not get involved and waits three years, discussions would have been pointless; however, if it gets engaged now, something good will come out of it. Councilmember Johnson stated that she was prepared to support the Planning Board because she understood WABA was not necessarily opposed to the project; given the testimony of the WABA representative, WABA is opposed to the permit; people have worked hard to put together WABA's plans; if the project moves forward, there will be an empty half of a lot for three years; also, there is an issue of fairness to the Applicant; although the Applicant knows the use permit is set to terminate in three years, he seems to have every intention of making an effort to stay at site; it does not make sense to establish a business with the intention of moving away in three years; the Planning Director indicated the Webster Street side of lot would be a problematic to develop; that she does not know what could be developed on half of lot on Webster Street during the next three years; given the testimony and said issues, she will not support the project. Councilmember DeWitt moved that Council deny the use permit [adopt Resolution overturning the Planning Board's approval of a Use Permit to operate an Auto Repair Facility at 1629 Webster Street, Alameda]. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, the City Attorney requested that the Planning Director and she be able to brainstorm to suggest findings which could be used in support of the motion prior to the vote, and check whether or not said findings are consistent with Council's intent because a Resolution supporting the decision will be prepared. The Planning Director stated the Council should continue to make Finding 2 [the proposed use is compatible and will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities], and Finding 4 [the proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan]; the City has granted permits for similarly situated properties both on Webster Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 January 18, 2000 Street and off Park Street, which are similarly designated and zoned in the General Plan; it is not the use in and of itself that is inconsistent; drawing on the Council's discussion, she would include the following kinds of points: the area is in transition; there are other pending developments in the area, such as restaurant development on the other two corners of this intersection, and the Elder Inn; the business group for the area, WABA, has a strong vision which is being pursued for the area, which views it as a transitional area, strengthening the pedestrian- oriented area which sits to the south; as it is proposed to be used, the property uses a building which is set back and does not contribute to the desired street scape of buildings at the back of the sidewalk; it leaves a vacant portion of the parcel adjacent to Webster Street that is inconsistent with the orderly development of Webster Street; and the placement of the property with the driveway on Pacific Avenue is incompatible with the residential use of the area adjacent to the site on Pacific Avenue. Mayor Appezzato stated that he has supported all projects which WABA has brought forward, e.g. Browman Project, Bruzzone Project, Island Drive -In Site; Webster Street Hotel, etc.; that he would have supported WABA, if it had appealed the decision. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember DeWitt, Johnson and Kerr - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog and Mayor Appezzato - 2. (00 -37) Public Hearing to consider Parcel Map, PM 7253, to subdivide a 10,593 square foot lot at 1618/1620 Fernside Boulevard which contains one duplex and one single- family residence, into two lots with one lot containing the duplex and the other lot containing the single- family residence. Applicant: Mihailo Crnjanski; and (00 -37A) Resolution No. 13174, "Approving Parcel Map, PM 7253, at 1618/1620 Fernside Boulevard." Adopted. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -38) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Adding a New Section 13 -56 (Excavation Into the Marsh Crust /Subtidal Zone at the Former Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility) to Article XVII (Pits, Wells and Excavations); and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 January 18, 2000 (00 -38A) Recommendation to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Alameda and California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control Concerning Recordation of Environmental Restrictions at Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex, Alameda, California. Introduced. Eve Bach, Arc Ecology, submitted a letter; stated Arc Ecology has corresponded with the City Manager regarding concerns; in order to understand the Ordinance, a critical piece of information necessary is the map which shows threshold levels for digging; said map is not available; therefore, it is not possible to evaluate the effects of the ordinance and whether environmental impacts will be generated; Arc Ecology's initial letter to the City Manager expressed concern over exemption from California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]; he [City Manager's] responded it is a program rather than an actual granting of permits, and essentially the City has a choice of whether to do a program EIR or deal with permits as they come up; the City Manager's response is missing that the Ordinance entitles people to excavate an area where toxic wastes have been sequestered because excavation is allowed above the threshold levels and only a permit is required for going below the threshold levels; Ordinance essentially allows excavation above the threshold levels; further stated without having the maps which show threshold levels, there has been no opportunity to evaluate how threshold levels have been set and compare the rigor with cleanup studies which have been done; other comments are in the letter she submitted; until the Council and public have the map, adoption of the Ordinance is premature. William Smith, Sierra Club, stated that he is a professional registered engineer and deals with hazardous waste professionally; the Ordinance is ground breaking; it will take a great deal of thought to get it [Ordinance] right; for large construction projects, the Ordinance works well; large contractors know where to find a CIH [Certified Industrial Hygienist], what a HSP [Health and Safety Plan] is, and how to get a soil truck over to the Central Valley, while backyard homeowners might not be aware; the Ordinance does not make any distinction of deminimous level or any distinction in procedures for quantities involved in backyards; Council should inquire whether staff considered deminimous, which is not an easy concept because the DISC [California Department of Toxic Substances Control] has a very poor grasp of the concept of deminimous; a drop is considered the same as a dump truck full; further stated Ordinances which are difficult to follow tend to be ignored and are, therefore, ineffectual; until the map is seen, there is no way to evaluate whether or not arguments and concerns are really critical; if hazardous waste is all below 8 -12 feet, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 3 January 18, 2000 there is not a problem; however, some might be 2 -4 feet in certain areas; in many ways, the Ordinance transfers Base cleanup cost from Navy to local homeowners; there are liability concerns which have been addressed by Arc Ecology also. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated that she is concerned about the lack of a map and costs which will be put on the homeowner; the Navy was supposed to be responsible for any hazardous waste; if a person puts in a flag pole and has to pay for a consultant, the Navy probably will not pay; further stated the Ordinance does not cover groundwater; there were tidal canals under the area; the area is still under tidal influences; if a watermain breaks, the groundwater will come to the surface suddenly and mix with pollution, e.g., benzene, which causes cancer; the estuary park is closed and appears to have toxins on the surface; that she would not want to buy a house on toxic land, unless toxins are 20 feet under; deep borings have not been done where there will be housing; noted concerns about identifying marsh crust. James Leach, Chairman, Task Committee on the Marsh Crust, and Member, Restoration Advisory Board, stated that he worked for the largest hazardous waste toxic cleanup engineering facility in the world for 10 years; the marsh crust was a recent discovery of a toxic area on the Naval site; the cleanup value was assessed at $800 Million; cautioned the City should not act quickly to take responsibilities of the Navy; stated Ordinance should cover other areas of the marsh crust which were not formerly owned by the Navy; the Councilmembers and citizens will be subjected to financial liability and personal liability; recently the newspaper reported the former Chief of the Fire Station at the Naval Air Station withheld information or did not act on known information about a hazard; urged Council to not move too fast because there is still discussion of loopholes and gaps to be closed. Marti Buxton, Catellus, stated Catellus has worked closely with the City and DISC; the Ordinance is a good solution, and is set up to protect human health and safety; it [Ordinance] may be difficult for homeowners to understand, however, developers should assist homeowners in interpreting Ordinance in sale documents; Catellus will provide the excavation Ordinance and a layman's version to explain what is required; the map will reflect the status, which is what it is; the depth range is 5 to 20 feet; the preparation of the map should not be an issue. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether Catellus would complete the map. Ms. Buxton responded that the City will provide the map; stated Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 18, 2000 Catellus is assisting; Catellus's environmental consultant, ERM, has done borings for other reasons; borings have been provided to the Navy and the City to generate the map; also, the Navy has generated borings which will be used for the map. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether the City has completed borings. The Deputy City Manager stated the Ordinance will not be effective until the map is completed; the Ordinance is being considered now because it is a mitigation in the environmental documents; in order to move forward on the transfer of the East Housing property as part of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, the principle action, which the City must take, is to do an institutional control; said requirement is the reason staff put matter in front of Council; in order for property to transfer, DISC must believe that institutional control is in place; DISC has the right and obligation to approve transfer of the property through the Finding Of Suitability to Transfer [FOST]; DISC is looking to the City to take this action [adopt Ordinance] to fulfill the mitigations which are identified in the EIR; the City has the data; the City is responsible for putting the map together and will do so in consultation with DISC and environmental experts; Peter Russell, the primary environmental expert is available to answer questions; the map is just going to be a statement of the physical facts of the topography below the surface of the ground, not a policy document; it is ministerial like a building code; unfortunately, the map has not been pulled together in detail; it will be completed before the Ordinance is effective. Councilmember Kerr stated the Catellus EIR has a groundwater map, which shows benzene concentrations; some is under a proposed school site, some is under Miller School; the contamination is bad enough that the Coast Guard is not occupying all of its housing; matter is serious as far as quality of residential life and the health of people who live there; also, the first EIR stated a lot of contaminated soil was carted out of the old air drum site; there was still heavy metal contamination, namely, cadmium and other problems with shallow surface soils; Ordinance does not seem to address the shallow surface soil heavy metal contamination or the benzene in the groundwater; inquired whether there have been negotiations with the Navy and the developer on how much, if anything, Navy will pay developer for cleanup; inquired whether or not the other kinds of contamination, groundwater and heavy metal in shallow soils, are being addressed. The Deputy City Manager stated other environmental issues touched on are part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 5 January 18, 2000 Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] , which is a federal law dealing with contamination, and are the responsibility of the federal government; the City's only responsibility is to deal with non - CERCLA, institutional control; negotiations with DISC, the City and Navy concluded that the best way to handle the matter [marsh crust] was through institutional control, rather than as part of CERCLA; matter must be addressed to satisfy State regulator through a FOST; on the FISC property, there has to be a FOSET, Finding Of Suitability for Early Transfer; an application has been made and regulatory closure must be obtained to convince the State that cleanup plans address concerns which Councilmember Kerr touched on, and will protect human health and the environment, which is the federal governments responsibility. Councilmember Kerr inquired the status of negotiations with the Navy regarding what Catellus will be paid for cleanup, if anything. The Deputy City Manager responded said negotiations have been set aside; stated the Navy is working directly with the regulators to get closure on the cleanup plan; City staff has not agreed to make a recommendation to Council to take on matter at this point. Councilmember Kerr inquired why the marsh crust is a State problem when all others are federal problems, to which the Deputy City Manager responded both are State problems. Councilmember Kerr further inquired whether the marsh crust was contaminated before the Navy showed up. The City Attorney responded that she did not know the answer to said question. Alameda Point Environmental Policy and Operations Manager (EP &OM) Dina Tasini stated the contamination problem was inherited; the Navy is not responsible. Councilmember Kerr commented it is not known whether the heavy metals came from the air drum or were deposited after the arrival of the Navy. Ms. Tasina responded that she was not familiar with those sites. Vice Mayor Daysog stated presumptively everyone knew contamination at the former Naval Base is tremendous in terms of health effects and remediation costs; community discussion(s) on the matter have been missing; the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meets frequently and is mandated to identify problems; the question is whether the responsibility to establish institutional mechanisms is federal or Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 6 January 18, 2000 local; people want to be advised on the problems and solutions; the matter is complex; the proposed ordinance is a start, in terms of moving forward; and RAB and the Base Reuse Advisory Committee should provide community meeting(s), e.g. day -long educational seminar(s). Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there would be any ramifications if Council did not move forward on the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney responded the ordinance is a condition and mitigation measure contained in the Environmental Impact Statement; any significant delay would result in a corresponding delay in transfer date [of the former Navy Base]. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Council would be taking on any liability by moving forward on the ordinance. The City Attorney responded the proposed ordinance establishes a permitting system: an institutional control; adopting the ordinance would not exemplify or expand any of the City's existing liability; the environmental laws are clear; the matter of responsibility may be subject to dispute and end up in litigation; introducing the ordinance merely satisfies the condition of the Environmental Impact Statement; there have been extensive negotiations with the Department of Toxic Substances, the Navy, Catellus and the City; and the federal government, State Regulatory Agency, land developer, Consultants, and City are prepared to sign the Memorandum of Agreement. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Navy would be relieved of any liability, to which the City Attorney responded permitting does not effect any Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) obligation. Mayor Appezzato stated the ordinance is a mitigation measure required by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC). The City Attorney noted the ordinance is a mitigation measure required by the Environmental Impact Statement approved by DISC. Mayor Appezzato stated RAB and DISC had input; Navy liability is not released. The City Manager stated the City has been applying a certain level of pressure [for conveyance]; the Mayor and he were given assurances by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy that they would proceed with a time line for conveyance; the City should not delay Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 January 18, 2000 the process, especially when applying pressure. Mayor Appezzato stated that in addition to the ordinance, DISC is requesting the City to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement agreeing to the recordation of a Covenant for areas effected by the Marsh Crust; the purpose of the Covenant is to notify property owners of the existence of the marsh crust layer and the excavation ordinance requiring a permit for digging into the marsh crust layer. Councilmember DeWitt stated the City has reviewed the matter sufficiently, and moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr inquired how long it would take [engineering] staff to provide a map; stated a permit is required to dig into the marsh crust layer; one of the documents states that the marsh crust layer, in some cases, can only be four feet below the surface; concerned about moving forward without full knowledge; also concerned that matters are brought to the City Council with the attitude that Council must provide approval now or delay things interminably; issues should be brought to Council within a time frame allowing for delays; there are gray areas regarding the matter before the City Council, e.g. what is marsh crust, what is federal and State governments' responsibility; in addition, RAB members who spoke this evening do not have confidence in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Appezzato stated only institutional controls will be established; City does not have a signed agreement with Catellus yet to develop any of the property or build any homes; if institutional controls are not established, DISC will not act. Councilmember DeWitt moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. No: Councilmember Kerr - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (00 -39) Thomas Pavletic, Board Member, California Heritage Bay Homeowners Association, stated there was a public meeting to discuss Tinker Avenue extension on January 13th; said meeting was the first time people were given a chance to submit input publicly; the residential stakeholders felt disenchanted and did not feel they were being heard; noted the great amount of documentation Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 January 18, 2000 which must be read to make an informed comment; further stated the comment period for the [Catellus] draft EIR ends January 31st; requested the Council to extend the comment period for the draft EIR and consider realigning the connection of the General Plan, the Naval Air Station final EIR and the Catellus draft EIR; stated the General Plan should be revised before the Catellus draft EIR; the Navy EIR had problems finding solutions to problems which were not covered in the General Plan. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (00 -40) Councilmember Kerr noted public speaker Mr. Pavletic was addressing the Catellus Mixed Use Land EIR for the FISC and East Housing Development [see paragraph No. 00 -39]; stated the Planning Board is holding two hearings on January 29th for public input; the draft EIR is composed of two volumes; residents should focus on particular areas of concern; copies are available in the Main Library and Building 1 at Alameda Point; encouraged participation. (00 -41) Vice Mayor Daysog stated with respect to technical documents, such as the Catellus plan, any resident can call Councilmembers; Councilmembers should be able to answer questions or get answers to questions; that he holds community meetings on Tuesday nights and Wednesday nights; said meetings are noticed in the newspaper. (00 -42) Vice Mayor Daysog stated there should be a community meeting regarding toxic issues and problems at the Base [Alameda Point]; there should be more community involvement; City Manager should pass on request to Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) or Restoration Advisory Board. (00 -43) Mayor Appezzato stated the announcement of Base closure was in 1993; the Base Reuse Advisory Group (B.R.A.G.) had many people involved in the process of Base closure; there have been many meetings and public hearings; City staff and Council have been available; actions of City staff have been honorable; there is still a long way to go; B.R.A.G. should continue to provide public input after ARRA has terminated; hopefully, Council will consider allowing B.R.A.G. to continue. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 9 January 18, 2000 Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 Q January 18, 2000