Loading...
2006-11-21 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (06 -554) Presentation to the Library Building Team recognizing their efforts for the successful completion of the New Main Library. Mayor Johnson read the names of the Library Building Team members and presented certificates. Honora Murphy, Library Building Team Member, stated the Library Building Team worked many hours for over four and a half years; thanked the Council for recognizing efforts made. Karen Butter, Library Board President, stated the Library Building Team is a small representation of individuals who worked for over thirty years to lay the ground work for a new library; thanked the City, citizens, and everyone involved for all the hard work. Marilyn Ashcraft, Library Building Team Member, stated the City of Oakland lost a Library Bond measure recently; thanked the community for all the help and support. (06 -555) Presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers. Lieutenant Colonel Craig Kiley, Project Manager Al Paniccia, and District Counsel Merry Goodenough provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated waterway residents are concerned about the six -year moratorium; residents are unable to do routine maintenance, repair damage, or maintain seawalls; questioned why the moratorium prevents residents from performing basic, routine maintenance; stated license agreements are an issue; inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for the condemnation proceedings in 1882; to which the District Counsel Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 November 21, 2006 responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the Army Corps of Engineers created the Estuary; the train bridge [Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge] was built as an accommodation to Alameda to provide a rail connection; the City needs the transportation connection between Alameda and Oakland; questioned whether the Army Corps of Engineers' mission has changed since 1882; stated transferring the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge to the County without transferring funding is the same as tearing down the bridge; the City supports the transfer because residents would have control over the property; a previous proposal addressed the possibility of dividing the Estuary in the middle and transferring part to Oakland and part to Alameda; another proposal addressed the Army Corps of Engineers retaining ownership of the Channel's navigational portion and transferring portions to each City; the Channel needs to be maintained because residents have boats; the City does not have the funding for dredging. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers realized that the property is not being managed in a way that the local governments and individual property owners want; illegal encroachments dumped into the canal and there has been unnecessary discharge of pollutants; structures have not been maintained in accordance with the permits; neighbors complained that docks built were too large; the moratorium was an effort to get a handle on said problems; the moratorium does not grant regulatory permits for repair, new construction on existing structures, new construction, or new real estate licenses; individuals are allowed to repair an existing structure in kind upon written request; an Army Corps of Engineers permit is not allowed unless the structure has been kept in a serviceable condition. Mayor Johnson stated the homeowners are not allowed to do routine maintenance but are required by law to keep docks in good repair; suggested that the City could work with the Army Corps of Engineers to modify the moratorium to allow routine maintenance. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers has considered modifying the moratorium as to real estate licenses and would entertain other ideas for modification; piece meal development and abuses would occur without the moratorium; a proposal is on the table to request the City to apply for a Programmatic General Permit (PGP), which would allow the City to manage the waterfront; the property owners would come to the City for permits; the Army Corps of Engineers would assist the City with enforcement; representatives need to be encouraged to propose legislation to fix the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; the Army Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 November 21, 2006 Corps of Engineers does not have funds for the repair nor the authority to do seismic retrofitting; 1990 and 1996 legislation changed the Corp's emphasis; along with the last administration; the Army Corps of Engineers is being encouraged to get rid of any property that is not used; stated the scouring occurs naturally; dredging is not necessary because the depth stays the same. The Project Manager stated that the Army Corps of Engineers still has the responsibility for the Tidal Canal because the Canal is part of the Oakland Harbor project; the Port of Oakland is the sponsor for the Oakland Harbor project and would need to request the Army Corps of Engineer to perform the maintenance. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether dredging has been done in the last twenty years. The Project Manager responded that he does not think so; stated spot dredging was performed over twenty years ago. Councilmember deHaan stated that he recalled some dredging in support of some operations above High Street. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated a homeowner near the High Street Bridge had some dredging done because of storm water discharge into the Estuary. Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the dredging, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded the homeowner. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers experienced a similar situation where a bridge was at risk of being demolished because of lack of legislation; further inquired how long it takes to implement the legislation. The District Counsel responded the Sacramento District had a big push to transfer a bridge that was connected to West Sacramento; stated special legislation was needed for the non - federal sponsor to take over the bridge; the legislation took over a year; she would ask the Coast Guard if statutory authority was invoked to order bridge owners to remove bridges. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for abandoned boats and debris. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible if there is an obstruction or potential obstruction to navigation; the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has authority to remove abandoned vessels; the BCDC has less Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 November 21, 2006 funding than the federal government. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would still have the responsibility [for abandoned boats and debris] if the conveyance occurred, to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson called the public speakers. Seth Hamalian, Waterfront Homeowners Association, stated a parallel track is needed for the land transfer and a shoreline management plan described by the Army Corps of Engineers; he does not understand how a moratorium meshes with the Army Corps of Engineers' missions; inquired why the moratorium is being selectively enforced. Richard Pipkin, Alameda, stated an Officer in Charge stated the Army Corps of Engineers is a poor landlord at a meeting six months ago; the Army Corps of Engineers usually have a lot of deferred maintenance; poor landlords cause property values to decrease; dredging is necessary in the Estuary; questioned where the landlord has been; stated that he has not heard about concerns for families who have invested in the property; a sign of good faith should be given if the Army Corps of Engineers wants to negotiate. Council deHaan inquired how other Estuary projects differ. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers had a program under the Economy Act for private dredging near the High Street Bridge through a governmental agency; stated a governmental body requested work be done; the Army Corps of Engineers can offer technical knowledge; the Army Corps of Engineers does not have authority to dredge unless there is a federal interest and cost benefit, unless directed by Congressional legislation in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the dredging was done at the homeowner's expense but was performed by the Army Corps of Engineers; stated the Army Corps of Engineers performed the dredging at the gravel area just before High Street; dredging would need to be done eventually. The Project Manager stated the Port of Oakland would need to request the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the project portion; a positive cost ratio would be required to justify spending federal dollars and would need to be related to commercial navigation. Councilmember Matarrese stated a moratorium has been in place for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 November 21, 2006 six years restricting homeowners on the Alameda side of the Estuary from making any improvements; three signature property improvements went very quickly along the Channel; the number one concern is for property owners on the Alameda side of the Estuary; continued dredging and regulating of the Canal is also a concern; no action was taken for the Canal obstructions along the Dutra property a couple of years ago; three tug boats were sunken and no one wanted to take responsibility; it took three years to get rid of the three tug boats; he has big concerns that reluctant responsibility will be no responsibility; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is needed more than ever because of transportation issues; staff should be directed to be aggressive and talk to the Congressional delegates to change the orders under which the Army Corps of Engineers is operating; consideration should be given to compensating Alameda for the moratorium's affect on deferred maintenance over the years. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated water reached up to docks at one time; deferred maintenance has resulted in more mud than water; it appears that the Army Corps of Engineers would do the dredging as long as it is commercially navigable; the homeowners would be left high and dry; the Army Corps of Engineers may dredge the Channel years from now; commercial ships would be able to go in and out; the homeowners or the City would be stuck dredging the portion of the land to allow homeowners' boats to get out; questioned why the City would want to take the land. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineer's authority to dredge is under the WRDA; Congress has set a standard where the cost benefit ratio has to be greater than one in order to spend federal dollars; the land transfer is a different real estate issue than dredging. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be responsible for the dredging if the City takes the land; stated residents would be looking to the City so that docks could be used; questioned why the City would want to take on the responsibility for dredging; stated the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for dredging even if funds are not available. The District Counsel stated that no legal mechanism is available for the property owners to force the City to dredge private docks. Mayor Johnson inquired how the cost benefit analysis could be brought to Level One in order to have the Army Corps of Engineers dredge. The District Counsel responded staff would be provided with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 November 21, 2006 legislation addressing how a cost benefit analysis is done. Mayor Johnson stated the City needs special legislation; inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would support the City's request for special legislation. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited from promoting legislation which would pour money into the Army Corps of Engineers' coffers; stated technical assistance is available if representatives make a request to the Army Corps of Engineers. Councilmember Daysog stated the Army Corps of Engineer's report mentioned an October 2007 date to have everything in place; inquired whether it would be possible to iron out issues and strike compromises within the timeline. The District Counsel responded negotiating a moratorium would take far less time than getting Congressional representatives to pass legislation; the Army Corps of Engineers is willing to entertain moratorium modifications; negotiations could start as soon as a written proposal is received outlining what the City would want to change; the Army Corps of Engineers wants to ensure that the waterfront is developed in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Councilmember Daysog stated the City needs the Corps to provide the City with possible actions by February. The Project Manager stated the October 2007 date applies to the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge and is flexible. Councilmember Matarrese requested that a message be sent up the chain of command regarding the City's issues with the imposed deadline; time is needed for City staff to prepare some type of Council action; the public needs an additional chance to comment; requested that the Army Corps of Engineers advise the chain of command that the deadline is not realistic. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the authority to transfer the property to the City supercedes the authority to transfer the property to the individual homeowners; stated that she understood the Army Corps of Engineers' preference was to transfer the property to the City. The Project Manager responded there are two separate authorizing pieces of legislation; stated the first legislation addresses a specific transfer to the City; the subsequent legislation includes Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 November 21, 2006 transfer to individual, adjacent property owners; the Army Corps of Engineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in a checker board. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City does not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP; inquired whether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of Engineers. The District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected to PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities, cities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities; the City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such as an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a certain period of time; the permit could be extended for five years; the Public Works Department would be permit central for docks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of Engineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP; only certain activities fit within the PGP; the Army Corps of Engineers would help the City define what would be allowed and ensure activities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states that the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when things are not going well. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with the PGP, to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the information presented; stated residents have a high level of interest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on- going maintenance and repair. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy for the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling legislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area, including but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; inquired when an analysis would be available outlining different options such as obtaining a strip of land or the whole land, ensuring that the waterway is maintained and dredged, and running the permit process well. The City Manager stated staff has been working with the homeowners Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 November 21, 2006 and Congressional legislation staff. Councilmember deHaan stated another issue is time extension. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated staff has been working on a WRDA amendment that includes a no -cost conveyance, studies to review the cost to retrofit the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, transferring the property to the City, property owners or an entity created either by the City or the Homeowners Association. Councilmember Matarrese requested that a summary report be brought back to Council; stated a lot of options have been discussed; he wants to hear what the residents have to say and evaluate the options; the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining the waterway and the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge has not been maintained if it is not working; the City needs to be compensated for deferred maintenance; retrofitting costs will be large; said costs should not be born by the City for receiving the transfer and should be put in front of Congressional delegates. Mayor Johnson stated that she received a list of sunken vessels; requested an update on outstanding obstructions in the Estuary. Councilmember deHaan requested that the Army Corps of Engineers spell out the width and depth criteria that would be maintained in the Estuary; stated obligations need to be spelled out. The City Manager stated that all concerns would be addressed. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the next briefing would take place, to which the City Manager responded the beginning of the year. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *06 -556) Minutes of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting held on November 14, 2006. Approved. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 November 21, 2006 ( *06 -557) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,446,282.87. ( *06 -558) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending June 30, 2006. Accepted. ( *06 -559) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending September 30, 2006. Accepted. ( *06 -560) Recommendation to execute a Five Year Contract in the amount of $200,609.04 to John Deere, Inc. for the lease of two greens mowers, two reel mowers, one tractor and five electric utility vehicles. Accepted. ( *06 -561) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No. P.W. 10- 06 -21. Accepted. ( *06 -562) Resolution No. 14036, "Approving Parcel Map No. 8891 (2201 Harbor Bay Parkway)." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06 -563) Resolution No. 14037, "Appointing Margaret A. Hakanson as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; (06 -563A) Resolution No. 14038, "Appointing Joy Pratt as a Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted; (06 -563B) Resolution No. 14039, "Appointing Joseph S. Restagno as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission." Adopted; (06 -563C) Resolution No. 14040, "Appointing Jonathan D. Soglin as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted; (06 -563D) Resolution No. 14041, "Appointing Srikant Subramaniam as a Member of the Transportation Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath to Markaret A. Hakanson, Joy Pratt, Jonathan D. Soglin and Arikant Subramaniam and presented certificates of appointment. (06 -564) Recommendation to appropriate $107,200 in Measure B Paratransit Funds to renew the Holiday Shuttle and purchase Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 November 21, 2006 additional East Bay Paratransit and Friendly Taxi Service coupons. Approved. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a performance metric was being maintained in order to compare the number of riders per year, to which the Public Works Director responded that he would check. Councilmember Matarrese requested an updated performance comparison for the duration of the service. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06 -565) Resolution No. 14042, "Authorizing Applications for the Measure B Bicycle /Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Funds and the Bicycle Transportation Account to Conduct an Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, Appropriate Measure B Funds as Local Match, and Authorize the Public Works Director to Execute All Necessary Grant Documents." Adopted. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what type of modifications could be made to the Posey Tube. The Public Works Director responded changing the railing and doing some cantilevering of the bike path; stated an opportunity may exist with a third ventilation tube that runs through the center of the two existing vehicular tubes. Councilmember Matarrese stated periodically he rides his bike through the Posey Tube to commute to Berkeley; the Posey Tube is the preferred crossing because there is no wait for a bus; the walkways should be reviewed; he is willing to consider all three options. Councilmember Daysog suggested performing an analysis on a plan to clean and maintain the Tube's walls. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, (submitted handout) thanked the Public Works Department for pursuing the feasibility study; stated many options are available; ninety -five bicyclists and pedestrians rode Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 21, 2006 across the Tube on a Tuesday from 6:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m; five times as many bicyclists and pedestrians rode across the Park Street Bridge. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (06 -566) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06 -567) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review the possibility of establishing emails for various Boards and Commissions, especially the Recreation and Park Commission, Economic Development Commission and Planning Board, so that there is a means of communication with the community. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 November 21, 2006