Loading...
1999-03-16 Regular and Special CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 16, 1999- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:48 p.m. Girl Scout Troop 650 led the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor Samuel Butler, Love Fellowship Church gave the Invocation. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. (99-119) Mayor Appezzato announced items Contract with WOW Media [paragraph no 99-134] and introduction of Ordinance regarding parking [paragraph no. 99-135] were removed from the agenda and would be heard at a later date; and stated the petition regarding formation of a Citizens' Advisory Committee [paragraph no. 99-125] would be heard before the Consent Calendar if no objection. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (99-120) Proclamation declaring March 16, 1999 as Youth in Government Day. Mayor Appezzato read the Proclamation. Teen Coordinator Valerie Waltari stated today was the 18th annual Youth in Government Day; eighteen students representing the four high schools participated; summarized Youth in Government Day activities. (99-121) Mayor Appezzato presented a certificate of achievement to Jason Hom for getting a perfect score on the S.A.T. National Aptitude Test. Jason Hom thanked the City Council for the certificate; introduced his family and stated the City of Alameda is an excellent town. Superintendent of Schools Dennis Chaconas outlined Jason Hom's educational background and current class schedule; congratulated Jason for his accomplishment; thanked the Mayor and Council for recognizing Jason. (99-122) Mayor Appezzato announced Girl Scout Troop 650 was in attendance and had questions of Councilmembers. Girl Scout Troop 650 members: Amber Stencil, Sarah Frankel, Asia Jamison, Nickala Lucas, and Heather Miller asked Council various Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 questions regarding City Government. (99-123) Presentation of the California Park and Recreation Society State Award of Excellence for the Alameda Recreation and Park Department 1998 Teen Summer Adventure Camp. Mayor Appezzato presented a plaque to Recreation Director Sherry McCarthy, Teen Coordinator Valerie Waltari, Recreation Commission Chair Gail Wetzork, Commissioners Kirk Elliot and J.C. Shirriel, and youths Lani Wang and Katrina Shirriel. (99-124) Announcement of Recognition Awards for City Departments and Employees. Mayor Appezzato announced City award recipients. • (99-125) Petition to support effort to create a Citizens' Advisory Committee to explore the impact of development on public education in Alameda. Yael Johnson, Alameda Education Foundation (AEF), stated a meeting, hosted by AEF, was called on March 4th to discuss the impact on Alameda public schools caused by development on the north and west sides of Alameda; specifically, the Kaufman & Broad development at the Weyhauser property, the Catellus development at the FISC property, and the development of the Naval Air Station; a formal request was submitted to the City via the City Manager asking for the creation of a Citizens Advisory Committee; the request reads as follows: "To the Alameda Mayor and City Council: We the undersigned support the Alameda Education Foundation's effort to create a citizen's advisory committee to explore impact of development on public education in Alameda. This committee must address three specific tasks. 1) Fact Finding: The goal for this task is to establish agreed upon facts relating to current Alameda Unified School District enrollment, projected enrollment, school construction costs, etc. 2) Maintenance of Status Quo: The goal for this task is to answer the question: What do we as a community, need to accommodate the immediate impact of new development on public school enrollment? 3) System-wide Improvement of AUSD Facilities: The goal for this task is to answer the question: What do we as a community need to seize the opportunity that future development provides, to improve AUSD facilities?;" while it is believed the Foundation should partner with the City Council, the Alameda Unified School District and the School Board in outlining the scope of the Committee, it is understood they are working under time constraints; it has been concluded that the aforementioned interested parties must begin working together immediately to ensure that developers pay the amount needed to fully mitigate the impacts of the development on AUSD; the City of Livermore recently Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 won a court case upholding their 1996 City Ordinance requiring all developers to pay a flat fee per square foot that represents full mitigation in Livermore; all developers must be held accountable to pay their fair share, so that the future children of Alameda are assured of a quality education; through the creation of the committee, AEF looks forward to working with the Council to craft and pass such an ordinance in Alameda. [Yael Johnson filed a copy of an article on the City of Livermore's Ordinance with the City Clerk.] Susan Serventi, Alameda, stated that she is a concerned citizen in an area where there are very good schools currently; good schools should be maintained and not be impacted in ways that erode educational value given today; including citizens gives the staff and Council a wider viewpoint and clearer picture of reality; and she supports the proposed citizens' advisory group. Mayor Appezzato stated Council shares the same concern regarding a quality school system. Lorrie Bruhns, Alameda, stated that she and six (6) specific families on her street are asking for Council's support for a citizens' advisory committee, to allow citizens' voices to be heard in the coming weeks and months. Barbara Kahn, League of Women Voters, stated the League supports the Petition and urges the Council to adopt the recommendation for the formation of a committee. Ms. Kahn further stated that she is active with "Stand for Children" organization, and said organization will be coming before the Council on other related issues. Vice Mayor Daysog stated Council understands the importance of schools; a partnership with City Hall is being presented tonight; questions, issues and concerns could be clarified through the partnership; there is the matter of time, given the range of upcoming issues; as a Councilmember working with his fellow colleagues, he would lend support. Councilmember Kerr stated there has been a lot of dialogue, meetings, and controversies regarding impacts of developments on schools; the matter was initially dealt with in the Base Reuse Plan adopted in 1995; both the impact of the Navy leaving and the impact of all of the housing drawn in the Plan were considered; the School District was involved; the City Attorney should review the City of Livermore's Ordinance as it relates to Proposition 1-A; the School District is independent of the City Council; a 1966 Charter Amendment gave the District the right to tax people and govern the education of children independent from the City; the City Charter should not be overstepped in regard to education decisions; good schools and good housing are the mark of a good community; the committee's makeup should be discussed; the City should have decent Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 representation if appointments are made by the Foundation /School District; and who will serve on the committee and how appointments will be made should be studied< In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding committee appointments, AEF representative Yael Johnson stated appointments would be made by the City Council and School Board. Councilmember Johnson stated the City Council is committed to developers not diminishing the quality of the schools; that she is very interested in better cooperation between the School District, the School Board, the City and City Council; steps in that direction have been taken; a meeting was held with members of Staff, the School District, the School Board, the Mayor and her; that she met with the Superintendent of Schools regarding bus transportation issues, e.g. AC Transit buses for school children; everyone has the same goal, which is to provide good education; the School District should provide input on the proposed committee, and the matter should be placed on the School Board's Agenda. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he supports efforts to work with the School District; the passage of Proposition 1 -A does not provide sufficient monies from developers to build schools; if that is the motive for the committee, it is unnecessary; however, he understands what the petitioners are doing; the City should be involved in whatever committee is formed; the proposal may be forwarded to the City's Economic Development Commission (EDC) which deals with development and funding matters; perhaps individuals from the School Board could be involved also; a committee may not be the best way to resolve the funding shortfall, which may be the motive for the committee. Carla Greathouse, Alameda, stated the motivation [for establishing a committee] is to achieve a more comprehensive review of where the school system is heading, including adequate long -term funding for construction and maintenance of school facilities; also, [the committee] will serve as an advocate for children. For clarification purposes, AEF representative Yael Johnson stated the City of Livermore Court case, which supports Livermore's Ordinance, was passed down in late February and took into consideration the passage of Proposition 1 -A; $1.93 per square foot, which Prop. 1 -A allows, is not enough to build a school; the Foundation represents a portion of the community that is not interested in development at any cost; specifically, development at a negative cost to the quality of education; Stand for Children and the matter before Council are two separate issues; currently, AEF does not have a voice in the process; there needs to be a voice from the community stating this [education] is the number one priority now; there are a lot of developers looking at Alameda; developers not interested in paying their fair share should look Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 elsewhere. Councilmember DeWitt questioned whether the Petition was presented to the Board of Education. Mayor Appezzato responded that presenting the Petition to the [School] Board is an option; the Board is the elected body which deals with such matters; one option is to request the Board to comment and have the matter brought back to Council. Councilmember Kerr stated that she shares some of the concern about the proposed development; the Kaufman & Broad proposal, with massive lot coverage, has not been approved yet; such a development creates a great impact upon the City; the City Council, by Charter, does not finance schools, Proposition 1-A involved the largest bond issue ever passed in the State; that she understands the School Board is applying for funding; commercial developments, which do not add children, pay developer fees too; various things must be considered; a cost review by the EDC is a good idea. Yael Johnson stated it was not the Foundation's intention to short circuit the School Board; the Foundation is in favor of the School District's goals; the Petition has been brought to the Council first because it is the body negotiating with developers and voting on said issues; the School Board must be involved in the process; the Foundation is aware that the City does not finance schools, however, $1.93 per square foot is not enough to build new schools. Councilmember Kerr stated the whole picture must be reviewed, including the amount of money the School District received. Yael Johnson stated matching funds are not assured. Councilmember Kerr stated that she trusts they [School District] are applying for funding, to which Ms. Johnson responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Foundation would object to Council forwarding the matter to the School Board for comment. Yael Johnson voiced no objection. Mayor Appezzato stated seventy percent of the [foLmer Navy] Base is tidelands; housing cannot be built on tidelands; hundreds and hundreds of homes are not going to be built; the City's bridges and tunnels restrict the amount of development; there are geographic restrictions; Catellus is the developer of choice for the FISC mixed-use developement; now, East Housing has been included [with FISC]; no Agreement has been signed, although discussions are ongoing; the Base Reuse Plan, the EIS/EIR has not been released; the record of decision is aways off; the City has not received Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 title for the Base; there is a proposal by Kaufman & Broad which has not reached the Planning Board or City Council; that he acknowledges the Foundation's concern and its participation is welcome; he supports the position that development cannot take place without adequate schools. Yael Johnson stated the Kaufman & Broad developers will not be asked to build a school, said project might generate 70 students; FISC is a different story and could require [construction of] an entire school to house incoming students. Mayor Appezzato stated there are a number of financing sources and issues; initial discussions between the Council and School District have begun; revenues still must be raised; if taxes are not raised, business sources must be found to generate money to pay for Police, Fire and other things, as well as good schools; no firm decision on the number of housing units has been made; there is a proposal of 122 or 144 Kaufman & Broad units; everyone has a special interest, e.g. a park at the Alameda Belt Line property; there must be a balance; and thanked AEF representative Yael Johnson for raising the issue now. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the point of the Committee is to have a relationship between the schools and the City that places schools and youth in an important view; perhaps two Councilmembers could be identified by the Mayor who are ready to play a role on the committee: Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember DeWitt, or whomever; at a minimum, the City will have its representatives ready. Mayor Appezzato stated that can be done while the matter is sent to the Board for comment. Tricia Collins-Levi, Alameda, stated that she enrolled her children in Paden School through open enrollment; there is no longer open enrollment at said school the school population is up; citizens want to avoid negative impacts of overcrowding in schools. Councilmember DeWitt moved the issue be referred to the School Board and to the EDC for review, and matter sent back to Council to authorize the committee and appoint members. Mayor Appezzato suggested [an amendment to the motion] that the committee be formed before the EDC reviews the matter; further stated Councilmembers interested in serving on the committee should contact him. Councilmember DeWitt agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated it is appropriate to handle the matter as proposed; Council should not overstep its jurisdiction; the School Board deals with education and school issues. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 415‘ i 4 1/464,1' Mayor Appezzato announced that the priorities for Code enforcement [paragraph no. 99-127]; the Ferry Service matter [paragraph no. 99- 130]; and the Resolution regarding Express II Ferry Vessel [paragraph no. 99-131] were withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*99-126) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council/Social Service Human Relations Board Meeting [Work Session] held on February 23, 1999, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 2, 1999. Approved. (99-127) Recommendation to ratify guidelines for Municipal Code Priorities for Code Enforcement. Councilmember Kerr stated the staff report indicates the number of complaints exceeds available staff resources; inquired whether low priority complaints, e.g. fence height/materials, noise, weeds and newsracks, would be enforced. The City Manager responded there is one Code Enforcement Officer and one support staff member; stated staffing levels are not adequate to address everything on a uniform basis; staff tried to identify the most egregious and common violations as top priority; violations which were not given top priority will be enforced as time permits; if Council is not comfortable with priorities, modifications can be made accordingly. Councilmember Kerr stated if violations are low priority, such as front yard parking, people will have to be persistent to get results; sworn Police Officers do not need to handle enforcement; in 1995, two Police Technician positions were eliminated. The Assistant City Manager stated the part-time positions were Community Service Officers, not sworn Police Officers; and the current Code Enforcement Officer is not a sworn Police Officer. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 00 Vice Mayor Daysog stated changes could be made if a low priority matter needs to be handled as a high priority. Mayor Appezzato stated a sentence [in the staff report] answers everything: "The priority listing is a guideline, since the facts of each case may cause the priority rating to increase or decrease"; the Police Department must have some degree of responsibility; if a lower priority issue becomes critical, staff can respond. The City Manager stated if Council receives a number of complaints about a particular violation, the priority list can be amended. Councilmember Kerr stated if people have a complaint regarding a noise or front yard parking violation, the route they would have to take would be to go through Council. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the sentence Mayor Appezzato referred to makes priorities flexible while addressing how to use limited resources. Councilmember Johnson stated the guidelines are not inflexible and only provide written guidance to staff; health and safety issues are listed as high priorities because they should be high priority. Councilmember Kerr stated that she raised the issue because the guidelines need to be watched; if citizens find complaints are not enforced, Council might have to review staffing priorities. Mayor Appezzato stated if changes are needed, staff can bring the matter back to Council. Vice Mayor Daysog moved acceptance of the staff recommendation. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*99-128) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize calling for Bids for Utility Upgrades of Building 7, Alameda Point, 851 N. Midway, No P.W. 10-98-26. Accepted. (*99-129) Recommendation to authorize purchase of seven pool vehicles and lease of four electric vehicles using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. Accepted. (99-130) Recommendation to approve Alameda/Oakland Ferry Contract extension, East End Ferry Service Contract extension and the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service Contract Negotiations Schedule and Evaluation Guidelines. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 Carolyn Horgan, Blue & Gold Fleet, stated the Evaluation Guidelines [under Vessel Speeds] indicate slow bells are infrequent; however, B&G has been requested numerous times to give a slow bell in the estuary and when there has been work on the Bay Bridge; [under Service Enhancements,] Minimum Requirements include fifteen weekday departures; B&G would like to review the number of departures; currently, the 6:30 a.m. ferry service only has 25 to 30 passengers which may not make sense economically. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding Evaluation Guidelines, the Public Works Director stated there are four recommendations before Council: 1) extension of Contract with B&G for 6 months; 2) extension of Contract with Harbor Bay Maritime [HBM] for up to 6 months; 3) acceptance of a schedule for open market negotiations; and 4) acceptance of the criteria for reviewing Proposals. B&G representative, Ms. Horgan, further stated a five year budget is required; inquired what subsidy assumptions should be used for preparing said budget; and requested priority be given to the operator who would hire the most crew members working on the current service. W. Graham Claytor, Alameda, submitted a petition and letter to the City Council; stated the problem with extending B&G's Contract is that the six months includes the summer; tourists ride ferries during the summer; excess ridership fares will be gifted to B&G; the City is handing a bunch of money to B&G; if HBM's service is combined, there is only one company that can operate the service incrementally; incremental costing is a fundamental business principle which is critical; if there were two ferry boat operators that had services up and running, there would be two competitive bids; Horblower Marine Services [HMS] went through the RFP process, obtained a $1 Million bond, filed a PUC application and has expenses; requested Council to consider a shorter RFP process and separation of the two services; stated the East End service could be bid out separately; more money should go back into the City of Alameda's pocket; proposed a three month extension of B&G's Contract; [Grant Ute yielded his time to Mr. Claytor]; further stated during the three month time, the City's RFP process could be revisited; B&G's letter to the City regarding six months extension essentially said backup boats would be sold and an 18-knot vessel would have to be acceptable; B&G also suggested cancelling an early morning run; when his company, Southern Pacific, eliminated the first morning and last evening runs, which had low ridership, two hundred riders who relied on the flexibility of the morning and evening runs, quit using the service; B&G's suggestion to cut an early run is suicide to ridership; the City is looking into helping B&G find additional subsidy which is really not needed; there was a Proposal on the table which did not require additional funding; the City could resolve the matter in three months; then, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 0 L combination of the Harbor Bay service could be reviewed; HBM receives a subsidy of $40,000 per month and has three morning runs and three evening runs; B&G receives $41,000 in subsidy per month and runs fifteen daily services and six to nine weekend services; the same money buys a lot of service on one side and not much service on the other; however, combining the service now will not accomplish a great savings for the City. Councilmember Kerr requested each item for Council consideration be addressed individually. Extension of Blue & Gold Contract Councilmember Kerr stated staff has shown six months is needed to enter into the type of negotiations directed by Council at the last meeting [February 16, 1999]; the same service would be continued at the same subsidy and fare for the next six months; there is increased ridership during the summer, however, B&G provided service for five winters; the next Contract will include five winters and five summers; that she will support the six month extension. Vice Mayor Daysog thanked Mr. Claytor for being a ferry service watchdog; stated HMS's numbers [budget] seemed hard to believe in comparison to experienced ferry service providers, e.g. B&G, R&W; in some instances after Council awards a Contract, there have been additional costs; there were outstanding questions regarding the correctness of HMS's budget; that he favors a six month extension. Councilmember DeWitt stated Edward Printz submitted a three-page petition and Graham Claytor submitted a letter and made comments tonight [in opposition to Contract extension]; the City received a bid which provides service increases without a fare increase; there was a $1 Million surety bond; there is no tangible reason for any kind of extension. Councilmember Johnson stated that she appreciated Mr. Claytor's input; that she voted [not to award Contract to HMS at the February 16, 1999 Council Meeting] to give the process more time; that she was concerned about some of the numbers presented; if a bad decision is made, riders will be lost. Councilmember Kerr moved six month [B&G] Contract extension. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson and Kerr - 3. Noes: Councilmember DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato - 2. Extension of Harbor Bay Maritime Contract Councilmember Kerr moved six month [HBM] Contract extension. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 10- Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson and Kerr - 3. Noes: Councilmember DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato - 2. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is concerned BART extension to the San Francisco Airport might use Bridge Toll Funds; inquired whether the Mayor could provide an update on actions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]. Mayor Appezzato stated MTC voted not to divert ferry funding; however, [ferry] funding was not increased either; a loan for the "BART to Airport" Project was approved with a guarantee that money will be repaid to all other projects; a number of people voiced concern; MTC staff is traveling to Washington D.C. to lobby the federal government for $84 Million in promised funding. Councilmember Kerr stated the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported Bridge Toll Funds would likely be transferred to the BART Extension Project. Mayor Appezzato stated many people are concerned that costs will continue to overrun; it is a complex problem; many people will fight for the money, e.g. AC Transit. Negotiations Schedule Councilmember Kerr moved acceptance of the schedule. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson and Kerr - 3. Noes: Councilmember DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato - 2. Evaluation Guidelines Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Guidelines require the existing schedule to be maintained; given the low ridership on the early morning run, the Guidelines should be more flexible; there might be reasons to review reduction of the current schedule; suggested the sentence under Minimum Requirements which reads: "Offers which fail to meet the minimum requirement will not be considered", be more flexible; stated said sentence could be changed to: "Offers which meet the minimum requirement will be weighed favorably, with final decision based on respondents' performance with respect to all the other issues in the Guidelines." Councilmember Kerr stated flexibility of the early morning schedule has not been considered; if the [East End and West End] services are combined, there might be a trade off; passengers should be asked whether they would find using the other ferry service just as convenient; they might not because the East End service does not have later runs; Mr. Claytor's comments are well taken; many people Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 do want flexibility to go into San Francisco early or stay late; that she concurs with the Vice Mayor's wording on the sentence [under Minimum Requirements]; said sentence should be more flexible; the decision was delayed to allow Council to exercise judgement. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding experience, the Public Works Director stated the experience of the company and the key operators would be reviewed; a company with a great deal of experience and with experienced managers would total more than a company which only has managers with experience. Councilmember Kerr stated a transit link to Fisherman's Wharf should not be considered equal to docking at Fisherman's Wharf; transfers cause loss in ridership. The Public Works Director stated in the Guidelines, the proximity of docking rights to the retail centers at Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 39 would have a higher priority than those with transit links. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the sentence under Fisherman's Wharf Access could be changed to: "priority would be given to operators who will dock at Pier 39 or at that proximity ", to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. The Public Works Director stated under Minimum Requirements, staff wanted to establish equal grounds which would have to be included in all Proposals; B &G discussed reducing the number of trips from 15 to '14; however, all ferry riders surveyed indicated desire to have all existing runs continue and even requested additional suns; if B &G feels runs should be combined, said suggestion could be included in the Service Improvement Program [under Growth in Service] by showing combination of the two runs provides a cost savings; staff wanted to address all concerns raised by Council, passengers, unions and the current operator. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the problem is that if Minimum Requirements are not met, the Proposal will not be considered. The Public Works Director explained Proposals need to be equal to allow comparison of apples to apples; stated elimination of the Minimum Requirements will make it more difficult to judge operators because there will be no common ground. Vice Mayor Daysog stated re- writing the sentence [under Minimum Requirements] does not eliminate any requirements. Mayor Appezzato stated the only qualified company might be B &G. Councilmember DeWitt stated minimum requirements are needed; increasing fares and decreasing the number of runs is not Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 104 acceptable. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the Evaluation Guidelines [Staff Report Attachment 5] with an amendment to the sentence regarding Minimum Requirements under Service Enhancements Section: "Offers which meet or exceed the minimum will be weighed favorably with final decision based on respondents' performance with respect to items in the guideline as a whole." Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson and Kerr - 3. Noes: Councilmember DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato - 2. Mayor Appezzato stated that he has concerns regarding the RFP process; the Recycling Contract also filled the Council Chambers with opponents, however, Council awarded the Contract and the service is successful; the Port of Oakland submitted a letter which states: "The Port of Oakland is opposed to increasing subsidies for the ferry operation given the fact that there is a current and bonafide proposal on the table that will provide better than the current level of service without the need for increased subsidies"; the Port is opposed to a fare increase; that he also is opposed to a fare increase; the City has a couple of months to find an additional subsidy of $291,000; however, additional subsidy money could have been used for something else because HMS would have provided the service without said funding; fare increases are now being discussed; B&G won the Contract from Red and White. (99-131) Resolution No 13097, "Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and File an Application, Commit the Necessary Local Match and State the Assurance of the City of Alameda to Complete This Project for Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding for $575,000 to Convert Express II Alameda Ferry Vessel into a Conventional Catamaran." Adopted. W. Graham Claytor, Alameda, stated the Express II's hull design causes the boat to shake; inquired whether conversion of the vessel into a conventional catamaran includes converting the hull; stated the boat still does not ride properly; further stated if local funds can be used for something else, the recommendation should be reviewed. Councilmember Kerr stated the Express II has been the all time dog of ferry service on the Bay; the City bought the boat and then spent an additional $200,000 trying to get it to work; Transportation Improvement Fund [TIF] money is treated like Monopoly money; TIF was to be used to mitigate the impacts of development at Harbor Bay Isle; in the early years, funding was used to assist traffic on the main island getting to and from Harbor Bay Isle; recently, funds seem to be a private pot of money Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 for one particular organization; that she can think of a number of traffic improvements which would be a good use of $198,000, including buses to Harbor Bay Isle Schools; inquired whether the City would be obligated to pay back the State money which was originally used to purchase the boat, if the City disposed of the Express II. Deputy Public Works Director Cheri Sheets stated in the event the boat is removed from service, the obligation is being met [funds would not need to be repaid] as long as the City's public ferry service continues for the vessel's life. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City is required to provide the East End ferry service in particular, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated $198,000 is a lot of money to put into a backup vessel for the least used ferry service; the boat has a terrible history; that she has serious concerns regarding putting any more money into the Express II. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the City is obligated to pay insurance costs; dry docking would cost $50,000; until litigation is settled, on-going costs will continue; money could go into making the boat operable; $198,000 will be used from TIF; the remainder [of project funds] will come from the federal government; the [proposed] builder has worked with the City before on the Bay Breeze vessel and has a good reputation; there is a guarantee the Express II will operate. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding selling the boat, the Deputy Public Works Director stated at one time, Council directed staff to review the option of selling the Express II; sale of an immobile, dry-docked boat is almost impossible; also, the City would be required to pay back the State. Councilmember Kerr stated that she understood that as long as the City is operating an East End ferry service, funds would not have to be repaid to the State. The Deputy Public Works Director stated if the City sells the boat, General Counsel's opinion is that the money would have to go back to the State or towards purchase of another public ferry; sale is a different issue [than non-use of the vessel]. In response the Councilmember Kerr's further inquiry regarding use of money from vessel sale to purchase water taxis, the Deputy Public Works Director responded money could possibly be used for water taxi purchase. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Express II would be useable if Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 106 it is refurbished, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember DeWitt's inquiry regarding how much money the City would owe the State if the vessel were sold, the Deputy Public Works Director stated the City obtained a grant from the State of $1 Million. Councilmember DeWitt stated there comes a time when losses should be cut; in 1994, there were monthly reports on the vessel's problems; it is not safe to put the boat on the Bay; in the past, the Express II would break down and be towed; costs need to be added up; the City should stop pouring money into a boat which breaks down all the time; the City should determine whether it is more cost effective to cut losses or spend more money; during the last four years, the City has poured money into the boat. Mayor Appezzato inquired how much a new vessel would cost, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded it would cost $3 to $3.2 Million for a similar size vessel which operates at the same speed. In response to Mayor Appezzato's further inquiry regarding a bond, the Deputy Public Works Director stated there is a bond. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether conversion would address all mechanical problems, to which the Deputy Public Works Director stated the boat was an experimental class boat with a foil on which the boat hydroplanes; the foil will be cut off; the diesel and oil tanks will be moved forward; water intakes were sucking air instead of water which caused early engine problems; said problem was already corrected; staff also learned that the shaft material was not properly sized for the propellers. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like to have a legal opinion on whether purchase of a smaller water transportation vessel would meet the City's obligation to the State; there is not enough information to support the recommendation tonight. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the $198,000 local match from TIF is being taken away from other projects, to which the Deputy Public Works Director stated it does not defer or require reallocation for any other identified TIF projects right now. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the asset is being underutilized, decaying and costing money; by putting in a nominal amount of money, in comparison to replacement costs, a working asset will be restored; the [proposed] Resolution only allows the City to submit an application; a follow up report can be provided to address concerns raised tonight. Mayor Appezzato stated that he will support the Resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 Councilmember Johnson inquired when the application is due, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded the funding application is due before the next Council meeting. The Deputy Public Works Director stated repair of the boat is the right thing to do; the City needs to make the vessel a workable asset; that she believes in the boat builder; the builder worked on the Bay Breeze which has been a solid, reliable vessel. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City had a guarantee when the Express II was purchased, to which the Deputy Public Works Director stated the City had a performance bond which failed because the company went bankrupt; now, the City Attorney will not approve a bond if it is questionable. 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. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (*99-132) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,412,076.71. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (99-133) Public Hearing to consider declaring property located at 1310 Pacific Avenue a Public Nuisance; and (99-133A) Resolution No. 13098, "Declaring the Property Located at 1310 Pacific Avenue a Public Nuisance and Ordering Its Abatement." Adopted. Opponent Harold Haun, 1310 Pacific Avenue. Building Official Steve Davis stated that he visited Mr. Haun's house today; progress has been made on the exterior of the building; weeds and bramble were cut and stockpiled on the site; a small shed, which was dangerous, was demolished and materials were set to the side; all materials are still on the site; great progress has not been made on the building's interior; there are serious problems remaining inside. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding Mr. Haun's ability to get the property to sanitary level, the Building Official stated the City has given Mr. Haun extended final deadlines since August 1998; there has not been significant progress; that he feels Mr. Haun cannot complete the work on his own and will need assistance; charity groups, e.g. Red Cross, and relatives might help. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 108 Mayor Appezzato further inquired whether Mr. Haun would work with charity groups, to which the Building Official responded Mr. Haun realizes the matter is serious; suggested Mr. Haun be given a final ultimatum; then, the City can clean up the property if other efforts do not work. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry whether the City would take action if Mr. Haun fixes the problems, the Building Official stated if all violations were corrected, the City would not take any action. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the time limit involved, to which the Building Official stated the proposed time limit is ten days. Mr. Haun stated the work could not be completed in 10 days; requested the Council to allow one month for him to clean up the property. Councilmember Kerr stated the problem has continued for a long time; inquired whether the lien for costs of abatement would cause eviction. The Acting City Attorney stated if the City cleans up the property and the Council confirms the costs at a later public hearing, a Special Abatement Lien would be placed on the property; the County would take three- to five years to foreclose the lien if it was not paid with regular taxes; as a senior citizen, Mr. Haun could submit an application to the County for deferral of the Special Assessment until the property is sold or until the estate would pay for the assessment upon the owner's death. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether Mr. Haun is trying to complete the work himself, to which Mr. Haun responded that he is going to seek help; his grandson has promised to help; the neighbors might help; and that he will hire electricians to complete electrical work. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry whether Mr. Haun would like 30 days to complete work, Mr. Haun responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council action could be taken in 30 days, the Acting City Attorney stated the City Council could adopt the Resolution, but change the amount of time from 10 days to 30 days. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's inquiry regarding assistance, the Building Official stated Mr. Haun will need help to complete work. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 Councilmember DeWitt moved the property be declared a public nuisance with an order of abatement within 30 days, rather than 10 days as indicated by the staff recommendation [adoption of amended Resolution]. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (99-134) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the City of Alameda and WOW Media for Ferry Vessel Advertising. Held over. (99-135) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsections 4-25.2 through 4-25.4 of Section 4-25 (Parking is Prohibited in Front Yards and Side Yards of Residentially Zoned Property) of Article III (Parking) of Chapter 4 (Offenses and Public Safety) and Adding New Subsections 4-25.2 through 4-25.4 to Section 4-25, Article III, Chapter 4. Held over. (99-136) Ordinance No. 2795, "Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30-4.13(f)(4), Planned Development Combining District, to Allow the Approval of Planned Developments for the Division of Parcels into Lots of Less Than 5,000 Square Feet Where the Parcels are Developed with Existing Two-Family Dwellings (Duplexes), Single-Family Dwellings, or a Combination Thereof, Where Subsection 30-4.13(f)(4) Currently Only Allows for Such Planned Developments to Divide Parcels Developed with Two or More Single-Family Dwellings." Finally passed. Vice Mayor Daysog moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would not support the motion for the reasons stated at the previous Council meeting [March 2, 1999]. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (99-137) Ordinance No. 2796, "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from R-2 (Two-Family Residence) to R-2-PD (Two-Family Residence, Special Planned Development Combining District) by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., for the Parcel at 1618/1620 Fernside Boulevard." Finally passed. Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 110 (99-138) Ordinance No. 2797,"Approving and Authorizing Execution of an Amendment to the Development Agreement Dated April 4, 1989 Between the City and Harbor Bay Village Four Associates, Harbor Bay Village Five Associates and Harbor Bay Isle Associates, to Delete the Requirement for a Restricted Gateway at the End of Mecartney Road." Finally passed. Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (99-139) Herb Severns commented on Oakland A's Baseball game on April 2, 1999. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (99-140) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board [SSHRB]. Mayor Appezzato nominated Michael J. Gwynn for appointment to the SSHRB. (99-141) Councilmember Kerr stated in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) newsletter, the Estuary, there was a report by the National Audubon Society and the Marin County Audubon Society to negate Proposition 4; Proposition 4 requires use of padded leg traps; unpadded leg traps should not be used in Alameda; the City's Animal Control Department would not use said traps; the matter should be explored further to ensure federal employees do not use unpadded leg traps. (99-142) Mayor Appezzato stated that he received a letter and photographs from a resident complaining about a property which has been before the Council before; the property looks bad; requested staff to contact the homeowner. (99-143) Mayor Appezzato announced the public is invited to the USS Hornet this weekend; there will be an exposition featuring Naval and Marine Corps. technology. (99-144) Mayor Appezzato announced that he selected two people to become the coordination committee for the Millennium, Patricia Berry and Honora Murphy; requested the City Manager to place the matter on the next agenda and to include the interested civic groups; the committee will provide Council with updates and prepare press releases. (99-145) Mayor Appezzato announced that he was invited to travel Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 to the Pacific Rim on a trade mission; stated there is no cost to the citizens of Alameda; also in attendance will be Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan and the head of the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, YIZ Di ne B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 16, 1999- -6:55 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (99-116) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: NAS Alameda (Alameda Point); Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, United States Navy and Catellus Development Corporation; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment. (99-117) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of Potential Cases: One. (99-118) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of Case: City of Alameda v. Lee. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiator, directions were given to Real Property Negotiator; regarding Anticipated Litigation, no action was taken, direction was given to Legal Counsel; and regarding Existing Litigation, direction was given to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special City Council Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dine B. City Clerk sch, CMC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 1999