Loading...
1999-09-21 Special and Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 21, 1999- -7:10 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 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: (99-454) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Point, Assessor's Parcel No. 74-891-3; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Port of Oakland; Under Negotiations: Price and Terms; and (99-455) Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant: Dennis Jennings; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Appezzato announced that regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiator, Council obtained a briefing from staff on dredging negotiations and gave instructions to the City Manager and City Attorney; the City is making excellent progress towards finalizing negotiations; and regarding Workers Compensation Claim, the City Council gave instructions to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 - -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:40 p.m. Vice Mayor Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor Dave Nederhood, Alameda Christian Reformed Church, gave the Invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Absent: AGENDA CHANGES Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. (99 -456) Mayor Appezzato announced that the City Manager requested the Agreement for Privatization of City Jail Services [paragraph no. 99- 474]be held over to the next Regular Council Meeting. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (99 -457) Proclamation Declaring September 20 -26 as "National Pollution Prevention Week" in the City of Alameda. Mayor Appezzato presented the Proclamation to Keith Lichton of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. (99 -458) Presentation of Certificate of Honorable Mention and Appreciation, Helen Putnam Award of Excellence for Rent Review Advisory Committee Programs and Services (League of California Cities) . Mayor Appezzato presented the Certificate to Peter Davis, Rent Review Advisory Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced that the Consultant Design Services Contract for Carnegie Library Improvements Project [paragraph no. 99- 461]and the Resolution regarding Moffett Field [paragraph no 99 -464] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *99 -459) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on September 7, 1999. Approved. (*99-460) Recommendation to accept Year-End Financial Report for 1998-99 Fiscal Year. Accepted. (99-461) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Consultant Design Services Contract to Muller & Caulfield Architects in an amount not to exceed $403,000 for Carnegie Library Improvements Project, No. P.W. 08-99-22. The Public Works Director stated award of the consulting contract for design of the Carnegie Library includes seismic retrofit and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; the proposal targets design completion for October 2000. Mayor Appezzato requested the Public Works Director to explain where the project's funds are coming from, to which the Public Works Director responded grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Office of Emergency Services (OES), and from Certificates of Participation similar to the Certificates of Participation used for City Hall renovation. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding whether architectural restoration would be included, the Public Works Director stated an Ad Hoc City Committee includes the Library Director, Public Works Director, and the Planning Department staff representative for the Historical Advisory Board, as the City works with the consultant, the funding source will be reviewed to determine what the City can do; the primary emphasis will be the seismic retrofit since the grant is OES/FEMA. Mayor Appezzato stated the staff report indicates the project will include historic restoration and renovation and must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the rehabilitation of a historic structure. Claudia Bermudez, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), stated AAPS is pleased the project is moving forward; inquired whether recommendations in the historic structure report would be adhered to; requested AAPS be provided an opportunity to participate in the process, including review of plans. The City Manager acknowledged said request. The Public Works Director stated the grant requires historic renovations; a historic study was required by FEMA/OES before the grant was finalized. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*99-462) Recommendation to approve extension of Terms of the Joint Powers Agreement between the City and East Bay Municipal Utilities District for Operation and Maintenance of Alameda Point Water System. Accepted. (*99-463) Resolution No. 13141, "Amending the Alameda City Employees Association Salary Resolution by Establishing the Salary for the Position of Telecommunication Maintenance Technician." Adopted. (99-464) Resolution No. 13142, "Supporting the Inclusion of Moffett Field as a Potential Alternative Airport Location to be Studied as Part of the Regional Airport System Plan Revision." Adopted. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that he supports the inclusion of Moffett Field in Regional Airport System planning; people in Mountain View and Sunnyvale are opposed to aviation use; said communities might insist Neimtz Field and aviation runways in Alameda at the former Naval Air Station be included in the study; perhaps the document could be crafted to keep from sounding as though the City of Alameda wants other air fields included and the City of Alameda's left out; there could be a backlash from the other side of the Bay. Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*99-465) Resolution No. 13143, "Authorizing Execution of State- Local Transportation Partnership Program (SB 300) Agreement No. SLTPP-5014 and Program Supplement No 008 for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, No. P.W. 03-99-09." Adopted. (*99-466) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 1-4.10 (Call for Review) to Section 1-4 (General Code Revisions) of Chapter I (General) to Provide New Policy and Procedure for Call for Review. Introduced. (*99-467) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 8-22.12 (Appeal to City Council) of Chapter VIII (Traffic and Motor Vehicles) to Increase Number of Days to File an Appeal of Transportation Advisory Committee Actions. Introduced. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 (*99-468) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 2-1.6 (Order of Business) of Section 2- 1 (The City Council), Article I (The City Council and Meetings of the City Council) to Chapter II (Administration) Eliminating the Public Works Director from Mandatory Attendance. Introduced. (*99-469) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,831,600.94. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (*99-470) Mayor Appezzato announced that a Community Meeting would be held on September 30, 1999 from 7 - 9 p.m. to discuss the Year 2000. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (99-471) Resolution No. 13144, "Appointing Victoria Ryan as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted. Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (99-472) Public Hearing to consider a proposed Rezoning of 2201 Santa Clara Avenue from R-6 (Hotel Residential) Zoning District to R-6-PD (Hotel Residential Planned Development) Zoning District and a Parcel Map 7299 to allow the land division of the existing 7,490 square foot parcel at 2201 Santa Clara Avenue into three air rights condominium units and a common land parcel; (99-472A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., for that Property Located at 2201 Santa Clara Avenue. Introduced; and (99-472B) Resolution No. 13145, "Approving Parcel Map 7299 at 2201 Santa Clara Avenue." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponent: Fred Fielding, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Appezzato requested staff to review whether moving the public area is feasible. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, voice vote - 5. (99 -473) Recommendation to consider Advisory Committee's denial to install Jose Avenue at Mound Street. Appellant which carried by unanimous Appeal of Transportation Four -Way Stop Signs at San (s): Len Grzanka, et. al. Len Grzanka, Appellant, stated that he has heard loud [automobile] crashes at San Jose Avenue and Mound Street; there is an average of one injury accident per year at the intersection; the City's Traffic Engineer did a traffic survey and found a low volume of traffic through the intersection, the request for stop signs was denied based on a low volume of traffic; [intersections] in nearby neighborhoods do not have one injury accident per year; the City's Traffic Engineer also turned down the request for stop signs based on research which shows stop signs do not slow traffic and actually cause accidents; the manual on Uniform Traffic Controls, which is used by Traffic Engineers, states when stop signs are put up arbitrarily due to citizens concerns, drivers do not expect to encounter a stop sign and will cause a collision; the manual tells Traffic Engineers to resist citizens requests for stop signs; however, traveling down San Jose Avenue from Fernside Boulevard to Walnut Street, drivers encounter a stop sign every two tenths of a mile, except for three tenths of a mile stretch between Versailles Avenue and High Street; drivers expect to see a stop sign at Mound Street and San Jose Avenue which causes collisions; there is no conflict with the manual because drivers expect to see a stop sign. Mayor Appezzato stated the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) agreed to reconsider the request after obtaining information; inquired whether the appellant(s) would agree to delay request. Appellant Grzanka responded in the negative. Allen Gravelle, Alameda, stated a four -way stop sign should be installed at the intersection of San Jose Avenue and Mound Street because the intersection is in close proximity to two schools; San Jose Avenue is used by children walking to and from Lincoln School, as well as parents dropping off and picking up children; similarly, Mound Street is used for Otis School; also, Krusi Park, at Otis School, has weekend recreation, e.g. Little League games; the intersection is no different than San Jose Avenue and Versailles Avenue which had many accidents; since a four-way stop sign was installed, he has not seen any accidents at Versailles Avenue; the same would happen at the Mound Street intersection, rather than 1.2 accidents per year; an accident occurred and he had to jump aside to keep from being hit by a car which ended up on his front lawn; by installing a four -way stop sign, the intersection would be safer Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 for his children; the cost of installing the stop signs would be $1,000; offered to split the cost with the City. Lorette Gravelle, Alameda, stated hopefully, the four-way stop sign will divert traffic onto Encinal Avenue and make traffic lighter. Ron Wallace, Alameda, spoke in support of installing stop signs. Rachael Fisher, Alameda, inquired why a neighborhood, which unanimously agrees that a stop sign would be safer, is denied; stated there are speeding buses, hot rodders and close calls, as well as accidents; the Public Works Director says stop signs do not stop speeding and cause more accidents; that she has not noticed an outbreak of accidents occurring at intersections with stop signs; urged Council not to deny the neighborhood. Councilmember DeWitt sated that he went to Mound Street and San Jose Avenue, there is speeding; the staff report stated stop signs are not the way to stop speeding, TAC and the Police Department say a stop sign is not the way to go; that he disagrees, neighbors want to stop speeding traffic and believe a stop sign will help; requested Councilmembers to override staff and approve [stop] signs; stated a survey would cost over $1,000; it is a straight shot from Mound Street to past High Street; on open roads, speed climbs; that he will vote in favor of having stop signs. Vice Mayor Daysog stated TAC will be asked to review a wide range of traffic and speed issues due to changes in the City of Alameda; speed bumps were requested by someone on Bay Farm; school districts are reviewing stop signs to enhance safety; residents are frustrated with the volume and speed of cars; stop signs are inexpensive; if neighbors want to pay, he is not opposed; if Councilmember DeWitt made a motion, he will second it. Councilmember Kerr stated there are two schools in the neighborhood; people who live there are the best observers; a study would cost at least $1,000. Councilmember Kerr moved installation of stop signs and increased red curbing [15 feet on northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest corner on San Jose Avenue at Mound Street]. Councilmember Kerr further stated neighbors informed her large RV's park at intersection making it difficult to see. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated that she does not object to a four-way stop sign; however, there should be a systematic City-wide evaluation of stop signs and traffic flows; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 stop signs cannot be installed on every corner, because it will just divert traffic to other streets; San Jose Avenue is a number of blocks from free flowing traffic, is a small street and is used as a thoroughfare; however, four-way stop signs cannot be placed arbitrarily; although installing four-way stop signs at every corner cannot be a remedy, she will support the request because the intersection is in proximity to two schools. Mayor Appezzato stated that he received letters requesting the Police Department to begin conducting seminars on traffic and pedestrian safety; enforcement sometimes stops speeding versus signage; requested the City Manager to give presentations at City Council Meetings, under Special Orders of the Day, once every quarter or six months, and/or do a Cable TV show; stated the City should educate the public; outlined other streets in the neighborhood which do not have stop signs; stated others might request stop signs; that he does not want Alameda to begin to look like Berkeley; if people ignore stop signs, there might be more accidents; experts measured traffic volume, pedestrian volume, critical speed, and accident history; the overuse of stop signs might reduce effectiveness; motorists might speed up between stop signs; air pollution is increased from cars idling at stop signs; noise pollution will increase for the houses on the corner; cars might use other streets; if there are too many stop signs, the purpose for signs might be deluded. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City of Alameda is undergoing General Plan update; encouraged interested residents to participate in discussion regarding the transportation element. Councilmember DeWitt stated there is a need to regulate traffic; that he will consider issues one at a time. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Kerr - 4. Noes: Mayor Appezzato - 1. (99-474) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Agreement for Privatization of City Jail Services. Held over. (99-475) Ordinance No. 2806, "Granting a Non-Exclusive Cable Communications Franchise to City of Alameda Bureau of Electricity, d.b.a. Alameda Power & Telecom, for a Period of Five Years." Finally passed. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated when Measure A [1998] was on the ballot, voters were informed the Telecommunications Plan would cost $7.9 Million and would be paid out of the Bureau's reserves; he published an article which estimated the cost to be $15- to $20 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 7 r) 0 Million; after putting $4 Million into cable installation, another $16 Million is needed; the [AP&T] General Manager's slide show indicated staff knew the cable project would cost $20 Million in 1996; if the proposal goes south, SIGCORP will pay $16 Million for the cable system; the City of Tacoma budgeted $69.4 Million for its Cable TV project, which came in well over $100 Million; asked the City Attorney'whether it was legal to bet the Mayor; stated that he would bet the Mayor $100 that the project will cost over $60 Million; SIGCORP might encounter budget overruns. Genevieve Chesler, Alameda, stated that she does not intend to have cable unless it is provided by the Bureau of Electricity. Catherine Bergstrom, Alameda, stated the first cost projection was $7 Million; the estimate has escalated to $30 Million; the City will have to take out a bond and should not take the risk; bonds will take 15 years to pay off; inquired whether another $30 Million bond would be taken out in 15 years if the cable system is outdated; stated TCI's service needs improvements; AT&T has purchased TCI and can make necessary adjustments to service; she questions whether people will change services; Tacoma's plan has not gone well and has taken only 8% of AT&T's customers base; Alameda's estimate of drawing 50% of new or current customers seems unrealistic; inquired whether independent review has been conducted; urged Council to vote no. Iry Hamilton, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated there is opportunity for growth in the West End, e.g. Alameda Point, other developments; businesses which will be attracted to the area rely heavily on sophisticated telecommunications capabilities; said capabilities will be an important selling point; having more than one company offer the services will provide benefits in the nature of the services provided, customer service and pricing. Fred Fielding, Alameda, stated TCI's service is awful; he would like to have another choice; the service would be different if the City of Alameda was running it; technology can be used to bring revenues to the City. Shaun Daniels, Alameda, urged Council to approve the franchise; stated the current cable television provider does not serve the citizens and consumers as well as it should; the City of Alameda's service is lumped in with Hayward; entering the business will provide choice and competition. Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on opportunities in the City of Alameda. Lance Russum, Chair, Public Utilities Board (PUB), stated a letter Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 r-, from John Kopchik of AT&T/TCI states: "[AP&T/TCI] wants to confirm that no understanding has been reached with respect to any such arrangements with the City of Alameda or the PUB; A&AT has made no commitments to negotiate further in that regard; the City should not expect any such arrangement as it deliberates on this particular issue;" a letter from the Mayor of Tacoma congratulated the City of Alameda for utilizing the same vision and leadership which the City of Tacoma, together with many other communities throughout the Country, used in acquiring local control and ownership of cable and broad band communications; the Mayor of Tacoma strongly endorsed Alameda's municipal ownership of the communications system; Tacoma is a success story; the PUB has done due diligence and seeks Council approval tonight. AP&T General Manager Evans stated Council directed staff to confirm the exit strategy from a financial standpoint; an agreement with SIGCORP has been reached; if the City determines it wants out in four years, SIGCORP will pay $16 Million; the system will be in operation in nine months and will continue to be built out over the following three years; part of SIGCORP's contract is to build and operate the system; SIGCORP cannot get out of the $16 Million obligation; the construction contract with SIGCORP is a fixed price contract; the potential for cost overruns have been mitigated; AT&T had Deloitte and Touche complete an analysis; two scenarios included cost overrun, which has been mitigated; the other scenario suggested that there would be predatory pricing practices, which would be unrealistic to expect; factors included in the Deloitte and Touche analysis are the same factors that the City's financial advisors considered; although representatives from AT&T's retail function said there is no opportunity to work with the City, AT&T's wholesale division sees the City as a viable provider, supplier and reseller of their services on a world-wide basis; the City could buy services from AT&T, on a wholesale basis, just like MCI, Sprint and other telecommunication providers; the plan is viable. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired why predatory pricing on the part of AT&T/TCI would be unrealistic, to which AP&T General Manager Evans i stated predatory pricing is illegal; any pricing which occurs in Alameda would ripple to all other communities throughout the Bay Area which would not be a smart business practice. Mayor Appezzato stated SIGCORP is Primarily a utility holding company, not a communication company; out of SIGCORP's approximately 1,000 employees, only 15 employees are in SIGCORP's Communications; the company only has experience with one telecommunication system in Harland; inquired whether the company will be around in communications for the long-term; further stated the City Attorney approved the letter from SIGCORP as to form; the City expects to pay anywhere from $18- to $22 Million for capital outlay which does not include expenses for operation; that he is Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 unsure whether revenue from operations will cover said expenses; SIGCORP will purchase the system for $16 Million, only if the system is built; if the system is not built, the $16 Million is not guaranteed; if $22 Million is not enough to build the system, the City would be out more capital than just $2- to $4 Million; inquired if the system is built and works, why the City would want to sell it for $16 Million. AP&T General Manager Evans stated the capital cost to physically construct the system is about $16 Million; the remaining total, which the City would be selling bonds for, helps deal with 1) the negative cash flow in the first two to three years of operation, in which there are not enough customers to pay said costs, and 2) postponing bond interest payments; the fixed price contract with SIGCORP requires that the system cannot cost anymore than $16 Million; if costs exceed $16 Million, SIGCORP will have to pay for the overrun, not the City. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding whether SIGCORP would pay over $16 Million, AP&T General Manager Evans stated if it costs more than $16 Million to construct the whole system, SIGCORP pays the overage, the master contract has a price in it which says the City will not have to pay more than a certain amount to build the system; if the system costs more, SIGCORP has to bear the cost. Mayor Appezzato inquired why SIGCORP does not assume the responsibility, to which AP&T General Manager Evans stated SIGCORP has faith in the system; SIGCORP does not believe it will have to pay $16 Million, SIGCORP will build the system and be paid up to the contract maximum by the City; anything above, SIGCORP bears the cost; the City will still have an obligation for the bond sale; if the City wants out of the business in fourth year, SIGCORP will pay $16 Million; the City would pay the difference for financing the bonds only. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City is adequately protected and whether SIGCORP is bound to complete the system for $16 Million, if capital improvements go over $16 Million. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated Council was told the City should be going into the cable business due to deregulation casting doubt on the Bureau's future; later, the City learned the Bureau can operate in a protected fashion for awhile; now, Council is told the City can afford to take the risk because the Bureau is in very sound condition; that she questions should risk be taken if it is not needed; SIGCORP is a small group and can go broke; if costs exceed $16 Million, SIGCORP might not be able to complete the system; going up against AT&T might not be profitable if full price for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 system has to be paid; SIGCORP could get the system for 5Oc on the dollar. Councilmember DeWitt stated the City was looking for ways to increase revenues other than raising taxes; the City can benefit financially and provide service and low-rates the public wants; that he does not see risk. Councilmember Johnson stated [final passage of Ordinance] is the second step in approving the franchise agreement; there are more steps to take before the deal is finalized; that she will support this step; the contract with SIGCORP ensures there are good protections; financial issues must be analyzed; that she will support going forward with franchise approval. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City does not have to do anything, e.g. build new schools and libraries; however, if there is an opportunity which has been prudently evaluated, Council should take the time to review information; Councilmembers are not the experts on how to run a cable television company; due diligence has been exercised; assuming responsibility of new areas, e.g. fiber optics, cable television, or building new libraries, is part of the challenge in government; that he is willing to take up Mr. Grzanka's bet, as long as the money goes to a charitable organization. Mayor Appezzato commented on SIGCORP's financial status; inquired how the City can keep up with ever changing technologies; stated a company called RCN has spent millions on advertising and has not even entered the market in San Francisco yet. AP&T General Manager Evans stated the single-largest investment in direct technology is in the head end equipment which takes satellite transmissions to the ground and broadcasts the cable programming; said equipment costs approximately $1.5 Million, which is the single-biggest piece; the equipment will be state of the art and will be years newer than the equipment the competitor has installed in Hayward; there is a time lag in which the System will be functional; AP&T will own the infrastructure; said infrastructure has very low potential for technological obsolescence; AP&T will be selling access to the System and mitigating the technology risk; the offer from AT&T Wholesale to buy access gives AP&T a huge opportunity. Mayor Appezzato stated the City of Palo Alto could not handle a cable system and was bailed out by TCI; no one will bail out Alameda because TCI is already in Alameda as a competitor; questioned whether there should be an independent audit of the Business Plan. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 AP&T General Manager Evans responded Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and financing team will get an independent review. Mayor Appezzato questioned whether SIGCORP would pick up over budget capital costs, e.g. $12- to $14 Million, to which Mr. Evans responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato further stated that he believes the City will be held financially accountable for building the System within five years or SIGCORP is not liable. Councilmember Johnson stated AP&T would pay the first $16 Million; if the System costs more, SIGCORP would pick up said costs; the buy-back agreement is for the $16 Million. AP&T General Manager Evans stated that the contract provides for milestones, e.g. head end; AP&T will know well ahead [of time] if there are any issues. Councilmember Kerr stated the City would be the issuer of all the bonds, and the obligation to pay back those bonds would fall on the City. AP&T General Manager Evans concurred. Councilmember Kerr questioned whether the contract would be with SIGCORP or SIGCORP COMMUNICATIONS. AP&T General Manager Evans responded SIGCORP COMMUNICATIONS is the subsidiary with whom AP&T has a contract; the $16 Million exit agreement states the Parent [company] stands behind the Agreement. Mayor Appezzato commented that the Parent [company] may be a billion dollar company when merged with Indiana Gas. Dwayne Tutt, Director, Sales and Marketing, SIGCORP COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, stated there is another division of telecommunications within the SIGCORP holding company known as Sigecom, Sigecom is building over Evansville, Indiana now; after the merger, SIGCORP will be worth $2 billion; Communications Services started in the telecommunications business as a part of SIGCORP out of its Utility Division in the mid 1990s; there are construction sites all across the country; and SIGCORP built the head end for Tacoma [Washington]. Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Tutt to comment on capital expenditures for putting the System in, e.g. cost per home. Mr. Tutt stated Alameda is blessed with density; there are approximately 200 homes per mile in Alameda; most builds across the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 country have 65 homes per mile; 200 homes per mile drives down construction costs. Mayor Appezzato stated that he still has great concerns. Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. On the call for the question, motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt and Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmember Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 2. (99-476) Ordinance No. 2807, "Approving a Zoning Text Amendment (ZA-99-2) to Amend Subsection 30-4.20 of the Alameda Municipal Code to Delete the Master Plan Requirement for a Market Analysis and Phasing Diagram and Allow for Preparation of Development Standards, Guidelines and Procedures In-Lieu of Detailed Development Plans Within the Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX)." Finally passed. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, expressed concern regarding three-day opportunity to appeal a decision of the Planning Director; stated there should be a longer appeal period, otherwise Council should not delegate such responsibilities to a non-elected official without opportunity to referendum Process; MX proposal is primarily to cover large developments which have the greatest impact on the community. Genevieve Chesler, Alameda, stated proposed amendment is a deliberate plan to take away the average citizen's right to contest anything that the Planning Director decides for Alameda; the average citizen would not have time to appeal, under the current proposal, the RV Park and the Container Repair Facility at Alameda Point could not have been contested effectively; there would have been insufficient time to respond to the Planning Board; urged the Council not to take away the average citizen's right to contest anything that might negatively effect their neighborhood. The Planning Director stated property must be zoned MX in order for these rules to apply; currently the [former] Naval Air Station is an industrial-designated parcel; the only place in town that the rules apply to is Marina Village; if the Council chose to delegate some or all of the development plan work, the decision about appropriate level of development would be made in the Master Plan; before the Planning Director could act under the delegated authority, the Director would have to give notice: newspaper, mailings to property owners within at least 300 feet of the site, and posting at the site; once the Planning Director takes action, there is a minimum 10-day appeal period; additionally, the appeal Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 40 period remains open until it is placed on a Planning Board Agenda and remains open until at least three days following the meeting; there would always be a minimum of ten days, which is consistent with the appeal period on Planning Board actions or other actions of the Planning Director. Councilmember Johnson stated there appears to be a great deal of misinformation about the public hearing process. Mayor Appezzato commented there is also misinforirtation regarding people's right to speak. At the request of Councilmember Johnson, the Planning Director explained Master Plan public hearing requirements. Councilmember Kerr stated the proposed MX Zoning is applicable City-wide should the City Council decide to rezone any area MX; a regular rezoning hearing would be required; currently, zoning comes in two forms: 1) time-tested set of guidelines, and 2) plans in either PD or MX; public would have only mini-guidelines if the Council went that route; Council could also eliminate the need for detailed plans; the Planning Director would have a great deal of discretion; there is nothing wrong with the MX Zoning as it currently exists; MX Zoning has worked well for many years in Marina Village: when there is a change in plans, it becomes a change in the PD or MX zoning, which provides a 30-day comment period; people are provided an opportunity to comment; proposal is not a good change; and questioned whether the proposed three-day period after the Planning Board listing [Agenda] represents three working days or calendar days. The Planning Director responded three calendar days; stated there is a minimum ten-day appeal period; that appeal period may be longer depending upon the timing of placing it on an [Planning Board] agenda; the agenda is published the week before, available on a Wednesday, posted by Thursday, and the [Planning Board] meeting occurs on a Monday; the appeal period lasts until the Thursday following the Planning Board Meeting. Councilmember Kerr stated citizens do not keep track of Planning Director meetings, the only public notice is within 300 feet of the project, which does not notify very many people; the newspapers will not give extensive coverage to Planning Director hearings; said hearings will be almost impossible to track; people are used to reading Planning Board Agendas and may, or may not, be able to get down to the Planning Department within three days; most people do not subscribe to the Planning Board Agendas; self-government is somewhat inefficient. Councilmember Daysog stated issues raised by earlier speakers Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 regarding proposals for RV Park and Container Facility opposed by citizens should not be dismissed lightly; questioned whether the Community Reuse Plan constitutes a Master Plan, or whether Master Plan is more specific to a particular development or developer. The Planning Director stated a Master Plan, within the meaning of the proposed ordinance, is a very specific application that has gone through a specific review process, a hearing and is adopted by ordinance; it contains specific things and opposes certain land use controls; provided examples in C-2 and MX zones; stated uses under the Community Reuse Plan, e.g. RV Facility, would require the Base to be rezoned to MX, a specific application, Planning Board public hearing, and City Council approval. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Planning Director's comments regarding the Community Reuse Plan should ease some existing frustration levels. Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr noted that if the Planning Board called a Special Meeting on a Friday and there was a holiday on Monday, there would be no public access. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the appeal period could be amended to three working days [versus calendar days]. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember DeWitt amended his motion to include said amendment [an appeal period of three working days]. Councilmember Johnson agreed to the amended motion. 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. (99-477) Ordinance No. 2808, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 13-10.6(a) (Service of Notice and Order: Method of Service, Proof of Service), Subsection 13-10.7(a) (Appeal Procedure; Administrative Hearing) of Section 13-10 (Abatement of Substandard and Dangerous Buildings), Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) and Subsection 13-21.4 (Procedures for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments) Article VII (Historical Preservation) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)." Finally passed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (99- 478) Former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich, Alameda, suggested the City Manager extend the microphone [at the podium]; stated the Deputy City Manager submitted a letter to the editor regarding the Cigarette and Check Cashing Stores; the Council has been unduly criticized; the 45 -day moratorium was the most appropriate manner to proceed; further stated the Mayor and Council should have greater notoriety regarding the Ferry issue; the City of Alameda leads the Bay in ferry ridership; the Mayor should have a bigger voice when representing the City's ferry services and funding to transportation officials. Mr. Arnerich stated the [Oakland] Coliseum was formerly known as the Oakland /Alameda County Coliseum; all the folderol related to the Oakland A's [baseball team] leaving has been lead by [Oakland Mayor] Jerry Brown and Supervisor Mary King; the Alameda City Council should request Mayors and Councils in Alameda County to support keeping the Oakland A's here; Alamedans have a stake in the Coliseum which is $20 Million in debt due to the Raiders; Alameda taxpayers will have to pay their fair portion; if the Oakland A's leave, taxpayers will be paying more; [Mayor] Jerry Brown ducked out of the issue. Mr. Arnerich further commented on SIGCORP's calculations regarding the number of homes in Alameda. Mayor Appezzato requested a Resolution in support of keeping the Oakland A's be placed on an Agenda; stated that he would contact the Alameda County Conference of Mayors' to request a Resolution in support. (99 -479) Michelle Daniels, Alameda, stated that she does not shop on Park Street; urged Council not to permit a Cigarette Cheaper store, anywhere in Alameda; stated Alameda does not need the notoriety of a Check Cashing place, either; finer restaurants have been chased out, e.g. Courtyard; other stores no longer exist; suggested Council visit Burlingame to see what has been done to develop its shopping center. Shaun Daniels, Alameda, urged Council to visit Burlingame and Palo Alto; stated the cities were redeveloped and maintained the architectural- and small town feeling; mom and pop stores benefitted from foot traffic from bigger places. Mayor Appezzato commented on the City's efforts. The City Manager stated the Deputy City Manager would meet with the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 Daniels after the meeting to discuss the matter. Councilmember Johnson urged the Daniels to participate in the City's current processes. (99-480) Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated former Mayor and Councilmember Bill McCall, Sr., had a stroke; he is getting better; part of the City's current prosperity is due to how well Bill McCall and his colleagues functioned in the past; urged Council and Alamedans to send cards to former Mayor McCall. (99-481) Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on future technological advancements. (99-482) Ann Mitchum, Alameda, commented COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS' (99-483) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Golf Commission. Mayor Appezzato nominated Robert Wood for appointment to the Golf Commission. on developers. (99-484) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Recreation Commission. Mayor Appezzato nominated J.C. Shirriel for reappointment to the Recreation Commission. (99-485) Mayor Appezzato announced Housing Authority is a 1999 recipient of Housing Redevelopment Officials innovation in resident and client innovation in affordable housing. that the City of two National Merit Awards: services; and of Alameda Association 1) program 2) program (99-486) Mayor Appezzato stated that he received a copy of a letter which was sent to the Recreation Director from Duke Campbell, President, Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board, regarding the heating and ventilation system [at Mastick]; the Board is willing to pay for half of costs over a period of time; that his concern is that the City does not drop the ball- (99-487) Councilmember Kerr stated last Thursday's EDC meeting raised concerns; lawyers from either the Check Cashing or Cigarettes Cheaper store were present and claimed a lease had been executed with the owner of Home Savings [proposed store location]; that she does not know whether a contingency was addressed in the legislation Council passed; requested an Off-Agenda Report on how the matter will effect actions up to this point; stated the matter Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999 was also in the newspaper this morning. (99 -488) Councilmember Kerr stated the gates of Alameda Point are opened during the daytime; the #10 bus makes a circular path throughout Alameda Point and exits out the same gate; during the few runs that the bus is scheduled to pick up ferry passengers, the route is down Main Street; opening the gates has provided the opportunity to enter one gate and exit the Main Street Gate; if the Main Street Gate were used as an exit, the bus would pass the ferry terminal; bus service could be provided to ferry passengers during the day, rather than just commute hours; the fairly simple [re- routing] concept could provide additional bus service for ferry passengers without additional cost to A.C. Transit; requested an Off - Agenda Report on implementation. Mayor Appezzato suggested the matter be reviewed by the Transit Committee. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would not like the matter buried in committee. Mayor Appezzato further stated an Off - Agenda Report could be provided; the Transit Committee could be involved and could work with Alice Creason, Alameda's A.C. Transit [Board] representative. Councilmember Kerr stated Ms. Creason does not have any objections to changing the route, however, she is waiting to hear from the City. Councilmember Johnson stated the Transit Committee's long -term process is discussing more seamless connections between different transit systems; an Off - Agenda Report [regarding Councilmember Kerr's request] would not hurt. (99 -489) Councilmember DeWitt announced that the Multi- Cultural Center on Central Avenue had an Open House on September 18th; the Center will serve as a meeting place and classroom for many social programs. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10 :30 p.m. ectfully sub D tie B. Felsch, City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 1999